Author Topic: Heresies of Vatican II (Read 8108 times)

Caminus · « **on:** September 27, 2011, 11:50:40 PM »

Please exposit one identifiable and evident heresy, strictly so-called, that can be found within the texts of Vatican II. Please refer to dogmatic theology with regard to the strict definition of heresy.

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2011, 11:54:09 PM »

Reference charts:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2011, 12:56:51 AM »

I don't think there's any point in discussing these issues with Caminus, since past experience indicates there's no point in attempting to have a good faith discussion with him.

Let's consider the following from an SSPX publication:

Quote

The Decree on Ecuмenism of the Second Vatican Council gives us a very different understanding of the Church, of her divine mission and of her relations with the other religions. First of all it speaks of different Churches. My dear friends, that is already an expression which is very close to heresy.

It is clear that already before the Council, the idea of different churches existed. But what was meant by this expression? It meant the different local churches around the bishop and his clergy: viz. the church of Paris, or the church of Dublin, or the church of Westminster, or the church of Cologne, or the church of Rome: the bishop with his clergy, surrounded by his flock. But this notion ‘Churches’ in the plural, was never used and applied to other denominations.

The Second Vatican Council endorses the new meaning of this expression saying:

"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (No. 3)

No salvation outside the Church

Ladies and Gentleman, it is clear that followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions. That is to say, if they are in invincible error. If they are trying to the best of their abilities, God will give them actual graces and if they are faithful to these graces and work with these graces, God will finally give them sanctifying grace and so, they might be saved. But they are always saved as individuals. Although they are saved in the other religions, they are never saved by the other religions.

It is not possible that errors should lead to the kingdom of truth. It is not possible that God, having descended to this earth, having become incarnate and having appeared among us, having founded one Church which continues Himself, which represents Himself, which is His Church, His spouse, that anybody can be saved by false religions not founded by Him. Because He says about Himself: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me." This applies also to His Church.

These false religions were not founded by Him but rather by men and very often have been inspired by the devil. So, if one can be saved eventually as a member of another religion, or in another religion he will always be saved by the Catholic Church, by the Cross of Our Lord, by His sacrifice and by His prayers. So, he is not saved by other religion but in spite of the other religion.

So, this statement that the Holy Ghost has used these other religions and denominations as a ‘means of salvation’ is almost heretical and I think it is one of the worst statements from the Council, absolutely contrary to the teaching of the Church to the present day. It is absolutely contrary to what was previously taught, to what the Holy Scripture says, to what the Fathers of the Church, the theologians, the Councils and the Popes have always said. Absolutely contrary.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Catholic-Church-and-Second-Vatican-Council.htm

Why is it called "close to heresy" and not heresy?

Of course we could multiply the statements in Vatican II that can be criticized in this way and can no doubt cite authorities within the SSPX to this effect.

The SSPX apologists set things up so that they can fall back on the claim that no one can be called a heretic without a formal judgment or canonical trial. They'll never admit something is really heresy so there's no point in trying to debate it with them.

So much then, for the ipso facto deposition of manifest heretics that we know theologians say occurs.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2011, 01:00:14 AM »

If Vatican II contains statements proximate to heresy it cannot be accepted at all.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2011, 01:48:46 AM »

Lol, I remember him pulling this exact stunt before. Caminus, your type of SSPX sophistic attack dog is well-known in France. I wonder what kind of organization breeds such people? Something tells me if you had the truth you wouldn't have to resort to such evasiveness.

Even if there were no heresies, a true Catholic Council can't even have error. It's true there aren't many heresies in VII; but one at least exists. It has been spoken of on this site many times. Dignitatis Humanae, maybe it escaped your attention after having had dozens of pages of ink spilled on it?

Then there is the sacrilegious and doubtful New Mass -- the true Church could not have promoted that; the Mass accepted by JPII that has no consecration of the Eucharist at all; the invalid New Rite of Consecration; heresies GALORE in the encylicals of the non-Popes of VII; the outrageously heretical Joint Doctrine on Justification, which alone proves this is not the true Church, it is a veritable anti-Trent; an act of open apostasy from Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque; heresy from JPII and Ratzinger; etc. etc.

Gregory I · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2011, 01:58:47 AM »

Here:
Tradition:
"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church." Catholic Doctrine.

Varican II:
"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2) Error in regard to Catholic Doctrine.

Tradition:
The general revelation was concluded with the death of the last apostle. Theologically Certain

Vatican II:
"Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men." (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11) Theological error.

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 Jєωs 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.

Tradition:
Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism"[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him,"[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate."[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me."[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?" Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos.[20] Catholic Doctrine

Vatican II:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian] religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men." (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 2) Error in Catholic Doctrine

Tradition:
"As Christ is the head of the Church, so is the Holy Ghost her soul. ONLY those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and who profess the true Faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from the Body or, for grave reasons, been excluded by legitimate authority. It follows that those who are divided in faith or in government cannot be living in one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi.

"The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold." Pope St. Gregory the Great

"The Catholic Church alone preserves true worship." Pope Pius XI

"A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief." Pope St. Leo the Great
We judge itCatholic Doctrine

Surprise from Antipope Paul VI:
"The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation; for their is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Truth, grace, the Sacraments: all the certain norms for our journey to God come from the Church. The Catholic Church is the extension of Jesus Christ in time and space. Outside this Body the Holy Spirit does not give life to anyone. Those who are enemies ot unity do not participate in the charity of divine life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. A Christian must fear nothing so much as to be separated from the Body of Christ. If he is separated from Christ's Body, he is not one of His members; he is not fed by His Spirit." Pope Paul VI

Vatican II:
"The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3) Error in Catholic Doctrine.

This should be enough to establish the highly erroneous and heretical nature of Vatican II. The question is; Why defend that which is erroneous? I condemn it is as useless and destructive to the faith.

LordPhan · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2011, 02:17:17 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Even if there were no heresies, a true Catholic Council can't even have error.

This is not true, a pastoral Council can, if you read up on history there have been quite a few, the Council that attacked Athanatius for instance. People get this mixed up all the time, I'm not sure where the source is for this belief. The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.

Just thought I'd point that out.

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:11:14 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it [Vatican II] as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:14:03 AM »

To deny there was heresy during Vatican II is being stubborn and naive. More heresy from Vatican II:

Quote

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

If you deny Jesus Christ is God, then you cannot worship God.

Quote

We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.

Quote

Before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the triune God, one and three in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord. United in their efforts, and with mutual respect, let them bear witness to our common hope which does not play us false. In these days when cooperation in social matters is so widespread, all men without exception are called to work together, with much greater reason all those who believe in God, but most of all, all Christians in that they bear the name of Christ. Cooperation among Christians vividly expresses the relationship which in fact already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant. This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth. All believers in Christ can, through this cooperation, be led to acquire a better knowledge and appreciation of one another, and so pave the way to Christian unity.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:32:39 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.

I'm afraid you're mistaken slightly, my friend. For a Church Council (which V2 was NOT; it was a crowd of heretics shouting down the traditionalists in attendance) to even be part of the Ordinary Magisterium, it must, just like any other infallible pronouncement, be established by ALL OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH IN UNANIMITY. That, of course, did not and could not have happened by any stretch of the imagination.

Remember that the Holy Father must promulgate dogmatic statements as Head of the Church IN CONCORD with ALL of the Bishops. Dissent among our shepherds OBVIOUSLY indicates the lack of the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, Who would otherwise "teach [you] all truth" (St. John 16:13).

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2011, 10:06:53 AM »

The SVC doesn't really need to be "accepted", for the most part, by Catholics who know the Faith, in my opinion. Just go on with life as you knew it before the Council. Nothing new has been defined, many things have just been restated. Only those things themselves, which were already known, can compel anyone's assent.

LordPhan · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2011, 10:41:30 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: LordPhan
The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it [Vatican II] as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.

Actually you are mistaken, I explained this in another thread, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, when people say that something "PARTICIPATES" in the Ordinary Magisterium, they mean that it can be used to prove that something is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Since to prove that something is part of the Ordinary Magisterium one must prove that it was always believed, thus, they look at everything from the Authentic Magisterium and see if there is a continuity.

But nothing can be added to the Ordinary Magisterium, Dogma's cannot be created, they can be defined if they already exist however.

Daegus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2011, 03:07:09 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: LordPhan
The Problem is that the Neo-Cath's declare it [Vatican II] as if it invoked the Extraordinary Magisterium, which it of course never did.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.

Actually you are mistaken, I explained this in another thread, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, when people say that something "PARTICIPATES" in the Ordinary Magisterium, they mean that it can be used to prove that something is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Since to prove that something is part of the Ordinary Magisterium one must prove that it was always believed, thus, they look at everything from the Authentic Magisterium and see if there is a continuity.

But nothing can be added to the Ordinary Magisterium, Dogma's cannot be created, they can be defined if they already exist however.

So how do you explain "Pope" Paul VI solemnly closing off all docuмents with this?

“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”

Let us now examine what Pope Pius IX teaches with regards to infallibility:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [1] WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [2] IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY [3] HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema[/u].”

Paul VI intended for Vatican II to be infallible. All the evidence for infallibility, provided that he is a true Pope (which he was not), is plainly there for all to see.

Another thing you should take note of is this lovely nugget of Paul VI:

Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, December 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecuмenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US[/u]. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY[/u], this same Ecuмenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL[/u], for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS[/u], so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON[/u]. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

It is simply mythological for anyone to assert that Paul VI did not intend for Vatican II to be infallible.

I'm sure you're already familiar with Vatican II's teachings of collegiality, subsistence, religious liberty and those outside the Church which Vatican II "defined".

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2011, 03:11:26 PM »

Thanks for making this thread, Caminus. Only highlights the bad will of you modern oblong-head pseudo-trads and the berserko-theology of the SSPX.

This thread will only bring more souls to Christ because you Caminus are acting as a darkness for error.

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2011, 04:21:32 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Thanks for making this thread, Caminus. Only highlights the bad will of you modern oblong-head pseudo-trads and the berserko-theology of the SSPX.

This thread will only bring more souls to Christ because you Caminus are acting as a darkness for error.

That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.

Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jєω?