Posted on 07/02/2025 4:16:24 PM PDT by ebb tide
In his famous “1974 Declaration,” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left no doubt about how he viewed the Council at which he had played an important role:
“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which derived from it.”
Archbishop Lefebvre spent the remaining decades of his life trying to counteract the evils that liberal theologians and clerics were promoting in the name of Vatican II. Despite his unwavering opposition to the innovations of the Council, he also recognized that Traditional Catholics accept many ideas from the Vatican II documents that have been completely rejected by the Council’s most vocal proponents. Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized this point in his May 10, 1988 conference at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet (Paris) regarding negotiations with Rome prior to the episcopal consecrations:
“Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium, which deals with the Magisterium of the Church, no.25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of the doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph, which expresses traditional doctrine.”
The paragraph in question from Lumen Gentium (discussed more fully below) speaks of the need for the Catholic Faith to be “religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” This is in perfect harmony with what Archbishop Lefebvre argued against those liberals who insisted that they were following Vatican II by interpreting the Faith in ways that differed from what the Church had always taught. For this reason, Archbishop Lefebvre could rightly say that the Lumen Gentium paragraph “condemns them, not us.”
Some of the Council’s passages condemn the ideas that liberals often attribute to Vatican II’s documents because the conservative passages were added to counteract the liberal ideas in the documents, and it is entirely legitimate to cite those passages today against the liberal abuses carried out in the name of the Council.
Those who have seriously studied Vatican II can likely understand why some of the Council’s passages condemn the ideas that liberals often attribute to Vatican II’s documents: many of the documents reflect a compilation of generally unharmonized ideas layered upon each other by both the conservative and liberal participants of the Council. Because the conservative passages were added to counteract the liberal ideas in the documents, it is entirely legitimate to cite those passages today against the liberal abuses carried out in the name of the Council.
As demonstrated below, we can use these anti-liberal passages to piece together a complete rebuke of the Vatican II revolution that has caused so much turmoil for the Church and world. The point of the exercise is not to “defend Vatican II” but rather to condemn the liberals with the documents which they view as the most important and authoritative sources of their attacks on orthodoxy. Although this approach does not seek to resolve the question of what Leo XIV or a future pope should do with the Council, it should make it clear that those who use the Council to promote anti-Catholic errors are condemned by Vatican II itself.
We can see this clearly by considering the following ideas from Vatican II that oppose the most prevalent errors promoted by those who have used the Council to perpetuate the crisis in the Church: Catholic tradition must be faithfully guarded; there is no salvation outside the Church (absent invincible ignorance); Catholics must follow the Faith to be saved; human dignity requires men to seek the truth and adhere to it; and the Traditional Latin Mass should be preserved and fostered.
Catholic Tradition Must Be Faithfully Guarded
Especially during Francis’s hostile occupation of the papacy, we have seen the defenders of the Vatican II revolution argue that Traditional Catholics are wrong for adhering to what the Church consistently taught prior to the Council. However, several passages from Vatican II insist that Catholic Tradition must be faithfully guarded. We can see this beginning with the passage from Lumen Gentium cited by Archbishop Lefebvre above:
“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 25)
The Council was even more clear on this point in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum:
“Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. . . But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 10)
If one were to attribute the underlined portion of this quotation to Archbishop Lefebvre, many followers of the Vatican II revolution would surely condemn it as “rigid” and “backward.” And yet it is simply what Vatican II itself taught in opposition to those who have been the most vocal defenders of Vatican II.
Those who tell us that the Council changed what the Church has always taught about the need for souls to be Catholic are condemned by these passages from Vatican II.
Returning to Lumen Gentium, the Council even “proposed again” the decrees of prior councils, including the Council of Trent, which is so inimical to liberals:
“This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 51)
Finally, we can see that the Council charged the bishops with guarding Catholic doctrine:
“The bishops should present Christian doctrine in a manner adapted to the needs of the times, that is to say, in a manner that will respond to the difficulties and questions by which people are especially burdened and troubled. They should also guard that doctrine, teaching the faithful to defend and propagate it. In propounding this doctrine they should manifest the maternal solicitude of the Church toward all men whether they be believers or not.” (Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church, Christus Dominus, 13)
As such, those liberal Catholics who condemn Traditional Catholics for adhering to what the Church taught prior to Vatican II are themselves condemned by the Council they respect above all others.
There is No Salvation Outside the Church (Absent Invincible Ignorance)
In furtherance of false ecumenism, liberals have claimed that Vatican II “corrected" what the Church had always taught about the need for all souls to belong to the Catholic Church. However, we can see three passages from the Council (among others) that reiterate what the Church has always taught. The Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, Ad Gentes, even clarified that the possibility of God saving those who are "invincibly ignorant” does not eliminate the “sacred duty” to convert souls to the Catholic Church:
“This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, ‘who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim. 2:45), ‘neither is there salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it. Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.” (Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, Ad Gentes, 7)
Lumen Gentium also stated the necessity of the belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation:
“This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 14)
Finally, it is worth noting on this point that even the Council’s Decree of Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, opposed the common error among liberals that Baptism alone suffices for salvation:
“Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.” (Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 22)
While it is true that liberals attempt to read these passages as allowing for anti-Catholic interpretations, the reality is that they were included in the Vatican II documents to preserve what the Church had always taught. Accordingly, those who tell us that the Council changed what the Church has always taught about the need for souls to be Catholic are condemned by these passages from Vatican II.
Lumen Gentium clearly stated that Catholics who fail to adhere to the Faith in its entirety will not only lose their salvation but will be more severely judged.
Catholics Must Follow the Faith to Be Saved
One of the most tragic realities of the ongoing crisis in the Church is a pervasive indifferentism characterized by cafeteria-Catholicism. However, Lumen Gentium clearly stated that Catholics who fail to adhere to the Faith in its entirety will not only lose their salvation but will be more severely judged:
“They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily’ manner and not ’in his heart.’ All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 14)
As such, those clerics who have permitted, and even encouraged, the plague of cafeteria-Catholicism are leading souls to hell, and are condemned by Vatican II itself.
Human Dignity Requires Men to Seek the Truth and Adhere to It
For Archbishop Lefebvre and other critics of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae was arguably the Council’s most revolutionary document because it asserted a right to religious liberty based on human dignity. Even so, Dignitatis Humanae included the following defense of Catholic truth on this topic:
“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons — that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility — that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.” (Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, 2)
This passage condemns those clerics and theologians who rely on Vatican II to falsely assert that human dignity requires that we leave people in their errors. Because the Catholic Church has been entrusted by God with the mission of teaching all souls to follow the unadulterated Faith, it would fail in its mission if it were to even remotely suggest that the concept of human dignity allows souls to remain in their errors. Those who pretend otherwise — especially those who promote the Synodal “accompaniment” of sinners — are condemned by Vatican II.
Therefore, in this year of the sixtieth anniversary of the Council, one of the greatest services we can render the Church would be to use the words of Vatican II to emphatically condemn the Vatican II revolution.
The Traditional Latin Mass Should Be Preserved and Fostered
As discussed in a previous article, the Vatican II document on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, in no way envisioned that the Traditional Latin Mass would be replaced by a new form of the Mass that failed to conform to the express requirements set forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Moreover, Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that the Church should preserve and foster the traditional rites of the Mass:
“Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4)
As such, those who insist that the Traditional Latin Mass ought to be abolished are condemned by the Vatican II document that they mistakenly believe to be supporting their heinously anti-Catholic viewpoint.
If Pope Leo XIV actually applied the words of the Council as set forth above, he could use Vatican II to justify the complete overturn of the Vatican II revolution that has plagued the Church and world for six decades. As much as we should pray that he would do so, though, we do not have to wait on him or another pope to use Vatican II’s own words to condemn the Vatican II revolution. Indeed, because these passages are consistent with what the Church has always taught, they carry far greater magisterial weight than those passages that are not clearly consistent with past teaching. Therefore, in this year of the sixtieth anniversary of the Council, one of the greatest services we can render the Church would be to use the words of Vatican II to emphatically condemn the Vatican II revolution. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Ping
Hermeneutic of continuity and not break is simply the only faithful way to recieve the council. Interpret its teachings through the lense of tradition first.
Or just ignore that council.
Every fruit from it has been rotten.
I don’t think its possible to pretend it never happened.
That’s not what I said.
It should be recognized as a legitimate council hijacked by modernists to this very day.
According to Malachy, the last pope was Francis- this next pope is the one that will be in charge before the end times- in the basilica I think it is, there are 111 portraits and one left before the spots run out of room. Malachy predicted there would only be 111 before the end times.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YIwj2zt8VIA&pp=ygUTc3QgbWFsYWNoeSBwcm9waGVjeQ%3D%3D
In this little booklet, Fr. Franz Schmidberger explains how the Second Vatican Council brought about the destruction of Catholic bastions by:
The Pope could simply say that VII should be interpreted only in light of authentic teaching, and that would take care of the matter.
Source: link
best tell finnerty on newsmax then- he said same thing the video said- 1 spot left, and showed it-
Then they added several more "medallions" -- maybe 7 or 8. (There is a picture on the Internet showing +Francis' picture and at least two more empty "medallions" on the wall; maybe 4, but there's a column in the way.) But there is room on the wall for quite a few more medallions after those; I would assume that's where the "25" number comes from.
K thanks for the clarification- the finnerty show and the video i posted made it seem like only 1 left
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.