The Whole Truth about Vatican II

Currently, I have updated many of my believes to be more in line with Vatican II and I do no longer adhere to the position that Vatican II is heretical, or that Saints and adherents to Vatican II (and other canonized by Vatican II) such as Mother Theresa was heretical or damned – or that they are unworthy of this title. Why have I changed position? That is simply because damnation is something evil, and Vatican II is more open for universal salvation, whereas the pre-Vatican II Church was not.

For more information on this topic, and why damnation is evil and why the Vatican II Church teaches something good with being more open to universal salvation, see this post:

https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2019/05/q-why-damnation-and-eternal-torments-is-evil.html

Watch Videos:

The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II

This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

John Paul II during a syncretist prayer gathering with various false religious leaders at Assisi in 1986 - This “ecumenical” activity was always condemned by the Catholic Church, and specifically labeled as a complete rejection of the Catholic Faith by Pope Pius XI in 1928. This is a revolution against the Faith – a new Gospel. What’s going on here? Read this book to find out.

Contents

Download as:

1. The Great Apostasy and a counterfeit Church predicted in the New Testament and in Catholic Prophecy

Luke 18:8- “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”

In the Gospel, Our Lord Jesus Christ informs us that in the last days the true Faith would hardly be found on the earth. He tells us that “in the holy place” itself there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24).

Matthew 24:15- “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”

Matthew 24:24-25- “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.”

2 Thess. 2:3-5- “Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt [apostasy] first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?”

In 1903, Pope St. Pius X thought that he might be seeing the beginning of the evils which will fully come to pass in the last days.

Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi (# 5), Oct. 4, 1903: “… there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the ‘ Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3).”¹

The New Testament tells us that this deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures, in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4) and “in the holy place” (Mt. 24:15). It will arise because people receive not the love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

In 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul speaks of the last days being characterized by a great apostasy that will be the worst ever – even worse than was experienced in the Arian crisis in the 4^thcentury, in which an authentically Catholic priest was hardly to be found.

Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (A.D. 380), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”²

Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4^thcentury), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”³

St. Gregory Nazianz (+380), Against the Arians: “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches? They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?”⁴

If the Arian crisis – just a prelude to the Great Apostasy – was this extensive, how extensive will the Great Apostasy foretold by Our Lord and Saint Paul be?

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”⁵

St. Paul further says that this apostasy will result in a man sitting in the temple of God and “shewing himself as if he were God.” Later in this book, we prove that this is exactly what has happened by a man sitting in St. Peter’s Basilica declaring that he and everyone else is God.

Fr. Herman Kramer was a Catholic priest who spent 30 years studying and writing a book on the Apocalypse. In his book, he wrote the following about St. Paul’s prophecy concerning the Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God.

“St. Paul says that Antichrist ‘sitteth in the temple of God’… This is not the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, nor a temple like it built by Antichrist, as some have thought, for then it would be his own temple… this temple is shown to be a Catholic Church, possibly one of the churches in Jerusalem or St. Peter’s in Rome, which is the largest church in the world and is in the full sense ‘The Temple of God.’”⁶

Notice that Kramer says that “the Temple of God” probably refers to St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

Pope Pius XI, Quinguagesimo ante (#30), Dec. 23, 1929: “… such a great number of them came to the Basilica of St. Peter’s for the jubilee of indulgence that We have probably never seen that great temple so crowded.”⁷

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Antichrist” indicates that St. Bernard believed that the Antichrist would be an antipope:

“ ...St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope [as the Beast of the Apocalypse].”⁸

Bl. Joachim (d. 1202): “Towards the end of the world, Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.”⁹

But whether or not one believes that the Antichrist will be an antipope, it has definitely been prophesied that the forces of Antichrist will overtake Rome in the final days. On Sept. 19, 1846, Our Lady of La Salette prophesied that Rome would lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist in a final days apostasy from the one true Catholic Faith.

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

This startling prophecy coincides with the prophecies in Sacred Scripture (Apocalypse 17 and 18), which inform us that the city of seven hills (Rome) will become a harlot (a counterfeit Bride of Christ), which will commit spiritual fornication (idolatry) and tread upon the blood of the saints (false ecumenism). The great harlot prophesied in the Bible is not the Catholic Church; it is a counterfeit Catholic Church, an apostate, phony Bride which arises in the last days to deceive Catholics and eclipse the true Church which has been reduced to a remnant. In this book we will bring forward the overwhelming, undeniable, irrefutable evidence from doctrinal grounds and unassailable facts that the “Church” which has arisen with the Second Vatican Council (1962-) is not the Catholic Church all, but rather massively fraudulent Counter-Church which denies fundamental teachings the Catholic Church.

We will show that the men who imposed this new Vatican II religion and the New Mass were not Catholics at all, but manifest heretics preaching a new religion.

In fact, any doubts about the authenticity of Our Lady’s message at La Salette will be obliterated by a careful examination of the evidence in this book. Among other things, this book will document that the Vatican now teaches that Jews are perfectly free not to believe in Jesus Christ.

This may startle some, but this is a fact. Without even considering all of the other apostasy which we will cover in this book, this fact proves that Our Lady’s words have come true: Rome (not the Catholic Church) has lost the Faith (given way to a non-Catholic, counterfeit sect) and become the seat of the Antichrist.

In late 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. The book argues that the Jews’ continued wait for the Messiah is validated and justified by the Old Testament. “The expectancy of the Messiah was justified in the Old Testament,” papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls explained, “and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right.” Asked by reporters whether his statements might be taken to suggest that the Messiah may not in fact have come, Navarro-Valls replied, “It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew.” This means that the Vatican now holds that the Jews are perfectly free to reject Christ; this is the teaching of the Vatican II “popes.”

Rome has lost the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.

1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.”

But how did this come about, and what are Catholics to do about it? This book will endeavor to answer both of those questions in detail.

Endnotes for Section 1 :

¹The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 6.

²William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, Vol. 2, p. 39.

³William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.

⁴William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 33.

⁵Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1973, p. 30.

⁶Fr. Herman Kramer, The Book of Destiny, Tan Books, 1975, p. 321.

⁷The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 351.

⁸The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, “Antichrist,” Robert Appleton Co. 1907, p. 561.

⁹Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.

2. Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael – a Prophecy about the Future Apostasy in Rome

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is prophetic. Composed over 100 years ago, and then suppressed, Pope Leo XIII’s original Prayer to St. Michael is a very interesting and controversial prayer relating to the present situation in which the true Catholic Church finds itself. On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII became traumatized to the point that he collapsed. Those in attendance thought that he was dead. After coming to consciousness, the pope described a frightful conversation that he had heard coming from near the tabernacle. The conversation consisted of two voices – voices which Pope Leo XIII clearly understood to be the voices of Jesus Christ and the Devil. The Devil boasted that he could destroy the Church, if he were granted 75 years to carry out his plan (or 100 years, according to some accounts). The Devil also asked permission for “a greater influence over those who will give themselves to my service.” To the Devil’s requests, Our Lord reportedly replied: “you will be given the time and the power.”

Shaken deeply by what he had heard, Pope Leo XIII composed the following Prayer to St. Michael (which is also a prophecy) and ordered it to be recited after all Low Masses as a protection for the Church against the attacks from Hell. What follows is the prayer (note especially the bolded portions), followed by some of our comments. The prayer was taken from The Raccolta, 1930, Benziger Bros., pp. 314-315. The Raccolta is an imprimatured collection of the official and indulgenced prayers of the Catholic Church.

The Prayer:

"O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.

"Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven.

"That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

"Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and Patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.

"Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David. Let thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

"As we have hoped in thee. O Lord, hear my prayer. And let my cry come unto thee.

"Let us pray.

"O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon thy holy name, and as suppliants we implore thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen."

As one who reads the prayer (especially the bolded portion) can see, Pope Leo XIII seemed to foresee and predict the great apostasy; and he seemed to pinpoint that this apostasy would be led from Rome – Rome which alone is “the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world.” Pope Leo foresaw that this place (Vatican City in Rome), where had been set up the Chair of Peter by the first Pope, St. Peter himself, would become the throne of Satan’s abominable impiety, with the “iniquitous design that when the Pastor (the true Pope) has been struck, the sheep (the Catholic faithful) may be scattered.” These are Pope Leo XIII’s words.

Pope Leo XIII was not predicting the defection of the Catholic Church (which is impossible, as the gates of Hell can never prevail against the Church [Mt. 16]), nor the defection of the Chair of Peter (which is also impossible), but rather he was predicting the implementation of an apostate, counterfeit Catholic religion from Rome, in which “the pastor” (the true pope) is replaced by a usurping antipope (as has occurred at times in Church history), with the iniquitous design that “the sheep may be scattered.”

Pope Leo’s prayer also foresaw that Satan’s impure apostates would lay impious hands “on the Church’s most sacred possessions.” What are the Church’s most sacred possessions? The most sacred possessions of the Church are those things which Christ entrusted to Her: namely, the deposit of faith (with all of its dogmas) and the seven sacraments instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, Pope Leo’s prayer foretold the attempted destruction of the deposit of faith with Vatican II and the new sacramental rites of the Vatican II Church. Both of these will be covered in detail in this book. We will see that Paul VI’s laying of impious hands on the Church’s seven sacramental rites beginning in April of 1969, which produced an invalid New Mass, an invalid New Rite of Ordination, and gravely doubtful rites of Confirmation and Extreme Unction, fulfilled Pope Leo’s prediction to the letter.

In 1934, Pope Leo’s striking prayer (given above) was changed without explanation. The key phrase referring to the apostasy in Rome (the Holy Place, where the See of Peter has been set up for the light of the world) was removed. Around the same time, the use of Pope Leo XIII’s longer Prayer to St. Michael after each Low Mass was replaced by a shorter prayer, the now famous abbreviated Prayer to St. Michael. This prayer goes as follows:

“ St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.”

There is nothing wrong with this prayer to St. Michael; in fact, it is very good and efficacious. However, the point is that it’s not the longer Prayer to St. Michael that Pope Leo XIII composed. The shorter prayer was, in the view of many, promoted as a substitute, so that the faithful would be unaware of the incredible content of the longer prayer, as described above. If the longer Prayer to St. Michael had been recited at the end of every Low Mass and not suppressed in 1934, how many millions more would have been stirred to a resistance when they encountered the attempted new post-Vatican II religion that we will cover in this book? How many would have seen through the systematic dismantling of the traditional Catholic Faith after Vatican II?

Pope Leo XIII’s longer Prayer to St. Michael also fits perfectly with Our Lady of La Salette’s famous appearance and prediction in 1846: “Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist... the Church will be in eclipse.” Pope Leo’s words suggest that Antichrist himself, or at least the forces of Antichrist, would set up their seat in Rome: “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter… they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety…”

Another photo of John Paul II at his 1986 interreligious prayer service in Assisi, Italy – something totally condemned by the Catholic Church (more on this in the section on John Paul II)

3. The Message of Fatima: a heavenly sign marking the beginning of the end times and a prediction of apostasy from the Church

Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta of Fatima

Fr. Mario Luigi Ciappi, papal theologian to Pope Pius XII: “In the Third Secret [of Fatima] it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”[1]

The message and miracle of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 is one of the greatest events in the history of the Catholic Church. Since the miracle at Fatima, which occurred on Oct. 13, 1917, was predicted to take place in advance, and was fulfilled in the presence of almost 100,000 people, it’s probably the greatest miracle in Catholic history outside the Resurrection. The Fatima miracle and message also bear tremendous significance for our topic: The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II. Beginning on May 13, 1917, the Mother of God appeared six times to Jacinta (age 7), Francisco (age 9) and Lucia (age 10) in Fatima, Portugal. The Blessed Virgin told the children to pray the Rosary every day; she showed them a vision of Hell; and she made prophecies about World War II and the expansion of Communism (“the errors of Russia”), among other things.

The Vision of Hell shown by Our Lady of Fatima to the children: “As the Lady spoke the last words, she opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays [of light] appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls [of the damned]. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear.”[2]

“You see Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart,” Our Lady said.

The Fatima children shortly after the vision of Hell… one can see in their terrified countenances the truth of their words: that they would have died of fright at the vision of Hell if they had not been promised Heaven

On July 13, 1917, Our Lady also told the children that on Oct. 13, 1917 she would work a miracle that all would have to believe:

“Lucia said, ‘I wish to ask you to tell us who you are, and to perform a miracle so that everyone will believe that you have appeared to us!’

‘Continue to come here every month,’ answered the Lady. ‘In October I will tell you who I am and what I wish, and will perform a miracle that everyone will have to believe.’”[3] (Our Lady of Fatima, July 13, 1917)

Since the children had announced months in advance of Oct. 13 that the Lady would work a miracle, 70,000 to 100,000 people gathered at Fatima on Oct. 13 to see the miracle that was predicted to take place. There were also many nonbelievers who came to scoff when the predicted miracle didn’t occur. However, as even the secular press confirmed, the Miracle of the Sun – as it’s now known – did occur, just as it was predicted by the children and by Our Lady of Fatima. It stunned the gathered multitude, converted hardened unbelievers, including atheists and Freemasons, and confirmed thousands in the Catholic Faith.

Above: the stunned crowd at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917 witnessing the predicted miracle by Our Lady of Fatima

What was the Miracle of the Sun that so stunned and converted the enraptured audience of 70,000-plus at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917? A brief examination of the miracle and its significance will go a long way in revealing: The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.

“The sun stood forth in the clear zenith like a great silver disk which, though bright as any sun they had ever seen, they could look straight at without blinking, and with a unique and delightful satisfaction. This lasted but a moment. While they gazed, the huge ball began to ‘dance’ – that was the word all the beholders applied to it. Now it was whirling rapidly like a gigantic fire-wheel. After doing this for some time, it stopped. Then it rotated again, with dizzy, sickening speed. Finally there appeared on the rim a border of crimson, which flung across the sky, as from a hellish vortex, blood-red streamers of flame, reflecting to the earth, to the trees and shrubs, to the upturned faces and the clothes all sorts of brilliant colors in succession: green, red, orange, blue, violet, the whole spectrum in fact. Madly gyrating in this manner three times, the fiery orb seemed to tremble, to shudder, and then to plunge precipitately, in a mighty zigzag, toward the crowd.

“A fearful cry broke from the lips of thousands of terrified persons as they fell upon their knees, thinking the end of the world had come. Some said that the air became warmer at that instant; they would not have been surprised if everything about them had burst into flames, enveloping and consuming them.”[4]

“All over Portugal, in fact, the anti-clerical press was compelled to bear witness of the same sort. There was general agreement on the essentials. As Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho wrote in O Ordem, ‘The sun, sometimes surrounded with crimson flames, at other times aureoled with yellow and red, at still other times seemed to revolve with a very rapid movement of rotation, still again seeming to detach itself from the sky, to approach the earth…’”[5]

During the miracle the sun was seen to be speeding toward the earth and the people thought the end of the world had come. The significance should be obvious: Fatima was an apocalyptic sign; it was a sign that the end was near, that the events which would precede the culmination of the world and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ were to begin. Men must amend their lives before the end of the world really came.

Based on some of these considerations, many have concluded that Our Lady of Fatima is the woman clothed with the sun described in chapter 12:1 of the Apocalypse:

“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” (Apocalypse 12:1)

The Fatima seers also reported that Our Lady was made all of light – she was more brilliant than the sun. The evidence is very strong that Our Lady of Fatima was the woman clothed with the sun prophesied in the Apocalypse, chapter 12. In fact, there is a stunning confirmation that Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima was the fulfillment of the prophecy in the Apocalypse about the woman clothed with the sun.

The Masonic Daily Paper, O Seculo, stunningly confirms without even knowing it that Our Lady was the woman clothed with the sun of the Apocalypse 12:1

The Miracle of the Sun worked by Our Lady of Fatima was reported by anti-Catholic papers throughout Portugal. The liberal, Masonic and anti-clerical daily of Lisbon, O Seculo, had its Editor in Chief, Avelino de Almeida, on hand to report on the event. To his credit, he honestly reported on the solar prodigy. What we want to draw to your attention is the title of his article which was published in O Seculo on Oct. 15, 1917. Giving an account of the extraordinary event at Fatima on Oct. 13, his article in O Seculo of October 15 was entitled:

“How the sun danced in broad daylight at Fatima. The apparitions of the Virgin. – The sign of Heaven. – Thousands declare it a miracle. – War and peace.’’[6]

Please notice that the Masonic, anti-clerical daily of Lisbon described the event of Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun as “The sign of Heaven.” Does that sound familiar?

Apocalypse 12:1- “And a great sign appeared in Heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Are we to believe that the Masonic newspaper of Lisbon had Apocalypse 12:1 in mind when publishing this article shortly after the solar prodigy in 1917? Were the anti-clericals considering the possibility that Our Lady’s appearance constituted the woman clothed with the sun and the “sign of Heaven” described in the Bible? Of course not; not even Catholics at that time had connected Fatima with the woman clothed with the sun, let alone the anti-clericals who didn’t even believe in Sacred Scripture or probably didn’t even know about the prophecy in Apoc. 12:1! This headline, therefore, is an unknowing confirmation, by a public and anti-Catholic source, that Our Lady of Fatima and her miracle on Oct. 13 were indeed the sign prophesied in Apocalypse 12:1!

It’s almost as if one were to ask God the question: Lord, how will we know when the great “sign of heaven,” which you predicted in Apocalypse 12:1, will occur? And the Lord responded: just read the headline in the Masonic newspaper, for when this sign will occur it will be reported even in it.

This stunning fact not only serves to confirm that Our Lady of Fatima is the woman clothed with the sun of Apoc. 12:1, but also further confirms the authenticity of the Catholic Faith and Sacred Scripture.

Therefore, to finally round out our point about Fatima and its relevance to what has happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, we can say: since Fatima was the sign prophesied in Apoc. 12:1, this means that we are in the Apocalyptic era, the last days of the world.

Fatima, the sign of Apoc. 12:1, and the great red dragon (Communism), the sign of Apoc. 12:3, both come on the scene in 1917

Lending further support to the idea that Fatima was the “sign” of Apocalypse 12:1 is the fact that the Apocalypse speaks of the “great red dragon” just two verses later. Scripture seems to indicate that the two will come on the scene at the same time.

Apocalypse 12:3- “And there was seen another sign in Heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns: and on his heads seven diadems: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of Heaven, and cast them to the Earth…”

Many commentators consider the “great red dragon” to be Communism, since Communism is undeniably associated with red, and was responsible for the murder of over 20 million people in Russia alone. Under Vladimir Lenin, the Bolsheviks took over Russia for Communism – gaining the significant victory which would make Communism a world power – on Nov. 7, 1917, immediately after the appearances of Our Lady in Fatima, which had warned of the spread of “the errors of Russia.”[7] Even today we speak of Communist China as “Red China.” The Communist revolution in China was launched in celebratory fashion by men with “Enormous red banners, tens of thousands of red flags, and masses of red balloons flew over them.”[8] The evidence that the “great red dragon” describes the Communist Empire is quite strong.

It’s also very interesting that the great red dragon drew the third part of the stars of Heaven:

Apocalypse 12:3- “And there was seen another sign in Heaven: and behold a great red dragon… And his tail drew the third part of the stars of Heaven, and cast them to the Earth…”

Is it just a coincidence that Communism, at its height, held a third of the world in its grasp?

Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, p. 418: “As Joseph Stalin walked into the Valley of the Shadow of Death, the international communist movement which he led held a third of the world in its grasp.”[9]

Sister Lucia of Fatima told Fr. Fuentes in 1957 that we are in the last times

One of the three visionaries of Fatima, Sr. Lucia, told Fr. Fuentes in 1957:

"Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world but she made me understand this for three reasons. The first reason is because she told me that the Devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Hence from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the Devil. There is no other possibility.

“The second reason is because she said to my cousins as well as to myself that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others. “The third reason is because in the plans of Divine Providence, God always, before He is about to chastise the world, exhausts all other remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever then, as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with a certain trepidation the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother. It is with a certain trepidation because if you despise and repulse this ultimate means we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Spirit. This sin consists of openly rejecting with full knowledge and consent, the salvation which He offers. Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother. We have recorded through many centuries of Church history the obvious testimony which demonstrates, by the terrible chastisements which have befallen those who have attacked the honor of His Most Holy Mother, how Our Lord Jesus Christ has always defended the honor of His Mother."[10]

As discussed already, the main feature of the end times is an apostasy from the Catholic Faith. In “the holy place” itself (Rome) there will be “the abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15), and a deception so profound that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived (Mt. 24:24). The New Testament tells us that this deception will happen in the very heart of the Church’s physical structures, in “the Temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4). It will arise because people receive not the love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10). That is precisely why the very last words that Our Lady of Fatima gives us in the great secret of July 13, 1917 are:

“In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved, etc.”

These are the last words given before the undisclosed third secret of Fatima. From this scholars of Fatima have concluded that the third secret undoubtedly deals with a massive spiritual crisis and apostasy from the Catholic Faith among those who purport to hold positions of authority in the Church.

Since we don’t have the complete sentence of Our Lady’s last words of the July message, we cannot say for sure what they mean; but the sentence could be: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved in a faithful remnant…” Or: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved until the Great Apostasy…” Or: “In Portugal the dogma of Faith will always be preserved among those who heed my warnings…” The third secret undoubtedly deals with the present apostasy of the Vatican II sect. We will document this apostasy in great detail in this book.

As cited at the beginning of this section,“Fr.” Mario Luigi Ciappi, the papal theologian to Pope Pius XII, stated:

“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”[11]

Another “cardinal” of the Vatican II Church incredibly admitted that the Third Secret deals with the post-Vatican II apostasy.

“Cardinal” Silvio Oddi:“… the Third Secret [of Fatima]… is not about a supposed conversion of Russia…. but regards the ‘revolution’ in the Catholic Church.”[12]

Testimonies that Heaven asked that the third secret of Fatima be revealed by 1960 at the latest

Canon Galamba: “When the bishop refused to open the letter, Lucy made him promise that it would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, pp. 46-47)
John Haffert: “At the bishop’s house (in Leiria), I sat at the table on his right, with the four Canons. During that first dinner, Canon Jose Galamba de Oliveira turned to me when the bishop had left the room momentarily and asked: “Why don’t you ask the bishop to open the Secret?” Endeavoring not to show my ignorance concerning Fatima—which at that time was almost complete—I simply looked at him without expression. He continued: "The bishop can open the Secret. He doesn’t have to wait until 1960.” (Dear Bishop! John Haffert, AMI 1981, pp. 3-4)
Cardinal Cerejeira: In February 1960 the Patriarch of Lisbon reported the directions which the Bishop of Leiria “has passed on to him” on the subject of the Third Secret: “Bishop da Silva enclosed (the envelope sealed by Lucy) in another envelope on which he indicated that the letter had to be opened in 1960 by himself, Bishop Jose Correia da Silva, if he was still alive, or if not, by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon.” (Novidades, February 24, 1960, quoted by La Documentation catholique, June 19, 1960, col. 751)
Canon Barthas: During his conversations with Sister Lucy on October 17-18, 1946, he had the opportunity to question her on the Third Secret. He writes: “When will the third element of the Secret be revealed to us?” Already in 1946, to this question Lucy and the Bishop of Leiria answered me uniformly, without hesitation and without comment: “In 1960.” And when I pushed my audacity so far as to ask why it was necessary to wait until then, the only response I received from either one was: “Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so.” (Barthas, Fatima, merveille du XXe siecle, p. 83. Fatima-editions, 1952)
The Armstrongs: On May 14, 1953, Lucy received a visit from the Armstrongs, who were able to question her on the third Secret. In their account published in 1955, they confirmed that the third Secret “had to be opened and divulged in 1960.” (A. O. Armstrong, Fatima, pilgrimage to peace, The World’s Work, Kingswood, Surrey, 1955)
Cardinal Ottaviani: On May 17, 1955, Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, came to the Carmel of Saint Teresa at Coimbra. He interrogated Lucy on the third Secret; and in his conference of 1967 recalled: “The message was not to be opened before 1960. I asked Sister Lucy, ‘Why this date?’ She answered, ‘Because then it will seem clearer (mais claro).’” (La Documentation catholique, March 19, 1967, col. 542)
Father Joaquin Alonso, official archivist of Fatima: “Other bishops also spoke—and with authority—about the year 1960 as the date indicated for opening the famous letter. Thus, when the then titular Bishop of Tiava, and Auxiliary Bishop of Lisbon asked Lucy when the Secret was to be opened, he always received the same answer: in 1960.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, p. 46)
Father Joaquin Alonso: “When Don Jose, the first Bishop of Leiria, and Sister Lucy agreed that the letter was to be opened in 1960, they obviously meant that its contents should be made public for the good of the Church and the world.” (ibid., p. 54)
Father Fuentes: Father Fuentes interviewed Sister Lucy on December 26, 1957, who told him: “Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way but without giving any importance to Her Message… I am still not able to give any other details because it is still a secret. According to the will of the Most Holy Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima are permitted to know the Secret, but they have chosen not to know it so that they would not be influenced. This is the third part [third Secret] of the Message of Our Lady which will remain secret until 1960.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, p. 103-104)
F. Stein: “The testimonies which have announced the revelation of the Secret for 1960 are of such weight and so numerous that in our opinion, even if the ecclesiastical authorities of Fatima [in 1959 the experts themselves were still unaware that Rome had taken the Secret from the Bishop of Leiria over two years previously] had not yet resolved to publish the Secret in 1960, they would now see themselves forced to do so by the circumstances.” (Mensagem de Fatima, July-August, 1959)
Father Dias Coelho: “… we can use, as an unquestionable fact, this assertion of Dr. Galamba de Oliveira (in 1953) in Fatima, Altar do Mundo: ‘The third part of the Secret was sealed in the hands of His Grace the Bishop of Leiria, and will be opened either after the seer’s death or at the latest in 1960.’” (L’Homme Nouveau, No. 269, November 22, 1959)

All testimonies and statements reveal clearly that Heaven wanted the third secret of Fatima revealed to the whole world no later than 1960, because it would be clearer then.

Why would the third secret of Fatima be clearer in 1960?

It was on Jan. 25, 1959 that John XXIII announced that he had a special inspiration to suddenly call a new ecumenical council. (Jan. 25, by the way, was the same day on which the unknown light that illuminated the world prior to World War II lit up the skies of Europe. This unknown light that appeared on Jan. 25, 1938 was predicted by Our Lady of Fatima as a warning that God was going to punish the world with the things that were revealed in the second part of the secret. Was the fact that John XXIII called Vatican II on a Jan. 25 a warning about the coming punishment described in the third secret?)

This council called by John XXIII in 1959 would turn out to be Vatican II, the disastrous results of which are the subject of this book. Is the calling of this council in 1959 the reason that Our Blessed Mother requested the third secret of Fatima to be revealed by 1960? Was she directly warning us of the apostasy that would result from this council, which truly gave birth to a new, phony Counter-Catholic Church, as we will see in this book? Truly, the only major sign that had occurred by 1960, in regard to the tremendous apostasy we are now living through that would makes things “clearer,” was that John XXIII had announced his intention to call a new council in 1959. In our view, it’s quite obvious that the third secret of Fatima deals with the apostasy resulting from a false council; otherwise the third secret wouldn’t make more sense in 1960, as Our Blessed Mother said it would.

Endnotes for Section 3:

[1] Ciappi’s personal communication to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, cited in The Devil’s Final Battle, compiled by Paul Kramer, Good Counsel Publications, 2002; also cited by Father Gerard Mura, “The Third Secret of Fatima: Has It Been Completely Revealed?”, the periodical Catholic (published by the Transalpine Redemptorists, Orkney Isles, Scotland, Great Britain), March 2002.

[2] William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, Doubleday Reprint, 1990, p. 81.

[3] William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 80.

[4] William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, pp. 145-146.

[5] William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, p. 148.

[6] Portuguese Newspaper, O Seculo, Oct. 15, 1917.

[7] Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, p. 93.

[8] Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, p. 538.

[9] Warren H. Carroll, The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution, p. 418.

[10] Sr. Lucy’s interview with Fr. Fuentes, quoted in The Whole Truth About Fatima by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, Buffalo, NY:Immaculate Heart Publications, Vol. 3, p. 503 ff.

[11] Ciappi’s personal communication to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, cited above.

[12] Silvio Oddi, The Meek Watchdog of God, Rome: Progetto Museali Editore, 1995, pp. 217-218.

4. A complete list of the Antipopes in History

To understand what God might allow to transpire in the final days, we must understand Catholic teaching on the Papacy and look at some examples in Church history of things that God has allowed to occur with regard to the Papacy. It’s a fact of history, Scripture and tradition that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His universal Church (the Catholic Church) upon St. Peter.

Matthew 16:17-18-“And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

But in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, there have been more than 40 antipopes. An antipope is a bishop who claims to be the pope, but was not canonically elected as Bishop of Rome (i.e., supreme pontiff). Here is a list of the 42 antipopes that the Church had to contend with before Vatican II:

1. St. Hippolytus (reconciled with Pope St. Pontian and died as martyr to the church), 217–235

2. Novatian, 251–258

3. Felix II (confused with a martyr with the same name and thus considered an authentic pope until recently), 355–365

4. Ursicinus (Ursinus), 366–367

5. Eulalius, 418–419

6. Laurentius, 498–499, 501–506

7. Dioscorus (legitimate perhaps as opposed to Boniface II but died 22 days after election), 530

8. Theodore (II) (opposed to antipope Paschal), 687

9. Paschal (I) (opposed to antipope Theodore), 687

10. Theofylact, 757

11. Constantine II, 767–768

12. Philip (replaced antipope Constantine II briefly; reigned for a day and then returned to his monastery), 768

13. John VIII, 844

14. Anastasius III Bibliothecarius, 855

15. Christopher, 903–904

16. Boniface VII, 974, 984–985

17. John Filagatto (John XVI), 997–9

18. Gregory VI, 1012

19. Sylvester III, 1045

20. John Mincius (Benedict X), 1058–1059

21. Pietro Cadalus (Honorius II), 1061–1064

22. Guibert of Ravenna (Clement III), 1080 & 1084–1100

23. Theodoric, 1100–1101

24. Adalbert, 1101

25. Maginulf (Sylvester IV), 1105–1111

26. Maurice Burdanus (Gregory VIII), 1118–1121

27. Thebaldus Buccapecuc (Celestine II) (legitimate but submitted to opposing pope, Honorius II, and afterwards considered an antipope), 1124

28. Pietro Pierleoni (Anacletus II), 1130–1138

29. Gregorio Conti (Victor IV), 1138

30. Ottavio di Montecelio (Victor IV), 1159–1164

31. Guido di Crema (Paschal III), 1164–1168

32. Giovanni of Struma (Callixtus III), 1168–1178

33. Lanzo of Sezza (Innocent III), 1179–1180

34. Pietro Rainalducci (Nicholas V), antipope in Rome, 1328–1330

35. Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), antipope of the Avignon line, 20 September 1378 – 16 September 1394

36. Pedro de Luna (Benedict XIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1394–1423

37. Pietro Philarghi Alexander V, antipope of the Pisan line, 1409–1410

38. Baldassare Cossa (John XXIII), antipope of the Pisan line, 1410–1415

39. Gil Sánchez Muñoz (Clement VIII), antipope of the Avignon line, 1423–1429

40. Bernard Garnier (the first Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1425–c. 1429

41. Jean Carrier (the second Benedict XIV), antipope of the Avignon line, 1430–1437

42. Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy (Felix V), 5 November 1439 – 7 April 1449 (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)

One of the most notorious cases in Church history was that of the Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130 to 1138. Anacletus had been implanted in an uncanonical election after Innocent II, the true pope, had already been chosen. Despite his invalid and uncanonical election, Antipope Anacletus II gained control of Rome and the support of the majority of the College of Cardinals. Anacletus held the support of almost the entire populace of Rome, until the true pope regained control of the city in 1138. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Anacletus,” Vol. 1, 1907, p. 447.)

We must also now take a look at the Great Western Schism to see what God allowed in Church history and therefore what he could allow in the Great Apostasy.

5. The Great Western Schism (1378-1417) and what it teaches us about the post-Vatican II apostasy

-Massive confusion, multiple antipopes, antipopes in Rome, an antipope recognized by all the cardinals; The Great Western Schism proves that a line of antipopes at the heart of the post- Vatican II crisis is absolutely possible-

The Breakdown of the Great Western Schism

The Popes Avignon Line (antipopes) Pisan Line (antipopes)

Urban VI (1378-1389)

▼

Boniface IX (1389-1404)

▼

Innocent VII (1404-1406)

▼

Gregory XII (1406-1415)

The least supported pope in history, least recognized of the three claimants, rejected by almost all of Christendom

Clement VII (1378-1394) recognized by all the living cardinals who had elected Urban VI

▼

Benedict XIII (1394-1417) recognized by St. Vincent Ferrer for a time

*line favored by most theologians of the time, elected by cardinals from both camps*

Alexander V (elected by cardinals at Pisa) 1409- 1410

▼

John XXIII (1410-1415) reigned in Rome, had widest support of three claimants

Resolved with the election of Pope Martin V, 1417 at the C. of Constance

How it all happened

The conclave in the Vatican (1378) after Pope Gregory XI’s death was the first to meet in Rome since 1303. The popes had resided in Avignon for approximately 70 years due to political turmoil. The conclave was held amid scenes of unprecedented uproar.¹Since France had become the home of the popes for the last 70 years, the Roman mob surrounding the conclave was quite unruly and clamored for the cardinals to elect a Roman, or at least an Italian. At one point, when it was believed that a Frenchman had been elected instead of an Italian, the mob stormed the palace:

“ In a fury the mob now began throwing stones at the windows of the palace and attacking the doors with picks and axes. There was no effective defending force; the crowd stormed in.”²

Eventually an Italian, Pope Urban VI, was elected by 16 cardinals. The new pope asked the cardinals if they had elected him freely and canonically; they said they had. Shortly after the election, the 16 who had elected Urban VI wrote to the six cardinals who had remained stubbornly in Avignon:

“ We have given our votes for Bartolomeo, the Archbishop of Bari [Urban VI], who is conspicuous for his great merits and whose manifold virtues make him a shining example; we have in full agreement elevated him to the summit of apostolic excellence and have announced our choice to the multitude of Christians.”³

CARDINALS REJECT POPE URBAN VI UNDER PRETEXT OF THE UNRULY ROMAN MOB

Shortly after his election, however, Pope Urban VI began to alienate the cardinals.

“The French cardinals, who formed the majority in the Sacred College, were dissatisfied with the city and wished to return to Avignon, where there were no dilapidated basilicas and ruined palaces, no tumultuous Roman mobs and deadly Roman fevers; where life was, in a word, more comfortable. Urban VI refused to leave Rome, and his stern resolve, intimated to them in no mincing words, to reform the Papal court and break down the luxury of its life, gave deep offense to the cardinals.”⁴

One by one the cardinals went to Anagni in France to vacation. “The new pope, suspecting nothing, had given them permission to go there for the summer. In mid-July… they agreed among themselves that the April election had been invalid due to duress by the surrounding mob and that, using this as a reason, they would withdraw recognition from Urban.”⁵

After the news of the cardinals’ decision to repudiate Urban VI had been circulated, the canonist Baldus, considered the most famous jurist of the day, published a treatise disagreeing with their decision. In it, he stated:

“…there were no grounds on which the cardinals could repudiate a pope once they had elected him, and none on which the Church as a whole could depose him, except persistent and open heresy.”⁶

Despite the imprecision in this statement by Baldus – for a true pope can never be deposed; a heretic deposes himself – we can clearly see in his words the commonly acknowledged truth that a claimant to the Papacy who is openly and persistently heretical can be rejected as a non- pope, since he is outside the Church.

ALL LIVING CARDINALS REJECT URBAN VI AND RECOGNIZE AN ANTIPOPE

On July 20, 1378, 15 of the 16 cardinals who had elected Pope Urban VI withdrew from his obedience on the grounds that the unruly Roman mob had made the election uncanonical.

The one cardinal who did not repudiate Pope Urban VI was Cardinal Tebaldeschi, but he died shortly thereafter, on Sept. 7 – leaving a situation where not one of the cardinals of the Catholic Church recognized the true pope, Urban VI. All of the living cardinals now regarded his election as invalid.⁷

After repudiating Urban VI, on Sept. 20, 1378, the cardinals proceeded to elect Clement VII as “pope,” who set up his rival “Papacy” in Avignon. The Great Schism of the West had begun.

“The rebel cardinals then wrote to the European courts explaining their action. Charles V of France and the whole French nation immediately acknowledged Clement VII, as did also Flanders, Spain, and Scotland. The Empire and England, with the northern and eastern nations and most of the Italian republics, adhered to Urban VI.”⁸

Even though the validity of the election of Urban VI was ascertainable, one can see why many were taken in by the argument that the Roman mob had unlawfully influenced his election, thereby rendering it uncanonical. Moreover, one can see how the position of Antipope Clement VII was strengthened considerably and imposingly in the eyes of many by the fact that 15 out of the 16 cardinals who had elected Urban VI came to repudiate his election as invalid. The situation that resulted after Antipope Clement VII’s acceptance by the cardinals was a nightmare, a nightmare from the very beginning – a nightmare which shows us how bad and confusing God will sometimes allow things to get, without violating the essential promises He made to His Church:

“ The schism was now an accomplished fact, and for forty years Christendom was treated with the melancholy spectacle of two and even three rival popes claiming its allegiance. It was the most perilous crisis through which the Church had ever passed. Both popes declared a crusade against each other. Each of the popes claimed the right to create cardinals and to confirm archbishops, bishops, and abbots, so that there were two Colleges of Cardinals and in many places two claimants for the high positions in the Church. Each pope attempted to collect all the ecclesiastical revenues, and each excommunicated the other with all his adherents.”⁹

The spectacle continued as popes and antipopes alike died, only to be succeeded by more. Pope Urban VI died in 1389, and was succeeded by Pope Boniface IX who reigned from 1389 to 1404. After Boniface IX’s election, he was promptly excommunicated by Antipope Clement VII, and he responded by excommunicating him.

During his reign, Pope Boniface IX “was unable to enlarge his sphere of influence in Europe; Sicily and Genoa actually fell away from him. To prevent the spread of Clementine support in Germany he showered favors on the German king Wenceslas…”¹⁰

CARDINALS OF BOTH CAMPS TAKE AN OATH TO WORK TO END THE SCHISM PRIOR TO PARTICIPATING IN NEW ELECTIONS, WHICH DEMONSTRATES HOW BAD THE SITUATION HAD BECOME

Meanwhile, at Avignon, Antipope Clement VII died in 1394. Before electing Antipope Clement VII’s successor, all 21 cardinals “swore to work for the elimination of the schism, each undertaking, if elected, to abdicate if and when the majority judged it proper.”¹¹Keep this in mind, as it will become relevant when we cover why a third claimant to the Papacy came into the picture.

The cardinals at Avignon proceeded to elect Pedro de Luna, (Antipope) Benedict XIII, to succeed Antipope Clement VII. Benedict XIII reigned as the Avignon claimant for the rest of the schism. For some time, Benedict XIII had in his support none other than the miracle-working Dominican, St. Vincent Ferrer. St. Vincent actually served as his confessor for a time,¹²believing the Avignon line to be the valid line (until some time later on in the schism). St. Vincent had obviously been persuaded that Pope Urban VI’s election was invalid due to the unruly Roman mob, in addition to the formidable acceptance of the Avignon line by 15 out of the 16 cardinals who had taken part in Urban VI’s election.

As a cardinal, Antipope Benedict XIII had originally taken part himself in the election of Pope Urban VI, and then abandoned Urban and helped elect Clement (having, of course, been convinced that Urban’s election was invalid). As a cardinal under Antipope Clement VII, Benedict XIII “went to the Iberian peninsula for eleven years as his legate, and by his diplomacy swung Aragon, Castile, Navarre, and Portugal to his [Antipope Clement VII’s] obedience.”¹³

After having sworn to pursue the path of abdication in order to end the schism if the majority of his cardinals agreed, Antipope Benedict XIII alienated many of his cardinals when he went back on his promise and showed himself unwilling to consider abdication, even though the majority of his cardinals wanted him to. His rival, Pope Boniface IX, was equally unwilling.

In 1404, Pope Boniface IX (the successor to Urban VI) died, and Pope Innocent VII was elected as his successor by the eight cardinals available. Pope Innocent VII didn’t live long, however; he died just two years later, in 1406. During his short reign, Innocent VII had remained opposed to meeting with the Avignon claimant, Benedict XIII, despite having taken an oath before his election to do everything in his power to end the schism, including abdication if necessary.

As the schism persisted, members of both camps became increasingly frustrated with both claimants’ unwillingness to take effective measures to end the schism.

“Voices were heard on all sides demanding that union be restored. The University of Paris, or rather, its two most prominent professors, John Gerson and Peter d’Ailly, proposed that a General Council should be summoned to decide between the rival claimants.”¹⁴

In accordance with this widespread sentiment to take effective action to end the schism, another oath was taken before the election of Pope Innocent VII’s successor.

“… each of the fourteen cardinals at the conclave following [Pope] Innocent VII’s death swore that, if elected, he would abdicate provided Antipope Benedict XIII did the same or should die; also that he would not create new cardinals except to maintain parity of numbers with the Avignon cardinals, and that within three months he would enter into negotiations with his rival about a place of meeting.”¹⁵

The very fact that the cardinals preparing to elect a true pope took an oath such as this – which included negotiations with an antipope – shows how horrible the situation was during the schism, and how much support the antipope had in Christendom.

The conclave proceeded to elect Pope Gregory XII on Nov. 30, 1406. Hope that the end of the schism would come was renewed by Pope Gregory XII’s negotiations with Antipope Benedict XIII. The two even agreed on a place to meet, but Pope Gregory XII wavered; he feared (and rightly so) the sincerity of Antipope Benedict XIII’s intentions. Pope Gregory XII was also influenced against the path of resignation by some of his close relatives, who painted a negative picture of what might happen if he resigned.

CARDINALS FROM BOTH CAMPS GET FED UP, GO TO PISA AND ELECT A NEW “POPE” IN AN IMPRESSIVE CEREMONY WITH CARDINALS FROM BOTH SIDES

“As the negotiations [between Pope Gregory XII and Antipope Benedict XIII] dragged on, Gregory’s cardinals became increasingly restive. An open break became inevitable when Gregory, suspicious of their loyalty, broke his pre-election promise and on 4 May announced the creation of four new cardinals… All but three of his original college now left him and fled to Pisa…”¹⁶

The 14 cardinals who left Pope Gregory XII’s obedience and fled to Pisa were joined there by 10 cardinals who left Antipope Benedict XIII’s obedience. The cardinals from the two camps had arranged a council, and were resolved to end the schism by means of a joint election at Pisa.

“ In the eyes of the world the Council of Pisa was indeed a glittering assembly, attended by 24 cardinals (fourteen formerly adhering to Pope Gregory XII, ten to de Luna [Benedict XIII]… four patriarchs, 80 bishops, 89 abbots, 41 priors, the heads of four religious orders, and representatives of virtually every university, crowned head, and great noble house in Catholic Europe.”¹⁷

The Cardinal Archbishop of Milan gave the opening address at Pisa. He condemned both claimants, Gregory XII and (Antipope) Benedict XIII, and formally summoned them to appear at the council. They were declared contumacious when they did not appear.

It must be stressed that, at this point in the schism (1409), people were so exasperated with the enduring disunion and the broken promises of the two claimants that the assembly at Pisa was widely received and supported. It was made all the more impressive and appealing by the fact that its 24 cardinals were comprised of a substantial number of cardinals who had been part of both camps [Gregory XII and Antipope Benedict XIII]. This gave it the appearance of a united action of the Church’s cardinals. On June 29, 1409, the 24 cardinals unanimously elected Alexander V. Now there were three claimants to the Papacy at the same time.

Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 405: “There were now three popes, and three Colleges of Cardinals, in some dioceses three rival bishops, and in some Religious Orders three rival superiors.”¹⁸

THE THIRD CLAIMANT, THE PISAN ANTIPOPE, HELD THEWIDEST SUPPORT AND MOST OF THE THEOLOGIANS BECAUSE HE HAD THE APPEARANCE OF BEING THE UNITED CHOICE OF CARDINALS FROM BOTH CAMPS

The newly elected Pisan antipope, Alexander V, had the widest support in Christendom among the three claimants. The true pope, Gregory XII, had the least.

From the beginning Alexander V “had the support of England, most of France, the Low Countries, Bohemia… Poland… his own Milan, Venice, and Florence. De Luna [Antipope Benedict XIII] retained the support of his own Aragon, Castile, parts of southern France, and Scotland… Gregory XII was the weakest of the three, retaining the loyalty only of Naples, western Germany, some north Italian cities, and steel-true Carlo Malatesta of Rimini… The Great Western Schism had become a triangle of distorted loyalties, with the true Pope the weakest of the three… The Catholic Church seemed to be suffering the fate that would overtake later Protestantism: repeated, irrepressible subdivision... Worst of all, no rescue from this disaster seemed possible.”¹⁹

Most of the learned theologians and canonists of the time favored the Pisan line of antipopes.

“Through the fall of 1408 and the winter of 1409 debate continued to rage among the theologians and canonists. Most of them, in varying degrees of desperation, now favored the council regardless of who the true pope might be or how it was to be authorized.”²⁰

NO TRUE POPE IN HISTORY HAD AS LITTLE SUPPORT AS POPE GREGORY XII NEAR THE END OF THE GREAT WESTERN SCHISM

In 1411, the newly elected Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund followed the general sentiment and abandoned the true pope, Gregory XII.

“Sigismund wanted unanimous electoral endorsement, and in view of the widespread abandonment of Gregory XII by many of those who had previously obeyed him (notably in Italy and England) Sigismund’s own confidence in Gregory’s legitimacy may have been sincerely shaken. No true pope in the Church’s history had so little support as Gregory XII following the Council of Pisa.”²¹

The newly elected Pisan antipope, Alexander V, didn’t live long. He died less than a year after his election, in May of 1410. To succeed him, on May 17, 1410, the Pisan cardinals unanimously elected Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII. Like his predecessor Antipope Alexander V, John XXIII also held the widest support among the three claimants.

“While there were still three claimants to the papacy, John [XXIII] commanded the widest support, with France, England, and several Italian and German states recognizing him. With the help of Louis of Anjou… he was able to establish himself in Rome.”²²

As we see, Antipope John XXIII was able to reign in Rome. John XXIII (1410-1415) would be the last antipope to reign from Rome, until the post-Vatican II apostasy, which began with a man who also called himself John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli, 1958-1963).

During the 4^thyear of his reign as antipope, Antipope John XXIII summoned the Council of Constance in 1414, at the insistence of the Emperor Sigismund. It’s quite interesting to note that the recent John XXIII also called Vatican II in the 4^thyear of his reign, 1962. And like Vatican II, the Council of Constance began as a false council, having been called by an antipope.

At this point in the schism, the Emperor Sigismund was determined to unite Christendom by working for the abdication of all three claimants. When Antipope John XXIII realized that he would not be accepted as the true pope at the Council of Constance, he fled from the council. “That evening Cossa fled Constance, riding on a small dark horse (in contrast to the nine white horses behind which he had entered the city in October), huddled in a large gray cloak wrapped round and round him to hide most of his face and body…”²³

Antipope John XXIII was then formally condemned by the council as deposed. An order was sent out by the Emperor for his arrest; he was apprehended and thrown into prison. In prison, Antipope John XXIII “surrendered his papal seal and the fisherman’s ring, with tears, to representatives of the council.” He accepted the verdict against him without protest.²⁴

“When the Council of Constance (reckoned in part or whole the Sixteenth General, 1414-1417)… had deposed John, it entered into negotiations with Gregory, who conveyed to it his willingness to abdicate provided he was allowed formally to convoke the assembled prelates and dignitaries afresh as a general council; as pope he could not recognize one called by John. This procedure was accepted, and at the 14^thsolemn session, on 4 July 1415, his cardinal John Dominici read out his bull convoking the council, whereupon Carlo Malatesta [Pope Gregory XII] announced his resignation. The two colleges of cardinals were united, Gregory’s acts in his pontificate were ratified…”²⁵

So, after Antipope John XXIII was deposed, Pope Gregory XII agreed to convoke the Council of Constance (in order to confer upon it Papal legitimacy, which Antipope John XXIII could not give it) and then resign in the hope of ending the schism.

Meanwhile, Antipope Benedict XIII (the Avignon claimant) had been approached by Emperor Sigismund and asked to resign. He obstinately refused to the end, but by now the general sentiment had gone so far against him that his following was greatly diminished.

“Sigismund, who had done all in his power to induce Benedict XIII, of the Avignon line, to abdicate, succeeded in detaching the Spaniards from his cause. Thereupon the Council declared his deposition, July 16, 1417.”²⁶

Both antipopes having been disposed of, and the true pope having resigned, the Council of Constance proceeded to elect Pope Martin V on Nov. 11, 1417, bringing an official end to the Great Western Schism. (The Avignon line of antipopes did continue after the death of Antipope Benedict XIII with the election of Antipope Clement VIII as his successor by his four remaining cardinals. These cardinals then regarded that election of Antipope Clement VIII invalid and

elected Antipope Benedict XIV; but by the time of the deposition of Antipope Benedict XIII by the Council of Constance the Avignon line had lost so much support that these final two successors to Antipope Benedict XIII are so insignificant as to merit only a footnote.)

CONCLUSION: WHAT THE GREAT WESTERN SCHISM TEACHES US FOR OUR TIME

In this article we have reviewed one of the important chapters in Church history. In the process we have seen a number of very important things – things quite relevant to our present situation.

• We’ve seen that antipopes can exist.

• We’ve seen that antipopes can reign from Rome.

• We’ve seen that all of the living cardinals, shortly after the election of Pope Urban VI, repudiated him (the true pope) and recognized Antipope Clement VII. This illustrates that it’s not at all incompatible with indefectibility (i.e., the promises of Christ to be with His Church and the Papacy until the end of time) for all the cardinals to recognize an antipope.

• We’ve seen that most of the theologians of the time favored the third line, the Pisan line of antipopes. This line of antipopes must have been a tantalizing option for many because cardinals from both camps supported it. This shows us how deceptive God will sometimes allow things to get without violating the essential promises He made to His Church. Moreover, the majority of theologians’ support for the Pisan line demonstrates clearly that the common teaching of theologians on a particular matter (e.g., salvation), no matter how learned they are, is not binding, contrary to what some are asserting today.

• We’ve also seen that the principle that an open heretic cannot be regarded as the pope is ancient and was expressed by the leading canonist of the time, Baldus.

• We’ve seen that things were so bad and so desperate during the Great Western Schism that people didn’t see any way out of this disaster – a disaster in which people were offered, at one point, three rival bishops, three rival religious superiors, and three rival claimants to the Papacy excommunicating one another.

• Learning this can help us see clearly that what we have proven on doctrinal grounds, namely, that there has been a line of antipopes since Vatican II that has foisted upon the world a new counterfeit religion, which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant (in fulfillment of Scriptural and Catholic prophecies about the deception of the Great Apostasy and the last days), is not a PATENT ABSURDITY, as some have wrongly said.

On the contrary, if God allowed the aforementioned disaster to occur during the Great Western Schism (which could have been, at worst, just a prelude to the Great Apostasy), with multiple antipopes reigning at once and the true pope the weakest of the three, what kind of disaster and deception would He allow with antipopes (without ever violating the essential promises He made to His Church) during the final spiritual tribulation, which will be the most deceptive of them all? It is a PATENT ABSURDITY, and directly refuted by Catholic teaching and the facts of Church history, to assert that a line of antipopes which has created a counterfeit sect to oppose the true Church is an impossibility. Further, it is outrageous in the extreme to assert that such a situation is “patently absurd” after having reviewed the undeniable facts we have put forward to prove it true.

We will end this review of The Great Western Schism by quoting Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J. He had some very interesting things to say about the Great Western Schism in his book The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, written in 1882. In the process he mentions the possibility of a papal interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism (almost 40 years).

We begin with a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great Western Schism.

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”²⁷

Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His Church. The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking of began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory XI and ended essentially in 1417 with the election of Pope Martin V. That’s a thirty-nine year interregnum!

Writing after the First Vatican Council, it is obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting Antipopes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, hold the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See. In fact, on page 287 of his book Fr. O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical (absurd). They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit.

We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”²⁸

Fr. O’Reilly is saying that if the Great Western Schism had never occurred people would say that such a situation is impossible and incompatible with the promises of Christ to His Church, and that we cannot dismiss the possibility of similar and perhaps worse things in the future because they would be distressing in a very high degree.

Endnotes for Section 5:

¹J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 227.

²Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, p. 429.

³Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 431.

⁴Fr. John Laux, Church History, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1989, p. 404.

⁵Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), pp. 432-433.

⁶Quoted by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 433.

⁷Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), pp. 432-434.

⁸Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 404.

⁹Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 405.

¹⁰J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 231.

¹¹J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 232.

¹²Fr. Andrew Pradel, St. Vincent Ferrer: The Angel of the Judgment, Tan Books, 2000, p. 39.

¹³J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 237.

¹⁴Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 405.

¹⁵J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 235.

¹⁶J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 235.

¹⁷Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 472.

¹⁸Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 405.

¹⁹Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), pp. 473-474.

²⁰Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 471.

²¹Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 479.

²²J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 238.

²³Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 485.

²⁴Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of Christendom), p. 487.

²⁵J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 236.

²⁶Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 408.

²⁷Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays.

²⁸Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly, p. 287.

6. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic would cease to be pope, and that a heretic couldn’t be validly elected pope

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”1

Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic.

Martin Luther, perhaps the most notorious heretic in Church history, taught the heresy of Justification by faith alone, among many others

Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the pope. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church

It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “ The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by heresy, schism or apostasy.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “ The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): “ No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “ By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of which he is not even a member.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “ No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the election of a heretic as pope is null and void

In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the possibility of a heretic being elected pope.

(Pope Paul IV)

At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope. Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull. For the entire Bull, see our website.

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God,We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling…

“6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

“(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

“(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…

“10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re- introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

“Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

“+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.

Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

The Catholic Encyclopedia repeats this truth declared by Pope Paul IV by asserting that the election of a heretic as pope would, of course, be completely null and void.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void."

In line with the truth that a heretic cannot be the pope, the Church teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass

A pope is prayed for in the Te Igitur prayer of the canon of the Mass. But the Church also teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass. If a heretic could be a true pope, there would be an insoluble dilemma. But it’s actually not a dilemma because a heretic cannot be a valid pope:

Libellus professionis fidei, April 2, 517, profession of faith prescribed under Pope St. Hormisdas: “And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, HORMISDAS, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756: “Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis, 2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 9), January 6, 1873: “ For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’”

Endnotes for Section 6:

1 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261.

2 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 714.

3 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 41.

4 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.

5 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.

6 Denzinger 423.

7 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 401.

8 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456.

9 Denzinger 172.

10 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 84.

11 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 415.

7. The Church’s enemies, Communists and Freemasons, made an organized effort to infiltrate the Catholic Church

Pope Leo XIII, Dall’Alto (# 2), Oct. 15, 1890: “It is needless now to put the Masonic sects upon their trial. They are already judged; their ends, their means, their doctrines, and their action, are all known with indisputable certainty. Possessed by the spirit of Satan, whose instrument they are, they burn like him with a deadly and implacable hatred of Jesus Christ and of His work; and they endeavor by every means to overthrow and fetter it.”¹

Pope Leo XIII, In Ipso (# 1), March 3, 1891: “Nevertheless, it grieves us to think that the enemies of the Church, joined in most wicked conspiracy, scheme to weaken and even, if possible, utterly wipe out that wondrous edifice which God Himself has erected as a refuge for the human race.”²

It’s a well known fact that Communists and Freemasons made organized efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church. They sent large numbers of their own men into the priesthood hoping to weaken and attack her by moving these men to high positions.

Mrs. Bella Dodd spent most of her life in the Communist Party of America and was Attorney General designate had the Party won the White House. After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She said that before she had left the Party in the U.S. she had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders; she was only one Communist.

Brother Joseph Natale, was present at one of Bella Dodd’s lectures in the early 1950’s. He stated:

“ I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.”³

Bella Dodd converted to Catholicism at the end of her life. Speaking as an ex-Communist, she said: “In the 1930’s, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as monsignors and bishops. Back then, she said: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church. They are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church would not be effective against Communism.” She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.” (This was 10 to 12 years before Vatican II.)

Brother Joseph went on relating what Bella Dodd had said: “The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church… to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of predjudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.”⁴

Freemasons made similar attempts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and elevate their own to the highest levels. The Luciferian secret society, the Carbonari, known as the Alta Vendita, wrote a set of Permanent Instructions, or Code of Rules, which appeared in Italy in 1818. It stated:

“… It becomes the duty of the secret societies to make the first advance to the Church, and to the pope, with the object of conquering both. The work for which we gird ourselves is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor a year. It may last for many years, perhaps a century… What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a pope according to our wants. We require a pope for ourselves, if such a pope were possible. With such a one we shall march more securely to the storming of the Church, than with all the little books of our French and English brothers.”⁵

The same Freemasonic document made this striking prediction:

“ In a hundred years time… bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter, when in fact they will be following our flag… The reforms will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.”⁶

These organizations and the individuals who belong to them are agents which the Devil uses to attack the true Church of Christ.

Ephesians 6:12- “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in high places.”

On April 3, 1844, a leader of the AltaVendita named Nubius wrote a letter to another highly-placed mason. The letter spoke again about the plan to infiltrate the Catholic Church, and the attempt to insert a masonic “pope,” who would promote the religion of Freemasonry. “Now then, in order to ensure a pope in the required proportions, we must first of all prepare a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream… Let the clergy move forward under your banner (the masonic banner) always believing they are advancing under the banner of the apostolic keys. Cast your net like Simon Bar Jonas; spread it to the bottom of sacristies, seminaries, and convents … You will have finished a revolution dressed in the pope’s triple crown and cape, carrying the cross and the flag, a revolution that will need only a small stimulus to set fire to the four corners of the earth.”⁷

Freemason Eliph Levi said in 1862: “A day will come when the pope… will declare that all the excommunications are lifted and all the anathemas are retracted, when all the Christians will be united within the Church, when the Jews and Moslems will be blessed and called back to her . . . she will permit all sects to approach her by degrees and will embrace all mankind in the communion of her love and prayers. Then, Protestants will no longer exist. Against what will they be able to protest? The sovereign pontiff will then be truly king of the religious world, and he will do whatever he wishes with all the nations of the earth.”⁸

An apostate priest and former canon-lawyer,⁹named Fr. Roca (1830-1893), after being excommunicated said: “The papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge.”¹⁰Roca also said: “You must have a new dogma, a new religion, a new ministry, and new rituals that very closely resemble those of the surrendered Church. The divine cult directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Catholic Church will shortly undergo transformation at an ecumenical Council.”¹¹

Endnotes for Section 7:

¹The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 226.

²The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 237.

³Statements of Bro. Joseph Natale relating what former Communist Bella Dodd said.

⁴Statements of Bro. Joseph Natale relating what former Communist Bella Dodd said.

⁵The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita.

⁶The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita.

⁷NUBIUS, Secret Instructions on the Conquest of the Church, in Emmanuel Barbier, Les infiltrations maconiques dans i’Eglise, Paris/Brussels: Desclee de Brouwer, 1901, p.5).part of this also in Piers Compton, The Broken Cross, Cranbrook, Western Australia: Veritas Pub. Co. Ptd Ltd, 1984, p. 15-16.

⁸Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, p. 133.

⁹Piers Compton, The Broken Cross, Cranbrook, Western Australia: Veritas Pub. Co. Ptd Ltd, 1984, p. 42.

¹⁰Dr. Rudolf Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time.

¹¹Piers Compton, The Broken Cross, p. 42.

8. The Vatican II Revolution (1962-1965)

Yves Marsaudon, 33 degree Scottish Rite Freemason, 1965: “… the courageous idea of liberty of thought… – one can speak truly here of a revolution that has come from our Masonic lodges – has magnificently spread its wings over the dome of St. Peter’s.”1

(A session of Vatican II)

Vatican II was a council that took place from 1962-1965. Vatican II was a false council that constituted a revolution against 2000 years of Catholic teaching and Tradition. Vatican II contains many heresies that were directly condemned by past popes and infallible councils, as we will see. Vatican II attempted to give Catholics a new religion. In the period following Vatican II, massive changes in every aspect of Catholic Faith ensued, including the implementation of a New Mass.

(Before Vatican II) (After Vatican II)

Vatican II also came out with new practices and views toward other religions. The Catholic Church cannot change its teaching on other religions and how it views the members of other religions, since these are truths of Faith delivered by Jesus Christ. Vatican II attempted to change those truths of the Catholic Church.

Vatican II was called by John XXIII, and it was solemnly promulgated and confirmed by Paul VI on Dec. 8, 1965. Vatican II was not a true general or ecumenical council of the Catholic Church because, as we will see in detail, it was called and confirmed by manifest heretics (John XXIII and Paul VI) who were not eligible for the papal election (see Paul IV’s Apostolic Constitution above). The fruits of Vatican II are plain for all to see. Any honest Catholic who lived before the council and compares it with the religion in the dioceses today can attest to the fact that Vatican II inaugurated a new religion.

The Principal Heresies of Vatican II

We will now cover the other heresies found in the following documents of Vatican II:

1. Unitatis Redintegratio – Decree on Ecumenism

2. Orientalium Ecclesiarum – Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches

3. Lumen Gentium – “Dogmatic” Constitution on the Church

4. Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious Liberty

5. Nostra Aetate – Decree on Non-Christian Religions

6. Gaudium et Spes – Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

7. Sacrosanctum Concilium – Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

Heresies by Document

1. Unitatis Redintegratio – Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism.

Unitatis Redintegratio affirmed that all baptized professing “Christians” are in communion with the Church and have a right to the name Christian, while not mentioning anything about the necessity for them to convert to the Catholic faith for salvation.

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”7

Notice that Vatican II teaches that these Protestant and schismatic sect members are in communion with the Catholic Church (albeit partial), and brothers of the same Church, with a right to the name Christian. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches that they are outside the communion of the Church and alien to its faithful. This directly contradicts the teaching of Vatican II:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” 8

The following quotation is from an article that appeared in a publication that is widely read and fully approved by the Vatican II sect, St. Anthony Messenger. We can see how this “approved” publication understood the teaching of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism.

Renee M. Lareau, “Vatican II for Gen-Xers,” St. Anthony Messenger, November 2005, p. 25: “Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on ecumenism) and Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) showed marked changes in the Church’s attitudes toward other faiths. Coming from a once insular institution that had insisted that there was no salvation outside the Church and that the Catholic Church was the one true Church of Christ, the open-mindedness that characterized these teachings was remarkable. Unitatis Redintegratio affirmed that the Church includes all Christians and is not limited exclusively to the Catholic Church, while Nostra Aetate acknowledged that the truth and holiness of non-Christian religions was the work of the same one true God.”9

Has Renee misunderstood Vatican II? No, we just showed that Unitatis Redintegratio does indeed teach this very thing. With that explained, we will quote Pope Clement VI and Pope Leo XIII to contradict this awful heresy of Vatican II.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “ We ask: In the first place, whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of THIS SAME ROMAN CHURCH, WHICH ONE ALONE IS CATHOLIC, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”12

Vatican II taught that the Protestants and schismatics weren’t at fault for leaving the Catholic Church; both sides were to blame. Has Daley misunderstood Vatican II? No, Vatican II indeed teaches this very thing by this astounding statement:

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat- ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html)

One must carefully consider this statement to get the full impact of its malice. Without any clarification or qualification given, Vatican II issues a general statement and excuses of the sin of separation (i.e. heresy and schism) all who, having been born into Protestant and schismatic communities, grow up in them “believing in Christ.” This is incredibly heretical. It would mean that one could not accuse any Protestant of being a heretic, no matter how anti-Catholic he is, if he had been born into such a sect! This directly contradicts Catholic teaching, as we saw (e.g. Leo XIII). All who reject even one dogma of the Catholic Faith are heretics and are guilty of severing themselves from the true Church.

Moving along, we come to # 3 of Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism:

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio # 3: “Moreover some, and even most, of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.”15

Here we discover more heresy in # 3 of the Decree on Ecumenism. It asserts that “the life of grace” (sanctifying grace/justification) exists outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. This is directly contrary to the solemn teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “ With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘ One is my dove, my perfect one.”16

Vatican II contradicted the dogma that there is no remission of sin outside the Catholic Church by asserting that one can possess the life of grace (which includes the remission of sins) outside the Catholic Church. And there is more heresy in the same section of the Decree on Ecumenism. Vatican II bluntly asserts that these communities it has been describing are means of salvation.

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio (# 3): “It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, 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 comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”17

This is one of Vatican II’s worst heresies. It constitutes a rejection of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation.

Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”18

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…” 19

In its Decree on Ecumenism Vatican II also teaches that non-Catholics bear witness to Christ by shedding their blood. The following paragraph implies that there are saints and martyrs for Christ in non-Catholic Churches, which is a heresy.

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio # 4: “On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments which derive from our common heritage and which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and the virtuous deeds in the lives of others who bear witness to Christ, even at times to the shedding of their blood.”20

Basing himself on this teaching, John Paul II repeated and expanded upon this heresy many times.

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 1), May 25, 1995: “ The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigor to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.”21

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995: “ Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.”22

The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that outside the Church there are no Christian martyrs.

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain; he cannot be crowned.”23

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “… no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”24

In its Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II also teaches that Eastern heretics and schismatics help the Church to grow.

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio (#’s 13-15): “We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. The first division occurred in the east, when the dogmatic formulas of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the eastern patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved… Everyone knows with what great love the Christians of the east celebrate the sacred liturgy… Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows, and through concelebration their communion with one another is made manifest.”25

The Catholic Church teaches that heretics are the gates of Hell.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)… and so we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.”26

Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, to the “Father” of the Eastern Orthodox, Michael Cerularius, Chap. 7: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”27

Another heresy which holds a prominent place in Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism is the constant expression of respect for the members of non-Catholic religions.

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio # 3: “ But in subsequent centuries much more extensive dissensions made their appearance and large communities came to be separated from the full communion of the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.”28

The Catholic Church does not look upon the members of non-Catholic religions with respect. The Church works and hopes for their conversion, but denounces and anathematizes as heretical sect members those who reject Catholic teaching:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Constitution 3, On Heretics:“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together in as much as they are alike in their pride.”29

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (1) Quod ad dilectionem, 585: “ If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers.”30

First Council of Constantinople, 381, Can. 1: “Every heresy is to be anathematized and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians, that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians.”31

2. Orientalium ecclesiarum – Vatican II’s Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches

The Vatican II Decree Orientalium ecclesiarum deals with eastern Catholic churches. It also deals with the Eastern Schismatic sects, the so-called “Orthodox” non-Catholic churches. In dealing with the so-called Orthodox in # 27 of this decree, Vatican II provides us with one of its most significant heresies.

Vatican II document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 27: “ Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”³⁴

For 20 centuries the Catholic Church consistently taught that heretics cannot receive the sacraments. This teaching is rooted in the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins, defined by Pope Boniface VIII. It is also rooted in the dogma that sacraments only profit unto salvation those inside the Catholic Church, as defined by Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “ With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.’”35

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”36

Only for those who abide in the Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation. This is a dogma! But this dogma is repudiated by Vatican II’s outrageous teaching that it is lawful to give Holy Communion to those who do not abide in the Catholic Church. Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed that non-Catholics who receive the Holy Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive it to their own damnation.

Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “ Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”37

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “ … whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’”38

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “… whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”39

John Paul II and Benedict XVI repeated and expanded upon this heresy of Vatican II many times. In the case of John Paul II, it is taught clearly in his new Code of Canon Law (Canon 844.3-4), in his Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (#’s 122-125) and in his new catechism (#1401). He also made many references to this heresy in his speeches.

John Paul II, General Audience, Aug. 9, 1995: “Concerning aspects of intercommunion, the recent Ecumenical Directory confirms and states precisely all that the Council said: that is, a certain intercommunion is possible, since the Eastern Churches possess true sacraments, especially the priesthood and the Eucharist.
“On this sensitive point, specific instructions have been issued, stating that, whenever it is impossible for a Catholic to have recourse to a Catholic priest, he may receive the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick from the minister of an Eastern Church (Directory, n. 123). Reciprocally, Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick to Eastern Christians who ask for them.”

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 48), May 25, 1995: “ Pastoral experience shows that with respect to our Eastern brethren there should be and can be taken into consideration various circumstances affecting individuals, wherein the unity of the Church is not jeopardized nor are intolerable risks involved, but in which salvation itself and the spiritual profit of souls are urgently at issue. Hence, in view of special circumstances of time, place and personage, the Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and objects… There must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”40

Three things are striking in this paragraph: 1) John Paul II calls for sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist; 2) he attempts to justify this by invoking “the spiritual profit of souls,” which means that he is directly denying the definition of Eugene IV on how reception of the sacraments outside the Church does not profit one unto salvation; 3) John Paul II reminds us never to forget the “ecclesiological implication” of sharing in the sacraments – which implication is that these heretics and schismatics with whom they are sharing the sacraments are also in the same Church of Christ! Does the reader see what this heresy means? It means that the Vatican II Church, now headed by Benedict XVI, considers itself in the same Church of Christ with those to whom it gives Holy Communion, the Protestants and the Eastern Schismatics!

Finally, operating on the principle that all heretical sects are as good as the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Ghost approves of all heretical sects, Orientalium ecclesiarum calls for Catholics to share their churches with heretics and schismatics.

Vatican II document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 28: “ With the same principles in mind, sharing in sacred functions and things and places is allowed among Catholics and their separated eastern brothers and sisters...”44

3. Lumen Gentium – Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church Vatican II teaches that Catholics worship the same God as the Muslims

Perhaps the most striking heresy in the whole of Vatican II is found in Lumen Gentium 16.

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16: “ But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”⁴⁹

This is an amazing blasphemy! Catholics are worshippers of Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity; the Muslims are not!

(Muslims reject the Divinity of Jesus Christ) (Christians worship Jesus as God)

A child can understand that we don’t have the same God.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 6), May 27, 1832: “Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.”50

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her...”51

Some people attempt to defend this awful heresy of Vatican II by asserting that Muslims acknowledge and worship one all-powerful God. They argue thus: There is only one God. And since Muslims worship one all-powerful God – not many deities, as the polytheists – they worship the same all-powerful God that we Catholics do.

If it were true that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics because they worship one, all-powerful God, then anyone who professes to worship one, all-powerful God worships the one true God together with Catholics. There is no way around that. That would mean that those who worship Lucifer as the one true and all-powerful God worship the same God as Catholics! But this is clearly absurd. This should prove to anyone that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical. Those who reject the Holy Trinity don’t worship the same God as those who worship the Holy Trinity!

It’s clearly a denial of the Most Holy Trinity to assert that Muslims worship the true God without worshipping the Trinity. Secondly, and even worse when considered carefully, is the astounding statement that Muslims worship the One Merciful God Who will judge humanity on the last day! This is an incredible heresy. Muslims don’t worship Jesus Christ, who is humanity’s supreme judge on the last day. Therefore, they don’t worship God who will judge mankind on the last day! To say that Muslims do worship God who will judge mankind on the last day, as Vatican II does in Lumen Gentium 16, is to deny that Jesus Christ will judge mankind on the last day.

Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, Can. 15: “ If anyone does not say that HE (JESUS CHRIST) …WILL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD, HE IS A HERETIC.”52

In addition to this astounding heresy, in Lumen Gentium 16 we find another prominent heresy.

Vatican II teaches that the Church is united with those who don’t accept the Faith or the Papacy

In Lumen Gentium 15, Vatican II teaches heresy on the issue of those who are united with the Church. If one were to sum up the characteristics of the unity of the Catholic Church, it would be that the Church is united with those baptized persons who accept the Catholic Faith in its entirety and remain under the unifying factor of the Papacy. To put it another way: those people with whom the Catholic Church is surely not united are those who don’t accept the Catholic Faith in its entirety or the Papacy. But Vatican II lists those two criteria for unity and teaches just the opposite!

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 15: “For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honoured with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”⁵⁶

Vatican II says that the Church is united with those who don’t accept the Faith and the Papacy. This is totally heretical. It’s the opposite of the teaching of the Church. As we see below, it’s a dogma that those who reject the Papacy, or any portion of the Faith, are not joined to the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “ There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”57

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “ Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”58

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “ The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, WHO WERE WONT TO HOLD AS OUTSIDE CATHOLIC COMMUNION, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”59

Vatican II also teaches that heretics honor Holy Scripture with a true religious zeal.

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 15, speaking of non-Catholics: “For there are many who hold the sacred scripture in honor as the norm for believing and living, displaying a sincere religious zeal… They are marked in baptism… and indeed there are other sacraments that they recognize and accept in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.”60

The Catholic Church teaches that heretics repudiate the traditional Word of God.

Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 2), May 8, 1844: “Indeed, you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, it has been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the traditional Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or alter the explanation of the meaning.”61

4. Dignitatis Humanae – Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious liberty

Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty was without question the most notorious of all the documents of Vatican II. In order to understand why Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is heretical one must understand the Catholic Church’s infallible teachingon the issue.

It’s a dogma of the Catholic Church that States have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent the members of false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common good – the good of souls – which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the State, and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other.

We will now look at three propositions that were condemned by Pope Pius IX in his authoritative Syllabus of Errors.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “ In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.62

Notice, the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of other religions, is condemned. That means that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and that the others should be excluded from public worship, profession, practice and propagation. The Catholic Church doesn’t force nonbelievers to believe in the Catholic Faith, since belief (by definition) is a free act of the will.

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”63

However, it teaches that States should forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions which lead souls to Hell.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “ Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.64

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: “ The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.65

In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster THAT ERRONEOUS OPINION, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY…”66

But Vatican II teaches just the opposite:

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.”67

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”68

Vatican II teaches that religious liberty should be a civil right, which is directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Vatican II also says that this right to religious liberty applies to public, as well as private, expression; and that no one should be prevented from the public expression or practice of his religion. The teaching of Vatican II is direct heresy against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other popes. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pope Pius IX.

Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty contradicts the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX!

What’s amazing is that Benedict XVI admits what we just proved above!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."69

Benedict XVI admits here that Vatican II’s teaching (which he adheres to) is directly contrary to the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. In other words, he just admitted that Vatican II’s teaching is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. One could hardly ask for more of a confirmation that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical. In his book, Benedict XVI repeats this again and again, calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus,” and saying that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."70

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: " The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."71

Vatican II’s heresy is perhaps most clearly expressed in the next quote:

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”72

Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to prevent religious activity. This is totally heretical.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21-23), June 20, 1888: “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the professionof one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.”73

Here we see Pope Leo XIII (simply reiterating the consistent teaching of pope after pope) teachin that the State not only can, but should curtail and forbid the rights and privileges of other religions to perform religious acts – exactly the opposite of what Vatican II declared. Such public acts, false opinions and false teachings should be repressed by public authority (the State), according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that souls are not scandalized or enticed by them.

The heresy of Vatican II on this issue is very clear, but there are always heretics who attempt to defend the indefensible.

Refuting attempted defenses of Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty

Some defenders of Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty argue that Vatican II simply taught that we shouldn’t coerce people to believe.

Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction, p. 277: “Notice the Declaration [on religious liberty] endorses not a general freedom to believe whatever you want, but rather, a freedom from being coerced into believing something. In other words, no one is to be forced to submit to the Catholic Faith.”74

As we saw already, this is completely false. Vatican II didn’t merely teach that the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce an unbeliever to be a Catholic. Rather, Vatican II taught that States don’t have the right to put down the public expression and propagation and practice of false religions (because the civil right to religious liberty should be universally recognized). Again, we must understand the distinction between the two different issues which the dishonest defenders of Vatican II sometimes attempt to conflate: First issue: the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce a nonbeliever to believe, since belief is free – true; Second issue which makes Vatican II heretical: the State cannot repress the public expression of these false religions – this is where Vatican II contradicts the Catholic Church on religious liberty. The second issue is the key.

To understand this better let’s give an example: If a State were presented, for instance, with Muslims and Jews holding their religious services and celebrations in a public place (even if they were not disturbing the peace or infringing on any private property or upsetting the public order at all), the State could and should (according to Catholic teaching) repress these services and celebrations and send the Jews and Muslims home (or would arrest them, if the law were well established) since they scandalize others and could cause others to join these false religions. The State would tell them their obligation to be Catholic before God and try to convert them by directing them to the Catholic priests, but it wouldn’t force them to do so. This is an example of the clear distinction between 1) forcing one to be Catholic, something the Church condemns, since belief is free and 2) the State’s right to repress false religious activity, something the Church teaches.

But Vatican II teaches just the opposite. The passage quoted below is the clearest heresy of Vatican II on religious liberty. We quote it again because this passage is utterly indefensible and cuts through all attempted distortions, such as the distortion from Patrick Madrid above.

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.” ⁷⁶

Here Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to direct or prevent religious activity. We just saw above that the Syllabus of errors condemned the idea that the State cannot prevent the activity of other religions. This proves that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was clearly false and heretical, and that Vatican II wasn’t merely teaching that one should not be coerced to become Catholic.

The “Within Due Limits” Subterfuge

Attempting to defend the heretical teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty by any means, the defenders of Vatican II will engage in tremendous distortions. They will quote the passage below from Vatican II and distort its teaching in the hope that the passage can (being thus distorted) somehow conform to traditional teaching against religious liberty. They assert that Vatican II didn’t allow unconditional freedom of public worship, but mentioned certain “limits.”

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “ This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.”77

“See ,” they say, “Vatican II taught that States could put limits on this religious expression; and this is in conformity with traditional teaching.” This is such a dishonest argument, such a distortion of the text, that Catholics should be outraged by it. In the passage above, while teaching that no one (no matter what his religion) can be prevented from expressing his religion publicly, Vatican II is simply covering all its bases and making sure that it doesn’t go on the record as allowing anarchy in the State.

Vatican II had to add the clause “within due limits” so that it didn’t go on the record endorsing, for instance, a religious group blocking traffic during rush hour or religious services being held in the middle of busy highways. Thus, it taught that “no one… shall be prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits.” Vatican II is not in any way saying that a Catholic State could curtail the right of religious liberty of non-Catholic citizens; Vatican II is still teaching undeniable heresy on religious liberty: that religious liberty should be a civil right and that no one shall be prevented by the State from acting according to his conscience in public; but it was simply indicating that due public order cannot be violated by those exercising this right.

To prove that this is the meaning – which, of course, is obvious to any honest assessor of this issue – we can simply quote the very same #2 in that Declaration:

We can see that the “within due limits” phrase simply means “as long as due public order is preserved.” Thus, according to Vatican II, every man has the right to religious liberty, including the public expression and practice of his religion, which the State cannot curtail as long as due public order is preserved. This is heretical. Vatican II did not conform to traditional teaching, no matter how hard heretics such as “Fr.” Brian Harrison dishonestly attempt to use this clause to argue such. Vatican II taught that the State cannot prevent the public expression of false religions, as we see very clearly in this quote we’ve already discussed.

There is no way at all to defend the indefensibly heretical teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty.

The “Religious Liberty teaching is not a dogma” Objection

In view of the clear contradiction between Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty and the traditional teaching, other defenders of the post-Vatican II apostasy have insisted that, despite the contradiction, the teaching of Vatican II doesn’t involve heresy because the traditional teaching on religious liberty was not infallibly taught as a dogma.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, pp. 24-25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise asserts that there is a flat contradiction between DH [Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty] and the traditional teaching: DH affirms a natural right [sic] religious liberty in the public manifestations of false religions by members of non-Catholic sects, while the traditional teaching condemns this notion… But let’s assume for argument’s sake that a flat contradiction exists between DH [Dignitatis Humanae] and the prior teaching, and that this contradiction is manifest – i.e., no explanation is required to demonstrate it. Even so, the contradiction would not involve manifest heresy as such, since the Church’s traditional teaching on the right and duty of the State to repress external violations of the Catholic religion is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, nor is the teaching that there is no right as such publicly to manifest a false religion in Catholic states.”80

This is completely wrong, and easily refuted. The idea taught by Vatican II, that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty, so that he is ensured by law the right to publicly practice and spread his false religion, was dogmatically, solemnly and infallibly condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura. The language that Pius IX uses more than fulfills the requirements for a dogmatic definition. Please note especially the bolded and underlined portions.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”81

Pope Pius IX solemnly condemns, reprobates and proscribes (outlaws) this evil opinion by his apostolic authority, and solemnly declares that all the sons of the Catholic Church must hold this evil opinion as condemned. This is solemn language and infallible teaching of the highest order. There is no doubt that Quanta Cura constitutes a dogmatic condemnation of the idea that religious liberty should be a civil right given to each man. Vatican II’s teaching was, therefore, direct heresy against infallible dogmatic teaching on the issue.

Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty rejects the entire History of Christendom and destroys Catholic Society

We’ve shown that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is heretical. Many other examples could be given to illustrate that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is false, evil and uncatholic. For instance, the dogmatic Council of Vienne specifically enjoined on Catholic leaders of States that they must publicly control (i.e. publicly suppress) the public practice of Islamic worship. Pope Clement V was reminding the State of its duty to prohibit the public profession of false religions.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”82

According to Vatican II, this teaching of the Council of Vienne is wrong. It was also wrong, according to the teaching of Vatican II, that the Christian religion was declared to be the religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius in 392 A.D. and all pagan temples were closed.83 This shows us again that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was evil and heretical.

Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty is precisely the reason why, following Vatican II, a number of Catholic nations changed their Catholic constitutions in favor of secular ones! The Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were actually suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.

Changes to the Spanish Catholic Law as a result of the teaching of Vatican II

The “Fuero de los Espanoles,” the fundamental law of the Spanish State adopted on July 17, 1945, forbade all propaganda activities on the part of false religions.

Article 6, 1: “The profession and practice of the Catholic Religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.”

Article 6, 2: “… the only ceremonies and other open manifestations of religion allowed will be Catholic.”

We can see that, in conformity with traditional Catholic teaching, the Spanish law decreed that the only ceremonies and public manifestations of religion would be Catholic. After Vatican II, however, the “Ley Organica del Estado” (Jan. 10, 1967) replaced this second paragraph of article 6 with the following:

"The State will assume the protection of religious liberty which will be under the protection of the Judiciary responsible for safeguarding morals and public order."

Moreover, the preamble to the Constitution of Spain, modified by this same “Ley Organica del Estado” after Vatican II, explicitly declared:

"... Given the modification introduced in Article 6 by the `Ley Organica del Estado,’ ratified by referendum of the nation, in order to adapt its text to the conciliar Declaration on religious liberty promulgated Dec. 7, 1965 [by Vatican II], which demands the explicit recognition of this right [religious liberty], and conforms moreover to the second fundamental Principle of the Movement according to which the teaching of the Church ought to inspire our laws ..."

We can see that the second section of Article 6 of the 1945 Constitution was replaced by that of the 1967 precisely in order to bring the laws of Spain into agreement with the declaration of Vatican II! Perhaps this revision of Catholic laws in a Catholic country, which was made in order to conform to the new religion of Vatican II, illustrates more than anything else the forces at work here. Spain went from a Catholic nation to a godless one, which now gives legal protection to divorce, sodomy, pornography and contraception, all thanks to Vatican II.

Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906: “ We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disapprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship…”84

Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”85

In line with its heretical teaching on religious liberty, Vatican II teaches the heresy that all religions have liberty of speech and liberty of the press.

Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”86

The idea that everyone has the right to liberty of speech and the press has been condemned by many popes. We will only quote Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Leo XIII. Notice that Pope Gregory XVI called this idea (the very thing taught by Vatican II) harmful and “never sufficiently denounced.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “ Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”87

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “ From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.”88

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated – namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”89

All of this Catholic teaching directly contradicts the heretical teaching of Vatican II.

5. Nostra Aetate – Vatican II’s Decree on Non-Christian Religions

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 3: “ The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God… Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”95

Here we find Vatican II teaching that Muslims worship the one God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. This is similar to, but slightly different from, the heresy that we have already exposed in Lumen Gentium. The false god of the Muslims (which is not the Trinity) didn’t create Heaven and Earth. The Most Holy Trinity created Heaven and Earth.

Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur vehementer, April 13, 1053: “For I firmly believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is one omnipotent God, and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is co-essential and consubstantial, co-eternal and co-omnipotent, and of one will, power, majesty; the creator of all creation, from whom all things, through whom all things, in whom all things which are in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible. Likewise I believe that each person in the Holy Trinity is the one true God, complete and perfect.”96

Interesting comparison of language between Vatican II and the Council of Florence

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 3: “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God… Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:“The… Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Please notice that as the Council of Florence was dogmatically defining the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, it emphasized the prayers, almsgiving and fasts of those inside the bosom of the Church. It stated that such almsgiving will not profit one who is outside the Church. It’s interesting that Vatican II, in praising the Muslims and their false religion,uses almost the exact same language as the Council of Florence, but again with a contrary meaning: Vatican II praises the fasts, almsgiving and prayers of members of a false non-Catholic religion.

Nostra aetate 3 also says that the Catholic Church looks upon Muslims with respect, who seek to submit themselves to God wholeheartedly, just as Abraham did. But Vatican II’s admiration for the infidel Muslims is not shared by the Catholic Church. The Church desires the conversion and eternal happiness of all the Muslims, but she recognizes that Islam is a horrible and false religion. She doesn’t pretend that they submit themselves to God. She knows that they belong to a false religion.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434: “ … there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”97

Pope Benedict strictly forbade Catholics to even give Muslim names to their children under pain of damnation.

Pope Benedict XIV, Quod Provinciale, Aug. 1, 1754: “ The Provincial Council of your province of Albania… decreed most solemnly in its third canon, among other matters, as you know, that Turkish or Mohammedan names should not be given either to children or adults in baptism… This should not be hard for any one of you, venerable brothers, for none of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God.”98

In the section on the most specific heresy in Vatican II (earlier), we covered that Nostra Aetate #4 teaches the heresy that the Jews should not be considered as rejected by God. We will not repeat that here.

Nostra aetate also made sure to remind the world how great Buddhism is, and how this false religion leads to the highest illumination.

Buddhists acknowledge many false gods

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”⁹⁹

Vatican II says that in Buddhism “a way is taught” whereby men can reach the highest illumination! This is apostasy. This is one of the worst heresies in Vatican II. Further, read how Paul VI (the man who solemnly promulgated Vatican II) understood its teaching on Buddhism.

Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhists, Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure for us to welcome the members of the Japanese Buddhists Europe Tour, honored followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’ (Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…”100

Basing himself on Vatican II (which he solemnly promulgated), Paul VI says that this false and pagan religion is one of the “riches of Asia”!

Vatican II also praises the false religion of Hinduism for its inexhaustible wealth of “penetrating philosophical investigations,” as well as its ascetical life and deep meditation.

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”101

Vatican II

Kali, one of the approximately 330,000 false gods worshipped by the Hindus – a religion not condemned, but praised by Vatican II

Notice how specifically Vatican II’s praise for the false religion of Hinduism is contradicted by Pope Leo XIII:

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “Our thoughts turn first of all to the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests… they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the Earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition.”102

Truly Two Different Religions

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests… they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the Earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition.”

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate (# 2): “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”

Amid all of this blasphemy in Vatican II, no mention is made that these infidels must be converted to Christ; no prayer is offered that the Faith may be granted to them; and no admonition that these idolaters must be delivered from their impiety and the darkness of their superstitions. What we see is praise and esteem for these religions of the Devil. What we see is an unequivocal syncretism, which treats all religions as if they are paths to God.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, … Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it…”103

Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.”104

6. Gaudium et Spes – Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes # 22: “For by His incarnation the Son of God united Himself in some way with every human being. He labored with human hands, thought with a human mind, acted with a human will, and loved with a human heart.”105

One of the most frequently repeated heresies of the Vatican II sect is the idea that, by His Incarnation, Christ united Himself with each man. Vatican II speaks of a union between Christ and each man which results from the Incarnation itself. John Paul II took the baton of this heresy and ran with it full speed ahead to its logical consequence – universal salvation.

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, ‘by his Incarnation, He, the Son of God, in a certain way united Himself with each man.’ (Gaudium et Spes, 22.).”106

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “ We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”107

We will cover more of John Paul II’s teaching in this regard in the section on his heresies. The idea that God united himself to every man in the Incarnation is false and heretical. There is no union between Jesus Christ and each man that results from the incarnation itself.

In fact, this doctrine of Vatican II, which has been repeated and expanded upon countless times by John Paul II, is actually worse than the heretical doctrine of Martin Luther. Luther, heretic that he was, at least believed that to be united with Christ one had to possess faith in the Cross of Jesus Christ. But according to the doctrine of Vatican II and John Paul II, faith in the Cross of Jesus Christ is superfluous since all of humanity has already been united to Christ “forever” (John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, 13). We hope that the reader can see the incredible malice that lies behind the statement of Vatican II’s Constitution Gaudium et Spes #22.

We will now quote the Catholic dogmas which reveal that union between sinful mankind and Christ only comes from faith and baptism; original sin is not remitted in any other way.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, “Cantate Domino”: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God …”108

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925: “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”109

Union with Christ is also lost by separation from the Church, something Vatican II doesn’t bother to mention.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: “Whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ.”110

Moving on, we must cover Vatican II’s adoration of man.

Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes # 26: “ There is also increasing awareness of the exceptional dignity which belongs to the human person, who is superior to everything and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable.”114

Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes # 12: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”115

This is blasphemy. If all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown, this means that everything should be measured by man’s law, not God’s. This means that for all intents and purposes man is actually God – everything is to be related to him. Man has been put in the place of God.

Vatican II

7 . Sacrosanctum Concilium – Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

Sacrosanctum Concilium was Vatican II’s constitution on the sacred liturgy. It was responsible for the incredible changes to the Mass and the other sacraments following Vatican II.

A post-Vatican II “Mass”

These incredible changes will be covered in more detail in the next section of this book dealing with “The Liturgical Revolution.” What Sacrosanctum Concilium started, Paul VI finished by suppressing the traditional Latin Mass and replacing it with an invalid Protestant service that is referred to as the New Mass or the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of the Mass). The “New Mass” alone has been responsible for the departure of millions from the Catholic Church.

Another post-Vatican II “Mass”

Paul VI also changed the rites of all seven sacraments of the Church, making grave and possibly invalidating changes to the sacraments of Extreme Unction, Confirmation and Holy Orders. But it all began with Vatican II’s Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The revolutionary intentions of Vatican II are clear in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Sacrosanctum Concilium #63b: “There is to be a new edition of the Roman book of rites, and, following this as a model, each competent local church authority (see article 22.2) should prepare its own, adapted to the needs of individual areas, including those to do with language, as soon as possible.”116

Sacrosanctum Concilium #66: “Both rites of adult baptism are to be revised, the simpler one and the more elaborate one, the latter with reference to the renewed catechumenate.”117

Sacrosanctum Concilium #67: “The rite of infant baptism is to be revised, and adapted to the reality of the situation with babies.”118

Sacrosanctum Concilium #71: “The rite of confirmation is also to be revised.”119

Sacrosanctum Concilium #72: “The rites and formulas of penance are also to be revised in such a way that they express more clearly what the sacrament is and what it brings about.”120

Sacrosanctum Concilium #76: “The rites for different kinds of ordination are to be revised – both the ceremonies and the texts.”121

Sacrosanctum Concilium #77: “The rite of celebrating marriage in the Roman book of rites is to be revised, and made richer, in such a way that it will express the grace of the sacrament more clearly...”122

Sacrosanctum Concilium #79: “The sacramentals should be revised… the revision should also pay attention to the needs of our time.”123

Sacrosanctum Concilium #80: “The rite of consecration of virgins found in the Roman pontifical is to be subjected to review.”124

Sacrosanctum Concilium #82: “The rite of burying little children should be revised, and a special mass provided.”125

Sacrosanctum Concilium #89d: “The hour of prime is to be suppressed.”126

Sacrosanctum Concilium #93: “… the hymns are to be restored to their original form. Things which smack of mythology or which are less suited to Christian holiness are to be removed or changed.”127

Sacrosanctum Concilium #107: “The liturgical year is to be revised.”128

Sacrosanctum Concilium #128: “The ecclesiastical canons and statutes which deal with the provision of visible things for worship are to be revised AS SOON AS POSSIBLE…”129

Yes, the Devil could not wait to destroy the precious liturgical heritage of the Catholic Church by means of the heretics at Vatican II. His goal was to leave as little of Tradition remaining as he could. And, as we will continue to document, that’s exactly what he did.

Another post-Vatican II “Mass”

In Sacrosanctum Concilium #37 and #40.1, the Council falls into heresy against the teaching of Pope Pius X in Pascendi on Modernist Worship.

Sacrosanctum Concilium # 37: “… (the Church) cultivates and encourages the gifts and endowments of mind and heart possessed by various races and peoples… Indeed, it sometimes allows them into the liturgy itself, provided they are consistent with the thinking behind the true spirit of the liturgy.”130

Please notice: Vatican II is allowing the customs of various peoples into liturgical worship.

Sacrosanctum Concilium # 40.1: “The competent local Church authority should carefully and conscientiously consider, in this regard, which elements from the traditions and particular talents of individual peoples can be brought into divine worship. Adaptations which are adjudged useful or necessary should be proposed to the apostolic see, and introduced with its consent.”131

Notice again that Vatican II is calling for the customs and traditions of various peoples to be incorporated into the liturgy.

What Vatican II taught above (and what has been implemented all over the Vatican II Church in the decades following the promulgation of Vatican II) is exactly what Pope Pius X solemnly condemned in Pascendi as Modernist worship!

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists: “THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.”132

Vatican II’s teaching was condemned word for word by Pope Pius X in 1907!

In Sacrosanctum Concilium #34 and #50, Vatican II again contradicted a dogmatic constitution of the Church word for word.

Sacrosanctum Concilium # 34: “The rites should radiate a rich simplicity; they should be brief and lucid, avoiding pointless repetitions; they should be intelligible for the people, and should not in general require much explanation.”133

Sacrosanctum Concilium # 50: “Therefore the rites, in a way that carefully preserves what really matters, should become simpler. Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions.”134

We can see just how “simple” they have become

Pope Pius VI explicitly condemned the idea that the traditional liturgical rites of the Church should be simplified in his dogmatic Constitution Auctorem fidei!

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28. 1794, # 33: “ The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.135

There are other heresies in the documents of Vatican II. However, what has been covered should be enough to convince anyone of good will that no Catholic can accept this heretical council without denying the Faith. And it is not sufficient merely to resist the heresies of Vatican II; one must entirely condemn this non-Catholic council and all who would obstinately adhere to its teachings. For if a person rejects the heresies of Vatican II, yet still considers himself in communion with those who accept the heresies of Vatican II, then such a person is still actually in communion with heretics and is therefore a heretic.

Endnotes for Section 8:

1 Yves Marsaudon in his book Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason, Paris: Ed. Vitiano, 121; quoted by Permanences, no. 21 (July 1965), 87; also quoted by Bishop Tissier De Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2004, p. 328.

2 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 703-705.

3 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, The America Press, 1966, p. 666.

4 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 970.

5 1937 Latin Version of Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Herder & Co.., no. 705.

6 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 908.

7 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

8 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.

9 Renee M. Lareau, “ Vatican II for Gen-Xers,” St. Anthony Messenger, November 2005, p. 25.

10 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 912.

11 “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Dominus Iesus #17, approved by John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000.

12 Denzinger 570a.

13 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.

14 Michael J. Daley, “The Council’s 16 Documents” St. Anthony Messenger, Nov. 2005, p. 15.

15 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 910.

16 Denzinger 468.

17 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 910.

18 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 121-122.

19 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.

20 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 912.

21 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1996, p. 914.

22 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 965.

23 Denzinger 247.

24 Denzinger 714.

25 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp. 915-916.

26 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 113.

27 Denzinger 351.

28 http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

29 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 233.

30 Denzinger 246.

31 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 31.

32 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 914.

33 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 315.

34 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 907.

35 Denzinger 468.

36 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.

37 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 222.

38 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 256.

39 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 364.

40 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 950.

41 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 907.

42 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 201.

43 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 74.

44 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 907.

45 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 866.

46 Denzinger 468.

47 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 400.

48 Denzinger 1961.

49 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 861.

50 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 231.

51 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.

52 Denzinger 73.

53 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 861.

54 Denzinger 1806.

55 Denzinger 1801.

56 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 860.

57 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 364.

58 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 184.

59 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 399.

60 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp. 860-861.

61 Denzinger 1630.

62 Denzinger 1777.

63 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 115.

64 Denzinger 1778.

65 Denzinger 1755.

66 Denzinger 1690.

67 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1002.

68 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1003.

69 Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1982, p. 381.

70 Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 385.

71 Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.

72 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1004.

73 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), pp. 175-176.

74 Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction, San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999, p. 277

75 Denzinger 1778.

76 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1004.

77 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1002.

78 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1003.

79 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1004.

80 Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, pp. 24-25.

81 Denzinger 1690; 1699.

82 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 380.

83 Fr. John Laux, Church History, p. 98.

84 Denzinger 1995.

85 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 271.

86 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1004.

87 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 238.

88 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 180.

89 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 114.

90 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1015.

91 Denzinger 423.

92 Denzinger 570b.

93 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1035.

94 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 605-606.

95 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 969.

96 Denzinger 343.

97 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 479.

98 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 49-50.

99 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 969.

100 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1973, p. 8.

101 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 969.

102 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307.

103 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 313-314.

104 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 280.

105 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1082.

106 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 255.

107 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5 (1958-1981), p. 255.

108 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 576.

109 Denzinger 2195; The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 274.

110 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 391.

111 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp. 1103-1104.

112 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1105.

113 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1132.

114 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1085.

115 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1075.

116 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 833.

117 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 833.

118 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 833.

119 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 833.

120 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 834.

121 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 834.

122 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 834.

123 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 834.

124 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 835.

125 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 835.

126 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 836.

127 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 836.

128 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 838.

129 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 838.

130 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 828.

131 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 829.

132 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 83.

133 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 827.

134 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 831.

135 Denzinger 1533.

136 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 827.

137 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 828.

138 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 328.

139 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 378.

140 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 841.

141 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 737.

142 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), pp. 283-284.

143 Denzinger 856.

The ProphecyFilm.com Blog

Friday, March 20, 2015

The Whole Truth about Vatican II