Vatican II
Lists of heresies and errors
Table of contents
Introduction
- The theological notes or qualifications of the Church
- List of heresies of Vatican II
2.1. The civil right to “religious liberty”
2.2. “The Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”
2.3. The heretical and schismatic sects are “means of salvation”
2.4. “Public common prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and praiseworthy”
2.5. The Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or cursed
2.6. The Church has a high esteem for doctrines that differ from its own
2.7. “Meetings and theological discussions on an equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”
2.8. “The Church needs the help of unbelievers”
2.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with “missionaries” of heretical sects
2.10. “Deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching should be corrected”
2.11. Other heresies of Vatican II and a heresy in the “proper” of Good Friday of the “Novus Ordo Mass”
- Second systematic list of errors of Vatican II
- Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)
1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non- exclusive)
1.2. Episcopal collegiality and relativised papal primacy
1.3. People of God as the active subject of Tradition
1.4. Church as a sacrament of human unity (non-exclusive of non- Catholics)
- Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and Salvation)
2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin
2.2. Progressive and not instantaneous justification
2.3. Man as the centre and summit of creation
2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue
- Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations
– Muslims as worshippers of the true God
- Religious Liberty
– Neutrality of the State in religious matters
- Liturgy and Sacraments
5.1. Vernacular languages prioritised at Mass
5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy
5.3. Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass
- Social and Pastoral Questions
6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned
6.2. Evolutionism and modernism
- Conclusion: The Conciliabule of Vatican II is certainly multiply heretical.
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), convened by John XXIII and closed by Paul VI, is often presented as a pastoral council aiming to adapt the Church to the modern world (aggiornamento). However, many theologians and traditionalist critics, inspired by analyses such as those of Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Romano Amerio or Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, identified from the outset, even during the council itself, ambiguities, contradictions and potential doctrinal errors in its texts. These errors are seen as deviations from the traditional magisterial teaching, often qualified as heresies or erroneous propositions. This document presents a list of the most significant contradictions with Catholic doctrine, qualified as heretical, that we have identified in the documents of Vatican II, accompanied, in each case, by a summary of the evidence demonstrating that the teaching is truly heretical.
The definition of heresy, according to the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (Canon 1325 §2), is: “Haereticus est qui post baptismum receptum, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam veritatem de fide divina et catholica credendam denegat aut de ea dubitat.” (Translation: “A heretic is one who, after receiving baptism, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts a truth of divine and Catholic faith that must be believed.”)
Let us apply this definition to the errors of Vatican II, following three steps: (1) prove that the erroneous proposition originates from Vatican II, (2) show that it contradicts a truth of Revelation, (3) demonstrate that this truth has been defined as a dogma by the infallible Magisterium. If these steps are fulfilled, it is proven that Vatican II is heretical.
We suspect that a careful reading of the documents of Vatican II would reveal many other heresies, but we consider those listed below to be the most well-known and flagrant.
- The theological notes or qualifications of the Church
Before beginning the list, it may be useful to recall the different theological notes or qualifications that the Church attributes to teachings it has in some way made its own, as well as the corresponding notes of theological censure or condemnation applied to contradictory propositions.
We are concerned in this list only with “heresies” in the strict sense and not with other “errors”, since only heresies cause the loss of all office and jurisdiction (see Pope Paul IV’s papal bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio”, 15 February 1559).
- List of heresies of Vatican II
2.1. The civil right to “religious liberty”
“The Council further declares that the right to religious liberty has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious liberty must be recognised in the constitutional law by which society is governed. It must thus become a civil right.” (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)
Moreover, the “popes” of Vatican II took measures to ensure that, in countries where this liberty was not yet a “civil right”, it would become so. Thus, the Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were suppressed on the express order of the Vatican, and the laws of these countries were modified to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions. And, as if to refute as clearly as possible the attempts of some misguided “conservative” members of the conciliar sect to explain this text in an implausible manner, Karol Wojtyla never missed an opportunity to inculcate his own interpretation – undoubtedly correct – of the Council’s intention. For example, in February 1993, in the predominantly pagan Republic of Benin, he declared that “the Church considers religious liberty as an inalienable right…”
The correct doctrine, often reiterated by the popes, is stated in a particularly authoritative manner in the following passage from the encyclical Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) of Pius IX:
“§5. And from this entirely false idea of social organisation, they do not hesitate to promote that erroneous opinion, particularly disastrous for the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, qualified by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, as madness, namely that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and must be proclaimed by law in every society correctly established… All and each of the doctrines mentioned individually in this letter, by Our apostolic authority, We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We will and order that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.”
Pius IX thus clearly thought that the “madness” he spoke of was heretical, since he asserts that it contradicts divine Revelation. Moreover, this notion of religious liberty had already been expressly condemned by Pius VII in his apostolic letter “Post Tam Diuturnas”, so there is no doubt on this matter.
In short, the civil right to absolute religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae § 2 that “Every man has a right to religious liberty, without coercion”, affirms a natural right to religious error, contrary to the duty of the State to promote the true religion. This is in opposition with Pius IX, “Quanta Cura” (1864): “The liberty of worship is an error” (DS 2890) and with Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832): “Liberty of conscience is a delirium.”
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.2. “The Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”
“…In completing on the cross the work of redemption which was to obtain for men salvation and true liberty, he perfected his revelation” (Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11)
This contradicts the traditional and definitive Catholic teaching according to which many truths proposed by the Church as revealed by God were not yet revealed by Our Lord before His Resurrection, but before the death of the last apostle (Saint John).
For example, the Council of Trent (Session 6, chapter 14) taught that “Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance when He said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained.'” These words were spoken by Our Lord (John 20:23) on the evening of Easter Sunday, more than two full days after His Crucifixion. And, of course, the Catholic tradition offers not the slightest reason to believe that Our Lord had revealed before the Crucifixion His intention to institute this sacrament; to claim that He did so would thus be to invent a new dogma never heard in the Church. And even then, the objection remains that questions such as the precise identity of 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 occurred.
The list of dogmas revealed by Our Lord after His Crucifixion includes the form of the sacrament of Baptism, the institution of the sacrament of Penance, the extension of the Apostles’ mandate of preaching to the whole world, the abolition of patriarchal religions as means of salvation, the entry into force of the primacy and infallibility promised to Saint Peter and of course the Resurrection of Our Lord Himself. The latter, He had of course prophesied long before; but it is as a historical event that we must believe it today, and its historical realisation was only revealed on Easter morning, when it took place and was announced by the angels to the holy women.
Thus, the doctrine of Vatican II on this subject denies the divine revelation of part of the Catholic faith and of the sacramental system, relegating to the status of non-essential non-revealed the very cornerstone of Christianity, about which Saint Paul wrote: “If Christ is not risen, your faith is vain” (1 Corinthians 15:17). But of course, if Our Lord did not reveal His choice of Saint Paul as Apostle (an event which probably took place more than a year after the Crucifixion), it is not surprising that the conciliar sect ignores his doctrine!
Finally, we note that, in condemning the doctrine of those who maintain that new revelations have been added to the deposit of the Faith since the apostolic era, the Church is accustomed to teaching that, as mentioned above, the point of closure, after which no other revelation was made, is the death of the last Apostle (Saint Pius X, Decree Lamentabili Sane of 3 July 1907, Proposition 21). Obviously, the Church would not have chosen such a late date as the point of closure of the Revelation if it had already closed much earlier, namely at the moment of the Crucifixion.
Incidentally, we have seen it argued that the Latin word “perficere”, which appears in the original text of Dignitatis Humanae cited above, means “to perfect” rather than “to complete”. Even if that were the case, we do not see how this would help the opposing position, for divine Revelation could hardly be considered perfect without the Resurrection and all the rest – the Apostles certainly thought the Resurrection was worth knowing, and, recalling their state of mind on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, would no doubt have laughed at the idea that the Revelation was perfect without it. But in any case, “perficere” does not normally mean “to perfect”. Its natural sense is “to complete” or “to bring to completion”; and even when the secondary sense, “to perfect”, is possible, it is always in the sense of perfecting by completion.
In short, the Revelation was completed with the death of the last Apostle; the post-Crucifixion acts are part of it, therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.3. The heretical and schismatic sects are “means of salvation”
“The Churches and communities separated as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not hesitated to use them as means of salvation, whose efficacy derives from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)
This contradicts a doctrine which has perhaps been repeated more often than any other by the Church and which is incontestably revealed by God. A single example of the magisterial teaching of the true doctrine suffices, and we choose this one, taken from the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV (1441):
“The most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only the pagans, but also the Jews, heretics and schismatics, can have a share in eternal life; but that they will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before their death they are united with her…”
We have heard it said that the word “means”, present in this aberrant passage, was perhaps intended to signify something like “springboard”; but of course, the word is capable of bearing this sense neither in itself nor in the Latin word of which it is a translation. A philosophical axiom states that “a means which cannot attain its end is not a means”. Taking a plane is a means of going from England to France, but cycling is not, even if, upon reaching the edge of the Channel, one throws the bicycle aside and uses another mode of transport.
In short, the consideration of non-Catholic sects as means of salvation in Unitatis Redintegratio §3 (“The Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation”) attributes a salvific role to heretical communities, denying the exclusivity of the Catholic Church and is therefore in opposition with the Council of Florence (1442): “Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation” (DS 1351), and Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950) which teaches that “The sects do not save.” Consequently:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.4. “Public common prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and praiseworthy”
“In certain circumstances, such as in prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is permitted, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such common prayers are certainly a very effective means of asking for the grace of unity, and they are an authentic expression of the bonds which still unite Catholics with their separated brethren.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 8)
In this short passage, the Fathers of Vatican II succeeded in inserting two distinct doctrinal falsehoods:
- That it is desirable that Catholics participate in “prayer services” with their “separated brethren”. Far from being desirable, common religious activities with non-Catholics (except in the case of persons known already on the path to conversion) are forbidden.
- That such common prayers are “a very effective means of asking for the grace of unity”.
The correct doctrine is clearly expounded in canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (“§1. It is not permitted to the faithful to assist actively or to take part, in any manner whatsoever, in non-Catholic sacred rites”), which even the most fervent supporter of Vatican II cannot deny was in force at the time of the Council.
This canon stipulates that it is illicit to participate actively in any manner whatsoever, or to take part, in the devotional acts of non-Catholics; and this is merely a repetition and affirmation of what has always been the rule of the Church. Casuists were consulted on possible exceptions in England in the 16th century, where and when this mattered greatly, and the only concessions they found were very minor activities, such as saying grace – and even that was permitted only to avoid grave danger.
Certainly, if canon 1258 were merely a pure ecclesiastical law – in other words, a form of human law – Vatican II (if it were a true council) could have abrogated it and imposed a new law. But canon 1258 was not a purely ecclesiastical law. It represents in part an application of divine law; and even a pope cannot abolish a divine law (nor dispense from it).
A fully sufficient proof that a divine law is at issue is found in the following instruction on the subject of “communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis” addressed to Catholics in England by Cardinal Allen in his letter of 12 December 1592:
“…You [priests] and all my brethren must take care not to teach nor defend that it is licit to commune with the Protestants in their prayers or services or in the conventicles where they gather to administer their non-true sacraments; for this is contrary to the practice of the Church and the holy Doctors of all ages, who never communed nor permitted a Catholic person to pray with Arians, Donatists or anyone else. This is not a positive law of the Church, for in that case a dispensation could be granted on certain occasions; but it is forbidden by the eternal law of God, as I could prove by many evident arguments… To be quite sure, I have sought the opinion of the currently reigning pope [Clement VIII], and he has expressly told me that participating with the Protestants, whether by praying with them, going to their churches or services or other similar things, is in no way licit or dispensable.”
In short, the common prayer with heretics and schismatics of U.R. §8: “Public common prayer with heretics is useful” contradicts the prohibition of “communicatio in sacris” and is in opposition with: Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: “Forbid mixed prayer” and Canon 1258 (CIC 1917), therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL for the second proposition (the first being qualified as erroneous in the faith in the original text).
2.5. The Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or cursed
“It is true that the Church is the new people of God, but the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed as if this followed from Holy Scripture.” (Declaration on the Relations of the Church with Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 4)
For proof of the true doctrine concerning this remarkable assertion, we can begin with the parable of Our Lord recorded in Matthew 21:33-45 and the traditional interpretation of the Church. “The rejection of the Jews and the conversion of the Gentiles are here predicted, as Christ teaches at verse 43,” says Cornelius a Lapide in his commentary on this passage.
Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: “And all the people, answering, said: His blood be on us and on our children.” One may suppose that something follows from this passage of Holy Scripture, and one wonders what the Fathers of Vatican II had in mind. For the traditional teaching of the Church concerning this passage, we return again to Cornelius a Lapide, where he comments:
“And thus, they [the Jews] subjected, not only themselves, but their most recent descendants, to the displeasure of God. They still feel it today in all its force, being dispersed throughout the world, without city, without temple, without sacrifice, without priest or prince… ‘This curse,’ says Saint Jerome, ‘rests upon them to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken from them,’ as Daniel predicted (Daniel 9:27).”
And, out of curiosity, if we were asked which passage, among all those of Vatican II that we present, we believe to be the most difficult to explain even with the most subtle devices of debate, we would probably choose this one. We do not claim that it is more definitively heretical than the others, but it seems to offer the fewest escape routes, especially since the Fathers of Vatican II expressly chose to have their doctrine judged in relation to Holy Scripture, which is explicit in making absolutely clear that the Jews were collectively reprobate for their role in the Crucifixion. (Many other texts of the New Testament could be cited to this effect, but we think we have already provided sufficient proof.)
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.6. The Church has a high esteem for doctrines that differ from its own
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [non-Christian religions]. She has a high esteem for the manner of living and conducting oneself, the precepts and doctrines which, though differing in many ways from her own teaching, often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” (Nostra Aetate, paragraph 2)
Setting aside the scandalous reference to life, conduct and precepts, let us focus on the assertion that the Church has “a high esteem” for the “doctrines” of false religions, not only those which, by chance, may be true, but even those which “differ… from her own teaching”. Since the teaching of the Catholic Church is true, it is a logical necessity that any doctrine which differs from it is false. The Fathers of Vatican II have thus firmly declared that the Church “has a high esteem” for false doctrines. Of course, this is perfectly true of the conciliar sect; but the attitude of the Catholic Church towards false doctrines has always been the same as that of her Divine Founder: an unrestrained aversion.
In short, the non-Christian religions bearing holiness and truth according to Nostra Aetate §2: “Non-Christian religions possess holiness and truth.” are syncretism relativising Christ as the sole mediator. This is in opposition with Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928) that “Pagan religions do not have the truth”; and see Acts 4:12 “There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.7. “Meetings and theological discussions on an equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”
“Catholics who already have adequate training must acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, of their history, of their spiritual and liturgical life, of their religious psychology and of their cultural context. Very valuable for this purpose are the meetings of the two parties – particularly for the discussion of theological problems – where each can deal with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who participate under the direction of the authorities are truly competent.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 9)
Whatever may be said to defend the orthodoxy of this heretical doctrine, it is an inescapable fact that, in entering into a discussion with anyone on an equal footing, one renounces any claim to a superior authority to that of the other party. Otherwise, the equal footing would simply not be equal. Consider: how can the Church recommend to Catholics, even the most competent, to engage in a theological discussion with Protestants unless the Protestants are open-minded and ready to recognise that their religious opinions are at least doubtful and to change them if they discover clear proof to the contrary? And yet, for a Catholic to enter into dialogue with such a Protestant on an equal footing, it would be necessary that the Catholic have the same attitude towards his own religious convictions – in other words, that he consider them as provisional opinions rather than as divinely guaranteed truths, unshakably certain, and that he would prefer to die a thousand deaths rather than doubt the slightest detail of one of them for a fleeting moment.
Thus, the Council encourages Catholics to conceal the divine obligation of all to recognise the Catholic faith, to conceal the impossibility for any Catholic – without horrifying mortal sin – to question the slightest detail of his faith, and to conceal the necessity for all heretics to submit to the Church. It encourages Catholics to display the attitude that disputed theological questions between Catholics and non-Catholics are a matter of open debate: opinion against opinion. There is no other way to read these words of the Council. And the behaviour recommended by Vatican II has been expressly condemned in Mortalium Animos of Pius XI:
“Although it is easy to find many non-Catholics often preaching the communion [of all Christians separated from one another] in the hope that little by little all may be brought back to the one true Church from which they have, alas, unfortunately strayed, it must nevertheless be borne in mind that if this is to happen, it can only come about by the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they have separated themselves. This return, moreover, can only be effected by the acceptance of the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church.”
In short, the meetings and theological discussions on an equal footing of U.R. §9: “Theological discussions on an equal footing with non-Catholics are praiseworthy” encourage a relativism contrary to the divine obligation of faith and are therefore in opposition with Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928): “Forbid communion in worship with non-Catholics.” Consequently:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.8. “The Church needs the help of unbelievers”
“The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey towards the kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the need for greater brotherhood and cooperation with men of every religion and of no religion.” (Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 1)
This assertion that the Church “needs the help of unbelievers” is a direct contradiction of the teaching of the Church that she is sufficient in herself, by virtue of her divine institution and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to accomplish her mission. The Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is endowed with all the graces and truths necessary for the salvation of souls, and her dependence is on God alone, not on the assistance of those outside her fold.
The true doctrine is affirmed in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of Pius XII (1943), where he states: “The Church alone possesses in its entirety the means ordained to the end for which it was established, namely, the salvation of mankind.” To suggest that the Church requires the cooperation of unbelievers for her mission is to undermine her divine constitution and sufficiency.
In short, the need for the help of unbelievers in Gaudium et Spes §1: “The Church needs the help of unbelievers” denies the sufficiency of the Church’s divine institution and is therefore in opposition with Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (1943): “The Church alone possesses the means of salvation.” Consequently:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with “missionaries” of heretical sects
“In order that the good news of salvation may be made known to all men in every land, the Church considers it fitting that her missionaries should collaborate with those who are also working for the spread of the Gospel, even if they belong to different religious bodies.” (Ad Gentes, paragraph 6)
This proposition contradicts the Church’s traditional teaching that the mission to spread the Gospel is entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church, under the authority of the successors of the Apostles. Cooperation with heretics in missionary work implies a recognition of their legitimacy, which is incompatible with the Church’s claim to be the sole depository of divine truth.
The correct doctrine is expressed in the encyclical Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII (1896): “The Church of Christ is one and the same forever; those who are outside her cannot be reckoned among her missionaries.” To suggest that Catholic missionaries should collaborate with heretical “missionaries” is to dilute the purity of the faith and to endanger the souls entrusted to their care.
In short, the cooperation with heretical missionaries in Ad Gentes §6: “Catholic missionaries should cooperate with heretical missionaries” denies the exclusive mission of the Catholic Church and is therefore in opposition with Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896): “Only the Catholic Church has the mission to spread the Gospel.” Consequently:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.10. “Deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching should be corrected”
“The Church, conscious of the deficiencies in its presentation of certain truths in the past, acknowledges the need for a continual re-examination and reformulation of its teachings in light of modern circumstances.” (Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 44)
This statement implies that the Church’s teaching, which is divinely revealed and protected by the Holy Spirit, is subject to error or inadequacy requiring correction. Such a notion is contrary to the Church’s teaching on the infallibility of her magisterium when defining doctrines of faith and morals.
The true doctrine is affirmed in the First Vatican Council (1870): “The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, disclose new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.” The idea that the Church’s teaching contains deficiencies to be corrected is a direct attack on this divine guarantee.
In short, the need to correct deficiencies in Church teaching in Gaudium et Spes §44: “Deficiencies in the Church’s teaching should be corrected” denies the infallibility of the magisterium and is therefore in opposition with Vatican I (1870): “The Church’s teaching is infallibly guarded.” Consequently:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.11. Other heresies of Vatican II and a heresy in the “proper” of Good Friday of the “Novus Ordo Mass”
Among the additional heresies identified in the documents of Vatican II, one notable example is the alteration of the traditional prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy of the Novus Ordo Mass. The original prayer, as found in the Roman Missal prior to 1962, implored God to lift the veil from the hearts of the Jews and to show mercy to His ancient people. The revised prayer in the Novus Ordo, however, removes any reference to the Jews’ rejection or the need for their conversion, stating instead: “Let us pray also for the Jewish people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that He may continue to grant them His mercy.” (Roman Missal, Good Friday, 1970)
This revision contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church, as expressed by Saint Paul in Romans 11:25: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery… that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” The change in the prayer reflects a denial of the need for the conversion of the Jews, which is a heresy in light of the Church’s consistent teaching.
Furthermore, other heresies can be identified throughout the documents of Vatican II.
For instance, the document Gaudium et Spes introduces a naturalistic view of human progress, suggesting that the temporal order can be perfected without reference to the supernatural end of man, which is contrary to the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas that all human action must be ordered towards God as its final end.
Additionally, the promotion of religious pluralism in Nostra Aetate, which implies that various religions contain elements of saving truth, stands in opposition to the exclusive mediation of Christ as taught in John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
These examples, while not exhaustive, demonstrate the pervasive heretical nature of Vatican II’s teachings. The heresy in the Novus Ordo’s Good Friday prayer is particularly egregious, as it alters a liturgical text to conform to modern sensibilities rather than preserving the immutable truth of the faith.
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
- Second systematic list of errors of Vatican II
- Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)
1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)
The assertion in Lumen Gentium §8 that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” suggests that the Church of Christ exists partially outside the Catholic Church, contradicting the dogma “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the Church there is no salvation), as defined by the Council of Florence.
1.2. Episcopal collegiality and relativised papal primacy
The introduction of episcopal collegiality in Lumen Gentium §22 diminishes the supreme authority of the Pope, contrary to the teaching of Vatican I on papal primacy.
1.3. People of God as the active subject of Tradition
The concept in Lumen Gentium §12 that the “People of God” actively shape Tradition undermines the role of the magisterium as the sole authoritative interpreter.
1.4. Church as a sacrament of human unity (non-exclusive of non-Catholics)
The idea in Lumen Gentium §1 that the Church is a sacrament of unity for all mankind, including non-Catholics, dilutes its exclusive role as the ark of salvation.
- Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and Salvation)
2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin
Gaudium et Spes §29 asserts an inherent dignity in man apart from grace, contradicting the teaching on original sin (Council of Trent, Session 5).
2.2. Progressive and not instantaneous justification
The suggestion in Lumen Gentium §40 of a gradual justification contradicts the instantaneous nature of justification taught by the Council of Trent (Session 6).
2.3. Man as the centre and summit of creation
Gaudium et Spes §12 elevates man to the centre of creation, contrary to the Thomistic view that God alone is the end of all creation.
2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue
Humanae Vitae’s ambiguity (1968) allows for interpretation supporting birth control, against the consistent condemnation by Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930).
- Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations
– Muslims as worshippers of the true God
Nostra Aetate §3 claims Muslims adore the one God, contradicting the teaching that only the Triune God is the true God (Council of Florence).
- Religious Liberty
– Neutrality of the State in religious matters
Dignitatis Humanae §6 promotes state neutrality, against the duty of the State to uphold the true religion (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
- Liturgy and Sacraments
5.1. Vernacular languages prioritised at Mass
Sacrosanctum Concilium §36 prefers vernacular over Latin, contrary to the Church’s tradition of preserving Latin (Pius XII, Mediator Dei).
5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium §14 redefines liturgy around participation, shifting focus from sacrificial worship (Pius XII, Mediator Dei).
5.3. Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass
The Novus Ordo Missae (1969) reflects Protestant influences, denying the sacrificial nature affirmed by the Council of Trent (Session 22).
- Social and Pastoral Questions
6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned
Gaudium et Spes §65 fails to condemn socialism and communism, contrary to Pius XI’s Divini Redemptoris (1937).
6.2. Evolutionism and modernism
Gaudium et Spes §36 tolerates evolutionism, against Pius XII’s Humani Generis (1950) warning.
- Conclusion: The Conciliabule of Vatican II is certainly multiply heretical.
Let us pray that Gods will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.