3. "The Second Vatican" As Opposed To "Vatican II"
"The Second
Vatican" As Opposed To "Vatican II"
The Power Of
Language: A thesis on the reference to the false council. We
do not intend to use the terms 'Vatican II/2', or 'The Second/2nd Vatican
Council' any more unless it is to avoid confusion. Amongst sedevacantists
themselves it is fine and it is in general usage in any case; but
for us, the 'official' designations are to be 'The Second Vatican' and 'The
Vatican Church' in lieu of 'Vatican
II' and 'The Vatican II Church' or any designation which speaks of the
false
council. For the ‘council’ of 1962-65 was not actually a council of the
Catholic Church. We mean to separate 'the Vatican' from 'the council',
but not 'The Vatican Council' (1869-70), as that is a council of the
Catholic Church. We believe that this designation to be more accurate.
Before we continue: This change in designation is
suggested for discussion with those who are called 'novus ordo', or 'trad', 'semi-trad',
or anything similar. What effect might it garner for those who are with apostate
Rome to hear it referred to simply as 'The Second Vatican' and with no
reference at all to the council they believe to be of the Catholic Church ?
They would be hearing something different and they need to hear it differently.
To continue: There were no dogmas defined at the false
council. Montini (antipope Paul 6) said: "In view of the pastoral nature of the
Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogma endowed with the note
of infallibility but it provided its teaching with the authority of the
Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind
of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document". We
will say that, as pastoral and not dogmatic, the false council was not meant to
teach so much as guide…the faithful away from what the Church has always taught. In
this way it sidesteps immediately the thorny problem of teaching dogmas
contrary to the Church, even if some new doctrines are introduced. [1]
Not A Council Of The Catholic Church
In "Faith Undermined (1958-1965)"
it was shown how, prior to the false council, antipope John 23
(Roncalli) bestowed an altered form of Mass in the 1962 Missal, and how,
by consenting to this new form, the bishops lost their standing: "And
when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the
woman, who brought forth the man child: And there were given to the
woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert
unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a
time, from the face of the serpent" (Apoc. 12:13-14). The whole time of
the false council amounted to a little more than three years; but as
Roncalli's 1962 Missal was promulgated among the bishops, specifically in July of 1962 then the last half-year is accounted with the rest.
The
point to make is not that it was a council which went false, due to
being directed by the antipope and his allies in the Vatican, but that
it never was a council of the Catholic Church in any way. It is
similar to the antipapacy in this regard, which is embodied by men who
never were for a moment legitimate popes. Both may appear to be so, a pope and a council, but spiritually, they are the same, in that appearances here mean nothing. [2]
This
may seem a subtle point, and so it is. But consider: When we speak of
'Vatican II', meaning the false council, already we are admitting
continuity, as though there were an actual second Vatican council. In a
parallel way, by use of language, when people use the word 'they' in
place of the generic pronoun 'he' (meaning any random person) then they
are already giving too much ground to the claims of feminism (which are
like those of the Accuser {Apoc. 12:10} but this discussion is not for
here).
A New And False Copy
In
other words, are there two Vaticans, as though there were another Seat
of Peter ? The usage of the term, in a spiritual sense (though
unknowingly for most) denotes both the false council and the false
Vatican. In the same breath it is the false council which is meant but
it also speaks, as it were, of a second City, in time if not in place.
This is something which is hidden in plain sight; and not really even
hidden, but it is too close to see.
The
'second City' is legitimized in the minds of many, in part, by the
apparent continuity with the Council of 1869-70; they consider the
council to still be a council, although it went false. Going further
upstream, if they inquire, they may find that it never was a council at
all, for some of the reasons listed above. But if people continue to
call it as such, they in effect self-brainwash, which here means
'already accepting a form of continuity'.
So
we propose the term 'The Second Vatican' to refer to this new and false
City and its council, dropping all references to the word 'council'
where convenient. The bishops had already lost their place prior to the
conciliar sessions (when the woman fled "into the desert unto her
place"), so there was no actual Council of the Catholic Church at all.
Instead, it was an 'establishment'; of something else.
One
other reason we call it 'The Second Vatican' (or 'The Vatican Church')
has to do with the removal of the Chair of Peter from Rome (see thesis
on 'Sede Remota' here).
Since the Papacy cannot ever be in Rome anymore, the new Vatican really
is a second City, and not merely the first which yet can be restored.
Again, a subtle but we believe crucial difference.
Finally,
it is not expected that this terminology would become in general use.
It is simply an adjustment of terms to more accurately reflect the
spiritual conditions since 1958-1965, and especially in light of the
Apocalypse.
End Notes
1. There were already heresies present in some of the documents, notably Nostra Aetate (concerning the status of them who have rejected
Christ), but as the false council was ‘pastoral’ and not dogmatic it can be
claimed that this new doctrine was not a teaching so much as a suggestion. This
has in fact been the nature of the excuses made for the false council.
2.
As a false pope, Roncalli never had the authority to call a council in
the first place, so in that way the false council was false from the
start. But the point we are making here goes further than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment
--