Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Was The Vatican II Revolution Real, Or Just a Misinterpretation?

It is often voiced by conservatives disheartened by the changes in the Catholic Church — changes that seem to have accelerated exponentially in recent years — that Vatican II was a good council, but that it was misinterpreted. If these good people were better informed as to what took place at the Council, they would never say any such thing. Vatican II indeed started with good intentions, but it was hijacked in the opening session by rebel bishops because the pope had planned the Council without their advice and against their designs.

We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was part of this scheme to usurp the Vatican Council. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic and personal friend of Pope Paul VI, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, “This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.” (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)

At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. Their objective was to gain control of the conciliar drafting commissions. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a suspected Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Liénart’s action deflected the course of the Council and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

In his February 14, 2013, address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’ etat at Vatican II: “On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: ‘No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.’ Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates.”

The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites how the legal framework of the Council was violated by this act: “This departure from the original plan” came about “by an act breaking the Council’s legal framework” so that “the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen.” (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)

After illicitly blocking the vote, this rebellious “Rhine group” resorted to boorish methods to force-install a number of their own members onto the drafting commissions, so that overnight nearly sixty percent of the commissions were now chaired by “suspect theologians” that previously had been restricted under Pius XII. These would include dissenters like Hans Kung, Schillebeechx, Frings, Danielou, and the pseudo-mystic Karl Rahner, the Council darling, who for the entirety of Vatican II was dating the notorious feminist Luise Rinser who had clamored for abortion and women priests. (Fr. Karl Rahner-Heresy and Amor, John Venari) The enemies of the Faith had captured the key positions of the Council, thus enabling them to draft perfidious documents for the misguiding of the Church, i.e. the 16 documents of Vatican II.

The true conciliar documents were the 72 schemas which John XXIII had approved before the Council. According to Archbishop Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee for checking all the documents, the schemas were worthy and orthodox, and should have been used, but to his great dismay the Council under the direction of these conciliar pirates rejected Pope John’s outline. Consider Lefebvre’s own words:

“From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket…The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

Benedict XVI himself points out how a “virtual council” had risen up to usurp the “real Council” at Vatican II, lamenting how “it created so many disasters.” (Speaking to the clergy of Rome, February 14, 2013) Pope Paul VI likewise stated that the good efforts at Vatican II were hampered by “the devil” who came along “to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council.” (June 29, 1972)

Hence the radical changes of today do not reflect a misinterpretation of Vatican II, but a true interpretation as intended by the liberal architects. The few good parts of the documents penned by the few good people were simply allowed and woven into the documents as religious cover to ensure the elicitation of Pope Paul’s signature, without which the progressivist plan would never succeed. To that end, it was more important to Vatican liberals that the documents appeared orthodox than liberal.

The gist of their plan was to revive the cause of Luther under the pretext of a reform, and to merge the Catholic Church with other world religions. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council, even said: “The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation.”

Consider the vision of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that “the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council” in a move “to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state.”

More than once it has surfaced that Our Lady in her Fatima Third Secret allegedly spoke of “a bad council and a bad Mass.” This was reported by the Fatima Crusader in May 2009 and again by One Peter Five in May 2016. According to both reports, Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told his good friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger in late-summer 2000 that there is still part of the Fatima Secret that has yet to be released, and that the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the future.

A bad council and a bad Mass would certainly tie with Canon Roca’s prediction that the liturgy “will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council.” Among the instructions that accompanied this ecumenical Council was the September 26, 1964, Instruction on the Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. Article 91 reads:

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

How is it that people say Vatican II was misinterpreted, when its call for “celebration facing the people” was implemented as the universal norm shortly after the Council? This change, which was unprecedented in the 2000-year history of the Church, was carefully calculated to bring about a shift of focus where the emphasis is on the community, and not on God.

Inter Oecumenici (the 1964 instruction on implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium, produced by the Sacred Congregation of Rites) also called for the “suppression” of the Leonine Prayers after Mass, i.e. the three Hail Marys, the Salve Regina, and the Prayer to St. Michael (article 48), and the suppression of these prayers indeed came to pass after the Council.

The document Sacrosanctum Concilium called for an overall revision of the Mass, wherein archaic “elements” accumulated through time “are now to be discarded” and “the rites are to be simplified” so that “active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.” (Article 50)

This too came to pass with the implementation of the Novos Ordo Mass, though the new Mass did not enhance any participation in God, but our alienation from God. “Active participation” as God sees it is that we be involved with our religion by reverently attending Mass, going to confession, reading the lives of the saints, and sanctifying our souls in the fear of God, but what the liberals meant by this is that we should be busy-body activists by engaging in the liturgical revolution against the Mass and priesthood.

Some still argue that the Vatican II documents contain no error but are simply ambiguous in their wording, but their argument hangs them, because ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil and is the clearest evidence that the documents are jinxed. God is never ambiguous, but is always clear, direct, and juridical, so distorted documents which ‘speaketh out of two sides of the mouth’ are a dead give-away that God is not the Author thereof.

The documents in fact can be quite unambiguous. For instance, they propose that God “makes use of other religions as a means of salvation” (Unitatis Redintegratio), that it is “desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren” at “ecumenical services for unity” (8), that the liturgy of Holy Mass in 1962 stood in need of “a general restoration” (Concilium 21), that the Church in its liturgical implementation should welcome cultural diversity (37), and that the altar should be re-positioned to permit Mass “facing the people.” The fact is that these and other like aberrations have come to pass in our time in keeping with Vatican II’s proposals, so how is it that people say the Council was “misinterpreted.”

The Vatican II document Nostra Aetate states that “Muslims adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.”(3)

Has that, too, been misinterpreted? Christ, whose divinity the Quran rejects, is the only True God that has spoken to men, so do we misinterpret the Council by alleging it is dignifying an idolatrous religion? No, we do not. The Council fathers apparently forgot the Quranic precept that Christians should be hunted down and slain. (Quran 2:191) Did they overlook the fact that Islam has been battering the Church of the “One God” since the sixth century?

By the way, the notorious ex-priest and gay-marriage advocate Gregory Baum, who was married to an ex-nun while a priest and who for decades was living an active homosexual life, was the one who drafted Nostra Aetate for the Second Vatican Council.

Dr. Michael Higgins, the vice president for Mission and Catholic Identity at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, in a tribute to Baum published in Commonweal in 2011 noted his key role during Vatican II. “The council was the making of Gregory Baum,” he wrote. “He served in various capacities on the commissions charged with preparing documents.… Beginning his work in November 1960, he concluded it with the council’s end in December 1965, an apprenticeship that culminated in his writing the first draft of Nostra Aetate.”

Considering the notably unorthodox human dimension in drafting and approving the conciliar documents, how confident can we be that the council, on the whole, was a work of the Holy Spirit?


A version of this article was originally published at The Remnant. This edition has been modified.

286 thoughts on “Was The Vatican II Revolution Real, Or Just a Misinterpretation?”

  1. “Among the instructions of this ecumenical Council was the September 26, 1964, Constitution on the Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary.”

    Sorry, but this sentence contains two errors.

    (1) Inter oecumenici was not a Constitution, but merely an Instruction.

    (2) Inter oecumenici was not a document of the Council, but was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (led by Cardinal Larraona, its prefect), at the prompting of the Consilium (led by Cardinal Lercaro, its president), and approved by Pope Paul VI. The Council was not involved in any way.

    In fact, the only document on the liturgy approved by the Council, the constitution Sacrosanctum concilium, was promulgated in December 1963. After that date there was no discussion or debate regarding any liturgical matters in the Council at all.

    Following the precedent of the Council of Trent, the Holy See was fully trusted with the implementation of all conciliar documents. One can debate whether the Council Fathers who wrote Sacrosanctum concilium secretly hoped that the Pope would abolish ad orientem worship. But the Council Fathers most certainly did not publicly request this, nor did they suggest it in their Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

    Moreover, had they requested this, Pope Paul VI would have been free to say no. So when Paul VI, on his own authority, mandated freestanding altars, it’s simply illogical to blame this on the Council which had never said such a thing, and had no authority to require the pope to do so anyway.

      • Hello Steve,

        I think, then, that this sentence requires revision or clarification, too: “How is it that people say Vatican II was misinterpreted, when its call for “celebration facing the people” was implemented as the universal norm shortly after the Council?” Because the Council in no text actually called for this. It only appears in Inter Oecumenici.

        I get where Martin is going here. But this particular indictment requires some qualification, if we’re to be fair about it.

        • Inter Oecumenini was an integral part of Vatican II. It was penned during Vatican II for the very purpose of “implementing Vatican II,” and in fact was penned by the same Vatican II participants who wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium, with Bugnini and his assistants supervising the draft. The Congregation of the Rites was only used to push the document through. There were various canons, decrees, and instructions produced by Vatican II that were not part of the 16 documents, so we err in thinking it had to be part of the “16” to part of the Council.

    • Pope Paul VI never mandated the Novus Ordo or freestanding altars, but the architects of Vatican II forced this on the pope against his will. Inter Oecumenici, which is one of the instructions of Vatican II (listed actually as a constitution), proposed this change. It’s not a mandate, but a ruling, and it’s right in the document, so we can’t deny it.

      • Bugnini wasn’t consecrated a bishop until 1972, so he had no vote at the Council. Sacrosanctum concilium was approved by the bishops at Vatican II by a vote of 2147 to 4, and officially approved by Paul VI. Inter oecumenici was put forward by the Consilium and officially approved by Paul VI.

        If you believe that Fr. Bugnini “forced” two thousand bishops (including Archbishop Lefebvre) to vote for Sacrosanctum concilium, “forced” the pope to approve it, and then “forced” the pope to approve Inter oecumenici, I don’t know how to argue that point. But if it’s really that easy for a mere priest and his friends to force the Pope of the Catholic Church to do things “against his will”, I’d like to know how — because I can think of some great ways to use such a power!

        • No, not just Bugnini. There was a whole galaxy of wrong doers at the Council cheering this plan on, the proof being that Bugnini’s draft for the new Mass [Bugnini Schema] was officially adopted as the Constitution for the Sacred Liturgy on December 7, 1962. Between October 13 and December 7, the majority of the Council had caught fire with this sinister plan—a plan that originally began as a spark. Consider the words of Bishop Adrian of Nashville:

          “As the Council developed, some of the original somnolent American bishops, catching fire from their alert European colleagues, became the able engineers of liberal proposals, going beyond the Europeans in ferocious, vituperative attacks on the Roman Curia.”

          To clarify the point about Bugnini, he was not a voter at the Council, but an architect. He supervised the drafting of both Sacrosanctum Concilium and Inter Oecumenici, and it was his group that did everything in their power to deceive Pope Paul into signing the documents. As stated in the article, this is why the documents were deliberately written ambiguously with orthodox cosmetics, so that they could tell Pope Paul, “The documents mean this and that for the advancement of holy tradition,” and then turn around later and implement them according to their original plan.

          By the end of Vatican II, Pope Paul was not in agreement with Sacrosanctum Consilium, even though he “apparently” signed it. He was getting daily from the Council fathers what Trump today is getting from the liberal media, so his will really couldn’t prevail. His true response to all the clamors at Vatican II for a new Mass was the encyclical Mysterium Fidei, issued September 3, 1965, wherein he makes it clear that the formula of the Council of Trent for saying Mass must not be modified.

          “It cannot be tolerated that any individual [bishop] should on his own authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief.” –Pope Paul VI, September 3, 1965

          Accordingly, Pope Paul never mandated the Novos Ordo, nor did he ever forbid priests from continuing in the old Latin Rite. It was the modern bishops that imposed this plan, in keeping with their liberal Vatican II plan.

          • I don’t have time to look up the title now (I am expecting house guests at any minute), but read the document by which Paul VI issued the Novus Ordo Missae. Fr. Zuhlsdorf has a good account if it and even a podcaZt. Paul VI lamented all that was being lost with the abandonment of the Mass of the Ages, but he did it anyway for the sake of chimerical goods such as more “active participation.”

          • it was his group that did everything in their power to deceive Pope Paul into signing the documents.

            You are letting Paul VI off way, way, way too lightly.

            He wanted a radical reform. And he got one.

          • We know that Paul VI could be easily manipulated through blackmail, due to his homosexuality.
            Read the book of Fr Luigi Villa “Paolo Sesto beato ?”

          • Indeed it really seems he was even caught by the police, as archbishop of Milan, one night in a city park with another man.
            Moreover, he personally designed his mother’s tombstone full of masonic symbols. His family was among the wealthiest ones of his hometown Brescia, and famous for their liberalism.

          • Well, even if that is true -and it might be – there is plenty of evidence that Paul VI was genuinely enthusiastic for most of these reforms, and had been even back in the 50s. On the very first day after Inter Oecumenici was issued, he publicly celebrated Mass with all the new options, including versus populum and mostly in Italian.

          • Since when? Pope Paul initially believed in the innocence of his heart that what was being proposed to him at the Council was a true reform, like Trent, but he soon got wind of the fact that the opposite was true, even declaring that “From some fissure, the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God.” He was speaking of Vatican II when he said this, and even doubled up on his point, by saying, “It is as if from some mysterious fissure, no it is not mysterious. From some fissure, the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God.” He was saying that the fissure was no mystery. He was saying that the fissure was Vatican Council II.

            Note too, that after 1965, he never had anything good to say about the Council, but constantly criticized it as he did in 1970, when he said: “In many areas the Council has not so far given us peace but rather stirred up troubles and problems that in no way serve to strengthen the Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

          • Pope Paul initially believed in the innocence of his heart that what was being proposed to him at the Council was a true reform, like Trent…

            How deep does your papalotry need to be in order to write something like this with a straight face?

          • Comes off as Protestant. If it’s true, it should be said. Paul VI was innocent, and the need to blame the wrong person is more a Protestant thing.

            Was Padre Pio also guilty of “papalotry” for praising the beautiful work of Pope Paul? Padre Pio, who had a perfect inside view of Vatican II [which he hated] said that Pope Paul was being sacrificed by his enemies.

            By the way, if I was into “papalotry,” I would never say that Francis is a heretic who is misguiding the universal Church.

          • Comes off as Protestant.

            It comes off as the simple truth.

            He was the author of the revolution. He had the authority. He also had a pack of more radical accomplices.

            Was Padre Pio also guilty of “papalotry” for praising the beautiful work of Pope Paul? Padre Pio, who had a perfect inside view of Vatican II [which he hated] said that Pope Paul was being sacrificed by his enemies.

            I think Padre Pio was not in a position to know all of what was going on – his view could hardly be “perfect.” He also died before the liturgical revolution was complete.

          • Above all the Saints and mystics is the infallible magisterium, to which we can always confidently have recourse, in order to know our thinking and judgement in the concrete are correct.

          • If the Novus Ordo was never mandated by the pope, then this raises several questions, but don’t worry, I won’t ask them all here.

            What guarantees do we have of its safety, i.e, that it is not a danger to the Faith? That it is acceptable worship and therefore fulfils the Sunday obligation? That the rite is sufficient to manifest in the priest (or the “presider) the intention to do what the Church does? Why has every conciliar pope has used it exclusively in public for forty eight years?

          • Sorry, but your quote from Mysterium fidei doesn’t say what you think it does. First, if the pope says that individual bishops are not permitted to alter the liturgy on their own authority, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want the liturgy altered — that means that he wants uniformity. That’s why when the changes came they were mandated for the whole Latin church at once.

            Second, the Council of Trent did not create the Roman Rite, which was much older than that council. So “the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief” does not refer to the text of the Roman Rite.

          • You miss the whole point. He was saying that the formula from Trent must remain with no modification. He, above all, is asserting this, and he personally did nothing to design a new Mass. Not his work.

          • He approved the Mass. No one forced him.

            He stamped out the ability to celebrate the old Mass, even to the point of suspending Archbp Lefebvre a divinis over it.

            He was pope for eight years after he promulgated the misssl. He made no effort to modify or revoke it.

            This is on Papa Montini.

        • According to the autobiography of Fr. Louis Bouyer, Bugnini worked his subterfuge by going back and forth between the bishops of the Council and Pope Paul VI telling each that what He, Bugnini wanted was what the opposite party wanted. IOW, he would tell the Pope “This is what the Fathers want.” And to the Fathers, “This is what the Holy Father wants.”

          Fr. Boyer never addressed the obvious question, which is, why didn’t the Pope simply go to the Fathers and ask them what they wanted regarding a specific issue. Or why Fr. Boyer himself didn’t get the matter straightened out.

          The assumption the two thousand bishops thought they were doing the will of the Pope without actually hearing directly from him seems impossible, but by that time Satan had the run of the place, as he has today.

          • This account is garbled in an important way. Bugnini was shuttling between the Pope and the experts’ panel of the Consilium, not the Fathers of the Council. The Consilium was implementing the Counciliar document Sacrosanctum Concilium and Fr. Bouyer was on its experts’ panel. This was after the Council and Fr. Bouyer gives an account if it in his Memoirs. He says Pope Paul VI asked him why the experts made certain changes that the Pope didn’t like and Fr. Bouyer said it was because Bugnini said that Paul VI wanted them. The Pope exclaimed, “But he told me the experts wanted them!”

          • Margaret, we know that Pius XII dismissed Montini after a very, very serious scandal in the Secretariate of State due to his connections with Soviet Union. He then refused to make him a cardinal so that to prevent making him papabile.
            Then what do you know happened? John XXIII made him a cardinal almost immediately after he was elected, though he certainly knew why he had been fired.
            And here is how Montini became Pope, the worst one we got, put apart Francis.

          • Pius XII never dismissed Montini for scandal. That’s only what the sedevacantists say because they are stuck on their Cardinal Siri theory. Pius XII actually rewarded Montini by making him Archbishop of Milan, even calling him “God’s gift to Milan.”

          • Pius XII actually rewarded Montini by making him Archbishop of Milan, even calling him “God’s gift to Milan.”

            That is true. And it is a black mark on Pius XII’s record. (But hardly the only one.)

            The only reason he did not make him a cardinal is because he did not hold any consistories after he appointed Montini to Milan.

          • This is highly subjective on your part. Now the saintly Pius XII has a black mark on his reputation because he didn’t agree with your grudge against Paul VI? And was St. Padre Pio also crazy because he praised Pope Paul for his excellent work and submitted himself to his authority, even referring to him as Supreme Pastor of all Christians?

          • Pius XII has black marks on his record because (start counting): 1) wrecking Holy Week with a radical reworking of rites that have little to no foundation in the tradition and which weaken its doctrinal coherence; 2) obliterating all but three octaves from the universal calendar, even ones of ancient standing; 3) reversing the ancient dictum of Lex orandi, lex credendi and claiming an unprecedented warrant of papal power over the liturgy in Mediator Dei; 4) appointing enormous numbers of modernists as bishops, including (yes) Giovanni Montini; 5) the Bea Psalter; 6) removing enforcement teeth from Humane Generis, despite the pleas of his Holy Office; 7) approving and encouraging evening and vernacular Masses; 7) ratcheting up the papal cult of personality with heavy use of modern media… Against that, we have mostly just his admittedly courageous efforts ad extra (his efforts to save Jews and others from the Holocaust, and his unflinching opposition to Soviet communism). It is impossible to imagine Vatican II without Pius XII – regardless of whether he would have approved every passage in its documents.

            It’s not about “better than thou.” He’s being measured not against poor little me, but against the Church’s tradition.

        • Bugnini didn’t force any votes, but was main force in promoting the documents, especially the Constitution on the Scared Liturgy, which was his composition. Yes, we all know that Bugnini wasn’t even a participant at the Council until January 1964, being that John XXIII had canned him from duty in March 1962, but he was still working actively behind the scene through his minions.

      • We don’t know the will of another. All we know is what happened in fact. Paul VI approved everything in fact. Nothing could move forward without his approval.

        If you have evidence that his hand was forced, then this information must be public, and if it was, then all the changes would be abolished. You should provide a link to prove that he acted against his own will.

        Paul VI publicly celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae – the synthetic, protestaniised rite which he approved from beginning to end – from 1969 to 1978.

        • He actually did not approve of it, no more than Benedict XVI approved of his being forced out of office in February 2013. Yes, they could have fought a little harder, but they were persecuted and forced, though at the time of the conciliar document signing, it was a matter of Paul VI being “tricked.” Remember, this is why they made the documents look somewhat orthodox, to steal his signature. But as the implementation process proceeded from 1965-69, Pope Paul put his foot down much more and rejected many of their proposals. He was fighting a hopeless battle. Padre Pio said Pope Paul was “sacrificed” by these reformers, but especially, St. Padre Pio praised Pope Paul in 1968, calling his the “Supreme Teacher of all Christians” and thanking him for his beautiful work in preserving family values. St. Pio certainly knew more than we about the true interior purity of Pope Paul’s soul, so we should try to reflect more this charitable and objective view and not be so easily swayed by detraction.

          • So, the Novus Ordo could be completely invalid, because of a defect of intention and because they messed around with the Form? It could be a danger to the Faith, as well as being an unacceptable sacrifice to God? It says that the laity offers a Victimless sacrifice of bread and wine, with no intention to remit sins. Just like Cain’s offering.

            Is this a fair enough opinion to licitly hold, since the Novus Ordo did not in fact come to us from Holy Mother Church?

            What about Paul VI’s new rites of holy orders? Did they come from the Church? Or did they come from elsewhere, and vulnerable to the same serious doubts as the Novus Ordo?

            Do you realise you this is the can of worms you are opening here?

      • Sorry, the Novus Ordo was engineered by Bugnini et al with the complete cooperation of Paul VI.
        Read the comments of Fr Louis Bouyer on this issue: Bouyer worked with Bugnini in the liturgical reform and left once he knew that none of his remarks was heeded
        Paul VI had the opportunity not to enforce the NO once Bugnini’s belonging to the freemasonry was publicly exposed.
        He didn’t.

      • I think Paul VI requires far more blame for these aspects of his missal than do the Council Fathers (even if most of them came to accept it, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, in the years that followed). It was done on his authority, which he freely gave. And there is, in fact, ample evidence that he favored celebration versus populum. He began celebrating the Mass in this way as early as 1965, and spoke favorably about it. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to celebrate Mass this way.

        • Pope Paul never celebrated a versus populum Mass in 1965, nor did he compose any of the New Mass, nor did he favor such a thing. He rather said that the formula of the Council of Trent must continue with no modification. (Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965)

          The need to bash Pope Paul is rooted in a need to have a scapegoat, and the enemy knows this. The fact is that Pope Paul VI was not the author of the V2 liturgical revolution, no more than Marie Antoinette was the author of the French Revolution. In both cases the Freemasons generated the revolt, and in both cases the enemy laid low and shifted the blame onto their chosen scapegoats, Marie Antoinette and Paul VI, so that dissatisfied and grumpy people could be instrumental in their plan of smearing the innocent.

          Sedevacantists are notorious for taking the Masonic lure, bait, line, and sinker, while deceiving themselves into thinking they are “traditional.” Sedevacantism is a tool of Freemasonry, just as Fr. Luigi Villa was a tool of Freemasonry, though perhaps unknowingly. Beware of detraction.

          Sedevacantism is based on the crackpot theory that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII at the 1958 conclave, and that Cardinal Roncalli stole the election away from him. The irony is that Siri didn’t believe this. The facts put the Siri theory to shame. For instance, Siri referred to Pope John XXIII as “Holy Father,” and he participated in the conclaves of 1963 and 1978 as a candidate, which more than proves that he did not consider himself to be “Gregory XVII.”

          People blame Pope Paul VI for destroying the Mass, when it in fact was Pope Paul who saved the Mass from going completely Protestant. In 1967-69,
          there were plans in the works to completely gut the Mass of the Consecration so that it would be just a Protestant “prayer service,” and they [V2 architects] were expecting Pope Paul to sign for this in April 1969, which he refused to do. So what he did was to first reject certain innovations, and he composed the Eucharistic prayer no. 1 to help bring the Mass back up to code before he would sign for it. So whereas he is blamed for destroying the Mass, he was actually the one who saved the Mass so that we could at least have a valid Mass to attend.

          • What books or articles have you read on this subject? Could you please refer? There are some basic and foundational errors in your post. I’m wondering where you’re getting your material.

          • I can’t figure out what his point is. Why he’s trying so desperately to absolve Paul/Montini from all blame—when as pope, Montini was supreme legislator and under no obligation to implement any mandates from either Sacrosanctum or Bugnini unless he wanted to—is beyond me. Furthermore, if he truly didn’t want any reform but felt “forced”, surely Montini could have abrogated the Novus Ordo after seeing how horrifically it was implemented, but he didn’t. It’s like this poster thinks Montini just sat about twiddling his thumbs from the time the Novus Ordo was issued until his death, when, in fact, he did nothing of the sort (e.g., as Richard Malcolm points out, he suspended Lefebvre a divinis, for starters).

            If we’re going to work through the crisis, we need to be honest and acknowledge reality, not try to rewrite the historical record to absolve popes from the consequences of their own actions.

          • Excellent. Well said. My thoughts, and those of many others entirely. It might be an Opus Dei spin or something.

          • Why he’s trying so desperately to absolve Paul/Montini from all blame?…

            I’d guess some extreme form of ultramontanism – or too many scars from debates with sedes – but perhaps he’ll clarify his motivation.

          • The Pope, whoever he may be, is supreme legislator of the Church. Whatever the Council may have desired (and that is debatable), whatever Bugnini and co. may have been telling him, the final decision was Paul VI/Montinti’s. If he really, as you contend, believed many of the “reforms” were ill-conceived and harmful, he could have simply said “no” and retained the classical rite.

            But he didn’t, now, did he?

          • Pope Paul in the photo above is not facing the people, the people are behind him. If you click on the photo you’ll get a better picture.

            Pope Paul did say no to the changes, but they didn’t listen, so he finally gave in somewhat, only to regret it later. But the point is that he did not initiate, draft, or desire any changes to the Mass. This is precisely why he issued Mysterium Fidei. It was in rebuttal to all the clamor at the Council for a new Mass. He may have been the supreme authority of the Church, but he could not execute that authority without a loyal following. Consider his words in the encyclical:

            “The Church, therefore, with the long labor of centuries and the help from the Holy Ghost has established a rule of language [Tridentine Mass text], confirming it with the authority of the Councils. This rule which has often been the watchword and banner of orthodox Faith must be religiously preserved… Let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times and therefore that other formulas be rashly substituted for them? In the same way, it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief… These formulas are adapted to all men of all times and all places.”

            There is a saying about Trump. They say, “If the President walked on water, the media would accuse him of not knowing how to swim.”

            This applies to Pope Paul. It doesn’t matter what good he did, or what praise he received from one of the greatest saints of all time, Padre Pio (who knew more about sacred tradition than all of us put together), he is still the “culprit” who spearheaded the new changes. The fact is that it was the plan of the Freemasons to heap all the blame on Pope Paul, which is why weak Catholics do this. It’s a temptation they give into.

          • The congregation is not behind Paul/Montini. That’s the sanctuary behind him; that’s why the clergy are in choir dress. And that’s the altar rail behind Paul/Montini on the right end of the photo; you can also see the steps leading to the high altar on the left side of the photo.

            And your quote represents the inherent bipolarity of the Paul VI/Montini pontificate. He would say one thing, then do another, while wringing his hands and complaining about how “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church”. If he supposedly was so intent on keeping the “Tridentine formula”, why did he change the words of consecration, for example?

            You’re grasping at straws here.

          • The altar rail indeed is behind Pope Paul, as you say, and the people are behind the railings, not “in front” of the pope. These people are not servers in the sanctuary; the servers are along side the pope on the altar. Bear in mind, too, that in rare cases some churches in previous centuries had the altar somewhat freestanding, as in St. Peter’s Basilica, so that regardless of which way the pope is facing, there are people in front of him and to his side. However, let’s exit this one, as we’re “straining gnats” in Pharisaic fashion.

            Your passion to drive the dagger into Pope Paul is not grounded in charity, and rings of sedevacantism and the fabricated “Siri” theory. The pope never changed the words of Consecration, but this was done by his foes whom he had been battling from the time of the Council. He did give in somewhat, grant you that, however, the essential words of Consecration remain in tact with no change: “This is My Body-This is My Blood.” The pope made sure that wasn’t deleted as they were planning to do.

            For this reason, the Mass today remains valid. Not licit or proper, but valid. In the legal world, “valid” is synonymous with “licit,” but this does not apply in religion. In the Faith, valid simply means that the Holy Sacrifice is reenacted during the Consecration, not that it is done right. The only time the Mass or any sacrament becomes invalid is when the essentials have been pulled.

          • March 7, 1965: Paul VI/Montini says Mass in an Italian parish church, versus populum, with the vernacular employed following the norms of Inter oecumeni, which he himself signed off on the previous September.

            Look at the photo below. He’s obviously facing the people (as he’s using a freestanding table altar, rather than the fixed high altar at the rear of the sanctuary).


          • 1. Pope Paul never celebrated a versus populum Mass in 1965, nor did he compose any of the New Mass, nor did he favor such a thing. He rather said that the formula of the Council of Trent must continue with no modification. (Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965)

            Actually, he *did* celebrate Mass in the vernacular, versus populum before the Council was even concluded.

            The first such Mass, photographed here, on March 7, 1965:

            It was on the first Sunday of Lent in 1965, at the Parrocchia di Ognissanti, Via Appia Nuova, 244 in Rome. The church has a plaque up to commemorate the event. (On March 7, 2015, Pope Francis commemorated the event with a special mass in the same church.) Paul Vi from the point forward regularly celebrated Mass in this way. At the Mass homily he expressed great enthusiasm for it:

            The now new way of praying, of celebrating Holy Mass is extraordinary. The new form of the liturgy is inaugurated today in all the parishes and churches in the world, for all masses followed by the people. It is a great event, which will have to be recalled as the beginning of a thriving spiritual life, as a new effort in corresponding at the great dialogue between God and man.

            He was even more effusive in his Angelus address of the same day.

            2. The need to bash Pope Paul is rooted in a need to have a scapegoat, and the enemy knows this. The fact is that Pope Paul VI was not the author of the V2 liturgical revolution, no more than Marie Antoinette was the author of the French Revolution.

            A scapegoat is a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency. But Paul VI *is* the proximate, human architect of the modern Roman Rite, which he formally promulgated in 1969; as he was that of the intermediate changes put in place from 1964-1967. He was the Pope. The authority to do these things was his and his alone. And it cannot come as a surprise, since Montini had been close to the Liturgical Movement leaders in the 50’s, and was known to favor major reforms in the liturgy.

            Was Paul VI manipulated to some degree by Bugnini (the man he personally rehabilitated after John XXIII had dismissed him)? Were Bugnini and other Consilium members keen on even more radical changes (such as elimination of the Roman Canon) than Papa Montini, changes he rejected? Sure. But without question, Paul VI was plenty radical enough. And every moment of his interaction with Archbishop Lefebvre – and the legal penalties he levied against him – makes clear that he really did intend the complete and permanent replacement of the traditional Roman Rite with the Novus Ordo, regardless of whether he followed proper canonical form in doing so or not.

            I am not a sedevacantist (a position I consider untenable).Paul VI was truly the Pope. He was validly elected. His authority to do so many of the things he did cannot be disputed. He was also, quite arguably, the worst Pope the Church has ever had. But he was still the Pope.

          • It all comes down to opinion. The fact that such a thing needs to be debated presuposes some very serious problems regarding Paul VI. I personally don’t see how he could have been the Pope, at least by the time he approved all these destructive changes and imposed a new religion upon the faithful.

            I don’t see how a Catholic could either impose or approve such things. It becomes more clear with 50 years of hindsight, than it would have been at the time, so there’s some leeway here. Maybe he was at the beginning, and lost the office at some point, or was never eligible to be elected by having already been a non-Catholic at the conclave. It’s a great mystery how any of this happened. I’m not advocating this opinion, or recommending it to anyone else.

            But from that platform, and only from that platform, I can say to him, “Take your reforms and your destructive changes, and cram them as tightly as you can up your scrawny bum. I’m having nothing whatsoever to do with them.”

            Whatever he was, my practice of the Faith at the local SSPX chapel has nothing whatsoever to do with the changes he introduced, including the new Mass of 1969 and the new rite of Orders of 1968.

          • I don’t see how a Catholic could either impose or approve such things.

            It *is* hard to understand. There is no precedent for what he did to the Roman Rite.

            Yet the difficulty with the sedevacantist thesis is that it creates even more problems than it solves. I understand the temptation. It just leaves me in even greater difficulty, a difficulty which might send me across the Bosporus if I really accepted its premises (and that is a solution which has its own problems, of course). A Church without any visible hierarchy or Magisterium (a few bishops not acting as ordinary really don’t count for either) for multiple generations leaves grave questions about the Church’s truth claims, let alone how the crisis could be resolved through any known means.

            But like you, all I can do is stick to the traditional Roman Rite for my resort to the sacraments, and pray God sorts it out in due course faithfully to His promises. My sense is that Paul VI showed just how far a pontiff could go without losing office, and that was farther than nearly anyone could imagine possible. I do hope that somewhere down the road the Church will formally define (among other things) the limits of the authority of a pope over the liturgy.

          • You are right. This is above our competence to solve. At the end of the day, we just “hold fast to tradition” and wait with patience, while encouraging others to abandon the destructive novelties and hold to tradition as well.

            If someone in the hierarchy tells me I can’t go to Mass or receive Sacraments from Priests who have an unbroken lineage of tradtiional Orders, such as the Society, I ignore it. that person has overstepped his boundary.

          • Comes off as Protestant. He [Pope Paul] was innocent and didn’t draft one word of the new Mass, with the exception of Eucharistic Prayer #1.

            For receiving the sacraments, there is no need to “resort” to the old rite. The new Rite, mutilated as it is, is valid, and you certainly can’t deny this. Our “holding fast to tradition” must be done within our parish church framework. If we want to win the battle, we have to stay within the arena. Running away with our tail between our legs is not a form of tradition, and is a slap in the face to Christ. Here he is being profaned in his own church by his own priests, and we “flee the cross” under the guise of “tradition.” The most traditional thing you can do is to defend Christ in his house and not just let the enemy take over. There is nothing “staunch” about running away from our parish, nor is there anything just about calling our flight holy. The push for the Latin Mass should be done in our parish church framework, or at least under the jurisdiction of the pope.

          • Paul Vi didn’t have to draft the missal. He approved it – freely, willingly, and even (on all evidence) happily.

            I actually help organize and attend a diocesan TLM. I have no choice but to do so, because my ordinary has expressly refused to erect any personal parishes or allow in any Ecclesia Dei societies of priests.

            I’ve never said the Pauline missal is invalid. I just avoid attending it at all costs.

    • Inter Oecumenici is a document of the Council, though not one of the 16 documents. It was written by the same participants at Vatican II who wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium, namely Msgr. Bugnini and his Consilium, and done so for the purpose of implementing Vatican II. Unfortunately, they did it correctly according to plan.

      • The Consilium actually didn’t come into existence until January 25, 1964, which was about two months after the final promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. While Bugnini and other future members of the Consilium were influential in the drafting of SC, we cannot say that they were the primary authors, in the way we can say they were the authors of the Pauline missal.

        Had the prescriptions of IC been put to a vote in 1963, many of them would not have gotten a majority vote, no matter how machinations of the liberals were put in train. They had to use papal fiat to get them through. And they did.

  2. Approved stigmatist and mystic Marie-Julie Jahenny foretold the Mass would be changed, and words added that would be ‘odious’ to Our Lord. She also predicted the removal of the Leonine Prayes after Mass, and that things would get far, far worse. The Church as we once knew it would disappear for a time.

    Our Lord said those bishops who forced the changes, they WOULD NOT BE FORGIVEN! There were also dire warnings for apostate priests. Corrupt priests and clergy would give the final ‘sword thrust’ the Church. The only way the Church would be cleansed would be through martyrdom and much bloodshed. Only then would the restoration occur. Her warnings are so important in these times:

    • The late Cardinal Liénart, archbishop of Lille (France) who was one of the main actors who “derailed” the Council from its beginning confessed openly on his deathbed that he had been a freemason since a very long time.
      He added these terrible words:
      “Humanly speaking, the Chuch is lost !”

        • In my opinion he repented since he asked his confessor to reveal that he was a .:FM
          “Humanly speaking” in his opinion meant that he knew the Church never would be lost because She is divine, not humane.

  3. Seems there’s an error in the article. Article 91 of SC states:

    91. So that it may really be possible in practice to observe the course of the hours proposed in Art. 89, the psalms are no longer to be distributed throughout one week, but through some longer period of time.
    The work of revising the psalter, already happily begun, is to be finished as soon as possible, and is to take into account the style of Christian Latin, the liturgical use of psalms, also when sung, and the entire tradition of the Latin Church.

    Catholic Church, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011).

    • It’s supposed to say “Inter oecumeni” instead of “Sacrosanctum concilium”. Article 91 of Inter oecumeni (which was released in September 1964) does say that altars should be freestanding. Sacrosanctum was promulgated in December 1963 and says nothing about altars being modified to be freestanding.

      • Sacrosanctum Concilium does not say Altars should be freestanding, it does not mention that. The closest it comes to saying anything about Altars in that manner is in Article #128:

        “Along with the revision of the liturgical books, as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship. These laws refer especially to the worthy and well planned construction of sacred buildings, the shape and construction of altars, the nobility, placing, and safety of the eucharistic tabernacle, the dignity and suitability of the baptistery, the proper ordering of sacred images, embellishments, and vestments. Laws which seem less suited to the reformed liturgy are to be brought into harmony with it, or else abolished; and any which are helpful are to be retained if already in use, or introduced where they are lacking.”

        That’s as close as it gets, yet it never says what shape nor does it mention versus populum.

          • Yep. I misread the above, thought the does say was referencing SC not IO.
            Sorry, but at least it got me to pull up SC again and look at it, it’s been a while.

          • It seems to me that the highlighted area has an editing error:

            A bad council and a bad Mass would certainly tie with Canon Roca’s prediction that the liturgy “will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council.” Among the instructions of this ecumenical Council was the September 26, 1964, Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. Article 91 reads:

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

      • As I said above: This was my mistake. When I was editing I transposed the names because I thought the author in his original had accidentally done so. It’s been fixed.

  4. Inter Oecumenici article 91 states: The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium does not say that. The article above is erroneous in this aspect, and in a serious way. VII did not say anything about the priest Offering the Mass facing the people.

  5. OnePeterFive stirring the pot again. Can’t you guys go a day without a negative story? I realize you have a business to run here, but at some point you got to put truth and the Faith ahead of your clickcount for the week.

    I am sick of the Vatican II bashing. I grew up with both the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo, and both were works of the Holy Spirit. Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit. Most Catholic parishes implemented Vatican II correctly and reverently. The Rainbow masses and Kumbaya masses, etc. were the exception not the norm, and to say otherwise is a lie from the pit of Hell meant to continue to divide Catholics. Vatican II brought forth the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit since Apostolic times, culminating in the person of John Paul II. I lived through those times. I remember the spirit at work, whether it was the flourishing of Catholic schools in America, or the rise of apostolates like EWTN and the apostolate for family consecration, or the Charismatic Healing Movement, etc; there can be no doubt that Vatican II unleased the Holy Spirit. A strong case can also be made that the the era of peace came with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Sister Lucia herself is on video stating as much, that the era of peace was directly related to the fall of the Soviet Union. I remember living during the 1980’s, partcularly the last half, and there is no doubt in my mind and heart that it was a special time of grace, and time that has since dissipated.

    We are now living in a period of spiritual chastisment. You can’t blame it on Vatican II and all the most perfectly-celebrated Latin Masses in the world won’t solve the problem. Blame it on yourself, on sins of commission as well as ommission, especailly those who simply hide behind a blog rather than confront the enemy within the gates and in those place where such a confrontation would bring real pain and sacrifice. The era of peace came at tremendous cost and yet it was quickly squandered on the altar of Materialism and Americanism.

    • JPII celebrated Indian masses that contained elements of Hinduism in them. Rome approved of this. This caused an uproar in India. This same pope also celebrated pantheistic prayer meetings. Something unheard of prior to the second Vatican council. Please. Not all was well under the pontificate of JPII.

      • More Fake News from Freemason disrupters posing as traditionalist catholics. Your modus operandi is getting predictable and boring.

          • Do you believe in the Fatima and Akita apparitions? If you do they clearly prophecise the current events of our time. The apostasy of our Church, the damage to the priesthood. Our Blessed Mother requested that the 3rd secret be announced in 1960, why this period of time? This being the 100 year anniversary I think we may be privileged to experience a supernatural event very soon. As for my initial question I will go out on a limb as guess your answer to be “No”. There is no way you could profess your views and believe in Fatima.

        • Is this fake news? I don’t agree with the title antipope, because I am in no authority to proclaim that, but you can’t deny this footage.

          Also, charismatic renewal started with the famous Duquesne weekend where protestants laid hands on Catholics. Are you telling us that Holy Ghost started a Catholic movement rooted in heretical teachings?

          • What a load of Freemason, Gnostic garbage. PJPII had many faults (for example, the support he lent to the demonic apparition at Medjugorje) but his embrace of ecumenical outreach is entirely biblical. I guess you’ve never actually read the New Testament or heard about Christ’s outreach to sinners. Quit wasting my time with these old, boring Protestant Freemason talking points regarding Saint JPII.

          • Believe you me, I always read the second part, too where He calls for conversion and repentance.

            Could you provide me with example of 1 (only 1 and I am not even joking) person that ever converted as result os Assisi meetings in the past 30+ years?

          • Most of what you’ve said is off the rails. But, you are right about Medjugorje I think…it is in my opinion demonic…I don’t see how one can come to another conclusion.

          • Getting shot got JPII to read the Third Secret. Instead of honoring Our Lady’s requests, he called the world’s false religions to Assisi to pray for world peace. JPII aped Our Lady’s sure fire solution and tried to do it his faithless way. It doesn’t get any more evil than that!

    • Where do you live where the “Rainbow masses and Kumbaya masses” are the exception? ‘Cause I have yet to find a single parish (save one) in northwest and central Ohio where that’s the case. But, hey, I just saw on the Toledo news that if I go to All Saints Parish in Rossford tomorow (July 29), I can go to the Polka Mass at 4:00 before attending their parish festival. I’ll make sure to bring my tuba.

        • Wow. You must have such powers of perception to accuse me of lying without providing a shred of evidence to prove me wrong. Do you live in Ohio? If not, how the hell do you know what you’re talking about? And you have the audacity to call me a liar.

          • Yes, I have lived in Ohio in those regions and know that you are either lying or are a Freemason shill sent here to disrupt.

          • See my reply to LB above. Milton, I just don’t know what else to say to you. But I will pray for you.

      • I live in central Ohio. I worked for the diocese for 10 years. I am working toward a PhD in dogmatic theology specializing in Mariology. I know several excellent priests, but of only two totally solid parishes, both downtown Columbus, especially one, which is Dominican and starting to have some Masses ad orientem as well. LB is about spot on. Confusion and nonsense and worldly craziness…and worse…is to be found in the bulk of parishes. Now, if they would start to heavily preach on the Rosary…but they don’t.

    • Vatican II brought forth the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit since Apostolic times

      I didn’t know that the Church needed a second Pentecost. She seemed to be doing just fine for the first 1960 years with only one.

      But, hey, if you’re correct, you should be able to point to some objective data backing up your assertion, like vocations booming in the West, the Faith being practiced more strongly than ever, confessionals overflowing, Eucharistic adoration on a daily basis, et cetera. Somehow, I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single objective analysis that shows these to be the case in parts of the world that were already strongly Catholic before the Council.

      • You must be a recent convert. You obviously missed out on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the 80’s and 90’s. The Catholic Church was booming in America during those years. It was only towards the end of the 90’s that things started going downhill, at least in America. That was about the time that internet pornographyr really took off and the apostasy picked up steam in earnest. Bishop Fulton Sheen has written wonderful tracts on the relationship between Lust for the Flesh and the corresponding hatred of God and all things spiritual. I bet you probably think Bishop Sheen was a Novus Ordo heretic.

        In fact, bad fruits consistently come from “traditionalist” circles. I think for example of the first fruits of “traditionlist” heroes like Ann Barnhardt, who regularly refers to the Holy Father as a “faggot” and a “diabolical narcissist.” Such wonderful fruits. But I have noticed that recent converts tend to go “traditionlist” rather quickly. They have a big problem with obedience and like to play Pope in their spare time. They also seem to think that God is some sort of genie that can be conjured if only they say the Mass just right, and in Latin.

        • The Catholic Church was booming in America during those years. It was only towards the end of the 90’s that things started going downhill, at least in America.

          Oh, yes, the era of Bernardin and his “seamless garment”, as well as Weakland who financially crippled the Diocese of Milwaukee paying off his former male lover. Yes, the Second Pentecost was in full swing back then! Yes, indeed!

          So, what you’re saying is that the supposed renewal you speak of was nothing more than a chimera, an illusion, unsustainable with a foundation of sand.

          • No illusion. The illusion and deception of the devil is that Vatican II was inherently evil or invalid. An illusion and deception that you disobedient “traditionalists” fell for rather quickly. No wonder Pope Francis is going to lay the hammer down on your disobedience and pride.

          • No wonder Pope Francis is going to lay the hammer down on your disobedience and pride.

            This is papal positivism right here, Milton: the idea that the pope can do anything he wants and he must be obeyed without question, even if his actions represent a complete break with the tradition he has received from his predecessors. So if Pope Francis “lays the hammer” on traditionalists in violation of his immediate predecessor, that’s just fine and dandy?

            What if two or three popes down the road, the current pontiff decides to “lay the hammer” down on modernists and suppresses the Novus Ordo entirely, replacing it with the classical rite in every parish? Will you be so supportive of an authoritarian regime under such circumstances, or only when it happens to fit your agenda?

          • Pope Francis has done nothing to break with tradition.

            Of course I would be supportive of a return to the classical rite. I was supportive of it when it was the norm, just as I support the Novus Ordo. It’s you “trads” who have disgraced yourselves with your shameful rhetoric and attitudes towards Vatican II. When you are fraternally corrected for your misbehavior, you double-down on the crap. Sad to watch. I always felt that the liberals in the Church were the greatest danger to unity (and in many ways they are) but it is the “trads” who might be more dangerous because they cloak their disobedience and rebellion in fine linens and fragrant incense.

          • If it’s considered “disobedient” to try to live and worship the way Catholics have for centuries before the changes in practice and discipline supposedly necessary for the needs of “modern man”, then color me “disobedient”.

          • Who says that everyone who reads this site is a “trad” who attends the TLM? I belonged a Maronite

            parish for many years who since moving attends mostly Novus Ordo Masses.

          • Vatican II was not invalid or even, I think, inherently evil.

            But it certainly seems, in growing hindsight, to be the most problematic ecumenical council the Church has ever called. To say that much does not call the Church’s truth claims into question, any more than it does to call into question the council’s nominal validity.

          • “No wonder Pope Francis is going to lay the hammer down on your disobedience and pride.”

            Whenever I hear such words about Pope Francis against his critics, I wonder if the author is not just an independent Catholic commentor but someone at the Vatican assigned to read these posts and then comment “pro-Pope Francis”, in other words a “troll.”

          • This is a great chart on marriages and Baptisms. Notice that the drop offs began before the Council. My father had Catholic catechetics and apologetics books published in the 1930s that he said he bought as a young man, c. 1940, because he “could already see things going mushy.” I read those books in the ’60s and so became a thorn in the side of my teachers.

            In a radio talk given in 1958, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger said that “everyone knows” that Europe was no longer Christian, that most Catholics were not practicing the Faith but had become pagans with a wholly secular world view: Do we get even a whiff of this in the documents of Vatican II or the mountains of commentary and analysis? But “everyone knew.” The bishops should have been sounding a very loud alarm, but it was all opening to the modern world and a new springtime. The whole thing was a scam and a fraud.

          • Notice that the drop offs began before the Council.

            It did; and there were signs of same starting to happen with Mass attendance in some countries. Traditionalists shouldn’t overlook that.

            And yet after 1965, the collapse goes into high gear. And that was definitely not expected.

        • You need to discern between the Holy Spirit and the devil. Satan entered the Church at Vatican II, and Satan has been the guide of the changes of the past 50 years, just as he is the guide of the Charismatic Movement. They call upon the “spirit,” but they are calling down demons. The Charismatic Renewal and the “reform” since the Council are not connected with the Holy Spirit, but are Protestant and Demonic.

          • So JP II the great koran kisser had no power to stop abuses? He excummunicated Lefevre. Could he not ex communicate others? The fact is that Paul VI owns the NO, JP II owns all the changes. They were either in charge or not.

          • I always heard that the cause of the death of Pope John Paul I was never determined because there was no autopsy. How did you find out about the cause of his death? Really interesting.

        • How do you feel about the fruits of those who really matter in the Church?
          Let’s say, Cardinal Kasper, or Paglia or Cocco or the good fruits of the Knight of Malta gentlemen who funneled contraceptive devices and was reinstated?
          How about the abortionist who Pope Francis paraded around as a great woman in her social activism for immigration?
          Or lest we forget the fruits of a Father James Martin, who I guess has sowed such good fruits that he finds himself in the communications department of the Vatican.
          And of course, what was the ” good fruit” from that laser show on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception from St. Peter’s?
          And lest we not forget all that good fruit from the 80s and 90s regarding the coverup of the sexual abuse by priests of children and the swelling of the seminaries by homosexuals.

          I think that is enough for now. You get the point, don’t you? Well, I am not certain, for anyone who can suggest that those who pray the TLM think God is some sort of genie being conjured up, shows such a lack of not only charity, but immaturity.

        • You must be joking Milton. The entire Catholic world imploded in the 70s and 80s! Catholics started contracepting their brains out, people left the Church in droves, and JPII was nothing more than a sweet, Old World uncle to most American Catholics. Mother Angelica was a sole bright spot but all else was in chaos. Look at what the Land O Lakes statement did to Catholic higher education! Look at the explosion of annulments and the almost complete collapse of the religious life. The liturgy was banal wherever you went to Mass. Don’t tell me you’re a Marty Haugen booster!

          • The entire Catholic world did not implode. What you meant to say was that many Catholics-in-name only separated themselves from the Church. Maybe your parish was banal, but my parish has been flourishing since the 1920’s. Our parish didn’t rebel when Vatican II was implemented. In fact, at the time, Vatican II was welcomed. The whining and complaining against Vatican II is a modern development, one that started in disobedient traditionalist circles.

          • Dear Milton,

            With respect, I was a young man in the 70’s and was taught that Holy Communion was acceptable in the hand.

            During the 80’s I was taught many things at a Catholic school that were nonsense e.g. animals have feelings and an abortion is just a ball of cells.

            By the late 80’s I had given up because of the Jesus forgives all message, it wasn’t until approx 2009 after travelling from the UK to France making various stops on the way to our final destination that I experienced anything that made sense about how the faith works. e.g. Mass, confession, prayer adoration with faith, hope and charity.

            I do not recall this being the era of peace, I would call it the era of divorce and destruction of reverance and all things sacred.

            I did read your posts with respect and intend no harm to you.

          • Oh, boy, where to begin.

            For starters, receiving Holy Communion in the hand is a church discipline, a tradition with a lowercase “t” and is subject to change. I’ve met a lot of you “trads” who actually think receiving Holy Communion in the hand is a mortal sin: that’s how deluded you have become by setting yourselves up as your own authorities.

            Okay, so you were taught nonsense during the 80’s. Did you counter the nonsense or just complain about it and blame it on Vatican II?

            Divorce and destruction of reverence have always been present in the Church. If you are going to blame them on Vatican II then you have become part of the problem.

          • Communion in the hand in the West began as blatant disobedience to liturgical norms. It was only made licit (via indult) when the pope realized none of his bishops were going to listen to him, so he gave the “okay” for it. The same with female altar servers.

            The larger theological consideration is this: If we truly believe the Host is Christ Himself, (1) are our unconsecrated hands worthy of touching Him in all His divine glory, and (2) what of the fragments that fall from our hands to the floor and are subsequently trampled underfoot?

          • According to your Jansenist logic, we should never receive Communion, for there would always be a chance that a small piece of the Eucharist would break away and be trampled upon. Receiving Communion on the tongue is no fail-safe practice. I attended Latin Mass one morning in our diocese. I decided to receive on the tongue because most of those who attend this Latin Mass in the morning are trads and this is the norm. Everything should have gone perfectly since I was receiving on the tongue according to your Jansenist logic. But, to my horror, a piece of the Eucharist broke off at the corner of my mouth, because this priest delivered the host at the corner of my mouth and it was not a circular host but rather a larger piece broken from the large host held during Consecration and as such had broken, jagged edges. I could feel this tiny piece of the host break away at the corner of my mouth as it was delivered onto my tongue, but alas I was not able to locate it immediately below me on the floor. Now, had I received on the hand, I would have instantly been able to determine that this host had jagged edges which could have easily broken away, and I would have been able to ensure that nothing broke away and fell onto the floor.

          • You’re very good at creating straw men and trying to apply them universally, Milton. Jansenism? Really?

            I decided to receive on the tongue because most of those who attend this Latin Mass in the morning are trads and this is the norm.

            You didn’t really have a choice, as the Ecclesia Dei commission has affirmed that Communion in the hand is forbidden in the classical rite, as it was not a discipline in place in 1962. So you’re taking a very, very rare occurrence and trying to use it as a universal. And the paten should have caught it, assuming it was being used (and if it wasn’t, that’s a serious problem).

            And if you had received Communion in the hand, you could very well have dropped it on the floor (don’t deny it’s possible; I’ve seen it before), or particles could have fallen from it and been smeared around from your hand to whatever you happened to touch next, et cetera. So I fail to see your point.

          • If trads were really concerned with Eucharistic reverence, they would never receive whenever non-circular hosts are used because there is always a chance a piece might break away even when receiving on the tongue. It just goes to to show that you are not really concerned with Eucharistic reverence. Instead, you are using that as a diversion with which to feel better about your hatred towards the Novus Ordo.

          • Straw man again, Milton. Try to respond without conjuring up virtually impossible hypotheticals.

            And again, that’s what the paten is for. You’re trying to defend a practice that is wholly opposed to how generations of Catholics received Communion in the West. And you’re not doing a particularly good job of doing so.

          • Is the Novus Ordo valid?

            Was Vatican II the work of the Holy Spirit?

            Is Pope Francis really the Pope?

          • “I decided to receive on the tongue”. You didn’t decide anything. That is the only accepted form of receiving in TLM.

            Where was the paten? Is there a chance that this was a hypothetical scenario after all?

          • Where was the paten? Last time I saw them was at a Novus Ordo mass being held by a female altar server (oh, the horror!!!). Receiving in the hand or on the tongue are both acceptable in my diocese. Try again.

          • The paten is required for the distribution of Communion in the classical rite. It’s not optional; if there are no servers, the laity are to pass the paten down the altar rail, holding under their mouths as they receive.

            And no, you cannot receive in the hand in the “Extraordinary Form”, no matter what your priest or bishop says. The Eccelesia Dei commission has affirmed that is forbidden, end of discussion.

            I’m beginning to think you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Not even on topic, but I’ll answer.

            Valid, yes. But we should be striving for more than just mere validity; we should be striving to worship in a manner that fully presents Catholic doctrine, of the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary (as evidenced in its inflexible rubrics, its Offertory which speaks of the offerings as a sacrifice, by the Canon, etc.).

            Stale bread and tepid water are perfectly valid for receiving the bare minimum needed for sustenance. But no one would argue these are ideal ways of receiving sustenance.

          • It’s not up to you to decide what constitutes an acceptable form of worship. Vatican II, a work of the Holy Spirit, gave us the Novus Ordo which, when done properly and as originally intended, is just as acceptable as the Latin Mass.

          • Please read Memoriale Domini by Pope Paul VI and The Truth About Communion in the Hand by the late John Vennari (audio). They’re essential reading and listening imho.

          • Receiving communion in the hand is the best way for the Eucharist to be stolen for satanic uses (Fr Amorth).
            In addition, what in your opinion taking the Eucharist in your hand for 2 tenths of a second may add to this wonderful Sacrament ?
            Pls let me know.

          • Dear Milton, Oh boy back to you, please don’t start throwing words like trad around I’m Catholic, neither a trad or a liberal. The post that you responded to was the reality of my life and I’m sorry that I haven’t experienced the things that you think have happened.

          • Dear Christopher,

            Your response to this poster is so humble and kind. It inspired me to take a hard look at myself and ask Our Lady to help me meet anger with meekness.

            Thank you and may God bless you,


          • ” receiving Holy Communion in the hand is a church discipline …”

            ONE CONDEMNED from the time of the Fathers for its inherent dangers.

            Latterly it is a mark of the Protestants who hate the Mass in particular.

          • Milton,
            I agree with you. I see how certain parishes are flourishing. As a matter of fact, the local parish near my family’s home (we have recently relocated) is filled/overflowing at every Mass.
            It is a good thing there are no kneelers because the fold up chairs can be positioned to best accommodate the “faithful”. The sacristy has also been given pride of place in a back room, thank goodness, to free up extra space.
            Yes, what a spirit filled community this is. You should see the amount of fraternization and genuine interest the parishioners have for each other. You can hardly hear yourself think upon entering this church because of the chit chat and laughter.
            The beloved, homosexual pastor is fantastic! He never forgets to rush through the consecration so he can make time for spirit filled, enthusiastic recognition of those celebrating birthdays and anniversaries.
            Yes, applause in this church is deafening and makes the congregants feel so special.
            What a blessing it is. At most masses the Priest takes time to illicit prayers for our states football team!! WOW! You should hear the applause when that happens! Mon Dieu!!!!
            What is also so terrific is how easily it is to go to mass right after being at your local pool or cleaning your garage. No one passes judgement if you are in your bathing suit cover-up or dirty ripped shorts.
            The music selection is also the best. I had never heard any of these “hymns”
            prior to checking out this awesome, burgeoning parish. The huge t.v screens placed around the interior are so helpful because all the words are projected for the sing -a-longs. Thankfully, there are no stained glass windows or statues of the Saints to impede the installation of this technology.
            As far as melody goes, I can’t imagine any one participating isn’t familiar with the “wheels on the bus go round and round” melody so singing along is so easy!!!
            I almost forgot to mention how awesome it was the time an older priest mentioned the wonders of stem cell research and its direct healing effect on a local parishioner.
            I am saddened though that I can no longer attend this parish which is 5 minutes from my home.
            You see my 2 sons and I went to check out this Trad mass thingy which is 45 minutes away and goes on and on for at least 1.5 hours. It’s so damn quiet and contemplative and I had to buy a veil. Problem is, after attending the TLM, my boys will not go to Mass unless we make this pilgrimage, every Sunday.
            Sheesh – I blame myself. With my birthday approaching, I guess it is “no applause for me”. Pffft.

          • What you meant to say was that many Catholics-in-name only separated themselves from the Church.

            Given that regular Mass attendance in most of Western Europe is now in the 3-10% range, I guess we’re left to conclude that nearly all European Catholics in 1962 were “Catholics in Name Only.”

            But if you are arguing that shrinking the Church into something much smaller was a desirable thing, it looks like you got your desire.

        • And thank God for Father James Martin who cannot quickly enough bash orthodox Catholics–including his brother priests–who do not agree with the EBS (everything but straight….I cannot keep up with the other acronyms anymore) agenda lockstep.

          He is a real gift of the Holy Spirit.

        • You need to discern between the Holy Spirit and the devil. Satan entered the Church at Vatican II, and Satan has been the guide of the changes of
          the past 50 years, just as he is the guide of the Charismatic Movement. They call upon the “spirit,” but they are calling down demons. The Charismatic Renewal and the “reform” since the Council are not connected with the Holy Spirit, but are Protestant and Demonic.

          It is true, yes, that traditionalists in their frustration sometimes lash out and blame the popes for the ugly changes, not realizing that the popes were innocent. But the fact remains that Satan gave us our change of today. It’s an idol, which is why people get resentful when you try to take it away from them, and people will even murder to preserve their idol.

          For instance, Pope John Paul I was getting ready to expose by name the Freemasons in the Vatican and return the Latin Mass to the people as God
          had ordained, so they killed him, and on the 33rd day of his reign, 33 being the highest rank of Freemasonry. Cardinal Villot was a registered Freemason, and it was Villot who poisoned John Paul I by giving him poison champagne.

        • Between the close of the Second Vatican Council and today there has been a virtually uninterrupted and catastrophic decline in every key indicator of Catholic life. The 80’s and 90’s were no exception, but by today’s abysmal standards they look pretty good, I suppose. Religious vocations are in a complete collapse. Mass attendance and overall sacramental participation among the Catholic laity? Utterly collapsed. And brother, if you think that’s bad just wait until our youngsters come of age. It is a wasteland out there. Bishop Sheen saw it too, he’s no heretic.

          I am a convert, and I did go traditionalist pretty quickly. The thing about converts is, the Truth of Christ hit us so hard that we were willing to in many cases completely change our way of living and thinking to follow that Truth. After that, lies don’t interest you very much anymore. Your sneer at converts is telling.

        • You obviously missed out on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the 80’s and 90’s. The Catholic Church was booming in America during those years.

          By every single survey I have seen, Mass attendance in America took its biggest hit in 1965-75, but continued to drop steadily through the 80’s and 90’s – as did religious vocations, baptisms, and sacramental marriages (confessions, of course, flatlined and stayed that way). It would have been even worse without mass immigration of nominally Catholic cohorts. I think it’s perplexing to hear this era called a “booming” period for the Church. Once you got past the big papal pilgrimages of JPII, what we left was continued decay and apostasy on the ground in most places.

          I think your characterization of traditionalist Catholics is something of a straw man, and not helpful to any genuine discourse.

        • ” You obviously missed out on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the 80’s and 90’s. The Catholic Church was booming in America during those years.”

          Booming??? Perhaps you mean the explosion from hundreds of priests sexually abusing thousands of teen age boys at a cost to the Church of billions. What a boon for the Church that was!

          Milton, I think you need to put the bong down and clear your lungs and your mind. You are quite obviously delusional.

    • Is this a parody account? If so, it’s really good. You’ve managed to weave nearly every cliché in the Neo-Catholic repertoire into one post. I especially liked the “era of peace” bit.

      • That’s hilarious! Thank you! (Never mind the fact that Uncle Miltie would never say such things as Milton has here; it’s still cute.)

    • “Most Catholic parishes implemented Vatican II correctly and reverently.”

      “We are now living in a period of spiritual chastisement.”

      If “most Catholic parishes implemented Vatican II correctly and reverently,” why are we “now living in a period of spiritual chastisement”?

      Are the people who “implemented Vatican II correctly and reverently” the very same people who gave us the “period of spiritual chastisement”?

      A non sequitur.

    • Most Catholic parishes implemented Vatican II correctly and reverently.

      Methinks we have different definitions of “reverently.” Unless we’re reverencing different things, of course.

      At any rate, I don’t think you are going to find any fans of the Charismatic movement here.

    • You were deceived, and appear unwilling to take your place at the banquet of humility.
      Anyone who can describe the decomposition, the stench, of the Vatican Council as an outpouring of the Holy Spirit is in grievous need of a wonderful wake up call and strong coffee.
      Mass attendance 1960? Mass attendance 1970?
      Clerical defections 1960? Clerical defections 1970?
      Vocations 1960? Vocations 1970?
      You get the “Sows ear into a silk purse award.” But you’ll have to share it with 95% of the clergy class and the episcopate to whom they feign evangelical obedience but are merely guarding their posteriors.

  6. The third secret is and always was about apostasy in the church. There was no mention about a bad council or a bad mass. True prophesy does not go into minutia.

    • There is no contradiction. The same Secret that foretold the Apostasy brought on by Satan mentioned that this same Satan would enter the “great Council” and maneuver it to his own liking.

      • That’s the Third Secret Vision. The Third Secret per se begins with the words of Our Lady: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…” The “etc” that Sister Lucia wrote in her Fourth Memoir holds the place of the rest of the exact words of Our Lady.

        +Fr. Nicholas Gruner (Вiчная память!) often said that God wouldn’t give the Holy Father and the bishops the graces necessary to perform the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary until the Third Secret (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady) was revealed. That makes sense.

  7. Hence the radical changes of today do not reflect a misinterpretation of Vatican II, but a true interpretation as intended by the liberal architects.

    Yes, indeed. The author gets it.

    Over the years, there’s been a lot of talk about the “ambiguous statements” in the Vatican II documents. The critical issue is why there are ambiguous statements in these documents. This is the elephant in the room and it has taken all the hanky panky surrounding the “ambiguous statements” in Amoris laetitia to open my eyes and see it. The modus operandi of the modernists and dissenters who railroaded Vatican II is being replayed right before our eyes today
    in the antics of Francis and his acolytes

    IMHO, the ambiguous statements of Vatican II were put there for a reason, just as the footnotes in AL were put there for a reason. That reason was to facilitate the malarkey which the modernists, heretics and sodomites had planned and which subsequently erupted following the council and following the publication of AL.

    I’ve slowly come to the conclusion that the post-Vatican II fallout, in which I include the current horrific pontificate, is a chastisement for the Church for its failure to comply with Our Lady’s requests at Fatima. Specifically, the Consecration was treated miserably, the Third Secret was tossed in a drawer and forgotten for decades. The Church’s response to Our Lady was faithless and so we now have a faithless pastor sitting in the Chair of Peter and wreaking havoc.

    You reap what you sow although often, not immediately. When one disobeys God, He doesn’t zap you with lightning instantaneously (usually). However, over time, it all shakes out and the consequences of one’s sinfulness and faithlessness gradually become apparent. I think we’re at that stage now. Vatican II was rotten from the get go and was a chastisement for the Church and so is the current grotesque pontificate. Francis is the fulfillment of that wretched council.

    • Well said! Cockle was planted at the Council by the devil’s minions, and this same cockle has now grown into the devil-grass that is strangling the Church, And yes, God has allowed this as a chastisement, especially for not releasing the Third Secret on time in 1960. The Blessed Virgin was most specific to Lucy that her Secret at Fatima was to be released by 1960, because it was only two years later that they would convoke Vatican II, setting into motion a radical departure from tradition unmatched in the history of the Church. Our Lady was trying to beat the devil to the punch and avert this crisis, but cowardice among the hierarchy prevented this.

    • I don’t think Fatima is the proximate cause of this wasteland in the Church. Fatima was the main, but not even the most recent, Marian warning that Our Lady began at Quito three hundred years ago. There is a deeper spiritual malaise that culminates in our time but began centuries ago.

      • Do you not think that things would have been very different right now if the Pope[s] and Bishops had consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as they were asked to do? I do.

          • Dear Stalin, you are right saying that the crisis slowly began centuries ago, but in my opinion Fatima and the Consecration of Russia were actually the ultimate means Heavens offered to the Church to avoid its ongoing apostasy and bring Her back to orthodoxy.
            The Pope John XXIII bears a heavy responsibility in allowing a complete discarding of the initial schemas. He was not weak, he was not innocent. On the contrary he was a passive accomplice of what happened, because he was part of an agenda since he himself was a rosicrucian FM.
            – He refused to disclose the 3rd Secret which forewarned of the Church’s apostasy beginning AT THE TOP (Cdl Ciappi).
            – He called the council, though he was well aware of the risks it would be hijacked.
            – He bestowed the cardinal’s hat to Montini only a few weeks after he became Pope, though he knew the serious reasons why Pius XII had fired him from the Secretariat of State. Thus making him eligible to papacy and securing the (bad) council unto its (bad) aims.

          • I would say that Pius XI bears the heaviest responsibility for failing to Consecrate Russia and install the First Saturday devotion.

          • I agree. Our Lady was trying to tell the world through the third secret that the plan of the devil was about to be fully implemented.

          • Sorry Tovarich! I agree with all you said but I just wondered if we could have been saved from what has happened recently [ from the awful Vatican II and onwards ] if Pope John XXIII had done his duty and consecrated Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary……… or indeed any of the other Popes since.

          • Will Rome or the Episcopate warn us when the Man of Sin arrives Josef?

            EN News. ‘The Columbian academic José Galat Noumer, 88, a former president of La Gran Colombia University in Bogotà and owner of the family- and Church-oriented television station Teleamiga, said that Pope Francis is the “false prophet of which the Bible speaks” who “teaches heresies” that go against the word of God and “paves the way for the antichrist.”

            Talking to Blu Radio, Galat assured that Benedict XVI is the real Pope, not Francis, who “was elected by a mafia of cardinals who afterwards confessed it loquaciously”. He added that Francis is “false and harmful.”

            Galat pointed out that there is a “great ignorance” on the part of the Catholics and of a Church, which supports the “foolishness” of Francis.

            The Columbian Episcopal Conference issued a statement urging priests to withdraw their support for the Teleamiga because of Galat’s criticisms of Francis. Galat authored 22 books and is a lifelong Catholic activist.’

          • I believe a freemason was vetoed out by the Habsburg veto to get Pius X in so they were working feverishly behind the scenes to destroy the Church before the Fatima apparition and you are correct the other, earlier Marian apparitions were detailing the same problems from the same troublemakers which is of course why they buried LaSalette (for example).
            However, the lack of a resolution to the problem can all be blamed on them ignoring our Lady’s/heaven’s mandate made known at Fatima.

        • Absolutely. In the final analysis, all our miseries and chastisements come from not listening to the Blessed Virgin. A key agenda of Vatican II revolutionaries was to muzzle the Church about Communism, since the plan was to have Communists come in and infect the Council with their ideas, which they did. Their proposals at the Council were general, not specific. Using all manner of deception and fancy language, the plan was to introduce the idea of an empowered laity, which is nothing more than Lenin’s clenched fist applied in a religious way. A key way of achieving this was to deceive the Council into thinking that the laity constitutes a “common priesthood” (an illusion), which would later justify proposals of having lay persons assuming priestly functions as Eucharistic ministers, lectors, liturgists, etc. Hence we find in the documents passages such as the following:

          “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ.” [Lumen Gentium 10]

          For the record, there is no such thing as a “common priesthood of the faithful.” This was Luther’s idea. The priest alone offers the Holy Sacrifice, and there is nothing the laity can do to contribute or add to this. These democratic principles introduced at Vatican II were to diminish the role of the priest where he is seen as nothing more than “the president of an assembly.” To justify their revolution, they inappropriately used Holy Scripture to try to sell their product, citing how we are a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” (1 Peter 2:9)

          Here conciliar draftsmen have put their own twist on the sacred text. The verse about a “royal priesthood” is merely figurative to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Church, since the principal function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. In that sense, we are a sacrificial or priestly people. We are called to atone and follow the Lamb in his sacrificial sufferings. The verse references our call to atonement—which Our Lady asked for at Fatima—and has nothing to do with the priestly office and its functions as the document deceptively implies.

          • “Absolutely. In the final analysis, all our miseries and chastisements come from not listening to the Blessed Virgin.”
            1000% correct.

            They wouldn’t go to such extreme lengths to hide and lie about the Fatima message and every other Marian apparition if there weren’t power in our Lady’s words.

    • Since ambiguity is not teaching, and the Church is Divinely commissioned to teach, then none of this could have come from the Church, and that includes the ambiguous new mass.

  8. Pretty sure that proposed schemas were debated at both Trent and Vatican I. Obviously, one of two things are true. The Council and the post-conciliar papacy is the work of the Holy Spirit OR we are in the worst crisis of the Church with NO historical parallel(remember, Honorius was just ONE pope). Time will tell who is right.

    • Mass drop in attendance, prelates having drug-fueled homosexual orgies and this is the actual kicker because the preceding have happened before: cardinals and bishops pushing and agitating for heretical positions (which may not be new but the level and nature of it is without precedent).

    • There is no historical parallel, no matter what we choose to cling to in the hope that we aren’t where no man has gone before.

  9. Bishop Schneider recently expressed his view that Vat.II should be interpreted in light of Tradition. In fairness he does it with a more Traditional slant than PBXVI ever did, nevertheless good timing in reproducing this article.

    • What he means by this is that we have to see the Council in light of tradition, as opposed to seeing tradition in light of the Council as the modernists do. Yea, we have to see it as God and the saints do.

      • Yes of course, but the problem is that words mean something and Vat.II was either a break with Tradition (albeit just below the line of doctrine) or deliberately ambiguous. Best to stop the interpretations and reinterpretations and just reboot the whole thing…or just make an official declaration that Vat.II is not binding in anyway on the Church and can basically be ignored.

  10. Excellent summary of the evils of Vatican II David. “By their fruits you shall know them”. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics are under the illusion that Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore legitimate. Hopefully, in this 100th anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima, the Church will receive a sign that Vatican II was clearly the work of the devil.

  11. I would recommend Vatican II: “A Pastoral Council, Hermeneutics of Council Teaching”
    by Serafino Lanzetta. A very well-researched examination of how a Protestant-inclined group tried to hijack Vatican II. Father Lanzetta is a priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

  12. Was Vatican II good for the Church? Of course it was! And why? Because it let the hounds of hell off the leash. In 1923, within a year of his election, Pope Pius XI, after consultation with his closest curial cardinals, decided against convoking a Council of the Church on the grounds that it would inevitably be hijacked by the modernists and ‘reformers’ who were hell-bent on transforming the Church along the lines foreseen by the Freemason Canon Roca. No “Oath Against Modernism” as demanded by Pope St. Pius X could ever hope to neutralise these elements. On the contrary, it in all probability spurred them on to even greater efforts to re-make the Church in their own corrupt image and likeness.

    Vatican II threw the gates wide open, and the wreckers emerged from the shadows into the clear light of day. Francis the Destroyer and his crypto-marxist regime is the culmination of this process. It is, as others have rightly said, the inevitable and tragic result of the miserable failure by the Church to heed and proclaim the Message of Fatima. And nothing could be further from the minds of those who now have a stranglehold on the Church than Fatima. So, let them bask in the glory of their imaginary victory: it is an illusion, and one which, by the demands of Divine Justice, will be very short-lived.

    • Even Pius XII in the beginning fifties considered calling a council but he gave up within a few years for the same reasons as his predecessor.
      This meant that the worm already was in the fruit.
      It is sad that neither Pius XII nor Pius XI had courage enough to wield their power in the same dictatorial way as Francis wit the aim to kill the worm . They were “gentlemen” in a time when the Church needed warriors.
      With an iron hand it was possible to bring back the Church on the rails. Too late now.

      • Both knew that the ‘reformers’ were wolves in sheep’s clothing, but I doubt if it would have been possible to completely subdue them. Even had they been able to drastically slow down the process and the enemy could have been eliminated by natural attrition, (I.e. death), there would inevitably have been replaced by new generations of crypto-protestants. As I see it, Jaques, what is happening to the Church at this time in her history must happen, since the Church is the Body of Christ on earth, and it is her destiny to follow in the footsteps of her Divine Master and ascend her own Calvary to be put to death. And just as the Death of Christ on Calvary was only made possible by His betrayal by an insider. And for the Church it will be no different. But after Calvary comes a glorious resurrection.

        • You are right: The Fate of the Church is already slated.
          Currently it is not even possible to slow down the train before the crash.
          But the ongoing destruction by the Pope Francis through unprecedented abuses of the pontifical powers amply demonstrate that should have God given the Church a more powerful, even tyrannical Pope before WWII, resolved to uproot the modernist heresy, the Church would be in much better situation.

  13. If the council is catholic and does not represent a substancial change in the doctrine and discipline of the church, then we have to accept everything: the balloon masses,Amoris Latitiea, Pride Mass, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi as catholics in good standing, or….

    The council represents a substantial change, and this is not the Catholic religion. Is this so complicated? Not easy, but its simple. There is no way that this is the catholic faith, and no way these are catholic leaders. Why were the rites of episcopacy changed (Paul VI), leaving all bishops legitimacy doubtful?

    And why limit this discussion to the council? Paul VI promulgated the documents AND he created the NO. Who cares whether the NO is part of the council or not. This is Paul VI baby, and the rest of the leaders, JPII, Benedict, and Francis, who built upon it.

    • I’m always struck by the fact it was Pope Paul VI who said, ‘By some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” He seemed not to realize it was him who ushered Satan in through that crack.

      • Yes, but Pope Paul VI, while he spoke like a conservative acted in his administration of the Church as a progressive. Moreover, he promoted and advanced many progressive churchmen and theologians in key positions within the Vatican.

    • It comes down to this: (1)The Catholic Church has always and everywhere taught that She is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, founded Jesus Christ to teach, rule, and sanctify men until the consummation of the world. She is unique in this. She is divinely assisted in this regard. Her laws, worship, discipline, and doctrines enjoy that inerrancy which is concomitant with Her divine mission. Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.

      (2)The Novus Ordo Church teaches that any and all churches are good, and a means of grace; and that no church can claim itself to be the One, True, Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

      It is because of (1) that the popes and the councils said and did the things that they did from 33 to 1958. It is because of (2) that the usurpers, the Catholic Church’s enemies, have systematically dismantled all that was done by the Catholic Church, and have replaced it all with Liberalism, Humanism, Modernism (agnosticism and immanentism), ecumenism, and all sorts of stupidity.

      There it is in a nutshell. Folks need to determine with which they want to be associated: (1) or (2).

      • My concern is that choosing 1 for many good Catholics also means recognizing 2 as the church which needs to be somehow changed, through human means and maybe prayer, into 1. 1 is not 2. They are different entities!

        Its as if there was a 3! And we need to move 2 out and 1 in, and then 3 will be what we want it to be.

        Uhg, this is getting abstract! If Bergoglio is a Catholic pope, and Dignitatus Humanae is a Catholic document, then the church has defected and the Catholic church has been what protestants have always called it: a scam.

        If the Church is not a scam, then VII is a scam, and that thing that crawled out of the slime of the 60s and 70s IS NOT the Church!

        • The Church has not defected. These enemies who usurped the offices of the Church are just that: enemies and usurpers. That would be like a bunch of murderous bank robbers who dress up like policemen in order to commit their crimes. You would not say: The police department has gone bad, or has defected from the police department’s mission. Rather, you would investigate, and find out that the robbers are NOT part of the police department, but have carried out an outrageous ruse, in order to pull off the crime.

          To quote Our Lord, “An enemy hath done this.” (St.Matthew 13, 28)

          How do we know what to believe about the present situation? Read and study Quanta Cura of Pope Pius IX along with his syllabus of errors. Read and study Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane of St. Pius X. Read and study the Oath against Modernism by St. Pius X. Read and Study Mortalium Animos of Pius XI. Get a good college level catechism from before the rot, and study it. I suggest:
          Exposition of Christian Doctrine
          by a seminary Professor
          Intermediate Course,
          published by John Joseph McVey Philadelphia PA 1908,
          part of the course of religious Instruction from the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools.
          It comes in three volumes: I Dogma, II Moral, III Worship.
          (After all, there is supposed to be a “hermeneutic of continuity,” right? The new stuff is supposed to be identical to the old stuff, but just packaged differently, right? Well, if that is case, study the old stuff in detail, and see for yourself.)

          Also, one should become familiar with Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (Latin) or “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” (English).

          Read and study Humanum Genus of Leo XIII and all the other writings from Catholics on the evil institution of Freemasonry.

          Lastly, read the book given to all the council fathers at Vatican II: The Plot against the Church by Maurice Pinay 1962. It is a very good history book detailing the constant struggle the Church has had against Her enemies who sought to infiltrate Her and corrupt her.

          After doing this, one will see that the Novus Ordo, the Vatican II Church, the “Cult of Man” as Montini (Paul VI) called it, is 180 degrees out of phase with Catholicism. It is diametrically opposed to Catholicism. All of these Vatican II “popes” are heretics, based on what the Church has taught for nearly 2000 years.

          We are living in the apostasy foretold by St. Paul in II Thessalonians 2, 3. The original greek says “apostasia.” We must stick with the continual, uniform, consistent teaching of the Catholic Church (from 33 to 1958), and not the novelties of the enemies. We must “stand fast, and hold the traditions” of the Catholic Church, and reject this “operation of error.”

          Vatican II was supposed to be a “renewal,” a new “springtime in the Church.” Instead, take a look at the statistics. One will find that with the usurpation of John XXIII and the machinations of the enemies during Vatican II, and the subsequent garbage from Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, The Rat, and Jorge, has resulted in a catastrophic destruction of Catholicism (as it was known from 33 to 1958).

          Furthermore, one would think that with so many alleged “Saints, Blesseds, and Venerables” in a row in the papacy (I am gagging as I write this), the Church would be more healthy, and certainly more unified, more holy, more universal, and more apostolic. The faith should be stronger in the laity, as well as the clergy. But the opposite has occurred. The statistics indicate an ecclesiological neutron bomb went off with John XXIII and Vatican II.

          One must not be in communion with these enemies and heretics. One should disassociate oneself COMPLETELY from this apostasia or this operation of error.

          What has happened is not just the result of a pious mistake of some ignorant, yet well-meaning Catholics. No, rather, “An enemy hath done this.” These usurpers are intelligent, cunning, lying enemies of the One, True Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

  14. How is it that people say Vatican II was misinterpreted, when its call for “celebration facing the people” was implemented as the universal norm shortly after the Council?

    In fairness, Inter Oecumenici was not a conciliar document, but an instruction issued over Paul VI’s signature. It is still striking that Sacrosanctum Concilium – while unquestionably an outline for a unprecedently aggressive liturgical reform – never once calls for reorienting the direction of celebration of the Mass. It would never have commanded a majority vote in 1963, or even 1965.

    • Over at rorate, there’s an article by claude claudel dated 1955 decrying mass in france wherever he lived, being facing the people. So it was happening already, andwe can assume in a number of places. So already liturgical revolt was happening. Hence it was a great danger to hold a council in an undisciplined age.

  15. Anyone who thinks that Vatican II, the totally unnecessary Council, wasn’t hijacked by the progressives is either a fool or is simply disingenuous. Not only are some of its key documents clear denials of Tradition and the teaching of the Popes of 200 years, there are contradictions in those documents even Kasper a few years ago admitted were constructs born of the bitter fight between the progressives and the Catholic Bishops. As such, some documents contradict themselves even from sentence to sentence.

    It’s long been my belief that a key task for the Traditionalist movement is to construct an unassailable argument for why Vatican II was a false Council which must be set aside in its entirety – and the entire subsequent Magisterium (I mean “everything”) built upon it.

    One possible avenue is the history of the Synod of Pistoia and the subsequent Papal condemnation of it which stated (I believe) that no Catholic can ever be bound by ambiguous statements from the Magisterium.

    Vatican II was the devil’s work and has to go fully, not partially, and forever.

    • I totally agree. At some point in the future there must be a full, unambiguous repudiation of the diabolical event called Vatican II. But the time is not now. It must happen after all those whose hearts are still attached to it as a contemporary event of the lifetimes are no longer living. It would be counterproductive to react to such a trauma as the implementation of that council with yet more violence to the heart of the church.

      • When a person is diagnosed with bladder cancer, my guess is the typical treatment plan isn’t to let the bladder just run it’s course and then remove it when it is totally dead because….you know…those other pesky organs which are in danger of metastases. So it is with VII. It has to go now and those who cannot handle its abolition must go with it.

        The only other alternative is some sort of parralell Church in which younger folks and traditionalists assemble while all those born between 1950 and 2010 would go to NO Churches. Don’t see how that would work as one doesn’t typically plan another person’s funeral right in front of him/her.

  16. Does anyone know if the interrupted proceedings of Vatican I were ever formally concluded? If not, would that mean its business is technically still pending?

    • Yes, practically the first act of Vatican II was to close formally Vatican I. Incidentally, it is said that John XXIII’s idea of the Council is that it would be more or less like the Synod of Rome held a couple of years earlier and then conclude by Dec. 8th, on which day Pius IX would be beatified.

  17. I wish this article could be circulated Catholic -world wise. It has pinpointed the facts in a way that all can understand and NEED to know in order to better cherish our Faith; fight for it, and give greater glory and praise to Almighty God. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

  18. 72 schemas consigned to the waste paper basket on the advice of Edward Schillebeeckx. Two years preparation of thoroughly orthodox documents dismissed out of hand by progressive prelates and advisers and replaced by ambiguous documents that were detrimental to the life of the Church. The only initial document saved was by Bugnini. This was a well planned and devious attack that contained sufficient orthodoxy to keep hapless, conservative bishops happy. It was a bad council that lead to a bad Mass and a great schism within the Church. Hardly the work of the Holy Ghost.

  19. In a comment to a previous article I said something that raised some questions, at least for some people. I now make another, potentially controversial, statement which is a preview to something that will shortly occur. Thus says the Lord, the only begotten Son of the eternal Father, “…for the council was NOT Our work nor was it in any way guided by the Holy Spirit…” (“Our” refers to all three divine persons of the Most Holy Trinity.)

  20. Dear David Martin:
    The censorship of books critiquing Vatican II is absolute. 3 Ignatius Press authors were recruited to translate
    Roberto de Mattei’s decisive study. They then farmed it out to a schismatic press, Loreto so that it would not be
    noticed. Two reviews have appeared. Both reviewed the Council and not the book. Phillip Campbell got it right
    in two sentences. “It will make you mad as hell to see how things really went down.” “The conservative narrative tries to absolve the Council of all wrongdoing placing the blame squarely on postconciliar innovations. That narrative is no longer possible after reading this book.” My vocation since 1970 has been to learn what happened to my Church. No marriage, no career. The most important individual in the true story of
    Vatican II is Fr. Roger Thomas Calmel, O.P. 1914-1975. Msgr. Lefebvre called him his spiritual father though Calmel
    was the younger man. The turning point for the Church was the condemnation of Action Francaise in 1926. Catholics attached to the Syllabus were destroyed and a new episcopacy arose in France unopposed to modern errors. Kind regards, Anthony (Eureka, California)

  21. Do the things you want. Start your own church. The website has good content at times but no regard for allowing the Holy Spirit to do his work, even in the most insurmountable obstacles.
    As for me I will follow the Lord and his Church, even with a short sighted Pope.

    • Antonio,

      In his Catechism on the Holy Spirit, the Curé d’Ars said, ‘The eyes of the World see no further than this life, as mine see no further than this wall when the church door is shut. The eyes of the Christian see deep into eternity’.

      Spiritual short-sightedness and those who espouse it even from within the heart of the Church are *deadly* for the soul.

    • No one here is starting there own Church (that I am aware of anyway.) I belong to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and profess the One True Faith, and I am quite certain the vast majority of those on the site do as well (some may not, but the they are free to read and post to, unless they troll too much.)

      • I admit, this article was a wealth of information and something to ponder on. But most common everyday, faithful Catholics don’t have time nor the resources to access this information. Can one truly blame them and include them in the so called “Universal Apostasy,” as “the great stalin” puts it? Will the majority of Catholics who are just striving to support a family both spiritually and economically be driven to the side of the goats on the last day or on their last day? I think not. The Church needs help and I admit after fully reading this article I have serious questions about the hierarchy but not to the detriment of my trust in his Ultimate guidance of the Church. We must be aware of Wolves in sheep’s clothing.
        Most traditionalist I know are legalistic and constantly embittered about someone or something in the Church’s hierarchical positions. I guess I just am put off by gloomy people like that and seems to be the case that a lot of rad-trads seem to espouse this blog. Forgive me for trying to troll or rip in to these assumptions I had of these patrons. I am doing the thing I hate to do and not doing what I ought to do.

        • To be sure, I was not accusing you of trolling, just laying out my personal policy (in accord with the comment policy of this site) for those who post who are not overtly affiliated with the Church, or those who are and are trolling. The average Catholic in the pew (a.k.a Joe six pack) is the victim of the dumbing down of the Catholic Faith for the past 50 plus years, and I am sure that the Lord is sympathetic toward them. I am not in favor of attacking all who attend the Novus Ordo, and neither are most posters here. When some post against Novus Ordoists they usually mean those who attack the Traditional Latin Mass and promote banal worship, not everyone who attends the typical Latin Rite Parish in the modern era. And they should be more clear in their posts.

          God is most solicitous of those who have been led astray by men who were ordained to lead His people to Him and He goes out of His way to give them actual graces to know Him, Love Him, and Serve Him, which includes the multitudes of injured and poorly tended sheep.

          That being said, there are people (perhaps many) who sit in the pews and are actually told the Truth and reject it because they are of the modernist mindset themselves and they will have to make and account before God for rejecting the Word of the Lord.

          • I agree with this, Father. The Latin mass nearest my family is at an FSSP parish that is five hours drive on a good day, six or seven hours in the winter. As such I can not justify the time or cost of packing up my family and driving to this parish every Sunday. So some of us are stuck with NO and make the best of it, even enjoy it and are grateful that we do get the blessed sacraments at our parishes even if they are not as efficacious as they would be at a LR mass.

            BUT, BUT to your point, there are I imagine zero, nada, no people at a LR mass who reject the real presence or think it’s some romantic old notion; who think that they are being the true Christians by supporting SS “marriage” and transgenderism and “choice”. It’s a vicious circle: stop believing in the real presence and you can believe anything else.

            Heck, two years ago I was fully in the love conquers camp. I read a few books, became convicted of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and even though I continued to hold heretical positions for a time, I stopped talking about those ideas. I read about why the Church teaches what she does….and then it ALL made sense. But my experience was atypical. Wish it weren’t so but it is.

          • I assume you are an ordained Priest? In any case, thank you for being so kind and helpful.

            Put in a good word for me in prayer and God Bless.

    • You don’t know what you have missed.
      It is still available because the Holy Spirit will never abandon us, but you have to go deeper.

  22. Will someone please explain? It seems this article infers that John XXIII and Paul VI were the victims of the “hijackers” and I’ve certainly ready articles previously that indicate the same, but recently I’ve read that John XXIII was a mason and Paul VI was a flaming homosexual. What is the truth regarding both of these persons? Even today, some claim that Pope Francis is well-intentioned but is being duped by his “friends”. Will they one day write about him being a victim, too? It just gets more confusing. We see evidence almost every week of his anti-Catholicism and it’s really hard to believe that he has faith! Were the two mentioned above in the same league?

  23. The Lord allows bad and evil things to happen so as to bring about a greater good…sometimes even greater than before.

    Everything wasn’t always rosy in the final decades of the TLM, had the Mass never changed, we still would’ve had sex abuse scandals and poor catechesis. The Church was already infiltrated by the Communists and the Freemasons, and the Lord had already granted Satan one-hundred years to rake havoc on the world. But where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. Which is why many devout Novus Ordo (Catholic) families, both home-schooled and not, have produced good holy devout orthodox priests..many go on to learn the TLM in fact. Religious vocations have also come from the Novus Ordo. And most go to traditional orders, thanks be to God.

    Who knows what the final result will be. Maybe an EF Mass in both Latin and English with a shared calendar..who knows. But pray for and be kind to those devout Catholics who are trying to be faithful to the Church and the Vicar of Christ. That IS being Catholic. They are being faithful and carrying the cross of the Novus Ordo liturgy. The traditionalists carry the cross of liturgical exile and knowing the truth about Vatican II. Novus Ordo attending Catholics have moved on with life in devout faithfulness to Holy Mother Church, with no ill-will towards traditionalists. Most have never even met a traditionalists. Most have never heard of the FSSP. I didn’t. All I knew 9 years ago was the SSPX were those traditionalists who said the Latin Mass in schism to the Church. Most Novus Ordo attending Catholics don’t have the free time I have to read and learn and correspond with great devout Catholics like yourselves. So pray for them.

    Articles such as this are great for re-affirming those who already believe it. But this article will reach very few Novus Ordo attending Catholics who at the very least, believe OnePeterFive to be fake Catholic news. Trust me, I see this and have defended this website on several Catholic Facebook pages. It won’t be until someone like Cardinal Burke, Sarah or Arinze or another, openly call attention to it or become pope and actually change things. Believe it or not, EWTN’s The World Over Live with Raymond Arroyo and his ‘papal posse’ which include Father Jerry Murray from NY and Robert Royal, will have the best chances to open the eyes and ears of Novus Ordo Catholics. Their critiques of Pope Francis the past two years or more have been factual and on point with no punches pulled.

    Trust me, It’ll be the older EWTN and younger Steubenville/March for Life Catholics who cross over to traditionalism first. So pray for them and find common ground with them.

    • One wonders if you were alive.
      Poor catechesis? There was catechesis, which is what is important.
      Poor? Because we didn’t “FEEL GOOD” at the end of the first forty-five minutes of the
      school day? Give me strength.
      If only the perfectionism brought to bear upon the pre-conciliar Church was employed in
      regard to the post-conciliar the current abomination might have been adverted before 1968.
      Despite protests to the contrary catechesis — and religious education — were
      abolished in the wake of the Vatican Council — and quite deliberately, if surreptitiously
      – as was everything conciliar until of course the age of Bergoglio and they are emerging from their closets.
      Take off the blinders, Father.
      And yes, there would have been sex scandals — as there always have been, but far fewer because all of us, including the clergy would have retained a sense of the gravity of sin.
      Sex scandals. I wish that was the only form of scandal.
      Our religion has become a scandal in itself as we watch one member of the episcopate after another falling into line with mindless heresy…
      You are absolutely correct in your final estimation, “…this article will reach very few Novus Ordo attending Catholics…” Why? Because 1] They don’t know anything about Roman Catholicism except their granny was one; 2] 95% of them could care less as long as they get to mass a couple times a month and get some communion; 3] fill in the blank.
      One billion Catholics across the planet are being sold a bill of goods – and it’s not the
      Faith that is fraudulent – but what is being substituted for the Faith and the snake-oil salesmen in dog collars hawking the poison.

      • FYI, don’t think he’s actually a priest, I believe I read that in a previous forum, just the handle he/she uses. Feel free to correct me “Fr Chuck” if I have this incorrect.

      • You misread everything I wrote. Congrats. And if you were alive back then, you’d know my avatar/handle/profile is Bing Crosby’s character Fr. Chuck O’Malley from ‘Going my way’ and ‘Bells of St. Mary’s’. I found using him as a character makes me write from a more charitable and thoughtful perspective.

        • Charitable?
          Naïve — at best.
          Father O’Malley, charming naïve he be, saw fit to put Sister Benedict through the agony of his “I know better — koochy-koo katholicism” all be in the Irish mode breaking her heart for weeks. The tyranny of “I know best.” A grievously false “charity.” It was about making him feel good.
          Comforting confections don’t cut the mustard.
          There is a lot that the “Bells of St. Mary’s” can offer for contemporary reflection.
          And yes, thank God I was there.

    • Whatever was going on before the Council, it was hidden, invisible. The Church is a visible society. At Vatican II, the rot became visible, and more than that, was actually approved by the purported authority. Therein lies the difference.

  24. If VATII was a “good council” there was no need yo “interpret” it.
    When the Holy Spirit speaks, he doesn’t speak ambiguously like the Pythia of Delphes.
    Ambiguous is the language of the Devil.
    Therefore VATII was a bad council.
    Ler’s pray that a new Holy Council will be called soon to abolish it and make solemn, infallible and binding teachings on all its ambiguous documents.
    For now, let’s act as if VATII never had existed since it was a pastoral council and therefore it cannot bind on any catholic faithful.whatsoever

    • Fr John Parsons made that same remark about V2 being non binding many years ago. The problem today arises when you are seeking to work within the Church with other people. That’s when it cuts deep because V2 iinaugurated a new vision of Church, which gets rid of doctrines and where everyone supposedly can find a home. Doctrine becomes a dirty word. Try passing on that kind of “Faith” to anyone and pleasing God! But if you are not actually working within Church structures, you are more of a free agent. Then you just have to find a good parish priest and he likely attracts some good parishioners, so you can do a lot as a free agent.

    • Since the Church cannot preside over, promulgate something evil, lest she defect from the Great Commission, Vatican II and the changes that came out of it cannot have come from the Church. The “binding” versus “non-binding” argument is simply a red herring, and should not be taken seriously. V2 happened. That’s the data upon which we must make a judgement, having 2000 years of infallible teaching with which to weigh against it.

  25. We wymmin at the St. Martina Luther Institute of Advanced Ecumenical heresy applaud the poster Milton for his stand against Traditionalists, all of whom are patriarchal men of the male gender – in other words those who repress and suppress wymmin of all genders and of none. Rigid and pharisaical, they reject joy, walking together and dialogue which Milton is obviously full of. Others may say he is full of something else but not we wymmin, we recognise a fellow traveller when we see one.

    Milton says, “You obviously missed out on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the 80’s and 90’s”. We wymmin have seen an outpouring of the spirit too, and I am not referring only to the gin that Doris is so fond of. No, Gaia is alive and well at the Institute!

    We access the spirit in various ways, mostly through shamanistic dancing, the use of Essence of Jasmine Oil to excite the chakras and regular doses of the Novus Ordo. We even manage on occasion to commune with Manheo, the god of the Cheyenne Tribe although our ecumaniacal endeavours stop short of doing the Sun Dance, after all who wants to be lifted into the air by ropes tied to eagles’ claws which have been shoved through your breasts? We suggest Milton does that one for us.

    Before we invite you Milton to our next ecumaniacal seance, there is only one question to answer. Do you ecumenate?

  26. “It is often voiced by conservatives disheartened by the changes in the Catholic Church ”

    “Conservative” is a political term, such a thing doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church. There are simply those that follow the faith as it was traditionally handed down and those that don’t.
    “conservative”, “liberal”? Go to Washington, DC if you’re looking for such things.

  27. I found this on another blog. It was so good I had to repost it here:

    5 days ago
    From the archives :
    Demolition Authorities

    “My mind always reverts to the events of our own days when so many of the beautiful edifices erected by our zealous ancestors are either destroyed, defaced or used for worldly, if not wicked purposes.”

    Ven. Anne Catherine Emerick,
    -Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

    The modernistic theologic snakes did crawl away and hide,
    When the great St. Pius X condemned, their teachings far and wide.
    The Church was then most vigilant against a poisoned creed,
    Liberalism was weeded out and exposed its devilish deed.

    But after wars have scourged the world and weakened Church resolve,
    Snakes came out from where they hide and poisoned that resolve.
    Along with truth they blend their lies so both will have an equal place.
    A Council called then they took charge with fast and liberal pace.

    Time bombs they placed so cunningly in every Council decree
    Enough to blow the Church apart from sea to shining sea.
    Pope John’s Aggiornamento update of what Catholics believed and known
    Has stripped away its very flesh right down to the very bone.

    No more are seminarians taught the theology of the Saints
    The Modernist’s took over and stifled all complaints.
    Along with this they punished those who dared to take a stand
    Outcasted them from every place except their New Church built on sand.

    The hierarchy of the “counciliar church” are in charge of the wrecking crew.
    Those reckless demolition authorities tear down the Church we knew.
    Nothing’s sacred anymore, no cathedral or church is spared.
    But a remnant few to their Bishops gave an “in your face” they dared.

    The authorities destroyed the real estate
    And forbade the timeless Mass;
    Our Holy Faith they can not take away
    Until the end of the time the Catholic Church will last.

  28. Please pardon my ignorance as I ask if the consecration of Russia had to be a public pronouncement? Could not a pope have simply consecrated Russia during the course of a mass? During private prayer?

    • I believe it was requested that it be done in concert with the Bishops of the world — but there are others here far more versed in this matter.

  29. So the council was usurped at the beginning. Then a future pope who is truly of God’s choosing, can (please, God, *will*) declare the council and all it’s results to be invalid.

  30. “[T]he schemas were worthy and orthodox, and should have been used”: please correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that Sacrosanctum Concilium was essentially the same as its preparatory schema version. It was, after all, prepared by the same men who had busily been revising and altering Holy Week, the calendar, the breviary, etc. In fact, as I recall, the reason the Council took up the document on the Sacred Liturgy first was because it was the only schema that hadn’t been tossed out. (Granted, there were additions and changes introduced into the schema before it was approved.)

  31. Yet another attempt to exonerate John XXIII and Paul VI for their role in this appalling event. The Council was not ‘hijacked’ without the approval of John XXIII. It was his Council; he owned it. This, remember, was the man who REFUSED the request of Our Lady to reveal the Third Fatima Secret in 1960. I’ll repeat that: he refused the request of Heaven.

  32. Anyone who knows the history of councils will find no surprises regarding the shennanigans that went on at Vatican II. Others were much worse. This is what St. Gregory of Nazianzus had to say about counciles: To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops IS TO BE AVOIDED, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council, not even the abolition of abuses…but only ambition and wrongdoing about what is taking place (Episte 130). Quoted by Cardinal Ratzinger in his book: Principles of Catholic Theology, Buildig Stones for a Fundamental Theology, San Francisco, Ignatius Press 1987, 368.

    St. Gregory knew quite a bit about councils. He had enough of them at the First Council of Constantinople of 381 and walked out because he had enough of wrangling and false accusations. From 325 Nicea to 381, there was a whole slew of councils and what they mostly did was expell the bishops they were against from their dioceses. Anyone who expects councils to be a nice affair is sorely deluded. However, Vatican II must be judged by the 16 documents it produced. I challenge anyone to come up with a heretical teaching from among them. They are no perfect, as no human product is.

  33. Things stank to high heaven (pardon the pun) when the council closed and then ‘suddenly’ the Mass was totally upended and turned into a protestant dinner party with, thanks to Josef Bernardin in 1977, cookies, followed by a shot of wine, being passed out at the sunday social . . . .

    (The ‘cookies’ and ‘beverage’ at one time had been the Holy Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine – which only exists now in the Traditional Latin Mass)


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...