In his February 14, 2013 address to the clergy of Rome, Benedict XVI spoke of the tremendous evils caused by Vatican II:

“We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy . . .  and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.”

Benedict XVI was vastly understating the harms caused by the so-called “Council of the media” — the worst evils were that millions of Catholics left the Church, and countless others lost the Faith while continuing to identity as Catholic, all of which constitutes an immense against against God. Regardless, he blamed it all on the “Council of the media,” assuring us that the “true Council” had emerged with “all its spiritual force” to bring “true renewal of the Church.”

Less than a month later, Francis began his hostile occupation of the papacy and promptly set about magnifying all the evils caused since the Council. In a way that might have appalled Benedict XVI, Francis has consistently told us that he is following Vatican II as he does his best to demolish the Church. Is he following the “Council of the media,” the “true Council,” or some other version of the Council?

One way to evaluate that question is to consider the priorities of one of the most important figures of Vatican II, Cardinal Augustin Bea. In his Augustin Bea: Cardinal of Unity, Bea’s longtime secretary, Fr. Stjepan Schmidt, identified three main ecclesiological concepts for Bea’s work at Vatican II as president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity:

“As a member of the Central Commission, the president of the secretariat had the further task of seeing whether the relative commission had borne such points in mind, and then reiterating ecumenical aspects if necessary. When we describe Bea’s various interventions, we are therefore not claiming that they all represent original thoughts on his part. However, it was the cardinal who defended them with his authority in the Central Preparatory Commission. First we have contributions on ecclesiological questions. Even then it seemed clear that a document on the church would have a central place in the Council, and it must be said that as early as this our cardinal was supporting three concepts that were then to become special features of the conciliar Constitution of the Church: the fundamental concept of the church as the people of God, the substantial church-membership of all validly baptized people, and the concept of the ‘college of bishops’ as the successor of the ‘apostolic college.’” (p. 364)

Other than advancing the interests of the Jews through the Council’s “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions,” Nostra Aetate, Cardinal Bea’s primary focus at the Council was promoting the ecumenism that has dominated in Rome since the Council. Why did he identify those three concepts — the concept of the “People of God,” church-membership of all baptized people, and the concept of the “college of bishops” as successors to the “apostolic college” — to advance his ecumenical goals?

A few passages from the Final Document of the recent session of the Synod on Synodality can help us understand why Cardinal Bea chose those three concepts to promote ecumenism:

People of God and All Baptized. Consistent with other statements made throughout the Synod on Synodality, the Final Document indicates that membership in the People of God is based entirely on baptism:

“The identity of the People of God flows from Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This identity is lived out as a call to holiness and a sending out in mission, inviting all peoples to accept the gift of salvation (cf. Mt 28:18-19).” (Paragraph 15)

With this, we can see how the Synod combines two of the ecclesiological concepts championed by Bea to achieve the ecumenical unity sought by the Council. Baptism does not, of itself, suffice for membership in the Catholic Church, but it is all that is needed to belong to the “People of God,” which the Synod equates with the Synodal Church. And voilà, the entire problem of Christian unity is solved by simply saying all baptized people are members of the Synodal Church!

Cardinal Bea’s ecumenical objective in advancing the concept of the “college of bishops” as the successor of the “apostolic college” was ultimately to minimize the importance of the papacy, which prevents many Protestants from accepting Catholicism.

People of God and Sensus Fidei. Furthermore, in one of the most astonishing passages of the entire Synodal process, the Final Document tells us that all of the baptized (who form the People of God, according to the Synod) participate in the “sense of the faith” (the sensus fidei):

"Through Baptism, ‘the holy People of God has a share, too, in the prophetic role of Christ, when it renders Him a living witness, especially through a life of faith and charity’ (LG 12). The anointing by the Holy Spirit received at Baptism (cf. 1 Jn 2.20. 27) enables all believers to possess an instinct for the truth of the Gospel. We refer to this as the sensus fidei. . . They manifest this special property when they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals (cf. LG 12). The exercise of the sensus fidei must not be confused with public opinion. It is always in conjunction with the discernment of pastors at the different levels of Church life, as the various interconnected phases of the synodal process demonstrated. The sensus fidei aims at reaching a consensus of the faithful (consensus fidelium), which constitutes ‘a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith’ (ITC, Sensus fidei in the life of the Church, 2014, 3). All Christians participate in the sensus fidei through Baptism. Therefore, as well as constituting the basis of synodality, Baptism is also the foundation of ecumenism.” (Paragraphs  22-23)

Thus, the consensus of all baptized people — including Protestants who detest Catholicism — “constitutes a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith.” If we were to actually take this heretical nonsense seriously, then almost by definition the Synodal Church’s “faith” becomes the lowest common denominator of Christian beliefs. In this way, the path is cleared to eliminate almost everything about Catholicism that stands in the way of the Christian unity championed by John XXIII and Cardinal Bea. No serious Christian would find this appealing, but the Synodal Church is not for serious Christians anyway.

Cardinal Ottaviani was trying to reject the liberal objective of shifting as much authority as possible from the pope to the bishops. The Synod’s Final Document takes that objective about as far as possible without abolishing the Bishop of Rome altogether.

College of Bishops. Cardinal Bea’s ecumenical objective in advancing the concept of the “college of bishops” as the successor of the “apostolic college” was ultimately to minimize the importance of the papacy, which prevents many Protestants from accepting Catholicism. To better understand this debate, we can consider Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s description from The Inside Story of Vatican II: A Firsthand Account of the Council's Inner Workings (formerly titled, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber), in which he cites Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, one of the strongest champions for orthodoxy at the Council:

“[T]he point on collegiality had presumed the existence of the Apostolic College, of which the present College of Bishops was said to be the successor. ‘But this is a case of confusion on the nature of episcopal succession,’ [Cardinal Ottaviani] said. ‘It is true that the bishops succeed the Apostles, but they do not succeed the College of Apostles as a college, because the College of Apostles as such did not exist, at least not in a juridical sense.’ There had been only one example of collegiality among the Apostles, and that had been at the Council of Jerusalem. No one doubted that at Jerusalem the Apostles had acted as a college, he said, ‘just as no one doubts that the bishops today, in Council, are acting as a college with and under the Pope.’ Christ’s words ‘Feed my sheep’ had been addressed only to his vicar, ‘and therefore whoever wants to be counted among the sheep of Christ must be under the universal pastor appointed by Christ.’ There were no exceptions to this rule, ‘not even bishops.’”

Cardinal Ottaviani was trying to reject the liberal objective of shifting as much authority as possible from the pope to the bishops. The Synod’s Final Document takes that objective about as far as possible without abolishing the Bishop of Rome altogether:

“In the holy People of God, which is the Church, the communion of the faithful (communio Fidelium) is at the same time the communion of the Churches (communio Ecclesiarum), which is manifested in the communion of Bishops (communio Episcoporum) by reason of the very ancient principle that ‘the Church is in the Bishop and the Bishop is in the Church’ (St. Cyprian, Epistle 66, 8). The Lord placed the Apostle Peter (cf. Mt 16: 18) and his successors at the service of this manifold communion. By virtue of the Petrine ministry, the Bishop of Rome is ‘the perpetual and visible principle and foundation’ (LG 23) of the Church's unity.” (Paragraph 18)

The Synod on Synodality truly has made the documents of Vatican II “come to life.” Cardinal Bea and others had planted the seeds over sixty years ago, knowing that they would probably never see the mature fruits. But, as the Final Document tells us, those seeds have now taken root and grown.

Thus, the Bishop of Rome — not the “pope,” or “supreme pontiff” — is at the service of the “manifold communion” of Bishops. Cardinal Blase Cupich’s comments in an interview with the heretical America Magazine show how much this concept in the Synod’s Final Document impressed him: 

“The documents of the Second Vatican Council are coming to life. Many of the things said in this final synod document are already rooted in what the Second Vatican Council said about the role of a bishop. I noticed that yesterday the Holy Father spoke about himself as the bishop of Rome; that’s how he sees himself primarily in terms of his service to the church and how he relates to the rest of the hierarchy throughout the world. He’s a diocesan bishop. It’s been said before that synodality is bringing the council to life, and I think the synod did this in regard to the understanding of the role of bishops.”

Cupich is absolutely correct in all of this — the Synod on Synodality truly has made the documents of Vatican II “come to life.” Cardinal Bea and others had planted the seeds over sixty years ago, knowing that they would probably never see the mature fruits. But, as the Final Document tells us, those seeds have now taken root and grown:

“Rooted in the Tradition of the Church, the entire synodal journey took place in the light of the conciliar Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council was indeed like a seed thrown onto the field of the world and the Church. The daily life of believers, the experience of the Churches in every people and culture, the many testimonies of holiness, and the reflection of theologians represented the soil upon which it has taken root and grown. The Synod 2021-2024 continues to draw upon the energy of that seed and develop its potential, putting into practice what the Council taught about the Church as Mystery and Church as People of God, called to holiness through a continual conversion that comes from listening to the Gospel. In this sense, the synodal journey constitutes a further act of reception of the Council, thus deepening its inspiration and reinvigorating its prophetic force for today’s world.”

As the Synod’s Final Document accurately stated, that seed was spread at the Council: “The Second Vatican Council was indeed like a seed thrown onto the field of the world and the Church.” If God has permitted the Vatican II cockle to become so visibly repulsive and toxic in the form of the Synodal Church, we no longer have any excuse for pretending that the Holy Ghost guided the Council in producing the novelties that have poisoned Catholics for sixty years.

The new Synodal Church is the putrid fruit of the Vatican II seed. Or, more appropriately, we can liken it to the cockle in Our Lord’s parable:

“Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle?  And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.” (Matthew 13:24-30)

To the extent that the Vatican II documents contain anything true and good, it was already taught by the Catholic Church prior to the Council — it was like the good seeds that had already been producing good wheat for centuries. However, everything new — such as the ecumenical movement promoted by Cardinal Bea — was like the cockle sown by the enemy. When Francis tells us that he is relying on the Council to justify his attacks on the Catholic Church, he is truthfully referring to these novelties sown by the enemy of the Catholic Church at Vatican II.

We may not be able to gather up the cockle and burn it without God’s intervention but, at the very least, we can realize that an enemy has planted the seeds that have matured into the Synodal Church. As the Synod’s Final Document accurately stated, that seed was spread at the Council: “The Second Vatican Council was indeed like a seed thrown onto the field of the world and the Church.” If God has permitted the Vatican II cockle to become so visibly repulsive and toxic in the form of the Synodal Church, we no longer have any excuse for pretending that the Holy Ghost guided the Council in producing the novelties that have poisoned Catholics for sixty years. Thus, the Synodal Church presents us with the crucial opportunity to reject the cockle seed planted by the Catholic Church’s enemies at Vatican II. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Latest from RTV — TRUMP WINS BIG: What Happens Now?