Is your Mass in line with Vatican II?

[Mysty101]

Do you want me to call you if there is one?
[/quote]

This may be a childish game to you, but it is not for me.

And I repeat

Disrespect for your brother is ALWAYS wrong.

Thank you —you have just proven my point.

 

[netmilsmom]

Mysty101:

This may be a childish game to you, but it is not for me.

And I repeat

Thank you —you have just proven my point.

You do understand that you have insulted Kathy as well, who said this…
" Awww…darn…I was hoping"

God Bless You.
I am incredulous and have nothing else to say.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

Vatican II "But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. (emphasis added) This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants (SC, 36.2).

Vatican II made provisions that the “limits” could be extended. They were, according to the Supreme Legislator, the Roman Pontiff, when he promulgated the second edition as the *editio typica *(1975):Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that “the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people” and gave permission for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated (12). Permission to use the vernacular, then, was extended because of a great good: “a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.”

Compare what Dave quoted from Vatican II, and his quote from the 1975 document, with what Katolik quoted from Vatican II, as follows:

]
Sacrosanctum Consilium

Quote from Vatican II (36): Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Vatican II (54). Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

So, according to Vatican II, “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”. That is a direct quote from Vatican II. We are told that the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Today, however, Latin has completely disapeared in the Novus Ordo Mass (with a few exceptions), yet this is perfectly in line with Vatican II (See Dave’s post).

Does anyone see the problem with this? This is a perfect example of the problems with the Vatican II documents. They can be interpreted, and then implemented, exactly contrary to what they explictly said, due to the ambiguous double talk of the documents: First we are told that Latin is to be retained; then we are told that a greater use of the vernacular may be of benefit to the people, and that its limits may be expanded. Finally, we have Masses that are completely in the Vernacular. But saying that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”, and having Latin completely eliminated is a complete contradiction.

And people thought that the confusion we have today was a result of a “misinterpretation” of the council. No, the problem we have today is the council itself. The documents themselves are the problem: They are full of ambiguities and double-speak. And worse still, Vatican II taught what had been explicitly condemed by the Church/.

But, so no one looses faith in the Church due to the Vatican II documents, it needs to be said that Vatican II was not an infallible council, and never claimed to be. If Vatican II taught heresy, it does not affect the doctrine of infallibility, or indefectability, since, according to Pope Paul VI himself, Vatican II did not engage the extraordinary magesterium of the Church, but chose to remain a merely “pastoral” council.

Paul VI: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966).

Vatican II was the first general council of the Church to not define any doctrine (as Cardinal Ratzinger admitted), and therefore it was the first general council that did not engage the extraordinary magesterium (infallibility). The only infallible teachings of Vatican II are those that were defined prior to Vatican II, and then repeated in the Vatican II documents. Since no new doctrines were defined, any new teachings are not protected by the charism of infallibility, and thus could be erroneous; and any new teaching of Vatican II that had already been explicitly condemned by the Church, is obviously an error.

 

[pnewton]

RSiscoe:

And worse still, Vatican II taught what had been explicitly condemed by the Church/.

But, so no one looses faith in the Church due to the Vatican II documents, it needs to be said that Vatican II was not an infallible council, and never claimed to be. .

It destroys the notion of the infallability of the Church. How can one individual believe himself capable of better defining what is heresy than the bishops acting in union with the ponitff at an ecumenical council?

"Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on. Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. "

Pope Paul VI -

Your efforts here to run down the council are invalild and worthless.

 

[TNT]

The following quotes are an execise in liberal illogic manifested in Vat II documents. Each could argue the opposite use of Latin, and both would be right and at the same time wrong. That is why VATII cannot EVER be definitively interpreted by its readers. Only the agenda of the then present pope gives them final definition. Which, will change from pope to pope. The VATII church is an evolving church, running left then running right then paralyzed.

Quote from Vatican II (36): Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Vatican II (54). Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And then, and then:
Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988
Vatican II "But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. (emphasis added) This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants (SC, 36.2).

Finally, we have Masses that are completely in the Vernacular. But saying that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”, and having Latin completely eliminated is **a complete contradiction.
**

**
What was that again? Oh yeah…

**Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.
Reasoning with a liberal is useless, as they are in a state of mental disorder. Contradictions (illogic) is completely acceptable.

By the previous post’s admission., the elimination of Latin is “void and worthless”… so, what does that say of masses done under “void and worthless” changes from Vat II directives?

 

[RSiscoe]

pnewton:

It destroys the notion of the infallability of the Church. How can one individual believe himself capable of better defining what is heresy than the bishops acting in union with the ponitff at an ecumenical council?

"Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. "

Pope Paul VI -

Your efforts here to run down the council are invalild and worthless.

Vatican II taught what had been explicitly and solemnly condemned by the Church. Do you believe that?

That does no touch on the doctrine of infallibility, however, since Vatican II did not attempt to exercise the charism. It was merely a “pastoral” council. I agree that it is EXTREMELY unlikely for even a pastoral council of the Church to teach error, but since it was merely a pastoral council (and did not engage the extraordinary magesterium), it is possible for it to teach error, since it was not protected by infallibility. Only that which is protected by the charism of infallibility is guaranteed to be infallibly (that should be obvious).

And Vatican II DID teach what had been previously condemned.

How can one individual believe himself capable of better defining what is heresy than the bishops acting in union with the ponitff at an ecumenical council?

That Vatican II taught what had been previously condemned is what our new Pope himself admitted.

The Syllabus of errors was a document issued by Pope Pius IX, in which he condemned some of the most pernicious doctrines of the liberals. Several of these condemned doctrines were explicitly taught by Vatican II, as Cardinal Ratizinger, who was a “peritus” at Vatican II admitted.

Cardinal Ratzinger (new Pope Benedict XVI): "If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes, from Vatican II], one could say that it (in connection with the texts on religious liberty and the world’s religions) is a revision of the “Syllabus of Pius IX", a kind of counter-Syllabus. As is known, Harnack interpreted the "Syllabus of Pius IX as a challenge to its century; what is true is that it drew a line of separation [between the Liberals and the Catholics] before the determining forces of the nineteenth century: the scientific and political conceptions of liberalism. In the modernist controversy, this double border was once again reinforced and fortified… Let us content ourselves here with finding that the text [of Gaudium et Spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus…” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982).

So according to our new Pope, Vatican II taught that which had been condemned in the Syllabus of errors: He goes so far as the call Guadium et spes, a “counter-Syllabus”.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation…

Yves Congar, another periti of Vatican II said the same:

“It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.” (quoted by Father George de Nantes, CRC, no. 113, p.3.)

Actually, we shouldn’t need anyone to tell us what we should already have known. We can read for ourselves and see that one of the primary teachings of Vatican II (religious liberty) is a error that has already been condemned. Of course, in order to know that religious liberty is an error, we would have to know what had always been taught before Vatican II, which many people do not know.

Today, many Catholics (and especially priests and Bishops) treat Vatican II as the beginning of the Church age, and disregard all that was taught for the 1900 + years prior to it, as if those teachings no longer apply. They treat Vatican II as some kind of “superdogma”, and a new start from zero:

**Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI): “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest”. (given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile before the nation’s Bishops.)

---

The problems in the Church today are not a result of a “misunderstanding” of the “true intent” of the council. The problem is the council itself. The Vatican II documents are full of ambiguities, double speak, error, and deception. Let’s address the last one: deception.

Deception: Fr. Brian Harrison, who has always been a great defender of Vatican II, recently discovered some of the deceptions that took place at the council. While researching the Acta Synodalia (the Latin tomes containing everything done and said at the council), he discovered how the progressives “Catholics” deceived the true Catholics at the council. One of their schemes was to provide the council fathers with a text to review. Then, without telling them, they would add to it, or make changes. Then the council fathers would vote on the deceptive document that had been tempered with (and not what they actually reviewed). In the end, the council fathers promulgated a document that they had not reviewed. For the story, click here:

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/skel.htm

It is long past time for Catholics to realize the deception that took place at Vatican II. It was Vatican II that launched the apostasy we are now living through. The “sacred cow” of Vatican II was actually a Trojan horse.

 

[pnewton]

RSiscoe:

. It was Vatican II that launched the apostasy we are now living through.

What apostasy is that? Are you referring to those who are in schism?

 

[RSiscoe]

pnewton:

What apostasy is that? Are you referring to those who are in schism?

Schism does not affect the Church. Schismatics seperate themselves from the Church. The apostacy I am speaking of is what is taking place today by those within the visible Church. And I am placing the blame, not so much on the laity, but rather on the clergy, specifically the Bishops and higher. They are the ones that are leading the laity into error. That comment deserves an example. Here it is:

False ecumenism: True ecumenism seeks to convert non-Catholics and bring them into the Church. False ecumentism, seeks, not their conversion, but a false “unity” with them. It seeks to build one “Church” that combines all religions into one

And it is this false “ecumenism” that is practiced by most within the Church today. Here is one quote from Cardinal Kasper, who, under the leadership of John Paul II, was promoted from priest, to Bishop, then finally to Cardinal, and made the “President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”. This was John Paul II’s point man for ecumenism. Listen to what he said in February of 2001:

Cardinal Kasper - "The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others should ‘be converted’ and ‘return’ to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumensim is considered as the common road… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘protestants’ or that the others should become ‘catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism" (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9).

That is apostacy: They have rejected the Church founded by Christ, and are attempting to build a utopian “Church of man”, using the structure of the Church of Christ to do it. Some see this error for what it is and reject it, but many follow along on this deadly path.

Ann Catherine Emmerick: "I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."

 

[TNT]

pnewton:

What apostasy is that? Are you referring to those who are in schism?

Is Schism=Apostasy a Newchurch definition?

Actually, documents of VATII promote the note of Apostasy, as seen in the previous posts re: the Syllobus of Errors.

That’s what the poster was referring to.

The E-Ortho sect is in schism, they were NEVER accused of apostasy.

 

[pnewton]

RSiscoe:

. The apostacy I am speaking of is what is taking place today by those within the visible Church.

You think the Church is apostate?

You asked earlier if I believed that VII taught what had been condemned by the church. I will answer that now. I do not know. I do not have either the audacity, nor the multiple doctrinal degrees to be able to comment contrary to the Church and take such a stand as you.

I do not believe in me and Jesus got our own thing going. I do not belielve in the Bible alone apart from authoritative teaching. And I do not believe that in me and my personal interpretation of Church doctinal development contrary to the teaching of the Magesterium.

What I do have is faith. Not blind faith that refuses to think, but faith with enough humility to realize my limitations, to wit, I am not a Doctor of the Church.

Yet.

 

[pnewton]

TNT:

Is Schism=Apostasy a Newchurch

You got me here. What the heck is newchurch? I know they are not the same, I was questioning why in the world he was accusing the Church of apostacy. Mormons, protestants, I understand their reason, but I do not understand Catholics who believe in the apostate Church.

 

[RSiscoe]

pnewton:

You think the Church is apostate?

You asked earlier if I believed that VII taught what had been condemned by the church. I will answer that now. I do not know. I do not have either the audacity, nor the multiple doctrinal degrees to be able to comment contrary to the Church and take such a stand as you.

I do not believe in me and Jesus got our own thing going. I do not belielve in the Bible alone apart from authoritative teaching. And I do not believe that in me and my personal interpretation of Church doctinal development contrary to the teaching of the Magesterium.

What I do have is faith. Not blind faith that refuses to think, but faith with enough humility to realize my limitations, to wit, I am not a Doctor of the Church.

Yet.

Good post. I need to clairfy something: First, I do not think the Church is in apostasy. That is not possible. The Church is the infallibly and indefectible Immaculate spouse of Christ, “without spot or wrinkle”. But, it is possible for churchmen (laity, priest, bishops, etc.) to be in apostasy, and many are. The saints have predicted, and the Bible tells us, that there will be an apostasy at some point (just before the Antichrist comes). I believe we are now living in that time.

You are obviously very sincere, honest, and humble. This is what I would suggest: Since so many of the recent documents of the Church are little ambiguous, simply study the faith using older writings, which were always EXTREMELY clear, and an intellectual joy to read. That is actually the answer to keepking the faith in our day - reading old materials. We cannot always trust our priests and Bishops today (that should be obvious to all), therefore, we have to work a little harder to keep the faith. But God will reward these efforts.

Here is where you can start. I will list a few encyclicals that you can access online. All you need to do is type the name into a search engine. Start by reading these encyclicals and it will help you to form a clear understanding of what the Church teaches. These are important because they deal with many of the common errors of our day.

Then after really studying (not just skimming) these encyclicals, locate the decrees of the Council of Trent and begin studying them. I would also recommend using an older Catechsim, since the older ones are always very clear.

Here are the encyclicals:

1. Libertas Praestantiissimu, Leo XIII. (Very good, but a litte long.)
2. Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI (very good and short)

3.) Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI (also pretty short and easy to understand)

4.Our Apostolic Mandate, Pope Pius X (long and starts off slow, but about half way though it REALLY gets good and refutes many of the errors of our day. It even discusses the “great movement of apostacy being organized in every part of the world for a One World Church”. This is a must read. Remember, it starts off a little slow, but keep paying attention because it really gets good in the second half).

There are so many good encyclicals. You ought to buy the book called “The Popes Against Modern Errors” by TAN books. It consists of 16 Papal Documents, which combate some of the most pernicious errors of our day.

Good luck and God Bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Today, however, Latin has completely disapeared in the Novus Ordo Mass (with a few exceptions), yet this is perfectly in line with Vatican II (See Dave’s post).

Latin is preserved in the Latin Rite. That it is not in each and every Latin Rite Mass in every parish, in every diocese, and in every coutnry may bother you, but it doesn’t discount the FACT that the editio typica is ONLY the approved texts written in Latin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Vatican II was the first general council of the Church to not define any doctrine (as Cardinal Ratzinger admitted), and therefore it was the first general council that did not engage the extraordinary magesterium (infallibility).

You seem to limit the charism of infallibility to the extraordinary magisterium, which is incorrect.

Furthermore, what is your point? Are you saying a Catholic can, without sin, disregard the doctrines of the pope or approved ecclesiastical discipline, so long as he is not speaking ex cathedra? That is not in accord with Catholic tradition.

Furthermore, to understand Pope Benedict XVI’s view of Vatican II more fully. Here he is speaking of the authority of Ecumencial Council in general, accepted by Catholicism in common with Orthodoxy:

… it is clear that conciliar decisions are infallible in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997))

To the binding nature of Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI asserted:

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. …

(Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 13, 1988 remarks to the Bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre Schism)

Why is it binding? Pope Benedict XVI asserts…

[Vatican II is] one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith. (ibid)

Can that which Vatican II made binding be loosed? Yes. By who? The Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Legislator of the Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vatican II taught what had been explicitly condemed by the Church/.

Rubbish.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Your interpretation of what Cardinal Ratzinger meant by “counter-syllabus” would be funny if it wasn’t so terribly sad.

Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t mean that Gaudium Et Spes was contary to the Catholic doctrines of the past. He meant that Gaudium Et Spes used an approach (postive, promulgation of truth), that was contrary to the past approach (negative, condemnation of errors). That’s what he meant by “contra-syllabus.” It was “contra” to condemnation, insofar as it taught the same doctrine in a positive way, not by condemnation of error.

I. Shawn McElhinney has already addressed your weak polemic in his article, The ‘Counter-Syllabus’ Canard matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

Here’s some excerpts…

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF) referred to the Vatican II Constitution *Gaudium et Spes *(GS) as a “counter-syllabus”. This reference is unfortunate, not for the truth of the statement properly understood but for the images it conjures… ***the intended meaning of the Cardinal Prefect was that the condemnation of errors in the Syllabus could logically be seen as being countered by positive teaching in GS that encapsulates the elements of truth contained in the aforementioned errors. Understanding the statement in this light, the negative element of the summary condemnations complimented by the later positive and elaborated teaching encapsulating what elements of truth the previously condemned errors contained results in the climate moving from negative and reactive to positive and pro-active. GS outlined a positive agenda while the Syllabus of Errors (andQuanta Cura which accompanied it) merely condemned errors and outlined no actual agenda. ***

In this sense the Constitution Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II, and the post-VC II Magisterium indeed “counter” the *Syllabus *but in a complementary not contradictory sense.

What Pope Benedict XVI meant by “counter-syllabus” is that Gaudium Et Spes, in a postive way teaches “the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith*” *in contrast to the approach of the Syllabus of Errors, which teaches the same Catholic Tradition in a negative way, by condemnation of errors.

On the contrary, your intepretation of Raztingers words contradicts his assertion that Vatican II represents "the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith." Your interpretation is unconvincing and you should have suspected as much given the corpus of Ratzinger’s assertions regarding Vatican II. But context doesn’t seem to matter to dissenders, so the “canard” lives on, despite the very simple ability to write Pope Benedict XVI and find out what he himself meant by his own words.

To understand this better, think of the way in which Dei Verbum teaches the inerrancy of Scripture. One can teach the doctrine negatively: “Scripture is without error,” or as a counter-catechesis, one can teach it positively: “Scripture teaches truthfully.”

I’m so astonished at your ready acceptance of Lefebvrist polemics that you don’t see the absurdity of their arguments.

If you discount my intepretation, then please, instead of bashing Holy Mother Church, simply write to the pope to clarify. Pope Benedict XVI is abundantly more qualified than your Lefebvrist apologists as to what HE meant by HIS words.

Your dissent with an Ecumenical Council of the Church is shameful and completely contrary to Catholic tradition.

You said on another thread:

Sometimes the “charity and patience” towards anti-Catholics irritates me. When someone who is hostile towards the Catholic Church calls in, they should take a lesson from Jesus and John the Baptist, and respond the way they did to the Pharisees. I think it would be very “charitable” to refute those heretics sharply. It would also rally the Catholics who are listening; and we could certainly use a little more “militancy” in the Church today.

Consider yourself “sharply” refuted.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave,

What took you so long? I thought you would have responded to my posts much sooner.

Unfortunately, have to go to friends house in a few minutes so I won’t be able to respond right now. I’ll try to post something tomorrow morning before Mass.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Real life sometimes takes precedence over cyber life.

I wrote the pope an email asking what he meant by the words “counter-syllabus.” I’m thinking he may be a little busy for a speedy response, however. We shall see.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In a letter to Msgr Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

“You may not, however, affirm that the conciliar texts, which are magisterial texts, are incompatible with the Magisterium and with Tradition.” (Cardinal Ratzinger letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 20, 1983)

Yet you erroneously assert:

We can read for ourselves and see that one of the primary teachings of Vatican II (religious liberty) is a error that has already been condemned.

Fr. Brian Harrison’s articles on religious liberty sharply refute your error…

Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II

Vatican II and Religious Liberty, Contradition or Continuity? by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html