|Recent Featured Videos and Articles||Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted||How To Avoid Sin||The Antichrist Identified!||What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians||Why So Many Can't Believe||“Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists||Amazing Evidence For God||News Links|
|Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed||Steps To Convert||Outside The Church There Is No Salvation||E-Exchanges||The Holy Rosary||Padre Pio||Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups||Help Save Souls: Donate|
Important e-exchange on the authority of Vatican II for those who accept the Vatican II Antipopes
[Before I comment on your letter, I want to make it clear for those who may be new to these issues that we are not defending the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II was a totally heretical, wicked, false, invalid Council which endorsed false religions such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism and taught many other heresies against the Catholic Faith. What we are discussing and pointing out here, however, is that one cannot reject that false Council (as every Catholic should) while he accepts as a true Pope the man who imposed it, Paul VI. Either one accepts Paul VI and Vatican II or rejects them both. So here we are discussing the ways by which “traditionalists” attempt to be able to reject Vatican II and its heresies while accepting the complete apostate Antipope Paul VI as a Pope.] Regarding your first point, that John XXIII’s statement at the opening speech of Vatican II proves that it is not infallible, this is simply not true. John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the Council that Vatican II was to be a pastoral council. Here is what John XXIII actually said:Here we see that John XXIII did not say that Vatican II would be a pastoral council. He said that it would reflect the Church’s Magisterium, which is predominantly pastoral in character. So, despite the incredibly widespread myth, the truth is that John XXIII never even called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible. Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech at Vatican II does not actually matter. This is because it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept him. EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF V-2 ENDS WITH THESE WORDS: This is absolutely infallible and binding language. There is no doubt about it. And this is why your new “Pope,” as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated the following: This is a very important quotation that proves a very important point. In fact, one almost couldn’t ask for a better quote confirming the conclusion of our article Was Vatican II infallible?. Ratzinger is confirming that, if Antipope Paul VI was a Pope, Vatican II is an ecumenical Council that must be accepted just as Trent and Vatican I. So, either you accept Vatican II and: its endorsement of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam; its teaching that non-Catholics can receive Communion; its heretical teaching on religious liberty; etc; or, as a Catholic must, you reject these heresies and correctly conclude that the obviously evil infiltrator - the ephod wearing Paul VI – was not a true Pope since he was a heretic at the time of the election. It is completely illogical, anti-Catholic, anti-Magisterial and inconsistent for one, once he is aware of these facts, to insist that the Vatican II Antipopes are true Popes while he rejects the Council they have authoritatively imposed with the fullness of their “apostolic authority.” That is why Ratzinger, in the same book, while addressing the position of Lefebvre (the position of the SSPX), correctly points out that it is illogical: People need to stop the nonsense. People need to stop asserting the false position (that people can reject Vatican II while accepting Paul VI), which contradicts Papal Infallibility and keeps people under the authority of invalid Antipopes.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.