The “Original Sin” of Vatican II: Replacing the traditional dogmatic language of the church with vague, new ‘pastoral’ Vatican II “doublespeak”.

”From the two opposed languages, dogmatic and pastoral, Radaelli sees the emergence and separation ‘almost of two Churches’.”

In the first, that of the most consistent traditionalists, Radaelli includes the SSPX, whom he describes as fully “Catholic by doctrine and by rite” and “obedient to dogma,” even if they are allegedly disobedient to the pope.  It is this ‘Church” [the Traditionalists] that, precisely because of its fidelity to dogma, “rejects Vatican II as an assembly in total rupture with Tradition.”

Radaelli assigns to this second “church” all the others, meaning most of the bishops, priests and faithful including Benedict XVI. This second group has renounced dogmatic language and “is in everything the daughter of Vatican II, proclaiming it – even from the highest throne, but without ever setting out proof of this – in total continuity with the preconciliar Church, albeit within the setting of a certain reform.”

Read more


  1. No, the “original sin” of Vatican II was calling Vatican II. That was the doing of Pope John XXIII, for which he was “beatified” by “second ‘church'” (see above).

    • i agree i meet you years ago bobby from niles

  2. Vatican II leads to FLEXABILITY (Anything Goes) vs. DOGMATIC ( Rigidity)!
    Was this Not a Secular tactic, used by BHO, with Putin?
    Anyway, you look at it the Roman Catholic Church used to be built on pillars of Dogma! Now, it complies to ECUMENISM and what the Popular Opinion defines, as The Church!

  3. Has this site become the home of heretics and fraudsters? The SSPX and its evil and sinful clerics? Lets restate something shall we that is in obedience to Mother Church: First The church of Rome under Pope John 23rd called the Vatican Council 2 in the true and correct obedient spirit of Christ. It is a mortal sin to deny this fact. Second The Roman Catholic Church under EVERY Pope since has accepted and formulated the Council and its works as the provider of Divine Providence and the pointer to the future of it and the world. It is nothing short of a mortal sin for any bishop, cleric or lay person to denounce the Council as heretical because such acts (as processed by heretics like Llefebvre and his like, that vile SSPX incarnate devils) are disobedient to the Will of Mother Church and furthermore to the declaration of Pope Paul VI that the Spirit of The Council is the Holy Spirit. It is a blasphemous mortal sin to advance any proposition against the council thereby. If in extraordinary circumstances, an individual feels they cannot accept such modern and relevant language as directed by the Council they may refrain from advancing its ideals, that is they must shut up! The Church is quite criticized from a heathen and satanic world but the attack of Mother Church, her spirit or her direction as suggested by Vatican 2 is a sin. It is forbidden by the Church to use media to progress such attacks and it forbidden by the Church for self appointed bigots to spout on about the Council as if it was a shameful dishonoured thing rather than the will of Our lord Jesus Christ.

    • Pointing out the flaws and failures of the Vatican II documents and the grievous abuses which accompanied the implementation of the Vatican II reforms is a simple lesson in church history. One does not need to dispute the validity of the Council to make these types of observations. Nor is it a sin to point out the flagrant abuses (of every kind) by clergy and hierarchy – especially when such abuse appears to scandalously become part and parcel of the modern institution, itself.

      Popes and bishops can be and are indeed, often wrong. Canon 212 gives the laity the right – even the duty – to respectfully point out such errors and urge the hierarchy to correct them. There is no sin in that.

      I affirm that Vatican II was indeed a valid Council. Yet based on the tragic, negative results of the implementation of the Vatican II reforms, it would be blasphemous to attribute such to the Holy Spirit – the divine, third person of the Holy Trinity – who is not the author of confusion. So it should be obvious to all that the spirit invoked by the reformers – those who tore down the altar rails, emptied the religious orders, and built the gymnasiums that are today, called churches – is not the spirit of God – but some other, obtuse spirit. Nor is pointing all this out disrespectful or sinful. It is merely a practical, prudential judgment, based on the facts.

      Revolutions are always chaotic – and the post-Vatican II era constituted nothing less than a revolution in the church – a costly, ugly, disruptive one, at that. And the struggle is still going on.

      As for heresy: You might have noticed that the words and deeds of every pope since the 2nd Vatican Council have served to water down and/or deny many of the clearly defined truths, doctrines and dogmas which have always been firmly and faithfully affirmed by the Catholic Church – as codified in the documents of the Council of Trent, and many others.

      First, it was a break from Tradition. Then, it was abject heresy being openly preached, without correction from the pope and bishops. Then it was outright silence on key doctrinal issues in an effort to be politically correct and non-controversial. Then it was the poor catechesis and dumbing-down of the Body of Christ. Then it was the horrendous and extremely costly clerical sex scandals. Then it was the scandal of Catholic charities supporting so many anti-Catholic (and mortally sinful) causes – and their lying about it! Then we found that Catholic dioceses in major cities have been paying for abortion and contraception, as part of their existing health plans – and that many “Catholic” hospitals have been regularly offering such “services” as well. And let’s not forget the scandalous nature of alleged “Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Georgetown and others – schools that are often run by Jesuits.

      Today, we have another pope – a Jesuit – who appears to be able to humbly accept all of the above, so long as we minister to the poor – and fix the problems with the Vatican Bank.

      You claim it is a sin to publicly rail against all these scandals. Have you never heard of the sin of omission? Have you never read of St. Athanasius, St. Teresa, St. Francis and others, who worked to rebuild and reform the Catholic Church, without stripping it of all that is good and beautiful – and without decimating the numbers of the faithful?

      I personally witnessed the post-Vatican II deconstruction of the Catholic Church, the decline of virtually every major church institution, the effects of the scandals on the Body of Christ, the various political intrigues and abuses by corrupt bishops and priests, and the corresponding decline of modern western civilization. Now I do what I can to reverse that damage by prayer and fasting – and by attempting to shine the light of traditional Catholic truth on such things – painful as it is.

      Did you actually live during the 1960’s and 1970’s and personally experience what went on in the church? How do you plan to address these issues? What responsibility do you accept? How much time have you spent working in Catholic parishes, doing what all Catholics are called by God to do – while the defective modern Catholic culture, which seems to infest so many of today’s parishes – serves to effectively impede or reverse that good work? Do you know and love God? Do you know the authentic Catholic faith and how it should be properly defended? Have you studied all the Vatican II documents, as well as all those which came before, and systematically compared each to the other? Are you able to accurately discern the difference between Catholic politics and Catholic doctrine – especially when such things are publicly advanced by a pope or a bishop – without apparent differentiation?

      Finally, who gave you the authority to call anyone a heretic, a bigot, or a sinner? Even the Pope refuses to do that.

      You do have a right to your own opinion, though – even if it’s wrong.

      Thanks for writing!


      • “You do have a right to your own opinion, though – even if it’s wrong.”

        Or, to paraphrase a favorite paraprosdokian: If I agreed with scampy22, then we’d both be wrong.

      • Wonderful Reply Doug!
        I know you stand behind years of study….YOU ARE NO HERETIC, YOU ARE A TRUE CATHOLIC!

  4. Oh no you don’t! The entire tone of the article is critical and presupposes that Traditional Catholics are against the excesses of Vatican 2 as if it was a smorgasbord that we may pick and choose from! That if we could only understand that the present pope – a Jesuit? as if that was something to be ashamed of rather than applauded . .is in error in just about everything he says and does. This is all NONESENSE!
    I too lived through the sixties and to this day I and all good Catholics I know are in full and absolute agreement that Vatican 2 is THE WILL OF GODS HOLY SPIRIT!
    Thereby anyone that is in some wicked state that feels they are superior or intellectually sound in offering a critique which is akin to the heretics such as the SSPX, which is by its disobedience to the will of the modern Church and its pope (every pope since John 23) are theologically unsound.
    In the next place, Saint Pio demanded of his friends that they did not ever attack Mother Church even if they presumed they had a case to do so. His sister whom left the Church was at the end his greatest sadness because she like others even today presume they know what is the will of Mother Church over the authority of the Bishops.

    It is a sin to advertise in error or to cause anxiety or mistrust of members of the Church. The article supports that notion that ironically is most liberal of all; that we all have a right to our opinion and thereby to stress it as we see fit. That is not the case with the internet. It is not permitted by Vatican teaching to use the internet by lay persons to attack or injure Mother Church. In that regard it is the sin of Pride and of DISOBEDIENCE.
    I must say that as someone that grew up before the Church introduced Vatican 2 I have seen many changes as even before it and most are for the good. We have a beautiful Jesuit – Franciscan Pope in Francis and are articles are not only incorrect as the SSPX is incorrect because they are flawed but also seem negative to the point of heretical sinfulness because the snipping at this great man from people that claim to be Roman Catholic is less than a joke.

    • Oh well, scampy22, now that you and Doug have updated us all as to your history and more recent absence here, I might as well let loose in kind (and in Charity). In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.

      Ergo, I invite you to read a message I recently sent to a close convert friend whom I sponsored 10 years ago, and who has arrived at his now-traditionalist Catholic orientation quite on his own:

      “As you suspected, I had already seen the article linked, below.

      “For the sake of my constantly-besieged peace-of-mind, I try to pay as little attention as possible to Francis: knowing full well that much of what I hear and see is unavoidable. As well as incomplete, in some measure. Nonetheless, I am convinced that his papacy offers nothing more that a step backward. But nowhere nearly far enough backward. In other words: backward only toward the worst of the V-II conciliar morass of confusion, ambiguity and error.

      “The imminent canonization of JPII totally distresses and depresses me, particularly since my exposure to it just in my own parish church will likely be overwhelming. As an employee of the latter, I dread the prospect of special liturgies, ceremonies, recognitions, prayers, programs, etc. related to the canonization (no such events have yet been scheduled, but are a virtual certainty). When such things occur, my attitude—in order to keep my job—will have to become totally mercenary in order for me to function for them. Having adopted that orientation for specific events, will I thereafter be able to ‘compartmentalize,’ so as to treat subsequent liturgical ‘business-as-usual’ with the qualified respect that I had previously afforded it (even though it was of the deficient Novus Ordo provenance)?

      “I just don’t know. I just don’t know how much longer I can maintain this religious juggling act. Heck, I am dropping balls left and right already.

      “I used to state, of the sede-traddies, that their position was tantamount to saying: ‘The Holy Spirit has left the building (i.e. the Church).’

      “Now, I am more and more inclined to say: ‘The Building has evicted the Holy Spirit.’ In other words, the Church has delegitimized Herself by rejecting Her Paraclete. Which, if true, reduces her to lower-case (i.e. ‘the church,’ as in, whatever works for you…).

      “Does that vindicate the sede-traddies? No, for their vision continues to be of the tunnel variety, IMO.

      “So where, then, are we now to find the Institution founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and placed upon the flawed-but-stout and saintly shoulders of Peter? The Institution deigned to be the sole route to Salvation for all mankind?

      “Right now, I have no confident answer to that question, other than to know where not to find it. SSPX is the closest–and maybe only–source of hope that I can see.”

      • Sounds like a Man, who has made a CHOICE to deliver him out of Confusion, and bring him Peace and Rest with the Lord!

      • Thanks for that Mark and Cathy. Well I hardly expected an endorsement of my attitude although you will not be offended if I do not adhere to your observations.

        I will answer it briefly (for me).
        Reading the statement I can hear your bewilderment and even hurt from what you have understood as the Church. The Body of Christ that once gave meaning and clarity to this rather absurd world about us. That is fine and I am not against people offering objections to what they feel is an organisation that has deserted the truth and left them increasingly on the edge of darkness. I also admit that the Church has made serious errors in the past and today is no historical exception. I will admit to fuming against much of what I think the Church gets wrong and will even rave against God himself as seemingly at times caprice or idiotic! I laughingly am glad that Our Lord has not todate been too offended by my clumsy protestations against his majesty!

        It seems it may boil down to the question of faith we have. We encounter Our Lord in everyday life and in everything we do and think and should try and say. But and this is a breaking point we must try and think of what our faith is. What it means for us and the world and why we claim to believe in what is after all something mysterious, comical and often bewildering!

        The faith in a Catholic Church is more than a simple liturgical wording and more than even obeying authority. It is I suggest a grace about leading us to salvation. That means we have a relationship with Jesus and His Spirit and His father. We are In God as well as belonging to him. Faith is not however something that is easy, nor should it be as it remains so serious. It involves us not understanding, not believing, not being good, not loving and not following God as we should. It is despite our weakness a gift and freely given but must be worked upon if it is to live.

        In the Catholic Church we should have a special faith. It is not always possible to believe this or that but faith gently should lead us to Calvary and the empty tomb. In the Catholic Church we should profess a belief that even if we are dumbfounded, seemingly lost, left on our own to figure things out, badly living individual or whatever .. no matter our objections ..Faith means that we believe in God in Jesus and His Spirit. That the Catholic Church is in essence the truth and even if we are against much of what it says we shall keep our faith . .because Our Lord died for it.

        The trouble with the SSPX is that they like many early heretical groups that threatened Christ and his Roman Church have decided that enough is enough. They will not dance for what they state as a self willed Church that has forgotten the Faith it said it professed. There is nothing new in this kind of debate and we see it even occurred amongst the Apostles whilst Christ was yet with them. It was greatly supported by Luther and others down the centuries. It states that this or that is the Faith and You have fallen from grace and fallen away from what is Holy and Apostolic and True.
        Yes they have their belief system but I step back from this because it reverts to stone and not to a present or future world. To me Llefebvre and his whole argument is based on what I suggested as Disobedience. His office was trampled and his group of fellow bishops and followers chose to declare themselves as the true Apostolic Church. That is at best woefully inaccurate. I cant think of any movement that successive popes have turned from that still maintains itself as the Catholic Church. The Traditional Church is a complete absurdity akin to Jehovah Witnesses claiming to be Christians!

        Finally if we do not accept the final authority of the Pope and his Bishops best to leave and join the Orthodox Eastern Churches that at least remain in the see of Rome.
        Faith is not about the past it is about the Living and what we have to do in the world today. Of course we learn from yesterday and it gives us our compass for the future but the Faith we have in the Church is about us meeting Jesus and the Trinity. That is best served as always in the Roman Rite and the proclamation that despite our indifference, misunderstanding, failures and stupidity we shall hold onto the Church of Rome because it is Living and if we live then it is for us too. I hope that you and your friend will find a way back to the Roman Catholic Church of Today, yesteryear and forever. It is not always easy to hold that faith but it is what God wants of us.

        Be of Good Cheer and try not to worry. The Holy Spirit is a strong as ever and more than pleased to lead us to him.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s