Vatican II: A Premeditated Break with the Past

David Martin | The Daily Knight

Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) we have seen a continuous evolution away from the One Apostolic Faith. Some argue that Vatican II was continuous with tradition and that the chaotic disorder of change that followed wasn’t due to the Council but to a “misinterpretation” of the Council.

Unfortunately, misinterpretation had little to do with this, for this revolution was the result of years of careful planning. We might see the conciliar documents as the blueprint for this plan. The ambiguities, omissions, and outright errors in the documents were deliberately calculated by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these errors in the text after the Council closed.

If we have lay people today assuming priestly functions as “Eucharistic ministers,” it’s because Vatican II defines the laity as a “common priesthood.” (LG 10) If the Church today dignifies other religions, it’s because Vatican II says that “Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” (UR-3)  

Vatican II claimed to advance a reform for the Church, but in 1962 the Church needed no reforms since it already met the needs of the world as it had through the centuries.

What needed reforming was the faith of the clergy that had grown weak, and it was this weakness and slippage toward secularism that rendered the bishops vulnerable to the destructive changes proposed at the Council.

Plot to Secularize the Church

Under the pretext of a reform a new religion was suggested. Vatican II was all about secularizing the Church. It proposed that we incorporate "cultural diversity" into the Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium 37), that we profess that God works through other religions (UR 3), that we restore “unity among all Christians" (UR 1), and that we no longer teach that Jews need conversion to Christ (Nostra Aetate).

With Vatican II, a historic new order was set in motion. Far from simply being misinterpreted, the Council was a carefully calculated revolution that was later implemented according to plan.

Perhaps the most destructive “reform” of the Council was that the main altar be replaced by a freestanding table to better accommodate the New Mass.

“The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people” (Inter Oecuminici, Sept. 26, 1964)

What this has brought about is a historic shift of focus where the emphasis today is on the community and not on God. Having the priest say Mass facing the people was a key part of the Masonic plan to secularize the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger was critical of this change as was Fr. Klaus Gamber held by Ratzinger to be "a prophet for our time." Gamber was an expert liturgist and in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy he makes it clear that Mass facing the people was a novelty never before seen in the history of the Church.

"We can convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever celebration facing the people" (versus populum)

The new Mass dates back to before Vatican II. 1 On June 6, 1960, a liturgical commission was set up in Rome under Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who at the time was regarded as a loyal churchman and liturgist, but he was a Freemason. He had several Protestants working with him and together they secretly drafted the document for the new Mass known as the Bugnini Draft. Pope John XXIII knew nothing of it and Cardinal Heenan of Westminster confirmed this in his autobiography.

“Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts”

Unbeknownst to the pope, the Bugnini draft was secretly approved by the liturgical commission in February 1962, eight months before the start of Vatican II. When John XXIII learned of it that spring, he canned Bugnini from the liturgical commission and from his teaching post at Lateran University, but because of great pressures from other prelates the Bugnini draft wasn't trashed but was allowed to be presented at Vatican II. This was a HUGE mistake. 

Vatican II Started with Good Intent

The foregoing isn’t to suggest that the Second Vatican Council wasn’t started with good intentions but that it was infiltrated through the orchestration of Judases within the Vatican. There is an abundance of documented evidence showing that Vatican II was hijacked in the opening session by rebel bishops because Pope John XXIII 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 plan to usurp Vatican II. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic and personal friend of Pope Paul VI, 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)

Council Hijacked 

We diverge briefly to recall the turbulent opening session that deflected the course of the Council and set the Bark of Peter on a new and unchartered course that would eventually land it shipwreck onto secular coasts.

At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. Their objective was to gain control of the conciliar drafting commissions. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a suspected Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Liénart’s action deflected the course of the Council and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites how the legal framework of the Council was violated by this act: “This departure from the original plan” came about “by an act breaking the Council’s legal framework” so that “the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen.” (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)

After illicitly blocking the vote, the rebellious “Rhine group” resorted to boorish methods to force-install several of their own members onto the drafting commissions, so that from October 16 on nearly sixty percent of the commissions were now chaired by “suspect theologians” that previously had been restricted under Pius XII. These would include dissenters like Hans Kung, Schillebeechx, and the pseudo-mystic Karl Rahner, the Council darling, who for the entirety of Vatican II was dating the notorious feminist Luise Rinser who had clamored for abortion and women priests. The enemies of the Faith had captured the key positions of the Council, thus enabling them to draft perfidious documents for the misguiding of the Church, i.e., the 16 documents of Vatican II.

The true conciliar documents were the 72 schemas that John XXIII had approved before the Council. According to Archbishop Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee for checking all the documents, the schemas were worthy and orthodox and should have been used, but to his dismay the Rhine fathers illicitly rejected Pope John’s outline after it had been approved through a 40% vote. Consider Lefebvre’s 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…. Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

This vituperative counter-council that warred against the true Council was fueled by a coalition of periti that were Communistic in orientation. One such agent who participated at the Second Vatican Council expressed his horror over the good schemas of John XXIII.

“Hearing that Pope John had appointed a commission to draw the schemas for the forthcoming Council, I immediately started to work on counter-schemas with the help of avant-garde theologians (Rhine fathers) who had been won over to our way of thinking. Thanks to my contacts I managed to obtain copies of the projected papal schemas: they were terrible! I was in a cold sweat! If these schemas are carried, my work of 20 years will have been in vain. I hastily put the finishing touch to my counter-schemas, and I circulated them. Eventually, they were tabled at the Council.” (Marie Carré, AA 1025, Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle)

Pope Benedict XVI himself points out how a “virtual council” had risen up to usurp the “real Council” at Vatican II, lamenting how “it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy." (Speaking to the clergy of Rome, February 14, 2013)

Romano Amerio summed up the situation perfectly:

“A distinctive feature of Vatican II is its paradoxical outcome, by which all the preparatory work that usually directs the debates, marks the outlook and foreshadows the results of a council, was nullified and rejected from the first session onward.”

Hence it is conceivable that the Council at this point, on account of the two-fold violation of its legal framework, had gone from being a valid council to a revolution. The fruits of the Council certainly suggest this. Can we honestly say that even one conversion to the Faith resulted from Vatican II?

It was for reason that Pope Paul VI lamented the outcome of the Council at its close, saying, “Profane and secular humanism has revealed itself in its terrible, anticlerical stature, and in one sense has defied the Council. The religion of God made man has met the religion of man who makes himself God.” (December 7, 1965)

The Holy Father also said in 1970: “In many areas the Council has not so far given us peace but rather stirred up troubles and problems that in no way serve to strengthen the Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls.”

It was for reason that the pope on June 29, 1972 let out with his historic S.O.S. as to why Vatican II failed.

“From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God”

Interestingly, Cardinal Ratzinger in summer 2000 told his friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger—a close friend and spiritual child of St. Padre Pio—that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of “a bad council and a bad Mass” to come. This presumably referenced the Second Vatican Council.  (One Peter Five, May 15, 2016)

Some argue that Vatican II incorporates elements of dogma into its documents, which it does, but it places a new spin on it thus causing the faithful to turn against it. What Vatican II did was to provide a new lens wherewith to look at the Church and it deliberately retained elements of orthodoxy and dogma to give the Council an air of legitimacy. Archbishop Lefebvre explains:

“The good texts [of the Council] have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (I Accuse the Council, 1998)

Hence, the display of orthodoxy and error side by side served to sell the novel teachings while discrediting the old teachings and thus advancing the denial thereof.

Fr. Linus Clovis, who is a leading conservative voice in the Catholic Church today points out how this insidious ploy to advance error under the cloak of goodness was at work at Vatican II.

“The modernist innovators, having deceived the overly optimistic John XXIII, seized power at the opening session and replaced the orthodox preparatory schemas with their own ambiguous documents, whereby to feign profession of orthodoxy while at the same time possessing a means of denying the very orthodoxy which they purported to confess, and hence was born the revolution that is Vatican II.” (Fr. Linus F. Clovis Ph.D, JCL, M.Sc. STB, Dip.Ed.)

1. When using two digits for the month, day, and year, it reads 06/06/60 (666)