The Revolution of Vatican II was Misinterpreted?
It is often voiced by conservatives disheartened by the changes in the Catholic Church that Vatican II was a good council, but that it was misinterpreted. If these good people were better informed as to what took place at the Council, they would never say any such thing. Though Vatican II started with the best resolves, it was hijacked in the opening session by rebel bishops because the pope had planned the Council without their advice and against their designs.
We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was part of this plot to usurp the Vatican Council. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, “This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.” (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)
In his February 14, 2013, address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’ etat at Vatican II: “On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: ‘No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.’ Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates.” (Benedict XVI in his address to the clergy of Rome, February 14, 2013)
After illicitly blocking the vote, this rebellious faction, known as the “Rhine group,” resorted to boorish methods to force-install a number of their own members onto the drafting commissions, so that overnight nearly sixty percent of the commissions were now chaired by “suspect theologians” that previously had been restricted under Pius XII. Their control of the commissions would continue to strengthen, thus paving the way for the various documents of Vatican II that we know today.
However, the true documents of Vatican II were the 72 schemata which John XXIII had approved before the Council. The 72 schemas were held in high esteem by the true thinkers of the Faith, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee to check the documents for doctrinal purity before presentation at the Council. According to Lefebvre, the schemas were worthy and orthodox, and should have been used, but to his great dismay the Council under the direction of these conciliar pirates rejected John XXIII’s outline. Consider Lefebvre’s own words:
“From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket…The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)
Hence the radical changes of today do not reflect a misinterpretation of Vatican II, but a true interpretation as intended by the original architects. This is why we have all the problems today. The few good parts of the documents penned by the few good people were only allowed as conservative cover to sell the documents to the Council fathers. It was more important to Vatican liberals that the documents appeared orthodox than liberal, because the objective of these scoundrels was to secure the signature of Pope Paul VI, without which their plan would never succeed.
Their plan in gist was to revive the cause of Luther under the pretext of a reform and to merge the Catholic Church with world religions. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council, even said: “The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation.”
Consider now the vision of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that “the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council” in a move “to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state.”
More than once it has surfaced that the Blessed Virgin in Her Third Secret at Fatima spoke of “a bad council and a bad Mass.” This was reported by the Fatima Crusader in May 2009 and again by One Peter Five in May 2016. According to both reports, Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told his good friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger in late-summer 2000 that there is still part of the Fatima Secret that has yet to be released, and that the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the future.
Continued below...
A bad council and a bad Mass would certainly tie with Canon Roca’s prediction that the liturgy “will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council.” Among the instructions of this ecumenical Council was the September 26, 1964, Constitution on the Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. Article 91 reads:
“The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people”
How is it that people say Vatican II was misinterpreted, when its call for “celebration facing the people” was mandated as the universal norm shortly after the Council? This change, which was unprecedented in the 2000-year history of the Church, was carefully calculated to bring about a shift of focus where the emphasis is on the community, and not on God.
Inter Oecumenici also called for the “suppression” of the Leonine Prayers after Mass, i.e. the three Hail Marys, the Salve Regina, and the Prayer to St. Michael (article 48), and the suppression of these prayers indeed came to pass after the Council.
In keeping with the conciliar design “to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy” (21), the document Sacrosanctum Concilium called for an overall revision of the Mass, wherein archaic “elements” accumulated through time “are now to be discarded” and “the rites are to be simplified” so that “active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.” (Article 50)
A bad council and a bad Mass would certainly tie with Canon Roca’s prediction that the liturgy “will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council.” Among the instructions of this ecumenical Council was the September 26, 1964, Constitution on the Liturgy, Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. Article 91 reads:
“The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people”
How is it that people say Vatican II was misinterpreted, when its call for “celebration facing the people” was mandated as the universal norm shortly after the Council? This change, which was unprecedented in the 2000-year history of the Church, was carefully calculated to bring about a shift of focus where the emphasis is on the community, and not on God.
Inter Oecumenici also called for the “suppression” of the Leonine Prayers after Mass, i.e. the three Hail Marys, the Salve Regina, and the Prayer to St. Michael (article 48), and the suppression of these prayers indeed came to pass after the Council.
In keeping with the conciliar design “to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy” (21), the document Sacrosanctum Concilium called for an overall revision of the Mass, wherein archaic “elements” accumulated through time “are now to be discarded” and “the rites are to be simplified” so that “active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.” (Article 50)
Continued below...
This too came to pass with the implementation of the Novos Ordo Mass, though the new Mass did not enhance any participation in God, but our alienation from God. “Active participation” as God sees it is that we be involved with our religion by reverently attending Mass, going to confession, reading the lives of the saints, and sanctifying our souls in the fear of God, but what the liberals meant by this is that we should be busy-body activists by engaging in the liturgical revolution against the Mass and priesthood.
Some still argue that the Vatican II documents contain no error but are simply ambiguous in their wording, but their argument hangs them, because ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil and is the clearest evidence that the documents are jinxed. God is never ambiguous, but is always clear, direct, and juridical, so distorted documents which ‘speaketh out of two sides of the mouth’ are a dead give-away that God is not the Author thereof.
The documents are sometimes very unambiguous. For instance, the conciliar document Unitatis Redintegratio makes clear that “The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means for salvation” and even states: “In certain circumstances, such as prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.”
Because of this and other like text from the Council, it is not uncommon today for clergy and laity to engage in interfaith worship against the Church’s 2000-year prohibition, so how is it that concerned Catholics today attribute this ecumenical mingling to a “misinterpretation of Vatican II?” The Council called for Mass facing the people, so how is it that the new Mass was implemented against the Council’s designs?
This too came to pass with the implementation of the Novos Ordo Mass, though the new Mass did not enhance any participation in God, but our alienation from God. “Active participation” as God sees it is that we be involved with our religion by reverently attending Mass, going to confession, reading the lives of the saints, and sanctifying our souls in the fear of God, but what the liberals meant by this is that we should be busy-body activists by engaging in the liturgical revolution against the Mass and priesthood.
Some still argue that the Vatican II documents contain no error but are simply ambiguous in their wording, but their argument hangs them, because ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil and is the clearest evidence that the documents are jinxed. God is never ambiguous, but is always clear, direct, and juridical, so distorted documents which ‘speaketh out of two sides of the mouth’ are a dead give-away that God is not the Author thereof.
The documents are sometimes very unambiguous. For instance, the conciliar document Unitatis Redintegratio makes clear that “The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means for salvation” and even states: “In certain circumstances, such as prayer services ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.”
Because of this and other like text from the Council, it is not uncommon today for clergy and laity to engage in interfaith worship against the Church’s 2000-year prohibition, so how is it that concerned Catholics today attribute this ecumenical mingling to a “misinterpretation of Vatican II?” The Council called for Mass facing the people, so how is it that the new Mass was implemented against the Council’s designs?
Endtime Prophecy (Sr. Jeanne): Vatican 2 False Religion
