.
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.)
INTRODUCTION
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 Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration signed the SSPX up to all of Vatican II, and its contents have never been withdrawn or corrected in the smallest way.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 EditorIn 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.
.