Above I created a “dirty dozen” list of novelties and errors of Vatican Council II. Needless to say, the list could have been a whole lot longer.
As I’ve stated many times, one of the greatest assets that this blog has is its well-informed and well-formed commenters.
With this in mind, I invite you to offer your own entries below using the same format – a novelty/error followed by a citation referencing the offending conciliar text, along with any other relevant comments you may wish to make elaborating on them.
Please stay on topic!
I’m certain that many of our readers, who are in the process of having their eyes opened to tradition, will profit greatly from your insights. I’d also like to encourage anyone who finds themselves in this position to ask questions and to offer their own comments.
If you’re able to help us keep this effort going, we very much need it!
Dei Verbum – Chapter III
Uses ambiguous flowery language that seems to cater to those who wish to read Copernicism and Darwinism and all matter of critical opinions about the past depicted in the Bible, miraculous accounts etc.
Satan’s “Did God Really Say…” is again repeated here as a virtue in a manner that only instils doubt in Scripture rather than something reliable, but then puts the onus on the reader for being at fault if some plain reading doesn’t make sense to his modern sensibilities and what he has been indoctrinated to believe in. Certainly there are complex things to understand about the Bible and its time periods, but for a document intended to be delivered to a world that had only grown more sceptical of Scripture, Die Verbum is more of an appeasement rather than a defence.
it has also allowed some to interpret that Scripture is only inerrant when it concerns matters of ‘Salvation’ and not matters of scientific or historic reality. Rather, one can infer from this that everything that is at odds with modern thought can handily be recategorized as ‘poetry’ or things that were made up mechanisms to suit a particular period or culture according to the wisdom of the people and therefore are only allegorical.
That’s how we go from denying Geocentrism, denying 6-Day Ex-nihilo Creation, denying the Flood of Noah, to denying the Exodus, denying the Davidic Kingdom, denying the Multiplication of loaves and fish, denying whether Christ existed, and naturally whether that wafer and alcohol up there is really God at all.
“12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)”
Who can forget this whopper from GS24:
“This is why the first and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor.”
And…..not ambiguous at all. Clear cut heresy.
This blog is a cry room for sedevacantists.
The schizophrenic paragraphs 22 & 23 of Lumen Gentium on collegiality.
Speaking of Protestants religions;
” Although we believe them to be victims of deficiencies, they are not in any way devoid of meaning and of value in the mystery of salvation” (U r n.3 )
Gaudium et Spes n. 12:
“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related TO MAN as their center and crown”
Gaudium et Spes n. 24:
“This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth WHICH GOD WILLED FOR ITSELF …” (can God will a creature for itself? really?)
I don’t understand the childish and sarcastic animosity to those who hold the sedevacantist position. Can’t we all agree that Bergoglio is, without doubt, an enemy of Christ and, therefore, has forfeited his authority as Vicar of Christ? Wouldn’t it be more effective if we stood together rather than throw stones at one another? Satan loves division and confusion.
Regarding #4 on the list, Vatican II did not teach that the Church of Jesus Christ is somehow bigger than the Catholic Church. That is a myth. If you read Lumen Gentium #8 in light of Orientalium Ecclesiarum #2, another document which was promulgated on the very same day as LG, you will see that LG #8 is teaching that the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same entity.
What makes many adherents of the new sedevacantist religion especially repulsive is their combination of insufferable arrogance and monomaniacal evangelism of their new religion. Additionally, these new religionists are suspiciously akin to various liberal scumbags who’ve incessantly virtue-signaled to the world concerning, for example, sexual ethics while simultaneously behaving like swine in private. Turns out they were projecting; they were practicing every variety of sexual swinery while yet posturing as paragons of righteousness. Similarly, in contradiction to their incessant pious posturing here and in other fora, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that these sedevacantists practice every form of vice and are indeed so devoid of love and full of carnality that they can’t even manage to pull off a three-day water-only fast.
Hi AlphonsusJr-
I cannot say I know any self-proclaimed sedevacantists who projects and postures as you say. Mind you, I’m certainly no sedevacantist myself.
However, a certain Fr. Chad Ripperger points out that indeed, such is a problem among Tradition-minded Catholics in general (among other problems; the first and foremost being, as usual, pride.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12dfS75x_UY
Louie, the VatII documents are not something I have read extensively as you have, but I have read enough to know that the language since its promulgation and probably in some of the documents themselves pertaining to marriage no longer ANYWHERE speak of marriage in regards to, let alone ever once, mentioning the teaching of its primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. They have cleverly tried to avoid bringing up this inconvenient truth by the new novelty of talking about the GOODS of marriage instead of the primary purpose. This of course freed them up to inverse the order of the hierarchy of purposes through listing the goods, not purposes, as unity ( of course they made sure this was listed always first and procreation as second) and get away with it. After all they are not lying. These are “goods” of marriage but it is their snaky way of lulling the unsuspecting reader to sleep to get them to now see and accept unity as the primary purpose and children as secondary even though they know full well that they are purposefully not talking about the hierarchy of purposes of marriage but only about the goods which they consistently place unity first and procreation second and can get away with it without appearing to be lying.
This of course is the blatant scam and diabolical ‘in your face’ trickery and dishonesty that strikes me the most.
Sounds like Al Jr is “projecting.”
Very often, folks are guilty of what they accuse others of Al. PS- I think you need a wider brush to paint folks with.
Gaudium et Spes 87:
“For, according to the inalienable human right to marriage and parenthood, the decision about the number of children to have lies with the right judgment of the parents, and cannot in any way be entrusted to the judgment of public authority… In exploring methods to help couples regulate the number of their children, appropriate information should be given on scientific advances that are well proven and are found to be in accordance with the moral order.”
Gaudium et spes # 51:
“The council is aware that in living their married life harmoniously, couples can often be restricted by modern living conditions and find themselves in circumstances in which the number of children cannot be increased, at least for a time, and the constant expression of love and the full sharing of life are maintained only with difficulty.”
Gaudium et Spes # 52:
“Those who are learned in the sciences, especially in the biological, medical, social and psychological fields, can be of considerable service to the good of marriage and the family, and to the peace of conscience, if they collaborate in trying to throw more light on the various conditions which favor the virtuous control of procreation.”
Dear AlphonsusJr. Your tirade is frightening. Have you considered therapy?
One of my favorites that no one wants to talk about:
.
Gaudium et Spes Ch 81
…”It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights. But before this hoped for authority can be set up, the highest existing international centers must devote themselves vigorously to the pursuit of better means for obtaining common security. “…
.
Or in other words, a one world government:….”universal public authority..endowed with the power…” sounds like a recipe for UN elitist tyranny to me..but I’m just a conspiracy theorist so that can’t be it – can it?
Mike Poulin
In light of #5 it absolutely means that the Church is bigger than the Catholic Church.
Yes, the Judas Council revolutionaries were total globalist scum.
Wow Tom thanks for the backup! Vat II endorses contraception. Is it any wonder that the great majority of Catholics contracept? After all if unity and the sanctification of the couple is the primary purpose of the conjugal act than it only follows that procreation can certainly take a back seat.
Viva Christo Rey!
Phonsie may be beyond therapy…his untenable position collapses around him and so he howls at the moon. If his post is exhibiting charity in his view, I’d hate to see what he deems faith and hope to be.
And like the pharisee and the publican he preens before God……”Thank you Lord that you did not create me like one of these wretched sedevacantists! I give you three day water only fasts!”
Read it in light of Unitatis Redintegratio.
Bergolio must have that quote written on the ceiling above his bed so it can be the first and last thing he meditates on each day.
Bergoglio graduated from the Jiminy Cricket School of Theology=–“Let your conscience be your guide.”
One day, a pope or ecumenical council will pronounce definitive judgement on the Second Vatican Council. We pray for that day, and that the Holy Spirit will inspire the institutional element of the Church to raise up a true shepherd to lead his flock.
For what it is worth, I’ve come to the conclusion that it was an invalid council. But that’s one little layman’s opinion, and one little layman’s opinion does not a definitive judgement of the Church make. Nor does yours.
Until then, we hold fast, keep the faith, fight the good fight and resist the wolves in the fold.
The Church is Christ (cf. Acts 9:4). The original intent of the authors of LG #8 was to teach that the GRACE of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that it goes OUT from the Church to bring outsiders IN. So why did they word #8 the way they did? They reasoned that where the grace of Christ is, there also Christ is, and where Christ is, there is the Church. Only God truly knows the dimensions of the Church. To read an in depth analysis of this issue see the article by theologian James T. O’Connor, “The Church of Christ and the Catholic Church” at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3420.
Your Golden Calf, your idol, is the Empty Chair. Take that crucifix off your wall and replace it with the idol of the Empty Chair. The contradiction, the scandal, the extreme mystery of the cross–the Son of God would allow himself to be crucified?!?!–is too much for you. Yours is the New Religion of the Empty Chair. Go worship at the Altar of the Empty Chair, for the Empty Chair occupies the central place in the new religion of sedevacantism. Stop kidding yourselves.
Well Our Blessed Lord did say “Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered”. Do you not believe? Youve got an empty chair regardless.
“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” John 17:12.
Who is the Son of Perdition?
Only one man ever mentioned in the Bible: Judas. Who was Judas? A man called to be a priest and an Apostle no less, yet a traitor.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”.
Who is the Son of Perdition to come?
A false Apostle, a new Judas…..a man of sin. A false Pope.
The Man of Sin 2 Thess.
1And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: 2That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.
What is the Temple of God?
The Catholic Church.
Where specifically is its most specific symbol in all the world?
Rome. St. Peter’s.
What precedes the New Judas, the son of perdition, sitting in the Temple of God and acting like God by changing the moral law?
The great apostasy.
What is the Great Apostasy? The almost total defection of Catholics from the Catholic Faith. The New Apostate Apostle Judas CANNOT sit in the Temple of God, in St Peter’s Chair UNLESS this takes place. Does Our Lord have to spell it out for you??
If a layman’s opion does not count, then the sensus fidelium is a lie and your Sacrament of Confirmation was worthless and in vain. The opinion of a mere laymen, Saint Thomas More, was of infinitely more value in the eyes of God than either that of the annointed King of England and the consecrated Primate of England,
GS 7 “Finally, these new conditions have their impact on religion. On the one hand a more critical ability to distinguish religion from a magical view of the world and from the superstitions which still circulate …”. Modernism established as official religion.
54. “The circumstances of the life of modern man have been so profoundly changed in their social and cultural aspects, that we can speak of a new age of human history.(1) New ways are open, therefore, for the perfection and the further extension of culture.“. Progressive utopianism. The New Man. Keep in mind this is is written less than 20 years after Europe blew itself up and took 40 million lives with it.
62. “Although the Church has contributed much to the development of culture, experience shows that, for circumstantial reasons, it is sometimes difficult to harmonize culture with Christian teaching. These difficulties do not necessarily harm the life of faith, rather they can stimulate the mind to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the faith. The recent studies and findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which effect life and which demand new theological investigations. Furthermore, theologians, within the requirements and methods proper to theology, are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their times; for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another.(12) In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith.”
FAITH MUST CONFORM to 1960’s Sociology (which is not even a science) and psychology. People cannot have “adequate faith” without these. The Zeitgeist not the Holy Ghost in the interpreter of faith in this new religion. Modern man is the measure of all.
62 “May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union with the other men of their time and may they strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and judging, as expressed in their culture. Let them blend new sciences and theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and the teaching of Christian doctrine, so that their religious culture and morality may keep pace with scientific knowledge and with the constantly progressing technology. Thus they will be able to interpret and evaluate all things in a truly Christian spirit.”
Tell us O World, what do we believe as Christians? Bergolio is merely blending new theories and “recent discoveries” with Christian morality so he is the True Pope of the New Man Made Religion.
“Let those who teach theology in seminaries and universities strive to collaborate with men versed in the other sciences through a sharing of their resources and points of view. Theological inquiry should pursue a profound understanding of revealed truth; at the same time it should not neglect close contact with its own time that it may be able to help these men skilled in various disciplines to attain to a better understanding of the faith. “.
The destruction of Catholic higher education and seminary life.
You’re on board with the Judas Council?
Show me where the Catholic Church ever taught that “the grace of Christ” is found in other denominations prior to Vatican II.
Show me where the Catholic Church taught that “the grace of Christ” is found in other denominations prior to Vatican II.
And you’re always keen to rush into it.
The Church has always taught that Actual Grace is given to all men. However, this kind of Grace does not sanctify; it is the means by which, if they are of good will, become drawn to the Church to receive Sanctifying Grace through the Faith, the Sacraments, and the communion with the Mystical Body of Christ.
Modernists, of course, don’t really believe in Sanctifying Grace, but they’ll throw out a bone mentioning sanctification in heretical sects to draw the Catholic faithful out of the Church.
Agreed. Except that’s not Ignoramus Humungus (and “theologian” James O’Connor) is saying above.
I have learned to not read “theologians” from after Vatican II, unless it’s with a critical and suspicious eye. Never with a goal to learn anything. There have been too many souls lost through these people.
By the way, I agree with your comments about Tom A. I have seen him around the traps for a long while, and he’s gone from strength to strength. He is one of my favourite commenters, and he seems to frequent the same blogs I do, and the conclusions he draws line up pretty much exactly with my own.
I’m not on board w/ the Judas Council, and I admire and respect Archbishop Lefebvre for what he said about the Council. I’m just saying that if you hold the position that LG #8 teaches that the Church of Jesus Christ is not in fact the Catholic Church, you won’t be able to prove your point.
@ 2Vermont: The Catholic Church is not a “denomination” that coexists w/ other “denominations”; Protestant sects are not “churches” but are communities or groups; there is only one Church–the Catholic Church; Cardinal Ratzinger taught this at Regensberg.