Was Vatican II a dogmatic Council or a pastoral Council? (hint: see Pope John XXIII's opening address and Pope Paul VI's Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium. Consider Pope Benedict XVI's words, as Cardinal Ratzinger, to the Bishops of Chile: "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.")

If a Council is pastoral but not dogmatic, can it have solemnly defined anything that a Catholic must accept as an article of Faith lest he put himself outside of the Faith? If Vatican II was a pastoral Council, why do we so often hear that "The Church used to teach/believe X, Y, Z, but since Vatican II that has changed"?
 

Can you name a single dogma that traditional Catholics deny? Is there anything taught by Vatican II that must be believed but which traditional Catholics don't believe?

 
What is "ecumenism"? How is what is passed off as "ecumenism" today different from the ecumenism of yesteryear?


What have been the effects of the interpretations of the documents of Vatican II? (Hint: see statistics at the bottom of this page)

How can you know if a statement is infallible or not? (hint: see this page)

Can you reconcile these words from Pope Pius XI's "Mortalium Animos":

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers....

...This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?

with Pope John Paul II's words of August 8, 1985:

The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.

-- and with the very common spectacle of Catholics praying with Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Animists, Hindus, and Buddhists, such as at "ecumenical" or "interreligious services" held in local parishes and dioceses? Had such things ever been allowed in the Catholic Church during Her two millennia of History? Why or why not? Why would such a thing have changed? What are the effects of such practices?

Since the time of Pope St. Pius X (1903 - 1914) up to Vatican II, priests used to take the Oath against Modernism. Why did this practice change? Was it wise? Have the fruits been good?

That Papal Oath alleged to have been taken by all Popes since at least since the time of Pope St. Agatho includes these words:

I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein...

Can you reconcile those words with these words of Pope John Paul II, quoted by Zenit News on February 27, 2000?:

It is necessary not to lose the genuine intention of the Council fathers; on the contrary, it must be recovered, overcoming cautious and partial interpretations that impeded expressing to the maximum the novelty of the Council Magisterium.

Why is it that modernists can be made into Cardinals and Bishops; ephebopile priests are allowed to run amok and molest boys; seminaries, Catholic schools, and R.C.I.A. programs are allowed to spread the grossest heresies; gay and lesbian religious and priests are allowed to form homosexualist "ministries" that confirm people in their sins; modernist priests can go on television and deny Christ; Bishops can remain silent as millions of babies are murdered in their mothers' wombs; priests are allowed to turn the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into carnivals and change the form of the Sacraments, priests can give the Eucharist to manifest, public, unrepentant pro-aborts, etc. -- and they're all allowed to get away with it year after year -- but when a priest "goes traditional" and practices Catholicism in the same way as all Catholic priests did before Vatican II, he's treated as a criminal and called "schismatic"?

Imagine a typical, well-educated, middle-class Catholic who was born in 1900. What beliefs would he or she have had that most "modern Catholics" no longer have? How would his or her practice of Catholicism have been different from that of the "modern Catholic"? And what does this mean in light of Sacred Scripture which teaches in II Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle"? Does truth change? If a practice has been changed, can it be changed back? If a change in practice has been shown to be harmful to the Church and to the faith of our children, should we demand that it be changed back or continue to do what damages the Church and the faith of our children?


If SS. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Joan of Arc, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, Pius V, Pius X, Don Bosco, Therese of Lisieux, Mother Cabrini, or any Catholic Saint were to walk into your neighborhood parish this Sunday, would he or she recognize or even believe that the goings-on were Catholic? Would they recognize the church building as Catholic? (If you're not sure, watch this video -- off-site, will open in new browser window -- and compare what they would've seen with what you are probably enduring on the Lord's Day. Give the video a few minutes to load and press the play button.).


Chapter II of the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent reads,

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the Victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which Oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the Apostles.

It is followed by this anathema -- a curse on those who disbelieve and a warning that those who do not believe what is said have put themselves outside of the Faith:

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

At your Sunday Mass, is there any sense or indication that those in the pews are at the very foot of the Cross, at the re-presentation of the Crucifixion of Jesus, and watching as the priest, acting in persona Christi, offers up Christ Himself (under the species of bread and wine) to the Father to appease the Father's anger at our sins and to satisfy His honor and justice? Is Catholic belief in the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice enhanced or diminished by laymen in casual clothes crowding the sanctuary, noise, Protestant happy songs, and the like? (Note: "to propitiate" means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : appease, conciliate") What do you think impressionable children learn about what the Mass is by seeing these things? Should children be exposed to things that could harm their faith in Christ and His Church?

In L'Osservatore Romano, on March 19, 1965, Annibale Bugnini, the main architect of the Novus Ordo Mass, is quoted as saying,

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Prostestants.

Four years later, Max Thurian, a Protestant theologian, said,

It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics.

Do these quotes indicate to you that the Novus Ordo Mass is a) less Catholic, b) as Catholic, or c) more Catholic than the ancient Mass?


Pope St. Pius X, in his "Syllabus of Errors," wrote that the following ideas are condemned:

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

Does your priest believe and preach these things? Is this what was taught to you in R.C.I.A. classes? Is this what your children are learning through their Catholic education? If not, is their very Catholic faith being endangered? If not, why isn't your Bishop doing anything about these problems? Who appointed your Bishop as a Bishop?

Pope St. Pius X, in his "Syllabus of Errors," wrote that the following idea is condemned:

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

Can you reconcile the above condemned idea with this, from John Paul II?

The Church of our day has become particularly conscious of this truth; and it was in the light of this truth that the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature" [Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction (New York, NY: Seabury Press, 1979)].

Again re: Pope St. Pius X's "Syllabus of Errors": can you defend these words of John Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, elevated to the Cardinalate by Pope Paul VI, ,to the Roman Curia by Pope John Paul II, and now the Pope?:

If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text 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 countersyllabus… 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 via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone will deny today that the Spanish and Italian Concordat strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone will deny today that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship… The text [of Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.

When was the last time you heard a sermon -- an orthodox sermon -- on Hell, sin, loss of salvation, Purgatory, praying for the dead, praying to Saints, the use of sacramentals, modesty, chastity, homosexuality, abortion, or contraception? What would an orthodox sermon on these topics have sounded like 100 years ago? Does truth change? How do your answers affect any concerns you might have on what your children are hearing or not hearing about what Catholicism teaches? How do the answers to the last question affect your concern for the eternal salvation of your children?


Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii:

26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."

27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact.

How can you reconcile the above with Pope John Paul II's ideas of "mutual submission" written about in Mulierus Dignitatem:

However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572), taught:

In this guilt [for the Crucifixion] are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the Cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on Him.

Given this fact, why do you think so many hierarchs and media workers insist that the Church, during the Second Vatican Council, "revolutionized" Her teaching with regard to Jewish culpability with these words of the document "Nostra Aetate":

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

What benefit could there be for these people to present the Church's teachings as having "changed"?

On the other hand, what does the post-Temple Jewish religion teach about the Jewish role in the death of Jesus? (hint: see the Toledoth Yeshu) How is the post-Temple Jewish religion different from the religion of the Old Testament? What is the Talmud and what does it teach about non-Jews ("goyim")? What does the Talmud teach about Jesus and Mary?

Sacred Scripture teaches:

John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." John 5:23 "That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him."

John 15:23 "He that hateth me hateth my Father also."

I John 2:22-23 "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also."

I Corinthians 16:22 "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha."

What does this mean with regard to this question: "Do post-Temple Jews worship the God of the Catholics?"

Who are the people who constitute Israel? (Hint: see Galatians 3:7-29, Galatians 4:21-31, Romans 11, Jeremiah 31:31-34, etc.)

According to Romans 2:28-29, who is a "Jew"? What do Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 mean with regard to the Romans verses? To whom do the Revelation verses refer?


The Church teaches that God did not break His Covenant with Old Testament Israel. According to Jeremiah 31:31-34, what happened to the Covenant? Then what happened to this Covenant after Jesus' work? (hint: see Matthew 5:17 and John 19:30)

In A.D. 1441, the ecumenical Council of Florence produced a document called "Cantate Domino." It includes these words:

It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.

In 2002, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Affairs -- presided over by Cardinal Archbishop William Keeler , who was elevated to the Cardinalate by Pope John Paul II in 1994 -- released a document called "Reflections on Covenant and Mission." The document includes these words:

At the present moment in this process of renewal, the subjects of covenant and mission have come to the forefront. Nostra Aetate initiated this thinking by citing Romans 11:28-29 and describing the Jewish people as "very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made." John Paul II has explicitly taught that Jews are "the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God," "the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses," and "partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked."

Can you reconcile these two statements? Can you think of any reasons why such a person who would write such words would be elevated to the Cardinalate? Can you think of any reasons why this Cardinal is allowed to preach such things while traditional priests are called "schismatic"?


If a Pope were to ask you to kill an innocent person, would you? Why or why not? If your answer is no, what does this tell you about the nature of true Christian obedience? Are there times when it is right to not obey? (hint: see Summa Theologica II-II-104)


What is "schism"? Is disobedience the same as "schism"? Do the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (the "S.S.P.X.") withdraw submission to the Holy Father or do they pray for him and for the local ordinaries at each Mass they offer? Do the priests of the S.S.P.X. claim ordinary jurisdiction?

In these confusing times, can you truly go wrong by believing in and practicing Catholicism as Catholics did before Vatican II? If you model your life after the great Saints, believe as they did, attend the same Mass they did, receive the Sacraments in the same way they did, practice the same popular devotions, raise your children as they were raised, etc. -- all while obeying the Holy Father as far as one can without harming one's faith and soul -- would the chances be better or worse of saving your soul (and your children's souls) than if you continued on the path you're on now?

What's happened to Holy Mother Church?

See http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html