top of page

Frequently Asked Questions

What's wrong with the new mass?

From "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn. 


Among other things, the liturgical changes of Vatican II reflect the doctrinal errors of the Council concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty and (4) collegiality. 


The new liturgy is an ecumenical liturgy, and seeks to erase any doctrines which are distinctly Catholic, and to turn the Catholic liturgy into a form of worship which would not be offensive to any Protestant. It is man-centered worship, stripped of all symbolism of the supernatural.

The Ordo Missae of Paul VI is an evil liturgical discipline, because:

  1. it contains a heretical definition of the Mass;

  2. it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecumenical liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist;

  3. it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated;

  4. its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics;

  5. it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Furthermore, it is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in him who celebrates it, and owing, at least in the vernacular, to a blasphemous alteration of the words of Christ in the consecration formula.

What's wrong with Vatican II?

FAQs from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn.

What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?

The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church's teaching and constant practice.


What doctrines did it teach which were already condemned?

There are four major errors concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecumenism; (3) religious liberty; (4) collegiality.


What false doctrine does it teach concerning the unity of the Church?

Vatican II teaches heresy concerning the unity of the Church, namely that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine is contained principally in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning is confirmed in statements of Paul VI and his successors, particularly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in the 1992 Statement concerning Church and Communion, and in the Ecumenical Directory.

 It is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, contained principally in Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII, and in the condemnations of the "Branch Theory" made by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX.


What false doctrine does it teach concerning ecumenism?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning ecumenism, which states that non-Catholic religions are a "means of salvation," is overtly heretical. This doctrine directly contradicts the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, called by Pope Pius IX "a most well-know Catholic dogma." In addition, the ecumenical practices which have resulted from this heretical doctrine are directly contrary to Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI.


What false doctrine does it teach concerning religious liberty?

The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty, contained in Dignitatis Humanae, nearly word for word asserts the very doctrine which was condemned by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty also contradicts the royalty of Jesus Christ in society as expressed in Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI, and the constant attitude and practice of the Church with regard to civil society.


What false doctrine does it teach concerning collegiality?

The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.


What is wrong with the disciplines which have emanated from Vatican II?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law contains the heresy of Vatican II concerning the Church, mentioned above. It also permits sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament, by approving of its reception by non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin, and permits communicatio in sacris (common public worship) with non-Catholics, which is a mortal sin. In addition, the Ecumenical Directory of 1993 permits ecumenical practices which have always been taught by the Church to be mortally sinful.


What does all this mean?

It means that Vatican II and its subsequent reforms have given us a new religion, a religion which is substantially different from the Roman Catholic Faith founded by Christ.

The reformers have substantially altered the three main components of religion: doctrine, worship, and discipline. The result is that the reformers are promoting a religion of ecumenism in place of the Roman Catholic religion, which has always taught that it alone is the one, true Faith, and that all other religions are false. The Vatican II religion teaches doctrines which have been condemned by the Church in the past. It has instituted rites and disciplines which are Protestant in nature.

As a result, the religion which Catholics find in their local parishes and schools, although in name Catholic, is a new, non-Catholic religion already condemned by the Catholic Church.


Could it be that you are merely giving a bad interpretation to Vatican II?

No. The heretical nature of this council is confirmed by:

  1. the doctrinal interpretation given to Vatican II by Paul VI and his successors in their decrees, encyclicals, catechisms, etc.;

  2. the series of abominations perpetrated by John Paul II against the First Commandment of God, in the form of ecumenical ceremonies which constitute false worship, even to pagan deities in some cases;

  3. the alteration of the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that the Catholic Mass has been replaced by a Protestant supper service;

  4. the tampering with the matter and form of the sacraments so that many of them, but most notably the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, labor under doubt or invalidity;

  5. the promulgation of disciplines, especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Ecumenical Directory, which approve of sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and which demonstrate heresies concerning the unity of the Church as their theoretical basis;

  6. the scandalous mockery made of the Sacrament of Matrimony by the granting of annulments for spurious reasons, constituting an abandonment of the sacred doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage;

  7. the fact that John Paul II is in communion with manifest heretics, has openly declared himself to be in communion with non-Catholic sects, and has recognized an apostolic mission in schismatic and Lutheran bishops, all of which destroys the unity of faith. He has even kissed the Koran, which explicitly denies the Incarnation and the Trinity. He has also publicly prayed that St. John the Baptist protect Islam.

What About the Vatican II Popes?

FAQs from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn


If what you are saying is true, what does it say about the Vatican II popes?

It says that it is impossible that they be true Catholic popes.


Why can they not be true Catholic popes and true Catholic bishops?

They cannot be true Catholic popes because it is impossible that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is Christ's authority, give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines.


Why cannot the authority of the Roman Catholic Church give to the universal Church false doctrines, false liturgical practices, and false disciplines?

Precisely because it is the authority of Christ. The Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost in the promulgation of dogma and morals, and in the enactment of liturgical laws and pastoral disciplines. In the same way that it is unimaginable that Christ could promulgate these errors or enact these sinful disciplines, so it is unimaginable that the assistance which He gives to the Church through the Holy Ghost could permit such things. Hence, the fact that the Vatican II popes have done these things is a certain sign that they have do not have the authority of Christ. The teachings of Vatican II and the reforms which proceed from it are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. But since the Church is both indefectible and infallible, it cannot give to the faithful doctrines, laws, liturgy, and disciplines which are contrary to the Faith and ruinous of our eternal salvation. We must therefore conclude that this Council and these reforms do not proceed from the Church, that is, the Holy Ghost, but from an evil influence within the Church. From this it follows that those who have promulgated this evil Council and these evil reforms have not promulgated them with the authority of the Church, which is the authority of Christ. From this we rightfully conclude that their claim to have this authority is false, despite whatever appearance they may have, even despite an apparently valid election to the papacy.


Do we have the authority to say that these Vatican II popes are not true popes?

We do not have the authority to legally declare it. But on the other hand, as Catholics, we have the obligation of comparing what is taught by Vatican II with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The virtue of faith demands that we do so, since the faith is supernatural wisdom and consequently demands that everything be in conformity with it. If we did not make this comparison, we would not have the virtue of faith. If we find that the teachings of Vatican II are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Faith, we are bound to reject Vatican II, and bound to conclude that those who promulgate it do not have the authority of Christ. Otherwise our adherence to the error which is contrary to faith would ruin the virtue in us, and we would become heretics. Similarly, if we would entertain the thought that the Catholic Church were capable of promulgating false doctrines and evil worship and discipline, we would be heretics. So privately to conclude that John Paul II is a heretic, indeed an apostate from the Faith, is not to "judge" the pope in the sense that it is meant by canonists and theologians. In fact, if we could not even think of the possibility of the pope being a heretic, then why do so many theologians speak about this possibility, and about the consequences of his being a heretic?


But why can't we "sift" what the pope does and says, and accept what is Catholic, and reject what is non-Catholic?

Because if John Paul II is the pope, we must obey him. Even to admit the possibility that he can promulgate false doctrines and enact universal disciplines which are evil is itself a heresy against the teaching that the Catholic Church is infallible in these matters. It is inconceivable that, in following the universal teachings of the Church or her universal disciplines, you could be led astray and go to Hell. If this were possible, one would have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, but a human institution like any other false church. Furthermore, to sift the teachings of the Church is to set yourself up as the pope, for your adherence to these teachings would not be based on the authority of the Church, but rather your own "sifting" of these teachings.


But if your father tells you to do something wrong, you must disobey him. But he still remains your father.

First of all, being someone's natural father can never change because it is based on physical generation. But being someone's spiritual father can change because it is based on a spiritual generation. Hence a pope could resign and no longer be the spiritual father of Catholics. So the analogy does not apply.

But more importantly, this argument which is frequently used by the Society of Saint Pius X and others, does not hold water for another reason. If a pope gave to a particular person a particular command which was evil (e.g., to desecrate a crucifix), the argument would apply. For in such a case the pope would not be engaging the whole practice of the Church, and therefore would not involve the indefectibility of the Church. But if he were to make a general law that all Catholics ought to desecrate crucifixes, then the very indefectibility of the Church is at stake. For how could the Church of Christ make such a law? Would it then not be leading all souls to Hell? The fact that John Paul II has made general laws which prescribe or even permit evil is a violation of the Church's indefectibility.

Hence the Society's argument cannot be applied to the present crisis in the Church.


But what if we are not sure if Vatican II is erroneous, and if John Paul II is a true pope or not?

In such a doubt you must give the superior the benefit of the doubt. In such a case you would have to embrace all the teachings of Vatican II, the new liturgy, and the new disciplines. You would also be obliged to recognize John Paul II as a true Catholic pope.


Isn't the question of John Paul's papacy a mere matter of opinion?

Absolutely not. Our eternal salvation depends upon our submission to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore the question of John Paul's papacy is of supreme importance, and we must resolve our consciences about it one way or the other. If we conclude that Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Church, then we must reject John Paul II as a true pope.

If we conclude that Vatican II is not a substantial alteration of the Catholic Faith, then we must accept him as a true pope, and follow what he commands us to do.

A Catholic who is indifferent as to whether he is the pope or not is no Catholic at all. Rather he has the spirit of schism and of repudiation of authority.

In the Great Western Schism, in which there were three claimants to the papal throne, St. Vincent Ferrer condemned those who were indifferent as to who was the true Pope.


Were there any parallel cases in history?

The Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 A.D. espoused the heresy that Our Lady was not the Mother of God. After he preached this from the pulpit, the Catholic people would have nothing to do with him, would not attend his Masses, and said, "We have an Emperor, but no bishop." And this was before he was officially excommunicated by the Church.

While this case concerns a bishop and not a pope, the principle is the same: the promulgation of heresy is incompatible with the possession of the authority of Christ over the flock. If it was true for this bishop Nestorius, it is all the more true for him who has the care of the whole flock.


Did any Pope ever warn us about a heretic on the throne of Peter?

Pope Paul IV in 1559, fearful lest a Protestant be elected to the papal throne, decreed in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio that if the person elected the Pope should have deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy, his election shall be considered null, legally invalid, and void. He furthermore decreed that such a person must not be considered the pope, even if he took possession of the office, was enthroned, and received the veneration and obedience of all the faithful.


FAQs from "Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope" by Rev. Anthony Cekada

Catholics new to the traditional movement sometimes fear they are defying papal authority. Are they?

No. Unlike many traditionalist groups, we do not believe one can simultaneously hold that (a) The changes in the Church were bad and (b) The popes who promulgated the changes continued to possess authority from Christ.

Both propositions cannot be true. The authority of the Church cannot give evil or error.

But once you acknowledge the obvious - that the Vatican II changes were in fact harmful to souls - only one reasonable explanation remains: the men who promulgated these change, from Paul VI on down, either lost or lacked true authority to do so.


A Brief Explanation. How could this be so? The reasoning is as follows:

  1. Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.

  2. Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.

  3. It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.

  4. Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.

  5. Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.

  6. Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority. 

  7. Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority.


Put Another Way. The Faith itself compels us to assert that those who have taught these errors or promulgated these evil laws, no matter what appearance of authority they may have, do not in fact possess the authority of the Catholic Church. Only in this way is the indefectibility of the Catholic Church preserved. We must therefore, as Catholics who affirm that the Church is both indefectible and infallible, reject and repudiate the claims that Paul VI and his successors have been true popes. On the other hand we leave it to the authority of the Church, when it once again will function in a normal manner, to declare authoritatively that these supposed popes were non-popes. We as simple priests cannot, after all, make authoritative judgements, whether legal or doctrinal, which bind the consciences of the faithful.

bottom of page