installment of Angelus Press's Edition of SiSiNoNo
begins a lengthy serialization of errors ascribed
to the Second Vatican Council.
"rap sheet" begins this time with a simple overview
of the Council. Further installments will concentrate
on specific issues of doctrine, theology, definition,
the Sacred Liturgy, the so-called "separated brethren,"
the contemporary world, the missions, education, pastorality,
will conclude with solutions.
In general, the mentality at the Second Vatican Council
was little if at all Catholic. This can be said because
of an inexplicable and undeniable man-centeredness and sympathy
for the "world" and its deceptive values, all
of which ooze from all of the Council's documents. More
specifically, Vatican II has been accused of substantive
and relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, significant
omissions and, what counts even more, of grave errors in
doctrine and pastorality.
II's Ambiguous Juridical Nature
of all, ambiguity pervades the Second Vatican Council's
nature as to law (i.e., "juridical nature").
This remains unclear and appears indeterminate because Vatican
II termed itself simply a "pastoral Council" which,
therefore, did not intend to define dogmas or condemn errors.
This can be seen from the address delivered at the Council's
opening by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and in the
Notificatio, publicly read on November 5, 1965. Therefore,
the Council's two Constitutions, Dei Verbum (on Divine
Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), which,
in fact, do concern matters of dogmas
of the Faith, are dogmatic only in name and in a solely
Council wanted to disqualify the "authentically manifest
and supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Pope Paul VI). This
is an insufficient figure of speech for an ecumenical council
since such councils always embody an extraordinary exercise
of the Magisterium, with the Pope deciding to exercise its
exceptional nature together with all of the bishops assembled
by him in council. He acts therein as the suprema potestas
of the entire Church, which he possesses by Divine right.
Neither does reference to the "authentic character"
of Vatican II explain things, because such a term generally
means "authoritative" relative to the Holy Father's
sole authority, not to his infallibility. The "mere
authenticum"ordinary Magisterium is not
infallible, while the ordinary Magisterium is
infallible. In any case, the ordinary Magisterium's
infallibility does not have the same characteristics as
the extraordinary Magisterium. Thus, it cannot be applied
to the Second Vatican Council. It is necessary to realize
that the point in question is how many bishops throughout
the Catholic world are teaching the same doctrine, and not
how many are present at a Council.
being Vatican IFs actual juridical nature, it is certain
that it did not wish to impart a teaching invested with
infallibility. It is true that Pope Paul VI himself said
that the Council's teaching ought to be "docilely and
sincerely" accepted by the faithful, that is, with
(we specifically note) what is always called "internal
religious assent," something required of any pastoral
document, for instance.
assent is obligatory, but only on the condition that sufficient
and grave reasons do not exist for not granting such
assent. Might a question of "grave reason" be
concerned when alterations in the deposit of Faith are evident?
Already during Vatican IPs tormented discussions, cardinals,
bishops, and theologians, faithful to dogma, repeatedly
noted the ambiguities and errors which were infiltrating
Council texts, errors that today, after 40 years of definitive
reflection and study, we are grasping ever more precisely.
do not pretend completeness for our synopsis of the errors
ascribed to Vatican II. Yet it seems to us that we have
specified in what follows a sufficient number of important
ones, beginning with the first utterances such as those
contained in the Council's October 20, 1962 "Address
on Openness" by His Holiness John XXIII and the Council
Fathers' "Message to the World." Though not one
of the official, formal Council texts, nevertheless, these
texts expressed the thinking wanted by the "progressive
wing," that is, the neo-modernist innovators' line
from its resoundingly divergent assertions denied by the
facts, such as, "Providence is leading us to a new
order of human relations that...are developing toward a
fullness of superior and unexpected designs," Pope
John XXIII's famous speech on opening up to the world contains
three real and true doctrinal errors.
ERROR: & mutilated concept of the Magisterium.
error is contained in the incredible assertion concerning
the Church's renunciation and condemnation of error:
Church has always been opposed to these errors [i.e.,
false opinions of men-Ed.]; She has often
condemned them with the greatest severity. Now, however,
the Spouse of Christ prefers to employ the medicine of mercy
rather than that of harshness. She is going to meet today's
needs by demonstrating the validity of Her doctrine, rather
than by renewing condemnations.
this renunciation of employing proper, God-given authority
to defend the deposit of the faith and to help souls through
condemning errors that ensnare souls and prevent their eternal
salvation, Pope John XXIII kicked aside his duties as Vicar
of Christ. In fact, condemning error is essential for maintaining
the deposit of faith, which is the Pontiff's first duty,
and with it, always confirming sound doctrine, thus demonstrating
the efficacy of doing so with timely application. Moreover,
from a pastoral point of view, condemning error is necessary
because it supports and sustains the faithful, the well-educated
as well as those less so, with the Magisterium's incomparable
authority. By its exercise they are strengthened to defend
themselves against error, whose "logic" is often
astute and seductive. This is not the only point: condemning
error can lead errant souls to repent, by placing the true
sustenance of their intellect before them. The condemnation
of error is, in and of itself, a work of mercy.
hold that condemning error should never have occurred is
to support a mutilated concept of the Church's Magisterium.
In the main, the post-Vatican II Church, no longer condemning
error, has substituted for it dialogue
with those in error. This amounts to doctrinal error.
Previously, the Church has always prosecuted dialogue with
such errors and those in
error. Pope John XXIII’s quote above enounces the error
clearly: that demonstrating "doctrine's validity"
is incompatible with "renewing condemnations."
This is to suggest that such validity ought to be imposed
only thanks to one's own intrinsic logic,
and not from external authority.
But in such an approach, faith would no longer be a
gift from God, nor would there be any need of grace to fortify
faith, nor any need to exercise the principle for sustaining
faith via the authority in the Catholic Church. The essential
error is concealed in Pope John XXIII's phraseology; it
is a form of Pelagianism [i.e., that all men are,
by nature, good-Ed.] which is typical of all
"rationalistic conceptions" of the Faith, all
of them repeatedly condemned by the Magisterium.
only heresies and theological errors in the strict sense
have been objects of condemnation, but every one of the
world's ideas that is not Catholic, not only those adverse
to the Faith, but also those to whom Our Lord's words apply,
"He who does not gather with me, is against me: and
he that gathereth not with me, scattereth" (Mt. 12:30).
un-orthodox position taken by John XXIII, maintained by
the Council and the post-Conciliar period has caused the
collapse of the Church's ironclad armor. The Church's enemies-inside
and out-appreciate this heterodox position. No doubt they
agree with Nietzsche, who said: "The intellectual
mark of the Church is essentially harsh inflexibility, by
which the conception and judgment of values are treated
as stable, as eternal."
ERROR: -The contamination of Catholic doctrine with
intrinsically anti-Catholic "modern thinking."
to this unprecedented renunciation of error is another flagrantly
grave assertion made by John XXIII in his January 13, 1963,
Christmas address to Cardinals. He said that "doctrinal
penetration" must occur through "doctrine's more
perfect adhesion to fidelity to true doctrine."
he followed this by explaining that
doctrine ought to be expressed using the forms of investigation
and literary style of modern thinking, since, to do so,
is to sustain the depositum fidei's classic doctrine
and is the way to recast it: and this ought to be done
patiently, taking into great account that all must be
expressed in forms and propositions having a predominantly
and modernists had already long recommended that classical
doctrine be re-cast in forms imported from "modern
thinking." Doing so was specifically condemned by Pope
Pius X in Pascendi2
and his decree Lamentabili which condemned the
The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving
the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately
to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with
present day advances.
The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts
of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation,
the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast.
(Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, dz 2063, 2064)
Pius XII said the same thing. Thus, Pope John XXIII’s predecessors
had condemned his proposed doctrine. This is a typical of
all modernist errors.
fact, it is not possible for the categories of "modern
thinking" to be applied to Catholic doctrine. In all
of its forms modern thinking negates-a priori- the
existence of an absolute truth and holds that everything
is relative to Man, who is his own absolute value, divinized
in all of his manifestations, from instinct to "self-consciousness."
This way of thinking is intrinsically opposed to the fundamental
truths of the Catholic Church beginning with the idea of
God the Creator, of a living God Who has been revealed and
incarnated in His Second Person. In the end, modern thinking
means only a politics and an ethic. By proposing a similar
contamination, Pope John XXIII showed himself to be a disciple
of the of the neo-modernists' "New Theology,"
already condemned by the Magisterium. Regarding the Catholic
Church's salvation mission, the needs of the day required
of the Second Vatican Council to reinforce the rejection
of modern thinking found in the prior popes-from Pius
IX to Pius XII. Instead, the Council gave full sway to "the
study and expression" of "authentic" and
"classic" doctrine via "modern thinking."
ERROR: The Church's goal is "the unity of humanity."
third error of the Opening Address announced that "the
unity of humanity" was the Church's own and proper
goal. This was advanced by the Second Vatican Council, which
quoted St. Augustine (Ep. 138,3) to purport that the Church
and consolidating the way toward that human unity which
is a fundamental necessity because the earthly City is
constructed to always resemble the heavenly one "in
which truth and the law of charity reign, and is the extension
of the Eternal One.
"human unity" is seen as the "fundamental
necessity because the earthly City is constructed to always
resemble the heavenly one." But the Church never taught
that her expansion in this world had "human unity"
as her goal, as affirmed by Pope John XXIII, simply.
On the contrary, this is the guiding idea of the Enlightenment's
philosophy of history first elaborated by the 18th century
by secularists. It is not of the Catholic Church, but is
an essential component of the religion of Humanism.
error consists in mixing the Catholic vision with an idea
imported into it from secular thought. Secularists do not
look to extend the Kingdom of God through that part of it
realized on earth by the Catholic Church. This vision is
a substitute for that of the Church's. Humanism is convinced
of the dignity of man as man (since humanists do not believe
in original sin) and of his supposed "rights."
these three errors in the Opening Address, two more theological
errors were proposed in what followed.
in the Council Fathers' "Message to the World"
"Message to the World" was promulgated at the
start of the Council. [Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the
few to criticize it.-Ed.] In miniature, it
contained the pastoral line of thought that would be developed
to the fullest in Gaudium et Spes. "Human good,"
the "dignity of man" as man, "peace between
people," a pastoral in which the preoccupation with
"human good," "the dignity of man,"
as man, "the peace between people," are its central
concerns, and left aside is man's conversion to Christ:
we hope that through the Council's labors the light of
faith shines more clearly and alive, we await a spiritual
renaissance from which also comes a happy impulse that
favors human well-being, that is, scientific invention,
progress of the arts, technology, and a greater diffusion
well-being" is characterized according to the century's
reigning ideas, i.e., scientific, artistic, technological,
and cultural progress.5 Should the Second Vatican
Council have become so preoccupied with such things? Should
it have expressed hope for the increase of these solely
earthly "blessings," always shortlived, often
deceptive, in place of those eternal ones founded on perennial
values taught by the Church over the centuries? No wonder
that, following this brand of pastoral, instead of a new
"splendor" of the faith, a grave and persistent
crisis has arisen?
actual theological error, in the proper sense of error,
occurs at the close of the "Message to the World"
where it is said: "We invite all to collaborate with
us in order to install in the world a more well ordered
civil life and a greater fraternity." This is not
Catholic doctrine. Any anticipation of the eternal kingdom
in this world was constituted only by
the Catholic Church, by the visible Church Militant, the
earthly element of the Mystical Body of Christ, which grows
slowly, not withstanding the opposition of "the prince
of this world." The Mystical Body of ' Christ
increases, but not strictly through the "union of all
men of good will," and of all humanity under the banner
texts of Vatican II are infamous for being ambiguous and
contradictory. Suffice it by the following serious example
to show how profound the ambiguity is.
II's Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) is called
a "dogmatic constitution" because it concerns
the inerrant truth of dogma. In §9, however, it expounds
in an obviously insufficient and unclear way [or else, why
the confusion presented in § 11 ?-Ed.] how
the truths of the Faith rest on two pillars of revelation-Sacred
Scripture and Tradition-and on the
absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the total historical
authenticity of the Gospels.6
In §11, Dei Verbum lends itself even to opposite
interpretations, one of which would reduce inerrancy only
to "truth...confided to the Sacred Scriptures....":
therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers,
affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the holy Spirit,
we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly,
faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God,
for the sake of salvation, wished to see confided to the
sacred Scriptures....(Dei Verbum, § lib, Nov. 18,
is substantively equivalent to heresy because the absolute
inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the truth expounded there
is the truth of the Faith constantly deduced and taught
by the Church alone.
an example of patent contradiction, let us look as §2 of
the October 28, 1965 decree, Perfectae Caritatis (On
the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life). It states that
the renewal of religious life "comprises both a constant
return to the sources of the whole of the Christian life
and to the primitive inspiration of the institutes, and
the adaptation to the changed conditions of our time...."
is a patent contradiction since, according to the three
vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, the unique characteristic
of religious life has always been that of being completely
antithetical to the world, corrupted as it is by original
sin and the very illustration of the fleeting and transient.
How is it possible that the "return to the sources...and
to the primitive inspiration of the [Catholic] institutes"
be accomplished by their "adaptation to the changed
conditions of our time?" Adaptation to these
"conditions," which today are those of the
secularized modern world of lay culture, are the very ones
that impede, in themselves, "the return to the sources."
79 of Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern
World, Dec. 7, 1965) grants governments the right "of
lawful self-defense" to "defend the interests
of the people." This substantively seems to conform
to the traditional teaching of the Church, which has always
granted the right of defense from an external or internal
attack of the "just war" category, and conforms
to the principles of natural rights. However, §82 of the
same Gaudium et Spes also contains an absolute condemnation
of war and, therefore, of every type of war, without making
express exception for defensive war, justified three paragraphs
earlier, which, then, the Council both permitted and condemned!
Compare, yourself: first, the permission, then, the condemnation:
War, of course, has not ceased to be part
of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists...,
governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense,
once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and
all who share the burdens of public administration have
the duty to defend the interests of their people and to
conduct grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility....
It is our clear duty to spare no effort in order to
work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed
by international agreement. This goal, or course, requires
the establishment of a universally acknowledged public
authority vested with the effective power to ensure security
is also evident in Sacrosanctum Concilium (On the
Consititution on the Sacred Liturgy, Dec. 4, 1963) regarding
the maintenance of Latin as the liturgical language. We
read in §36(1): "The use of the Latin language, with
due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the
Latin rites." In the next line,
But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the
Mass, in the administration of the sacraments, or in other
parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage
to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially
in readings, directives, and in some prayers and chants.
Regulations governing this will be given separately in
the regulations "established" in this document
are left to episcopal conferences:
Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on
the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic
See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation
of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also
to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately
established, with competence in given territories.
paragraph was given wide latitude. There are numerous cases
where the Council authorized the partial or total use of
A suitable place may be allotted to the vernacular
in Masses which are celebrated with the people, especially
in the readings and "the common prayer," and
also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts
which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid
down in §36 of the Constitution.... Wherever a more expanded
use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the
regulation laid down in §40 of the Constitution is to
be observed. [Paragraph 40 discusses the procedure to
be followed if "more radical adaptation of the liturgy
is needed," which "entails greater difficulties."-Ed]
In the administration of sacraments and sacramentals
the vernacular may be used according to the norm of §36.
In the mission countries, in addition to
what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements
of initiation rites may be admitted which are already
in use among some peoples... [e.g., rites which
are certainly in the vernacular-Ed.].
The baptismal rite should contain variants,
to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary—Likewise
a shorter rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission
Both the ceremonies and texts of the Ordination rites
are to be revised. The addresses given by the bishop at
the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be
in the vernacular…
Matrimony is normally to be celebrated within the
Mass after the reading of the Gospel and the homily before
"the prayer of the faithful." The prayer for
the bride, duly amended to remind both spouses of their
equal obligation of mutual fidelity, may be said in the
In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin
rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics
in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary
has the power to grant the use of a vernacular translation
to those clerics for whom the Latin constitutes a grave
obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular
version, however, must be drawn up in accordance with
the provisions of §36.
Liturgical worship is given a more noble
form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in
song with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active
participation of the people. As regards the language to
be used, the provisions of §36 are to be observed;…
to firmly maintaining the use of Latin, the Second Vatican
Council seemed to be preoccupied with opening the greatest
possible number of avenues for the vernacular and, by doing
so, laid down the premises of its definitive victory in
the post-Conciliar era.
the Council's omissions, we shall limit ourselves to discussing
the most relevant under two subtitles: five omissions on
the dogmatic level and three on
the pastoral level.
the Dogmatic Level
the dogmatic level, five points strike us:
failure to condemn the major errors of the 20th century;
absence of the notion of supernaturality and lack of mention
absence of a specific treatment of hell, mentioned only
once in passing (§48 of Lumen Gentium);
lack of mention of the dogmas of Transubstantiation and
of the propitiatory character of the Holy Sacrifice [In
those paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically
expounding on the Holy Mass (§§30, 47, 106), there is
a repeated failure to reinforce these dogmas.-Ed.];
disappearance of any mention of the idea of "the
poor in spirit."
the Pastoral Level
following points come to our attention regarding omissions
at this level:
general, the absence of specifically Catholic
of such key notions as pastorality, the relation between
Church and State, the ideal models of individual, family,
and culture, etc.;
failure to condemn Communism, the greatest threat to Christendom,
on which so much has been written. This failure was noticeable
and resulted later in §75 of Gaudium et Spes which
weakly and generically condemns "totalitarianism,"
putting it on the same level as "dictatorship":
understanding of the relationship between socialization
and personal autonomy and progress will vary according
to different areas and the development of peoples. However,
if restrictions are imposed temporarily for the common
good on the exercise of human rights, these restrictions
are to be lifted as soon as possible after the situation
has changed. In any case it is inhuman for public authority
to fall back on totalitarian methods or dictatorship
which violates the rights of persons or social groups.
(Gaudium et Spes, §75[c]).
same omission reoccurs in §79 of the same document, in which
the horrific crimes of the recent wars were addressed:
action which deliberately violates these principles and
any order which commands these actions is criminal, and
blind obedience cannot excuse those who carry them out.
The most infamous among these actions are those designed
for the reasoned and methodical extermination of an entire
race, nation, or ethnic minority. These must be condemned
as frightful crimes; and we cannot commend too highly
the courage of men who openly and fearlessly resist those
who issue orders of this kind…
20th-century "methods" had been witnessed many
times, for example, against the Christian Armenians (almost
70% exterminated by the Muslim Turks in the years before
WWI) and by the neo-pagan Nazis. But such schemes were known
also to have been performed by the Communists by their systematic
physical annihilation of so-called "class enemies,"
that is, millions of individuals whose only crime was that
of belonging to a social class deemed aristocratic, bourgeois,
peasants-all extirpated in the name of a "classless
society," Communism's Utopian goal. Clearly, in Gaudium
et Spes (§79), "social class" exterminations
should have been added. But the progressive wing that imposed
itself on the Council guarded against this being done, proving
itself politically left-wing. It did not want Marxism to
be discussed as a doctrine born of Communism nor its actual
failure to condemn corrupt customs and hedonism, which
had deeply spread within Western society.
concepts were specifically repeated by the Council in the
decree, Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism, article
renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase
of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the
basis of the movement toward unity.
summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns
here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in
so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus
if, in various times and circumstances, there have been
deficiencies in moral conduct or in Church discipline, or
even in the way that Church teaching has been formulated
to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith
itself, these can and should be set right at the opportune
renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already
in various spheres of the Church's life, this renewal is
taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements, the
preaching of the word of God and catechetics, the apostolate
of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spirituality
of married life, and the Church's social teaching and activity:
all these should be considered as pledges and signs of the
future progress of ecumenism.
Pascendi, 1907, §2, c.
Lamentabili, §§63, 64.
Humani Generis, AAS 1950, pp.565-566.
Gaudium et Spes, §§60-62.
Gaudium et Spes, §§53, 74, 76, etc.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
2003 Volume XXVI, Number 1