Refuting Fr. Chris Alar’s Defense of Vatican II: A Thorough Analysis

Introduction: The Crisis in the Church

Fr. Chris Alar defends Vatican II by claiming that it was a legitimate council, free of doctrinal errors, and that the crisis following it resulted from misinterpretation and misimplementation rather than the council itself. He insists that the abuses we see today are not Vatican II’s fault, but rather the result of bad actors and cultural upheaval.

This argument is deeply flawed. The post-Vatican II collapse in faith and morals is not an accidental misapplication of the council—it is its direct fruit. If Vatican II were truly guided by the Holy Spirit, it would have strengthened the Church, not weakened it beyond recognition.

This refutation will demonstrate that:

1. Vatican II’s errors were not just in its implementation but in its very documents.

2. The council’s teachings contradict past infallible doctrine.

3. The collapse of the Church is directly tied to Vatican II, not to external cultural forces.

4. The sedevacantist position is the only logical and theological conclusion.

1. Indefectibility and Vatican II

Fr. Alar argues that Vatican II must be accepted because the Holy Spirit protects ecumenical councils. However, the Church’s indefectibility does not mean every council is automatically good. The Holy Spirit protects dogmatic teachings, but Vatican II was a pastoral council—one that explicitly refused to define doctrine infallibly.

The First Vatican Council (1870) defined that Catholic doctrine cannot change. Yet, Vatican II introduced ambiguity, novelty, and contradictions with past teaching. If a council contradicts previous infallible doctrine, it cannot be from God.

A perfect example is religious liberty. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae promotes freedom of religion in society, contradicting Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, which condemns the idea that "every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true." How can both be true? The Church does not and cannot change doctrine to fit modern sensibilities.

If Vatican II is correct, then every previous pope and council were wrong. This would mean the Catholic Church taught error for centuries, which is impossible. The only logical conclusion is that Vatican II itself is in error.

2. Vatican II and the "Bad Popes" Argument

A key defense of Vatican II is that the Church has survived bad popes before, so we should not reject it simply because of “bad leadership.” But this argument fails to distinguish between a bad pope and a heretical pope.

Throughout history, some popes were personally immoral—such as Alexander VI—but they never changed doctrine. Vatican II popes, however, openly promoted doctrinal error.

• Paul VI signed Dignitatis Humanae, contradicting prior teaching on religious liberty.

• John Paul II publicly prayed with pagans at Assisi (1986), violating Mortalium Animos, which forbids Catholics from participating in false worship.

• Benedict XVI endorsed Vatican II’s errors on ecumenism, contradicting centuries of infallible doctrine.

This is not just bad behavior—this is heresy. And the Church has always taught that a public heretic cannot be pope. Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio states that a heretic automatically loses office, even if elected by all the cardinals.

If a true pope cannot teach error, and Vatican II popes have taught error, then the only conclusion is that they were not true popes.

3. Did Vatican II Change Doctrine?

Fr. Alar repeatedly insists that Vatican II did not change doctrine, only the way doctrine is “expressed.” This is a classic modernist deception. Vatican II introduced ambiguous language that allows for contradictory interpretations.

For example, Lumen Gentium states that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” This deliberate vagueness allows modernists to argue that the Church extends beyond Catholicism, contradicting previous teachings that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ.

Another serious error is Vatican II’s promotion of ecumenism in Unitatis Redintegratio, which recognizes non-Catholic sects as part of the Church. This contradicts Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, which declares that Catholics cannot unite with heretics.

The ambiguity of Vatican II is itself a problem. True councils of the Church do not create confusion—they clarify doctrine. If Vatican II’s teachings are so easily misinterpreted, then they are not from God.

4. The Fruits of Vatican II

Christ said, “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16). If Vatican II was truly from God, it should have strengthened the Church. Instead, it has led to the worst crisis in Church history.

Since Vatican II, the Church has suffered:

• A massive drop in priestly vocations and religious life.

• An exodus of Catholics from the pews.

• A collapse in belief in the Real Presence.

• A moral crisis among clergy, leading to worldwide scandals.

Fr. Alar argues that these problems came from outside influences, not Vatican II itself. But how do we explain that the crisis is worst in the areas that most embraced Vatican II’s reforms?

In contrast, traditional Catholic communities that reject Vatican II are thriving. The Latin Mass, which Vatican II sought to replace, is now growing rapidly as more Catholics reject the empty novelties of the post-conciliar Church.

If Vatican II was truly guided by the Holy Spirit, why has it led to such widespread destruction?

5. The Sedevacantist Conclusion

Given the evidence, the only possible conclusion is that Vatican II was not just misinterpreted—it was a modernist revolution against true Catholicism.

Some argue that rejecting Vatican II means rejecting the Church, but this is false. True Catholics reject Vatican II precisely because they are faithful to the Church’s infallible teachings.

• The Catholic Church cannot change doctrine.

• A heretical pope loses his office.

• Vatican II contradicts past dogma.

• The post-Vatican II crisis is proof of its errors.

The only logical and theological conclusion is that the Vatican II popes were illegitimate, and the true Catholic Church continues outside of the modernist counterfeit.

This is not a rejection of Catholicism—it is a defense of true Catholicism against the greatest heresy in history.

Final Thoughts

Fr. Alar’s defense of Vatican II relies on half-truths, ambiguity, and false assumptions. He insists that Vatican II is not to blame for the Church’s collapse, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The sedevacantist position is not based on personal opinion—it is based on unwavering fidelity to Catholic doctrine. No Catholic is obligated to follow error, and Vatican II is error.

Vatican II was not just a misstep—it was the beginning of a false church. True Catholics must reject it completely and remain faithful to the Catholic Church as it always was and always will be.

The only real question is: Will you follow Vatican II into modernist ruin, or will you stand with the true Church of Christ?