An Analysis of This Awful Council Without Wimpy Academic Constraints
Table of Contents
Intro
“I have understood more than all my teachers: because thy testimonies are my meditation.” (Psalm 118:99)
If you know much about the Catholic Church’s 2nd Vatican Council (lasting from 1962 to 1965), then you’ve heard commentators distinguish between its “writings” and its “spirit.” Yes, there’s supposed to be some attached spirit to the Church’s agenda to update itself since in the 1960s.
Unfortunately, this poses certain problems, since many spirits are evil, and, so are the writings and application of the Council.
What some Catholics joyfully proclaim to be a benevolent and long-awaited “spirit of Vatican II,” I contend, is nothing but a destructive and obnoxious Poltergeist of Vatican II. Worse yet, since this wretched thing jeopardizes the salvation of souls, we should beseech heaven to destroy it. We ought to at least expose and comprehend the monster.
I corrected any spelling and grammar mistakes in the content without adding new content.
How many Catholics do you think have ever read the documents from the 2nd Vatican Council?
I would guess about as many who have swam through their septic systems, and for equivalent reasons. Sometimes it’s better to call a plumber to diagnose and fix a sewage leak, and it’s also the best way to approach this evil council. Given how foul things have become in the modernist, pedophilic, communist Vatican, we no longer possess such a luxury, though.
The proverbial sewage has gotten all over the kitchen floor, forcing us to take emergency actions (grab a bucket). We must get a grip on what this council really means. Then, and only then, can we comprehend the scope and magnitude of this evil spirit (in both its letter and application).
Here’s another question.
Are you afraid to challenge errant members of the Catholic hierarchy, academic experts, “scripture scholars,” or, best of all, “thought leaders”?
Well, you shouldn’t be, especially when today’s clerical hierarchy can’t so much as recite the 10 Commandments, believe the Eucharist “is in your heart,” or that sterilization tactics are permissible. It’s just as miserable to follow those Internet “thought leaders” who lead before they think, and shepherd folks off a cliff of dangerous ideas.
This has become most obvious with the way Catholic leaders and thinkers have deciphered Vatican II. Rather than reveal the horrendous affair for what it is, the educated, credentialed, and clerical experts have presented this radical departure from traditional Catholicism as a mere “shift in pastoralism.” Instead, rather, we should view Vatican II as an exodus from Catholicism along the wide path to Hell.
As I’ll demonstrate, the 1960s council completely disagrees with the 1950s Holy See (and all prior Catholic teaching). If that’s true, how can there be two churches, separated by such a short time period, at complete odds with one another, without one being false? Such a claim violates the Principle of Noncontradiction.
Ergo, I (and everyone else) have the right to question this logical impossibility, and investigate the potential evidence of ecclesial malice. ALL Catholics must discern this problem. We must “di”-scern between the “dual” churches: one good, and the other evil.
“Ah, but wasn’t Vatican II just a pastoral council”?
Oh, if only it was. If it didn’t issue dogmatic decrees, then why does it include “dogmatic constitutions”? Those documents outrank papal bulls, encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, interdicts, motu proprios, and other official papal actions. Therefore, we must either submit to them, or discover why they belie prior magisterium.
Was Vatican II’s treachery predicted by any of the approved Catholic apparitions or prophesies?
Yes, and it may console you to know that heaven may have indeed warned us about this ecumenical, universalist, collegial, and revolutionary beast. Without a doubt, the most substantiated 20th-century private revelations were the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima (in Fatima, Portugal, 1917). For anyone unfamiliar, these were a series of visions, culminating in the incredible public miracle, the dancing sun, witnessed by almost 100,000.
I won’t cover every detail of the extensive apparitional contents, but there’s considerable controversy over the part known as the 3rd Secret. That’s the component that was supposed to be opened and revealed to the public in the year 1960. However, the reigning pontiff, John XXIII, after announcing his intentions to convene an ecumenical council, refused to disclose what he found in the secret, following eager public anticipation. Multiple accounts claim he was visibly shaken and agitated by what he read in that foreboding message from the Mother of God.
What could have been so jarring to Pope John XXIII?
We would find out much later that the message included two critical components: 1) The arrival of a bad council, leading to 2) The creation of a bad Mass. Much of what I discuss in this book will elaborate on that first problem, which gave way to a radically new liturgy and massive upheavals in Church customs.
If you wish to learn more about the bad council secret, you’ll find that many mainstream information sources (EWTN, and other Catholic media) neglect to cover it. That shouldn’t surprise anyone since those media outlets are financed and controlled by the clerical establishment (all diehard adherents to V2). Therefore, you’ll have to review what’s available from traditional Catholic commentators to learn anything about a possible “evil council.” Nonetheless, that appears to be what Our Lady of Fatima announced, and we can see that modern prelates and clergy have taken considerable steps to censor it.
In this book, my first objective will be to expose the council documents, then explain how this modernist gathering wounded the Catholic Church. First, let’s make sure we understand the relevant terminology.
Miniature Glossary of Modernism
Before I continue, I’d like to define some of the jargon you’ll come across while investigating this council. You can reference this if you get stuck or forget what something means while reading this work. You’re welcome to skip past it if you already know these concepts.
I call it a Miniature Glossary of Modernism, reflecting the very paradigm that aflicts the Catholic Church the most, following Vatican II. This glossary includes a working definition of the term “modernism” itself.
Aggiornamento – This is the Italian word for “updating.” The council villains used this term as part of their insistence that Catholicism “get with the times.” To them, the Church could not reach the world (as if it needed to) with its outdated Latin liturgy, frightening preaching about the devil and Hell, and various other components. Council proponents wanted to eliminate anything they thought were arcane relics, like “anathemas,” or anything ever written by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Collegiality – The root word is “college,” bringing to mind ecclesial bodies like the College of Cardinals. The simplest definition is “a group of individuals to form one body.” As I’ll explain in more detail, the Vatican II perpetrators wish for all Church administration to go through groups, committees, bishops’ conferences, and other collective bodies. They do so with the ultimate goal of minimizing and then eliminating the papacy, the singular high office that governs the Church, vicariously through Christ. Freemasons (which many modernists are) have been planning this objective for quite some time. This has been an instrumental mechanism for hijacking and terrorizing the Church hierarchy and faithful, for as it is written: strike the shepherd; scatter the flock.
Ecumenism – They call Vatican II an “ecumenical council,” which ordinarily involves the gathering of the entire Church family. The word derives from the Greek terms oikoumenē (the inhabited world) and oikos (“house”). Although this normally refers to the gathering of all Catholics, modern theologians, who are wolves in disguise, have bastardized the term. Ecumenism is now better known as a touchy-feely way for the Catholic Church to compromise with Protestants and other false belief systems. This includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Eastern Orthodox, witch doctors, atheists, and anybody else. Also, it has less to do with discussion among religions (which would be bad enough) and more to do with diluting Catholicism. It’s similar to the way animal-rights activists don’t seek the elevation of animals to the level of humans as much as they’d prefer to degrade humans to animal status.
Hermeneutic of Continuity or Rupture – The word “hermeneutic” refers to some type of interpretation or explanation, often involving the analysis of sacred texts, like holy scripture. Since Vatican II left us with so much praxeological chaos, many learned minds developed a special hermeneutic to account for it. This would have to explain the immense gap between 1,900 years of Church teaching, versus the revolutionary council novelties in the 1960s. Whenever you encounter the terms “hermeneutic of continuity” or “hermeneutic of rupture,” they assert that V2 either flows continuously with previous magisterium, or ruptures from it altogether. The council supporters assert the former, whereas most traditional or conservative Catholics argue the latter. I believe Vatican II represents a Hermeneutic of Bogus. It’s not real, we shouldn’t lend it any credence, and must fervently pray that a future pope will annul every last putrid stain of the Vatican II Poltergeist.
Modernism – This is the most important V2 concept and everything today’s evildoers seek to accomplish. Pope St. Pius X popularized this term, which he used to describe the synthesis of all heresies. The problem, however, had already enveloped much of the Church before and during the First Vatican Council (more on this later). The easiest way to conceptualize modernism is to imagine the total inverse of all holy and Catholic dogma/doctrine. Modernists seek to take everything good and holy and turn them on their heads. This includes the holy liturgy, prayers, indulgences, disciplines, sacrament rituals, the fundamental nature of the papacy and clergy, culture, customs, and more. As the synthesis of all heresies (which always have a demonic origin), we could consider this the worst preternatural assault on the Catholic Church in its entire history. This heresy bothered St. Pius X so much that he developed an entire Oath Against Modernism, requiring its profession at Catholic seminaries.
New Evangelization – Since the “old” evangelization somehow didn’t work, modernists insist on a fresh approach. Like everything else they’ve imposed on the Church, nobody can define or operationalize this concept. Even when I “Google search” the term, the first result is a paid advertisement from the Jesuit heresy outlet, America Magazine. In this long-winded article, it gives a vague reference to the prophet Isaiah and the Gospel, the process of returning home to Mt. Sion, and explains the word “evangelize.” To summarize, the word comes from the Lutherans, it replaced the traditional Jesuit focus on “missionary” work, and Vatican II wants it this way to appease Protestants. Much of the council involves either accommodating or conforming into Protestantism. Plus, since there’s nothing new about heresy and revolt, this term is a tremendous misnomer.
Nouvelle Théologie – Modernists, in their contempt for every aspect of tradition, had to invent a new theology as well (hence the term). Unlike perennial Church theology, inspired by the patristics and Church doctors, this is a man-centered system. Here, you’ll find the genesis of every bizarre ecclesial, dogmatic, and liturgical novelty of at least the past 100 years. That would include archaeologically centric biblical interpretations and a near total contempt for the contributions of the illustrious Church Doctors.
Religious Liberty – Vatican II attempts to confuse us by taking advantage of our empathy for those who have suffered religious persecution. The modernist infiltrators are playing a game with us through this concept. They do so by redefining religious liberty as the freedom “. . . to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power” (Dignitatis Humanae). The Church’s prior magisterium (i.e., AUTHENTIC magisterium) tolerates the existence of other belief systems, doesn’t impose coercions, but also asserts no positive right to adhere to them. Traditional Church teaching, to the contrary, considers this either indifferentism or just plain error (which has no rights). This subtlety is lost on most Americans, for example, who would fixate on the false dichotomy of the “separation of Church and state,” along with other misconceptions. I’ll explain this more in the summary on Dignitatis Humanae.
Separated Brethren – This is a euphemism for “heretic.” Unlike the True Church, modernists insist on deceiving the faithful over whether being Catholic even matters. So, when you read the documents, you’ll notice numerous references to “separated brethren,” “eastern brethren,” or “our brothers in the faith” rather than calling them Protestants, schismatics, or heretics. It’s all part of an effort to make the language more diplomatic and ecumenical.
Universalism – This is the belief that all (or almost all) individuals achieve salvation regardless of whether they enter Our Lord’s Holy Catholic Church. The 2nd Vatican Council doesn’t outright claim this, but you can infer it from several of its key documents, notably Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. Some radical theologians have even suggested that Hell is empty (or close to it). Although not invited to participate in Vatican II, the odious theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, coined the popular expression “dare we hope all men are saved.” It was he, along with the future Pope Benedict XVI (Josef Ratzinger), Henri de Lubac, and others who once comprised the “conservative” wing of modern Catholicism. So, if you believe Vatican II was just a “liberal, whack-a-doodle” affair, you’re sorely mistaken.
One More Preliminary Warning
If while reading this, you experience any temptation to despair over the state of the Church, just remember this, too, will pass, and God has already won. Following the document analysis, I’ll explain the context of the Church crisis with fuller detail. Then, I’ll mention practical ways to avoid the Poltergeist with interior and exterior devotions.
The end of this work will explore various theories over what created (and continues to sustain) the modern antichurch. If you aren’t familiar, this will cover beliefs like 1958 Sedevacantism, 2022 Sedevacantism, and other explanations for the fraudulent reign of Antipope Bergoglio.
Finally, how would we recognize this insidious “Poltergeist of Vatican II”?
It won’t be easy because we have to read through the V2 documents and dismiss the ridiculous assertion that they’re “just a little vague.” The reality is far more menacing. The council proponents refer to a “Spirit of Vatican II” in a positive light, which has been their way of mind-controlling the Catholic populace while it revolutionizes Church practices. For example, in their efforts to instill ecumenism, the modernists have even punished seminarians for enjoying a devotion to the Blessed Mother.
I assert that this spirit is really a poltergeist, an aggressive spirit hellbent on antagonizing God’s Holy Church. Just like in the popular 1982 horror film, the V2 poltergeist is loud, obnoxious, disturbing, and harasses people. This is what leads folks to leave the Church. It’s also the source and summit of today’s diabolical disorientation in the world.
If all that seems nebulous and far-fetched, then here’s the easiest way to understand it . . .
The Poltergeist of Vatican II is the full proliferation of modernism in the Church, and I intend to prove it.
The good news is that it will fail, and you and I can be on the victorious side, with God, if we cling to His glorious traditional Catholic Church. Now, we must carry our crosses, and perhaps subtract from our time in Purgatory, by reviewing the filthy council documents. This essay will examine each of the relevant documents, comment on them, and explain what we can do to repudiate them and live an authentic Catholic life.
Without further ado, here are the wretched writings from The Poltergeist of Vatican II.
Nostra Aetate (Nosferatu)
- Document Type: Declaration
- Primary Contributors: Cardinal Augustin Bea, SJ
- Topic: Universalism
- Issue Date: October 28, 1965 (Nosferatu came three days before Halloween!)
- Nostra Aetate – Full Online Text
I’ve selected this document as the leadoff for my analysis, largely because reading this was what sparked my interest in sending these documents into the intellectual wood chipper.
Its writing tone reeks of liberal “tolerance” and “kumbaya.” The Jesuit contributor, Cardinal Bea, was somewhat of a Proto-Bergoglio, lauding over every world religion. This document was an important seed that would later germinate into Bergoglio’s asinine belief that God wills a plurality of religions.
Nostra Aetate and Sacrosanctum Concillium, strike me as the most aggravating V2 documents. Here’s my case for that assertion . . .
Section 1 –> (First Sentence; Already a Nightmare) In our time (Nostra Aetate), when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions.
Response: Right off the bat, this is patently absurd. How in the blazes were folks “being drawn closer together” after there were just a quarter of a billion slaughtered in WWI, WWII, and among numerous communist regimes? These “closer together” comments come when the world was two-thirds of the way through the most murderous century in all of human history (both in proportion and nominal death count). The author must also have forgotten about the imminent threat of nuclear war the world was facing in 1965.
Section 2 –> (Hindus are Cool) Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry.
Response: No, you silly council; this is wrong. Both St. Augustine and holy scripture make it incontrovertibly clear that all other “gods,” are demons. Therefore, whenever Hindus “contemplate the divine mystery” (going through their “gods”), they’re consulting demons. Also, it’s ironic to see the author praise the “inexhaustible abundance of myths,” since they consider much of Catholicism to be mythological, with little regard for it. You won’t find many Vatican II apologists who believe in a literal interpretation of the Deluge, Sodom & Gomorrahs’ chastisement, or any of the rest of the Creation narrative. Instead, they, like the superstitious Hindus, offer steadfast loyalty to stupid myths, such as evolution.
Section 2 –> (Other Religions Might be Holy) The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.
Response: Yes, except, the 1st Commandment rejects other religions; thus making them incapable of intentionally attaining anything holy. This section also begs the question: What does the council believe is holy about other religions? The sneaky wording leaves ample room for speculation. That’s a common motif throughout the entire council, one that doesn’t resolve confusion, but exacerbates and creates more of it.
Section 3 –> (Moslems = Venerable) The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They 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.
Response: Moslems reject the Holy Trinity and view God as a tyrant. They also become belligerent when Catholics lovingly refer to Him as “Father,” and have been hellbent on spreading their “faith” through aggressive force alone since the 7th century. Furthermore, if there’s any connection between Moslems and Abraham, it’s through the bondswoman Hajar, who produced the Arab progenitor, Ishmael, before God expelled them into the wilderness. Expulsion, as Catholics should know, is always the just reward for sin. Perhaps that’s what happens when one doesn’t sufficiently love one’s Almighty Father.
Section 3 –> (Move on & Forget About Moslem Murderers) This sacred synod urges all to forget the past.
Response: Yeah, that’s a great idea, because you wouldn’t want to remember who started the conflicts, or who’s been a belligerent in the worst international disputes involving religious groups (see: Moslems). Aside from that, how much of the past shall we ignore? Judging by what’s become of modern “scripture scholarship,” it would seem like there’s an incredible volume of things the council wishes us to forget.
Section 4 –> (Jews NOT Cursed) The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
Response: No, THEY rejected (and continue to reject) God the Son, Jesus Christ. They’re welcome to disavow their Jew-ism anytime they’d like. Jews have followed their ancestor, Esau, and have made it their mission to either kill or swindle their brothers (anyone but them) for many centuries. If there is a curse, then like Jacob’s vengeful brother, the Jews have brought it upon themselves.
- NOTE: With this analogy, I don’t mean to suggest I accept the council’s notion that the Jews are our “older brothers in the faith.” That’s a pile of hogwash. Here, I would only mock the idea by comparing it with the theme of fratricide (brotherly murder), abundant throughout the Old Testament, exemplifying Jewish culture.
Section 5 –> (Discrimination is ALWAYS Bad) No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.
Response: The Catholic Church has never taught that we should view other men with any less dignity than a future citizen of heaven. Once again, however, this document suffers from ignorance of Holy Scripture (almost like that could become a meme against Catholics following the council). Otherwise, its author would have recalled the many times scripture instructs us to avoid the bad company of fools, heathens, and most interaction with non-Catholics. We’re called to discriminate often (provided we judge no one’s internal disposition).
Here are some scriptural examples of when we should discriminate based on association (bold part = emphasis mine):
- But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
- He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them. (Proverbs 13:20)
- But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
Further Analysis of Nostra Aetate
Universalism, exemplified by this vague and vapid writing, is unequivocally evil. That’s not just my opinion, but that of the Church, spanning several centuries of papal bulls.
How did popes approach the Jewish question?
During the 1st Crusade, Pope Calixtus II issued Sicut Judaeis, in response to problems with violence against the Jews. This papal bull forbade Catholics from forcibly converting Jews or aggressing against them in other ways. It didn’t mean Catholics were free to fraternize or exchange religious ideas with them. The Church even passed subsequent restrictions against Jews, in various Catholic jurisdictions, because they recognized “Jew-ism” as a vastly different religion, grounded in the abominable Babylonian Talmud.
That precedent was reaffirmed more than any other papal bull by no less than 18 popes. This is one of few topics to receive greater papal attention than Freemasonry (which is almost the same problem).
Yet, we’re to believe all of those popes were wrong in light of the newfound ecumenism of the 1960s. If Holy Church really wanted us to facilitate a hand-holding dialogue with the Jews, why did she wait all those many centuries to decree it?
What else should we say about this obsession over universalism and ecumenism?
Nowadays, we use euphemistic and sentimental language, whereas in the past, we would have called a spade a spade, a fag a fag, and a heretic a heretic. The only thing worse than this would be if the angels in heaven referred to the demons in Hell as their separated brethren. How dare the Nosferatu creators (most of all, Cardinal Bea) defile Holy Church’s doctrine with this nauseous universalist garbage?
Finally, let us not forget why universalism is so repugnant. It violates God’s First Commandment, allowing man to do his wicked will instead. Manmade religions all operate this way. I recall an anecdote from St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s meditations, referencing St. Cyril of Jerusalem, on the evil practice of worshiping the sun.
Why do some men do this?
Because it always goes down at dusk, leaving them with no god to watch over them, and, therefore, carte blanche to do whatever they want (orgies, drunkenness, etc.). Our God, however, the living God of the Catholic religion, never stops watching, night and day. Since many men would prefer a life of (perceived) impunity, they erect their own gods, which are always demons, and allow him to sin to his hardened heart’s content.
This, of course, is a snare leading souls to Hell, something a true Church council would endeavor to prevent. Vatican II, a conciliar wolf in sheep’s clothing, does not attempt this, and thus should receive rejection from the faithful. Nostra Aetate is a surreptitious scheme, and a trick to get well-intentioned Catholics to “dialogue” with other religions, for melding Catholicism into them. If you don’t believe me, then explore some of its poisonous fruits: The Abrahamic Family Center in Abu Dhabi, where you’ll find no greater abomination of spiritual incest.
It shouldn’t surprise us that this wretched nonsense over religious tolerance has yielded innumerable social consequences. Immediately after the council, we suffered not only an unprecedented worldwide sexual revolution but also a nosedive into depravity with rock music.
By the 1970s and 80s, rock culture eagerly embraced the Vatican II Poltergeist’s universalism. Creepy groups like the Blue Oyster Cult, led by someone who renamed himself, Buck Dharma, began “living for giving the devil his due” and advising folks “don’t fear the reaper.” Well, why not give Old Scratch his due, if folks from every religious persuasion have something to contribute?
You do, after all, accept Vatican II, don’t you?
Church → Culture
Never forget that the character and vitality of the culture always flows from the Church somehow. Examine the condition of the culture, and see whether it reflects a healthy, vibrant Church, or one that’s been exsanguinated by Nosferatu. Hopefully, after investigating these outrageous quotations, you can see how The Poltergeist of Vatican II ravages both the council’s written pronouncements. Later, we’ll see how it does the same with their enactment.
Before that, this next document explores ways to demolish Holy Church’s liturgy.
Sacrosanctum Concilium (Sacrilegious Council)
- Document Type: Dogmatic Constitution
- Primary Contributors: Annibale Bugnini
- Topic: Sacred Liturgy
- Issue Date: December 4, 1963 (the first major document published)
- Sacrosanctum Concilium – Full Online Text
Hmm, I wonder why they went after liturgy with the first major V2 document.
Remember the words, Lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief). The Vatican II Poltergeist knew it had to disrupt the way Catholics worshiped if it was to be successful. So, here we have what I’ve renamed, Sacrilegious Council, a document that paved the way for the eventual Mass of Paul VI (AKA Novus Ordo) in 1969, a little while after the council finished.
This document’s primary framer, Annibale Bugnini, was also the architect of the “new Mass,” which he concocted with the help of six Protestant scholars. This was, according to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was outlined in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.
Here are some important quotations to consider, followed by my responses. You’re welcome to read the entire document yourself, but beware that it starts off mostly orthodox, lulling the reader into approving it, before issuing several radical concepts. In other words, the reader should prepare for a slow descension into Hell.
Intro; Section 1 –> (Inclusive Terminology) . . . to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
Response: So, this is the first paragraph, and immediately the modernists’ intentions become apparent. Notice how it doesn’t say “Catholics,” but “all who believe in Christ.” This is the council’s way of signaling its desire to transform the liturgy to fit the whims of those who merely mumble a few words about Jesus Christ. Our Lord, of course, condemned such a fainthearted faith when he warned that not all those who “saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven.” As we’ll see, changing the liturgy to suit Protestant sensibilities doesn’t draw them into the Church as much as it weakens the Church herself.
Intro; Section 4 –> (Leeway for Anything) Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.
Response: Pay attention to the bold part at the end. That’s the open door they used to sneak ANYTHING past you. Such vague language, as critics have contended, gives even well-intentioned clergy enormous leeway to do anything they want with little accountability. In our times, this could involve a guitar benediction after Mass, where the priest begs God to “rock with us, as we roll with you.”
Chapter 1; Section 14 –> (Undefined Terminology) Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.
Response: If this is true, then why doesn’t this document define “active participation”? How do we fulfill this desire without a concrete definition? For all we know, active participation means hammering loose nails on the parish floor during Mass. That’s what happens when you bandy about buzz terms without defining them.
Chapter 1; Section 22 –> (Good Intention) Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Response: I applaud this inclusion, but with the benefit of hindsight, we’ve seen that so many clergy have added and manipulated enormous portions of the new Mass. At a minimum, the enforcers of this mandate (bishops, most of all) have been radically unsuccessful.
Chapter 1; Section 24 –> (Implication that Catholicism is Unscriptural) Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony. The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; experts are to be employed on the task, and bishops are to be consulted, from various parts of the world.
Response: This gives us no indication whatsoever why the books would require revision. It seems to imply that the old books were incapable of fostering a “warm and living love for scripture.” Here, you can see an obvious concession to Protestants with the presupposition that Catholics lack serious devotion to the bible. Granted, we could counter this by showing how the forthcoming “new” Mass removed holy scripture from the end of Mass.
Chapter 1; Section 30 –> (Still No Definition) To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
Response: Again, these are examples, but still no definition of active participation. Some Bugnini defenders suggest he borrowed the term from Pope St. Pius X, specifically the motu proprio on music, Tra Le Sollecitudini. If you read any of the various vernacular translations, the term “active participation” does indeed appear. However, as scholar Carol Byrne shows us, this is NOT true of the original Latin text. You’re welcome to check those links and verify for yourself. Following that, we should suspect that Bugnini and friends invented this concept out of thin air, but not before cajoling several popes (even before the council) into accepting it.
Chapter 31; Section 34 –> (The Old Mass is Repetitive?) The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
Response: I sure hope nobody thinks the sign of the cross is one of those “useless repetitions.” It would be a shame if some liturgical reformer mis-interpreted this and created a new liturgy, eliminating almost all crossings and genuflections.
Chapter 1; Section 36 –> (Latin = Still Good) Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Response: Finally, some good news. Are you sure, though?
Sacrilegious Council (Chapter 1; Section 36): (*But . . . Latin Might be Bad*) But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Response: Ah, I knew it. That’s effectively everything in the Mass. They should have said “Yeah, Latin’s cool, just get rid of any occasion where people might hear it.”
Chapter 1; Section 37 –> (What Constitutes Superstition?) Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster 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 and, if possible, preserves intact.
Response: Hopefully, this won’t include the notorious, superstitious Pocket Mommy demon the modernists invited into St. Peter’s Basilica.
Chapter 1; Section 40 –> (Need to Get Radical?) In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties.
Response: Uh oh, run for the hills anytime you hear these folks use the term, “radical.” This could include everything, up to and including, a so-called “Gay Mass” offered by an openly-sodomite priest.
Chapter 2; Section 50 –> (Get Rid of Some Stuff) For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
Response: It’s one thing to augment the liturgy with more scripture, but what were these elements, which “were added with little advantage”? Was the Sign of the Cross one of those (since it’s been almost discarded from the new Mass)? How about the Leonine prayers after Mass? Perhaps it was those pesky altar rails. This document mentions nothing specifically.
Chapter 2; Section 53 –> (Add Common Prayers) Especially 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 the holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world.
Response: Doesn’t the Mass itself, the august and sacrificial offering of God the Son to God the Father, suffice for these purposes? Why would we need to vocalize “common prayers” separately?
Chapter 3; Section 62 –> (Get Rid of More Stuff) With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times.
Response: Yet again, the author alludes to worn out relics of the traditional faith . . . but WILL NOT SPECIFY any examples. Instead, it just explains why we should administer them in the vernacular.
Chapter 3; Section 68 –> (Baptisms are Too Long) The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary, for occasions when a very large number are to be baptized together. Moreover, a shorter rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission lands, to be used by catechists, but also by the faithful in general when there is danger of death, and neither priest nor deacon is available.
Response: Sure, it’s nice to have a condensed version for emergency scenarios. However, it would be a shame if lazy (or evil) clergy would select a shorter version to expedite the process so they can return to playing Nintendo. This would deprive healthy infants and catechumen of all the blessings and exorcisms found in the old rites (which served a significant spiritual purpose).
Chapter 3; Section 73 –> (Extreme Unction On-Demand?) “Extreme unction,” which may also and more fittingly be called “anointing of the sick,” is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.
Response: That “or old age” part is another trick. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (a binding document, unlike this one), clearly states that the recipient must be in danger of death, which must arise from sickness. There’s no “or” about it. That universal catechism doesn’t mention “old age.” This cutesy Bugnini language opens the door for the elderly to receive extreme unction “on-demand,” potentially diluting the perceived significance of the sacrament.
Chapter 3; Section 77 –> (Insert Wedding Novelties) The marriage rite now found in the Roman Ritual is to be revised and enriched in such a way that the grace of the sacrament is more clearly signified and the duties of the spouses are taught. If any regions are wont to use other praiseworthy customs and ceremonies when celebrating the sacrament of matrimony, the sacred Synod earnestly desires that these by all means be retained.
Response: Could this be where modern Catholic weddings began including the immodest and obnoxious “kiss the bride” element? Nothing spells reverence for the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony like the couple playing tonsil hockey just a few feet away from God in the tabernacle. The old rite, of course, does not include this custom.
Chapter 4: Section 89 –> (Change the Divine Office) By the venerable tradition of the universal Church, Lauds as morning prayer and Vespers as evening prayer are the two hinges on which the daily office turns; hence they are to be considered as the chief hours and are to be celebrated as such. Compline is to be drawn up so that it will be a suitable prayer for the end of the day. The hour known as Matins, although it should retain the character of nocturnal praise when celebrated in choir, shall be adapted so that it may be recited at any hour of the day; it shall be made up of fewer psalms and longer readings. The hour of Prime is to be suppressed. In choir the hours of Terce, Sext, and None are to be observed. But outside choir it will be lawful to select any one of these three, according to the respective time of the day.
Response: If you know anything about the old Roman Breviary, you won’t have trouble understanding why this is catastrophically stupid and sinister. First, Matins can ALREADY be prayed the day before if the cleric becomes inundated with work. You can anticipate that hour as early as 2 p.m. of the previous day. Then, Bugnini never explains what’s wrong with Compline or Prime. By suppressing the latter, it eliminates the daily meditation on the Church’s glorious martyrs (see: Roman Martyrology). Prime was also the hour where priests once prayed all of Psalm 118 every day, a repetitious exhortation to obey God’s commands. Modernists, like the council stepmothers, despise divine mandates, and always seek their suppression. Finally, this document makes it sound like the old Breviary was inflexible or incompatible with a priest’s normal workload. This is patently false because you can recite all the hours in one sitting whenever time constraints interfere.
Also, don’t forget that it was old Bugnini who already ruined the Divine Office and mangled the Holy Week liturgy just a few short years before this document.
Chapter 4; Section 92 –> (Divine Office: Find Better Readings) Readings excerpted from the works of the fathers, doctors, and ecclesiastical writers shall be better selected.
Response: Yet again, we see Bugnini’s arrogance. Pray tell, oh exalted liturgist, in what ways had Holy Church mis-selected the Office’s ecclesiastical writers? In the old Breviary, it’s almost always a selection from Sts. Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, or another venerable Doctor. Which authors or selections do you believe would be superior?
Chapter 4; Section 92 –> (Catholics Exaggerate the Early Martyrs) The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to accord with the facts of history. To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology or ill accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed. Also, as occasion may arise, let other selections from the treasury of hymns be incorporated.
Response: I’ll give you the translation for that first sentence: “We don’t believe the Church’s account of the volume and severity of early Christian martyrs, and would like to align them closer to the estimates of Marxist historians.” It’s also quite splendid for the author to rebuke the old Breviary for “mythology,” since modernists insist the Deluge and other elements from Genesis were a myth.
Chapter 6; Section 120 –> (Bring a Banjo to Mass) In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.
Response: The document’s musical section may appear less controversial than you’d think, but of course, it cannot resist the chance for a little monkey business. It praises the pipe organ, an instrument congruent with human voices, but opens the door for all kinds of musical cacophony with “other instruments.” That paves the way for drums, guitars, and pianos (which is a percussion instrument, unlike the organ). Several popes (Benedict XII, Benedict XIV, and St. Pius X) have deemed most non-organ instruments prohibited from sacred worship.
Chapter 6; Section 125 –> (Too Many Statues/Images in Church) The practice of placing sacred images in churches so that they may be venerated by the faithful is to be maintained. Nevertheless, their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy.
Response: This is a long way of saying “you pious cranks don’t need so many statues of Mary. What? Do you worship her?”
Appendix; Section 1 –> (Easter on the Same Sunday Each Year?) The Sacred Council would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian Calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent.
Response: This is the last item, mentioned in the document’s appendix. Thank God they haven’t implemented this evil idea (yet?). Ironically, I suppose we should thank those “not in communion” for not giving their assent to such an imbecile idea.
Further Analysis of Sacrosanctum Concilium
A careful reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium should lead a man to do one of two things: 1) Run to the liquor store for some high-proof bourbon, or 2) Visit the Blessed Sacrament for spiritual relief. Hopefully, you would choose the latter.
Many of the early sections are not controversial, beginning with a fairly basic review of liturgical fundamentals. However, as usual with the modernists, it’s not always what they say, but what they don’t say. This document also does a tremendous job of sliding in subtleties, sometimes heavier than others. Nevertheless, it’s incredibly important to scrutinize what this document omits.
Sacrosanctum Concilium makes no mention of the scriptural passage where St. Paul exhorts Christians against “drinking from the chalice unworthily.”
How do you write a major document about liturgical reform without mentioning the worthiness of receiving the Eucharist? If you don’t believe me, check the references and CTRL-F for the relevant words yourself. It has nothing, zippo, nada, squadoosh about the suitability for receiving the source and summit of the faith, the Most Holy Eucharist.
It does, however, dedicate volumes to the intention of making Mass more amenable to Protestants. Those two elements are spiritually combustible, having paved the way to untold millions of sacrilegious holy communions.
For what it’s worth, the document references the verse right before it, but omits this essential component:
Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
These same revolutionaries later implemented the new liturgy, which intentionally omitted those cornerstone verses from the Novus Ordo Lectionary. Therefore, folks who attend Novus Ordo Masses alone, never hear this crucial warning from St. Paul, not even on the Feast of Corpus Christi.
“It’s just a pastoral council. Your criticisms are unreasonable.”
This isn’t pastoral, it’s revolutionary. That catastrophic omission would eventually sink into the minds of the faithful (what’s left of them) and transform their beliefs about the Eucharist. Can there be any wonder why less than a quarter of Novus-Ordo-attending Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Well, they sure don’t encounter any of the scriptural support for it on Sundays.
So much for the liturgical reforms bringing about a glorious new era of devotion to the bible.
Then again, as I already mentioned, there’s this ceaseless penchant for “all things new” throughout this and other council documents. Even if we grant them the benefit of the doubt, the council perpetrators produce no specific explanation of what’s wrong with the then-status quo of Catholic practices. If this were a corporate board meeting (rather than an ecumenical council), wouldn’t the company research and identify which practices were causing them to hemorrhage money? You get no such analysis from Vatican II, other than this loose notion that “people don’t understand Latin.”
Another important theme involves several recommendations to establish commissions and other episcopal discretionary bodies. I find this to be well in line with the collegiality fixation, found throughout the council. As we’ll see with other documents, it was this mentality that led to the weakening of the papacy in favor of a bizarre ecclesial oligarchy of “bishops conferences.”
What else about the Latin-versus-vernacular fight?
Yes, the document mentions maintaining the Latin language (multiple times actually). However, the insistence on translating everything creates a slew of practical headaches. If anything, you’d run into entirely new linguistic issues with such a liturgical revolution.
Whenever you insist, as the Council did, on extensive, worldwide vernacular translations, you open an entire case of worms, trying to make accurate translations into so many languages. It introduces a logistical nightmare, given the workload of translating every rite, for every sacrament, from Latin to every language spoken by Catholics all over the planet. This alone has manufactured so much unnecessary anxiety over sacramental validity. Only a naïve idiot could not have foreseen this, which all but forces us to consider malicious intentions by the council stepmothers.
So, what were those intentions, and would we find them stated specifically anywhere?
Yes, nine months after Sacrosanctum Concillium, we learned what the modernists wanted in their Inter Oecumenici (Instruction on Implementing Liturgical Norms). This came at the behest of Pope Paul VI, and would set the table for the eventual General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM) for the Novus Ordo Mass. Pope Paul VI initiated this publication through his liturgical task force, Consilium.
Here are a few highlights.
- Less incensing of the altar
- No kissing the hand upon presenting or receiving objects
- Priests have to say/sing the Proper aloud
- Prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass must omit the portion from Psalm 42
- Shortening of the formulary for distributing holy communion (with “amen” response)
- No last Gospel or Leonine prayers
- Lay people readers at Mass
- Vernacular translation of almost everything
- No more baptism exorcisms (infant or adult)
- The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.
- . . . and many other minor horrors.
So, the next time someone says to you “the Vatican II documents didn’t call for these radical changes,” you can show them this supplementary garbage. Remember, they composed this instruction in 1964, at the command of Paul VI, while the council was still ongoing.
It got stranger than that, though.
There was a less-known liturgical experiment in the United States, which happened right before Inter Oecumenici. Just one month before that document, the modernist Cardinal Archbishop of St. Louis, Joseph Ritter, created the very first Mass in English, offered in downtown St. Louis (August 1964). This was seen as an effort to integrate urban blacks, who Ritter probably thought couldn’t handle the Mass in Latin.
In the context of America’s forced race integration and mobilization, the modernist Church saw an opportunity to play games with the Mass, and engage in a sort of interracial ecumenism. According to the limited evidence we have of it, its processional and recessional hymns were Protestant, and it came from a crummy translation, made just a few months earlier. Ritter didn’t even use any of his diocesan priests to offer it; instead inviting an outside priest, Fr. Frederick R. McManus, to do so.
Where in St. Louis did they hold this momentous liturgical event?
They held the first Mass in English in a hideous, freemasonic-looking, sterile arena known as Kiel Auditorium. Mind you, this is a city, with no less than TWO basilica cathedrals about 10 minutes away from that place.
Nevertheless, they inaugurated the proto-type Novus Ordo Mass in what looked like an ugly bank or government building. It would’ve almost been better if they held it at the nearby Anheuser-Busch Brewery.
St. Louis has been a violent hellhole since about that time. Once the fourth largest city in the country, full of Catholic parishes, it has hemorrhaged people since the 1960s, having lost more than half of its once 850,000 residents. St. Louis is a microcosm for what has happened in the Church, both inside and outside the U.S., since the spectacular meltdown after Vatican II.
For his part, the modernist Cdl. Ritter was one of several liberals who insisted on the revision of the original Vatican II schema. I’ll explain more about that toward the middle of the book. Alas, he and folks, like Cardinal Bea and Karl Rahner, were successful in almost all their revolutionary ambitions.
If you’re having difficulty piecing all of this together, I don’t blame you. Check out this list of key events, culminating with the Mass of Paul VI.
- 2nd Vatican Council Convened – October 11, 1962
- Sacrosanctum Concilium – December 4, 1963
- St. Louis “English” Mass – August 24,1964
- Inter Oecumenici – September 26, 1964
- Tres Abhinc Annos – May 4, 1967
- This further ruined the Mass by reducing the volume of genuflections, kissing of the altar, and signs of the cross. It also messed with the Divine Office and eliminated the maniple from priestly vestments.
- Missale Romanum (Mass of Paul VI) – April 3, 1969
CAVEAT: The above timeline only addresses what happened during and after the council. For the sake of brevity, I’m leaving aside the longer history of The Liturgical Movement, which started under good intentions (during Pius X’s reign), before the modernists ruined it.
Now that we have a better understanding of how the council transitioned from revolutionary ideas toward full implementation, let’s go back to one other problem with Sacrosanctum Concillium.
There are several stylistic reasons folks consider this document “vague” or “ambiguous.” Even Bugnini’s atrocious writing style contributes to those concerns. I ran Sacrilegious Council through my grammar/style software and found the following problems.
- Average Sentence Length: 24.1 words (goal = 11-to-18-word average); long sentences are difficult for readers to comprehend.
- Passive Voice: 326 times (almost triple the acceptable limit for a document of that size); passive sentences are less direct, unclear, and verbose (like modern theology).
- Hard to Read Sentences: 80 out of 608
- Overall Style Score: 57% (goal = 80%).
How does something that awful make it past Vatican quality assurance, anyway?
That’ll be enough for Old Bugnini for a while. Before we switch over to the council’s view of sacred scripture, I want to share this quotation from a well-known saint from that era. In 1963, (the same year as Sacrosanctum Concillium), St. Padre Pio had this to say to his spiritual sons during the early stages of Vatican II:
“Due to the rampant injustice and abuse of power, we have reached a compromise with atheistic materialism [Communism], a denial of the rights of God. This is the punishment foretold at Fatima … All the priests who support the possibility of a dialogue with the negators of God and with the Luciferian powers of the world [Freemasonry] are mad, have lost their faith, no longer believe in the Gospel! In so doing they betray the word of God, because Christ came to bring on earth perpetual covenant only to men of heart [good will], but did not join with the men thirsty for power and dominion over the brothers … The flock is dispersed when the shepherds ally with the enemies of the Truth of Christ. All the forms of power made deaf to the will of the authority of the heart of God are rapacious wolves that renew the passion of Christ and make the Madonna shed tears … ”
Thank you, St. Pio, for a CLEAR description of what was wrong with the Church hierarchy and everything they were doing to the holy liturgy.
Dei Verbum
- Document Type: Dogmatic Constitution
- Primary Contributors: Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx (Skill-e-becks or maybe Skittle Becks)
- Topic: Sacred Scripture
- Issue Date: November 18, 1965
- Dei Verbum – Full Online Text
This text isn’t as controversial as the previous two, but if you don’t read it carefully, you could overlook a few critical errors. It almost lures you into thinking it would be a faithful document by claiming to gain its inspiration from the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council in its preface. Yves Congar, the Frenchman who contributed most of it, writes much better than Bugnini, so you won’t have to endure as many run-on sentences.
The author also devotes a few paragraphs to the Church’s dual sources of divine revelation: holy scripture and apostolic tradition. Much of it would seem palatable to any devout Catholic. That is until you get to this wonderful line . . .
Chapter 3; Section 12 –> (What Does Scripture Really Mean?) However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
Response: Uh oh, does this sound familiar? This is where the “enlightened” counselors will tell us how much the Church fathers, all throughout the ages, have failed to fully grasp the meaning and context of scriptures. Even if they didn’t radically do so at Vatican II, the modernists already had a reputation for innovative biblical interpretation. That was the primary reason Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X established and then further empowered The Biblical Commission (to counter heterodox bible teaching). This theme would intensify much worse following the council. The author continues with some better guidelines for handling various parts of the bible . . .
Chapter 3; Section 12 –> (What “kind” of Scripture Is It?) To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
Response: Leaving aside how this sounds like cultural relative gibberish you’d hear from a communist English professor, it provides the grounding for how modernists approach the bible. This sets the tone for distinguishing between bible sections that are “morally inerrant” versus those that are simply “poetic” or “metaphorical.” Remember, since they’re also evolutionists, they’re looking for ways to diminish as much of holy scripture to the level of mythology as possible. This is most true of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (the creation narrative, original sin, man’s fall, Noah’s ark, etc.). They’re goal is to convince the reader that much of it is poetic hyperbole.
Chapter 6; Section 25 –> (A Billion-Footnote Bibles) Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.
Response: The last section talks a lot about making more bible translations for greater public consumption. This looks like where they got the idea to create dozens of bible versions (all in the same language, no less), complete with a litany of distracting footnotes. Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be a total catastrophe, until you see what the modernists sneak into bible footnotes. Even mainstream Catholic apologists criticize the heretical footnotes found in the New American Bible, which rarely mention any analysis by the Church doctors.
Further Analysis of Dei Verbum
What should we take away from Dei Verbum (this horrible constitution, not the actual Word of God)?
You could summarize its thesis as “let’s make holy scripture more accessible,” but there’s more to it than that. Although the document does not explicitly say it, part of its intention is to soften the ground in order to replace biblical inerrancy with mere biblical infallibility.
What do those terms mean and why do they matter?
Biblical inerrancy, the Church’s traditional approach to scripture, holds that all aspects of the sacred texts are inerrant, since God cannot transmit falsehoods of any type. Biblical infallibility, to the contrary, only asserts that the bible is infallible on faith and morals (like the pope). It is crucial to notice the difference because if you dismiss the inerrancy of the bible’s “non-moral” content, you plant a dangerous seed, allowing for the denial of everything.
For instance, if you believe the chastisement of Sodom & Gomorrha was a “myth” or ahistorical, then (long story short), you could deny the Church’s teaching against sodomy. I’ll leave it to the reader to ponder whether that line of thinking has become commonplace among typical 21st century Catholics.
Also, in Genesis, the concepts of faith and morals didn’t appear until the narrative on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. If we accept the modernist notion of biblical infallibility (faith/morals alone), must we reject the first chapter of Genesis, which outlined God’s creation? According to modernists, who seek to usurp (and destroy) the Church: the answer is a resounding YES.
As you can see, this matters tremendously, considering the collapse of the typical Catholic’s religious comprehension after Vatican II.
Then, how do the council modernists wish to go about interpreting scripture?
By the 19th century, the Church saw the emergence of a new biblical analysis method, known as historical criticism. It goes back to the early Enlightenment (1600s), but was more of a Protestant innovation, initially. It’s now the scholarly engine for modernists, who prefer to bypass the teachings of the apostles, patristics, Church doctors, and previous councils, to pursue a naturalistic approach to the bible.
Instead of treating sacred texts like supernatural documents, imbued with God’s loving words/commands, they obsess over cultural context and linguistic semantics. This comes from their position of agnosticism, scientism, and exaltation of man, all noted in Pope St. Pius X’s important encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Their primary mission is to render the Church irrelevant, an “evolving” institution, which will eventually evolve its way out of supernatural significance.
“Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of accommodating itself to historical conditions and of harmonising itself with existing forms of society. Such is religious evolution in detail. And here, before proceeding further, we would have you note well this whole theory of necessities and needs, for it is at the root of the entire system of the Modernists, and it is upon it that they will erect that famous method of theirs called the historical.”
-Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907)
It’s yet another way of striking the shepherd to scatter the flock, beginning with deforming the word of God in holy texts in order to discredit the Church. I encourage anyone who doubts what I’m saying to read the rest of that encyclical along with St. Pius X’s other letter (from the same year): Lamentabili Sane.
There he lays out no less than 65 modernist errors, most of them regarding biblical exegesis. This is separate from, but also complimentary, to Pope Pius IX’s The Syllabus of Errors (1864). With this much papal rebuke of modernism, we’re left to wonder why any Catholic wouldn’t acknowledge the massive canyon separating the traditional Church from today’s new antichurch.
Oh, and remember those jolly “scripture scholars” I mentioned earlier?
Well, it was the arrival of historical criticism that put these folks in business. Before that, you wouldn’t have had academic laymen trying to interpret the bible (outside of Protestantism). Now, in keeping with the rest of the council, the modernists have built a bridge with our “separated brethren” by borrowing their approach to bible scholarship. This involves melding both the biblical research methods AND theological conclusions of the Protestant heretics. You can tell this is true by the rancid fruits of their labors.
This has gone on for so long that, infecting every facet of religious catechesis, that today’s average Catholic sounds more Protestant than either Luther or Calvin. It’s quite a feat.
Finally, let me anticipate a particular objection we might hear from certain naysayers against my analysis.
“You hypocrite! Look at what you’re doing! What business do you have opposing the Church’s accredited theologians? Unqualified laymen, like you, have no business doing theology.”
Well, indeed, laymen should not attempt their own theology, according to Church tradition. The 2nd Vatican Council and all of its intentional chaos, however, isn’t theology, but rather, garbage. Therefore, I, like anyone else, am well within my right to do a little sanitation.
Also, my mission is not to nitpick at every nook and cranny from the Latin text of the documents. Instead, I merely offer common sense objections to the plain meaning, especially given how it’s harmed or scandalized so many Catholics.
Now that I’ve addressed V2’s take on holy scripture, let’s move on to Dignitatis Humanae.
Dignitatis Humanae (Indignant Humanity)
- Document Type: Declaration
- Primary Contributors: John Courtney Murray, SJ (a proud “father” of American Catholicism, and apparently too good to be just “John Murray”)
- Topic: Religious Freedom
- Issue Date: December 7, 1965 (24 years after Pearl Harbor; and an even worse bombing)
- Dignitatis Humanae – Full Online Text
This was the very last document issued by the council (out of 16, altogether).
It sort of reads like a Part 2 of Nosferatu. Both documents were a big stumbling block for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the priestly fraternity dedicated to tradition. They took exception with several doctrinal issues. I’ll try to identify and explain those. As you read this, note that the primary author, John Courtney Murray, was the lone American influencer, and his writing clearly reflects that.
Section 1 –> (Intro: Sounds More Like the Declaration of Independence) 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, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations.
Response: This sounds like it came from the desk of Thomas Jefferson or one of America’s other “Founding Deists” (who were anything but Catholic). The last sentence is an obvious reference to the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment and its Establishment Clause. Later, I’ll explain why the latter is a misunderstood concept, even in a country like the United States. Religious liberty also contradicts Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. Error #15 states: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
Section 1 –> (Jiminy Cricket Theology) This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.
Response: Behold the infamous “always let your conscience be your guide” approach to knowing and obeying God’s will. I hate to break it to you, but that won’t cut it because one’s conscience must assent to the truth of the Catholic religion. Otherwise, there is no chance for salvation. Although it’s true that God doesn’t force Himself onto anybody, it’s dangerous for the council to imply (as it appears to do) that one’s conscience (un-formed) is all that’s necessary.
Section 3 –> (Don’t Try too Hard to Convert Anybody) On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a 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 toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.
Response: We should ask the Vatican II folks what to do if someone has a “guilty” or “wicked” conscience. Why does one’s conscience supersede everything? Would this hold true of a demoniac or mentally unstable person? What about children? Are we to leave them alone entirely, forever, making no effort to convert or educate them? Sure, you may have to “dust off your sandals” and move on when someone won’t listen, but that’s a far cry from this incessant emphasis on “Don’t force! Don’t force!” I also suspect it’s writing like this that compels Antipope Bergoglio to declare “proselytizing” a sin. The reason folks consider Vatican II so ambiguous is partly because it’s often careful enough not to create blatant contradictions to Church dogma. The author couches this entire document in “let people have the freedom to decide,” which has partial truth, but also establishes a stealth contradiction to prior teaching. Don’t let this deceive you, however. It’s because of this precedent that so many Catholics don’t believe in genuine missionary work or bother to baptize non-Christians at all anymore.
Section 10 –> (Did The Church Ever Force People?) It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.
Response: We should also investigate another piece of this puzzle: whether the Church ever “forced” folks to convert. Some would say She did so with practices like burning people at the stake or torturing individuals during the Inquisition. I encourage the reader to investigate this further, but we should remember that these practices were applied to virulent heretics, traitors, and aggressive enemies. Plus, they did this with the intention of mercifully sparing the heretic a long life of continuously offending God, unchallenged. It’s a spiritual act of mercy to admonish sinners, sometimes more forcefully than others. In other words, it wasn’t something the Church did arbitrarily to terrorize people into becoming Catholic. That’s more of a Muslim tactic. For all the blathering about foregoing coercive methods, it never cites a tangible example of when the Church has done so. Wouldn’t it help to identify specific instances if this was something Catholics were guilty of doing previously?
Section 11 –> (Guided by Our Own Judgment) God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. 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.
Response: Well, don’t let the Holy Spirit or Church teachings get in the way. That would make Murray and company have a fit.
Section 15 –> (Nations Coming Closer Together! Whee!) The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family. All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships.
Response: It’s almost, verbatim, the same ridiculous statement at the beginning of Nostra Aetate. Did the council authors lock themselves in a Vatican closet and ignore all the assassinations and war going on in the 1960s? This is further evidence that Vatican II was employing mind-control propaganda. No matter how stupid or erroneous something sounds, people will believe anything, provided you repeat it, ad nauseam. I don’t deny the efficacy of this method (the Rosary, after all, uses a similar mechanism). I do, however, take umbrage with their evil, modernist intentions.
Further Analysis of Dignitatis Humanae
Here we have another document, where if taken at face value, knowing nothing of the council context, you’d probably find it acceptable (Lumen Gentium is this way, too). Many seminarians and gullible graduate students of theology have gotten duped by this tripe over the years. Now, those poor folks run the seminaries, preach the sermons, and offer spiritual guidance for innocent laymen. What a tragedy.
However, with proper context, and better understanding of the faith, it’s easier to see where Indignant Humanity departs from authentic Catholicism. Like the other constitutions, it does so to promote universalism, tolerance of heretics, and other loathsome concessions to the world.
This document quasi-defines religious freedom, referring to it as “an immunity from coercion from civil society.” Other than that, we don’t get a full explanation of this concept, or why it holds such intrinsic significance to the V2 counselors. It’s not as vapid as other meaningless slogans we hear these days (like “diversity is our strength”) but the case for “religious liberty” is far from self-evident.
Besides, the Church already has a long tradition of opposing forced conversions and aggression (recall Sicut Judaeis again, which this constitution never references). Holy Church sustains that tradition while maintaining its dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). This means the Church can admonish pagans and heretics of the dangers to their souls without infringing upon human dignity. There is no need for the excessive emphasis on this phony leniency from Murray and the other council perpetrators.
Then, maybe you’ve also encountered the phrase “error has no rights.” This is another way of saying, although you CAN make poor decisions and aspire to do evil, it’s not a positive “right.” While we can comprehend the need to avoid bludgeoning non-Catholics, that doesn’t imply any right for pagans to be pagans.
Also, as I mentioned before, Murray sounds quite similar to the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. He even applauds secular laws at the end of Indignant Humanity . . .
“Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents (Section15).”
This should remind us of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, an often misunderstood concept, decreeing that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If you combine it with the Free Exercise Clause, it continues to say that Congress shall also avoid prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Atheists and other enemies of God distort all of this, and force it to mean that the state and religion must remain 100% separate.
However, that’s both a misinterpretation and contrary to the traditional Catholic position, which holds the Church as a moral guardian over all governments. One could take just a cursory glance at Medieval history to see the complex interrelationship between Church and state. Because of our fallen nature, it hasn’t always been harmonious (among corrupt clergy and secular authorities), but it’s the best arrangement available.
Absent the guidance of Holy Mother Church, there have been countless secular democracies and Protestant nations cascading into depravity. As the Church relinquishes Her influence over the world, including in Catholic countries, the world turns to war, sexual deviance, relentless economic greed, witchcraft, and other miserable behaviors.
Next, we should wonder who needed to hear this message about religious liberty most of all. Who would have been the best target audience for a stern lecture on respecting personal liberties? Would that have been Catholics, or perhaps other powerful institutions throughout the world?
Well, think about the state of the world during Vatican II (the 1960s). Was the Church somehow too intimidated to be more specific, call out the obvious villains, and condemn the genocidal, tyrannical practices of the USSR, China, etc.?
If the council was so concerned with religious liberty, then why does the document NEVER MENTION COMMUNISM, the worldwide leader in religious murder? It’s amazing to think Catholics deserved this asinine harangue about religious liberty from pretentious theologians, like Murray, during a century when over 40 million Christians died from communism.
I’ll address this glaring omission further in my section on Vatican II’s Preliminary Documents. In a nutshell, the Church’s conservative prelates, if they had more influence over the council, would have rebuked communism. The council liberals, however, weren’t about to incriminate themselves or enrage their international communist allies.
They don’t care about promoting freedom, human dignity, or anything from the Gospel. Modernists just want to destroy civilization and lure everyone away from God, and if tricking gullible Catholics with fake theology is the most expedient way . . .
Now, let’s see how modernists depict their beloved anti-church as “the light of the world.”
Lumen Gentium (Light of the Modernists)
- Document Type: Dogmatic Constitution
- Primary Contributors: Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner (seven theologians, altogether)
- Topic: Ecclesiology (New Evangelization)
- Issue Date: November 21, 1964
- Lumen Gentium – Full Online Text
This one’s almost as long as Gaudium et Spes (the longest council document), but has by far the greatest volume of references. There are over 300 citations from scripture, and dozens of others to papal encyclicals and other sources. It invents concepts like a “universal call to holiness,” the role of clergy/laity/religious, and finishes with a brief section on veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The first chapter offers nothing offensive with its account of the coming of Christ’s Church and its salvific purpose. It isn’t until later in the second chapter, where it expounds upon “the people of God,” that it gets squishy.
Chapter 2; Section 16 –> (Muslims: They’re Like Brothers) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
Response: Once again, we find the council hammering away at this ill-begotten idea that “Muslims believe in the same God.” Be careful, my friends, when you hear even the moderate and quasi-trad commentators make this claim. This and other council writings provide the justification for this idiocy, which you’d never hear from a pre-conciliar pope. One has to wonder why, if Islam existed since the 7th century, did it take the Catholic Church some 1,300 years to confirm it as an “Abrahamic” religion?
Chapter 3; Section 25 –> (I like this part) . . . religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Response: Wow, this part is outstanding (no sarcasm, either). If only the council would adhere to this concept. Since the popes, across several centuries, have affirmed various dogmas and doctrines, why do modernists insist on revolutionizing them? Furthermore, why do they expect us to assent to their novel doctrines, which haven’t enjoyed frequent repetition?
Chapter 3; Section 29 –> (Permanent Deacons) . . . the diaconate can in the future be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. It pertains to the competent territorial bodies of bishops, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune for such deacons to be established for the care of souls. With the consent of the Roman Pontiff, this diaconate can, in the future, be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state. It may also be conferred upon suitable young men, for whom the law of celibacy must remain intact.
Response: This led to today’s diaconate, where men over 50, with wives, are the only ones who exercise this ministry. That’s unfortunate for several reasons, including because all clerics should remain celibate, per the very nature of holy orders, a wedding of oneself to Christ’s Church.
Chapter 5; Section 42 –> (Universal Call to Holiness) Therefore, all the faithful of Christ are invited to strive for the holiness and perfection of their own proper state. Indeed, they have an obligation to so strive.
Response: Some commentators who have questioned the concept of a universal call to holiness because it diminishes or obfuscates the significance of the very concept of sanctity. It makes it sound as if everyone becomes holy, solely from fulfilling a few basic duties in their state of life. Long story short, this could be how we lapsed into such relaxed canonization standards, nowadays (remember JPII’s “saint factory”). I’ll let the reader decide if that’s a viable complaint, but I’m also curious over why the Church would need to remind us of something so obvious. “Everyone should strive for holiness in everything they do.” Well, duhh, that’s not what I’d call deep or ground-breaking pastoral advice. To quote the popular Catholic commentator, Patrick Coffin, you should “be a saint . . . what else is there?”
Chapter 8; Section 51 –> (On Devotion to the Saints) This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God.
Response: In true Vatican II fashion, the council clergy mention something important (an alleged abuse of saintly devotions) without elaborating on the specific problem, or citing any examples. Those of us who can read between the lines understand this is their cryptic way of preparing the “ban hammer” to knock out many beautiful devotions to the saints.
Further Analysis of Lumen Gentium
While reading Lumen Gentium, you’ll get the impression that you’re slaving through a long-winded summary of the New Testament or maybe an abbreviated catechism. It’s chock full of run-on sentences and struggles to get to the point in various sections. The lofty volume of scriptural and Church references give it some magnificence, which accounts for much of its popularity. Yes, this one has lots of appeal for moderate, former-Protestant Catholics because many parts include a bible citation every other sentence.
However, it lacks the more wonderful zeal and gusto you’d enjoy from the writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Church doctors. The true Catholic greats knew how to weave scripture together mellifluously to support their claims, whereas Protestant writers cram it everywhere, hoping you’ll believe they understand the bible. This dogmatic constitution, which resembles that latter crowd, will also help you sleep faster whenever you exhaust your supply of melatonin pills.
Lumen Gentium has a rather simple strategy: explain every idea with about 20,000 words, loaded with excessive scripture citations, while sliding in about 500 words of error. It overwhelms typical Catholics, delights bible-thumping protestants, and doesn’t easily arouse the suspicion of mid-grade theologians or critics. I believe this was a significant reason many of the bishops signed off on the awful documents (nobody had the stamina to sift through them, perhaps).
Whenever modernists do this with the right amount of gloss, verbose wording, and inconspicuous smoke-and-mirrors, then they can sneak some crushed poison pills of error into it undetected. Granted, at the same time, plenty of folks knew precisely what was happening.
That’s the primary gist of Light of the Modernists, but I want to devote a few more words to this concept of collegiality, which appears prominently throughout the document. I didn’t identify a specific quotation from that section that I thought was indisputably awful, but the concept is nevertheless quite dangerous.
Was collegiality a novelty among Catholic clergy in the 1960s?
According to Jesuit scholar and historian, John W. O’Malley, most bishops had never even encountered the concept. It’s almost as if they invented it out of thin air. In those days, they didn’t have to go from one “synod” to another to discuss everything under the sun. Yes, you had ecumenical councils, but only 21 times over the course of 1,900 years (about one major council for every 90 years).
The hierarchy didn’t do everything by conference, committee, or meeting. The traditional Church operates like a vertical hierarchy, guided by the Holy Spirit, ruled by the successors of St. Peter (the popes), with plenty of subsidiary governance. It works well enough to negate the need for nonstop check-up meetings.
At any rate, how were bishops and cardinals supposed to exercise this so-called “collegial responsibility” if they’d never so much as heard of it?
As usual, it was a perfect recipe for the blind leading the blind, and ample opportunity for modernist proliferation throughout the hierarchy. There’s a substantial difference between this episcopal democracy (which is evil and anti-Christian) versus the pope shepherding the Church with the help of his bishops and other clergy.
If we remember the original 12 apostles, we know that St. Peter, as the pope, didn’t write or dictate everything himself for the fledgling Church. Among them, St. Matthew and St. John were the most prolific authors, who deferred to the popes’ primacy (even the ones after St. Peter). I’ll show, at the end of this analysis, why modernists seek to invert this harmony with collegiality, and therefore demythologize the papacy.
Throughout Church history, we’ve had several erudite popes (Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, and so forth). However, the preponderance of Church writings came from non-papal doctors, like St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, and St. Thomas Aquinas. All of them deferred to the pope, and were never part of any bizarre, collegial apparatus.
Were there any old testament examples of collegiality, and, if so, how did they operate?
In some sense, there were, but they didn’t involve constant synods and councils, nor would they have ever involved a “committee of equals” with the head of the Church. In Exodus 18, there’s the part where Jethro, priest of Madian (and Moses’ father-in-law), approached Moses about the need to delegate power. Upon God’s approval, Moses relinquished administrative control over lesser matters to other Hebrew men, making himself available for more pressing concerns.
Doesn’t that sound similar to the way the papacy and the rest of the hierarchy has always operated? Yes, and they didn’t do any of it in the name of collegiality.
You could also think of that arrangement as a primitive “parish council,” where lay people serve in an advisory and supportive capacity, but always fully subordinate. Although Catholic cardinals and bishops would always have much more authority than lay people, you can see a slight parallel with this. If, however, the modernists got their way and could corrupt this harmony, they’d make it so that Jethro and Aaron could eventually overthrow or minimize Moses.
We can also see central authority and subsidiarity work within secular institutions.
Even those dreadful and amoral mafia dons gather the help of their subordinates to make decisions. They might have an especially “wise guy” among them, often the consigliere, who helps the boss handle difficult matters and strategies (including whoever to murder next). This does not mean the mob works like a democracy; far from it!
The mob, like freemasonry, college fraternities, and all other condemned secret societies, operate under an immensely vertical structure. They’re as “top-down” as one can imagine, which is about all they have in common with the Catholic Church, which modernists seek to upend with this ridiculous collegiality poison.
For almost two millennia, Holy Church has existed with God as its head, the pope as its earthly vicar, down to the humblest lay person. Until recently, no one ever thought that this was an egalitarian hierarchy where the pope was equal to anyone else. Even the rebellious Eastern Orthodox would never go so far.
What are the fruits of collegiality in the modernist Church?
The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church is, I’m afraid to report, a perfect example. It came at the request of the Synod of Bishops in 1985. Few Catholics are aware of all the collegiality and revision that went into compiling the modernist, less than helpful catechism.
You can see what I mean by referencing FAQ # 4 from USCCB on the CCC:
“In 1990 the Commission examined and evaluated over 24,000 amendments suggested by the world’s bishops. The final draft is considerably different from the one circulated in 1989. In 1991 the Commission prepared the text for the Holy Father’s official approval.”
If you’re laboring under the misconception that the modern pope composes every significant document while receiving a vision from the Holy Spirit, then hopefully this dissuades you of that. Also, this goes well beyond employing a ghostwriter (a cardinal or top theologian) to draft most of it. Popes have done that for ages, but not through some communist committee system where ALL the bishops enjoy an opportunity to scrutinize important documents. It’s almost as if everything the pope does would have to go through a review board (or miniature ecumenical council) before final publication.
This is not just my conjecture, either. The modernists proudly claim the CCC is the most fruitful example of episcopal collegiality since Vatican II. For traditionalists, that alone should be a red flag regarding the CCC.
Why do modernists want collegiality so much?
No effective organization (private companies, families, or otherwise) can operate by using this excessive, democratic mumbo-jumbo. All organized groups require a “head honcho.” So, we might surmise that the modernists intended to render the Church inoperable by weakening (or eliminating) its chief shepherd (on earth), the pope.
There’s no better way to destroy something (even the Church) than to chop off its head. If this sounds familiar, then recall the words of the prophet Zechariah: “strike the shepherd, and the flock will scatter.”
How do they expect to accomplish this?
They do so by fabricating an “evolutionary” understanding of the papacy as more like a temporary father, who doesn’t really run the household. To them, there was never enough scriptural justification for an infallible “Seat of Peter,” or that it was even truly instituted by Christ. Therefore, it must have been manmade, and anything manmade is subject to man’s alterations. This Lutheran-sounding theology wasn’t just the opinion of a few radical progressives from the 1960s, either.
It would eventually inspire the future Pope Benedict to create a fictitious distinction between the office of the papacy and the Petrine Ministry (the latter he considered a papal semi-sacrament). Given his misconception, grounded in Nouvelle Théologie, he would attempt to resign the former, and retain the latter. This is an important concept regarding his resignation, why it’s invalid (and therefore, void), leaving him still the pope until his death in 2022.
Traditional Church teaching, of course, has never made such a radical distinction. Below you’ll find a quick schematic on traditional versus modern views of the papacy.
- Classic Church Position
- The papacy exists as a divine right, bestowed as a singular office to one individual at a time → derived from Holy Scripture → authenticated by several popes and councils → formally defined by the First Vatican Council → the primacy of Peter, his primacy among pontiffs, the primacy of all pontiffs, and the infallible rule of the pontiffs
- Nouvelle Théologie Revolutionary Positions
- Hans Kung (Vatican II Advisor) → Christ didn’t create a papacy → whatever it is, it’s manmade, alterable, and even reversible
- Karl Rahner (Vatican II Advisor) → It need not be exercised by a single individual → Collegiality among the bishops is better → synods/councils trump everything
- Ratzinger, AKA Pope Benedict XVI (Vatican II Advisor) → I can resign part of the papacy (“active ministry”) and continue with just a “sacramental” papacy
Does this sound like Twilight Zone theology to anyone? Do you still believe in a “hermeneutic of continuity” with this balderdash?
In 1980, the now-Archbishop J. Michael Miller outlined the Nouvelle Théologie concept of an “evolving papacy” and other “new perspectives” in the V2-updated Church. This has become known as the Miller Dissertation, a helpful guide for understanding Pope Benedict’s strange rationale for resigning the papacy. His reasoning followed what Miller mentions as a division of the papacy into two offices: “active” versus “passive/contemplative”).
Miller explains how collegiality will supplant the singular papacy.
“For them it is at least conceivable that the Petrine function be fulfilled in the episcopal college, a synod, or any other number of structures designed for that purpose.”
So, in short, according to the blundering Nouvelle Théologie, the 2013 “resignation” left the Church with an active, synodal pope (Bergoglio), and a contemplative, retired pope (Benedict). I’ll revisit the Benedict resignation dilemma toward the end of this book (where I discuss various “sede vacante” theories). In the meantime, here’s a reader-friendly analysis of the Miller Dissertation, uncovering several layers of Vatican-2-style thinking.
Thus concludes my take on the murky and translucent legacy of Lumen Gentium. Let’s see what the Vatican II heroes want us to do with Catholic education.
Gravissimum Educationis (Graveyard Education)
- Document Type: Declaration
- Topic: Christian Education
- Issue Date: October 28, 1965 (the same day as Nostra Aetate)
- Gravissimum Educationis – Full Online Text
This may be the least controversial of the primary Vatican II documents. Therefore, we can congratulate it for the lofty accomplishment of being the tallest midget. Below are a few quotations, but I won’t spend too long on this one.
Section 1 –> (Sexual Education?) Let them be given also, as they advance in years, a positive and prudent sexual education.
Response: The author drops this controversial stipulation near the beginning but never returns to the topic. Does this include parochial “sexual education” of some sort? The document never further elaborates on this concept.
Section 3 –> (Public Schools?) In addition, therefore, to the rights of parents and others to whom the parents entrust a share in the work of education, certain rights and duties belong indeed to civil society, whose role is to direct what is required for the common temporal good. Its function is to promote the education of youth in many ways, namely: to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavors of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and, moreover, as the common good demands, to build schools and institutions.
Response: This seems to lend credence to today’s dreadful “public schools.” Did the author not realize that public education is one of the 10 planks of Marxism? Elsewhere, the document gets squishy again with “religious freedom” and “pluralism of contemporary society.” This idea shows us how the council insisted on conforming to the world rather than challenging its evil.
Section 4 –> (Active Participation: This Council’s Opiate) The Church, eager to employ all suitable aids, is concerned especially about those which are her very own. Foremost among these is catechetical instruction, which enlightens and strengthens the faith, nourishes life according to the spirit of Christ, leads to intelligent and active participation in the liturgical mystery and gives motivation for apostolic activity.
Response: Here we go again with that “active participation” nonsense, as we saw in the Sacrilegious Council document.
Further Analysis of Gravissimum Educationis
Graveyard Education has lots of elementary discussion on the right to an education (which it repeats four times), various common-sense suggestions, and, overall, stuff people should already know. If you read the whole thing, you’ll probably think you’re listening to one of those “education-is-the-best” speeches from a school principal, intertwined into a mostly uncontroversial Catholic context.
There’s not much more to it, other than those quick items I wanted to highlight. I think it’s obvious that Catholic education has hit the skids since the council, not so much because of this document, but from other spiritual hazards. By that, I mean the liturgical reforms, which lead multitudes of priests and seminarians to abandon their vocations.
Gaudium Et Spes (Goblins & Spectres)
- Document Type: Pastoral Constitution
- Primary Contributors: Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu
- Topic: The Church in the Modern World
- Issue Date: December 7, 1965
- Gaudium et Spes – Full Online Text
This pastoral constitution came out as part of the last batch of documents in autumn of 1965. It’s a comprehensive summary of what the council sought to do regarding socio-international politics. The writing style, sentence length, and long-windedness will remind the reader of Lumen Gentium. That’s because those are the two longest documents, both from the hand of French Jesuit, Henri de Lubac.
Along with Dignitatis Humanae, Gaudium et Spes was integral for advancing the man-centered new “Church in the Modern World.” As Catholic counter-revolutionary scholar Atila Guimaraes puts it, the 2nd Vatican Council sought to inflict a Copernican Revolution upon the Church by switching its central focus from God to man.
All that in mind, here are some select quotations from what I dub Goblins & Spectres.
Intro; Section 4 –> (Signs of the Times) . . . the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.
Response: For whatever it’s worth, you hear post-conciliar champions use this phrase (which comes from Matthew 16:3) all the time. I can’t escape the suspicion that modernists use and abuse this scripture the same way Protestants torture John 3:16. It’s one thing to repeat the bible, but it’s something else to turn portions of it into memes. Be careful if you ever hear the “Charismatic Catholic Renewal” folks use this one. They seem to toss it around often in their effort to present themselves as magnificent visionaries (when they’re much more like snake-oil sellers).
Chapter 1; Section 15 –> (Listen to Those Poorer Nations) Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser men are forthcoming. It should also be pointed out that many nations, poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in wisdom and can offer noteworthy advantages to others.
Response: As per the rules for Vatican II writing, he doesn’t offer examples of this. We might infer, however, that he refers to uncivilized countries, like Borneo’s headhunters, or perhaps the Amazonian folks and their infamous “goddesses.” It’s language like this, cloaked in just enough plausible deniability, that thrusted the door wide open for Antipope Bergoglio’s obsession with indigenous folks or “noble savages.” Again, please remember that these are the same cultures that wouldn’t bat an eye at resuming all the heart ripping and sacrificing if there were no restraints. Therefore, I contend they have little to offer, contrary to De Lubac’s claim.
Chapter 1; Section 20 –> (A Rare Good Section) Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of man especially through his economic and social emancipation. This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation by arousing man’s hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him from the constructing of the earthly city. Consequently, when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental power they vigorously fight against religion, and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal.
Response: De Lubac’s section on atheism isn’t too shabby. If the rest of the council continued at this pace, we would not have had the problems we’ve experienced. This section is the closest the council folks get to condemning communism (without a direct mention). The sentence right after this even cites the Church’s condemnation of atheism, including a footnote to Pope Pius XI’s encyclical against atheistic communism, Divini Redemptoris.
Chapter 2; Section 26 –> (Do You Need an Attitude Adjustment?) This social order requires constant improvement. It must be founded on truth, built on justice and animated by love; in freedom it should grow every day toward a more humane balance. An improvement in attitudes and abundant changes in society will have to take place if these objectives are to be gained.
Response: This is from the chapter on Community and Mankind, where De Lubac struggles to get to the point. You should always shudder when revolutionary folks write like this. The first sentence looks like Japanese “Kaizen” or continuous improvement nonsense. Then you could probably read that last part with a Nazi accent. Either way, get ready for social engineering and more wonderful “progress.”
Chapter 2: Section 29 –> (Mumbling Marxist Gibberish) Therefore, although rightful differences exist between men, the equal dignity of persons demands that a more humane and just condition of life be brought about. For excessive economic and social differences between the members of the one human family or population groups cause scandal, and militate against social justice, equity, the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace.
Response: Here, he carries on with the “horrors of inequality” stuff you’d expect to hear from Marxist university professors. This document uses the word “inequality” six times. The word “dignity” appears a whopping 51 times (almost always man’s rather than God’s). It’s the emotionally or socially charged language that revolutionaries used to manipulate average or feeble minds, employed even more often in the 21st century.
Chapter 2; Section 62 –> (Bring Junk Art into the Sanctuaries) The Church acknowledges also new forms of art which are adapted to our age and are in keeping with the characteristics of various nations and regions. They may be brought into the sanctuary since they raise the mind to God, once the manner of expression is adapted and they are conformed to liturgical requirements.
Response: It’s clear, in retrospect, how bad of an idea this became. Little did they know how awful the artwork would get in the 21st century. Since the Council finished in the mid-1960s, they may not have imagined what we’d get with the Vatican’s 2020 Nativity Scene, featuring a rebel pilot next to a Tusken Raider.
Chapter 3; Section 71 –> (Lots of Problem Description; No Practical Solutions) In many underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates which are only slightly cultivated or lie completely idle for the sake of profit, while the majority of the people either are without land or have only very small fields, and, on the other hand, it is evidently urgent to increase the productivity of the fields. Not infrequently those who are hired to work for the landowners or who till a portion of the land as tenants receive a wage or income unworthy of a human being, lack decent housing and are exploited by middlemen.
Response: Goblins & Spectres devotes substantial space to economic issues, but doesn’t provide tangible solutions beyond these vague, verbose, preachy generalities. Does the council think that by simply stating these observations that all the “meanie exploiters” will stop what they’re doing and treat poor folks better?
Chapter 4; Section 74 –> (More Fluffy “Peace-Loving” Talk; No Rebuke of Communism) According to the character of different peoples and their historic development, the political community can, however, adopt a variety of concrete solutions in its structures and the organization of public authority. For the benefit of the whole human family, these solutions must always contribute to the formation of a type of man who will be cultivated, peace-loving and well-disposed towards all his fellow men.
Response: This is from the section on political community. I don’t care how much fancy prose the council authors cram into their documents, they still come across as no more sophisticated than a beauty-pageant contestant, announcing useless glittering generalities. Once again, nowhere in Goblins & Spectres, with all its ink spilled on social and political affairs, does it rebuke communism, socialism, or Freemasonry. The council steadfastly insisted on avoiding every pertinent topic in favor of nice-and-polite philosophy.
Chapter 5; Section 79 –> (But I Thought Humanity Was Coming Together?) Even though recent wars have wrought physical and moral havoc on our world, the devastation of battle still goes on day by day in some part of the world. Indeed, now that every kind of weapon produced by modern science is used in war, the fierce character of warfare threatens to lead the combatants to a savagery far surpassing that of the past. Furthermore, the complexity of the modern world and the intricacy of international relations allow guerrilla warfare to be drawn out by new methods of deceit and subversion. In many causes, the use of terrorism is regarded as a new way to wage war. Contemplating this melancholy state of humanity, the council wishes, above all things else, to recall the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles.
Response: The last section focuses on the international community and avoiding war. That quotation above illustrates some inconsistency among the council documents. Remember when Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae both mentioned how nations were “coming closer together”? It would be nice if the council geniuses would have “gotten together” to compare notes before they scribbled these dogmatic constitutions. Then you could at least claim there was an intra-council hermeneutic of continuity. Instead, look how these jokers can’t even keep their own clown show straight.
Chapter 5; Section 81 –> (One World Government) It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights.
Response: Yes, as we should expect from the modernists, this entire scheme must lead to a global state or “one world government.” It wasn’t enough for there to be a universal Church. We have to go “full commie,” as they say. By the way, if you disapprove of Antipope Bergoglio’s calls for one world government, then now you know where he could’ve gotten his justification for such hegemonic intentions.
Chapter 5; Section 86 –> (Prevent War with Economic Regulations) Suitable organizations should be set up to foster and regulate international business affairs, particularly with the underdeveloped countries, and to compensate for losses resulting from an excessive inequality of power among the various nations. This type of organization, in unison with technical cultural and financial aid, should provide the help which developing nations need so that they can advantageously pursue their own economic advancement.
Response: Besides the global terror, the United Nations (which modernists adore), we’ve experienced an explosion of growth in regional communism, supranational groups tasked with regulating international business affairs. This happened right in De Lubac’s backyard, France, with the expansion of the original European Community (alongside Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg) into the behemoth, European Union. Notice, in that example, the heavy participation among predominantly Catholic countries. Even in its early days (late 1950s), the goal was to create a common currency, for common monetary policy (printing “funny money” inevitably), and many other tenets of communism. That fits right into what this council document suggests here.
Further Analysis of Goblins & Spectres
Most of what I’d like to add to these quotations relates to its primary contributor, Henri de Lubac. I’m a firm believer that it does matter who the brains behind these documents were. The alternative is to believe that they wrote themselves or that the pope created all this nonsense on his own volition (more on him later, though).
The conundrum we face with this document, and Lumen Gentium, is that De Lubac could be either a conservative or liberal, depending on whom you ask. Given the revolutionized state of the 1960s Vatican, it may not have mattered, though. He and Ratzinger are the most enigmatic council figures; their genuine beliefs almost intentionally elusive. Since that’s so, it gives us extra confusion whenever we try to determine the hermeneutics of continuity or rupture.
Yes, most of Goblins & Spectres sounds like a preachy UN speech, but De Lubac might fool you with many orthodox paragraphs. His section on atheism, for example, is fairly good, but doesn’t go far enough, consistent with his personal writings before the council. He has been an opponent of atheism, but always ruins that laudable position by opposing “neo-scholastics” (i.e., real theologians) for not making dogma more man-centered.
The error consists in conceiving of dogma as a kind of “thing in itself,” as a block of revealed truth with no relationship whatsoever to natural man, as a transcendent object whose demonstration . . . has been determined by the arbitrary nature of a “divine decree.” (From De Lubac’s Apologetics and Theology)
That quotation summarizes one of the most crucial threads throughout the entire council, especially De Lubac’s contributions: everything must harken back to natural man. It’s as if he thinks God has an obligation to reveal more than those boring “blocks of truth.” His view on apologetics could also be why we encounter such a continual, unrelenting emphasis on the dignity of man everywhere in Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium.
Next, we must investigate De Lubac’s high esteem for the infamous Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. While it’s a logical fallacy to convict someone through guilt by association alone, I’m convinced you can ascertain much about a man by knowing who he admires. The Holy Ghost also reminds us how blessed it is not to keep bad company or stand alongside sinners.
So, what’s wrong with Teilhard de Chardin and how does he relate to this important Vatican II author?
Teilhard de Chardin (1881 to 1955) was a Jesuit, archeologist, paleontologist, and mystic who influenced V2 writers like De Lubac, Rahner, and Ratzinger. Antipope Bergoglio also referenced him in some of his fake encyclicals, including among environmentalist tripe from Laudato Si. Here are a few things you should know about this godfather of Vatican II.
- He held heretical views such as pantheism, collectivism (communism), and legitimate racism.
- Teilhard denied the Dogma of Original Sin, leading to his career exile in China.
- While there, he helped discover “Peking Man,” purported to be a transition fossil (linking ape to man), but was really a complete scam, constructed by mixing human and monkey bones.
- He was a self-professed proponent of Darwinism, including all of its ugly social-engineering applications (i.e., eugenics).
- Teilhard also Believed the universe itself was evolving (Church included), and would one day unite more perfectly with Christ (at what he termed the “Omega Point”).
- This novel theology was so popular that even Pope Benedict XVI praised the idea of a “cosmic liturgy,” where the cosmos becomes a living host. Since Teilhard worshiped nature, it was only natural that he would conflate the mystical body of Christ into a literal, cosmic body.
- At various points in his career the Jesuits forbade him to teach, Rome banned his work, and some of his writing was refused the Imprimatur.
- Although he claimed to be a mystic, there’s a solid chance he was simply possessed by demons (perhaps a perfect or willful possession).
- This guy even descended from the monstrous French revolutionary, Voltaire.
So, for those of you who are parents, would you want this creep courting your daughter?
No, and you shouldn’t want him influencing your Catholic ecumenical councils, either. However, that was precisely what happened at Vatican II, including with the science-happy De Lubac. Just before the council, in 1962, he wrote a book praising Teilhard’s pantheistic mysticism. There’s no denying the connection between the two.
Finally, there’s one last thing that should concern you about De Lubac, Teilhard’s intellectual progeny, and fellow Jesuit. His work also received disapproval from the pre-conciliar Holy See.
Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani Generis (1950), was thought to have censured De Lubac and the New Theologians for their heterodox opinions (regarding Darwin’s unproven evolutionary theory). That encyclical didn’t forbid research into human evolution, but criticized using it as an “origin of all things,” an error the pope specifically attributed to communists, monists, and pantheists. This almost certainly went against folks like Teilhard de Chardin, De Lubac, and other modernists, regardless of their surreptitious efforts to evade such charges.
Then again, that censure wouldn’t last forever.
All he had to do was to wait for Pope Pius XII to die. By the 1960s, the new Church had arrived, under nice-guy Pope John XXIII, and De Lubac would regain favor with Rome, with no further restrictions. So, even with Teilhard long gone, the 1960s ecumenical council could advance modernism under a younger cast of sympathetic theologians. De Lubac, Ratzinger, and others fulfilled that role to some extent or another.
So, what about the content of Goblins & Spectres? Why has this received so much intense criticism from traditionalists, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
The primary task of that lengthy essay was to begin the departure from traditional Catholic notions of social justice and civilization toward man-focused, semi-socialist, multinational social engineering. All this hinged upon subordinating religion to science (even if it doesn’t say as much outright). As Josef Ratzinger called it, Gaudium et Spes was the counter to Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, announcing the Church’s intentions to secularize and finally embrace Enlightenment-Era scientism.
Critics and supporters of the document may even agree that it brought the Church closer to the rationalist, liberal, and secular ambitions established in the 1789 French Revolution. It would seem that with all this diplomacy talk, the Church was finally willing to “play ball” in international politics. It was truly a cause for hope and joy among the Freemason conquerors of the world after the fall of Christendom.
Furthermore, as you read Goblins & Spectres, you’ll gain the impression that man can solve all of his problems with no need of supernatural assistance. As the Italian theologian, Brunero Gherardini explains:
It is precisely Gaudium et Spes which did away with the concept of asking Revelation to solve temporal problems and which dared to wait for the Church to come up with solutions that are not hers to make.
To this day, we witness this mentality with the Vatican’s response to the “2020 pandemic.” Did the Church, with all of its high and mighty collegiality, offer any solution to the crisis that didn’t involve capitulating to the secular “health authorities”? No, it allowed the global elite, which have become massively powerful since V2, to dictate everything, and with complete impunity.
This led the Church, for the first time in history, to “lockdown” every diocese throughout the world, cease offering Mass, and gas-light Catholics into receiving abortion-infused “vaccines.” Of course, things are markedly worse whenever there’s an antipope calling the shots, but this problem predates Bergoglio. Since the 1960s, the modernist ape of the Catholic Church bows its head and does whatever the ruling Freemasons command of it. The popes don’t even wear the papal tiara (signifying their monarchical status) any longer.
Talk about ecclesial castration.
Thus concludes my analysis of the seven primary Vatican II documents. I’ll now briefly touch upon one of the other minor decrees the council issued.
. . . And the Rest (Unitatis Redintegratio)
The Council also issued nine other decrees of varying significance. These aren’t the major documents, so I’ll focus on the only decree that receives much scrutiny from traditionalists, Unitatis Redintegratio, published in November 1964. I view it as a pre-game warmup for some of the 1965 documents, the ones that would go nuts with ecumenism and universalism.
This brief, 24-section decree delves into the prospects for reuniting or reintegrating the many non-Catholic, manmade cults, notably the Eastern Orthodox.
Here’s an example of its contemptible ecumenism:
“In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God’s truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage.”
This strikes me as a flaccid concession that the eastern folks have better mysticism than the Latin saints. If modernists will go this far, then what else has the Catholic Church gotten wrong? Are we to believe, with the Vatican-2 counselors, that the Orthodox have also bested the Church on topics like the Filioque, Marian dogmas, and the papacy?
That quotation was rather irritating, but the rest of the document consists of garden-variety applause for the “separated brethren” and their “faith in Christ.” There is very little about encouraging them to actually reunite with the Church, so I’m baffled over how the council thought it would ever reach a “restoration of unity.” Why did they begin the document that way? Unitatis Redintegratio only calls for “ecumenical dialogue” on what it describes as “the application of the Gospel to moral conduct.”
Even though the document mentions groups separated from the Catholic Church, It makes no mention of the word “schism” or how to resolve one. It also rebukes anyone who would wish to defend the Church against the many ingrates who have abandoned Her. Instead, the author turns the other direction by saying “This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity.” In other words, don’t get overzealous with your attempts to persuade anyone back into communion with Rome.
Darn, I wish I had known that before I wrote that entire article on how Eastern Heterodoxy is a different religion. Somebody should have told me I needed to spend more time dialoguing with a bunch of communist dorks, like “Patriarch” Kirill, who’s literally a KGB asset.
Finally, this document takes a radically different tone in contrast with Pope Pius XII’s important ecclesial encyclical Mystici Corporis. In it, the pope acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox, separated by schism, “though unworthy, represent the person of Jesus Christ on earth.” However, he also warns that they “remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.”
Therefore, he admonishes them, for their sake, to return to the true Church. That’s much different from the “let’s talk” approach you hear from the modernist crowd. Remember, these V2 folks are the same guys who want to chat and dance with the Amazonian earth-worshippers without EVER baptizing them, depriving them of the ordinary means of salvation.
By this point, you should get the gist of Vatican II, at least according to its documents. I won’t bore you with the rest of the minor decrees. The next section of this book will focus on how to address these issues, which will involve more sleuthing into the politics and history of the council.
What Can Destroy The Poltergeist of Vatican II?
Short Answer: God (start praying)
With an analysis of the documents complete, now we must delve into the consequences of this forsaken council by investigating its perpetrators. While some believe there is a good “spirit” of Vatican II, I contend it was pernicious and frightful poltergeist. First, let us see why we should acknowledge such horrors by consuming the proverbial “red pill” antidote to Vatican II.
Catholics Need Emergency Vatican II Red Pills, Stat
My goal with this project is not to discourage anyone over the dismal plight of the Church, marred by this disastrous council. On the contrary, once you investigate the Church’s legitimate patrimony, and remove yourself from the Plato’s Cave (or blue pill) of Vatican II, you’ll find a marvelous faith. However, if you wish to savor the truth properly, you must disabuse yourself of blue-pill beliefs by taking some long overdue red pills.
Below are just a few of the ones you better consume ASAP.
- Most Catholic bishops don’t struggle with same-sex attraction. They embrace it with every fiber of their existence. Vatican City is the epicenter for this problem. They sodomize one another, hate your guts, and cooperate with secular elites folks who do much the same.
- The laying of hands, which signifies episcopal consecration or priestly ordination does not make the recipient smarter. It allows them the magnificent power of commanding God to become present among us under the appearance of bread and wine. Aside from that, however, they’re neither “better” than you, nor do they possess a monopoly on every tenet of religion. Therefore, you must discern truth and reality with your own God-given mind, and not presume to outsource this task to the nearest clergy.
- Vatican II isn’t just a “strange anomaly” in Church history, or a negligible council. It’s a coming-out party for the forces of evil after their long march to take over Rome.
- There is a such a thing as The Doctrine of the Fewness of the Saved, which holds that most Catholics are going to Hell. Just because today’s popular apologists ignore this, doesn’t mean it isn’t the perennial view of dozens of illustrious saints. What does that have to do with the council? It matters because the more you embrace error, the greater your chances of sin, the more you risk dying unrepentant of it, and thus succumbing to eternal damnation.
- You won’t learn how to defeat The Poltergeist of Vatican II by immersing yourself in endless “conservative outrage porn,” otherwise known as the right-wing news media. For that matter, we better comprehend the many significant differences between the anemic American conservatism versus traditional Catholicism.
- Even some of your traditional heroes may reject Christ and His Church if things get worse. Are you prepared to cope with that possibility? This is all the more reason to understand the genesis of today’s Church problems (freemasonic infiltration, the advance of modernism, etc.). It’s mandatory for anyone who wishes to avoid yielding to scandal.
All of that might seem very perturbing or even cause one to despair. However, it’s unnecessary if you remember how God is the ultimate victor, He’s already won, and invites us to the celebration, following this momentary bout of suffering. In fact, it’s really the “white pill” of religion you need more than the red pill.
In today’s world, as much of our youth consider suicide, it’s never been easier to despise one’s life, and focus on the eternal, as the spiritual doctors recommend. The Catholic religion is the only legitimate alternative to Hell (in this life and the next), but it’s much more than that. It’s the key to perpetual bliss, with God, where all the current misery, confusion, temptations, and aggravations, will seem like a brief fever dream.
Think of it this way . . .
Are you one of those who constantly beat your head against the wall with porn addiction, suffer a life devoid of meaning, or can’t find peace of mind anywhere? Well, your solution is much simpler than you’d think. You have two choices: Catholicism or the murderous world. You can either know, love and serve a God who sacrificed His blood to save you, or become food for hostile adversaries who figuratively consume your blood to save themselves.
Will it be God or Nosferatu? You decide.
That’s the difference between the Catholic Church (which built Western Civilization) versus the world.
Put another way, you can choose between those “soul-sucking jobs” 95% of us loathe with a passion, or invest your hopes in something eternal. That’s why we pray the Glorious Mysteries, trying to grasp heaven’s unfathomable bliss, that which the eye has not seen, and the ear has not heard. It encourages us to look beyond the ceaseless antagonism we get through the 36-hour news cycle.
Anything beats the supermassive black hole of absurdity and evil we experience with our hamster-wheel professions and all the rest. The true Catholic Church (embodied in tradition) is your only way out of this mess. Christ’s Church is the only vehicle for salvation, true love, and, frankly, maintaining one’s sanity.
Well, it’s either that or turn off your brain and allow the modernists to torture your psyche with what they’re doing to the Church. Here’s a pictorial example of that in Germany . . .
I hope you’re among the few who want to escape the brain fog and cognitive dissonance of the 2020s, and return to what has worked for centuries. Just don’t forget that, if you do, be ready to fight, because the Church is mired with villainy. I’d like to show you some of the worst examples.
Who Were The Primary Vatican II Villains?
A better question might be: who wasn’t a villain during those dark council days?
It’s a rather puny list.
Most of the council’s problems and errors originate with a select group of liberal prelates, before being packaged and delivered through the council’s so-called theological experts (given the title “periti”). These were the men chosen by those cardinals and curial administration to draft the heretical documents I just demolished. You could make the case that these experts (men like Bugnini, Ratzinger, Murray, etc.) commandeered the entire council and made things even worse.
Here’s a list of Vatican II’s primary perpetrators.
- Cardinal Augustin Bea, SJ (Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity) – Bea certainly wasn’t the first Jesuit to reach the cardinalate, if we recall heroes like St. Robert Bellarmine. He was, rather, the first to hold a high-ranking curial post, something contradictory to his order’s traditional missionary purpose. Jesuits aren’t supposed to hang around Rome (or become antipopes, like Bergoglio, for that matter). Bea was a true modernist, obsessed with universalism and ecumenism, and a central figure associated with Nostra Aetate. He was also Pope Pius XII’s personal confessor, Malachi Martin’s Jesuit boss, and one of the many German leaders to steer the council away from the designs of conservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
- Cardinal Franz Konig (Archbishop of Vienna and President of the Secretariat for Non-Christians) – Many consider him the most powerful and high-ranking progressive cardinal, even more so than Bea, having also been influential on the Nostra Aetate document. Konig was one of several new cardinals to get the red hat almost immediately after the election of Pope John XXIII. He and many other elevations at the December 1958 consistory would have never gotten promoted under Pius XII. Among many problems, Konig’s “ecumenism” may have included negotiations with Freemasons.
- Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens (Archbishop Emeritus of Mechelen-Brussels) – Suenens was yet another liberal reformer at the council, and prelate architect behind Gaudium et Spes. Suenens was against the release of Humanae Vitae, a suspected Freemason, loved ecumenism, believed conjugal love trumps procreation in marriage, and helped cultivate the lunatic Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
- Annibale Bugnini, CM (Official Peritus & Secretary on the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy) – Many traditional Catholics are already familiar with this most contemptible villain. Here’s a guy who’s first name literally means “the grace of Ba’al.” What kind of Italian mother curses her son with something like that? Unlike most of the other council experts, Bugnini got all the way to archbishop and Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship before receiving exile to Iran. Eventually, even Paul VI had no choice but to demote him to obscurity after the exposure of Bugnini’s freemasonry. There was, of course, the infamous briefcase full of incriminating freemasonic information, he left lying around for someone to find (folks like him almost love getting caught).
- Karl Rahner, SJ (Official Peritus) – Then there was this corrupted Jesuit priest who had a girlfriend, a woman married/divorced to a communist sodomite. Rahner thought the 2nd Vatican Council represented a synthesis of “modernism” + “the true faith.” So, you can see at least slight parallels with Teilhard de Chardin’s evolution theology. For these guys, everything in the faith is growing, progressing, and therefore, open to change and varying interpretation. Most of today’s German clergy (who are all but officially schismatic) would consider Rahner their theological godfather.
- Hans Kung – (Official Peritus) He was the youngest participant (starting at age 34), an ambitious reformer, who later rejected papal infallibility (waffled on it a bunch). Like some of his colleagues, he probably never wore priestly clerics after the 1960s. He’s also suspected of freemasonry, denied the divinity of Christ, and held an assortment of other heretical views.
- Yves Congar, OP (Official Peritus) – The Frenchman, Congar, was yet another who held radical opinions of the papacy. This key contributor to Dei Verbum thought of the pope as a head of the “College of Bishops” rather than Christ’s vicar. Here’s yet another ardent devotee to collegiality, the council’s most pervasive theme, even more so than ecumenism. If that’s not enough to deter people from Congar, you might also be wary of his communism. That’s because he gleefully praised Vatican II as the Church’s “peaceful October Revolution.”
- John Courtney Murray, SJ (Official Peritus) – The Jesuits initially did not allow Murray to participate in the council. However, the American theologian possessed the proper acumen for pushing the idea of religious liberty, which the council leadership needed for its final document, Dignitatis Humanae. We could say that concept also took a back seat to collegiality, but, as Bishop Richard Williamson argues, it was essential for currying favor with the Jews. They demanded its inclusion and were a force to reckon with in the post-WWII era of illuminati world governance. Therefore, American-style, freemasonic religious liberty had to serve as the crown of the council.
- Henri de Lubac, SJ (Official Peritus) – I’ve said much about De Lubac already. He’s one of several Jesuits on this list, and if you’re still convinced he held authentic Catholic views, you can read through this long essay of all the anti-magisterium liberals he admired. He’s the archetypical modernist and theological wolf in sheep’s clothing.
- Edward Schillebeeckx, OP (Private Peritus) – This esteemed cleric always wore a suit after the council, and would author a litany of other evil publications, including the Dutch Catechism. That’s the catechism that lost its Imprimatur, thanks to a dump truck load of theological errors, including a liberal position on contraception. Schillebeeckx held heretical positions such as “an eschatological, bodily resurrection, theologically speaking, has nothing to do, however, with a corpse.” He also hatched this brilliant idea: “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”
- Marie-Dominique Chenu, OP (Private Peritus) – He was the other contributor to the document, Gaudium et Spes. Like the other villains, the Holy See had at one point banned some of his work, all for him to re-emerge, magically, to influence the council. He and fellow French Dominican, Yves Congar, were among the greatest advocates for leveling the Church’s hierarchy into an egalitarian nightmare (reminiscent of their country’s vicious French Revolution).
This is an abbreviated list of some of the “main players” that shaped the council. You’re more than welcome to look into some of the other figures. I’ll now attempt to sow together a narrative explaining the impact of these individuals, and assess the ineffectiveness of the more conservative churchmen.
Very few conservative theologians or bishops left any lasting impression on the council, having been “canceled,” microphones unplugged, or just plain ignored. We can find several examples of conservative resistance, including the likes of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
We couldn’t include former Cologne Archbishop, Cardinal Josef Frings, who was supposed to be a strong conservative, but used the council as an opportunity to switch to the dark side. He did so with an intensely provocative speech where he ridiculed Ottaviani and the Holy Office (in front of the pope) as an institution that “no longer suits our ages.”
Frings, the modernist convert, criticized the important wing of the Vatican Curia by calling it excessively conservative, harmful to the Church, scandalous, and an employer of immoral methods.
Thanks to him, this eminent office suffered a humiliating demotion and “aggiornamento” to fit the “Church in the modern world.” Once known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation for the Roman and Universal Inquisition, it lost most of its supremacy in 1965. Its first occupant was Antonio Michele Ghislieri, right before he became Pope Pius V, all the way back in the 16th century. Today, it’s run by a guy who writes perverted books about kissing, and constructs most of Antipope Bergoglio’s heretical materials.
This neutering of the once glorious Holy Office happened because of Frings’ speech, probably written by his administrative secretary, Josef Ratzinger, yet another pseudo-conservative, and future prefect for that office.
Wrap your mind around all that mess.
Could it have been that the Church had “conservatives-in-name-only (CINOS)” all the way back then? With conservatives like these men, who needs commie liberals?
Ah, but it gets worse.
There was also a deterioration in the relationship between Cardinal Siri and Archbishop Lefebrve over whether to obey the council and accept the new Mass. Many readers are aware of Lefebrve’s legacy as founder of the now-irregular Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). So, I won’t rehash all that.
What happened with Cardinal Siri, though?
He probably helped fan the flames of all the SSPX “schism” malarkey that we encounter to this day. Yes, as a matter of fact, he begged Lefebvre not to commit what he thought was separation from the post-conciliar Church, even as Lefebvre rightfully understood the emergency. This led the SSPX founder to consecrate three emergency bishops (earning his excommunication from Pope John Paul II).
Siri isolated himself from Lefebvre, toward the end of their lives, and made it awfully hard for the SSPX to gain ground around Rome. It’s arguably the primary reason the Society has gotten nowhere near the same traction in Italy as it has in France and the U.S.
Siri, who avoided all confrontation, also had no trouble adapting to saying the New Mass, facing the wrong direction, on a table, as the below photo attests. He, like many other “reliable conservatives,” came to the table of plenty, as they say.
I’ll finish with one last topic to flush out the absurdity of the liberal-conservative divide in the Church.
For more background on post-conciliar ideological division, it helps to know the two intellectual/research camps that emerged. Once the council finished, there was a theological skirmish between the “Concilium” whack-a-doodles, and the “Communio” semi-conservatives who splintered from them. This was not, unfortunately, a battle between modernists and traditionalists (Lefebvre and others had nothing to do with it), but a civil war among reformists.
The name, Concilium, referred to the new theological journal and academic headquarters for all the council experts (all folks considered radically deviant prior to V2). It was a theological stable of folks who wished to supplant the vertical Church hierarchy with a council or committee to decide everything. Concilium also coined the perfidious phrase: Spirit of Vatican II.
Like anything else composed of deviants, it would fracture quickly, creating the impression of a conservative-verus-liberal dichotomy. Upon close inspection, though, it just meant that some of Concilium‘s members preferred *Crazy Lite* over what the rest of the modernists were doing. Here again, De Lubac feigned disgust with his progressive confreres, criticizing Concilium as a “propaganda tool” for extremist theology.
Eventually, this modernist family feud led to two groups with the following noteworthy membership:
- Concilium – Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Karl Rahner
- Communio – Josef Ratzinger, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Louis Bouyer
Did this really amount to anything, though? Here’s a thought-experiment analogy that might help you grasp it better.
Imagine if the United States’ Republican Party (anemic, meaningless, corrupt, and effete as it is) disappeared, leaving nothing but the Democrats. Then, picture what it would look like if that demented communist bunch split into its version of liberal and conservative. That’s what Vatican II gave us with the superfluous Concilium vs. Communio divide.
Crazy and Crazy Lite.
If you’re still keeping a tally of the real conservatives, you’re left with Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre, and maybe a few other cardinals who supported the latter. Remember, that by the time Ottaviani launched his famous intervention (1969), V2 ended, and they were going to enshrine a “new” Mass, come Hell or high water.
I hope this rough and dirty tour of conservatism, from the 1960s to the present, shows just how laughable the concept has become.
I believe it’s time to acknowledge that conservative is a junk term, and we should only aspire to be traditional. Wasn’t George W. Bush a political conservative? Now, he’s indistinguishable from Obama, Clinton, etc. This happens because conservatives have no principles (both in the Church and secular politics). They either seek to “conserve” the status quo (regardless of its decadence), or return to some perception of the “glory days” of the past.
Neither of these ideas correspond with traditional Catholicism, which doesn’t fetishize historical eras (not even the High Middle Ages). Instead, it seeks an alignment to the unbroken apostolic tradition and continuity, stretching back to Our Lord’s ministry.
So, are there ANY heroes left from the Vatican II era?
Archbishop Lefebvre is by far the closest, and most elements of today’s traditionalist revival, route back to him somehow. However, even then, you have to do mental gymnastics on account of him signing most of the Vatican II documents. Given this dearth of clerical heroes, it’s essential for us to remember those important words of the Psalmist: put not your trust in princes.
Alas, that includes Church prelates.
Finally, there’s one other important figure I haven’t mentioned that much yet.
Of course, whenever we discuss the Catholic clerical hierarchy, we must consider the visible head of Christ’s Church on earth, the legitimate pope. Therefore, let’s explore the role of Pope Paul VI, who ascended to the office six months before Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), and remained there until 1978.
What about Pope Paul VI?
Even though Pope Paul VI and Vatican II pronounced no new dogmatic definitions, all 16 documents bear his name, which is impossible to ignore for long.
Imagine if a debacle like this (V2 and the ensuing collapse of Catholic practice) happened to a private company. If you could trace that business’s decline back to a specific CEO, you’d conclude that the boss held at least some responsibility. Unless they took Paul VI hostage (an outside possibility), he was the one in charge of all the villains, and failed to apprehend their heresies.
We should ask what was the point of this council in the first place? At best, we can say that it kept its language purposefully vague, as Schillebeeckx admitted (and intended). That’s quite a contrast with every other Church council, where the mission was to clarify and demystify, not make things worse. It’s the pope’s responsibility to guarantee that a council produces clear teachings.
Next, for your consideration, here is a sample of either credible and speculative claims made about Pope Paul VI, of tremendously unhappy memory:
- Paul VI acknowledged that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, but didn’t seem to do much about it.
- He was the last pope to receive coronation (or wear the papal tiara), which may have occurred hours before wicked doers in the Vatican enthroned the Church to Satan.
- He wiped out huge components of Catholic tradition such as the Raccolta (for indulgences) and the Minor Holy Orders.
- In 1975, about six years after the Novus Ordo promulgation, he allowed the notorious USCCB President, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, to trick everyone into accepting communion on the hand at Mass. This was after survey research showed overwhelming opposition from the world’s bishops immediately after the council. Welcome to the wonderful world of episcopal/hierarchical schizophrenia, otherwise known as modern Church collegiality.
- Do you favor Franklin D. Roosevelt’s scheme to “pack the Supreme Court” with judges who would do his bidding? Well, Paul VI certainly did because he borrowed the concept to balloon the size of the College of Cardinals (more than doubling it). This would ensure that Vatican II would incur no significant scrutiny (more on this in the next section, regarding his predecessor pope).
- He may have been pals with communist revolutionary, and author of Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky.
- Whether he or Bugnini who created it, the “Mass of Paul VI” bears his name, the buck stopped with him, and the fruits of “his” Mass have been nauseous. The neutered and sometimes bizarre liturgy has engendered a catastrophic drop in Sunday attendance, belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and almost every aspect of Catholicity.
- After his death, his corpse rotted so profusely (while laid in state), bystanders couldn’t endure its pungent odor. Some would argue that this contrasts with saints who receive the “odor of sanctity” following their deaths.
- “But, but, isn’t he a canonized saint?” No, because antipopes (like Bergoglio) can’t canonize anybody.
That’s the bulk of the case against Paul VI. Notice that these don’t involve specific teachings from the pope, but some almost incontrovertibly abysmal administrative decisions and behaviors.
I didn’t mention his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, for example. Here, we should distinguish between what the Church teaches versus the disciplinary decisions and behavior of the hierarchy. The former is indefectible, whereas the latter can be rather woeful, albeit binding.
I don’t purport to know Paul VI’s exact motives during or after the council, and can’t determine (with 100% certainty) how involved he was with its proceedings. God knows his heart, whereas we see outward realities alone. We can ascertain some details about how he developed the Novus Ordo Mass (he may have been rather Laissez Faire about it), but it’s impossible to know for sure.
All that aside, however, we should examine how things might have been without Paul VI and the modernist villains.
Was there a different intention for the 2nd Vatican Council before Paul VI and John XXIII?
Vatican II – Preliminary Documents (Way Different)
Could the 2nd Vatican Council have been better if there were different clerical personnel?
Yes, but the remaining bulwark of traditional bishops collapsed, to be replaced by Pope John XXIII’s modernists in several influential positions. He began the trouble (as soon as he took office), whereas his successor turbo-charged it.
For the first time in 375 years, John XXIII expanded the size of the College of Cardinals to include Giovani Montini (future Pope Paul VI). This was after his predecessor, Pius XII, withheld Montini the red hat, despite his prominent position as Archbishop of Milan. John XXIII made this such a priority, that he held the consistory just 48 days into his pontificate.
This set the table for Paul VI, who would create 143 cardinals, and place age restrictions, disenfranchising the older conservative ones from any further conclaves. Before these two men, the entire body totalled 70 (since the 16th century). Paul VI super-sized it all the way to 145 cardinals at one point, with about 120 eligible to vote by the time he died in 1978.
John XXIII and Paul VI were pals, modernists, and effectively the same, theologically. Hence, Antipope Bergoglio’s mad dash to “canonize” both of them.
While we can criticize what happened under Paul VI, the sharpest transition toward modernism occurred under John XXIII, who allowed progressive theologians to overwhelm the Theological Commission. This led to immediate and drastic changes to the goals of the new ecumenical council.
The Commission’s prelates, like Cardinal Ottaviani, were reliably orthodox, and had written entirely different preliminary schemas for the upcoming council. Those were working documents for a council that would have reflected Church teaching if Pope Pius XII were still the pontiff. You can see for yourself (from that last hyperlink) what the council intended to discuss before the parasites periti infected everything.
There you’ll discover the full text for the following crucial topics:
- Defending the Deposit of the Faith (not exsanguinating it, like Nosferatu)
- The Christian Moral Order
- Chastity, Marriage, Family, Virginity (demoted to just a chapter in Goblins & Spectres; with no mention of virginity)
- The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of Men (demoted to just the final chapter of Lumen Gentium)
This shows the significant distinction between the priorities before and after the council. Consider, for instance, that last bullet point on the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was only as of 1950 (about a dozen years before the council) that Pope Pius XII declared the infallible dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption. Yet, because this age-old dogma, and other components of Mariology, were offensive to Protestants, the council stepmothers (especially Rahner) deemed it unworthy of the pastoral council.
Outside of Lumen Gentium, Section 59, there is no other mention of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception, or Assumption, even as the latter received infallible definition just 14 years earlier. Also, the word “Rosary” does not appear once in any of the major documents. Despite all its advice on how to patch things up with the world, the council never references the most important devotional prayer, and weapon for destroying error, from Our Lady. Not even Bugnini’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, which deals with prayer, liturgy, and sacramentals, ever mentions it.
That aside, you also won’t hear much about that other “c” word, communism, for fear of offending the Russians and their Eastern Heterodox, KGB clergy. Perhaps the world, which had just seen Christendom disintegrate (during and after World War I) could have benefited from a refresher course on Christian Social Order. That would’ve been far more continuous with Pope Pius XI’s teachings on the social kingship of Christ following the Great War.
Then, you may wonder “But, how could this have gotten past all the world’s bishops? Why didn’t they veto this insanity?”
Short answer – Although over 200 bishops supported Archbishops Lefebvre’s interventions against Vatican II, it was too little too late, and most of them died, while modernism cleaned house.
I’ll discuss some theories later, but surely we can see that the Church, like the secular world, has been beset by freemasonic, eugenicist, and sodomite communists. You can tell there’s been a legitimate and verifiable conspiracy to spread communism in every institution (sometimes slow, sometimes fast) all over the world.
How do we scrutinize, verify, and evaluate conspiracies?
We do so by examining their defectors. Whenever there are a bunch of turncoats, whistleblowers, and defectors, you’ll get a whiff of the smoke, allowing you to track down its fire. Communism, as you’ll notice, has had quite a few betrayers, who risked certain death going public to reveal its evil.
Here are a handful of individuals known for exposing it . . .
- Bella Dodd – She was a former influential member of Communist Party USA, responsible for inserting numerous communists into the ranks of the clergy in America (over 1,000 by her admission). By 1950, Dodd was no longer in good graces with her fellow commies, since those folks often betray each other. She also had the McCarthyites in Congress chasing after her pretty hard. All of that, plus a serendipitous encounter with Fulton Sheen led to her Catholic reversion, and exposure of the vast network of leftist traitors in the U.S.
- Ion Mihai Pacepa (co-creator of “Liberation Theology”) – According to Pacepa, anytime you hear of a movement with “liberation” in its name, you know you’re dealing with a KGB creation. This is true of the materialist and downright phony Liberation Theology, espoused by many deviant clergy to this day (invented in the 1960s after Vatican II). Antipope Bergoglio himself holds sympathy for this aberrant distortion of Catholicism.
- Louis Budenz – I get the impression that Budenz was one of those guys that got caught up in communism for having a misguided understanding of Catholic teaching on labor rights. Some people have a bleeding heart for the poor, and get swept up into communism. This is unfortunate and all too common. At any event, he was an American communist for about 10 years, before being encouraged to revert to Catholicism by Fulton Sheen (just like Bella Dodd).
Of course, you could respond to this by saying “well, why should I believe the accounts of these people? Hasn’t anybody from the Magisterium investigated suspected communists and freemasons?”
Those are terrific questions. Yes, there have been attempts by the Vatican to identify freemasons, but they’ve yielded little fruit because “investigating,” without adjudicating perpetrators, doesn’t accomplish much. After the council, the Vatican tasked the Canadian Archbishop Edouard Gagnon with finding out which prelates were compromised.
This resulted in a three-volume dossier of suspected freemasons in the Vatican.
Among the highest ranking included Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio, Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops, and notable “king maker” who selected many of the Church’s prelates in those days. We could also use this as yet another zinger against Paul VI since Cdl. Baggio was one of his direct reports. The dossier also included every traditionalist’s favorite liturgist, the dreaded Annibale Bugnini.
Also, this wasn’t the first time freemasonry or socialism caught the attention of Rome. Pope Pius IX wrote twice against these topics all the way back in 1849 (Nostis Et Nobiscum and Quibus Quantisque Malis). So, if you’re keeping score, then that’s about 100 years before the communist intrusion became especially malignant.
That came only a year after Karl Marx wrote Communist Manifesto (1848), demonstrating how fast evil can spread and can catch the ear of a holy pontiff. You don’t have to take my word for any of this. I invite you to devote time to evaluating the many sources I’ve included throughout this work. I believe, with such an overwhelming volume of evidence, the conclusions are obvious: modernism is insidious, conspiracies are legitimate, and none of this is a passing trend.
For a conspiracy this deep, and ominous, it’s easy to see how prelates (amid an era of potential nuclear annihilation) would have fled from it. Many of them were complicit, extorted, intimidated, or otherwise cajoled into cooperating with the Church siege. Only God can see into their souls and determine culpability, but suffice to say, the externals are clear. A hefty majority of 20th century clergy (90% at least) followed the horrible example of the English bishops, under King Henry VIII, by allowing a heretical church revolution.
That concludes my comparison of the preliminary and actual documents of Vatican II, but what if we go back a little further? Would we find a further divergence between the Poltergeist of Vatican II and the last real ecumenical council, Vatican I?
Vatican I vs. The Poltergeist of Vatican II
The 1st Vatican Council, which wasn’t that long ago (1869-1870), receives scarce mention or reference throughout the seven major documents (with the exception of Dei Verbum). The table below is a simple frequency breakdown of Vatican I citations in the Vatican II documents.
References to Vatican I:
- Lumen Gentium – 1
- Dignitatis Humanae – 0
- Dei Verbum – 9
- Nostra Aetate – 0
- Gaudium et Spes – 2
- Gravissimum Educationis – 0
- Sacrosanctum Concilium – 0
- Unitatis Redintegratio – 1
This is not by accident since the “Spirit of Vatican II” diametrically opposes Vatican I, which doesn’t have a ridiculous “spirit.” While Vatican I decried the rise of modernism, liberalism, universalism, and excessive diplomacy, Vatican II insisted on enhancing all of them. To an outsider, they may as well have been separate religions (since they are; Church & Antichurch).
The First Vatican Council (and only authentic one of the two) produced two dogmatic constitutions: Dei Filius & Pastor Aeternus.
- Dei Filius – A succinct but comprehensive explanation of what Catholics are to believe regarding God (Creator of the Universe), Divine Revelation, Faith, and the relationship between Faith & Reason. Below, I’ll highlight some differences between the Vatican I and Vatican II on these essential topics.
- Pastor Aeternus – A four-chapter dogmatic constitution, proclaiming the apostolic primacy of Peter, the permanent primacy of Peter among pontiffs, the primacy of all pontiffs, and the infallible rule of the pontiffs. That last part includes the pope’s supreme power over the magisterium (something you’d never know from all of today’s “synodality” and “bishop’s conferences”).
Vatican I also produced a formal definition for the conditions of papal infallibility:
When the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
That is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
There were liberal dissenters at the council who opposed this definition, or didn’t want to publish it, given the prevailing international political turmoil. Liberals would become the majority at Vatican II, and, as I’ll show later, many of today’s conservatives wish to constrain this papal power as much as possible. They fear it allows too much room for “hyperpapalism,” and you wouldn’t want God’s Vicar on Earth to become hyper.
The esteemed Council also issued 22 anathemas (a concept that the 1983 Code of Canon Law later eliminated), whereas Vatican II had zero, along with no new dogmatic definitions.
Vatican I anathematized an array of errors and false doctrines, including, but not limited to . . .
- The belief that nothing exists except “matter” (Note: thereby, disallowing all of today’s “materialism” and secular humanism).
- Any notion that God did not create “the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance.” (Note: This eliminates the possibility of “theistic evolution,” popularized by Teilhard de Chardin and the other Vatican II fellows.)
- Any belief that “human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God.” (Note: This destroys Dignitatis Humanae and “religious freedom.”)
- The belief that “internal experience or private inspiration” alone can bring about faith, without God. (Note: Here’s another problem for religious freedom advocates.)
- That one should only maintain faith if it can withstand scientific demonstration.
- It’s fine to accept the conclusions of scientific studies if they conflict with Divine Revelation.
- If we become more enlightened, with new scientific knowledge, it may assign new meanings to dogmas, even if they contradict prior Church understanding. (Note: That’s an important tenet of the erroneous historical-criticism method).
As you can see, by the condemnation of these errors, Vatican I had an antagonistic view toward the scientism, religious freedom, and universalism of the 2nd Vatican Council.
Vatican II, the treacherous pseudo-council, insisted on inverting the good Council’s teachings, pronouncements, and anathemas. Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility while Vatican II artificially constructed the novel concept of collegiality.
Then, there’s the problem of all the horrible things that happened after the 1st Council, which cultivated the perfect environment for modernism, hence unleashing the V2 Poltergeist. See this quick diagram of how events unfolded after Vatican I (a council that didn’t officially close until the beginning of Vatican II).
Vatican I → Satan’s Hundred Year War → Full Disintegration of Christendom → Two Catastrophic World Wars → Poltergeist of Vatican II
Many Catholics who pray the St. Michael’s prayer know of the astonishing vision given to Pope Leo XIII on October 13, 1884. That was 33 years before the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal, and 577 years after the mass arrest/execution of the Templars in France. A lot of stuff seems to happen on October 13th (especially Fridays).
Pope Leo’s vision depicted a terrifying dialogue between God and Satan over the prospects of a 100-year-war, THE decisive battle between the demon and Our Lady.
Almost within a month, Leo XIII had every parish in the world praying the St. Michael’s prayer after Low Masses, well before anyone realized why they were doing so. This was to address that ominous satanic war, which had not yet begun, even though the Church had already sustained several massive blows. The Church already lost its territorial claims to the Papal States, its European allies had succumbed to violent secular revolutions, and the freemason lodges were booming.
What could occur next, to top all of that, in wake of Leo XIII’s 100-year-war visions?
By the late 19th century, the heretical cat was out of the bag, and despite several papal condemnations, modernist theologians would emerge faster than the hierarchy could contain them. The sickly looking (to put it gently) Fr. George Tyrell, and others, had already infiltrated the Jesuits, spreading the contagion of biblical historical criticism and other misconceptions.
Here’s an example of Tyrell’s handiwork, one of the earlier, high-profile modernists in the UK:
“What Christ founded was not the hierarchic Church but the little body of missionary brethren, which subsequently, under the guidance of Christ’s Spirit, organized itself into the Catholic Church; that he did not directly commission some of them to teach and rule over the rest; but commissioned all of them equally to go and teach all nations and prepare them by the baptism of repentance and by a new life for the instant coming of the Kingdom of God upon earth.”
-George Tyrell, Medievalism: A Reply to Cardinal Mercier
A close examination of this modernist pearl shows a jab at the papacy with the parts about Christ not creating a hierarchical Church or having “commissioned all of them equally.” Tyrell, the former Anglican, found his way into the Jesuit Order as a “theologian,” without ever disavowing his Protestant errors. This is a common problem (Protestant theologians) to this day in the Catholic Church.
Mind you, Tyrell (and others like him) spread this garbage well before the Red Scare and other major crises of the mid-20th century. Communists had already snuck into the low-to-medium parts of the 19th century Catholic hierarchy (even select curial offices). It would be another generation or two, following two enormous world wars, before the modernist scheme would subsume a majority of the Catholic episcopate.
Next, I will continue the discussion of Vatican I versus Vatican II by reviewing the alleged problem of ultramontanism and excessive papal power. I’ll show that this is a red herring, distracting us from the real problem of Vatican II’s modernist collegiality.
Beware The “Anti-Ultramontanism” Smokescreen
The ecclesial fallout from both Vatican I has led many to believe that the concept of papal infallibility has gone too far. Some say it’s become enough of a problem that it shouldn’t have been defined in the first place (the opinion of the Vatican I liberal minority). I’d like to address this unnecessary stumbling block, brought about by contemporary scholars; folks who do far more harm than good, I’m afraid.
Given the heavy-handed animosity from the treacherous Antipope Bergoglio (who virtually every “lay scholar” believes is a real pope) some consider him the logical extension of ultramontanism. He, in a nutshell, is what happens when the papacy gets out of control, according to anti-ultramontanists.
My position is that it’s much easier to accept reality, and acknowledge Bergoglio’s fraudulent claim to the papacy. Then, you don’t have to deal with the headache of reinventing the papacy, or resorting to ecclesial liberalism, to accommodate his loathsome “papacy.” Absent that, however, I suppose it would help to show why neither he, nor any of the other post-conciliar popes represent anything close to hyperpapalism or ultramontanism. Intellectual influencers, like Peter Kwasnieweski and Timothy Flanders, are barking up the wrong tree with dozens of useless articles on what they dub the False Spirit of Vatican I.
What do they mean by “ultramontanism”?
Ultramontanism comes from 19th century French Catholics, who placed a heavy emphasis on Rome and the papacy, at a time when freemasonic secularists besieged their country. These were the poor folks whose recent ancestors underwent the genocidal French Revolution and detonation of the country’s monarchy and Church institutions. They would look “over the mountains” (the Swiss Alps) toward Rome to find solace in the Holy Father, even while their country became a socio-political Hell.
Long story short (since it would take forever to cover every detail), it’s become a pejorative for anyone with a little too much faith or reverance for the Holy Father. This is the position of Peter Kwaniewski, who now tries to dismiss almost all relevance of the papacy, on the grounds that some have elevated it beyond Catholicism itself.
Kwasniewski on Hypertrophic Ultramontanism –
“. . . excessive adherence to the person and policies of the pope by which one simplistically takes everything he says as a definitive judgment and everything he does as a praiseworthy example, wrapping the mantle of infallibility around all his teachings and the garment of impeccability around all his behavior.”
He thinks this behavioral paradigm has resurrected in the “Francis” years and threatens to scandalize people who would take the papacy too seriously.
There’s just one major problem. Vatican I, a legitimate ecumenical council (and triumph of the Ultramontanes), agreed with all the saints, doctors, and apostles, who have always held the office in very high esteem. Enough so, that members of the early Church would go to Peter and the subsequent popes to resolve difficult matters. Yes, you can “withstand Peter to his face,” but it would necessitate an ecumenical council (as it did in Jerusalem with Paul), not a radical disregard of the Petrine Office.
You wouldn’t know this to listen to Kwasniewski, and the moderate-traditionalists, who speak of venerating the papacy as something akin to consulting an oracle.
Reverence for the papacy wasn’t just Vatican I invention, either. It was like that from the beginning. Even St. John, arguably the most devoted apostle, admired by many other disciples, would defer to the popes after St. Peter’s martyrdom (having lived under multiple papacies). The early Church took the papacy seriously, and would have been far closer to ultramontane, with all the holy popes, than today’s modernists, neo-conservatives, and moderates.
Kwasniewski’s arguments are far more in line with the dangerous liberals from Vatican I (intellectual grandfathers of the Vatican II modernists).
The ecclesial debate during Vatican I was between legitimate conservatives and squishy liberals and Gallicans (those favoring secular authority over the Church). The conservative/ultramontane side featured Cardinal Henry Edward Manning with several other English bishops, joined by heroic figures, like St. Anthony Mary Claret. They defended pious Catholic tradition (regarding the papacy) against the council’s liberals, who opposed papal infallibility to various degrees.
Those liberal/progressive/modernist forces would only gain strength after the council (which entered hiatus because of the freemasonic invasion and capture of the Papal States). The Vatican I liberal opposition earned its intellectual support from folks like the over-exalted, Bergoglian saint, Cardinal John Henry Newman.
This is somebody (Newman) who Kwasniewski considers the “greatest theologian of the 19th century,” despite his suspected liberalism and wavering on papal infallibility and the Syllabus of Errors. He, like Fr. Tyrell, was a convert, who perhaps never fully jettisoned his Protestantism.
You could think of Newman as the “middle way” between Pius IX hardliners and the “evolution of dogma” found with Tyrell (and Teilhard de Chardin later). The liberal/moderate Newman had his more temperate “development of doctrine,” eerily similar to the ambiguous tenets of modernist theology. It was more tenable, subtle, and passable than the boisterous ideas from obvious heretics. Some rumors also suggest Newman may have been gay, a common theme surrounding almost all Church liberals.
{UPDATE: In defense of Newman, I should note that his writings were met with posthumous approval from Pope St. Pius X, in his Apostolic Letter, Acta Sanctae Sedis. We can take this to mean that the pope, with significant magisterial weight, has given the “green light” for his post-conversion writings. I still have some reservation about Newman’s take on the Syllabus of Errors, which he strangely believed was neither written by the pope, nor did it come with proper papal letterhead. This seems blatantly wrong since the Syllabus appears as an addendum to Pius IX’s encyclical, Quanta Cura (1864).}
This is who academic Catholics, like Kwasniewski, fawn over for justification against a strong papacy. I suggest the reader approach these figures, and their heterodox opinions, with caution and skepticism.
So, are hyperpapalism and ultramontanism a problem?
Unless your view of the papacy is a cartoon caricature, it shouldn’t be. As long as we acknowledge the defined constraints for papal infallibility, and can distinguish between the “actions” of the pope versus the teachings, we have nothing to fear. If one (foolishly) believes the Roman Pontiff can enter a donut shop, wave around his hand, and select an “infallible donut,” then one becomes vulnerable to accepting any moronic concept.
For that matter, nobody believes the pope does anything infallible or inerrant when he does obnoxious things, like exhuming his predecessor for a political show trial.
The pope’s office is essential for the Church, and the lack of it (see: Bergoglian antipapacy) creates darkness, unclarity, and contentiousness. Whether you’re a genius or a dimwit, you need the unitive authority of the papacy.
Recall all the holy examples of scholarly saints, those Church Doctors like Sts. Jerome, Aquinas, and Bellarmine, who would never hesitate to concede to the pope, whenever commanded. St. Jerome did as much over the question of deuterocanonical texts of the bible. To be sure, there are no Doctors of the Church, no valid ecumenical councils, no Code of Canon Law, and no magisterial teachings without the papacy.
Why, then, do Kwasniewski and others obsess over ultramontanism?
After all, once you can tell that Vatican II, Bergoglio, and modernists have no authority, you don’t have to worry about ultramontanism. Why must we dwell on the overreaching authority of people and antipopes who don’t have any?
Ah, but perhaps you’re worried over what legitimate pontiffs would do, given the over-reaching of Pius IX and Pius X.
You shouldn’t panic, though. Even the legitimate popes, who succeeded Pius X, have been extraordinarily weak; their pontificates hijacked by modernists. They couldn’t distinguish ultramontanism from the Avignon Papacy, and, if I’m wrong, I’d like Kwasniewski and pals to answer the following questions . . .
- Was it hyperpapalism when Pope Pius XII let Bugnini and the Liturgical Movement significantly alter the liturgy and Breviary in the 1940s and 1950s?
- Did ultramontanism lead Pope Benedict XVI to leave the papacy, for fear of the modernist wolves, after confessing “my authority ends at that door” (pointing at his office threshold)?
- Was Pope Benedict XV (Pius X’s successor) an ultramontane, yet helpless to do anything about the onset of World War I, involving several of his Catholic-subject countries? It sure looks like nobody was looking over the mountains during WWI.
- How did hyperpapalism contribute to the assassination of Pope John Paul I?
- Did ultramontanism somehow prevent JP2 and the other popes from saying the correct words to consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart?
- Didn’t the loss of the papal states effectively kneecap the popes and make them prisoners of the Vatican?
- If this is just a problem with over-emphasizing papal teachings, then we should find errors in some of their writings, including from Pius IX and Pius X. Can you show me a few examples, without referencing the obvious trash from Antipope Bergoglio?
- Ultramontanes (among others) believe the Church cannot teach error. Do you believe this as well? If you don’t, then why not? If the Church can err, what is its purpose? Why would God give us something defective?
- Is it the mission of the quasi-traditionalists (who seek a de-emphasis of the papacy) to erode the legitimacy of the Church’s teaching authority, just like the modernists?
- Do you believe you can somehow triangulate modernism and ultramontanism? Does that seem similar to trying to mix satanism with the Gospel?
- If you are not ultramontanes, as you strongly assert, then what are you? How would we distinguish an anti-ultramontane from a despicable liberal?
- How come nobody warned us about ultramontanism before Antipope Bergoglio? It’s as if the concept became dormant for over a hundred years. Could it be that Bergoglio’s “teachings” are the only discernible blemish against Catholicism, and shouldn’t worry us, seeing how he’s not part of the magisterium, anyway?
- What prevents you from rejecting the papacy, wholesale, as do the Protestants?
Given this plethora of examples of papal hesitancy, we’d be better off addressing the disease of HYPOpapalism. Instead of ultramontanism (above the mountains), we should think of it as papal-subterraneanism or maybe hyper-collegiality, in light of the tremendous upheaval of the Catholic hierarchy from modernists. Failure to acknowledge this is precisely what happens when you concoct a stupid idea like the false spirit of Vatican I.
Meanwhile, the Poltergeist of Vatican II is laughing hysterically at you guys.
Furthermore, I can’t say I’ve ever met anyone who thinks the pope is some type of “oracle,” as per the fears of the anti-ultramontanists. This is a caricature of the typical Catholic perception of the pope. I suspect you’d have a difficult time locating even a single Catholic who idolizes the papacy to such irrational levels.
If anything, whenever you discuss hierarchical obedience with older Catholics (those born before V2), they recall excessive deference to bishops, priests, and nuns. As schoolchildren, the older generations learned that everything those “old nuns” said was sacrosanct, unquestionable, and infallible. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find Catholics ever quoting from papal texts (and if so, it wouldn’t have been the “ultramontane popes”).
It also laments me to say that Kwasniewski has become the Bishop Robert Barron of traditional Catholicism.
He gets so far into the intellectual woods that he can’t see the forest, won’t properly challenge the antichurch rackets, and latches on to the most absurd ideas. For those who don’t know, Bishop Barron is the popular Internet prelate who does reasonably good apologetics on an array of faith-related topics. However, he ruins his reputation by espousing the “dare we hope all men are saved” thesis of Von Balthasar.
Like Barron, Kwasniewski fixates over taking the “middle ground” in the ecclesial, spiritual war we’re facing. That’s why neither of these men, no matter how much they publish, will ever be helpful to ordinary Catholics. Kwasniewski, Barron, and the rest fail to realize there is no middle ground between Our Lord’s glorious papacy and modernism.
Also, perhaps you’re tired of receiving the “calm down, nothing to see here,” treatment from folks like Kwasniewski, Barron, and Catholic Answers, while the Church burns to the ground.
Ignore them!
Who put these guys in charge in the first place? At least Barron’s an actual bishop. The rest of the thought leaders are ineffective, confusing, dodge important topics, and don’t reassure anybody.
It’s time to stop playing games by inventing useless nuances to “escape Francis,” and choose a side between two extremes: the papacy and modernism (no middle option). Besides, I think Kwasniewski would enjoy much more peace of mind, if he’d revisit Antonio Socci’s case against the Benedict resignation, which he originally appreciated, before backpedaling on it. That would save him a lot of mental anguish and headache.
Either way, remember that folks, like Kwasniewski, always carry on about “uniting the clans,” which they believe they can accomplish without the papacy. These thought leaders and organizers believe they’ll unite all traditional Catholics (around themselves?) without the throne of unity, the holy papacy, established by Jesus Christ.
Such an idea is hubris, madness, and we should consider it diabolical to suggest there would be any unity without the Throne of Peter. Instead, I suggest we unite in a common prayer of petition for these intentions regarding Antipope Bergoglio.
- For Bergoglio’s well-being
- For his conversion
- The end of his antipapacy
- For a new pope (one strong and ultramontane, like Pius IX & Pius X)
- The consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart
Ultimately, the ultramontanism discussion is a colossal distraction from the primary problem of MODERNISM, which became abundantly clear by the mid-20th century. This smokescreen is one of several ridiculous illusions, manufactured by the world’s “expert class” and thought leaders. However, if we continue a regular regimen of red pills and white pills, we’ll be able to see past the asinine claims of modern Catholic intelligentsia.
Illusions Abound Ever Since Vatican II
The 2nd Vatican Council is one of many illusions heaped upon us by the wicked freemasonic communists, who’ve been on a roll lately. These are just a few examples of their illusory handiwork.
- The nation-states are fake (thanks to the disintegration of Christendom).
- The man people believe to be the pope is an imposter (thanks to an erroneous Benedict resignation).
- It does no good to expatriate to the “Eastern Orthodox,” an entirely different (and fake) religion.
- Men and women believe they can assume or even cosmetically enhance themselves into the opposite sex of what God assigned them (therefore, fake men and women).
- We watch movies from a place known as Hollywood, the great habitation for illusion, debauchery, and every other abhorrent vice.
Does anyone notice a pattern? Everything in the world is fake.
If you’re exhausted with this fraudulence, then it’s easier to envision how the traditional Church and organic society are infinitely superior. The True Church, and not this modern monstrosity, ensures civilizational stability, prevents souls from falling into perdition, and leads them toward eternal bliss in heaven with God. Modernists know they cannot achieve these tasks, and so they deny the existence of all three.
That’s why we see contemporary clergy, who follow the heretic, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, and say “dare we hope Hell is empty and all men are saved.” Our opponents, the progressives, know they’re fraudulent, and therefore have to rearrange and obfuscate entire concepts (Church, society, the meaning of life, eternal consequences, etc.). Otherwise, their entire canard falls apart upon delivery.
Nonsensical Ad Hominem Objections to This Analysis
“I still think you’re just a layperson, should stay in your lane, and not talk about these things.”
Whether folks use those precise words, this is often what they mean when met with the unassailable logic and evidence against the evil Vatican and Bergoglio regime. Rather than challenge my contentions or present themselves to further tutelage on these topics, they resort to lazy attacks. Apparently, nobody can research and examine the content/consequences of Vatican II without possessing “special powers” or having graduated from the Gregorian Institute in Rome.
“Why shouldn’t we just trust academic experts who have studied and analyzed the Vatican II documents?”
Why, on the contrary, should we trust academicians who have shown, with countless examples, their profuse corruption? We should wonder what it would take for a “Vatican II scholar” to change his mind, when met with clear-and-convincing evidence, refuting their favorable understanding of the council. Is it even conceivable that these scholars, who have built their entire careers on flowery Vatican II interpretation, would EVER disavow their infatuation with that wicked council?
No, because they’d lose their jobs and reputations.
It would take a most spectacular miracle, far surpassing the parting of the Red Sea, to change the minds of today’s highly compensated Vatican II stalwarts. We should never commit ad hominem by ignoring an argument because of the arguer, but if anybody’s premises and assertions should receive summary dismissal, it’s today’s mainstream, for-profit Catholic scholars.
Nine Practical Ways to Destroy the Poltergeist of Vatican II
Finally, I promised to share some ways to combat this ominous poltergeist haunting the true Church. While it includes taking those red pills and comprehending what led to Vatican II (see the next section), there are several practical ways to reverse this pandemonium. These you can do as individuals and/or together with your families.
- Practice Virtue – there are 64 of them. Don’t forget that every virtue has corresponding vices of deficiency and excess. Those are the two ways you might fail, and we all sway off the narrow path sometimes. We cannot expect to prosper (spiritually, or otherwise) if we refuse to master the traditional virtues such as patience, temperance, and above all, charity.
- Pray the Holy Rosary every day (15 decades). Yes, beginners should start with less, but don’t short-change yourself by assuming you cannot grow and accomplish more. Almost anyone who’s been Catholic for at least six months, should be able to pray five decades of the Rosary each day. It takes about 15 to 17 minutes to do one set of mysteries with other people.
- Visit the Blessed Sacrament more often. Don’t obsess over the details; just do it. I shouldn’t have to convince you of the benefits of gazing at God over staring at electronic screens nonstop.
- Go to Confession at least once a month. As things intensify, and Bergoglio turns the screws on Catholics (traditional or otherwise), this will become a scarce spiritual resource. It doesn’t hurt to do this every other week, or every week, depending on your circumstances. Those with unconfessed mortal sin on their conscience cannot enter the pearly gates of heaven.
- Meditate on the Last Four Things – Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Most people go to that last one for eternity after being all-too occupied with secular affairs; never contemplating the eternal. This is vital for teenagers, who are at the perfect age to have Hell scared out of them. That could be the best way for them to prepare for Confirmation.
- Attend the Traditional Latin Mass – I won’t tell you how far you should drive to find a TLM on Sunday. However, it’s worth your consideration, especially if you’re attending a Novus Ordo Mass where they don’t use a patten or communion plate, guaranteeing that Our Lord hits the floor repeatedly.
- Pray the Roman Breviary (traditional version) as often as possible. This is like a secondary liturgy, involves heavy meditation on the psalms, and ranks right between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Rosary.
- Pray the Roman Martyrology for inspiration from the incredible early-Church saints. You’ll find this at the end of the “Prime” hour every day if you pray the Roman Breviary. For each day of the year, it commemorates various martyrs, confessors, and other saints throughout the ages. It’s a great way to draw inspiration from previous Catholics who’ve endured enormous hardships.
- Study the Faith by reading real ecumenical council documents. The first four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) explain almost all we need to know about the nature of Christ and the Blessed Mother. That helps us argue in favor of authentic Catholicism much better. You’ll also notice that I linked to numerous papal encyclicals throughout this work. Those ARE worth reading, especially the ones from Pius IX and Pius X, if you wish to refute the modernist agenda. Don’t get your entire Catholic catechesis from obnoxious Internet thought leaders.
Now, with those virtuous building-blocks in place, let’s cover one last piece of the puzzle: discovering how the post-V2 Church arrived at all this chaos.
I recommend becoming strong in those aforementioned habits first, however, because it takes some spiritual gumption, fortitude, and reflection to comprehend the murkier stuff. Otherwise, the evil one may lead you into one of the more bizarre traditionalist camps if you lack a strong interior framework, built on prayer and faith formation.
Theories Explaining The Poltergeist of Vatican II: 1958 Sedevacantism & 2022 Sedevacantism
We’re left with some questions to ponder.
1) How do we distinguish the false church from the Truth Faith?
2) How long has the fakery persisted?
3) Have we been suffering the reign of one or more “antipopes” since the council?
As I mentioned, if you wish to comprehend the origin of this problem, you must understand the proper context of Vatican I. It’s essential for Catholics to acknowledge how modernism, the complete upheaval of every faith tenet, has been the devil’s top priority over the last 200 years. It’s even useless to mull excessively over Freemasonry, communism, and Jew-ism, if you don’t grasp this concept.
Let’s evaluate two important theories on how the Vatican II Poltergeist has invaded the upper echelons of the Church, even by hijacking the papacy.
1) The 1958 Sedevacantist Explanation – There are some who believe that ALL the popes since Pope John XXIII have been invalid, and therefore, antipopes.
We could distinguish this from the 2022 Sedevacantist position, claiming that Jorge Bergoglio has been the only relevant antipope (in several hundred years). These folks, let’s call them “1958ers,” aghast at the behavior of the post-conciliar popes, have reached the conclusion that these could have not been true pontiffs. The only question, then, is identifying when this breach began, which most of them believe occurred via a faulty or irregular conclave in 1958, the one that gave us John XXIII.
Some 1958ers think Cardinal Siri was elected, although Siri flatly denied the assertion several times. So, although there is disagreement among these folks over the precise circumstances, almost all of them believe the papacy became vacant in 1958 somehow. Their primary justification for this comes from the overwhelming modernism among the papal claimants since then. To the 1958ers, the sudden arrival of the “Vatican II Ideology” represents formal heresy, and it’s impossible for a true pope to be a formal heretic.
I might contend that the Vatican II ideology wasn’t so subtle or abrupt, given everything that occurred under Pius XII (i.e., Bugnini’s machinations), but I digress. In addition, many 1958 Sedevacantists believe the post-conciliar sacraments are invalid because of faulty new rites and/or an absence of valid clergy remaining to minister them.
2) 2022 Sedevacantism, AKA, Pope Benedict’s False Resignation & Attempted Papal Bifurcation – Then there is another thesis that suggests Pope Benedict XVI submitted a defective resignation in 2013, containing substantial errors, rendering it canonically invalid.
The effect was that Benedict retained his office, despite his intentions, all the way until his death (in 2022), making it impossible for Jorge Bergoglio, or anyone, to succeed him. I don’t know of a catchy, concise name for this theory, but perhaps we’d shorten this camp to “2022ers” to reflect the beginning of the sede vacante or papal interregnum. Its chief proponents are Dr. Edmund Mazza (a papal historian) and independent commentators, Ann Barnhardt and Mark Docherty. They contend that his resignation fails to meet the standards for resigning an ecclesiastical office.
How could something that catastrophic happen?
In Benedict’s Declaratio (resignation), the alleged mistake occurs when he attempts to separate the office into a papal “munus” versus a papal “ministerium.” You have to check the Latin version of his resignation to find this phrasing. He repeated this distinction (even more clearly) in subsequent announcements; his personal secretary corroborated it as well.
What do munus/ministerium mean and why do they matter? Why did this disqualify his resignation? In the simplest sense, he created a non-canonical distinction (without changing canon law).
I explained some of the rationale in my analysis of Lumen Gentium. There, I mentioned the Miller Dissertation as an expository essay on post-V2 theology (including collegiality). It shows how the New Theologians believe in an “evolving papacy” along with the equally erroneous notion of splitting it into two offices: active and contemplative. Those are synonyms for munus and ministerium, the terms Benedict used in his Declaratio and follow-up announcements.
2022ers argue this artificial construction (munus versus ministerium), reflects a substantial error (a theological one), violating Canon 188 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law, Title IX on Ecclesiastical Offices. That canon states:
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
Because of the Nouvelle Théologie error of active versus contemplative (munus versus ministerium), Benedict’s resignation commits a substantial error, thus invalidating it. Therefore, he kept the papacy for the rest of his life, depriving the Freemasonic Bergoglio and all other contenders of succeeding him then. Also, no legitimate conclave has occurred since his death, so the papacy remains sede vacante to this day.
“Wow, that’s quite the claim. What about Pope Benedict’s last years following the 2013 false resignation? He said he wasn’t the pope any more.”
If you observed his retirement behavior, you’d notice further evidence that he really believed the faulty New Theology reasoning of a “sacramental papacy.” He continued to wear white cassocks, as only the pope would do, and offer papal/apostolic blessings. In his mind, he retained “half” of the papacy, its sacramental character, while having relinquished the administrative/governing power. Despite his delusions, this does not correspond with Church law, making everything from his resignation to the entire Bergoglian reign of terror, 100% moot.
Are there other positions on what Benedict did?
Yes, others, like Patrick Coffin, Andrea Conci, and Alexis Bugnolo, challenge the substantial error thesis, believing that Benedict worded his resignation that way to out-maneuver the St. Gallen Mafia villains. They view it as a stealth tactic to keep some control of the papacy, safe from the bad guys somehow; something he could perhaps take back later.
That position has several problems, but two of them are most obvious. First, it didn’t seem to work, since Benedict died, having not really accomplished anything with such a maneuver. Second, given the Miller Dissertation and Ratzinger’s history of Nouvelle Théologie, the substantial error thesis seems like a closer reflection of today’s warped, modernist ecclesiology. It looks a lot more like he out-maneuvered himself rather than the other Church modernists.
Which do you believe is more palatable? Did Benedict erroneously attempt to split the papacy, or was he playing an elaborate game of 4D chess? Which explanation seems more tenable, given the dominant paradigm of modernism and Nouvelle Théologie in the Church?
Maybe Pope Benedict was forced to resign by the St. Gallen Mafia or other malevolent forces. That’s another strong possibility. If we could find a smoking gun to prove it, we would save lots of trouble of having to mull over all this resignation wording. At the moment, I’d say we have a mountain of circumstantial evidence showing that he was forced out by the CIA, Hillary Clinton, and company.
However, lacking the smoking gun, we still possess the viable substantial error thesis. The man clearly thought he could alter his office, perhaps out of senility and advanced age, or . . .
We should remember that the fear element is significant for the 2022er theory as well (recalling the way Canon 188 puts it).
Otherwise, critics could debunk it by saying “Ah, but Pope Benedict has told us several times, after the matter, that he wasn’t coerced into his resignation.” Since that’s true (he has said that), we must consider how his “retirement” resembled little more than a close-custody prison sentence. The stories about him suffering abuse, hidden from public sight, rarely allowed to travel, and always guarded by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, are not well-kept secrets.
Given all that, can any sane and honest person claim that Benedict was a “free man,” making decisions of his own volition? He was clearly scared, delusional, or both.
Again, thankfully, we can rely on the fact that either error or grave fear are enough to violate Canon 188 when it comes to Church resignations. The same would be true if evildoers tried to bribe the pope into resigning (simony). Holy Church, unlike modernists, takes Her offices seriously, including how occupants accept and resign them.
Could Pope Benedict have made a resignation with both error and fear (from extortion) involved? Yes, maybe evildoers forced him to resign, giving him the opportunity to showcase his brilliant Nouvelle Théologie view of the papacy. It’s impossible to know the man’s precise thoughts, but we can see that the resignation, prima facie, had a myriad of issues.
Ratzinger was one of the many Vatican II New Theologians (especially among those periti) known for ambiguous writing, plagued with linguistic and interpretive problems. It looks like this mentality carried over into his confusing resignation with the munus and ministerium fabrication. The good news is that just like with the V2 documents, if you perform a close inspection, you can find the error, and understand how it disqualifies Benedict’s abdication.
What does this have to do with the larger question of the 2nd Vatican Council and its consequences?
Well, we might wonder if there have been other extortions and errors over the years. Were previous “post-conciliar” popes coerced or bamboozled, like Benedict, into participating in modernist errors and activities? Fr. Paul Kramer has alluded to this in his book, The Mystery of Iniquity, where he suggests popes, including JP2, weren’t allowed to include “Russia” in their consecrations.
Think about what else this could have entailed. It’s not inconceivable that modernist villains snuck into the hierarchy, stole Vatican II, allied with the world, held good prelates hostage, and FORCED them to cooperate with the V2 heresy. This would include, possibly, the more complicit clerics like Karol Wojtyla, Josef Ratzinger, etc. I doubt we’ll ever have access to every gruesome detail, but what we already know lends some support to this.
If you’d like a much more comprehensive take on the 2022er position, then I recommend Ann Barnhardt’s presentation on The Bergoglian Antipapacy. She also has a plethora of other materials on her website. This lady will hit you over the head with a sledge-hammer on the topic.
So, that’s a rough-and-dirty explanation of both 1958 and 2022 Sedevacantism.
These are the most compelling ways to explain today’s “antichurch.” The 1958ers COULD be correct, and I take their position seriously, although I’m much more favorable toward the 2022er perspective. That’s my preference, but please investigate and prayerfully discern for yourself (and don’t let the charisma of the various presenters overly sway your assessment).
Let’s look closer at something that inevitably bothers folks about the 1958 Sedevacantist position: NO POPES FOR OVER SIX DECADES.
Admittedly, that leaves a real sinking feeling in one’s stomach, given all that it entails (almost total spiritual deprivation). Some have criticized the 1958er arguments because 65 years is such a long time for God to deprive the Church of a legitimate pope. We may recall, however, that He deprived His chosen people, the Hebrews, of their freedom for over 400 years during the Egyptian captivity.
Perhaps you believe God did not love them when He forced them to endure slavery for so long. Also, are any of us qualified to say when God’s chastisement or withdrawal of grace would reach the level of cruelty? I’ll come back to the duration issue a little more in the next chapter, but for now, let’s check out sedevacantism (both varieties) from a prophetic angle.
1958 Sedevacantism would be more palatable if any of the major apparitions or prophecies from the past two centuries had predicted it.
Its advocates claim Matthew 24 is the prophetic justification for their beliefs. This, however, places them in splendid company . . . with every other doomsday prophet to walk the earth for 2,000 years. EVERYONE references Matthew 24 to explain even the slightest tremor or difficulty that EVER occurs, anywhere in the world.
It would help to do a little better than haphazardly tossing around apocalyptic scripture, as Protestants are wont to do.
Between all of us Catholics, why didn’t Our Lady of Fatima (in 1917) tell the children anything about the vast papal hiatus that would arrive in 41 years? She predicted WWII and other calamities, so why wouldn’t she mention this several-decade loss of the papacy?
Instead, she specifically mentioned that Rome would need to reveal the 3rd Secret, but not until 1960. I can hardly believe she would position this request in such a way, knowing that there would be an antipope at the helm to handle the task. Therefore, if you’re keeping track of all this, the 1958ers cannot reconcile their position with the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima (without disavowing part/all the visions).
Dear reader, which do you believe, the story about a funky conclave in 1958, or Our Lady’s call for her delayed message to be revealed (by competent authorities) in 1960?
Are there other ways to examine the sedevacantist positions (either 1958 or 2022) with prophecy?
The 2022 Sedevacantists have the advantage here because of the presence of certain “two-pope predictions.” The fulfillment of these prophecies may have come with the coexistence of Pope Benedict XVI and Antipope Bergoglio (two popes: one real; one fake).
Once such example comes from Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich:
I saw also the relationship between the two popes … I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city (of Rome). The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness … Then, the vision seemed to extend on every side. Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches close down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took to violent action. But it did not last long.
{Bold Emphasis Mine}
That bold part reminds me of the scamdemic lockdowns and Bergoglio’s vicious Traditiones Cajones. The miseries and bloodshed, though more difficult to verify, could have been all the Antifa/BLM rioting in various countries.
Then there’s this one from St. Francis of Assisi (slightly abridged) . . .
“. . . there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At that time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.” “Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”
{Bold Emphasis Mine)
So, that’s another advantage for the 2022ers over the 1958ers. Prophecy almost always precedes turbulent circumstances, something that holds true throughout biblical history as well. Even the Babylonian Captivity and other periods of mass desolation were predicted by the major prophets (Jeremiah, Ezechiel, et al.).
The word that the Lord spoke to Jeremias the prophet, how Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon should come and strike the land of Egypt. Declare ye to Egypt, and publish it in Magdal, and let it be known in Memphis, and in Taphnis: say ye: Stand up, and prepare thyself: for the sword shall devour all round about thee.
–Jeremiah 46:13-14
We see little prophetic support for the 1958er position, which insists that we’ve endured no less than 65 years (and counting) of pope-less terror. This chastisement just dropped in . . . out of nowhere . . .
2022ers might explain the V2 chaos and manifest heresy as consequences of the infiltration and extortion of the clergy. Examples include . . .
- The Assassination of Pope John Paul I
- The forced and/or erroneous resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
- Heavy coercion against modern popes not to mention “Russia” in the consecrations (Pius XII, JP2, etc.) to the Blessed Virgin
- Yes, I see no reason to believe modernism didn’t affect Pius XII to a certain extent. I also don’t think the Poltergeist of Vatican II waited until the moment John XXIII convened the council to inflict the Church.
- Creation of heretical apostolic constitutions, encyclicals, and a new catechism
- JP2’s blasphemous Assisi meeting
Notice that these are not “Church teachings,” but events that could have happened with the pope held at gunpoint and forced to perform them. That also conforms to the notion that Benedict didn’t act entirely out of free will in regards to his papal resignation. In the case of poor Pope JPI, he may have resisted modernist evil and accepted the palm of martyrdom for his efforts.
In other words, the pope and prelates have been valid (until Bergoglio, when the Freemasons got their man), but were held hostage and forced to do horrific things. Some of it may have been through their own volition; others through threat or force.
Then, there are some other questions we could ask the 1958ers. How do they explain how heresy pervaded not only those orchestrating the council but also virtually every bishop around the world at the time (since they approved the documents)? Weren’t there any more bishops who weren’t in on the freemasonic plot? Were all of their episcopal sees vacant, too?
I’m not 100% convinced the 1958 Sedevacantists have reconciled these issues with their explanations.
Moving on, now, what is the point of agonizing over all these theories and positions?
We cannot afford to hide from the truth, since that’s all that can set us free from misery, confusion, and cognitive dissonance. It prevents people from succumbing to scandal by leaving the Church for obviously erroneous alternatives. Also, I don’t see any reason to believe either the 1958ers or 2022ers are “doomed” if their positions are partially/totally wrong. They both appear to love Catholic tradition, which is the most important element of remaining within the Barque of Peter.
However, since we’re not ecumenists and modernists, we recognize there are ways to doom oneself, which involves yielding to the worsening Bergoglian scandal, and abandoning all semblances of Catholicism. There is, let us remember, no salvation outside the Church, most especially with horrible alternatives like Islam or the Eastern Heterodox.
More to the point, if you refuse to pursue the truth of these matters, what kind of Catholic does that make you? Perhaps it makes you a lazy and indifferent one, who would rather forfeit and thrust your head into the sand.
Before moving on to a fuller critique of 1958 Sedevacantism, I would like to acknowledge some of its other strong points.
The V2 zombies cannot dismiss them as schismatic. The Sedevacantist website, NovusOrdoWatch, correctly explains (in their FAQ section) that 1958 Sedevacantism is an acceptable position, even for Vatican II stalwarts, given the conciliar church’s universalist stance. If, for instance, a Protestant can achieve salvation outside the Church, then there’s no discernible reason that the same would not apply to a 1958 Sedevacantist (or anybody).
If we erroneously assume Holy Church could alter her doctrines, and that adherents of all religions can achieve salvation, then she would have eliminated the concept of binding doctrine altogether. Who cares if a command or teaching is binding if baptism and belief are themselves no longer obligatory? If those who refuse to adhere to doctrine can attain salvation, or if prelates can whimsically change it at a council, then Church mandates lose all significance.
Therefore, all of us, including the 1958ers, would have no reason to fear excommunicating themselves from the means of salvation. Vatican II makes excommunication all but impossible (no wonder Hell would be empty, as Von Balthasar insists). Catholics, of all stripes, can use this solid argumentation point to repel all modernists who would badger them with all that “do you accept Vatican II?” diatribe.
So, then we can be at ease knowing that Vatican II, by its own bizarre logic, makes it perfectly acceptable . . . to reject Vatican II.
Beware the 1958 Sedes Gaslighting Over Invalid Sacraments
Alas, the 1958 Sedes are not beyond using miserable and unhelpful gaslighting tactics. Not all, but many of them enjoy trolling the rest of Catholic civilization with their insistence that the sacraments became invalid with the imposition of the dubious new rites. While I share many of their criticisms of those novelties, the disastrous post-conciliar hierarchy’s administration, and the rest of the “Novus Ordo” culture, here they wander too far.
You’ll also encounter this tactic from members of the SSPX Resistance, something that started with former SSPX prelate, Bishop Richard Williamson, but has degenerated into a more rogue group. Williamson has separated himself from some of its fringe elements, in contrast with a few of his former proteges, who do not recognize the Novus Ordo sacraments.
I should warn against going too far down the rabbit hole with all these groups, given how many there are, and how confusing it can be to keep everything straight. After a while, you’ll think you’re dealing with professional wrestling teams more so than legitimate Church communities.
This, by the way, is what always happens in the absence of a strong papacy. The Church fractures into a thousand fringe movements and factions.
As I’ve alluded to several times, I’m less of a legalist on these matters, and more of a “examine the fruits” observer or research scientist. So, that’s what I intend to do in this section, showing that the sacraments haven’t been AWOL since the 1960s, even amid a catastrophic deterioration of Catholicity.
First, let’s think about what the 1958er position entails for the Church.
If 1958 Sedevacantism is true, then only the sharpest detectives will ever discover the True Church. This contradicts St. Bonaventure’s claim that even an old woman could love God more than a Doctor of the Church. While it is written that “many are called, few are chosen,” this does not mean that the Church is difficult to identify and embrace.
You wouldn’t know this if you listened to the 1958ers.
Then, we could have a longer discussion over the distinction between licitness and validity of both councils and sacraments. Leaving that aside, let us remember Our Lord’s instruction to judge the fruits, including those of the sacramental economy since the Council.
While it’s tempting to say they’ve gone extinct, that would be hyperbole. I agree that the participation in the sacraments has diminished, but this doesn’t mean the Church has been 100% fruitless (even among Novus Ordo modernists). Let’s explore a few reasons I believe so.
Outline of Evidence Against 1958er “Invalid Sacraments”: There are several forms of evidence that should lead us to doubt the sacrament-deprivation position of the 1958ers.
- Post-Conciliar Eucharistic Miracles – These are historically common among doubting or indifferent clergy; something we have plenty of nowadays.
- Post-Conciliar Personal Conversions – Although there has been a crash in Catholicity since the 1960s, it’s difficult to disregard the multitude of Catholic converts and reverts lately. Few of these come about through the “brilliant, persuasive capacity” of the 1958ers, though.
- A Near Infinite Regression Problem – What if we take the Sedevacantist approach back even further? Is 1958 far enough or are those Sedevacantists blind to some other grand conspiracy that ruined the papacy much earlier?
- Other Fruits of the Priesthood – What about other miraculous tasks one can only perform through the sacramental priesthood? This covers quite a lot: exorcisms (requiring a legitimate episcopacy), healings, reading souls, control over nature (tempest processions), and so forth.
Here are further details and description of how these good fruits weaken the 1958ers’ claims.
Post-Conciliar Extraordinary Eucharistic Miracles: God’s glorious gift of the Holy Eucharist is always a miracle, each and every time the priest pronounces the sacred words of consecration. This liturgical action commands God Himself to enter bread and wine: body, blood, soul, and divinity. Under ordinary circumstances, this is a substantial miracle, one we do not see with our eyes, but believe to be true by faith.
On rare occasions, we indeed see the changes (substantially AND accidentally, to use the theological terms), when the Eucharist bleeds or manifests actual heart tissue.
These are quite frequent these days, and whenever they’re tested always possess the same blood type (AB Positive, the universally receivable type), confirmed by both Catholic and non-Catholic scientists. Here, unlike the communist conspiracy and Church-infiltration, the 1958 Sedes expect us to believe this is a deceitful intercontinental conspiracy with no whistleblowers or defectors.
It would be one thing to question the “miracles” in an isolated location (like the Medjugorje Cult). It’s quite another to dismiss all of them, across many corners of the globe, over 60+ years.
Are the miracles merely a trick from the devil?
We better hope not because then there are many other supernatural aspects of our faith that become vulnerable to suspicion. Perhaps the entire Christian narrative could unravel if we succumb to the hyper-skepticism of the 1958ers. If so many alleged Eucharistic miracles are false, I wonder how the 1958 Sedes would defend against the Jews who claim Christ’s life, death, and resurrection were a fabrication as well.
That’s the Jewish opposition to everything we cherish from the New Testament. Yes, it would seem the know-it-all 1958ers have painted Christianity into a corner, exploitable by our enemies, such as Jews, atheists, and communists.
Post-Conciliar Personal Conversions: Do 1958 Sedevacantists believe that every recent Catholic conversion came about from secular “self-help” programs or ordinary virtue building?
I anticipate they would respond by claiming these have never been authentic or complete conversions. Then, what might we expect from the 1958ers, themselves? How many ordinary “Joe Six Packs” have they converted, especially given their allegedly far greater grasp of the Catholic faith; its documents, councils, and papal teachings?
Well, they’re a rather puny bunch if you go by just the numbers. Of course, they’ll always retort by reminding us that true Catholicism has always been a small remnant.
At either rate, today’s new Catholic conversions go well beyond the superficial fanaticism of Medjugorje. Many folks have discovered authentic Catholicism through diocesan liturgies (reverent NO and/or Latin Mass), the SSPX, and Ecclesia Dei societies. This has been enough to grow some parishes from tiny to massive in a matter of 10 to 15 years (or less) since Summorum Pontificum (2007).
NovusOrdoWatch, the best-known 1958er website, does a semi-admirable job addressing the allegation of disunity among their adherents. However, this still doesn’t explain why their societies have remained so small compared to other traditional groups. They lack unity (to put it lightly) AND show little evidence of abundant fruits.
As I survey the disunity and fragmentation of the 1958 Sedevacantist camp, I’m led to wonder what kind of “Noah’s Ark” these folks really purport to be. Perhaps they resemble what it would have been like, aboard the ark, had most of the animals attacked and devoured one another. Then you might imagine the logistics of trying to find spouses for your children if you join these small, isolated societies and eschew all other non-1958er Catholics.
This is all the more reason to scrutinize any religious faction with a mentality of “either you’re part of this tiny club, or you’re doomed.” While the 1958ers won’t outright say it, their teachings reflect an excruciating neo-Jansenist perversion of the “no salvation outside the Church” doctrine.
Persecution: Then there are the fruits of persecution. The servant is not greater than the Master (Jesus Christ), and should expect to suffer reproach from the world (and its wicked antichurch). Yes, it’s a sure sign of predestination that one becomes despised by society.
There’s just one problem: none of the world’s persecutors care enough about the rogue 1958ers to chase after them.
Does the CIA or ACLU have any idea about these folks? Are they part of any “watch list” for domestic terrorists or extremists? Who, shall we ask, has enjoyed greater disdain from secular, freemasonic, and antichurch forces? Is it the 1958ers or the folks you’d find in an SSPX parish?
Do any of the 1958er groups make the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “evil trads” list by any chance?
Although the mainstream SSPX has gotten too cozy with Antipope Bergoglio (major problem), many other traditionalists have flourished within their communities. This is perhaps despite their compromise-happy clergy (including the SSPX superior general). I contend that traditionalists, notably the growing volume of 2022ers, have endured some of the most serious hardships (among Catholics outside of China and violent hellholes).
Tell me, my 1958 Sede friends, has the FBI sent its goons after the CMRI, SSPV, or any of your other institutions? Would the state’s devilish G-men even bother with you?
Most of the 1958ers, God bless them, seem to have followed the “hide in the woods strategy” of Theodore Kaczynski (without all the packaged explosives).
Near-Infinite Regression Problem: Do you get the impression that this “so-and-so was never the pope” business could always regress further and further until you got back to St. Peter?
The 1958ers, from what I can tell, have no problem with Pope Pius XII, a pontificate riddled with administrative issues (albeit no obvious heresy put into practice yet). NovusOrdoWatch, even uses his image as their logo. Yet, here’s a pope known for excessive diplomacy, before and during his pontificate, and far too much lenience against all the encroaching hierarchical modernism. Unless he too was captured and forced into silence (again, another remote possibility, similar to Paul VI), why didn’t he halt the heresy and errors spreading all over the place?
This was also the same pope who had Cardinal Bea (the Nosferatu author) as his friend and confessor. Yes, Pope Pius XII went to confession with one of the worst Vatican II stepmothers (who also ghost wrote some of his encyclicals). Let that be a warning regarding who you consider a hero. Pius XII also wished to introduce novelties such as “dialogue Masses,” thus diminishing the quieter sanctity of various parts of the liturgy.
Then, if you’re critical of changes to the Roman Breviary, it was in 1955 that they eliminated praying Psalm 118 every day. That’s the psalm that priests and religious once had to pray EVERY DAY, affirming their love of God’s commandments. What a fine coincidence, indeed, that practically none of today’s clergy or religious believe we should follow them since that omission.
Of course, if you’d like, we could go MUCH farther back than Pope Pius XII.
What if the Holy See has been vacant since Pope Pius IX? This is at least possible since he was thought to be a liberal early in his life, and the Freemasons claim to have expelled him, according to one Canadian lodge. Could he have kept his membership and been playing both sides of the late-19th century international-political war somehow?
If so, that sounds like something that would vacate the Holy See, not to mention create catastrophic spillover effects, negating Vatican I, obfuscating papal infallibility; creating many other seismic problems. Of course, I suppose that would be music to the ears of the anti-hyperpapalists.
This speculation could continue all the way to absurdity. Perhaps you’re a 67AD Sedevacantist (when St Peter died) or a 30 AD Sedevacantist (“you crazy papists mis-read Matthew 16”)? At some point, this just gets ridiculous. Must we have a special “camp” for every conceivable position?
Other Fruits of The Priesthood: There are lots of other tangible/intangible tasks priests can do to bring the peace of the Lord into a world in desperate need of healing.
This includes blessing items, like water and Rosaries, but goes much further to include miracle healings and solemn exorcisms. Provided the exorcist priest doesn’t waste time with the new rites (as none of them do), modern exorcists still get the job done. In fact, I think the burden of proof falls squarely on the 1958ers to show how Fr. Chad Ripperger and other exorcists are nothing but charlatans. I haven’t seen an effective exposé on this topic, hitherto.
Again, given the Church’s authority structure for this task, only priests have a chance at accomplishing anything here. If folks are still getting results from exorcisms (albeit much slower these days), then something is happening, and merits consideration. I invite the 1958ers to show how it’s all snake oil and parlor tricks.
What else can priests still do?
Have you ever had your town devastated by tornadoes, remain flooded for weeks after a hurricane, or just plain demolished by other natural calamities?
Believe or not, Catholic priests can (and still do) rebuke the winds, like Our Lord did, by performing certain rituals. This comes in very handy when something dangerous looms large on the atmospheric radar. Priests can perform something called a Tempest Procession to help divert that monster hurricane heading your way.
Sure, it’s always hard to prove whenever it works, but I and others have noticed that traditional Catholic communities resist nature’s wrath, even while every neighboring town suffers mightily. It’s either blind luck, “semi-Catholics” know how to control the weather naturally (themselves), or they had a priest who did something supernatural about it.
You would at least need a reliable priest to shepherd those Catholics into privately praying against such ominous storms. For as St. John Vianney reminds us, if you take away the priest, Catholics will worship beasts within 20 years (and accomplish nothing but evil). Thankfully, no traditionalists (to my knowledge) have fallen that far yet.
Never doubt the outstanding power of Holy Orders and don’t listen to the trolls who believe it’s on hiatus.
Beware the Various “Code Crackers”
There are many haughty thinkers who believe they’ve “cracked the code” regarding the religious truths and Church troubles of our times. This is a dangerous snare, which could develop in almost every camp or denomination – 1958 Sedes, Calvinists, Eastern Orthodox, Christian Fundamentalists, etc. It comes from the legalist/lawyerly mentality and contradicts the way Jesus taught us to evaluate the world.
Our Lord commanded us to judge all external circumstances by their fruits. Yet there have been so many theological sleuths who believe to have “cracked the legal code” on what’s wrong with the Church. This is not a new problem, either, as you’ll see these potential examples.
- “Ah, some of you are predestined for Hell, for it says so in Proverbs 16:4.” –Calvinists
- “The pope and the western church are in error. Look! Their Filioque clause violates the Council of Ephesus, condemning the alteration of the Nicene Creed!”
-Eastern Orthodox - “You papists cannot comprehend the Scriptures! Can’t you see how it plainly says that man is saved by faith alone?”
-Lutherans (referencing James 2:24; with a version they corrupted) - “Oh! How can you not tell that the Holy See has been vacant since Pius XII died? It’s obvious based on all the modernism that has transpired since.” -1958ers
- “Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
-Satan cross-examining God in the Desert (Matthew 4:5-6; referencing Psalm 90:12)
So, as you see with the last example, “decoders,” and lawyers earn the delightful company of none other than Satan. He’s the greatest champion of manipulating scripture and twisting men’s minds with what appears to be irrefutable evidence of his wisdom.
These all reek of a Sola Scriptura mentality, where any man may look at various documents and conclude he, guided by his own pride, can decipher the code. It’s one thing for Lutherans to do this since they invented the concept (and all the other “solas”) to escape authority. It’s worse to see so many others do it, believing that so much hinges upon document analysis (scripture, councils, encyclicals, etc,).
That’s why my introduction section states (no less than three times) that the Poltergeist of Vatican II was NOT just about the documents (or the council’s praxis, either). It’s a comprehensive monster, which permeates everything, before, during, and after those seismic years in the mid-1960s.
Also, don’t forget that these examples of alleged genius, among the code crackers, are almost all incompatible with one another. That means only one could be correct (if any of them), assuming there isn’t some other document or code awaiting our attention, which would solve everything somehow. Would you like to spend the rest of your life determining which of these flavors of hubris enjoy a monopoly on the truth?
“Oh, you foolish man! You’ve done ‘document analysis’ in this very book with your pedestrian take on the sacred V2 documents! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!”
Leaving aside how appealing to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, yes, I’ve reviewed the Vatican II documents (or at least a crummy English translation of them).
However, none of it involves decoding cryptic wording or atom-slicing the original Latin text (as others have done). My intention was to demonstrate the prima facie absurdity of the V2 writings, providing the reader more peace of mind by knowing that this rubbish cannot bind one’s conscience. It’s easy enough for anyone to do this, provided one has a basic comprehension of the indefectible Catholic religion. There is no lofty “code cracking” necessary.
You can see the code-cracker fruits for what they are: deformed, puny, isolated, and rancid. If allowed to continue much longer, the Catholic Church will fracture into more than all the Protestant fractions (some 40,000+).
Finally, let’s remember the beautiful simplicity of authentic traditional Catholicism. Our Lord did not burden us with a bunch of subliminal messages, documents, and hidden truths. He is the light, which dispels darkness and complexity, replacing it with a burden that is light and a yoke that is sweet.
FAQs Regarding The Poltergeist of Vatican II
Did the Vatican II documents enact anything into law, in and of themselves?
No, if you want a helpful analogy, then think of the difference between the 1776 Declaration of Independence versus the 1789 U.S. Constitution.
The former announced the intentions of the colonists (declaring independence and starting a new republic). Later, after they scrapped the failed Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution legally established the republic and its laws. The Constitution’s contents (the supreme law of the land) very much reflected the values of the Declaration.
The same holds true for the V2 documents, which paved the way for disastrous implementations like the Novus Ordo Missae and revisions to every sacramental rite. Also, although V2 wasn’t where they “invented” modernism, it was its grand unveiling for the entire world to behold. Afterwards, the modernists would use the Church institutions to revolutionize everything (liturgy, indulgences, suppressions of the minor orders, unprecedented lay participation, etc.).
When did modernism first become a problem in the world and/or the Church?
We don’t have a universally agreed-upon start date, but there are several watershed events that got the engine humming. It typifies everything wrong with the “Enlightenment Era,” beginning in the early 17th century. In fact, modernism is synonymous with that post-Reformation revolt against all things metaphysical (God included). That God-forsaken movement led to volumes of horrible philosophy and ethics, and, of course, Freemasonry (with the first lodges appearing no later than the early 18th century).
The first explosion of modernism had to be the murderous, atheistic 1789 French Revolution, marking the end of Catholic monarchy for the Church’s Eldest Daughter. The revolutionaries held all the same ideas as Congar, Rahner, De Lubac, and company. Even Josef Ratzinger (while a cardinal) thought it was an important turning point, and considered V2 a “counter-syllabus,” finally forcing the Church to the table to negotiate with the world.
However, we should also remember the Freemasonic publication, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (1859), a significant accelerant for the progressive/modernist revolution. That was the Freemason’s tell-all plan for how they would conquer Rome from the inside, finish what the French Revolution started, and permanently destroy Catholicism. The discovery of this document led Pius IX to write much more vociferously on the topic, and then call the 1st Vatican Council.
World War I and the fall of Christendom may have been the final death blow, and the end of the Church’s Constantine era (as Karol Wotyjla put it). Then, the modernists got their victory march in the 1960s after a second brutal world conflict. Today, in 2023, 90% or more of the clergy are reprehensible, faggot, communists, and we await whether Bergoglio will give them the green light to go even gayer.
Why does it seem like you’re “gunning” for the most unfavorable interpretation of the various documents?
This is a fair criticism, and no critique of the council is perfect or unbiased. However, while I’m far from the only opponent of Vatican II, there are legions of favorable apologists who have financial/career incentives to offer a sympathetic portrayal (ALWAYS).
I see no reason not to counter the excessive leniency of the council’s contemporary proponents, at least as a change of pace. After all, can’t today’s “Church of Nice” handle a little criticism?
Why do the council documents reference certain popes (Pius IX & Pius X) so infrequently?
That’s a terrific question. In fact, among the seven major documents, there is scarcely reference to Blessed Pope Pius IX. Not only does Vatican II have few citations of the 1st Vatican Council, it barely mentions some of the most important recent pontiffs. Only Lumen Gentium ever references Pius IX’s encyclicals (three citations).
This is a curious omission given how his papacy was the second-longest of all time, and he had written a whopping 40 encyclicals. Pope St. Pius X only receives a handful of references as well. They made wonderful contributions, yet received almost no consideration in the Vatican II documents. Therefore, I have no choice but to suspect it was because of their anti-modernist stances.
Also, if the council grandmothers wanted to emphasize dialoguing with world governments and host lots of bishops conferences, why wouldn’t they reference Pius IX’s Optime Noscitis? That encyclical gave a terrific example of a pope commending a secular ruler (Catholic Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria).
It also gave the bishops instructions to notify secular authorities before hosting a synod in their countries. Of course, such examples would not bode well for the modernists since Emperor Franz was a true Catholic. They only wish to dialogue with communist rulers, like Fidel Castro, or his son, the ruler of Canada.
What will eventually happen to Vatican II? Has the Church had any other “failed” councils?
Once God allows for legitimate authorities to re-assume administration of the Church (and only He knows how, at this point), those clerics will deal with V2. Almost any sensible Catholic should expect its repeal some day. It’s just a matter of the circumstances.
The Church has indeed had “dud” councils in the past. Some of them just weren’t that memorable or effective. The Fifth Lateran Council, for instance, attempted to assuage certain quarrels occurring between sovereign states and the Church (right before the Protestant Revolt). However, it finished with just a few condemnations and new requirements for book publishing and preaching competency.
Nobody would waste time defending the “Spirit of Lateran 5,” or insisting that all Catholics constantly swear fealty to it.
Perhaps the most momentous thing to occur during Lateran 5 was the Pope’s excommunication of five cardinals who took part in the Council of Pisa. That was the illegitimate council that tried to remedy the Western Schism, but only made it worse by adding yet another antipope to the Avignon Crisis. It’s funny how bad councils, rogue cardinals (collegiality?), and antipapacies always seem to go part and parcel with one another.
Why do you use such vitriolic and uncharitable language (i.e., “poltergeist,” “evil,” and “fag”)?
Because it’s high-time we dismiss the milquetoast terms, including all the euphemisms, and call things as they are. Furthermore, although I doubt he would have used “fag,” per se, Pope St. Pius X, hero of tradition, had plenty of choice words to describe modernists:
“Alas! this organization (referring to ‘Sillonists’) which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.”
–Notre Charge Apostolique (1910)
Therefore, as you can see, His Holiness hardly withheld what he thought of these wretches. Let’s cease pretending that being an observant Catholic means hiding from unpleasant conclusions. There is no disputing the fact there are fags among us, they’re aggressive, and wish to destroy the Church (we must counter them).
Why does this stuff matter? Don’t most Catholics reject Vatican II at this point, anyway?
If survey research is any indicator, then, no, the vast preponderance of Catholics are either ignorant, lukewarm, or even approving of Vatican II. Among those who attend Mass weekly, over 90% hold either a neutral or accepting view of the council’s evil/ambiguous teachings. I don’t know how that breaks down among traditional Catholics (at Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, or TLM parishes), but I suspect there are some who are on the fence about it.
Never forget how easy it is to succumb to peer pressure, too. We’ve all experienced the “You accept Vatican II, don’t you!?” gaslighting. Therefore, if you have a friend who could use some catechesis, encouragement, or red pill on this topic, then please forward this to them.
Conclusion: Yes, There’s Hope!
If you’d had enough of vampires, poltergeists, goblins, Frankensteins, Bugnini, and other scary Vatican creatures, then don’t worry. There is plenty of cause for hope, provided you embrace the authentic Catholic religion.
Ah, speaking of which, have you noticed they don’t call it that anymore (the Catholic religion)? Since the council, that custom has fallen into obscurity. It could be a useful, counter-revolutionary tactic to resume any practice the modernists would have us forget or ignore, including phrases, idioms, and other minor habits. Whatever you do, the goal should be to become the biggest traditional rebel you can.
Of course, you won’t do this by whining or consuming endless volumes of “conservative outrage porn” from the Internet. You have to actually do arduous things (please review the list I created with items like the Rosary, Breviary, etc.). Rather than carry their cross and follow Christ, today’s Catholics would just assume to drop it to the ground, sit on top of it, and crack open a beer. That will not suffice if we expect to emerge from today’s antichurch and participate in God’s ultimate triumph.
Nevertheless, I didn’t write this book, complete with over 100 references, just to scare people into melancholy, despair, or to forfeit the fight. As I mentioned in the section on practical solutions (what we can do as ordinary Catholics), we should focus on devotion to Mary.
St. Louis de Montfort predicted, and I believe accurately, that consecration to Our Lady would be astronomically important for saints upon closer arrival to the end times. We need to be clear on what that means, though.
We might not have to endure the same red martyrdom as the saints from the first three centuries. No, we may not get hanged from our hands, burnt on fire pits, or chased by chariots after having nails hammered into our feet. Neither did the Blessed Virgin, yet she suffered more than all the other saints combined.
What type of suffering would be most suitable for a soul consecrated to Mary?
To answer that question, we must revisit the nature and extent of her suffering at the foot of the Cross at Calvary. While her Son faced the most ignominious death on the Cross, keenly aware of how few would appreciate it, Our Lady compassionated his suffering through almost unfathomable interior turmoil. Her Immaculate Heart, spiritually conjoined with Our Savior’s, acutely endured the full brunt of humanity’s sins, from every period of history.
The sorrow she felt, watching God Incarnate die on the Cross, would have been sufficient to kill every last man who’s ever walked the earth (together, at once). She herself did not endure crucifixion; she had to watch The Creator of the Universe die the most agonizing death.
What would be our equivalent?
In our times, the answer seems clear. Those who lovingly consecrate everything they possess to the Blessed Mother, must also witness the death of something holy. We must watch every gory, sorrowful, and heart-breaking moment of the passion, death, and resurrection of the Holy Catholic Church. By this point, perhaps we’ve already seen Holy Church scourged and condemned to death by today’s globalist Sanhedrin.
To be sure, what remains won’t be enjoyable, but even if Marian consecration is the surest and easiest path to Christ, as we believe, nobody promised it would be painless. Despite today’s almost limitless anguish (from the Vatican II Poltergeist, sodomite clergy, communism, “The Great Reset,” and whatever comes next), there is hope.
It didn’t end in misery for Mary, who would see her Son rise from the dead, reassure His disciples, and ascend into heaven. After that, she continued to display meekness and serenity, guiding them toward the Pentecost, when only then, the disciples received their strength. At long last, following several more years of patient suffering and desolation, Our Lady was brought to heaven, gaining queenship over all God’s creation.
Mary is, par excellence, what it means to sow in tears, then reap in joy.
Of course, along the path of misery (which those consecrated to Mary must trek), there will be sources of consolation. That is, if we know where to find them, without turning to the world for its cheap, fleeting solace.
Never neglect to nourish your soul with daily doses of inspiration through joyful reading/contemplative resources like morning Lauds, St. Alphonsus’s Liguori’s daily meditations, or the daily Benedictus meditations. This is to help preserve your sanity and enliven your spirit because we cannot live on “bad news” alone. The true breakfast of champions, for Catholics, should include some variation of the Gospel, that most mellifluous source of joy and spiritual sustenance.
In the meantime, before you do anything else, to echo Fr. John Zuhlsdorf . . . GO TO CONFESSION!
Otherwise, the Poltergeist of Vatican II, worse than the Boogeyman, will get you.
“That it will be the fault of ignorance, not malice, if I say anything contrary to the doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, may it be held as certain. By God’s goodness I am, and always shall be, faithful to the Church, as I have been in the past. May He be forever blessed and glorified. Amen.”
-St. Teresa of Avila, The Interior Castle
Sources
Vatican II Documents & Related Resources
- Dei Verbum – (18 November 1965)
- Dignitatis Humanae (7 December 1965)
- Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965)
- Gravissimum Educationis (28 October 1965)
- Inter Oecumenici Instruction on Implementing Liturgical Norms
- Lumen Gentium (21 November 1964)
- Nostra Aetate (28 October 1965)
- Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963)
- Tres Abhinc Annos (26 September 1964)
- Unitatis Redintegratio (21 November 1964)
Papal Encyclicals & Other Church Documents
- Code of Canon Law – Title IX – Ecclesiastical Office (Cann. 145 – 196)
- Declaratio (11 February 2013; Pope Benedict XVI)
- Decrees of the First Vatican Council (29 June 1868)
- Dei Filius (24 April 1870; First Vatican Council)
- Divini Redemptoris (19 March 1937; Pope Pius XI)
- Divino Afflante Spiritu (30 September 1943; Pope Pius XII)
- Divinum Officium Rubrics 1960
- Humani Generis (12 August 1950; Pope Pius XII)
- Inter Plurimas Pastoralis Officii Sollicitudines (22 November 1903; Pope Pius X)
- Lamentabili Sane (1907; Pope Pius X)
- Mystici Corporis (29 June 1943; Pope Pius XII)
- Nostis Et Nobiscum (8 December 1849; Pope Pius IX)
- Notre Charge Apostolique (25 August 1910; Pope Pius X)
- Optime Noscitis (5 November 1855; Pope Pius IX)
- Pascendi Dominici Gregis (8 September 1907, Pope Pius X)
- Pastor Aeternus (18 July 1870; First Vatican Council)
- Quadragesimo Anno (15 May 1931; Pope Pius XI)
- Quas Primas (11 December 1925; Pope Pius XI)
- Quibus Quantisque Malis (20 April, 1849; Pope Pius IX)
- The Catechism of Trent: The Sacraments – Extreme Unction
- The Oath Against Modernism (1 September 1910; Pope Pius X)
- The Syllabus of Errors (8 December 1864; Pope Pius IX)
Catholics Aren’t Zombies Articles
- Bergoglio Dossier: Why There is No ‘Pope Francis’
- Catholic Cardinals: Old and New (Holy Versus Disastrous)
- Do You Fear The ‘Doctrine of the Fewness of the Saved’?
- Eastern Orthodox – Manmade Religion for Zombies
- Today’s World is Totally Fake
References to Holy Scripture
- 1 Corinthians 5:11-13
- 1 Corinthians 10:20
- Exodus 12:40
- Exodus 18:22
- Galatians 1:8
- Galatians 2:11
- Genesis 3:23
- Genesis 27:41
- James 2:24
- Jeremiah 46:13-14
- John 20:29
- Mark 4:39
- Matthew 4:5-6
- Matthew 7:16
- Matthew 7:21
- Matthew 11:30
- Matthew 16:3
- Matthew 24:21-24
- Proverbs 13:20
- Proverbs 16:4
- Psalm 1:1
- Psalm 90:12
- Psalm 95:5
- Psalm 118:99
- Psalm 125:5
- Psalm 145:2
- Zacharias 13:7
Other Sources
- 4 Approved Eucharistic Miracles from the 21st Century (Magis Center)
- 12 Anti-Semitic Radical Traditionalist Catholic Groups (Southern Poverty Law Center)
- A Critique of Ethiopia Man (The Kolbe Center)
- A Manifesto for Recovering Our Church (Roman Catholic Man)
- A Masonic Award to Hans Kung (Montfort)
- A Mission That Baptized No One in Fifty-Three Years: The Flawed Evangelization Model of the Pan-Amazonian Synod (Tradition, Faith, and Property)
- Active Participation: ‘Actuosa’ and Subverting the Law of Prayer (Carol Byrne)
- Americanism and Vatican II (Bishop Williamson)
- Annibale – Name Meaning, Origin, Popularity, and Related Names (Name Doctor)
- Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman (Richard Sartino)
- Are Novus Ordo Sacraments Valid? (Fr. Hewko, SSPX Resistance)
- Beatification and Canonizations Since Vatican 2 (SSPX USA District)
- Behind The Headlines – Is the Abrahamic Family House one step away from One World Religion? (Revelation TV)
- Bella Dodd – From Communist to Catholic (Catholicism.org)
- Benedict XVI and the Absurd Substantial Error Thesis (Andrea Conci)
- Benedict’s Warning? (American Conservative)
- Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Prophecy on the Two Popes (V-Catholic.com)
- Brazilian Prelate Gives Communion to Muslim (Tradition in Action)
- Canada PM Justin Trudeau and Son are “Team Barbie,” Twins in Pink (NDTV)
- Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens, Charismatic, Freemason, and Liberal (Ephesians – 511.net)
- Cardinal Siri and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (New Liturgical Movement)
- Cardinal Siri Saying the New Mass (Tradition in Action)
- Christians Killed Every 5 Minutes (Deseret News)
- Church Fathers: City of God, Book VIII (St. Augustine)
- Complexities and Paradoxes in the History of the Church (Voice of the Family)
- Cringey Notes in the Catholic New American Bible (Trent Horn)
- Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder (RJ Rummel)
- Did the Papacy Exist While John Was Alive? (Shameless Popery)
- Disputing Vatican II’s Authority: Gherardini (FSSPX USA District)
- Do American Catholics Reject Vatican II? (CatholicVote)
- Dr. Peter Kwasniewski Converts to BiP Via Socci (Non Veni Pacem)
- Dutch Catechism (Wikipedia)
- Erasmus and the Second Vatican Council (Catholic Life Journal)
- Establishment Clause (Wikipedia)
- Ex-Communist Spy: We Created Liberation Theology (Tradition in Action)
- Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus: How is The Church Necessary for Salvation? (Peter Kwasniewski)
- FAQ About the Catechism (USCCB)
- Fátima: ‘Third Secret’ Controversy Still in Dispute (Portuguese American Journal)
- Fifth Lateran Council; 1512-1517 (Catholic Encyclopedia)
- Francis Praises Heretic Priest Who Was Likely Possessed by Demons (Return to Tradition)
- Frequently Asked Questions (NovusOrdoWatch)
- RE: Glaring Omission from Post-Vatican II Lectionary (Corpus Christi Watershed)
- Henri de Lubac, Contemporary Atheism, and the Persuasiveness of Christian Doctrine (Church Life Journal, University of Notre Dame)
- History of Toleration (Catholic Encyclopedia)
- In the Murky Waters of Vatican II (Atila Guimaraes)
- Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX Asia)
- Just One-third of U.S. Catholics Agree with Their Church that Eucharist is Body, Blood of Christ (Pew Research)
- Karl Rahner’s Secret 22-Year Romance (National Catholic Reporter)
- Kiel Auditorium (The Concert Database)
- Law of Noncontradiction (Wikipedia)
- Liturgical Movement Review (FSSPX.News)
- Manifesto of the Communist Party (Karl Marx; Friedrich Engels)
- Mass in English Spread Like Wildfire (The New Oxford Review)
- Medievalism: A Reply to Cardinal Mercier (George Tyrell)
- Meditations and Readings for Every Day of the Year: Selected from the Writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori (Religious Book Shelf)
- Medjugorje: A Cult Exposed (CRISIS Magazine)
- Miller’s Dissertation: The Key to Unlocking Benedict’s Incomplete Resignation (The Catholic Esquire)
- Moral Virtues (Sensus Traditionis)
- Murder in the 33rd Degree: The Gagnon Investigation into Vatican Freemasonry (Catholic Insight)
- Musical Instruments in Church Services (Catholic Encyclopedia)
- Must-See: Novus Ordo Mass Ends with Guitar Blessing (NovusOrdoWatch)
- My Journey from Ultramontanism to Catholicism (Peter Kwasniewski)
- Organic Society Archives (Tradition in Action)
- Original Vatican II Schemas (Unam Sanctam Catholicam)
- Pachamama is a Demon – Testimony from a Missionary (Joshua Charles)
- Poltergeist – 1982 (IMDB)
- Pope Benedict XVI Praises The Cosmic Liturgy of Teilhard de Chardin (Tradition in Action)
- Pope Francis Calls For ‘One World Government’ To ‘Save Humanity’ (The People’s Voice)
- Pope Pius IX (Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon)
- Remembering the Sacrilege of Assisi, Thirty Years Later (OnePeterFive)
- Roman Martyrology, Complete, in English for Daily Reflection (Boston Catholic Journal)
- Saul Alinsky and “Saint” Pope Paul VI: Genesis of the Conciliar Surrender to the World (The Remnant Newspaper)
- September 10: Procession and Prayer to Avert Tempests (Saint Francis de Sales Catholic Church in Benedict, Maryland)
- Smoke Signals: The White Smoke of Oct. 26, 1958 (NovusOrdoWatch)
- Spontaneous Generation, Scriptural Inerrancy, and the Catholic Case for Theistic Evolution (Kolbe Center)
- St. Francis of Assisi – Prophecy About a Destroyer Pope (Christendom Restoration Society)
- Teilhard de Chardin: The Man and His Meaning (Henri de Lubac)
- Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto (Conservative USA)
- The 1963 Vatican Enthronement to Lucifer: A ‘Windswept House’ Update (The Remnant Newspaper)
- The 45th Anniversary of the Ottaviani Intervention (Rorate Caeli)
- The Bergoglian Antipapacy Archive (Ann Barnhardt)
- The Biblical Commission (Catholic Encyclopedia)
- The Cadaver Synod: When a Pope’s Corpse Was Put on Trial (Atlas Obscura)
- The Cardinal’s Setback (TIME)
- The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization Episode 1 (Thomas Woods)
- ‘The Church is Our Rightful Home’: At Catholic Mass for LGBTQ Community, a Message of Inclusion (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
- The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology (J. Michael Miller)
- The Fourth Secret of Fatima (Antonio Socci)
- The Genesis of the Novus Ordo and “Theological and Spiritual Flaws” of the TLM (CRISIS Magazine)
- The Glory of Mary Surpasses the Glory of All the Other Saints Combined (St. Alphonsus Liguori)
- The History of Borneo’s Headhunters (Culture Trip)
- The Life of Pope Pius IX – Appendix (Today’s Catholic World)
- The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima – October, 13, 2017 (Catholic 365)
- The Mystery of Iniquity (Fr. Paul Kramer)
- The New Evangelization: What’s it all about? (America Magazine)
- The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church (John Vennari)
- The Post-Vatican II Civil War (Catholic Herald)
- The Reform of Holy Week in The Years 1951-1956 (Rorate Caeli)
- The Terrifying Vision That Led Pope Leo XIII to Write the Saint Michael Prayer (uCatholic)
- The Theological Illiteracy of “Dare We Hope”? (CRISIS Magazine)
- The Vatican’s Nativity Scene Is Getting Roasted For Looking Like Something Out Of ‘Star Wars’ (Comic Sands)
- They Think They’ve Won: Part 3 (SSPX District of Asia)
- Third Secret: Why 1960? (Fr. Nicholas Gruner)
- Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing (Catholic Citizens of Illinois)
- Tu Quoque (Wikipedia)
- Ultramontanism / Spirit of Vatican I Archive (Several Authors at OnePeterFive)
- Unpacking Benedict’s Resignation: What if Francis isn’t the Pope After All? (Life Site News)
- Vatican II in Perspective (Juan Valdivieso)
- What Happened at Vatican 2? (John W. O’Malley)
- What is the Novus Ordo Missae? Ep. 7 (SSPX, USA District)
- What We Lost When Lost The Last Gospel (National Catholic Register)
- Why the Council, Vatican II, Can Be Questioned? (Fr. Gregory Hesse)
- Yves Congar Rejects The Idea of Vicar of Christ (Tradition in Action)
Catholics Aren't Zombies! 
Thank you very much indeed for the e-book, Chris. I hope it will have a PDF version.
LikeLike