St. Anthony Messenger's special issue on Vatican II strikingly confirms Vatican II's real meaning and teaching

St. Anthony Messenger is one of the largest Novus Ordo publications in the country, a “Franciscan” magazine with many lay-contributors, which operates with full “ecclesiastical approval” by the Vatican II sect. In November, 2005, St. Anthony Messenger published a special issue all about Vatican II. Bro. Michael got around to paging through it recently and came across some very interesting articles and quotations. What these quotations and articles that Bro. Michael came across show is how ridiculous it is for people to argue that Vatican II didn’t contradict traditional Catholic teaching or that Vatican II didn’t really mean what people like ourselves say it meant. The approved publications of the Vatican II sect, such as St. Anthony Messenger, bluntly admit exactly what Vatican II really taught; and, disgustingly, they are ecstatic about it:

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

Has Renee misunderstood Vatican II? Of course not. As our article on The Heresies in Vatican II shows, Unitatis Redintegratio affirmed that all baptized professing “Christians” are in communion with the Church and have a right to the name Christian, while not mentioning anything about the necessity for them to convert to the Catholic faith for salvation.

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

This is directly contradicted by traditional teaching, of course:

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

Not quoted here, but after teaching the heresy listed above, Vatican II proceeds to assert in the same paragraph that the communities described are also means of salvation. Following this teaching of Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all taught that we shouldn’t convert Protestants and schismatics. They also engaged in interreligious prayer with them at their non-Catholic temples. Considering all of this, it’s undeniable what Vatican II taught; Renee’s summary was right on the mark.

Michael J. Daley, “The Council’s 16 Documents” St. Anthony Messenger, Nov. 2005, p. 15: “Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) desires the restoration of union, not simply a return to Rome, among all Christians. It admits that both sides were to blame for historical divisions and gives guidelines for ecumenical activities.”

This means that the Protestants and schismatics weren’t at fault for leaving the Catholic Church; both sides were to blame.   Vatican II indeed teaches this by this astounding statement:

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

One must carefully consider this statement to get the full impact of its malice. (We’ve just added it to our article on the heresies of Vatican II.) Without any clarification or qualification given, Vatican II issues a general statement and excuses of the sin of separation (i.e. heresy and schism) all who, having been born into Protestant and schismatic communities, grow up in them “believing in Christ.” This is incredibly heretical. It would mean that one could not accuse any Protestant of being a heretic, no matter how anti-Catholic he is, if he had been born into such a sect!

Michael J. Daley, “The Council’s 16 Documents” St. Anthony Messenger, Nov. 2005, p. 15: “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) revolutionizes the Church’s relationship with other world religions, especially Judaism, by admitting that they too possess truth and holiness. It repudiates any anti-Semitism and the notion that Jews are guilty for the death of Jesus.”

Is Mr. Daley exaggerating? Of course not. As proven in our article on Vatican II, Nostra Aetate (Vatican II’s declaration on non-Christian religions) specifically teaches that Jews are not to be looked upon as “having been rejected by God,” while the Catholic Church infallibly teaches just the opposite at the Council of Florence: all who reject Christ the Church rejects.

Scott Appleby, “A U.S. Gift to the Council,” St. Anthony Messenger, Nov. 2005, p. 34: “The Council disavowed the notion that ‘error has no rights’ in favor of the idea that human beings always have rights… In this declaration, the Church officially relinquished any ambition to grant full civil rights in a Catholic-majority state only to those who proclaim ‘correct belief,’ or Catholic orthodoxy.’”

Remember, it’s Catholic teaching that only Catholics should have the full civil right to profess their religion publicly. Hence, Mr. Appleby is bluntly admitting that Vatican II “relinquished” traditional Catholic teaching in this area. One could continue with other examples, but the flavor of this issue should be clear.

What’s most distressing in considering these examples is how enthusiastic these people are for the new Vatican II religion. Sadly, they are heretics devoid of the true Catholic Faith, which comes from Christ and was given to the apostles. They are, unfortunately, now members of a man-made sect which has repudiated the teaching of Jesus Christ. They are members of the Counter-Church, the non-Catholic Vatican II sect, and have fully understood and applied its evil teachings in rejecting traditional Catholic teaching.