Author Topic: Can it be said that Vatican II is heretical? (Read 13919 times)

Matthew · « **on:** April 18, 2015, 08:19:36 AM »

Careful, now. I'm not talking about de-facto, simplified, or "virtually". I'm not talking about any kind of imprecise, emotional, layman language, "close enough, or true enough to act upon".

I'm asking, is it 100% accurate and juridically true that "Vatican II is heretical."

I'm talking about simpliciter, literally, juridically, specifically. Can it be said with 100% accuracy, not in spirit and in truth, cutting through the smokescreen of ambiguity but rather in a court of ecclesiastical law.

Ladislaus pointed out that Vatican II could teach heresy, even if it didn't DEFINE any new doctrine(s). Of course, one must realize that Vatican II declared itself a "pastoral council" (a novelty in itself), intentionally NOT invoking the protection of the Holy Ghost or pretending any way to be dogmatic.

But would any self-respecting Canon Lawyer or theologian ever say, "Vatican II was heretical."

I'll throw you a hint: Who can declare something heretical?

To be clear: I believe Vatican II is gravely ambiguous, confusing, unclear, misleading, sometimes downright erroneous, and should be thrown in the trash. It served no purpose but to confuse, destroy the Faith of millions, and was the French Revolution in the Church. It defined no new dogmas, but certainly implied some new ones that are foreign to the Catholic Faith. De facto, or for the simple layman, you can treat the whole thing as a bunch of garbage. Heresy? Sure, whatever. Just ignore the whole thing and you'll be OK. (I'm talking to Joe Sixpack here)

But in the original topic, I'm instead talking about an accurate censure. Keeping in mind the Theological Notes and the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church.

For one thing, it could be said that any Catholic wielding the precise charge that "Vatican II is heretical" is Sedevacantist, whether or not he knows it or admits it himself. A valid Pope can convoke (and later on approve, condone) a heretical council?

If the word simpliciter doesn't ring any bells with you, I would ask kindly that you refrain from posting in this thread.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2015, 08:34:45 AM »

Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on all Vatican II docuмents.

This fact is so problematic (and controversial!) that it was commonly believed that he didn't sign SOME of them, until Bishop Tissier de Mallerais brought this truth to light when he wrote his large biography of the Archbishop (the one published in 2003).

"Vatican II was heretical", you say?

So, basically, I just threw a monkey wrench in the works for any SSPX, Resistance, or SSPX-MC -supporting Catholic hoping to claim simply that "Vatican II was heretical."

Because all of those groups hold that +Lefebvre was a good faithful bishop, a hero, etc.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2015, 09:22:44 AM »

Since the errors of V2 are the result of and bear all the earmarks of Modernism, it seems logical to me that Pope St. Pius X, who taught that Modernism was the synthesis of all heresies, were he to come to life today, would condemn most (not all) of the teachings of V2 as inherently heretical, mainly because most of their teachings are so ambiguous. I believe his wording would use language so strong and clear as has never been used in any papal condemnation of error in the history of the Church.

Theological notes aside, perhaps as a part of that condemnations, he would need to decree a thousand page encyclical itemizing every one of the condemnations in order to properly dissect, clarify and separate the truth from the lies.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2015, 09:38:07 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on all Vatican II docuмents.

This fact is so problematic (and controversial!) that it was commonly believed that he didn't sign SOME of them, until Bishop Tissier de Mallerais brought this truth to light when he wrote his large biography of the Archbishop (the one published in 2003).

"Vatican II was heretical", you say?

So, basically, I just threw a monkey wrench in the works for any SSPX, Resistance, or SSPX-MC -supporting Catholic hoping to claim simply that "Vatican II was heretical."

Because all of those groups hold that +Lefebvre was a good faithful bishop, a hero, etc.

As far as +ABL signing all the docuмents is concerned, no one, and I mean not one person should ever hold anything against him on that account, rather, that event should serve a shining example as to the overwhelming confusion and chaos of those days when even the most pious and saintly members of the hierarchy, including +ABL, were duped into compromising - but instead we all should remember his courage, the courage it took for him to recant the signing of those docuмents which, Deo Gratias, prompted him to go on to fight the good fight for the rest of his life.

Always remember the circuмstances of those days and consider that if it were you or I, what would we have done? - we probably would have gone along with and remained with the rest of the crowd.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2015, 10:25:19 AM »

But if Vatican II were heretical (full stop) instead of ambiguous, confusing, diabolically disoriented, etc. then how could any good bishop sign off on it?

Yes, we all know which heresy (Modernism) pervades the Conciliar Church today and since Vatican II. But the hallmark of Modernism is to twist and distort every truth of the Faith, often in a very subtle manner.

I'm keeping an open mind on this. Perhaps we can say that most of the post-V2 hierarchy is acting heretical, perhaps we can say that Vatican II has one foot in error and one foot in wanting to stay Catholic, etc.

All that matters to us laymen is that we avoid Modernism LIKE THE PLAGUE -- which is appropriate considering the virulence of this particular heresy -- and since it's evident that the entire Conciliar Church is infected, that even includes staying aloof of the Church hierarchy and structures in order to preserve our Faith.

But it doesn't fall to us laymen to pinpoint what went wrong, place the blame, determine that status of individual bishops and popes, etc. Moral certainty is enough for us to act on, to make our prudential decisions on where to attend Mass for example. But moral certainty isn't enough to compel the conscience of others.

When you see a man with a smoking gun next to a dead body, you can be morally certain that he committed murder. It would be moral to threaten or arrest that man, including with lethal force. But it's still circuмstantial evidence -- the man with the gun might have been firing at the murderer as he fled away.

We must distinguish moral certainty from the certainty we have that God is Three in One. Or that Jesus Christ became man, died for our sins, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Am I as certain about matters touching on the Crisis (Vatican II, the Pope, etc.) as I am about these truths of the Faith? Heck no. And I'll be the first to admit it. Of course I have a slight doubt or hesitation in the back of my mind.

Anyone who pretends to be as certain is not "more courageous in the Faith" as most of them claim, but instead he is foolhardy, or a fool. As the saying goes, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

Or perhaps some of them are cynical demagogues, simplifying matters for the confused laymen in order to get their $upport and carve out a comfortable living for themselves.

Survivors floating in a lifeboat don't need to figure out why the main ship went down. What's important to the simple men & women on the lifeboats is SURVIVING -- keeping body and soul together until they are rescued.

And just like men floating on a lifeboat MUST rely on outside help if they are ever to see land again, we Catholics on the lifeboats of Tradition must wait for God's help if we are ever to see "normal times" again. There's not much we can do with our makeshift oars and inflatable life rafts to get from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean back to New York City or wherever in Europe the cruise liner left from.

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2015, 10:58:00 AM »

Good question. It has been raised partially on other threads. Vatican II was surely a pastoral disaster, as seen by the collapse of vocations among other things, but in my opinion, not heresy, no. Unless someone wants to explain how practically the entire episcopate could defect into heresy, strictly so called, in 1965. Cardinal Franzelin explains that although the episcopate lacks the active component of infallibility by itself, it is still indefectible in the sense that it can never completely defect or fail, "neither the whole body of the Church in its belief, nor the whole Episcopate in its teaching, can depart from the faith handed down and fall into heresy, because this permanence of the Spirit of truth in the Church, the kingdom and spouse and body of Christ, is included in the very promise and institution of the indefectibility of the Church *for all days* even to the consummation of the world. The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. "

Likewise Wilhelm and Scannell, "The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church ... the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony. " This indefectibility of the ecclesia docens, of the entire teaching body, is the same principle Pope Pius IX appeals to in refuting the claims of the Old Catholics, "they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.", in short, indefectibility precludes it. An AER article in 1965 says the same.

If the original schemas developed by the preparatory commission and approved by +Lefebvre, +Ottaviani and other prelates had passed, the Church would have reaped great fruits from this Council, Her missionary work would have continued, Her vocations would have flourished, the faith of Her children would have been nourished, errors would have been condemned and reproved. Instead, the liberals threw them out, introduced new texts of their own and the few orthodox and traditional prelates had to work overtime just to correct or limit outright heresies and grave errors, without complete success. And the disastrous results were immediately evident and remain so today. Most texts are weak, ambiguous and the possibility of lesser error cannot be ruled out a priori, since extraordinary Magisterial authority which normally safeguards Ecuмenical Councils was not invoked.

As Archbishop Lefebvre said to Cardinal Ottaviani in 1966, On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them. The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:

> doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,

> doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,

> doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church - religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2015, 02:18:47 PM »

First, anyone who can recognize heresy has the authority to declare something is heretical. What most people do not have the authority to do is bind another's conscience on pain of mortal sin. So that question, I think, is irrelevant.

Second, Archbishop Lefebvre had said at one time that he did not sign all the docuмents, specifically, he claimed not to have signed the declaration on religious liberty. However, it appears that his name does appear on the roster. I have read that there was some confusion at the time whether one was actually signing to approve docuмents or signing an attendance roster. I don't know. I believe the Archbishop did not intend to sign the docuмent since he did claim to have not signed it.

Third, Paul 6 also claimed that the Council was, at least, a part of the the ordinary magisterium which would make it just as infallible a teacher had it contained canons and declarations.

Fourth, I've never heard anyone claim that there are no ambiguities in the Council docuмents. Frankly, I believe individual bishops, thinking that the ambiguities meant one thing could have signed the docuмents in good faith and without heresy, but the end result of the ambiguities certainly indicate that the intention of those who carried out the reforms were heretical and, therefore, the ambiguities in the docuмents are, by their nature, heretical.

On the fourth point, I have no theological reference to back up that opinion. Since Vatican 2 was unprecedented and, frankly, would never have been thought possible before 1960, I doubt the issue of intentional ambiguous docuмents of a "General Council" had ever been contemplated. But I believe if the Doctors of the Church had ever contemplated the possibility, they would have taught that such would be, by its nature, heresy.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2015, 02:26:56 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Fourth, I've never heard anyone claim that there are no ambiguities in the Council docuмents. Frankly, I believe individual bishops, thinking that the ambiguities meant one thing could have signed the docuмents in good faith and without heresy, but the end result of the ambiguities certainly indicate that the intention of those who carried out the reforms were heretical and, therefore, the ambiguities in the docuмents are, by their nature, heretical.

On the fourth point, I have no theological reference to back up that opinion. Since Vatican 2 was unprecedented and, frankly, would never have been thought possible before 1960, I doubt the issue of intentional ambiguous docuмents of a "General Council" had ever been contemplated. But I believe if the Doctors of the Church had ever contemplated the possibility, they would have taught that such would be, by its nature, heresy.

But that's the point of this thread.

"bad news", "evil", "dangerous", "inadvisable" or "bad juju" does not equate to heresy, which is a very specific charge. Heresy is, specifically, the direct denial of a dogma of the Faith.

One of the many points I'm trying to make is that "Vatican II" is a large target. How can one say without qualification that "Vatican II is heretical"?

What other heretical councils have arisen throughout Church history, that we might compare? Were they condemned by any Church authorities? Is that how we know them as "heretical" today? And how many non-heretics approved of or promoted them? Etc.

Those are the answers I am seeking.

My mind is open and receptive to the truth. The problem is, I'm not just going to take anyone's word for it. I'd like some rational, theological basis for it.

"Vatican II just makes me dry heave -- it's heresy. Pass me another beer." just isn't going to cut it for me. Neither are fallacious/illogical constructs like "Vatican II is bad. Heresy is bad. Therefore Vatican II is heresy!"

For purposes of this thread, let's assume that TKGS is correct, that if we can identify heresy, we can use it to form our own opinions, to be used in our prudential decisions (where to attend Mass, etc.), though we can't bind the consciences of others.

So what we're after, then, is more like:

Is it 100% accurate to say, without qualification, that "In my opinion, Vatican II is heretical."

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2015, 03:07:16 PM »

Vatican 2 contains unambiguous heresy when it declares that false religions worship the True God. And I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend to sign this docuмent. I also know that not all the bishops in the world (many were not at that session when the time came to approve it and a few did not sign) signed it. Those who did sign, knowing what it said, I believe, defected from the faith.

But we know that, don't we?

On another note, I do not understand why the issue of "authority" is raised when it comes to heresy. What "authority" did the layman Eusebius have to depose Nestorius? His authority was his knowledge of the faith even though the fact that Mary is the "Mother of God" had not yet been defined by a pope or General Council. When a faith is taught that is other than what was received, every person has the authority nay, the duty to identify it and to remove himself and anyone who will listen from its influence.

In Eusebius's time it could not have been easy. Even in the time Martin Luther it could not have been easy. But today, the Catechisms are very clear. The Council of Trent has clearly taught the Catholic Faith and removed any doubts about what the Church had always taught. The heretics of today are clear in their words and actions that they have a different faith--and they're not angels from heaven.

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2015, 05:34:27 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Third, Paul 6 also claimed that the Council was, at least, a part of the the ordinary magisterium which would make it just as infallible a teacher had it contained canons and declarations.

Not everything that emanates from the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Perhaps you are thinking the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, but these are actually different organs.

About infallible doctrines, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2015, 08:44:06 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Not everything that emanates from the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Perhaps you are thinking the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, but these are actually different organs.

Of course, this is irrelevant to the original question, but thank you for the correction.

Vatican 2 is clearly not infallible since it contains teaching that is directly contrary to the Catholic Faith. But this really doesn't matter since the pope and bishops of the Conciliar church treat the teachings of Vatican 2 as the doctrine that must be held by all in order to be a member in good standing (i.e., "full communion", whatever that really means) or, at least, to shut up if you have any objections.

JPaul · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2015, 09:51:32 PM »

Making a statement under the color of the Church's authority, (Vatican II claims to be a legitimate council of the Church), which contradicts settled, and in many cases solemn teachings of the Church is heretical.
There are numerous examples of this in the council docuмents. Father Hesse pointed these out early on, in his series on Vatican II.

Too many folks and clerics are stuck on the premise that the error has to be put forth in the context of infallibility to actually be heresy, while objectively, any such statement or proposition which violates the Gospels, or the solemn magisterium is indeed heretical, regardless of the context in which it is put forward.

This is true for the conciliar popes who are entirely unconcerned about defining or doing anything under the mark of infallibility. They simply write, speak, and transmit their heterodox ideas, as well as the council's heretical propositions when the opportunity presents itself. Objectively speaking, they are as heretical as the false ideas that they "teach".
Ah! but almost all of our clerics are much to timid to actually say so. They are in fear of making such a determination out loud, even if it is as plain as daylight.

As for the Archbishop, well he and so many other Bishops suffered from the same fear of expressing what was in those docuмents, perhaps hoping that the pope would make the corrections?
He did sign all of the docuмents, and in doing so, he was objectively as responsible for the collapse of the Church as any of the two thousand plus Bishops who did the same thing.

It appears that he spent decades trying to undo the council's subversions, and that is indeed commendable but, if Bishop Castro Mayer was astute enough not to sign the docuмents, any other well educated Bishop could and should have rejected them. Even a cursory perusal of them raises sufficient suspicion of their orthodoxy and intent.
Why did he and so many others sign them? I have no idea, except to posit that the devil was hard at work during the whole of this false council.

Because the Archbishop and a lot of others signed them, does not change the un-Catholic nature of them, or lessen their intent to overturn the doctrine of the Church.

Just remember that "Christ does not refrain from using heretical sects as a means of salvation"

EEN's out the window in a sentence, directly contradicting the dogma of the Church.

PapalSupremacy · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2015, 09:44:08 PM »

To answer Matthew's original request, here is a list of heresies and errors I found on the internet, qualified by theological notes, regarding some of the doctrines taught by Vatican II: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

The list is far from complete, as the author (John Daly) makes perfectly clear.
If one wants to read a more exaustive list of the heresies of Vatican II, the Dimond brothers have one on their site (the same seems to have been copied by catholicapologetics.info, or perhaps the other way around). I will not post a link because the Dimond brothers are notorious for their denial of Baptism of Desire (which is Catholic doctrine), but it should be easy to find by googling the relevant key words.
However, the problem is that not everything that they list and condemn there is truly heretical or erroneous - indeed, two examples would be their [i.e. the Dimonds'] total condemnation of NFP, as well as their vigorous condemnation of the Council's statement that the "life of grace: faith, hope and charity" "can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church", which is actually true, even if applied merely to catechumens, who are "outside the visible boundaries of the Church", but can have faith, hope and charity.

A simpler (but not less worthy) way to look at the problem of the Council and heresy is to consider whether the Conciliar docuмents, taking into account all of those listed errors and/or heresies, profess the Catholic Faith, or another religion.

The unavoidable answer (which Abp. Lefebvre would certainly have agreed with, particularly after his famous statement about not being faced with "merely superficial errors", but a "wholesale perversion of the mind" present in the Conciliar docuмents) seems to be that the Conciliar docuмents profess a different religion than the Catholic religion, while claiming to profess the Catholic religion. Now, any docuмent which professes a religion different than the Catholic religion, while claiming the name Christian, is by definition heretical.

I believe that is an adequate reply to the dilemma.

Now, some will conclude that the presence of heresies in Vatican II means that Paul VI was not the Pope. Indeed, I do not see how the presence of heresy in a docuмent of a legitimate ecuмenical council could be reconcilable with the Indefectibility and the Infallibility of the Church. However, regardless of our opinions, we must guard ourselves from making false and deadly conclusions - to conclude that the presence of heresies in Vatican II means that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church has defected is heretical, as some have recently demonstrated on this forum.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2015, 11:08:35 PM »

Don't we consider a protestant translation of the Bible to be a "heretical translation" or "heretical edition" of the Bible? Even though a huge % of the Bible is indeed accurate, the deliberate mistranslation of certain passages to support the heresy(ies) of a given protestant sect renders the whole work heretical, right?

Wouldn't the docuмents of Vatican II be in the same situation?

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2015, 02:25:14 AM »

Yes, Vatican II is heresy.