The Major Heresies (Revisited)

The Major Heresies of the Novus Ordo Sect, as Taught by the Apostate Second Vatican Council
Contributed By: John P. Anthony
with some modification

With even more clarification (Provided in Red)

The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches religious liberty.

Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965: “This Vatican Council declares that everyone has the right to religious LIBERTY…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.”

I have bolded, capitalized, and underlined the word liberty because this has been changed from the original. Most likely in an attempt to prove a point. You will find this quote no where else on the internet with the word liberty.

*****(Note: At this point, the source article has been changed since I brought this to the attention of the source. The Author has recognized his error on this part, and revised the word Liberty to Freedom.) *****

The quote in it's entirety...

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

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.(2)

2. Cf. John XXIII, encycL "Pacem in Terris", April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. "Mit Brennender Sorge", March 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encycl. "Libertas Praestantissimum", June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), p. 237-238.

Here, Vatican II clearly explains what it means by religious freedom, which in no way contradicts that which has been taught by the Catholic Church. Let's examine the quotes provided

The Catholic Church condemns religious liberty.

False. No where will you find a quote stating such. You will find quotes which 'seemingly' prove it, but only when taken out of context and applied to a scenario they were never meant to be applied to.

According to Syllabus Errorum, the Catholic Church condemns INDIFFERENTISM (indifferentism is a condemned heresy that holds that one religion is as good as another, and that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation.), and LATITUDINARIANISM (the belief that, while Christianity generally is superior to other faiths, it makes no difference which of the several Christian denominations the believer chooses to join. Catholicism condemns Protestantism specifically for this sort of indifferentism, noting that many Protestant denominations do not claim that they exclusively possess the truth of the Christian gospel, and that various forms of worship may be equally pleasing to God: a latitudinarian position.)

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” -- CONDEMNED

Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (November 1, 1885) taught:

“The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.’

Let us reconcile this encyclical with Syllabus Errorum.

Again, unless Leo was heretical in this Encyclical, we can see the continuous teaching of the catholic church, man does not have the right in a 'spiritual' sense to choose a faith contrary to Catholicism, however, man does have the right to choose, in a 'physical' sense, what he is to believe.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” -- CONDEMNED

This in no way applies to religious liberty whatsoever. Is it expedient (suitable) that the catholic religion should be held as the only religion? Certainly! It alone contains the full truth! Is it possible? Only if the state is not forced to do so, as 'Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will."

In Etsi Multa, state and church are clearly distinguished as separate entities. Pius wrote...

"...Nevertheless the faith teaches and human reason demonstrates that there is a twofold order of things. Two kinds of powers must be distinguished on earth-one natural that looks to the tranquility and secular business of human society; the other, whose origin is above nature, which is in charge of the Church of Christ, divinely instituted for the salvation and peace of souls."

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, 1864: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” -- CONDEMNED

Again, not condemned because the State and the Church should be a singular unit, but the state should rely on the Church for her social teaching and truth. For, how would the state know what Truth is, without the Church, where all truth is given from?

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 1832: "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone."

Comment Provided by http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/02/hermeneutic-of-continuity-and-freedom.html

So how can we reconcile such coercion with Vatican II? Clearly we must read Vatican II in the light of tradition, interpret it in accord with the constant teaching of the Church: we must apply the "hermeneutic of continuity."

In fact, we can find some hints even in Dignitatis Humanae itself to support such a reading. Earlier on, the Declaration affirmed that:

On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. (n.1)

This principle is prior to the principle of freedom of conscience. A further restraint on liberty of conscience is provided by the test of "public order." Speaking of religious freedom (although the principle also applies to freedom of conscience) Dignitatis Humanae says that a person should have immunity from coercion but adds an important proviso:

In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (n.2 - my empahsis)

In some states, denial of the holocaust is a criminal offence - the state intervenes for the sake of the public order to prevent the encouragement of neo-nazism. Such states recognise that liberty of conscience has its limits. Most people also think that the truth about the holocaust is an important matter - whether or not holocaust denial is punishable in civil law. As far as the holocaust is concerned, "error has no rights" and the world concords with Blessed Pope Pius IX in seeing the absolute liberty of conscience as an insanity.

Indeed the world's press agrees with Pope Gregory XVI in being horrified at the "monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors" that are proclaimed when the liberty of conscience is unrestrained by the obligation of seeking the truth and the duty to preserve public order and recognises that the idea that liberty of conscience should be proclaimed for everyone is "an absurd and erroneous proposition."

The media furore over Bishop Williamson thus neatly demonstrates that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret Dignitatis Humanae in the light of Mirari Vos and Quanta Cura.

Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, 1814: “But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored heresy which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."”

What is the wound struck by this article? It is not "liberty of religion and of conscience", but rather "For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored heresy which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."

The error is not liberty of religion and of conscience. The error is that all religions are on par with Catholicism. Again, the error is indifferentism.

The Novus Ordo sect officially teaches collegiality.

Antipope Giovanni “Paul VI” Montini, Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 1964: “The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.”

Key part left out. Just prior to the quote provided, we read...

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power."

Vatican II does not teach collegiality, as is clearly demonstrated above. There is no need to address the proof provided, as Lumen Gentium clearly shows on it's own it is no official teaching on collegiality.

(To Be Continued)