A Defense of Those Who Say Vatican II Taught Errors

8/6/2019 A Defense of Those Who Say Vatican II Taught Errors

1/19

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/pav2.html

Papal Authority and Vatican II

A DEFENSE OF THOSE WHO SAYVATICAN II TAUGHT ERRORS

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Introduction:The very grave state of affairs in the Catholic Church and in the world today is asserted by

Catholics who accept the Deposit of the Faith in the manner it has been proposed byecclesiastical tradition, unsullied, from the death of the last Apostle, St. John, until today, asbeing formally caused by the novelties introduced by the documents of the Second Vatican

Council. On the other hand, such Catholics are often accused of being more catholic than the

Pope and on the other hand of being dissenters, heretics, and/or schismatics, on account of their

implicit or explicit assertion that a believer is free to reject the novelties which have beenimposed by the Popes and Bishops upon the entire Church since the time of the council. Such

Catholics are furthermore attacked both by adherents of the Council who claim to be

conservatives or loyal Catholics or pro-Pope, and those liberals who seek an everychanging religion, as well as by Sedevacantists and other schismatics, whom Mr. Christopher

Ferrara, refuted recently at great length, and with many well founded arguments, in the pages of

The Remnant and Catholic Family News.

This controversy between Catholics and those who take an un-traditional (Sedevacantists) or

anti-traditional (neo-Catholics, liberals, progressives) approach, touches many of the most basic,fundamental, and principal truths and dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and is caused, in the view of

this author, by lack of a correct understanding of these both in themselves and in their

application to this controversy, among the popes, bishops, clergy, religious and laity, during and

since the time of the council.

This article is a defense of the Catholic position against the opponents of the traditions of the

Church.

Preliminaries

Lest there be any misunderstanding, therefore, it behooves us all to review some of these truths,

briefly, so as to understand precisely in what sense, what is to be said later in this article, is to beunderstood, so that the argument it advances and the conclusions it draws, will be seen to be as

true as they are, and as well founded as they are.
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/pav2.htmlhttp://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/pav2.html


2/19

Nature of Salvation and 3 of Its consequences:

The first great truth, which in this controversy, as well as in life, is to often forgotten today, is the

very nature of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. In the centuries following the FrenchRevolution, the suppression of the Papal States, and the rise of secularist states (whether

atheistic, fascist or democratic), there is a sort of grand-conditioning of the minds and thought of

believers to prescind from this consideration. This is on account of a preoccupation withtemporal affairs and their controversies, on the undue acceptance of the errors of liberal thought,

and of the nearly thorough diffusion of these errors in all aspects of modern life, culture, thought,

entertainment, education, and institutions, both in the state and in the Church.

Now the Nature of the Salvation offered by Jesus Christ is nothing less that this: to be partakers

of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). Now God is the supreme, infinite, eternal, omnipotent,

omniscient, Goodness Itself, Truth Itself, Beauty Itself, the One Being, for whom to be what It is

and to exist are the very same act and being. As such He is the Exemplary Cause of all orders of perfection, goodness, truth, beauty, and being. He is the Creator of all things, who has

established the order of Nature and Her laws, who has created man and mankind, forming hisbody from the slime of the earth and creating his soul out of nothing.

Since the Nature of the Salvation offered by Christ is to partake of the Divine Nature, and since

God is such as He is, a pure and eternal and incommutable Spirit, who is Truth, Goodness, andBeauty, there are, among others, several essential consequence of this offered Salvation, that are

pertinent to this discussion.

The first consequence is that man cooperate in his own salvation by freely accepting and obeying

this God, who has revealed Himself. This requires first, that God reveal Himself, that He

manifest that He is God by signs worthy of the obligation of such a revelation, that man becapable of understanding these signs, and that these signs be made known to him, not only

inasmuch as their existence is made known, but also as regards the correct understanding of these

signs and their import as to his obligations in regard to God, and in virtue of this to all othercreatures, and how to fulfill these obligations effectively, faithfully, and continuously.

The second consequence is that man associate and be associated with the God, who has revealed

Himself to be a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Nature, and thus as the Eternal Community, whohas thus willed to associate and be associated with man and men; whence it follows that it is an

essential obligation of man in the acceptance of the Salvation offered by Christ to be in the

created Community willed and established by the Eternal Uncreated Community of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

The third consequence is that God, who is not only the First and Last Cause of all things, but alsothe concomitant cause of all created things, without Whom they could not remain in existence or

have the power to posit any act, both in the natural order and in the supernatural order (the order

of grace), establishes and sustains and intervenes in history to support, guide, lead, direct,

encourage, nourish, etc. man to Him as to his Last End, and Eternal Refuge. For this reason, the


3/19

very Nature of the Salvation offered to man, as well as his own feebleness, together necessitate

that until the end of time, that God correspond by granting the charisms of indefectibility and

infallibility to the created Community established by Him, that is, to the Catholic Church,outside of which it is essentially impossible to be saved.

The Rule of Faith:

In the traditional manuals of Catholic theology we learn that there is a Rule for right believing

known as the Regula Fidei, that is, the Rule of Faith. This Rule is twofold, remote andproximate. The proximate rule for right believing is the Magisterium of the Church. The remote

rule is the Deposit of the Faith, that is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We see this

twofold Rule of Faith in the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council, wherein it is stated

that the proximate rule of faith, the Magisterium, is itself bound to uphold the remote rule:

The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,

sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches

scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantageof other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those

things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the

apostolic traditions. (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter IV, n. 5)

And again:

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his

revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance,they might

religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted

by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers

and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well thatthis see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine

promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your

faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. (ibid., n. 6)The content of the Deposit of Faith is inerrant, not infallible: because infallibility refers to the

inability of a created intellect not to fall into an erroneous judgment, and by extension is

transferred to the judgment of the truth of a proposition, such that an infallible teaching, ismore precisely teaching which is taught as truth, by a teacher who is protected from error by the

grace of infallibility. When we say, on the other hand, that Scripture is inerrant, we say that that

which its verbal statements signify is not erroneous.

Now the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is taught infallibly by the Sacrosanct

and Ecumenical Council of Trent, in its Fourth Session, April 8, 1546:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent lawfully assembled in

the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein keepingthis always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be

preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the

holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His ownmouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the

fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth


4/19

and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which,

received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles

themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as itwere from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers,receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books

both of the Old and of the New Testament seeing that one God is the author ofboth as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as

having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost,

and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession . And it has thoughtit meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in

any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set

down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis,

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings,two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled

Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and

fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom,

Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc,

Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and thesecond. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and

John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul

the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the

Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two toTimothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of

John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of

John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books

entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church,

and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and

deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore,understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the

foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities

it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

It is important to note that at Trent, the Church not only anathematized those who do not receivethe sacred and canonical Scriptures in their entirety, but who knowingly and deliberately

contemn, that is do not accept, the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles fromthe mouth of Christ Himself, of from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating, have

come down even unto us, transmitted, as it were hand to hand.

In this same decree of Trent we see the distinction in Sacred Tradition between those things

which Christ handed down orally (Divine Tradition), and those things which the Apostles did(Apostolic Tradition). Jesus Christ being God, could not err, and hence everything He handed

down orally was inerrant; likewise, after Pentecost, the teaching of the Apostles was protected

from all error by a special charism, and hence Apostolic Tradition is also free from error.


5/19

Another inerrant tradition is Ecclesiastical Tradition: that is, those things which have come into

being by means of the Church, by the Holy Ghosts inspiration, in fidelity to the Deposit. That

Ecclesiastical Tradition is also inerrant is clear, because, since Sacred Tradition is oral, thereexists nothing to evidence its existence, except written or monumental historical examples,

which evince the contents of Sacred Tradition. Among Ecclesiastical Tradition are things such as

icons, the ancient rites of the Mass, the writings of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors of the Church,ancient prayers, such as the Akathist Hymn to Our Lady, etc. That ecclesiastical tradition is also

inerrant, is taught infallibly by the Seventh Sacrosanct and Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea in

787 A.D.:

To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written

and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.

One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the

history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of

the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit.

For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another'smessage.

Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway,

following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of

the catholic church for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit

who dwells in her we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the

honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made ofmosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on

sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways,

these are the images of our Lord, God and savior, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without

blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holymen.

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see

them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay theseimages the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full

adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine

nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, andalso to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are

drawn to honor these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously

established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching

the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in thatimage.

So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the

catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other. So it

is that we really follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic groupand the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received. So

it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice


6/19

exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness

and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of

your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king isin your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.

Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow theaccursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or

who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure

of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr's holy relic), or

who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful

traditions of the Catholic Church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly

monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and

excommunicated if they are monks or lay people. (Decree of Definition)

It is important to note, that whereas Sacred Tradition originates orally with Christ and the

Apostles, (according to the Council of Trent), ecclesiastical tradition originates from the HolySpirit dwelling in the Church (according to Nicea II). For this reason, those who confound the

teaching of Nicea as pertaining to Sacred Tradition, have not read closely the text of that council,for plainly, from these 2 origins, comes 2 kinds of tradition.

Authority and Magisterium:

As we continue the preliminary considerations, having considered the teaching of Trent and

Nicea II on the Rule of Faith, we can now consider the definitions of Authority and Magisterium,

without which the discussion which follows would be misunderstood.

Authority in English almost invariably today is understood as some sort of power or right toact or govern. In Latin auctoritas has a wider meaning, according to its usage in the Church.First, since in Latin auctor, from which auctoritas comes, means actor in the sense of

instigator or initiator, auctoritas in Latin refers both to the power and right to act, as well

as to that which we in English call authorship, and hence we have from the Latin auctoritas,such English words as authoritative and authentic. Finally, in Catholic Theology, a quote

from any Father, Doctor, Saint, Philosopher or other noteworthy writer is called an auctoritas,

and hence in Latin the authorities of the Saints [auctoritates Sanctorum] means both their

authority as witnesses to the Faith, and the quotes of their writings which testify to theirteachings. This sense of authority as authentic because it comes from the proper author or

the one properly exercising the authority, must be kept in mind, when later we speak of the

authentic Magisterium. Inasmuch as there can be an authority over minds as much as overhearts, so authority can regard either the authority to teach, and/or the authority to rule.

Magisterium is a Latin word derived from magister, the word for teacher; in English ourword master is derived from magister, but we often forget that it originally meant teacher

rather than ruler or lord. Thus when St. Bonaventure, in his famous discourse at the

University of Paris proclaimed Christ as the One Master of All [unus Magister omnium], hemeant that Jesus was the universal Messiah, that is, Teacher of all mankind, the fount of Truth


7/19

and Truth Himself. In catholic theology, Magisterium means: an office of teaching. Thus

when we speak of the papal magisterium, we are not speaking about the Pope or the popes, but

rather the exercise of their office of teaching, which they exercised as the Successor to St. Peter.Thus when the Pope speaks to you about what kinds of breakfast you prefer, the Papal

Magisterium is not being engaged in any sense at all. It is important to understand that every

magisterium or teaching office, is relative; that is, its exercise is restricted in relation to what ithas the authority to teach. Thus Christs Magisterium was limited by what the Father had

declared to Him, even as He said, I have made known to you everything I have heard from MyFather. It contradicts the very definition of a magisterium, therefore to surpass the limits ofthe authority of the office. Thus just St. John the Baptist taught a baptism of penance to prepare

the Jewish People for the coming of the Messiah, and when this was done, said both of his own

person and the office he had been entrusted by the Holy Spirit to teach, I must decrease, He

must increase,so every office of teaching is limited, and having fulfilled its purpose, has no

more reason or justification to exist or act.

Truth and Teaching:

In our cynical age, which deservedly could take as its motto, that pointed question of Pontius

Pilate, uttered to Our Lord in the Praetorium of Jerusalem: What is truth?, it behooves us to briefly review what is truth. The Angelic Doctor gives a suitably brief, but complete

discussion in his Summa Theologiae, I, q. 16, art. 1:

Consequently, there are various definitions of truth. Augustine says, Truth is that

whereby is made manifest that which is (On the True Religion, Bk. 36); and Hilary (of

Poitiers) says that Truth makes being clear and evident(On the Trinity, Bk. V): and this

pertains to truth according as it is in the intellect. As to the truth of things in so far asthey are related to the intellect, we have Augustines definition, Truth is a supreme

likeness, without any unlikeness, to its source(ibid.); also Anselms definition, Truth isrightness, perceptible by the mind alone (On Truth, Bk. XI); for that is right which is inaccordance with its source; also Avicennas definition, The truth of each thing is a

property of the being which has been given to it (Metaphysics, Bk.8, n. 6). The definition

that Truth is the adequation of thought and thingis applicable to (truth) under eitherrespect.

In this admirable summation, St. Thomas shows how truth, in its various correct definitions, is

always tied to and limited by realty, and that at the same time the human intellect, like all createdintellects, can only know truth, by knowing reality correctly. Truth is in this sense relative,

because it is always a relation between reality as it is and an intellect judging correctly; but truth

is absolute in the sense that this relationship is unique and unchanging, when the mind knowsreality as it really is.

It follows from this notion of truth, that for teaching to be teaching in the proper sense, it mustbe an authoritative declaration of truth. Reason itself proves this so, for no one considers a

teacher to be teaching in the proper sense of teaching, unless the teacher is teaching truth

about something real. We do not say that actors are teaching, because actors are portray

something that while it may signify something actual or historical, is not real. Likewise we do


8/19

not say that musicians or artists or even poets, are teaching in the primary sense, because they are

not communicating truth, but rather sounds, or images, or words for the sake of beauty or

entertainment, and only instruction secondarily. For this reason Christ is the Teacher, parexcellence, because with the highest authority, Divine Authority, He taught about the highest

truth, God, who is Infinite Truth. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We also see from this

definition of teaching, that without authority, no one teaches: for no one says that those who aresharing their opinions or gossip at the local pub are teaching anything, because no one does so

with any claim to authority. Likewise the mass media properly should not be understood to

teach anything, because even when they do speak the truth, they do not claim any authority,other than the facts themselves. For this reason, with every teacher, we presume and expect some

authority to teach, either inasmuch has they hold some degree, or have received or been

conferred with authority to do so, from above.

Error, Heresy and its Species:

What is not true, is false. What is not true in every sense, is in some sense false. Nothing can be

both true and false in the same sense at the same time. These are some self evident principlesregarding truth. What is false is termed an error inasmuch as it is a wandering from the

truth, because in Latin to wander is errare, to err. We still have this sense in English, inthe phrase, a knight errant, that is a free roaming knight. Such a knight is not thereby in

error, though he does err.

But error in the proper sense of the English and Latin words refers to a departure from thetruth. An error is something false. Now just as truth has two basic senses, as that which is a

right knowledge in the mind, and that right relationship between a real thing and a real mind,

which is based in the thing and graspable by the mind, so error has two senses: an erroneousproposition, and an erroneous judgment or assent of the intellect. Hence an error is not a sin;

because a sin is an act of the will, departing from the good, and cleaving to something evil. Yet

to cleave in heart knowingly to an erroneous judgment or proposition, is a sin. It is the sin againstthe truth, a species of sin against the virtue of justice, which among other things, requires us in

our wills to render to everyone and every thing what it its due: and just as truth deserves that the

will consent to the truths assented to by the intellect, so the will that consents to that which theintellect recognizes as error, sins. This is why every liar, must bitterly defend his erroneous

statement or position, not by reason, but by a certain militancy of the will; because the intellect

by its very nature cannot assent to error recognized as error; it can only pretend that it is true, by

force of the will. And to this extent not every consent to an error is a sin against the truth;because not every error is recognized as a error by every intellect. Some are just ignorant or

stupid.

And so we come to Heresy. Heresy, you may not be aware, is not just a crime, not just a sin,

not just an erroneous judgment, or an erroneous proposition: it is all of these, but not all of them

at the same time. And so it is important to distinguish each of these. Likewise, not ever word oraction that is disharmonious with the faith is a heresy or heretical. Let us here what St.

Alphonsus Maria dei Liguori, C.s.S.R., says about this in this Theologia Moralis, Bk. II, tract I,

ch. 4, dubium 1:


9/19

n. 17: I respond first: Infidelity is threefold. The first kind is said to be negativeinfidelity, that is, the infidelity of those who have never heard anything of the Faith. This

is not so much a sin, as a punishment for sin; because, if they had done what was in them,God would not have hidden the Faith from them. The second kind is said to be contrary

infidelity, that is, the infidelity of those who either contemn or pertinaciously contradict

the Faith, when it has been sufficiently proposed to them, and such are heretics. Thethird kind is said to beprivative infidelity, because it is opposed in a privative manner to

the Faith; and this is culpable ignorance and/or an error about a matter of the Faith (cf. St.

Thomas, II, II, q. 10, a. 1 and 5, q. 11, a. 1; q. 12, a. 1).

I respond second: Contrary infidelity, by the threefold manner of its repugnance to the

Faith, is threefold, namely: paganism, which strives against the Faith not yet taken

up;judaism, which strives against the Faith taken up in Old Testament types, and heresy,which strives against the Faith which was taken up in truth. Apostasy, which recalls

one from the Faith to heresy; from which it differs only in this, that heresy is an error

contrary to the Faith only in part, but apostasy against the whole.

And so we can see from this excellent division of infidelity, that not all non-Catholics are

heretics, not even all Protestants or Orthodox are heretics, because they have never heard of thecontents of the truth faith; likewise not every heretic is an apostate, though all apostates are

heretics. Furthermore, that on account of ignorance, even culpable, someone in error, even an

error about the matter of the Faith, can be guilty ofprivative infidelity, while not guilty

ofheresy. And that thus heresy as a sin is a conscious, knowing contradiction of a truth of theFaith, which has already been sufficient proposed to them personally; as a verbal statement

heresy is an erroneous proposition contrary to the faith, as an act of the intellect it is erroneous

judgment of the intellect contrary to the faith, as a crime it is that public offense imputable bycanon law for the crime of heresy. The sin of heresy does not require an exterior act; nor does

the heretical, erroneous judgment of the mind, require the full and perfect consent of the will;

likewise, the crime of heresy does not require that one know infallibly what is in the heart andmind of the criminals, only that the approved, public judicial process justly infer this. Thus

though one can be accused of heresy, without a trial, one cannot be condemned a heretic without

the Church conducting such a trial. (A fact lost those Sedevacantists, who seemingly confoundthe error which is heresy, with the sin, the crime, and/or with the verbal statement.)

Denouncing Heretics:

It is sobering to note how far the Hierarchy and Clergy and Religious have fallen from an

authentic practice of the faith, to read that St. Alphonsus teaches that when any catholic unites

blasphemy to heresy, knowingly, and with full recognition, that those Catholics who arewitnesses are obliged under pain of sin to denounce the blasphemer to the proper Church

authorities (ibid., bk. III, tract 2, n. 123), no less than 6 days, and no more than 30 days after the

event!

Some examples of those who ought to be denounced (note that to denounce someone suspect of

heresy is a duty of very catholic, but to judge guilty of the crime belongs to the Church

alone): one who marries, when still married in the church to another; or marries while remaining


10/19

a non-laicized priest or religious; one who celebrates the Mass without a priest or bishop present;

or who, not being priest confects any sacrament (v.g. other than for such cases as baptism in

articulo mortis or those conceded to deacons, which do not require a priest for their validity); onewho violates the seal of confession; any priest or religious guilty of sodomy or bestiality.

St. Alphonsus adds that those clergy who have the duty to make such denunciations, are to bethemselves denounced for negligence (not heresy), when they fail to denounce such as these.

And St. Alphonsus cites Pope Alexander VII, A.D. 1660 as teaching that not only religious

superiors but all the faithful are bound to make such denunciations an obligation which isgrave, according to the common opinion of authors cited by the Saint when the guilty party is

a formal heretic and pertinacious one; but not when he is ignorant, threatened by another,

careless, sloppy in speech, because in such cases he ought to be and can be corrected in private;

nor are the simple folk, who upon hearing a heretical discourse, are mistakenly convinced, butlightly, to take up the error, but who being otherwise pious and faithful Catholics, are easily

freed from the error with a proper explanation. (cf. ibid., bk. IV, ch. 3, dubium 5, nn. 249 ff.).

Such excusing causes make one guiltless of heresy, though one may still be culpable of

infidelity. On account of the widespread decadence of catholic theology today, as well as thepolitical correctness of Vatican II, I would dare, in truth and charity, say that many of the clergy,

religious, and bishops could be excused on one of these scores.

And this is a point that need to be emphasized: that there are sins against the faith [contra fidem],

and sins besides the faith [praeter fidem]; heresy as a sin, is a sin against the faith: it requires

some sort of contradiction of the faith; but infidelity in general is only a sin besides the faith, thatis, it is a sin because the person acting, does not choose to act against the faith, but chooses to act

without reference for the faith; like that catholic who gets up in the morning without any

resolution to be faithful to the Faith, but does whatever he wants, with reference to only his owndisordered desires. Avarice, careerism, and other kinds of immorality, can induce even popes and

bishops to say, do or write things not in harmony with the faith; but that does not make them

formal heretics, even though what they actually say or write, might be formally heretical, whenconsidered as a logical proposition, in or outside of context. Because an erroneous proposition is

one thing, the consent or assent to it by will or mind, respectively, is quite another. For this

reason the Church has according to Apostolic Tradition (St. Paul) and Ecclesiastical Tradition,established a method of correction and trial; to depart from which, out of a personal desire to

quickly condemn another, is not only not charitable, but not even Catholic. (And this exposes the

novelty of the modern error of sedevacantism, because no Catholic before modern times has

advocated that the Church could be bereft of the Pope, on account of his having forfeited hisoffice by heresy, withoutthe some sort of official, and hence canonical, recognition of such by

the Bishops of the Church.)

The infallibility and fallibility of Vatican IIWe have come now to the principal argument of this article: the consideration of in what manner

precisely can a catholic licitly hold that the documents of Vatican II contain error. I prescind at

present from any argument, for or against, whether the documents actually do contain error ornot, or what kinds of error.


11/19

How to discern the infallibility or fallibility of a Magisterial Teaching:

The Church has not definitively spoken at the present time directly and precisely on this

question, of whether a legitimate, general council, confirmed by the Pope, always teachesinfallibly or can sometimes teach fallibly. The argument I advance here is drawn therefore from

a collection of considerations based on what the Church has so far said in definitive form and

from arguments drawn from that faith which seeks understanding (St. Anselm).

The principle of the argument drawn from ecclesiastical monuments, is this: that Vatican I

taught:

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, which arecontained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by

the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment,

or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium. (Chapter 3: Dogmatic Constitution on the

Catholic Faith, ch. 3, n. 8)Now since, as stated above, it is a self evident principle of right reason, that nothing can be both

true and false in the same sense at the same time, it is hence true, in virtue of this teaching ofVatican I, just cited, and this principle of right reason, that by divine and catholic faith there

cannot be believed anything which, even if it were to seemingly be proposed by the solemn

judgment of the church, in her ordinary and universal Magisterium, would contradict any truth

contained in the Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition. The key to resolving any apparentcontradiction I speak here of objective contradictions, not problems of errant consciences or

of unwillingness to submit ones judgment to Faith, or to the infallible Magisterium is the

middle term of the above, cited teaching of Vatican I, namely:

which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed

Hence, if there is any exercise of the Magisterium of the Church, even in solemn form, but which

does not require that what is taught be believed as divinely revealed, then if it is in truth a

teaching which is not contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, a catholic is not byfaith bound to believe it. Likewise, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, by the very

nature of the Catholic Religion, we are all bound to assent to the truth as we know it, and to

refuse assent to falsehood as we know it. Furthermore, that there is no exercise of any office of

teaching, wherein there is not claim to authority, or teaching of a truth; and that even truth muststand in relation to reality, and every teaching office in relation to the contents of truth it is

authorized to teach. From these, it follows that whenever the Pope or a Council propose,

without the requirements of both accepting it as divinely revealed and without establishing

that it is coherent or contained with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, especially if it

diverges from the monuments of Ecclesiastical Tradition, a catholic is in no manner bound

to accept it as true; though it remains, inasmuch as it is contained in an official document,something which a catholic would be bound to make known to Church authority as non-

consonant with the Faith.


12/19

In the case where the teaching can be found to be contained in Sacred Scripture or Sacred

Tradition, but which is not proposed as such in the document in question, as divinely revealed, it

is clear that in virtue of the duty to accept the contents of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition,a catholic is already bound to hold it as true. The document in question, then would be an

exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible in virtue of its consonance with the

immemorial teaching of the Church, in Her explanation of the Deposit of the Faith.

In the case where the teaching cannot be found to be contained in Sacred Scripture NOR in

Sacred Tradition, something that will evidence itself from an examination of the monuments ofEcclesiastical Tradition, such as the writings of the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the

Church, the Saints, the Popes, general, the other infallible and non-infallible

councils, throughout all ages, it is clear that a Catholics obligation of faith, as per the teachings

of Trent and Nicea II, as cited above, requires him not to accept such a teaching, if such

teaching is not consonant with these. Because, there are truths related to the revealed teachings

of the Faith, which while not contained explicitly in the Deposit of the Faith, are implicit therein;

and these we must accept, otherwise, we would end up denying the contents of the Deposit of the

Faith, and certainly because such truths are quasi innumerable, it can be safely assumed that withthe passing of the ages, more shall become explicitly recognized.

Why Vatican II can rightly be said to teach somethings infallibly, and others

fallibly

The extent to which the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intended to propose the teaching

contained in the Documents of Vatican II, is clearly manifested by the famousNota Previa of

November 16, 1964, which cited the conclusion of the Doctrinal Commission, taken on March 6,1964:

Taking into account Conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, thesacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals

which it has expressly put forward as such.

Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church is to

be acknowledge and accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the

mind of the Council, which is clear form the subject matter and its formulation, followingthe norms of theological interpretation. (Austin Flannery ed. translation from the official

appendix of the Latin version of Lumen Gentium).

It is clear from this statement that not everything was proposed by the Council fathers as binding,and hence not everything as requiring the assent of divine and catholic faith. Those who says

otherwise, are misrepresenting the official teaching of Vatican II.

It is also clear from this statement, that the general norms for interpreting magisterial texts apply

in such cases where there is no specific obligation of acceptance mentioned. And hence, to this

extent Vatican II must be considered as any other ecclesiastical document, in regard to thequestion of whether the teaching is binding or infallible.


13/19

Now this part of the office of the Magisterium, which can teach both infallibly and fallibly is the

Ordinary Magisterium. (cf. The Infallibility of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium, by CanonRene Berthod, 1980).

However, since not everything which is not infallible, is erroneous, it remains to show that thereare some official Magisterial documents which contain error, prior to Vatican II.

Magisterial Texts which by themselves, that is outside of their context, are

erroneous:

Under this category are all those statements which are materially errors,reckoning materially according to the plain meaning of the propositions, apart from their context,

or the customary manner of speech used by theologians, which context would excuse them of

beingformally erroneous, that is, contextually erroneous. (I mean contextually in the sense of

the formal meaning of the whole sense of the writing, according to its context).

One classic example is the Bull of Union, restoring the Church in Armenia to Catholic

Communion, published by the Council of Florence, during the eight session, on November 22,1439, where in it, it teaches:

The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the

order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with

wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; thesubdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and

similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry. The form

for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the

dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The forms for theother orders are contained in full in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this

sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to make the person a suitableminister of Christ.

Which seemingly teaches that the matter of the Sacrament is the handing overof the priestly

instruments [traditio instrumentorum], and by requiring this teaching in a papal Bull to be

accepted by the entire Armenian Church, lead many theologians to hold that this definition of thematter of the Sacrament of Orders was at least to be held by all the faithful.

Where as 515 years later, Pope Pius XII, in Sacramentum ordinis (AAS 40-5. Volume 3, Canon

Law Digest, 1954), taught otherwise, and established infallibly otherwise:

3. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce

invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace

which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified bySacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power

and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to

be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it.


14/19

Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations

conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the

very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the RomanChurch, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it

the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the

Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according tothe mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for

the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church,every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself

has established.

4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from

certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that thematter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and

the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the

words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify thesacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - andwhich are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that

We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of

conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawfuldisposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio

instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate,

the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

. . . though Pope Pius XII, clearly shows that what he teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis and whatthe infallible Council of Florence taught were not by intention contradictory. For the context of

the Bull of Union with the Armenians, was the prior Bull of Union with the Greeks, whichaccepted as valid a rite of ordination without the traditio instrumentorum, even though all threedocuments, those of Florence and that of Pius XII imposed the acceptance of their teaching by

papal authority. Note, that according to intention and context, Pope Pius XII judges that an

Ecumenical Council in a Bull of Union with the Armenians, did not teach error,even though the

verbal statement regarding the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, is by itself an erroneous

definition. Because the manner in which a proposition is imposed, that is to say both the

intention or context regarding what is taught, and the intention regarding the level of obligation,

must be considered.

Other examples like this, of a material error, are the statements of Pope Innocent II and Pius IX

on the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, [cited from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart ofMarys website: http://www.catholicism.org/eens-popes.html]:

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we

confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic andApostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger423)


15/19

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic

Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who

shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger1647)

Because, taken plainly, they damn all those who are members of those other Churches, which are

not Roman, but which are Catholic, in communion with the Apostolic See: such as the GreekCatholic Church of the Ukraine, the Maronite Church of Lebanon, etc., the second of which was

in communion with the Roman Catholic Church at the time of both statements, the first, at the

time of the second statement. Of course no one who understands the custom of speech in the

Latin Church would sanely interpret them in that sense. For here the proper interpretation is

that Roman Church is employed in this context as a metonym for the whole Church in

communion with Rome. Nevertheless, inasmuch as outside of the Roman Church includes

all non-Roman Churches, these statements, in the manner said above, are erroneous propositions,if taken in their simple logical sense, outside of their particular manner of use.

Magisterial Teachings which are formally erroneous:Formally or contextually erroneous propositions are those which in themselves and in theircontext are erroneous.

Such are the infamous sermons of such popes as Pope John XXII, who denied that the souls ofthe Saints, upon death, are immediately given the beatific vision by God. This is what the

Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 had to say about the matter:

In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific

Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit

him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, inwhich he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last

Judgment. After becoming Pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this

he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion thatthe blessed departed did seeGod before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last

Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the

University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried todisseminate there the Pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter

(November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a

decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, thetheologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favor of the doctrine

that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after theircomplete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the Pope had given nodecision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the

Pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the

writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held

on 3 January, 1334, the Pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aughtcontrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any

decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm


16/19

belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.

(Pope John XXII, by J.P. Kirsch)

What Pope John XXII has held in a non-pertinacious manner, was condemned as heresy by hissuccessor Benedict XII, in the Bull Benedictus Deus of January 29, 1336. It is important to note

that when first contradicted, Pope John XXII threatened excommunication upon the DominicanFather who publicly rebuked him for heresy. And yet his heresy was not pertinacious, as even a

leading Sedevacantist admits, for in his second sermon the Pope had stated:

I say with Augustine, that if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better

correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the contrary determination of the

Church would be shown or unless on Sacred Scripture would express it more clearly than

what I have said above. (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262, as cited and translated by Rev. Anthony Cekada,Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferraras Cardboard Pope, August 2005: www.sgg.org, with my own translationof the italicized phrase).

It is thus logical, that when a Pope does not intend to impose an error by divine and catholic

faith, but who explicitly reaffirms his acceptance of the otherwise definitive judgment of theChurch or the prior teaching, that any even formally erroneous propositions, are not only not

binding, but do not constitute that species of pertinacious heresy, which is necessary beforeproceeding to a formal, canonical declaration of the deposition of a Pope.

Another infamous example is the papal bull Aeterne Ille of Pope Sixtus V, published on May 2,

1590, in which he imposed the acceptance of his own Latin version of the Vulgate, though itwas replete with errors, even decreeing an excommunication for those who opposed this version,

and commanding all other versions (even the correct ones) to be burnt! The document arguably

was only disciplinary; and the Pope, most certainly deceived by his own vainglory, thought hewas publishing a version without errors. As a Magisterial teaching, the Bull has no authority.

But inasmuch as it gravely attacked the peace of the Church and the Deposit of the Faith, itforebodes that there can be other disciplinary enactments of the Magisterium which can likewiseattack the Deposit of the Faith or the welfare of the Church, or other Ecclesiastical Traditions,

such as rites of the Mass, which are not as central to the deposit as Sacred Scripture

Another example of Papal Bulls which actually did teach error, but are in no way binding arethose which teach about matters that do not pertain to the Deposit of the Faith. One famous

document of this kind, is that of Pope John XXII, who issued a bull on the origin of money,

including a complete history of money, from the time of Adam down to the present. But money,has been shown by archeologists to have been invented around the 7th Century B.C. in Asia

Minor, some time after Adam.

Papal Prerogatives: infallibility and immunity from pertinacious heresy

The possibility of error in a magisterial document arises from the failure of the one teaching to

adhere to the Faith, for whatever motives. Because just as without faith it is impossible to please

God, so unless we constrain our speech and writing to the dictates of the Faith, we will err,

especially in matters of religion. Now a Pope or a Council when teaching, either is motivated by


17/19

the Faith, or is not; if so, he or they is accorded protection in some degree, if not, he or they are

not; because evidently, if a man presumes of himself, he forfeits the grace of God: for God gives

grace to the humble, but the proud man he resists. It thus follows, that since God did notpromise the successors of St. Peter impeccability, there can be times when by their pride and

other vices they act in a manner unfitting to the faith.

That the Pope can err as well as be infallible, is taught by St. Alphonsus Maria dei Liguori in his

work Theologia Moralis, Bk I, Tract II, Dubium II, 1:

"The fourth and common opinion, to which we subscribe, is, that though the Roman

Pontiff, in so far as he is an individual person or private theologian, can err (just as he is

also fallible in questions of mere fact, which depend chiefly on the testimony of

men); nevertheless, when as Pope he speaks ex cathedra as a universal teacher, namelyout of the supreme power bestowed upon St. Peter for teaching the Church, then we say

that he, in controversies of the faith and in the discerning of morals, is entirelyinfallible."

However, that inasmuch as he is Pope, can, not only not err, but also not be a pertinaciousheretic is taught by St. Robert Bellarmine in his work De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 4, ch. 6, says,

namely:" . . .that it can be piously believed, that the Supreme Pontiff, not only as Pontiff cannot

err; but also as an individual person, cannot be a heretic by believing pertinaciously

anything false contrary to the Faith."

since this is what Christ by His prayer for St. Peter's successors obtained, as Our Lord JesusChrist Himself said: "I have prayed for you Simon that your faith might not fail, and when yourare converted, confirm your brethren," [Lk 22:32] according to the teaching of Pope St. Leo the

Great (Sermon 2, On Christmas, "At Sts. Peter and Pauls"), St. Cyprian, (Bk. 1, Epistle 1 "ToCornelius"), Pope Lucius I, Pope Felix I, Pope St. Agatho, Pope Nicholas I, Pope Leo XI, Pope

Innocent III, and St. Bernard of Clarivaux, as cited in St. Robert Bellarmine's treatise De

Romano Pontifice, bk. I.And hence it is, that a Pope, issuing a document, in which he does not exercise his office as

universal teacher, can, if he does not intend to be faithful to the Faith, promulgate an error.

Likewise, if in confirming a document of an ecumenical council, which likewise did not imposeits teachings as contained in the Deposit of the Faith, or as inextricable from the truths contained

therein, and hence which could have contained errors, the Pope can obviously confirm a

document containing errors. In each case, this will be evident by the failure to meet the criteria

for an infallible teaching, mentioned in Vatican Is decree, namely that

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3. he defines

4. a doctrine concerning faith or morals

5. to be held by the whole church

But such Vatican II was not, because in the Apostolic Brief of confirmation, In SpirituSancto (Dec. 8, 1965), Pope Paul VI, did not impose the acceptance of Vatican IIs documents,

with the obligation of faith, but rather decreed:


18/19

Mandamus autem ac praecipimus, ut, quae synodaliter in Concilio statuta sunt, sancte et

religiose ab omnibus Christifidelibus serventur ad Dei gloriam, ad Sanctae Matris

Ecclesiae decus et ad hominum universorum tranquillitatem et pacem.

Which is incorrectly translated into English on the Vatican Website, but which, in English is

rather:

We command, however, and precept, that, what has been synodally established in the

Council, be holily and religiously observed by all of Christs Faithful, for the ornament ofHoly Mother Church and the tranquility and peace of each and every man. (my own

translation)

This holily and religiously observed is ratherthe duty of showing an obsequium religiosum,

that is a reverent presumption of correctness, and assent of the intellect to the teaching as in

practice to be held.

This obsequium religiousum, due such documents at those of Vatican II, is classified as that levelof teaching which can contain, formally, error, by such authors as Cardinal Journet, S. J. (TheChurch of the Word Incarnate: on the Case of Galileo), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith (Instruction concerning the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 24, May 24, 1990),

and Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap., in Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner, Homiletic

and Pastoral Review, 1994, pp. 64-69, who when speaking of the obsequium religiosusm due todocuments of the Roman Congregations, says:

Once more, since the Pope (John Paul II) states that these Vatican congregational

propositions are non-infallible, they can possibly be in error. And, if these propositions

can be in error, then it is possible for a theologian to know that they are in error. It is

absurd, however, to think that God, the Author of Truth, would bind a person to submit inwill and mind orintellectually assentto a speculative judgment which is an error for the

sake of his salvation. One can only be bound to intellectually assent to a proposition, or aspeculative judgment, that is true and certain.

That this Apostolic Brief, In Spritu Sancto of Paul VI, concludes with the same condemnatory

approbation found at the end of Papal Bulls, does in no way alter its character or free Vatican II

from the possibility of error, as has been shown, above, in the Bulls of Sixtus V, John XXII, andthat of the Council of Florence. It is rather the expressed intention regarding the level of

teaching, as quoted in the Nota Previa of Lumen Gentium, which reflects the authentic intention

of the Council Fathers, and which is confirmed by this Apostolic Brief of Paul VI, thus,

exculpating both the Council Fathers from the charge of heresy, and Paul VI as well.

Finally, to confirm for those who are super-scrupulously loyal to the Magisterium, that Vatican II

documents contain novelties and flaws, I need only cite one of the most eminent theologians oftoday, the Pope Himself, writing in his work, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, where he

says of Dignitatis Humanae, that the novel teachings in the second half of the document correct

the statement in the first half, that would leave intact the traditional Catholic doctrine, and thatit was a flaw of the document to include that statement of continuity in the first half, because


19/19

the second half offers something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for

example, in the statements from Pius XI and Pius XII (Paulist Press, 1966, p. 147). To say that

it is a flaw to state the doctrine is in continuity with the past, is to say that the doctrine, in anhonest appraisal, is not in continuity with the past, and that thus it is novel and disharmonious.

(Cf. Nicea II, on the duty of the Church to reject discontinuous novelties and innovations).

Dissent, Assent, Fraternal Correction

Dissent is the sin of those who refuse to accept those obligatory teachings of the Magisterium,which require the assent of the intellect and/or the assent of faith. When the Magisterium does

not oblige one or the other, one can scarcely be considered to be dissenting. As much as the

Apostolic See and the Council Fathers allow Vatican II to be considered an exercise of the

authentic Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible, only when it reiterates the traditionalunderstanding of the Deposit of the Faith, and which is fallible, when it proposes novelties

against Scripture, Tradition and the Ecclesiastical Traditions, it is clear, that no Catholic, who

opposes these latter novelties as errors, can be accused of failing in his duty as a Catholic.

Rather it is such Catholics, who fulfill the duties of the faith, as taught by Nicea II, to oppose andresist and contemn all novelties and innovations, that is all alterations or foreign impositions

upon the understanding and teaching of the Faith.

Furthermore, it is the apex of the Catholic Faith, to speak, write, work and dedicate ones life to

defending the Church from heresy and novelties that are erroneous. This was the path of the

great saints such as St. Orosius, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Agatho, St. Robert Bellarmine, andSt. Pius X. May we share their glory, by a similarly, devout and militant service.

If the Faith fails in many regions of the world today, we cannot stand by silent without sharing inthis great tragedy by complicity; we must rather, on account to the imminent peril of the

damnation of hundred of millions of souls, speak out loudly, and let our voices be heard both in

our local churches, and all the way to Rome. This is true and filial piety, the apex of the virtue offraternal correction.

Indeed, reproving an erring Pope or Bishop when he errs and utters errors, whether in word or indocuments which do not bind the consciences of Catholics is an essential duty of every catholic,

without which an erring Pope or Bishop would be bereft of this most necessary duty of fraternal

and filial charity.

A Defense of Those Who Say Vatican II Taught Errors

Documents

Transcript of A Defense of Those Who Say Vatican II Taught Errors