It is widely recognized by those who claim to be conservative or traditional Catholics that Vatican II taught errors and false doctrines. However, many of those people hold that Vatican II’s false doctrines do not pose problems for the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI, etc.; for, according to them, the teaching of Vatican II was supposedly never made binding by the Vatican II “popes.” The following will address this issue and refute widespread misconceptions that exist on this matter. This however contains numerous very important new quotes and points, including with regard to John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II.
On Oct. 11, 1962, John XXIII gave the speech that opened the Second Vatican Council. The speech is a crucial component of how many so-called traditionalists who accept the Vatican II “popes” as true popes, but have problems with the post-Vatican II Church and the teaching of Vatican II, explain their position. This will closely examine John XXIII’s speech. False information about what John XXIII said has been disseminated for years in so-called traditionalist newspapers, publications, and magazines. As a result, countless souls have failed to see the true nature of the current crisis in the post-Vatican II period.
The question is: did John XXIII’s opening speech state that Vatican II would not be a doctrinal, dogmatic, magisterial or infallible council, but only a “pastoral” one? Does his speech allow the so-called traditionalists to reject Vatican II as erroneous or heretical, and yet accept the men who implemented and promulgated it (i.e., John XXIII, Paul VI, etc.) as true popes? Let’s examine the evidence. (Later on we will consider the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II.) Before we consider the speech, keep in mind that John XXIII was an antipope. Material proves that he was a manifest heretic and a Freemason. Since John XXIII was not a Catholic, he was ineligible to become pope. There is also evidence that he wasn’t even canonically elected in the 1958 conclave, but rather obtained the election by fraud after someone else had already been elected. That’s in addition to his ineligibility for the office. When one considers the evidence that the Vatican II sect lacks the characteristics of the Catholic Church and represents a revolution against authentic Catholicism – a fact which has only become more clear each day under Francis – it makes sense that the line of Vatican II antipopes began with a fraudulent election in 1958.
Since the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy were not true popes but antipopes, any attempts they made to bind Vatican II and other false teachings do not – let me repeat, do not – impact or invalidate Catholic teaching on papal infallibility or Christ’s promises to the Church; for their actions were those of invalid usurpers who never sat in the Chair of St. Peter. Their false reigns were the fulfillment of the prophesied end-times apostasy and deception. However, for those who do recognize John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. as true popes, as some false traditionalists still do, the facts we will now cover definitely impact their position. These facts show that their position on Vatican II is incompatible with Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.
JOHN XXIII’S OPENING SPEECH AT VATICAN II, OCT. 11, 1962
Let’s now consider some key sections of John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II, in Latin and English. The Latin text of the speech is available here, on the Vatican’s website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/speeches/1962/documents/hf_j-xxiii_spe_19621011_opening-council_lt.html. In consulting a key portion of the Latin text, and comparing it to a typical online English translation, it needs noticing that while the general point being made is going to prove from all English versions of the speech, the typical online translation was insufficiently faithful to the Latin original in important areas. Timothy Johnson (an expert in Latin and Ancient Greek) was asked to provide a more accurate translation of key portions of the speech and he did so. The following translation he provided is the most literal translation available of these sections. Let’s consider some of the crucial paragraphs and refute the false traditionalist myths about the speech.
Let’s begin in paragraph #2.
“2. Recentissimus humilisque eiusdem Principis Apostolorum Successor, qui vos alloquitur, amplissisimum hunc Coetum indicens, id sibi proposuit, ut iterum Magisterium Ecclesiasticum, numquam deficiens et ad finem usque temporum perseverans, affirmaretur; quod quidem Magisterium rationem habens errorum, necessitatum, rerum opportunarum nostrae aetatis, per hoc ipsum Concilium omnibus hominibus, quotquot in orbe terrarum sunt, extraordinario modo, in praesenti exhibetur.”
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE AN ACT OF THE UNFAILING MAGISTERIUM
John XXIII says:
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
John XXIII states that in convoking Vatican II, he proposed for himself that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, which is never failing, is affirmed. He thus identifies Vatican II as an act of the Magisterium. In fact, he identifies Vatican II as an act of the unfailing (and therefore infallible) Magisterium. So much for the myth that John XXIII stated that Vatican II would not be infallible. The truth is the opposite. He states that it will enact the unfailing Magisterium. The unfailing Magisterium is infallible because if it could teach error or be deceived, it would not be unfailing or indefectible. It’s interesting that the words John XXIII uses here are almost identical to the words Vatican I used to describe papal infallibility. To express the infallibility of popes when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter, Vatican I stated:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D.- “So, this charism of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this Chair…”
“Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis charisma Petro eiusque in hac cathedra successoribus divinitus collatum est…”
Vatican I describes the infallibility of the Chair of St. Peter as a gift or charism of truth and a never failing faith. The words it used for “never failing” are “nunquam deficientis.” That’s the very same statement that John XXIII makes to describe the alleged “magisterial” authority of Vatican II. John XXIII says “numquam deficiens.” The only difference between the two statements is that John XXIII’s deficiens is the present active participle of deficio in the nominative form, whereas Vatican I’s deficientis is the present active participle of the same verb in the genitive form. Deficientis agrees with fidei. (Also, numquam is an alternate spelling of nunquam.) So, Vatican I and John XXIII’s speech to open the Second Vatican Council use the same language. They both refer to the unfailing Magisterium of popes in the Chair of St. Peter. John XXIII says that Vatican II will exercise and represent that unfailing (and therefore infallible) Magisterium.
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MAGISTERIUM
John XXIII also says that the Magisterium, by means of this very Council or through this very Council (per hoc ipsum Concilium), is being presented to the world extraordinario modo (that is, in extraordinary form).
“2. Recentissimus humilisque eiusdem Principis Apostolorum Successor, qui vos alloquitur, amplissisimum hunc Coetum indicens, id sibi proposuit, ut iterum Magisterium Ecclesiasticum, numquam deficiens et ad finem usque temporum perseverans, affirmaretur; quod quidem Magisterium rationem habens errorum, necessitatum, rerum opportunarum nostrae aetatis, per hoc ipsum Concilium omnibus hominibus, quotquot in orbe terrarum sunt, extraordinario modo, in praesenti exhibetur.”
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
In this passage extraordinario modo is an ablative of manner. It describes the manner in which the Magisterium is being exhibited or presented to the whole world by means of this Council (Vatican II). Thus, according to John XXIII’s opening speech, Vatican II would be act of the infallible extraordinary Magisterium. As we can see, the facts about what John XXIII actually said in the speech are just the opposite of what false traditionalists have been telling people for years.
One should also keep in mind that while not everything a pope writes, approves or promulgates is magisterial, if something on faith or morals is indeed authoritatively taught by the Magisterium to the entire world, it is by that very fact infallible. The Magisterium cannot commit itself to that which is false (see the Appendix for numerous papal quotes on this matter).
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16-18), Dec. 31, 1929: “Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine… Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error.”
Pope Leo XIII also teaches:
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6), July 25, 1898: “…. a living, perpetual magisterium was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching… For Christ when He gave the keys to Peter, gave him at the same time the power to govern those who were charged with the ministry of the word: ‘Confirm thy Brethren’ (Luke xxii. 32). And since the faithful must learn from the ‘magisterium’ of the Church whatever pertains to the salvation of their souls, it follows that they must also learn from it the true meaning of Scripture.”
Since Vatican II purported to be magisterial – and, in fact, an act of the unfailing Magisterium – either it is infallible in all of its teaching on faith, morals and the understanding of Scripture, or the men who organized and confirmed it were not true popes but antipopes. The truth is clearly the latter.
Continuing with John XXIII’s opening speech, he speaks of Vatican II in the context of ecumenical councils. He then says: “Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church – that is, of its universal Synods – come constantly before Our eyes.” Since John XXIII identifies Vatican II as one of those universal Synods, he therefore once again identifies Vatican II as the testimony of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. The extraordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible.
“2. Hanc coniunctionem cum Christo eiusque Ecclesia Concilia Oecumenica, quotiescumque ea celebrari contingit, sollemni quodam modo praedicant et veritatis lucem quoquoversus emittunt, vitam singulorum hominum, domestici convictus, societatis in rectas semitas dirigunt, spirituales vires excitant atque stabiliunt, ad vera et sempiterna bona continenter animos erigunt. Testimonia extraordinarii huius Magisterii Ecclesiae, scilicet universalium Synodorum, ob oculos Nostros versantur, dum varias hominum aetates per haec viginti saecula christiani aevi intuemur. Quae documenta pluribus magnique ponderis voluminibus continentur ac veluti sacer thesaurus sunt aestimanda, qui in tabulariis Urbis Romae ac totius orbis terrarum celebratissimis bibliothecis est reconditus.”
“It is this union between Christ and His Church that Ecumenical Councils proclaim in a certain solemn manner every time they happen to be celebrated; and they radiate the light of truth in all directions; they direct the life of individual men, of home-life and society along straight paths; they awaken and fortify spiritual energies; and they continually raise minds to the true and eternal good. Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church – that is, of its universal Synods – come constantly before Our eyes as We scan the various ages of man over these twenty centuries of the Christian era. These documents are contained in several volumes of great weight, and they are to be esteemed as a kind of sacred thesaurus, which is stored away in the archives of the City of Rome and in the most renowned libraries of the entire world.”
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE A DOCTRINAL COUNCIL
In paragraph #5 of his opening speech, John XXIII discusses the principal or chief duty of the Council. Does he say that Vatican II will merely be a pastoral council that won’t deal with doctrine, as the false traditionalists have told so many? No, not at all.
“Praecipuum Concilii munus: doctrina tuenda ac promovenda
The Principal Duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine
- Quod Concilii Oecumenici maxime interest, hoc est, ut sacrum christianae doctrinae depositum efficaciore ratione custodiatur atque proponatur.
What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented.”
He says this: “The principal duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine.” According to John XXIII, the main purpose of the Council was to deal with doctrine. He then says: “What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented.” Are people beginning to see how false traditionalists have misled the world about this speech and what it contains? The Council will concern Catholic doctrine, according to John XXIII.
In #6, he says:
“6. Hisce positis, satis manifestae sunt, Venerabiles Fratres, partes quae, ad doctrinam quod attinet, Concilio Oecumenico sunt demandatae.”
“These things having been established, sufficiently has been manifested, Venerable Brothers, the role that has been entrusted to the Ecumenical Council in regard to what pertains to doctrine.”
“Scilicet Concilium Oecumenicum primum et vicesimum – quod efficaci magnique aestimando auxilio utitur eorum, qui scientia sacrarum disciplinarum, apostolatus exercendi resque recto ordine agendi excellunt – integram, non imminutam, non detortam tradere vult doctrinam catholicam, quae, licet inter difficultates et contentiones, veluti patrimonium commune hominum evasit. Hoc non omnibus quidem gratum est, tamen cunctis, qui bona voluntate sunt praediti, quasi paratus thesaurus uberrimus proponitur.”
“Namely, that the twenty-first Ecumenical Council – which utilizes the effective and highly-prized assistance of those who excel in their knowledge of the sacred disciplines, of the practice of the apostolate, and of the correct way of doing things – wishes to hand down Catholic doctrine (in an) integral, undiminished and undistorted (manner), (doctrine) which, although surrounded by difficulties and contentions, has effectively ended up as the common heritage of mankind.”
As we can see, Vatican II was intended to be a doctrinal council.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AND LIES REFUTED
The facts we’ve covered thus far are clear. However, let’s now address the part of the speech that false traditionalists frequently misuse and misquote. The truth is that almost none of them have any idea what the speech (or the following part of the speech) actually said. They simply circulate and repeat myths and legends on the matter. As we will see, the following section of John XXIII’s speech does not support their position but contradicts it. This section of the speech is also found in paragraph #6. It’s important to quote a number of sentences from this paragraph.
“6… Neque opus nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, atque adeo fusius repetantur ea, quae Patres ac theologi veteres et recentiores tradiderunt, et quae a vobis non ignorari sed in mentibus vestris inhaerere merito putamus.
Etenim ad huiusmodi tantum disputationes habendas non opus erat, ut Concilium Oecumenicum indiceretur. Verumtamen in praesenti oportet ut universa doctrina christiana, nulla parte inde detracta, hic temporibus nostris ab omnibus accipiatur novo studio, mentibus serenis atque pacatis, tradita accurata illa ratione verba concipiendi et in formam redigendi, quae ex actis Concilii Tridentini et Vaticani Primi praesertim elucet; oportet ut, quemadmodum cuncti sinceri rei christianae, catholicae, apostolicae fautores vehementer exoptant, eadem doctrina amplius et altius cognoscatur eaque plenius animi imbuantur atque formentur; oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis, cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra. Est enim aliud ipsum depositum Fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina nostra continentur, aliud modus, quo eaedem enuntiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia. Huic quippe modo plurimum tribuendum erit et patienter, si opus fuerit, in eo elaborandum; scilicet eae inducendae erunt rationes res exponendi, quae cum magisterio, cuius indoles praesertim pastoralis est, magis congruant.”
JOHN XXIII DECLARES THAT VATICAN II’S PRINCIPAL DUTY WILL BE TO DEAL WITH, TRACE OUT, EXPOUND, AND PRESENT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
John XXIII says:
“Nor does our work focus on the following as though it were a primary end: namely, that a discussion should take place about certain special articles of Church teaching or that there should be a more extensive review of those points which the Fathers and theologians, both ancient and more recent, have handed down (to us), and which, we rightly think, are not unknown to you but are firmly embedded in your minds. For there was no need that an Ecumenical Council be proclaimed for disputations solely of this kind. What is, however, needed at the present time is that Christian doctrine in its entirety, without any part removed therefrom, should here and now in our times be received by all men with new zeal, with serene and tranquil minds – (a doctrine) handed down by that precise manner of conceiving and drawing up words which especially shines forth from the Acts of the Council Trent and Vatican I. What is needed – as all sincere supporters of matters Christian, Catholic and apostolic eagerly crave – is that this same doctrine be more widely and deeply known and that minds be more fully imbued and formed by it. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expounded with that reasonableness which our times demand. For the Deposit of Faith itself or the truths contained by our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are enunciated (albeit with the same sense and the same meaning) is another. It is precisely to this latter manner that the majority (of our attention) will have to be given; and, if need arise, it will have to be patiently exerted therein. In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”
As a careful reading of this paragraph shows, John XXIII does not say that Vatican II would not be doctrinal or infallible. He actually says the opposite. He says that Vatican II – whose primary task is to deal with doctrine, as he already told us – will concern itself with the manner in which Church doctrine is expounded. The manner or way in which Church doctrine is expounded is inseparable from doctrine itself. (Vatican I declared that we must believe Church doctrine exactly as it has been declared or expounded by the Church.) The following line in the paragraph captures the essence of his point. “What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expounded with that reasonableness which our times demand.”
“PASTORAL” – VATICAN I CONNECTED PAPAL INFALLIBILITY WITH A POPE’S “SUPREME PASTORAL OFFICE”
According to John XXIII, Vatican II will expound and trace out Church doctrine, which the faithful must obey; but it will do so “with that reasonableness which our times demand.” In other words, it will present doctrine in a way that heretics such as Antipope John XXIII deemed more friendly, modern, and pastoral. Of course, that does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine. It means that it will deal with doctrine. Something can be both doctrinal and pastoral. The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, that which is doctrinal accompanies that which is pastoral. A pope’s pastoral office, for example, involves the power to teach faith and morals. Vatican I even stated that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility was made precisely to clarify that the Son of God connected an infallible teaching power on faith and morals “with the supreme pastoral office” (“cum summo pastorali officio” –Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 4, Denz. 1838).
Moreover, concerning the enunciation of the truths of the Deposit of Faith, John XXIII says: “It is precisely to this” that the majority of our attention will have to be given. Once again, the Council will deal with the enunciation of what it considers to be truths of faith.
In fact, in the one line of the speech that false traditionalists like to use, the point is confirmed. They rarely quote what John XXIII actually said, and it’s not a surprise why. They prefer, instead, to give their inaccurate summary of it. The line says: “In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”
John XXIII refers to methods of explaining things. What things? As he already told us, the things to be explained are matters of Church doctrine. He referred to them as matters of “Christian doctrine” to which “faithful obedience is owed.” In this line he also says that Vatican II will represent the Magisterium: “in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.” The Magisterium is infallible, as was already covered.
Therefore, this line by itself demonstrates that Vatican II will concern itself with explaining Church doctrine. It will be binding and magisterial – that is to say, infallible. When John XXIII says that Vatican II will use methods of explaining the doctrine (which people must obey) in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral, he means that Vatican II will employ methods of formulating Church doctrine that modernists such as John XXIII deemed more palatable to modern man. They will consequently be considered more friendly or “pastoral.” The reference to “pastoral” is thus to how the Church’s doctrine is being presented. It concerns doctrine and how it is expounded. It does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine or that it will not be magisterial or infallible.
The fact that Vatican II did deal extensively with matters of Church doctrine is obvious from the Council’s documents. They deal at length with matters of doctrine. Lumen Gentium is even called the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and Dei Verbum is called the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. The problem is that Vatican II contains numerous heresies and false doctrines. It was a wicked council. It teaches the following heresies: that Protestants and schismatics who reject Catholic teaching are in the Body of Christ; that Jews are not to be considered rejected by God, even though they reject Christ and His Church; that Islam and other non-Christian religions are to be esteemed; that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion; that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation; that non-Catholics are martyrs; that it’s good to participate in non-Catholic worship; that Muslims worship the one true God; that states lack the authority to prevent the public expression of false religions; and much more. Vatican II definitely dealt with doctrine, but it taught falsely on doctrine and the results were disastrous and demonic. That’s because it was a false, revolutionary, anti-Council run by heretics. It was convoked by an antipope and confirmed by an antipope. It initiated a theological revolution and a Counter Church.
Summarizing the facts as covered about John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II.
- John XXIII’s opening speech repeatedly states that Vatican II will be an act of the Magisterium.
- It states that Vatican II will be an act of the unfailing and therefore infallible Magisterium.
- It states that Vatican II will enact the Extraordinary Magisterium.
- It states that Vatican II’s principal duty will be to deal with doctrine.
- It states that Vatican II will expound and trace out, in a manner they consider reasonable or pastoral for our times, Church teaching to which faithful obedience is owed.
There’s simply no doubt that if John XXIII was a true pope (and he definitely wasn’t), Vatican II was intended to be an ecumenical council. It was intended to operate magisterially and infallibly, with binding doctrinal teaching on faith and morals, just as previous ecumenical councils did. Its authority and scope would be the same as a typical ecumenical council. It would simply deal with doctrine in a way the leaders of Vatican II deemed appealing to modern man.
ANTIPOPE PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II’S TASK OF DEALING WITH AND DEFINING DOCTRINE
By the way, during Vatican II, Antipope Paul VI, the man who confirmed Vatican II, wrote an encyclical called Ecclesiam Suam. It was addressed to the entire Church. In #30 of Ecclesiam Suam, Paul VI stated this:
Antipope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
From these facts can be seen just how wrong the false traditionalists are on this matter. They have deceived countless souls about John XXIII’s speech and the authority of Vatican II. It’s obvious why. Their false position on the authority that was intended for Vatican II is an integral component of their false position on the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. This is especially true of the Society of St. Pius X and its supporters, among whom myths about Vatican II run rampant. Their false position on Vatican II has been embraced by other groups as well. It’s held even by many who attend the New ‘Mass’ or an Indult ‘Mass’. It is promoted by some supporters of the Fraternity of St. Peter and like-minded groups. It is widely embraced and promoted because anyone who is even slightly conservative recognizes that Vatican II was a rotten tree that brought forth rotten fruit. Hence, the assertion that Vatican II was not binding is central to their explanation of how they can possibly reject Vatican II in whole or in part while adhering to the men who implemented and promulgated it.
It is hoped that people consider these facts and embrace the correct position: that all the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis) are not true popes but heretical, non-Catholic antipopes. That’s the true position. That’s the Catholic position. That’s the only theologically consistent position.
So far this message has dealt primarily with John XXIII’s opening speech and the false claims people make about it. Although his opening speech is perhaps the most common objection people raise on the issue of Vatican II’s alleged non-binding nature, there are other objections they advance on this matter. A careful examination of each one, however, only further proves their position to be false. In fact, to illustrate the point, let’s consider and refute another objection they advance.
THE THEOLOGICAL NOTE ATTACHED TO LUMEN GENTIUM FURTHER DISPROVES THEIR POSITION
Some false traditionalists cite the theological note, dated to 1964, which was attached to the document Lumen Gentium. This note, by the way, applied to the document Lumen Gentium, not to all Vatican II documents. A careful examination of the note only further refutes the false traditionalists’ claims. That’s because the note shows that the antipopes made Vatican II binding and an act of the Magisterium. If the theological note were applied generally to Vatican II, it would require people, for example, to accept Vatican II’s false teaching on religious liberty. Here’s what it says:
“Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present Council, this Sacred Synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith or morals which it openly declares as such. THE OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE SACRED SYNOD PUTS FORWARD AS THE TEACHING OF THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF CHRIST’S FAITHFUL MUST ACCEPT AND EMBRACE ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF THE SACRED SYNOD ITSELF, WHICH IS CLEAR EITHER FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OR FROM ITS MANNER OF SPEAKING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMS OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.”
According to the theological note, people must accept the teaching of Vatican II (which it calls the teaching of the supreme Magisterium) according to the mind of the Synod itself. That mind or intention, it says, is clear from the subject matter or the manner in which the Synod speaks on a topic. Well, everything in Vatican II was solemnly approved by Antipope Paul VI as binding as will be sees. Moreover, there are numerous places in Vatican II where the Synod (the Vatican II Robbers’ Synod) sets forth what it considers to be the teaching of the supreme Magisterium in language that is binding. For instance, in #9 of its heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican II states:
#9. “Quae de iure hominis ad libertatem religiosam declarat haec Vaticana Synodus, fundamentum habent in dignitate personae, cuius exigentiae rationi humanae plenius innotuerunt per saeculorum experientiam. Immo haec doctrina de libertate radices habet in divina Revelatione, quapropter eo magis a Christianis sancte servanda est.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.”
Remember, according to the theological note, one must accept Vatican II according to the mind of the Synod itself, which is clear from the subject matter or what it says. Here Vatican II declares that its (false) teaching on religious liberty is rooted in divine Revelation and is on that account to be preserved sacredly by Christians. In the Latin servanda est (meaning “is to be preserved”) is a gerundive agreeing with doctrina. The Council is thus directly stating that its doctrine (doctrina) concerning religious liberty (which it says comes from divine Revelation) “is to be preserved” (servanda est) sacredly by Christians. That means that each and every person who accepts Paul VI must accept Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty as sacred and rooted in divine Revelation; for that is the mind of this Synod, which is clear from what it said. And there’s more:
#12 “Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet…”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
Those who accept Antipope Paul VI as a pope are bound to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) following the way of Christ and the Apostles; and 3) in accord with the revelation of God; for that is the mind of the Synod, which is clear from what it says. Again, as can be seen, bringing up the theological note does not help the false traditionalists. It only further destroys their position by proving they are bound to the false teachings of Vatican II. Other examples could be given.
REFUTING THE OBJECTION FROM PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH
In fact, let’s examine another popular objection false traditionalists raise on this issue. They like to quote a speech that Paul VI gave during the last general meeting of Vatican II, on Dec. 7, 1965. They think the speech proves that Vatican II did not make any extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, and therefore that Vatican II’s false teaching on various topics could not have been promulgated in what would be an infallible or binding way. But they are quite wrong, for several reasons. The facts in the following will thoroughly refute their claims on this matter.
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force…”
First, as already seen, John XXIII convoked Vatican II to be an ecumenical council. He stated that Vatican II would be an act of the unfailing Magisterium and would present the Magisterium “in extraordinary form”. And that is exactly how Paul VI confirmed Vatican II in the official acts of the Council, as will be seen.
Second, even if one supposed, for the sake of argument, that Paul VI’s remarks on that particular day (which weren’t even an act of the Council) proved that Vatican II did not attempt any extraordinary dogmatic definitions, that would not prove that Vatican II was not promulgated with what would be the infallible authority of the Magisterium if Paul VI had been the pope. The reason is that, in addition to the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible, as Vatican I declared. Vatican II identified its own teaching as that of the supreme Magisterium, as already explained. Vatican II was also undoubtedly universal, as it purported to be an ecumenical council and it applied to the entire Church. Whether the Magisterium teaches in an extraordinary fashion or in its ordinary and universal Magisterium or in what is simply identified as the authoritative teaching of “the Magisterium” to the entire world, it is infallible. As already demonstrated from the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri and Pope Leo XIII in Caritatis Studium, the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Magisterium to the entire world on faith or morals cannot be false, regardless of whether that teaching is called the extraordinary Magisterium, the supreme Magisterium, the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the unfailing Magisterium or simply “the Magisterium.” Indeed, in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus #17, Pope Leo XIII refers to the infallible Magisterium of the Church as “the proper Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#17), Nov. 18, 1893: “To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible, is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and equal difficulty – the maintenance in the strongest possible way of its full authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living and proper magisterium of the Church. The Church, ‘by reason of her wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own divine mission.’ But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors.”
Vatican II without any doubt purported to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Magisterium to the entire world on matters of faith and morals. Since its teaching was false and heretical, the men who implemented and promulgated it could not have been true popes. In fact, in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum, there’s a very interesting point in this regard. Pope Leo XIII describes the infallible Magisterium of the Church as the “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium.” He also says:
THE DEATH-BLOW: VATICAN II, WHILE PURPORTING TO BE MAGISTERIAL, FORMALLY “DECLARED” THAT ITS FALSE TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS CONTAINED IN “DIVINE REVELATION” – THE VERY ACT WHICH LEO XIII TEACHES WOULD NECESSARILY BE INFALLIBLE AND PROTECTED
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles He confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Leo XIII teaches that as often as it is declared that something is contained in divine revelation, it is infallible and must be accepted. Notice the amazing specificity with which Pope Leo XIII’s description of an infallible teaching of the Magisterium matches the language used in Vatican II’s heretical declaration on religious liberty. As quoted earlier, #9 of the heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty states:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”
In #12 of that document, Vatican II also declared that its doctrine on religious liberty is faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles, and is in accord with the revelation of God.
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
Vatican II thus attempts to do exactly what Pope Leo XIII says the Magisterium does when it teaches infallibly.
COMPARISON
| Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.” | Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…” |
To state that a teaching declared in this way by a true pope and the Magisterium could be false is to state that God is the author of error. THAT is heresy. Therefore, it’s simply a fact that according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, all who hold that Paul VI was the pope CANNOT consistently hold that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was false. When they assert that it was false and obstinately maintain that Paul VI was the pope, they assert that God is the author of error. However, know that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (and other matters) was indeed false. That proves that Paul VI was not the pope. Vatican II “declares” that its doctrine on religious liberty is rooted “in divine Revelation” and for that reason “is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.” Leo XIII taught that “as often” as the Magisterium declares that something is contained in divine revelation, it is infallible and must be believed by everyone as true!
PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH IS NOT AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL
The third and perhaps most important point to make in regard to Paul VI’s Dec. 7, 1965, speech is that it’s not even one of the official acts of Vatican II. It thus holds no weight in a theological analysis of the authority that Vatican II intended to exercise in its official Acts. Vatican II promulgated Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees. That was confirmed in Paul VI’s Apostolic Brief In Spiritu Sancto, which officially closed the Council on Dec. 8, 1965. The Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees of Vatican II (i.e., the 16 documents of the Council) determine the authority that Vatican II intended to enact; and, as we will see, the language contained in those official Acts of the Council – all of which Paul VI made his own by solemn approval and promulgation – without any question would have fulfilled the requirements for infallible teaching to the entire Church if Paul VI had been the pope. Those Acts were approved as solemnly and authoritatively as popes approved infallible decrees at true ecumenical councils, as we will see. It is simply impossible for a true pope to have promulgated Vatican II’s false teaching on faith and morals to the entire Church with the solemn and binding language that Paul VI did.
PAUL VI’S SPEECH, BESIDES NOT BEING AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL, DOES NOT SAY THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT INFALLIBLE OR BINDING, BUT ACTUALLY INDICATES THE OPPOSITE
Furthermore, in the aforementioned speech on Dec. 7, 1965 (which wasn’t even an act of the Council), Paul VI does not even say that Vatican II was not infallible or binding. In that speech, however, he does say that Vatican II contained “authoritative teaching,” condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine.
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: Vatican II “has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity…”
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth…”
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity.”
He also quotes John XXIII’s opening speech, which declared that Vatican II dealt with doctrine. But the speech holds no weight anyway. The actual Acts of Vatican II are what must be considered.
WHY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA ACTED INFALLIBLY– COMPARED WITH VATICAN II
It must also be understood that when an ecumenical council meets, it already bears a solemn and universal character by virtue of the nature of the gathering. The only thing an ecumenical council lacks for its official teaching on faith or morals to be infallible and binding on the universal Church is the official confirmation of the teaching on faith or morals by the pope. That’s why, for example, the short statement of faith at the Council of Nicea in 325 is considered dogmatic and infallible, even though Pope St. Sylvester (the pope who reigned at the time) is not known to have issued any papal bull confirming it. Pope St. Sylvester did not attend the Council of Nicea, and there’s no known decree from Sylvester confirming the Council of Nicea in extraordinary language or even in his own words. Pope St. Sylvester did confirm the Council of Nicea’s statement of faith, but he only did so via his legates: the Roman priests, Vito and Vincent. The basic and simple confirmation Pope St. Sylvester gave to the Council of Nicea via his representatives was all that was necessary for the Ecumenical Council’s statement of faith to be considered authoritative, binding, and infallible for the universal Church. That’s because the setting in which it was given (an ecumenical council) already bore a universal character by virtue of the nature of the assembly. It simply awaited the papal confirmation of its acts on faith.
PAPAL PRIMACY AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
By the way, it’s also interesting to note the following about papal primacy at the Council of Nicea. The proceedings of the Council of Nicea were led by a Western cleric named Hosius of Cordova. Many believe Hosius served in that capacity on behalf of the pope. Gelasius of Cyzicus, who was a 5th century historian and priest in the Eastern part of the Church, spoke of “Hosius holding the place of Sylvester, the Bishop of great Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent.” As the presiding officer at Nicea, the signature of Hosius is the first to appear on the list of those who signed the Council of Nicea. Hosius’ signature is immediately followed by the signatures of the pope’s representatives, the Roman priests, Vito and Vincent. The names of Vito and Vincent thus appear before all the patriarchs and bishops at Nicea, just below the name of Hosius, the Council’s presiding officer. The fact that the signatures of the pope’s representatives, the Roman priests, appear before the signatures of the various patriarchs and bishops is a striking example of how the primacy and authority of the bishop of Rome (the pope) was recognized at the Council of Nicea and in the ancient Christian Church.
Pope St. Sylvester’s simple confirmation of Nicea via his legates demonstrates that when you have an ecumenical council officially teaching on faith or morals to the entire Church, that teaching is binding and infallible if confirmed by a pope – period. That’s because the gathering at an ecumenical council already bears an official and universal character. It simply awaits papal confirmation. When one considers the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II and its teaching on faith and morals, it’s not only clear that Paul VI officially and authoritatively confirmed the teaching of Vatican II, but he confirmed it with solemn language. Indeed, the language he used to confirm and promulgate the Acts of Vatican II is on a par with the language of the most celebrated ecumenical and dogmatic councils in Church history. It is thus theologically absurd for people to maintain that Paul VI was the pope, as Sylvester was, but that the acts of this alleged ecumenical council (Vatican II) dealing with faith and morals were not infallible, binding and authoritative.
ANTIPOPE PAUL VI’S CONFIRMATION OF EACH DOCUMENT OF THE COUNCIL ENDS ANY DEBATE
Perhaps the single most important fact to consider on this issue is the manner in which Antipope Paul VI confirmed Vatican II. Each document of Vatican II begins this way:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”
This language is typical of dogmatic decrees at ecumenical councils. It corresponds to how Pope Eugene IV began the 11th session of the dogmatic Council of Florence. He stated: “Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.” It corresponds to how Pope Leo X began the 8th session of the dogmatic 5th Lateran Council, and how Pope Pius IX began the 3rd session of the dogmatic First Vatican Council.
Each document of Vatican II ends this way:
“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 BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Antipope Paul VI invokes his so-called “apostolic authority” to authoritatively approve, decree, and establish everything set forth in each document of Vatican II. If he had been the pope, this would definitely qualify as solemn dogmatic language. In fact, the language Antipope Paul VI uses here exceeds, in terms of its solemnity, the approval that early popes gave to the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and others. If false traditionalists deny that this is infallible language, they must deny that the early councils were infallible.
Moreover, in regard to the aforementioned theological note, Paul VI’s declaration at the beginning and end of every Vatican II document definitely indicates, by “its manner of speaking,” “in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation” (that is, paralleling past dogmatic decrees), that he is enacting the supreme Magisterium of the Church (if he had been the pope).
PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II AS A SOLEMN DECLARATION
In fact, it’s interesting to note that Paul VI referred to Vatican II’s blasphemous teaching that Muslims, together with Catholics, worship the one true God as a solemn declaration.
Antipope Paul VI, Address, Dec. 2, 1977: “… the Moslems profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.”
Antipope Paul VI also solemnly closed Vatican II on Dec. 8, 1965, by again declaring, with his so-called “apostolic authority”, that everything established in the Council “is to be religiously observed by all the faithful.”
Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical 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. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical 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, 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, 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. 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.”
When Vatican II was officially closed on Dec. 8, 1965, its “authority” was finalized at that point. Therefore, if Paul VI was the pope (and he definitely wasn’t), then the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965 as a consequence of his solemn approval of each document of Vatican II. Whether or not they want to admit it, those who obstinately accept the Vatican II antipopes hold that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965. They hold that the papal magisterium can authoritatively commit itself to false teachings, and declare that those false teachings are “rooted in divine revelation”. THAT IS OUTRIGHT HERESY. They are contradicting Catholic teaching on papal infallibility and indefectibility.
Furthermore, since the teaching of the Magisterium is “irreformable” according to Vatican I, statements made about Vatican II’s authority after the Council was promulgated, approved, and closed by Paul VI on Dec. 8, 1965 would not determine its authority. Strictly speaking, such statements aren’t even relevant to Vatican II’s authority in comparison to the facts covered here. However, when what the antipopes and leaders of the Counter Church stated after Vatican II is considered, it only further confirms that Vatican II is definitely considered binding and magisterial by the Vatican II Counter Church. Some false traditionalists, for example, will cite a Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience of Paul VI. This speech was given after the Council. It is therefore comparatively insignificant to many facts covered here. However, a careful consideration of the speech completely refutes their view; for in the General Audience Paul VI states that the teaching of Vatican II “has to be accepted” and constitutes the teaching of “the supreme Ordinary Magisterium”. The supreme Ordinary Magisterium is binding and infallible.
PAUL VI DENOUNCES LEFEBVRE AND LEFEBVRISTS FOR SAYING THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT BINDING
There are many other quotations one could bring forward to prove that Vatican II is considered binding and magisterial by the Vatican II Church. For example, in a May 24, 1976 Address, Antipope Paul VI denounced the idea, adopted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his supporters, that the Second Vatican Council was not binding. He even said that the consequence of such an attitude or position is that people place themselves outside his “Church”.
Antipope Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
“It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…
“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…
“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)
That’s also why, in the recent negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) during the reign of Antipope Benedict XVI, it was made clear that the SSPX will not be fully accepted by the Counter Church without a recognition of Vatican II and its teaching. The Note from the Secretary of State of the Vatican, dated February 4, 2009, and published in the Vatican’s newspaper, is an example of that point. It stated:
“A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X…”
In his comments on Jan. 28, 2009, following his General Audience, Benedict XVI also spoke of the SSPX and the necessity for them to accept Vatican II. He said he hopes that the SSPX will “complete the necessary steps to achieve full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity to, and true recognition of, the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.” (L’ Osservatore Romano, February 4, 2009, p. 9.)
BENEDICT XVI REFERS TO THE BINDING NATURE OF VATICAN II
In his book, The Ratzinger Report, he also stated:
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (he himself a heretic) (now Benedict XVI), The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”
In his 2010 book, Light of the World, Benedict XVI promoted the completely heretical teaching of Vatican II that schismatic “Orthodox” sects, which reject the Papacy, are in the Church of Christ. Contrary to dozens of magisterial pronouncements, including dogmatic statements made by the First Vatican Council, Vatican II teaches that schismatic communities that reject the Papacy and papal infallibility are “true particular churches” (that is, individual churches within the Church of Christ). In his book Light of the World, Benedict XVI not only agreed with and endorsed that heretical teaching (p. 89), but he also explicitly stated that it’s binding (p. 96). He even indicated that it’s irreformable with his statement that he would have no authority to alter it.
Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”
Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, pp. 94-96: “Q. Is it really true that the Pope does not regard Protestants as a Church, but, unlike the Eastern Church, only as an ecclesial community? This distinction strikes many as demeaning. A. The word ‘ecclesial community’ is a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. The Council applied a very simple rule in these matters. A Church in the proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of apostolic succession, is present –which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the bishop and the priest. If this is not the case, then we are dealing with the emergence of another model, a new way of understanding what a church is, which at Vatican II we designated by the term ‘ecclesiastical community.’ The word was intended to indicate that such communities embody a different mode of being a church. As they themselves insist, it is precisely not the same mode in which the Churches of the great tradition of antiquity are Churches, but is based on a new understanding, according to which a church consists, not in the institution, but in the dynamism of the Word that gathers people into a congregation… Q. And not even a Pope can offer an alternative definition of a Church? A. No. He has no authority over that. The Second Vatican Council is binding on him.”
With that statement, he was referring to the teaching of Vatican II: that schismatic sects which reject the Papacy are true particular churches (that is, individual churches within the Church of Christ).
Many other statements from Antipopes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI prove that they consider Vatican II to be binding and magisterial.
Those who ignore or deny the force of these facts – and instead convince themselves that the Vatican II “popes” did not attempt to use the authority of the Catholic Magisterium to promulgate the teachings of Vatican II – are simply living in a fantasy world and thety themselves becoming heretics.
There’s no way around it: the Vatican II antipopes attempted to use the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium (which is infallible) to promulgate the false teachings of Vatican II. That proves without any doubt that they did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium because they were antipopes.
Those who obstinately accept the Vatican II “popes” in the face of the facts contradict Catholic teaching. They deny papal infallibility and acknowledge heretics as Catholics. People need to embrace the true position, which includes rejecting Vatican II as a false council and rejecting all the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy as antipopes.
Therefore, it can be stated that there are currently no valid clergy or churches at this time and the only possible infallible and true clergy are either in nursing homes or buried. Period.
APPENDIX – PAPAL TEACHING ON HOW THE MAGISTERIUM AND THE CHURCH ARE FREE FROM ERROR
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error…”
LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “… only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church… from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine…”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “… the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
LATIN: “Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt,quicumque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
fox files 
Leave a comment