Vatican II

Lists of Heresies and Errors

1. Introduction
2. The theological notes or qualifications of the Church
3. List of heresies of Vatican II

3.1. The civil right to “religious liberty”

3.2. “Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”

3.3. Heretical and schismatic sects are “means of salvation”

3.4. “Public common prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and praiseworthy”

3.5. The Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or accursed

3.6. The Church has a high esteem for doctrines that differ from her own

3.7. “Meetings and theological discussions on an equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”

3.8. “The Church needs the help of unbelievers”

3.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with heretical “missionaries”

3.10. “Deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching should be corrected”

3.11. Other heresies of Vatican II and a heresy in the Good Friday “proper” of the Novus Ordo “mass”

4. Second systematic list of errors of Vatican II

4.1. Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)

4.1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)

4.1.2. Episcopal collegiality and papal primacy relativized

4.1.3. The People of God as active subject of Tradition

4.1.4. The Church as sacrament of human unity (not exclusive of non-Catholics)

4.2. Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and of Salvation)

4.2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin

4.2.2. Progressive and non-instantaneous justification

4.2.3. Man as centre and summit of creation

4.2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue

4.3. Ecumenism and interreligious relations

4.3.1. Muslims as worshippers of the true God

4.4. Religious liberty

4.4.1. Neutrality of the State in religious matters

4.5. Liturgy and Sacraments

4.5.1. Vernacular languages given priority at Mass

4.5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy

4.5.3. The Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass

4.6. Social and pastoral questions

4.6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned

4.6.2. Evolutionism and modernism

5. Conclusion: The Conciliabulum of Vatican II is certainly multiply heretical.
6. List of sources

6.1. Holy Scripture

6.2. Councils and doctrinal acts prior to Vatican II

6.3. Pontifical acts

6.4. Canonical sources and acts of the Roman congregations

6.5. Fathers and theologians

6.6. Collections and editions of texts

6.7. Documents of Vatican II

6.8. Liturgical texts

6.9. Historical documents

6.10. Postconciliar addresses

 

1. Introduction

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), convened by John XXIII and closed by Paul VI, is often presented as a pastoral council aimed at adapting the Church to the modern world (aggiornamento). However, many theologians and traditional critics, inspired by analyses such as those of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Romano Amerio or Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, identified from the beginning, even during the council itself, ambiguities, contradictions and potential doctrinal errors in its texts.

These errors are seen as departures from 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, which we have identified in the documents of Vatican II, accompanied, in each case, by a summary of the proofs showing that the teaching is truly heretical.

The definition of heresy, according to the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (canon 1325 paragraph 2; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. IX, part II, 1917, p. 257), is:

“Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus […]”

(Translation: “A person is a heretic who, after receiving baptism, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”)

Let us apply this definition to the errors of Vatican II, following three steps: (1) prove that the erroneous proposition comes from Vatican II and its (anti-)popes, (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 proved 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 that those listed below are the best known and the most flagrant.

2. The theological notes or qualifications of the Church

Before beginning the list, it may be useful to recall the various theological notes or qualifications which the Church attributes to the teachings she has made her own in one way or another, as well as the corresponding notes of theological censure or condemnation applied to contradictory propositions.

In this list we occupy ourselves solely with “heresies” in the strict sense and not with other “errors”, because only heresies cause the loss of every office and of jurisdiction (see Pope Paul IV, pontifical Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio”, of 15 February 1559, paragraph 3).

3. List of heresies of Vatican II

3.1. The civil right to “religious liberty”

“The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right of the human person to religious freedom must be recognized in the juridical order of society so as to become a civil right.” (Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, paragraph 2)

Moreover, the “popes” of Vatican II took measures so that, in countries where this liberty was not yet a “civil right”, it would become one. Thus, according to the testimony of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were suppressed by express order of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries were modified to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Bilan de quinze années post-conciliaires d’obéissance aux réformes”, extract from L’Église infiltrée par le modernisme, Bulletin des Amis de saint François de Sales, no. 225, September-October 2023, pp. 6–7; for the Spanish texts: Constitution, art. 16, in La Documentation catholique, no. 1756, 21 January 1979, p. 98; agreement between the Spanish State and the Holy See of 3 January 1979, art. VIII, in La Documentation catholique, no. 1760, 18 March 1979, pp. 277–278). And, as if to refute as clearly as possible the attempts of certain ill-advised “conservative” members of the conciliar sect to explain this text in an implausible way, Karol Wojtyla never missed an opportunity to inculcate his own interpretation – doubtless the correct one – of the Council’s intention. For example, on 4 February 1993, at Cotonou, in the African Republic of Benin, which is predominantly pagan, he declared that “The Church considers religious liberty an inalienable right […]” (John Paul II, address to a delegation of Voodoo disciples, Cotonou, 4 February 1993, no. 4).

The correct doctrine, often reiterated by the popes, is set forth in a particularly authoritative manner in the following passage of the encyclical Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) of Pius IX:

“And from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely, that liberty of conscience and of worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be proclaimed and asserted by law in every rightly constituted society… Therefore, by Our Apostolic authority, We reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and every one of these perverse opinions and doctrines individually mentioned in this letter, and We wish and command that they be held as reprobated, proscribed and condemned by all the children of the Catholic Church.” (Denzinger, no. 1690; Denzinger–Hünermann, no. 2896.)

Pius IX therefore clearly thought that the “insanity” of which he spoke was heretical, because he affirms 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”, of 29 April 1814, so there is no doubt on this point.

In short, the civil right to absolute religious liberty of Dignitatis humanae, paragraph 2, which affirms that “the human person has a right to religious freedom”, affirms a natural right to religious error, contrary to the duty of the State to promote the true religion. This is in opposition to Pius IX, Quanta cura (8 December 1864; Denzinger, no. 1690), which condemns this liberty of conscience and of worship, and to Gregory XVI, Mirari vos (15 August 1832), which qualifies as “delirium” the opinion according to which liberty of conscience must be affirmed and claimed for everyone.

Pius VII, Post tam diuturnas (29 April 1814), already condemns this “liberty” as contrary to the divine order. The State is not neutral: it must subject all things to Christ the King (Pius XI, Quas primas, 11 December 1925, paragraphs 18 and 32). DH denies the social kingship of Christ.

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.2. “Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”

“[…] By completing on the Cross the work of redemption which was to win for men salvation and true liberty, He brought His revelation to completion” (Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, paragraph 11)

This contradicts traditional and definitive Catholic teaching according to which many truths proposed by the Church as revealed by God had not yet been revealed by Our Lord before His Resurrection, but before the death of the last apostle (Saint John).

For example, the Council of Trent (session VI, 13 January 1547, chapter XIV; J. Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, London, Dolman, 1848, p. 41) taught that “Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance when He said: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’” These words were spoken by Our Lord (John 20, 19 and 22–23) on the evening of Easter Sunday, more than two full days after His Crucifixion. And, of course, 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 therefore 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 took place.

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’ preaching mandate to the whole world, the abolition of the patriarchal religions as means of salvation, the coming into force of the primacy and infallibility promised to Saint Peter, and of course the Resurrection of Our Lord Himself. The last of these He had of course prophesied long beforehand; but it is as a historical event that we must believe in it today, and its historical realization was revealed only 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 a part of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic sacramental system, relegating to the status of unrevealed inessentials the very cornerstone of Christianity, concerning which Saint Paul wrote: “If Christ be not risen again, 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 hold that new revelations have been added to the deposit of the Faith since the apostolic age, the Church is accustomed to teach that, as mentioned above, the closing point, after which no further revelation was made, is the death of the last Apostle (cf. Holy Office, decree Lamentabili sane exitu, 3 July 1907, proposition 21, approved by Saint Pius X on 4 July 1907; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XL, 1907, pp. 473 and 478). Obviously the Church would not have chosen so late a date as the closing point of Revelation if Revelation had already closed much earlier, namely at the moment of the Crucifixion.

Incidentally, we have seen it argued that the Latin verb “perficere”, used in the form “perfecit” in the original text of Dignitatis humanae, paragraph 11, cited above, means “to perfect” rather than “to bring to completion”. Even if that were the case, we do not see how it would help the opposing position, because divine Revelation could hardly be considered perfect without the Resurrection and all the rest – the Apostles certainly thought that the Resurrection was worth knowing, and, thinking back to their state of mind on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, would no doubt have scoffed at the idea that 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, Revelation was completed with the death of the last Apostle; the post-crucifixion acts form part of it, therefore:

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.3. Heretical and schismatic sects are “means of salvation”

“The separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, 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 (bull Cantate Domino, 4 February 1442; DS 1351):

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

We have heard it said that the word “means”, present in this aberrant passage, was perhaps intended to signify something like “stepping-stone”; but of course the word is capable of bearing that sense neither in itself nor in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that “a means which cannot attain its end is not a means”. Taking an aeroplane is a means of going from England to France, but cycling is not, even if, on arriving at 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, paragraph 3 (“the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation”), attributes a salvific role to heretical communities, denying the exclusivity of the Catholic Church, and is therefore in opposition to the Council of Florence (Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1442; DS 1351), according to which there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and Pius XII, Humani generis (12 August 1950), paragraph 27: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Then read Saint Cyprian: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Letter to Jubaianus, paragraph 21; trans. R. E. Wallis, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, 1886, letter 72).

And the Syllabus (Pius IX, 8 December 1864, propositions 16–18; DS 2916–2918) condemning indifferentism. The sects are only paths of perdition.

Therefore:

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.4. “Public common prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and praiseworthy”

“In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers ‘for unity’, and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren.” (Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, paragraph 8)

In this short passage the Fathers of Vatican II succeeded in inserting two distinct doctrinal falsehoods:

That it is desirable that Catholics take part in “prayer services” with their “separated brethren”. Far from being desirable, common religious activities with non-Catholics (except in the case of persons already known to be on the way 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 set forth in canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (can. 1258 paragraph 1; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. IX, part II, 1917, p. 245: “paragraph 1. It is not permitted to the faithful to assist actively or to take part, in any form 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 states that it is illicit to participate actively in any way, or to take part, in the devotional acts of non-Catholics; and this is only a repetition and an affirmation of what has always been the rule of the Church. Casuists were consulted on possible exceptions in England in the sixteenth century, where and when it really mattered, and the only concessions they found were very minor activities, such as saying grace – and even that was permitted only to avoid a grave danger.

Certainly, if canon 1258 were only a purely 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 the divine law; and even a pope cannot abolish a divine law (nor dispense from it).

Fully sufficient proof that a divine law is involved is found in the following instruction on the subject of “communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis” addressed to the Catholics of England by Cardinal Allen in his letter of 12 December 1592 (Thomas Francis Knox, historical introduction to The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay, and an Appendix of Unpublished Documents, London, D. Nutt, 1878, pp. xxiii–xxiv, note 3):

“…You [priests] and all my brethren must take care not to teach or defend that it is lawful to participate with the Protestants in their prayers or services or in the conventicles where they gather to administer their untrue sacraments; for this is contrary to the practice of the Church and of the holy Doctors of all ages, who never participated nor permitted a Catholic person to pray with Arians, Donatists or anyone else. Nor is this a positive law of the Church, for in that case a dispensation could be granted on certain occasions; but this is forbidden by the eternal law of God, as I could prove by many evident arguments… To be quite sure, I asked the opinion of the pope now reigning [Clement VIII], and he expressly told me that to participate with the Protestants, whether in praying with them, in going to their churches or services or other like things, was in no way lawful or dispensable […]”

In short, common prayer with heretics and schismatics of Unitatis redintegratio, paragraph 8, which presents this common prayer as desirable and effective, contradicts the prohibition of “communicatio in sacris” and is in opposition to Pius XI, Mortalium animos (6 January 1928), paragraphs 7–8, and canon 1258 paragraph 1 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, therefore:

Theological censure: HERETICAL for the second proposition (the first being qualified as erroneous in the faith in the original text).

3.5. The Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or accursed

“True, the Church is the new people of God; nevertheless, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from Holy Scripture.” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965, paragraph 4)

For a proof of the true doctrine concerning this remarkable assertion, we may begin with Our Lord’s parable 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 in verse 43,” says Cornelius a Lapide in his commentary on Matthew 21, 41 (The Great Commentary, trans. T. W. Mossman and collaborators, 3rd ed., London, John Hodges, 1887, vol. II).

Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: “And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon 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 remote descendants, to the displeasure of God. They still feel it today in all its force, being scattered 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 away from them,’ as Daniel predicted (Daniel 9, 27).” (Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, 3rd ed., London, John Hodges, 1887, vol. III, commentary on Matthew 27, 25, translation of James Bliss; Saint Jerome, Commentaria in Matthaeum, book IV, on Matthew 27, 25.)

And, by 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 loopholes, especially since the Fathers of Vatican II expressly chose to have their doctrine judged in relation to Holy Scripture, which is explicit in making it absolutely clear that the Jews were collectively reprobated 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 proofs.)

The traditional Good Friday prayer (pre-1955/1960) implores the conversion of the “perfidis Judaeis” – “perfidis” meaning unfaithful to the Messiah, not “traitors” in the modern sense (Sacred Congregation of Rites, Declaratio of 10 June 1948, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XL, 1948, p. 342). Vatican II reverses this, contradicting the theology of substitution (Church = new Israel, Rom. 11 interpreted traditionally).

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.6. The Church has a high esteem for doctrines that differ from her own

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [non-Christian religions]. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” (Vatican II, Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965, paragraph 2)

Setting aside the scandalous reference to life, conduct and precepts, let us concentrate on the affirmation that the Church has “a high esteem” for the “doctrines” of the 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 therefore 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 as bearers of holiness and truth according to Nostra aetate paragraph 2: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.” are syncretism relativizing Christ as unique mediator. This is in opposition to Pius XI, Mortalium animos (6 January 1928, paragraph 2), which condemns “the erroneous theory that the religions are all more or less good and praiseworthy”; and see Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore:

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.7. “Meetings and theological discussions on an equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”

“Catholics who already have a proper grounding need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background. Of great value for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent.” (Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, paragraph 9)

Whatever one may say in defence of the orthodoxy of this heretical doctrine, there is an inescapable fact that, by entering into a discussion with anyone on an equal footing, one renounces any claim to an authority superior 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 recognize that their religious opinions are at least doubtful and to change them if they discover clear proofs 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 regard them as provisional opinions rather than as divinely guaranteed truths, unshakeably certain, and that he would prefer to die a thousand deaths rather than to call into doubt the least detail of any one of them for a fleeting instant.

Thus the Council encourages Catholics to conceal the divine obligation of all to recognize the Catholic faith, to conceal the impossibility for any Catholic – without horrifying mortal sin – to question the least 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 the theological questions disputed between Catholics and non-Catholics are a matter of open debate: opinion against opinion. There is no other way of reading these words of the Council. And the behaviour recommended by Vatican II was expressly condemned in Mortalium Animos of Pius XI:

“Although it is easy to find many non-Catholics preaching often a fraternal communion in Jesus Christ, you will find none to whose mind it would occur to submit and obey the Vicar of Christ, either as teacher or as head of the Church. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Roman Church, but on the basis of equality of rights and as equals. If they could thus treat, they do not seem to doubt that an agreement could be reached by which they would not be obliged to abandon the opinions which have hitherto been the cause of their wandering outside the true fold of Christ. Under such conditions it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot in any way take part in their assemblies, and that Catholics cannot in any way adhere to or give their assistance to such efforts…” (Pius XI, Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, paragraphs 7–8.)

The Holy Father also taught that: “…he who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them abandons altogether the religion divinely revealed.” (Pius XI, Mortalium animos, paragraph 2.)

Vatican II affirms that meetings of the two sides – especially for the discussion of theological problems and where each can treat with the other on an equal footing – are “very valuable”. Pius XI says that they cannot be contemplated and that the theories which would defend such meetings as good amount to apostasy.

Theological censure: HERETICAL AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL FAITH.

3.8. “The Church needs the help of unbelievers”

“In these days when things are changing so rapidly and patterns of thought differ so widely, the Church needs to intensify this exchange [that is, the exchange between the Church and the various cultures] by calling upon the help of those who live in the world, who are expert in its institutions and its disciplines, and who understand its mentality, whether they be believers or unbelievers.” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965, paragraph 44, al. 2)

Quite clearly, whereas unbelievers have the most urgent and desperate need of everything that the Church has to offer them, the Church herself has absolutely no need of anything from them. Her mission is to preach the truth and to offer the means of sanctification to all men, and not to act as an intercultural exchange shop; and her Divine Founder, by means of the essentially immutable constitution with which He endowed her and of the unceasing inspiration and protection of the Holy Ghost whom He sent her at Pentecost, has provided her with everything she can need to accomplish her mission. The suggestion that, for any reason whatever, the Church may need the assistance of a group of persons qualified, not by theological learning or holiness, but only by their familiarity with the ways and the spirit of the world – of which it is written that “the whole world is seated in wickedness” (1 John 5:19) – and including unbelievers among them, can merit only one possible qualification…

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with heretical “missionaries”

“In collaboration with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, it [the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith] will seek ways and methods for attaining and organizing fraternal cooperation and harmonious relations with the missionary undertakings of other Christian communities, so that as far as possible the scandal of division may be removed.” (Vatican II, decree on the missionary activity of the Church Ad gentes, 7 December 1965, paragraph 29)

Catholic missionaries are men sent by God through His holy Church to preach the truth to those who are ignorant of it, so that, if they are of good will, they may embrace the Gospel by an act of supernatural faith, which is the necessary basis of the process of justification. Protestant “missionaries”, on the other hand, are impostors inspired by the devil, not envoys of God but His enemies, brazenly claiming to make known His truth while distorting it according to their prejudices and bringing to those foolish enough to accept their doctrines, not light, but a still deeper degree of darkness, so that we may justly apply to a pagan “converted” by Protestant “missionaries” the words of Our Lord: “the last state of that man is worse than the first.” (Matthew 12:45) Hence the great Jesuit commentator on the Scriptures, Father Cornelius a Lapide, writes:

“…it is never lawful to rejoice at seeing heresy preached and propagated, even among the pagans; for although they announce Christ, they announce at the same time many heresies… and these heresies are more pernicious than paganism itself; so that it is far better for the pagans to receive no truth or doctrine from heretics, than to receive it mixed with so many perverse errors…” (Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, ed. Augustin Crampon, vol. XIX, In epistolas divi Pauli, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1876, p. 10, commentary on Philippians 1:18)

And in the light of this, can one believe that a council calling itself Catholic recommends a “fraternal cooperation” between Catholic missionaries and their most deadly adversaries and opponents? Can anyone with a grain of Catholic faith still in his soul seriously imagine that it is lawful to accomplish the work of God by acting in concert with those who are determined to frustrate it? Can anyone seriously advise, for the advancement of any project whatsoever, that it be accomplished, not by those who understand the nature of the work and its value, and aspire to see it realized, but by a promiscuous alliance of those who favour the project with those who oppose it, those who understand it and those who are totally blind to its nature?

We think that a sufficient answer is given to these questions by the words of Saint Paul:

“Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

Theological censure: the position of anyone who believes that such a policy is praiseworthy is obviously HERETICAL.

3.10. “Deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching should be corrected”

“Consequently, 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 moment and in the proper way.” (Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, paragraph 6)

This passage is a good example of the way in which the heretical council Vatican II follows the example of other heretics in subtly concealing its poison and seeming to defend the very truth which it simultaneously denies. The notion that there could exist deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching represents a contemptible attack upon the holiness, the infallibility and the divine protection guaranteed to the Church by her Divine Founder. Nothing is accomplished by the fallacious evasion that doctrinal formulation must be “carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself”; for the deposit of faith was communicated by God to men in the form of words, spoken or written, and has always been communicated by the holy Church to her children in the same way, by the voices and pens of her missionaries, pastors and Doctors. It would therefore be quite impossible that there should be deficiencies in the formulation of Catholic teaching without there being a deficiency in the Church’s custody and proclamation of the deposit of faith itself. This is why the Holy Ghost preserves the declarations of the Church from error – not necessarily by a direct inspiration of the most perfect possible words to communicate His meaning, as occurred in the case of Holy Scripture, but at least by ensuring that no word is ever used in such an official formulation which could be regarded as defective. And this is why Pope Saint Agatho (678-681) wrote that: “Nothing of what has been regularly defined must be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but all must be preserved intact both in the words and in the sense.” (Epistle to the Emperor, cited by Gregory XVI, Mirari vos, 15 August 1832, paragraph 7, note 6)

And of course no loophole from the heterodoxy of the contrary teaching of Vatican II can be based on the subtle technique of using the conditional, “If… there have been deficiencies… in the way that church teaching has been formulated…”; for the simple reason that even to contemplate the hypothesis shows that it is believed possible that there could be such deficiencies, and to give instructions on how to respond to such an eventuality shows that it is even probable.

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

3.11. Other heresies of Vatican II and a heresy in the Good Friday “proper” of the Novus Ordo “mass”

The preceding list is not exhaustive, in part because we have never wished to undertake the long, laborious and morally dangerous task of carefully reading all the documents of the Council for the purpose of spotting every affront to the Catholic faith that they contain. We think however that it is worth mentioning here that the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism and the declaration Nostra Aetate on non-Christian religions, as well as the more famous declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, form a special category, since the heresies they contain are not accidental but constitute their very raison d’être. In other words, each of these documents does not merely contain isolated outrages against Catholic truth, but was conceived as an attack upon a Catholic doctrine.

“Nostra Aetate” aims to undermine the cornerstone of the Christian doctrine of salvation “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth”, because “there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:10,12).

“Unitatis Redintegratio” strives to tear the seamless tunic of Christ and to make His faithful spouse the Church a harlot by denying that “a man that is a heretic… is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10,11).

And “Dignitatis Humanae”, of course, is directed against the social kingship of Christ, the duty of the State to embrace the one true religion and to promote it while restricting the public expressions of all false religions, echoing the blasphemous cry of the Jews, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15); “We will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14).

Finally, to close this list, we think it is worth mentioning a heresy which was not included in the documents of Vatican II but appeared in the text of the Novus Ordo promulgated by Paul VI as a consequence of the Council. It is found in the proper of the Good Friday liturgy, where the celebrants and participants of the Novus Ordo ask God to grant that the Jews “progress in fidelity to His covenant” (“in sui foederis fidelitate proficere”; Missale Romanum, third typical edition, Typis Vaticanis, 2002, Feria VI in Passione Domini, solemn orations, VI, Pro Iudaeis). The obvious implication is that the Jews are already, to a certain extent, faithful to the covenant of God. But in reality this is not the case, because the Old Covenant required of the Jews that they recognize the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and when they rejected Him, it was irrevocably broken and abrogated in perpetuity. Thus even their external observance of the Mosaic ceremonies cannot be regarded as “faithful”, because it is “de fide” that the Mosaic law has been abrogated. And, needless to say, the Jews are certainly no more faithful to the New Covenant than they have been to the Old!

Theological censure: HERETICAL.

4. Second systematic list of errors of Vatican II

4.1. Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)

4.1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)

– Citation: Lumen Gentium (LG), 21 November 1964, paragraph 8: “This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists [subsistit in] in the Catholic Church […] although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of her sphere, elements which, belonging properly by the gift of God to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity.” Note that the original Latin text on the Vatican website says “her sphere” and not “her visible sphere” as the English translation gives. For the expression “visible sphere” gives a possibility to graces given to and by the soul of the Church such as baptism of desire, which would make the expression acceptable.

– Explanation: The use of “subsistit in” (subsists in) instead of “est” (is) suggests that the Church of Christ is not identically the Roman Catholic Church, but subsists in her partially, opening onto an inclusive ecclesiology in which other Christian communities participate in the one Church.

– In opposition to: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, paragraph 13: “this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is holy, catholic, apostolic, Roman”; Leo XIII, Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896, paragraph 13: “the Roman Church is the efficient cause of unity in Christian society”.

– This ecclesiological error, issuing from “Lumen Gentium”, contradicts the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the only Church of Christ, constituting a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.1.2. Episcopal collegiality and papal primacy relativized

– Citation: LG 22: “The order of bishops, […] in union with the Roman Pontiff, its head, and never without this head, [constitutes] the subject of supreme and full power over the whole Church, a power however which can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.”

– Explanation: This implies a double supremacy (pope and college), weakening the absolute primacy of the pope, seen as a “bipolarism” contrary to the divine monarchy of the Church.

– In opposition to: Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, ch. III: the pope possesses full and supreme jurisdiction over the entire Church (DS 3064); “the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not subject to any higher, cannot be reformed by anyone, and it is not permitted to anyone to judge its judgment” (DS 3063). “Pastor Aeternus” defines the monarchical primacy of the Pope, not a collegial one. Collegiality relativizes this and prepares ecclesial democracy.

– This proposition denies the absolute primacy of Peter, contradicting the defined dogma, and constitutes a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.1.3. The People of God as active subject of Tradition

– Citation: Dei Verbum (DV), 18 November 1965, paragraph 8: “This Tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts […], through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”

– Explanation: This attributes an evolutionary role to collective experience, risking a subjectivism in which Tradition is no longer guarded by the magisterium alone, but co-created by the faithful.

– In opposition to: Vatican I, Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, ch. IV: the doctrine of the faith has been entrusted to the Church “as a divine deposit, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared” (DS 3020); Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, paragraph 38, taking up Vatican I: “the meaning of the dogmas must be retained such as our Holy Mother the Church has once defined it, and one must never depart from this meaning, under the pretext and the name of a deeper understanding”.

Holy Office, decree Lamentabili sane exitu of 3 July 1907, approved and confirmed by Saint Pius X on 4 July 1907, proposition 21. This proposition is condemned and proscribed, thereby positively affirming that the Revelation constituting the object of the Catholic faith was indeed completed with the Apostles. Original citation (Latin): “Revelatio, obiectum fidei catholicae constituens, non fuit cum Apostolis completa.” French translation: “La Révélation, constituant l’objet de la foi catholique, n’a pas été achevée avec les Apôtres.” English translation: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” Note: This proposition is condemned and proscribed by the decree. Reference: Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XL, 1907, p. 473; pontifical approval, p. 478. The condemnation establishes the contrary doctrine as certain: Revelation was completed with the Apostles.

– This idea transfers the authority of Tradition to the faithful, contradicting magisterial teaching, and constitutes a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.1.4. The Church as sacrament of human unity (not exclusive of non-Catholics)

– Citation: LG 1: “the Church being in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race […]”.

– Explanation: This extends the Church to the whole of humanity, minimizing the frontiers between Catholics and non-Catholics, and suggesting a universal ontological unity.

– In opposition to: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, paragraphs 22–23: the Church does not encompass heretics and schismatics; Pius IX, Syllabus, 8 December 1864, proposition 17, condemning the hope of the eternal salvation of all those who are not in the true Church of Christ (DS 2917); Innocent III, Lateran IV (1215), ch. I, De fide catholica: “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which absolutely no one is saved” (D 430).

– This assertion dilutes the exclusivity of the Catholic Church, contradicting traditional doctrine, and constitutes a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL

4.2. Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and of Salvation)

4.2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin

– Citation: Gaudium et Spes (GS) 22, al. 2: “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.”

– Explanation: This affirms a universal ontological union with Christ, ignoring original sin and the necessity of conversion, close to a salvific universalism.

– In opposition to: Trent, session V, decree on original sin, 17 June 1546, canon 2: “If anyone asserts that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone and not his posterity […], let him be anathema” (DS 1512); Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 1863: “no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church” (DS 2867).

– This proposition denies the effect of original sin, contradicting the defined doctrine (cf. Council of Trent), and constitutes a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.2.2. Progressive and non-instantaneous justification

– Citation: Ad gentes (AG), 13: “Under the action of the grace of God, the new convert undertakes a spiritual journey in which, already sharing by faith in the mystery of Death and Resurrection, he passes from the old man to the new man, perfect in Christ. This passage, which entails a progressive change of mentality and morals, must be manifested with its social consequences and develop little by little during the catechumenate.”

– Explanation: This contradicts justification as an instantaneous act by baptismal grace, introducing a soteriological evolutionism.

– In opposition to: Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 113, a. 7, body: “The infusion of grace takes place in an instant, without succession.”; Council of Trent, session VI, 13 January 1547, decree on justification, chap. VIII, on the gratuitousness of justification (DS 1532).

This idea contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification, constituting a formal heresy.

Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.2.3. Man as centre and summit of creation

– Citation: Gaudium et spes (GS), 12, paragraph 1: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown.”

– Explanation: Excessive anthropocentrism, relegating God to the second rank, contrary to biblical theocentrism.

– In opposition to: man is not the centre; God is (Genesis 1, 1 and following).

– This affirmation diverts the glory due to God, contradicting traditional theology, and constitutes a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue

– Citation: GS 52, paragraph 4: “Those who are skilled in the various sciences, especially the biological, medical, social and psychological, can greatly serve the good of marriage and the family and the peace of consciences if by pooling their efforts they try to clarify more thoroughly the various conditions favourable to an honest regulation of human procreation.”

– Explanation: This opens onto contraception, contradicting the teaching on procreation as the primary end of marriage.

– In opposition to: Pius XI, Casti connubii, 31 December 1930: the use of marriage voluntarily deprived of its natural power to procreate is contrary to the law of God and to the natural law, and intrinsically evil (DS 3716–3717).

This proposition contradicts Catholic moral teaching, constituting a formal heresy.

Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.3. Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations

4.3.1. Muslims as worshippers of the true God

– Citation: Nostra aetate (NA), 3: “Jesus, whom they do not acknowledge as God, they nonetheless venerate as a prophet.”

– Explanation: This ignores the Christological rejection of these religions, risking indifferentism.

– In opposition to: Council of Trent, session VI, 13 January 1547, decree on justification, chap. VII: Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification by His Passion (DS 1529).

Acts 4, 12: “Neither is there any other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Pius XI, Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, paragraphs 4 and 7–9, forbids all “pan-Christianism”.

– “Nostra Aetate” suggests this, contradicting the necessity of faith in the Trinity, and constitutes a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.4. Religious Liberty

4.4.1. Neutrality of the State in religious matters

– Citation: Dignitatis humanae (DH), 6: “The civil power must therefore, by just laws and by other appropriate means, effectively protect the religious liberty of all citizens […].”

– Explanation: State relativism, denying the social reign of Christ.

– In opposition to: Pius XI, Quas primas, 11 December 1925, paragraphs 18 and 32, on the duty of States to recognize publicly the kingship of Christ; Pius IX, Syllabus, 8 December 1864, condemned proposition 77 (DS 2977).

– This idea contradicts the obligation of the State to support the true religion, constituting a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.5. Liturgy and Sacraments

4.5.1. Vernacular languages given priority at Mass

– Citation: Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), 36, paragraphs 1–2: “The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites, except where a particular law obtains. However, in Masses, in the administration of the sacraments and in other parts of the liturgy, the use of the mother tongue may often be of great advantage to the people; a wider place may therefore be allotted to it […].”

– Explanation: This marginalizes Latin, risking liturgical fragmentation.

– In opposition to: Council of Trent, session XXII, 17 September 1562, doctrine on the sacrifice of the Mass, chap. VIII: the council did not judge it expedient that the Mass be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular (DS 1749); Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, paragraph 60, on Latin as a sign of unity and a protection of doctrine.

– This practice contradicts liturgical tradition, but may be considered a disciplinary error rather than a formal heresy.

– Theological note: ERROR.

4.5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy

– Citation: SC 14: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy […].”

– Explanation: Protestantization, minimizing the sacrificial role of the priest.

– In opposition to: Council of Trent, session XXII, 17 September 1562, doctrine on the sacrifice of the Mass, chap. II: “This sacrifice is truly propitiatory” (DS 1743); Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, paragraph 69, on the power of the priest to act in the person of Christ.

This idea alters the sacrificial nature of the Mass, contradicting traditional doctrine, and constitutes a formal heresy.

Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.5.3. The Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass

– Citation: SC 47: “At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet […].”

– Explanation: Eucharistic reduction to a banquet, denying the sacrifice.

– In opposition to: Council of Trent, session XXII, 17 September 1562, doctrine on the sacrifice of the Mass, chap. I: the Mass is the visible sacrifice which represents the bloody sacrifice accomplished once on the Cross, perpetuates its memory and applies its saving virtue (DS 1740).

This reform denies the sacrificial character of the Mass, contradicting the Council of Trent, and constitutes a formal heresy.

Theological note: HERETICAL.

4.6. Social and Pastoral Questions

4.6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned

– The absence of condemnation contradicts previous encyclicals (notably “Divini Redemptoris” of Pius XI, 19 March 1937, paragraph 58).

– Citation: GS 55: “the spiritual and moral maturity of the human race” (a favourable judgment, and the text therefore does not take up the explicit condemnation of socialism/communism present in the previous teaching of the magisterium).

– Explanation: Grave omission, which favours dialogue with condemned errors. At the moment (1965) when circumstances reasonably required it, the document omits to take up the explicit condemnation of socialism and communism, present in the previous teaching of the magisterium.

– In opposition: Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, paragraph 120: “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.” This doctrine belongs to the ordinary pontifical magisterium in matters of social teaching: an authorized application of moral principles and of the principles of the natural law to the concrete economic and political circumstances of 1931, which obliges the faithful to a religious submission of intellect and will. Indeed, socialism is incompatible with Catholicism.

Conclusion: This silence constitutes a propositio sapiens haeresim et scandalosa (a proposition that smells of heresy and that is scandalous): by omitting, precisely at the moment of the greatest doctrinal reorientation of the Church towards “the world”, to take up a doctrine which the previous popes judged it necessary to affirm and to repeat against a living and organized worldwide error, the text objectively awakens in the faithful reader the practical impression that a reconciliation between Catholic doctrine and socialist principles has become acceptable. It thus produces the same practical effect as an erroneous doctrine, without formally confirming the erroneous proposition itself, and this accords with the general spirit of adaptation to the modern world which this study documents elsewhere in the texts of Vatican II.

Theological note: SAPIENS HAERESIM ET SCANDALOSA (smelling of heresy, and scandalous) — a censure that approaches HERETICAL.

4.6.2. Evolutionism and modernism

– Citation: GS 19: “Atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character wrongly given to certain human values, so that they even take the place of God.”

– Explanation: Relativism, seeing something positive in error.

– In opposition to: Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, condemnation of modernism and critique of its agnostic foundation (DS 3475).

Again, St Pius X, in Pascendi dominici gregis (8 September 1907), as well as the Holy Office, in Lamentabili sane exitu (3 July 1907, approved by Pius X on 4 July), condemn all subjectivism and evolution of the faith. GS sees something “positive” in atheism, which is blasphemous.

– These ideas, not condemned, contradict “Pascendi” of Pius X, constituting a formal heresy.

– Theological note: HERETICAL.

5. Conclusion

The errors of Vatican II, often ambiguous and pastoral, form a systematic whole perceived as a rupture with Tradition. They risk a doctrinal relativism, an anthropocentrism and a syncretic ecumenism, potentially invalidating the council as a “conciliabulum”.

This conciliabulum is therefore heretical as a whole because it teaches a new Christianity (anthropocentric, ecumenical, liberal), contrary to the revealed deposit. As St Pius X teaches, modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XL, 1907, p. 632). The subsequent acts of the antipopes (Novus Ordo, etc.) confirm the rupture.

This list shows the necessity of a critical evaluation, underlining the necessity of a return to the preconciliar magisterium in order to preserve the integrity of the faith.

Certain final conclusion:

The Conciliabulum of Vatican II is certainly multiply heretical.

 

6. List of sources

6.1. Holy Scripture

The Holy Bible, Latin Vulgate: Genesis 1, 1 and following; Daniel 9, 27; Matthew 12, 45; 21, 33–45; 27, 25; Luke 19, 14; John 19, 15; 20, 19 and 22–23; Acts 4, 10 and 12; Romans 11; 1 Corinthians 15, 17; 2 Corinthians 6, 14–16; Philippians 1, 18; Titus 3, 10–11; 1 John 5, 19.

6.2. Councils and doctrinal acts prior to Vatican II

Innocent III and Fourth Lateran Council, De fide catholica, 1215, chap. I; Denzinger, no. 430. Original Latin text.

Eugene IV and Council of Florence, bull Cantate Domino, 4 February 1442; DS 1351. Original Latin text.

Council of Trent, session V, Decree on original sin, 17 June 1546, canon 2; DS 1512. Original Latin text.

Council of Trent, session VI, Decree on justification, 13 January 1547, chap. VII, VIII and XIV; DS 1529 and 1532. Original Latin text; English translation of J. Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, London, Dolman, 1848, p. 41 for chap. XIV.

Council of Trent, session XXII, Doctrine on the sacrifice of the Mass, 17 September 1562, chap. I, II and VIII; DS 1740, 1743 and 1749. Original Latin text.

First Vatican Council, constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, chap. IV; DS 3020. Original Latin text.

First Vatican Council, constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chap. III; DS 3063–3064. Original Latin text.

6.3. Pontifical acts

Saint Agatho, Letter to the emperor, cited by Gregory XVI, Mirari vos, 15 August 1832, paragraph 7, note 6. Latin text.

Paul IV, bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, paragraph 3. Original Latin text.

Pius VII, apostolic letter Post tam diuturnas to Mgr de Boulogne, bishop of Troyes, 29 April 1814. Original Latin text; French translation in Lettres apostoliques de Pie IX, Grégoire XVI, Pie VII, encycliques, brefs, etc. : texte latin avec la traduction française en regard, précédées d’une notice bibliographique avec portrait de chacun de ces papes, suivies d’une table alphabétique, Paris, A. Roger et F. Chernoviz, pp. 240–247, notably pp. 242–243.

Gregory XVI, encyclical Mirari vos, 15 August 1832, notably paragraph 7, note 6. Original Latin text.

Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 1863; DS 2867. Original Latin text.

Pius IX, encyclical Quanta cura, 8 December 1864; Denzinger, no. 1690; Denzinger–Hünermann, no. 2896. Original Latin text.

Pius IX, Syllabus, 8 December 1864, propositions 16–18 and 77; DS 2916–2918 and 2977. Original Latin text.

Leo XIII, encyclical Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896, paragraph 13 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

Saint Pius X, encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, paragraph 38 of the French translation; DS 3475; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XL, 1907, p. 632. Original Latin text.

Pius XI, encyclical Quas primas, 11 December 1925, paragraphs 18 and 32 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

Pius XI, encyclical Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, paragraphs 2, 4 and 7–9 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

Pius XI, encyclical Casti connubii, 31 December 1930; DS 3716–3717. Original Latin text.

Pius XI, encyclical Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, paragraph 120 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

Pius XI, encyclical Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937, paragraph 58 of the French translation. Original Latin text.

Pius XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, paragraphs 13 and 22–23 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

Pius XII, encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, paragraphs 60 and 69 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

Pius XII, encyclical Humani generis, 12 August 1950, paragraph 27 of the English translation. Original Latin text.

6.4. Canonical sources and acts of the Roman congregations

Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus (Code of Canon Law drawn up by order of Pius X and promulgated by the authority of Benedict XV), Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, can. 1258 paragraph 1 and 1325 paragraph 2; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. IX, part II, 1917, pp. 245 and 257. Original Latin text.

Holy Office, decree Lamentabili sane exitu, 3 July 1907, approved and confirmed by Saint Pius X on 4 July 1907, proposition 21; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XL, 1907, pp. 470–478, notably pp. 473 and 478. Original Latin text.

Sacred Congregation of Rites, Declaratio, 10 June 1948; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XL, 1948, p. 342. Original Latin text.

6.5. Fathers and theologians

Saint Cyprian, Letter to Jubaianus, paragraph 21, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, 1886, letter 72, English translation of Robert Ernest Wallis; Latin original.

Saint Jerome, Commentaria in Matthaeum (Commentary on Saint Matthew), book IV, commentary on Matthew 27, 25; Latin text.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 113, a. 7, body of the article; Leonine edition, Rome, 1892; Latin text.

Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, English translation of T. W. Mossman and collaborators, 3rd edition, London, John Hodges, 1887, vol. II, commentary on Matthew 21, 41; vol. III, commentary on Matthew 27, 25, translation of James Bliss; Latin original.

Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram (Commentaries on Holy Scripture), edition revised and annotated by Augustin Crampon, vol. XIX, In epistolas divi Pauli (On the epistles of Saint Paul), Paris, Louis Vivès, 1876, p. 10, commentary on Philippians 1, 18; Latin text.

6.6. Collections and editions of texts

Heinrich Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, English translation of Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th Latin edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, revised by Karl Rahner, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder and Co., 1954; reprint, Fitzwilliam (New Hampshire), Loreto Publications. Numbering D.

Denzinger–Hünermann, extracts from Quanta cura and the Syllabus, Latin text and German translation, pp. 794–809; notably nos. 2896, 2916–2918 and 2977.

1. Waterworth, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, London, Dolman, 1848, p. 41, session VI, decree on justification, chapter XIV; English translation from the Latin.

William Allen, letter to the Catholics of England, Rome, 12 December 1592, in Thomas Francis Knox, historical introduction to The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay, and an Appendix of Unpublished Documents, London, D. Nutt, 1878, pp. xxiii–xxiv, note 3; English text.

6.7. Documents of Vatican II

Vatican II, constitution on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963, paragraphs 14, 36 and 47. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, paragraphs 1, 8 and 22. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, decree on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, paragraphs 3, 6, 8 and 9. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965, paragraphs 2–4. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, dogmatic constitution on divine Revelation Dei verbum, 18 November 1965, paragraph 8. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, declaration on religious liberty Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, paragraphs 2, 6 and 11. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965, paragraphs 12, 19, 22, 44, 52 and 55. Original Latin text.

Vatican II, decree on the missionary activity of the Church Ad gentes, 7 December 1965, paragraphs 13 and 29. Original Latin text.

6.8. Liturgical texts

Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum, Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum (Roman Missal restored by decree of the Second Vatican Council, promulgated by Paul VI and revised under the care of John Paul II), third typical edition, Vatican City, Typis Vaticanis, 2002; Good Friday, Feria VI in Passione Domini, solemn orations, VI, Pro Iudaeis (For the Jews); Latin text.

6.9. Historical documents

Spanish Constitution, article 16, in “Espagne — Le référendum sur la Constitution”, La Documentation catholique, no. 1756, 21 January 1979, p. 98; French translation from the Spanish.

“Accord between the Spanish State and the Holy See on juridical questions”, Vatican City, 3 January 1979, in La Documentation catholique, no. 1760, 18 March 1979, pp. 277–278, especially article VIII, p. 278; French translation from the Spanish.

Marcel Lefebvre, “Bilan de quinze années post-conciliaires d’obéissance aux réformes”, extract from L’Église infiltrée par le modernisme, Éditions Fideliter, 1993, reproduced in the Bulletin des Amis de saint François de Sales, no. 225, September-October 2023, pp. 6–7; French text.

6.10. Postconciliar addresses

John Paul II, Meeting with a delegation of Voodoo disciples, headquarters of CODIAM, Cotonou, 4 February 1993, no. 4. French text.