He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

OUR LADY OF FATIMA CAMP 2007

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

« DE ECCLESIA »... « LUMEN GENTIUM »

« A GREAT CITY HALF IN RUINS »

The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, promulgated on 21 November 1964, is considered, and rightly so, as the central document of the Second Vatican Council, the blueprint of her Reform of the Church. The Abbé de Nantes denounced its insane and impious character in his Letter to Paul VI ¹.

Insane and impious because it imprinted in the minds of the Fathers the conviction that Vatican II was a sort of absolute beginning in the history of the Church, as Mgr Hippolyte Simon, the Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, calmly affirms today:

« When reading the texts of the Council and listening to the witnesses, I have the feeling that the Fathers of the Council, the two thousand five hundred bishops who participated in this work, had the experience that the Church was beginning (!). We are the first generation in which the Church is truly universal, that is to say represented in all nations, among all peoples, in all cultures. » ²

« AS THOUGH IN A MIRROR »

The first of the demands of Modernism, condemned a hundred years ago by St. Pius X, was a new formulation and reinterpretation of the Catholic dogmas: the opening speech of 11 October 1962, and then the Constitution Dei Verbum, satisfied this demand. The second was the adaptation of the old ecclesiastical institutions to the modern world: they had to be demolished in order to reconstruct them more beautifully, and restructure the Church to make her lovable to the adult man of our times – a sort of new « birth into the world ».

Having lost faith in the Church, but not the pride of wanting “to give her new value”, our reformers claimed that before them, no one had really understood what she was: « The Church wants to see herself in Christ as though in a mirror: if His eyes revealed some shadow, some deficiency on the face of the Church or on her nuptial robe, what should she instinctively and courageously do? It is clear: she should reform herself, correct herself, and strive to recover this conformity with her divine model that constitutes her fundamental duty. » ³

There would result a new springtime for the Church, which Fr. de Lubac prophesied shortly after the Council.

What did in fact result? An immense disorder, an auto-demolition of the Church that the Fathers of the Council were far from imagining, but that the Secret of Fatima had prophetically announced to Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta, « as though in a mirror » as well, but a mirror illuminated by the divine light that shone from the Immaculate Heart of Mary: « the Holy Father passed through a great city half in ruins… He prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way. »

FIRST RUPTURE

The First Vatican Council (1870-1871) wanted to give an overall view of the theology of the Church. Forced to adjourn as a result of the invasion of the Papal States by the Piedmontese troops, it limited itself to the definition of papal primacy and of its infalliblilty (Constitution Pater Æternus). Nevertheless, the interrupted work had to be completed. Thus, on 1 December 1962, when Cardinal Ottaviani took the floor in the aula, the schema De Ecclesia, that he had in his hands was, in the judgment of all, the raison d’être of the Council.

There was not one alternative schema, but three schemata that circulated among the Fathers: the Animadversiones of Rahner and Schillebeeckx, « the objective of which was to eliminate the preparatory schema and the spirit that had dominated it » ⁴, as well as a project more subtle than the German and Dutch heavy artillery, drawn up by Mgr Philips from Louvain University at the request of Cardinal Suenens.

Bitter discussions took place in the aula from 1 to 7 December 1962.

Outside, the press, « the homing device of subversion », had already announced what would unleash passions: collegiality. « To submit the Pope to the Council, our Father wrote, is something that has long since been condemned and it is not a question of this. To submit the Roman administration, however, to collegial directives and control, this is the novelty of the reformist project. » ⁵

The old institution was shaken. Assisting at the scramble for the spoils was the man who would soon carry the affair through to completion: Cardinal Montini. Having remained until then very reserved, he publicly manifested his support for Cardinal Suenens on 5 December. In order to remedy the confusion that reigned in the aula, the latter offered to the disoriented flock a work programme: first they would study the Church ad intra (the consciousness that the Church has of herself), then, during the following sessions, the Church ad extra (in her relations with the world). The Fathers could return; the matter had been taken in hand…

The same Montini, the designated successor of John XXIII, declared in his cathedral in Milan on 10 March 1963: « You see the Church that is in the process of seeking herself, that with a great and touching pain is seeking to define herself, to understand what she is… Not only does the Church seek herself, but she seeks the world. (sic!). »

« Those who intend to interrogate the Church, our Father remarked, are the very ones who are going to answer on behalf of the Church, and they will invent the most pointed questions in order to provide new answers with the patent intention of changing the reality of the Church and her divine constitution. » ⁶

« THE CHURCH IS A MYSTERY »

The Philips schema, revised and corrected by the periti, was imposed during the intersession, in order to become the very text of Lumen gentium. It took a few paragraphs from the preparatory schema, being careful not to go to the extremes advocated by Rahner and Schillebeeckx. « The change was notable and, in a certain sense, had a revolutionary impact, Falconi noted. For the hierarchical-legal conception had been substituted, without any doubt, a communitarian conception. » ⁷

« They congratulated themselves on having “saved unity” by means of a compromise text, which, in any case, would not be guaranteed by infallibility. It half pleased everybody: some because the novelty had not been imposed; others because it had not been forbidden. From that moment it was in fact permitted! The innovators were thus going to profit to the maximum from this permission and, through the efforts of the press and of various groups, to make of it in practice both a de facto requirement and an alleged infallibility, in the aftermath of their subversion. Without any great effort they managed to draw a definition of the Church from the conciliar “Constitution”, which is not unlike our masdu! All that was needed was to interpret the text according to “the dynamic of the Council”. » ⁸ All the equivocation of Vatican II is there.

While the first chapter of the preparatory schema treated « the nature of the  Church Militant » – “ut confertumagmen”, like an army in battle formation! – and concluded with a clear and frank dogmatic affirmation: « The Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ », the secretariat for Unity of Cardinal Béa imposed the idea of a Church « mystery ». It is stupid! One does not begin by saying about something that one knows that it is a mystery even if it is specified that: « What we say does not exhaust the total content of the thing, and what is most profound remains mysterious. » This could only be done by affirming straightaway: the Church is a visible society, we know her; she is the Catholic Church.

« At the Second Vatican Council, for the first time, Michel Kubler writes, Catholicism as a social body abandoned the idea of identifying itself purely and simply with the Mystical Body of Christ… It was above all necessary that all Christians, all denominations taken together, might one day recognise that the Church of Christ is a mystery that goes beyond each of their particular families, and that calls them all to be but one. » ⁹

It was the end of a poor and narrow definition of the Church, which would have been that of the Counter-Reformation. Our Father protested: « The definitions the Church has made concerning herself, from the Apostolic era to modern times, were not only “juridical” but were also mystical, theological, moral and scriptural. The innovators must have only disdained them so much because of their precision and the obstacle they so firmly placed in the way of the error that these innovators wished to introduce. The first schema presented to the Council Fathers and loudly rejected by the majority was a powerful obstacle in the way of their error; the substitute schema, on the contrary, led up to it… Since Vatican II, the Church has become a “mystery”, which is what deflects us from seeing and recognising her as a society with stable institutions, visible frontiers, an established faith and sacramental sources. All this is merely a transient approximation and a deceptive sign! » ¹⁰

A DREAM SCENE.

Let us take up again the text of the Council, in which « everything was staked on a few words, key words, slogans,   words with a double meaning, an immense fool’s game. » ¹¹ After having denied that the true Church of Christ is the historical, visible and hierarchical reality of His Mystical Body, the authors dream about what she should be and should have been from the beginning.

The plan of the Father is to save all men (n^o 2), from what? The Council does not say. The Son comes to inaugurate the Kingdom of Heaven on earth and carry out Redemption (n^o 3), without apparent tragedy, while St. John recalls: « He came to His own and His own did not receive Him. » (1.11) The Holy Spirit is sent, in order « to sanctify the Church continually » (n^o 4). That He is the Defender, the Advocate as our catechism teaches, escapes the Council, undoubtedly because of the struggle against the darkness that it presupposes…

The conciliar text then catalogues in the numbers from 5 to 7, well watered-down images of the Kingdom of God and of the Church. In the parable of the Good Shepherd, for example, it is no longer a question of mercenaries, thieves, wolves on the prowl, looking for someone to devour…

The true Church founded by Jesus Christ would be unable to live and prosper in such a giddy scene. « Two loves have built two cities, St. Augustine said: love of God, to the contempt of self, and love of self to the contempt of God. »

GATHERED TOGETHER BY THE SPIRIT

« The world, our Father wrote, was created and all its history predestined in view of the Church. Christ founded and instituted her in order to continue in culpable humanity His redemptive Incarnation and to communicate His fruits of salvation to all men. In her and through her alone, all can and must return to their Heavenly Father, by the Son in the unity of the same Spirit, for life eternal. »

« As a society of divine origin, though human and historical as well, the Church is by this very fact visible and hierarchical. Jesus Christ, died and risen for her, nonetheless remains the ever living Lord. In her, he continues humanly his ministry of teaching, sanctifying and governing through a hierarchy of which the Pope is the head, as His proper and personal Vicar on earth. He sends invisibly His Holy Spirit, first to assist the hierarchy in the exercise of its divine powers, and then to dispose the faithful people to welcome the supernatural gifts. Thus the Church, a fully human society, is distinguished from all others by the divine impulse received from Christ at her beginning and by the divine influx of the Holy Spirit from which she benefits at all times as a gift from her Lord. Thus is she a Mystery, a mystery of a divinised human society that her name of Mystical Body of Christ perfectly expresses. » ¹²

It is precisely against this doctrine, expounded with authority as the definition of the Church by Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis, that the Modernist clique led its assault at the Second Vatican Council.

To say that the Spirit is present before the Cross of Christ, and communicated by the preaching of Our Lord alone (n^o 5), is to remove from Baptism its absolute necessity; it is to make belonging to the Church a purely spiritual, subjective and interior principle, in lieu of the visible and objective adherence to the Lord « Jesus diffused and communicated », as Bossuet said. The historical Christ is no longer the Institutor and the living Lord who pastures His Church through His Vicar and the bishops. In a continual creation of the Spirit acting in the collective consciousness of the believing community, the Church has become charismatic.

« At Number 8 is found the crux of the problem », our Father wrote. Apart from a timid allusion to « hierarchical gifts » (n^o 4), there has been not one mention of the certain, essential, and historical fact of the institution by Our Lord of a hierarchy destined to continue His work. We have to wait until Number 8 to learn that « Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible whole through which He communicated truth and grace to all. This hierarchically organised society, on the one hand and the Mystical Body of Christ on the other, are not to be considered as two separate things. Rather, they form one complex reality composed of both a human and a divine element. »

The Church as a visible society is declared to be « at the service of the Spirit of Christ » This link of « service », however, does not suffice to form this « complex reality ». It should have been said, along with the Abbé de Nantes, that the Holy Spirit is linked to the visible, historical, and hierarchical work of Christ, His Mystical Body. This visible work became, by the will of Our Lord, the support, the framework of the invisible work of the Holy Spirit. Sovereignly free because He is God, the Holy Spirit can act outside of her, but only works for her, in order to bring all back into her.

To deny this truth destroys the love of the children of the Church for their Mother.

A PROFANED CHURCH

The Church must unceasingly reform herself for a better service of the Spirit: « The Church, embracing sinners within her own bosom, is thus at the same time holy and always called to be purified (semper purificanda...), and constantly pursues her efforts of penance and renewal. » (n^o 8) What a horrible attack against the Church! our Father protested. Our Creed teaches us that she is holy from the beginning and forever.

Georges de Nantes wrote: « But the blemishes of her little children do not affect in any way the perfect purity of their mother, and this is not at all the thing from which the Church is suffering. Though her hands never cease to cleanse sinners, yet they remain luminous with a sweet spotlessness. The million and one miserable faults of her billions of sons dispersed throughout time have in no way altered the immense splendour of this Holy Temple of God, while their millions of prayers, good works and penances enhance it in my eyes with new colour and a brilliant sheen. Admirable she has been, is, and always will be, in her poor human members, because the only thing of theirs that she preserves and renders immortal is that element of truth and goodness that God has caused to be born and strengthened in them. » ¹³

THE CHURCH « PEOPLE OF GOD »

The best designation for the Church would be, according to the Council, that of « people of God ». The idea was launched at the end of the first session.

THE INVERTED PYRAMID.

It was Cardinal Suenens, the true godfather of the Philips schema, who forced the issue in July 1963 before the Coordinating Committee, by suggesting that between the first chapter – the Church a “mystery” – and the second – the hierarchy – a chapter on the « People of God » be inserted, under the false pretext that the members of the hierarchy are part of this people  like the others.

« It was a revolution, our Father observed. It was as though you defined the family as a collection of lively children, some of whom are called parents because they are at the service of the other children. What would you say of this? That this definition errs through idealism: just what is this “life”, from where do the children get it, how long and in what way does it last? It errs through a major omission: it disregards the fact of generation, an initial and constituent fact without which all the rest is subverted. This collection of children no longer has to recognise any authority if the parents, thus denied their essential role, see themselves reduced to the level of the domestics of their progeny! Is it not absurd? This is precisely what was invented at the Council, by simple inversion of the order of the chapters of the constitution Lumen gentium. » ¹⁴

This revolution was approved at the beginning of September 1963 by Paul VI, newly elected, and introduced into the conciliar text in the course of the second session. « No one was outraged! our Father said with indignation. No one rose up against the irruption of democracy into Catholic dogma? » No! No one except him.

THEODEMOCRACY.

« 9. At all times and in every nation God has given welcome to whosoever fears Him and does what is right (cf. Ac 10.35). These are words of St. Peter to the centurion Cornelius, before spiritually giving birth to him through baptism. « God, however, does not make men holy and save them merely as individuals, without bond or link with one another. Rather has it pleased Him to make of them one people… »

Caution! « The Council always thrusts forward its most scandalous errors right from the first words », our Father warns. Pay attention to the essentially false principle that is constantly found as though it had been proved: individuals are first, and communities are reduced to being only contractual associations established by them, at their service and under their dependence. There have only been “individuals” of whom God “wanted to make one people”.

« This is why, the Council continues, He chose the race of Israel as a people unto Himself with whom He made a covenant… » Read it again! The historical falsehood is patent, for here is the truth: God chose Abraham, then the people who came from him, and finally all the peoples will be through him, and in him, objects of blessing.

« Christ […] calls a group of people from among the Jews and the Gentiles … » No! He first chose His Apostles, and through them and their successors, he called all men to salvation: first the Jews, then the Greeks.

« God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all she may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity.… » (n^o 9) There is no longer the mediation of a hierarchy that is divinely instituted and endowed with divine powers! « There exists first the People, and this People is established as fully living, entirely illuminated, sanctified, gathered together, before the hierarchy intervenes in the least, by means of a direct, invisible, gratuitous, unexpected, unlimited action of… the Holy Spirit! Here the entire structure of the Church is overthrown and her boundaries torn down. » ¹⁵

PEOPLE OF GODS…

It would have been necessary, our Father wrote, « to reject at all costs this definition of the Church as a mass of people assembled by the simple fact of nature, birth or some historical or divine necessity, prior to any confession of the Catholic Faith and independent of the gift of baptismal life. » ¹⁶ For overstatement was not long in coming: people of priests, people of prophets, people of kings… Why not of gods! « Therefore all the disciples of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God (Ac 2, 42-47) (is this a wish or a fact?), should present themselves as living victims (good grief!...), holy and pleasing to God, (Rm 12.1) to bear witness to Christ («martyr» in Greek) everywhere on earth (nothing less) and give an answer to those who seek an account of that hope of eternal life which is in them (1 Pt 3.15). » One can dream of an inaccessible ideal, but it is unwholesome.

Let us not speak of the so-called “common priesthood”. At the outset of this absurd theory, invented by Lutheranism, there is a distain for Christ Sovereign Priest in His Body « diffused and communicated », soon supplanted by the Spirit: « The baptised, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual dwelling and a holy priesthood. Baptism through the action of the Spirit would give a share in the common priesthood of the faithful: they would be all priests, like Christ, through the Spirit! »

Here is the precision intended to avert objection: « Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. »

Here he is the delegate of the people, and no longer, in virtue of his priesthood, mediator between God and the people.

« The faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity. » Why call « priesthood », what is quite simply Christian life! The answer can be found further on in Chapter IV on the laity who « consecrate the world itself to God adoring God everywhere in holiness of their life. » (n^o 34)

« That is how the edifice established by Jesus Christ is overturned, comments our Father, to be replaced by a new sphere of activity outside, or rather above, the supernatural work of the clergy and of the religious. This sphere of purely worldly and natural activities is supposedly supernatural by virtue of the invented “common priesthood”, which is none other than a gust of vanity and an antichristic overturning of Catholic order. » ¹⁷

…INFALLIBLE AND UNIVERSAL.

« The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (1 Co 3.16) » In the past, it was specified that the state of grace was necessary to this divine indwelling. By virtue of it « the entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (1 Jn 2.20), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the supernatural discernment of the whole people in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the faithful”, they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. » (n^o 12) This is the caricature of the classical sensus fidei, which admirably supported the infallibility of the Church constituted hierarchically, pyramidal, monarchical, to which Jesus Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail over her.

« That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. (1 Th 2.13) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the Faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life. » Notice the verbs in the indicative mood: it is a euphoric drug that the Council injects into the veins of the Church. We dream reality, which nevertheless stares you in the face, other than it is, by giving it the form of our desires.

Thus « gathered together by the Spirit », this people extends to the whole world. All borders become indistinct: « All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God […]. There belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation. » (n^o 13) Here is the immense heart of our conciliar Fathers. Is it bigger than that of Our Lord, who said with anguish that « many are called but few are chosen » (Mt 22.14)?

Under the title « the Catholic faithful » (n^o 14) is recalled, probably due to a traditionalist amendment, the truth according to which « this Church during her sojourn on earth is necessary for salvation ». It is immediately added, for the benefit of the faithful: « Belonging to the Church does not guarantee salvation… All the children of the Church should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. »

An unnatural mother for her children, the conciliar Church becomes charming towards non-Catholic Christians (n^o 15), non-Christians (n^o 16), finally all men (n^o 17). The tone changes when it is a question of paying court to her lovers! « The Church knows that she is united with those who bear the fine name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter… There are many who honour Sacred Scripture… who show a sincere zeal, lovingly believe… Many of them rejoice in the episcopate… even better (!) in a true union in the Holy Spirit… »

THE BATTLE OVER COLLEGIALITY

At the beginning of the discussions of the second session on 30 September 1963, the Philips schema, revised by Suenens, was accepted as a reference text. The tension then quickly rose, when the progressivist left wing was seen outflanking and jostling the subtle Belgian moderation. The reason for the battle was clear: « If the Church is defined, according to Tradition, as the society of those who have received faith and baptism from a hierarchy of which the Pope is the head, then all power comes from Above and passes through her. If the Church is, according to the innovators, a people of God animated by the Spirit and mysteriously constituted by the elect of all four points of the compass, then power comes from below. » ¹⁸

A CRUCIAL DEBATE.

On 4 October began the discussion of collegiality, one of the longest and most disputed of the Council: nine general sessions, a hundred and nineteen speeches and fifty-six written interventions. The opposition to the novelty nevertheless became stronger each day, animated by Cardinals Spellman, Bacci and Ruffini. The latter rapped out: « The Church does not have for foundation Peter and the Apostles! Peter alone is the rock. »

On 15 October, Cardinal Suenens, who was moderator on that day, proposed the end of the debate, a proposal to be decided by sitting or rising. The Assembly stood as one man, making known that it had had enough. At the end of the session, however, the same Suenens declared that the next day he would hold a vote on the general approach taken on the issue. Mgr Felici, the Secretary General, who knew nothing of it, was dumbfounded. Cardinal Tisserant also knew nothing of it. By this new manoeuvre, the reformist party intended to rush the decision of the Fathers.

The Pope having disavowed it once, it was necessary to wait fifteen days in order for the manoeuvre to succeed; it was a modern replica of the « brigandage of Ephesus ».

AT THE CROSSROADS: THE VIRGIN MARY.

The only obstacle on the road of subversion at the Council was the Immaculate. On the eve of the exploratory vote, a capital question had been posed to the Fathers: « Must the schema on the Virgin Mary become the last chapter of De Ecclesia or not? » Behind this question was concealed the quarrel between the “minimalists” and the “maximalists”, the former wanting to bring the Most Blessed Virgin back to her initial humiliation, « putting Her back in Her place » as they said cynically, the latter, on the contrary, wanting to exalt Her.

Mgr Santos, the Archbishop of Manilla, defended the nay, by insisting on the offence that would be made to the Virgin if She was relegated to the last chapter, to the last place as it were. Cardinal König, the Archbishop of Vienna, a partisan of the aye, retorted by arguing from ecumenical necessities.

Numerous Fathers remained undecided, for the argument of an offence against the Virgin struck them deeply. Who would carry the day? The assembly, which was believed to be so united and unanimous suddenly found itself divided into two obdurate camps. They voted, and Mary was put in the last place by forty votes (1114 against 1074).

The reformist camp had trembled. As one of them, Charles Moeller, the theologian of Cardinal Léger, admitted: « This vote today deeply divides the assembly on the doctrinal level. If tomorrow we have the same slight majority, thus the same division, we can pack up and go home. » ¹⁹

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

The next day, 30 October, the « flock of bishops » (St. Basil) definitively incorporated themselves into the group of the European progressivists. The five reformist directives were voted by a crushing majority. « We have conquered », Paul VI confided to the moderators of the Council. That day is « one of the most sombre in the history of the Church », our Father wrote. In fact, this vote, although deprived of all power and all guarantee of infallibility, engaged the Council on a fateful path.

After the outrage inflicted on the Mother of God, the safeguard of the Church, came the swift fall. On all matters, there was a weary defence of Tradition and the Faith, and growing demands from the innovators.

On 8 November, the question focused on the reform of the Curia. Cardinal Frings of Cologne, whose peritus was the Abbé Ratzinger, took the floor and launched a diatribe against the Doctrinal Commission and the Holy Office, « a cause of scandale for the entire world »!

« Caveamus! » The anguished warning of Cardinal Ottaviani, of Cardinal Browne and of several others finally rang out in the conciliar assembly. « Take care brethren! At the moment of carrying out an unprecedented revolution and destroying a thousand years of legal and mystical efforts with a view to unity of governance and cohesion of the Church, think it over! […] There cannot be authority, still less infallibility… except in accordance with the Tradition » Ottaviani proclaimed.

« “You are hindering the Reform that we want, Frings retorted, be silent and obey because we are the majority.”

« The assembly applauded. One would never have believed that such an hour would have struck on the clock of St. Peter’s. » ²⁰

CHURCH PARLIAMENTARIANISM

What was this collegiality into which the Council was resolutely and blindly entering? It was an essential modification of the Constitution of the Church, as our Father explained: « Power passed from being personal, whether that of the bishop in his diocese or that of the Pope over the entire Church. From a system where power carries with it potent authority and personal responsibility, the Church has passed to a government that is “collegial”, or by assembly, the characteristic of which is to put authority to the vote and to dilute responsibility to the point of rendering it anonymous. »

It is the third chapter of Lumen Gentium about which our Father wrote « the first sentence is so clever that it bears within itself all the contradiction of democratic constitutions: the people are king, and their pastors are subordinate like servants. “Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren.” »

Under the sham humility of “service” is concealed a contestation of the divine right of authority in the Church. « Not to have himself served, for a Prince of the Church, pertains to the simplicity of the individual man. It does not affect his function or modify his authority. No one will deny that this function is ordered to the good of the subjects. It is, however, inappropriate, equivocal, and dangerous always to present it as a “service” of the community, because the community does not dominate or govern it! The leader is not the domestic of his subjects! » ²¹

The ancient legalism is over and done with, give place to « service »! the Council proclaimed. From then on, everything would take place with “fraternity” and “evangelical liberty”. Although they later on recalled the three functions of the bishop – teaching, sanctifying, and governing – the principle of authority in the Church came out of such a discussion diminished, not to say ruined.

The Council dismissed even the possibility that the bishops might fail in their duties: « He who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ (cf. Lk 10.16) » (n^o 20) For the traditional conception – « legal » if you like, but the Law protects the small ones from the abuses of the great! – the Council substituted idyllic and “pastoral” views, regulating the new life of a people of God in which, in principle, conflicts will have disappeared, because the bishops would have dispelled them with a true explanation, a spirit of fraternal dialogue, in which the Spirit would make everyone understand where the common good lies, and to which everyone would rally. Believe it if you like!

DEMOCRACY AT THE TOP.

After having recalled that the Apostles were gathered in a « college » around Christ, the Council praises « the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered. » It then concludes in a peremptory manner:

« Both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the episcopal order. » This order « constitutes the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. » (n^o 22).

No! The Abbé de Nantes protested:

« No ecclesiastical power is, properly speaking, collegial. In the Church, there are only personal powers, exercised by each minister, pope or bishop, in a free and responsible manner. »

Forging ahead, the Council then explained that the bishops as members of the College, bear with the Pope « solicitude for the universal Church » (n^o 23)! Under the pretext of “helping” the Pope to bear his charge, a Synod was then instituted with a permanent Council in Rome, which would unceasingly bring pressure to bear and dictate its law to the Sovereign Pontiff.

DEMOCRACY AT THE BASE.

The other side of the coin for the bishops was the loss of authority that results from this collegiality. In fact, this new parliamentary and collective power that is exercised over the universal Church obviously transcends the personal power of each bishop in his diocese… It was in order to mark this novelty that the Conferences of Bishops were instituted as a new hierarchical degree, a « soft mattress » that came to interpose itself between the Pope and the bishop. Its « inertia would protect the disorder », our Father had already foreseen in December 1962. Number 38 of the Decree on the pastoral responsibility of the bishops confers a legislative authority on these Conferences, « absolutely without any foundation, if I judge by the incapacity of the theologians and jurists to establish a solid one ». Forty-five years later, this foundation has still not been found…

If the bishops had been loquacious when it was a question of themselves, they had, on the other hand, only a single paragraph to devote to priests (n^o 28). When the Council was drawing to a close, it tried to make up for it by publishing two Decrees, on priestly training and on the priestly Order, where the programme would also be entirely renovated: « Optatam totius Ecclesiæ renovationem… the desired renewal of the whole Church… » Visibly, the interesting people for Vatican II were no longer the priests, the men of worship, but the « laymen » devoted to the transformation of the world.

PROMOTION OF THE LAITY

This chapter would be the only one that passed through all the discussions without being criticised. There is nothing surprising in this. Already the chapter devoted to the laity in the preparatory schema had been drafted by Mgr Philips, who kept it as it was. It was the hour of the laymen. At last, they would no longer be given a “negative” definition.

This “promotion” logically resulted from the new function attributed to the Church: the service of the world. « The day when worship gives way to culture, the heavenly to the temporal, wrote our Father, the day when politics encroaches on religion, the first role passes from the priesthood to the laity. To it falls, first of all, the task of “transforming structures in accordance with the Gospel”. The “ministers of the Gospel” hold the lamp but it is the laity who do the work. » ²²

The Council, however, chose to overlook the traditional duties of worship, moral perfection and defence of the Faith. It now only teaches one duty: the apostolate. We are all apostles! It is the primacy of propaganda.

Teaching through brotherhood is substituted for teaching through authority. « This evangelising action… by the witness of life and by the word takes on a specific character and a particular effectiveness by the fact that it is accomplished in the common conditions of the world. » (n^o 37) In order to be effective, one must be a “layman”.

The principle of the dispensation of grace is itself inverted: it is no longer the priest who gives and the faithful who receive, no! all are equal: « Yet all share a true equality with regard to the dignity and to the activity common to all the faithful for the building up of the Body of Christ. » (n^o 32) This, however, was only a decoy, and very rapidly the clerics were excluded or relegated to second rank: « The laity must… assist each other… In this way the world may be permeated by the Spirit of Christ and it may more effectively fulfill its purpose in justice, charity and peace. The laity have the principal role in the overall fulfillment of this duty. » (n^o 36)

How many priests drew the conclusions of this in asking for their “promotion” to the lay state?

It was the implementation of a « naturalising of the supernatural » and of a « supernaturalising of the natural », denounced by the Abbé de Nantes in the course of the years preceding the Council, in the Mystery of the Church and Antichrist. It was necessary to finish with the Church of the Counter-Reformation, the work of which was purely supernatural and religious, to the benefit of a chimera: “faith in life” and the “ordering of the temporal according to the plan of God”.

The second consequence of this “method” of the apostolate of the milieu by the milieu was to have killed, in the name of the egalitarianism that was its principle and foundation, the true hierarchical, authoritarian and paternal Catholic action.

The promotion of the laity at the Council showered extravagant powers on laymen that they are unable to exercise, but stripped them of the authority and responsibility that they each held in their own sphere.

ULTIMATE DECEPTIONS

After the publication in August 1964 of the encyclical of Paul VI, Ecclesiam suam, written in a Congarian spirit, the third conciliar session, which unfolded from September to November 1964, saw one vote after another on the different chapters of Lumen Gentium with crushing majorities, despite the efforts of the traditionalist minority.

THE LABEL “POISON”.

On 16 November 1964, however, on the day of the vote on the chapter on collegiality, Felici imposed in the name of the Pope a Preliminary Explanatory Note (Nota explicativa prævia) for the “right interpretation” of this chapter. This dogmatic reminder of pontifical primacy had been obtained after a brave fight by the defenders of the Faith, under the threat of refusing to vote…

This Nota prævia destroyed the new constitutional charter of the Church, point by point:

1. No, this College of bishops is not a college in the strict sense, if it is not gathered in an Ecumenical Council;

2. No, this College is not heir to the extraordinary power of the “Apostolic College”;

3. No, episcopal consecration does not suffice for acquiring the status of member of the College; the juridical determination of the power by the Pope, the Head of the College, is still required.

4. No, this College places no limit on the power of the Pope. On the contrary, it can only strictly act in a collegial manner under certain conditions and always with its Head.

It was like a label of “Poison” to be stuck on the bottle. Today, however, when we consult the very official and authentic Acts of Vatican II, the Nota prævia does not appear in the forward, or in the conclusion, or in the annex of the Constitution of the Church. As our Father wrote: « The bottle is still on sale today with its original shining guarantee: “Vatican II, dogmatic Constitution” and the label “Poison” slumbers in the till of the chemist… The red label had played its part: reassuring the conservatives. After that it was no longer necessary and the poison, having received its certificate of conformity with Catholic faith and law, was then distributed to the children of the Church, who were asking their Mother for bread. » ²³

The revolutionary principle of collegiality has intoxicated the life of the Church for forty years. The Pope is unable, in fact if not in principle, to go against the wishes or discussions of the bishops gathered for a meeting where, as in all democratic meetings, it is never the best who prevail…

FRAUDULENT PROMULGATION

On 21 November 1964, the schema was approved by 2,151 placet against 5 non placet. As soon as the result was known, the Fathers were invited to rise to listen to the Pope promulgate solemnly the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. « The whole and each one of the points decreed in this Constitution have pleased the Council Fathers. We, by virtue of the apostolic power we hold from Christ, in union with the venerable Fathers, we approve, fix and decree in the Holy Spirit, and we order that what has thus been established in Council be promulgated for the glory of God. »

Our Father wrote in April 1992: « For a quarter of a century I have read that formula at the foot of the Acts of Vatican II and always with dread, so much does it affirm what I cannot believe and what I refuse to accept, even on pain of persecution, excommunication and death: that these Acts are inspired by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. For a month now, however, the entire deception has burst before my eyes, and the abuse of authority that is so plain has delivered me from a long and heavy anguish. Paul VI was making fools of us! It is time we knew… » (CCR n° 247, Vatican II, A Legal Examination, April 1992, p. 5)

Furthermore, our Father denounced in this formula a « whim » of Paul VI, in « substantial and formal violation of conciliar law » that imposed another formula, marked with sobriety. Here, the extreme and theologically inadmissible exaggeration leads us to believe in an extraordinary and solemn teaching, under the unwarranted guarantee of « the Holy Spirit ». We notice as well the « union with the venerable Fathers », added to mark the new collegiality, creating the illusion of a perfect unanimity, when the statutory mention of the opponents – here there are five – has disappeared.

After the promulgation, the Fathers should have undersigned this Dogmatic Constitution, under pain of excommunication. Now, « we have made a count of them in the Acta; are we the first to do so? 2,153 Fathers were present for the signing. We have calculated that three voters persisted in their refusal until the very end. Democratically, of course, that is negligible. In matters of dogmatic truth, however, in this case, of divine faith, on the Constitution of the Church, number counts for nothing against Catholic Faith and law. These both, in fact, demanded this refusal from the three confessors against the 2,153 perjurers, heresiarchs or sleepers. Their silent protest was ignored, as had been done before and as it will be done to the end… Beyond this contempt for their humble persons, it is God who was despised. » ²⁴

The canonical consequences of such a transgression are grave. It is the very validity of the conciliar Act that is in question and that casts on this text the most legitimate suspicions.

Let us leave the analysis of the three chapters on the call to holiness, religious life, and last ends. They are only chance, awkward reminders of the traditional religion. The entire impetus of the Constitution Lumen Gentium tends towards the construction of the world of which Gaudium et Spes would lay down the broad paths. Let us end with the last chapter of Lumen Gentium  on the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom Pope Paul VI proclaimed « Mother of the Church », the very day of the promulgation of Lumen Gentium.

Here we retranscribe extensive excerpts from the commentary written by our Father in 1996, during his exile in Hauterive.

MARY, MOTHER OF THE CHURCH

N^os 52-53. After an admirable exposition of the grandeurs of Mary « in the mystery of Christ », She is suddenly said to be a descendant of Adam: She is « one with (invenitur conjuncta) all those who have need of salvation ». I do not like it: one would say that she is a foundling in the midst of the massa damnata, who need (She as much as all others) salvation. Yet, immo, much more! She is their « Mother… and She is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. » It is true? Yes, nevertheless I hesitate: insomuch as the Church is we! It is going rather high to seek one’s « model »; devotion loses what plagiarism takes!

54. The Council affirms that it « does not have the intention of making a complete doctrinal exposition on Mary, nor does it wish to decide those questions that the work of theologians has not yet fully clarified. » The entire development of Marian doctrine would be passed over in silence, and the negations and mutilations of the dogma would be saved…

55-56. The role of « the Mother of the Messiah in the Old Testament » is very welcome… Likewise that of « Mary at the Annunciation », where the very human faith and obedience of the Blessed Virgin Mary are contrasted with the fault of Eve. Such « active cooperation » in the plan of God makes Her the « cause of salvation », and the « Mother of the living ».

57-59. The life of Mary with Her Son is presented as « Her pilgrimage of faith », to the foot of the cross; Vatican II, however, refused Her the name of “co-redemptrix”; we are warned that it intends to cover its refusal on grounds of prudence.

60-62. These are admirable classical texts in which all would be perfect if beautiful circumlocutions did not evoke the role of « mediatrix of all graces » devolved upon the Virgin by a pure decree of the Father, based on the superabundance of the merits of Jesus, Son of God, Son of Mary, without agreeing to pronounce the word! It is even with some hesitation that the Council admits « the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, Mediatrix », without neglecting to warn against abuse. It is amusing to justify these titles, by comparing this cooperation of Mary in the work of Jesus to that of the « ministers » cooperating in the priesthood of Christ!

We arrive at their boorishness – they who are constantly thinking of being equal to Christ, under the pretext of being His Body – in writing: « The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate (sic!) role of Mary (without Her titles or crowns!). It knows it through unfailing experience of it and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, etc. » Say what you will, but those who speak in these terms, considering themselves the Church, have towards the Most Blessed Virgin a lack of tact, veneration, respect, love that is, here, scandalous.

63. From another pen, this paragraph on « Mary, model of the Church » is impeccable, admirable. The Church, « virgin and mother », cannot have a better « model » than the Most Blessed Virgin, Mother of God and our own. Yet it is not exactly these sublime truths that the name of « Mary » and the reality of the Church, « people of God », evoke for certain louts!

64-65. See how the Council seizes the torch from the hands of the Virgin again in order to pass it on to us, the believers, the faithful, the apostles, the laymen who « work towards the regeneration of men »! « The Church, in turn (sic), seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes (becomes!) more like her exalted Model… » I stop! This present indicative, in order to prophesy the marvellous tomorrows of the Council! Each one has his turn: to the extent that the Church enters the arena, there is nothing left for “Mary” to do than to disappear. In fact, the present Church can no longer support the competition of the Virgin in Her great apparitions. Therein lies a mystery… of iniquity!

66. A classical text, yes! for its first half. The second loses all limpidity, all grace: « This cult, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration, etc. » Nevertheless, the Church is vigilant, we are assured… She « maintains within the limits… and according to the conditions of time and place. » Hang it! I prefer our times of faith to this time of tyranny in which we are supervised so as not to displease the Protestants… and are to rejoice when an insignificant group of them is pleased to inform us of their satisfaction at seeing us regret and abjure our past excesses!

67. Hereupon, popular piety is repressed; pilgrimages and feasts of the Virgin are under surveillance. The Council did not dare say a word about this formidable current that, from La Salette to Fatima, represents what is purest and strongest in the Church for the salvation of the world. Purer and stronger than the Second Vatican Council, it is obvious! It is an embarrassing competition.

Thus, there was a conspiracy of the Fathers of the Council to navigate between the reefs: « The Holy Council exhorts theologians and preachers to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations (come on!) as well as from petty narrow-mindedness (who, what, tell us!)… Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed (my goodness!), could lead separated brethren (ah! they are our masters…) or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. »

It is not finished; the sword has to be plunged ever deeper into the Sacred Heart of Mary of Sorrows, and the hearts of her millions of fervent children. Just listen: « Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile (!) nor transitory (!) affection (the poor faithful, bludgeoned in this manner!), nor in a certain vain credulity (go on, strike this poor people, O masters of doctrine, O Pharisees, but when you are going to have to say in what it consists, you will only have cold, insipid cant). True devotion proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know (what piety!) the eminent dignity (ah! the dignity!) of the Mother of God, and we are moved (!) to a filial love toward our Mother and to the imitation of her virtues. »

This is enough to kill Marian piety, and this is what the Council has succeeded in doing, at least in the greater pare of the Christian people, priests, experts who have become imbued with such blasphemous remarks. The people must struggle against their scribes and Pharisees in order to be permitted to still sing in our churches, on 15 August, in our pilgrimages, this hymn that used to make St. Bernadette weep: « I will go to see Her one day, in Heaven, in the Homeland, yes! I will go to see Mary, my joy and my love. In Heaven! In Heaven! In Heaven! » So, permitted or forbidden?

68. The Council places the Blessed Virgin Mary « in Heaven », and imprudently adds that, likewise on this earth, She already shines forth as a sign of sure hope and solace to the people of God on pilgrimage. Yes, yes! We clap our hands! Quick, quick, tell us what pilgrimages… Disappointment. For the Council there is no other pilgrimage than that of humanity « during its sojourn on earth », and that means nothing.

69. Thereupon, the Council that strikes millions of the faithful, too devoted to our cherished Mother, to Our Lady in all Her true and authentic apparitions for the liking of the Protestants, flatters the « separated brothers », who give due honour to Mary, « with devout mind and fervent impulse ».

It is because this Council prefers the people outside to those inside. Thus, having stood back from its true family, we see that it only has eyes and heart for « all families of people, whether they are honoured with the title of Christian (that of Catholic is forgotten) or whether they still do not know the Saviour ». It asks us to pray thus in order that all this so interesting humanity « may be happily gathered together in peace and harmony into one people of God, for the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. » It is too bad; this is not the catechism of the Blessed Virgin!

DEFINITIVE REVELATION

She did not ask us to reform the Church, but She gave us Her Immaculate Heart to love, for our salvation and that of the whole world. « The Church is in the Heart of the Blessed Virgin; this is the definitive revelation », our Father told us on 22 August 1998. It is in the light of this revelation that the judgment and revelation of hearts is carried out.

Brother Matthew of Saint Joseph
Excerpts from Il est ressuscité! n° 63, November 2007, pp. 7-18.

To consult the original unabridged French text

1. He is Risen! n° 61, October 2007, pp. 2-14.

2. Vatican II, des images, des témoins, production du CFRT, janvier 2006.

3. Paul VI's speech pour l’ouverture de la deuxième session conciliaire, 29 septembre 1963.

4. Alberigo, Histoire du Concile, t. II, p. 375.

5. Letter to My Friends n° 126, December 1962.

6. Letter to My Friends n° 204.

7. Documents secrets du Concile, 1963, p. 26.

8. Letter to My Friends n° 204, p. 3.

9. La Croix, 11 July 2007.

10. Letter to My Friends n° 204.

11. CRC n° 52, January 1972, p. 4.

12. CRC n° 51, p. 14.

13. Letter to My Friends n° 134, 19 mars 1963.

14. CRC n° 52, January 1972, p. 5.

15. CRC n° 53, p. 5.

16. Letter to My Friends n° 204.

17. CRC n° 291, April 1993, p. 25.

18. Letter to My Friends n° 204.

19. Alberigo, Histoire du Concile, t. III, p. 112.

20. Letter to My Friends n° 158, 23 November 1963.

21. CRC n° 52, January 1972, p. 5.

22. CRC n° 52, January 1972, p. 7.

23. CRC n° 281, p. 6.

24. CRC n° 281, p. 6.