Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I read his diaries, he did not think thet Paul 6 would approve the stuff the commission put through, that Fenton vehemently opposed and tried to stop, but then Paul 6 did allow and ultimately approve it.  He came from the perspective of "well we know Paul 6 is Pope so what is approved in this council must somehow not technically be heresy or even error".  This was quite perplexing to the man, and heart-wrenching, he could not believe how many "liberal" bishops and cardinals, and priests" there were at the time.  We can look back now.

So what you are saying is that he saw the heresies of Paul VI and thought "Paul VI is the true Pope so they must not be heresies."

How is that any different from what Novus Ordo sect followers believe today? Whenever Pope Francis does something a little too liberal, they say "Well he is the true Pope so he must be right."

Please try to grasp the amount of hindsight the man did not have in 1969 when he met his maker compared to the hindsight we have now in 2016.  Plus we do not know his inner thoughts when he stopped writing after the council.  

Unlearned lay-folk, from the perspective or 2016, who do not know what they are talking about and who dare assert (what others have put in your head) tha Fenton was some ignoramus like many bloggers on this forum, in the objective realm, betrays a lack of respect for a great theologian and an incomprehensible amount of ignorance.  

Again the traditional clergy who know far more than you would disagree with you.  Pius XII would disagree with you.  Any sound orthodox theologian would disagree with you.  Yet you side with the likes of Ladislaus and the Dimonds against them.  Don't fall for that trap.

How his sound teaching on BOD in light of what the Catholic Church has always taught is somehow "undermined" because, as far as we know, he was not SV in 1969 is, to put it as charitably as I can, a stretch.  It is an underhanded tactic that Ladislaus likes to use.  Please do not "learn" from that person or take up his underhanded and dishonest ways.  Don't fall for the trap of trusting your intellect more than the Church, this is a pride that inevitably will lead to heresy.  

I am not calling Fenton an ignoramus. I believe he was a genius, but I feel bad because he was fooled by the Vatican II sect just like everyone else. Also, you seem to be saying that I side with Ladislaus and the Dimonds about BOD. This is not true. I actually believe in BOD so I do not side with Lad or the Dimonds on that. I am not trying to discredit him on BOD because my beliefs on BOD are closer to his than Lad's, just to say that I do not consider him great because he was fooled about Vatican II and did not see that it was heretical even though he was one of the smartest Churchmen in his day, and I am sure he knew exactly what was in Vatican II unlike most who were fooled by it because he was a theologian and it was his job to know.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I read his diaries, he did not think thet Paul 6 would approve the stuff the commission put through, that Fenton vehemently opposed and tried to stop, but then Paul 6 did allow and ultimately approve it.  He came from the perspective of "well we know Paul 6 is Pope so what is approved in this council must somehow not technically be heresy or even error".  This was quite perplexing to the man, and heart-wrenching, he could not believe how many "liberal" bishops and cardinals, and priests" there were at the time.  We can look back now.

So what you are saying is that he saw the heresies of Paul VI and thought "Paul VI is the true Pope so they must not be heresies."

How is that any different from what Novus Ordo sect followers believe today? Whenever Pope Francis does something a little too liberal, they say "Well he is the true Pope so he must be right."

Please try to grasp the amount of hindsight the man did not have in 1969 when he met his maker compared to the hindsight we have now in 2016.  Plus we do not know his inner thoughts when he stopped writing after the council.  

Unlearned lay-folk, from the perspective or 2016, who do not know what they are talking about and who dare assert (what others have put in your head) tha Fenton was some ignoramus like many bloggers on this forum, in the objective realm, betrays a lack of respect for a great theologian and an incomprehensible amount of ignorance.  

Again the traditional clergy who know far more than you would disagree with you.  Pius XII would disagree with you.  Any sound orthodox theologian would disagree with you.  Yet you side with the likes of Ladislaus and the Dimonds against them.  Don't fall for that trap.

How his sound teaching on BOD in light of what the Catholic Church has always taught is somehow "undermined" because, as far as we know, he was not SV in 1969 is, to put it as charitably as I can, a stretch.  It is an underhanded tactic that Ladislaus likes to use.  Please do not "learn" from that person or take up his underhanded and dishonest ways.  Don't fall for the trap of trusting your intellect more than the Church, this is a pride that inevitably will lead to heresy.  

I am not calling Fenton an ignoramus. I believe he was a genius, but I feel bad because he was fooled by the Vatican II sect just like everyone else. Also, you seem to be saying that I side with Ladislaus and the Dimonds about BOD. This is not true. I actually believe in BOD so I do not side with Lad or the Dimonds on that. I am not trying to discredit him on BOD because my beliefs on BOD are closer to his than Lad's, just to say that I do not consider him great because he was fooled about Vatican II and did not see that it was heretical even though he was one of the smartest Churchmen in his day.

I do not doubt what you say but where did you get the idea the Fenton is not a great theologian because he was not SV, supposedly, in 1969?

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi

As you know very well, Venerable Brethren, from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have entrusted even those who do not belong to the visible structure (compagem) of the Catholic Church to the heavenly protection and direction, solemnly asserting that, following the example of the Good Shepherd, We wanted nothing more than that they should have life and have it more abundantly. Begging the prayers of the entire Church, We wish to repeat Our solemn declaration in this encyclical letter in which We have praised the great and glorious Body of Christ, most affectionately inviting each and every one of them [those who are not members of the Church] to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation. For even though they may be directed towards the Redeemer's Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention (etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticuм Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur), they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.

He says that such people "may be directed towards the Redeemer's Mystical Body", not that they are within the Redeemer's Mytical Body. Pope Pius XII thus clearly teaches that these people who do not belong to the visible structure of the Catholic Church are still outside the Church, but can be directed to her by their unconscius desire. Pope Pius XII does not teach that they can be saved in their current state, he says they still need to be directed to the Redeemer's Mystical Body, that is to convert to the Catholic faith.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here.  Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.  However his use of the term “those” does not seem to be exclusive.

Right, so you make Pius XII contradictory to Cantate Domino and Athanasian Creed, since both teach that non-Catholic cannot be saved and that holding the Catholic faith is absolutely necessary for salvation by necessity of means. Pope Pius XII statements must be read in light of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, you read them againt dogmatic teaching of the Church, and misrepresent Pius XII in the process - nowhere does he teach that people without faith in Christ can be saved, he says that they might be directed by God to the Church (thus in their current state their remain outside the Church).

The Athanasian Creed will always condemn your heresies:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

Anyone who dies and does not hold the Catholic faith will without a doubt perish everlastingly, which part of this do you not understand?

You repeatedly manifest your inability to make distinctions.  My whole point is that he does not contradict himself.

Of course he does not, Pope Pius XII does not teach the possibility of salvation without Catholic faith in that quote, as I have demonstrated, and the Church never taught it. Your views are explicit denial of the Athanasian Creed.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I read his diaries, he did not think thet Paul 6 would approve the stuff the commission put through, that Fenton vehemently opposed and tried to stop, but then Paul 6 did allow and ultimately approve it.  He came from the perspective of "well we know Paul 6 is Pope so what is approved in this council must somehow not technically be heresy or even error".  This was quite perplexing to the man, and heart-wrenching, he could not believe how many "liberal" bishops and cardinals, and priests" there were at the time.  We can look back now.

So what you are saying is that he saw the heresies of Paul VI and thought "Paul VI is the true Pope so they must not be heresies."

How is that any different from what Novus Ordo sect followers believe today? Whenever Pope Francis does something a little too liberal, they say "Well he is the true Pope so he must be right."

Please try to grasp the amount of hindsight the man did not have in 1969 when he met his maker compared to the hindsight we have now in 2016.  Plus we do not know his inner thoughts when he stopped writing after the council.  

Unlearned lay-folk, from the perspective or 2016, who do not know what they are talking about and who dare assert (what others have put in your head) tha Fenton was some ignoramus like many bloggers on this forum, in the objective realm, betrays a lack of respect for a great theologian and an incomprehensible amount of ignorance.  

Again the traditional clergy who know far more than you would disagree with you.  Pius XII would disagree with you.  Any sound orthodox theologian would disagree with you.  Yet you side with the likes of Ladislaus and the Dimonds against them.  Don't fall for that trap.

How his sound teaching on BOD in light of what the Catholic Church has always taught is somehow "undermined" because, as far as we know, he was not SV in 1969 is, to put it as charitably as I can, a stretch.  It is an underhanded tactic that Ladislaus likes to use.  Please do not "learn" from that person or take up his underhanded and dishonest ways.  Don't fall for the trap of trusting your intellect more than the Church, this is a pride that inevitably will lead to heresy.  

I am not calling Fenton an ignoramus. I believe he was a genius, but I feel bad because he was fooled by the Vatican II sect just like everyone else. Also, you seem to be saying that I side with Ladislaus and the Dimonds about BOD. This is not true. I actually believe in BOD so I do not side with Lad or the Dimonds on that. I am not trying to discredit him on BOD because my beliefs on BOD are closer to his than Lad's, just to say that I do not consider him great because he was fooled about Vatican II and did not see that it was heretical even though he was one of the smartest Churchmen in his day.

Also if you read his diaries he was not "fooled" by V2 at all.  He found himself in the conundrum we find ourselves in 50 years later.

So did he:
a) realize that Vatican II was heretical but went along with it because Paul VI approved it?
b) fail to realize that Vatican II was heretical?

Neither of these options is favorable to him.

I think the argument I have been having with LOT about whether or not Fenton is great was pointless. I am sorry for wasting everyone's time with it and I will not continue further. I have nothing against Fenton and I hope he is in heaven. It is like arguments about baseball on whether or not someone belongs in the hall of fame. I say Andre Dawson does not belong in the hall of fame and LOT says Andre Dawson does belong in the hall. Anyway I do not think it is that important.

What about Pete Rose?

Thanks again to Father Feeney we have the clearest authoritative teaching on the issue to date from the Holy Office approved by Pius XII which is as follows:  

   

Accordingly the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session, held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the August Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline, be given.

    We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (magisterium).

    Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach there is also contained that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

    However, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For Our Saviour gave the things that are contained in the deposit of faith to be explained by the ecclesiastical magisterium and not by private judgments.

    Now, in the first place, the Church teaches us that in this matter we are
dealing with a most strict precept of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly ordered His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.

    Now, not the least important among the commandments of Christ is that one by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself governs the Church on earth in a visible manner.

    Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

    The Saviour not only gave the precept that all nations should enter the Church, but He also established the Church as a means of salvation, without which no one may be able to enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

    In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed towards man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when these helps are used only in intention or desire (ubi voto solummodo vel desiderio adhibeantur). This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both with reference to the sacrament of regeneration and with reference to the sacrament of penance.

    In its own way, the same thing must be said about the Church, insofar as the Church itself is a general help to salvation. Therefore, in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is required that at least he be united to it by intention and desire.

    However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but, when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit intention (votum) which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

    These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical body of Jesus Christ." For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are really (in re) incorporated into the Church as members and those who are joined to it only in intention (in voto).

    Discussing the members of whom the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: "Only those who have received the laver of regeneration, who profess the true faith, who have not miserably separated themselves from the fabric of the Body or been expelled by legitimate authority by reason of very serious offences, are actually to be counted as members of the Church."

    Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagem non pertinent), he mentions those who are "ordered to the Redeemer's Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which "they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation," since "they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."

    With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all those united to the Church only by implicit desire and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally (aequaliter) in every religion.

    Nor must we think that any kind of intention of entering the Church is sufficient in order that one may be saved. It is requisite that the intention by which one is ordered to the Church should be informed by perfect charity; and no explicit intention can produce its effect unless the man have supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him." The Council of Trent declares: "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children."

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here.  Nor is it mentioned either way whether those who outwardly appear to be in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not though the term “those” is used in a way where there is no noticeable exclusion implied.  But it is clearly stated, in an authoritative letter meant to clarify the issue as much as possible, only two things to be absolutely necessary with an intrinsic necessity for all to believe with a supernatural Faith based upon God revealing and that is that “God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek him”.  

The Rest of the Story...

Mgr. Fenton on the Failure of Vatican II
— What John Vennari didn’t tell you
vennari-fenton.jpg


John Vennari, editor of the recognize-and-resist flagship publication Catholic Family News, has long been an ardent proponent of the great anti-Modernist theologian Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969), and rightly so. Fenton was indeed a remarkably gifted and zealous opponent of Modernism in the twentieth century, a genuine stronghold of Catholic orthodoxy amid the theological liberalism that was trying to gain foot in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

For well over ten years, and again very recently, Vennari has been quoting in his articles and talks from an essay written by Mgr. Fenton in 1962 (“The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council”), just before the opening of the council, in which the theologian warns that Vatican II might fail, and that the faithful should not assume that the mere calling of an ecuмenical council also guarantees its success. While Vennari’s quoting of Fenton is accurate, there are other quotes in Fenton’s essay that diametrically contradict and refute Vennari’s own position on Vatican II — quotes which the editor of Catholic Family News somehow did not see fit to share with his readers and listeners, but which we are more than happy to provide for you.

Before we do so, however, let’s look at an excerpt from a recently republished article by Vennari in which he quotes from Fenton’s 1962 essay on the possible failure of the council (to facilitate reading, Vennari’s words will appear in black, Fenton’s in blue):

[Fenton] ... lays out what the Council will have to achieve in order to be considered a success:

    "In order to be successful, in order to accomplish the purpose for which it has been called into being, the ecuмenical council must speak out effectively and adequately against the doctrinal aberrations which are endangering the Faith, and hence the entire spiritual life, of the Faithful at the time the council is working.

    "Furthermore, in the disciplinary field, it is impossible for an ecuмenical council to attain its purpose unless it sets forth regulations and directives which tend to achieve the following objectives.

    "First, these disciplinary decrees must be such as to make it easier for the Faithful in the state of friendship for God to advance in His love.

    "Second, they must be so calculated as to make it easier for those who are members of the Church and who are not living the life of grace to return to the friendship of God.

    "And finally, they must be such as to aid in the conversion of non-Catholics to the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ."

    Along the same line, he elaborated, "those who are not favored with membership in the Church [should] be able to see even more clearly that the presently existing visible Catholic Church is really the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth."

    Again, he warns, "It is by no means automatically certain the council will be successful, speaking from the point of view of this supernatural prudence."

    As if predicting the future, Fenton closes: "It is possible that the council might act other than with the fullness of supernatural prudence. It is possible that, seen it this perspective, it may not be successful."

    Tragically, the Council has been a failure on the very points spotlighted by Msgr. Fenton.

(John Vennari, “Vatican II May Fail: Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton’s 1962 Warning”, Catholic Family News Blog, June 18, 2014)


We all know that John Vennari takes the position not only that the council failed in these three respects, which Fenton clearly conceded was possible, but also that the council taught doctrinal error. This can be seen, for example, in the following blog post, in which Vennari promotes the SiSiNoNo series “The Errors of Vatican II”, highlighting the council’s “mutilated concept of the Magisterium” and a “contamination of Catholic doctrine”:

    The Errors of Vatican II (Catholic Family News)


This speaks for itself. The series “The Errors of Vatican II” lists a total of 18 concrete errors, most of them genuine errors in doctrine, not merely problems of expression or vagueness or ambiguity. In the introductory post, Vennari himself highlights the series’ accusation against the council of engendering the “contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic ‘modern thinking.’”

Another example that demonstrates that Vennari believes Vatican II to contain error, if not outright heresy, is had in this post:

    The “Original Sin” of Vatican II (Catholic Family News)


Vennari explicitly says: “The docuмents of Vatican II are flawed docuмents due to their deliberate ambiguity, lack of precision, countless omissions, refusal to employ scholastic language, and because of the novel concepts advanced that constitute a rupture with the past, such as the decree on Religious Liberty” (italics added). A concept that is new (“novel”) and contradicts prior teaching (“rupture with the past”) is obviously erroneous, since the prior teaching is true. In the above-linked article, Vennari also speaks of the council as being “defective at its core” and containing “harmful novelties.”

Clearly, the editor of Catholic Family News believes Vatican II taught error, even if he sometimes uses the smoother-sounding word “novelty” instead, a term which is abundantly used by Vennari’s associate Christopher Ferrara, because it allows him to give the impression that Vatican II teaches error without explicitly saying so (clever!).

More links of John Vennari talking about Vatican II and Mgr. Fenton are available here:

    1962 Warning: Vatican II May Fail
    Ecuмenical “Unity” vs. the Unity Willed by Christ
    A Bishop Speaks at the Council
    The Best Council the Protestants Ever Had
    Celebrating a Catastrophe: The 50th Anniversary of Vatican II
    Interview: Vennari on the 50th Anniversary of Vatican II


Now that we have clarified Vennari’s own position on Vatican II, which is well known among his readership, let us turn again to his presentation of what Mgr. Fenton said before the council. As we said already, Vennari quotes Fenton accurately. However, here is what else Fenton said in the context of the possibility of the council failing, unduly — but quite conveniently — omitted by Vennari:
fenton-prudence-v2-p256.jpg

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Here is a transcript of the relevant passages:

The fact of the matter is that the success of the ecuмenical council really depends on the effectiveness and the ardor of the prayers of the faithful. There is one factor which Our Lord has clearly promised to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The supreme teaching power of the kingdom of God on earth will be protected against the teaching of error as long as it speaks out on a matter of faith or morals to the entire Church of God in this world, and speaks definitively. In other words, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost will teach and lead the ecclesiastical magisterium when it speaks definitively for the universal Church of God on earth, in such a way that this magisterium … will teach and define the doctrine of the Church accurately.

Thus there need be no anxiety about the possibility of any doctrinal error emanating from the ecuмenical council. It is absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility that the ecuмenical council should proclaim, and that the Roman Pontiff should confirm and promulgate as the teaching of an ecuмenical council, any doctrine at variance with the teaching of God which has been given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord. There never will be a time when the doctrinal decrees of the Second Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican will have to be corrected, either negatively or positively. And, in precisely the same way, there is absolutely no possibility that the Second Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican will set out to correct, or to put into better balance, any of the decrees of any of the previous ecuмenical councils, or, for that matter, any of the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, whether therese pronouncements have been made through the solemn or the ordinary teaching activity of the Bishop of Rome.

We are praying, however, that the forthcoming Council may be successful, and the success of the Ecuмenical Council involves a great deal more than the infallible pronouncement of the salutary message of Jesus Christ….

(Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council”, American Ecclesiastical Review 147 [Oct. 1962], pp. 255-256; italics in original; underlining added for emphasis.)


This is Fenton’s prelude to his argument about the possible “failure” of the council — a prelude, we submit, Vennari should have mentioned to his readers and listeners, so as not to cause the false impression that Fenton agrees with Vennari’s “resistance” position against the errors of the council. For Fenton, such doctrinal error as Vennari believes in was entirely impossible, a priori. Yet, Vennari constantly uses Fenton for his anti-Vatican II apologetics, as shown above; his failure to mention, therefore, that Fenton adamantly rejected as absolutely incompatible with Catholic doctrine the very ideas held by Vennari about even the possibility of doctrinal errors in the council, is a grave affront worthy of special censure.

While Vennari doesn’t explicitly claim that Mgr. Fenton believed the council would or could teach doctrinal error, he nevertheless gives the impression that Fenton would have been on his side with regard to Vatican II by quoting him as above and then failing to mention that Fenton absolutely and definitively excluded any possibility that the council might fail in the sense of teaching error or heresy.

A little later in his essay, Fenton reinforces what he has already said about the impossibility of doctrinal error in Vatican II by pointing out that it therefore follows that the council’s teaching must be accepted by all without hesitation:

Incidentally, it should be noted that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the doctrinal statements of the ecuмenical council are set forth in a positive mananer or negatively. A teaching is presented positively when the truth is asserted directly. It is presented negatively when the error or heresy contradictory to this truth is condemned. In either case the work is done. The people of God are made aware of the fact that this truth forms a part of the Christian message, and that any contradiction of this statement, or even any hesitancy in accepting it with a perfectly certain assent, is definitely an offence against God.

(Fenton, “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council”, op. cit., pp. 257-258; underlining added for emphasis.)


This is not exactly what you’ve heard from John Vennari lately, is it? Yet this is the teaching of Mgr. Fenton, the very same Fenton whom Vennari quotes regarding the possibibility that the council might fail. Yes, Fenton did indeed warn that the council might fail. And yet in the same breath he also clarified, even before the council convened, that it would be beyond the realm of all possibility that the council could fail doctrinally.

So, Mr. Vennari, our question to you is this: If Mgr. Fenton was such a great theologian as you say (and he was indeed!), how is it that you accept his theological expertise only regarding his warning that the council might fail in terms of prudence, but yet not regarding his insistence that it would be absolutely impossible for the council to err in matters of faith and morals? And why is it that you even fail to tell your audience that this was Fenton’s position with regard to the doctrinal content of Vatican II, all the while you do tell them about his warning that the council might fail?

vatican2.jpg

The bogus Second Vatican Council in Session (1962-65)


For all those interested in reading the full article written by Mgr. Fenton on the virtue of prudence and the success of Vatican II, we are pleased to make available a scanned PDF version of the complete article as it appeared in the American Ecclesiastical Review in October of 1962. Click below:


Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton

“The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council”

Originally published in
American Ecclesiastical Review 147 (Oct. 1962)
pp. 255-265

PDF DOWNLOAD - CLICK HERE
(12.7 MB)


To clarify our own position, we wish to state explicitly that we hold Mgr. Fenton in the highest regard. He was an exceptionally gifted theologian and passionate defender of orthodoxy, especially against the heresies of Modernism and religious liberty. His thesis that Vatican II could not possibly teach any error on faith or morals is entirely correct under the assumption that it would be promulgated by a true and valid Pope, an assumption he of course labored under. We know today that Vatican II taught grave doctrinal error, but this is only possible because the “Pope” who promulgated it, Paul VI, was not in fact a true Pope.

To be sure, Fenton himself was no sedevacantist after the council, but then again, he died in 1969, a mere three-and-a-half years after its close; whereas we today have the benefit of decades of further doctrinal clarifications and developments that demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Church teach doctrinal error. Precisely what Fenton thought of Vatican II after it finished is a bit difficult to ascertain, as he resigned his editorship at the American Ecclesiastical Review in December of 1963. However, his recently-published personal diaries give some insight into his struggles before, during, and after the council, at which Fenton worked for Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani as a theological expert.

See Also:

    Explosive! The Personal Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Fenton
    Vatican II: It’s Infallible if Paul VI was a true Pope
    Debate: Did Vatican II Teach Heresy? (Video)
    Religious Liberty: The Condemned Error of John Courtney Murray became Doctrine at Vatican II
    Sermon Series: The Errors of Vatican II
    Vatican II at 50: The Modernism of the Second Vatican Council
    In Brief: Vatican II compared to Pre-Vatican II Catholic Teaching
    John Vennari says he wouldn’t let Francis teach Religion to his Children
    Pope Leo XIII condemns “Recognize-and-Resist” Theology
    Response to John Salza’s Errors about the Papacy & Magisterium
    How we know the Vatican II Church is Not the Catholic Church

Coming from the perspective that V2 is a valid council begs the question.  Your Pope, SBC, who in your eyes enjoys higher authority than the one you claim to be Vicar of Christ, is a perfect example of vehemently embracing contradiction.