Vatican II
Lists of Heresies and Errors
Table of Contents
Introduction
- The notes or theological qualifications of the Church
- List of heresies of Vatican II
2.1. The civil right to “religious freedom”
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 has a high regard for doctrines that differ from its own
2.7. “Meetings and theological discussions on an equal footing between Catholics and non-Catholics are praiseworthy”
2.8. “The Church needs the help of unbelievers”
2.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with heretical “missionaries”
2.10. “Deficiencies in the formulation of the teaching of the Church 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
3.1. Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)
3.1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)
3.1.2. Episcopal collegiality and communication of jurisdiction: differences and oppositions
3.1.3. People of God as active subject of Tradition
3.1.4. Church as sacrament of human unity (non-exclusive of non-Catholics)
3.2. Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and of Salvation)
3.2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin
3.2.2. Progressive and not instantaneous justification
3.2.3. Man as center and summit of creation
3.2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue
3.3. Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations
3.3.1. Muslims as worshippers of the true God
3.4. Religious freedom
3.4.1. Neutrality of the State in religious matters
3.5. Liturgy and Sacraments
3.5.1. Vernacular languages prioritized at Mass
3.5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy
3.5.3. Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass
3.6. Social and pastoral questions
3.6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned
3.6.2. Evolutionism and modernism
- Conclusion: The Conciliabulum of Vatican II is certainly multiply heretical.
List of sources
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), convened by John XXIII and closed by Paul VI, is often presented as a pastoral council aiming to adapt the Church to the modern world (aggiornamento). However, many traditional theologians and critics, inspired by analyses such as those of Mgr 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 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, for each case, by a summary of the proofs demonstrating that the teaching is really heretical.
The definition of heresy, according to the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (canon 1325 § 2; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. IX, pars 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: “He is a heretic who, after having received baptism, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any truth of divine and Catholic faith that must be believed.”)
Let us apply this definition to the errors of Vatican II, following three steps: (1) prove that the erroneous proposition 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 estimate that those listed below are the most known and the most flagrant.
- The notes or theological qualifications of the Church
Before beginning the list, it may be useful to recall the different notes or theological qualifications that the Church attributes to the teachings that it has made its own in one way or another, as well as the corresponding notes of theological censure or condemnation applied to contradictory propositions.
We concern ourselves in this list only with “heresies” in the strict sense and not with the other “errors,” because only heresies cause the loss of all office and jurisdiction (see Pope Paul IV, pontifical Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio,” of 15 February 1559, § 3).
- List of heresies of Vatican II
2.1. The civil right to “religious freedom”
“The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom must be recognized in the juridical order of society. It must thus become a civil right.” (Declaration on religious freedom Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, § 2)
Moreover, the “popes” of Vatican II took measures so that, in the countries where this freedom was not yet a “civil right,” it would become one. Thus, according to the testimony of Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, the Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were suppressed by express order of the Vatican, and the laws of these countries were modified to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions (Mgr 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, p. 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, p. 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 improbable manner, Karol Wojtyla never missed an opportunity to inculcate his own interpretation – doubtless correct – of the intention of the Council. For example, on 4 February 1993, in Cotonou, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, he declared that “The Church considers religious freedom as an inalienable right […]” (John Paul II, speech to a delegation of disciples of Voodoo, Cotonou, 4 February 1993, no. 4).
The correct doctrine, often reiterated by the popes, is stated in a particularly authoritative manner in the following passage of the encyclical Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) of Pius IX:
“And from this totally false idea of the social organization, they do not hesitate to uphold this erroneous opinion, particularly pernicious for the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, qualified by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, as madness, namely that liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and must be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society… That is why, all and each of the perverse opinions and doctrines mentioned individually in this letter, by Our apostolic authority, We reject, proscribe and condemn them; and We will and order that they be considered as entirely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.” (Denzinger, no. 1690; Denzinger–Hünermann, no. 2896.)
Pius IX therefore clearly thought that the “madness” of which he spoke was heretical, for he affirms that it contradicts divine Revelation. Moreover, this notion of religious freedom 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 subject.
In short, the civil right to absolute religious freedom of Dignitatis humanae, § 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 cults, 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 each one.
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, §§ 18 and 32). DH denies the social kingship of Christ.
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.2. “Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion”
“[…] By completing on the cross the work of redemption which was to obtain for men salvation and true liberty, he perfected his revelation” (Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, § 11)
This contradicts the 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 the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’” These words were pronounced 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 occurred.
The list of dogmas revealed by Our Lord after His Crucifixion includes the form of the sacrament of Baptism, the institution of the sacrament of penance, the extension of the preaching mandate of the Apostles to the whole world, the abolition of the patriarchal religions as means of salvation, the entry into force of the primacy and infallibility promised to Saint Peter and of course the Resurrection of Our Lord Himself. This last, He had of course prophesied long before; but it is as a historical event that we must believe 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-revealed non-essential the very cornerstone of Christianity, concerning which Saint Paul wrote: “If Christ be 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 hold 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 closing point, after which no other revelation has been 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, t. XL, 1907, p. 473 and 478). Obviously, the Church would not have chosen so late a date as the closing point of Revelation if the latter had already closed much earlier, namely at the moment of the Crucifixion.
Incidentally, we have seen it argued that the Latin verb “perficere,” employed in the form “perfecit” in the original text of Dignitatis humanae, § 11, cited above, means “to perfect” rather than “to bring to completion.” Even if that were the case, we do not see how that would help the adverse position, for 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, looking back at their state of mind on Good Friday and Holy Saturday, would doubtless have sneered 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.
2.3. Heretical and schismatic sects are “means of salvation”
“The separated Churches and communities themselves, although we believe that they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not hesitated to use them as means of salvation, whose efficacy derives from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (Decree on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, § 3)
This contradicts a doctrine that has perhaps been repeated more often than any other by the Church and that 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 who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can have part 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 joined themselves to her […]”
We have heard it said that the word “means,” present in this aberrant passage, was perhaps intended to mean something like “stepping-stone”; but of course, the word is capable of bearing this sense neither in itself nor in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom stipulates that “a means that cannot attain its end is not a means.” Taking the airplane is a means of going from England to France, but riding a bicycle is not, even if, upon 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, § 3 (“the Spirit of Christ has not hesitated to use 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), § 27: “Some reduce to a vain formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to obtain eternal salvation.”
Then read Saint Cyprian: “Outside the Church, no salvation” (Letter to Jubaianus, § 21; transl. R. E. Wallis, Ante-Nicene Fathers, t. V, 1886, letter 72).
And the Syllabus (Pius IX, 8 December 1864, propositions 16–18; DS 2916–2918) condemning indifferentism. The sects are only ways of perdition.
Therefore:
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.4. “Public common prayer with heretics and schismatics is useful and praiseworthy”
“In certain circumstances, as in ‘prayer services for unity’ and at ecumenical gatherings, it is permitted, even desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such common prayers are certainly a very effective means of asking for the grace of unity, and they are an authentic expression of the bonds that still unite Catholics to their separated brethren.” (Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, § 8)
In this short passage, the Fathers of Vatican II succeeded in inserting two distinct doctrinal falsehoods:
That it is desirable that Catholics participate in “prayer services” with their “separated brethren.” Far from being desirable, common religious activities with non-Catholics (except in the case of persons known already 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 § 1; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. IX, pars II, 1917, p. 245: “§ 1. It is not permitted to the faithful to assist actively or to take part, under any form whatsoever, in non-Catholic sacred rites”), which even the most fervent partisan of Vatican II cannot deny was in force at the time of the Council.
This canon stipulates that it is illicit to participate actively in any manner whatsoever, or to take part, in the devotional acts of non-Catholics; and this is 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 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).
A fully sufficient proof that a divine law is at stake 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, p. xxiii–xxiv, note 3):
“…You [priests] and all my brethren must take care not to teach or defend that it is licit to participate with the Protestants in their prayers or services or in the conventicles where they gather to administer their non-true sacraments; for this is contrary to the practice of the Church and of the holy Doctors of all ages, who have 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 advice of the currently reigning pope [Clement VIII], and he expressly told me that participating with the 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, the common prayer with heretics and schismatics of Unitatis redintegratio, § 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), §§ 7–8, and canon 1258 § 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).
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 by God or cursed as if this followed from Holy Scripture.” (Declaration on the relations of the Church with non-Christian religions Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965, § 4)
For a proof of the true doctrine concerning this remarkable affirmation, 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 Matthew 21, 41 (The Great Commentary, transl. T. W. Mossman and collaborators, 3rd ed., London, John Hodges, 1887, t. II).
Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: “And all the 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 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 removed from them,’ as Daniel predicted (Daniel 9, 27).” (Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, 3rd ed., London, John Hodges, 1887, t. III, commentary on Matthew 27, 25, translation by James Bliss; Saint Jerome, Commentaria in Matthaeum, book IV, on Matthew 27, 25.)
And, out of curiosity, if we were asked which passage, among all those of Vatican II that we present, we believe to be the most difficult to explain even with the most subtle devices of debate, we would probably choose this one. We do not claim that it is more definitively heretical than the others, but it seems to offer the least escapes, especially since the Fathers of Vatican II expressly chose to have their doctrine judged in relation to Holy Scripture, which is explicit in making absolutely clear that the Jews were collectively 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 prayer of Good Friday (pre-1955/1960) implores the conversion of the “perfidis Judaeis” – “perfidious” meaning unfaithful to the Messiah, not “traitors” in the modern sense (Sacred Congregation of Rites, Declaratio of 10 June 1948, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XL, 1948, p. 342). Vatican II reverses this, contradicting the theology of substitution (Church = new Israel, Romans 11 interpreted traditionally).
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.6. The Church has a high regard for doctrines that differ from its own
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these [non-Christian religions]. She has a high regard for the manner of living and of conducting oneself, the precepts and the doctrines which, although differing in many respects from her own teaching, often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.” (Vatican II, Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965, § 2)
Setting aside the scandalous reference to life, conduct and precepts, let us concentrate on the affirmation that the Church has “a high regard” for the “doctrines” of false religions, not only those which, by chance, may be true, but even those which “differ… from her own teaching.” Since the teaching of the Catholic Church is true, it is a logical necessity that any doctrine which differs from it is false. The Fathers of Vatican II have therefore firmly declared that the Church “has a high regard” for 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 its Divine Founder: an unrestrained aversion.
In short, the non-Christian religions bearers of holiness and truth according to Nostra aetate § 2: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what 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, § 2), which condemns “the erroneous theory that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy”; 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. “Meetings and theological discussions on an 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, of their spiritual and liturgical life, of their religious psychology and of their cultural context. Very valuable for this purpose are the meetings of the two parties – in particular for the discussion of theological problems – where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who participate under the direction of the authorities are truly competent.” (Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, § 9)
Whatever one may say to defend the orthodoxy of this heretical doctrine, it is an inescapable fact that, by entering into a discussion with anyone on an equal footing, one renounces any pretension 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 of 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 toward his own religious convictions – in other words, that he consider them as provisional opinions rather than as divinely guaranteed truths, unshakably certain, and that he would prefer to die a thousand deaths rather than doubt the least detail of one of them for a fleeting instant.
Thus, the Council encourages Catholics to dissimulate the divine obligation of all to recognize the Catholic faith, to dissimulate the impossibility for any Catholic – without horrifying mortal sin – of questioning the least detail of his faith, and to dissimulate 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 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 to whose mind it would come 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 are so far 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 bring their aid to such efforts…” (Pius XI, Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, §§ 7–8.)
The Holy Father also taught that: “…he who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them totally abandons the divinely revealed religion.” (Pius XI, Mortalium animos, § 2.)
Vatican II affirms that the meetings of the two parties – in particular 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 envisaged and that the theories which would defend such meetings as good amount to apostasy.
Theological censure: HERETICAL AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL FAITH.
2.8. “The Church needs the help of unbelievers”
“In our days, 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 the different cultures] by calling upon the help of persons who live in the world, who are expert in its institutions and its disciplines, and who understand its mentality, whether they are believers or unbelievers.” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965, § 44, al. 2)
Quite clearly, while 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 incessant inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit whom 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 could need the assistance of a group of persons qualified, not by theological erudition 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 established in the evil one” (1 John 5:19) – and including unbelievers among them, can merit only one possible qualification…
Theological censure: HERETICAL.
2.9. Catholic missionaries should cooperate with heretical “missionaries”
“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 achieve and organize a fraternal cooperation and harmonious relations with the missionary enterprises of other Christian communities, so that, as far as possible, the scandal of division may be eliminated.” (Vatican II, decree on the missionary activity of the Church Ad gentes, 7 December 1965, § 29)
Catholic missionaries are men sent by God through His holy Church to preach the truth to those who ignore 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 can rightly apply to a pagan “converted” by Protestant “missionaries” the words of Our Lord: “the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” (Matthew 12:45) Hence the great Jesuit commentator of the Scriptures, Father Cornelius a Lapide, writes:
“…it is never licit 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 preferable for the pagans to receive no truth or doctrine from the heretics, than to receive it mixed with so many perverse errors…” (Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, ed. Augustin Crampon, t. 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 mortal adversaries and opponents? Can anyone 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 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 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 is given to these questions by the words of Saint Paul:
“Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation has justice with injustice? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has the believer with the unbeliever? And what agreement has 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 teaching of the Church 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 faith itself – these should be corrected at the opportune moment and in the appropriate manner.” (Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, § 6)
This passage is a good example of the manner in which the heretical council Vatican II follows the example of other heretics in subtly dissimulating its poison and seeming to defend the very truth that it simultaneously denies. The notion that there can exist deficiencies in the formulation of the teaching of the Church represents a contemptible attack against the holiness, the infallibility and the divine protection guaranteed to the Church by its Divine Founder. Nothing is accomplished by the fallacious evasion that the doctrinal formulation must be “carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself”; for the deposit of faith has been 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 the 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 faith itself. That is why the Holy Spirit preserves the declarations of the Church from error – not necessarily by a direct inspiration of the most perfect words possible to communicate His sense, 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 regularly defined must be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but everything 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, § 7, note 6)
And of course, no escape 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 can be such deficiencies, and giving instructions on the manner of responding 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, in part because we have 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 more famous declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, 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 contain only isolated outrages against Catholic truth, but was conceived as an attack against a Catholic doctrine.
“Nostra Aetate” aims to undermine the cornerstone of the Christian doctrine of salvation “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” for “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10,12).
“Unitatis Redintegratio” strives to tear the seamless tunic of Christ and to make of 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 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 as a result of 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 “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 some extent, faithful to the covenant of God. But in reality, this is not the case, for the Old Covenant required the Jews to recognize the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and when they rejected Him, it was irrevocably broken and abrogated forever. Thus, even their external observance of the Mosaic ceremonies cannot be considered “faithful,” for 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.
- Second systematic list of errors of Vatican II
3.1. Ecclesiology (Doctrine of the Church)
3.1.1. Subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church (non-exclusive)
– Citation: Lumen Gentium (LG), 21 November 1964, § 8: “This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists [subsistit in] in the Catholic Church […] although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its sphere, elements which, belonging properly by the gift of God to the Church of Christ, carry by themselves toward Catholic unity.” Note that the original Latin text on the Vatican site says “its sphere” and not “its 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 render 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 it partially, opening to an inclusive ecclesiology where other Christian communities participate in the unique Church.
– In opposition to: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, § 13: “this true Church of Jesus Christ — that which is holy, Catholic, apostolic, Roman”; Leo XIII, Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896, § 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 sole Church of Christ, constituting a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
3.1.2. Episcopal collegiality and communication of jurisdiction: differences and oppositions
Lumen gentium, no. 22, presents the episcopal college, necessarily including the Roman Pontiff as head, as the subject of the supreme and full power over the universal Church. The Nota explicativa praevia, no. 3, distinguishes the Pontiff alone from the Pontiff with the bishops and maintains in the college the integrity of his office. The critique must therefore bear on the origin and the communication of the power thus attributed, rather than deduce a double independent authority from the sole participation of the bishops (Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, no. 22; Nota explicativa praevia, no. 3; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. LVII, 1965, pp. 25–27 and 74).
Vatican I teaches that the Pontiff possesses the full and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, including over the pastors, and that no superior authority can reform his judgment (Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chap. III; DS 3063–3064). Pius XII distinguishes the sacramental acquisition of the power of order and the reception of jurisdiction by the successor of Peter (Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954; AAS, t. XLVII, 1955, p. 9). This distinction requires examining what the consecration confers and what the canonical mission brings.
Zapelena recognizes in the consecration an aptitude to jurisdiction, distinct from actual jurisdiction. He attributes to the pontifical provision a true causality in the communication of the latter. He writes: “Atqui designare oves pascendas idem est ac dare iurisdictionem in eas.” Translation: “Now to designate the sheep to be pastured is the same as to give jurisdiction over them.” The attribution of subjects thus constitutes the juridical relation between the superior and his faithful; it is not limited to permitting acts of a jurisdiction already constituted (Timotheus Zapelena S.I., De Ecclesia Christi, pars altera, Apologetico-dogmatica, Rome, Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1954, pp. 95 and 108–109).
Lumen gentium, no. 21, attributes to the consecration the functions of teaching and of governing with that of sanctifying. The commission refuses the amendments reducing the first two to a simple aptitude or disposition. The Nota, no. 2, however distinguishes this sacramental participation from the power juridically ready to be exercised and requires an additional canonical determination (Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol. III, pars VIII, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1976, p. 62, response to modus 39; Nota explicativa praevia, no. 2; AAS, t. LVII, 1965, pp. 73–74).
The explanatory opposition appears more directly in Parente. The latter first affirms that the episcopal power depends on the pope as to its existence and its exercise. But his oral additions present the canonical mission “non ut creatio ipsius potestatis […] sed ut permittens exercitium.” Translation: “not as creation of the power itself […] but as permitting its exercise.” The opposition bears on the role of the mission: to constitute the actual jurisdiction, according to the explanation of Zapelena, or to permit the exercise of the sacred power, according to that of Parente (Pietro Parente, “Relatio de nn. 22–27. De Collegio et muneribus episcoporum,” 21 September 1964, Acta Synodalia, vol. III, pars II, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1974, pp. 209 and 211, oral additions nos. 22–23).
Another difference concerns the subject of the supreme power. Billot refuses to count the pope and the ecumenical council as two subjects of this power, because the pontifical authority founds the supremacy of the council. Parente on the contrary leaves open the possibility of two inadequately distinct subjects, while maintaining a single power. This divergence is certain between their explanations; it does not permit transforming the position of Billot, by itself alone, into a dogmatic definition excluding any other analysis (Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 5th edition, Rome, Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1927, question XVI, § 3, p. 723; Parente, report cited, p. 206).
The central difference thus bears on the articulation between sacramental participation in the functions and canonical communication of jurisdiction. The Nota expressly asks that the recent pontifical documents on episcopal jurisdiction be understood from the necessary juridical determination (Nota explicativa praevia, no. 2, end; AAS, t. LVII, 1965, p. 74).
The documented opposition concerns particularly the interpretation of Parente, confronted with the constitutive explanation set forth by Zapelena. It does not permit affirming that the Nota necessarily reduces the canonical determination to a simple permission: in Zapelena himself, determining the subjects can be the act that communicates jurisdiction. Moreover, his demonstration concerns expressly the jurisdiction of bishops over their particular flocks; its application to the universal power of the college requires a distinct justification (work cited, p. 105).
Doctrinal appreciation: certain differences in the sacramental and canonical explanation of the power; documented explanatory opposition in Parente.
3.1.3. People of God as active subject of Tradition
– Citation: Dei Verbum (DV), 18 November 1965, § 8: “This Tradition which comes from the Apostles progresses in the Church, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit; indeed, the perception of the realities as well as of the words transmitted grows, either by the contemplation and the study of the believers who meditate them in their heart […], or by the interior intelligence that they experience of the spiritual realities, or by the preaching of those who, with the episcopal succession, have received a certain charism of truth.”
– Explanation: This attributes an evolutionary role to collective experience, risking a subjectivism where 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 expounded” (DS 3020); Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, § 38, taking up Vatican I: “the sense of the dogmas must be retained such as our Holy Mother the Church has once defined it, and one must never depart from this sense, under the pretext and the name of a deeper intelligence.”
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, thus affirming positively 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.” Translation into French: “The Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” Note: This proposition is condemned and proscribed by the decree. Reference: Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. XL, 1907, p. 473; pontifical approval, p. 478. The condemnation establishes the contrary doctrine as certain: the Revelation was completed with the Apostles.
– This idea transfers the authority of Tradition to the faithful, contradicting the magisterial teaching, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL.
3.1.4. Church as sacrament of human unity (non-exclusive of non-Catholics)
– Citation: LG 1: “The Church being, in Christ, in some manner the sacrament, that is to say at once the sign and the means of the intimate union with God and of the unity of the whole human race […].”
– Explanation: This extends the Church to the entire humanity, minimizing the boundaries between Catholics and non-Catholics, and suggesting a universal ontological unity.
– In opposition to: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, §§ 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 only 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 the traditional doctrine, and constitutes a formal heresy.
– Theological note: HERETICAL
3.2. Anthropology and Soteriology (Doctrine of Man and of Salvation)
3.2.1. Absolute human dignity, independent of original sin
– Citation: Gaudium et Spes (GS) 22, al. 2: “For, by his incarnation, the Son of God has in some manner united himself to 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 affirms that the prevarication of Adam harmed only himself, 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.
3.2.2. Progressive and not instantaneous justification
– Citation: Ad gentes (AG), 13: “Under the action of the grace of God, the neophyte undertakes a spiritual itinerary in which, already communing by faith in the mystery of the Death and the Resurrection, he passes from the old man to the new man, perfect in Christ. This passage, which entails a progressive change of mentality and of customs, must manifest itself 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 Theologica, I-II, q. 113, a. 7, body: “The infusion of grace is done 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.
3.2.3. Man as center and summit of creation
– Citation: Gaudium et spes (GS), 12, § 1: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers, all things that are on earth must be ordered to man as to their center and their summit.”
– Explanation: Excessive anthropocentrism, relegating God to the second place, contrary to biblical theocentrism.
– In opposition to: man is not the center; 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.
3.2.4. Birth control as a possible virtue
– Citation: GS 52, § 4: “The specialists of the sciences, notably biological, medical, social and psychological, can greatly serve the good of marriage and of the family and the peace of consciences, if they strive, by uniting their researches, to better clarify the various conditions favorable to an honest regulation of human procreation.”
– Explanation: This opens to 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.
3.3. Ecumenism and Interreligious Relations
3.3.1. Muslims as worshippers of the true God
– Citation: Nostra aetate (NA), 3: “Jesus, whom they do not recognize as God, they nevertheless venerate as a prophet.”
– Explanation: This ignores the christological rejection of these religions, risking an 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: “There is under heaven no other name given to men by which we must be saved.” Pius XI, Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, §§ 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.
3.4. Religious freedom
3.4.1. 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 assure the protection of the religious freedom of all citizens […].”
– Explanation: State relativism, denying the social reign of Christ.
– In opposition to: Pius XI, Quas primas, 11 December 1925, §§ 18 and 32, on the duty of States to publicly recognize 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.
3.5. Liturgy and Sacraments
3.5.1. Vernacular languages prioritized at Mass
– Citation: Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), 36, §§ 1–2: “The use of the Latin language will be preserved in the Latin rites, except particular right. However, in the Mass, in the administration of the sacraments and in the other parts of the liturgy, the employment of the language of the country can often be very useful to the people; a larger place can therefore be granted to it […].”
– Explanation: This marginalizes Latin, risking a 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 opportune that the Mass be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular language (DS 1749); Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, § 60, on Latin as a sign of unity and protection of doctrine.
– This practice contradicts the liturgical tradition, but can be considered as a disciplinary error rather than a formal heresy.
– Theological note: ERROR.
3.5.2. Active participation of the faithful as the essence of the liturgy
– Citation: SC 14: “Mother Church ardently desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in the liturgical celebrations, which the very nature of the liturgy demands […].”
– 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, § 69, on the power of the priest to act in the person of Christ.
This idea alters the sacrificial nature of the Mass, contradicting the traditional doctrine, and constitutes a formal heresy.
Theological note: HERETICAL.
3.5.3. Novus Ordo as a Protestant notion of the Mass
– Citation: SC 47: “Our Savior, at the Last Supper, the night in which he was betrayed, instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and his Blood, in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries, until his return, and thus to entrust to the Church, his beloved Spouse, the memorial of his Death and of his Resurrection: sacrament of piety, sign of unity, bond of charity, paschal banquet […].”
– Explanation: Eucharistic reduction to the 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 salutary 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.
3.6. Social and pastoral questions
3.6.1. Socialism and communism not condemned
– The absence of condemnation contradicts the previous encyclicals (notably “Divini Redemptoris” of Pius XI, 19 March 1937, § 58).
– Citation: GS 55: “the spiritual and moral maturity of the human race” (a favorable judgment, and the text therefore does not take up the explicit condemnation of socialism/communism present in the prior teaching of the magisterium).
– Explanation: Grave omission, which favors 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 of communism, present in the prior teaching of the magisterium.
– In opposition: Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, § 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 the matter of social teaching: an authorized application of moral principles and of the principles of 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 which savors of heresy and which is scandalous): by omitting precisely at the moment of the greatest doctrinal reorientation of the Church toward “the world,” to take up a doctrine that the previous popes judged necessary to affirm and to repeat against a living and organized world 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 that this study documents elsewhere in the texts of Vatican II.
Theological note: SAPIENS HAERESIM ET SCANDALOSA (which savors of heresy, and scandalous) — a censure which approaches HERETICAL.
3.6.2. Evolutionism and modernism
– Citation: GS 19: “Atheism moreover arises quite often either from a violent protest against the evil in the world, or from the absolute character unduly attributed to certain human goods, which thus 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, Saint 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.
- Conclusion
The errors of Vatican II, often ambiguous and pastoral, form a systematic ensemble perceived as a rupture with Tradition. They risk a doctrinal relativism, an anthropocentrism and a syncretic ecumenism, potentially invalidating the council as “conciliabulum.”
This conciliabulum is therefore heretical en bloc because it teaches a new Christianity (anthropocentric, ecumenical, liberal), contrary to the revealed deposit. As Saint Pius X teaches, modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. 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 to preserve the integrity of the faith.
Final certain conclusion:
The Conciliabulum of Vatican II is certainly multiply heretical.
List of sources
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.
Councils and doctrinal acts prior to Vatican II
Innocent III and Council of Lateran IV, 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 by 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.
Council of Vatican I, constitution Dei Filius, 24 April 1870, chap. IV; DS 3020. Original Latin text.
Council of Vatican I, constitution Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chap. III; DS 3063–3064. Original Latin text.
Pontifical acts
Saint Agathon, Letter to the emperor, cited by Gregory XVI, Mirari vos, 15 August 1832, § 7, note 6. Latin text.
Paul IV, bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, § 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, p. 240–247, notably p. 242–243.
Gregory XVI, encyclical Mirari vos, 15 August 1832, notably § 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, § 13 of the English translation. Original Latin text.
Saint Pius X, encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, § 38 of the French translation; DS 3475; Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. XL, 1907, p. 632. Original Latin text.
Pius XI, encyclical Quas primas, 11 December 1925, §§ 18 and 32 of the English translation. Original Latin text.
Pius XI, encyclical Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, §§ 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, § 120 of the English translation. Original Latin text.
Pius XI, encyclical Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937, § 58 of the French translation. Original Latin text.
Pius XII, encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, §§ 13 and 22–23 of the English translation. Original Latin text.
Pius XII, encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, §§ 60 and 69 of the English translation. Original Latin text.
Pius XII, encyclical Humani generis, 12 August 1950, § 27 of the English translation. Original Latin text.
Pius XII, encyclical Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XLVII, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1955, p. 9. Original Latin text.
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 compiled by order of Pius X and promulgated by the authority of Benedict XV), Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, can. 1258 § 1 and 1325 § 2; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. IX, pars II, 1917, p. 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, t. XL, 1907, p. 470–478, notably p. 473 and 478. Original Latin text.
Sacred Congregation of Rites, Declaratio, 10 June 1948; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XL, 1948, p. 342. Original Latin text.
Fathers and theologians
Saint Cyprian, Letter to Jubaianus, § 21, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, t. V, 1886, letter 72, English translation by Robert Ernest Wallis; original Latin.
Saint Jerome, Commentaria in Matthaeum (Commentary on Saint Matthew), book IV, commentary on Matthew 27, 25; Latin text.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 113, a. 7, body of the article; Leonine edition, Rome, 1892; Latin text.
Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary, English translation by T. W. Mossman and collaborators, 3rd edition, London, John Hodges, 1887, t. II, commentary on Matthew 21, 41; t. III, commentary on Matthew 27, 25, translation by James Bliss; original Latin.
Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram (Commentaries on Holy Scripture), edition revised and annotated by Augustin Crampon, t. XIX, In epistolas divi Pauli (On the epistles of Saint Paul), Paris, Louis Vivès, 1876, p. 10, commentary on Philippians 1, 18; Latin text.
Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato, t. I, De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima eius constitutione, 5th edition, Rome, Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1927, question XVI, § 3, p. 723. Original Latin text.
Timotheus Zapelena S.I., De Ecclesia Christi, pars altera, Apologetico-dogmatica, Rome, Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1954, pp. 95, 105 and 108–109. Original Latin text.
Collections and editions of texts
Heinrich Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, English translation by Roy J. Deferrari after the 30th Latin edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, revised by Karl Rahner, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder & Co., 1954; reprint, Fitzwilliam (New Hampshire), Loreto Publications. Numbering D.
Denzinger–Hünermann, extracts from Quanta cura and from the Syllabus, Latin text and German translation, p. 794–809; notably nos. 2896, 2916–2918 and 2977.
- 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 of 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, p. xxiii–xxiv, note 3; English text.
Documents of Vatican II
Vatican II, constitution on the sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963, §§ 14, 36 and 47. Original Latin text.
Vatican II, dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, §§ 1, 8, 21 and 22; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. LVII, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1965, pp. 25–27 for nos. 21–22. Original Latin text.
Nota explicativa praevia relative to chapter III of Lumen gentium, nos. 2–3, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. LVII, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1965, pp. 73–74. Original Latin text.
Pietro Parente, “Relatio de nn. 22–27. De Collegio et muneribus episcoporum,” 21 September 1964, in Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol. III, pars II, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1974, pp. 206, 209 and 211, oral additions nos. 22–23. Original Latin text.
Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol. III, pars VIII, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1976, p. 62, response to modus 39 relative to chapter III of Lumen gentium. Original Latin text.
Vatican II, decree on ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, 21 November 1964, §§ 3, 6, 8 and 9. Original Latin text.
Vatican II, declaration on the relations of the Church with non-Christian religions Nostra aetate, 28 October 1965, §§ 2–4. Original Latin text.
Vatican II, dogmatic constitution on divine Revelation Dei verbum, 18 November 1965, § 8. Original Latin text.
Vatican II, declaration on religious freedom Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, §§ 2, 6 and 11. Original Latin text.
Vatican II, pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965, §§ 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, §§ 13 and 29. Original Latin text.
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.
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 of the Spanish.
“Accord entre l’État espagnol et le Saint-Siège sur les questions juridiques,” Vatican City, 3 January 1979, in La Documentation catholique, no. 1760, 18 March 1979, p. 277–278, especially article VIII, p. 278; French translation of 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, p. 6–7; French text.
Postconciliar discourses
John Paul II, Meeting with a delegation of the disciples of Voodoo, seat of the CODIAM, Cotonou, 4 February 1993, no. 4. French text.