Dirty little secret: Many of today’s “Fallen away Catholics” were first left spiritually and morally abandoned by the “Fallen Away, Know-Nothing Catholic Church” of the 1970’s.

by Doug Lawrence

Coming of age in the early 1970’s and looking to the Catholic Church for guidance on faith, family and other matters of critical import brought only shrugs, along with the continuing assurance that I would be just fine if only I managed to follow my conscience.

But how could I follow my conscience on matters I knew nothing about? Wasn’t there somebody who could provide a reliable Catholic perspective for me – perhaps a local priest or a bishop? (Sound of crickets chirping.)

That was my personal experience with the “New Pentecost” which led to the “New Springtime” of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church – and it took me more than twenty years to get over it!

It wasn’t until I eventually developed a modicum of personal maturity, along with the necessary research skills, that I managed to overcome the ecclesial nonsense, fend off the rampant incompetence and corruption, and finally develop a working understanding of the one, true faith – no thanks to anyone in the church, except God!

It was then that I discovered – or more correctly – rediscovered – the power and the glory that is still ever present in the Holy Catholic Church – despite the rabble and the schmucks (I’m really trying to remain charitable here) who continue (on a daily basis ) to do everything in their power to run it into the ground!

The clerics of the 1970’s Catholic Church were AWOL when I most needed them, and due to the wide-spread apostasy and modernism embedded in virtually every part of the institutional church, many of them remain (at least, spiritually) absent without leave, today!

Modernism is the present day equivalent of Original Sin, since it corrupts everything! I have little doubt that when Pope Paul VI spoke of the Smoke of Satan somehow finding its way into the Temple of God, it was actually Modernism of which he spoke!   

For example: At this past Sunday’s Mass I was subjected to a homily, consisting of at least forty percent pure heresy, that was later followed by vigorous applause from the entire congregation (minus one – me).

What used to get a person (particularly a priest) sanctioned, or even burned at the stake, now generates spontaneous applause and wide-spread approval!

Witness the “Francis Effect” in action!

God help us!

The Pope cannot change fundamental Catholic Church doctrine – so why does he go out of his way to make it look and sound like he’s going to?

St. Peter and St. John at the Beautiful Gate

by Doug Lawrence

Vatican II has already fundamentally changed Catholic Church doctrine, so those who claim the Pope cannot or will not do so are being somewhat disingenuous. Our present pope is the biggest “cheerleader” for Vatican II that the world has ever seen.

A “New Evangelization” is necessary in part, because in the wake of Vatican II, the people who ran (and still run) the Catholic Church led many of the faithful (and most of the known world) into ignorance, confusion and apostasy.

Top Church management is not much better enlightened today, so it’s necessary to question precisely what the “New Evangelizers” are asking faithful Catholics to do, that they haven’t been doing all along.

If they’re asking us to spread a “new” gospel that’s based on “freebies alone” (that’s what it sounds like) then we have a big problem, since the secular governments of the world have learned to inflate their tax rolls and and leverage their currencies in ways that allow them to finance massive wealth transfer/social programs which dwarf anything in that regard that individual Catholics (or Catholic parishes, or national bishops councils, or the Vatican) might be able to offer.

So, in a contest based solely on temporal goodies and give-aways, the New Catholic Evangelization is not only bound to fail – it will fail miserably! The sad record of The Catholic Campaign for Human Development and other high-profile Catholic Charities already provides ample evidence of this. When the Church takes government money, supposedly in order to accomplish charitable things, it invariably becomes subject to that very same secular government and the result is almost always something much less than truly charitable – and also something much, much less than authentically Catholic.

True charity, as it’s faithfully described in the authentic Gospels, is freely sharing the grace and love of God with others – not just by providing a modicum of necessary PHYSICAL GOODS – but also – and principally – making freely available those SPIRITUAL GOODS which ONLY the Catholic Church is capable of providing in UNLIMITED, SUPERNATURAL ABUNDANCE.

Now Peter and John went up into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer. And a certain man who was lame from his mother’s womb was carried: whom they laid every day at the gate of the temple, which is called Beautiful, that he might ask alms of them that went into the temple. He, when he had seen Peter and John, about to go into the temple, asked to receive an alms. But Peter with John, fastening his eyes upon him, said:

Look upon us. But he looked earnestly upon them, hoping that he should receive something of them. But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk. And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up: and forthwith his feet and soles received strength. And he leaping up, stood and walked and went in with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God.

And all the people saw him walking and praising God. And they knew him, that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened to him. And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran to them, to the porch which is called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.

But Peter seeing, made answer to the people: Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this? Or why look you upon us, as if by our strength or power we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just: and desired a murderer to be granted unto you. But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead: of which we are witnesses. And in the faith of his name, this man, whom you have seen and known, hath his name strengthened. And the faith which is by him hath given this perfect soundness in the sight of you all.

And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance: as did also your rulers. But those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ. Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world. For Moses said: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me: him you shall hear according to all things whatsoever he shall speak to you. And it shall be, that every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. And all the prophets, from Samuel and afterwards, who have spoken, have told of these days.

You are the children of the prophets and of the testament which God made to our fathers, saying to Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed. To you first, God, raising up his Son, hath sent him to bless you: that every one may convert himself from his wickedness. (Acts 3:1-26)

We Catholics have no need of any other model or paradigm.  Hence, our reliance on the “Great Commission of Jesus Christ” which explicitly charges Catholics with the duty of continuously, clearly, charitably and unambiguously preaching the divine truth of the authentic Gospels to everyone, without exception – day in and day out – all around the world – as we pray without ceasing!

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28:16-20)

The post-Vatican II Catholic Church leadership has already reasoned, preached and politically negotiated their way around these explicit commands of Jesus Christ, cleverly inferring that some people have no need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his Holy Catholic Church. Now, as part of this “New Evangelization” they want us to do the same. That’s certainly new and novel, but it’s also material heresy – and that’s not something that any Catholic should be preaching!

Pope Francis’ attempt at projecting an image of a kinder, gentler, “big tent” modern Catholic Church is something that would be laudable if such had not already been the case since the very beginning, courtesy of its’ divine founder and finisher, Jesus Christ.

If things have gone off the track in recent times, the hierarchy might consider going back to and once again learning to rely on what God has already provided, that which the Catholic Church has always possessed in unlimited, supernatural abundance and which – in every age except perhaps, this present, wicked one – has always proved to be sufficient.

Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Catholics of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design
the Novus Ordo Mass and usher in forced
Conciliar Reforms that the Catholic faithful never requested 

by Doug Lawrence

Regarding the Crimea situation, Vladimir Putin recently had this (in part) to say:

Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation.

Those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. 

We can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

Putin’s words – whatever their particular object or authorship – whether truthful or mere political rhetoric – struck a “cord” with me, regarding recent Catholic Church history and politics. Change just a few of the words and see what you get:

Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Catholics of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation. (Absolutely true, right up to the present day.)

Those who stood behind the workings of the 2nd Vatican Council had a different agenda: they were preparing to take over the Catholic Church; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. (Absolutely true, right up to the present day.)

We can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Henry VIII and the other great heretics of the Protestant Reformation. (Absolutely true, right up to the present day.)

I don’t know who writes Putin’s speeches – but the stuff about “forced assimilation” applies to all kinds of long standing political and ideological grievances – including the Israel/Palestinian conflict, abortion, homosexual unions, the HHS Mandate and of course, the way the obtuse and destructive “spirit” of Vatican II continues to be forcibly inflicted on the Catholic faithful.

People resent having someone else’s “brilliant” ideas “jammed down their throats” and they also tend to have very long memories. Fifty-plus years of dismal evidence testifies to wrong-headedness of the people who took over and implemented the Conciliar Reforms.

I wonder when “The Catholic Peace Talks” will officially begin?

The (semi-official, new-church) Guidelines for Dramatizing the Passion of the Lord – Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem, around the year 33 AD, at the behest of unknown assailants, formerly known as “The Jews”.

Jesus Christ – crucified by unknown assailants

In order to save time, I will summarize: Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem, around the year 33 AD, at the behest of unknown assailants, who were for some 1950 years, identified as “the Jews” – but who are not, any longer – because that would be politically incorrect and generally opposed to the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

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.

Unexpected resistance to “The New Evangelization”

Once upon a time on a sunny Saturday afternoon during the New Springtime following the Second Vatican Council, a well-meaning Catholic man worked up the courage to invite his Methodist neighbor to join him for Holy Mass.

After Mass the following morning, while enjoying coffee and donuts in the multi-purpose room (sponsored by the Knights of Columbus), the Methodist talked about how at home he felt and how comfortable the entire “service” was for him.

The Catholic wasted little time in seizing the opportunity to suggest that perhaps his neighbor might wish to avail himself of the unity for which Our Lord prayed by converting to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Methodist, unfazed, wiped a dollop of Bavarian cream from his chin and replied, “Thanks for the offer, friend, but as you know, I am validly baptized. In other words, I received the Holy Spirit just as you did in your baptism, and it’s the Spirit that brings us into intimate union with Christ, so that He is the principle of the Church’s unity. Clearly I am not lacking in unity!”

Disarmed but not discouraged, the new evangelist laid hold of the big guns, firing back, “Yes, but the Catholic Church is the solitary means of salvation established by Christ.”

Vatican II – the “pastoral council” that brought chaos to the Church – even before the close of its final session.

Contrary to the official party line, Vatican II was no “love-fest”

Could the great apostasy brought on by diabolically disoriented popes be what is spoken of in the portion of the Third Secret of Fatima that has yet to be revealed?

Let’s consider the testimony of Cardinal Ciappi, who read the Third Secret.  Cardinal Ciappi was a distinguished theologian from the pontifical household from 1955 to 1989.  In a letter to Professor Baumgartner, the Cardinal made an astonishing admission about the Third Secret.

He wrote: “In the Third Secret it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” (6) Notice, he didn’t say it would begin “near the top”, but “at the top” – the same pattern we have seen repeated throughout history.

In a 1984 interview, Cardinal Ratzinger also spoke of the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima.

The interviewer asked: “Have you read what is called the Third Secret of Fatima?”  To his surprise, the Cardinal answered “yes”, and then went on to discuss what it contained.  The Cardinal said “the things contained within the ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian Apparitions”.  (As an aside, we must ask where Scripture speaks of the failed assassination attempt of John Paul II?)

Continuing on, the Cardinal said the Third Secret speaks of “dangers threatening the Faith… and the importance of the ‘novissimi ’[the end times].”

Once again we see a prelate, who had read the Third Secret, state that it refers to dangers threatening the Faith.

But perhaps the most interesting statement comes from Paul VI himself on the sixtieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, during which he spoke of apostasy at the very “summit” of the Church, which confirms what Cardinal Ciappi wrote to Professor Baumgartner.  Here is what Paul VI had to say on October 13, 1977:

The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.  (7)

Is it just a coincidence that Paul VI made this statement on the anniversary of Fatima?   It seems unlikely.  It seems more likely that he was revealing what is contained in the Third Secret.

But if this is what the Third Secret contains, when would it begin?  Is there a particular date that one could look to as the beginning of this great apostasy that would begin “at the top” – at the very “summit” of the Church?

In the famous 1957 interview of Sister Lucy of Fatima with Fr. Fuentes, about the events of Fatima, the cloistered nun asked her interviewer the following question: “Father, how much time is there before 1960 arrives?”  Why would she ask about the date 1960?  She then went on to explain.  She said when this date arrives, “it will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance.”  She then ended by saying: “I am not able to give any other details because it is still a secret.”

Read more

The Vatican II Renewal: Myth or Reality?

Five major myths surrounding the 2nd Vatican Council:

The myth that the Church was in need of renewal at the time the Council was called.

The myth that Vatican II brought about a renewal.

The myth that the situation improved during the pontificate of John Paul II.

The myth that the Council taught any new infallible dogma and was not simply pastoral.

The myth that the Council did not cause the crisis in the Church — the post hoc ergo propter hoc objection.

Read more

Editor’s note: As we all know, “CHANGE” (renewal) is the radical’s favorite cause – much as wolves enjoy “renewing” sheep.

During the mid to late 1960’s, radicals took over both the Catholic Church and the Democratic Party of the United States – and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.

Beware of anyone – inside the church or out – proposing “change” or “renewal” – especially when they refuse to provide detailed specifics.

The deliberately ambiguous language inserted into Vatican II documents infects the Church just like malware and viruses infect a computer.

by Doug Lawrence

The ambiguous language inserted into various Vatican II documents provides more than ample room for errant interpretations of divine truth, inducing many to follow the world, the flesh and the devil, rather than Jesus Christ and the authentic teachings of his Catholic Church.

And as is often the case with computer malware, many who are infected have no idea that anything out of the ordinary is actually occurring.

Hence, anything produced  much after 1950 (bibles, catechisms, books, pamphlets, liturgies, school curricula,  religious art … even the design of churches)  should be the subject of intense scrutiny by faithful Catholics … whether such things are accompanied by a bishop/pope’s imprimatur … or not.

Not surprisingly, religious art and architecture produced during the same period typically suffers from a similar lack of beauty and divine truth.

The only sure “cure” for such a faith malady
is a return to the unadulterated truth
of earlier church documents and practices,
which were not subject
to these types of liberal, modernist flaws. 

This is not to say that everything produced by the Catholic Church after 1950 is in error. It’s not.

But it’s hard for most people to know what’s true and what’s not. So be careful, give everything it’s due diligence … including the personal opinions of priests and bishops … and don’t forget to worship, receive the sacraments, study and pray.

Otherwise, you may be all too easily deceived.

A reliable “touchstone” that would be very useful for the identification, illumination and verification of authentic Catholic truth would be the documents of the Council of Trent.

Vatican II Documents

Vatican II was actually a coup d’état by liberal Catholic prelates and their Protestant buddies.

From the Merriam-Webster On Line Dictionary

coup d’état noun ˌkü-(ˌ)dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(ˌ)dā-ˌ, -də-
plural coups d’état or coups d’etat

Definition of COUP D’ÉTAT

: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.

Editor’s note: Anyone who doesn’t think it was violent should consider the massive damage that was subsequently inflicted on The Mystical Body of Christ.  

Anyone who doesn’t think it was political should see what they did to Traditional Catholics.

The writings of ecumenical theologians often suffer from “significant silence” on key points of Catholic doctrine that interfere with their ecumenical designs.

• Outside the Church there is no salvation: The Council of Florence teaches infallibly “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatic can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her…” [29];

This doctrine has been infallibly defined three times and taught continually throughout the centuries by the ordinary magisterium, such as the repeated papal condemnations of religious indifferentism in the 19th Century, and by Pius XII’s Humani Generis. There is nothing cruel or “anti-semitic” about this dogma, as it has been taught by the Church since the time of Christ and flows from the words of Our Lord Himself: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

• Catholic Doctrine Cannot Change: It is the very nature of reality itself that objective truth cannot change. Thus what the Council of Florence defined is infallibly true for all time. Even a Pope cannot alter it. [30] And Vatican II, which is only a pastoral Council that formally defined nothing, cannot change doctrine at all. [31] Further, Vatican I formally stamped out any idea of an “evolution of doctrine” when it taught that we are bound to believe Catholic doctrine “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” of what the Church always taught without change. Vatican I further taught infallibly, “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” [32]

• The Old Covenant is Superseded by the New: Thus one can no longer speak of Jews as having their own covenant with God, or exercising some sort of fidelity in light of the fact of their once-held status as the Chosen People. [33]

The eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains the perennial Catholic teaching on this matter that the word “Church” has one meaning. It is the Kingdom of God on earth; the people of the Divine Covenant, the true Israel of God, the one social unit outside of which salvation cannot be found. Prior to the coming of Christ, this ecclesia, this people of the Divine Covenant had been the people of Israel. But when they rejected Our Lord Jesus Christ, they lost their status as the true Israel of God. Modern-day Jews cannot truly be considered sons of Abraham, since they have forsaken the Faith of Abraham in regard to Jesus Christ our Redeemer. [34]

Thus, to speak as if today’s Jews have no need to convert is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the infallible Catholic doctrine of the centuries, and a supreme lack of charity. Jews, as well as all non-Catholics, need to be told in Christ-like charity, and with no bitterness, that it is crucial for them to accept Christ and His Catholic Church as the one and only means established by God for salvation.

In doing this, one can readily adopt the gentle wording of the moral theologian Father Francis Connell who said in 1944 that Catholics need to be instructed to tell non-Catholics when asked that “we consider them deprived of the ordinary means of salvation, no matter how excellent their intentions.” [35]

• The Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms: Our Catholic Faith has always taught that all of mankind is divided into two Kingdoms. As Leo XIII teaches in Humanum Genus, from the time of Adam, mankind “separated into two diverse and opposite parts,” the one that holds steadfastly for truth, and the other of those that are contrary to virtue and to truth. “The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation … The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law…” [36]

Every man on earth is part of one of these two kingdoms.
There is no third alternative.

Unfortunately – speaking in the objective order — all who are separated from the Church are part of the Kingdom of Satan, whether they recognize it or not. They are outside the reality of sanctifying grace, and membership in our Lord’s ecclesia.

Msgr. Fenton explains, “In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, the social unit [the old Jewish religious commonwealth] had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the Divine Faith itself. By manifesting this rejecting of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God’s ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.” [37]

Fenton continues, “At the moment of Our Lord’s death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jewish religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord’s disciples began to be the supernatural Kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord’s disciples began to exist as the ecclesia, or the kingdom.” [38]

Pretending modern-day Jews enjoy some of third alternative of fidelity to God is a rupture with the teaching of the Sacred Scripture and with Catholic doctrine of all time. The true doctrine of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries cannot be denounced as being somehow cruel or “anti-Semitic”, for to accuse God and His beautiful Divine Revelation as cruel is a manifestation of blasphemy.

Pope Benedict confirmed that many disastrous consequences immediately followed in the “woke” of the second Vatican Council.

Father Ratzinger in street clothes at Vatican II

His Holiness admitted the disastrous consequences immediately following the Council: “this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy was trivialized”

Yet, the “this Council” referred to by the Holy Father is not the real Second Vatican Council, the one that actually functioned in Rome for three years and produced documents.

No, Benedict XVI claimed that an imposter Council, the “Council of the Journalists” is the one that caused all these disastrous consequences.

If only the real “Council of the Fathers” had been allowed to do its job undistorted by the media, all would be well for the Church!

“The world interpreted the Council through the eyes of the media instead of seeing the true Council of the Fathers and their key vision of faith”.

“The journalists’ interpretation of the Council was political.”

Read more

Editor’s note: I’m no media fan, but it was the bishops … not the media … who instituted all the various “reforms” that subsequently “gutted” the Catholic Church … cheered on by radical theologians like Fr. Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI.

I was 13 years old at the time and I’m an eye-witness to the widespread, universal confusion and chaos, that resulted.

My response to a reader comment shocked me.

Remembering simpler times. Were they really better?

by Doug Lawrence

Responding to a recent comment about the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, I wrote:

I lived during the era of the pre-Vatican II Church, so I’m an eye-witness.

Way back then, 75% of Catholics attended Mass every Sunday.

Urban renewal projects had yet to break up and disperse faithful Catholic communities.

Contraception and abortion were not yet central issues of the day.

The clarity of Catholic teaching was superb.

The quality of Catholic schools was excellent and the tuition was easily affordable, even for families with many children.

Catholic churches were beautiful.

Men and women religious were numerous, orthodox, and wholly dedicated to their work.

The liturgy was traditional, Latin, and quite adequate.

The seminaries had yet to be liberalized and feminized, so there was an abundance of good priests available to serve the needs of most parishes.

In those days, the Catholic Church was respected, all around the world.

We had a strong Pope in the Vatican, no nonsense bishops running most of the dioceses, and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen proclaiming Catholic truth to the world, every week, in “prime time”, on network television.

Of course, there were a few “bad apples” and scandals, even then. But the pre-Vatican II church knew how to properly handle them.

Then came Vatican II. Somebody put the radicals in charge.

The church tore itself apart, lost its focus, along with much of its good sense, and with a few exceptions, things have been going downhill ever since. 

Were things really that good, back then? Comments, anyone?

Writer lists a plethora of Vatican II “bad fruits” that have radically changed the Catholic Church.

Here is a summary of significant changes made by Vatican II or in its wake, that differ significantly from the previous positions of the Church:

Dogma

1. The dogma of the Holy Trinity has been shelved to foster the sophism that Catholics and Muslims adore the same God.

2. The dogma that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God has been stifled to accommodate dialogue with Jews, who do not admit it.

3. The dogma of God as a Transcendent Being distinct from the universe has been substituted with a God immanent in the evolutionist process, history and man.

4. The dogma of original sin and the account of the Genesis on the origin of man have been frontally denied to fit the theory of the universal evolution of the species.

5. The dogma of the Redemption of mankind by Our Lord has lost its meaning, since without original sin there is no need to be redeemed.

6. The dogma of the Ascension has been openly denied by Benedict XVI as a misinterpretation of the words of the Gospel.

7. The dogma of the Resurrection was reinterpreted as being part of evolution: Christ was the first man to become God, and now all mankind is getting ready to follow Him in that step.

8. The concept of Revelation radically changed: Instead of being what God revealed in the Old and New Testaments, now it is what each one can discern of “divine revelation” inside his soul, society or history.

9. The objectivity of the books and letters of the New Testament has been denied to accommodate various Protestant schools of criticism.

10. The dogma that grace is a created gift has been denied to present grace as an essential immanence of God in man to transform him into a new species.

11. The Catholic concept of Sacrament has been abandoned as “superstitious” and “magic,” replaced by new interpretations based on “evolution,” “communion” or “social” themes.

12. Accordingly, the Holy Eucharist has also assumed new interpretations and is no longer considered as the true Body of Christ.

 13. The Marian dogmas have been downplayed, and Mariology has been put aside to favor ecumenism with Protestants.

14. In particular, the dogma of the virginity of the Most Blessed Mary has been frontally denied.

15. Heaven, Hell and Purgatory have been continuously denied in the last 30 years by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

16. The dogma extra Ecclesia nulla salus has been frontally denied by the common conciliar teaching that universal salvation exists for all who have good will.

17. The modernist doctrine of the evolution of dogma has been fostered by the conciliar Popes, thus making relative all the dogmatic formulations of the past.

But wait. There’s more!

Can you spell antinomianism?

Among the most serious wounds of society today is the separation of legal culture from its metaphysical objective, which is moral law. [BINGO. Think of this also in terms of the virtue of religion.]

In recent times this separation has been much accentuated, manifesting itself as a real antinomianism, which claims [in error] to render actions which are intrinsically evil as legal, for example, abortion on demand, artificial conception of human life with the aim of carrying out experimentation on the life of a human embryo, the so-called euthanasia of those who have the right to our preferential assistance, legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage, and the negation of the fundamental right to conscience and religious liberty.  [Have you ever heard a Catholic politician defend abortion because its “legal”?]

This antinomianism embedded in civil society has unfortunately infected post-Council ecclesial life, [NB: “post-Council”] associating itself, regrettably, with so-called cultural novelties. Excitement following the Council, linked to the establishment of a new Church which teaches freedom and love, has strongly encouraged an attitude of indifference towards Church discipline, if not even hostility. The reforms of ecclesial life which were hoped for by the Council Fathers were therefore, in a certain sense, hindered, if not betrayed.

Link

First to “Go Woke”. “Change” came to the Vatican about 45 years before Barack Obama brought “change” to America.

According to Michael Davies and those in the know, a number of “suspect theologians” hijacked the opening session of Vatican II by seizing control of its drafting commissions, whereupon they scrapped Pope John’s plan for the Council and proceeded to draft a new agenda of their own. It was this illicit intervention that gave birth to the conciliar reform, which was novel, and not continuous.

Hence, the problem with Vatican II did not lie in the misinterpretation of its documents, but the problem lied in the documents themselves which, under a certain appearance of orthodoxy, proposed destructive changes to the Church. Subtle half-truths and ambiguities were woven into the documents by a coterie of renowned modernist theologians, including Cheno, Kung, Schillebeeckx, Fring, Danielou, Rahner, de Lubac and others whose teachings had formerly been condemned or censured under Pius XII.

They in turn were assisted by six Protestant delegates and others who were invited to the Council as consultants on matters of liturgy and doctrine (Michael Davies, Pope John’s Council, 1977). Augustine Cardinal Bea, who headed the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by these delegates in formulating the Council’s decree on Ecumenism, saying, “I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result.”

More

Common sense suggestions for a reform of the reform … from a priest

Is the Second Vatican Council some kind of sacred cow that can’t be reformed?

I ask this in all seriousness.

The reason why I ask this is that we all have been taught since the Second Vatican Council that the Church is always in need of reform.

Since a council, specifically the Second Vatican Council, is but a small part of the Church, should not that old adage also apply to the Second Vatican Council?

There are FIVE areas where the Second Vatican Council could use some reform…

Read more

The concentrated essence of the texts of the Second Vatican Council: the cult of man, pantheism and anthropological idolatry.

Pope Paul VI says “all of the Council” not only the ‘spirit of the Council’, not only the radical hermeneutic of rupture with Catholic Tradition. Now here, the authentic interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is given by Pope Paul VI and not Tizio, Caio, Sempronio nor Don Cantone  (equivalent of: Tom, Dick or Harry), nor myself.

Furthermore, Pope Paul VI urges  the “modern humanists” that is, the atheists, who “reject the truths” of supernatural Faith, which transcend human reason “ to give credit” to “all of the Council” for this “religion of man that makes himself God” on his own strength  without the free gift of sanctifying grace.

But if “all of the Council”, and not its hazardous interpretation or its “spirit” can and must please the atheist or pantheists, it cannot please the Christians, who believe in the supernatural truths revealed by God which distinguish the creature from the Creator.

As we can deduce from what Pope Paul VI said, it is the text itself of the Council which is in rupture with the Catholic Faith and as such cannot be accepted. The heart of the “problem at the present time” is really the foolish hope of reconciling the irreconcilable: theocentrism and anthropocentrism. The Roman–Rite Mass and the “Novus Ordo Missae”, Divine-Apostolic Tradition and Vatican II.

Read more

A list of ten key teachings of Vatican II

Vatican II is such a major event for Roman Catholicism that twentieth-century Catholic theology can be instructively viewed in two movements: first, leading up to the council, and then developing from it.

The rise of the “nouvelle theologie” in France (the big names are de Lubac, Bouillard, Daniélou, Congar, Chenu, Montecheuil, Dubarle, and even Teilhard de Chardin) is exemplary of the form taken by theological progress in the first half of the century: it was deeply rooted in a historical recovery of the grand tradition (especially Thomas and the Fathers, including the Eastern Fathers), open to revising ingrained Neo-Scholastic assumptions, and under constant scrutiny from a suspicious magisterium (in fact the name “new theology” was given to the movement by opponents charging it with innovation).

Avery Dulles once offered a list of ten basic teachings of Vatican II, which he considered to be “obvious to anyone seeking an unprejudiced interpretation of the council.” (The Reshaping of Catholicism, San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1988, 19-33).

Read all ten

Editor’s note: A state of confusion still exists within the Catholic Church, which is reflected in the current, sad state of affairs, to be found at virtually every level of modern society.

It took the Coca-Cola Company less than a year to recover from the costly and embarrassing “New Coke” debacle, while the universal (Catholic) church of Jesus Christ is still struggling with the failed “roll out” of the Vatican II reforms and the associated “New Theology”… some fifty years after the fact.

Go figure!

The authentic context of Vatican II was not pastoral … but political.

“Vatican II claimed to introduce the catholic doctrine with a language in tune with the modern thinking,  That is to say, harmonic with the Gnostic philosophy of Kant, Hegel and other modern Gnostics.

Curiously, a pastoral Council that claimed to speak with the people in a more understandable way, uses a weird, obscure and hermetic language which is incomprehensible to those not initiated in the current pseudo theological – or, Gnostic – vocabulary.”

Read the article