Vatican II Has Secularized the Church

David Martin | The Daily Knight

Since Vatican Council II we have seen a historic shift of focus in the Church where the emphasis today is on the community and not on Christ. This has largely come about through the Vatican II proposal that priests say the Mass facing the people with their backs to the tabernacle.

The September 26, 1964, Vatican II Instruction Inter Oecuminici, article 91, states:

The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it

and celebration facing the people

What this has fostered is a spirit of betrayal where the faithful are tempted to turn their back on God and turn to one another instead (humanism). In 1933, the future Pope Pius XII upon being presented with the Third Secret of Fatima, said:

A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.

This spirit of denial indeed has ensued where we see the faithful today making merry and bowing to one another in guru fashion, to the end that they have forgotten their baptismal calling to withdraw from the world and to work out their salvation “with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) The Church today is truly flowing with the spirit of the age.

That is to say, Vatican II has secularized the Church. This in turn has opened the door to all manner of error and has led the Church into apostasy. We see the novel themes of the Council rapidly coming to fruition, especially the secular themes of lay empowerment, feminist rights, ecumenism, and liturgical enculturation. Clearly these modernist ideologies testify to a problem with the Vatican II documents wherein they have their foundation.

If we have lay people today assuming priestly functions as “Eucharistic ministers,” it’s because Vatican II defined the laity as a “common priesthood.” (LG 10) If the Church today dignifies other religions, it’s because the Council says that “Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” (UR-3)

Ambiguity is the Smoking Gun of the Devil

Even so, many Catholics defend the documents of Vatican II with the argument that they contain no explicit error but are simply ambiguous. However, ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil. If the documents are ambiguous it clearly testifies to the fact that they are not the work of God since God is never ambiguous but is crystal clear in all his instructions to us.  

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 that 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 other religions.

Vatican II went so far as to craftily 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 late John Venari of Catholic Family News, citing documented sources, summed up the craftiness of the Vatican II documents in a video published on February 6, 2015.

The ambiguities, the omissions, and the lack of precision is this council were no accident. They were the result of deliberate calculations by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these flaws in the text after the Council closed.

The documents indeed were worded in ambiguous fashion, which lent themselves to the progressivist plan to later implement insidious changes while at the same time fooling the unwary into thinking these texts meant something else.

For instance, in article 7 of the 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 conciliar architects really meant is that lay people perform the liturgy, not just the priest, and 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, reading the Bible, and sanctifying their souls in the fear of God, but what liberals really meant is that we should be busy-body activists engaging in the liturgical revolution against the priesthood. Though the particulars of today’s revolution aren’t necessarily spelled out in the documents (e.g., women lectors, Eucharistic ministers, etc), they nonetheless have their foundation in the documents and fulfill the conciliar vision of “active participation by the faithful.”

Some will argue that the conciliar documents contain lines of truth. The documents indeed contain many true texts, but this was only done to sell the errant texts by associating them with the good ones. Vatican II architects deliberately placed good and bad texts side by side for this reason.  

 Consider the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

“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 helped sell the novel teachings while giving innovators a chance to place the old teachings in a new light and thus advance the denial thereof.

Protestants Helped Draft the Vatican II Documents

This conspiracy to destroy the Faith was reflected by the presence of separated brethren at the Council. Far from being mere observers, these delegates were acting as an advisory board to the Second Vatican Council. Monsignor Baum (not Gregory Baum) in an interview with the Detroit News on June 27, 1967, commented on the role of six Protestant participants.

“They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on the Catholic liturgical renewal.”

According to Dr. Moorman who headed the Anglican delegation at Vatican II, these participants were able to “make their views known at special weekly meetings of the Unity Secretariat and had personal contacts with the Council fathers.”

Professor Oscar Cullman of the Lutheran delegation summed it up on December 4, 1965: “The hopes of the Protestants for Vatican II have not only been fulfilled, but… have gone far beyond what was believed possible.” (Xavier Rynne, The Fourth Session)

In a book by Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, one of the Protestant “observers” at Vatican II, he praised the Council's decree on ecumenism because it acknowledges the ecclesial validity of Protestant churches and negates the need for non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic Church. (Dr. McAfee Brown, The Ecumenical Revolution)

Cardinal Augustin Bea S.J., who headed the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by these Protestant advisors in formulating the conciliar decree on Ecumenism. “I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result.”

Professor B. Mondin of the Pontifical Propaganda College for the Missions stated that observers such as Dr. Cullman made “a valid contribution to drawing up the Council Documents.”

Sodomite Ex-Priest Drafted Nostra Aetate 

It shouldn’t surprise us then that the notorious ex-priest and gay-marriage advocate 1 Gregory Baum, who married an ex-nun while a priest and who from 1964 on was living an active homosexual life, was the one who drafted Nostra Aetate for the Second Vatican Council. Penned in 1964, Nostra Aetate is blatantly heretical, even suggesting that Jewish people do not need conversion to Christ.

Dr. Michael Higgins, the vice president for Mission and Catholic Identity at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, in a tribute to Baum published in Commonweal in 2011 noted his key role during Vatican II.

“The Council was the making of Gregory Baum. 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.” (Life Site News, February 17, 2017)

Nostra Aetate is a glaring testament to the heresy taught by Vatican II. For instance, the document says:

“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; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.… They value the moral life and worship God. (3)

Did the Council fathers forget 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? No, we do not.

Nostra Aetate also dignifies Hinduism, an idolatrous and superstitious religion that exists outside of God, and which holds in veneration various plants and animals. Hinduism neither knows nor calls upon the true God, yet Nostra Aetate affirms:

“In Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through the unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices and deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight towards God” (n. 2).

We Cannot Judge the Followers of Error

In alleging the foregoing, it in no way suggests that people who adhere to these religions are necessarily culpable before God. For all we know, some of these outsiders might steal Heaven as did some of the Samaritans of the Old Testament. The above assertions simply refute and expose the religions themselves – the teachings. Outsiders who in their ignorance follow these teachings could very well be saved, but Catholic priests and bishops who dignify them will likely wind up in hell since their duty before God is to convert members of other religions, not to respect their errors.  

St. Athanasius said: “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” 

St. John Chrysostom likewise said: “The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”

Common Consensus is of Zero Significance

Some will argue that the modern changes and ideologies of Vatican II are supported by nearly all the bishops, thereby making them Magisterial. Not so. That’s the profession of Modernists who say that whatever the Church adheres to at any given point of its history is simply the result of a common consensus of bishops so that as the consensus changes the Church’s Magisterium changes with it. They’re forgetting that doctrine is set in stone so that neither it nor the understanding thereof can ever change.  Common consensus is of zero significance.  The duty of the pope and bishops is to simply pass on the torch of truth, not to alter it and then agree on their alteration. Today’s clergy are forgetting the wise teaching of St. Augustine: “Wrong is wrong even if everyone does it, right is right even if no one does it.”

Church Degenerating Under the Illusion of Progress

Progressivist bishops and theologians at Vatican II defied doctrine and changed the Mass thinking falsely that God was guiding them when in fact Satan was the author of their change. Thanks to these changes the Church at present is groping in the dark and pushing small-minded political issues like climate action and immigration instead of doing the work of Christ to save souls. The Church has truly degenerated under the illusion of progress. This was part of the “diabolical disorientation” that Sr. Lucy at Fatima said would vex the hierarchy.

Nineteenth Century Freemason Predicted Vatican II

This present-day attack on the Church was foreshadowed in the writings of 19th century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that “The liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council ... to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state.”

The liturgy and regulations of the Church indeed underwent "a transformation at an ecumenical council" [Vatican II], which has served to "deprive the Church of its supernatural character" and "amalgamate it with the world." Vatican II set in motion this ecumenical plan of uniting the Church with other world religions, and we see this Masonic design coming to a head more than ever. More and more we see the “clenched fist” being raised against ecclesiastical authority, which was a key objective of Vatican II planners.

The New Conciliar Definition of the Priesthood

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 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.” That 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 do not have that special anointing from the Holy Spirit. They cannot impart blessings, absolve, consecrate, etc.

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 clenched-fist was simply applied in a liturgical context.

Fingerprints of Collusion

The documents of the Second Vatican Council indeed bear the fingerprints of collusion. One needn't look any further than the conciliar document on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which emphatically seeks to unite the Catholic Church with other religions.

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. [1]

Along these lines, the document also says:

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

This proposed “interfaith worship” is forbidden by the Catholic Church, yet the document fully recommends this on the false basis that God works through other religions.

The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [other religions] as means of salvation. [UR-3]

The pseudo ecumenism advocated by the Council was 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 are baptized and who profess the One True Catholic 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)

Hence if a Catholic with full consent of the will leaves the Catholic Church he is no longer a member of Christ’s Mystical Body and cannot be saved without repentance before death. Let such persons consider the dogmatic decree of Pope Boniface VIII.

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

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]

This is heretical since Christ does not abide in other religions, nor do separated churches in any way constitute part of the One Universal Church of Christ. As such, the way of salvation is not found in them.

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."

Even so, Vatican II defies this official Church teaching. What we witnessed at Vatican II was a well-orchestrated plan to unite the Church with the world and to lead its members into error. This was evident by the fact that there was a whole legion of heretics present at the Council, not just a handful of Protestants.

Cardinal Bea a Major Force at Vatican II

This largely came about through the work Cardinal Augustin Bea, a Freemason who headed the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity. He was primarily responsible for inviting the heads of other religions, states, and secret societies to the Second Vatican Council. The end product of this infestation was heretical documents that distort and challenge the truth.

For instance, the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (in conjunction with those on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism) directly opposed the superlative Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and sought to revive the rebellious principles of the French Revolution of 1789. None less than Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) 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 key participant at the Council, 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) What is absurd is that 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.

Sacrosanctum Concilium disagrees. 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 [mutable elements]. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time.

Note the gross contradiction displayed. The document says that only the mutable elements of the liturgy (like the addition of new feast days) may be changed, yet it 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]

According to the document, the Traditional Latin Mass didn’t meet the needs of God’s people through the centuries. What we saw at the Council was a concerted effort to stir the people up against Christ’s 2000-year legacy (tradition), which was reminiscent of how the Pharisees stirred the people up against Christ.

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. (SC 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 and music, queer behavior and clothing, 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 witnessed in 1963 was the beginning of that “healthy decentralization” of the Church advocated by Francis. The Council indeed did not advocate “a rigid uniformity” imposed from the Curial level because the plan was to eventually delegate liturgical decisions to local bishops and even to lay persons. Is it any wonder that the Church today has been reduced to an anarchic merry-go-round?

Active Lay Participation

 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 2 baptism.

Here conciliar draftsmen put their own twist on this 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 verse references our call to atonement and has nothing to do with their taking on the functions and dignities of the priesthood. Innovators were only seeing this as a means of advancing their Communistic lay empowerment agenda.

Vatican II Started with Good Intentions

With that said, it is important to emphasize that Vatican II was started with the best of resolves, but the Council unfortunately was hijacked in the opening session. In Pope John XXIII’s original outline for Vatican II there were no proposals to change the Mass, alter doctrine, or to invite doctrinal rebels to the Council. Vatican II had been infiltrated through the orchestration of Judases within the Vatican. There is an abundance of documented evidence showing that Vatican II 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 scheme 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 Vatican II

Let us diverge briefly to recall the turbulent opening session that deflected the course of 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 suspected Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of new 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 the Virgin Mary’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 Professor 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 chaired by “suspect theologians” that had previously been restricted under Pius XII. These would include dissenters like Hans Kung, Fr. Edward Schillebeechx, and the pseudo-mystic Fr. 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 Church 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 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 even after it had been approved by a 40% vote.

Consider the first-hand observation of Archbishop Lefebvre who was responsible for overseeing all the Council documents.

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)

Professor 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.”

With the schemas out of the way it left a huge void in the Council where we saw some 2300 prelates and priests twiddling their thumbs with no syllabus to follow. This opened the door for modernists like Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx to begin disseminating their critiques on how to change the Catholic Church.

Hence it is conceivable that the Council at this point, on account of the two-fold violation of its legal framework, 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 the novel changes of 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. as to why Vatican II failed.

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God”

Interestingly, Cardinal Ratzinger in 1990 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 and a bad Mass” to come, presumably referencing the Second Vatican Council. (IP5, 4-15-16) Note that October 13, 1962, the day that Vatican II was initially hijacked, was the 45th anniversary of the Virgin Mary’s last apparition of Fatima. Certainly, no coincidence.

Needless to say, Vatican II was an infernally precipitated disaster that landed landed the Church shipwreck onto secular shores. Far from being the work of God that was simply misinterpreted, the Council was a carefully calculated revolt that was later implemented according to plan.

Would that the pope and his bishops could finally dismiss the Council so that the Barque of Peter could again move out into the deep and resume its mission of catching souls for Christ! For this we pray!

1. Baum passed away on October 18, 2017. Steve Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews has written: "Msgr. Foy, whom I personally knew very well, possessed documents which claimed that Gregory Baum was a Marxist spy sent to Canada to infiltrate and corrupt the Catholic Church.

2. Note that baptism is used here as a pitch for human rights. In the low Mass there is nothing of the liturgy that lay people perform, therefore it is an error to suggest that baptism entitles them to the right to share in its performance. The priest alone says the Mass.