What is the Second Vatican Council? - Episode 08 - SSPX FAQ Videos

sspx.org - Certainly the most debated event of the twentieth century was the Second Vatican Council. Praised by many, criticized by others, Vatican II raises a lot of questions. In this video we will explain what the Second Vatican Council was.
Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962. John XXIII died the following year, but his successor, Paul VI, continued the Council and brought it to a close on December 8, 1965.
Vatican II consisted of four sessions. The first session (October 11 to December 3, 1962) the only one to occur during the pontificate of John XXIII promulgated no document; it was essentially used to shockingly discard the documents wisely prepared during the previous 3 years of preparation.
Vatican II was the twenty-first ecumenical council. It was the biggest in terms of the number of participants: over two thousand bishops attended. However, the Second Vatican Council was declared to be no more than a “pastoral” council, one that does not resolve questions of faith definitively, but which gives pastoral directives for the life of the Church. The Popes decided against defining dogmas, and so they renounced the infallibility, which normally pertains to a council. Thus its documents are not infallible.
Furthermore, some of its own defenders themselves proclaim loud and clear that the Council was a revolution in the Church. For instance, Cardinal Suenens made a parallel between the Council and the French Revolution, saying that Vatican II was 1789 in the Church; Fr. Yves Congar, a conciliar theologian, compared the Council to the Bolshevik Revolution, saying: “The Church has peacefully undergone its October Revolution.”
Vatican II wished to remain a “pastoral council,” however by the time it was over it was “dogmatized”.
A new spirit and teaching was imposed on the Catholic Church, in opposition with what the previous Popes had taught, for example: The documents on The Church, on The Bishops and on The Missions, present novelties on the question of the relationship of the bishops and the Pope: Collegiality. Lumen Gentium introduced a new notion of the priesthood. Lumen Gentium introduces a new notion on the liberty of worship and of conscience and on the concept of liberty; new notions previously condemned by the Popes. “Gaudium et Spes” reverses the purposes of marriage. A change that John Paul II will introduce in the New Canon Law. Also, new ideas of ecumenism and regarding the relations with non-Christian religions and even with atheists are also adopted. And we could go on…
In short we can say that Vatican II was a revolution in the Church; so many changes were introduced at the time and happened since, that anyone who would come to the present from the past, would not recognize the Church, neither in its teaching nor in its liturgy.
For further understanding and insight on this question, we recommend reading “I Accuse The Council!” and “A Bishop Speaks” both by Archbishop Lefebvre, which can be found at Angeluspress.org
Another great source we recommend is to read “The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story” by Roberto de Mattei also available at Angeluspress.org
For those who would like to study in depth the issues raised by Vatican II we recommend reading: “Iota Unum” by Romano Amerio at AngelusPress.org
To learn more, go to sspx.org and subscribe to our email list.

[@rjltrevisan]

It's the continuation of the revolutionary mindset in the world and now in the church. French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Freemasons, Socialists, Jews, Atheists, etc... The Novus Ordo took me away from the church, but the Tridentine Mass brought me back after 20 years.

[@archreynoso5373]

Same here

[@mkultrawhatever1791]

Yup. Im going back to Ukrainian-Catholic....St. John Chrysostom liturgy predates a great majority of erroneous Roman Rite changes over recorded history....even predates your current sedevacantist Latin errors...

[@iliya3110]

@@mkultrawhatever1791 SSPX aren't sedevacantist. I love the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

[@echostarsinc]

The SSPX are God's own men saving the Bride of Christ, The Remnant Holy Mother Church. Godbless them one and all.

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

Read the actual words of Christ and you won't fall for this.

[@stthomasmore4811]

@@themoderncatholicwarrior7216 You seem to have been taught some very fringe things that did not come from the Society. I've watched your videos - and I'm sorry for your particular experience, but the SSPX did not "hate" JP2. Far from it. One can't help but noticed his name in the Society hymnal with the traditional verses of Christus Vincit praying for the Pope. Regardless of what you perceived or endured, let's pray for each other because Christ is all our goal.

[@jvernedeau]

Excellent explanation by Father McDonald.

[@dobermanpac1064]

I lived through it... Thank goodness for The SSPX.

[@grant7476]

Opened the door to heresies.

[@CatholicFundamentalist1096]

@@juri8723please do us the courtesy of explaining then

[@zethmahilum5242]

Let's PRAY FOR ALL GOD'S HOLY PEOPLE....IN JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, AMEN

[@I.can_feel_it.in.the_air]

Simple

[@mkultrawhatever1791]

Catholic=Universal. Stop the infighting. There are stronger forces out there trying to tear us apart.

[@caiodealmeida7832]

The best word to describe the Second Vatican Council is “heresy”. There is no need to add any more words.

[@room2327]

Now, in 2021, when observing what has been happening during the Francis papacy, there is no doubt the architects of Vatican 2 did indeed desire the decline of the True Holy Catholic Church. Thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, I can still practice my faith, and trust that my family will receive correct instruction in the Catechism.

[@haydendude]

We need more of this videos. With this Pius priest. I met him once. He is a holy priest.

[@Agnostic2008]

Can you explain in more detail what heresies introduced Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes, please?

[@Patrick-vz6im]

There are no heresies at Vatican II. An Ecumenical council cannot teach error let alone heresy.

[@dinovalente2947]

@@Patrick-vz6im A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic. I leave you to draw the conclusions?

[@trubangTrang]

@@Patrick-vz6im think again kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpq7oXeKgKl_arc

[@xerox9591]

Many years ago i went to a lecture of Edward Schillebeeckx a Belgian Theologist (Dominican) who was very active at the Vatican Council. The madness he was telling unbelievable. But he and his teachings are still on a daily base destroying the Catholic Church.

[@GeorgeMayol-vu7kh]

Theologians regarded the second vatican council as the french revolution of the catholic church.

[@GeorgeMayol-vu7kh]

The Second Vatican Council happening sometime 1962 to 1965. First convened by Pope John xxiii, but shortly died after. The new elected Pope Paul vi. It is an ecumenical council because there was no dogmatic pronouncements. But in the end Rome declared it dogmatic council.

[@elrico1364]

Still... ever since the 1960's... that 'Council' ... I do remain nauseous.

[@navy4735]

we were completely DUPED.

[@dinovalente2947]

A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic.

[@marioriospinot]

Nice.

[@isaachaar7439]

I love SSPX but I'm wondering, does this mean the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church? If not then how not?

[@warfoxrommel5172]

please answer this question.

[@emmettbrown6418]

"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ" Saint Athanasius. if the Gate of hell prevail, it's because we didn't uphold our obligation under the new covenant and were not worthy of the promises of Christ; so keep the faith. All of it, even the parts that the SSPV and SSPX pretend doesn't exist.

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

@David Phillips You are wrong, read the bible. Jesus does not say the gates of hell will not prevail against the remnant church. That is why you didn't give that quote bec it doesn't exist. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church headed by the man with the y keys of David aka the pope (Matt 16:18-19; Is 22:22; Rev 3:7-10). If you have done this research you will know this means the pope has Jesus' very own authority, so when you say no to a belief the pope sets over the church you say no to Christ. This is why Jesus says if you do not follow this authority you will go to hell (Matt 18:17). So this is the trick of the devil, if the SSPX is right then Jesus lied to us.

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

@David Phillips Rubbish, no one who was an antipope ever ruled over the church from Rome. The remnant has to include the pope according to the words of Christ. According to the vision of St. Jacinta of Fatima, there will be a pope who is falsely accused by people in the church. This is Pope Francis.

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

@David Phillips This is not a case of a pope being elected as an antipope. This was a case where 3 people were claiming to be the elected pope and they resigned to have another election. Not the same thing. Show me one accusation against Pope Francis that is actually true?

[@johnraymond7877]

I bdebdelieve john Paul in heaven due to conversion late in life. Not kissing Koran, v2, Assisi.

[@Alkinski]

Let me get this straight: 1. you criticize collegiality of the bishops, 2. you criticize ecumenical dialogue, 3. you reject freedom of religion -BUT- 1. you consecrate bishops without the permission of the Holy See, 2. you enjoy all the perks of the Church tolerating you operating freely outside of any established Church authority, and 3. you keep establishing your chapels and publishing your media attacking the councilar Church unbothered. In your dream world, the pope would just anatemize you all for objecting the will of the Holy See, Catholic states would prohibit you from any public activity and your "bishops" would be locked up in jail. All in all, I respect Jehovah's witnesses and mormons more than clowns like you.

[@margaritotamayo4533]

dividing further the divided, imploding

[@masteppke]

this is not acceptable to me and millions have left

[@johnraymond7877]

Father said it was"dogmatized ". I thought it was not binding, no an a the as, note by council father secretary said anything novel wasn't binding. ????

[@KyleOfCanada]

I don't think he was speaking literally but figuratively or in practice. In other words, Vatican II was initially presented as being pastoral in nature (and not dogmatically binding) but by the end of it, many of dissidents who supported heterodox reforms were treating it as if it was dogmatic and binding (to the point that there are many people in the Church and even some in this comment section who believe that to deny Vatican II is to be in mortal sin, which is not true according to my understanding since nothing was dogmatically defined by it).

[@juri8723]

KyleOfCanada tell that to JP2 who excommunicated and anathematized Archbishop Lefebvre because he was a schismatic over the council. Vatican 2 is binding to all catholics.

[@juri8723]

@P K first document literally says DOGMATIC constitution on the church

[@juri8723]

@P K a „pastoral“ ecumenical council does not exist.

[@CatholicNeil]

They should have just made peace with the Orthodox. The rest of the changes were useless

[@zethmahilum5242]

And when PROBLEM COMES? ???WHERE ARE THEY?

[@patolbabu8637]

Church lacks vissionaries who think about future

[@unabatedhook9044]

What is he doing with his hands ps who watched this video coz their school made them

[@thehighpriest3550]

unabated hook i watched this because, i wanted to.

[@jesschapman5102]

meee

[@EthanJBubba]

Jess Chapman you're extremely lucky that you go to such a wonderful school, be grateful for what you have.

[@chloesmith9683]

i did today

[@amiemarasitoy6385]

16 documents on second vatican council

[@bantersmagic]

very misleading

[@luisrverasuarez6611]

how should we deal with the fact St. JPII is canonized?

[@thatguyp6925]

Luis R Vera Suárez well he still did a lot of good fighting communism my Mexican Parents hold him in high regard even though he was too nice to those outside the church.

[@luisrverasuarez6611]

Well, that's true,he had some problematic stuff, but, after listening to Fr. Hesse i know that canonization is only infallible to say "this person is in Heaven" so we must accept he is, but arent obligated to accept Vatican II or the new mass

[@IgnacioAgramonte]

MYSTERY..............

[@ShqiptariAL]

He was the man to take down the biggest human threat on Europe. I doubt his holiness is disputed

[@specialteams28]

Luis R Vera Suárez saint Peter is canonized even though he denied Jesus three times

[@jeremiahong248]

SSPX another Protestant heresy. Rigid Pharisees who add in man made laws in the guise of holiness. Nothing of theirs withstand the test of history and orthodoxy.

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

God bless you

[@democracyisajewshill3341]

Lol

[@snowy1634]

There is a very good reason why you guys are on the outside of the Church.

[@RPlavo]

The SSPX is in no position to critique the Church,,,,,,SSPX is full of bling and spectacle

[@gisellecamilleri9736]

i want to.like but i d be the 666 th...so i dont like it

[@themoderncatholicwarrior7216]

That is a superstition, Catholics don't follow them. The bible doesn't say every time 666 comes up it is evil. It is talking about Nero whose name has a numerical value of 666. Having said that you should do more research and then you will realize this SSPX thing is a scam.

[@patolbabu8637]

Third Vatican council very badly needed for a more matured church which understands the needs of the people according to present times and ready for a overall change

[@patolbabu8637]

We should change our mind set according to people's needs each country has a different culture like St Paul we should be open to all people

[@QuisutDeusmpc]

Father either needs a new barber or a new hairpiece. There is a difference between a change in principle and a change in policy or orientation. Not ONE iota of the Chalcedonian understanding of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed has been changed. Let's be clear about that. The "depositum fidei' has NOT changed. THAT is the core of the catholic Faith. These other things are changes in policy and procedure, NOT in principles.

[@TheDTCory]

Are you sure about that? "It is true that the Church is the new people of God, yet the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this is followed from Holy Scripture." (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religious Nostra Aetate, paragraph 4). For evidence of the true doctrine in relation to this remarkable assertion, we may start with Our Lord's parable recorded in Matthew 21:33-45 and the Church's traditional interpretation of it. "The rejection of the Jews and the conversion of the Gentiles are here foretold, as Christ teaches in verse 43," says Cornelius a Lapide in his commentary on this passage. Then, of course, there is Matthew 27:25: "And the whole people, answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children." Presumably something follows from this passage in Holy Scripture, and one wonders what the Fathers of Vatican II had in mind. For the traditional Church teaching in relation to that passage, we return once again to Cornelius a Lapide, where he comments on it: "And thus they [the Jews] have subjected, not only themselves, but their very latest descendants, to God's displeasure. They feel it even to this day in its full force, in being scattered over all the world, without a city,7 or temple, or sacrifice, or priest or prince... 'This curse,' says St. Jerome, 'rests on them even to this day, and the blood of the Lord is not taken away from them,' as Daniel foretold (Daniel 9:27)." And out of interest, if we were asked which, out of all the Vatican II passages that we are offering, we believed to be the most difficult to explain away even with the most subtle debating devices, we should probably choose this one. We do not maintain that it is more definitely heretical than the others, but it does seem to present the fewest escape routes, especially as the Fathers of Vatican II expressly elected to have their doctrine judged against Holy Scripture, which is explicit in making it absolutely clear that the Jews have been collectively reprobated for their part in the Crucifixion. (Numerous other texts from the New Testament could be quoted to this end, but we think we have already given enough evidence.) Theological censure: HERETICAL. "The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2) What is more, the Vatican II "popes" took steps to ensure that, in countries where such freedom was not already a "civil right", it became one. Thus the Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.3 And as though to refute as clearly as possible the attempts of certain misguided "conservative" members of the Conciliar Sect to explain away the text cited above, interpreting it in some quite incredible fashion, Karol Wojtyla never misses an opportunity to inculcate his own - surely accurate - interpretation of the Council's intention. For instance in February 1993 he declared, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, that "the Church considers religious liberty as an inalienable right..." The correct doctrine, which popes have often reiterated, is most authoritatively stated in the following passage from Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura (1864): "And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church." Almost the only label that Pope Pius IX does not attach to this doctrine is in fact that of "heresy", but he clearly thought the "insanity" he spoke of to be heretical for he says that it contradicts Divine Revelation. Moreover, this notion of religious liberty had already been expressly qualified as heretical by Pope Pius VII in his brief Post Tam Diuturnas, so there is no doubt about the matter. Theological Censure: HERETICAL.

[@nemanjr.8572]

Ecumenical councils can not be held without participation of other patriarchs. Call it Roman-Catholic council.

[@luisrverasuarez6611]

Neman Jr. Oh come on man

[@luisrverasuarez6611]

Neman Jr. Greek Schismatics were the ones who left the Church

[@jesschapman5102]

Why do you keep doing that with your hands it is annoying!