For more than 1900 years, the serenity and peace of the Catholic Faith and the certainty of the Church’s immutable doctrine were widely recognized as products of the fullness of divine grace and truth, which she alone possessed.


But now all has changed… dreadful days have come upon us which the appeasing rhetoric of modernized Christians cannot hide: the Revolution of the atheist world has entered the Church and is wearing everything down.

There is no longer any stability and the Church appears to have entered into a perennial Revolution which changes everything continuously: confusion in the rites, confusion in doctrine, confusion in morals, confusion in discipline.

You do not know if the truth of today will be the same tomorrow. Many, priests and faithful, rush around anxiously in order not to be left behind, adapting themselves in whatever way they can, to this wearisome confusion.

The one who is truly seeking God in this revolutionary Church, is left frightfully alone.

What to do in this suffocating atmosphere? And what not to do?

First of all, it is important not to be beset by agitation, it is important not to react like revolutionaries: that would be like treating a disease, which is precisely what the Revolution is, with the same illness. The revolutionary spirit, even when it pretends to save the good, will never be the solution.

Instead, it is essential to stay really outside of the Revolution, by living Catholicism integrally in the stability that was there, before the Revolution invaded everything.

Read more

Editor’s note: Vatican II is what happens when God finally steps aside and permits the men who run the Catholic Church to pursue all the desires of their hearts.


  1. My version of the editor’s note: Vatican II occurred not at the bidding of the Holy Spirit, but in utter disregard of Him. No amount of pollyanna-ish sophistry or angry “justification” can refute the obvious truth of what the editor and I and so many others have—in wretched sadness—written in re. The poisonous fruits of this misbegotten council condemn themselves and the tree from which they fell.


  2. I am afraid that Scampy22 must pick you up on this, both Doug and Mark.
    Firstly and I say this as respectfully as I can but is something that quite frankly you should be aware of; That Vatican Two as expressed by Paul 6 to the heretics against it “The Spirit of the Council is the Will of the Holy Spirit”.
    What does the pope mean?
    He means to inform the faithful and the not so faithful, the wise and the stupid that The Council is the Will of Gods Holy Spirit and therefore any critique of the Council expressed in public is to scandalise the Church. It is not permitted for any blog that professes Catholic teaching to scandalise Mother Church and deny or speak badly of the Council. If this is done for whatever reason than a serious sin of Pride is in Omission.
    Whatever the critique of the Council as “imagined” by whomever both Cleric or layperson it is not permitted to scandalise the Council and suggest that it in some way or other God was not present in the Council.
    God was present in the Council and it is a sin against the Apostolic Faith of Catholic Tradition to imagine or imply he was negligent either then or now in the direction of Mother Church his bride. It is a grave sin of Pride against faith to speculate on such an issue and divorce reason from the faith of the people of God. It is a grave error to speculate or offer a critique for any Catholic to ridicule or allow scandal to strike at Mother Church.
    Lastly, in regard to the Apostolic Church and the Faith that is professed by the Church it is a sin against Hope to imagine or imply or allow any statement against the Hope of the Faithful founded and given full reign in the Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church as it exists under the leadership of its lawful Popes as they are today.

    Basically folks the One True and Apostolic Church that is the Church of today led by Pope Francis, and in direct line from him back to St Peter himself is alive and well. It flourishes still in the world and its last Council, the Second Vatican Council was inspired, directed and led by God The Holy Spirit. Whether some few agree with this or not is irrelevant! As a Catholic? there is only the choice to follow the Teaching and doctrine of the Church. Hence Our Lords warning of Pick up your Cross and follow me.
    The fact that some few in the catholic world have been unable to step up to this demand is sad but hardly novel. Many on hearing Christ himself found they could no longer follow him. It is not however a liberal right of Catholics to Scandalise the Church by sneering at the Council etc. That unrepented action will receive a terrible condemnation because it is to sneer at Gods very Spirit as recents popes have suggested.


    • I can’t imagine why God would want to nearly destroy a Catholic Church that was, at the time, doing an excellent job of shining the light of Jesus Christ on the world and otherwise functioning at a very high level. You make certain assumptions about the presence of the Holy Spirit and the intentions of the people running the council, but the actual results and the dismal aftermath put all of that in serious doubt. It would be blasphemy to blame all of that on God. Better to look at those who stealthily entered in to steal, and to kill, and to destroy – and blame them. There’s no other rational way to properly reconcile the council with the terrible results. Either they sabotaged the church on purpose, with malice aforethought, or they were the most corrupt, inept group of clerics the world has ever known. Either way, you can’t pin it on the Holy Spirit! We have some very bad hombres running the church today – and they are now so bold as to dispense with all the window dressing – shamelessly proclaiming their modernist, anti-Catholic beliefs as if they were genuinely rooted in the sacred deposit of faith. It is they who scandalize the church and mislead the faithful. Not me. We know from scripture that there will come a time when God throws up his hands and withdraws his protection from the Church. We may now be living in that era. If so, things are going to get much worse, before they get better – and sugar coating everything isn’t going to help a bit!

      Thank you for commenting. I appreciate your input!



      • “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.”

        Doug, I cannot think of a better directive for you, from the best possible Director.


  3. I must say that in historical note I cannot understand the proposition that is suggested that
    “why God would want to nearly destroy a Catholic Church that was, at the time, doing an excellent job of shining the light of Jesus Christ on the world and otherwise functioning at a very high level”
    as it is plainly incorrect. Firstly the Catholic Church was not doing well and with two world wars and the obvious advance of modernity and the revolt of communism across much of a former Christian World, with the growing tide of other Christian Churches and the failure by the Church to come to terms with a growing educated people the time was set for a new revision. From Pope Benedict 15 we first encounter a Church under siege from a war that had no winners and a progress away from the 19th century and its authoritarianism that had been shattered in blood baths such as the Somme. With Pius 11 the Church realising its uncertain political ground made a treaty with the Fascists and by the time Pius 12 viewed the Church, he was well aware that the Church needed a new direction. The Church in point of fact was losing on all fronts and its response was as Pope John would maintain to “open a few windows”. basically therefore the Catholic Church did not produce a Council because it was working well rather because it was failing in its mission. It was the Council that would bring a revolution into the World and show Christ anew to a new world. This vision led by men like John Paul the Second would see the demise of the Communist Block and bring freedom back to the world. Thereafter you suggest that:

    Either way, you can’t pin it on the Holy Spirit! We have some very bad hombres running the church today – and they are now so bold as to dispense with all the window dressing – shamelessly proclaiming their modernist, anti-Catholic beliefs as if they were genuinely rooted in the sacred deposit of faith.

    Pope Paul 6 was reminding the wicked bishops in France that they were not only in mortal sin by their wilful DISOBEDIENCE to the Papal authority but that they were against the Holy Spirit because it was he whom had allowed the Council to exist and come fourth. Furthermore that it is a sin of grave matter that such people for any reason whatsoever can contradict the Bishop of Rome and the majority of the Worlds Bishops, the Magisterium.
    Whom you Doug, think are these bad hombres is bizarre? Apparently anyone with a liberal sense of justice or modern understanding is guilty of attacking the sacred roots of the faith??? That is clearly nonsense! The pope and his Bishops and the Faithful that follow these are the Real Catholic Church and the people that refuse to acknowledge them (to be Obedient unto death as Jesus was obedient unto death) are in grave error. To suggest or imply or falsify the true character of our Churchmen, the greater part whom are good men and men of faith is a mortal sin of presumption. Beside this even if we had a bad pope . .and bad bishops? then it would still be the duty of the Catholic to follow their teaching as in good obedience. The worse thing is that some catholics today assume they are their own judges and can do whatever they think/feel/suppose is right. The self willed rebellion of self willed and proud souls on the assumption that they hold sacred truth is a lie from Lucifer and will unrepented result in catastrophe.
    Lastly you suggest that:

    We know from scripture that there will come a time when God throws up his hands and withdraws his protection from the Church. We may now be living in that era. If so, things are going to get much worse, before they get better – and sugar coating everything isn’t going to help a bit!

    I have no idea what Scripture or reading you have discovered such balderdash! In the first and last, Jesus is forever with his Church. I am with you until the end of the world is a statement to back such assumption that he will leave us alone?
    At no moment does God EVER throw his hands up and withdraw his protection from us and we have this implied in The Lords Prayer “Lead us not into Temptation but deliver us from Evil”. It is anathema to imagine that Jesus teaches us these words to allow any moment when he will not be there for us all the way. He is the Truth and the Light and we are ALWAYS his and in EVERYTHING.
    As for the idea that we may now be living in that era? An era that is suggested at the end of the world, its apocalypse?
    GOD GIVE ME PATIENCE! Look Doug. how long have we known eachother? What is wrong with you to imply such drivvle? You are; not as long as I have known you been so stupid or presented such a dismal argument?
    You know full well that it is a foolishness of the first order to become or suggest to become an apocalyptic advocate. The rise of some Hollywood lunacy has produced the end of the world theorists that always come out of the woodwork and shout woe to this and that and imagine the terrors of some end age nonsense. For that is what it is .. NONSENSE! Unworthy of the site and of you my friend.
    We may be living in the end of times or we may not? It is all irrelevant because the only thing that matters then or now is Jesus and the Love he has for us all. It is puerile to suggest we are sugar coating the reality of a ever more and more sinful world as if we are unaware of the dangers about us?
    I think all good people can be alarmed of the many horrors that threaten us from many sides but if that is all we see or understand then we have missed the point of our redemption. That is that God does not abandon us even when we think he does and we all can understand that cry we give when we do not understand why he has abandoned us? Where he has led us or for what reason? But sooner of later faith shall show us that we are not abandoned but God is also about questions and not answers, even when we expect the latter.
    I hardly therefore can agree with you over this blame the people that led the Church into a spiral of self destruction because they have forgotten or sold us down the swanney without Christ lifting a finger to prevent universal collapse of his Church.

    It is the responsibility of the Catholic to maintain the Catholic Churchs reputation even when individuals find it hard to follow. The temptation is against the faith and to suggest that the Church is in error or not really following sacred doctrine because it has failed Christ, period. We must reject the Pharisee that sets themselves up as being able to presume to shake the dust from their feet because such acts condemn us when we turn from the Catholic Church and assume ourselves its judges. Our Salvation rests in the Catholic Church and we shall follow it where it leads because to do otherwise is to make unto ourselves a graven image, a false belief and the enslavement of grave error.


    • We Catholics have Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures, along with 1950 years worth of infallible church teachings on which to rely. The mere fact that much of today’s church hierarchy has decided to go there own way and attempt take others with them does nothing to change any of the above facts. It only makes understanding them more important. The definition of popes and bishops publicly teaching things contrary to the Catholic faith is apostasy and it has happened before. What’s new and very disturbing is the in-your-face, populist way it is happening today – and how the world – including the Catholic world – is “eating it up”. The bad fruits of fifty years of poor Catholic catechesis have become ripe to the point of rottenness. Knowing nothing for sure, these uncatechised Catholics are now open to to believing almost anything. But Catholic truth has never been changeable or conditional. The bad hombres who are presently in charge of the church obviously don’t believe that, and evidently, neither do you. There’s that (objective) state of mortal sin you mentioned. As for end times: The end times began on the first Christian Pentecost and they continue, today. I don’t know when Jesus will come again, nor do I care to speculate about it, but I do pray and I do know how to watch for signs – which is precisely what Jesus told us to do. The Scriptures tell us that in the latter days, there will be wolves dressed as sheep and false prophets, peddling lies and falsehoods, which many – even some of God’s “elect” – will gladly choose to accept. If I turn out to be wrong about this I will gladly repent, apologize and seek forgiveness from God, in the confessional. If they are wrong, such may no longer even be possible. These are perilous times! For the record – I never claimed the Catholic Church is in error, since such a thing is patently not possible. I write only about those within the church who preach, teach and disseminate things which are clearly contrary to the faith. May God have mercy on their souls!



      • Oddly enough I do agree with much of your comment here Doug. Perhaps not as zealous in the appointment of your view but I agree for example almost entirely and more than 100 percent with your opening paragraph about what the Church says/believes.
        My point is the central point of virtually 99% of the Catholic Church today; that is that the Church is not apostatized and indeed just because it takes new steps to new positions that is not a bad thing but inevitable part and parcel of change in both Church and World.
        Basically that unlike modern Conservatives that border on heretical fury against any changes I think the Church leads and we follow. It is not the other way around.
        Our Sacred truths and dogma are always up for interpretation as indeed is Holy Scripture itself. Obvious examples in awareness of language and taking the Our Father in context. Nobody as far as I am aware suggests openly we keep the word “Abba” which we understand is nearer to Dad or Daddy than Father! We do however understand that one of the extreme problems the Jews had with the Teaching of Jesus is the open familiarity he displayed towards the All High! Nevertheless we say Our Father but that does no less suggest a familiarity that would and does make many other religions blush with our daring.
        Therefore if we understand that the Popes since 1959 (and as I note before) are friends to Jesus just as St Peter was then we shall react to their wishes, hopes or commands in a new way. We shall not insult their authority over us or the Church because faith teaches us that they are in authority because Christ allows it so. We must never be disobedient and we shall strive to adhere to them because we shall certainly answer to God if we have simply rebelled without a properly enlightened conscience.
        In the Acts of the Reformation Luther and Calvin and many others for example saw that they could not in all conscience follow the Bishop of Rome (even if politically inept but theologically sound) and broke in their conscience and Church with the Roman Church.
        However as you are aware there remain a large number although insignificant in the Church worldwide of people that refuse to accept the will of the Papacy and its fellow bishops. They consistently claim to be the true Catholic Church and yet refuse to acknowledge the Papal Authority or its ability to change. We recall that the Pope is the chief lawmaker or changer of any law within the Church.
        We recognise that there have been anti-popes and even legitimate popes that were self seeking individuals and lived openly bad lives full of sinful wickedness.
        Yet we recognise that the last many popes (perhaps since Pius6) have been courageous and men of honour. For this reason the Catholic Church worldwide has started to flourish and I attest that Pope Francis is in their mould and a good shepherd to his people. Of course he may get things wrong but we as Catholics should not kick our pontiff if he stumbles under the cross his office obliges him to carry. We should try to Love him, pray fro him and rebuke the minority that sneer and belittle his kindliness and humility.
        My last point here is that I detest those that regard the Pope as a mere figurehead if that. He is not, he is appointed by Christ and the Holy Spirit and with good reason (whether we can see the reason or not is irrelevant in the faith of the Church!) He is the leader in our faith and we shall respect him and his office and treat them both as appointed by God. To do otherwise by any Catholic is ironically a sin of presumption and pride and the wilful disobedience to the Holy Office is nothing less than diabolical in origin. Those that believe themselves equal to Gods mandate given to St Peter and his successors is woefully off the mark.
        So whilst I agree with much of your statement and can even applaud it on several points – although I imagine that some of the commentators may choose to think me arrogant or patronising, though neither is correct or worthy of them or us – I do not agree with the down trodden implication in the original article or our replies that in some way Pope Francis is a moron or worse and we best stick to proven traditional truths regardless of the will of our pontiff to lead us to new pastures. To me and the worldwide Church, Francis is a great pope and already has shown the faithful new ways to be inspired by grace and to embrace old traditions in new ways that are relevant to the world we live in today.


      • Just look at what all your “new interpretations” have done to the post-Vatican II Catholic Church – and the world! Any other organization with such dismal results would have ceased to exist, long, long ago. It’s only by the grace and power of God that the Catholic Church still abides. Hopefully, these wayward clerics and these perilous times are merely a temporary chastisement which will lead to a genuine revival of the authentic Catholic faith – not the counterfeit, lukewarm swill that has been willfully and wantonly foisted upon the People of God, by corrupt and worldly men, for the last fifty years. Jesus Christ is God. He took on flesh, was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. He lived and died as a holy propitiation for the sins of mankind. He rose again from the dead. He founded one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church, for the purpose of our salvation. Then, ascended to his throne in Heaven, from whence he will come at some future time, to judge the living and the dead. The doctrines of our Catholic faith are clear. What need is there for constant reinterpretation – except perhaps – to satisfy sinful humans and their egos and tickle the ears of the foolish?



  4. In deconstruction of your query Doug you appear to be asking; What has happened to the Modern post V2 Catholic Church?
    Well I suppose like most things it depends upon what we think the Church is or means?
    To a greater number of Catholics the Church has come to accept that it is one of many Churches without surrendering its apostolic and Holy Mission. Whilst the Church retains Sacramental graces it also recognises that working with other Christian brethren in their respective protestant churches it is able to reach out to a greater number of people than ever before. Across the World the Church continues to increase and flourish. This is the will of Almighty God as expounded by the Church Fathers and modern Saints. Hence Padre Pio always welcomed protestants and even gave them Holy Communion on more than one occasion. St Faustina and her visions of The Divine Love make it quite certain that Christ desires the Salvation of all his children and does not hold favourites. Again in response to the Council the Bishops are world wide more united with their Christian brethren that at any moment before the Council. In keeping with Johns Gospel and the prayer of Jesus that his Church should be one.
    Catholics since the Council are able to pray with non catholics and work together and for greater unity. Quite frankly it is a blasphemy to imagine that this is against the will of Christ Our Lord.
    Perhaps you refer to modern scandals such as the sex scandals that have come to light in recent years? In these the Church is seen to fail in public in its mission of Grace to the World. Alas there is nothing new in such scandals and the only thing that is new is that a modern secular world no longer pays deterrence to the Church that so often in the past covered these scandals up! I refer in obvious example to the Archbishop Gagilardi affair wherein that cleric whom wilfully opposed Pio in so much also led a cover up of gay clerics etc that was well scandalised back in the 1920s.
    Back to the Council, in its vernacular language it allows a great number of people to attend Church and take part in active fashion rather than as passive observers. Across Europe and I presume America, the native tongue has brought many benefits and today Catholics can grow to understand something about their faith rather than have it force fed to them by an elite.
    In the charismatic movement the Church has been able to come to terms with the person of The Holy Spirit in ways that pre Council attitudes did not allow or understand. For example the Council has shown the people of God that the Holy Spirit is indeed God and not a bird or a abstract that is unbelievable by an educated populace.
    You ask lastly what need is there for constant reinterpretation?
    Well as I point out in the way the Church has grown from the Founding to the Modern day requires enormous reinterpretation! For example, slavery was universal in the ancient world but today because of a secular (if Christian inspired action from activists) act, slavery is no longer acceptable. The idea of the Church allowing it as in the past would be contemptible. The entire History of the Church has grown in history and if we look at the 1950 definition of the Assumption we are reminded that we are still learning sacred truths! Without the definition it would remain a matter of choice! Reinterpretation? Absolutely!
    What do you suppose Nicene stated? It stated an orthodox position of its day but before Nicene it was perfectly acceptable to believe in Christ as not quite God! What you state about the Creed is admirable but Doug it is historical naive to imagine that is what Catholics believe period. We believe in far more than that!
    The Council was not doctrinal it was pastoral in nature and made to bring souls, whether they be strong in faith, weak and vacillating (what or whom makes the distinction I have no idea as it seems less than charitable?) to a greater understanding of the modern world. That is why great popes continue to be inspired and use its sounding to bring Jesus to an ever large and diverse world of humanity.


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 )

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