Documented Evidence of Antichurch Conspiracy at Vatican II

David Martin | The Daily Knight

Eclipse of the Anti-Church, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Related Article: Archbishop Viganò: The Eclipse of the Anti-Church

In his 1967 release The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Vatican II insider Fr. Ralph Wiltgen recounts how the German Alliance at Vatican II usurped the opening session by illicitly blocking the vote needed to determine the members of the conciliar drafting commissions and how they proceeded to install their own modernist henchmen onto the commissions. With nearly sixty percent of the commissions chaired by “suspect theologians,” they were now able to block Pope John XXIII’s plan for Vatican II and to begin drafting perfidious documents for the undermining of the Faith, i.e. the sixteen documents of Vatican II.

If this allegation is true, the documents will certainly bear the fingerprints of collusion. One needn't look any further than the conciliar document on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which emphatically seeks to unite the Catholic Church with other religions.

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. [1]

Along these lines, the document also says:

lt is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. [8]

This proposed “interfaith worship” is forbidden by the Catholic Church, yet the document fully recommends this on the false basis that God works through other religions.

The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means of salvation.

This pseudo ecumenism advocated by the Council was grounded in the fallacy that baptized Catholics who fall away into other religions are still members of Christ’s Church.

“The differences that exist in varying degrees between them [separated brethren] and the Catholic Church … do indeed create many obstacles … But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body.” [UR-3]

This contradicts the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII which dogmatically defined that only those who profess the One True Faith are included as members of Christ’s Church.

Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)

In spite of this, Unitatis Redintegratio errantly asserts that life-giving elements of faith operate outside the confines of the Catholic Church.

“Many of the significant elements and endowments which to-gether go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith.” [UR-3]

The document furthermore states that the Holy Spirit engenders the thinking and activity of these separated churches.

“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” [UR-3]

The foregoing is heretical since Christ does not abide in other religions, nor do the aforementioned churches in any way constitute part of the One Universal Church Under Peter. Pope Boniface VIII dogmatically decreed:

There is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

— Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Boniface VIII

Similarly, Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the heresy that "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation," yet the Vatican II document defies this official Church teaching. What is mind boggling is that the Council document Gaudium et Spes (in conjunction with those on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism) directly opposed the Syllabus of Errors and sought to revive the rebellious principles of the French Revolution of 1789. None less than Cardinal Ratzinger attested to this in 1982. "We might say that it [Gaudium et Spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus… Let us be content to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 381, Ignatius Press) The late Cardinal Suenens himself, who was a participant at Vatican II, famously said, “Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church.” Sacrosanctum Concilium The hub of the conciliar "reform" was the December 4, 1963 document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which called for a general revision of the Mass, wherein "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." (50) What is absurd is that there was nothing of the liturgy that needed restoring in 1963. The rite of the Mass had remained perfectly intact through the centuries and needed no additions, deletions, or reforms. Consider again section 21 of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time.

Note the gross contradiction displayed. The document says that only the mutable elements of the liturgy (like the addition of new feast days) may be changed, yet it proposes “a general restoration of the liturgy itself”—the rite. This is clarified in the next paragraph.

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease [e.g. vernacular] and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community. [21]

According to the document, the traditional Mass didn’t meet the needs of God’s people. What we were seeing at the Council was a revolt against the everlasting ordinance, which was reminiscent of how the Pharisees had stirred the people up against Christ. The conciliar Pharisees stirred the people up against Christ’s doctrine and liturgy. Protestantism Restored Sacrosanctum Concilium proposed that “other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are to be restored.” (50) This would include the injury suffered by Luther and the Reformation through their expulsion by the Council of Trent, which Vatican II lamented as an unfortunate “accident of history.”

Elements of Protestantism indeed were “restored” after the Council to take away from the Mass and empower the people. Consider this attempt to restore the “common prayer” of the Reformation.

“On Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, ‘the common prayer’ or ‘the prayer of the faithful.’ By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, and for the civil authorities.” (Concilium 53)

That Vatican II colluded with advocates of the Reformation is evidenced by the words of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council, when he remarked: “One is astonished to find oneself more in sympathy with the thinking of Christian, non-Catholic ‘observers’ than with the views of one’s own brethren on the other side of the dividing line. The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation.” Professor George Lindbeck, of the Yale Divinity School, and Lutheran observer at Vatican II, noted that: "The Council marked the end of the Counter-Reformation." (The Tablet, Feb. 16, 1963) Cultural Diversity In Reformationalist fashion, Vatican II proposed that strict uniformity in the liturgy be avoided and that the customs of races and peoples be incorporated into the Mass.

“In the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity [old Mass] … rather does she respect the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy... Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself.” (37)

What this did was to open the door to cultural diversity, which is widespread today with the use of vernacular and elements of pop culture, pagan dress and music, etc. The ordinance and genius of the Omnipotent One was cast aside for the so-called genius of races and peoples who are neither capable nor authorized to introduce elements of worship to the Mass. What we were seeing in 1963 was the beginning of that “healthy decentralization” of the Church advocated by Pope Francis. The Council indeed did not advocate “a rigid uniformity” imposed from the Curial level because the plan was to eventually delegate liturgical decisions to local bishops and even to lay persons under their jurisdiction. Is it any wonder that the Church today has become an anarchic merry-go-round? Active Lay Participation At the heart of the Concilium is its central theme of “active participation of the faithful” as expressed in article 14: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is 1demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people’ (1 Peter 2:9) have a right and obligation by reason of their 2 baptism.” Here conciliar draftsmen have put their own twist on the scripture verse to advance their own revolutionary designs. This verse about “a royal priesthood” is merely figurative to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mystical Body, since the principal function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. In that spiritual sense, the laity are a priestly or sacrificial people. They are called to atone and to follow the sacrificial Lamb in his sacrificial sufferings that they might reign with Christ as “a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” This Bible verse references their call to atonement and has nothing to do with their taking on the functions and dignities of the priesthood. Innovators were only seeing this as a means of advancing their communistic lay empowerment agenda.

Priesthood Redefined With Vatican II came the new definition of the priesthood as The People of God. It sees the whole Church as one priesthood but in different ranks, with the ordained ministerial priesthood being only one rank thereof. “The people of God is not only an assembly of various peoples, but in itself is made up of different ranks.” (Lumen Gentium 13) What is promoted here is the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy.

The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. (LG-10)

For the record, there is no such thing as a “common priesthood of the faithful.” This was Luther's idea. The priest alone offers the Holy Sacrifice as the Alter Christus, and there is nothing lay people can do to contribute to the Holy Sacrifice for the simple reason that they are not empowered; they don't have that special anointing from the Holy Spirit.

The modern-day empowerment of the laity was promoted to instigate a people’s revolt against the priesthood in keeping with the Council's theme of human rights. The Leninist “clench-fist” idea was simply applied in a liturgical way. In every which way Vatican II undermines the Christo-centric concept of the Eucharist as opposed to the old Tridentine formula which so beautifully nurtured it through the centuries. This is seen in article 7 of Institutio Generalis, governing the celebration of the Novos Ordo, which sets forth a new and humanistic definition of the Mass never before seen in Church history:

The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the people of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst. (Mt. XVIII, 20)

Here we see the Mass reduced to a meeting 3 or assembly in which Christ’s sacrifice is merely remembered. There is no reference made to the reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice, which is the essence of the Mass and the heart of Christ’s Mystical Body. The miracle of Transubstantiation alone—effected by the priest—is what brings about the physical and supernatural presence of Christ at Mass, yet the document heretically implies that his presence is brought about by the assembly of people numbering two or three (or more), as if they collectively were the priest. The assembly is not a priesthood nor is the presence of “two or three” necessary for a valid Mass. This is a Protestant idea which underscores the new post-conciliar church of man, which is ego-centric and not Christo-centric. Because of these Socialist and Reformationalist principles of lay empowerment that were introduced at Vatican II, the role of the priest has been greatly diminished where he is seen more as the “president” of an assembly. The idea of appeasing God through the Holy Sacrifice has virtually been replaced with appeasing the people with change. The constant fuss about "Scripture" and "Liturgy of the Word" was deliberately introduced to take away from the Mass and to plug the Protestant idea of "sola scriptura." The constant harping on pet terms and clichés foreign to the Church’s vocabulary (People of God, ministry, reconciliation, initiation, renewal, etc.) was a clear signal to the faithful that a new program of indoctrination was underway. The clamor circulated at the Council about human rights, human dignity and religious liberty worked together to nourish this tumor of intellectual pride so that the Church in our time is now infected with its cancer.

Vatican II used by the Freemasons

Suffice to say, the outcome of Vatican II was no “misinterpretation” but rather the fruits of a well-orchestrated plan that was in the works long ago. The present-day crisis was foreshadowed in the writings of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca, who predicted that “the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council … 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.”

Mass Versus Populum Carefully Planned

The Freemasons knew that this new direction for the Church could be set in motion if the liturgy were simply altered. The crux of this change was set in place during Vatican II. The September 26, 1964 conciliar instruction, Inter Oecumenici, article 91, called for Mass facing the people with the priest officiating with his back to the tabernacle.

The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.

What has ensued is a historic shift of focus where the emphasis today is on the community. It fulfills the prophetic statement of Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) in response to the Third Secret of Fatima, when he said that the Church “will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” (1931)

False Religion Dignified

Let us switch the channel and consider now the notorious conciliar document Nostra Aetate, which clearly testifies to the heresy taught by Vatican II. Nostra Aetate says:

Muslims adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.… They value the moral life and worship God. (3)

Had the Council fathers forgotten the Quran’s teaching that Christ is not the Son of God? Had they considered its barbaric teaching that anyone who is not Muslim should be slain? Christ, whose divinity the Quran rejects, is the only True God “who has spoken to men,” so do we “misinterpret” Nostra Aetate by alleging it is dignifying an idolatrous religion? No, we do not.

Nostra Aetate also dignifies Hinduism, an idolatrous and superstitious religion that exists outside of God, wherein various plants and animals are held in veneration. Hinduism neither knows nor calls upon the true God, yet Nostra Aetate affirms:

“In Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through the unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices and deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight towards God” (n. 2).

Sodomite Ex-Priest Drafted Nostra Aetate

It shouldn’t surprise us that the notorious ex-priest and gay-marriage advocate 4 Gregory Baum, who married an ex-nun while a priest and who for decades was living an active homosexual life, was the one who drafted Nostra Aetate for the Second Vatican Council. Dr. Michael Higgins, the vice president for Mission and Catholic Identity at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, in a tribute to Baum published in Commonweal in 2011 noted his key role during Vatican II. “The council was the making of Gregory Baum,” he wrote. “He served in various capacities on the commissions charged with preparing documents.… Beginning his work in November 1960, he concluded it with the council’s end in December 1965, an apprenticeship that culminated in his writing the first draft of Nostra Aetate.” (Life Site News, February 17, 2017)

Needless to say, the radical changes of today do not reflect a misinterpretation of Vatican II, but a true interpretation as intended by its liberal architects. The few good parts of the documents penned by the few good people were simply allowed as religious cover to ensure the elicitation of Pope Paul’s signature, without which the progressivist plan would never succeed. To that end, it was more important to Vatican liberals that the documents appeared orthodox than liberal. Ambiguity

Some will argue that the Vatican II documents are simply ambiguous and contain no explicit error, but ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil. If the documents are ambiguous, it’s telling us they are not the work of God, since God is never ambiguous.

In a video published by Catholic Family News on February 6, 2015, John Venari—citing documented sources like The Rhine flows into the Tiber by Father Ralph Wiltgen, Pope John's Council by Michael Davies, and Iota Unum by Professor Romano Amerio—summed it up thus:

“The ambiguities, the omissions, and the lack of precision is this council were no accident. They were the result of deliberate calculations by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these flaws in the text after the Council closed.”

The documents indeed were carefully worded in ambiguous fashion where proposals often have a double meaning which lend themselves to the progressivist plan to later implement sneaky changes while at the same time fooling the innocent into thinking they mean something else. For instance, in article 7 of the Concilium it states: “In the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.” On the surface this sounds very holy, namely, that we are all called to adore God at Holy Mass with one mind, but what the conciliar architects really meant is that lay people perform the liturgy, not just the priest, that they too assume duties and dignities of the priest as if they were part of a “common priesthood.”

This ties in with the often-repeated theme of “active participation by the faithful,” which is another ambiguous bombshell. On the one hand this can be taken to mean that Catholics should actively be involved with their religion by reading the lives of the saints, going to confession and sanctifying their souls in the fear of God, but what liberals really meant is that they should be busy-body activists engaging in the liturgical revolution against the priesthood. Though the particulars of today’s revolution are not necessarily spelled out in the conciliar documents (lay lectors, Eucharistic ministers, etc.), they nonetheless have their foundation in the documents and fulfill the conciliar vision of “active participation by the faithful.” The wording of all sixteen documents was deliberately planned this way where proposals have an ambiguous or double meaning which can be interpreted more than one way. For instance, the term “religious communities” which normally would mean Catholic communities is often used in the documents to mean non-Catholic communities, or the word “catholicity” which normally would mean our oneness with the Church of Rome is now used to mean oneness with the universal body of world churches. The Council goes so far as to even redefine “One Universal Church” to mean the ecumenical world body of churches.

This movement toward unity is called ‘ecumenical’—the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal. [UR 1]

The end result of this insidious double-talk is that union with Christ has been diminished while unity with the world has been enhanced. Unfortunately, this oneness with the flesh and world has reached the point today that Rome is now blessing gay and adulterous unions, even to the extent that gay and adulterous persons in some cases can now receive Holy Communion. (Amoris Laetitia 305)

In an article by Cardinal Kasper that appeared in the April 12, 2013 issue of L'Osservatore Romano, he non-reservedly admitted the confusion and contradiction lying within the conciliar documents themselves, when he said: “In many places the Council fathers had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those in the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict and open selective reception in either direction.” The late Fr. Malachi Martin who served as advisor to three popes, made it clear that there are calculated errors in the Vatican II documents, and in a 1996 interview with Bernard Janzen, he referred to the document on Religious Liberty as “the document of license,” which he said endorses Planned Parenthood’s idea that “you make up your own mind.” 1. On the contrary, the very nature of the liturgy demands that only the priest perform it since he alone offers the Mass, not the people. The active participation of the laity is to follow quietly and receive Christ’s blessing through his representative the priest.

2. Note how baptism is used here as a pitch for human rights. In the low Mass there is nothing of the liturgy that lay people perform, therefore it is an error to suggest that baptism entitles them to the right to share in its performance. 3. The Mass is likewise reduced to a supper so that what is promoted is the fallacy that the Mass is a community meal attended by “two or more.” 4. Baum passed away on October 18, 2017. Steve Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews has written: "Msgr. Foy, whom I personally knew very well, possessed documents which claimed that Gregory Baum was a Marxist spy sent to Canada to infiltrate and corrupt the Catholic Church.