However, as we can see from the following discussion of the winners and losers of Vatican II’s interest group battles, there is little hope of actually “solving the Francis problem” unless and until we repudiate the errors that paved the way for his unholy occupation of the papacy.
Winners
Protestants. Arguably the biggest winners of the Council’s interest group battles were the Protestants. In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre provided the following illustration of the Protestant victory at the Council:
"If I read La Documentation Catholique or the diocesan papers, I find there, from the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission, officially recognized by the Vatican, statements like this: ‘Among the ideas of the Second Vatican Council, we can see gathered together much of what Luther asked for, such as the following: description of the Church as ‘the people of God’ (a main idea of the new Canon Law — democratic, no longer hierarchic, idea); accent on the priesthood of all baptized; the right of the individual to freedom of religion. Other demands of Luther in his time can be considered as being met in the theology and practice of the Church today: use of the common language in the liturgy, possibility of Communion under two species, a renewal of the theology and celebration of the Eucharist.’”
This is a stunning admission from a commission officially recognized by the Vatican. Along the same lines, Oscar Cullmann (one of the Council’s influential Protestant observers) reflected on whether Protestant expectations had been fulfilled at the Council:
“[T]he Catholic Church in Vatican II not only goes back behind the Counter-reformation, but even behind the Middle Ages. It goes back to the Bible, and as a result there has been some elimination of illegitimate elements along with the occasionally questionable expansion of Catholic universality. Thus the situation is not exactly the same as at the time of Luther, who himself saw only the syncretistic Catholicism which he fought.” (Oscar Cullmann, Vatican Council II: The New Direction, p. 99)
The Council’s Protestant victory has of course continued for the past sixty years, such that the majority of Catholics today are essentially Protestants who “believe in the pope.”
Jews. Cardinal Augustin Bea led the Council’s ecumenical initiatives, which included not-only work to unify Christians but also efforts to satisfy Jewish requests. The Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations provides the following synopsis of these efforts:
“The process of bringing Nostra Aetate to birth was a difficult challenge for Cardinal Augustin Bea, president of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, to whom Pope John XXIII had given this task. . . . There was opposition to the endeavor from both inside and outside the Council. Some bishops recoiled at the thought of changing long-standing teachings, while others feared for the safety of Christian minorities in predominantly Muslim countries. Some prelates employed procedural maneuvers in an effort to scuttle the document, and there were delays in scheduling a formal Council debate on the text. In addition, the foreign offices of some nations in the Middle East publicly campaigned against any statement that absolved ‘the Jews’ of the alleged crime of crucifying Jesus.”
In his biography of Bea, Fr. Stjepan Schmidt, S.J. (Bea’s longtime secretary) described Bea’s perseverance in pushing for language in the Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, which had sparked protests because it “absolved the Jews from the charge of deicide”:
“The various documents in the archives for January 1965 — the very weeks when the troubles and demonstrations were taking place — show the cardinal’s views very clearly. The general agitation could not be taken lightly, for it could be very dangerous and harmful for the church, especially for Christians in Arab countries. On the other hand, the difficulties were no reason for the Council to give up and abandon the document, nor even for it to be watered down and made more ‘prudent.’” (p. 517)
So Bea knew that his pro-Jewish initiatives at the Council could create a dangerous situation for the Church and Christians but he pushed ahead because it was vital to satisfy Jewish interests insofar as possible.
This would seem like a conspiracy theory were it not for the fact that the major initiatives of Vatican II, especially religious liberty, did in fact correspond with the aims identified by the pre-Vatican II popes as Freemasonic goals.
The “Great Religions” of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Although Nostra Aetate began as a declaration solely about the Jewish people, Bea’s commission expanded it to praise all non-Christian religions, specifically naming Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism:
- “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.”
- “Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.”
- “Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.”
So although Protestants and Jews were the biggest winners among religious groups, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists were also victorious.
Communists. As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre described in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, one of the Council’s most important battles related to Communism:
“Communism, the most monstrous error ever to emerge from the mind of Satan, has official access to the Vatican. Its world-wide revolution is particularly helped by the official non-resistance of the Church and also by the frequent support it finds there, in spite of the desperate warnings of those cardinals who have suffered in several of the Eastern countries. The refusal of this pastoral council to condemn it solemnly is enough in itself to cover it with shame before the whole of history, when one thinks of the tens of millions of martyrs, of the Christians and dissidents scientifically depersonalized in psychiatric hospitals and used as human guinea pigs in experiments. Yet the Council kept quiet. We obtained the signatures of 450 bishops calling for a declaration against Communism. They were left forgotten in a drawer.”
Unsurprisingly, Cardinal Bea apparently played an important role in avoiding the condemnation of Communism, as described by Malachi Martin in The Jesuits:
“Pope John ardently desired to know if the Soviet Government would allow two members of the Russian Orthodox Church to attend the Second Vatican Council set to open the following October. The meeting between [Cardinal] Tisserant and [Metropolitan] Nikodim took place in the official residence of Paul Joseph Schmitt, then the bishop of Metz, France. There, Nikodim gave the Soviet answer. His government would agree, provided the Pope would issue no condemnation of Soviet Communism or of Marxism, and that the Holy See would make it a rule for the future to abstain from all such official condemnation. Nikodim got his guarantees. Matters were orchestrated after that for Pope John by Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea until the final agreement was concluded in Moscow . . .” (p. 86)
Thus, Bea did not limit himself to promoting the interests of non-Catholic religions — he also protected the anti-God Communists.
Modernists. Pope Pius XII condemned Modernism with his Humani Generis. However, the men whose ideas had been condemned later became the most influential experts of Vatican II. Fr. Dominique Bourmaud described this amazing development in a 2012 article, The Three Modernist Musketeers:
“It is impossible to speak of the genesis of the Second Vatican Council without mentioning the leading figures of the whole movement. Let us mention three names who manifest clearly how people of such different cultures and formations reached similar conclusions: Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Karl Rahner. Many things unite these three men. They all had a long history as university professors; all were under theological scrutiny for modernist ideas under Pius XII; all were somehow disciplined or exiled from their positions. All were then miraculously reinstalled as Council periti on the eve of the Council. Their teaching ideas were broadly known as ‘the new theology’ and they came to influence the principles of conciliar teaching. They all became the experts of subsequent popes and therefore were granted many praises and honors by the post-conciliar Church.”
In later years, John Paul II promoted several prominent Modernists to the position of Cardinal, including de Lubac and Congar. Thus, we must conclude that the Modernists won not only through playing a vital role in shaping the Council’s documents but also in interpreting them and implementing the “Spirit of Vatican II” after the Council.
Thus, the actual defense of the Council is based on the idea that Catholicism had been wrong and needed to change.
Freemasons. In his They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Lefebvre described the victory won by the Freemasons at the Council:
“‘Freemasons, what do you want? What do you ask of us?’ Such is the question that Cardinal Bea went to ask the B’nai B’rith before the beginning of the Council. The interview was announced by all the papers of New York, where it took place. And the Freemasons answered that what they wanted was ‘religious liberty!’ — that is to say, all the religions put on the same footing. The Church must no longer be called the only true religion, the sole path of salvation, the only one accepted by the State. Let us finish with these inadmissible privileges. And so, declare religious liberty. Well, they got it: it was Dignitatis humanae.” (p. 214)
This would seem like a conspiracy theory were it not for the fact that the major initiatives of Vatican II, especially religious liberty, did in fact correspond with the aims identified by the pre-Vatican II popes as Freemasonic goals.
We have further confirmation of this from the statements of Freemasons praising the Council. In his booklet on the Freemasonic “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,” John Vannari quoted Marcel Prelot on the way in which Vatican II achieved a long-sought-after victory for Freemasons:
“Marcel Prelot, a senator for the Doubs region in France, goes much further in describing what has taken place. He writes: 'We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail with the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church.’”
Globalists. Finally, we can add the globalists to the list of winners at Vatican II. As discussed in a previous article, Gaudium et Spes promoted the idea of an international body that would help ensure world peace:
“Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, cites Paul VI’s October 4, 1965 Address to the United Nations in support of the condemnation of ‘total war,’ but the Vatican II document does not actually name the ‘United Nations’ other than the footnote citation of Paul VI’s address. Instead, the lengthy Chapter 5 of Gaudium et Spes — ‘The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations’ — asserts the great need for an international community of nations and urges Christians to support such an international community: ‘Christians should cooperate willingly and wholeheartedly in establishing an international order that includes a genuine respect for all freedoms and amicable brotherhood between all.’”
As we now witness more than ever, however, the greatest boost to globalist objectives can be seen if we consider the first loser of Vatican II’s interest group battles below; Catholics.
Losers
As profitable as the Council was for the anti-Catholic interest groups above, not everyone can be a winner.
Catholics. In his famous “1974 Declaration,” Archbishop Lefebvre told the truth in a way that threatened those who want to carry out their anti-Catholic revolution without opposition:
“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
Archbishop Lefebvre and so many others simply wanted to remain Catholic and refused to follow the “neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council.” Archbishop Lefebvre’s firm determination became so problematic that Yves Congar wrote a book specially attacking Archbishop Lefebvre, in which he quoted the above passage from the 1974 Declaration. Did Congar defend the orthodoxy of the Council? No, he essentially confirmed the basis of Archbishop Lefebvre’s opposition to it:
“By the frankness and openness of its debates, the Council has put an end to what may be described as the inflexibility of the system. We take ‘system’ to mean a coherent set of codified teachings, casuistically-specified rules of procedure, a detailed and very hierarchic organization, means of control and surveillance, rubrics regulating worship — all this is the legacy of scholasticism, the Counter-reformation and the Catholic Restoration of the nineteenth century, subjected to an effective Roman discipline. It will be recalled that Pius XII is supposed to have said: ‘I will be the last Pope to keep all this going.’” (Challenge to the Church: The Case of Archbishop Lefebvre, pp. 51-52)
Thus, the actual defense of the Council is based on the idea that Catholicism had been wrong and needed to change.
Why should we care about the winners and losers of Vatican II when we are faced with the ongoing Francis catastrophe? Even if we believe that only God can resolve this crisis — which is almost surely the case — we are always called to do the best we can to counteract the evils we see.
The Blessed Virgin Mary. Yves Congar had this to say about his opposition to devotion the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council: “I am campaigning, AS MUCH AS I CAN, against a consecration of the World to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, because I can see the danger that a move in this direction would constitute.” (Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, entry for September 17, 1964)
Ostensibly, he felt that way because he believed that fulfilling the request of Our Lady of Fatima would offend non-Catholics. This same sensitivity to the emotions of non-Catholics led Cardinal Bea to lobby for not calling Our Lady the “Mediatrix of All Graces”:
“It is more prudent that the term ‘mediatrix’ be avoided in a conciliar document: not only is there a danger that Catholics themselves might misunderstand it, but it also creates serious, and indeed very serious, difficulties for Christians separated from us.” (p. 557)
These decisions to choose the feelings of Protestants over proper respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary are all the more stunning and repulsive in light of the great deference to Communists, Protestants, and Jews described above.
God. Even though we know that God permits these evils for our good, and His honor and glory, there is a certain sense in which we could add God to this list of those who “lost” at Vatican II. In addition to the anti-God aspects of the Council described above, we can add one of the more subtle assaults. In his Pope John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification, Fr. Patrick de La Rocque provided the following background and summary for his discussion of John Paul II’s heresies regarding universal salvation:
“It was well known that we owe the formula from Gaudium et Spes to Karol Wojtyla: ‘By His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.’ Left in its vague sense by the conciliar document, this expression found a more precise interpretation in the writings of John Paul II. His teaching, indeed, contains three recurring affirmations: 1) The Redemption is applied to all men; in other words, to each of them in particular; 2) Redemption is applied in such a way that he cannot lose it; 3) Redemption is applied to everyone from the moment of conception.” (p. 2)
This blasphemous idea of “universal salvation” undermines the entire Catholic Faith, and of course turns souls away from the path of knowing, loving, and serving God as Our Lord taught us to do. Overall, every novelty of Vatican II tended to turn souls away from the path of serving God as faithful Catholics.
Why should we care about the winners and losers of Vatican II when we are faced with the ongoing Francis catastrophe? Even if we believe that only God can resolve this crisis — which is almost surely the case — we are always called to do the best we can to counteract the evils we see. Insisting on removing Francis without addressing the grave errors ushered in by Vatican II is tantamount to insisting on ameliorating the ill-effects of cancer while refusing to treat the cancer itself.
Unfortunately, though, there is something far worse about defending the Vatican II cancer that ravages the Mystical Body of Christ because the offense against God is infinite, and it is ongoing. Moreover, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that God has permitted Francis’s wicked occupation of the papacy — whether we consider him a pope or anti-pope — as a scourge for our collective approval of the anti-Catholic interests that prevailed at the Council and have thrived ever since. In this late stage of the battle, we need to stop caring so much about the feelings of the Church’s enemies and give ourselves entirely to the work of promoting the reign of Christ the King. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Latest from RTV — AMERICA’S GOT TALENT: Tucker Carlson vs Taylor Swift
