----------------------------------  
Reproduction of this article  
without permission is prohibited.  
Copyright 1998  
-----------------------------------  

What Are We To Think Of Vatican II ?

  
  
Most Catholics today are aware that the Church is in a   
period of turmoil and confusion, and they are seeking   
answers.   
  
Since the Second Vatican Council, Catholics worldwide have   
witnessed what appears like the very destruction of their  
Faith. What is causing such a gave crisis ?   
  
The roots of the problems we witness today, are in the many  
changes made during the Second Vatican Council. Let us first   
examine the purpose of the Council :  
  
  
     There are many who believe, incorrectly, that the Second Vatican  
     Council was infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit. A pastoral  
     council is not neccesarily protected by the Holy Spirit and it   
     has NO authority to pronounce any new dogma.   
  
     It is interesting to note that the very pope who called the council   
     insisted that it was to be a --pastoral-- council which would not   
     define any new dogma :                                 
  
`` The greatest concern of the Ecumenical  Council is this:    
 that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded   
 and taught more efficaciously....  The salient point of this   
 Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another   
 of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.``    
  
   -Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the Council, 11 October, 1962  
  
  
	The closing statement of the Council, given by Pope Paul VI  
clearly re-iterates that no infallible dogmas were defined :   
  
  
`` The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself   
      under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..``    
  
   -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965  
  
  
``Some ask what authority -- what theological qualification -- the Council   
 had attached to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided solemn   
 dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching   
 authority.  The answer is familiar to those who remember the conciliar   
 declaration of 6 March 1964, repeated on 16 November 1964.  In view of   
 the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in   
 an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility. ``   
	  
		--Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966  
  
  
WHAT DID THE COUNCIL MANDATE ?
  
  
* canon 844,  4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the  
  sick, and even holy communion to non-Catholics who manifest "Catholic  
   faith"  in these sacraments.  
  
This used to be considered a mortal sin and was gravely forbidden (1917  
Code of Canon Law, canon 731,  21) because it implicitly denies the dogma,  
"Outside the Church, no salvation" .  
  
This is an inadmissible surrender to modernist ecumenism.  
  
   * canon 1055,  1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the  
     procreation of children, but mentions this only after a secondary end,  
     the good of the spouses. And this latter, as we can see in the light  
     of annulments now given, has become the essence of marriage: the  
     partners give each other their whole selves (and not just "the  
     exclusive and perpetual right over the body of the partner as regards  
     the acts capable in themselves of generating offspring," 1917 Code of  
     Canon Law, canon 1081,  2) for their self-fulfillment in wedlock  
     (canon 1057,  2). There is considered to be no marriage where one  
     spouse cannot provide the other this help (canon 1095, 20 and 30,  
     canon 1098, etc., cf. canon 1063, 40). Whence today's annulments'  
     fiasco: in the United States, for example, there were 338 annulments  
     granted in 1968; there were 59,030 in 1992.  
  
Hence grave doubts are to be held concerning the annulments issued by Novus  
Ordo Tribunals.  
  
  * Canon 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II. The "college of  
   Bishops," a 20th century invention, is now made a permanent subject,  
   together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal  
   Church. A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal  
   jurisdiction by the mere fact of his consecration (cf. canon 375,  2).  
  
This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church,  
derogates from the Pope's powers, and hampers his government of the Church  
(and that of the Bishops in their dioceses). "Episcopal Conferences" now  
assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and unanswerable.  
  
These are but the most grave deficiencies; other defective points include  
the following:  
  
   * mixed marriages (canons 1125, 1127),  
   * diminution in censures (excommunication of freemasons, etc.),  
   * the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is no longer strictly enjoined in  
     seminaries (canons 251ff), and  
   * general absolutions are more readily available (canons 961-963, etc.).  
  
Further innovations from the Second Vatican Council Include :  
  
   * new catechisms,  
   * new liturgy-in new churches, around a table,  
     with communion in the hand, from lay ministers  
     aided by altar-girls, etc.,  
   * new Bibles and Canon Law,  
   * involvement with non-Catholics,  
   * new orientations-world "justice," "peace," ...  
   * laymen doing what priests did, ...  
   * The New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) - see separate articles on this.  
  
  
 I am not revealing a deep dark secret nor offending any member  
 of the Church, when I say that there is much confusion within  
 this church body itself as to its stand on certain issues and  
 even as to its present definition of certain teaching prior to  
 the Council.   
  
The Council Fathers themselves tell us that the documents of
Vatican-II were written in such an ambiguous style so as to be
acceptable with both the Neo-Modernists and the Catholics.

The language of the documents of this Council are ambiguous,
fraught with dangerous loopholes, and open to many
interpretations.  When you read the Catechism of the Council 
of Trent or the documents of other Councils  you do not find
such ambiguous verbiage, but a very precise expression.

Pick almost any paragraph from Vatican II and you could make
it mean just about anything depending on your personal slant
(liberal, conservative,etc.).

	Whence this imprecise language? 

A group of Bishops, on June 1964 wrote to Pope Paul VI:


 "The ambiguity of this Council was apparent from the
  very first sessions... On the eve of the Council's third
  session, we are studying the schemas put forward for
  discussion by the Fathers. In the case of certain of these
  propositions, we have to avow our grave disquiet and
 our keen anxiety.

 In these statements, we find absolutely nothing of what
 was laid down  by His Holiness John XXIII, namely: 

    '...that accuracy of terms and concepts which was
 the particular  glory of the Council of Trent and of the
 First Vatican Council.'

       The confusion of style and of ideas produces an
 almost permanent  impression of ambiguity... that are
 at least formally opposed to the  teachings of the ordinary
 Magisterium, as well as the pronouncements of the
extra-ordinary Magisterium made by the Church".  

	Pope Paul VI described the situation we are facing,  
 at his speech at the end of the Council :  
  
     " Profane and secular humanism has shown itself in   
       its own terrible stature and has in a sense   
       defined the Council. The religion of God made Man  
       has come up against the religion of man who makes  
       himself God. "  
  
     In short, we are now in a period of extraordinary crisis  
which Canon Law refers to as "a state of emergency".   
  
WAS THE COUNCIL INFALLIBLE ?
  
  
Dr. William Marra, Ph.D ; a theologian, explains :  
  
    `` There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no  
     matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the  
     Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if  
     Vatican II was called, it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to  
     call it. But this is not necessarily the case. Convoking Vatican  
     II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God  
     was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special  
     charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as  
     coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.  
  
     We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can  
     say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy  
     Ghost to guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what  
     comes from this council is de fide (n.b Nothing in Vatican II   
     was pronounced de fide)   
  
     The glory of the Church is that it has supernatural help to  
     define Truth. It has supernatural help to guarantee that its  
     sacraments are efficacious and so on. But who said that the  
     decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?  
  
     However, practical decisions of Churchmen, even the highest  
     authorities: the Pope, bishops, priests are something quite  
     different. We do not say, for example, that a command of a Pope  
     to call a council is true or not. We can say that it is wise or  
     not.  
  
     ... it is opportune or not. Such a decision in no way asks us to  
     assent to its truth. It asks us to obey the command or commands  
     that pertain to us. This is what von Hildebrande meant by  
     difference between belief and obedience. And Catholics are never  
     obliged to believe that a given command, or a given decision of  
     anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy  
     Ghost.  
  
     For all practical purposes, Paul VI suppressed the Roman rite. We  
     have no Roman rite. Pope Paul VI thought he had the liturgical  
     power to do this. Von Hildebrande called it the greatest blunder  
     of Paul VI's Pontificate. So to suppress a religious order, to  
     suppress a rite, to name a bishop is a matter of obedience, not  
     belief, and is not protected by the Holy Ghost.  
       
     As already mentioned, to call a council is a practical decision  
     of a Pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But  
     no one can say that this is an object of Faith.   
  
     We have 2,600 bishops in the Church. Does that mean the Holy  
     Ghost picked all of those? That is blasphemy, friends. Do you  
     want to blame the Holy Ghost for Archbishop Weakland? ``  
  
  
 There are bishops who in fact openly teach and promote heresy,   
 Are we to say that their actions are infallible or that they come   
 from the Holy Spirit ?   
  
	Only a few years after the Council, Pope Paul VI seemed to  
have realised that this Council may have indeed been destructive for  
the Church :  
  
`` The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed   
period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called   
auto-destruction. It is an acute and complicated upheaval,   
which nobody could have expected after the Council. It is almost   
as if the Church were attacking herself. ``   
  
``We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts   
which matured in the great sessions of the council... one must   
notice above all the sorrowful aspect.  It is as if the Church were   
destroying herself. ``  
  
  
--Pope Paul VI, 7 December 1968, Address to the Lombard College  
  
  
`` We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall  
 the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is   
doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation....   
We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned   
for the history of the Church.  What dawned, instead, was a day of   
clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. ``   
  
  
-- Pope Paul VI, 29 June 1972, Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul for the  
   9th anniversary of his pontificate.  
  
  
Lastly, I say to you : Judge a tree by it's fruits. What are the   
fruits of this Council ?  Are they good or evil ?