Here Are the Vatican II Passages That the Church’s Enemies Demand We Accept

As Diane Montagna highlighted in her report on Francis’s apparently fraudulent promulgation of Traditionis Custodes, Rome’s battle over the Traditional Latin Mass continues to hinge on the question of whether Traditional Catholics “reject the Second Vatican Council”:

“Additionally, the report noted, some bishops fear a ‘division into two Churches’ and believe that groups attached to the Extraordinary Form ‘reject’ the Second Vatican Council. The report acknowledges that latter point this is ‘partly true’ but says that it ‘cannot be generalized.’ Here too, it adds, 'the bishop’s pastoral care has been decisive in calming agitated spirits and clarifying the thinking of some members of the stable groups.’”

As discussed in a recent article, one of the great ironies in Church history is the undeniable fact that many of those accusing Traditional Catholics of rejecting Vatican II are themselves guilty of rejecting the most important passages in the Council’s documents. This is, of itself, entirely sufficient to demonstrate that Traditional Catholicism’s most powerful enemies have no moral or doctrinal credibility whatsoever on these matters. The leaked report published by Diane Montagna provided yet another confirmation of this all-important reality.

Given the fact that many of Vatican II’s most ardent and powerful supporters generally reject key passages from the Council, though, we must ask what it is about the Council that they need Traditional Catholics to accept. The passages from Vatican II set forth below help provide a clear answer to that question, but to put those passages into perspective, it is worthwhile to consider the words of Pope Pius XI’s 1922 encyclical on the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio:

“Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.”

The pope wrote that God has given to the Catholic Church alone the mandate and right to teach with authority; the Church alone can secure the true peace of Christ. As such, there is no desirable “world order” other than one in which the truths of the Catholic Church have their fullest expression in families, communities, cities, and nations. But this stands in the way of those who want to establish a godless new world order.

The passages from Vatican II below are among the most important to the Church’s enemies precisely because they help overcome the clear ideas from Pius XI and so many of the other pre-Vatican II popes. In each of these passages, we can see seeds of a religion that can serve the godless world order.

In his closing address at Vatican II, Paul VI asserted that the Council had made peace with secular humanism, the religion of “man who makes himself God”:

“Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.”

One may be tempted to find another meaning for Paul VI’s clear words — after all, Catholicism is obviously opposed to secular humanism because our Faith puts God, rather than man, at the center of all things. However, almost all of the Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, supports Paul VI’s claim that the Council made peace with secular humanism. Here, for example, Gaudium et Spes stated that man is the center and crown of all things:

“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” (Gaudium et Spes, 12)

“Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family. At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable.” (Gaudium et Spes, 26)

These passages demonstrate that Paul VI was entirely accurate in stating that the Council charted a new path by adopting a humanism that makes man, rather than God, the center of all things.

In one of the most bizarre passages in the Council documents, Gaudium et Spes articulated our “sacred obligation” to esteem social necessities as important as the world becomes more unified, and draws closer to a “new humanity”:

“Let everyone consider it his sacred obligation to esteem and observe social necessities as belonging to the primary duties of modern man. For the more unified the world becomes, the more plainly do the offices of men extend beyond particular groups and spread by degrees to the whole world. But this development cannot occur unless individual men and their associations cultivate in themselves the moral and social virtues, and promote them in society; thus, with the needed help of divine grace men who are truly new and artisans of a new humanity can be forthcoming.” (Gaudium et Spes, 30)

Granted that it may be impossible for most sane readers to accurately discern the true meaning of this passage, it is evident that it involves something quite apart from the holy order that Catholicism can provide. Instead, a new, man-centered order must emerge, and Gaudium et Spes informed Catholics that they had a “sacred obligation” to go along with it.

Whereas Pius XI and other popes recognized that political life could be best established and preserved by respecting Christ the King, Gaudium et Spes preferred to rely on “an inward sense of justice and kindliness”:

“There is no better way to establish political life on a truly human basis than by fostering an inward sense of justice and kindliness, and of service to the common good, and by strengthening basic convictions as to the true nature of the political community and the aim, right exercise, and sphere of action of public authority.” (Gaudium et Spes, 73)

Along these lines, the final section of Gaudium et Spes dealt with setting up an agnostic international community to promote peace, and urged Catholics to fulfill their roles by cooperating with non-Catholics:

“Finally, it is very much to be desired that Catholics, in order to fulfill their role properly in the international community, will seek to cooperate actively and in a positive manner both with their separated brothers who together with them profess the Gospel of charity and with all men thirsting for true peace.” (Gaudium et Spes, 90)

Gone is the outdated notion that Catholics should promote the Great Commission; Gaudium et Spes heralded a new orientation toward man, promoting a globalist order that could take care of what the Church’s enemies consider to be our real needs.

The real obstacle for those who promote the godless world order is that Catholics know that we alone profess the unadulterated religion entrusted to the Church by God. In an attempt to overcome this Catholic conviction, Gaudium et Spes had to inform Catholics that they are joined with the rest of mankind in searching for truth and the solutions to the world’s problems:

“In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.” (Gaudium et Spes, 16)

This concept is repeated elsewhere in the Council documents, albeit with more subtlety. The Church’s enemies use these passages to place Catholicism on the same level with false religions and thereby undermine any arguments that Catholics must spread the true Faith to bring about true peace and goodness.

Catholics Must Promote the Spiritual and Moral Goods of Non-Christian Religions

Another method of putting Catholicism on the level of false religions was to emphasize the “merits” of non-Catholic religions. To this end, Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, directed Catholics to “recognize, preserve and promote” the spiritual and moral values of other religions:

“The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.” (Nostra Aetate, 2)

While it is true that Nostra Aetate was initially intended to deal solely with the Jewish religion — which provides the holy roots for Catholicism — the document also extends to all non-Christian religions. Unsurprisingly, Nostra Aetate did not provide any source from Catholic teaching to substantiate this new need to promote the moral “goods” of non-Catholic religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam.

Nostra Aetate continued by showing us how to honor and promote non-Christian religions, beginning with Buddhism and Hinduism:

“Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” (Nostra Aetate, 2)

From these words, one could scarcely glean the Catholic understanding that false religions lead souls away from God’s truth and, ultimately, to hell. One must ask: who benefits from this obfuscation? Is God honored when Catholics praise “religions” that offend Him? Are the adherents to these false religions helped when the leaders of the only true religion praise their erroneous beliefs? No, only the enemies of Catholicism — including Satan and the globalists — profit from the praise of non-Christian religions.

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.” (Nostra Aetate, 3)

Even though Muslims see Jesus as a prophet rather than God, Nostra Aetate assured us that they adore the same God as we do and wholeheartedly submit to His decrees. To this interesting viewpoint, Nostra Aetate added a call for us to “forget the past” as it relates to the Muslims:

“Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.” (Nostra Aetate, 3)

The unholy folly of this statement has become increasingly evident in recent decades, as even the woke elites are forced to relearn hard lessons about the “religion of peace” in formerly Christian nations with increasing Muslim populations.

Whereas relatively few Catholics have ever been seriously tempted to convert to Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam, the Church has always warned souls of the dangers of heretical Christian religions. Conversely, the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, took the approach of arguing that Protestant religions promote the life of grace and are indeed chosen by Christ as means of salvation:

“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)

If God actually uses these non-Catholic religions as means of salvation, how can Catholics dare criticize them? And if these Protestant religions are praiseworthy means of salvation, then why would souls think they need to follow the far more difficult practices of Catholicism?

Although the Church’s enemies insist that we accept other ideas from Vatican II, the passages above provide a clear picture of what matters most to them. According to the enemies of Traditional Catholicism, we must accept all of the passages that throw into question the Catholic Church’s entirely unique role of providing God’s grace and unadulterated truth throughout the world. These enemies show their diabolical intentions so clearly by rejecting those passages from the Council that rebuke their revolutionary attacks on the Faith.

In this year of the sixtieth anniversary of Vatican II, the time has come for a far greater awakening to the fundamental nature of the crisis in the Church. The passages above did not “cause” the crisis, but they and others like them have been used by the Church’s enemies to offend God, lead souls to hell, and cause inestimable harm in the world. God has permitted us to see how much evil has resulted from the wolves in Rome promoting passages like those above while they themselves have rejected the Vatican II passages that Traditional Catholics hold dearly. And so we should ask: if we will not defend the truths of the Catholic Faith against these wolves, then how can we expect that God will defend us from the hell that they are maliciously spreading in the name of His Church? Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Thanks for the heads up, ebby. As per usual, the cartoon network starts out with a lie in its first sentence. They then modify the lie in paragraph 2 by the modifying term, “apparent.”

Not a good way to start a long letter that is “apparently” filled with false innuendo, lies and fantasy.

And you still believe Clinton when he said: “I did not have sex with that woman.”

And you still believe Clinton when he said: “I did not have sex with that woman.”

Sure. He was talking about Hillary and addressing Monica. "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." It was a backhanded way of confirming the Webb Hubbell rumors.

6 posted on 07/08/2025 10:29:19 PM PDT by kawhill (On his headstone read: DNP. Listed as questionable, day-to-day. I guess he was a baseball player.)

Most of Vatican II is an outdated Catholic Woodstock. It’s a pastoral council that was meant to take on modern problems and was very much of its time. By the time the Council was finished, the liberals in the Church went far beyond anything that is actually written in the Council documents. I think Frankie may have been the last gasp of that “we are the world” happy clappy form of Catholicism and things will get gradually better. But it will take a long time. Or the Second Coming might be near and that will fix everything.

7 posted on 07/09/2025 2:31:25 AM PDT by Trump_Triumphant (“They recognized Him in the breaking of the Bread”)

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.