ßBack

VATICAN II

Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.

"...Any Council called to make drastic change in the church is beforehand decreed to be void and annulled."
Pius II, Execrabilis

THE NATURE OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

Before considering Vatican II in detail, it is necessary to understand just what an Ecumenical or General Council is. It is, as Hubert Jedin defined it in 1960:

"An assembly of Bishops and other specified persons invested with jurisdiction, convoked by the Pope and presided over by him, for the purpose of formulating decisions on questions of the Christian faith, or ecclesiastical discipline. these decisions, however, require papal confirmation to assure the proclamation of the faith by delimiting the Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors. There have been councils which issued no disciplinary canons, but none at which some error was not rejected."[1]

The first point to be made is that the term "ecumenical" means "universal" (i.e., the gathering of Catholic bishops from all over the world), and has nothing to do with the potentially common activities or relationships of different religions. There have been some 20 Ecumenical Councils since Christ established His church on earth. Vatican II, supposedly the 21st, differed from its predecessors in several ways. It was the first to invite non-Catholic "observers" to participate in its proceedings.[2] It was the first Council to be declared "pastoral" rather than "dogmatic."[3] It was the first council that seemingly neither delimited Catholic doctrine from contemporary errors, nor issued disciplinary canons.[4] It was the first such Council to reform, not the Church "in its head and members" but the Church itself. And most important of all, it was the first such council to depart from the teaching of previous Councils, and indeed, from the traditional teaching of the Church's Magisterium. So much was this the case that Cardinal Suenens described it as "the French Revolution in the Church" and Y. Congar likened it to the October (1917) Revolution in Russia.[5]

IS VATICAN II BINDING ON THE CATHOLIC CONSCIENCE?

Prior to the stamp of papal approval, a council has no authority whatsoever. Once this has occurred however, Conciliar statements become part of the teaching Magisterium. It matters little as to whether their contents are classified as "extraordinary" or "ordinary", for in either case, they must be believed with "divine and Catholic faith".

Considerable confusion has arisen with regard to Vatican II because of its "pastoral" nature. Ursula Oxford opinions that in so far as John XXIII was deluded as to the "spirit" which induced him to convene the Council, the resulting documents are without authority.[6] Others like Father J. Saenz y Arriaga hold the election of Paul VI was totally invalid, and hence the promulgation of the Conciliar documents is in no way part of the Church's Magisterium.[7] Cardinal Felici, former secretary for the Curia and Secretary-General of the council stated that the documents of the Council are de jure, and not de fide.[8] Presumably this means that we have to obey and act in accord with the Council's teaching, but have no obligation to believe them true. Michael Davies, in the face of what he knows to be clear-cut changes in the teaching of the Church, states that "the Council comes within the category of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium which can contain error in the case of a novelty which conflicts with previous teaching," a statement which is both innovative and self contradictory.[9] These represent but "theological opinions", and those who accept the post-Conciliar "popes" must turn to them for definitive answers.

All the post-Conciliar "popes" have stated that the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul VI, in closing the Council stated that "the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." Still later he stated that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" but that it conferred on its teachings "the value of the supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that "it has as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicea". Elsewhere he has called it "the greatest of Councils", and "even greater than the Council of Trent."[10] Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church:

"You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic."[11]

It is clear then that Paul VI considers the Council as binding on the Catholic conscience, and as having no less authority than any of the previous 20 Councils called Ecumenical. To state that is part of the Solemn Magisterium is to give it the highest possible authority. However, if it is only the "supreme form of the ordinary Magisterium", it is equally binding upon the post-Conciliar Catholic conscience.[12]

John Paul II has expressed his full agreement with Paul VI whom he considers as his "spiritual father", and has further stated that the Council was "inspired by the Holy Spirit", and that "obedience to the Council is obedience to the Holy Spirit."[13] Still elsewhere he has stated that the Council is "the authentic teaching of the Church." Clearly in his eyes to refuse to give our assent to the Council is equivalent to "sinning against the Holy Ghost."

Others have stated that the Council is heretical and therefore not to be accepted.

Archbishop Lefebvre believes the Council was convened according to "accepted norms" of the Church (The Remnant, 2.17.77), and is willing to accept the documents of Vatican II providing they are interpreted "in the light of tradition". Paul VI once again was correct in telling Archbishop Lefebvre that it was the function of the pope to determine what was and what wasn’t “in the light of tradition,” and that when he - Lefebvre or anyone else attempted to do this, they were usurping papal authority. Interestingly enough, John Paul II is also willing to accept this "limitation". To quote him directly: "what the Holy Spirit says to the Church by the Council..., He says at the same time in full harmony with Tradition and according to what is required by the 'sign of the times'... The Church of Vatican II, of Vatican I, of the Council of Trent, and of the earlier councils is one and the same Church."[14] The problem is that everyone seems to disagree as to just what "the light of tradition" is.[15] The phrase is found in the Vatican II document on the Liturgy where it states that "the Council also desires... the rites to be carefully and thoroughly revised IN THE LIGHT OF SOUND TRADITION, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs off modern times!". And as we all know, the end result of the application of this principle was the Novus Ordo Missae or new mass.

"In the light of tradition". Strictly speaking, only a pope can do this, and Paul VI told those who resisted the changes introduced by the Council that it was necessary "to break with the habitual attachment of what we used to designate as the unchangeable tradition of the Church." If Vatican II represents a break with tradition, a departure from tradition, then it is difficult to see how in can be interpreted in the light of tradition. If Vatican II contains errors - let the reader decide for himself after finishing this chapter - the only response of a Church which is concerned with preserving the truth, is to condemn and reject it. The whole idea of accepting Vatican II in the light of tradition begs the issue. It allows the Lefebvre-ites to "pick and choose" while salving their guilty consciences, and leaves the post-Conciliar "pastors" free to promulgate their revolution.

How then are we to find our way in this confusing welter of freely given advise. For those who believe the post-Conciliar "popes" are orthodox and who accept their authority, the answer is clear. These "popes" clearly believe that the Documents of Vatican II are both inspired by the Holy Ghost, and are part of the Solemn Magisterium; hence, despite their "pastoral" character, they are binding on the post-Conciliar Catholic conscience. For those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of these "popes", there is also no problem. The Council and all the changes that followed in its train are simply to be rejected. Between these two extremes however, and leaving apart those who follow the "new orientations" without any serious thought, there is a whole spectrum of opinion best characterized by the acceptance of the authority of these "popes" and a refusal to follow them when they act or teach against tradition. Unfortunately these individuals (characterized as "conservative Novus Ordo Catholics") are placed in the position of deciding for themselves just what is traditional and what is not. Since such decisions normally reside only in a Pope, it can be said of them that "every man is his own Pope."[16] The inevitable result is still more confusion. Be this as it may, almost everyone agrees that the fruits of the Council have been rotten.

THE COUNCIL ITSELF

As to the documents themselves, there are sixteen of these, and all sixteen are consider to be "established synodally" - that is to say, agreed upon by the majority of the Fathers present at the council. These sixteen documents are entitled "Constitutions", "Decrees", and "Declarations", distinctions which in the practical order are meaningless. Despite the "pastoral" nature of the Council, two of these are labeled "dogmatic". In total then number some 739 pages of fine print and reading through them requires, as Father Houghton has remarked, "a sufficient supply of anti-soporifics". (Vatican I runs to 42 pages of large print, and the Council of Trent to 179 pages).[17] Their tone is "prolix in the extreme" and as Michael Davies states, "much of their content consists of little more than long series of the most banal truisms imaginable."[18]

Yet the council is important, for it introduced into the bosom of the church a whole host of "new directions" that are bearing fruit in our days. As Father Avery Dulles said:

"Vatican II adopted a number of positions which had been enunciated by the Reformation Churches, e.g., the primacy of Scripture, the supernatural efficacy of the preached word, the priesthood of the laity, and the vernacular liturgy."[19]

Cardinal Willebrands, Paul VI's legate to the World Lutheran Assembly at Evian stated in July of 1970 that:

"Has not the Second Vatican council itself welcomed certain demands which, among others, were expressed by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are better expressed today than formerly? Luther gave his age a quite extraordinary lead in theology and the Christian life."

And Cardinal Suenens tells us that:

"It is possible to draw up an impressive list of theses which Rome has taught in the past and up until yesterday as being the only ones, and which the Council Fathers have thrown out." (May 15, 1969)

Cardinal Suenens who likened Vatican II to a "French Revolution in the Church", also told us that the Council was only "a stage, and not a terminus". Those who would dismiss this dismal projection as rhetoric would do well to listen to Paul VI who said that "the Conciliar Decrees are not so much a destination as a point of departure towards new goals... the seeds of life planted by the Council in the soil of the Church must grow and achieve full maturity."[20] The point is important because John Paul II considers "the coherent realization of the teaching and directives of the Second Vatican Council... to be the principal task of this [his] pontificate."[21]

"A point of departure towards new goals!" According to British analyst William McSweeney, the impact of the council on the Church "was to carry forward the most fundamental reappraisal of its doctrine, liturgy and relationship to the world in it 2000-year history." Schillebeeckx prepared a list of council actions that he considered to be significant innovations. His list totaled sixty-eight items and covered the liturgy, the Church, revelation, bishops and priests, the laity, non-Catholics, freedom of conscious and religious institutes.

Let us not forget that almost all the changes in the post-Conciliar Church are either "blamed" on the Council, or said to derive from it as a "mandate from the Holy Spirit". Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980). Even the Council's apologist Michael Davies tells us that "no rational person can deny that up to the present Vatican II has produced no good fruit."[22]

HOW THE COUNCIL WAS SUBVERTED

None of the Modernist ideation introduced by means of the Council into the bosom of the Church was new. These ideas, the gestalt of the modern world, had been around for centuries, and in fact had been repeatedly condemned by the traditional Church in such documents as Mirari vos, The Syllabus of Errors of PIus IX and the Encyclical Pascendi of Pius X. Over the past century however, they had gained an increased momentum and had as it were permeated the seminaries, and thus the minds of increasing numbers of clergy. In the course of time many of these rose to positions of authority. (In the Essay on Obedience, it is shown how this fits in with the plans of the Alta Vendita of the Freemasons.)

Sufficient documentation is available for us to reconstruct the events at the Council. One of the best of these is Father Wiltgen's The Rhine flows into the Tiber, an analogy for the modernist German theologians flowing into conservative Rome. Father Wiltgen was the "International Publicity Director in Rome" for the Council, and was the founder during the Council of "an independent and multilingual council News Service."[23] As such he had excellent access to the material he reports in his book - and in so far as he approved of what the Council achieved, his text becomes a valuable source of information. His information moreover is confirmed by numerous other sources. We have as a result, a "play by play" description of how the "liberal" theologians captured the Council. What was proclaimed by the world press as a "spontaneous outbreak of liberal sentiment," was in fact, as several authors have pointed out, part of a pre-determined plan to subvert the Council.

We have already called attention to the role that John XXIII played in setting the stage. The Curia had for two years been preparing a series of orthodox "schemas" for discussion. Most of the Fathers (some 2,800 Bishops or their equivalent) were not well read theologians. Many were skilled administrators and came to the Council "psychologically unprepared" (Cardinal Heenan) and feeling their way" (Bishop Lucey). They brought with them periti or "experts" who were to assist them on theological matters, periti who were almost to a man Modernist in outlook. Other "hierarchies came to the Council knowing what they wanted and having prepared a way to get it" (Bishop Lucey).[24] The takeover was surprisingly easy. As Cardinal Heenan stated, "the first General Congregation had scarcely begun when the [Modernist] northern bishops went into action."[25] Brian Kaiser tells us "Cardinals Suenens, Alfrink, Frings, Doepfner, Koenig, Lienart and Bea conferred by phone" the night before the opening session, and received assurances from the John XXIII that their plan had his approval.[26] Within fifteen minutes of the opening of the first session, the years of preparatory work (the Schemas prepared by the Curia) and the suggested list of individuals for the various commissions (traditional Curial members) were thrown out. This was called by several "The First Victory" of the "European Alliance", and was quite correctly characterized in the newspapers as "Bishops in Revolt".[27] The Marxist journal Il Paese openly stated that "the Devil has entered the Council." What followed has been described as a "Blitzkrieg" (Michael Davies) and a "demolition exercise" (Henri Fesquet).[28] It was only a matter of time and manoeuver before the liberal element took over the ten commissions that controlled the various new schemas presented for voting. The "Council Presidency" established by Roncalli was helpless, which was of course as he intended. Instead of intervening on the side of "tradition," he allowed things to proceed exactly as he wished, only intervening when it was necessary to support the "democratic forces."[29]

Initially, any individual Father could rise to voice objection to the statements of the various new schemas. Soon this was limited to ten minutes.[30] As opposition gathered to the modernist clique, those in control required that five Fathers had to agree and speak in conjunction before they would be recognized by the chair. Before long the number was raised to 70! Soon all objections had to be submitted in writing to the various commissions which in turn allowed for considerable behind-the-scene machinations and suppression or "re-wording" of those objections that could not be ignored.[31] A petition signed by over 400 Fathers requesting the condemnation of Communism was simply and conveniently lost. Complaints made directly to the Pope were ignored, and on occasion the Pope directly intervened to force through a given vote. Both the press and the various liberal organizations within and without the Church carried on heavy propaganda in favor of the "liberalizing" of the Church. Cardinal Frings and Lienart and the members of the "Northern Alliance" were the "good guys", while Cardinal Ottaviani and the conservative members of the Curia were the "villains" standing "in the way of progress". The majority of the Fathers present were Church dignitaries rather than theologians and hence were heavily dependent upon the periti or experts who were almost invariably in the neo-modernist camp. A list of these periti would include almost all the heretical theologians of the post-Conciliar Church, such men as Charles Davis, Hans Kung, Gregory Baum, Edward Schillebeeckx, Bernard Haring, Y. Congar, Karl Rahner and Rene Laurentin. Adequate time was frequently not given for proper discussion of the issues, and many of the Fathers admitted to having voted along with the majority without even having read the schemas or amendments in question at all. As Dr. Moorman, leader of the Anglican delegation has stated: "there was a very real division among the Fathers, a deep feeling that two big forces were coming to grips and that this was not just a clash of opinions, but of policies and even of moralities."[32] Archbishop Lefebvre, looking back over the early sessions, noted that "the Council was under siege by the progressive forces from its very first day. We felt it, we sensed it... We were convinced that something irregular was happening."[33] But as we have pointed out, the traditional forces were "psychologically unprepared", and the liberal forces "came to the Council knowing what they wanted and having prepared a way to get it." Things were pushed along very rapidly, and it was only towards the end of the Council that the orthodox Fathers were able to get organized. By the time the Coetus Internationalis Patrum became a cohesive force, it was far to late.

THE USE OF AMBIGUITY

Only one major problem remained for the liberals who had captured the Council. They had to express their views in a manner that was not clearly and overtly heretical. (This would have created much stronger opposition and resistance.) The solution was the ambiguous statement. As Cardinal Heenan stated "the framing of amendments for the vote of the Fathers was the most delicate part of the commission's work. A determined group could wear down the opposition and produce a formula patent of both an orthodox and modernistic interpretation."[34] Whenever protests were raised against such tactics, the objector was informed that the Council was "pastoral" and not "dogmatic". What resulted has been described by Archbishop Lefebvre as "a conglomeration of ambiguities, inexactitudes, vaguely expressed feelings, terms susceptible of any interpretation and opening wide of all doors."[35] There are of course many statements in the documents that appear good, for it is characteristic of heresy that it comes cloaked in the garb of orthodoxy. The documents themselves are prolix, full of vague phraseology and psycologisms. Terms are frequently used (such as "salvation history")[36] that are capable of multiple interpretations . Statements made in one paragraph are qualified several paragraphs later so that multiple interpretations and quoting out of context become possible. In fairness to the liberals, some of the periti such as Yves Congar and Schillebeeckx disapproved of such methods and wished to state the liberal viewpoint openly and clearly. They were of course overruled. Lest the reader feel that this opinion is unjust, I shall quote Professor O. Cullmann, one of the most distinguished Protestant "observers" at the Council:

"The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. Thus every affirmation of the power of bishops is accompanied in a manner which is almost tedious by the insistence upon the authority of the Pope... This is the reason why, even while accepting that these are compromise-texts, I do not share the pessimism of those who subscribe to the slogan that 'Nothing good will come out of the Council!' All the texts are formulated in such a manner that no door is closed and that they will not present any future obstacle to discussions among Catholics or dialogue with non-Catholics, as was the case with the dogmatic decisions of previous Councils."[37]

Ambiguity and "double-speak" has always been the refuge of the scoundrel who wishes to lie, not only to his neighbor, but to himself. How does a naughty child respond to an accusing parent from whom he wishes to hide the truth while not clearly telling a lie? He equivocates. He departs from the Scriptural injunction to "say yea for yea and nay for nay" The modernist has basically lost his faith in Revelation, and if he wishes to remain within the visible church, he must either change the meaning of certain words, or else change the words so that they mean one thing to him and another to the faithful. Thus, as one modernist put it, "one learns the use of double meaning, the tortuously complex sentence and paragraphs which conceal meaning rather than reveal it." The existential theologian has a positive dislike for clarity. As Father Daley said of Tyrrell: "He believed that clearness was a snare for the unwary, and that snare was avoided as long as one distrusts clearness and recognizes it as a note of inadequacy." Pius X in his Encyclical Pascandi noted that the writings of the modernist clique appear "tentative and vague", while those of the Church are always "firm and constant". He further said, "it is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systemic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast."

It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. Yet despite this one, when one reads the documents as a whole, one finds there is a certain "animus" or spirit which is "offensive to pious ears". There is, as Cardinal Suenens has said, "an internal logic in Vatican II which in several cases has been grasped and acted on, showing in everyday practice the priority of life over law. The spirit behind the texts was stronger than the words themselves."[38] It is this undercurrent that has flowed forth as "the Spirit of Vatican II', a "spirit" that accepts almost all the modernist concepts such as "progress", "dynamic evolution", and "universalism."[39] Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who deny that such a spirit exists would do well to consider the statement of John Paul II to the effect that it was his "firm will to go forward on the way of unity in THE SPIRIT OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL...." (inauguration ceremony of his pontificate).

THE "ANIMUS" OF VATICAN II

In order to understand the real nature of Vatican II the reader must recognize that what occurred was not a "debate" between conservative and liberal factions of the Church - as if there is a spectrum of opinion from which the faithful can choose - but rather a fight between those who felt it was their obligation to preserve intact the entire "deposit of the faith" and those who were bent on adapting Christianity to the contemporary world; a battle waged between those who see the Roman Catholic Church as the "visible" church founded by Christ, and therefore a Church that was entitled to certain privileges (whether the world accorded them to her or not), and those who dreamt of a "union" of all "men of good will"; of those who thought the Church possessed the "fullness of the truth" and those who thought "Christians were joined with the rest of men in the search for Truth". The Church of All Times lost this battle at the council, but the fight still continues, sometimes in minor skirmishes, and sometimes in open warfare. Scripture informs us that the final outcome can be anticipated. There will be a "great apostasy", but "the Gates of Hell will not prevail."

The remainder of this essay will be divided into two sections. First, we will give a series of quotations from the documents of sufficient length as to make that accusation of having taken them out of context implausible. We shall then string together a selected series off Conciliar statements in conjunction with their interpretative understanding by the post-Conciliar "pontiffs". It is this that will provide us with the clearest insight into their import.

THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES

Space does not allow us to sample the entire corpus of Vatican II in detail, and hence particular attention will be given to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, (identified as Ch.) and The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (identified as Eccl.), both considered by Paul VI and John Paul II as fundamental documents. With regard to the former, it was primarily the work, i.e., written by J-P I.I.

"The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one" (Ch. 5).

"To a certain extent the human intellect is also broadening its dominion over time: over the past by means of historical knowledge; over the future by the art of projecting and by planning. Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only bring men hope of improved self knowledge..." (CH. 5).

"This characteristic of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord Himself. By reason of it, the Catholic Church strives energetically and constantly to bring all humanity with all its riches back to Christ its Head in the unity of His Spirit... All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the People of God, a unity which is the harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. And there belong to it or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind. For all men are called to salvation by the grace of God..." (Eccl. 13)

"Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, [emphasis mine] is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent" (Ch. 29)

"Moreover, in virtue of her mission and nature, she [the Church] is bound to no particular form of human culture, nor to any political, economic, or social system... for this reason the Church admonishes her own sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strife between nations and races in this family spirit of God's children..." (Ch. 42).

"thanks to the experience of past ages, the progress of the sciences, and the treasures hidden in the various forms of human culture, the nature of man himself is more clearly revealed and new roads to truth are opened..." (Ch. 42).

"It is a fact bearing on the very person of man that he can come to an authentic and full humanity only through culture, that is, through the cultivation of natural goods and values Wherever human life is involved, therefore, nature and culture are quite intimately connected..." (Ch. 53).

"In every group or nation, there is an ever-increasing number of men and women who are conscious that they themselves are the artisans and the authors of the culture of their community. thus we are witnesses to the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by his responsibility towards his brothers and towards history..." (Ch.55).

"The Culture of today possesses particular characteristics. for example, the so-called exact sciences sharpen critical judgment to a very fine edge. Recent psychological research explains human activity more profoundly. Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing men to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects... Thus little by little, a more universal form of human culture is developing, one which will promote and express the unity of the human race to the degree that it preserves the particular features of different cultures..." (Ch. 54).

"Man's social nature makes it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on each other. From the beginning, the subject and goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person, which for its part and by its very nature stands completely in need of social life... This social life is not something added on to man. Hence through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue, he develops all his gifts and is able to rise to his destiny..." (Ch. 25).

"Thus, through her individual members and her whole community, the church believes she can contribute greatly towards making the family of man and its history more human. In addition, the Catholic Church gladly holds in high esteem the things which other Christian Churches or ecclesiastical communities have done or are doing cooperatively by way of achieving the same goal..." (Ch. 40).

"It has pleased God to make men holy and save them not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness. So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen men not just as individuals, but as members of a certain community. god called these chosen ones "His People"... This communitarian character is developed and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ" (Ch. 32).

"The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today's social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms. for the promotion of unity belongs to tie innermost nature of the Church, since she is, by her relationship with Christ, both a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God and the unity of all mankind..." (Ch. 42).

"Because the human race today is joint more and more in civic, economic and social unity, it is much more necessary that priests, united in concern and effort under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every ground of division, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God..." (Ch. 43).

"Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine. Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and an ever-advancing technology" (Ch. 62).

Such then is a potpourri of statements drawn from the solemn teaching Magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church. It is these ideas which its members must "religiously observe" and to which they must give their intellectual assent. But what evidence is there for the claim that "the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic one"? And how Christian is this "new humanism" of which we are witnesses to the birth of, and which is defined "first of all by man's responsibility towards his brothers and history: rather than towards God? And since when does man "rise to his destiny through reciprocal duties and fraternal dialogue"? Where in Scripture does it tell us we are saved as members of a community rather than as individuals? Since when has it been the Church's function to make "the family of man more human"? And what is all this talk of "unity", "the process of wholesome socialization" that "belongs to the innermost nature of the Church" and which permits - nay, advocates - the "wiping out of every ground of division" which might impede it? For the Church to state that she is "tied to no political, social or economic structure" is for her to state that she can live with any political, social or economic structure in the world today, including Communism. And how can the Church proclaim that all discrimination with regard to matters of religion should "be irradicated"? Surely, if she believes she is the true religion, she cannot fail to discriminate between herself and other false religions. And what is all this nonsense about "adapting our morality and religious practice to the discoveries of modern science" - as if these themselves are not always in a state of flux. All this is a far cry from the Church of our forefathers.

No wonder that the Protestant observer Dr. McAfee Brown said that "there are even occasional hints that the Council Fathers have listened to the gospel of Marx as well as the Gospel of Mark." Truly, as Father Campion, periti and translator of this document states, "Theological 'aggiornamento' means more than a rephrasing of conventional theological teaching in contemporary terminology".[40] Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davies refer to these and similar passages as "time bombs". They are in fact much more; they are unequivocal proof that the faithful - and not only the faithful, but humanity itself - were "sold out" at the Council. It will take an intellectual agility well beyond the capacity of most people to interpret such statements "in the light of tradition". Any one wishing to understand what has happened to the Church in our times, would do well to study these documents with care. As the Abbe of Nantes said, these documents provide "a vast launching pad for... the subversive operations" of the Modernists (CRC May, 1980).

VATICAN II - THE CREATION OF A NEW CHURCH

Isolated quotations do not provide us with a complete picture. In order to understand the Council's goals, and achievements, it is necessary to provide quotations from various parts of the documents along with their authoritative interpretations by the post-Conciliar "pontiffs". We shall do this under four headings: 1) The New Orientations - seeing history and the world in a different light. 2) The New Church - how the post-Conciliar Church sees itself. 3) The New Understanding of man's nature; and 4) Why a Church at all.

I - THE NEW ORIENTATIONS SEEING HISTORY AND THE WORLD IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT

"The traditional doctrinal formulations were forged in the light of a general world-view that has by now become obsolete; an unconditional allegiance to any single view of the universe, such as the Christian, seems to demand, impresses the modern mind as fanatical and unscientific... The claim that some privileged source... contains the totality of saving truth is likewise distasteful... The assertion that divine revelation was complete in the first century of our era seems completely antithical to the modern concept of progress."

Avery Dulles, S.J., Doctrines do Grow.

Founded on a "rock", the Church has always been considered as a monolithic, stable and unchanging institution - one that existed and functioned in saecula saeculorum, that is, throughout all ages past, present and future. She saw herself as a "perfect society", as a divine institution established by Christ. Distinguishing this Church from the inevitable failings of its members (for who of us can live up to Christ?) there was neither need for change, nor room for improvement. (Its members needed change and improvement, but not the Church itself.)

The traditional Church has always been happy to use the discoveries of science for good ends, and indeed, many of these are the result of Catholic efforts. She is not against "progress" if by this one means better mouse traps and ice boxes. But progress as usually understood, implies that man himself is improving, becoming more civilized, more intelligent and more advanced with each passing generation. This kind of progress is an illusion which the Church has always eschewed. The idea that man himself can and has progressed is the very negation of his celestial origin and destiny. It denies that his intrinsic nature is fixed, that he is made in the image of God and that he has sustained the wound of Adam's sin. It further denies the perfection of the Patriarchs, the Holy Family and the saints. As for evolution, she has always held that creation ex nihilo was de fide. In the words of Vatican I: "if anyone does not admit the world and everything it , both spiritual and material, have been produced in their entire substance by God out of nothing - ex nihilo - let him be anathema." But evolution as a limited biological possibility is one thing; evolution as applied to mankind or truth is quite another. As Pope Pius XII said some 35 years ago: "these false evolutionary notions with their denial of all that is fixed or abiding in human experience, have paved the way for a new philosophy of error" (Humani generis). The traditional outlook saw these two pseudo-concepts of "progress" and "evolution" as the "opiates of the people," always promising them an unrealizable earthly utopia in the future while deflecting their attention from the present. No longer the command to "be ye perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect", but rather the illusion that progress and evolution, thanks to science, will produce a world so perfect that man will no longer have to strive to be good.

Gaudium et Spes starts with a long tale of changes affecting mankind, the perpetual justification for innovation. Everything changes, the world, time, but especially man who is described as participating in a perpetual "progression". John XXIII believed there had been "a real progress of humankind's collective moral awareness through always deeper discovery of its dignity... and that divine providence was leading us to a new order of human relations... " Vatican II proceeded to make this principle magisterial. "The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one... Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing men to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects... Man's social nature makes it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on each other... Citizens have the right and duty... to contribute to the true progress of their community...Developing nations should strongly desire to seek the complete human fulfillment of their citizens in the explicit and fixed goal of progress...May the faithful therefore, live in very close union with the men of their time. Let them strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and feeling, as expressed in their culture. Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine. Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with an ever-advancing technology." (All from Ch. or Eccl.) For those who may still doubt, let me quote from John Paul II's speech at Puebla: "In these past ten years (since the Council) how much progress humanity has made, and with humanity and at its service, how much progress the Church has made..."

Not only progress, but evolution. John Paul II has magisterially told us that "all the observations concerning the development of life lead to a conclusion: the evolution of living beings of which science seeks to determine the stages and to determine the mechanism, presents an internal finality... a finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge..." An editorial in the L'Osservatore Romano attributed to John Paul II was even more specific. "no one today any longer believes in tradition, but rather in rational progress. tradition today appears as something that has been bypassed by history. Progress on the other hand presents itself as an authentic promise inborn in the very soul of man."

If Evolution and Progress are true, if, as the Council teaches, "the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic and evolutionary one", then it follows that the world has changed since the time of Christ, and logically, if the Church is to survive, it must also change. Paul VI in discussing the Council expressed this clearly."if the world changes religion should also change. ...the order to which Christianity tends is not static, but an order in continual evolution towards a higher form" (Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man). If the Church is evolving, so also are her doctrines. And so the Council teaches that "as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their fulfillment in her..." Elsewhere she assures us that "new roads to truth are opened." The statement is quite extraordinary in so far as the Church has always taught that the revelation given us by Christ and the Apostles was final and definitive, and to that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be added. One must of course distinguish between the legitimate development of a doctrine - its being made more explicit and explained in clearer ways - and the evolution of a doctrine - which implies some form of transformation or change in its intrinsic nature. Thus, as we will show, the doctrine on Religious Liberty as taught by Vatican II can never be considered a "development" of previous teaching, but only as an "evolution" into something new. a kind of "ongoing revelation." And as innumerable post-Conciliar theologians have noted, the Council, while not using the phrase, embraced the concept in principle. And why not when Paul VI teaches:

The new Church "seeks to adapt itself to the languages, to the customs and to the inclinations of the men of our times, men completely engrossed in the rapidity of material evolution and similar necessities of their individual circumstances. This 'openness' is of the very essence of the [new] Church.. The restrictions of orthodoxy do not coincide with pastoral charity".(Talk given in Milan when he was a Cardinal).

All this involved a new orientation towards the world itself. The traditional Church taught us to be in the world, but not to "conform ourselves to it". The Apostle John instructed us: "Love not the world nor the things that are in the world. If any man love the world the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passeth away." What thinking person does not realize that the world - the modern world - has walked away from all the Church has ever stood for. What then is the attitude of the new Church? John Paul II gives us the answer: "the Second Vatican Council laid the foundations for a substantially new relationship between the Church and world, between the Church and modern culture" (College, Dec. 22, 1980) Paul VI was more specific: "we must never forget that the fundamental attitude of Catholics who wish to convert the world must be, first of all, to love the world, to love our times, to love our civilization, our technical achievements, and above all, to love the world... the Council puts before us, a panoramic vision of the world; how can the Church, how can we, do other than behold this world and love it. The Council is a solemn act of love for mankind, love for men of today, whoever and wherever they may be, love for all"(Bodart, La Biologie et l'avenire de l'homme).

John Paul II, following in the steps of his "spiritual father" (Paul VI), confirms this commitment. "The contemporary Church", he tells us, "has a particular sensibility towards history, and wishes to be in every extension of the term, 'the Church of the contemporary world'"(Talk to the Roman Curia, Dec 22, 1980).

Thus the Church of all times has been changed into the Church of our times. A static Church has been changed into an evolutionary and progressive Church. It has even been given new titles - Paul VI called it "the Church of the Council" and Cardinal Benini "the post-Conciliar Church". A true Council would have spoken of the role of the Church IN the modern world. Vatican II created the Church OF the modern world. John XXIII referred to the result as a "New Pentecost", Paul VI called it an Epiphany and John Paul II speaks of a "New Advent". - "We find ourselves in a certain way in the midst of a new Advent, a time of expectation..." Vatican II provides "the foundation for ever more achievements of the people of God's march towards the Promised Land in this state of history..." (Redemptor Hominis). Progress of course is never fixed, and so, once the Church accepts the principle of adapting itself to the modern world, it has committed itself to a perpetual state of flux. This is what Aggiorniamento is all about. This is why the Grand Mufti in Paris invited Catholics who wished to be part of an unchanging religion to become Moslems.

This new orientation resulted in the need for the Church to accept a host of ideas it once considered inimical. The ideology of the modern world is not only evolutionary and progressive; it is also Anthropocentric and secular. It envisions itself as dialectically passing from its present condition towards some utopian state in which all men will be united in a socialist structure where there will no longer be any suffering or want. Thus the new Church gladly witnesses to the "birth of a new humanism", and welcomes "today's social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization" (Ch.42). Indeed, she considers herself the "instrument" and "sacramental sign of this unity". She is even willing to make her most precious possession - the Blessed Eucharist - a symbol of this unity.

But the world the Church wishes to embrace has no use for her. It had long ago deserted the bosom of the Father and gone off "into a far country" to seek its own fortune. It has no interest in being "saved," much less in building up the Kingship of Christ. A Church which seeks to embrace the world's values and to find a place for itself in the milieu of an "anti-Christian" society, must re-define itself in terms that are meaningful to that society. Paul VI gave us some idea of how this was to be achieved. "From the start the Council has propagated a wave of serenity and of optimism, a Christianity that is exciting and positive, loving life, mankind and earthly values... an intention of making Christianity acceptable and lovable, indulgent and open, free of mediaeval rigorism and of pessimistic understanding of man and his customs..." (Doc. Cath. No. 1538). But the Church went farther than this. She not only wished to make herself lovable, she wished to become the "servant of the world". Having abdicated her spiritual leadership, she had no choice but to declare her desire to be of use "in service and fellowship". Let us see how she does this.

II - THE NEW CHURCH - HOW THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH SEES ITSELF

The world has never been more alienated and more divided than in our times. Wars, famines, and disasters abound. Enormous numbers of people on every continent are being reduced to a state of destitution. Almost everyone sees the solution to this problem, not in a return to Christian principles (if only on the socio-economic level), but in internationalizing the world. Our shrinking planet must unite - must create a world in which the principles of the French Revolution - "Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood" - will prevail. The new Church, "seeking to define herself, to understand what it truly is", finds in the fostering of this unity a veritable raison d'etre. And thus it is that she "admonishes her sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strive between nations and races in this family spirit of God's children." And further, she tells her priests that they must, "under the leadership of the Bishops and the Supreme Pontiff," work to "wipe out every ground of division... whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language OR RELIGION...so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God"(Ch.43).

According to Giancarlo Zizola, John XXIII saw this unity as being achieved in three stages: unity of Christians; unity of all believers in God; and then unity of all men.[41] We will show how this concept is developed by the Council, but first we must see how the Church developed a new concept of unity.

UNITY

Unity is a characteristic of the traditional Church. She is in fact defined as ONE: "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic". These four qualities are completely interdependent. Lose one and you loose them all. The Church is Holy because "she is without spot or wrinkle in her faith which admits of no sin of error against the revealed word of God" She is called Catholic because her teachings not only extend across time and space, but because the term means "universal" and her truths apply throughout the entire universe, in heaven, on earth and in hell. She is called Apostolic because she teaches the same doctrines which the Apostles taught, and because she retains intact the Apostolic Succession, that "Initiatic chain" which enables her to provide the sacraments. Finally, she is called One because she is united under one head, she agrees in one faith and she offers throughout her body one sacrifice. She is one because she is united with Christ who is One.

Let us be quite clear on what the traditional Church teaches. As a de fide statement of the Holy Office puts it:

"That the Unity of the Church is absolute and indivisible, and that the Church has never lost its unity, nor ever can"

Pope Pius XII taught the same doctrine in affirming that "only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of baptism and profess the true faith and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom for a very grave crime, by the legitimate authority" (Mystici corporis Christi)[42]

The Anglican convert Cardinal Henry Manning, faced with the Anglo-Catholic Ecumenical movement during the last century expressed with precision the position of the Church:

"We believe union to be a very precious gift, and only less precious than truth... We are ready to purchase the reunion of our departed brethren at any cost less than the sacrifice of one jot of the supernatural order of unity and faith... We can offer unity only on the condition on which we hold it - unconditional submission to the living and perpetual voice of the Church of God... it is contrary to charity to put a straw across the path of those who profess to desire union. But there is something more divine than union, that is the Faith. There is no unity possible except by the way of truth. Truth first, unity afterwards. Truth the cause, unity the effect. To invert this order is to overthrow the Divine procedure. the unity of Babel ended in confusion. To unite the Anglican, the Greek and the Catholic Church in any conceivable way would only end in a Babel of tongues, intellects and wills."

The Catholic Church then, by definition, has Unity. As Bishop John Milner said "if we unite ourselves with" the Anglo-Catholic Ecumenical Movement, " the Universal Church would disunite itself from us"

The post-Conciliar Church teaches differently. She claims that she has "lost her unity" and that the various divisions among Christians constitute a scandal which must be repaired. The Decree on Ecumenism is entitled Unitatis Redintegratio or the "restoring of unity". Pope John XXIII established his extra-curial "Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity" and specified that Unity was the term - not Reunion. The texts of the documents nowhere specify that the Church is already endowed with the charism of Unity. Many of the statements are vague and ambiguous such as "in all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united..." or "the Spirit guides the Church into the fullness of truth and gives her a unity of fellowship and service," or "the union of the human family is greatly fortified and fulfilled by the unity, founded on Christ, of the family of God's sons." But it is quite specific in other places - "Promoting the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the Chief concerns of the Second Sacred Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican..." "It is the goal of the Council...to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ..." and "This sacred Synod...moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ..."

Many "followers of Christ" are a long way from being or accepting Catholicism. How are they to be united to the Church? Again, the Council provides the answer. "all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated with Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored with the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church... From her very beginnings there arose in this one and only Church of God certain rifts which the apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large Communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - developments for which, at times, men on both sides were to blame. However, one cannot impute the sin of separation to those who at present are born into these Communities and are instilled therein with Christ's faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers; for men who believe in Christ and who have been properly baptized are brought into a certain though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church" (Decree on Ecumenism).

We see then one possible solution. All who have been baptized are declared to be partially in union. Half or even One quarter Catholicism is acceptable. But this goes against the teaching of the Church. As St. Fulgentius said in post-Apostolic times: "neither baptism, nor liberal alms, nor death itself can avail a man anything in the order of salvation, if he does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church" (Ad Petrum Diaconum). As for " justification through faith in Baptism", this is pure Lutheranism, for Luther taught that "A Christian or baptized man cannot loose his salvation, even if he would, by sins, however numerous, unless he refuses to believe" (The Babylonian Captivity.)

Despite these obvious problems, the Council proceeded to delineate yet another basis for its innovative concept of unity.

THE PEOPLE OF GOD.

"It is hard to recognize the Church, the people of God, as clearly being God's people. The more vociferously they claim the title, the less Godlike seem their actions."

Fr. John McGoey, Celibacy

The term, as the Council admits, originally applied to the Jews of the Old Dispensation. And with justice the Council applies it to those, whether Greek or Jew, who accepted the New Dispensation. But now comes the hitch. How are these people defined? Remember, Protestants claim not only to have accepted the New Dispensation, but to be the only ones to understand it properly. In the document Lumen Gentium one finds "the People of God" defined in a variety of ways. For example, as those who "believe in Christ... born of the living water and the Holy Spirit." Such of course can be Catholic, but by no means excludes any of the most liberal Protestants. But let us go on. The same text tells us in a passage which John Paul II calls the "key to the entire thinking of the Council" that "All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the People of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. And there belong to it or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind. For all men are called to salvation by the grace of God." We are not yet finished, for the texts go on to specify that not only are Protestants and Jews related in some way to the People of God, but even those "who have not yet received the gospel" And here we come to another key passage: "THE CHURCH IS A KIND OF SACRAMENT OF INTIMATE UNION WITH GOD AND THE UNITY OF ALL MANKIND, THAT IS, SHE IS A SIGN AND AN INSTRUMENT OF SUCH UNION AND UNITY..." Indeed, according to the documents of Vatican II, "it is necessary that priests, united in concern and effort under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every ground of division so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the Family of God." This is serious business, for as mentioned above, the Council instructs us that "every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or RELIGION is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent." We see here delineated John XXIII three levels of unity, that of Christians, that of people who believe in God, and finally, all of mankind.

Lest it should be thought that I quote out of context, allow me to give John Paul II's interpretation of these statements. Returning from a trip in Africa, graced with the blessings of the snake charming priestess, he referred to the teaching of Lumen Gentium and its enumeration of "the different categories which form the People of God". He then proceeded to tell us that each of these was "full of the particular hope of salvation: and that this can be "accomplished equally outside the visible Church." In a discourse given to the Roman Curia in 1981 he stated that "in these truly plenary gatherings, the ecclesial communities of different countries make real the fundamental second chapter of Lumen Gentium which treats of the numerous 'spheres' of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it, even on the part of those who do not yet form a part of it." He further said that the objective of pastors is to "call together the people of God according to different senses and different dimensions. IN THIS CALLING TOGETHER THE CHURCH RECOGNIZES HERSELF AND REALIZES HERSELF."

SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Here again the teaching of the traditional Church is clear. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. She is the ark of salvation. "Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of baptism and profess the true faith and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or have been severed therefrom for very grave crime by legitimate authority." At the same time the Church teaches that a person who, suffering from an invincible and non-imputable ignorance, may be saved extra-sacramentally by a 'baptism of desire' which supernaturally gives him or her charity. But, the sine qua non for this is that, as St. Paul says in his Letter to the Hebrews, "they must believe that God exists and is the rewarder of those that seek him." It is also important that we understand in this teaching that people are never saved by error or by false sacraments. If non-Catholics are saved under certain circumstances, it is because of the truth, because "the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us."

Now listen to what Vatican II teaches: Having informed us that she is no longer the "necessary means of salvation" but only the "useful means", she further teaches that "the brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation." And as noted above, John Paul II assures us each of the categories of the People of God are full of the hope of salvation, and this can be equally accomplished outside the visible Church." But if such is the case, what need is there for us to be Catholic?

The Council goes even further and teaches that "divine providence does not deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God." Father Avery Dulles, one of the Council Periti, comments on this: "The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World confirms this doctrine by asserting that grace works in an unseen way in the hearts of all men of good will. In these and similar texts, Catholic theologians find an official recognition by the Church that an act of saving faith is possible without any explicit belief in the existence of God or any religious affiliation."[43] And so it is that even Marxists can be saved.[44]

It would seem then that all men can be saved. One doesn't have to recognize the Catholic Church as the true Church; one doesn't even have to recognize that God exists. But John Paul II goes even further in his interpretation of the Conciliar documents. He holds that salvation for all men is not only a possibility, but a reality. This is of course the heresy of apocatastasis. We shall return to this point in discussing the post-Conciliar Church's understanding of the nature of man. For the present we shall continue our discussion of the new Church in the light of Vatican II.

COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS AND DIALOGUE ON AN EQUAL FOOTING

The traditional Church forbade Catholics to actively participate in non-Catholic rites.[45] Thousands upon thousands of Catholics have been penalized and martyred for refusing to engage in Communicatio in Sacris. Now the reasons for this are easy to understand. 1) Participation in a non-Catholic rite is seen as an offence against the First Commandment. God instructed us as to how He wished to be worshiped. Of course, God is not in need of our worship, but we have the need to worship him, and hence we must do it properly. To do so in some other way than He taught us is to give acknowledgment to forms of worship He has not approved of. One only has to read the history of Moses to know how God punished those who worshiped in a false manner. 2) The lex orandi is the lex credendi. The rule of prayer is the rule of belief. In other words, the way we pray reflects our beliefs.

Despite these clear cut principles, Vatican II actually "commends this practice." And why not, if such false worship "engenders a life of grace" and the communities that engage in it are " full of the hope of salvation?" It further encourages "the discussion of theological problems...where each can treat with the other on an EQUAL FOOTING... from dialogue of this sort will emerge still more clearly what the true posture of the Catholic Church is."

We are not only free to worship with those who deny our Lord, but we must dialogue with them on an "equal footing". To what absurdity this Council goes!. How can those who speak with the words of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Pius X ever deal on an EQUAL FOOTING with economic determinists, communists and village idiots? As Leo XIII said, "there is no parity between the conditions of those who have adhered to the Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and those who, led by human opinions, follow false religions." One thing is clear however: all the much vaunted "dialogue" has allowed the "true posture of the post-Conciliar Church" to emerge more clearly. In every situation the Church has given into Protestant demands; never has the reverse occurred. The only thing which is unclear is whether this post-Conciliar posture is supine or prone, whether the new Church is lying on its back or its belly.

A MORE BENIGN CHURCH

Pre-Vatican II Catholics were used to a rather rigid Church - one that resisted change and drew clear boundaries with the world. It was a Church that spoke of orthodoxy, sin and heresy and even presumed to guide the reading of the faithful by forbidding to them harmful books.[46] Such a stance would however not be pastoral, it would not foster the new sense of the unity of the people of God. With this in view Paul VI announced that "we were going to have a period of greater liberty in the life of the Church, and hence for each of her sons... Formal discipline will be reduced, all arbitrary judgement will be abolished, as well as all intolerance and absolutism." It was to be a Church which in his own words "avoids peremptory language and makes no demands."In line with this most of the reasons for automatic excommunication were abolished - though not that for ordaining a bishop without papal approval.[47] The Index was also abolished, for the people of God were far to mature to have their reading censured. The new Church also decided it would no longer condemn or approve divine apparitions such as that of the Blessed Virgin. It abolished the Oath against Modernism and it all but eliminated the words sin, hell and heresy from its vocabulary.

And lest there be any doubt, this Church apologized to the world for its deficiencies - not for the deficiencies of its members, but for the deficiencies of the Church, for the divine institution established by Christ. Listen to its blasphemous and abject whimpering: John XXIII in apologizing to the Jews, declared that the Church - the pure Bride of Christ - "had the mark of Cain on her forehead."[48] Paul VI, not to be outdone, said that "if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of Church doctrine... these should be appropriately rectified... " This new Church admits to no heresies in the present or future, but only in the past. To state that the Church has been "deficient" in her teaching is to either deny her infallibility or to accuse Christ Himself of spreading error.

THE SUBSISTING CHURCH

Non-Catholics have always found the claims of the traditional Church somewhat difficult to swallow - precisely because doing so required the humility to admit that they were in error. Hence it was clear that the Council could not foster its brand of ecumenism as long as it claimed to be the one true Church of Christ. The solution was to declare that the Church that Christ founded, the one true Church, subsisted in the Catholic Church - or more precisely, in the post-Conciliar Church. It is difficult to define subsistence, but the post-Conciliar Church insists it is equivalent to "exists". It is little help to say that the Church Christ founded exists in the post-Conciliar Church, because the term does not imply exclusivity. It does not mean that this Church and only this Church IS the Church that Christ founded. And indeed, we have the recent statement (1984) of the entire English hierarchy to the effect that the Church that Christ founded also "subsists" in the Anglican Church. As Pope Leo XIII said: "The Catholic religion is the only true religion, to put the other religions on the same level with it is to treat it with the gravest injustice and offer it the worst form of insult."

THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND MEANING

The traditional Church had no doubts about its function. It was the Mystical Body of Christ, Christ's presence in this world. It was a perfect society, which despite the failures of its members, never asked the world to do other than follow the teachings of her divine Master. She had the "fullness of the truth" and was here to share that fullness with us. As one theological text put it: "the Proximate end or purpose of the Church is to teach all men the truths of Revelation, to enforce the divine precepts, to dispense the means of grace, and thus to maintain the practice of the Christian religion. The ultimate end is to lead all men to the eternal life." Vatican II however tells us that "Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth" (Ch. 16). Paul VI tells us that "The Church is seeking itself. With a great and moving effort, it is seeking to define itself, to understand what it truly is..." (Address to priests at Varese, Feb. 6, 63).[49]

III - A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF MAN

Vatican II assures us that we have a better understanding of the nature of man. "Thanks to the experience of past ages, the progress of the sciences, the hidden treasures in the various forms of human culture, the nature of man himself is more clearly revealed and new roads to truth are opened." Let us then look to the documents and seek out what has been discovered.

HUMAN DIGNITY

"There is endless talk about 'human dignity', but it is rather too often forgotten that 'noblese oblige', dignity is invoked in a world that is doing everything to empty it of its content, and thus to abolish it. In the name of an indeterminate and unconditioned human dignity', unlimited rights are conceded to the basest of men, including the right to destroy all that goes to make our real dignity, that is to say, everything on every plane that attaches us in one way or another to the Absolute." Frithjof Schuon[50]

The Council says a great deal about the "dignity " of man which is said to originate in "man's call to communion with God". The Council also tells us that "Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in Him, has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare, for, by His Incarnation... the Son of God, in a certain way united Himself with each man" (Ch.) John Paul II discusses the implications of this in his Encyclical Redemptor Hominis:.

"We are dealing", he says, "with 'each' man, for each one is included in the mystery of Redemption, and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery." Again in a speech given in 1981 he states that "from now on and always, without regret and without turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and to give it His Son, the Redeemer... For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity... Man redeemed by Christ, and... to each man - without any exception whatever - Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it." He says much the same in the Christmas Message he gave in 1980: "Man was taken up by God as son in this Son of God becoming man... in this Son we are all made new to ourselves." And again, in a General Audience in 1981, "From now on, and always... God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it to save it... for all time the Incarnation bestows on man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity."[51]

How one wishes John Paul II was right.

Now the traditional Church teaches man, despite the fact that he is made in the image of God, is in a fallen state. Hence it follows that his true dignity lies in his conforming himself to that image. According to St. Thomas, man, being free, is capable of cooperating with grace or rejecting it; capable of being raised to the dignity of the sons of God or remaining in his fallen state destined to perdition. Sin is never dignified. It also teaches that Christ is primarily and principally the head of those who are united to him in act, whether by glory in heaven, or by charity, or at least by faith, on earth. Christ is also the Head of those who are united to Him potentially - that is, who have the real possibility of converting to Him. In this latter category fall the infidels, who, as long as they are alive, are able to acquiesce freely to the grace received from Christ. I quote St. Thomas Aquinas who continues with regard to those who do not convert to Christ during their lives: "as soon as they leave this world, they cease totally to be members of Christ". So it is not the sole fact of the Incarnation that unites all mankind to Christ - rather, each man must adhere to the grace of Christ. To the best of my knowledge, neither Vatican II nor John Paul II make any mention of the need for personal conversion or sanctity as the sine qua non for this claim to dignity.

Admittedly John Paul II often speaks in a circuitous and ambiguous manner. We must however take him at his word, and presumably post-Conciliar Catholics consider such statements as authoritative and binding. But if it is the Incarnation that redeems us, and indeed, all men, and this regardless of whether they conform to it or not, what becomes the purpose of the Cross and Passion? John Paul II gives the answer in his Encyclical Dives et Misericordia. The Passion is only a "witness" to man's supernatural dignity; it demonstrates, he tells us, "the solidarity of Christ with human destiny... a disinterested dedication to the cause of man." Let me quote him further:

"It is precisely beside the path to man's eternal election to the dignity of being an adopted child of God that there stands in history the Cross of Christ, the only-begotten Son... who has come to give the final witness to this wonderful Covenant of God with humanity, of God with man - every human being."

Now, if we accept John Paul's doctrine, it follows that all men (or "all people" to use the current non-sexist liturgical phrase) are saved. He tells us as much in Dives et Misericordia, for he states that "the mystery of election concerns all men, all the great human family". He is even more specific in a sermon given at Santa Maria in Travestere in 1980:

"[Christ] obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man - of each man and of all men, of those whom no one shall snatch from His hand... Who can change the fact that we are redeemed - a fact that is as powerful and fundamental as creation itself... The Church announces today the paschal certitude of the Resurrection, the certitude of Salvation."[52]

Certainly God desires that all be saved, and certainly the Passion of Christ is sufficient to redeem all men. But not all men are saved, but only those who believe in His redeeming power and conform their lives to it. Perhaps this is what John Paul meant, but it is certainly not what he said, and what he said, as we shall see, is consistent with the other "developments" offered us by the post-Conciliar Church.

THE DEIFICATION OF MAN

If all men are united to Christ and saved by the Incarnation, we have an explanation of how and why they can be united to one another. With his salvation assured and his dignity established, what more can man ask for? Man is truly deified. Surprisingly, Michael Davies concurs. "It was the Council as an event", he tells us in Pope Paul's New Mass, "that gave the green light to the process of the formal deification of man." No wonder Montini constantly expressed his confidence in man: "We have faith in Man. We believe in the good which lies deep within each heart, we know that underlying man's wonderful efforts are the motives of justice, truth, renewal, progress and brotherhood." At times Montini even waxed elegant. "There are no true riches but Man... Honor to Man, honor to thought, honor to science, honor to technique, honor to work, honor to the boldness of man, Honor to man, king of the earth, and today Prince of heaven." John Paul II is no less enthusiastic. "To create culture", he tells us, " we must consider, down to the last consequences and entirely, Man as a particular and independent value, as the subject bearing the person's transcendence. We must affirm Man for his own sake, and not for some other motive or reason; solely for himself! Even further, we must love man because he is Man, by reason of the special dignity he possesses." (Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980)

PRIVATE JUDGEMENT

Father Gregory Baum, one of the Council periti and at one time Cardinal-Head of the Congregation in charge of seminary education is quoted by Michael Davies as saying: "I prefer to think that man may not submit to an authority outside of himself." And why should deified man seek any authority outside himself? Imbued with such principles it is not surprising to find the Council teaching that "in religious matters" man "is to be guided by his own judgement." Now the true Church has always taught that private judgement is never a basis for religious belief. It is the Church which is meant to be our guide. But, as we have seen, the new Church has joined others in "seeking the truth," and is trying "to define itself." Such an institution implicitly denies that it has the "fullness of the truth" and so modern man is - quod absit - left with no other choice but to use his private judgment.[53]

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

"Evil and error cannot have aright to be set forth and propagated... The State is false to the laws prescribed by nature when, every bridle being removed, full power is left to evil and error to upset minds and corrupt minds..." Pope Leo XIII

You may wonder why I did not start out with discussing religious liberty. Most people consider it the bete noire of the Council, but as we have seen, there is far more wrong with Vatican II than its novel teaching on Religious Liberty. By bringing it up at this point we can better situate it in the total schema of the documents. Religious Liberty is not the only error, but rather it is the inevitable consequence of all the other errors we have listed.

The Council teaches that "Religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the human person .. the right of religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature" Think about it. If Christ is in a certain way united to each man, and each man is redeemed, and if, as John XXIII pointed out, "all men are equal by reason of their natural dignity" (Pacem et Terris), then each man's religious views must be equally true. After all, how can a person who is united to Christ and whose salvation is guaranteed, have false opinions? But, are we not back to the Masonic-Roussouist concept of man with a religious, almost pantheistic twist? Is this not proclaiming the absolute sovereignty of the individual and his independence of God's authority? But there is more. The Conciliar document adds that this right to religious liberty "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."and"religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith.... the right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed, and thus it is to become a civil right" It seems clear that according to Vatican II one can believe anything one wants; one can teach whatever one wants even if one does not really believe it; and that the state must guarantee one's freedom to do this.

It is of interest to quote the comments of Cardinal Siri on this novel teaching of the Council:

"Let us speak not against liberty but against the abuses of liberty. Liberty involves the possibility of sinning, but it in no way implies God's approval or even tolerance of sin. In several places the schema claims liberty for all religious communities, even those that are estranged from the natural law and are contrary to good human morals. We cannot legitimatize what god merely tolerates; we can only tolerate it, and that within the limits of the common good. We cannot therefore accept the proposed schema, insofar as it recommends liberty for all without discrimination... We should consider more carefully the contribution of theological sources to this problem of religious liberty and determine whether or not the contents of this schema can be reconciled with the teachings of Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Otherwise, we weaken our own authority and compromise our apostolic effort." (Henri Fesquet, The Drama of Vatican II, N.Y.: Random House, 1967).

Let us be quite clear on the position of the traditional Church. She has never denied to anyone the freedom to worship as they see fit; indeed, she has always insisted that every person must - their very salvation depends upon it - follow their own conscience. But she has never conceded that people have a right to believe error, much less a right to do so hypocritically. She would certainly deny a person the right to teach falsehood to others. (Who of us would knowingly allow a teacher to teach our children falsely?) There is an enormous difference between a freedom and a right. A person may have the freedom to commit abortion or murder, but he can never claim the right to do so. When it comes to matters of religion, God gave man an intellect by means of which he might know the truth. He also gave him the freedom, but not the right to misuse this intellect. The Decree on Religious Freedom violates this fundamental principle. John Paul I made this abundantly clear when he stated that "the Church had always taught that only the truth had rights, but now the Council made it clear that error also has rights" (Time Magazine).

Not only does the Council authorize man to believe error, and to do so with hypocrisy, it also demands that this "right" be guaranteed by Constitutional governments. This means that any crackpot that comes down the pike can teach whatever he wishes - Marxism can be taught in schools; and homosexuals can advocate the freedom of sexual choice in the classroom; and Satanism must be accorded the same rights as the Church that Christ established.

The offence to our divine Lord is further compounded by the Conciliar declaration that this right “conforms to divine revelation” that the doctrine was received from Christ, and that hence all those who denied this right betrayed Christ. Perhaps this is one of those areas where the Church wad “deficient in its formulation of doctrine:. Among those who denied to man this right are Gregory XVI in Mirari vos; Pius IX in Quanta cura; Leo XIII in Immmortale Dei and in Libertas; Pius XII in his speech on Dec. 6, 1953, and Pope Saint Pius X in his Syllabus of Errors. It would appear that the Holy Spirit, who by definition cannot contradict Himself, made a mistake.[54]

Since the state is obliged to give the same recognition to error as it does to truth, and since there will inevitably be "thousands" of different religions in the state, there must result a radical separation of Church and State. Hence, it was with a "mandate from Vatican II that Paul VI induced Spain, Portugal and several South American governments which gave primacy of place to the Catholic religion, to change their Constitutions in order to bring them into line with this new teaching. In essence this means that no country, even if all its citizens are Catholic, has a right to declare itself Catholic! And no government has the right to establish a Catholic code of ethics within its Constitution.! Such a stance is an open denial of the Kingship of Christ by the "Vicar of Christ."

The offence to our divine Lord is further compounded by the Conciliar declaration that this right "conforms to divine revelation" - which is to say that this doctrine was received from Christ, and that hence all those who denied this right - practically all the Popes of the Church - betrayed Christ. Perhaps this is one of those areas where the Church was "deficient in its formulation of doctrine". But if Christ is the source of this teaching, the Church is radically destroyed. How is it possible for Christ who lived and died to provide us with the truth; who said, "go forth and teach all nations whatsoever I have taught you..." and at the same time for him to say "Its fine with me if you tell lies about me (which is blasphemy), you can believe anything you wish and behave in any manner you like. It was to give you this "right" that I hung upon the cross!?"

IV - WHY A CHURCH AT ALL? THE TIELHARDIAN SYNTHESIS AND THE POST-CONCILIAR UTOPIA

A Church that believes in man's innate dignity, a dignity that requires no effort on his part; a Church that believes every man should judge for himself what is right and wrong; a Church that believes that man evolves, and hence that his religious beliefs evolve; a Church that does not claim to teach what Christ taught in an integral and unchanged manner; a Church which declares it is seeking for the truth along with other men, has a major problem. Such a Church can hardly claim to be the teacher of mankind. What function is it then to have? The answer is that it must place itself in the "service of the world." And how is it to do this? By being the "avant-guard" of a "new humanism" and "universal culture" based on "wholesome socialization" so that man can act in consort to build a "better world" in the future. But before this can happen, religious strife must be eliminated and mankind must be united.

And so the function of the new Church is to be the "catalyst" for this unity - "The Church is a kind of sacrament of intimate union with God, and the unity of all mankind, that is, she is a sign and an instrument of such union and unity... At the end of time, she will achieve her glorious fulfillment. Then... all just men from the time of Adam will be gathered together with the Father in the Universal church." In these statements taken from Vatican II there is both ambiguity and a thinly veiled millennarianism. They continue: Of course the Church "recognizes that worthy elements are to be found in today's social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms...," and hence she must join and encourage all such elements, and she must "wipe out ever ground of division so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God." So important is this goal that her priests are instructed: "every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion [emphasis mine] is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent."

Elsewhere we are given further insights into this proposed unity. "Recent psychological research explains human activity more profoundly. Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing man to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects. The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one... Thus little by little a more universal form of human culture is developing, one which will promote and express the unity of the human race... It is a fact bearing on the very person of man, that he can come to an authentic and full humanity only through culture, that is, through the cultivation of natural goods and values... The Church believes she can greatly contribute towards making the family of man and its history more human... Thus we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by his responsibility towards his brothers and towards history"(All from Vatican II). Make no mistake about it. This is the program of the new Church. John Paul II tells us specifically that the objective of pastors is to "call together the people of God according to different senses and different dimensions. IN THIS CALLING TOGETHER THE CHURCH RECOGNIZES HERSELF AND REALIZES HERSELF."

This is the direction in which the post-Conciliar hierarchy would lead us. Here we have a vision of what the new Church has in mind. As Paul VI said, "the time has come for all mankind to unite together in the establishment of a community that is both fraternal and world-wide... The Church, respecting the ability of worldly powers, ought to offer her assistance in order to promote a full humanism, which is to say, the complete development of the entire man, and of all men... to place herself in the avant-guard of social action. She ought to extend all her efforts to support, encourage and bring about those forces working towards the creation of this integrated man. Such is the end which the [new] Church intends to follow. All [post-Conciliar] Catholics have the obligation of assisting this development of the total person in conjunction with their natural and Christian brothers, and with all men of good will." This is what he elsewhere calls "the new economy of the gospel." John Paul II fully shares the vision of his "spiritual father." "The Church, while respecting the competence of the different Nations, should offer her assistance in promoting a full humanism, that is to say the complete development of men, of all men. Placing itself at the head of social action, she should concentrate all her efforts to support, to encourage, to push the initiatives which work to promote the total person."[55]

It boggles the mind to find the "pontiffs" telling the faithful that they must accept this kind of sophomoric mumbo jumbo and secular humanism as "the authentic teaching of the Magisterium." What has all this to do with religion? Apart from being blatant nonsense, all these statements falsify the nature of man, the true ends and purpose for which he was created, and the raison d'etre for the Church. Further, they are based on a variety of parochial and theoretical sociological assumptions that have no basis in reality. The concept of man's inevitable "progress," his "dynamic" and "evolutionary" character, and the idea that through "a process of wholesome socialization" we are "building a better world" is nothing but disguised Teilhardianism and Marxism. Suddenly we see the Church supposedly established by Christ propagating all the illusions of the modern world, above all its belief in progress, evolution, and that thanks to science and human endeavor we can build a perfect utopia - a host of false concepts that are truly the "opiates of the people." To expect a hierarchy that thinks in these terms to be concerned with metaphysical principles, spiritual values, or even the validity of the sacraments, is absurd.

A NEW ATTITUDE TOWARDS COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM

One of the major problems facing the world is the "East-West" socio-economic and political conflict. Mankind cannot be united until this is resolved. Where the traditional Church prayed for the conversion of Russia, the new Church encourages, nay embraces, Socialist values within her own bosom. Where the one said that no Catholic could co-operate in any way with Socialism, the other proclaims the redeeming values of this system. The change came in John XXIII's Pacem and Terris "all men are equal by reason of their natural dignity.” This being so he added, "all political communities are of equal natural dignity since they are bodies whose membership is made up of these same human beings." Vatican II followed this up by teaching that the Church "is bound to no particular form of Human culture, nor to any political or economic or social system." Lest the faithful be left in doubt about this new attitude towards Communism, the Council further noted that "The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today's social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of the association in civic and economic realms." As John XXIII said "the Church is not a dam against communism. the Church cannot and should not be against anything..." It will be argued that all this is not a full endorsement of Communism. But it must be considered in the light of the fact that the Council refused, despite the request of over 400 Council Fathers, to condemn Communism in any form. It should not be assumed that just because the Berlin wall has fallen and the failures of Communism have been exposed, that socialist ideation (which Communism carried to its logical conclusions) has been removed from the bosom of the new Church. The ravages of Liberation Theology - criticized in name, but not in spirit, are still with us.[56]

At no time has the new Church spoken out against Communism as such. It occasionally condemns its excesses, but never its principles. This new attitude is part of the Teilhardian dream of combining "the rational force of Marxism" with the "human warmth of Christianity", and the Council, following this clue in stating that "through her [the Church's] individual members and her whole community, the Church believes she can contribute greatly towards making the family of man and its history more human."

Forgotten in all this is the paradigm of the Prodigal. It was not the Father's function to join the wayward son, but for the latter to return to the bosom of the Father. It is better to live in the forecourts of the Lord than to dwell in the tents of the ungodly .

ECUMENISM

We are now in a position to understand the real nature of the Ecumenical movement. Given the premise that all men have an equal natural dignity because they are united to Christ for all time; that all men are redeemed and that Religious Liberty and the use of private judgment in religious matters is his right, it surely follows that all men have equal access to the truth - or more precisely, possess it in an equal degree. Given the fact that the Church no longer believes she has the fullness of the truth; that she has lost her unity and that this unity can only be regained when all men are gathered together in the People of God, and that it is her desire to be of service and fellowship to the world, it surely follows that she must see her primary function and internal nature as one of fostering this unity - first of all among Christians, then among believers, and finally among all men. How else can the post-Conciliar act than in an ecumenical manner. It is this that explains all the extraordinary actions of John Paul II with the Jews, the Lutherans, - indeed, with all the world's religions. What happened at Asissi was not an "abuse" but an expression of the Church's "innermost nature". Let there be no doubt about this. As John Paul II told the non-Catholic delegates at his inauguration: "tell those whom you represent that the involvement of the Catholic Church in the Ecumenical movement, as solemnly expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is irreversible."

Such of course involves the abandonment of any strict adherence to Catholic teaching. Paul VI had already told us that "exigencies of charity often force us to go outside the bounds of orthodoxy" (Speech in Milan). John Paul went further. In talking to the seminarians at the Lateran he said that loyalty to the Church is not to be defined "in a reduced sense as maintaining standards, nor does it mean staying within the bounds of orthodoxy - avoiding positions that are in contrast to the pronouncements of the Apostolic see, the ecumenical councils and the learned doctors of the Church..." He continued: "we must have a divergence of positions, although in the end we must rely on a synthesis of all." As he said elsewhere, we are to have a pluralistic Church, but it is for Rome to decide the limits of this pluralism.

With this goal in view, the Church is not only willing to give up her commitment to the true faith and sound doctrine; she is also willing to sacrifice her most precious possession, the Holy Eucharist itself. Thus she teaches that the shared Eucharist is to be the sign of this unity. John Paul II tells us in his Encyclical Redemptor Hominis that "The Church is seeking the universal unity of Christians... and is gathering particularly today in a special way around the Eucharist and desiring that the authentic eucharistic community should become a sign of the gradually maturing unity of all Christians." With this in mind he has himself given Communion to Anglicans and Lutherans.[57]

THE COMMUNITARIAN NATURE OF SALVATION HISTORY

So critical is this task OF UNITY that the new Church tells us that "it has pleased God to make men holy and save them, not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds, but in making them into a single people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness. So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen men not just as individuals, but as members of a certain community. This communitarian character is developed and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ... She [the church] likewise holds that in her most benign Lord and Master can be found the key, the focal point, the goal of all human history.." Yet another departure from traditional teaching. Man is declared saved, not as an individual, but as a member of the community - that is the community of the People of God.[58] The final line is a classic piece of ambiguity. While sounding orthodox, it is a virtual quote from Teilhard de Chardin Divine Milieu.

But consider yet another point. "Communitarian salvation, "salvation history," "the 'unity' of all the people of God," the proclaimed salvation of the atheist, and the acceptance of Socialism. Are we not once again brought back to the Teilhardian thesis? Are we not to be saved as members of some future socialist community? And is not God revealing his will through some kind of dialectical process in which all men will be united and joined together in the future socialist utopia? Is this the "key," the "focal point," of the new Church? Point Omega...!

GLORY TO THE UNITED NATIONS - HOPE OF THE WORLD

And how is all this to be brought about? John XXIII instructed us that this one world community should be under "a public authority, having world-wide power and endowed with the proper means for the attainment of its objective, which is the universal common good..." And what organization is to achieve this: According to the post-Conciliar "popes," it is the United Nations. Listen to the words of Paul VI addressing this august body:

"It is your task here to proclaim the basic rights and duties of man, his dignity and liberty, and above all his religious liberty. We are conscious that you are the interpreters of all that is paramount in human wisdom. We would almost say: of its sacred character. The people turn to the United Nations as their last hope of peace and concord... The goals of the United Nations are the ideal that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history. We would venture to call it the world's greatest hope - for it is the reflection of God's design - a design transcendent and full of love - for the progress of human society on earth; a reflection in which we can see the Gospel message, something from heaven come down to earth".

The United Nations described as "something from heaven come down to earth" and "the world's greatest hope by Christ's supposed Vicar on earth. John Paul II is even more laudatory. Addressing the United Nations in 1979 he never once mentioned the name of Jesus, but clearly stated that "the governments of the world must unite in a movement that one hopes will be progressive and continuous, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and juridical instruments are endeavoring to create general awareness of the dignity of the human being... the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to manifest one's religion either individually or in community, in public and in private..." The United Nations declaration of Human Rights is the same as that of the French Revolution. John Paul II seems to forget that, as Cardinal Pie stated, "the declaration of the Rights of Man are a denial of the Rights of Christ."

MARRIAGE

It is well known that the family unit is the basic unit in every society, and that the majority of souls must sanctify their lives in the married state. The Church has always taught that "the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring, while its secondary purposes are mutual help and allaying (also translated 'as a remedy for,') concupiscence. The are entirely subordinate to the former." This principle, incorporated in Canon 1013, makes it clear that the welfare of children comes before that of the parents. Moreover, as Pius XII said, it "has been handed down by Christian tradition, and [it has been] repeatedly taught by the Supreme Pontiffs." The doctrine was declared de fide by the Holy Office with the approval of Pius XII (AAS 36, 103, 1944). Now Vatican II has not only declared that the two ends of marriage are of equal significance; it has further reversed the order, listing the secondary end before the primary one. Let us look at what the change in this teaching leads to: it opens the door to artificial forms of birth control, infidelity and divorce. The traditional view demands that even the unitive ends of marriage must be sacrificed for the sake of the children The new view declares that selfishness - for it is fundamentally selfishness that disrupts both love and marriage - has the right to sacrifice the children for its goals. Couple this inversion with the oft repeated teaching of John Paul II that both partners in a marriage have equal authority and responsibilites - a direct contradiction of the teaching of St. Paul - and one in effect destroys the very basis for Christian marriage.[59]

THE CHURCH'S RAISON D'ETRE

And so we have a Church that sees its primary purpose "the promotion of unity", a Church which sees itself as both "the instrument of the unity of all mankind"; a Church which sees itself "as the Sacramental sign of this unity"; A Church whose priesthood is to function primarily to bring about this unity, and a Church which envisions herself obliged to contribute towards "making the family of man and its history more human." It is this thrust towards the unity of mankind that belongs to "the innermost nature of the Church", because she is, "by her relationship with Christ, both a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God and the unity of all mankind...

CONCLUSION

It has not been possible to cover all the deviations of Vatican II. Needless to say, virtually every aspect of Church teaching and practice has been attacked. Her liturgy, her missionary activities and even marriage has come under attack. Enough has been said however to show the direction in which the new Church would lead us.

We have reviewed the teachings of Vatican II under four general headings - a new attitude towards the world; a new attitude towards herself; a new attitude towards man; and finally, a new attitude towards her own raison d'etre. We have shown that basic to the "new orientations" of this Church are its belief in progress and evolution, and hence a need to constantly adapt itself to the world around it - a world which it admires and loves, but a world which has little use for the Church.

Given these facts, the Church had to develop a new outlook. No longer a "perfect society", the spotless bride of Christ, no longer claiming to possess the "fullness of the truth", she had to abdicate her role as the spiritual guide for mankind. What then was her function and her raison d'etre? She found the answer to this in "service", in devoting herself to the task of making the history of man "more human" and above all in fostering a new concept of world wide unity, "the unity of the People of God."She became a sign and sacrament of this unity which will embrace all Christians, then all believers, and finally the whole of mankind.

Having achieved an aggiornamento with the modern world, she had to bring her understanding of man into line with the Masonic Rousseauist view. No longer made in the image of God and wounded by Adam's sin, man is now raised to the dignity of the gods by being declared dignified by nature, united for all time with Christ, and redeemed without effort on his part. The Crucifixion becomes a witness to this dignity which is equal in all. But if we are all united to Christ and in fact all saved, then it follows we all have equal access to the truth. Once more we are brought back to the concept of creating a single religion where, as he instructed the seminarians at the Lateran University, "we will have a divergence of opinions, although in the end, a synthesis of all."

Finally, this new utopia, this new humanism which the Church endorses and wishes to foster, will be a socialist paradise, in which all men will be brothers, equal and free. It is for this end that the Council instructs her priests to wipe away every source of discord - be it racial, sexual or even religious. With the help of the United Nations, we are on the progressive march to this Utopia, but we have forgotten the way to Heaven. Point omega is around the corner.

Forgotten is the way to Heaven! But that is what the Church is all about. That is why Christ was born and that is why he suffered on the Cross.

ã R Coomaraswamy, 2001

---

[1] Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, Herder: N.Y., 1960. Ecumenical Councils are also called General Councils. The Church has never formally defined what an ecumenical council is. Philip Hughes states that "the general council is a purely human arrangement whereby a divinely founded institution functions in a particular way for a particular purpose" (History of General Councils).

[2] These Protestant "observers" took an active part in the proceedings behind the scenes. Even their very presence must have had an inhibiting effect on the Council Fathers. This was very significant with regard to Russian Orthodox observers from Moscow who only came with the understanding that Communism would not be condemned - a fact reported by several authors and documented by Jean Madiran in Itineraires (Cf. The Vatican-Moscow Agreement by Jean Madiran in The Fatima Crusader, (Constable, N.Y.) Issue 16, Sept-Oct., 1984.

[3] Every time the orthodox fathers wished to define more clearly what was being ambiguously stated, they were informed that the Council was "pastoral" and not "dogmatic" (J'acuse le Council by Arch. Lefebvre). However to state that what is "pastoral" is not "dogmatic" is like stating that clinical medicine is not based on scientific "fact". Pope Paul himself is witness to this statement. In a General Audience (1975) he stated that Vatican II "differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral". In his Lenten address in 1976 he stated that the Council "had perfected the doctrine of the Church to such an extent as not to leave any hesitation about the identity of her theological mystery." The only place where the meaning of "pastoral" is clearly defined is in the Letter to the Presidents of the National councils of Bishops concerning Eucharistic prayers. "the reason why such a variety of texts has been offered and the end result such new formularies were meant to achieve are pastoral in nature: namely to reflect the unity and diversity of liturgical prayer. By using the various texts contained in the new Roman Missal, various Christian communities, as they gather together to celebrate the Eucharist, are able to sense that they themselves form the one Church, praying with the same faith, using the same prayer." In other words, the pastoral intent of the documents was to facilitate and foster that ecumenism - that false unity - which the post-Conciliar Church considers its "internal mission".

[4] Requests by hundreds of Council Fathers for the condemnation of Communism - certainly the principal error of our times - were sidetracked by those in control - in clear violation of the Council's own rules of order - as reported by Father Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and others.

[5] In a similar manner Santiago Carrillo, head of the Spanish Communist Party, called it "Euro-communism", "our Aggiornamento, our Vatican II." (Itineraires, May 1977).

[6] Ursula Oxfort, The Heresy of John XXIII, Privately published and available from her. Cf. my review in Studies in Comparative Religion (Middlesex, Eng.): Comments on a Recent "Traditional" Catholic Book, Vol 17, 1988. Peter Hebblewaithe in his biography of John XXIII tells us that the Council was planned well in advance and that no "spirit" other than Modernism was involved.(N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985).

[7] Pbro. Dr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, Sede Vacante - Paulo VI no es legitimo Papa, Angel Urraze: Mexico, 1973.

[8] Quoted by D. Von Hilderbrand, Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference, Triumph, March 1970.

[9] Michael Davies, Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty, TAN: Ill, 1980. Xavier da Silveira in Brazil holds to a similar position.

[10] Quoted in L'heresie concilaire by Marcel De Corte, Itinieres, July-August, 1976. The statement is contained in a letter from Paul VI to Arch. Lefebvre dated June 29, 1976.

[11] Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.

[12] The reader is referred to the Essay on the Magisterium for the meaning and weight of some of these terms.

[13] Redemptor Hominis and Speech to the Sacred College reported in Documentation Catholique (Paris), 1975, pp. 1002-3.

[14] Speech to the Bishops of France at Issy-les-Moulineaux, L'Osservatore Romano, 3.6.80.

[15] Strictly speaking, he "pope" and only the pope has the magisterial authority to determine what is and isn't traditional.

[16] Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics are forced to draw lines between obedience to tradition and obedience to the "new orientations" established by the post-Conciliar "popes". Those who reject the authority of these "popes" adhere to the teaching of the traditional Church and thus avoid the trap of picking and choosing just what is and isn't traditional.

[17] Two translations are available in English. Neither carries a Nihil Obstat and neither is considered "official": 1) Walter M. Abbott, S.J., The Documents of Vatican II, America Press: N.Y., 1966 and2) Rev. J. .L. Gonzales, The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, Daughters of St. Paul: Boston 1967. There is not much to choose between them, though the commentaries are different. Quotations in the body of this text are taken from the first.

[18] Consider the following conciliar statement: "The widespread reduction of working hours, for instance, brings increasing advantages to numerous people. May these leisure hours be properly used for relaxation of spirit and the strengthening of mental and bodily health. Such benefits are available through spontaneous study and activity and through travel, which refines human qualities and enriches man with mutual understanding. These can help to preserve emotional balance, even at the community level, and to establish fraternal relations among men of all conditions, nations and races." This from a document of an Ecumenical Council!

[19] Quoted by Rev. Ralph M. Wiltgen, The Rhine flows into the Tiber, Hawthorn: N.N, 1967; Augustine: Devon, 1978.

[20] Documentation Catholique, 1775, p. 1002.

[21] Michael Davies, Pope John's Council, Augustine: Devon, 1977.

[22] Joseph M. Becker, S.J., The Re-formed Jesuits, Ignatius Press, Calif., 1992.

op. cit. No. 21.

[23] In essence, this allowed those who had captured the Council to control what information was given out to the public.

[24] Bishop Lucey of Cor and Ross in Ireland made these comments in the Catholic Standard (Dublin), Sept. 14, 1973.

[25] Cardinal J. Heenan, A Crown of Thorns, London, 1974.

[26] Brian Kaizer, Pope Council and World, Macmillan: N.Y., 1963. Brian Kaizer was the New York Times Correspondent to the Council. The "Northern Alliance" consisted of those European theologians who had for a long time been waging a total war against tradition". As Cardinal Heenan noted: "it is quite clear that the English-speaking bishops were quite unprepared for the kind of Council the rest of the northern Europeans were planning. The Americans were even less prepared than the British" (Cf. No. 25).

[27] As E. E. Y. Hales says: "On the face of it Pope John was allowing the Council to take shape in a way that seemed certain not to produce the Aggiornamento of the Church which he wanted. One explanation of this paradox is that he was subtly allowing the Curia to think that it was going to be their council, so as to ensure that they would not try to thwart it, while he himself knew very well that once it met, it would cease to be theirs, that he [and it] would take over the Curia" (Pope John and His Revolution, Doubleday: N.Y. 1965). Archbishop Lefebvre describes how "a fortnight after the opening of the Council, not a single one of these carefully prepared schemas remained", and how lists of candidates for the various commissions were prepared and circulated for voting on - men whose names nobody knew: those who prepared the lists knew these bishops very well: they were (I don't need to tell you) all of the same tendency" (A Bishop Speaks, Scottish Una Voce: Edinburgh). Michael Davies reports much the same (Pope John's Council, op. cit.)

[28] Henri Fesquet, The Drama of Vatican II, N.Y.: Random House, 1967.

[29] He watched the entire affair on closed circuit television. He would intervene against the established rules of the Council to promote the “revolution,” as for example when he reduced the need for a two thirds majority to pass a given resolution to the 50% level.

[30] Cardinal Ottaviani, an aged and senior member of the Curia, almost blind, was cut off in the middle of his speech after ten minutes by disconnecting the microphone. The response of the Fathers to his embarrassment was to clap with joy. The ancient Cardinal retired in tears. So much for the Christian charity of these "Fathers".

[31] Archbishop Lefebvre's J'Accuse le Councile documents a letter sent to Paul VI complaining about these tactics and signed by several Cardinals and Superior Generals of Religious Organizations, and the manner in which he dismissed their contentions.

[32]J. Moorman, Vatican Observed, London, 1967.

[33] op. cit. No. 30.

[34] op. cit. No. 25.

[35] op. cit. No. 30.

[36] "Salvation History", one of the favorite phrases of the innovators, and one clearly implying that Salvation is a historical process, is particular offensive. Salvation is an "individual" process. Further, in accord with the Gospel story of the eleventh-hour laborer, salvation today is no different than it was in the days of Abraham. As opposed to this, Karl Rahner defines Salvation in his Theological Dictionary Herder: N.Y., 1965, (which carries a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur) in these terms: "it does not primarily signify an 'objective; achievement, but rather a 'subjective' existential healing and fulfillment". He defines "Saving history" as "a general term signifying the fact that god, on account of his universal salvific will, has graciously embraced the whole of human history and in it has offered all men his salvation, and that his grace and justification have been concretely and historically realized in humanity... This concept is based on the theological presupposition not only that man has to hope for and accept grace within history, but that grace itself is historical and that history itself, with all that it involves - for instance - the unity of mankind - is grace".

[37] Quoted in H. Fesquet, Le Journal du Councile, Morel: Paris, 1964

[38] John T. McGinn, Doctrines do Grow, Paulist: N.Y., 1972.

[39] Avery Dulles, S.J. has said, "without using the term 'continuing revelation', Vatican II allowed for something of the kind." Donald Campion, S.J. has said with regard to the Constitution on the Church Today, "here as elsewhere, it is easy to recognize the compatibility of insights developed by thinkers (sic) such as Teilhard de Chardin in his Divine Milieu with the fundamental outlook of the Council." (Both were conciliar periti and quotes are from commentaries in the Abbott translation.) For an excellent study regarding the Teilhardian influence, the reader is referred to Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, TAN: Ill, 1988.

[40] Commentary in the Abbott translation.

[41] Giancarlo Zizola, The Utopia of John XXIII, Orbis: Maryknoll, N.Y., 1978.

[42] The reader is referred to the essay on Baptism of Desire lest this quote should suggest that there is no possibility of salvation for the unbaptized.

[43] Commentary in the Abbott translation of the Documents.

[44] Father Gustavo Guiterrez, the Peruvian Liberation "Theologian" goes so far as to say that Marxists will be saved, but not so Christians who fail to join in with the forces of history (i.e., who do not become revolutionary).

[45] Communicatio in Sacris is engaging in common worship with heretics. "Passive" participation - as for example, attending a Protestant wedding - was allowed. But actively joining in the service was forbidden. "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" (2 Cor. 6:14).

[46] Permission for reading books on the Index could be obtained if one had any reason to read them. What loving parent would not limit the reading of a child?

[47] Ordaining a bishop without papal permission was made an excommunicative act by Pius XII. The new Code of Canon Law retains this, but dropped over 30 other reasons for being automatically excommunicated. The new law demanding resignation of prelates at the age of 75 allowed the new Church to remove from office any conservatives they disapproved of. This was used in the case of Bishop Castro Meyer in the Diocese of Campos, Brazil (The Mouth of the Lion by Dr. David White, Angelus Press,1999)

[48] Quoted in Werner Keller, Diaspora, N.Y.: Harcort, 1969.

[49] Listen to St. Athanasius speaking about the Arian Councils of the Fourth Century: "the whole world was put into confusion, and those who at the time bore the profession of clergy ran far and near, seeking how best to learn to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ... if they were believers already, they would not have been seeking, as thought they were not... no small scandal... that Christians, as if waking out of sleep at this time of day, should be inquiring how they were to believe... while their professed clergy, though claiming deference from their flocks as teachers, were unbelievers on their own showing, in that they were seeking what they had not... What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic church that they should enquire concerning faith now, and should fix this year's date to their profession of faith..."

[50] Light on the Ancient Worlds, Perennial: Middlesex, Eng., 1965.

[51] Sources for quotes in this paragraph are to be found in Louis-Marie de Blignieres, John Paul II and Catholic Doctrine, Society of Pius V, Oyster Bay Cove:NY. This remarkable text fully substantiates this teaching on the part of John Paul II.

[52] This is the probably explanation of he mistranslating of Multis by all in the Novus Ordo Missae.

[53] Private judgment is more fully discussed in the essay on the Magisterium.

[54] Pope Gregory XVI called this "insanity", Pius IX in his Encyclical Quanta Cura, a document whose magisterial intent is made clear by the fact that he initiates it with the statement "By Our Apostolic Authority We reject, proscribe and condemn..." had this to say:

"Against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert 'that the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require. From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster the erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz, that liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare their ideas whatever either by word of mouth, by the press or in any other way.'"

[55] "In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from them, we have had much sorrow. Then certain people were so forward therein, that they went to the King who gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the heathen... [and they] made themselves uncircumcised and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen..." Let him who has ears, hear.

[56] The Communists were delighted. The Communist Weekly in Rome headlined the statement under the caption of "No more crusades". Il Borghese, another Roman paper was more prescient. It stated that "this policy means the end of la chiesa cattolica romana".

Pope Pius IX in 1846 called Communism "absolutely contrary to the natural law itself..." and added that "once adopted, would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even of society itself." Leo XIII in 1878 called it "a mortal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin". Pius XI in 1937 called it "a pseudo-ideal of justice, of equality and of fraternity..." and further stated that "Communism is intrinsically evil, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever."

[57] Cf. Introibo, No. 43, Jan-Mar, 1984, l'Association sacerdotal Noel Pinot, Angers, France.

[58] Cardinal Vaughan spoke to this when he said: "Tarry not for Corporate Reunion. It is a dream, and a snare off the Evil One. We have all to be converted to God individually; to learn of Christ, to be meek and humble of heart individually; to take up our Cross and follow Him individually, each according to his personal grace. The individual may no more wait for Corporate Reunion than he may wait for Corporate Conversion..." J. G. Snead-Cox, Cardinal Vaughan Vol II, Herder, St. Louis 1910.

[59] It follows that if the parents do not get along, they can get an annulment (often described as a “Catholic divorce) on psychological grounds. There are of course valid reasons for obtaining an annulment, but psychological grounds are open to almost any abuse of interpretation. Psychological immaturity is present in almost every marriage at the start, and frequently at the finish.