Author Topic: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me (Read 1191 times)

StLouisIX · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2020, 08:23:12 PM »

Since I cannot edit the first post, I will add this here:

The author of this video claims that Vatican II can be reconciled with Catholic Tradition, and in this video attempts to defend arguably one of the most egregious of the VII docuмents, Lumen Gentium. Although I know he is wrong, (his argument suffers especially when he tries to defend the statement concerning the Muslims made in this docuмent, as he does not address the fact that the Muslims, as an organized religion, adore their God AGAINST us) but he uses a more academic language when discussing these things, making it harder for me to understand. Could anyone here (especially those with theological/seminary training) give more a precise refutation of his argument? I am considering leaving a comment on his video attempting to politely refute his points, so as to help those watching (and the author himself) to understand that this argument is not sound, so any help here would be appreciated. Thanks in advance and God bless.

apollo · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2020, 01:50:38 AM »

It's interesting how many people can put a video
on Youtube and all of a sudden ... they are experts.
,
Ignore that Classical Theist child. He probably does
not know what the word theologian means.

donkath · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2020, 02:08:39 AM »

Extract from Vatican II vs Church Dogma I

Transcription of a talk by Fr Gregarious Hesse

Next one among the most scandalous docuмents of Vatican II is The Declaration on Religious Liberty. The title itself is to be condemned.

Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae Dec 7, 1965. It starts with blasphemy. No. 1: 'Contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious of the dignity of the human person'. St. Pius X said: 'The only dignity in a human person is in his being a Christian.’ Leo XIII said: 'Enough talk of the dignity of man, let's talk about the dignity of God'. Consequently the Council says in No. 2: 'The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right'. Can you believe this? Let's see what the Catholic Church says about that.

In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemns this concept when he says in No. 15: 'From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows the false and absurd or rather extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man. A most contagious error to which leads the absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion which for the ruin of Church and State spreads over the world and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent as advantages to the Church. And what more certain death for souls, says St Augustine, than the liberty of error.

The very proposal of religious liberty - something that was found among proud souls in the 19th century - was condemned by Pope Pius IX. The docuмent is called Syllabus of Principal Errors of Our Time which are censured and constitutional allocutions, encyclicals and other apostolic letters of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX. It is a collection of statements from the writings of Pius IX issued by the Holy Office in the name of the Pope, sanctioned by him and it gives a list of 80 statements. All the 80 statements are solemnly condemned in this docuмent. And anybody who agrees with any one of these statements automatically ceases to be a Catholic. So understand what I am quoting now is NOT the doctrine of the Church. It is condemned.

No. 15: 'Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.’ Condemned sentence.

No. 16: 'Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.’ Condemned sentence, quoted by Vatican II as doctrine in the aforementioned docuмent and this docuмent.
No. 17: 'Good hope at least is to be entertained of eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.’ Condemned statement.

No. 18: 'Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.’ Condemned statement in the collection of Pius IX. Not literally quoted by Vatican II, but indirectly.

The Syllabus makes sure that the docuмent on Religious Freedom written up by the Council Fathers is unCatholic, contradictory to the Teaching of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that. Nobody of the so called 1/2 way, 50 %, 45 1/2% traditionalists who say Fr Hesse should not break with the Church by saying that Vatican II is heretical, anybody who says that is really in contradiction to the present Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith who said the Decree on Religious Liberty is certainly an anti-Syllabus. And the Syllabus is the list of condemned sentences which I just quoted to you. So Cardinal Ratzinger says the same thing that I do. Why he does not draw the consequences is not for me to judge.

But the Decree on Religious Liberty is definitely to be condemned and it is as a matter of fact the point in which Archbishop Lefebvre said no, I will not sign anything anymore now. Some of the first docuмents - nonetheless they contained all the errors - Archbishop Lefebvre signed and he said because at the time we were not able to imagine that a Pope would sign docuмents that are wrong. So we submitted. Understandable error.

And I can tell you I am a witness to this error because I committed it myself many years ago. I said it's impossible that a Pope signs things that are against the faith. I have learned my lesson and so have you.

'It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of Divine Law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.’ The Church never said that anybody may be converted by force but at the same time the Church said if you do not conform your conscience to our Teaching, you will - excuse me if I say it in the Irish way - go to Hell!

And now Vatican II requests the States to turn this into a law. In No. 4: 'Therefore provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles. They must be allowed to honour the Supreme Godhead' - whatever that is - 'with public worship, help their members to practise their religion and strengthen them with religious instructions and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles.’ So please contribute to the next donation to build a mosque in Los Angeles.

The Pope sent a delegate to the official opening of the Islamic mosque in Rome. Friends of mine in Rome who belong to a group that is called very right wing but they are very Catholic, catapulted slices of salami into the mosque. God bless them! [laughter] Actually...they are good people. See, we shoot them with slices of salami. The Koran says in Sura 47 that they are to kill us.

Well, The Vatican II is certainly a perverted Council because it is actually here requesting from the civil authorities to give complete freedom to all the heretical, schismatical and pagan religions and this is something that has been again condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
I quote No. 20: 'The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government'. This is now in the Balamand Statement I quoted before with the Orthodox Churches.

No. 21: 'The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.’ Vatican II doubts it all the time. They do not say exactly the same which was condemned here but they always say something which comes out the same because if the civil authorities that always throughout the tradition of the Church had to submit to the Pope – remember Gregory XVII excommunicated the German Emperor for not submitting to the Pope, and Henry VIII was excommunicated rightly so because he split with Rome – now Vatican II says this is alright and as a matter of fact, the Pope, together with that abomination of a so called Bishop, calling himself the Archbishop of Canterbury, being a layman of course, because their Orders are definitely invalid, as Leo XIII declared dogmatically in his Apostolicae Curae, the Pope together with a layman in Canterbury blessed the people. If I had been stupid enough to be there, I would have walked out.

No. 22 of the condemned sentences [of the Syllabus]: 'The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to these things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.’ This is a necessary requisite in order to be able to have dialogue and in order to say that the other religions can save you too.

I have told you what the other Popes have said about a hierarchy of Truth. And at the end of the list of condemned sentences you will see what Pius IX said about new theories on the powers of the State and the relation between Church and State.

In No. 77 condemned sentence [of the Syllabus]: 'In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.’ This sentence has been condemned. Now the docuмent on Religious Liberty asks the civil authorities to turn religious liberty into a civil right. What was the result? The Constitution of Colombia in South America said that the official state religion of Colombia is the Catholic religion, the Catholic faith. Pope Paul VI had them remove that. The Vatican exercised pressure on the Colombian government for more than 3 months until they gave in and cancelled that paragraph of their Constitution.

Archbishop Lefebvre who was well versed with the different Constitutions of the different parts of Switzerland, different provinces of the Confoederatio Helvetica, which is Switzerland - the Helvetica Confederation - said that in one of the French speaking parts of Switzerland, to be precise - the Rhone Valley - the Canton Vaud their local Constitution held the Catholic religion as the state religion. The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland forced them to remove that paragraph.

This is the interpretation of the docuмent on Religious Liberty. So let no man say that I viciously interpret it in the way they don't. They interpret it even stronger than I would have ever.

Another condemned sentence is 78 of the Syllabus: 'Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.’ Now this is a direct quotation from Vatican II that has been directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Okay!
No. 79: 'Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, overtly or publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.’ Mind you, this statement is saying it is false to say that the pest of Indifferentism is provoked by civil law allowing all religions. Vatican II demands from civil law to allow all religions and foster them and help them.

No. 80: 'The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.’ This has been condemned. 'The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.’ The Roman Pontiff, believe me, has not only come to terms with them, he superated their own desires in his own secularism and in his own indifferentism and in his own treason to the Catholic Faith. He is a traitor. To make sure he understands it, in Polish, the word is 'zdrajca'.

Religious Liberty Vatican II says: 'Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.’ It's time to put the Jehovah's Witnesses on welfare, isn't it? Also included in the right of Religious Freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching.’ 'The special value of their teaching'! Yes. How about the Islamic viewpoint on women? I am surprised that Hillary hasn't come out strong against Islam.

Also included in the Right of Religious Freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching for the organization of society and the inspiration of all human activity.
This is not coming from Andrew Lave [sp unknown] if you know whom I mean. This is not coming from the White House. This is Vatican II.

These groups have the right to decide in accordance with their own religions, own religious beliefs, the form of religious upbringing which is to be given to their children. This is why now when a Catholic marries a Protestant there is no further demand of having the children baptized Catholic. It doesn't matter anyway.
The civil authority therefore must undertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all the citizens in an effective manner by just legislation and other appropriate means. It must help to create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life so that the citizens would be really in a position to exercise their religious rights and fulfill their religious duties and so that the society itself may enjoy the benefits of justice and peace which are the results of man's faithfulness to God and His Holy Will.’

Who are the only ones who fulfill the Holy Will of God? The Catholics. Nobody else. Vatican II says they all do.

I think this is sufficient as far as the docuмent on Religious Liberty is concerned. Last quotation: 'The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and public authorities and the whole civil order.’ This is right of course. The Church claims freedom for herself in human society before every public authority. The Church also claims freedom for herself as a society of men with the right to live in civil society in accordance with the dependent of the Christian faith. So now here we have for the first time a proper understanding of Religious Liberty. Why is it that the Catholic Church has never publicly condemned the First Amendment to the American Constitution? Because the Ropes have always known that if a country is not Catholic anyway, we might as well use their ideas about religious liberty. This does not make it Teaching. Vatican II turned it into
Teaching.

The First Amendment to the American Constitution adopted in 1791 is not Teaching. It's a workable arrangement. Nothing more. The American Constitution is not a docuмent that teaches the people. It is not a religious docuмent that says this is what you have to believe, but this is how we are going to organize our society. And in our society with the religions coming over from Europe - just think of the Mayflower that never sank - unfortunately - with all these religions coming over, the State had little choice. It might have strived for a more Catholic Constitution, but anyway it is not a Teaching docuмent. The scandal here is that Vatican II now turned something that we had to tolerate for 200 years into Teaching.

At the same time the Christian faithful in common with the rest of men have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience. A harmony exists therefore between the freedom of the Church and that religious freedom which must be recognized as the right of all men in all communities and must be sanctioned by constitutional law.’ It is sanctioned by constitutional law in this country.

But where, where in this docuмent is the mentioning of Christ the King? Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas pronounced as the solemn truth to be held forever that Christ is the King of all societies and that only in the Kingship of Christ we are fully dignified human beings, as Pius X said: 'The dignity of the human being lies in his being a Christian'. This docuмent, even when it talks about the freedom of the Catholic Church itself does not mention Christ the King. And this goes to show you in which spirit these things were written.
_________________________________________________________________________________

I have dealt with Religious Liberty. Sad as it is, this is not yet the worse to come in Vatican II. In many ways, the worst of all docuмents, even though it is not explicitly as heretical as the other ones that I quoted are, is the Pastoral Constitution. So it's not even dogmatic, but it's still the worst, you will see. [....]

See attached: Full transcript Vatican II vs Church Dogma I
Transcription of a talk by Fr Gregorius Hesse

Aristotl · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2020, 09:33:26 AM »

Pope Pius XI "Those wretches tainted with the error of Indifferentism and Modernism hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute, but relative; that is, that it must adapt itself to the varying necessities of the times and the varying dispositions of souls, since it is not contained in an unchangeable revelation, but is, by its very nature, meant to accommodate itself to the life of man"

StLouisIX · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:18:51 PM »

Thanks all for your posts. I will take the advice of apollo here and ignore this character, as I have seen several comments on his previous VII video (On Dignitatis humanae, which he also attempts to reconcile with Church Tradition) like the one I was going to post, which attempted to disprove the thesis of the author. He didn't respond to those, so it seems that it would be a waste of time. This person is a part of a new crowd of YouTubers who vehemently defend the Novus Ordo Church, and attempt to reconcile its false teachings with Church Tradition. If you point out the inherent flaws in their argument, you are a "protestant hiding in the closet" wackjob sedavacantist.

They seem to forget that:

a) R & R is a position that is also held in Traditional circles, thus they commit the fallacy of False Dilemma. They also engage in ad hominem attacks against sedavacantists, which are uncharitable.

b) They do not want to abolish the Novus Ordo Mass, which is a hybrid of a Protestant service and the Catholic Mass, and is the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman Rite according to their views. The Sedavacantists, on the other hand, only recognize and attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Not to mention all of the "innovations" in theology that are present in the Newchurch and come from Protestantism, thus making their spiel about Sedavacantists being some kind of Neo-Protestant sect utterly absurd.

c) That however they may wish to interpret VII, the fact is that if they are consistent with their views that Authority is above the Faith, then such an interpretation is merely subjective, since to say otherwise would be to say that the hierarchy has falsely interpreted these docuмents. They must agree that the "authentic interpretation" of these docuмents are viable positions that can be held by Catholics.

d) They conveniently ignore the evident "fruits" of the Neo-Modernist teachings of Vatican II have done in regards to the number of vocations, baptisms, confirmations, unity of faith, etc.

A major part of why I created my channel on YouTube to is to combat this nonsense.

apollo · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2020, 04:44:49 PM »

Quote from: StLouisIX on June 07, 2020, 03:18:51 PM

Thanks all for your posts. I will take the advice of apollo here and ignore this character, as I have seen several comments on his previous VII video (On Dignitatis humanae, which he also attempts to reconcile with Church Tradition)

.
Thanks. This is one of the new generation who went to public schools
or modern schools where they are taught that they are god and whatever
they want to believe is true. Immanuel Kant philosophy. Kant was an
idiot and 99% of the new generation are idiots.
.
He probably thinks he has been chosen by God to make these videos.
I have met young people like this. They said, "We are god".
.
Unfortunately, there are some of these on CathInfo spewing out false
information. The Geocentrists are one group that I know about who
does this. So it's not only the young generation that can be infected with
this disease.
.
Fr Hesse is the best teacher on Vatican II. If Classical Theist rejects
Fr Hesse, he is working for the devil.

.

Author Topic: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me (Read 1191 times)

StLouisIX

Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me

StLouisIX

Re: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me

apollo

Re: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me

donkath

Re: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me

Aristotl

Re: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me

StLouisIX

Re: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me

apollo

Re: Debunk this Pro-Vatican II argument for me