.

This feature of TheRecusant has spent five pages of commentary and questioning regarding the Newcanonizations (John xxiii, John Paul ii), at which point we arrive at an introduction to our topic:  the errors of Vat.II.  FWIW, the Fathers Radecki are currently writing a new book about this same topic, which will perhaps be available by the end of this year.  (Seeing as how the Newbeatification of the abominable Paul VI is slated for October, it seems rather unlikely that they won't have at least honorable mention of that topic in their book, to pick up on the interest this event will no doubt generate, but the additional material might end up pushing publication back further on the calendar.) What has the SSPX to say about all this? [about all the controversy over the Newcanonizations]  

Comparatively little, and what it does say is confusing and contradictory. On DICI, for example, there is an article by Fr. Gleize which says that these canonisations are “a problem”, but then there is also a very short article by Fr. Lorans which seems to suggest that we should forget about them and not worry.

One can perhaps find a certain amount of official grumbling in other places too, but ultimately either one accepts these canonisations or one does not. And does the SSPX accept them? Well, in his recent Letter to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Fellay says:

“We vigorously protest these canonisations!”

Think about that for a second. What does that imply? What does it actually mean, if not that we accept these canonisations, albeit with protests? That we accept them, but we don’t like it, and we protest about it?  Down With Vatican II!  Just in case anyone were tempted to believe that things are more or less back to normal, that Bishop Fellay has seen the error of his ways or altered his position in any way, we reproduce on page 13 a letter written by him recently to a layman. It tells its own tale.

Things are as bad as ever. We have been trying for a while now to wake people up to the very real falling away from Tradition on the part of the SSPX, and the danger to souls which this constitutes. Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration signed the SSPX up to all of Vatican II, and its contents have never been withdrawn or corrected in the smallest way.

Where Bishop Fellay has even addressed the contents of the Doctrinal Declaration, it has been only to defend them by claiming that it was misunderstood, “too subtle”, etc. Usually he does not even address the contents of the Doctrinal Declaration, contenting himself instead with merely attacking the motives of his critics.

It is high time that the wicked nature of this treason and treachery fully sank in. Bishop Fellay, and through him the SSPX, has accepted Vatican II. We cannot help feeling that more people would be better able to appreciate just what that means if we were all a little more familiar with the errors of Vatican II themselves.

Plenty of people have heard the phrase, but how many of us could name three or four of the actual “errors of the Council”?

To that end, the reader will find on page 18 an article highlighting a mere ten of the Council’s errors. It is based on talks by the late Fr. Hesse, whose talks we recommend you listen to if you have internet. The article really only scratches the surface, but it will give you an idea of what we are dealing with. Give it your full attention, and as you read through it, bear in mind that this is what the SSPX now accepts.

Vatican II is toxic. It kills everything it touches. It is the work of Christ’s enemies, replete with the most shocking heresies and errors and its acceptance spells spiritual death. And yet Bishop Fellay accepted it fully in April 2012 on our behalf, the General Chapter of July 2012 confirmed this, and the 25th Anniversary Declaration (Écône, June 2013) further supports this acceptance by talking about merely “causes of error” being in the Council “by virtue of a choice”, and avoiding any talk of actual “errors of Vatican II.”

Even the neo-SSPX partisans, who take Archbishop Lefebvre’s name in vain, and try to make him say things favourable to their treachery, have never even attempted to claim that Archbishop Lefebvre accepted Vatican II. If the SSPX no longer opposes the Council, then it no longer has any justification for existing. It is high time for all good Catholics to throw themselves into the task of salvaging what can be saved and building an alternative.

-The Editor



In sum, this question of just how terrible Vat.II is, constitutes the key issue of the Resistance, since the Society would have no more justification for existing if it no longer opposes the Council and the unclean spirit thereof, because it is toxic;  it kills everything it touches;  it is the work of Christ's enemies;  it's replete with the most shocking heresies and errors;  its acceptance spells spiritual death.  Therefore, if you are going to be helpful in the ranks of the Resistance, you ought to have a basic knowledge of the worst errors of Vat.II.

Here they are.

.

From that list, the most evident:

LG 16:

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

UR 3:

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecuмenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
 Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, 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 fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem

DH2:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

.

Thanks, Cantarella.  

Here are the first three with their notes from TheRecusant #16:


       Ten Errors of Vatican II

[Based on notes from a talk given by the late Fr. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD]

Vatican II contains error. In the old days there was a list of books that were prohibited for Catholics, called the Index. In order for a book to be put on the Index and become illicit reading for a Catholic, the book does not have to be full of heresy. All that is needed is for it to contain just one heresy, just one thing that is wrong. There were books on the Index that contained just one line that was wrong. For example, there was a very good translation of the Bible on the Index, the “van Ess” translation of the Bible into German, which contained two or three little errors. The whole rest of it was a very good translation, but because of the two or three little errors it got put on the Index. Vatican II ought to be on the Index. Here are some of it’s heresies. This is not an exhaustive list, but will give you an idea (emphasis throughout is ours).


Lumen Gentium 1

This says that the Church is “...like a sacrament ... both of very close union with God and of the unity of the whole human race.”

No! The Council of Trent dogmatically defines that there are seven sacraments. A sacrament is a sign. The Church is defined as a perfect society and not a sign. It is the Mystical body of Christ. And it does not concern “the whole human race” - like it or not, plenty of people do not belong to the Church. The Church wants them to convert, but as long as they remain outside they are (by their own will) nothing to do with the Church.

They do not come under Church law, the Church does not judge them, the Church does not deal with them... They are not a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.  


Lumen Gentium 8

“This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,
although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.”

The word subsists doesn’t tell us much in English, but in Latin “subsistere” means to exist, to be present, to lie underneath. You could say for example that the grass is subsistent to my way of walking. But it could also be subsistent to someone else’s way of walking and not just to mine. So when you say that the Catholic Church “subsists” in the
Catholic Church, it is phrased that way deliberately so as not to exclude Protestants, Orthodox, etc. The architects of Vatican II were too clever to say that the Church of Christ “contains” the Protestants, the Orthodox and all those other non-Catholics. So they  said that it can be found in the Catholic Church in a way that does not exclude the others.
But it is defined dogma that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, the two are identical. Nothing outside the Catholic Church is part of the Church of Christ and noth-ing of the Church of Christ is outside the Catholic Church. The two are identical.


Lumen Gentium 15

“Likewise we can say that in some real way they [non-Catholic/Protestant sects] are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”

What way is this “real way”?  They never say.  In the Gospel of St. John one can read that the Holy Ghost was given only to the Catholic Church, not to Protestants, not to the Lutheran Church, not to the Anglicans.  When a Lutheran pastor baptises a baby, if it is valid, it is a sacrament stolen from the Catholic Church. If that innocent child, after being baptised, dies and goes to heaven, it goes to heaven as a member of the Catholic Church because the Lutheran pastor illicitly administered the Catholic sacrament of baptism.


Lumen Gentium 16

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.  In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who , professing to hold the faith of Abraham, together with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

What about the Incarnation?  What about the Holy Trinity?  The Koran, the Muslims’ holy book calls the idea of the Trinity an “excremental idea.”  And now Vatican II tells us that they, together with us, adore the one merciful God?!? What about the First Commandment? They have another God, they have the lonely one-person Allah. We have Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  “Et Verbum caro factum est,” says the last Gospel at Mass, “And the Word became flesh” I’ve never heard that Allah became flesh.  This is blasphemy.  It is heresy and it is blasphemy.

The idea that Muslims, Jєωs and Catholics are basically all the same anyway is a Freema-sonic idea.  It was being promoted by the Freemasons long before Vatican II, and now we have a so-called Ecuмenical Council telling us the same thing, too.  Give me a Catholic
interpretation of that quote about the Muslims together with us adoring the same God.  It’s not possible.  It’s just a heresy.  

.

.

This is tricky* business.  Another typo slipped through.  This one is in TheRecusant, and I just now noticed it.  Under LG 8:

The word subsists doesn’t tell us much in English, but in Latin “subsistere” means to exist, to be present, to lie underneath.  You could say for example that the grass is subsistent to my way of walking.  But it could also be subsistent to someone else’s way of walking and not just to mine. So when you say that the Catholic Church [of Christ] “subsists” in the Catholic Church, it is phrased that way deliberately so as not to exclude Protestants, Orthodox, etc.  The architects of Vatican II were too clever to say that the Church of Christ “contains” the Protestants, the Orthodox and all those other non-Catholics.  So they said that it [the Church of Christ] can be found in the Catholic Church in a way that does not exclude the others.  But it is defined dogma that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church -- the two are identical.  Nothing outside the Catholic Church is part of the Church of Christ and nothing of the Church of Christ is outside the Catholic Church. The two are identical.

*tricky business:  Here I am listing the "errors of Vat.II" and I'm adding more errors of my own in my description!  (Maybe I can get some help with that!)


As for the part about "the architects of Vat.II were too clever...," this was included consequent to the suggestion of a protestant observer to one of the bishops that the phrase "subsitit in" (subsists in) should replace the verb "est" (is) in this identity sentence.  The bishop made this suggestion in due process, and the suggestion was adopted immediately into the official text for all to vote on.  

Curiously, the suggestion for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the pope together with all the bishops in the assembly (they were all together in one room and it would have been very simple) was NOT adopted immediately and the consecration was not done.  This was probably due to the Balamand Agreement, which promised that no denouncement of Communism would take place at the Council, in exchange for Russian Orthodox observers to be present in the meetings.


.

.

Arranged in numerical order, these could be described as,

"The Set of paragraph #s among Vat.II docuмents where 10 of the most offensive errors are found" :

{1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 8, 12, 15, 16, 29}



Furthermore, the 20 #s not among these 10 can be defined as,

"The Set of paragraph #s in Vat.II docs NOT listed here among those paragraphs containing the 10 worst errors" :

{4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, ... 28}  

These two sets could be used to provide the pattern for a musical composition:

A, A, A, B, B, A, B, A, A, B, B, B, A, B, B, A, A, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, A.  

Whether the music could be beautiful or not is another question.  As for whether it could ever be suitable for Mass, I would expect not.

.

Neil with all your errors, good thing you're not the pope.    :scratchchin:

The text itself is mediocre, ambiguous, and not very clear or precise. It appears to really have been written by an amateur (or a liberal modernist). There was a purpose behind the lack of conciseness and the overwhelming ambiguity, though.

A total shame.