(Editor’s note: this is Part I of a three-part essay. You can read Part II here and Part III here.)
In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it… The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions… In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify…The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
Sacrosanctum Concilium (21, 36, 50)
While a measured degree of self-criticism can be a fruitful undertaking, in the passage quoted above, which comes to us from the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, it is difficult to ignore the tacit indictment of the very Tradition the Council was presumably called to uphold. Whatever merits the Council Fathers were willing to concede in the liturgy of their forebears, their stated goals nevertheless betray a marked conviction that prevailing rite of Holy Mass had become somehow unfit to provide for the needs of the faithful. From even a cursory reading of the text, one can readily discern that what we now know as the Tridentine or Traditional Latin Mass was evidently thought to suffer from a number of rather considerable defects:
- Its facility for the transmission of graces was noted to be less certain than it might have been.
- Its so-called mutable elements were said to have suffered from intrusions – useless encumbering repetitions – unsuited and out of harmony with the interior nature of the Mass.
- Its expression of holy things, and the mysteries they signify, were found to be less clear than they might have been.
- Its manifestation of the intrinsic nature and purpose of the Mass was thought to be more obscure than it might have been.
- Its fostering of the devout and active participation of the faithful was considered to be less effective than it might have been.
In other words, the Mass itself – in both its efficacy and expressions – was perceived to be somehow inhibiting the very ends it was meant to achieve. If such an appraisal of the Church’s supreme act of worship sounds a bit strange and self-loathing, what remains stranger still is the fact that the text provides us with little insight into the grounds for these condemnations. Instead, it simply asserts that the Mass needed to change in order to fulfill a threefold purpose; namely, “to adapt more suitably to the needs of our time…to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ…[and] to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.”
What are we to make of this? Even if we give these quintessentially ambiguous statements the most generous reading possible (i.e. that their principal aim is to subdue modernity on route to converting both Protestants and unbelievers), they nevertheless continue to beg a crucial question; that is, why was the Mass of the Ages, which had subdued every epoch and converted every culture it had encountered, suddenly found wanting when measured against the challenges of the modern world? What was so unique about the conflicts of the mid-20th century that the Church – just as the fighting was growing fiercest – felt compelled to lay down her most faithful and effective arms, and instead take up some ill-conceived attempt at battlefield diplomacy?
In the face of how utterly, completely, categorically, and catastrophically wrong the Council Fathers have proven in their optimism about the renewal that would follow the conciliar changes, it is no sufficient accounting to simply cite the naïveté of certain misguided prelates. Were there some who fit that profile? Absolutely. Were there others too weak to resist the changes? Without question. And were there others still who carried the Council far beyond its mandate? It’s undeniable.
But to stop there simply strains credulity beyond breaking. In short, no institution of divine pedigree, and with such ancient and enduring Tradition, errs that badly, that quickly, through mere frailty and false optimism. Would that it were otherwise, but when the warnings – which predicted the consequences in prophetic detail – were pronounced well in advance – there remains an ominous and unpleasant possibility that we cannot overlook.
Imagine for a moment that for some within the Church the original impulse to alter the Mass arose, not from a recognition of its latent deficiencies, but rather from a sober assessment of its strengths; that for some, all the flowery and inflated talk about liturgical aggiornamento was only so much window dressing for some darker revolutionary design. Suppose that the Church’s sleepless adversary – having bitterly recollected some countless centuries of defeat – began to perceive that, however shrewd his plans may be, they would only ever end in failure so long as the Church’s most potent source of power remained uncorrupted and intact. Thus, in addition to redeploying his hordes of fracturing Protestants, fanatical Muslims, sexual libertines, and sneering atheists, suppose the enemy sought, above all else, to compromise the liturgical bulwark that had never previously failed to repel these same heretical assaults.
In other words, suppose the Devil understood (apparently far better than many of those called to oppose him) that so long as the Mass of the Ages remained in place – and thus the Church’s indefectible lifeline to the Most High – whatever attacks his forces might muster, her standard would nevertheless remain high. Conversely, then, suppose he saw that if he could somehow manage to change that standard – and substitute her flag for a foreign banner – he might at last succeed in bringing the Bride of Christ to heel. Catholic scholar John Zmirak offers this perspective from history:
In every revolution, the first thing you change is the flag. Once that has been replaced, in the public mind all bets are off – which is why the Commies and Nazis filled every available space with their Satanic banners. Imagine, for a moment, that a newly elected president replaced the Stars and Stripes with the Confederate battle flag. Or that he replaced our 50 stars with the flag of Mexico. Let’s say he got away with doing this, and wasn’t carried off by the Secret Service to an “undisclosed location.” What would that signify for his administration? If people accepted the change, what else would they be likely to accept?
With respect to the Church, if the last 45 years are any indication, to say nothing of recent papal scandals, it would appear that the answer is just about anything and everything. And why not? If we can effectively change our flag from this to this, and then proceed to permit all manner of nonsense without censure, is there really any mystery regarding whether the Devil has accomplished his coup? But lest I be accused of peddling speculation devoid of any substance, what the remainder of this series of essays will attempt to prove is that there are a number of compelling reasons to conclude that for some within the Church the conciliar changes to her liturgy did indeed have more to do with revolution than renewal.
I also assert that it is possible to launch such a critical analysis from a place of orthodoxy; faithful sons of the Church, in full communion with Rome (as I am), need not fear to tread where we are going. Instead, we must consider objectively the manifold evidence for the following conclusions:
- That there is in fact an organized cabal – expressly acknowledged by popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII – whose stated purpose was and is to infiltrate and destroy the Roman Catholic Church.
- That a member of this cabal, a priest who was identified as such and excommunicated accordingly, went on to predict – some 90 years in advance – that an Ecumenical Council would subvert the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.
- That the exact character of this cabal, and a description of its 20th century assault on the sacraments, was identified by name in an approved apparition of Our Lady over a century before it ever came into being.
- That the timing of the conciliar changes in the Church’s liturgy conforms credibly with Pope Leo XIII’s alleged vision of Satan’s 20th century ascendancy.
- That the historical events which led to these changes effectively invited the destructive influence of the infiltrators.
To this end, with respect to our first two points, it must be noted that these ideas were first developed at length in a short book by John Vennari. Along these same lines, in his biography of Pius IX, the vice-president of the Italian National Research Council, Roberto de Mattei, provides evidence of Gregory XVI’s rising fears regarding the existence a secret revolutionary network arrayed against and within the Church.
On 20 May 1846, sensing that death was approaching and filled with foreboding, Pope Gregory XVI summoned the French historian Jacques Crétineau-Joly to the Quirinale Palace. Crétineau-Joly was already known for his histories of the resistance in the Vendée to the French Revolution, and of the Jesuits. The Pope, who in the 15 years of his difficult reign had shown himself to be an implacable enemy of liberalism and of sects, wanted to confide to the French historian as his ‘last testament’ the task of writing a history of secret societies and their consequences. For this purpose, the Pope gave him a series of exceptional documents, including the Instructions in the correspondences from the Alta Vendita, whose networks constituted the most significant penetration of the forces of the revolution in Europe.
Foremost among these exceptional documents was a text known as the Permanent Instruction on the Alta Vendita, which Crétineau-Joly later incorporated – at the further direction of Pius IX – into his 1859 work entitled, L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution (The Church in the Presence of the Revolution; more on this work and Crétineau-Joly are available here). From there, the Instruction subsequently appeared in an 1885 book by Msgr. George F. Dillon (beginning on page 65), resoundingly endorsed as follows in a preface penned by Pope Leo XIII:
Beloved Son, Health and Apostolic Benediction. The presentation which you have recently made to Us…is your proof of your fidelity… You desired, as is evident by your writings, to describe chiefly those things which, in the last century and in our own, have been done by these perverse combinations of men whom a common hatred of virtue and truth binds together in an impious league against God and His Christ. On which account the very gravity itself of your subject tacitly exhorts Us that whenever any time should be given to Us from Our cares, that time We should willingly devote to the reading of your volume. For the noble zeal which aroused you to write of the atrocious war by which the religion of Christ is assailed, gives Us reason to hope that in the discharge of the ministry of the word you will assiduously labour to cause the faithful deeply to abhor those criminal societies condemned by Us and by Our predecessors, and understanding their most mischievous evil nature, not permit themselves to be ensnared by their fraudulent arts.
Thus, with a threefold papal approbation, the Instruction is not a text that can be dismissively consigned to the realm of conspiracy theory. To the contrary, it is a document that raised the hackles of men not only charged with defending the Faith, but also wise enough to understand when her enemies were on the march.
Concerning the identity of these enemies, Msgr. Dillon explains that they were an elite sect of Italian Freemasonry, which constituted “the supreme government of all the secret societies of the world”. Known as the Alta Vendita, its members comprised an organization with aspirations of worldwide domination. Doctrinally committed to both naturalism and materialism, the Alta Vendita understood explicitly that their advance could only proceed at the expense of their global ideological counterpart; namely, the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. To this end, the Instruction – as first intercepted by Gregory XVI – unequivocally sets forth the marching orders of the Alta Vendita:
Our final end is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution, the destruction forever of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea.
Having thus established its raison d’être, the Instruction quickly moves from broad strokes to detailed strategy. Recognizing that Catholicism has historically “seen the most implacable, the most terrible adversaries, and…often had the malignant pleasure of throwing holy water on the tombs of the most enraged”, the Instruction wisely discourages any overt assault on the Faith. Moreover, even as it acknowledges with envy the unparalleled influence of the papacy, it nevertheless concedes the futility of trying to bring the Roman Pontiff formally into its ranks.
Instead, the Instruction endeavors to undermine both the Church and her papacy by means of patient infiltration and longsuffering interior compromise. Intent on corrupting the youth in particular, the Alta Vendita envision a day when the Church, having become so imbued with the precepts of Freemasonry, will quite unconsciously find herself led by a pope who espouses secular humanism as if it were Sacred Tradition. The authors of the Instruction describe their ambitions thusly:
The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come to the Church… The work we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues… Now then, in order to secure to us a Pope in the manner required, it is necessary to fashion for that Pope a generation worthy of the reign of which we dream. Leave on one side old age and middle life, go to the youth, and, if possible, even to the infancy. Never speak in their presence a word of impiety or impurity. Maxima debetur puero reverentia. Never forget these words of the poet for they will preserve you from licenses which it is absolutely essential to guard against for the good of the cause. In order to reap profit at the home of each family, in order to give yourself the right of asylum at the domestic hearth, you ought to present yourself with all the appearance of a man grave and moral. Once your reputation is established in the colleges…and in the seminaries – once you shall have captivated the confidence of professors and students, act so that those who are engaged in the ecclesiastic state should love to seek your conversation…then little by little you will bring your disciples to the degree of cooking desired. When upon all the points of ecclesiastical state at once, this daily work shall have spread our ideas as light, then you will appreciate the wisdom of the counsel in which we take the initiative… That reputation will open the way for our doctrines to pass to the bosoms of the young clergy, and go even to the depths of convents. In a few years the young clergy will have, by force of events, invaded all the functions. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the…humanitarian principles which we are about to put into circulation… Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depth of the sea… You will bring yourselves as friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner – a Revolution which needs only to be spurred on a little to put the four corners of the world on fire. Let each act of your life tend then to discover the Philosopher’s Stone. The alchemists of the middle ages lost their time and the gold of their dupes in the quest of this dreams. That of the secret societies will be accomplished for the most simple of reasons, because it is based on the passions of man. Let us not be discouraged then by a check, a reverse, or a defeat. Let us prepare our arms in the silence of our lodges, dress our batteries, flatter all passions most evil and most generous, and all lead us to think that our plans will succeed one day above even our most improbable calculations.
No, this is not an excerpt from The Screwtape Letters, though it may well have served as Lewis’s source material. Unfortunately, this is the actual voice of the enemy; and as much as we might wish to dismiss it all as mere fairytale and fiction, there remains, not only that nagging complication of three papal endorsements, but also the manifestly obvious fact that the Church and the world have seemingly lived this Instruction to the letter. From top to bottom the aims of humanism have supplanted the Church’s missionary enterprise, a fact which brings into sharp relief why the Magisterium of today sounds like a consumptive kitten when read alongside the lion she once was. Those who have ears let them hear.
With that said, the careful reader, not entirely bewitched by the preceding machinations, may wonder why this essay, which attempts to identify the Traditional Latin Mass as the target of a diabolical plot, would quote from the text – however nefarious – which says nothing whatsoever about the Church’s liturgy. Simply put: one can hardly imagine such a sea-change in Catholic teaching without a concomitant revolution in Catholic praxis; it’s certainly no great mystery among the enemies of the Church that the two go hand-in-hand.
To this end, while the Instruction does not explicitly finger the liturgy in its designs, those who carried out its orders certainly did. In the next installment of this analysis, I’ll explore the liturgical facet of this agenda more deeply, along with Our Lady’s warning (and Pope Leo’s vision) that just such an infiltration would threaten the Church.
Originally published on April 15, 2015.
Alongside his career in the insurance industry, Brian Miles is an avocational author of fiction, poetry, and the occasional essay. He received a BA in Religious Studies from the University of Colorado and an MA in Divinity from the University of Chicago. He is a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. He lives with his wife Elizabeth in Dallas, Texas.
Most men are learnt the Faith via the Mass and so if one wanted to change the Faith the Real Mass had to be destroyed and it was and it was replaced by the Lil’ Licit Liturgy which embodied the new faith of the revolutionaries.
When men suddenly forbid a sacred rite – what does that tell you abut them? It tells you they want a rupture with the past. Period.
Come on; were we really expected to believe that the Mass was changed to make it acceptable to those who refused to enter into His Church?
Since when has such an idea been the the purpose of any Catholic Mass? Never, that’s when.
There are four ends of the Mass, four PARTS (Petition, Adoration, Reparation, Thanksgiving) and not one of those ends has as its purpose attracting those who are opponents of the Church Jesus established; to be sure, men not then Catholic fell in love with the Church via the Mass and it was well known that the Dies Irae – heard for the first time by a protestant – was alone enough to generate conversions..
The revolutionaries had a different faith and they required a new rite of liturgy to propagandise in support of their revolutionary agenda and if anyone tries to tell IANS that this is the same Church he was born into in 1948 he has about as much of a chance of success doing that as a praying mantis has a chance of hitting a three pointer during an NBA final.
Thank you for this, Mr. Miles. To hold the Faith in its integrity today, and to do good for the Church, necessitates being a Counterrevolutionary. Your piece is a useful device in helping to form such Counterrevolutionaries. God bless your work.
Your assessment of the various motives amongst council-participating bishops was spot on. All to often, traditionally inclined writers attempt to depict cooperative Council Fathers (i.e. the huge majority) as uniformly disposed in their approval of this overhaul. In reality, and as you’ve touched upon, some were too timid to voice reservations, some were scared (compromised by known faults), many were humanistically optimistic to the point of objective failure as bishops, and enough were so positively revolutionary that the whole thing got such devilish momentum to begin with!
Given that OnePeterFive is among the very few platforms for independent, unvarnished Catholic analysis, it would be wonderful to see it expand on such a firm intellectual framework as you’re helping to construct here.
from the article:
“From top to bottom the aims of humanism have supplanted the Church’s missionary enterprise, a fact which brings into sharp relief why the Magisterium of today sounds like a consumptive kitten when read alongside the lion she once was.”
A striking thesis, to be sure, but here’s the fundamental problem: if this analysis is correct, then that which the enemies of the Church wanted is what the shepherds of the Church have legislated and normalized for half a century, with no end in sight. If the changes wrought by the Magisterium are coextensive with changes designed by the enemies of the Church, then the reigning Magisterium is the most prominent enemy of the faith. If the Church’s “missionary enterprise” has been compromised, from pope down to pastor, then the Church has failed in Her mission (i.e. defected).
But of course, as Catholics, we know the Magisterium is the sure guide to adhering to the truth, both in doctrine AND IN WORSHIP. So, despite how irksome or moronic we find it all, unless we reject the authority of the Magisterium in our age, then we are OBLIGED to submit to these changes and developments as the authentic works of the Holy Spirit.
If Humanism has indeed supplanted the Magisterium’s Catholicism, then the acts of that Magisterium could not possibly issue from the true authority of Christ, and must be rejected in whole. Alternatively, if we accept the authority and infallibility of the Magisterium, even since Vatican II, then we must submit to and embrace its obvious directives and reforms with religious assent and filial docility.
So, pick your poison?
No , we are not obliged to accept all of these changes owing to the fact the Council did not establish Canons and Decrees to which we must adhere to or be excommunicated and as to demands we must accept all the pastoral praxis of Vatican Two, that in itself is a novelty insofar as I know and, thus, not binding.
And, Pope Benedict XVI said one could question the council.
In any event, one is in full communion with the Church even if he is hidden in the Caves of Covadonga (FSSP, ICK, Paap Strtonsay etc etc ) and waiting for the war to retake Spain, um, the church.
But, all of the above is just the blather of an autodidact and so IANS is open to correction but, in any event, IANS does accept the Lil’ Licit Liturgy as valid and he is contained to assist at it owing to circumstances and the same goes for the universal jurisdiction of Our Pope but he has not commanded IANS to do anything against the Faith and even IF he implements the change in discipline re Adulterers, it is not a question of whether or not IANS approves of it (he does NOT) IANS is not constrained to distribute Communion to anyone.
In the final analysis, it is only the Hierarchy which has the obligation and authority to correct what is currently wrong and that will eventually occur; it is ineluctable.
In the meantime, we fight on and wait on the Lord.
“Supplanted” was a bit of hyperbole on my part. It probably would have been better to say infiltrated or eroded; and while I maintain that the corruption exists at all levels (from top to bottom), certainly this is not meant to implicate every individual or action.
With respect to picking a poison, I agree that we can trust the Magisterium to preserve doctrine and provide valid sacraments; however, these safeguards do not necessitate that every magisterial initiative, disciplinary change, or pastoral novelty must therefore be accepted and acknowledged as an authentic work of the Holy Spirit.
Leaving aside the obvious (and absurd) examples such as #LifeofWomen or permitting Communion in the hand, this applies even to supremely magisterial acts such as the Second Vatican Council’s document on ecumenism. While it appears that the Magisterium avoided slipping into doctrinal error (albeit by a razor’s edge http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-ecumenism-a-heresy) what remains debatable is the prudential judgment of Unitatis Redintegratio’s approach to our separated brethren versus that of the pre-conciliar Magisterium – especially considering how substantially the Church’s missionary enterprise has floundered under the modern ecumenical movement.
And indeed, with respect to ecumenism, such a debate is not only perfectly consonant with CCC 907, but also seemingly necessary in the face of the religious indifferentism (a clear species of humanism) coming out of the highest levels of the Church today.
For instance: “Should you go and convince someone else that he should become Catholic? No, no, no! Go and encounter him, he is your brother! And this is enough. And go and help him, Jesus or the Holy Spirit will do the rest.”
Mr. Miles, I began writing a reply but then it swelled into a full-length essay. I shall provide a link to it tomorrow.
Hello again, Mr. Miles. I have been discerning where and when to post my reply. I think it would be best to post it on my blog rather than in this thread.
I look forward to it, and thanks for putting so much thought into this. Also, please call me Brian.
In order for one to reject the authority of the Magisterium, one would have to believe its members are not Catholics. The evidence that the popes from John XXIII to the present Francis that none of them are Catholics is overwhelming and anyone with a computer can research this for themselves.
The position is that since the Magisterium prior to the second Vatican Council is and CONTINUES to be the TRUE Magisterium, whatever has been said/done since the conciliar, counter-church showed its hideous face is null and void. It CANNOT touch the true Magisterium. The WAY the perfidious Jews and masons get to the (unthinking) Catholic mind is via the TRICK of false obedience and idolization of the Pope as a man rather than a simple the custodian of the Faith. If he cannot faithfully transmit the doctrine and Tradition that was handed to him he is not a true Pope.
There are a few who think that since the days when the Popes eased and then lifted the ban on usury was actually the beginning of the apostasy.
“…then the reigning Magisterium is the most prominent and persistent enemy of the faith.”
## It is. The Papacy is now anti-Catholic. There is absolutely no reason why the Papacy should be given the benefit of the doubt all the time; St Peter is the only Apostle to have been addressed as “Satan” by Christ, so why is it unthinkable that his successors should do the work of Satan ? Rome has been spared criticism by Cathol.ics for far too long. It is time it was made to face the facts about its blunders these last 50 years. For too long the Popes have criticised the Faithful & been meekly deferred to – it is time the Popes had a dose of their own medicine, because they deserve it.
“In a word, if the Church’s “missionary enterprise” has been compromised,”
## By the Popes, yes.
“from pope down to pastor, then the Church has failed in Her mission (i.e. defected).”
## Non sequitur. The Church survives, even despite the Popes & their errors. If all Catholics but a dozen or so fell away, that dozen would be the Church. The Church’s missionary work has not ended – the SSPX is missionary. Benedict XVI suggested that there might be a “smaller, purer Church” – what he failed to take into account was that it might be small and pure despite the Papacy.
As to “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against [My Church]”:
1. That is spoken of the Church, not of the Papacy.
2. It is not clear whether the Church is assured of final victory after victory in every struggle, or of final victory with the possibility of many defeats as well until then. The seconds seems much more likely, given what has happened during these last 1,980 years. That the Church will at last be victorious, is no proof that the Papacy will.
3. If the Papacy proves faithless, that does not meaan Christ will not provide for His Church. Maybe the humiliation of the Papacy is necessary for the purification of the Church.
4. The Church needs to find some man to be Pope – and that would not be changed even if only the lay Faithful were left. If there were a single priest, he could ordain laymen to the priesthood, and (given the state of emergency hypothesised) ordain them bishops too. The Apostolic Succession is not confined to the clergy, but is present in a state of latency in the Church as a whole.
5. “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” comes from a time when the Popes had not done as they have in the last 50 years. There is no good in being in union with Rome, if the only result is that one is led into error. Union with Rome is intended for the good of the Church – not for its destuction. If the result is destructive, Rome must not be allowed to poison souls with its errors; Satan must not “think men’s thoughts” while seeming to lead men to Christ.
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Notice how the revolutionaries completely changed the Real Mass and which revolution was approved of and then promulgated by he-who-is-to-be-canonised, Pope Blessed Paul Vl, and compare that action with the 1808 refusal by Pope Pius VII to change the words of the Good Friday Prayers re the Perfidious Jews (the liberal/modernists/revolutionaries have been at this a LONG time and they do not take no for an answer; they persists in their perverse plans).
And what was the reason given by Pope Pius VI for his refusing the request to change the words of the prayer?
He said that if he had approved the change, then it would appear the Church had been in error up until then.
Well, in destroying the Roman Rite, the revolutionaries left no doubt that they thought the Catholic Church was in error and that they were the holy enlightened ones who were chosen by The Holy Ghost to set right what had always been wrong.
Of course, this is demented dispensationalism masquerading behind ecclesiastical enthusiasm hidden behind the smoke screen of working out the will of The Holy Ghost in the council and this serious problem was identified by, Melissa J. Wilde, in Vatican II, a sociological analysis of religious change only she called it, “Collective Effervescence” whereas Leo Josef Cardinal Suenens averred: Surely we all have changed considerably…very much so. The action the Holy Spirit was evident. One could almost touch it everywhere” (p13)
So, a sudden and measurable change had come upon the Council Fathers once they arrived in Rome and this was the evident action of the Holy Ghost and not the spirit of the 68ers visited upon the Church?
Not so fast with the claim of the Holy Ghost’s actions as author White (p 18) admits the obvious, that it was not he work of the Holy Ghost but a revolution planned in advance (What we trads call a conspiracy and which was identified as such by the great Dr Mattei).
Author White observes: Though many heralded Lienart’s decision to intervene on that first day of the Council as wan impulsive act that was the work of the Holy Spirit, in actuality it was
just the first and most public part of a larger progressive plan to circumvent the Curia’s domination of the Council. The second, and perhaps even more important, part of the plan was the result of French Leaders’ alliances with key Latin American bishops Manuel Larrain and Helder Camara, both vice presidents of CELAM. Together they decided to create an international group of bishops representing the ECs that would meet regularly to discuss Council procedures and proceedings and strategize about ways they could bring their ideas to fruition.Their group, which is examined in detail in chapter 3, came to be named after the hotel where they met weekly, the Domus Mariae (House of Mary, DM, hereafter) and quickly became a
key part of the progressive organization and ultimate progressive outcome of the Council. (p 19)
Progressive Bishop from Latin America, Domus Mariae, radical change/conspiracy to be implemented by a Synod..
Finally, the Catholic media – at least this sane corner of it – is willing to finally speak the plain truth. To think this all just “happened” due to “the 60’s” and “naivety” and all that is to ignore the blaze orange elephant in the room.
Perhaps the fact this is coming more and more out into the open is a good sign that a Divine clean-up isn’t too far off….??
Don’t get too excited. My estimation is that 90% of the (so-called) Catholic media is actually in the hands of the conciliar, counter-church. They WILL NOT discuss the perfidious Jews. It is absolutely verboten. If you haven’t been there yet, check out revisionist history (dot) org by Michael A. Hoffman. Fantastic information from the ‘horse’s mouth’ so to speak.
Thank you Brian for assembling your analysis. It is eyeopening in it’s detail but hardly surprising in it’s conclusion. Vatican II was a significant and most visible way station for the Church’s leadership path to perdition. Now with Pope Francis……………?
Right now I would like to see a list of strategic actions we can all take make sure there are a few faithful left on earth when Christ comes again. At the present moment it doesn’t look good.
Your link supposing to prove the naivety of Pope St. John XXIII would seem to disprove it. It seems to me.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Great assessment. But one thing is lacking from this article: A solution to the problem. The whole article, if you summarize this long article, it simply states: “Evil has infiltrated the church. The end.”, I hope you added a solution at how to stop this evil infiltration. Thanks.
Did you get through parts II and III? Part III concludes with this:
“Perhaps some day, when the Church regains sufficient clarity, she will have the courage to resume a form of worship that is able to “accompany” and “encounter” a sinful world, not with pastoral obsequeence, but rather a radical call to repentance.”
In short, if compromising the Mass and the sacraments left the Church vulnerable to infection, a large part of the solution is to restore them; this coupled with a bold return to the Church’s traditional teachings on sin, morality, redemption, and the four last things would not only purge the sickness, but would also restore her defenses.
Practically speaking, pray for the pope to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lady requested at Fatima; until this happens I’m afraid we’re just in for more of this long slow defeat.
Excellent Brian. By their fruits you shall know them. The fruits of Vatican II are nearly all clearly evil and, of course, before that Modernism. Vatican II is our present day Tower of Babel where Man seeks to be equal to God or displace Him completely. The Church has largely become incoherent. Just ask yourself: what is Pope Francis talking about, anyway? What about the many extemporaneous changes in the New Mass and misinterpretations of scripture we hear every day delivered in many languages. Who understands any of this? Is there any doubt the devil is leading these changes?
Screwtape (and his cabal) convinced modern Catholics that they were the smartest bunch of believers, ever, and yet incapable of understanding the Latin Mass, the grand old Ritual that transformed men and women into real geniuses, into Saints.
The lie that modern Catholics couldn’t understand the Mass – and therefore it had to change – has to be one of the greatest bits of b#llsh!t ever uttered.
It remains entirely unclear how just as literacy became nearly universal, thus affording one and all the ability to follow the translation printed in EVERY missal, understanding of said missal simultaneously became impossible.
Logic works in strange (but predictable) ways for clerical elites with terminal cases of Mainline Protestant envy.
It always starts with the premise that everything from Constantine (if not even earlier) until Vatican II was a benighted Dark Age for the Church, best forgotten when not actively disparaged.
Not only envy but also a seeming hatred of the thousands and thousands of mystics and saints who achieved union with God through the graces of the Traditional Church. And now, after Vatican II, do we see thousands and thousands of mystics and saints? No. We see prelates in Rome tweeting praises of David Bowie and Prince.
The Schism of 1054 started it all…
Not quite sure I can figure out what you mean by that.
He’s talking about when the Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humberto mutually excommunicated each other and this the Eastern half of the Church fell into schism.
It would be 400+ years before the Union of Brest-litovsk was signed and another 50 years before the Union of Uzhorod.
Oh, I know what happened in 1054. I just wasn’t clear on what connection it had with my observation about Mainline Protestant Envy.
He’s saying that the Orthodox were the first Protestants (which is off by almost 800 years, because Tertullian founded his own denomination in the 2nd-3rd century and Marcion was before him (St. John the Theologian and Beloved Disciple, called Marcion the first born of Satan).
A fine essay, but one quibble: I’m mystified at the implied characterization of Pope Paul VI as being “too weak to resist the changes.” In fact, Paul VI was the author and agent of almost all these changes, or their enthusiastic endorser – especially when it came to the liturgy. The contemporary accounts we now have (see for example Bouyer’s Memoirs, now available in English) should leave us in no doubt of that now.
Get the Malachi Martin audio series Peter in Chains.
On to part 2!
The smoke of satan entering the Church should be obvious to real Catholics at this time, especially with Amoris Laetitia. The immediately laxity following V2 with the modernist (then more hidden) spirit of Vatican II capitalizing on that “freedom” along with the ambiguities in V2 texts, as admitted to by some modernists like Kasper, was a catapult. The attack on the Mass with protestant influence was the next major booster stage. Read the Ottaviani Intervention for a good analysis of the Novus Ordo, which is valid when said properly, but not pastorally good compared to the TLM.
Looking at prophecy and past history throughout the Bible makes it clear to me that God’s wrath, which is nothing but Divine Justice, will soon befall us as that is the only way to wake us up. There are just too few faithful any more. Have you all seen the Pew Research study that most Catholics accept sodomy now? For young people it is 85% or so. Sodom and Gomorrah were only two cities – now the whole earth is that way.
Maybe it can start on Pentecost. We could use a good pole shift.
Yes, I’ve read several books on the infiltration of our holy mother church by Masons and Communists since the beginning of the 19th century
Of course, Our Lady of Fatima, Maria Sanctissima, warns us! Holy Mary does so in other approved apparitions too! Padre Pio approached the Altar of God and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Latin), the awesome Immemorial Mass, as “it” is the Height of Catholicism! When a Catholic delegation from Rome visited him he pleaded with them, “to end this Council!”
Why is it that I hear jesters and jokes at Holy Mass from parishoners & ministers, even at the ambo? Would we be so irrespectful at a criminal’s execution? In many of our Catholic Masses, “Solemn” is absent and in some cases frowned upon.
“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy”. (Our Lady at Fatima, 13th July 1917)
Latin Translation: Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferiori, perduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quae misericordiae tuae maxime indigent.
Our Lady at Fatima, pray for us!
Ad Jesum per Mariam.