Author Topic: Heresies of Vatican II (Read 12894 times)

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #45 on:** October 02, 2011, 06:38:53 PM »

Vatican II, strictly speaking, might only have a FEW obvious heretical statements, and a bunch of others that could be applied in a heretical manner, but it's not JUST the Council... lots of people get stuck on the Council.

There's the FRUIT of the Council, as well... FYI, bishops and priests were already talking about 'modernizing' the church in the '40s... I just finished reading an account of an exorcism, and one of the reasons that the Church was initially reluctant to help a certain family (in 1949) was that there were ALREADY people trying to 'modernize' things and get rid of such 'old-fashioned' beliefs as exorcism, belief in the Devil as a literal, sentient spirit, etc.

Anyway, my point is that the 'Council' produced, among other things:

Verifiable religious indifference among parishioners (polls and surveys over the last 40 years have determined a SHARP increase in non-Catholic attitudes concerning false religions, the existence of the afterlife, the uniqueness of Christ, etc)

A STEEP drop in vocations, and a major exodus of traditional clergy FROM active ministry (again, secular AND Church research has determined these things to be true; I am not the researcher that some on here are, because I don't always have the time, but it's clear that these things took place)

And, WORST, as far as I can see it:

A MAJOR increase in EXCUSES for things like praying WITH and FOR heretics and pagans, participation in apostasy by hosting and promoting non-Catholic 'services' IN CATHOLIC CHURCH SANCTURARIES and the calculated cultivation of the reputation of the Novus Ordo's senior 'leadership' as tolerant ecuмenists, ALL under the banner of 'dialogue', which is nothing but Newchurch double-speak for 'building bridges' that don't exist in order to try and include heretics and infidels among the 'saved'.

Newchurch almost sounds EXACTLY like the Baptist Prot heretic I used to work for when I was on staff at one of their churches... as long as someone 'prayed' a 'prayer', in their 'heart of hearts', they were 'saved' and GUARANTEED Heaven. What nonsense, but these heretics kept right on trying to figure out ways to INCLUDE people in their economy of 'salvation' by bending and stretching and conveniently forgetting the Scriptural rules for what makes one a Christian and keeps one in the state of sanctifying grace.

So, there might be ONE verifiable heresy in the docuмents of VatII, or there might be dozens, or every other syllable might be damnable blashphemy; that's not the point. The point is that liberal, Modernist leaders decided to try to twist the Church's existence to suit their own ends, and they departed from the Faith in MANY obvious and demonstrable ways.

Bad trees don't give good fruit, and neither do good trees give bad fruit. Trees are known by their FRUIT, are they not? Someone once said that... Someone very, very wise. Care to venture a guess Who said that? I think He had a most unique vantage point from which to observe not only human nature at the time of those words, but also to prognosticate and dictate the conditions that would exist in the future for His Church.

Just another reason why we bow to HIM ALONE and not to those who are lying and stealing and raping and so on and pretending to be His shepherds.

Lord Jesus Christ, True Judge of the living and the dead, have mercy on us and drive out the money-changers again.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray for us.

Caminus · « **Reply #46 on:** October 02, 2011, 06:42:50 PM »

Quote

Tradition:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." Of Divine Faith, So defined.

Vatican II:
""The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Formal and Gravel Heresy.

The very first principle that needs to be established when examining the texts of Vatican II is that they are essentially subjective in their approach to certain matters. Thus, whereas Pope Eugene's Papal Bull defining this article of Faith is objective and immutably true; Unitatis Redintegratio is essentially subjective in its presentation of a new ecuмenical program.

That said, the first step in this procedure is to ask: do you concede that baptism administered in an heretical sect, all else being equal, is a valid baptism?

Gregory I · « **Reply #47 on:** October 02, 2011, 07:10:13 PM »

Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Another important point, perhaps unrelated, is what Fr. Louis Kerfoot once said about canon law:

"Anyone who tells you what Canon law MEANS, if he is not the Roman Pontiff or an authentic delegate, is essentially giving you a private interpretation, and NOT an authentic interpretation. AUTHENTIC Interpretation belongs to the Roman Pontiff or his delegate (The Pontifical Comission) alone."

That is important to remember I think.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #48 on:** October 02, 2011, 07:43:29 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Implied, my foot! Even a cursory scan of the average Prot website or book that deals with the issue of Baptism will tell you that their version DOES NOT intend to do what the Church does. Even those like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who practice a form of infant 'baptism' will qualify their statements about the efficacy of their baptism and what it actually accomplishes.

There's one thing we need to remember about the Catholic sacrament of Baptism: it not only washes away the stain of original sin, baptism also JOINS A PERSON TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, which is the CHURCH. Whatever else the heretics want their baptisms to accomplish, they certainly DO NOT want, believe or desire that baptism should make the recipient part of the Roman Catholic Church, which ALONE is the Body of Christ on earth.

We need to remember that there is a LOT that is UNDERSTOOD as undergirding the words that were used by the Church to define all these dogmas and instructions for us. Those who declared and promulgated these teachings certainly did NOT have the false ecuмenism and wickedness of so-called religious 'liberty' of today in mind.

To their minds, we must assume that 'inten[t] to do what the Church does' is applicable only in those cases and among those sects for whom a reconciliation to the Faith was even possible.

Even the old-line schismatics, like the Anglicans and the Lutherans, have traveled so far off the 'deep end' these days that the only 'church' they could possibly 'reconcile' with, without completely obliterating their reasons to even exist, is Newchurch.

Frankly, if Newchurch wants to accept the Lutherans' 'intent', let them. I want nothing to do with those heretics, and neither did the Church of the ages, unless they were ready to repudiate their errors and beg forgiveness of their Pontiff and Our Lord.

Caminus · « **Reply #49 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:05:12 PM »

Quote

Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?

Gregory I · « **Reply #50 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:22:34 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Quote from: Gregory I
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Implied, my foot! Even a cursory scan of the average Prot website or book that deals with the issue of Baptism will tell you that their version DOES NOT intend to do what the Church does. Even those like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who practice a form of infant 'baptism' will qualify their statements about the efficacy of their baptism and what it actually accomplishes.

There's one thing we need to remember about the Catholic sacrament of Baptism: it not only washes away the stain of original sin, baptism also JOINS A PERSON TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, which is the CHURCH. Whatever else the heretics want their baptisms to accomplish, they certainly DO NOT want, believe or desire that baptism should make the recipient part of the Roman Catholic Church, which ALONE is the Body of Christ on earth.

We need to remember that there is a LOT that is UNDERSTOOD as undergirding the words that were used by the Church to define all these dogmas and instructions for us. Those who declared and promulgated these teachings certainly did NOT have the false ecuмenism and wickedness of so-called religious 'liberty' of today in mind.

To their minds, we must assume that 'inten[t] to do what the Church does' is applicable only in those cases and among those sects for whom a reconciliation to the Faith was even possible.

Even the old-line schismatics, like the Anglicans and the Lutherans, have traveled so far off the 'deep end' these days that the only 'church' they could possibly 'reconcile' with, without completely obliterating their reasons to even exist, is Newchurch.

Frankly, if Newchurch wants to accept the Lutherans' 'intent', let them. I want nothing to do with those heretics, and neither did the Church of the ages, unless they were ready to repudiate their errors and beg forgiveness of their Pontiff and Our Lord.

Francis, I understand your zeal but don't become a Donatist. A heretic can validly baptize someone. St. Cyprian of Carthage was WRONG when he said that baptism given by heretics needs to be re-administered in his controversy with Pope St. Stephen.

I do limit the situation though: I would not say a mormon or JW can validly baptize: They cannot since they do not correctly understand the trinity.

Gregory I · « **Reply #51 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:24:03 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?

None. Christ himself Baptizes the individual if the baptism is properly administered.

I see where you are headed, but continue.

Caminus · « **Reply #52 on:** October 02, 2011, 09:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Caminus
Quote
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?

None. Christ himself Baptizes the individual if the baptism is properly administered.

I see where you are headed, but continue.

Thus, you agree then that it is possible to say that Christ uses this or that particular man as a transitory quasi-minister of the Church, even though he objectively sins in the external act of administering a sacrament illicitly, unless it be in an exigent case of urgency. For the sacrament would not be effected unless the man in question speaks the form and uses the matter with the correct intention as expressed in the form itself.

"He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments." St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, q. 67, a. 5, ad. 2.

Gregory I · « **Reply #53 on:** October 02, 2011, 09:25:23 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: Caminus
Quote
Of Course, I admit that baptism in a heretical sect is valid IF they use the proper form and matter and have the INTENTION of doing what the church does, which is implied by their use of the proper form.

Okay, so what other spirit, other than the Spirit of Christ effects such sacramental validity (we are discussing mere validity, not necessarily it's fruit or virtue)?

None. Christ himself Baptizes the individual if the baptism is properly administered.

I see where you are headed, but continue.

Thus, you agree then that it is possible to say that Christ uses this or that particular man as a transitory quasi-minister of the Church, even though he objectively sins in the external act of administering a sacrament illicitly, unless it be in an exigent case of urgency. For the sacrament would not be effected unless the man in question speaks the form and uses the matter with the correct intention as expressed in the form itself.

"He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to the sacraments." St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III, q. 67, a. 5, ad. 2.

Well, sure, but that is a far cry from asserting something like Vatican II asserts: "Protestant sects are means of salvation."

There may be quasi-ministers in these sects who can validly baptize, but these ecclesial communities of themselves have not received the spirit of Christ.

Caminus · « **Reply #54 on:** October 02, 2011, 09:52:00 PM »

If you concede the individual case without denying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, then on what grounds do you assert that the proposition in question is in fact a direct denial of this dogma? Do not misunderstand me, the proposition is extremely problematic, but the question is whether it is heretical in the strict sense of the term.

Keep the proposition in mind: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."

This text is the equivalent of someone stating: "Satan is good insofar as he has being, which is a good in itself." Though technically true, it is gravely misleading and deficient in its presentation.

Gregory I · « **Reply #55 on:** October 02, 2011, 10:14:16 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

If you concede the individual case without denying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, then on what grounds do you assert that the proposition in question is in fact a direct denial of this dogma? Do not misunderstand me, the proposition is extremely problematic, but the question is whether it is heretical in the strict sense of the term.

Keep the proposition in mind: "The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."

This text is the equivalent of someone stating: "Satan is good insofar as he has being, which is a good in itself." Though technically true, it is gravely misleading and deficient in its presentation.

please allow some dissection

"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.
There are INDIVIDUALS whom GOd, in his providence, utilizes as instruments in the conferall of baptism. THIS IS FAR from asserting that the whole "eeclesial community" AS SUCH has a role in the mystery of salvation. They do not. No heretical or schismatic church has any part in Christ AS SUCH. This is simple dogmatics. But HERE it is asserted they DO. This is a denial of dogma that is defined as revealed by the church; ergo, heresy.

In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.

For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."

Once again, there is an erroneous confusion here of providential individual utilitarianism, spiritually speaking (God's using individuals to confer baptism) with whole corporate bodies being used by "The Spirit of Christ."

So there are TWO problems:

1. THe heresy that schismatic and heretical communities AS SUCH participate in the mystery of salvation through their being used AS CORPORATE ENTITIES by the spirit of Christ, and
2. The error of confusing the providential permissive will of God in using individuals as catalysts for baptism with entire GROUPS of schismatics and heretics AS SUCH as means of salvation.

Caminus · « **Reply #56 on:** October 03, 2011, 04:13:06 PM »

You evaded the question. If you concede the individual case is not a denial of dogma, on what grounds do you assert that an unidentified, ambiguous aggregate of individuals? If you carefully analyze the nature of an heretical sect you will see that the sect itself does not possess a transcendent unity, which the Council clearly abuses this truth by glossing over it, as such it is a mere collection individuals.

Quote

"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

Quote

THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.

It doesn't say that, rather such efficacy, if there be any is derived from the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there is a gross equivocation of the use of the term "means" for they are obviously not a means of salvation in the same sense as the Catholic Church is the means of salvation. But evidently, this equivocation has led to the denial of Catholic dogma, but is not, in itself heretical.

Quote

In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.

Merely asserting it is different is not a demonstration of how it is different. The Spirit of Christ works through the Sacraments in certain cases and as such they allegedly "play a role in the mystery of salvation."

Again, you have to take the Council on its own terms which is markedly subjective and extremely imprecise in its language. Heretical sects are, of their very nature, sects of perdition, as per St. Peter. But the Council doesn't address the essence of things, but rather mere accidentals. This is part of the reason why Catholics have lost the essence of things; as Romano Amerio put it, the crisis is partly a result of the loss of the essences of things.

We have now a Council that talks "nice" about false religions which completely distorts the Catholic mind, and if taken to extremes results in the loss of faith.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #57 on:** October 03, 2011, 04:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

You both merit a severe tongue lashing, but I suspect you wouldn't grasp anything that would be said, thus, I'll simply ignore the inane drivel, that I must admit tests my patience.

I deserve a severe tongue lashing for telling you that you were wrong to sling mud at PIO? Whatever you say...

Quote

So little substance do you both add to Cathinfo, so little reasoning ability and basic reading comprehension skills do you possess, so infected are you with a pervasive myopia and the inability to self-reflect coupled with a certain defective faculty of moral judgment, makes your presence here annoying at best.

If all you say is true then why is my reputation rating over 900? And how can you say the above things if you haven't even responded to many of my posts in the past? But at the same time, you again refuse to say why you accused me of saying something I never said (that John XXIII was a Mason). That's being rather cowardly.

Quote

So you two dimwits can hug each other all day long -- it's really a good match.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ insult at us? Sorry, but I don't take offense that. Although, you may want to repent for accusing two Traditional Catholics of mortal sin.

Gregory I · « **Reply #58 on:** October 05, 2011, 12:30:14 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

You evaded the question. If you concede the individual case is not a denial of dogma, on what grounds do you assert that an unidentified, ambiguous aggregate of individuals? If you carefully analyze the nature of an heretical sect you will see that the sect itself does not possess a transcendent unity, which the Council clearly abuses this truth by glossing over it, as such it is a mere collection individuals.

Quote
"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

Quote
THERE is the heresy. For no schismatic or heretical corporate body AS SUCH has received the spirit of Christ.

It doesn't say that, rather such efficacy, if there be any is derived from the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there is a gross equivocation of the use of the term "means" for they are obviously not a means of salvation in the same sense as the Catholic Church is the means of salvation. But evidently, this equivocation has led to the denial of Catholic dogma, but is not, in itself heretical.

Quote
In simpler terms, God's utilization of individuals to confer baptism is DEFINTIVELY DIFFERENT from supposing they have received the spirit of Christ and have a role to play in the mystery of salvation.

Merely asserting it is different is not a demonstration of how it is different. The Spirit of Christ works through the Sacraments in certain cases and as such they allegedly "play a role in the mystery of salvation."

Again, you have to take the Council on its own terms which is markedly subjective and extremely imprecise in its language. Heretical sects are, of their very nature, sects of perdition, as per St. Peter. But the Council doesn't address the essence of things, but rather mere accidentals. This is part of the reason why Catholics have lost the essence of things; as Romano Amerio put it, the crisis is partly a result of the loss of the essences of things.

We have now a Council that talks "nice" about false religions which completely distorts the Catholic mind, and if taken to extremes results in the loss of faith.

Camoinus, for you to find fault with my description is ridiculous. I know you believe that the heretical and schismatic churches have NOT been given the Holy Spirit. I know you believe that INDIVIDUALS in these churches may be unwitting ministers of the sacraments, albeit sacrilegiously.

Now, when the council says that the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (the ecclesial communities) with all their deficiencies AS SUCH, this is a direct assertion that the spirit of Christ USES HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC CHURCHES as means of salvation.

He does not. Individuals are used according to God's permissive providence, but the churches are devoid of the Spirit of Christ.

That which constitutes a DENIAL of an article of faith is heresy.

Caminus · « **Reply #59 on:** October 05, 2011, 10:45:30 PM »

But what article of faith is it directly denying? It doesn't say that they are a formal means of salvation, but that if a man finds salvation within this or that sect, per accidens, such efficacy of grace is derived from the Catholic Church. The last sentence saves it from formal heresy. Again, it is speaking subjectively, not objectively, which is why it has led to heresy, but is not heretical in itself. Speaking in such a manner of heretical sects is bordering on blasphemous, but, as sickening as it is, you must interpret it according to the actual import of the words and the general context of this bizarre Council which chose to put all things in a "positive" light. As was said, if you concede that an individual can act as an ignorant minister of the Church, you don't have a leg to stand on when you multiply possible individuals in various contingent circuмstances.

Thus, if a man were baptized in a sect and remained in good faith, it would be possible, based upon the basic truths of Christiantiy consequently acquired, to elicit a divine act of faith and charity and die in that state. Consequently, it would be technically correct to say that the sect, or individuals comprising the sect, were accidentally instrumental regarding his salvation. But the manner in which the Council presents this unnecessary teaching is a distortion at best precisely because it does not present the matter in its proper light and ignores other truths surrounding this issue. Incorporating terms like the "permissive will of God" doesn't add anything to your argument.