REVEALED! THE VATICAN MASTERMINDED 9-11

Now I hear it was the Vatican!!!

You knew the Pope was Jewish didn't you?

If the Second Vatican Council was, as many say, doctrinal, and thus requires our obedience, did it not impose upon Catholic States to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion?

Vatican II actually didn't do that. The Spanish bishops got amendments into the text that weakly reaffirm the traditional teaching about State recognition of Catholicism ("Religious freedom ... leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ"). Those that had been pushing for secularization then simply ignored the letter of the Council and ran with its 'spirit'.

ping

It's amazing to me that conservative liberal commentators like Patrick Madrid don't realize how they play right into the hands of those that want to shape the culture against Catholicism.

In general, they dicker about in political issues (basically as Republicans) as if politics is actually about politics and not just a mask for the ultimate religious battle that is going on between Good and Evil. And they adopt the "conservative line" as if the Republican party is actually conservative as it is portrayed in the public sentiment and not what it actually is. Knowingly or unknowingly it is a leavening system for liberalizing the country and the world.

Pope St. Pius X described this system perfectly in his encyclical condemning the Modernists: Pascendi Domini Gregis. It can be applied to the culture outside of the Church as well....

"27. Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them -- especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them.

G. K. Chesterton explained it also so well and humorously....

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types--the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution."

Yes of course we're going to have all sorts of accusations flying around to obscure the truth. And the crazier we can make them ALL out to be, the more we can ignore the actual manipulations of the culture.

President Bush is unfortunately just lying when he says, "We're talking about people who have hijacked a religion of peace." Islam is not a religion of peace, it is being changed into a religion of peace (secular peace) by the forces that are doing evil's bidding. All you have to do is read the papal bulls calling for the first Crusades.

He and his brother Jeb also gave the weakest stand possible on Terri Schiavo. As Mel Gibson commented, it sure is amazing how a judge can stop a president and a governor and the entire congress in favor of their own judicial activism, but if his activism involves putting the 10 commandments in a public place, he's gone in less than a week.

Those are just some examples that I'm using to illustrate the broader point. Now as far as the establishment of a One World Religions goes. Again I cite Pope St. Pius X...

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the [French] Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

So, taking that and a good reading of the signs of the times, Is there an effort to establish a "one world religion?" Answer; Yes. Is it the Vatican? The current heirarchy seems to play both sides of the issue. Sort of progressive and conservative.

All of that is true regardless of who orchestrated the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The end result is to make a looney sounding comparison between 911 and the establishment of a one-World religion. So, the establishment of a one world religion is also thrown on the ash heap of conspiracy theories. The best place to hide a lie is between two truths. The best place to hide the truth is between two lies. Like Christ being hung between two theives. It's guilt by association.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Hardly.

Christ made it very clear that membership in His Church is necessary for salvation. It is His command, not mine, that every human creature is subject to Him and bound by His Laws. He instructed St. Peter and the Apostles to "go and teach all nations" - not to drag everyone kicking and screaming to baptismal fonts - that's "forced-feeding" which, as I said, I'm not talking about.

I'm talking about the true liberty of human society "which does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion,[...]but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law."
(-from Libertas Praestantissimum of Leo XIII.)

Prior to Vatican II the Church commanded that secular leaders make and base their laws on God's. Simply speaking, I'm not advocating a law which says "You must believe in God or face imprisionment" but rather "You are not entitled to live in an ungodly way." I'm not talking about a law that requires all to worship God in the Catholic religion but rather laws which uphold Catholic principles and morality.

ping to 45

Re: "God does not want slaves."

No He doesn't but He does want servants, those who serve willingly. The problem comes with those who will not serve. Peace is still possible with those who resist in a civil manner; that does not wage war against those who do seek His rule. Alas the Feminist the militant Homosexual, the pornographer as well as the rest of the culture add to that much of business and government in our modern society and we have just what we see. A totally corrupt society that murders the most innocent among us to the god of pleasure, crooked politicians and power drunk judges. TV, movies and even the schools that promote a sexual lifestyle that will shorten your life and destroy any chance of peaceful harmony in your family.

Man is incompetent at self rule. We need God or we die.

Vatican II actually didn't [impose upon Catholic States to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion]

This is from 'The Biography Marcel Lefebvre' by Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais:
"In implementing the council, the Holy See had its Nuncios ask Catholic countries to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion; in Colombia as in Spain, the constitution was changed in this way, in spite of the heads of states publicly expressing their disgust at such a measure. In Valais, Bishop Adam wrote to the Catholics in his diocese asking them to approve the suppression of the article in the Valaisian Constitution recognizing the Catholic religion. The vote on March 17, 1974, ratified the suppression of this article."

("Religious freedom ... leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ").

And it also declared:
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

IOW, each individual is his own authority. No one can or should require anything contrary to what a person has deemed right for himself. How does this not obliterate the rights of Christ completely out of society? How is anything other than a denial of a Supreme Authority?

Those that had been pushing for secularization then simply ignored the letter of the Council and ran with its 'spirit'.

There's a tendency to forget that those who ran with the 'spirit' are those who wrote the letter.

In implementing the council, the Holy See had its Nuncios ask Catholic countries to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion; in Colombia as in Spain, the constitution was changed in this way, in spite of the heads of states publicly expressing their disgust at such a measure. In Valais, Bishop Adam wrote to the Catholics in his diocese asking them to approve the suppression of the article in the Valaisian Constitution recognizing the Catholic religion. The vote on March 17, 1974, ratified the suppression of this article.

Yep - see, there's nothing about Vatican II requiring any of it. It was the initiative of the Holy See. If the concordats of the Holy See prove the meaning of "Vatican II", I say that the unchanged concordat with the Dominican Republic shows that you are mistaken:

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity ... The Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion continues to be the religion of the Dominican Nation and will enjoy the rights and prerogatives which pertain to it in conformity with Divine Law and Canon Law. (source)

There's a tendency to forget that those who ran with the 'spirit' are those who wrote the letter.

Hardly. There were 2000 bishops at the Council, but there certainly weren't 2000 of them hanging around afterwards to direct the Secretariat of State. Here is what the bishops at the Council were told they were decreeing, by the official spokesman for the drafting commission of the Declaration on Religious Freedom:

As regards the substance of the problem, the point should be made that, while the papal documents up to Leo XIII insisted more on the moral duty of public authorities toward the true religion, the recent Supreme Pontiffs, while retaining this doctrine, complement it by highlighting another duty ... The text presented to you today recalls more clearly the duties of the public authority towards the true religion; from which it is manifest that this part of the doctrine has not been overlooked. (same source)

IOW, each individual is his own authority. No one can or should require anything contrary to what a person has deemed right for himself. How does this not obliterate the rights of Christ completely out of society? How is anything other than a denial of a Supreme Authority?

This logically leads to the claim that we should compel pagans to the faith and forcibly baptize the children of unbelievers.

The Council rightly recognized that "Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer. ... the affirmation: religious and moral error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because toleration of them is in itself immoral, is not valid absolutely and unconditionally. Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality" (Pius XII, Address to Italian Jurists, Dec. 6, 1953). The conclusions of the Declaration on Religious Freedom follow logically from the recognition that the coercive power of the State has as its function only protecting the common good or a "just public order" (DH §7; CCC 2109): safeguard of the rights of all citizens, adequate solicitude for genuine public peace, and proper guardianship of public morality, according to the requirements of the objective moral order. Actions which go beyond the purpose of the civil power are the circumstances in which God "would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false" - such actions are therefore unjust, and all men have a natural right to not suffer injustice from the State, even when this injustice is visited upon them in return for their own crimes and sins.

Prior to Vatican II the Church commanded that secular leaders make and base their laws on God's

She still does.

We might add that Archbishop Lefebvre would not be entitled to assume that "public peace" in Quanta Cura includes "public morality" in the sense intended by Vatican II, namely, as conforming to the "objective moral order." This can include both revealed moral principles as well as the natural law; in fact, Paul VI, the chief signatory of Dignitatis Humanae, reaffirmed this traditional doctrine in an allocution of 24 September 1970 to a congress of civil lawyers, to whom he asserted that human law must be based on the principles of "the divine law, natural and positive."

Look at the CDF Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. The arguments, which are explicitly directed towards civil rulers, are explicitly based on Revelation (§§ 2-4).

Yep - see, there's nothing about Vatican II requiring any of it. It was the initiative of the Holy See.

The initiative of the Holy See was undertaken as a means of implementing the Council. Sure, there was no explicit directive, but the initiative of the Holy See was in perfect keeping with the portion of HD I posted yesterday.

There's [hardly] a tendency to forget that those who ran with the 'spirit' are those who wrote the letter.

In this I was speaking in general terms and I regret not making that clear. There's a general consensus among conservative Catholics that the 'spirit of V2' was regrettably negative and that the "true meaning" of Vatican II (which has been mysteriously elusive) was quite the opposite. People who believe this forget that prelates who ran with this negative 'spirit' of the documents were the same who wrote them. How can one erroneously interpret something written by oneself? A tradition-minded bishop will implement the council correctly. A liberal-minded bishop will implement the council correctly, too. How? Because both traditional teachings and liberal errors are contained in the texts.

You quoted: "The text presented to you today recalls more clearly the duties of the public authority towards the true religion; from which it is manifest that this part of the doctrine has not been overlooked."

And it wasn't overlooked: "Religious freedom ... leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

But the rest of the document completely contradicts this!

This logically leads to the claim that we should compel pagans to the faith and forcibly baptize the children of unbelievers.

Not in the least. The State recognizing God and legislation based on Catholic morality and principle isn't the same as requiring conversion or baptism by force. People have free will. But the State was created by God and it cannnot remain indifferent on the question of religion. Does the the Dominican Republic force its citizens to convert?

Plainly speaking, one can't force another to believe in God, but one can protect society from violations of His Church's moral law. And in doing so, couldn't such a structure offer the happy possibility of conversions? As it is now, there's nothing outside of our parish doors which help a lost soul find his way Home. To say that there shouldn't be, is to completely reject the teachings on the Social Kingship of Christ.

Show me a Catholic who believes it should be held that all religions are equal and the false gods of the pagans and the One True God each have their place in society, and I'll show you an agnostic...perhaps even an atheist. One can't profess that there truly is above man a Supreme Authority, and then say that He and His laws must be barred from society.

There is absolutely nothing in the decree "Dignitatis Humanae" that prohibits either explicitly or implicitly "The State recognizing God and legislation based on Catholic morality and principle". To give some examples of legislation which does not infringe on religious freedom as enunciated in that document: all laws based on Catholic moral principles which according to DH §7 ('public morality') override religious freedom, laws establishing Catholic holy days as to be observed by all (as the concordat with Colombia in fact does, establishing various feasts of Our Lady as civil holidays), laws providing financial support to the Church, in short everything that Pius XI recommends in "Quas Primas" which - it may be noted - did not include forcible suppression of non-Catholics in the state:

When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power. The State is bound to extend similar freedom to the orders and communities of religious of either sex, who give most valuable help to the Bishops of the Church by laboring for the extension and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. By their sacred vows they fight against the threefold concupiscence of the world; by making profession of a more perfect life they render the holiness which her divine Founder willed should be a mark and characteristic of his Church more striking and more conspicuous in the eyes of all.
Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.

Now is there anything in "Dignitatis Humanae" prohibiting this? No.

The initiative of the Holy See was undertaken as a means of implementing the Council. And, if you believe that the 1970 Roman Missal was an accurate implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, I have a bridge to sell you.

There is absolutely nothing in the decree "Dignitatis Humanae" that prohibits either explicitly or implicitly "The State recognizing God and legislation based on Catholic morality and principle".

The thing about DH, and the documents of V2 in general, is that is doesn't prohibit explicitly or implicitly anything. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that V2 was quite a departure from prior councils in that it wasn't written in the form of creeds, canons or anathemas. It's rather difficult to know what Vatican II teaches by reading its documents.

So, no, I concede there was no implicit or explicit prohibiton on the State recognizing God and legislation based on Catholic morality and principle. However,

DH:
"If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice."

So, how can the gov't make this "effective in practice"? Again, no solution or suggestion is found in this declaration. But was the "initiative of the Holy See" a violation of DH?

And, if you believe that the 1970 Roman Missal was an accurate implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, I have a bridge to sell you.

Who's to say if it was or wasn't? For every change in the Missal which wasn't mentioned at all, there's some vague suggestion in SC which makes the inaccurate implementation seem completely accurate. The word "loopholes" comes to mind...

I'm pretty sure you'll agree that V2 was quite a departure from prior councils in that it wasn't written in the form of creeds, canons or anathemas.

True - the V2 documents were written more in the style of Papal Encyclicals, i.e., long and discursive.

So, no, I concede there was no implicit or explicit prohibiton on the State recognizing God and legislation based on Catholic morality and principle.

Yep. And in the Decree which actually bears more closely upon this question, Apostolicam Actuositatem, it says:

The apostolate in the social milieu, that is, the effort to infuse a Christian spirit into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community in which one lives, is so much the duty and responsibility of the laity that it can never be performed properly by others.

So, how can the gov't make this "effective in practice"? Again, no solution or suggestion is found in this declaration

I disagree. It's talking about the other statements in the declaration about the freedom to be given to non-Catholics to worship publicly, and saying they apply even where special recognition is given to Catholicism or a false religion.

there's some vague suggestion in SC which makes the inaccurate implementation seem completely accurate

It is simply impossible to reasonably interpret SC's permission for the vernacular as allowing an all-vernacular Mass, for instance. If you want to talk about unreasonable or out-of-context interpretations, they exist for all other Councils, too (think of the Orthodox insistence that the Councils of Constantinople I and Ephesus anathematize the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son). DH is, when examined carefully, clear that its teaching doesn't effect prior teaching by Leo XIII, Pius XI, etc. on the Social Kingship of Christ.

Was the initiative of the Holy See a violation of DH?

It's talking about the other statements in the declaration about the freedom to be given to non-Catholics to worship publicly, and saying they apply even where special recognition is given to Catholicism or a false religion.

Exactly. This is something out of line with constant Church teachings.

This:
It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exeise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.[3] The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.(DH)

Completely contradicts this:

From Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos:
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.

From Leo XIII Immortale Dei:
25. The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

26. And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.

It is simply impossible to reasonably interpret SC's permission for the vernacular as allowing an all-vernacular Mass, for instance.

Well, didn't both Paul VI and John Paul II approve? I know Paul VI gave permission for the Divine Office to be recited in the vernacular. Now, the laity were/are not obligated to say the Divine Office, but Priests and Bishops were (are?). So if Mass is a part of their obligation, wouldn't it logically follow that Mass was given permission to be recited in the vernacular, too?

When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.

Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed. ... However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality. These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. (DH 2, 7)

See the difference?

Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed

Again, DH does not endorse this. It says that states have a duty towards the true religion, in accordance with "traditional Catholic doctrine", that "special civil recognition" may be "given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society" without interfering with religious freedom, and that religious freedom is to be limited by what is necessary to guard public morality, to preserve a genuine public peace (as opposed to a naturalist public peace), and to preserve the rights of citizens from things such as "any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people" (think of various unsavory non-Catholic propaganda, all of which could be banned under DH - i.e., Jack Chick).

Again: or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true

Consider DH 13: "In human society and in the face of government the Church claims freedom for herself in her character as a spiritual authority, established by Christ the Lord, upon which there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going out into the whole world and preaching the Gospel to every creature." Isn't that a demand that the civil authority recognize this truth about the Church?

Well, didn't both Paul VI and John Paul II approve?

The Pope is not bound by the authority of a synod, even an ecumenical one, in matters of discipline. So if Mass is a part of their obligation, wouldn't it logically follow that Mass was given permission to be recited in the vernacular, too? No, that doesn't follow logically at all. The Liturgy of the Hours is not the Mass.

You may find these interesting: Pius IX, Vatican II, and Religious Liberty, John Courtney Murray: A Reliable Interpreter of Dignitatis Humanae?.

I KNEW IT!!!!