3 Big Lies About Vatican II (And Why They’re Wrong)

Well, what about the Spanish inquisition? If you know, you know. Cover that in the past show. This is recorded live Saturday, March 7 in the year of our Lord 2026. Thank you, Catholic church. Let's roll that music out. I actually already did an episode of Fire Branded for this week. You will find it everywhere. YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, wherever you're getting it from, The Forge. You'll find it there in the feed.

It's called tips for spotting bad theology. That was it. It's an audio only because it was a Twitter Spaces session. This is based off of something I said in that last episode 42, Tips for Spotting Bad Theology. One of them was throwing shade over a valid ecumenical council is a hint that the person is giving you bad theology.

And that's what inspired this episode. So I just came up with a couple of things three things that are misconceptions about the Second Vatican Council and why they're wrong. One thing that I wanted to really focus on was Vatican II. Because it's very easy to be critical of Vatican II. It is so easy to be critical of Vatican II and you don't even have to know what you're talking about.

Why? Because everything gets blamed on the Second Vatican Council. The whole church changed after Vatican II. It's very easy to say that because we have this image in our heads of what the church used to be and after Vatican II we have this image in our heads that everything changed. Well, that's not completely crazy.

But where it fails is it fails to establish that Vatican II is why the church changed so much. It's it's an understandable perception. I'm not I'm not trying to shame anybody. It's an understandable perception. But here's the reality of it. The different first of all, people who have this idea of what the Church used to be, oftentimes they point back

to a period in church history that they didn't even exist in might have been the thirties the eighteen hundreds the forties now that I'm older there are people who grew up in the nineties and the February talking about how crazy the church used to be well I grew up in the eighty's and I can tell you the crazy that they're talking about did not exist for me. Did not exist for me. My parish was solid. The neighboring parish my diocese was pretty solid. Some parishes more than others.

But it was a pretty solid Catholic experience. So I have some perspective. Was it the same as what the church was in the forties? I don't know because the only church I know of in the nineteen forties come from Bing Crosby movies. I didn't live in the forties.

So there's that flaw to be careful of. Also, while there have been changes in the church sinceor let's say after Vatican II, it was not caused by Vatican II. It was not caused by the Second Vatican Council. There were a lot of changes going on before, not in the church, in the world, before the second Vatican council. So the craziness that we see, like for instance, the nineteen seventies hippie Catholic craziness, well, that's real.

I'm not denying that. That that was real. But that craziness that we really attributed to the nineteen seventies, right? Late sixties, early seventies. I I mean, that was festering in the church in the fifties. It just didn't have room to come out to play. You think people just all of a sudden after Vatican II said, Oh, now I'm a hippie.

No. That was already festering in the church. So Vatican II and the life of the church happened amid tremendous changes in cultural shifts in the secular world. And the church existed during that period, in within that period.

I'm not going to go through that whole thing now. I did do an episode on that in the past, long past, and I think what I'll do is, not today, but I think I'll post that main segment of that episode. What was the cause of the changes in the church? Was it Vatican II? What was the cause of emptying of the churches? Was it Vatican II? Or was it something else?

I'll post that later on in the week. I think that that episode proper, because you know how a show has a couple of segments in it. That main segment, I think was like a twenty five minute segment. I'll post that later on in the week. I'm not gonna get into all that now. So because of these changes, these cultural shifts in the church, it's easy to say Vatican II. You don't even have to speak theologian. You don't have to speak theologian to do that.

You can say it's because of Vatican II. It's because of the bishops. Thanks, bishops. Nice job, Vatican II. Nice job, cardinals, making the mass look like a Protestant mass. Nonsense. It's absolutely ridiculous. But it's easy to say because it echoes something that people already perceive. May or may not be the truth, but it's what they perceive, so it's the same thing as the truth.

Right? So what I want to do here is point out some misconceptions about Vatican II, three of them specifically, but also what I want to do what I have just done is intro it that way. It's easy to sound like a theological genius when you're bashing Vatican II. That doesn't mean the person knows what they're talking about. My my friends, I encounter it every day. Very legitimate sounding arguments based on critique and bashing of Vatican II.

Very legitimate sounding unless you know what you're talking about. If you have a background in it I'm I'm not a theologian folks but I have a background in theology so it can sound very convincing but you better watch yourself because usually that is the mark of a deceiver and a bad player someone who does not have goodwill or your good intentions at heart I'm sorry, your goodwill at heart or the good of the church at heart. You got to be careful for that.

Let me establish something here. I used to be anti Vatican II. I was almost a sedevicantist. Very, very nearly a sedevacantist, not getting into that. I've done articles, I've done podcasts, not getting into it.

I was very nearly a sedevacantist. Actually, what I'll do is maybe I'll link in this on demand episode. I will post links to podcasts and articles that I've written about that. But anyway, very nearly a steady Vecontist, which is why I know radical traditionalism so well, which is why I know what it looks like, know what it smells like, know what it sounds like, which is why, you know, there used to be one kind of traditionalism, now there's three. The most extreme ones

are radical traditionalists. They and they are not apostates. I'm not saying that they're just like the sedevacantus. I'm not saying that. But because I had to claw my way back to balance, I had to claw my way back to balance from very nearly being a sedevacantist like twenty five years ago, which is why I know what that whole path looks like, radical traditionalism, traditionalism, yada yada yada yada. Okay, know it extremely well. So, twenty five years

or so ago, I was very anti Vatican II and I might have been able to make good anti Vatican II arguments arguments that sounded good because critique can always sound good when they appeal to a person's emotions but I wouldn't have been able to make an actual reasoned argument against the Vatican Council. One fine day I realized that. I thought, I'm not down with Vatican II, but, at the same time, I have never read a single document. Not one. Never read a sing

I knew what everybody was saying about Vatican II. I had never read it. Not a single document, not one word by myself. A lot of what I heard and knew about Vatican II actually came from Sedi Vecantis. There was no online independent Catholic media at the time.

The internet was in its infancy. It existed. There was a little bit of Catholic content out there, but not like it is today. So most of the bashing, the Vatican II bashing I heard was from Sedevacantus. I just wanna say, I don't remember if I said this at the top. I'm a little sick, so I have to keep this short. Also, I'm gonna pause to sniffle and cough here and there, so please bear with me. I'm very sorry about it. Please just be patient with me. Now, again, not getting into

the whole story, but I began to be suspicious about sedevocantism, about their arguments, about their position, plural. And I was unsatisfied with the answers I was getting from sedevacantis, from sedevacantis priests, and so on. So I decided I'm going to have to get these answers myself because something doesn't smell right. Sediment condesm is probably true, but something doesn't smell right. So I need to look into that.

Well, that's when I started reading about the Second Vatican Council, putting myself into some of the documents. But this is how I first got my exposure to the Second Vatican Council, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the history behind the council and so on. Okay? Because I needed to understand it. So when I tell you that anti Vatican council arguments are malicious, stupid, errant, that's coming from someone who used

to be anti Vatican council too. Anti Second Vatican Council. That's who I used to be. So this is so when I say false, your anti Vatican two arguments are false, they're errant, in other words, you

might be making a mistake, or they're malicious, which is a lot of it out there, or they're stupid, which is a lot of it out there. That's someone that's coming from someone who used to be anti Vatican too. So let's go through some, misconceptions about the second Vatican Council. It might be four because let me do my number one in my notes. I'm going do something else first.

Vatican II did not cause the cultural shift in the church. That is my opinion. The rest of these are facts. But that is my opinion. And I would say it's practically a fact. I'm very, very convinced of that. Vatican II did not cause the cultural shift in the church. It did not cause the emptying of the pews. Does it coincide with the emptying of the pews and the emptying of Catholic schools? It does coincidentally, but that's not a causal link.

Vatican II happened when the rest of the world was changing very rapidly. Very rapidly. The rest of the Western world was changing. The culture of the Western world was changing. Shifting. You could argue it was falling. But my friends, the Protestants didn't have a Vatican II and they suffered just like we did. They didn't have a Vatican II. The secular world forget about churchy stuff the secular world didn't have a Vatican II but secular culture changed and shifted a lot. Right?

Did Vatican II cause the cultural shift? No. I think, again this is still my opinion pretty well informed opinion but it's still my opinion the priests religious and Catholic school teachers of the 1970s and let's say early 80s mid 80s whatever but around the 70s and 80s they were children or seminarians or in houses of formation at around the time of the Vatican Council. So that was around, let's just say late fifties, sixties.

Right? That was when the cultural shift in the West was in full swing. It started just after the second world war. And then we had Elvis Presley strutting his stuff. Then we had the Beatles. Whoo. God help us. The freaking Beatles. And we had, cultural shifts in cinema, not just music. Cultural shifts in courting.

Right, the dating scene. We had cultural shifts in human sexual paradigms. Yes, I said sexual paradigms. So for instance, let me sim simplify this. Condoms were widely distri- were in wide distribution. You could get them easily. Condoms existed long before the fifties, but they were expensive, they were hard to find, and so on. That changed in the fifties. And then there

was the pill in the sixties. And then there was abortion in the seventies. So there was a lot of things going on and changing. The people who became who were the priests, who were the kind of loosey goosey priests and religious in the seventies, I got news for you. That didn't happen overnight.

They were in seminaries and houses of formation in the late fifties through the sixties and so on. And that's just priests and religious. What about the lay people? Do you think the priests and religious are the only ones who underwent this cultural shift? Of course not.

The lay people did too. The parents who had little babies in the forties were now the parents of teenagers growing up in the fifties and sixties and seventies. Well, we know everything that was going on in the culture then. Right? A lot of cultural shift, a lot of strife. You get the idea. So did Vatican II cause this cultural shift in church? No. But I just outlined for you why I think it coincides with the cultural shift in the church. Okay?

Chris in, in Substack, check me out at theforge.fm, by the way. Chris on substack/theforge.fm says, oh, yeah. It's the kind of ice cream and shark attacks false casualty fallacy. Not sure what that means. I'm not sure if that's critical of what I said or agreeing with what I said, but it sounds great. Oh yeah, it's

the kind of ice cream and shark attacks. I think I know what you're saying. Yeah, I think I think he's agreeing with what I'm saying. It's the kind of ice cream and shark attacks false casualty fallacy. Now that I've said it a third time, yes, I think he is agreeing with what I'm saying. And it sounds great anyway to, to read and to say over microphone. Sounds great. Love it. Now let's get to this list.

Number one. So again, these are three falsehoods or misconceptions of Vatican II and why. Vatican II, number one. Vatican II was only a pastoral council, so it has no binding authority. I do hear this a lot. I had been hearing it less, but I heard it twice in the past two days. And if you're one of the people who told me this, I'm not trying to shame you. A lot of people believe this, that Vatican II was a pastoral council and so it has no binding authority. That is false. It was not

a pastoral council. It was an ecumenical council. There are dogmatic constitutions that came out of it and it has binding authority. The faithful are bound to give religious submission of intellect and will. It's a work of the magisterium.

You have to abide by it. I God, I encountered someone on X just yesterday. If you're not following me on socials, you're stupid. Real TJaynes, I am especially active on X. I'm throwing down all over the place on X. Real TJayanes, everywhere on socials, especially on X. So I was having this exchange with somebody on X. I was trying to be re and I think I achieved that. I was very respectful. But really, I wanted to call him a moron.

But okay. It occurred to me as this exchange went on, this guy has zero background in theology. None. But he's giving people theological advice. He's making theological statements. No background in theology. This is my perception. None. Zero. Absolutely none. And he's coming out saying things like, Well, there's no faith or moral teaching in the Vatican Council, so it's insignificant. In other words, my perception of what he was saying is we don't have to abide by it.

Oh? And I said to him straight up, listen, you need to stop doing what you're doing. Do not give people advice. You're out of your league and you're causing a lot of harm to the church and to the people of God. I guarantee him to you he's not going to stop because he gets some kind of psychological or emotional thrill out of posing as someone who knows what he's talking about. And in my opinion, he absolutely does not. Not in the

least, because if when you've got theological chops, my man, you throw down immediately out of the gate. You sound like you've got theological chops. Alright. That's enough of that. And he did not. That's all I'll say about that. The Vatican Council, its approach was pastoral. How do we want to issue or represent this doctrine? Not that we're creating, but that we're talking about doctrine that already exists teaching that already exists. You ever notice?

Don't know if you've ever read any of the documents, but you ever notice the language is very kind of soft. Councils in the past, the language is very rigid, very strong, which I like. That's my preference. But you ever notice that that's because the second Vatican council's approach to how it was offering advancing this existing teaching. It's already it already exists. Existing doctrine. It was

a pastoral approach. I think that's why the language is the way it is. In fact, I'm almost certain that's why the language is the way it is. It's a little softer. So the council's approach was a pastoral one. The documents even say that. But that characterizes the nature of its approach, its strategy. It does not characterize the nature of the council itself. It was not a pastoral council. It was an an ecumenical council.

Do you understand? And frankly, even if it's a pastoral council, it doesn't matter. It's part of the ordinary magisterium. Okay. So that's not that's the first, I guess I'll provide this in a post show note as well. This might be handy to people. I'll provide this. I don't know when today, tomorrow. I don't know when. But I'll provide this as a post show note at theforge.fm, these three things, because there's no way I'm gonna go through all this stuff. I'm just too tired.

If you don't know already, please subscribe at theforge.fm because when I put then you don't have to come back and check the the website. When I drop this, like anything else, it just gets emailed to you. This post show note or any on an article, a podcast episode, it gets emailed to you. You know about it right away. There's no algorithm. There's no hope in a prayer. You just get it. You don't have

to come back, come back to the website, you know, 68 times looking for this thing. It just gets emailed to you. Theforge.fm Catholic commentary at the point of impact. Catholic commentary that hits my man. You understand?

Alright. So that's number one. The Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council. It has it is binding on the faithful. It is binding on the faithful. So when you hear people say Vatican II was nonsense, Vatican II was stupid, and Vatican II was a mistake, which everyone has been saying. They go as far as saying it was a mistake. Mm-mm. Mm-mm.

Because if Vatican II was a mistake, that means the Holy Spirit abandoned the church. And if the Holy Spirit might have abandoned the church at the Second Vatican Council, then we don't know when the holy spirit stopped showing up to work. Vatican one? Trent? When did the holy spirit stop showing up to work? We can't possibly know that. Therefore we have to logically assume that the holy spirit was never around. Right? I mean, if if the answer is one or the other, we have to assume, well,

I guess the Holy Spirit was never around. We have to assume that. So maybe this is all a sham. Maybe Jesus lied about the Holy Spirit protecting the church. Oh my God. If Jesus lied, then he can't be God. Oh my God. There is no God. Why am I going to mass? My brothers and sisters, you you think I'm kidding? You think I'm just trying

to be funny? That is literally the logical progress progression. And I'm gonna repeat it again. If Vatican II and you're going to hear shysters tell you, no, no, no, no. The Holy Spirit was there, but it was still a mistake. If Vatican II was a mistake, errant, flawed, then the Holy Spirit was not present.

If and you're going to hear people try to wiggle their way and slither their way out of that. Mm-mm mm-mm. If Vatican II was a mistake, if it was flawed, then the Holy Spirit was not present. If the Holy Spirit was not present, we don't know when the Holy Spirit stopped being present at councils. So we have to assume maybe it probably wasn't available at any of the councils.

Or you can assume that it was at every council except Vatican II. If okay. Best case scenario was Holy Spirit was present at every council except Vatican II. Okay. But that means the Holy Spirit shut stopped showing up for work at Vatican II. That means Jesus was a liar. That means Jesus can't be God. Well, if Jesus isn't God, then nobody is. Right? And that means there is no God. Why are you going to mass? That's the logical progression. Keep that in mind.

Number two: Vatican II created new doctrines or change or change Catholic teaching. Vatican II did not change Catholic teaching. It echoes Catholic teaching. The tricky thing about Vatican II is you have to and I know this because I went through this work You have to sniff it out. Okay.

Sometimes at least at the time for me, because for me, this was in my early and here and there throughout the decades, but especially in my twenties, this was a new experience for me. And it was challenging for me to sniff out how Vatican II falls in continuity with tradition. It absolutely does. But as an inexperienced, small time theology, I don't know, enthusiast? I I don't know.

It was hard to sniff out that track, but it's definitely there. And when I've gone back to it later, having to make these to connect these dots because I did the work once before, I find it it I think people with more experience in theology than I had in my early twenties can make can connect those dots because they a thousand percent connect. They're not even loose connections. But the thing is Vatican II does reflect what the church has always taught, but it does show in a language that's different, sometimes a little diffuse. Okay?

And you have to be sharp to make the connections, Especially if you have little or no experience in theology, for a little while, it's going to be challenging for you, but eventually you'll start to see it. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you. The Holy Spirit will help you. Okay? There are no new teachings, no new doctrines, and it

falls in continuity with what the church has always taught. I am telling you that as someone who was anti Vatican II and did the work to actually explore what's in there. How do, how do we reconcile Vatican two with tradition? Or how do we reconcile Vatican two with what the, the sediment contests were telling me Catholic trad sacred tradition actually is? You understand? So the connections are there. Sometimes they're challenging to make, but

they are definitely there. Vatican II did not define any new dogma and explicitly presented itself as a working as a work a work in continuity with prior doctrine. And it really is there. Let me give you one example that might trip people up. The Church has frequently said in the past, outside the Catholic church there is no salvation. The Second Vatican Council builds on that without overruling it.

Just because a pope said it in like, I don't know, a thousand A. D. Or May. Doesn't mean the Pope the the church is bound to it. Okay? Not everything a Pope says is sacred tradition. But here's how the living church builds on what the church has always said. Outside the Catholic church, there is no salvation. Well, does that mean Jews won't be saved? No, Jews can be saved. What about Protestants? They can be. Will Catholics be saved because they're Catholic? No, Catholics can go

to hell. Catholics could go to hell, I should say. What about atheists? Atheists could be saved. So in other words, if a Protestant is saved, they're saved because of the Catholic church. They're saved because of Jesus. Jesus is the one who saves. Right? The sacrifice on the cross and all that. But the lineage is the cross, the grace of of his precious blood, the grace which enters the world through the mass, and so on. If a Protestant or an atheist or anybody else is saved, it's because of

the grace that happens because of the Catholic church, because of the Catholic mass, because of the cross. You understand? I fact checked this once when I first dropped that claim, and it was on another it was on a different show, some time ago, a long time ago. And I had I remember fact checking that just to be sure that I was right. And it's true. I'm confident. I can say it confidently.

That's that's the right information. Okay? So there's that. If a pro I'm not gonna go through the whole council, what the council teaches. Enough to be said this way.

Outside of the Catholic church, no one is saved. That's true. But but God is not bound to that. If God wants to save an atheist who tries to live a moral life to the best of his ability with what he knows, because he's not gonna be responsible, he's not gonna be held responsible by God for what he does not know. He's going to be held responsible by God for what he does know about truth, morality, and so on.

If an atheist tries hard earnestly to live a life of goodness, capital g, goodness, if he's living the gospel even if he doesn't know what the gospel is, he's living those principles, God is not bound by the church. Of course, God can save that atheist. Right? Well, how does that happen? Well, that atheist is gonna need a lot of grace because even Thomas Aquinas says we can't get there get there on our own. Even no matter no matter our good works, we can't

get to heaven on our own. You can live a life like mother Teresa, but you can't get there on your own from your own works. We get to heaven. It's like trying to go up a hill in a car that has no gas. It's not getting up that hill. We need the force. We need a force outside of ourselves to get us to heaven. That's the grace of God.

So if an atheist is saved, it's not because of his works. I mean, it is, but it's not because of his works by themselves. It's because of the grace that enters the world through the sacrifice of the mass that comes from the cross and the blood of Christ, and that is how that atheist is saved. So outside of the Catholic church there is no salvation. That's still true. And that and so Vatican II tells us why that is true. You understand? I hope that makes sense.

I hope I don't go to this later and say, holy crap. That doesn't make any sense. I should have framed it this way or said it this way. Let me take a break from the action here real quick. Yeah.

Okay. Let's go with that one. Just taking a break from the action so I can catch my breath. You play some traveling music and see who's going on and what's going on. Evening night says, I love Vatican two.

Haven't actually read haven't actually read any of the document. I feel you because long time ago, I hated Vatican two and had never read any of it. Long time ago, you you I think you missed that part of the, the stream where I said that. Hello those of you catching me on Substack. If you don't know, check out the forge.fm.

It's a Substack, but the address is the forge.fm. Just got nudged by my guardian angel. V says, just got nudged by my guardian angel to stop what I was doing to check-in. Well, V, tell your guardian angel I said thank you. Alright? Thank you everybody who's joining me live here catching this episode of Fire Branded. I, again, in case you didn't know, TJ Hanes. Follow me everywhere at real TJ Haynes on socials. Okay. Let's get back into this.

So number two of the three fallacies or misconceptions of Vatican II is that it created new doctrines. And I before I get to number three,

I do wanna say I wish Vatican II were more strongly worded the way prior councils and Vatican documents were. I understand wanting to to deliver this in a language that's pastoral. I I understand having spent a long time in ministry, I do get it that you that that speaking pastorally is a strategy, and it's a tough one. I get it,

but you should really leave that to the, to the parishes or the, or the local dioceses. I think at the Vatican level, you really need you really need the North Star. You need magnetic north. I think that that language at that level has to be very firm. Not rigid in terms of cruel or mean, but rigid in terms of firm, clear, unambiguous. I understand why the church did it that way. I I don't now pay attention here.

I don't think that was the best way to do it. Well, Tee, you just criticized Vatican II. No. And this is okay. This sort of critic critique is okay. Okay? I'm not criticizing the council. I'm criticizing the style in which the documents were delivered. Do I think it was wrong? Nope. Probably the Holy Spirit had something to do with that. As a communicator, as an evangelizer, I just think it was imprudent.

I personally think it was imprudent. I think Vatican level documents should be worded more firmly. But maybe that listen, the Holy Spirit is full of surprises. If there's anything I've learned over my years as a Catholic, it's that full of surprises that you could never see coming. If that's

the way the Holy Spirit decided to move the magisterium to word the documents of the Second Vatican Council, who the hell am I to judge? But if you're asking my personal opinion, and that's what it is, it's my personal opinion, I do wish those documents were worded more firmly. Because what's in there. Although what I mean, what's in there is beautiful. I mean, it really, really is beautiful even the way

it's worded now, but I wish that beauty, you know, I mean, I don't know. Maybe that beauty couldn't have been conveyed that way if it were worded more firmly, more sternly. Because I'll tell you, and I'm breaking away a little bit here. The church, the way the church communicates truth is very legalistic. Sometimes it sounds very cold and there's literally no other way to do it.

There's no other way to do it. Okay. When the church says something is, is disordered, there's literally no other way to say that word for it to mean the exact same thing. But it sounds cruel. Right? It isn't. It's just technical, but it sounds cruel. When the church says something is intrinsically evil, there is literally no other way to say what the church is saying with that phrase. There's literally no other way to say it.

But doesn't it sound cruel? So maybe the way Vatican II maybe the language of the documents of the Second Vatican Council is the way it is, and it's conveying a beauty that might have been missed had it been worded more firmly, more sternly. I am not saying the Vatican is cruel or Vatican documents cruel. All I'm saying is because of the because of the necessity of the language as it is, it can sound cruel. It can sound harsh.

It is not, but it can sound like it is. So maybe that's why it's worded the way it's worded. Because there are beautiful things in the second in the documents of the second Vatican council that maybe wouldn't have been been conveyed. I'll give you an example. Is the Catholic church the one true church? Yes. Does Vatican II say that?

No. What does Vatican II say? The church of Christ subsists in the Catholic church. Is that a softer way of saying it? Well, it's softer sounding, but it's actually a stronger statement. I'm not gonna get into it, but it's a it is a stronger statement. I saw that and I was like, damn. That is definitely a stronger statement, but it sounds softer. And it's also more accurate really to put it that way. But, to me, that is

a stronger statement than the Catholic church is the one true church. Because it's the only church that comes from God. God is the truth. It's the only church that leads to God. God is the truth. It is the one true church. Does that mean Protestants are going to hell? No. Well, some of them are. Maybe a lot of them are. Some Catholics are going to hell too. That's not what I'm trying to say. Does it mean Jews are going to hell?

That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that there is one God. He has one begotten son who came to earth and established one church, one religion. Only one. That is just a true statement. But it sounds harsh to say the Catholic church is the one true church. Well, I I agree. I agree. But as an evangelizer, it sounds harsh. What Vatican two says that the church of Christ subsists in the Catholic church, I mean, that that

is a that's a much stronger, way of putting that, but it doesn't sound harsh. So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Let's get to number three. The last misconception I'm going talk about again, I'm going to put this complete list as a show note, a post show note. I apologize.

A post show note at theforge.fm. I don't know if I'm going get to it today, but if you're subscribed at theforge.fm, when I publish this as a post show, you're going to get it in your inbox. You won't have to come back to to check for it later. Okay. I'm nursing a cold here for those of you who are catching me late and didn't know that and wondering why is he so lacking in energy and why does he sound like that?

Why does he sound like Barry White right now? Hey, baby. I just wanted to call you to call your girl and find out if you'd like to come over and pray a rosary with me, darling. This is your man, Barry White. You ever noticed that if you got, you got a, you got a cold on real good. It makes you sound like Barry White. Hey, baby. Let's do a roastery together. That sounds pretty good, man. I should have a call more often.

I'll bet you my numbers would go through the roof. They would go from two to, like, 10. Two downloads to 10 per episode if I always sounded like Barry White. I'll bet you that's the case. That's why I don't get any play, man. Don't sound like Barry White. I don't sound ethnic enough. What should I do with Ricky Ricardo? Let me stop there before I get myself in trouble. Number three, Vatican two was a

rupture from the church's tradition. Let me say first, I understand how it can seem that way, but whoever is telling you that, they don't know what they're talking about. Whoever is telling you that, they don't know what they're talking about. I promise you because I was one of them. They don't know what they're talking about. I also can say this confidently because I challenge people who say that. Not like to a duel, you know, swords at 06:00 or so, you

know, pistols at midnight. But I challenge them, why do you think that? Why do you think it's a break from tradition, a rupture from tradition? Tell me how. Tell me something that's a break from tradition. And they usually they don't know. Some of the ones who do throw out a thing or two, I say, no,

no, no. That's that's not a rupture with tradition. This is what the church has always taught. It just looks different here. But what they're saying, what the church is saying here can't be interpreted any other way. So it's definitely in keeping with tradition.

Okay. Enough said about the anecdotes, but the claim that Vatican II is a rupture with tradition is false. Usually the person telling you that, I mean, they're always wrong, but usually they're not wrong out of malice. Usually they're wrong out of mistake. It's an accident.

It's a misunderstanding on their part. Sometimes, as I said, emotions enable a person to bypass your reason. Sometimes someone will tell you that knowing it's not true, but hoping you don't know that. Because it's a very emotional claim. The church, you know, rupture is a it is in rupture from tradition because of Vatican Most of you have probably already heard that at least once.

Right? Most people are saying that by mistake. There are people who say that or strongly suggest it. Some of them are cardinals or bishops, I should say. There are people who strongly suggest it or flat out say it who know that it's not true, and they're telling you that anyway. It is not true. And a lot of

people are catching this stream late, so let me say again, I used to be anti Vatican II. Okay? My confidence about Vatican II is earned because I decided I need to explore this more. And, and I'll tell you too, if, if you're just catching this late, you didn't hear me say this. I was almost a SETI, like this close to being a SETI VACANTIS. K. Rolled with the SETIs, rolled deep with the SETIs for a year or more. So when I explored Vatican II, it wasn't

to rebuke the sedevacantists. It was because their arguments sucked and I can make them better. I can make a better argument than you. So I was exploring Vatican II to support the sedevacantists arguments. This doesn't add up. This doesn't compute. This was me, you know,

this, what you're saying, I understand, but there's just something that doesn't add up. Something that doesn't compute. I need to you're not answering my questions well, which I don't understand. Some something doesn't pass the smell test. Let me do my own research because I can't trust you what you're telling me, but sedevacantism is probably true, but you suck at representing it.

I can do it better. So my exploration of the Second Vatican Council was to support the claims of Sedevacantism, that the church ruptured from tradition, that the church had become more Protestantized, false Pope, all of it. All of it. Arguments against the novus ordo. And when I tell you that Vatican II is, is solid, trustworthy, it's in keeping with tradition and all that, I'm telling you that's earned. Earned that is an earned claim. And it's

a claim that I make having earned it in order to disqualify Vatican II. Not in order to to defend it, but to disqualify it. And I could not do it. So let me go through

the list again. I'm not gonna talk about them again. I'm just going to, reference them. Three myths about the Second Vatican Council. The first, Vatican II was only a pastoral council. That is false. The language is pastoral. The approach is pastoral, but it is most certainly an ecumenical council. Has, constitutions and everything. Number two, Vatican II created new doctrines or changed Catholic teaching.

Oh, God. Is that false? Vatican II did not introduce new doctrine, new dogmas, new teachings. Didn't change Catholic teaching. Ridiculous. Number three, Vatican II was a rupture from the church's tradition. Ridiculous. No. It no, it is not. Alright. So be on your toes and be careful. You might have some things yourself that you don't like about Vatican II. Well, do you know why you don't like them? Did you ever read the documents? As I said at the

top of this, it's understandable because we have this perception that the church changed with Vatican II. But that does not establish cause or a causal link because the whole world changed with Vatican II and Vatican II did not affect the whole world. The whole cult the culture of the whole, especially at least the Western world, changed at the time of Vatican II. Vatican II did not prompt that. What happened to

the culture of the church? Well, documents can't do that. People I'm looking at the wrong camera. Documents can't do that. People do that.

People change a culture. Culture is the product of a people, of a collective of people. Why did the culture of the Catholic church change? Because the people changed. The people were highly secularized or increasingly more secularized and they brought these secular perspectives, many of them very radical perspectives, into the church, infected the culture of the church, and now here we are. I'm not saying the church is completely off the hook,

but the church is not to blame. The people are to blame, and the people are still to blame if you ax me. Alright, folks. Just gonna spend just a minute. If you have anything to say or ask that you would like acknowledged, this is the time to chime in, whether you're chiming in at Substack, the forge.fm, or you're chiming in on YouTube or anywhere else. This is the time to chime in.

V says no keeps coming up in conversations, saying previous popes made a mistake, and it can't happen again. He says, I'm paraphrasing something I heard from cardinal Timothy Dolan. How so how can so many past popes be wrong is my question. I'm not going to take a side or position here. Just bad optics in my opinion.

Let me read that again. Keeps coming up in conversations saying previous popes made a mistake, and it can't happen again. I'm paraphrasing something I heard from chronic Timothy Dolan. How can so many popes be wrong? I will comment on the popes being wrong thing because I I'm sorry, v.

I I'm not quite clear about what you're saying. But can a pope be wrong? Oh god. Yes. Oh god.

Yes. Pope Francis was wrong not on his teaching, but on, you know, when when Pope Francis said a lot of silly things, you know, impromptu things, things in front of a camera and microphone when he's just speaking off the cuff. He did a lot of, in my opinion, a lot of imprudent things as a person, person, not as a pope, but as a person who happened to be the pope. Like, you can't go to an in first of all, I don't like that he went to an interreligious dialogue thing at all, but it's it's not a disaster. Okay.

Fine. But if you're going to an interreligious thing, don't please, God, don't say all religions lead to God. I get why you're saying that, but holy crap. Nobody else is gonna know why you're saying that. Don't say that. It's not teaching. Okay? It's not part of the ordinary magisterium. It's the thoughts and words of a man who happens to be the Pole. But, oh, boy, was that dumb.

Folks, if you're searching earnestly for the truth, no matter what religion you're in, you're going to find God and it's going to lead you to the church. Or you're going to find God, and maybe you don't make it to the church. But still, if you are saved because you earnestly seek the truth, you're trying to live the most moral life that you can based on what you have, then you're still saved by the church even if you never made it in here. I went through that whole rigmarole at the middle of this stream, this episode, so I'm not gonna go through it again. But, can popes make mistakes?

Yes. But when they're teaching, I still believe, I do believe, I firmly believe that they are teaching not teaching like prophets, but they are teaching by inspiration of the holy spirit. Okay? I really do I really do believe that. I thought Pope Francis was a was a good theologian.

Here's the thing with Pope Francis as as a theologian. I thought he was a good theologian. He was, fairly thorough. He wasn't a Benedict the sixteenth, but who is? Fairly thorough, and and and being thorough and precise is very important. I I would catch this a lot in his theology, like, oh, damn. That's a good good choice of words there, holy father. But he was a

terrible communicator, terrible communicator, but not a terrible theologian. And therefore not a terrible pope. He was a good pope. I think he was a good theologian. He wasn't a Benedict the sixteenth or a John Paul the second, but he was a good good theologian. Piss poor communicator. And I've always said that.

That's not a secret. I've read Lumen Gentium a few times, Mori says. I've read Lumen Gentium a few times. The paragraphs about Muslims worshiping God along with us still bothers me at times. I struggle to understand that, especially because Islam rejects Jesus.

Okay. Let me that's a very good that's a very good comment to make. Let me address that. I actually lost a position in radio because of this once, and I don't care because I was telling the truth. Alright. I care a little bit. That would have been a great job to keep, but well. I'm not gonna tell that story again. But I I upset a lot of Christians this way, Catholics and non Catholics alike. Upset a lot of Christians with this, but it it's just the truth, my friends.

First of all, have it in Lumi gentium. It's so it's the truth. But forget about Lumi gentium. I'll just tell you my bit. Do you know me? You do know me. Right? Not personally, but you can't because you're there and I'm here. But you know me. Right? You can identify me. Right? Okay. Do you know my favorite music? Do you know my favorite food? Do you know the things that make me sad? Do you know the things that make me overjoyed? There's a lot you don't know about me. But don't you know me?

Now some will say, well, if I don't know all of these things about you, then I don't know you, but you can identify me. Right? Who's that? That's TJ Haynes. He does a podcast. He's the father of a website called theforge.fm. He's a brilliant theological mind, a tremendous communicator. You know all these truths about me. You can identify me. If you saw me someplace on TV or on the street, you'd say, Oh, that's TJ Haynes. But do you know me? Well, I don't know you that well. Okay. Alright.

The Muslims and the Jews, obviously, but let's just talk about the Muslims. The Muslims can identify God, the God of Abraham. They know him in that way, but they understand him incompletely just as you understand me incompletely. They know Him incorrectly just as you know me incorrectly because there's information you just don't have. Right? Incomplete? Incorrect. People say, well,

they don't believe in the Trinity. They therefore, they don't pray to God. Well, you don't know anything about my personality, my likes, dislikes, hobbies, whatnot, or, you know, very, very, very, very little of it. But you but when someone says, hey. Are you going to watch TJ Hanes on YouTube? Yes. I will watch TJ Haynes on YouTube. And you go to my YouTube channel, Catholic Fire Brand, and you you tap play. Right? Sounds like you know me, but there's so much you have no idea about me. Right?

Okay. That's how it is for the Muslim. Are they praying to God? They they actually are. Yes, they are. Do they believe in the true God? Yes. They do. They but they believe in him incompletely in some ways, for instance, the Trinity, and they believe in him incorrectly. But they don't believe in Jesus Christ. Well, they they that's true. That that's just true. They don't believe in Jesus Christ. They do, but they don't believe that he's the

son of God. Therefore, don't. But do they know who Jesus is? Uh-huh. Can they be moved and inspired by the life of Jesus Christ, even though they have a lot of misinformation about the life of Jesus Christ? But can they be moved and inspired by Jesus Christ even though they believe that he was a prophet? Yes. Is that enough to get you into heaven? No. But can God work around that? Yes. You understand? So let me go back to Maury's, comment.

I read Lumen Gentium a few times. The paragraphs about Muslims worshiping God along with us still bothers me. One thing I will point out is I don't remember if Lumen Gentium uses the word worshiping, but I don't like the insertion of that word if that's in Lumen Gentium because they're not worshiping. Are they praying to God along with us? Yeah. And their prayer has merit because of the mass, because

of the worship sacrifice that happens at the mass. That's why their prayer has merit. I'll say I'll say that. I'll have to go to Lumen Gentium and and I I need I need to satisfy my curiosity because I may have to say something about it right now. Okay. Lumen Gentium says that, this is according to Google. It recognizes that Muslims adore the one merciful God alongside with Christians. It does not use the word worship. Okay. I feel better now.

Because that really would have pissed me off, and I would have had to find some way of reconciling that because that would mean I'm wrong. That would not mean the council was wrong. It would mean that I aired somewhere. Let me go back to what V is saying, because V sometimes V and I disagree on things, but what can't be denied is his comments are always thoughtful. So whether I agree or not makes no difference.

I like to share what he has to say. He basically implied they got it all wrong. He basically implied they got it all wrong and it has to not happen again. When I said, sure it did, I meant Vatican II. I meant Vatican II did influence social changes. Oh, oh, oh. So earlier V said, sure it did. What he meant was that because I said Vatican II was not a council for the world. It didn't influence the world. He said, sure it did.

Vatican II did influence social changes. Sure. Documents don't change things, but v. Come on, man. Sure. Documents don't change things, but energy does. Come on, bro. Come on. You're the one who's supposed to like rigid language. What the hell is that? Energy does? Bro, you better take that back to the drawing board and come back to me with that one. V also says many Muslims do know what Catholics believe, so they do know about the Holy Trinity.

They choose not to believe in the Trinity. So I think that is true with I don't wanna say with a lot, with some, because I don't I don't know, but I do agree with you there. Many Muslims, he says, do know what Catholics believe, so they do know about the Holy Trinity. They choose not to believe the Trinity. I think that's true. I think also there

are Protestants who believe the Catholic church is the church that Christ established, and they choose not to believe. That one I'm positive of, but it's probably also true with Muslims. I won't say many. Take it from, I mean, look, I am not saying I'm the king. Sometimes I make these very confident statements only because they're confident because I'm experienced. And I'm not saying I'm the king. Another evangelizers mileage may vary. Okay. But I can

tell you this. It is very hard to correct someone's error. Very incredibly hard. It's very hard to convince a Protestant that Protestantism has these errors. That the Reformation was a big fat stinking mistake. Very it's very, very, very hard to convince a Muslim that Christianity or that Catholicism is, is the truth. Have you ever tried that? Very, very hard. You have no idea to correct a heretic is even harder, harder. Okay.

The reason I say that is this. Are there many Muslims who deep down believe in the Holy Trinity and everything the Catholic church that they everything that they know Catholics believe? Well, I think that those exist. I don't think it's a lot because I can tell you it is hard to get someone from here to here when they believe something deeply. Super, super hard when they

believe something deeply. Do they exist? Yes, I agree with you. I wouldn't say a lot. I would not say a lot, but I do think they exist. It's could be and I think it's not a lot because I know when someone believes something very, very deeply and truly and truly, it's very hard to move them anywhere. Except it's easy to to make them more fundamentalist. Whether they're Jews, Muslims, or CatholicsChristians, that movement is easier. But moving them any anywhere else, very extremely hard. Okay.

I think that's it. Those are great comments. Even the one that I didn't quite agree with, but the energy then V says, you don't know about energy. Sure. Documents don't change things, but energy does.

I don't, I just don't, I think what V is trying to say is there is like there's like an energy surrounding. Here's an example. There's an energy that surrounds a conclave. Even if you're not Catholic, you could say there's an energy that surrounds Christmas, even if you're not Christian. I think that's what he's trying to say. I don't know.

It's it's it's me, it sounds like which came first, the chicken or the egg, you know, did did did the energy surrounding the council affect the world or did the world just respond to, or did the world just respond to that energy by changing the tray? I, just chicken or an, and the egg thing, but I can tell you this,

what we saw change in the culture of the church and the culture of the world. I mean, to put that on Vatican two, I just strongly disagree because cultural change takes a lot of time. Takes a lot of time to improve a culture to change a culture at all. It takes a lot of time. What you saw happen in the church that was there a long time. It was just hiding. I'll give

you another example. The culture of defiance against Pope Francis. Now, because I've been doing this so long, I've been telling people what you saw happening, the culture of defiance under Pope Francis, that is not because of Pope Francis. That has been in the church a long time, and I know because I was there. That culture of defiance that we see in in in the Catholic laity was there long before Pope Francis. Pope Francis is pontificate caused it to come out

of hiding. You might say it gave it space to come out of hiding valid. I don't know if that's absolutely true, but valid, But it definite it def we definitely saw it come

out of hiding under the Francis pontificate, not caused by Pope Francis. It was already there for a long time, Long time. So I think that's what we saw with Vatican II. Also, I just know that it takes a long time to to shift a culture. So what you the cultural shift you saw around the era of Vatican II, I agree there was probably an energy may maybe I haven't thought much about it, about the cause and effect component, but you don't change

a culture that quickly unless it's already festering in your people. That I'm pretty confident about, but that's what I think. Alright. Listen. I swear to God I was gonna make this short and I didn't. Now I think I'm sicker than I was before when I started. Go to the Ford. Also, I gotta say this. How come I have to say go to theforge.fm and subscribe?

And you guys have been hearing that week after week after week, and only the other day that I pick up one or two subscribers from this show. Just go over there and subscribe. Theforge.fm. I don't drink. V, you don't drink. Maybe you should consider it. Go over to the forge.fm and subscribe. When I post stuff, you get an email. Sometimes I post a lot of stuff, but I don't send a lot of emails. Okay?

So if I have a busy week where I'm posting a lot of things, long things, short things, long form podcasts or two minute clips, whatever. If I'm publishing a lot of things that week, I don't send you 10 emails. I'll send you two or three, and one of them will be a rundown of the stuff that I publish. So I don't hammer your inbox even if I publish a lot of stuff that week. Okay?

Two or three emails. And when I publish this post show note with these things about Vatican 2, that'll go right to your inbox. You don't even have to go to the Substack slash you don't have to go to theforge.fm to get it. Okay? Theforge.fm. And follow me everywhere on socials at real t j hanes. I have to go now. God bless you. God be with you all, man. TJ Hayes signing out of here. Bye bye.