Vatican II
Lists of Heresies and Errors
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. “Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”
2.3. 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 holds in high esteem doctrines that differ from her own
2.7. “Theological meetings and discussions on equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”
2.8. “The Church needs the help of non-believers”
2.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with “missionaries” who are heretics
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
1. Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)
1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)
1.2. Episcopal collegiality and relativized papal primacy
1.3. People of God as active subject of Tradition
1.4. Church as sacrament of human unity (non-exclusive of non-Catholics)
2. Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and of Salvation)
2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin
2.2. Progressive and non-instantaneous justification
2.3. Man as center and summit of creation
2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue
3. Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations
– Muslims as worshippers of the true God
4. Religious Liberty
– Neutrality of the State in religious matters
5. Liturgy and Sacraments
5.1. Vernacular languages given priority 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
6. Social and Pastoral Questions
6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned
6.2. Evolutionism and modernism
- Conclusion: The Vatican II Conciliabule 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 aimed at adapting the Church to the modern world (aggiornamento). However, many traditional theologians and critics, inspired by analyses such as those of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Romano Amerio, or Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, identified from the very beginning, even during the council itself, ambiguities, contradictions, and potential doctrinal errors in its texts.
These errors are seen as deviations 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, that we have identified in the documents of Vatican II, accompanied, in each case, by a summary of the proofs demonstrating that the teaching is truly heretical.
The definition of heresy, according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (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 having received baptism, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts some truth of divine and Catholic faith that must be believed.”)
We 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 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 that those listed below are the best known and most 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 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 deal only with “heresies” in the strict sense and not with other “errors,” because only heresies cause the loss of all office and jurisdiction (see Pope Paul IV, Apostolic Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio,” of February 15, 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 recognized in the constitutional law whereby 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 so that, in countries where this liberty was not yet a “civil right,” it would become one. 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 certain misguided “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—undoubtedly the correct one—of the Council’s intention. For example, in February 1993, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, he declared that “the Church considers religious liberty an inalienable right…”
The correct doctrine, often reiterated by the popes, is enunciated in a particularly authoritative manner in the following passage from the encyclical Quanta Cura (December 8, 1864) of Pius IX:
“§5. And from this totally false idea of social organization, they do not hesitate to promote this erroneous opinion, particularly fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, which was qualified by our predecessor Gregory XVI as madness, namely that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of each man, and must be proclaimed by law in every rightly constituted society… All and each of the doctrines mentioned individually in this letter, by Our apostolic authority, We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.”
Pius IX therefore clearly thought that the “madness” 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,” so there is no doubt about it.
In short, the civil right to absolute religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae §2 that “Every man has the 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. It is in opposition to Pius IX, “Quanta Cura” (1864): “The liberty of cults is an error” (DS 2890) and to Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832): “Liberty of conscience is a delirium.”
Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas (1824), already condemns this “liberty” as contrary to the divine order. The State is not neutral: it must submit all things to Christ the King (Quas Primas, Pius XI, 1925). DH denies the social kingship of Christ.
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.2. “Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”
“…Having completed on the cross the work of redemption which was to procure 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 shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall 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, 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’ mandate to preach to the whole world, the abolition of 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 latter, He had of course prophesied long before; but it is as a historical event that we must believe in it today, and its historical realization was revealed only on the morning of Easter, 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 non-essential and unrevealed even 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 that 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 Faith since the apostolic era, the Church is accustomed to teach that, as mentioned above, the point of closure, after which no other revelation has been made, is the death of the last Apostle (Saint Pius X, Decree Lamentabili Sane of July 3, 1907, Proposition 21). Obviously, the Church would not have chosen such a late date as the point of closure of 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, 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 doubtless have laughed at the idea that Revelation was perfect without it. But in any case, “perficere” does not normally mean “to perfect.” Its natural meaning is “to complete” or “to bring to completion”; and even when the secondary meaning, “to perfect,” is possible, it is always in the sense of perfecting by completion.
In short, Revelation was completed with the death of the last Apostle; the post-Crucifixion acts form part of it, therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.3. 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 by no means been 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, 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 that has perhaps been repeated more often than any other by the Church and that is indisputably 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 pagans, but also 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 have been united to her…”
We have heard it said that the word “means,” present in this aberrant passage, was perhaps intended to mean something like “springboard”; but of course, the word is incapable of bearing this meaning either in itself or in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that “a means that cannot attain its end is not a means.” Taking a plane is a means of going from England to France, but riding a bicycle 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 (“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 to 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.”
Then read St. Cyprian: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (De Unitate Ecclesiae).
And the Syllabus (Pius IX, props. 16-18) condemning indifferentism. The sects are only paths of perdition (cf. St. Augustine against the Donatists).
Therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.4. “Public common prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and praiseworthy”
“In certain circumstances, such as in services of prayer ‘for unity’ and at ecumenical gatherings, it is permissible, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such common prayers are certainly a very effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are an authentic expression of the bonds that still unite Catholics to their separated brethren.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 8)
In this short passage, the Fathers of Vatican II managed to insert two distinct doctrinal falsehoods:
- That it is desirable for Catholics to 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 to be already on the way to conversion) are forbidden.
- That such common prayers are “a very effective means of obtaining the grace of unity.”
The correct doctrine is clearly exposed in canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (“§1. It is not permitted for the faithful to assist actively or to take part, in any form whatsoever, in the sacred rites of non-Catholics”), which even the most fervent partisan 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 whatsoever, or to take part, in the devotional acts of non-Catholics; and this is only 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 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 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 divine law; and not even a pope can abolish a divine law (nor dispense from it).
A 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 December 12, 1592:
“…You [priests] and all my brethren must take care not to teach or defend that it is licit to commune with Protestants in their prayers or services or in the conventicles where they meet to administer their untrue sacraments; for this is contrary to the practice of the Church and of the holy Doctors of all ages, who have never communed nor permitted a Catholic person to pray with Arians, Donatists or anyone else. Nor is it 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 asked the opinion of the currently reigning pope [Clement VIII], and he expressly told me that participating with Protestants, whether by praying with them, going to their churches or services or other similar things, was in no case licit or dispensable.”
In short, 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 to: 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 Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, paragraph 4)
For proof of the true doctrine concerning this remarkable assertion, we may 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 in verse 43,” says Cornelius a Lapide in his commentary on this passage.
Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: “And the whole people, answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children.” 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] have submitted, not only themselves, but their most recent descendants, to the displeasure of God. They feel it still 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 away 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 debate devices, 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 proof.)
The traditional prayer of Good Friday (pre-1955/1960) implores the conversion of the “perfidis Judaeis”—“perfidis” meaning unfaithful to the Messiah, not “traitors” in the modern sense. Vatican II reverses this, contradicting the theology of substitution (Church = new Israel, Rm 11 interpreted traditionally).
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.6. The Church holds in high esteem doctrines that differ from her own
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian religions]. She holds in high esteem the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, though differing in many respects 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 concentrate on the assertion that the Church holds “in high esteem” 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 that differs from it is false. The Fathers of Vatican II have therefore firmly declared that the Church “holds in high esteem” false doctrines. Of course, this is perfectly true of the conciliar sect; but the attitude of the Catholic Church toward false doctrines has always been the same as that of her Divine Founder: unreserved aversion.
In short, non-Christian religions bearers of holiness and truth according to Nostra Aetate §2: “Non-Christian religions possess holiness and truth” are syncretism relativizing Christ as the unique mediator. It is in opposition to Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928) that “Pagan religions do not have the truth”; and see Acts 4:12 “There is no salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.7. “Theological meetings and discussions on equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”
“Catholics who already have an adequate formation must acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, of their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and their cultural background. Very valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two parties—especially for the discussion of theological problems—where each can deal with the other on 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 equal footing, one renounces any claim to an authority superior to that of the other party. Otherwise, equal footing would simply not be equal. Consider: how can the Church recommend to Catholics, even the most competent, to engage in 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 evidence to the contrary? And yet, for a Catholic to enter into dialogue with such a Protestant on equal footing, it would be necessary for the Catholic to have the same attitude toward his own religious convictions—in other words, that he consider them as provisional opinions rather than as divinely guaranteed truths, unshakeably certain, which he would prefer to die a thousand deaths rather than doubt the slightest detail of 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—of questioning 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 behavior 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 fraternal communion in Jesus Christ, you will find none in whose mind it occurs to submit and obey the Vicar of Christ, either as teacher or as head of the Church. Meanwhile, they assert 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 are up to now the cause of their wandering outside the true fold of Christ. Under such conditions, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot in any case participate in their meetings, and that Catholics cannot in any case adhere to or lend their aid to such efforts…”
The Holy Father also taught that: “…he who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them totally abandons divinely revealed religion.”
Vatican II affirms that the meetings of the two parties—especially for the discussion of theological problems and where each can deal with the other on equal footing—are “very valuable.” Pius XI says that they cannot be envisaged and that the theories that would defend such meetings as good amount to apostasy.
Theological censure: HERETICAL AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL FAITH.
2.8. “The Church needs the help of non-believers”
“In our day, when things change so rapidly and patterns of thought differ so widely, the Church needs to intensify this exchange [that is, the exchange between the Church and different cultures] by appealing to the help of persons who live in the world, who are experts in its organizations and forms of training, and who understand its mentality, whether believers or non-believers.” (Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 44)
Quite clearly, while non-believers have the most urgent and desperate need of everything 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 store; and her Divine Founder, by means of the essentially immutable constitution with which He endowed her and the incessant inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit which He sent her at Pentecost, has provided her with everything she can need to accomplish her mission. The suggestion that, for any reason whatsoever, the Church may need the assistance of a group of persons qualified, not by theological erudition or holiness, but only by their familiarity with the ways and spirit of the world—of which it is written that “the whole world is seated in wickedness” (1 John 5:19)—and including non-believers among them, can merit only one possible qualification…
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with “missionaries” who are heretics
“In collaboration with the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, she [the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith] will seek means and methods to reach and organize fraternal cooperation and harmonious relations with the missionary enterprises of other Christian communities, so that, insofar as possible, the scandal of division may be eliminated.” (Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church Ad Gentes Divinitus, 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 foundation 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 rightly 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 licit to rejoice at seeing heresy preached and propagated, even among 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 much better for pagans to receive no truth or doctrine from heretics, than to receive it mixed with so many perverse errors…” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians 1:18)
And in the light of this, can one believe that a council calling itself Catholic recommends “fraternal cooperation” between Catholic missionaries and their most mortal adversaries and opponents? Can someone with a grain of Catholic faith still in his soul seriously imagine that it is licit to accomplish the work of God by acting in concert with those who are determined to frustrate it? Can someone 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 favor 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 to these questions is given 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.
2.10. “Deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching should be corrected”
“Therefore, if, at various times and in various circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct, in the discipline of the Church, or even in the manner in which the teaching of the Church has been formulated—to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of the faith itself—these should be corrected at the opportune time and in the appropriate manner.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 6)
This passage is a good example of the way in which the heretical council Vatican II follows the example of other heretics by subtly concealing its poison and seeming to defend the very truth that it simultaneously denies. The notion that there can be deficiencies in the formulation of the Church’s teaching represents a despicable attack on the holiness, infallibility, and 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 the faith itself”; for the deposit of the 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 manner, by the voices and pens of her missionaries, pastors, and Doctors. It would therefore be quite impossible for there to be deficiencies in the formulation of Catholic teaching without there being a deficiency in the guarding and proclamation by the Church of the deposit of the faith itself. That is why the Holy Spirit preserves the declarations of the Church from error—not necessarily by direct inspiration of the most perfect words possible 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 that could be considered defective. And that is why Pope Saint Agatho (678-681) wrote that: “Nothing of what has been defined must be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as to expression and as to meaning.” (Epistle to the Emperor, cited by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832)
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 manner in which the teaching of the Church has been formulated…”; for the simple reason that even envisaging the hypothesis shows that it is believed possible that there may be such deficiencies, and giving instructions on how to respond to such an eventuality shows that it is even probable.
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.11. Other heresies of Vatican II and a heresy in the “proper” of Good Friday of the Novus Ordo “Mass”
The preceding list is not exhaustive, partly because we never wanted to undertake the long, laborious, and morally dangerous task of carefully reading all the documents of the Council in order to spot 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 most famous declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty, form a special category, since the heresies they contain are not accidental but constitute their very reason for being. In other words, each of these documents does not contain only isolated outrages against Catholic truth, but was conceived as an attack on a Catholic doctrine.
“Nostra Aetate” aims to undermine the cornerstone of Christian doctrine according to which “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved [than] by the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (Acts 4:10,12).
“Unitatis Redintegratio” strives to tear the seamless tunic of Christ and to make His faithful spouse the Church a prostitute by denying that “a man who is a heretic… is perverted and sins, 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 that was not included in the documents of Vatican II but appeared in the text of the Novus Ordo promulgated by Paul VI following the Council. It is found in the proper of the liturgy of Good Friday, where the celebrants and participants of the Novus Ordo ask God to grant that the Jews “may continue/grow in fidelity to His Covenant” (“in sui foederis fidelitate proficere”). The obvious implication is that the Jews are already, to a certain extent, faithful to God’s covenant. But in reality, this is not the case, because the Old Covenant required the Jews to 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 considered “faithful,” because it is “de fide” that the Mosaic law has been abrogated. And, needless to say, the Jews are certainly not more faithful to the New Covenant than they were to the Old!
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
- Continuation: systematic list of other heresies and errors
- Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)
1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)
– Citation: Lumen Gentium (LG) 8: “This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists [subsistit in] in the Catholic Church.”
– 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 it partially, opening to an inclusive ecclesiology where other Christian communities participate in the one Church.
– In opposition to: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (1943): “The Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church”; Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896): “The Church is one, and it is the Roman Catholic.”
– This ecclesiological error, stemming from “Lumen Gentium,” contradicts the unicity of the Catholic Church as the sole Church of Christ, constituting a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
1.2. Episcopal collegiality and relativized papal primacy
– Citation: LG 22: “The college of bishops, with the pope, exercises the supreme and full authority over the Church.”
– 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 (1870): “The pope possesses the full and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church” (DS 3064); Pius IX: “The authority of the pope is not subordinate to the college” (DS 3116). “Pastor Aeternus” defines the monarchical primacy of the Pope, not collegial. Collegiality relativizes this and prepares ecclesiastical democracy.
– This proposition denies the absolute primacy of Peter, contradicting the defined dogma, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
1.3. People of God as active subject of Tradition
– Citation: Dei Verbum (DV) 8: “Tradition progresses thanks to human experience and the sensus fidelium.”
– Explanation: This attributes an evolving role to collective experience, risking subjectivism where Tradition is no longer guarded by the Magisterium alone, but co-created by the faithful.
– In opposition to: Vatican I (1870): “Tradition is interpreted by the infallible Magisterium” (DS 3011); Pius X, Pascendi (1907): “Human experience cannot alter the deposit of the faith.”
Saint Pius X, Decree Lamentabili Sane (July 3, 1907), Proposition 21. This proposition is condemned as heretical, thus positively establishing the contrary doctrine as certain: Revelation constituting the object of Catholic faith was indeed completed with the Apostles. Original quote (Latin): “Revelatio, obiectum fidei catholicae constituens, non fuit cum Apostolis completa.” French 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: Lamentabili Sane, Proposition 21. The condemnation establishes the contrary 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.
1.4. Church as sacrament of human unity (non-exclusive of non-Catholics)
– Citation: LG 1: “The Church is the sacrament of unity for the whole human race.”
– Explanation: This extends the Church to all humanity, minimizing the boundaries between Catholics and non-Catholics, and suggesting a universal ontological unity.
– In opposition to: Pius IX, Syllabus (1864): “The Church does not encompass heretics and schismatics” (DS 2917); Innocent III, Lateran IV (1215): “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
– This assertion dilutes the exclusivity of the Catholic Church, contradicting traditional doctrine, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
- Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and of Salvation)
2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin
– Citation: Gaudium et Spes (GS) 22: “Every human being is united in Jesus Christ.”
– Explanation: This affirms a universal ontological union with Christ, ignoring original sin and the necessity of conversion, close to salvific universalism.
– In opposition to: Trent (1547): “All are born in original sin” (DS 1512); Pius IX: “Without the Catholic faith, no salvation” (DS 2865).
– This proposition denies the effect of original sin, contradicting defined doctrine (cf. Council of Trent), and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
2.2. Progressive and non-instantaneous justification
– Citation: Ad Gentes (AG) 13: “Justification is a gradual development over time.”
– Explanation: This contradicts justification as an instantaneous act by baptismal grace, introducing soteriological evolutionism.
– In opposition to: Trent, Session VI (1547): “Justification is instantaneous by grace” (DS 1532).
– This idea contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification, constituting a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
2.3. Man as center and summit of creation
– Citation: GS 12: “Man is the center and summit of all things.”
– Explanation: Excessive anthropocentrism, relegating God to second place, contrary to biblical theocentrism.
– In opposition to: Pius X, Pascendi: “Man is not the center; God is”; Genesis 1:1 ff.
– This affirmation diverts the glory due to God, contradicting traditional theology, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue
– Citation: GS 52: “Birth control can be virtuous.”
– Explanation: This opens the door to contraception, contradicting the teaching on procreation as the primary end of marriage.
– In opposition to: Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930): “Every contraception is intrinsically evil” (DS 3717).
– This proposition contradicts Catholic moral teaching, constituting a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
- Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations
Muslims as worshippers of the true God
– Citation: NA 3: “Muslims venerate Jesus worthily as a prophet.”
– Explanation: This ignores the Christological rejection of these religions, risking indifferentism.
– In opposition to: Trent: “Without Christ, no valid worship” (DS 1529); Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928): “There is no other name (than Jesus for us to be saved)…” and it forbids all “pan-Christianism.”
– “Nostra Aetate” suggests this, contradicting the necessity of faith in the Trinity, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
- Religious Liberty
Neutrality of the State in religious matters
– Citation: DH 6: “The State must respect the liberty of all cults.”
– Explanation: State relativism, denying the social reign of Christ.
– In opposition to: Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925): “The State must recognize Christ the King”; Syllabus, prop. 77.
– This idea contradicts the obligation of the State to support the true religion, constituting a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
- Liturgy and Sacraments
5.1. Vernacular languages given priority at Mass
– Citation: Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) 36: “Vernacular languages should be used at Mass.”
– Explanation: This marginalizes Latin, risking liturgical fragmentation.
– In opposition to: Trent, Session XXII: “Latin is sacred” (DS 1749); Pius XII, Mediator Dei (1947): “Preserve Latin.”
– This practice contradicts liturgical tradition, but may be considered a disciplinary error rather than a formal heresy.
– Theological note: ERROR.
5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy
– Citation: SC 14: “The liturgy is a celebration in community.”
– Explanation: Protestantization, minimizing the sacrificial role of the priest.
– In opposition to: Trent: “The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice” (DS 1743); Pius XII: “The priest acts in persona Christi.”
– This idea alters the sacrificial nature of the Mass, contradicting traditional doctrine, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
5.3. Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass
– Citation: SC 47: “The Mass is a fraternal meal.”
– Explanation: Reduction of the Eucharist to a banquet, denying the sacrifice.
– In opposition to: Trent: “The Mass renews Calvary” (DS 1740).
– This reform denies the sacrificial character of the Mass, contradicting the Council of Trent, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
- Social and Pastoral Questions
6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned
– Citation: GS 55: “The moral maturity of humanity” (without explicit condemnation of communism).
– Explanation: Grave omission, favoring dialogue with condemned errors.
– In opposition to: Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931): “Socialism is incompatible with Catholicism.”
– The absence of condemnation contradicts previous encyclicals (e.g., “Divini Redemptoris” of Pius XI), constituting a formal heresy by obstinate omission.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
6.2. Evolutionism and modernism
– Citation: GS 19: “Atheism is a powerful reaction against the demon.”
– Explanation: Relativism, seeing something positive in error.
– In opposition to: Pius X, “Pascendi”: “Condemn modernism” (DS 3475).
Again, St. Pius X, in “Pascendi” and “Lamentabili” condemns 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.
- Conclusion
The errors of Vatican II, often ambiguous and pastoral, form a systematic whole perceived as a rupture with Tradition. They risk doctrinal relativism, anthropocentrism, and syncretic ecumenism, potentially invalidating the council as a “conciliabule” (cf. Da Silveira).
This conciliabule 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.” 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 pre-conciliar Magisterium to preserve the integrity of the faith.
Final certain conclusion:
The Vatican II Conciliabule is certainly multiply heretical.