Acceptation Pacifique Universelle : réponse aux objections — + Archidiacre +

Réfutation des objections faites contre la doctrine de l’Acceptation Pacifique Universelle d’un pape, qui prouve avec certitude sa légitimité.

Acceptation Pacifique Universelle : réponse aux objections — + Archidiacre +

This article (which the Edge Browser can translate into English) goes over the following claims against the universal and peaceful acceptance of a Pope.

Summary of objections and What the Article Gives Responses to

After explaining the need for this doctrine, we will respond to various objections:

  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance is not a consensus among theologians.”
  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance is only a theological opinion.”
  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance concerns the whole Church, not just the bishops, and lay people have refused the legitimacy of John XXIII.”
  • “We sedevacantists did not exist before the promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II, and we had no reason to exist since no heresy has been defined.”
  • “During the vacancy of the See of Peter, the Church cannot teach dogmatic facts. It cannot therefore teach that a man has been legitimately elected and holds supreme authority. »
  • “Even if the bishops do not consider us Catholic, they are not infallible, and we still belong to their government and are subject to them.”
  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance only guarantees the legitimacy of the election of the chosen one, not that he is truly and legitimately Pope and Head of the Universal Church.”
  • “The bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio contradicts the doctrine of Universal Pacific Acceptance.”
  • “The antipopes Constantine II and Christophore were universally accepted by all bishops.”
  • “The election of universally accepted Popes were deemed null and void.”
  • “Theologians disobeyed John XXIII, so he did not benefit from Universal Pacific Acceptance.”
  • “Bishops disobeyed, and even doubted the legitimacy of Paul VI, so he did not benefit from peaceful and universal acceptance.”

Against The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen on Vatican II on Other Religions

I have already answered most of the objections raised by the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen will raise in my Topic by Topic analysis of Vatican II. (Linked Here)

In this post I will go part by part refuting this troubled congregations claims.

CMRI Claim NOSTRA AETATE #1: “The opening paragraph of this declaration (Nostra Aetate) strongly suggests that, yes, salvation may be found outside of the true fold. It states: “One also in their final goal: God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, and His saving designs extend to all men against the day when the elect will be united in that Holy City ablaze with the splendor of God, where the nations will walk in His light.” The meaning of this last phrase does not at all agree with a similar phrase found in Sacred Scripture.

Response: The CMRI seem to have skipped over the REAL opening paragraph (by not quoting the first sentence of their chosen paragraph – which so also happens to explain it very well in the light of the faith). The real quote reads “One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.” (Bold is they part the did not quote!)

Clearly Nostra Aetate #1 is making us recall that God create everyone, Catholics and all other people who practice other religions. This same God also made himself the final end of man regardless if you are Catholic or not. His saving design does extend to all people. (Jesus died for all not just people in the West how are Catholic). Yet, that extension to all people has an until – at the end of time things are finished and people will be in the Holy City.

Reading paragraph 1 as I have shows that the CMRI are using straw men miss quotes to attack a holy council.

CMRI Claim: 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.” These previous statements are at odds with Nostra Aetate.

Response: What does it mean to make someone anathema? Does that mean St. Paul could not enter a Jewish synagogue? – He clearly did. Does that mean we walk on a different side of the street as Jews and Protestants?

No it does not. When Vatican II says there are good aspects to other religions it is only stating a fact. Is the world fundamentally good or evil? How created it? — God that means the world is at its core good but has been corrupted by the first sin. To say that people and a way of life is completely evil is to say that God created something evil in itself which is impossible. Just think, is even the devil himself all evil? Could God have made something all evil? No. Being itself at least is good. Now a system of values and ideas could be evil completely because it is not matter, yet most religions contain at least a similarity or shared value set with Catholicism. In this way we can say there is something good in them. Is not God the source of all good?

I have previously gone through and shown how the

CMRI Claim: “It should be remarked that in no way can it be said that the followers of these religions (non-Catholics) 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?”

Response: It has been the ancient teaching of the Church including Saint Ambrose towards a non-Christian Emperor of his day and Saint John Chrysostom about Socrates that those who follow their conscience and are invincibly ignorant can make their way toward God. It may not be common but it is possible. It is even possible for the flight to be loving. How else would following your conscience and natural moral law be anything but loving. We have to recognize that each person has the natural law inscribed upon their heart! That enough is for people to avoid most grave evils in the Bible or elsewhere in Church law and truly be called loving.

The following are not direct responses to CMRI claims. Yet, I am not going to answer the usual and typical objections simply because CMRI makes them. These I have answered before.

So it is that that messianic people (The Church), although it does not actually include all men, and at times may look like a small flock, is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope and salvation for the whole human race.” –Lumen Gentium #9 Vatican Website Translation

Check this link Considering Taylor Marshall’s Comments on Nostra Aetate with Michael Lofton – YouTube


One of the most common arguments against Vatican II has to do with Nostra Aetate. In paragraph 2 you can read the following, “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.”

It is claimed that Vatican II teaches that Buddhism is a way to reach perfect liberation through personal effort alone. Taken in this way the paragraph is clearly false as only Jesus can offer prefect liberation and we can only attain this through grace not personal effort only.

But that is not what Vatican II says. If we read the text carefully we can see that Buddhism teaches a way to reach perfect liberation. The translation above is from the Vatican website. Other translations such as Costello Publishing Company’s Vatican Council II the Basic Sixteen Document translates docetur as proposes. Hence the sentence reads that Buddhism proposes a way. Taken in context with the next sentence which states that other religions try to counter human restlessness in different ways it becomes clear that Vatican II is not in error. First, saying that Buddhism teaches or proposes something is not the same as agreeing with the teachings validity. Second, the next sentence says that all religions propose ways to liberation but also does not mean that we agree with those ways. This first and second interpretation is the only way to make sense of the end of paragraph 2 which says, “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. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.” Why would the paragraph claim that religious life in its fullness dwells with Christ and that she must proclaim this if other religions like Buddhism offer perfect liberation? Because the paragraph was not meant to mean that Buddhism validly teaches its followers perfect liberation but only proclaims to.

The argument claiming that Vatican II teaches error about Buddhism in Nostra Aetate fails to consider the entire paragraph which the quotation is taken from. Now one might argue that the wording does give the wrong impression, but taken in context with the following sentences the meaning becomes clear enough.


Again in paragraph 2. “Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry.” This is often claimed that Vatican II teaches that Hinduism with its many false gods and through myth expresses an inexhaustible mystery which is God. Yet, I think that is misusing the text. All it says is that through myth (which can be endlessly created by humanity) Hinduism contemplates the divine mystery. It does not mean that the false gods can fully represent God or His mystery but that at least some aspect is hinted at therein. (all created things bear at least some resemblance to God as remote as it may be) It does not also mean that Hinduism does not need Christ for its fullness as paragraph 2 ends as noted in section 2.1. “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.” Romans 1:20. Hence, Hinduism sees something of God but does so inadequately through false gods.

Great Other Resource on the Subject

No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church – Great Article linked here

Other ArgumentsMuslims etc…

Claim: Nostra Aetate #3 says that Muslims worship the creator of heaven and earth, but Muslims don’t worship the Trinity so this is wrong.

Response: It has been the position of the Church since the Apostles that the Jews worship God – the same God as the Catholics even though they do not recognize Jesus nor the Holy Spirit as God. The same logic here applies to Muslims who profess (i.e. does not necessarily mean do) to hold the faith of Abraham like the Jews. To deny this is to deny the link between the Old and New Testaments. This would destroy a basic tenant of Catholic thought resulting in a form of Gnosticism which held that the Old Testament God was not the same as the God of the New Testament. The Muslims get many things wrong. Yet, they get somethings right as well. Nostra Aetate clearly states in paragraph #2 that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of salvation. “Indeed, she [Church] proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

In Fact, Pope St. Pius X goes even further than Vatican II in his Catechism Q12 under the communion of the saints section. All Vatican II says is that the Muslims worship God – that they are theists. St. Pius X’s catechism goes so far as to say that they worship the true God! That is something to recall when debating this issue. It was not something Vatican II came up with, and it never used the word true, just God as to point out that they are theists.

Claim: Nostra Aetate #4 says the Jews are very dear to God and that the Church should have mutual esteem and exchange knowledge with the Jew. Yet, the Jews rejected Jesus and need to be called back from their false religion so the Church cannot esteem them.

Response: The council of Trent was clear when it taught that all of sinful humanity not only the Jews were responsible for Jesus death. To say that the Jews rejected Jesus is the same as saying that most of secular society rejected Jesus. Do you esteem secular society/Roman society/Greek culture in any way? We can esteem some parts because although these cultures did reject Jesus some parts were not totally bad nor did all reject Jesus. The Apostles when they became Christian did not cease to be Jews! Nor did Jesus himself ever stop being Jewish! Catholicism was built upon Judaism. Even today there are Jews who convert, (they themselves never rejected Jesus 2000 years ago), become Christian and never stop being Jews. Why do they never stop? Because Christianity is not a repudiation of Judaism but a fulfillment. Just as Mary is given a special place as Mother of God, the Jews were given a special place as the people (race) from which Jesus was born and from which Christianity sprung. Catholicism is a incarnational thing. Esteem for the Jews, or that God holds them very dear is part and parcel with the incarnational nature of the incarnation. We don’t have to be afraid of esteeming some Jewish knowledge because they have preserved some valid understanding of the Old Testament which we as Christian sometimes forget.

On the fundamental importance of the Bible — Where Peter Is

The sixth and final chapter of Dei Verbum is about how the Bible is actually used and its fundamental importance in the Church. The chapter begins by saying that listening to the Bible at Mass stands on par with receiving… 15 more words

On the fundamental importance of the Bible — Where Peter Is

Review of Moving Beyond Vatican II by Eric Sammons

Eric Sammons article Moving Beyond Vatican II ( major point is as follows.

So, how should Catholics approach Vatican II? First, to be clear, this is not a call to “reject” Vatican II or to declare it heretical. It’s a call to stop being handcuffed to that council, to move beyond it. Too often we’ve had binary debates about Vatican II: you either have to follow it slavishly (or, more precisely, follow a specific interpretation slavishly), or reject it completely. We need to put Vatican II in proper perspective—both the good and the bad—and stop seeing every problem through a Vatican II lens. Perhaps the council doesn’t have the answer to our problems; or, even more controversially, perhaps the Vatican II solution isn’t the proper solution for today. ” (Bold mine)

There are several things Eric says that are true, but I would disagree with the major thesis. The reason I disagree that we should look beyond Vatican II for the problems of today is that the magisterium’s teaching does not say that. In fact, the popes and bishops have not said that we should move beyond it. The popes have been pretty consistent at saying we need to implement it in our lives and use it as a touch stone.

There have only been 21 ecumenical councils, of which Vatican II was the last, over the 2000 years of the church. There have only been 3 in the last 400 years. It would seem that the influence of councils should last about 100 years, not the 50 since Vatican II. That is just a number game not anything definite.

Yet, what sources does Eric have to say that we should look beyond Vatican II. Of course there is a need to always move further, but what Pope has been saying that. What I see is that Francis and the Popes before him have continually held Vatican II to be a touchstone for their pontificates.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council has been a gift of the Spirit to his Church. For this reason it remains a fundamental event not only for understanding the Church’s history at this end of the century, but first and foremost for exploring the abiding presence of the risen Christ beside his Bride in the course of world events.” ( The Celebration of the Great Jubilee 27 February 2000)

— Pope St. John Paul II

The Second Vatican Council was an extraordinary time of reflection, dialogue and prayer which aimed to renew the gaze of the Catholic Church on herself and on the world. [It involved] a reading of the signs of the times in view of an update oriented by a twofold faithfulness: faithfulness to the ecclesial tradition and faithfulness to the history of the men and women of our time.

— Pope Francis

“Vatican II happened 50 years ago, but it surely doesn’t belong to the past, its light still leads the Church through the darkness of her journey today”

— Cardinal Zen

Cardinal Ratzinger: “To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council … And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them” (The Ratzinger Report, p. 31)

Eric makes a good point that not all council are perfect (read the quote below). Yet, I would not go as far as him to say a council would fail simply because seven months after the council Martin Luther rebelled. That has happened after every council. Go into the history and you will find splinter churches being created after several ecumenically council even beginning with the first 7. After the Church Fathers declared several points about Jesus’ divinity and humanity or about Mary several bishops left the church and started other ones.

In the early 16th century, when the Church was in desperate need of reform, Pope Julius II convoked the fifth Lateran Council. Sadly, the council failed; the reforms it sought did not take hold, and seven months after the council’s close Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, instigating the Protestant Reformation. It took the Council of Trent decades later to truly begin the process of reform. That didn’t make Lateran V an invalid council; it was just an inconsequential council (or a “waste of time,” as Ratzinger would call it). 

If Martin Luther was a big deal seven months afterwards, how much more the persecution of the early church by Saul soon after it just got started with Peter and the Apostles themselves. Look what Ven. Fulton Sheen has to say “The tensions that developed after the Council are not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church. It is a historical fact that whenever there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as in a general council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic. Even at the beginning, immediately after Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit upon the apostles, there began a persecution and the murder of Stephen. If a general council did not provoke the spirit of turbulence, one might almost doubt the operation of the third Person of the Trinity over the assembly.” Treasure in Clay by Bishop Sheen – Trouble is a sign that it was the Holy Spirit.

Also comparing to Vatican II to Lateran V ” Sadly, the council failed; the reforms it sought did not take hold ” is not the greatest. Vatican II’s reforms did take hold – Liturgy is definitely not the same, liturgical calendar is different, so much is different!

Eric does make a point, quoting Joseph Ratzinger “Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been a waste of time.” The Church will be guarded in her teaching at the councils! – yet perhaps not all the stuff that was needed ended up being discussed so its purpose failed to accomplish some goals.

Yet is that true with Vatican II. Partly – yes not all its goals were accomplished. The problem is the Popes don’t think that is true of Vatican II. Pope after Pope says it is a touchstone. Thus, if we want to claim we need to move beyond because it failed, then you need to change the Pope’s will. If you claim that we need to move beyond because we need even more to meet today’s challenges, not because Vatican II failed but because we need more teaching then I will listen more willingly.

A Reform of the Reform — Making Liturgy Great Again???? Trumpism in our Views for the Future

Let’s face it, most things have a substantial amount of strings attached.

I just want to point that out.

To claim that Vatican II needs a reforming council needs to be a balanced statement. Simply, saying we need to go back to the past and forget everything it did — sounds and is very much a string-ly attached system of thought and ideals. Its a Donald Trumpism at its heart. That by sitting down we can just make it great and do it! That we have it figured out and only if everyone else would listen to us and our ideas the Church would be great again.

The same statement goes for those who view everything in the modern papacy and Vatican II as perfect. The Trumpism on this side of the fence is that, if only those old school Catholics would embrace Vatican II and wasting their energies on private practices the New Evangelization could really start getting under way.

The point at the end of all this is that if you claim to know it all and how to solve the problem as if it would make things great again – you are falling into a Trumpism.

I don’t think ever in the Church’s history has a council or anything other than Jesus’ life really been a perfect solution to any problem. The fact is, that the Church even before Trent was more broken apart by the Reformation than it was since the Arian crisis. And since Trent, the situation did not get any better but got continually worse with time as the Church lost more and more ground in society and in representing countries. Vatican II, was just another step/solution that only half solved problems as with every other Church council did which had solutions and divisions present in its wake.

If we just step back for a second and think. By 2050, it is predicted that China may have more Catholics than any other country! Do we think that Vatican II is the cause of this? Do we think that a reform of Vatican III would even change that? It was not the doing of Trent for sure. America is more religious by several factors than Europe. Was that a fruit of Trent? A fruit of Vatican II? Would a reform of Vatican II really change that in the next 150 years? Africa is set to be a Catholic epicenter! It might even overtake South America. Is that because of Vatican II? Would a Vatican III really change that?

Honestly, it can be easy to think if that or this was changed in our little rabbit holes the whole Church would be better. Yet, I think rationally speaking very few people are in a position to really know that. The best we have is really on obedience to what we are given by the magisterium – Vatican II, and a deep understanding of Tradition (through Trent) and Scripture (back to the Apostles and Christ).

The Errors of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate on Vatican II and Education (Gravissimum Educationis)

IN this article linked here The Decrees of Vatican II on Education Compared with Past Church Teachings – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen the CMRI again make several mistakes when they invalidly critique Vatican II and accuse it of heresy.

CMRI Claim: Gravissimum Educationis #6 says “But it must always keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity so that there is no kind of school monopoly, for this is opposed to the native rights of the human person, to the development and spread of culture, to the peaceful association of citizens and to the pluralism that exists today in ever so many societies.

The CMRI writer then says “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.” Quotes from Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri are then provided to show that the church has taught that Catholics should avoid public school (when possible) and that pluralism in school is bad (parents should strive for Catholic only schools).

Response: I advise the CMRI to step back and stop reading Vatican II as a break from faith and read it in light of the tradition. Thus, when I read paragraph #6 in Gravissimum Educationis I note that the footnote reference used in the very sentenced that the CMRI writer claims goes against Divini Illius Magistri is actually to that very same encyclical! The Catholic concept of subsidiarity mentioned in paragraph #6 is the idea that the lowest form of governing body should be in charge of the school systems. Vatican II stresses the point in Gravissimum Educationis that the parents are the primary educators and have a duty and right to select proper education for their children. GE #6 “Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools.” Hence, applying all that is meant by footnoting Divini Illius Magistri and reading in light of tradition that means parents must provide a Catholic education. The concept of subsidiarity employed in the paragraph means that parents or at least local groups of them should be in charge of deciding what is taught. That Catholics can choose Catholic schools and that Protestants can do likewise for their children. The large central government should not impose a pluralist school on either. Hence, the pluralism of society is recognized but not promoted in school as the CMRI claim – the opposite is true paragraph #6 simply notes the obvious we live in a plural world.

Divini Illius Magistri was written in 1929. Vatican II had entered the era after WWII where Catholic run schools were become more and more scarce. Not only that, large percentages of the population (unlike in 1929 where most stopped school at grade 6) would require both Elementary (JK -Grade 6) and High School (7-12). Not only that many would even take post secondary studies something rather rare in 1929. As a result, Vatican II was not going to mention the same ideal that children go to Catholic only schools unless the ordinary approved when the ability to do so had become limited for many people. This value was implied by the footnote. In fact, when Gravissimum Educationis’s teaching was entered into the revised 1983 code after Vatican II we see its teaching sumarized in the following very Pius XII like comments.

Can. 798 Parents are to entrust their children to those schools which provide a Catholic
education. If they are unable to do this, they are obliged to take care that suitable Catholic
education is provided for their children outside the schools.

Can. 793 §1. Parents and those who take their place are bound by the obligation and possess the right of educating their offspring. Catholic parents also have the duty and right of choosing those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of their children, according to local circumstances.

Yet, we have not even got to the best part of Vatican II yet. Not only did Vatican II affirm everything Pius XII did when read in light of the tradition but it also presented the faith in a modern way for modern people. It focuses on how the family has the primary role. This is a very important point since many families would not be able to find Catholic only schools it is an excellent reminder that schools are not nor ever where the most important part of Christian formation – Families were! That is the whole point, — the school system during Vatican II was not nor was ever going to be again like it was for Pius XII, so lets not focus on it. GE #3 “The family which has the primary duty of imparting education needs help of the whole community. In addition, therefore, to the rights of parents and others to whom the parents entrust a share in the work of education, certain rights and duties belong indeed to civil society, whose role is to direct what is required for the common temporal good. Its function is to promote the education of youth in many ways, namely: to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavors of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and, moreover, as the common good demands, to build schools and institutions.

CMRI Claim: The decree first advocates a false moral freedom: GE #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.]

Response: Unfortunately for the CMRI argument they cut off the last part of the text which goes a long way to refute their claim by itself. GE #1 “This sacred synod likewise declares that children and young people have a right to be motivated to appraise moral values with a right conscience, to embrace them with a personal adherence, together with a deeper knowledge and love of God.

Is saying that children have a right to appraise moral values with a right conscience together with love of God a false moral freedom that the CMRI claim? No first off it says right conscience — such that there are wrong consciences. Hence, children are free to choose to adhere but that does not make them right, they simply should be given a chance to accept them on their own before being forced to follow. Second the quote clearly connects love of God with this acceptance. If it is true love of God how crazy is this freedom?

CMRI Claim:  GE #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.]

Response: First the Ed. note is incorrect. The Church never forbid children to attempt non-catholic schools it only strongly encouraged. See the quote from Pius XI “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.” These very same circumstances of place, time and permission have been largely occurring since 1929 when Pius XII wrote that. Vatican II say that and focused on the general case where Catholic education is not present the second best thing to have is a school where religion can be taught. (it is best to have Catholic schools – as GE #3-6 show and point out by references to Pius XII encyclical but when not possible it is better to have some instruction than a state that does not allow any religion at all to be taught.

That is why after going through the typical Catholic school first ideal in #3-6 by footnoting Pius XII, Vatican II then says in #7 the paragraph in question there is a special affection for those not in Catholic schools. Why ? because the idea is to be in a Catholic school. The CMRI cannot explain this if they make the claims that they do.

GE #7 “Feeling very keenly the weighty responsibility of diligently caring for the moral and religious education of all her children, the Church must be present with her own special affection and help for the great number who are being trained in schools that are not Catholic.

CMRI Claim: “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 leveling 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.” from Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri

Response: Really? If you are claiming Vatican II taught error because it did not condemn boy-girl schools I think you have miss-stepped somewhere along the lines. I am not even going to offer an argument as to why such a thing is silly to banter about. Clearly boy-girl school are acceptable. Vatican II does not need to meet the requirements of every single sentence of every encyclical. Encyclicals are not infallible (by themselves) only seriously weighted below exhortations, council, and several other documents.

Institute of Catholic Culture Vatican II Content and Lectures

Vatican I and Vatican II: Papal Primacy and Episcopal Power (

by William Marshner, S.T.D.

Dei Verbum: Keys to Understanding the Word of God (

by Rev. Hezekias Carnazzo

The Reform of the Reform: A Liturgical Debate: Reform or Return? (

by Rev. Thomas Kocik

Light of the World: The Church and Vatican II (

by Most Rev. Paul Loverde

Dignitatis Humanae: Religious Liberty and the Freedom of Conscience (

by Most Rev. Robert Morlino

Against the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) on Dei Verbum

And his mother said to the servants, Do whatever he tells you. John 2:5

Mary always tells her children to follow the words of Christ. Even when Jesus told Mary – what is that to me and you it is not my hour, she still says “Do whatever he tells you”.

What is the voice of Christ today? According to Tradition in the Scriptures, in the teaching office of the Church, in the Liturgy, in the sense of the faithful and in the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit.

The CMRI would have us hold a Sedevacantist position which is an utterly bankrupt position theologically. Christ established a visible Church which would continue till the end of time. The universal and peace acceptance of a pope completely refutes their position and existence. Yet, that is not what this article is about.

This article is about a point by point response to their claims on Vatican II. It was an ecumenical council we owe it religious submission even in non-definite teaching. It is the voice of Christ for us today.

Refutation of this article The Decrees of Vatican II on Sacred Scripture Compared with Past Infallible Church Teachings – CMRI: Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

CMRI claim: “First, the Vatican II decree declares that the Revelation contained in Tradition is evolving in Dei Verbum #8:” Yet it is the teaching of the Church that “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).

My Response: This claim lacks substance and nuance. It can be rather easy to square this one with tradition. I question if CMRI even attempted to understand it.

If we read the entire paragraph of Dei Verbum #8 instead of only part of it as quoted on the CMRI website we see some rather strong language. (See the bottom of the post for the quote)

First it affirms using Jude 1:3 that the faith was handed once and for all to the Church! Thus, when it speaks of development it is speaking of changing the once and for all part or is it more subtle than that? – Its more subtle. All #8 is saying is what Jesus himself says. “When, however, the Spirit comes, who reveals the truth about God, he will lead you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own authority, but he will speak of what he hears and will tell you of things to come.” John 16:13 The Apostles themselves clearly lacked something even after the resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Apostles did not lack revelation that was given, but its implementation and understanding required unfolding in their minds by the Holy Spirit.

If you disagree with this – Then what happen at the council of Jerusalem in Acts? Were the apostles and leaders debating just for fun or because they did not know what do to about Jewish law even though they had received Christ and the Holy Spirit? Everything was there but not clear for them. Even after the death of the Apostles (the mark of the last public revelation) the Church has constantly needed council – ecumenical ones to define and elaborate teaching. Is this because the church changes its doctrine? No. But they do develop. Read Oath Against Modernism again, it is condemning evolution (change in species or kind to another) in dogma, not development (branching out and natural growth and depth of the same thing) of insight and understanding. Hence, Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit (not to offend some groups) but Constantinople could add to the creed a whole bunch about the Holy Spirit. Do we claim that the Apostles would have used the word hypostasis, yet we claim they believed the same thing.

That is all Dei Verbum is saying. There is a “growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.” This is not a evolution or change but a quite contemplation to deepen our grasp of the same faith already given. For example, for 16th century Catholics you did not have to believe Mary was immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven. Why – they were part of the apostolic faith once handed down but not yet fully brought forth into dogma. Today it would be a departure from faith to deny those things. Is this evolution that is condemned in the oath against modernism or development which Dei Verbum Speaks of. It is development.

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

Claim CMRI: Dei Verbum #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.

My Response: The lack of mention of those sections which already have definition is not a big deal. The word Scripture is something all encompassing for the Word of God – written form. There is a smart math teacher – she knows a lot about math already. She claims to study math and then says she learnt more about it. Is that an error according to the CMRI claim? Yes, but that is false because for all encompassing words like math or scripture to say that you can learn more about it in general does not therefore exclude the possibility that some parts are already known. CMRI is making a mountain out of mere verbiage on this one.

CMRI Claim: Dei Verbum #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:

My Response: Do you really think Vatican II caused all the different biblical translations to be produced? I think those groups would have formed on their own accord. There are millions of non-Catholics who are into multi-denominational stuff, – Vatican II did not cause that in fact it was trying to respond to that.

CMRI Claim: Dei Verbum #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.”

Yet, “All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by non-Catholics, are prohibited; and especially those published by the Bible societies, which have been more than once condemned by the Roman Pontiffs, because in them the wise laws of the Church concerning the publication of the sacred Books are entirely disregarded” (Pope Leo XIII, On the Prohibition and Censorship of Books).

My Response: Communion on the hand for 1000 yrs – supported by 100 popes pretty much all saints. Then all of a sudden the practice changed. How is this possible? Can a pope in the year 1000 go against the teaching of a popes before him?? No – if it is a matter of divine revelations – Yes if it is a matter of church discipline.

Christ never came down and told us himself to the Apostles or in Scripture what Pope Leo XIII said about bible translations. Another Pope could undo that merely church discipline. (Its not different than how some of the ecumenical councils had cannons on beards and their requirement but that is no longer followed)

Just because a pope wrote something does not make it dogma – there are just ordinary teaching too, and sometimes just merely discipline stuff.

Profession of Faith: Religious Submission to non Definite Acts and Vatican II

The profession of faith (not the creed also required by faith) by the following groups according to Church law Canon 833. (1) those who attend with votes in ecumenical or particular councils, synods and even even diocesan synods. (2) Cardinals. (3) Bishops. (4) Diocesan Administrators (5) Vicars – General, Episcopal, Judicial. (6) Pastors, Rectors, Teachers of Theology and Philosophy in Seminaries, Deacons. (7) Rectors of Ecclesiastical or Catholic Universities, Teachers in any University if they teach matters pertaining to faith and morals. (8) Superiors in clerical religious institutes, societies of apostolic life.

A profession of faith consists of the following. It is relevant for Vatican II because it clearly shows that those in teaching and governing offices must obey even non definite teachings of the Church magisterium. (hint -we all must)

I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and every thing that is contained in the symbol of faith, namely:


With firm faith I also believe everything contained in God’s word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the Church, whether by was of solemn judgment or though the ordinary and universal magisterium, as divinely revealed and calling for faith.

I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing that is proposed definitively by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they proclaim those teachings by an act that is not definitive.

It is therefore, rather serious for those in offices within the church to disobey Vatican II or the teaching of Pope Francis on topics that are not taught with definite acts. If a teacher goes against Vatican II in a way that is not religiously submissive of will and intellect – they broke an oath.