The Revolt at Vatican II and the Perfidious Documents it Bore

David Martin | The Daily Knight

While the gale force of the post-conciliar tempest continues to uproot the Faith, dislodge morals, blow apart revered traditions, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church, there are those who insist that the problem today isn’t due to Vatican II but to a “misinterpretation” of the Council.

Unfortunately, misinterpretation had little to do with this, for this revolution was the result of years of careful planning. We might see the conciliar documents as the blueprint for this plan—a destructive plan that is presently coming to a head under Pope Francis. Under the banner of Vatican II we have a pope encouraging dissident bishops to spread error and sinful teaching in the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger [later Benedict XVI] in summer 2000 reportedly 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.

Council Hijacked

This conciliar malignancy was primarily due to the presence of Freemasons and rebel bishops at the Council. There is an abundance of documented evidence showing that the Council was hijacked in the opening session by dissident 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)

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)

Benedict XVI Recounts Coup d’etat at Vatican II

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, Fr. 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 that John XXIII had approved before the Council. According to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee to check 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 that 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)

Council Nullified

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 of 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.”

Documents Bear the Fingerprints of Conspiracy

Vatican II indeed was a disaster, a revolt from Apostolic tradition, but one that was waged under the pretext of a renewal. 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 [documents] 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)

Manifold Errors in the Documents

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 and errors while at the same time fooling the unwary 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 the conciliar architects really meant is that lay people perform the liturgy, not just the priest, that they too assume 1 duties and dignities of the priest as if they were part of a “common priesthood.”

Priesthood Redefined

With Vatican II came the new definition of the priesthood as The People of God. It sees the whole Church as one priesthood but in different ranks, with the ordained ministerial priesthood being only one rank thereof. “The people of God is not only an assembly of various peoples, but in itself is made up of different ranks.” (Lumen Gentium 13) What is promoted here is the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy.

The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. (LG-10)

For the record, there is no such thing as a “common priesthood of the faithful.” This was Luther's idea. The priest alone offers the Holy Sacrifice as the Alter Christus, and there is nothing lay people can do to contribute to the Holy Sacrifice for the simple reason that they are not empowered; they don't have that special anointing from the Holy Spirit.

The modern-day empowerment of the laity was promoted to instigate a people’s revolt against the priesthood in keeping with the Council's theme of human rights. The Leninist “clench-fist” idea was simply applied in a liturgical way.

In every which way Vatican II undermines the Christo-centric concept of the Mass as opposed to the old Tridentine formula which so beautifully nurtured it through the centuries. This is seen in article 7 of Institutio Generalis, governing the celebration of the Novos Ordo, which sets forth a new and humanistic definition of the Mass never before seen in Church history:

The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the people of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst. (Mt. XVIII, 20)

Here we see the Mass reduced to a meeting or assembly in which Christ’s sacrifice is merely remembered. There is no reference made to the reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice, which is the essence of the Mass and the very heart of Christ’s Mystical Body. The miracle of Transubstantiation alone—effected by the priest—is what brings about the physical and supernatural presence of Christ at Mass, yet the document heretically implies that his presence is brought about by the assembly of people numbering two or three (or more), as if they collectively were the priest.

The assembly is not a priesthood nor is the priest the ‘president of an assembly,’ nor is the presence of “two or three” necessary for a valid Mass. This is a Protestant idea which underscores the new post-conciliar church of man, which is ego-centric and not Christo-centric.

A New Spin of Dogma

Some argue that Vatican II incorporates elements of dogma into its documents, which it does, but it places a new spin on it thus causing the faithful to turn against it. What Vatican II did was to provide a new lens wherewith to look at the Church and it deliberately retained elements of orthodoxy 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 the old teachings in a new light and thus advance the denial thereof.

Ambiguity

Some argue that there is no explicit error in the documents (though there actually is) but that they’re simply worded ambiguously, but this in itself incriminates the Council because ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil—it’s deceptive. God is never ambiguous so if ambiguity is used in the documents it’s telling us they are not from God.

There is scarcely a paragraph in the documents where the insidious art of ambiguity is not used. 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 virtually 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]

Vatican II minced no words about its plan to unite with other religions. 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. [UR-1]

Along these lines, the document also says:

It is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. [UR-8]

This proposed “interfaith worship” is forbidden by the Catholic Church yet Vatican II fully endorses it. This pseudo-ecumenism 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. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)

In spite of this, Unitatis Redintegratio perfidiously asserts that life-giving elements of faith operate outside the confines of the Catholic Church.

Many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith. [UR-3]

The document furthermore states that the Holy Spirit engenders the thinking and activity of these separated churches.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation. [UR-3]

Dogma Breached

The foregoing is heretical since Christ does not abide in other religions, nor do separated [Protestant] churches in any way constitute part of the One Universal Church under Rome. The Roman Church alone can afford us salvation.

Pope Boniface VIII dogmatically decreed:

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 whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation," yet the Vatican II document defies this official Church teaching.

What is mind boggling is that the conciliar document Gaudium et Spes (in conjunction with those on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism) directly opposed the Syllabus of Errors and sought to revive the rebellious principles of the French Revolution of 1789. None less than Cardinal Ratzinger attested to this in 1982.

"We might say that it [Gaudium et Spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus… Let us be content to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 381, Ignatius Press)

The late Cardinal Suenens himself, who was a leading participant at Vatican II, famously said, “Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium

The hub of the conciliar "reform" was the December 4, 1963 document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which called for a general revision of the Mass, wherein "elements" accumulated through time "are now to be discarded" and "the rites are to be simplified" so that "active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved." (50)

This is absurd because there was nothing of the liturgy that needed restoring in 1963. The rite of the Mass had remained perfectly intact through the centuries and needed no additions, deletions, or reforms, yet Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a general restoration of the liturgy.

Consider section 21:

Holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time.

The document says that only the mutable elements of the liturgy (like the addition of new feast days) may be changed, yet it contradictorily proposes “a general restoration of the liturgy itself”—the rite. This is clarified in the next paragraph.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease [e.g. vernacular] and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community. [21]

Sacrosanctum Concilium marked not a restoration but a change of the Roman Rite, which is blasphemy. According to the document, the Traditional Latin Mass of the Ages fell short and didn’t meet the needs of God’s people.

Mass Facing the People

The crux of the liturgical reform was the so-called upgrade to Mass versus populum where the priest says the Mass facing the people with his back to the tabernacle. This innovation has its foundation in the September 26, 1964, Vatican II Instruction Inter Oecumenici, section 91, where it says:

The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.

What has ensued is a historic shift of focus where the emphasis today is on the community and not on God. According to acclaimed liturgist Msgr. Klaus Gamber hailed by Pope Benedict XVI as “a true prophet” for our time, the switch over to Mass versus populum was the most destructive of the liturgical reforms, and is without precedent in Church history.

“We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration versus populum.” — The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

There is no disputing that the sacrificial offering was always done facing God until modern times. Vatican II marked the 2 first time in history that the priest offered the Holy Sacrifice facing the people. Coupled with the other innovations to the liturgical text and prayers, which were many, we arrived at what today is known as the Novus Ordo Missae or Mass of the New Order.

Eternal Ordinance Violated

This change of liturgy at Vatican II breached the everlasting mandate of St. Pius V that none other than the Roman Missal of 1570 may be used for offering Holy Mass in the Roman rite. The pope made it clear in his decree that 3 any cleric who infringes or contravenes the old Missal will incur the wrath of Almighty God.

"No one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal… this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law...

“Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (Quo Primum, July 14, 1570)

The universal disregard of the old Mass in favor of today’s clerical fancy no doubt constitutes the most serious violation of man in the last times and calls to mind the prophetic wail of Isaias, where he says, “They have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant.” (Isaias 24:5)

Protestantism Restored

Sacrosanctum Concilium was all about reviving the protest of Martin Luther. It proposed that “other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are to be restored.” (50) This would include the injury suffered by Luther and the Reformation through their expulsion by the Council of Trent, which Vatican II lamented as an unfortunate “accident of history.”

Elements of Protestantism indeed were “restored” after the Council to take away from the Mass and empower the people as a “common priesthood.” Consider this attempt to restore the “common prayer” of the Reformation.

“On Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, ‘the common prayer’ or ‘the prayer of the faithful.’ By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, and for the civil authorities.” (Concilium 53)

That Vatican II colluded with advocates of the Reformation is evidenced by the words of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council, when he remarked: “One is astonished to find oneself more in sympathy with the thinking of Christian, non-Catholic ‘observers’ than with the views of one’s own brethren on the other side of the dividing line. The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation.”

Professor George Lindbeck, of the Yale Divinity School, and Lutheran observer at Vatican II, noted that: "The Council marked the end of the Counter-Reformation." (The Tablet, Feb. 16, 1963)

Cultural Diversity

In Reformationalist fashion, Vatican II proposed that strict uniformity in the liturgy be avoided and that the customs of races and peoples be incorporated into the Mass. “In the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity [old Mass] … rather does she respect the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy... Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself.” (37) What this did was to open the door to cultural diversity, which is widespread today with the use of vernacular and elements of pop-culture, pagan dress, eco-humanist ideas, LGBT visage, etc. The ordinance and genius of the Omnipotent One was cast aside for the so-called genius of races and peoples who are neither capable nor authorized to introduce elements of worship to the Mass.

What we were seeing in 1963 was the beginning of that “healthy decentralization” of the Church advocated today by Pope Francis. Is it any wonder that the Church today has become an anarchic merry-go-round?

Islam Endorsed

Let us switch the channel now and consider this excerpt from the conciliar document Nostra Aetate:

Muslims adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men. (NA-3)

Had the Council fathers forgotten the Quran’s teaching that Christ is not the Son of God? Had they considered its barbaric teaching that anyone who is not Muslim should be slain? Christ, whose divinity the Quran rejects, is the only True God “who has spoken to men,” so do we “misinterpret” Nostra Aetate by alleging that it dignifies an idolatrous religion? Nay, we do not.

Nostra Aetate Penned by Dissident Homosexual

According to Dr. Michael Higgins, the vice president for Mission and Catholic Identity at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, Nostra Aetate was written by ex-priest Gregory Baum who began living a homosexual life in 1964. In a tribute to Baum published in Commonweal in 2011, Dr. Higgins noted his key role during Vatican II.

“The council was the making of Gregory Baum,” he wrote. “He served in various capacities on the commissions charged with preparing documents.… Beginning his work in November 1960, he concluded it with the council’s end in December 1965, an apprenticeship that culminated in his writing the first draft of Nostra aetate.”

In his 2017 book The Oil Has Not Run Dry, Baum states: “I was 40 years old when I had my first sexual encounter with a man. I met him in a restaurant in London. This was exciting and at the same time disappointing, for I knew what love was and what I really wanted was to share my life with a [male] partner.”

Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions contains multiple errors and is particularly known for its attempts to discourage conversion of Jewish people to Christ on the false grounds that they don’t need Christ to be saved. For a pope or bishop to profess that Jews don’t need conversion would be formal heresy, yet they preach this today courtesy of Nostra Aetate.

Narcissist Overtones

There are many other places in the conciliar documents where we find a rupture from official Church teaching.

For instance, the document Gaudium et Spes affirms that by His Incarnation the Son of God “has united Himself in some fashion with every man.” [GS-22.2] Since when did the Church ever teach this? It implies that Christ’s Incarnation has automatically procured a degree of unity with all men, regardless of their disposition, and seems to suggest that the Incarnation is extended to each of us as if we too were deities that became man.

Gaudium et Spes affirms that “man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself.” [GS-24.3] This is both erroneous and scandalous—erroneous because man was not created for himself but solely for the purpose of giving honor and glory to God by serving him in this life, and scandalous because it fosters a spirit of independence and self-will where man is free to live out his own life and pursuits without God.

It coincides with the opening paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae, which is the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty:

A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment. [DH-1]

Again, we read:

God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. [DH-11]

Here we see the Council honoring man’s prerogative to be his own guide, which is contrary to the Creator. “For God will not except any man’s person, neither will He stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for He made the little and the great, and he has equally care for all.” (Wisdom 6:8)

Fake Religious Liberty

With every liberal proposal in the Vatican II document(s) there is an apparent conservatism to cover its tracks (ambiguous double meaning) so that under the pretext of honoring the rights of every human to freely adore his Creator the document advocates that man has the liberty to follow his own licentious will.

In all his activity a man is bound to follow his Conscience… It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly to God. [3]

Here “conscience” is used interchangeably with self-will so that while the document appears to say that ‘no man or religious authority may infringe on the God-given rights of Catholics to direct themselves to God,’ it’s really saying that the Church must honor man’s prerogative to choose and decide for himself what course he is going to take, even if it means choosing another religion. We might almost see the document as a pro-choice document, since what is honored is not the right choice but the “right” or “freedom” to choose, so that whatever choice is made is automatically honored by the Council.

Hence the term “religious liberty” which normally would mean our liberty to serve God with complete immunity to world tyrannies and councils is used to mean our liberty to protest God and join our own brand of religion.

Needless to say, Vatican II spawned a spirit of egoism and “ecumania” that is presently spreading throughout the Church—an ecumania that is easily traced to the documents. If the Church today ecumenically dignifies other religions it’s because Vatican II says that “Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” [UR-3]

The end result of Vatican Council II is that union with Christ has been diminished while unity with the world has been enhanced, to the end that Pope Francis is now taking the ax to sacred tradition and planning a full merging of the Catholic Church with other religions through his “Synod on Synodality.”

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that Vatican II needs to go. According to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, our efforts at restoring the Church will be futile as long as we feel compelled to work within the context of the Council. The Archbishop has gone on record as saying:

“From the pastoral point of view – that is, as regards the Council’s usefulness for the edification of the faithful – it is preferable to let the whole thing [Vatican II] drop and be forgotten…. The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction ought to be sufficient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity.” (Archbishop Vigano, Letter on Vatican II, June 14, 2020)

The Church teaches that we must always avoid the occasion of sin and Vatican II was a mega-scandal that fomented a spirit of sin in God’s people, so we need to trash Vatican II without being connected with it so that we can finally sail with liberty in holy cause of bringing the Church back to its former position of honor as it stood before Vatican II.

________________

1. At the heart of the Concilium is its central theme of “active participation of the faithful” as expressed in article 14: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people’ (1 Peter 2:9) have a right and obligation by reason of their baptism.”

Here conciliar draftsmen have put their own twist on the scripture verse to advance their own revolutionary designs. This verse about “a royal priesthood” is merely figurative to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mystical Body, since the principal function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. In that spiritual sense, the laity are a priestly or sacrificial people. They are called to atone and to follow the sacrificial Lamb in his sacrificial sufferings that they might reign with Christ as “a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” This Bible verse references their call to atonement and has nothing to do with the functions and dignities of the priesthood. Innovators were only seeing this as a means of advancing their ‘Marxist lay empowerment’ agenda.

2. That is, upon the implementation of the Mass of Vatican II in November 1969.

3. While some might try to argue that a pope is exempted from obeying the decree of Quo Primum they should know Paul VI never sought to alter or disregard this decree but rather upheld it with vehemence in his September 1965 encyclical, Mysterium Fidei. Therein he states: “It cannot be tolerated that anyone of his own authority should modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic doctrine for our belief.” The truth is that not even a pope can legally breach Quo Primum because God forbids this. After all, if it is illicit for a pope to disregard or change the Our Father how much more illicit would it be for him to change the old Mass, which is the very highest prayer of the Church?

The Daily Knight, on behalf of the Knights Republic and the Ladies of the Most Victorious Heart of Jesus depend on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Click here to make a donation.

Click here to subscribe to The Daily Knight.