The Modernist Hijacking of Vatican II (Copy) (Copy)

The Modernist plot to hijack the Second Vatican Council was crafted very cleverly, with the assistance of its fallen god, Lucifer. A concerted effort of Freemasons, Communists, and assorted other Heretics and Apostates, it devised a scheme that was very subtle and yet effective in seducing much of the Catholic world of the mid 20th century.

Here was the plot in a nutshell:

-First: to emphasize, both at the outset and duration, that the Council was merely only a pastoral Council, not a doctrinal Council.

-Second: under this comfortable guise, to issue pastoral directives intended to change the traditional path of the Church on issues pertaining to religious liberty, non Christian religions, and Protestantism. In doing so, it also infused little drops of theological poison into the traditional understanding of doctrines pertaining to the Church, the Great Commission, and the Social Kingship of Christ.

-Third: once the Council concluded, with the idea of it being merely pastoral, having not issued any authoritative decrees or binding anathema, to then go full force in the years following, emphasizing that this Council was just as definitive as any other Ecumenical Council, and was in fact a doctrinal Council all along. Thus, all the faithful all bound to accept it and to carry out its directives.

To sum up then, the Modernists assured the faithful that this Council was only pastoral, in order to get their ideas promoted through the conciliar documents. And then once that was accomplished, they switched tactics and said it was doctrinal, and all are bound to obey it to the letter.

Now, ironically, one succinct way to see this plot unveiled is by looking specifically at Cardinal Ratzinger, who was an active participant at the Council, the future Pope Benedict XVI. He demonstrates in his own words exactly what this game plan was from the Modernist playback.

In an address to the Bishops of Chile on 1988, he stated, “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

However, three years before this speech, he wrote in his book The Ratzinger Report: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”

You see how, on one side of the mouth, Vatican II is a “merely pastoral Council,” but on the other side its binding nature is emphasized as having the exact same authority as Trent and Vatican Council I.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XI called a Doctor of the Church for the 20th century, stated, “Let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide; The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not.”

There is no question that the only two Popes who have any real say on the actual nature of the Second Vatican Council are the ones who opened it and closed it. That would be John XXIII and Paul VI.

Here is what John XXIII said at the opening: “The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church… There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough.”

Here is what Paul VI said at the closing: “The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements.” Paul VI reemphasized this a year later when he said, “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” A decade later, reflecting on the Council, Paul VI said, “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”

Contrast these statements with those of Bishop Barron, who has been noted for his scandalous compromises with Modernism: “The doctrine articulated by Vatican II is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, part of the Catholic Church’s official magisterial teaching. It may be deepened or clarified in the future, but it cannot be removed or reversed.”

Of course, Barron is borrowing from John Paul II, who also said that the Council was, “a gift of the Spirit to His Church.” However, in 1985, he also noted that the Council was conceived as “an eminently pastoral event.” So again, like in Benedict quoted above, we see this emphasis on the Council being pastoral, and yet we are also told it was guided by the Holy Spirit, which implies a very authoritative character.

Modernist theologian Edward Schillebeeckx, who was very influential in drafting the Conciliar documents at the Council, said, “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”

This admission really hits the nail on the head, because this is exactly what transpired with the hijacking of the Council. There are statements in the Council that contradict the Syllabus of Errors word for word. We know the Syllabus is infallibly authoritative; the Second Vatican Council, on the other hand, was a pastoral Council that did not intend nor seek to make any dogmatic statements employing infallible authority.

We pray that in the Restoration Era, also known as the Triumph Era, a truly holy Pope will call for an investigation into the acts of this Council. May we merit the graces needed to usher in this period. Until then, cling firmly to Sacred Tradition and to Eternal Rome, and protect yourself from the smoke of Satan which has crept into the Vatican.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you. Save souls. Amen.