|Of all the events of the
20th Century that have affected the lives of millions and actually changed the course of
history the Second Vatican Council stands out as one of the most significant. When Pope
John XXIII called the Council there was an immediate response by several important
cardinals who opposed the idea on principle. Until 1963 no Council had ever been called
unless there was an extreme crisis in the Church which demanded a response by the whole
hierarchy. The cardinals who opposed Pope John XXIII's calling of a council claimed that
he was testing the Holy Spirit because there was at that time no crisis in the Church. In
fact the Church seemed healthier than it had ever been. The majority of people were going
to Mass. The priests and bishops were faithful. Modernism seemed to have been crushed by
Pope Pius X. The people were obedient to their pastors and a great sense of stability and
calm had permeated the faith of millions. There was no need for a council. So went their
argument. (Refer to "Ottaviani Intervention") Nonetheless, Pope John XXIII
believed that he had been inspired to call a council. Despite the objections of these good
cardinals, one of whom ran the Holy Office, (the Congregation whose task it was to protect
the faith from error) John XXIII went forward with his decision and he refused to be
swayed. According to the speech he gave at the opening session of the Council his
intention for calling the Council was to end an atmosphere of animosity that seemed to
have existed in the Church for at least the last 450 years. This atmosphere, according to
his way of thinking, seemed to set the Church up as "an embattled citadel"
causing the Church to be opposed to the world in such a way that Pope John XXIII believed
it to be counterproductive. Thus, that by "throwing open the doors and windows of the
Church" it would, according to him, allow the Holy Spirit to bring about a "new
Pentecost". He hoped for a new spring time in the Church where the Church rather than
fleeing the world would come out from behind its walls and "embrace" the world.
For Pope John XXIII the duty of the Church was not to oppose the world but to reach out to
the world and transform it by love. "To teach the truth through love" was his
quest and the inspiration that led him to call the Second Vatican Council.
From this new atmosphere sprang the ecumenical movement which was so highly regarded during the Council. Pope John also made certain compromises in order to make his Council as Ecumenical as possible. He invited both Orthodox and Protestant observers who would have some influence in the Council. So desperate was he to make this Council truly representative of the whole Christian world that in order for the Russian Orthodox Patriarch and Bishops to be able to attend he promised the Soviet government leaders that there would be no explicit condemnation of communism by the Council. This frightened many prelates who saw in this compromise the subversion of the only valid reason for a council to be called in the first place. In other words, if there was a need for a council to be called it was at least for the purpose of officially condemning forever the errors of socialism and atheistic communism. This had already been done by Pope Pius XI but a council called to condemn the errors of the modern world would be the only rational reason for the drastic action of calling a council. However, with his promise to the Soviets, Pope John XXIII had made this impossible. It was quite perplexing and disturbing to those supremely orthodox Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops who understood the ramifications of Pope John's actions. At the same time he came out with beautiful documents that expressed clearing and precisely the truths of the Catholic faith. It may even surprise many of my readers that he wrote an excellent document praising and extolling the perpetual use of Latin in the liturgy and Church documents. In fact, in this letter he reiterates the necessity of a universal language for the Church in order to maintain unity and continuity throughout the Church.
For Pope John XXIII the Second Vatican Council was designed to correct outdated practices in monasteries and convents as well as to give a breath of fresh air to the whole Church. The question is what have been the fruits of this Council? For 35 years we have been living under its effects. Is the Church better off than it was before the Council? Has there been an increase in converts in proportion to world population? Have the Religious Orders grown in numbers? Have vocations to the priesthood increased? Has Mass attendance increased over the last 35 years? The obvious answer to all these questions is a NO! In fact, just the opposite of what was promised at the convening of the Council has taken place. It seems that all the dire predictions made by those wise cardinals and bishops before the Council began have come to pass.
A Pastoral Council?
After the Council was called a commission was set up to set out a structure for the Council by which it could formally address certain issues and make its pronouncements. Every major Church Council that preceded Vatican II was a DOGMATIC COUNCIL. In other words, it was convened to address important challenges to the Faith and to clarify the Church's position in a definitive manner. Therefore, each council not only defined clearly and precisely what the Church has always taught but it pronounces, declares and defines what must be believed by all Christians in order for them to be Christian. For instance in the 2 great councils held before Vatican II the Church defined as dogma certain beliefs that up til then had been held as a matter of Faith but which had been challenged. Thus the Council of Trent defined precisely the revelation of Jesus concerning; justification by faith, the Eucharist, the number of canonical books in the Holy Scriptures, the sacraments in general and specifically, and basically all those beliefs that the Church had held from the Apostles up until the end of the 16th Century. The First Vatican Council defined the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
In each major Council of the Church there were lists of what are called Canons. These are the specific dogmatic statements that have been defined with a sanction against those who refuse to accept the definition. For example one of the canons of the Council of Trent states:
"If anyone denies that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or figure, or virtue; let him be anathema." ("Anathema" means "accursed", as in those who are damned. St. Paul uses this term to describe those who are heretics). The definition of truth and the clarification of an article of the Faith along with the condemnation of the error and those who proclaim the heretical idea has always been the trademark of every legitimate major Council in the Church's history.
When Pope John formed the commission that would set up the Council's agenda they followed the same principles to organize the Council that every other Council had followed. When the Council was ready to begin several northern European bishops, especially from Germany, swayed the Council to throw out the preparatory commission's schema and they replaced it with a much looser and more pliable format. The result was the first "Pastoral" Council. In essence this means that there was no definitive pronouncements of dogma or condemnation of errors with subsequent sanctions. Instead we had a Council that was primarily disciplinary. It was established to create a new way of thinking. Consequently, everything in Church discipline changed. The problem with this is that anyone with any sense of human nature can tell you that the disciplinary matters of any institution are the outward manifestation of the institutions deep convictions. Change the outward signs and symbols and you ultimately change the institution.
2 Important Considerations
Now there are two observations to be made concerning the fact that the Second Vatican Council only changed discipline and, therefore, was only pastoral in nature. First, we must consider whether or not the "movers and shakers" of the Council were aware of the consequences of what they were doing or if they were ignorant of human nature to such a degree that they really didn't understand what they were doing. And secondly, we must finally ask the question that has begged to be answered for many years: Since the restructuring of discipline inspired by the Second Vatican Council has been, for all intents and purposes , a total failure and spiritual disaster should we consider scrapping the whole affair and return to the tried and true disciplines of the past?
A Malicious Conspiracy
Let me address the first concern mentioned above. I believe that given all the evidence that has been and can be gathered from the last 35 years a substantial case can be made to show that the present turmoil in the Church was a deliberately and maliciously enacted strategy bent on the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church as it had developed over the centuries. If one reads the writings of the late archbishop Annibale Bugnini one will discover an obvious conspiracy to literally change the whole structure of the Roman Catholic Church to reflect more of a democracy than a theocracy. The Liturgy being the most visible manifestation of Roman Catholic Faith became the primary object of attack. It was in the changes to the liturgy that this hard core faction of infidels, who had infiltrated into the highest ranks of the Church, began to work their ultimate plan. It is because of this that the foundations of the faith of many souls was destabilized. I believe these men were actually planted within the Church as subversives with an agenda and if you look at the evidence you will find that there is enough to convict a massive group of individuals; cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay people all of whom were and are leaders, pawns or dupes of a conspiracy to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. They used as their launching pad the Second Vatican Council which they subverted to their own ends from the beginning and basically made the revolutionary changes in discipline obsolete before the documents of the Council were even promulgated.
A Failed Experiment
In regards to the second concern mentioned above, it is obvious that the disciplinary changes put forth by the Second Vatican Council have failed miserably to do what they set out to do. By the grace of God and the protection of the Holy Spirit this Council was not dogmatic and therefore did not proclaim any "dogmas " in the name of the Church that would have been contrary to the Catholic Faith. There are statements in the documents of the Council that border on the heretical but these statements are so vague and ambiguous that they can be interpreted in such a way as to fit into orthodoxy. However, the majority of the documents either reiterate the dogmas proclaimed and defined in past councils or they strictly apply to changes in discipline. DISCIPLINE CAN CHANGE!!!! If the disciplinary changes recommended by the Second Vatican Council have failed to produce the intended fruit that good, conservative, orthodox bishops in good faith intended then it is time to cut down the tree because the fruit is rotten. Jesus taught constantly about those trees that bear bad fruit. In Luke 13:6-9 He tells the story about a fig tree that bore no fruit for 3 years. The master of the garden told the gardener to cut it down but the gardener asked for one more season to till the soil, fertilize it and cultivate around it. If the tree did not produce fruit after that he would cut it down for fire wood. God has given Pope John Paul II a season. The tree of Vatican II is rotten. It is time to cut it down and restore to the Church the stability that has been lost.
I am not a reactionary nut nor am I a schismatic. The Second Vatican Council is not a dogmatic Council and the disciplinary changes and ideas that were promulgated in the Council can and should be changed. They have failed to bring about what they have promised and it's time to recognize the failure. Please understand that I am not saying that everything in Vatican II is wrong or damaging to the Church. Many parts of the documents are beautiful and inspiring. I believe that it is our duty to proclaim the truth through love and we should reach out to our separated brethren to give them the One True Faith. But we must not subjugate truth to human affection nor should we compromise the truth for the sake of a false unity. If you read the Second Vatican Council document on the Sacred Liturgy it says nothing about changing the structure or content of the Traditional Latin Mass. In fact, what seemed like major revolutionary changes to the liturgy at the time would seem like minor adjustments compared to what we have in the Mass of Paul VI. If we could only go back to the proposed changes to the liturgy of the Second Vatican Council it would be a million times better than what we have now. The Traditional Latin Mass is the perfection of a liturgical development of over 1700 years. It contains within itself a continual expression of the Roman Catholic Faith handed down from the Apostles. The "invented" Mass of Paul VI is watered down and Protestantized. In fact, a commission containing at least 5 prominent Protestant "theologians" was consulted in the composition of the Mass of Paul VI. Why? Simply, to conform the Church to the Masonic agenda of a new world order and to prepare the way for the Catholic Church to move closer to a one world religion in which its dogmas and doctrines will be compromised, homogenized and diluted to make them "inoffensive" to the majority of the world's population. If you think I am way off base please challenge what I have said. I will be more than happy to answer any challenge with the facts. It is time to reevaluate the results of the Second Vatican Council and not be afraid to recognize that its publicly stated goals have failed miserably. In fact, it has been a total success in regard to the goals of the modernist heretics and infidels who have used it effectively to subvert and destroy the Catholic Faith in the hearts and minds of millions of individuals; individuals who still think they are Catholic when in reality they are only modernist dupes.