The Principal Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II (Part 3)

vatican-ii-opening-session.jpg

e) The procreation and education of children is not the primary end of marriage.

“Marriage and married love are by nature ordered to the procreation and education of children. Indeed children are the supreme gift of marriage and greatly contribute to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “it is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18), and “from the beginning (he) made them male and female” (Mt. 19:4): wishing to associate them in a special way with his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Without intending to underestimate the other ends of marriage, it must be said that true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it is directed to disposing the spouses to co-operate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Saviour who, through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

“Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realise that they are thereby co-operating with the love of God the creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. This involves the fulfilment of their role with a sense of human and Christian responsibility and the formation of correct judgments through docile respect for God and common reflection and effort; it also involves a consideration of their own good and the good of their children already born or yet to come, an ability to read the signs of the times and of their own situation on the material and spiritual level, and, finally, an estimation of the good of the family, of society, and of the Church. It is the married couple themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God. Married people should realise that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience — and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law. For the divine law throws light on the meaning of married love, protects it and leads it to truly human fulfilment. Whenever Christian spouses in a spirit of sacrifice and trust in divine providence carry out their duties of procreation with generous human and Christian responsibility, they glorify the Creator and perfect themselves in Christ.

“Among the married couples who thus fulfil their God-given mission, special mention should be made of those who after prudent reflection and common decision courageously undertake the proper upbringing of a large number of children.

“But marriage is not merely for the procreation of children: its nature as an indissoluble compact between two people and the good of the children demand that the mutual love of the partners be properly shown, that it should grow and mature. Even in cases where despite the intense desire of the spouses there are no children, marriage still retains its character of being a whole manner and communion of life and preserves its value and indissolubility. (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 50)

Not only is it nowhere stated or implied in this passage that the procreation of children is the primary purpose of marriage, transcending all other purposes, but it is implied that this primary purpose is equalled in importance by what are in fact the secondary purposes. The correct doctrine is succinctly set out in Canon 1013 of the 1917 Code: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and upbringing of children.”

The erroneous nature of this doctrine is highlighted by the astonishing suggestion that only those who have “prudently reflected” and made a subsequent “decision” should raise “large” families. The truth is that Catholic parents should leave the size of their families entirely to divine providence, unless there are proportionately grave reasons for limiting them by partial or total abstinence.

The perversion of this doctrine by Vatican II is worthy of note not only as a departure from Catholic doctrine, but also as an incitement to vice and depravity. It is precisely because God instituted marriage and the reproductive act proper to marriage primarily as a means to the procreation of new life, and only secondarily for other lawful ends such as the fostering of mutual love between husband and wife and the allayance of concupiscence, that it is unlawful to seek the pleasures proper to matrimony while deliberately frustrating their natural fecundity. In other words, the false doctrine spread in this passage paves the way to the justification of marital onanism and every other sort of unnatural perversion.

It is perhaps not surprising that this passage drew very severe criticism from the two weightiest theologians present at the Council, Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Browne,6 superior-general of the Dominicans. The former, speaking as the eleventh of twelve children of a labouring man, recalled the Scriptural doctrine and Catholic tradition of trusting to Providence rather than thinking it necessary to limit the size of families, and ironically pointed out that, if the text of this decree was to be considered correct and Catholic, this fitted in well with another notion heard for the first time at Vatican II – namely the notion that the Church had previously been in error (see item (q) below). The latter, in two interventions, showed how the desire to teach a fashionable doctrine (according some special rôle to romantic love among the ends of matrimony) was threatening to undermine the Church’s traditional doctrine. And although some changes in the text of the decree were made in the light of these interventions, nothing is plainer than that the adjustments were cosmetic and that the underlying errors remain in the text.

Theological censure: ERRONEOUS

(f) The Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or accursed.

“It is true that the Church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this is followed from Holy Scripture.” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religious Nostra Aetate, paragraph 4).

For evidence of the true doctrine in relation to this remarkable assertion, we may start with Our Lord’s parable recorded in Matthew 21:33-45 and the Church’s traditional interpretation of it. “The rejection of the Jews and the conversion of the Gentiles are here foretold, as Christ teaches in verse 43,” says Cornelius a Lapide in his commentary on this passage.

Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: “And the whole people, answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children.” Presumably something follows from this passage in Holy Scripture, and one wonders what the Fathers of Vatican II had in mind. For the traditional Church teaching in relation to that passage, we return once again to Cornelius a Lapide, where he comments on it:

“And thus they [the Jews] have subjected, not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to God’s displeasure. They feel it even to this day in its full force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city,7 or temple, or sacrifice, or priest or prince… ‘This curse,’ says St. Jerome, ‘rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them,’ as Daniel foretold (Daniel 9:27).”

And out of interest, if we were asked which, out of all the Vatican II passages that we are offering, we believed to be the most difficult to explain away even with the most subtle debating devices, we should probably choose this one. We do not maintain that it is more definitely heretical than the others, but it does seem to present the fewest escape routes, especially as the Fathers of Vatican II expressly elected to have their doctrine judged against Holy Scripture, which is explicit in making it absolutely clear that the Jews have been collectively reprobated for their part in the Crucifixion. (Numerous other texts from the New Testament could be quoted to this end, but we think we have already given enough evidence.)

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

(g) Christians and Jews have a common spiritual heritage.

“Since Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage, this sacred Council wishes to encourage further mutual understanding and appreciation.” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 4)

The Church teaches that, far from Christians and Jews having a common spiritual heritage, the most significant feature of what the Jews of the Christian era have inherited from their spiritual ancestors, those who engineered the Crucifixion, consists of the total rejection of the Incarnate God and also of the Old Testament Covenant. The Church has always instructed her children to pray for the conversion of “the perfidious Jews” (as in the liturgy for Good Friday).

It is interesting to note that, deplorable as it is, this text represents a softening of the error which was originally proposed for the agreement of the Council Fathers. Originally it was stated that Christians had derived a great patrimony from the Jews, leading Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer to point out that:

“Christians, however, have received the patrimony which they have inherited from the ancient Jewish people, and not from the Jewish people of the present day. The Jewish people of the present day cannot be described as in all respects faithful to the revelation of the Old Testament, as they refuse to accept the Messias who was the cause of the entire Old Law. The Israelites of the present day are rather the successors of those whom St. Peter declares to have delivered Jesus to death and whom St. Paul declares that the justice of God has abandoned to have a hardened heart (Acts 3:13; 5:20; Romans 10:3; 11:7). Hence it does not seem right to speak in the same way concerning the Jews of old, who were faithful to God and the Messias to come, and concerning the Jews of the present time. From the former, the Church has received and faithfully kept her patrimony, while the Jews of the present day, on the contrary, impoverish that patrimony by their infidelity. For the same reason it also follows that dialogues with Jews should be introduced only with great caution, as the custom is – or at least always was – in the Church. Moreover the Council ought not to abandon this custom except under the influence of grave reason which ought to be explained to the faithful.” (Acts of the Second Vatican Council III:III, p.161)

Because “heritage” is a word that is vague enough to allow a number of different meanings to be extracted from this passage, we do not dare brand it with a more severe ecclesiastical censure than that given below: a censure which, though it does not appear in the table given by Father Cartechini, is discussed elsewhere in his work and is frequently recognised and used by Catholic theologians and by the Roman Congregations. We think it worth emphasising this passage notwithstanding its relatively mild censure, because it so clearly shows the heretical animus of the Council, ever eager to say what would please liberal politicians and journalists, especially by flattering the Jews, and quite dismissive of the need to guard unsullied the deposit of faith, to protect the faithful from their enemies, and to rebuke and recall to their duties that perfidious race, once the chosen people, but now under a curse until, around the time of Antichrist, the return of the prophet Elias secures their conversion.

Theological censure: OFFENSIVE TO PIOUS EARS.

(h) Past dissensions with Muslims should be forgotten.

“Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The Sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding…” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 3)

(i) This recommends that we refrain from studying that part of the history of the Catholic Church which deals with the heroic efforts of our Catholic ancestors against the Muslim hordes which time and time again have come close to over-running Europe. We presume that all we need to say about the plea to forget the past is that the past should be studied with great assiduousness and learnt from, for insights into both the Catholic Church and her demonically-inspired enemies. It is not surprising that during the few short years which have passed since the promulgation of this monstrous recommendation by the robber-Council, the Muslims have rapidly risen to a point at which they are now once again within striking distance of taking over Europe, and even – unprecedentedly – the United Kingdom, in which they have had the effrontery to establish their own “government” independent of queen and parliament, an outrage for which no single trial, expulsion or execution for treason has yet been initiated. It is the fate of those who “forget the past” to have to re-learn its lessons by painful experience.

(ii) A moment’s reflection reveals that the passage is pregnant with still graver errors also, for it inescapably implies that the “quarrels and dissensions” in the past have been at least partially the fault of the Catholic Church. How does it imply this? It does so by placing the two parties to the disputes on equal footing, as though the Immaculate Bride of the Divine Lamb were just another belligerent cult like Mahometanism. And it implies it again by the advice it offers towards resolving the quarrels and dissensions of the past. This advice implies fault on both sides; for if that were not the case, the correct advice would be (a) that those who have quarrelled with and dissented from the Church should recognise that they were at fault, and (b) that they should be urged to mend their ways and make reparation for the past.

And indeed this will come as no surprise to those who have noted that, in its Decree on Oecumenism (paragraph 3), Vatican II attempts to blame the Catholic Church for the defection of heretics from her ranks: “…More serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

One can refute this disgusting assertion in two ways.

In the first place, since the Catholic Church has the Divinely instituted right and obligation (a) to tell the people what they must believe and (b) to govern them – in short, the right and duty to have the final say – it is naturally impossible that any “quarrels and dissensions” which have remained unresolved can be her fault. In other words, any person or institution who has quarrelled with the Catholic Church is inescapably at fault for having refused to submit to her judgement. 8

In the second place, the notion that the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Spotless Bride of Christ, whose soul is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Unity, should be the cause of quarrels and dissensions, can perhaps best be described as fantastic. It is as ludicrous to suggest that the Church was responsible for the quarrels and dissensions that have arisen between Christians and Muslims as to suggest that Our Lord was responsible for the “quarrels and dissensions” with which the Gospels are filled and which culminated in His judicial murder. This is not to deny that Our Lord was “a sign which shall be contradicted” (Luke 2:34), of course, nor that He “came not to send peace but the sword” (Matthew 10:34), nor yet that both those observations apply to Our Lord’s Church no less than to Himself. But the notions that Our Lord and His Church are in any way to blame for the contradiction and “the sword”, and that the conflicts of the past have arisen from “lack of mutual understanding” have only to be stated for their blasphemous implications to be exposed. Far from there being “lack of mutual understanding”, it need hardly be said that Our Lord and His Church have always understood their enemies perfectly. And quarrels and dissensions between the Church and the rest of the world are caused simply by the refusal of men and nations to submit to the Church’s wise, loving, tender maternal guidance and rule.

(iii) It denies the truth that the Catholic Church is as perfect in her practice (where this consists of considered policy rather than of the occasional actions of individual Catholics) as she is in her teaching.9

Theological censure: in (i) it is at least TEMERARIOUS; in (ii) it is BLASPHEMOUS; in (iii) it is ERRONEOUS.


Original source: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

To be continued…

The Principal Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II (Part 2)

c) Heretical and schismatic sects are means of salvation.

“The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)

This contradicts a doctrine which has been repeated perhaps more times than any other by the Church and is unquestionably Divinely revealed. Only a single example of the magisterial teaching of the true doctrine is necessary and we select the following from the Council of Florence held under Pope Eugene IV (1441):

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her…

We have heard it argued that the word “means”, occurring in the aberrant passage in this decree, was perhaps intended to signify something like “stepping-stone”; but of course the word is not capable of that meaning either in itself or in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that “a means which cannot achieve its end is not a means.” Flying in an aeroplane is a means of getting from England to France, but riding on a bicycle is not, even if, on reaching the Channel, one tossed the bicycle aside and used some other form of transport instead.

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

(d) Communal public prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and commendable.

“In certain circumstances, such as in prayer services ‘for unity’ and during oecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.” (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 8)

Into this short passage the Vatican II Fathers managed to squeeze two distinct doctrinal falsehoods:

 

  • That it is desirable that Catholics should join in “prayer services” with their separated brethren. Far from being desirable, joint religious activities with non-Catholics (except in the case of known individuals who are already on the path to conversion) are forbidden.
  • That such prayers in common are “a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity.”

 


The correct doctrine is set out clearly in Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which the most enthusiastic proponent of Vatican II cannot deny was in force when Vatican II was taking place. This canon states that it is unlawful to assist at actively in any way, or to take part in, the devotional acts of non-Catholics; and this is simply a repetition and statement of what has always been the rule of the Church. Casuists were consulted on what exceptions could be allowed in sixteenth-century England, where and when it really mattered, and the only concessions that they found were very minor activities such as saying grace – and even that was permitted only to avoid serious danger.

Now admittedly if Canon 1258 be purely ecclesiastical law – in other words, a type of human law – Vatican II (if it was a true Council) could have overruled it and imposed a new law. But Canon 1258 was not a purely ecclesiastical law. It represents in part an application of the Divine Law; and not even a pope can abolish a Divine law (nor can he dispense from it). Fully sufficient evidence that a Divine law is at issue is to be found in the following instruction on the subject of “communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis” addressed to the Catholics of England by Cardinal Allen in his letter of 12th December 1592. 4

“…You [priests] and all my brethren must have great regard that you teach not, nor defend, that it is lawful to communicate with the Protestants in their prayers or services or in the conventicles where they meet to minister their untrue sacraments; for this is contrary to the practice of the Church and the Holy Doctors in all ages, who never communicated or allowed any Catholic person to pray together with Arians, Donatists or what other soever. Neither is it a positive law of the Church, for in that case it might be dispensed with upon some occasion; but it is forbidden by God’s own eternal law, as by many evident arguments I could convince… To make all sure, I have asked for the judgement of the pope currently reigning [Pope Clement VIII] and he expressly told me that to participate with the Protestants either by praying with them or by coming to their churches or services or such like was by no means lawful or dispensable.”

In response to a correspondent we wrote the following:

“(i) The letter by Cardinal Allen was written in circumstances which could not have been more exacting, and which must have made Cardinal Allen and the pope look for every opportunity of compromising on the issue if compromise were to be found. At that time in Elizabethan England, for Catholics to be allowed to pray with non-Catholics might literally have saved the lives of Catholics, and might also have prevented the reduction to total ruin of entire families (and, of course, saved many from the temptation to apostatise, sometimes unhappily consented to).

“(ii) There is no possibility that the prohibition could only have related to attendance at church services, because, no less than twice, the document makes it clear that this is not so, and that the prohibition embraces everything. ‘…that you teach not, nor defend, that it is lawful to communicate with Protestants in their prayers or services or in the conventicles where they meet to minister their untrue sacraments…’ And: ‘…the pope…expressly told me that to participate with the Protestants either by praying with them or by coming to their churches or services or such like was by no means lawful or dispensable…’

“(iii) The document makes it clear that this prohibition had always existed. ‘…Contrary to the practice of the Church and the Holy Doctors in all ages who never communicated or allowed any Catholic person to pray together with Arians, Donatists or what other soever…’

“(iv) Again and again the document makes it clear that what is at issue is not merely man-made ecclesiastical law, but Divine law. Thus: ‘Neither is it a positive law of the Church, for in that case it might be dispensed with upon some occasion’ – it is only Divine law that cannot be dispensed with. Thus too: ‘…it is forbidden by God’s own eternal law.’ What could be clearer than that? Or do you assert that there is a distinction between Divine law and _God’s own eternal law’? And thus yet again: _…the pope currently reigning…expressly told me that to participate with Protestants…by praying with them…was by no means lawful or dispensable.’

“(v) And how could Cardinal Allen‘s pronouncement possibly be more definitive? In the first place, he, a prince of the Church and possibly one of the most revered cardinals of the sixteenth century, made it perfectly clear that he had researched the matter with great care, that he was merely repeating what had always been the inviolable practice of the Church, and also that he was completely certain that it was a matter of Divine law and not dispensable. And in the second place, because of the importance of the issue he deemed it his duty, notwithstanding his own complete certainty, to check the matter with the ultimate authority, the man with the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose as though the binding and loosing were done by God Himself; and the pope, despite the fact that, as…already suggested, every human instinct must have screamed at him to find a way around the prohibition if a way round could be found, simply affirmed unequivocally that prayer with Protestants – not merely attendance at liturgical services – was both unlawful and not dispensable, i.e. was a matter of Divine law.”

We should make it clear that we by no means deny that there is scope for doubt with regard to a few exceptional cases; nor do we deny that the Divine law, which makes it per se unlawful to associate even in the orthodox private prayers of non-Catholics, does seem not to bind – in relation to the genuinely orthodox private prayers of non-Catholics – in cases of grave inconvenience where there is no danger of scandal. Naturally Cardinal Allen and Pope Clement VIII knew that there always would be scandal if Catholics prayed with Protestants in post-“Reformation” England, and they therefore had no need to mention this. What Cardinal Allen’s response makes clear without any shadow of doubt is that the concept of praying with non-Catholics is “per se” forbidden by the Divine law – a Divine law which Vatican II simply overruled as though it did not exist.

Theological censure: at least ERRONEOUS IN FAITH for the first proposition and HERETICAL5 for the second proposition.


Original source: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

To be continued…

The Principal Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II (Part 1)

v2.jpg

(a) The civil right to religious liberty.

“The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.”2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)

What is more, the Vatican II “popes” took steps to ensure that, in countries where such freedom was not already a “civil right”, it became one. Thus the Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.
3 And as though to refute as clearly as possible the attempts of certain misguided “conservative” members of the Conciliar Sect to explain away the text cited above, interpreting it in some quite incredible fashion, Karol Wojtyla never misses an opportunity to inculcate his own – surely accurate – interpretation of the Council’s intention. For instance in February 1993 he declared, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, that “the Church considers religious liberty as an inalienable right…”

The correct doctrine, which popes have often reiterated, is most authoritatively stated in the following passage from Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura (1864):

“And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society… Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.”

Almost the only label that Pope Pius IX does not attach to this doctrine is in fact that of “heresy”, but he clearly thought the “insanity” he spoke of to be heretical for he says that it contradicts Divine Revelation. Moreover, this notion of religious liberty had already been expressly qualified as heretical by Pope Pius VII in his brief Post Tam Diuturnas, so there is no doubt about the matter.

Theological Censure: HERETICAL.

(b) Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion.

“Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men.” (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11)

This contradicts the traditional and definite Catholic teaching that many truths proposed by the Church as Divinely revealed were not revealed by Our Lord until after His Resurrection. For instance, the Council of Trent (Session 6, chapter 14) taught that “Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance when He said, “Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” These words were pronounced by Our Lord (John 20:23) on the evening of Easter Sunday, more than two full days after His Crucifixion. And of course Catholic tradition contains not the slightest reason to believe that Our Lord had revealed before the Crucifixion His plan to institute the sacrament; and to claim that He did so would therefore be to invent a new dogma never before heard of in the Church. And even then the objection remains that the answers to such questions as exactly who were the ministers of the sacrament could not have been revealed before the Passion, since the apostasy of Judas was kept secret by Our Lord until it took place.

The list of dogmas revealed by Our Lord after His Crucifixion includes the form of the sacrament of Baptism, the extension of the preaching mandate of the Apostles to the entire world, the abolition of the patriarchal religions as means of salvation, the coming into force of the promised primacy and infallibility of St. Peter, the elevation to the Apostolic dignity of St. Paul, and of course Our Lord’s own Resurrection. This last He had already prophesied long before, of course; but it is as a historic event that we must believe it today, and its historical fulfilment was not revealed until the morning of Easter Sunday when it took place and was announced by the angels to the holy women.

So the doctrine of Vatican II on this topic denies the Divine revelation of a large part of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic sacramental system, relegating to the status of an unrevealed inessential the very linchpin of Christianity concerning which St. Paul wrote “If Christ be not risen again, your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:17). But of course if Our Lord did not reveal his choice of St. Paul as an Apostle (an event which probably happened more than a full year after the Crucifixion), it is not surprising that the Conciliar Sect takes no notice of his doctrine!

Finally we note that, in condemning the doctrine of those who hold that new revelations have been added to the deposit of the Faith since the Apostolic era, the Church has been accustomed to teach that the cut-off point after which no further revelation was made was the death of the last Apostle (cf. Denzinger 2021). Evidently the Church would not have chosen such a late date as the closing point of Revelation if it had already closed much earlier, to wit at the time of the Crucifixion.

Incidentally, we have seen it argued that the Latin word “perficere” which occurs in the original of the above text from Dignitatis Humanae means “to perfect” rather than “to bring to completion”. Even if it did, we do not see how it would help the opposing case, for Divine Revelation could hardly be considered perfect without the Resurrection and all the rest – the Apostles certainly thought the Resurrection was worth knowing about, and, casting their minds back to their mental state on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, would doubtless have snorted at the notion that Revelation was perfect without it. But anyhow, “perficere” does not normally mean “to perfect”. Its natural sense is “to complete” or “to bring to completion”; and even when the secondary meaning, “to perfect”, is possible, it is always in the sense of perfecting by completion.

Theological censure: HERETICAL.


Original source: http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

To be continued…

The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions

The next document I would like to comment on is the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Promulgated by Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965, this document deals with what “all men have in common”, despite the difference of religious affiliation among us.

In Article 2, the Declaration briefly mentions both the thinking of Buddhism, and also that of Hinduism. After stating some chief beliefs of these religions, the Declaration states:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth that enlightens all men.”

These religions do not worship the Trinity or Jesus Christ as God, or hold to Christian doctrine. Other than possible positive moral standpoints, what can be “true and holy” in these religions? They are certainly farther from the truth than the Protestants, as the Protestants at least accept Christ as God. Buddhists and Hindus do not. Essentially, they are pagans.

The next part is a knee slapper. in Article 3, the Declaration says:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”

Long exhale)…okay…This part of the Declaration was the most stunning to me. The Church regards Muslims with esteem…They adore the true God…submit to God’s commands…Don’t worship Jesus as God, but at the same time they adore the same God as Christians…and value the moral life. Okay. I am still recuperating from falling out of my chair after reading those two paragraphs.

Muslims worship the god Allah, who is bent on total submissiveness to his will, not regarded as a “heavenly father”, and also does not love his Muslim worshippers as we would children. Muslims do not regard Christ as God, but a mere prophet, inferior to the likes of Mohammed. Catholics worship the Holy Trinity, three Persons in one God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son of God, Jesus Christ, is worshipped as the Savior of the human race, equal to the Father and Holy Ghost. Does anyone see a difference between the God Catholics worship, and the god Muslims worship??

Then the Declaration says that Muslims “value” the moral life. Okay, this is an interesting issue. Historically, Muslims have “converted by the sword” murdering Christians who have not become Muslims. The Koran tells Muslim men to beat their wives into submission, and, if Muslim men suspect that their wives are cheating on them, then they are also to beat them. Historically, Muslims have not “valued” the moral life, and they are not taught to do so by their “holy” book. Their are of course Muslims in today’s world that are moral, kind people. In reality, these people are not living out their religion to its full extent, as they are told to perform immoral acts, such as beating their wives, converting the infidel by the sword, etc…

On top of this, Vatican II expects that all past offences be forgotten?? History cannot be erased. While the religious principles of Islam are in practice anywhere on the globe, there will always be reason for caution.

The Declaration closes by speaking about the Jews. I can agree with much of this part of the Declaration, as it speaks about how the Jews of today cannot be treated as if they themselves murdered Christ; but only the Jews of that generation. However, the Declaration does not speak of the need to convert the Jews, which of course is a must. The Mosaic Law is invalid now that the New Covenant is in place. This was explicitly taught by both the Council of Florence and Pope Benedict XIV.

“All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.” (Council of Florence)

“The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. ” (Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo)

In short, the Jews must be regarded as any other non-Catholic group: in need of conversion to the Catholic Faith. Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus alike must convert to Christ’s Church for any hope of salvation.

 


 

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety…”

Pope Pius IX

 

The Decree on Ecumenism

The Decree on Ecumenism defines the ecumenical movement as a “restoration of unity” among Christians, and it includes all “those who invoke the triune God and confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”. This definition initially seems well natured. After all, shouldn’t all Christians belong to the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church? But as one reads on through the Decree, questionable statements appear.

The Decree states:

“Moreover, some, and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.”

Elements and endowments that give life to the Church…like the written Word of God, the Bible, right? This can exist outside the Catholic Church? The King James Version of the Bible, it gives life to the Church, and leads back to Christ? What about John Wycliffe’s English translation of the Bible? Luther’s German Bible? These Protestant Bibles do not lead to Christ. They are perverted, man-made distortions of God’s written Word. They do not include the entirety of the Bible, as they do not include the 7 Deuterocanoncal Books, and also leave out portions of others. Incorrect translations of verses, misleading, anti-Catholic footnotes…does this lead back to Christ? What is this “written Word of God” that “exists outside” of the Catholic Church? There is none.

The Decree goes on to say that non-Catholic Christian churches have practices that can “truly engender a life of grace in ways varying according to the condition of each Church or Community”. Following that is: “These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of providing access to the community of salvation”.

Truly engender a life of grace? Access to salvation? Is not the Catholic Church the only God given means of salvation? How can groups that teach heretical doctrine and sometimes even immoral belief give access to salvation? Evangelical groups that teach that a person can be saved by grace through faith alone, are they engendering a life of grace? Fundamentalist churches that teach the inefficacy of the intercession of the saints, are they to be regarded as a path to salvation? Christ alone is the way to salvation, and He has made the Catholic Church His instrument of communicating grace to Christians. Not the Lutheran Church or the Anglican Church or the Episcopalian Church. If the Catholic Church is the only God-given means of salvation, how can other churches or communities be regarded as capable of providing salvation? They are mere man-made institutions, not that of God. The text of the Decree speaks as if to insinuate that it is okay for a person to belong to a non-Catholic church, as they “must be regarded” as being capable of providing salvation.

Christ Himself says that “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” St. Paul instructs the Galatians saying, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” The Bible does not deem heretical gospels or groups as “capable of providing salvation”. Anyone who distorts God’s Word by heresy is cursed!

Pope Eugene IV, in the Papal Bull Cantate Domino writes:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches, that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews arid heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her…”

Likewise, in Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII condemns heretics:

“The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, certainly did not reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain part of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical doctrines who followed them in subsequent ages.”

Pope Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, condemns the notion that “in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.”

How can the Council teach contrarily to previously taught doctrine? If non-Catholic churches were once condemned, how can they be thought of as paths to grace? All this talk praising the Protestant churches was a false ecumenism. Instead of seeking Christian unity by conversion to the Catholic Church, Vatican II pursued Christian unity by ushering in an acceptance of non-Catholic Churches.

Pope Pius XI, in His encyclical Mortalium Animos, states:

“…the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

Pope Pius XI does not speak of how the separated churches must be regarded as capable to providing access to salvation, but that they must return to the true Church! This is the only way that Christian unity can be promoted! There cannot be true Christian unity if non-Catholics remain in their heretical sects, outside of the true Church. This supposed “ecumenism” is only an acceptance of non-Catholic religion; namely the Protestant sects.

The Decree on Ecumenism goes on to say:

“In certain special circumstances, such as in prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.”

Again, the Decree on Ecumenism veers away from Traditional Catholic teaching.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law taught that it “…is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part, in the services of non-Catholics.”

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori writes, “It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them.”

Religious commitments are manifested by outward acts, are they not? Prayer with Protestants and other non-Catholics is an act that is expressive of an untrue religion, is it not? Prayer in common with heretics is expressly what both Canon Law and St. Alphonsus condemned. The act of prayer with heretics is a sin against the true Church of Christ. It places a Catholic in communion with the non-believer, no matter what Vatican II teaches.

The Decree goes on to cover the subject of the Churches separated from the Roman See, firstly the Churches of the East.

“For many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their separate ways though linked in a brotherly union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith or discipline. Among other matters of great importance, it is a pleasure for this Council to remind everyone that there flourish in the East many particular or local Churches, among which the Patriarchal Churches hold first place, and of these not a few pride themselves in tracing their origins back to the apostles themselves. Hence a matter of primary concern and care among the Easterns, in their local churches, has been, and still is, to preserve the family ties of common faith and charity which ought to exist between sister Churches.”

“Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively – in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary.”

“These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

The schismatics of the East, according to the Council, are “linked with us in closest intimacy”, which allows common worship with one another. How can common worship be possible, when the Church has taught that schismatics are no better than heretics?

Pope Eugene IV wrote in his encyclical Cantate Domino the following:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches, that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews arid heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal…No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum teaches:

” ‘We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism,’ writes St. Jerome: ‘Heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church.’ In which judgment St. John Chrysostom agrees: ‘I say and protest,’ he writes, ‘that it is as wrong to divide the Church as it is to fall into heresy.’ Hence as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. ‘There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism…there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church….’ “

How can the Second Vatican Council differ from past Church teaching? Schismatics are not connected to us in an intimate way! They formed a barrier; a schism between themselves and the Church, resulting in disunity. While heresy is dissent from the truth, which breaks apart Christian unity, schism is just as bad; the denial of authority, which also destroys unity. All the Council wished to do was “play nice” when speaking about those who have separated themselves from the true Church. All this leads to is indifferentism. If the separated churches of the East, as the Council claims, “possess true sacraments”, then why not just belong to them instead of the Roman Catholic Church? If they have the sacraments and the priesthood, what’s the difference? All this praiseful talk of the schismatic churches implies an indifferentism, as the Council refrains from stating the cold, hard truth: the schismatics are in the same boat as the heretics.

Nearing the end of the Decree, the subject turns to the separated churches of the West. The same indifferent tone is used, never mentioning the seriousness of schism. This was a trend throughout the whole Decree: describe the relationship between Catholics and non-Catholics in a fuzzy, feel-good way, and skirt away from the truth of the matter.

The principle of the Decree is the pursuit of Christian unity — without separated peoples joining the Catholic Church! Instead they pursue unity by “common prayer”, while remaining in their own sects. How is unity to be realized in this? It is utterly pointless! How can Christians be in unison while they differ in doctrine? Utterly pointless.

In short, the Decree on Ecumenism differentiates vastly from past Catholic teaching, which, by definition, is heresy. Instead of speaking the plain truth on the matter of heretics and schismatics, a softer, more polite route of ecumenism is taken. This in itself is both dishonest and indifferent. The past teaching of the Catholic Church cannot ever be changed, even by a supposed “sacred Council”. The Decree on Ecumenism is a distortion of true Catholic teaching; a corrupt paper of heresy.

“Men must be changed by religion; not religion by men.”

Fourth Lateran Council

 

An Overview of Vatican II

(This is the first of several articles I will be posting concerning the documents of Vatican II. I want to thank tradcat4christ for motivating me to analyze these documents; and so I will, commenting on several of them.)

The Second Vatican Council was called together by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and closed by Pope Paul VI on December 8, 1965. The Council was the twenty first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and the second to be held at St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican.

Pope John XXIII announced on January 5, 1959, at a prayer service at the Basilica of St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls, that there was to be a Church Council. Although enthusiastic at the idea of a Council, the Pope was somewhat vague on the reasons for calling it together. After all, councils were historically formed in time of emergency, and this council was called in a time of peace. In his homily, he mentioned the Council’s goal to promote Christian unity, and also the cause of “affirming doctrine” and “ordering discipline”. John spoke of the Church responding to God’s presence shown through the “signs of the times”. He said that Christians should not fear the developments taking place in history, because some of them “augur well for the fate of the church and humanity”.

John described his want of modernization of the Church in the “signs of the times” with the Italian word “aggiornamento” meaning “updating”. This “updating” became the principle of the Second Vatican Council. It appears to be the direct opposite principle held since the Fourth Lateran Council: “Men must be changed by religion; not religion by men.” While the principle set forth by the Fourth Lateran Council stated that religion (Catholicism) cannot be changed to suit the wants and conveniences of man, aggiornamento called for a change in the Church, that it might be “relevant” in the world.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Council’s first approved document (promulgated by Pope Paul IV, due to Pope John XXIII’s death prior to the conclusion of the Council) , formally presented the goals of Vatican II:

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”

In explanation and teaching of these goals, the Second Vatican Council published 15 other documents following the Constitution on the Liturgy; documents dealing with ecumenism, non-Christian religions, adaptation of religious orders, and other subjects.

In an upcoming post, I would like to take a look at the Decree on Ecumenism.