Shocking revelations: How German radicals and other modernist heretics hijacked the 2nd Vatican Council, from the outset

….We all know there is a liberal narrative of the Council, what Benedict called the “Council of the Media”; but there is also a conservative narrative, one which tries to absolve the Council itself of all possible wrongdoing and place the blame squarely on post-Conciliar innovations. That narrative is no longer plausible after reading this book.

Read more

Editor’s note: And just a few short years later, radical hippies similarly hijacked the Democratic Party of the United States.


  1. In re the “Editor’s note”:

    Let’s stay on-topic. There is no meaningful analogy between Holy Mother Church’s hijacking by V-II’s post-Conciliar innovations (sic) and the hijacking of an American political party by “radical hippies,” whatever the latter term means.

    As I have pointed out in a previous post, “radical” derives from the Latin “radix,” which means “root.” In that sense, was the opposition of late-1960s hippies to war “radical”? If so, are they not to be commended?

    In any case, what was sacred about the Democratic Party (then or now) that they hijacked? What is sacred about any political party, for that matter?

    • The same actors – with the same mindset and ideology were involved in the respective takeovers. Politics is politics, whether inside the church or out. Did you read the referenced article on who all was involved in taking over the council – and how they achieved their ends? That’s politics, pure and simple. As for the term “radical” – here’s a definition from the Merriam Webster on-line Dictionary: a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
      b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
      c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
      d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs


      • In order to arrive at the Merriam Webster definition, at some time in the past, the word “radical” was hijacked and turned around an Orwellian 180 degrees. As a Latin purist, I take umbrage at such things. As to “who all were involved in taking over the council,” I was up on that long ago.

        The “hijacking” of V-II—while political to a degree—went light-years beyond politics, resulting in @50 dark-years…and counting.

  2. A blog for Dallas Area Catholics? Quotes the writer Mattei and his book on the second Vatican Council and takes notes from some bishops and infers what?
    Apparently the Council was hijacked according to Mattei by liberals and traditionists were marginalised by not appreciating what was occurring around them?
    Yeh yeh yeh . .My response must be Carters to the Curse of Tutankhamen. “Gentlemen, the answer is in the spherical and the plural”
    Does anybody appreciate what and whom were at the Council? Does anybody in Dallas or wherever understand that this “book” is a stunt and nothing but a stunt! Oh we are informed at the start that the writer wished to merely employ the personalities that dominated the Council and the Boniface person has offered no critique of the book other than a sycophants fawning.
    In the first place, again, The Council sat at numerous stages and its bishops agreed, accepted and provisioned all statements. I am afraid it is absurdity to whip up the notion that the wicked radicals remade the Church in a less than holy image under the noses of a conservative wing that presumably snoozed its way through the Council sessions?
    As I have mentioned again and again any book must sell and is written for that effect. Published and I presume directed at a dying wing of the Church that imagines that 1. Christ was off doing something else at the Council 2. Christ was ignored and Satan no less wormed the council into this deceit or 3. Christ was so stunned that he forgot his divinity and allowed a free-for-all?
    The blog seemed to praise the Book because it had merely shown the words of the dominant characters of the council?
    But where however do we encounter Wojtya? In stead we are presented with quotes that can hardly be held in context as the situation or depth of the statements is not presented. Just imagine what we could do with Holy Scripture if we quote a few lines here or there without others referenced?
    Politics is a dirty business and it is true that since the Vatican 2 there have been many in the Church (as well as outside) that have tried to twist the statements into their own agenda. That has always been the case as it is with Scripture itself! Nevertheless, the Council authority and statements are correct and its Bishops accept it as the light of Christ and that is why no pope since or ever will in the future deny or move back to a post Councillor world.
    So again I dismiss this book and its blog as anything to be regarded with a sigh and a shake of the head. Its sometimes good to get an opposite opinion but in this case it is just sad.

    • Proper disposition is always necessary for worthy participation in Catholic sacraments, devotions – and even, Church Councils. At Mass, a priest must desire to consecrate the bread and wine, transforming it into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Without that express intention, nothing happens – and the People of God are sacrilegiously defrauded. The book brings to light very disturbing revelations about the disposition of many of those who took part in the council – the results of which have been similar to the example provided above. Before you discount the possibility, out of hand, you should see and evaluate ALL the evidence.


      • Doug,
        I suspect that is simply not true about Priest requiring to desire to consecrate the host etc? A ordained Priest (?even latterly defrocked alas which is public statement but not irrevocable deterrent of his original consecration) consecrates the Eucharist whether he is a sinner or not.
        Indeed many saints that have “spoken” to Our Lord often reveal that he is upset because so many bad priests are able to trap his loving divinity within their sullied hands. Point being that Priests like lay persons often receive Our Lord in hate filled hearts and ignore his call for Love! Bad priests and there are many alas remind us of Judas Iscariot that sat at the Lords Table and ate and drank with him and his Apostles and was still wicked and gave himself over to his own wiles.
        So it is with many today but the Faithful are not abused and receive Our Lord even if a wicked priest whom has little regard for the Sacraments has consecrated them. Its like Baptism in that even a heretic may baptise a the grace and sacrament is given to the other etc.
        There are many articles out there from many writers and many agendas are served. We must have prudence and a discerning intellect/heart if we are to decide which of these are there to serve Our Lord and his Church and which are there to serve the ego or wiles of the writer/commentator. It is easy to attack the Council if we presuppose that it was in error or held personages that were misleading and/or misled the gullible, stupid or dull.
        The fact that Popes and bishops and the Wider Church agree that it was brought about Gods loving gentle Spirit (whilst we admit to some zealous overdoses in some places) should tell us something about the nature of the Council. They may of course be wrong and in that case writers like Mattei will be correct in their summary but I for one, you will understand, regard such temptations as puerile.

      • This has nothing to do with personal sin, It has to do with intention.If the priest does not intend to consecrate the Eucharist, then no consecration takes place.


  3. I make no reference are answer to your Democratic Party in the USA but I fear it is not much worse than its political opposites, though maybe larger?
    Politics based upon a Rule of the People seems globally depressing at the moment!

  4. In what circumstances does a priest not intend to consecrate the host at a mass?
    Obviously if a priest wishes not to do something in a “free country” he will probably not do it? There are stories rare but heard wherein a teacher at some theological college may admit to a non-belief in God but these always seem either stages or apocryphal?

    • The church assumes that when a priest puts on his stole and/or other vestments, he is publicly demonstrating his intention celebrate a valid Mass, along with a genuine consecration of the Holy Eucharist. Based on some of the Novus Ordo liturgies we have seen (clown masses, football masses, Halloween masses – with an ex. minister of the Eucharist distributing communion while dressed as the devil, etc. etc. – that earlier view of things now seems to be rather simplistic and out of date. There’s really no way to read the mind of a priest – or anyone – for that matter. The best we can hope for in our priests is faithfulness, piety and holiness. Failing that, Mass at your local Catholic Church may turn out to be little different than the service at the local Protestant denomination. A frightening thought!


      • 🙂 Doug, one wonders though about these stories of Priests geared-up as clowns (though I recall in Godspell Jesus was a clown?) footballers or devils? If they were true and in full context then that would be more than a surprised eyebrow raised. It would be inconsistent with the Holiness of the Mass etc. Indeed the local Bishop may have to investigate etc
        Yet I treat such tales with a pinch of salt. Often a priest may temporarily wear attire such as at the start of a Children’s mass to position and stress a particular point. Often changing back to full priestly garb for the mass proper but taken by some reports as if they were dressed inappropriately.
        At Halloween for example a priest may wear suitable garb if he is going to stress the true nature of the feast, its historical setting or its social context. Nothing wrong with the clergy using modern techniques to reach modern audiences just as long as they stress the importance of the mass therein.
        Well some protestants unfortunately could well teach some Catholics the way to behave in a Church! That is a very scary thought but no less true for that!

      • I don’t write about such things unless visual proof is available – typically video and documentary evidence. Such was the case with the mentioned Halloween Mass – and it wasn’t a kid’s Mass. The scary part was – all the parishioners seemed to think such things were perfectly normal! The liturgical abuses are real – and there are probably many more of them than we know about.


  5. Maybe and it is a maybe . .if the parishioners thought it was ok then it my have been? It is doubtful the priest was worshipping ghosts or hog goblins! It may simply have been a local event that was given up to a spirit of merriment.
    I am aware that such things are officially frowned upon but we must lighten up sometimes. Catholics are also about fun and having fun which no less demeans God in his Majesty.

    • The local priest and the parishioners do not own the Mass, nor do they have the authority to make light of it. The Mass belongs to the whole church – and the church belongs to God. Misappropriating the things of God is objectively the grave sin known as sacrilege.In general, if it wouldn’t have been appropriate at the Last Supper or at Calvary, then it certainly is not appropriate at Mass. Watch a video:


      • Thank you Doug.

        Its a very good video and seems to validate the idea of abuse but as I watch it I think we must not become overtly pompous!

        The first one of the Clown (priest is not a clown but using metaphor in Homily?) seems Ok. Nothing too wrong I have been to Church in a sex cinema in Spain which seemed far more odd. The priest may use what his intellect and rational logic to get across a theme to the Faithful. The liturgy is not abused therein as he is neither disrespectful or apparently abusive of the order of mass.
        The second clip of clowns about an altar, choir behind does not look like a mass let alone in a Catholic Church! More evidence is required therefore.
        It looked like the show Godspell to me!
        The Halloween communion is ok? The witch at the bidding prayers is unusual but I do not think she IS a witch because she has a pointed hat! Ludicrous critique. As a layperson she may wear any hat she so desires! It is not an insult to God.
        The Halloween is clearly a children’s mass and the idea that the priest (at the end of the mass) can dress up as Barney the friendly dinosaur may be unusual but hardly abuses the Eucharist. At Lourdes in the Church after mass the entire congregation can sing enthusiastically songs such as “Lord said to Noah”. Bedlam results and it is a great laugh. . one of the best Christian services available and great to see so many people rejoicing so freely! Bishops and clergy, the able and disabled.
        The mass had not yet ended but the Eucharist was not abused because it was back in tabernacle and I suspect the Priest could not get out of costume. It is amusing that he blesses them thus but hardly makes for denouncement as if it was mortal sin which it clearly is not.
        The puppet show and dancing is very much like the masses in Africa and even the Holy Father has seen and attended such large characters at the mass. Whilst the dancing is a modern interpretation to bring people to gather in the west it often meets with a half hearted movement of reserve which is probably a clash of cultures as much as independent spontaneity? Incidentally of course the dancing and more “charismatic” movements of the parishioners is far nearer to the early Christian Church than pew sitting formality as we have become accustomed.
        Showing Communion around to a congregation in a round circular church is as it should be!
        Lastly, The woman priests are in a Protestant Church. It is not a Catholic Church or mass as the cross rather than Crucifix clearly shows. Protestants have their own legality and liturgy and it is not for Catholics to determine the correctness in officialdom of such enterprises!

        There are abuses of the Eucharist but far worse than anything here is the abuse of sin and the fact that so many in the traditionalist brigade refuse to accept the Authority of Pope or Bishop or Council as they limit their own awareness of God to what they as individuals assume! Plus we have the unsanctified sinfulness of some heretical bishops believing they can retain Catholic Authority whilst they deny the True Apostolic Church led on earth by the Pope! Wanting to have their cake and eat it they are the real abuses of the Mass and its Spirit!

        In recent decades, the advance of the Charismatic Movement has led to a surge of enthusiastic rejoicing in the Church. To many this seemed at first to be heretical or even bordering in demonic insincerity. A wild jumping around of ignorant people that had “lost it” somewhere along the line. Today it has become almost mainstream in many congregations and is far more accepted as a praise of God both on and off the altar.

        In my own Church this last summer (as every Summer) we were fortunate to have visits from some African Congregations. The Singing was akin to a Gospel Baptist type of praising, very harmonic as African music can be and of splendid loud volume! Infectious and without any doubt in my mind pleasing to God. Miles away from the slow modesty of usual western congregational adoration to some it could have been viewed as madness! People moving and singing and arms in the air! What ever next! Christ being adored publically! How very shocking!

        So we must not be like the Pharisees that wished to “observe” the letter of the law. They were shocked by Christ and his followers that ignored the law of Moses in favour of doing their own thing. Yet we understand that Jesus was correct and whilst the video clips are apparently unusual they hardly ALL breach the Liturgy (note my comments above to see what is a mass as the last one is clearly a protestant service etc)
        The problem is not disrespect it is ignorance. The fact that in the Church we shall be reverential and show respect does not exclude us from having fun at mass and recalling it is a celebration. If we consider that any other aspect of the mass other than our own view point is acceptable and that only people that behave as we do are correct then we limit the glory of Gods grace. Time and again we must be aware that the mass is always to be inclusive and should not be exclusive.
        This does not mean we show disrespect and come to mass regardless of the knowledge of where we are and whom is in the Eucharist that we shall receive but it means that we must not behave always as if a ruler was stuffed up our back and we could go to mass to enjoy the presence of a rejoicing neighbourly congregation.

      • I can’t believe you are attempting to defend this type of thing – for which there is absolutely no justification or excuse! The Mass is solemn re-presentation of the one time, once for many, propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind by Jesus Christ, on the cross at Calvary. That’s about as “inclusive” as anything could possible be – and it needs no creative help from any of us. Nobody – not the Pope – not any of the other Bishops – not any priest or deacon – and certainly not any lay person – has the right to demean, deform or abuse the holy liturgy. Not in the least! There is no glory in liturgical abuse. There is only disrespect for the Lord and scandal for the People of God. These things are a sign of ignorance and impiety – not inclusion and tolerance. We know from the sacred scriptures that God is very particular about how he is to be worshiped. Nothing has ever changed in that regard! Save the costumes and clowns for church picnics and holiday parties. Such things have no place in the holy sacrifice.


  6. Not defending anything just stating what this appears to be or not. For example my comments about the Homily stand as do the comments I made about the Protestant service at the end.
    I am not suggesting for a moment that the Celebration of the Mass is or should be held up to ridicule but quite frankly from the above I find it difficult to see the storm in the tea cup as other than in a tea cup?
    Rather like the change in our morale sense where for example our Grand parents (great Grand parents depending on our age) may have found skirts above the ankle let alone the knee as shocking and if presented with bare arms in a church they would have deplored that too! My point is that God is bigger than we can anticipate and the shows in the video clip though perhaps not something that one would expect to see too much of; are not directly in denial of Mother Church either.
    I am in full agreement about the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary but the way this is interpreted and “presented” will differ from age to age and from place to place. The Mass is presented to the faithful in ways that they must understand hence for example the relevance of a cartoon character to bring them to Christ is not against the Liturgy but a (rather surprising) modern way to teach children a great truth. We do not mock such characters because they are unreal anymore than we mock the crib or happy pictures in a childrens book. What is important is that the Liturgy brings the people to Christ so they can celebrate Calvary for all its meaning.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s