The Vatican II Sect Thread

FiatVoluntasTua

Robin
Trad Catholic
A new convert coming into this forum would think that half of all Catholics were sedes. I even saw Sitting Bull here discouraging a confused reverting Catholic from going to confession at the FSSP, and comparing Catholic sacraments to “phone sex”, in the Latin Mass thread.

They are true believers, you see. Of course everyone else in the Church is wrong and have been for 50 years. Yet when it is about arguments, they fail at simply explaining, how a Council can be heretical and how the obvious fact that a Pope is installed, is not true. It is always „muh Vatican II is heretical“. Paired with hatred, bitterness and vitriol you have the perfect Calv, ehem, Sede.
 

Dieudonné

 
Banned
They are true believers, you see. Of course everyone else in the Church is wrong and have been for 50 years. Yet when it is about arguments, they fail at simply explaining, how a Council can be heretical and how the obvious fact that a Pope is installed, is not true. It is always „muh Vatican II is heretical“. Paired with hatred, bitterness and vitriol you have the perfect Calv, ehem, Sede.
You need to grow up.

For one, your posts are unoriginal and littered with vulgarity and text-speak: “btw”, “hehe”, “so cringe”, “deboonking”, “libtards”, “based”, “muh”, “cucked”, “sausage party”,“cope”, “ACKKKtually”, “redpilled”, “cuckservatives”, “wahmen”.
 

FiatVoluntasTua

Robin
Trad Catholic
You need to grow up.

For one, your posts are unoriginal and littered with vulgarity and text-speak: “btw”, “hehe”, “so cringe”, “deboonking”, “libtards”, “based”, “muh”, “cucked”, “sausage party”,“cope”, “ACKKKtually”, “redpilled”, “cuckservatives”, “wahmen”.
And here the banned one is back again. Seriously, guys, this subforum is really getting ruined. This is the last Post I am going to write in this thread. I do not want to get stalked by obsessive losers.
 

Dieudonné

 
Banned
We haven’t failed at explaining anything.

What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs

from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?

The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.

2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?

There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.

3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?

Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.

It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.

4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.

5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?

The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.

6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.

7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.

8. What does all this mean?

It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.

The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.

As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.

9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?

No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

  1. the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
  2. the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;
  3. the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;
  4. the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;
  5. the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;
  6. the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;
  7. the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.
What about the Vatican II popes?

FAQs from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

1. If what you are saying is true, what does it say about the Vatican II popes?

It says that it is impossible that they be true Catholic popes.

2. Why can they not be true Catholic popes and true Catholic bishops?

They cannot be true Catholic popes because it is impossible that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is Christ's authority, give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines.

3. Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines?

Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things. Hence, the fact that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they have do not have the authority of Christ. The teachings of Vatican II and the reforms which proceed from it are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. But since the Church is both indefectible and infallible, it cannot give to the faithful doctrines, laws, liturgy, and disciplines which are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. We must therefore conclude that this Council and these reforms do not proceed from the Church, that is, the Holy Ghost, but from an evil influence within the Church. From this it follows that those who have promulgated this evil Council and these evil reforms have not promulgated them with the authority of the Church, which is the authority of Christ. From this we rightfully conclude that their claim to have this authority is false, despite whatever appearance they may have, even despite an apparently valid election to the papacy.

4. Do we have the authority to say that these Vatican II popes are not true popes?

We do not have the authority to legally declare it. But on the other hand, as Catholics, we have the obligation of comparing what is taught by Vatican II with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The virtue of faith demands that we do so, since the faith is supernatural wisdom and consequently demands that everything be in conformity with it. If we did not make this comparison, we would not have the virtue of faith. If we find that the teachings of Vatican II are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Faith, we are bound to reject Vatican II, and bound to conclude that those who promulgate it do not have the authority of Christ. Otherwise our adherence to the error which is contrary to faith would ruin the virtue in us, and we would become heretics. Similarly, if we would entertain the thought that the Catholic Church were capable of promulgating false doctrines and evil worship and discipline, we would be heretics. So privately to conclude that Francis is a heretic, indeed an apostate from the Faith, is not to "judge" the pope in the sense that it is meant by canonists and theologians. In fact, if we could not even think of the possibility of the pope being a heretic, then why do so many theologians speak about this possibility, and about the consequences of his being a heretic?

5. But why can't we "sift" what the pope does and says, and accept what is Catholic, and reject what is non-Catholic?

Because if Francis is the pope, we must obey him. Even to admit the possibility that he can promulgate false doctrines and enact universal disciplines which are evil is itself a heresy against the teaching that the Catholic Church is infallible in these matters. It is inconceivable that, in following the universal teachings of the Church or her universal disciplines, you could be led astray and go to Hell. If this were possible, one would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, but a human institution like any other false church. Furthermore, to sift the teachings of the Church is to set yourself up as the pope, for your adherence to these teachings would not be based on the authority of the Church, but rather your own "sifting" of these teachings.

6. But if your father tells you to do something wrong, you must disobey him. But he still remains your father.

First of all, being someone's natural father can never change because it is based on physical generation. But being someone's spiritual father can change because it is based on a spiritual generation. Hence a pope could resign and no longer be the spiritual father of Catholics. So the analogy does not apply.

But more importantly, this argument which is frequently used by the Society of Saint Pius X and others, does not hold water for another reason. If a pope gave to a particular person a particular command which was evil (e.g., to desecrate a crucifix), the argument would apply. For in such a case the pope would not be engaging the whole practice of the Church, and therefore would not involve the indefectibility of the Church. But if he were to make a general law that all Catholics ought to desecrate crucifixes, then the very indefectibility of the Church is at stake. For how could the Church of Christ make such a law? Would it then not be leading all souls to Hell? The fact that Francis has made general laws which prescribe or even permit evil is a violation of the Church's indefectibility.

Hence the Society's argument cannot be applied to the present crisis in the Church.

7. But what if we are not sure if Vatican II is erroneous, and if Francis is a true pope or not?

In such a doubt you must give the superior the benefit of the doubt. In such a case you would have to embrace all the teachings of Vatican II, the new liturgy, and the new disciplines. You would also be obliged to recognize Francis as a true Catholic pope.

8. Isn't the question of Francis’s papacy a mere matter of opinion?

Absolutely not. Our eternal salvation depends upon our submission to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the question of Francis’s papacy is of supreme importance, and we must resolve our consciences about it one way or the other. If we conclude that Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Church, then we must reject Francis as a true pope.

If we conclude that Vatican II is not a substantial alteration of the Catholic Faith, then we must accept him as a true pope, and follow what he commands us to do.

A Catholic who is indifferent as to whether he is the pope or not is no Catholic at all. Rather he has the spirit of schism and of repudiation of authority.

In the Great Western Schism, in which there were three claimants to the papal throne, St. Vincent Ferrer condemned those who were indifferent as to who was the true Pope.

9. Were there any parallel cases in history?

The Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D. espoused the heresy that Our Lady was not the Mother of God. After he preached this from the pulpit, the Catholic people would have nothing to do with him, would not attend his Masses, and said, "We have an Emperor, but no bishop." And this was before he was officially excommunicated by the Church.

While this case concerns a bishop and not a pope, the principle is the same: the promulgation of heresy is incompatible with the possession of the authority of Christ over the flock. If it was true for this bishop Nestorius, it is all the more true for him who has the care of the whole flock.

10. Did any Pope ever warn us about a heretic on the throne of Peter?

Pope Paul IV in 1559, fearful lest a Protestant be elected to the papal throne, decreed in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio [see Heresy and loss of authority ] that if the person elected the Pope should have deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election shall be considered null, legally invalid, and void. He furthermore decreed that such a person must not be considered the pope, even if he took possession of the office, was enthroned, and received the veneration and obedience of all the faithful.
 

nagareboshi

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I think if Protestants and Muslims are allowed to be on this forum then there's no reason to be hostile to sedes in particular. They have their own strong beliefs and as long as the discourse is happening with full charity and sincere intention to know the truth then I'm personally okay with it. To use a thought experiment, if 50% of the atheists in the USA became sedes I think that would already be great progress.
 

Dieudonné

 
Banned
I think if Protestants and Muslims are allowed to be on this forum then there's no reason to be hostile to sedes in particular. They have their own strong beliefs and as long as the discourse is happening with full charity and sincere intention to know the truth then I'm personally okay with it. To use a thought experiment, if 50% of the atheists in the USA became sedes I think that would already be great progress.
I think their beef with us is, they want us to be treated as Protestants/Muslims and not as the Roman Catholics we are. Almost all of the knee-jerk hostility towards sedes IMO comes from young, newbie guys who only recently “discovered Tradition” and think they know it all. Real Traditional Catholics don’t share that kind of hostility to sedes that these newbie fake ones do. They certainly don’t regard us as schismatic let alone non-Catholic. SSPXers don’t regard us as non-Catholic and in fact, they have always been OK with having sedes in their ranks as long as they are quiet about it). I’m talking legit SSPXers with skin in the game, not “I just started going to an SSPX Mass 3 months ago becuz it’s SOOO BASED”) I’ve been a Traditional Catholics (FSSP & occasionally SSPX) for 17 years, and a sedevacantist for the last 3–and I’ve never seen this sort of vitriol and bullying directed against sedevacantists. TBH, as a non-sede Traditional Catholic, we thought of sedevacantists as being like a lovable, eccentric old uncle at who rants at the Thanksgiving dinner table about how the gas chambers weren’t real and that 9/11 was an inside job. In other words, we thought of sedes as just another family member company for the most part. Eccentric, yes, but still part of the family. Old-school Trads are still like that. Where this started to change was in the past several years when we started getting an influx of neoconservative type Catholics from the Novus Ordo who were fed up with Francis. Along with young guys from the internet (like you see here). My general sensehese guys are typically very online and their interest lies largely in co-opting the optics of Traditional Catholicism as a supplement their “Based and Red-pilled” e-ideology, and that’s where it ends. So they espouse a shallow TradCath religiosity but never get much deeper. They haven’t really grasped the truths of the Faith, and don’t want to. The sorts of questions that a person has to wrestle with when they really start digging in to the truths of the Catholic faith, that might ultimately lead them to draw the sede vacante conclusion—these are kinds of questions that a RooshVForum/groyper style e-Trad don’t ever ask, because they are more “TradCaths” instead of real Traditional Catholics. It’s all about the branding to them, and I think their hair-trigger hostility towards sedevacantists stems from the fact that out mere existence throws a monkey in their wrench, and automatically complicates their “brand”. That is why you see posters like @SilentCal expressing alarm that new converts might come to this forum and get the impression that “half of all Catholics are sedes”—you see, what this says to me is what they’re really wanting to do is create their own little do-it-yourself “RooshV”-brand of TradCatholicism. They want this to to be THE go-to place for anyone with questions. The mere existence of sedevacantists complicates their convenient little narrative, so we must be squashed and made into pariahs.
Sedevacantism is the opinion that the popes since John XXIII have been illegitimate, not true popes, not successors of St. Peter. Sedevacantism is not the theory of the heretic pope, or the theory of the schismatic pope, or any other of the standard theological hypotheses to be found in the pre-Vatican II manuals.

The logic of sedevacantism, no matter what you might have been told by knowing, gravely-voiced, experts who have appointed themselves your guides in these disastrous days of faithlessness, is simply this:

Evil does not come from the Church; the New Mass and the errors and heresies of Vatican II and its aftermath are evil, therefore, they did not come from the Church. Now, an obvious solution to this problem is to deny the authority of the men who promulgated these evils and have presided over the consequent destruction of the faith. This is the sedevacantist solution.[2]

Other solutions have been proposed, such as the “Indult” theory which consists essentially in denying that the reforms are evil; or that of The Remnant crowd, which consists in denying that the reforms have been actually mandated (i.e. the Church can offer evil to her children, but not impose it); or, finally, the periodic attempts by various parties to undermine the truths in the theology manuals regarding ecclesiology so as to show that nothing in these evil reforms is so bad that it could not have been produced by the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.

This article is not about those alternative solutions, none of which appeals to this writer as anything but bankrupt. The aim of this article is to state once again the sedevacantist thesis, and to explain why men like myself regard it as the true answer to the problem of the present crisis in the Church.

I repeat, the sedevacantist solution to the theoretical problem posed by the crisis is not the heretic pope thesis. The heretic pope thesis is a standard discussion carried on down the centuries by numerous highly trained, authorised, theologians. The sedevacantist position is simply the proposition that the popes of Vatican II have not been true popes.

The way in which one typically arrives at this conclusion is not by observing notorious heresy on the part of the Vatican II popes, and then applying the doctrine of, say, St. Robert Bellarmine, to the facts. This may be a perfectly reasonable, secure, and accurate approach, but it isn’t what made sedevacantists in the beginning, and it isn’t what sustains sedevacantists in their stance today.

What sustains our certitude is the fact that we cannot maintain faith in the Catholic Church if we also recognise, say, Paul VI, as a true Successor of St. Peter, as a Vicar of Christ. If Paul VI was pope, then the Catholic Church ceased to defend and preach the truth, and it ceased to worship God properly, and it drove from its churches and cathedrals any who failed to accede in this programme of Modernism. But this is inadmissible. Ergo, Paul VI cannot have been pope.

Let us remind ourselves of what actually happened in the years from 1970. The gravity of the events of those years was extreme. Consider two families, living in proximity to a parish church in, say, 1970 when the New Mass was imposed. One family saw nothing wrong with this synthetic new man-centred liturgy, did not realize that the Catholic Church doesn’t write entire new masses and ban the traditional one, and therefore simply went along quietly with the revolution.

The second family faced a major crisis. They could not in conscience attend the New Mass, but the old, true, Mass was no longer offered in their parish church. They approached their pastor but he explained that, unfortunately, he was not permitted to offer the Tridentine Mass. It had been banned. The crisis was immediate, and earth-shattering. This second family found themselves separated from their fellow Catholics, and from their pastor, and from their bishop, entirely without their own fault, because the Mass for which their parish church had been constructed was no longer offered there. Worse, a sacrilegious parody had replaced it.

Consider how Fr. James Wathen described the situation:

From the day of the installation of the “New Mass,” to this present one, the whole Church lies like a wounded animal, and the whole world watches in stunned disbelief. The disruption is complete. The churches are the scenes of countless, indescribable profanations, and the behavior of many Catholics, particularly many priests and religious, borders on total madness. At the sight of the appalling and ever-increasing disorder and immorality, many pious souls are unable to suppress the question which until this present era seemed mystically unreal: Could this be the time and could the so-called Novus Ordo Missae be that thing, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet in his Eighth Chapter? (The Great Sacrilege, Chapter Three.)

This crisis was only visible to those with the spiritual eyes to see. Actually, incredibly, nearly all Latin-Rite Catholics went along peacefully with the revolution. They didn’t recognise a problem at all, let alone a full-blown crisis, the worst in the history of the Church. In this sense it was the Mass that mattered. If you rejected the New Mass, you were pushed out of your parish, dislocated, in many cases treated as disobedient and even schismatic. If you accepted the New Mass, then there was hardly a ripple.

Now, it was those who could not accept the New Mass that constituted the original “traditional Catholics.” The rejection of the New Mass is therefore the foundation of the so-called traditionalist milieu. Prior to that, people who celebrated Vatican II and people who regarded it with horror were at least worshipping side by side in the same churches and cathedrals.

After the New Mass was inflicted, a great division occurred. From then on, the traditionalist existed as a clearly visible species. He had his own Mass centres, and his own clergy. In many cases there was a great deal of personal angst and hurt also, as family and friends reacted to the traditionalist failure to adopt the novel liturgy. Essentially, this cleavage was a schism.

The question ever since has been which of the two sides remained Catholic?

The Modernists displayed their own appreciation of what was at issue by immediately beginning their ongoing campaign of defamation against faithful Catholics by alleging that we are disobedient, rebellious, even schismatic. We now have a pop term for this – gaslighting. You do something evil to people, then you blame them for it, and you use psychological manipulation to try and have the victim believe that he is actually the perpetrator.

The sedevacantist is, in one sense, merely the Catholic who refuses to join in blaming the early traditionalists for the destruction of the unity of faith, or the shattering of ecclesiastical unity, or the other manifold evils that have flooded the Church in the wake of the reforms.

The sedevacantist is the man who takes seriously the very obvious fact that Paul VI was the perpetrator; his victims were his victims. Actually, Paul VI made it impossible to be subject to him; he made subjection in any realistic meaning impossible. That is what made a traditional Catholic to begin with, and it is equally what makes a sedevacantist.

For this reason, it is the view of this writer that all historical traditionalists (i.e. those who descend from the original scattered remnant who declined to accept the New Mass) are essentially sedevacantist in their principles. They may in many cases, even most cases, find this characterisation offensively false, because of how they have been taught to regard sedevacantism, but be that as it may, their stance is incompatible with any true submission to Paul VI or his successors as Vicars of Christ. Nor is this their fault, obviously.

“Indult” traditionalists, especially those who have rediscovered tradition via the Fraternity of St. Peter and similar sources, do not share this intellectual and historical DNA, so to speak, and this is why many of them cannot understand the apparently unreasonable inflexibility of the SSPX and associates. To the “Indult” mind, John Paul II and Benedict XVI especially are the authorities who gave the traditional Mass to the faithful, and those who have a different view seem ungrateful and insubordinate.
 

nagareboshi

Kingfisher
Orthodox
I’m talking legit SSPXers with skin in the game, not “I just started going to an SSPX Mass 3 months ago becuz it’s SOOO BASED”) I’ve been a Traditional Catholics (FSSP & occasionally SSPX) for 17 years, and a sedevacantist for the last 3–and I’ve never seen this sort of vitriol and bullying directed against sedevacantists.

That's very interesting. While I myself am not a sede and am obliged by my belief to disagree with the position, I am also interested in what you have to say about permanently-online traditionalists versus your experiences in the past 17 years. What changed? Also, do you have any cool stories to share? How did your "not online" group of traditionalist friends navigate this turbulent and stormy sea?
 

SilentCal

 
Banned
We haven’t failed at explaining anything.

What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs

from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?

The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.

2. What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?

There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.

3. What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?

Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.

It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.

4. What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-known Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.

5. What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?

The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.

6. What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.

7. What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.

8. What does all this mean?

It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.

The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.

As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.

9. Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?

No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

  1. the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;
  2. the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;
  3. the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;
  4. the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;
  5. the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;
  6. the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;
  7. the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.
What about the Vatican II popes?

FAQs from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

1. If what you are saying is true, what does it say about the Vatican II popes?

It says that it is impossible that they be true Catholic popes.

2. Why can they not be true Catholic popes and true Catholic bishops?

They cannot be true Catholic popes because it is impossible that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is Christ's authority, give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines.

3. Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines?

Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things. Hence, the fact that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they have do not have the authority of Christ. The teachings of Vatican II and the reforms which proceed from it are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. But since the Church is both indefectible and infallible, it cannot give to the faithful doctrines, laws, liturgy, and disciplines which are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. We must therefore conclude that this Council and these reforms do not proceed from the Church, that is, the Holy Ghost, but from an evil influence within the Church. From this it follows that those who have promulgated this evil Council and these evil reforms have not promulgated them with the authority of the Church, which is the authority of Christ. From this we rightfully conclude that their claim to have this authority is false, despite whatever appearance they may have, even despite an apparently valid election to the papacy.

4. Do we have the authority to say that these Vatican II popes are not true popes?

We do not have the authority to legally declare it. But on the other hand, as Catholics, we have the obligation of comparing what is taught by Vatican II with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The virtue of faith demands that we do so, since the faith is supernatural wisdom and consequently demands that everything be in conformity with it. If we did not make this comparison, we would not have the virtue of faith. If we find that the teachings of Vatican II are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Faith, we are bound to reject Vatican II, and bound to conclude that those who promulgate it do not have the authority of Christ. Otherwise our adherence to the error which is contrary to faith would ruin the virtue in us, and we would become heretics. Similarly, if we would entertain the thought that the Catholic Church were capable of promulgating false doctrines and evil worship and discipline, we would be heretics. So privately to conclude that Francis is a heretic, indeed an apostate from the Faith, is not to "judge" the pope in the sense that it is meant by canonists and theologians. In fact, if we could not even think of the possibility of the pope being a heretic, then why do so many theologians speak about this possibility, and about the consequences of his being a heretic?

5. But why can't we "sift" what the pope does and says, and accept what is Catholic, and reject what is non-Catholic?

Because if Francis is the pope, we must obey him. Even to admit the possibility that he can promulgate false doctrines and enact universal disciplines which are evil is itself a heresy against the teaching that the Catholic Church is infallible in these matters. It is inconceivable that, in following the universal teachings of the Church or her universal disciplines, you could be led astray and go to Hell. If this were possible, one would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, but a human institution like any other false church. Furthermore, to sift the teachings of the Church is to set yourself up as the pope, for your adherence to these teachings would not be based on the authority of the Church, but rather your own "sifting" of these teachings.

6. But if your father tells you to do something wrong, you must disobey him. But he still remains your father.

First of all, being someone's natural father can never change because it is based on physical generation. But being someone's spiritual father can change because it is based on a spiritual generation. Hence a pope could resign and no longer be the spiritual father of Catholics. So the analogy does not apply.

But more importantly, this argument which is frequently used by the Society of Saint Pius X and others, does not hold water for another reason. If a pope gave to a particular person a particular command which was evil (e.g., to desecrate a crucifix), the argument would apply. For in such a case the pope would not be engaging the whole practice of the Church, and therefore would not involve the indefectibility of the Church. But if he were to make a general law that all Catholics ought to desecrate crucifixes, then the very indefectibility of the Church is at stake. For how could the Church of Christ make such a law? Would it then not be leading all souls to Hell? The fact that Francis has made general laws which prescribe or even permit evil is a violation of the Church's indefectibility.

Hence the Society's argument cannot be applied to the present crisis in the Church.

7. But what if we are not sure if Vatican II is erroneous, and if Francis is a true pope or not?

In such a doubt you must give the superior the benefit of the doubt. In such a case you would have to embrace all the teachings of Vatican II, the new liturgy, and the new disciplines. You would also be obliged to recognize Francis as a true Catholic pope.

8. Isn't the question of Francis’s papacy a mere matter of opinion?

Absolutely not. Our eternal salvation depends upon our submission to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the question of Francis’s papacy is of supreme importance, and we must resolve our consciences about it one way or the other. If we conclude that Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Church, then we must reject Francis as a true pope.

If we conclude that Vatican II is not a substantial alteration of the Catholic Faith, then we must accept him as a true pope, and follow what he commands us to do.

A Catholic who is indifferent as to whether he is the pope or not is no Catholic at all. Rather he has the spirit of schism and of repudiation of authority.

In the Great Western Schism, in which there were three claimants to the papal throne, St. Vincent Ferrer condemned those who were indifferent as to who was the true Pope.

9. Were there any parallel cases in history?

The Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D. espoused the heresy that Our Lady was not the Mother of God. After he preached this from the pulpit, the Catholic people would have nothing to do with him, would not attend his Masses, and said, "We have an Emperor, but no bishop." And this was before he was officially excommunicated by the Church.

While this case concerns a bishop and not a pope, the principle is the same: the promulgation of heresy is incompatible with the possession of the authority of Christ over the flock. If it was true for this bishop Nestorius, it is all the more true for him who has the care of the whole flock.

10. Did any Pope ever warn us about a heretic on the throne of Peter?

Pope Paul IV in 1559, fearful lest a Protestant be elected to the papal throne, decreed in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio [see Heresy and loss of authority ] that if the person elected the Pope should have deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election shall be considered null, legally invalid, and void. He furthermore decreed that such a person must not be considered the pope, even if he took possession of the office, was enthroned, and received the veneration and obedience of all the faithful.
“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.” -Dignitatis Humanae

And you just admitted (the second point number 4) that you don’t have the authority to say that the seat is vacant.
 

SilentCal

 
Banned
If you’re waiting for a canonical judgment, get your balloons, put on your clown suit, and go to the Vatican II New Mass.
I go to the Latin Mass. But I don’t really see what your point is either. I’m just saying sedes are basically admitting defeat if they acknowledge they have no authority to speak on point 4 that I referenced.
 

roger808

Pigeon
Catholic
That's very interesting. While I myself am not a sede and am obliged by my belief to disagree with the position, I am also interested in what you have to say about permanently-online traditionalists versus your experiences in the past 17 years. What changed? Also, do you have any cool stories to share? How did your "not online" group of traditionalist friends navigate this turbulent and stormy sea?

Dieudonne had an interesting comment on tone of this conversation and the always thoughtful @nagareboshi asked these excellent follow up questions. I can't link Dieudonne now. Does that mean he's banned? That would be a shame.
 

Bird

Pelican
Catholic

DAVOS in the CATACOMBS: Klaus Schwab’s Secret Vatican Connection


What if I were to tell you that a key Council Father at Vatican II was also an honored guest speaker early on at the World Economic Forum in Davos?

What if I were to also tell you that, in addition to being close to Klaus Schwab 40 years ago, this archbishop also held a secret meeting in the middle of the night under the streets of Rome to plot the downfall of the traditional Catholic Church at the close of Vatican II?

A wild conspiracy theory? A plot from a Malachi Martin novel?

Well, it’s absolutely true. We have startling new video of Klaus Schwab giving it all away. Want to know what Francis is all about? Well, this is it!

No wonder he's going to the Glasgow in November to address the UN climate change conference. And guess what? While in Scotland, Francis will NOT offer a public Mass.

This video is for ANYONE, Catholic or otherwise, who wants to know what's going on in the Vatican with Pope Francis and the Globalist movers and shakers of the New World Order.

 
It seems the Judeo-masonic-Bolshevist conspirators are holding Bergoglio’s hand to ensure he follows their script. Whether Jorge Bergoglio really is a Pope or not and whether the Vatican II Sect is really the Roman Catholic Church or not, the Synagogue of Satan is going to see to it that the world perceives him that way, as part of their centuries-long plan to destroy Christ’s Holy Church and blot out Christ’s name and memory forever (as prescribed by the Satanic Babylonian Talmud). One of the key ways the ‘gogue has achieved this is by tarnishing the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church. It appears helping this plan.
“We have blackened The Catholic Church with the most ignominious calumnies, we have stained her history and disgraced even her noblest activities. We have imputed to her the wrongs of her enemies, and have thus brought these latter to stand more closely by our side… So much so, that we are now witnessing, to our satisfaction, rebellions against the Church in several countries… We have turned her clergy into objects of hatred and ridicule, we have subjected them to the contempt of the crowd… We have caused the practice of the Catholic Religion to be considered out of date and a mere waste of time…” —The Jewish Peril and The Catholic Church, The Catholic Gazette, February 1936.​

Lecture - The Papacy & the Passion of the Church (2016):


Series: Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church (Ascent of Mount Carmel—Youtube)
1. Bella Dodd
2. Committee of Catholics for Human Rights
3. Emmanuel Chapman
4. Bishop Bernard J. Sheil
5. Sheil vs. Coughlin
6. What about Cardinal Mundelein?
7. Saul Alinsky
8. Collaborating with Communists
9. Upton Close
10. Sheil vs. Sen. Joseph McCarthy
11.The Legacy of Bishop Bernard J. Sheil (Ascent of Mount Carmel—Youtube)

Catholics unveiled Masonic-Jewish plot in 1936 (Justice4Poland)

Bella Dodd — How Communists Subverted the Catholic Church (Justice4Poland)
 
Last edited:

Blueboy17

 
Banned
I was at a restaurant a couple weeks ago and after finishing my meal, I went to pay and asked the hostess/cashier what happened to a specific fish that was no longer on the menu. She told me they discontinued it, but that they still had the other types of fish. As she named them she said, I know my fish so well because I'm Catholic. I said, so am I. She then asked what Church I went to because she wasn't familiar with who I was since I wasn't from around there. I told her I went to a Traditional Mass that was a good distance from that location. She said I love the old Mass and wish I could get married to my fiancé with that Mass, but it's hard to find a priest that would do that. Before I could respond she added, "it doesn't matter because Jesus is present in the Eucharist in either Mass and both Masses are Catholic." Normally I would have started challenging such a person, but the occasion was not the right time for she was busy and had to work.

Nothing disgusts me more, than the confusion that so many have been led to.
 

Poche

 
Banned
Catholic
In the spirit of Vatican 2 Ecumenism, The New Mass of Vatican 2 was celebrated in a Buddhist temple on May 2003. The Invalid Novus Ordo Priest and Nuns, gathered for a retreat and "Mass" at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple (Hacienda Heights, CA). Behind the Invalid priest is an altar to celebrate the invalid Mass set up in front of the statue of Buddha.

This is the gospel of Vatican 2, that all religions are one. The New Mass was founded by the enemies (6 Protestants, Freemasons, etc) of the Catholic Church, it was born from the Ecumenism of Vatican 2 and it is not Catholic but an Ecumenical gathering to worship the devil.

In 1928, Pope Pius XI authoritatively condemned this inter-religious activity and denounced it as apostasy from the true Faith;

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
View attachment 31036
It is not permitted to say mass in a place of non Christian worship.
 

Purgatorian

 
Banned
Trad Catholic
What I think would be interesting would be if we could discuss how the eastern liturgies had an influence during the council.
@Poche Frs. Francisco & Dominic Radecki, CMRI, give a fair amount of attention to this topic in their 809 page book Vatican II Exposed As Counterfeit Catholicism. From page 349:
The Influential East
Eastern Rite prelates were well organized and strong proponents of Ecumenism. They scorned what they termed “Latinization,” and wanted greater autonomy. Although there were only 130 Eastern Rite prelates present at Vatican II, compared to 2,000 of the Latin Rite, they definitely swung the pendulum in favor of dialogue with the Orthodox. Like European Alliance Prelates, Eastern Rite prelates frequently mocked Catholic beliefs and practices. To show their disdain for Latin, many gave their interventions in French. Others followed their example.

November 27, 1962
Modernist Patriarch Maximos Saigh IV, sounding like a member of the Orthodox Church, claimed Eastern Catholics were "not dependent on Rome". He opposed the power exercised by the Roman Curia and stressed the collegiality of bishops.

Bishop Pawlowski (Woclawek, Poland) disliked the idea of altering doctrines to accommodate those outside the Church.

Archbishop Nabaa (Beirut, Lebanon), the successor of Maximos Saigh IV, suggested social work and interfaith prayer with the Orthodox, and to alter the Church's laws on marriage.

Titular Archbishop Edelby of Edessa said the claim that the Roman Church had always worked toward reunion with the East was untrue. Edelby also believed the schema was too theological.

Archbishop Senyshyn (Ukrainian Metropolitan of Philadelphia, PA) asked that the doctrinal sections be eliminated and replaced by guidelines for interfaith worship.

Archbishop Vuccino (Auxiliary Bishop of Paris for Eastern Rite Catholics) believed the schema put too much emphasis on Papal Primacy.

Archbishop Zoghby (Melkite Patriarch of Egypt) opposed the Latinization techniques of the West.

Bishop Méndez Arceo (Cuernavaca, Mexico) suggested letting 250 bishops and (Modernist)
theologians take care of business to prevent interference from the Theological Commission.
 
Last edited:

Poche

 
Banned
Catholic
@Poche Frs. Francisco & Dominic Radecki, CMRI, give a fair amount of attention to this topic in their 809 page book Vatican II Exposed As Counterfeit Catholicism. From page 349:
When the details of the council were being arranged, there were plans to conduct the proceedings purely in Latin. It was his Beatitude, Patriarch Saingh who intervened and had the proceedings conducted primarily in the vernacular.
 
Top