Coup d’etat at Vatican II
David Martin | The Daily Knight
October 13, 2022, marked the 60th anniversary of a historic event at Vatican II that radically deflected the course of the Council and consequently that of Church history. We speak of a premeditated hijacking of the Council that set in motion a new order of apostasy that is presently coming to a head under Pope Francis.
The Second Vatican Council was started with good intentions but was infiltrated through the orchestration of Judases within the Vatican. There is an abundance of documented evidence showing that the Council was hijacked in the opening session by rebel bishops because Pope John XXIII had planned the Council without their advice and against their designs.
We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was part of this plot to usurp Vatican II. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic and personal friend of Pope Paul VI, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, “This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.” (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)
The Hijacking of the Council
Without further ado we digress now to recall the turbulent opening session that derailed the Council and set the Bark of Peter on a new and unchartered course that would eventually land it shipwreck onto secular coasts.
At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. Their objective was to gain control of the conciliar drafting commissions. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Liénart’s action deflected the course of the Council and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)
In his February 14, 2013 address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’ etat at Vatican II: “On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: ‘No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.’ Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so, it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates.”
The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites how the legal framework of the Council was violated by this act: “This departure from the original plan” came about “by an act breaking the Council’s legal framework” so that “the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen.” (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)
After illicitly blocking the vote, this rebellious “Rhine group” resorted to boorish methods to force-install several of their own members onto the drafting commissions, so that from October 16 on, nearly sixty-percent of the commissions were now chaired by “suspect theologians” that previously had been restricted under Pius XII. These would include dissenters like Hans Kung, Schillebeechx, and the pseudo-mystic Karl Rahner, the Council darling, who for the entirety of Vatican II was dating the notorious feminist Luise Rinser who had clamored for abortion and women priests. The enemies of the Faith had captured the key positions of the Council, thus enabling them to draft perfidious documents for the misguiding of the Church, i.e. the 16 documents of Vatican II.
The 72 Schemas
The true conciliar documents were the 72 schemas which John XXIII had approved before the Council. According to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee for checking all the documents, the schemas were worthy and orthodox, and should have been used, but to his dismay the Rhine fathers illicitly rejected Pope John’s outline after it had been approved by a 40% vote.
Consider Lefebvre’s words:
“From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it… We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket. The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready…. Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
This vituperative counter-council which warred against the true Council was fueled by a coalition of periti that were Communistic in orientation. One such agent who participated at the Second Vatican Council expressed his horror over the good schemas of John XXIII.
“Hearing that Pope John had appointed a commission to draw the schemas for the forthcoming Council, I immediately started to work on counter-schemas with the help of avant-garde theologians (Rhine fathers) who had been won over to our way of thinking. Thanks to my contacts I managed to obtain copies of the projected papal schemas: they were terrible! I was in a cold sweat! If these schemas are carried, my work of 20 years will have been in vain. I hastily put the finishing touch to my counter-schemas, and I circulated them. Eventually, they were tabled at the Council.” (Marie Carré, AA 1025, Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle)
Pope Benedict XVI himself points out how a “virtual council” had risen up to usurp the “real Council” at Vatican II, lamenting how “it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy.” (Speaking to the clergy of Rome, February 14, 2013)
Romano Amerio summed up the situation perfectly: “A distinctive feature of Vatican II is its paradoxical outcome, by which all the preparatory work that usually directs the debates, marks the outlook and foreshadows the results of a council, was nullified and rejected from the first session onward.”
Hence it is conceivable that the Council at that point—on account of two violations against its legal framework, i.e. the illicit rejection of the candidates for the commissions and the illicit rejection of the 72 schemas that had been legitimately approved—had gone from being a valid council to a revolution. The fruits of the Council certainly suggest this. Can we honestly say that even one conversion to the Faith has resulted from Vatican II?
It was for reason that Pope Paul VI lamented the outcome of the Council at its close, saying, “Profane and secular humanism has revealed itself in its terrible, anticlerical stature, and in one sense has defied the Council. The religion of God made man has met the religion of man who makes himself God.” (December 7, 1965)
The Holy Father also said in 1970: “In many areas the Council has not so far given us peace but rather stirred up troubles and problems that in no way serve to strengthen the Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls.”
It was for reason that the pope on June 29, 1972, let out with his historic S.O.S. concerning Vatican II’s failure, when he said: “From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God.”
Third Secret Spoke of a “Bad Council”
Interestingly, Cardinal Ratzinger in summer 2000 allegedly told his friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger—a close friend and spiritual child of St. Padre Pio—that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of “a bad council” to come, presumably referencing the Second Vatican Council.
Needless to say, Vatican II was an infernally precipitated disaster which sent the Church floundering into turbulent straits. Far from being the work of God that was simply misinterpreted, the Council was a carefully calculated revolution that was later implemented according to plan. The late John Vennari of Catholic Family News explains.
“The ambiguities, the omissions, and the lack of precision in the council were no accident but were the result of deliberate calculations by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these flaws in the text after the Council closed.” (CFN News, February 6, 2015)
The documents indeed were carefully worded in ambiguous fashion where proposals often have a double meaning which lend themselves to the progressivist plan to later implement sneaky changes while at the same time fooling the innocent into thinking they mean something else.
For instance, in article 7 of Sacrosanctum Concilium it states: “In the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.” On the surface this sounds very holy, namely, that we are all called to adore God at Holy Mass with one mind, but what these conciliar architects really meant is that lay people perform the liturgy, not just the priest, that they too assume duties and dignities of the priest as if they were part of a “common priesthood.”
This ties in with the often-repeated theme of “active participation by the faithful,” which is another ambiguous bombshell. On the one hand this can be taken to mean that Catholics should actively be involved with their religion by reading the lives of the saints, going to confession and sanctifying their souls in the fear of God, but what liberals really meant is that they should be busy-body activists engaging in the liturgical revolution against the priesthood. Though the particulars of today’s revolution are not necessarily spelled out in the conciliar documents (women lectors, Eucharistic ministers, etc), they nonetheless have their foundation in the documents and fulfill the conciliar vision of “active participation by the faithful.”
The wording of all sixteen documents was deliberately planned this way where proposals have an ambiguous or double meaning which can be interpreted more than one way.
For instance, the term “religious communities” which normally would mean Catholic communities is often used in the documents to mean non-Catholic communities, or the word “catholicity” which normally would mean our oneness with the Church of Rome is now used to mean oneness with the universal body of world churches.
Vatican II goes so far as to even redefine “One Universal Church” to mean the ecumenical world body of churches.
This movement toward unity is called 'ecumenical' — the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal. [Unitatis Redintegratio 1]
The end result of this insidious double-talk is that union with Christ has been diminished while unity with the world has been enhanced, to the end that Pope Francis is now fully taking the ax to Catholic Tradition and planning a full merging of the Catholic Church with other religions through his present “Synod on Synodality.” This is an ominous heads-up that the Great Warning and Chastisement are at hand because Christ will not permit His Church to unite with the world.
This heretical quest to unite the Church with other religions grew out of Vatican II. One needn’t look any further than the conciliar document on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, where it states:
The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. 
Along these lines, the document also says:
It is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. 
This proposed “interfaith worship” is forbidden by the Catholic Church, yet Vatican II fully recommends this on the false basis that God works through other religions.
The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means of salvation.
This pseudo ecumenism advocated by the Council is grounded in the fallacy that baptized Catholics who fall away into other religions are still members of Christ’s Church.
The differences that exist in varying degrees between them [separated brethren] and the Catholic Church … do indeed create many obstacles … but even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ’s body. [UR-3]
This contravenes the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII which dogmatically defined that only those who profess the One True Faith are included as members of Christ’s Church.
Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true Faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Mystici Corporis, 1943)
What Francis and his counter-magisterium need to remember is that any attempt to formally reject or contravene dogma incurs ipso facto excommunication. The Church’s dogma on salvation has been spelled out in clear, unambiguous terms and must be followed by the pope and bishops under the pain of mortal sin.
There is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.
– Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Boniface VIII
Similarly, Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the heresy that “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatsoever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation,” yet the Vatican II document on ecumenism defies this official Church teaching.
Some argue that Vatican II incorporates elements of dogma and orthodoxy into its documents, which it does, but it does so in such a way that these elements are now seen in the light of the Council rather than in the light of tradition. What Vatican II did was to provide a new lens wherewith to look at the Church and it deliberately retained elements of orthodoxy to alter our understanding of it while at the same time using these elements as exterior cover to give the Council an air of legitimacy. Archbishop Lefebvre explains:
“The good texts [of the Council] have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (I Accuse the Council, 1998)
Hence, the display of orthodoxy and error side by side served to sell the novel teachings while giving innovators a chance to place a new spin on the old teachings, thus advancing the denial thereof.
Fr. Linus Clovis, who is a leading conservative voice in the Catholic Church today, points out how this insidious ploy to advance error under the cloak of goodness was in the works at Vatican II.
“The modernist innovators, having deceived the overly optimistic John XXIII, seized power at the opening s