In his commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, Cornelius a Lapide elaborated on the logic of St. Paul’s words about the necessary link between the Resurrection and our Faith:

“It rightly follows that, if Christ has not risen, we are still in our sins; for . . . if Christ has not risen, therefore faith in risen Christ, which is the basis for justification, is false; but a false faith cannot be the beginning and foundation of remission of sins and of true sanctification.”

St. Paul’s reasoning is simple: in order for the faith to be true, the Resurrection must be true; therefore, if the Resurrection is not true, then the faith is false.

The entire Catholic religion is based on a similar foundation of logically dependent facts. As we say in our Act of Faith, we believe all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed them, “Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.” If even a single one of the truths taught by the Church were to be false, then surely we would have to conclude either that the Church had been mistaken about what God has revealed, or that God has deceived us. Each conclusion would, of course, render the Catholic religion false.

Prior to Vatican II, various popes warned that enemies of the Church sought to undermine Catholic teaching by introducing novelties incompatible with the immutable Faith. The popes would not have had to devote so much attention to this defense of the Church if the enemies were openly rejecting the Resurrection or other Articles of the Faith.

Prior to Vatican II, various popes warned that enemies of the Church sought to undermine Catholic teaching by introducing novelties incompatible with the immutable Faith. The popes would not have had to devote so much attention to this defense of the Church if the enemies were openly rejecting the Resurrection or other Articles of the Faith — instead, the enemies were dangerous precisely because they carried out their nefarious efforts with the utmost cunning. Consider, for instance, the words of St. Pius X from his 1910 Letter to the French Bishops about the Sillon Movement:

“Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds.”

St. Pius X warned about the evil forces that were working toward “the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions . . .” As he understood so well, such a goal could only be achieved through “mischievous doctrines” formulated in “dark workshops.” Even doctrinally-sound and holy bishops would need to be on their guard lest they fail to safeguard their flocks against these dangers.

Tragically, the warnings of the pre-Vatican II popes now appear entirely prophetic. The majority of Catholic clergy today have at least tacitly accepted the Liberal and Modernist errors against which the popes warned, and we now see the baneful consequences.

Tragically, the warnings of the pre-Vatican II popes now appear entirely prophetic. The majority of Catholic clergy today have at least tacitly accepted the Liberal and Modernist errors against which the popes warned, and we now see the baneful consequences. Pius XII issued the last forceful papal warning against these errors with his 1950 Humani Generis — what happened since then to allow the enemies to breach the Church’s defenses?

As Atila Sinke Guimarães wrote (and demonstrated) in his Animus Delendi (volume I), the efforts of the pre-Vatican II popes were deliberately thwarted by John XXIII and his successors:

“[T]he position of Vatican II toward progressivism is not just one of tolerance, but also of sympathy. The pontiffs from John XXIII until today have made no secret of their ardent support for progressivist thinking. It was their mentors, condemned or suspected of heterodoxy before the Council, who laid the foundation of conciliar doctrine and applied it with the open support of the highest echelons of the Conciliar Church.” (pp. 34-41)

Two of those suspected of heterodoxy before the Council — Karl Rahner and Yves Congar — were among the most influential architects of Vatican II. So, if the pre-Vatican II popes were correct in condemning the mischievous doctrines of men like this, what would reasonable people expect to happen if those men were given such tremendous power to influence the documents of the Council?

The architects deliberately included heterodox ideas in the Council documents for the sole purpose of exploiting them after the Council for the destruction of the Church. Why, then, is it that so many apparently well-meaning Catholics still defend the Council?

Throughout Animus Delendi (volume I) and the ten other volumes of his Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? collection, Mr. Guimarães presented quotations from the architects of Vatican II and those who have implemented it. As Michael Matt wrote in his 2001 review of the Animus Delendi (“Desire to Destroy”), these quotations make it abundantly clear that the Council’s architects were intentionally trying to destroy the Church:

“The reviewer of Desire to Destroy would have quite a time deciding which of the countless passages taken from leading progressivist thinkers, popes and theologians provides the most convincing evidentiary ‘giveaway’ of just how real the planned destruction of the Church (as we knew it) from within actually was. The case that this destruction was planned and premeditated is made (according to evidence brought forward by the progressivists themselves) again and again and again in this book.”

Since 2001, the destruction has become more blatant and the defense of Vatican II has become more strident. And yet Mr. Guimarães and so many others — including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and The Remnant — have provided countless irrefutable proofs that the architects deliberately included heterodox ideas in the Council documents for the sole purpose of exploiting them after the Council for the destruction of the Church. Why, then, is it that so many apparently well-meaning Catholics still defend the Council?

One way to answer this question is to ask another: given the fact that the enemies of the Church are certainly led by Satan, what strategies would they deploy to protect the toxic Second Vatican Council? Would they infiltrate the Traditional Catholic movement with seemingly orthodox champions of the Faith who nonetheless defend the Council? Would they do all they can to coerce those who should speak to remain silent? Would they try to foment divisions among Traditional Catholics to hinder a unified opposition to the Council? It seems obvious that they would use these, and every other viable technique, to maintain the full lethality of their precious Council.

So here we are in 2023, still fettered by Vatican II despite the most obvious indications that God wants us to reject its errors. At this point we must be clear: it is an insult to Our Lord, Who died on the Cross for us and rose again as He had promised, to allow this blasphemous charade to continue.

So here we are in 2023, still fettered by Vatican II despite the most obvious indications that God wants us to reject its errors. At this point we must be clear: it is an insult to Our Lord, Who died on the Cross for us and rose again as He had promised, to allow this blasphemous charade to continue. After so many decades of scandal and apostasy, it is no longer the critics of Vatican II who need to explain themselves. Rather, you champions of Vatican II: please explain to us why we must respect the unholy work of men who had these words to say about the Council they led: 

Cardinal Leo Suenens: “The Vatican Council II marked the end of an epoch, or even of many epochs, depending on the historical perspective. It brought to a close the Constantinian age, the era of ‘Christendom’ in the medieval sense, the era of the Counter-Reformation and the era of Vatican I. In reference to that past, it marks a turning point in the History of the Church.” (Animus Delendi, p. 60)

Fr. Hans Küng: “Compared to the post-Tridentine Church of the Counter-Reformation, Vatican Council II represents, in its fundamental characteristics . . . a 180-degree turn . . .  It is a new Church that has sprung up from Vatican Council II . . . Now, there is an opening to others. Then, there were condemnations and excommunications of those with other religious beliefs. Now there is dialogue with them.” (Animus Delendi, pp. 60-61)

Cardinal Yves Congar: “With the Declaration on religious freedom and the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, about the Church in the modern world — a meaningful title! — the Church of Vatican II clearly placed herself in today’s pluralistic world. Without renouncing her past greatness, she cut the ropes that had kept her anchored to the shores of the Middle Ages.” (Animus Delendi, p. 62)

Cardinal Yves Congar: “The Council destroyed what I would call the unconditionality of the system. What I understand by ‘system’ is a complete and very coherent body of ideas transmitted by the teachings of the Roman Universities, codified by Canon Law, protected by the strict and quite efficient vigilance of Pius XII, with reports, admonitions, the submission of writings to Roman censors, etc., in short, a whole ‘system.’” (Animus Delendi, p. 68)

But for those who truly wish to honor God and save their souls: how can you honestly defend Vatican II when the experts who drafted the documents tell us in such unambiguous terms that the Council constitutes a fundamental departure from what the Church has always taught? Do you truly believe that you know more about the Council than the men who were responsible for it?

Fr. René Laurentin: “What was overcome [at Vatican II] was historical narrowness and stains. Also, the nostalgia of ‘Christendom’ with its grandeurs and miseries, as well as its outmoded political conceptions. The Augustinian conception of politics died at Vatican II. So also did post-Tridentine precisions, the harshness of the 19th century, the anxious and desperate battle to defend the remains of the Middle Ages by attacking ‘modern’ ideas head-on: liberty, equality, fraternity, the rights of men.” (Guimarães, Animus Injuriandi, Volume I, p. 89)

Fr. Marie-Dominique Chenu: “The word ‘relative’ was feared at that time [when St. Pius X attacked Modernism] — incidentally, it continued to be so up until the Council. ‘Official’ theology considers the formulas that expressed the faith as immutable realities and rejected the very word evolution that the Council was to introduce into it vocabulary.” (Guimarães, Inveniet Fidem?, pp. 28-29)

Cardinal Karol Wojtyła (John Paul II): “The Church, with the consciousness of the history of salvation that is her own, goes out to meet that multiform evolution and the consciousness of today’s man, which is linked to it . . . By emphasizing the participation of the Church in the evolution of the ‘world,’ even by means of her own evolution; and moreover by professing its necessity, Vatican II takes a stand in regard to the past and, simultaneously, to the future.” (Guimarães, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, pp. 135-136)

The Council matters now more than ever, as Francis uses it as the primary justification to finish the evil work denounced by St. Pius X in 1910. Faithful Catholics can disagree on many things, but the time has passed for us to remain fettered by an almost superstitious refusal to accurately interpret the Second Vatican Council.

To the malicious infiltrators and scoundrels, these words will only bring mirth. But for those who truly wish to honor God and save their souls: how can you honestly defend Vatican II when the experts who drafted the documents tell us in such unambiguous terms that the Council constitutes a fundamental departure from what the Church has always taught? Do you truly believe that you know more about the Council than the men who were responsible for it?

The Council matters now more than ever, as Francis uses it as the primary justification to finish the evil work denounced by St. Pius X in 1910. Faithful Catholics can disagree on many things, but the time has passed for us to remain fettered by an almost superstitious refusal to accurately interpret the Second Vatican Council. Those who cannot bring themselves to oppose its errors and noxious fruits should at the very least remain silent on the Council. Otherwise, like the guards who were bribed to deny the Resurrection (Matthew 28:11-15), they will perpetuate the lies that keep souls away from the immutable truth and sacraments entrusted exclusively to the Church by Our Lord. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Latest from RTV — Trump Indicted, Francis Hospitalized, Christians Driven Out of Bethlehem