P.1 Promoting the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the chief concerns of the Second Sacred Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican.

P.3 But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church — developments for which, at times, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot impute the sin of separation to those at present who are born into these communities and are instilled therein with Christ’s faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Undoubtedly 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 and sometimes serious obstacles to full ecclesiastical communion. These the ecumenical movement is striving to overcome. Nevertheless, all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. They, therefore, have a right to be honored by the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church. Moreover, some, even very many, of the most significant elements or endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church herself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, along with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements. The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.

P.6 Christ summons the Church, as she goes her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth. Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit itself of faith), these should be appropriately rectified at the proper moment. [Ed. footnote: It is remarkable, indeed, for an Ecumenical Council to admit the possible deficiency of previous doctrinal formulations.]

P.8 In certain special circumstances, such as in prayer services “for unity” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.

As for common worship, however, it may not be regarded as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. Such worship depends chiefly on two principles: it should signify the unity of the Church; it should provide a sharing in the means of grace. The fact that it should signify unity generally rules out common worship. Yet the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends it.

P.9 Catholics need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the distinctive doctrines of our separated brethren... Of great value for this purpose are meetings between the two sides, especially for discussion of theological problems, where each can deal with the other on an equal footing.

P.15 Although these (Eastern schismatic) churches are separated from us, they possess true sacraments, above all — by apostolic succession — the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in a very close relationship. Therefore, given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, some worship in common is not merely possible but it is recommended.

P.16 To remove any shadow of doubt, then, this sacred Synod solemnly declares that the (schismatic) churches of the East, while keeping in mind the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to their own disciplines, since these are better suited to the temperament of their faithful and better adapted to foster the good of souls. Although it has not always been honored, the strict observance of this traditional principle is among the prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

P.21 A love, veneration, and near cult of the Sacred Scriptures lead our (Protestant) brethren to a constant and expert study of the sacred text. For the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to Jew first and then to Greek” (Rom. 1:16). Calling upon the Holy Spirit, they seek in these Sacred Scriptures God as He speaks to them in Christ....

Mortalium Animos — Pope Pius XI: ...It will be opportune to expound and to reject a certain false opinion which lies at the root of this question and of that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of Christian churches. Those who favor this view constantly quote the words of Christ, “That they may be one...And there shall be one fold and one shepherd...” in the sense that Christ thereby merely expressed a desire or a prayer which as yet has not been granted. The Church, they say, is of its nature divided into sections composed of several churches...which still remain separated, and although holding in common some articles of doctrine, nevertheless differ concerning the remainder; that all these enjoy the same right... controversies must be set aside... These... who strive for the union of the churches would appear to pursue the noblest of ideals in promoting charity among all Christians. But... John himself, the Apostle of love, strictly forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you” (John 2:10). ...it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it... it is chiefly by the bond of one Faith that the disciples of Christ are to be united.

Cantate Domino — Pope Eugene IV: The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches, that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews arid heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Fourth Lateran Council: There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.

Satis Cognitum — Pope Leo XIII: God indeed even made the Church a society far more perfect than any other. For the end for which the Church exists is as much higher than the end of other societies as divine grace is above natural, as immortal blessings are above the passing things of the earth. Therefore, the Church is a society divine in its origin, supernatural in its end and in the means proximately adapted to the attainment of that end; but it is a human community inasmuch as it is composed of men. For this reason we find it called in Holy Scriptures by names indicating a perfect society.

Lamentabili — Pope St. Pius X: Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith, everything must be beleved that is contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal teaching (Vatican I).

...the following propositions...are condemned and proscribed: Error 53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to perpetual evolution.

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 1101. It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part, in the services of non-Catholics.

Satis Cognitum — Pope Leo XIII: The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, certainly did not reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain part of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical doctrines who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole series of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, taint the real and simple Faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition... From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy.” “We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism,” writes St. Jerome: “Heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church.” In which judgment St. John Chrysostom agrees: “I say and protest,” he writes, “that it is as wrong to divide the Church as it is to fall into heresy.” Hence as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. “There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism...there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church....” From a variety of interpretations a variety of beliefs is necessarily generated; hence come controversies, dissensions, and wranglings such as have arisen in the past, even in the first ages of the Church. Irenaeus writes of heretics as follows: “Admitting the Holy Scriptures they distort the interpretations.” And Augustine: “Heresies have arisen, and certain perverse views ensnaring souls and precipitating them into the abyss, only when the Scriptures, good in themselves, are not properly understood”.

Mediator Dei — Pope Pius XII: More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the Supreme Teaching Authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say: “Lex credendi, legem statuit supplicandi: let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.”

(P.2) “From ancient times down to the present, there has existed among diverse peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human life; at times, indeed, recognition can be found of a Supreme Divinity and of a Supreme Father too. Such a perception and such a recognition instill the lives of these people with a profound religious sense. Religions bound up with cultural advancement have struggled to reply to these same questions with more refined concepts and in more highly-developed language.

“Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.

“Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions... The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of the Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture.”

(P.3) “Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men... Consequently, they prize the moral life, and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting?”

(P.4) “As this sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it recalls the spiritual bond linking the people of the New Covenant with Abraham’s stock.

“Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred Synod wishes to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit above all of biblical and theological studies, and of brotherly dialogues.

“Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures.”

In fact, however, these views do follow from Holy Scripture, as pointed out by St. Bruno in the next column. What greater curse could fall upon a nation than to hand down from generation to generation a religion and heritage which is based upon rejection of the true Messiah?

The Council Fathers also tried to add the phrase, “or guilty of deicide“ immediately after the words “should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God,“ but met with much opposition. It was decided to eliminate the word deicide from the Christian dictionary.

In opposition to the “spiritual patrimony,” which, according to the Vatican II decree, Christians are supposed to have in common with Jews, are the following quotations from the Talmud, the Jewish “holy book:”

“And be it known that Christian people who follow Jesus, although their teachings vary, are all worshippers of idols” (Perusch, 78c).

Hinduism, Buddhism and many other Eastern religions are pantheistic by nature. In opposition to the praises accorded to these religions by the Vatican II decree are these Canons of the First Vatican Council in the First Chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith:

“1. If anyone denies that there is one true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

“2. If anyone dares to assert that nothing exists except matter: let him be anathema.

“3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.

“4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the Divine Essence becomes all things by a manifestation or evolution of itself; or, finally, that God is a universal and indefinite being, which by determining itself makes up the universe which is diversified into genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.”

It should be remarked that in no way can it be said that the followers of these religions make a “loving, trusting flight toward God;” the gods they worship are pantheistic deities — devils in reality — and, ultimately, themselves. What greater insult can there be offered to the true God than the worship of man, which is the ultimate purpose of the religious practices of Hinduism and many other Eastern religions?

The numerical references of the following refer to the Syllabus of Errors, by which Pope Pius IX condemned and proscribed the following errors:

“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

“16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation and reach eternal salvation in any form of religious worship.

“17. Good hopes, at least, must be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who in no way belong to the true Church of Christ.”

It should also be pointed out that the Moslems or Mohammedans, who, according to the Vatican II decree, “prize the moral life,” have been notorious for their habit of murdering Christians throughout history. The following quotations give the Church's teaching concerning the Jews:

“...the following propositions...are condemned and proscribed:

“Error #60. Christian doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal” (Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane — Syllabus of Modernist Errors).

If the purpose of the Second Vatican Council was to be realized, that is — to bring about a compromise union with other religions and with Protestants in particular, then the Fathers of the Council would have to issue decrees making their new religion resemble those of the Protestants more closely. This they did by issuing the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. This document serves to open the door for new interpretations as well as for varying versions of Scripture — all of which has already led to the multitude of errors and contradictory beliefs we see in Protestantism.

First, the Vatican II decree declares that the Revelation contained in Tradition is evolving:

(P.8) “The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. [Ed. note: “Sure charism of truth” wrongly attributes personal infallibility to all bishops. This is certainly not true.] Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her.”

Nearly the same thing is said of Scripture, where the Vatican II decree suggests that the Church is continually making new judgments based on the opinions of exegetes or “Biblical experts:”

(P.12) “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment.”

The above is actually a mutilation of a phrase from the encyclical, Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII, in which this true Holy Father carefully distinguishes between passages in Scripture which are undefined, and those which are defined. The Vatican II decree omits this distinction; rather, it speaks of Scripture in general, and, therefore, teaches differently than does Pope Leo XIII — c.f. the quotation given in the right-hand column.

Next, the Vatican ll decree places Scripture on an equal basis with the Holy Eucharist, as do the Protestants;

(P.21) “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord, insofar as she never ceases, particularly in the sacred liturgy, to partake of the bread of life and to offer it to the faithful from the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ.”

Lastly, the Vatican II decree paves the way for the many heretical, multi-denominational versions of the Scriptures, as we now see flooding the religious book stores:

(P.22) “If it should happen that, when the opportunity presents itself and the authorities of the Church agree, these translations (of the Scriptures] are made in a joint effort with the separated brethren, they may be used by all Christians.”

(P.25) “Moreover, editions of Holy Scripture, provided with suitable notes, should be prepared for the use of even non-Christians, and adapted to their circumstances.”

In opposition to the Vatican II decree, the Catholic Church has declared that the Revelation contained in Scripture and Tradition is immutable:

“I sincerely accept the doctrine of Faith in the same sense and always with the same meaning as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles through the officially approved Fathers. And therefore, I wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, according to which doctrines pass from one sense to another sense alien to that which the Church held from the start. I likewise condemn every erroneous notion to the effect that, instead of the divine deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His Spouse, the Church, and to be faithfully guarded by her, one may substitute a philosophic system or a creation of the human mind gradually refined by men’s striving and capable of eventual perfection by indefinite progress” (Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism, 1910). [Before Vatican II, the Church had commanded all candidates for the reception of Major Orders to solemnly profess this Oath. The Oath was abolished by the Vatican II Church because it did not agree with her new modernist teachings.]

The Catholic Church carefully distinguishes the bounds of Scripture study and interpretation:

“...the Church by no means prevents or restrains the pursuit of biblical science, but rather protects it from error, and largely assists its real progress... On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definite interpretation, such labors may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more dearly to the flock or more skillfully to the scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack. Wherefore, the first and dearest project of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost [as in many places of the New Testament], or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Ghost, whether by her solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium interpret these passages in that identical sense, and to prove by all the resources of science that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other interpretation” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

Pope Leo XIII warns that, although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, “may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should nevertheless bear well in mind — as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages — that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true Faith, only know the bark of Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith” (Providentissimus Deus).

Lastly, the Catholic Church takes extreme care to insure that vernacular versions of the Scriptures are entirely orthodox:

“As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without any distinction, more harm than utility is thereby caused, owing to human temerity: all versions in the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant care of the bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic writers.

The decree first advocates a false moral freedom:

(P.1) “This holy Synod likewise affirms that children and young people have a right to be encouraged to weigh moral values with an upright conscience, and to embrace them by personal choice...” [i.e. no longer are they to be taught an absolute code of right and wrong, which they must accept.]

Next, the decree accepts the terrible state of modem schools, which have become melting pots of error from various sources:

(P.5) “Moreover, the school sets up a kind of center whose operation and progress deserve to engage the joint participation of families, teachers, various kinds of cultural, civic and religious groups, civil society, and the entire human community...” [...various kinds of... religious groups — is this not indifferentism in practice?]

Pluralism is bluntly defended:

(P.6) “For such a monopoly of schools] would militate against the native rights of the human person...and the pluralism which exists today in very many societies.” [Ed. note: Although we agree that the state ought not to have a monopoly over education, we deplore this approval of pluralism.]

Attendance at public schools seems to be implicitly approved.

(P.7) “To those large numbers of them students] who are being trained in schools which are not Catholic, she needs to be present with her special affection and helpfulness.” [Ed. note: Here is not mentioned the past practice of the Church to forbid her children to attend non-Catholic schools, which are a danger to faith and/or morals.]

Lastly, the decree continues to laud pluralism. This is totally unorthodox:

In opposition to the errors listed above is a host of papal teachings — in particular, the magnificent encyclical of Pope Pius XI written in 1929, Divini Illius Magistri. In this document, Pius XI condemned many errors which, although more prevalent than ever, are totally passed over in silence by the Vatican II decree.

Pope Pius XI condemned naturalism in education and the false moral freedom promoted by the Vatican II decree:

“Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supematural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those modern systems bearing various names which appeal to a pretended self-govemment and unrestrained freedom on the part of the child, and which diminish or even suppress the teacher’s authority and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative, and an activity independent of any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education.”

Sex education is condemned:

“Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex education, falsely imagining they can forearm youth against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a fooolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were, to harden them against such dangers.”

Co-education is equally condemned:

“False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of ‘co-education.’ This, too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a levelling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society.”

Secular and mixed education are condemned, in total opposition to the Vatican II decree:

“From this it follows that the so-called ‘neutral’ or ‘lay’ school, from which religion is excluded, is contrary to the fundamental principles of education. Such a school, moreover, cannot exist in practice; it is bound to become irreligious. There is no need to repeat what Our Predecessors have declared on this point, especially Pius IX and Leo XIII, at time when laicism was beginning in a special manner to infest the public school. We renew and confirm their declarations, as well as the Sacred Canons in which the frequenting of non-Catholic schools, whether neutral or mixed, those namely which are open to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is forbidden for Catholic children, and can be at most tolerated, on the approval of the Ordinary alone, under determined circumstances of place and time, and with special precautions.

Under the guise of demanding the right to practice religion from atheistic states, the Vatican II decree actually promulgates a heretical notion of religious liberty — the right to choose any religion, be it true or false. They base this notion on the so-called “rights of man”:

(Paragraph 2) “The Declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation inthe dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be more fully known to human reason through centuries of experience... Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”

The Vatican II decree demands that states concede false religions the right to exist:

(P.2) “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom... The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”

The teachings of the true Church, regarding first the rights of God, give us a true notion of liberty — the right of man to seek the truth, induding the true Faith:

“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

As His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII said, “It is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” The Popes, the true Vicars of Christ on earth, have had the perennial duty to root up and destroy heresy while planting and nourishing what is true. Divine Justice and the integrity of the true religion demand that error be condemned and that the forces of evil be thwarted. Evil and error can be, at most, tolerated in this vale of tears. Never can it be said to have the right to exist.

Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”

Both Pope Leo XIII, above, and Pope Pius IX, below, condemn the notion that states should sanction false religions:

It should be obvious to any Catholic that the most remarkable aberrations which have occurred in the “Church of Vatican II” are in the field of liturgy. Looking back over the past four decades, one can see that the changes in the Mass and the sacraments which eventually invalidated them in the Vatican II Church, came about gradually and by methodical steps. The purpose of this present study is to determine what, more than anything else, was the catalyst of this tragic chain of events — what it was that opened the door of this sacrilegious “renewal.”

Many pseudo-conservatives have consistently absolved Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” from any blame, but it is our contention that this decree was the major cause of the destruction of the Mass and the sacraments in the postconciliar Church. After but a quick perusal of this Constitution, written, like all the Vatican II decrees, in vague and confusing language, it seems only slightly dubious to the liberal mind of the average “Catholic” of today. But when one considers what has taken place since this decree was promulgated by Paul VI and executed by the apostate hierarchy and compares this with Pope Pius XII’s decree on the Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei (1947), one can have no doubt that the Vatican II decree was used as an instrument of transition from the true sacred liturgy to the false modern liturgy:

I. First, the decree opens the door to change:

P.4 The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be carefully and thoroughly revised... and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

P.21 [The new Church]... desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. [Note the term “restoration” instead of “renewal.”]

P.25 The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; from various parts of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted. [Among the “experts” employed were the non-Catholic Joachim Jeremias and several Protestant “clerics.”]

P.33-34 Therefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed: The rites should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetitions... [the Rosary, the Last Gospel, litanies, the Leonine prayers, lengthy ceremonies, etc.]

P.38 ...the revision of liturgical books should allow for legitimate [?] variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands [e.g. Hindu “mass” in India].

P.50 The rite of the Mass is to be revised... elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. [!] ...other elements... are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers. [This notion was condemned in Mediator Dei].

P.62 ...the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals (contain) certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose less clear to the people of today... the sacred Council decrees as follows concerning their revision: P.71 The rite of confirmation is to be revised... P.72 The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised... P.76 Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised. P.77 The marriage rite... is to be revised....

Revisions of the Office include such cutting remarks as: P.92 The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to accord with the facts of history. [As if they were inaccurate before!] P.93 ...hymns are to be restored to their original form... whatever smacks of mythology... is to be removed or changed. [!] [Of course, the entire Office was immediately shortened considerably.]

II. Secondly, the way was cleared for the vernacular — a sure means of changing beliefs and introducing heresy:

P.21 Christian people... should be able to understand them [the rites] with ease... [In the true Church, there are such things as sacred mysteries.]

P.36 But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.

III. Thirdly, particular innovations were introduced:

P.57 ...it has seemed good to the Council to extend permission for concelebration... [Condemned by Pope Pius XII, it is now a common thing.]

P.81 The rite for the burial of the dead should evidence more clearly the paschal character of Christian death... this latter provision holds good also for the liturgical color to be used. [No more black vestments... the new liturgy of the Resurrection replaced the Requiem funeral Mass.]

P.50 ...the Mass is to be revised in such a way... that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished. [...facing the people, etc.]

IV. Fourthly, an external, empty form of piety was encouraged in direct contradiction to Mediator Dei:

P.28 In liturgical celebrations, whether as a minister or as one of the faithful, each person should perform his role by doing solely and totally what the nature of things and liturgical norms require of him. [i.e. They may not do more than what is required.]

V. Lastly, and of utmost importance, power to change the liturgy was placed in the hands of the liturgical commissions:

P.44 It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, #2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts... including laymen [and, in fact, these commissions pulled most of the strings. Here is what they were permitted to do:]

P.36 It is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, #2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used....

P.40 The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, #2, must prudently consider which elements from the traditions and genius of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship.

P.44 Under the direction [or vice-versa, in truth] of the aforementioned territorial ecclesiastical authority, the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments....

P.54 And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 [see above] of this Constitution is to be observed.

P.63 ...particular rituals (for the sacraments and sacramentals) are to be prepared as soon as possible by the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, #2... [in actuality, laymen and “experts” such as McManus, Diekman, etc.]

It will be readily seen that Pope Pius XII condemned many of the changes which ensued from Vatican II, and that most of the statements quoted in the left column directly or indirectly oppose the teaching of this true Holy Father:

P.8 We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, overeager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlaid their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic Faith and ascetical doctrine.

P.25 No less erroneous is the notion that it (the sacred liturgy) consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.

P.59-60 ...the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing law and rubrics, deserve severe reproof... We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of vernacular in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; those who transfer certain feastdays — which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation — to other dates... The use of the Latin language... is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.

P.62 ...it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything [in the liturgy] to antiquity by every possible devise. [Compare this with P.50 (I) of the Vatican II decree.] Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer’s Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings... [Remember that the Vatican II decree states that its purpose was to restore the liturgy. It also urged more concelebrations and over-emphasized the role of the people at Mass. Here is what Pope Pius XII wrote on this subject:]

P.83-84 Hence they [the liturgical innovators] assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community [the “president” of the Novus Ordo]. Wherefore they look on the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a “concelebration” in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should “concelebrate” with the people present than that they should offer the Sacrifice privately when the people are absent. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when teaching of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Pope Pius XII urged in Mediator Dei that diocesan committees be formed to promote the liturgy, not to change it as the Vatican II commissions have done.