jump to navigation

Rampant heresy in the Church directly attributable to the Second Vatican Council November 18, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.

I have been wanting to excerpt portions from Phoenix from the Ashes for some time. The problem I’ve had is that the material is so dense and involved (in a good way) that a lot of excerpts, to make sense, would run 2000 words or more. And I know posts that long tend not to get read very much.

But, I found a few brief bits that convey a whole lot in a blog-friendly length.  Author HJA Sire really explodes the notion of female fauxrdination, and in so doing exposes the heresy that is inherent in the post-conciliar ethos.  The Council opened the Church, doctrinally, to numerous modernist notions, including feminist ones.  That relatively narrow conciliar opening has metastasized into numerous areas, one of the most malicious being the notion that women could be ordained to the priesthood.  Even worse, however, has been the corruption of the entire idea of the priesthood.  Ultimately, the Council bears great responsibility for this and many other widely prevalent errors:

Next to the denial of defined dogmas, there is no clearer case of heresy than the advocacy of female ordination: it rejects not only the tradition of the Church from its origins, but divine institution itself; it ignores the condemnations that have declared female ordination heretical, and implies a blasphemous view of Christ’s wisdom and justice in instituting the priesthood in the male sex.  No heresy more comprehensively discards every principle by which Christian doctrine is decided.  The orthodox teaching has been repeated most recently by John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis of 1994, in which he wrote: “We declare that the Church has no authority whatever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”  As one would expect in the modern Church, the ruling has been entirely disregarded.  In June 1997 the Catholic Theological Society of America voted by a majority of 216 to 22 that the pope should reconsider the question of women’s ordination.  This evidence that nine out of ten official theologians in the United States are heretics comes as no surprise; nor does one imagine that their unorthodoxy is confined to that sole point. In 2011  likewise some 200 Austrian clergy signed a manifesto demanding female ordination.  In the general run of seminaries, professors reject the orthodox teaching privately and often publicly, and the priests they train treat it as simply another conservative relic that is due for change.  We see here exemplified the contempt in the present-day Church for Scripture, Tradition, and authority, and we see, too, the harvest of submission to modern ideology that the Church sowed in the Second Vatican Council and is now reaping.  [I should add, prior to this paragraph, Sire had spent several pages explaining exactly HOW Vatican II, through the documents produced and approved, provide such a huge opening to error/heresy.  It is a very thorough discussion but one too long to blog effectively]


To put the preaching function of the priest before the sacramental [i.e., the sacrificial nature of the Mass] is a monstrosity in antithesis to religious realities. Yet simply to condemn that error in itself would be to miss its true significance; the intention of the Council in teaching this was to move the Church towards a protestant concept of the ministry, a doctrine that rejects the sacramental office of the priest and substitutes a ministry of the word.  That lead has been used by the modernists to promote an evangelical doctrine (in the sectarian sense of the word) that empties the priesthood of theological meaning. [by turning the priest into an educator, an administrator, a “presider,” and even a first among equals, sacramentally] 

Thus the constitution De Presbyterorum Ministerio et Vita [The Vatican II document on the priesthood] stands as one of the main contradictions to the notion that the documents of the Second Vatican Council, as its apologists like to argue, are of a faultlessly orthodox nature.  Its teaching is not traditional and was not intended to be traditional. With an ill-conceived aim of ecumenism, the Council allowed itself to be imposed on by those whose program was to diminish the Catholic theology of the priesthood.  The intentions of that party have been developed in practice, producing priests whose view of their office is in complete rejection of Catholic Doctrine.  When the Church comes to judge the Second Vatican Council in the light of true tradition, the constitution on the priesthood will be one of the documents that most call for disavowal and condemnation.  

———End Quote———

HJA Sire has now, 3/4 of the way through the book, shown glaring problems in several of the documents of Vatican II. As he notes, it is possible – though unbearably boring – to read large sections of Vatican II and find no problems at all.  But that’s like saying a serial killer is really just a nice, quiet guy, except for those 3 hours a month when he butchers someone.  It is meaningless. The problem in Vatican II is not with the orthodox majority, it is with the nebulous, problematic, and even erroneous majority.  Not perhaps erroneous by direct promotion of error, but by being so nebulous and so open to radical interpretation that it permitted – and almost demanded – radically modernist/heretical consequences to flow from the documents.

There is a tremendous amount of gold in Phoenix from the Ashes.  I am not done, yet, but it’s 97% awesomeness with occasional odd rants thrown in.  I guess we trads are not without our little foibles.

Consider the above possibly some useful information when confronted with individuals who insist that there is nothing wrong with the documents of Vatican II, but only their unorthodox interpretation.  Sire’s prime contention (similar to previous authors like Michael Davies, though Sire is much more forceful and to the point) is that the nebulous bits, and how to draw them out into formal error, radically changing the Church, were always intended by the modernists at Vatican II, and are inseparable from the documents as produced.  I am inclined to agree with him, for whatever that’s worth.  I think this is absolutely critical information to know, for the restoration of the Church must be based on a clear understanding of the ultimate source of the errors that have caused such devastation in the Church.



1. A Poor Knight - November 18, 2015

Well, its a good thing the SSPX never came to that conclusion themselves.

Oh, wait.

2. skeinster - November 18, 2015

Yet- it’s still an ecumenical council, like it or not. Trying to find a way for it not to be ( “John XXIII wasn’t really Pope!” ” It was pastoral, not doctrinal!”, etc.), so that it can be ignored seems like risky business.

Much more of a failure, if such could be, of the Holy Spirit than a papal election gone wrong. If you can rescind a whole council, how can you trust the previous ones? Sometimes, I think people don’t think this all the way through, in their frustration and anger.

It’s a vexed question, for sure.

Tantumblogo - November 18, 2015

I think the point that can be made is that the Council can be analyzed and criticized. There are certainly criticisms of much older councils – Florence failed to bring a lasting reunion between East and West, some of the Lateran councils accomplished very little, Chalcedon insisted on an excessively narrow definition of the nature of the Holy Trinity which precipitated Coptic schism that persists to this day. What I hope may happen is that the wall of sanctity around VII is broken, so it can be analyzed on a certain basis as other councils have. Sire has simply dug deeper in to history to establish marked contradictions between what modernists have been selling, and what the historical record really says, and used that to point up problems that have flowed from the Council. His are some of the harshest views of the Council I’ve ever read, but his analysis might also be the deepest. But he is not someone “outside” the Church. He has no connection to sedevacantists or similar groups.

I get your concern. I really do, even if my writing may seem that I’m somewhat blase’ about such matters. But I’ll throw out a contrary contention: has not refusal to examine the Council critically, and in depth (whether out of scruples or modernist fervor), helped many of these modernist notions seep deeper into the Church, and become much more difficult to counteract? It is a vexed question. There are great dangers in taking it apart paragraph by paragraph. My gut – which could be wrong – tells me that is less of a danger than standing pat and waiting for some distant day when the Church formally rules on these matters. I hold out no hope there will ever be a formal repudiation, the question is too fraught for that to happen, but I do think – pray – the Council will eventually be overcome by future Council(s) or papal statements that re-instill Doctrine, which will amount to a tacit if not formal repudiation of various elements.

It’s a very interesting book. I do think it worth reading, even if you disagree with the conclusions, I guarantee you will learn much about early Church belief.

skeinster - November 19, 2015

I hear you- it’s not the criticism, per se, it’s the total repudiation I worry about, because it’s a big step down a long, slippery slope that will lose people’s souls just as much as Modernism.

Tantumblogo - November 19, 2015

Yes, it’s a valid point. As I said in the post, 90% or so of VII is totally orthodox. That’s why saying “I accept/reject VII” are problematic, what exactly does that mean?

richardmalcolm1564 - November 19, 2015

Perhaps…we are really at risk for saddling the Council with too much import. For insisting that there are only two options – that the Council be a success, or that it was not a Council at all.

Yet even so weighty (and non-traditionalist) a voice as Cardinal Ratzinger has noted that not all ecumenical councils are successes – and that the final assessment of Vatican II has yet to be written. What was the practical import and legacy of, say, Vienne or Lateran V? Granted that neither of those had the *impact* of Vatican II, but there has never been a requirement, doctrinally, that a Council fail audibly with a *whimper*, as it were.

From another angle, we have the warning of Msgr. Joseph Fenton, the great American churchman and peritus at the Council, noting as far back as 1962: “It is possible that the council might act other than with the fullness of supernatural prudence. It is possible that, seen it this perspective, it may not be successful.”

Barring the Parousia, we have to think that the Church will pass a final judgment on Vatican II at some point in the future, either through papal declarations or another council, or some combination of both.

c matt - November 19, 2015

Even Bishop Fellay admits that the SSPX agrees with about 90% of V II documents, so it isn’t a question of repudiating V II in total. As you say, it will probably come as a “clarification” of the problematic 10%.

Man, what I wouldn’t give to have the SSPX completely regularized and Fellay as Pope.

c matt - November 19, 2015

by the way – typo in the main post it is with the nebulous, problematic, and even erroneous majority. I think you meant “minority.”

Brian - - November 19, 2015

Maybe it’s better to place it alongside the other Councils and see how it stacks up. WAY too much emphasis on this Council to the detriment of all that came before it. A very un-catholic approach.

It seems to me the purpose of V II was to rescind all PREVIOUS Councils and declare a new method for a new age. I don’t think anyone hides that intent.

I trust all the Councils, and I trust V II ionly nsofar as it is aligned with those Councils. If it aligns, fine. If it does not, not fine.

The frustration and anger comes from those who stand against those who propose that all previous Councils must bow down before everything in this new Council. That to remember the Council of Trent (for instance) is a “Trad” thing to do; an act of extremism.

Disconnecting modern Catholicism from our past through the vehicle of V II is an act of spiritual violence and it does make me angry. ALL Councils must act in concert with each other, with the Bible, with Tradition. Where they do not, they are suspect and it is a faithful thing to do to point out these disconnections from our Traditional Faith.

Tantumblogo - November 19, 2015

“It seems to me the purpose of V II was to rescind all PREVIOUS Councils and declare a new method for a new age. I don’t think anyone hides that intent.”

I don’t disagree with Skeinster that it gets tricky when one starts taking a “damn it all” approach to VII. I’m probably pretty close to that position, but not quite. It’s a mess. The problems need to be exposed, and in detail. But I cannot fix it.

Brian - - November 19, 2015

Your excerpt does not indicate a “damn it all approach” on my part. Not a bit. I am calling for some perspective. In truth, I think the “damn it all” approach is taken by those who have forgotten everything that happened before 1962. A Catholic must not do this. Catholics must remember and remain totally faithful to Tradition as the bulwark of their Faith. I think many Catholics today do not. I think they are the ones that have some ‘splainin’ to do. Not you or I.

I totally agree with richardmalcolm1564 (above). This is not a binary choice. Our Church does not rise or fall with whether everything in the Council was perfect and infallible. It is what it is, and as he reminded us, the story is in fact still being written.

How do we fix it? Ask Catholics to remember and honor our past. All of it.

If you will allow this link, it is an excellent guide for how to navigate in confusing and spiritually dangerous times, ensuring we remain faithful. It is really quite good. From CFN; Can We Recognize And Resist.


Tantumblogo - November 19, 2015

I wasn’t saying you had such an approach. I was agreeing with you.

3. Joseph D'Hippolito - November 19, 2015

To put the preaching function of the priest before the sacramental [i.e., the sacrificial nature of the Mass] is a monstrosity in antithesis to religious realities. Yet simply to condemn that error in itself would be to miss its true significance; the intention of the Council in teaching this was to move the Church towards a protestant concept of the ministry, a doctrine that rejects the sacramental office of the priest and substitutes a ministry of the word. That lead has been used by the modernists to promote an evangelical doctrine (in the sectarian sense of the word) that empties the priesthood of theological meaning.

I think the fact that, generally speaking, Catholic knowledge of and reverence for Scripture is far inferior to that of evangelical Protestants shows that the priest’s sacramental role was over-emphasized for most of Catholic history. Before Vatican II, Catholics were discouraged from reading Scripture because, allegedly, they couldn’t understand it and needed somebody to interpret it for them. Afterward, the level of knowledge about the fundamentals of the faith was so low that institutional collapse became inevitable. That’s what we’re seeing with Francis’ papacy.

If the Catholic Church canonized Scripture and is the only legitimate authority to interpret it, then its bishops had the responsibility for teaching and promoting a serious knowledge of the divine revelation found within, beyond catechisms. They failed. As a result, today’s bishops probably have no more knowledge about Scripture than what the lectionary requires them to know.

Sacraments, obviously, have great value as channels of grace but they’re not enough. They never have been. They never were intended to be! Mature Christians of all stripes need the kind of insight that intently studying Scripture provides. I’m not saying that every Catholic can be a full-fledged theologian. But one doesn’t have to be to understand the basics of the Gospel, the relationship between the NT and OT and the ultimate meaning of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension. When those responsible for teaching don’t have such knowledge, the chaos unfolding before our eyes results.

4. Guest - November 19, 2015

It gets worse. If Vatican II was a part of the ordinary magisterium, the Church has defected. If not, the people who most Catholics accept as authorithy have defected. We have been so clobbered by the idea that if we do not accept their authority we will go to hell that we must accept a man who continually, publically, unrepentantly broke the first commandment as a canonised saint. If JPII was any ordinary bishop we would reject him as a heretic and blasphemer and public apostate. But because we are so scared of schism that we overlook this and have to believe that he was a great saint because a man in a white cassock says so. All because we believe that these men have authority, regardless of their public errors and apperant faithlessness. The only true solution is to realise that they can’t be members of the Catholic hierarchy because they do not share the Catholic faith. I hope you don’t just dismiss this but see why a non-Catholic cannot hold office, even if the whole world recognises him as holding office. It doesn’t matter how many people believe what. Truth is truth even if no one believes it.

5. Tim - November 19, 2015

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: