Home PageDevil's Final Battle - ReviewsDevil's Final Battle - Preface & IntroductionBrochureOrder Now By Mail Or Credit Card

Chapter 6

The Motive Takes Hold


       Around 1948, Pope Pius XII, at the request of the staunchly orthodox Cardinal Ruffini, considered calling a general Council and even spent a few years making the necessary preparations. There is evidence that progressive elements in Rome eventually dissuaded Pope Pius XII from bringing it to realization since this Council showed definite signs of being in line with Humani Generis and its condemnation of Modernist errors. Like this great 1950 encyclical, the new Council would combat “false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.”1

       At the same time, the “errors of Russia” to which the Virgin of Fatima referred were penetrating the Church Herself. Various Catholic religious orders were being infiltrated. For example, the so-called “Catholic Priest Worker” movement was so clearly infiltrated by Communists that Pope Pius XII called for an end to it in the 1950's.

       Tragically, Pope Pius XII became convinced that he was too advanced in years to shoulder the momentous task of a Council to combat the swelling ranks of the Church's enemies, and he resigned himself to the decision that “this will be for my successor.”2 Pope Pius XII died on October 9, 1958.

       And now we have arrived very near to the critical year in our case. We have arrived at 1958, two years before 1960—the year in which the Third Secret was to be disclosed in accordance with the wishes of the Virgin of Fatima, as Sister Lucy had testified. Throughout the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, the Holy Office, under the able leadership of Cardinal Ottaviani, maintained a safe Catholic landscape by keeping the wild horses of modernism firmly corralled. Many of today's Modernist theologians disdainfully recount how they and their friends had been “muzzled” during this period.

       Yet even Cardinal Ottaviani could not prevent what was to happen in 1958. A new type of Pope “whom the progressives believed to favor their cause”3 would ascend to the Pontifical Chair and would force a reluctant Ottaviani to remove the latch, open the corral and brace himself for the stampede. However, such a state of affairs was not unforeseen. At the news of the death of Pope Pius XII, the old Dom Lambert Beauduin, a friend of Roncalli's (the future Pope John XXIII) confided to Father Bouyer: “If they elect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.”4

       At this point in our presentation it must be emphasized, especially for the non-Catholic reader, that the changes in the basic orientation of the Church we are about to discuss are totally unprecedented and represent perhaps the worst crisis in Her history. A careful study of what follows will make clear why the Message of Fatima, with its call for the consecration and conversion of Russia as the harbinger of world peace, has become unacceptable to the politically correct, liberalized churchmen of the post-Vatican II period. These unprecedented changes in the Catholic Church are no boon, but a great detriment, to non-Catholics, since the result of the Church's “updating” has included not merely the clerical scandals we now see, but a failure of the human element of the Church to perform an action—the solemn consecration of Russia—that would benefit the whole of mankind.

A Council is Called as the
Message of Fatima Comes Under Attack

       And so it happened just as Dom Lambert foretold. Roncalli was elected and, as Pope John XXIII, called a Council and consecrated ecumenism. The “revolution in tiara and cope” predicted by the Alta Vendita was underway.

       And one of the first acts of the revolution was to dispense with the Third Secret of Fatima. Contrary to the expectations of the whole world, on February 8, 1960 (just over a year after the Council had been called), the Vatican issued the following anonymous announcement through the A.N.I. press agency:

       Vatican City, February 8, 1960 (A.N.I.) – It is probable that the “Secret of Fatima” will never be made public. In Vatican circles highly worthy of belief, they have just declared to the representative of United Press International that it is most likely the letter will never be opened, in which Sister Lucy wrote down the words which the Virgin Mary addressed to the three shepherds of the Cova da Iria … It is most probable that the “Secret of Fatima” will remain forever under absolute seal.

       And in the same communiqué we find the first direct attack from Vatican sources on the credibility of the Message of Fatima as a whole:

       Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She does not pledge Herself to guarantee the veracity of the words which the three shepherds claim to have heard from Our Lady.

       Claim to have heard? Could there be any doubt about the veracity of their testimony after the Miracle of the Sun? Could there be any question that they had been given an authentic prophecy from Heaven in view of the complete fulfillment of every prediction in the Message thus far—from the imminent end of World War I, to the spread of Russia's errors, to World War II and the election of Pope Pius XI?

       This first public attack on the Message of Fatima from within the Vatican apparatus comes in 1960, as the Vatican begins to pursue a new orientation of the Church that will arise (as we shall soon see) at the Second Vatican Council. Consider these developments surrounding the February 8, 1960 communiqué:

  • The communiqué publicly questions the veracity of Lucy, Jacinta, and Francisco.
  • From 1960 forward, Sister Lucy is silenced on orders of the Vatican apparatus,5 so she could not defend herself from the implied accusation that her testimony is unreliable.
  • The documents in the official Fatima archives, which Father Alonso will compile between 1965 and 1976, (more than 5,000 documents in 24 volumes) will be barred from publication, even though these documents confirm that the Fatima prophecies in the first two parts of the Secret (the election of Pope Pius XI, the coming of World War II, the spread of Communism throughout the world, etc.) had been revealed privately by Sister Lucy long before their fulfillment, and that her testimony was utterly accurate and reliable.

       The crime had begun. And now the motive for the crime—the desire to change the orientation of the Church away from the Catholic certitudes of the Message of Fatima and toward an “enlightened” accommodation of the Church to the world—would begin in earnest with the commencement of the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962. We recall again the words of Sister Lucy that Our Lady wished the Third Secret to be released in 1960 because it “will be clearer (mais claro) then.” Now it would become very clear indeed.

The “Errors of Russia” Infiltrate the Church

       First, just before the Council's commencement, there would be another betrayal of the Message of Fatima, a sign of many unprecedented things to come. In the spring of 1962, in Metz, France, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant had a meeting with none other than Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Orthodox Church—a KGB operative, as were the other Orthodox prelates. At this meeting Tisserant and Nikodim negotiated what came to be known as the Metz Pact, or more popularly, the Vatican-Moscow Agreement.6 The existence of the Vatican-Moscow Agreement is an irrefutable historical fact attested to in all of its details by Monsignor Roche, who was Cardinal Tisserant's personal secretary.

       In substance, the agreement was as follows: Pope John, according to his fond wish, would be “favored” by the attendance of two Russian Orthodox observers at the Council. In return, the Catholic Church would agree that the Second Vatican Council would refrain from any condemnation of Soviet Communism or Soviet Russia. In essence, the Council would compromise the moral liberty of the Catholic Church by pretending that the most systematized form of human evil in human history did not exist—even though, at the very moment the Council opened, the Soviets were persecuting, imprisoning and murdering millions of Catholics.

       Her liberty thus constrained in a bargain with Communists, the Council failed even to mention Communism. By this failure the Council departed from the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, Blessed Pius IX, Saint Pius X and also Pope Pius XI, who reminded the Church that we could not refrain from condemning this incomparable evil. As he said in Divini Redemptoris,

       This all too imminent danger, venerable brethren, as you have already surmised is Bolshevistic and atheistic Communism which aims at upsetting the social order and undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization. In the face of such a threat the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent. This Apostolic See above all has not refrained from raising its voice for it knows that its proper and special mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks.7

       And yet the Council would say not one word about Soviet Communism, but would instead begin a “dialogue” with the very forces the Church once opposed.

       Why did this happen? It was surely no “coincidence” that the Council's silence about Communism synchronized perfectly with the Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church which, as we showed in a previous chapter, had been revealed just before Vatican II by key witnesses with no motive to lie (Dodd, Hyde, Golitsyn, Mitrokhin and others). Even without such testimonies, our common sense should tell us that the forces of Communism (working alongside those of Freemasonry) would inevitably attempt to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Satan is intelligent enough to know that the Catholic Church is the one citadel he must storm in his effort to conquer the whole world for the kingdom of darkness.

       This, then, was the state of affairs in the Church at the very moment that the Second Vatican Council was wrongly constrained to observe its shameful silence on the evil of Communism. And, needless to say, under the Vatican-Moscow Agreement, the Consecration of Soviet Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Council Fathers, in order to bring about its conversion, would be absolutely out of the question. This early shift toward a new orientation of the Church, which the Council would accelerate in a most dramatic fashion, was already in conflict with the Message of Fatima.

       And so it has been ever since the meeting in Metz, which marked the beginning of the conciliar and post-conciliar pursuit of Ostpolitik, the policy implemented by the Vatican Secretary of State under which the Church has ceased all condemnation and opposition to Communist regimes in favor of “dialogue” and “quiet diplomacy”—a policy which to this day has silenced the Vatican concerning the vicious persecution of the Church in Red China.

       Thus on October 12, 1962, two representative priests of the Orthodox church debarked from a plane at Fiumicino Airport and attended the Second Vatican Council. The Council began with Orthodox observers watching its proceedings, making sure that the Vatican-Moscow Agreement was observed. The written intervention of 450 Council Fathers against Communism was mysteriously “lost” after being delivered to the Secretariat of the Council, and Council Fathers who stood up to denounce Communism were politely told to sit down and be quiet.8

       The Church's own leaders had lowered the drawbridge to the Communists, at the same time Communists and Freemasons were attempting to destroy Her from within by (to recall the predictions of Bella Dodd):

  • encouraging “the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing,”
  • labelling “the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries,”
  • shaming Church leaders into “an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies.”

       And finally, as Dodd predicted, “The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.”

       This grand effort at subversion would involve, first and foremost, the breakthrough of Modernist “theology” at an ecumenical council—just as Canon Roca and the other illumines of Freemasonry had boasted.

The Neo-Modernists Triumph at Vatican II

       On October 13, 1962, the day after the two Communist observers arrived at the Council, and on the very anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the history of the Church and the world was profoundly changed by the smallest of events. Cardinal Liénart of France seized the microphone in a famous incident and demanded that the candidates proposed by the Roman Curia to chair the drafting commissions at the Council be set aside and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. The demand was acceded to and the election postponed. When the election was finally held, liberals were elected to majorities and near-majorities on the conciliar commissions—many of them from among the very “innovators” decried by Pope Pius XII. The traditionally formulated preparatory schemas for the Council were discarded and the Council began literally without a written agenda, leaving the way open for entirely new documents to be written by the liberals.

       It is well known and superbly documented9 that a clique of liberal periti (experts) and bishops then proceeded to hijack Vatican II with an agenda to remake the Church into their own image through the implementation of a “new theology”. Both critics and defenders of Vatican II are in agreement on this point. In his book Vatican II Revisited, Bishop Aloysius J. Wycislo (a rhapsodic advocate of the Vatican II revolution) declares with giddy enthusiasm that “theologians and biblical scholars who had been ‘under a cloud’ for years surfaced as periti (theological experts advising the bishops at the Council), and their post-Vatican II books and commentaries became popular reading.”10

       He noted that “Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis had ... a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians”,11 and explains that “During the early preparation of the Council, those theologians (mainly French, with some Germans) whose activities had been restricted by Pope Pius XII, were still under a cloud. Pope John quietly lifted the ban affecting some of the most influential ones. Yet a number remained suspect to the officials of the Holy Office.”12

       On this point, the eyewitness testimony of Msgr. Rudolf Bandas, himself a conciliar peritus, is of decisive importance to our case:

       No doubt good Pope John thought that these suspect theologians would rectify their ideas and perform a genuine service to the Church. But exactly the opposite happened. Supported by certain Rhine Council Fathers, and often acting in a manner positively boorish, they turned around and exclaimed: “Behold, we are named experts, our ideas stand approved.” … When I entered my tribunal at the Council, on the first day of the fourth session, the first announcement, emanating from the Secretary of State, was the following: “No more periti will be appointed.” But it was too late. The great confusion was underway. It was already apparent that neither Trent nor Vatican I nor any encyclical would be permitted to impede its advance.13

       Indeed, Pope John XXIII himself was happy to announce that beginning with this Council the Church would, quite inexplicably, cease condemning error and stop all Her worrying about the dire condition of the world:

       Nowadays … the spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than the arms of severity. She considers that She meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of Her teaching rather than by issuing condemnations. … We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world was at hand.14

       But Pope John XXIII's optimism was quite at odds with the profound alarm over the state of the world to be seen in the many pronouncements of his immediate predecessors (not to mention in the Message of Fatima itself). Consider these few examples:

       Pope St. Pius X:

       We felt a sort of terror considering the disastrous conditions of humanity at the present hour. Can we ignore such a profound and grave evil, which at this moment much more than in the past is working away at its very marrow and leading it to its ruin? … Truly whoever ponders these things must necessarily and firmly fear whether such a perversion of minds is not the sign of announcing, and the beginning of the last times … [E Supremi].

       Pope Pius XI:

       With God and Jesus Christ excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, … the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that society is tottering to its ruin because it no longer has a secure and solid foundation [Quas Primas].

       Pope Pius XII (after the end of WWII):

       We are overwhelmed with sadness and anguish, seeing that the wickedness of perverse men has reached a degree of impiety that is unbelievable and absolutely unknown in other times [Letter of February 11, 1949].

       Venerable brethren, you are well aware that almost the whole human race is today allowing itself to be driven into two opposing camps, for Christ or against Christ. The human race is involved today in a supreme crisis, which will issue in its salvation by Christ, or in its destruction [Evangeli Praecones, 1951].

       To be sure, there would be countless battles at Vatican II between the International Group of Fathers who fought to uphold the dogmas of the Faith and Catholic Tradition, and the progressive Rhine group. Tragically, however, it was the liberal and Modernist element that prevailed, let loose by Pope John XXIII's optimism that the truth would prevail of its own force without the aid of any medicinal condemnations by the Magisterium. Wycislo sings the praises of triumphant progressives such as Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum, who had been considered suspect before the Council (for good reason) and are now the leading lights of post-Vatican II theology.15

       In effect, those whom Pope Pius XII considered unfit to be walking the streets of Catholicism were now in control of the town. And as if to crown their achievements, the Oath Against Modernism and the Index of Forbidden Books were both quietly suppressed shortly after the close of the Council—a decision Bishop Graber called “incomprehensible.”16 Pope St. Pius X had predicted correctly. Lack of vigilance in authority had provoked modernism to return with a vengeance.

Two Prominent Examples of
“Rehabilitated” Neo-Modernists

       Let us consider two examples of the “new” theologians who were let loose upon the Church to do their work of destruction: Dominque Chenu and Hans Küng.

       Chenu was an advocate of the New Theology made famous by Henri de Lubac. Chenu was issued a condemnation for his progressive ideas in 1942 under Pope Pius XII.17 His book Une ecole de theologie was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and he lost his rectorship at the Dominican College of Le Saulchoir.18 Father David Greenstock, writing in the 1950 Thomist against the New Theology of Chenu and de Lubac, explained the dangers of their system and the reason for their condemnation. Greenstock pointed out that the partisans of the New Theology reject Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy in favor of modern philosophies. This must be done, they claim, in order to appeal to “modern man” who finds Thomistic philosophy “irrelevant”. The result is that Catholic theology is knocked off of its firm, philosophical foundation and shifted onto the fluid philosophical systems of the 20th Century, most of which are founded upon atheism and agnosticism.

       Chenu also rejected the unchangeableness of Catholic doctrine, claiming that the source of all theology is not immutable dogma, but rather the vital life19 of the Church in its members, which cannot be separated from history. Thus, strictly speaking, says Greenstock, Chenu held that “theology is the life of the members of the Church, rather than a series of conclusions drawn from revealed data with the aid of reason”—a principle that is slippery, imprecise and erroneous. As a result, Chenu held that religion can change with the times, and should change with the times, according to the demands of circumstances.

       Greenstock explained that the partisans of this New Theology are both unorthodox and deceitful. “The main contention of the partisan of this new movement,” wrote Greenstock, “is that theology, to remain alive, must move with the times. At the same time, they are very careful to repeat all the fundamental propositions of traditional theology, almost as if there was no intention of any attack against it. This is very true of such writers as Fathers de Lubac, Daniélou, Rahner, ... All of whom are undoubtedly at the very center of this movement.”20

       The eminent Dominican theologian, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, writing in his famous 1946 essay “Where is the New Theology Taking Us?”,21 demonstrated that the purveyors of the New Theology (Blondel, de Lubac, Chenu) pervert entirely the concept of the immutability of Truth. Thus, he warned, the New Theology can only lead in one direction—straight back to Modernism.

       While all this was going on, Father Chenu and Father de Lubac were receiving behind-the-scenes protection and encouragement from Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris. Suhard told Chenu not to worry because “In twenty years, everyone in the Church will be talking like you.” As we can see, the Cardinal accurately predicted the invasion of the Church by neo-modernist thinking. Most churchmen today do talk like Chenu. In the early 1960s, Father Chenu was one of many radical theologians who were invited to Vatican II by Pope John XXIII. In the end, thanks to the Council's progressivist orientation, Father Chenu saw many of his formally condemned theories advanced as part of Vatican II's new teachings, especially within Gaudium et Spes. Chenu relates joyfully that the very points for which his work was condemned in 1942 are the same exact points now promoted by members of the hierarchy in the name of the Council.22

       As for Hans Küng, this “leading-light” of the post-conciliar period had worked closely at the Council with other radicals such as Congar, Ratzinger, Rahner and Schillebeeckx. In the 1970s, however, because Küng had gone “too far”, he was censored by the Vatican for certain heretical views, including the following: rejection of the Church's infallibility; the claim that bishops do not receive their teaching authority from Christ; the suggestion that any baptized layperson has the power to confect the Holy Eucharist; the denial that Christ is “consubstantial” with the Father; the undermining of doctrines (unspecified) concerning the Virgin Mary.23

       It needs to be pointed out that these are only some of Küng's heretical views, but they were the only ones mentioned within the Vatican's sanctions. Thus, in effect, the Vatican left Küng's other heterodox tenets untouched. For example, in one of his most famous books entitled On Being a Christian, Hans Küng:

  • denies the Divinity of Christ (p. 130)
  • dismisses the miracles of the Gospel (p. 233)
  • denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus (p. 350)
  • denies that Christ founded an institutional Church (p. 109)
  • denies that the Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary (p. 323).24

       Küng has never retracted these unorthodox and heretical statements. Moreover, Küng has publicly called for a revision of Church teaching on issues such as papal infallibility, birth control, mandatory celibacy of priests, and women in the priesthood. Despite this blatant rejection of Church teaching, the only penalty that the Vatican ever inflicted against Küng was that he was “not allowed” to be considered a Catholic theologian, and as such, was not allowed to teach theology in a Catholic university. This “penalty” was circumvented when the University of Tübingin, Küng's home campus, retained Küng as a teaching professor and simply restructured part of the university so that Küng, a great celebrity, may continue teaching in that part of the university which is now chartered as a “secular” school.

       Meanwhile, the Vatican has never condemned Küng as a heretic, never excommunicated him (as canon law provides), never ordered that his books be removed from libraries in Catholic seminaries and universities (where they are now found in abundance), never prevented him from being a guest-lecturer at Catholic institutions, never obstructed him from publishing articles in Concilium or other progressivist “Catholic” publications. Father Hans Küng is not even suspended. Rather, to this day, Küng remains a priest in good standing in the diocese of Basle, with no other canonical penalties leveled against him.

       This means that a priest who continues to vomit his heretical poison upon anyone within reach is still allowed to conduct public liturgy, preach and give advice in the confessional. The Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy, under Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, leaves him untouched. So, despite the feeble Vatican “condemnation”, Küng retains access to a wide variety of influential “pipelines” to disseminate his poisonous doctrine throughout the Church. In fact, it is said that Hans Küng's “theological breakthroughs” on the nature of the Church are what provided the “theological foundation” that made possible the 1999 “Lutheran-Catholic” Accord.

       Further, in 1998, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Sodano, the most powerful Cardinal in the Church, praised Küng in a public speech at the Lateran, in which he lauded Küng's “beautiful pages dedicated to the Christian mystery”.25 Cardinal Sodano also referred to Küng as “the German theologian” even though Küng had been supposedly stripped of that title. (This is the same Cardinal Angelo Sodano who is ultimately behind the present persecution of Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatima apostolate, as we shall see.)

       Now, the 1942 condemnation that the Vatican leveled at Chenu was much more severe than what was hurled at Küng. Yet Chenu not only survived, but became a leading light of the Conciliar Church without ever changing his erroneous views. The same is true of Rahner, Congar, de Lubac and von Balthasar, all of whom were theologically suspect before the Council but came to enjoy great prestige—even though they never abandoned a single one of their heterodox opinions. Even the likes of Küng has reason to believe that whatever mild condemnation he suffers is just a temporary inconvenience, an annoying setback, a fate meted out to all true “prophets.” Just as Chenu saw his heretical views eventually win the day thanks to a revolutionary Council, so likewise Küng may fill his breast with the hope that his errors will, in the not-so-distant future, eventually emerge as “mainstream” Catholicism de facto, even if not by any actual teaching of the authentic Magisterium, which could never bind the Church to such errors.

The Neo-Modernists Hail
the “New” Church of Vatican II

       With good reason, then, have progressivists such as Cardinal Suenens, Küng, Louis Bouyer and Yves Congar celebrated Vatican II as a Revolution, as the death of one era and the beginning of a new:

  • Cardinal Suenens, who wielded great influence over Pope Paul VI, and who is a darling to those in the Church who call themselves “Charismatics”, rejoiced that Vatican II marked the end of the Tridentine epoch and the end of the era of Vatican I.26
  • Hans Küng gloated, “Compared to the post-Tridentine epoch of the Counter-reformation, Vatican Council II represents in its fundamental characteristics, a 180 degree turn ... It is a new Church that has sprung up since Vatican II.”27
  • Father Bouyer, a French peritus at the Council, exclaimed with relish that the anti-Protestant, anti-Modernist aspect of the Catholic Church “might as well die.”28
  • Likewise, the Rome-based Jesuit magazine, La Civiltà Cattolica, also exclaimed joyfully, “With Vatican Council II, the Tridentine age was brought to a close for the Church.”29

       These statements are especially audacious when we consider that the Councils of Trent and Vatican I are dogmatic Councils whose teachings can never be changed, disregarded, or reinterpreted in the name of a “deeper understanding”. The First Vatican Council declared infallibly:

       The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.30

       Modernists, however, as Pope Saint Pius X warned, do not accept anything as fixed or unchanging. Their chief principle is the “evolution of dogma”. They champion the notion that religion must change for the sake of changing times. In this respect, as in many others, the prime movers of Vatican II reveal themselves as men steeped in the error of Modernism.

Masons and Communists Rejoice

       Along with the neo-modernists, the Masons and Communists have rejoiced at the Council's outcome. Just as the authors of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita had hoped, just as the Communist infiltrators spoken of by Bella Dodd had hoped, the notions of liberal culture had finally won adherence among the major players in the Catholic hierarchy. Freemasons and Communists have celebrated the astounding turn of events wrought by the Council. They rejoice that Catholics have finally “seen the light,” and that many of their Masonic principles have been sanctioned by the Church.

       For example, Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite, in his book Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason praised the ecumenism nurtured at Vatican II. He said:

       Catholics ... must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of freethinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peter's.31

       Yves Marsaudon was delighted to add that “One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry.”32

       The post-Vatican II spirit of doubt and revolution obviously warmed the heart of French Freemason Jacques Mitterand, who wrote approvingly:

       Something has changed within the Church, and replies given by the Pope to the most urgent questions such as priestly celibacy and birth control, are hotly debated within the Church itself; the word of the Sovereign Pontiff is questioned by bishops, by priests, by the faithful. For a Freemason, a man who questions dogma is already a Freemason without an apron.33

       Marcel Prelot, a senator for the Doubs region in France, is probably the most accurate in describing what has really taken place. He wrote:

       We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail within the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church.34

       The Communists were equally delighted with the results of the Council. As the Italian Communist Party declared at its 11th Party Congress in 1964: “The extraordinary ‘awakening’ of the Council, which is rightly compared with the Estates General of 1789, has shown the whole world that the old politico-religious Bastille is shaken to its foundations.”35 L'Unita, the official publication of the Italian Communist Party, brazenly gave advice to Pope Paul VI regarding Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who led traditionalist opposition to the conciliar liberals and had militated for a conciliar condemnation of Communism: “Be conscious of the danger that Lefebvre represents. And continue the magnificent movement of approach begun with the ecumenism of Vatican II.”36

A Whole New “Orientation” for the Church

       The public exclamations of delight over Vatican II from neo-modernist luminaries, Communists and Masons should not be surprising. It was obvious to anyone who had eyes to see that the Second Vatican Council appeared to embrace ideas that had been condemned by Blessed Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, but were in step with Modernist thought. (As we will discuss further, Cardinal Ratzinger himself has described certain aspects of the Council's teaching as a “countersyllabus”.) This did not happen by accident, but by design. The progressivists at Vatican II sought to avoid direct statements which would easily be seen as condemned Modernist errors. They also deliberately planted ambiguities in the Council texts which they intended to exploit after the Council.37

       By utilizing deliberate ambiguities, the Council documents promoted an ecumenism that had been condemned by Pope Pius XI, a religious liberty for false sects that had been condemned by the 19th Century Popes (especially Blessed Pope Pius IX), a new liturgy along the lines of Protestantism and ecumenism that Archbishop Bugnini38 called “a major conquest of the Catholic Church”, a collegiality that strikes at the heart of the Papal primacy, and a “new attitude toward the world”—especially in one of the most radical of all the Council documents, Gaudium et Spes. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that Gaudium et Spes is permeated by the spirit of Teilhard de Chardin.39

       The result of all this was nothing short of an entirely new orientation of the Church, or what Pope Paul VI called an “opening to the world.” As Pope Paul VI himself was forced to admit, however, the opening to the world proved to be a disastrous miscalculation.

Pope Paul VI Admits that the Church
Has Been Invaded by Worldly Thinking

       As Pope Paul VI himself admitted only eight years after the Council, “the opening to the world has become a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking. We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent.” Only three years after the Council, Pope Paul VI had admitted that “The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what could better be called self-demolition.”40 And in 1972, in perhaps the most astonishing remark ever made by a Roman Pontiff, Paul VI lamented that “from somewhere or other the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”41

       Let us consider some of the manifest reasons for Pope Paul VI's astounding admissions.

The Church “Opens” Herself to
“Dialogue” with Communist and Masonic Enemies

       With Vatican II began the large enterprise of collaboration with the forces of the world, the great opening to the world. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Gaudium et Spes itself, which declares: “By unremitting study they”—meaning every priest in the Catholic Church, every bishop, every member of the hierarchy—“should fit themselves to do their part in establishing dialogue with the world and with men of all shades of opinion”.

       Now the objection will be raised: What is wrong with peaceful collaboration and dialogue with men of all shades of opinion in those areas in which the Church can find some sort of basic agreement? Here again the pre-conciliar Popes warned us about one of the devil's snares and delusions under the appearance of good. Speaking precisely about this call to collaborate and dialogue with Communists in causes which are supposedly common to all mankind—which is really the devil's call for the Church to lay down Her arms and join the enemy—Pope Pius XI warned as follows in Divini Redemptoris:

       In the beginning Communism showed itself for what it was in all its perversity. But very soon it realized that it was alienating people. It has, therefore, changed its tactics and strives to entice the multitudes by trickery in various forms, hiding its real designs behind ideas that are in themselves good and attractive. Under various names that do not suggest Communism, they try perfidiously to worm their way even into professedly Catholic and religious organizations. They invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity. And at times make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church. See to it faithful brethren that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived. Communism is intrinsically evil, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.42

       Pope Pius XI could not have been clearer about the duty to shun “dialogue” and collaboration with Communists. And why? The Italians have a saying: Dimmi con chi vai, e ti diro che sei —“Tell me who you go with and I will tell you what you are.” As Pope Pius XI recognized, if one associates with a certain class of people, one will inevitably be influenced to become as they are, in spite of oneself. If one collaborates with the forces of the world they will tend to seduce him; he will become like them. If the Church opens Herself to the world in the sense of ceasing Her opposition to the powers that She once opposed, and if She says instead that the Church will now collaborate and dialogue with Her enemies, Her members will, in time, become like those they once opposed. And the opening to the world will result in the Church becoming like the world, as Pope Paul VI himself was forced to admit in the statement quoted above.

The Church “Reconciles” Herself with Liberalism

       Those “conservatives” who deny that Vatican II constitutes a break with tradition, or that it contradicts prior teaching, have failed to listen to the very movers and shakers of the Council, who shamelessly acknowledge the truth. Yves Congar, one of the Council's “experts” and chief among the artisans of the Council's reforms, remarked with quiet satisfaction that “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution.”43 Congar also admitted, as if it were something to be proud of, that Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty is contrary to the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX.44 He said:

       It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.45

       Congar thus blithely suggests that Vatican II has undone an infallible papal condemnation of error.

       Most noteworthy are the statements of the progressivist Cardinal Suenens, one of the most liberal prelates of the Twentieth Century, himself a Council Father, who spoke glowingly of the old regimes that have come crashing down. The words he used in praise of the Council are supremely telling, perhaps the most chilling and the most damning of all. Suenens declared “Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church.”46

       And, only a few years ago, none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, apparently unruffled by such admissions, added one of his own. According to him, the Vatican II text Gaudium et Spes is nothing less than a counter-Syllabus”. He said:

       If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty, and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus ... Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. … the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone will deny today that the Spanish and Italian Concordat strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone will deny today that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship.47

       Consider the sheer audacity of a Cardinal calling two of the greatest Popes in Church history “one-sided” in their efforts to protect the Church from the errors of liberalism and modernism! According to Cardinal Ratzinger himself, at Vatican II the Church made an “attempt” to “correct” and “counter” the teaching of Blessed Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, and to reconcile Herself instead with the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.

       But this was the very goal of the Permanent Instruction, Masonry's blueprint for subversion of the Church! That is precisely why, in his Syllabus of Errors, Blessed Pius IX condemned the proposition that “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (Condemned Proposition #80). And Saint Pius X, in his apostolic letter Notre Charge Apostolique, condemned the Sillon movement in France, rebuking its members because “They do not fear to make blasphemous reconciliations between the Gospel and the Revolution.”

       But according to Cardinal Ratzinger, “there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism but cannot be the last stage.”48 And what is this last “stage” in the “confrontation with liberalism”? Apparently, in Cardinal Ratzinger's view, it is the Church's acceptance of the very ideas She once condemned! Confronting liberalism by reconciling with it is doubletalk. Ratzinger's “confrontation” with liberalism is nothing more than an abject surrender.

       Moreover, in the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger, not only the condemnations of liberalism in the Syllabus of Blessed Pope Pius IX but also the anti-modernist teaching of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi must now be considered outdated. In 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an “Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesiastical Vocation.” In explaining the Instruction to the press, Cardinal Ratzinger claimed that certain teachings of the Magisterium were “not considered to be the final word on the subject as such, but serve rather as a mooring in the problem, and, above all, as an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of temporary disposition.”49 As examples of these “temporary dispositions,” Cardinal Ratzinger cited “the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom, as well as the anti-modernist decisions at the beginning of this century …”50—that is, the anti-modernist teaching of Saint Pius X in the early 1900s.

       These comments by Cardinal Ratzinger should disturb any Catholic, not only because they admit that the Council embraced a cherished goal of the Church's enemies, but because they come from the very man who, as the head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), is supposed to be in charge of guarding the purity of Catholic doctrine. And this, as we shall soon show, is the same man who has led the charge to do away with the traditional Catholic understanding of the Message of Fatima.

The Teaching that the Roman Catholic Church
Is Exclusively the
One True Church of Christ Is Abandoned

       As the attempt to reconcile the Church with the principles of the French Revolution would neutralize the Church's once fierce opposition to the errors of the modern age, so would the “ecumenical venture” launched at the Council soon bring about the de facto abandonment of all efforts to convert Protestants and schismatics to the Catholic faith—as in the conversion of Russia.

       At the same time the Council embraced the “ecumenical movement”—only 35 years after Pope Pius XI had condemned it in his encyclical Mortalium Animos—the Council's document Lumen Gentium threw into confusion the whole doctrine of the Catholic Church as the one true Church. According to Lumen Gentium “the Church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic Church.”

       This causes bewilderment. Why doesn't the document clearly proclaim what the Catholic Church has always taught, as seen in the encyclicals of Pope Pius XII—namely, that the one true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church?51 Why employ a term favorable to the progressivist error that the Church of Christ is actually bigger than the Catholic Church, so that schismatic and Protestant sects are “in some mysterious way” part of (or linked with) the Church of Christ? This error, based upon Vatican II's use of the word “subsists”, is trumpeted by Father Avery Dulles, recently made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II:

       The Church of Jesus Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism, but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities to the extent that they too are what God initiated in Jesus and are obedient to the inspirations of Christ's Spirit. As a result of their common sharing in the reality of the one Church, the several Christian communities already have with one another a real but imperfect communion.52

       Likewise, Cardinal Ratzinger once again embraces the views of the “new theology.” In an interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, Cardinal Ratzinger said the following:

       When the Council Fathers replaced the word “is” with the word “subsistit” (subsists), they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsist.” “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.53

       Cardinal Ratzinger claims that the Council Fathers intended to say that the “being” of the Church is broader than the Catholic Church, but his claim is false. The generality of the Council Fathers had no intention of contradicting the teaching of Pope Pius XII that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, not some vague “entity” that is “broader” than the Catholic Church.

       In truth, it was Ratzinger's intention to use ambiguity to undermine the traditional teaching that the one and only Church of Christ is the Catholic Church—an intention he shared with his fellow partisans of the “new theology” at Vatican II. We know this because it was Father Ratzinger himself, serving as a theological peritus at the Council, who introduced the term “subsistit” (subsists) into the drafting of the conciliar document Lumen Gentium. He inserted this term at the suggestion of a Protestant minister, Pastor Schmidt, from Germany.

       If the reader finds Cardinal Ratzinger's explanation of the use of the term “subsistit” (subsists) to be confusing, know that it was meant to be. “Subsists” and “is” can, however, mean the very same thing, contrary to what Cardinal Ratzinger suggests. For the sake of the precision that should characterize any conciliar document, the Council ought to have stated clearly that “The Church of Christ subsists only in the Catholic Church.” But as Father Edward Schillebeeckx, another conciliar peritus, admitted, his liberal confreres had deliberately inserted ambiguities into the conciliar texts,54 knowing that they would later be able to interpret them in a heterodox manner after the Council.

       That is precisely what Cardinal Ratzinger now does with the ambiguous term “subsistit” (subsists). Indeed, as two prominent Catholic commentators have observed in a recent study of post-conciliar changes in the Church, the original German text of the above-quoted interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine shows that Cardinal Ratzinger is even more radical in his departure from the teaching of Pope Pius XII: “... die Konzilsväter das von Pius XII gebrauchte Wort ‘ist’ durch ‘subsistit’ ersetzten”—which translates as: “... the Council Fathers replaced the word ‘is,’ used by Pius XII, with ‘subsistit.’” That is, Cardinal Ratzinger admits that Vatican II replaced the terminology of Pope Pius XII—thanks to none other than Cardinal Ratzinger and his Protestant minister friend! Even worse, the original German of the interview also states: “So wollten die Väter sagen: Das Sein der Kirche als solches reicht viel weiter als die römisch-katholische Kirche,”—which translates as: “Thus the Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church.”55 Thus, Dulles and Ratzinger flatly contradict the perennial Catholic teaching that the Church of Christ exists exclusively in the Catholic Church. Yet their view is now the common interpretation of Vatican II.

       Here we see a prime example of how the “new theologians” at Vatican II have passed the theological football to themselves, while pretending that it was the “Council” that threw the pass.

The Church No Longer Seeks the
Conversion and Return of Heretics and Schismatics

       With this new view of “the Church of Christ” as something much bigger than the Roman Catholic Church, it is no wonder that after 40 years of “ecumenical activity” even Vatican prelates now openly repudiate the return of Protestants and schismatics to Rome.

       One prominent example of this departure from traditional teaching is the recent statement of Cardinal Walter Kasper, the former secretary of the Church's most prominent post-conciliar heretic, Hans Küng. Kasper, whose Modernist views are well-known throughout the Church, was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in February 2001 and now enjoys the rank of Prefect of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Kasper said:

       ... today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’. This was expressly abandoned at Vatican II.56

       In fact, Kasper's statement scorns the thrice-defined infallible dogma that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” (extra ecclesia nulla salus) The actual wording of these three solemn, infallible (and, therefore, impossible to change)57 definitions that are binding on all Catholics58 (of whatever rank, including Cardinals and Popes) to believe, under pain of being automatically excommunicated (expelling themselves from the Catholic Church) are as follows:

       There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

       We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

       The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1442.)

       This teaching must not be understood to preclude the possibility of salvation for those who do not become formal members of the Catholic Church if, through no fault of their own, they do not know of their objective obligation to do so. Nevertheless, as Blessed Pope Pius IX taught in Singulari Quadem, Catholics must not preoccupy themselves with pointless speculation about salvation for those who are not formal members of the Church, since only God knows whom He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the great mass of humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion. For this reason, Blessed Pius IX—whom Pope John Paul II himself beatified—exhorted the faithful to hold fast to the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” and to continue with ever greater fervor the divinely appointed work of the Church in making disciples of all nations. As for the lot of those who remain outside the visible Church, His Holiness warned that “all further inquiry is unlawful.”

       Who can doubt the wisdom of Blessed Pope Pius IX's warning? Indeed, the Church has also taught constantly and infallibly that no one in this world (absent a special private revelation) can know with absolute certainty the subjective state of any soul, much less whether a soul—even one's own—is numbered among the elect. Since it is not possible for the Church to presume that anyone is either saved or damned, the ministers of the Church are duty-bound to seek the conversion of every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, following Our Lord's own commands: “Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded thee (Matt. 28:19-20); He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned.” (Mk. 16:16)

       By declaring that Protestants need no longer convert to Catholicism, Cardinal Kasper brazenly defies both the infallible teaching of the Magisterium and the commands of Our Lord Himself. Kasper's view also flatly contradicts the Church's constant teaching that the only way to Christian unity is the return of the dissidents to the Catholic Church through their conversion. In the 1949 admonition of the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII concerning the “ecumenical movement,” the bishops were warned that in any “ecumenical” discussions they might authorize, the Protestant interlocutors must be presented with “the Catholic truth” and “the teaching of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of the dissidents to the Church.”59 The Catholic doctrine of the return of the dissidents was stressed again by Pope Pius XII himself on December 20, 1949: “The Catholic doctrine will have to be proposed and exposed totally and integrally: what the Catholic Church teaches about the true nature and means of justification, about the constitution of the Church, about the primacy of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, about the only true union which is accomplished with the return of the dissidents to the only true Church of Christ, must not be passed over in silence or covered over in ambiguous words.”60

       At least Kasper says openly what most of today's prelates seem to believe anyway, but will neither confirm nor deny. Yet Kasper's policy actually represents the prevailing “spirit of Vatican II.” This was confirmed by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was still Father Ratzinger, in his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II. In Theological Highlights Ratzinger claims that the Council had given the Church a new orientation toward non-Catholics, which dispenses with any call for their conversion:

       The Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches ... [A] basic unity—of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church— must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.61

       Now, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this book during the Council. As a co-worker with Karl Rahner, he was heavily involved with drafting the conciliar documents. He is in a position to tell us what were the actual intentions of the “architects” of Vatican II, which is not to be confused with the intention of the Council Fathers themselves. And he declares that the teaching of Vatican II, according to those who drew up the documents, was that conversion is an option.62 That is, according to Ratzinger, the non-Catholic need not convert to the true Church—either for salvation or for unity.

       This view is no less radical than that of Father Edward Schillebeeckx, another progressivist Council peritus, who was investigated by the Vatican after the Council (but never disciplined) for his open denial of various Catholic dogmas. Schillebeeckx exulted that “At Vatican II, the Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.”63

       Likewise, a “Catholic” journal from the Rome-based International Jewish-Christian Documentation Service (SIDIC)64 spoke of Vatican II's new orientation toward non-Catholics. In 1999 it spotlighted what it considers to be the “main problem” with so-called “traditional Catholics”, including Archbishop Lefebvre:

       Lefebvre's refusal to accept ecumenism originates in clear teachings from the Magisterium: the encyclical Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII (1896); the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI (1928); the Dec. 20, 1949, Instruction of the Holy Office regarding ecumenism. The only ecumenism accepted by Lefebvre and his followers is that which strives for the unconditional return of the members of other confessions to the one Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. This hardened sectarianism is precisely the kind of logic which Vatican II, through profound reflection on the nature of the Church, refused to accept ... 65

       The novel claim that non-Catholics need not convert because they are “in some mysterious way” part of the Church of Christ66 scorns the Church's perennial teaching on the necessity of non-Catholics to abandon their errors and return to the one true Church of Jesus Christ, as the pre-conciliar Popes unanimously taught.

       There are reported cases of Vatican Cardinals actively discouraging non-Catholics who desire to convert to Catholicism, evidently in keeping with this same false interpretation of the Council. Catholic Family News published the story of Father Linus Dragu Popian, who had been raised in the Romanian Orthodox religion. In 1975 he risked his life to escape Communist Romania and presented himself as a seminarian to the Vatican, expressing his wish to convert to Catholicism. The then-Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, and other Vatican Cardinals were horrified. They told young Popian that he must not flee Communism and must not become Catholic, because this would damage the Vatican's relations with Communist Romania and the Romanian Orthodox Church.67

       Little has changed in Rome since then. Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X related in a recent interview that he had met a schismatic [Orthodox] bishop who wanted to convert to the Catholic Church. Bishop Fellay advised him to deal directly with Rome. When the Orthodox bishop told the Vatican he wanted to become a Catholic, “panic ensued. The following day, Cardinal Neves, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops said to the schismatic bishop, ‘Your Excellency, it is not necessary to convert. Since the Council, things have changed! There's no need to convert any more.’”68

       This deliberate refusal to allow a schismatic Orthodox bishop to return to Rome is completely in line with the Balamand Declaration of 1993, negotiated between certain Vatican officials and various Orthodox churches. In this document the Vatican's representative (Cardinal Cassidy of the Pontifical Council for “Christian Unity”) actually agreed that, owing to “radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes” engendered by Vatican II, the Catholic Church will train new priests “to pave the way for future relations between the two churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church.”69

       The claim that the Magisterium's constant teaching on the return of the dissidents (heretics and schismatics) to the one true Church as the only means of true Christian unity is now “outdated ecclesiology” is a heresy, since it flatly contradicts not only the Church's teaching on the return of the dissidents, but also the infallibly defined Catholic dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation.

       The abandonment of the Church's traditional teaching in this area does not represent “charity” toward the separated brethren but rather a retreat from the Church's duty to tell them the simple truth. Again, the result is no boon to non-Catholics, but rather a weakened, scandal-ridden Church which is hardly able to serve as the leaven of society it was meant to be. While the Church, being a divine as well as a human institution, will inevitably be restored to Her former vigor, as She has following other crises in Her past, the Church and the world will undergo great suffering until this crisis of faith is ended.

The Social Kingship of Christ Abandoned

       As a consequence of the Church's unprecedented new orientation since Vatican II, there has also been a de facto abandonment of the Church's constant teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ. According to this teaching, not only individual men, but all nations, are obliged to submit to Christ and conform themselves to His teaching. It is the teaching of Christ, not “dialogue” with unbelievers, that will bring peace to the world; it is His Church that must serve as the chief instrument of world peace. The constant teaching of the Church on this doctrine is summed up with admirable concision by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei:

       Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to Her safekeeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, She is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to making war impossible in the future. For the Church teaches (She alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual. When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests.70

       Speaking of efforts to obtain world peace through a League of Nations, Pope Pius XI declared:

       An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.71

       In order to reinforce this teaching, Pope Pius XI inaugurated the Feast of Christ the King with his encyclical Quas Primas:

       It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute Her Author and Founder in Her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of kings. … [T]he empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: “His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from Her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.” Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ.72

The “Civilization of Love”
Replaces the Conversion of Pagans

       After Vatican II, however, the Social Kingship of Christ was replaced by something called the “civilization of love”—a term coined by Pope Paul VI to describe the utopian notion that “dialogue with the world” would lead to a world brotherhood of religions that would not at all be explicitly Christian. The slogan “civilization of love” has been repeated incessantly since then. As Pope John Paul II described this novel notion in his address for the World Day of Peace in 2001:

       Dialogue leads to a recognition of diversity and opens the mind to the mutual acceptance and genuine collaboration demanded by the human family's basic vocation to unity. As such, dialogue is a privileged means for building the civilization of love and peace that my revered predecessor Paul VI indicated as the ideal to inspire cultural, social, political and economic life in our time. The different religions too can and ought to contribute decisively to this process. My many encounters with representatives of other religions—I recall especially the meeting in Assisi in 1986 and in Saint Peter's Square in 1999—have made me more confident that mutual openness between the followers of the various religions can greatly serve the cause of peace and the common good of the human family.73

       Even the current Pope has been led to think that interreligious prayer meetings such as those at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 are among the very means by which this utopian notion is supposed to be realized. Yet the mere sight of such spectacles would have horrified Pope Pius XI and every one of his predecessors. Meanwhile, the Social Kingship of Christ in a Catholic social order is de facto excluded from the new orientation.

       Of course, the Church's new “ecumenical” and “interreligious” orientation cannot possibly be reconciled with the Message of Fatima, and this explains why, beginning with Vatican II, an effort has been made to revise the Message in keeping with the new orientation, if not to bury it completely.

Must Catholics Accept
the New Orientation of the Church?

       Catholics are bound to submit to the Church's established teaching on faith and morals; they are not bound to submit to new attitudes and orientations of liberalized churchmen who are now saying and doing things unheard-of in the Church's entire history. Thus, Catholics have the right, even the duty, to resist this new orientation arising from the ambiguities of the Council and the opinions of the “new theology”, which conflict with the perennial and infallible Magisterium. For years, Catholics have labored under the misconception that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case. The Council Fathers repeatedly referred to Vatican II as a pastoral Council. That is, it was a Council that dealt not with defining the Faith, but with measures in the realm of practical and prudential judgment—such as the launching of the “ecumenical venture.” The Council's own document, the Preliminary Note (in Latin, Nota Praevia) to Lumen Gentium, states this clearly: “In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”74 No matters of faith and morals were defined “as binding on the Church” concerning the new “ecumenical orientation”, nor as to any of the other novel “pastoral” formulations in the language of the conciliar documents.

       That Vatican II was inferior in authority to a dogmatic council is confirmed by the testimony of the Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris. At his own request, this testimony was not unsealed until after his death:

       I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed.75

       Then there is the important testimony from the Council's Secretary, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Pericle Felici. At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked Archbishop Felici for that which the theologians call the “theological note” of the Council—that is, the doctrinal “weight” of its teachings. Archbishop Felici replied:

       In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.76

       He also said:

       We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.77

       Pope Paul VI himself observed that “Given the Council's pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.”78

       Thus, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of faith. The Council's verbose and ambiguous documents are not on a par with the doctrinal pronouncements of past councils. Vatican II's novelties are not unconditionally binding on the faithful, nor did the Council itself ever say that they were.

       And yet the ambiguous teachings of the Council, and the Church's new post-conciliar orientation, have resulted in nothing less than what, as we shall see, Cardinal Ratzinger himself has called the “demolition of bastions” in the Church—including the demolition of the Message of Fatima. As we will now demonstrate, this destructive undertaking has largely fulfilled the dreams of the Church's enemies, and the prophetic warnings of the Message of Fatima as reported by Pope Pius XII.


1. A full account of this fascinating history is found in The Whole Truth About Fatima - Vol. III by Frère Michel of the Holy Trinity, pp. 257-304.

2. Ibid., p. 298.

3. Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican, (Christian Book Club, Palmdale, California, 1968) p. 14.

4. L. Bouyer, Dom Lambert Beauduin, a Man of the Church, Casterman, 1964, pp. 180-181, quoted by Father Dilder Bonneterre in The Liturgical Movement, Ed. Fideliter, 1980, p. 119.

5. Jesuit Father Aparicio was Sister Lucy's confessor and spiritual director from 1926 to 1938. Then he was sent to Brazil as a missionary and corresponded with Sister Lucy over the years. In 1950 he returned to Portugal for a short while and visited Sister Lucy both in 1950 and in 1951 without difficulty. Father Aparicio testified that in August 1960, during a month-long visit to Portugal, he was not allowed to speak to Sister Lucy: “I have not been able to speak to Sister Lucy because the Archbishop could not give the permission to meet her. The conditions of isolation in which she finds herself have been imposed by the Holy See. Consequently, no one may speak to her without a licence from Rome. The Archbishop has only a very limited number of those licences.” (Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, Immaculate Heart Publications, 1994, pp. 33-34.)

The situation has not changed since then. On January 16, 1983 Father Joseph de Sainte-Marie, O.C. wrote to the eminent Catholic layman Hamish Fraser to advise that: “Moreover, I remind you—she (Sister Lucy) herself reminded me recently in a request that I had addressed to her—that Sister Lucia (Lucy) cannot speak to anyone on the question of the apparitions without the express permission of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or of the Holy Father himself.” (The Fatima Crusader, No. 13-14, p. 13) And on March 19, 1983 Sister Lucy told the Papal Nuncio to Portugal, Most Reverend Sante Portalupi, that she had not been able to comment earlier on the inadequacy of the 1982 consecration ceremony (of the world, not Russia) because the Holy See had not given her permission to speak: “The Consecration of Russia has not been made as Our Lady demanded. I could not say so (before) because I did not have permission of the Holy See.” (Ibid. at p. 3, and The Fatima Crusader, Issue 16, Sept.-Oct. 1984, p. 22ff, reprinting the article by Father Pierre Caillon in Fidelite Catholique, first printed in 1983.)

On February 19, 1990, Msgr. A. Duarte de Almeida, chaplain to the Coimbra Carmel, stated the following: “in order to meet Sister Lucy, it is necessary to obtain Cardinal Ratzinger's permission.” (In David Boyce, “Fatima Inquest - August 1990”, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 35, Winter 1990-1991, p. 13).

As recently as the purported “interview” of Sister Lucy by Msgr. Bertone on November 17, 2001, Msgr. Bertone admitted (in his communiqué concerning the interview) that it had been conducted with the consent of Cardinal Ratzinger. Thus, as recently as 2001 even a high-ranking Vatican prelate needed the Holy See's permission to speak with Sister Lucy.

6. See Jean Madiran, “The Vatican-Moscow Agreement”, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 16, September-October, 1984, p. 5. Also articles on pages 4, 7, and 11 in The Fatima Crusader, Issue 17, February-April, 1985. See also Atila Sinke Guimarães, “The Metz Pact”, Catholic Family News, Sept. 2001.

7. Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, Encyclical on Atheistic Communism, March 19, 1937. See also quotation on p. 61 referenced by footnote 42 of this chapter.

8. A more complete account of this is found in The Rhine flows into the Tiber, Father Ralph Wiltgen, (New York: Hawthorne, 1967; TAN, 1985) pp. 272-278.

9. E.g., The Rhine flows into the Tiber by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen; Pope John's Council by Michael Davies (Angelus Press, Kansas City, Missouri); and even Vatican II Revisited, (see next footnote) which sings praises of the reform.

10. Most Reverend Aloysius Wycislo S.J., Vatican II Revisited, Reflections By One Who Was There, p. x, Alba House, Staten Island, New York.

11. Ibid., p. 33.

12. Ibid., p. 27.

13. The Wanderer, August 31, 1967, p. 7.

14. Council Daybook, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D.C., vol. 1, pp. 25, 27.

15. Vatican II Revisited, Reflections By One Who Was There, pp. 27-34.

16. Bishop Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 54.

17. Atila Sinke Guimarães, Animus Delendi (The Desire to Destroy), (Tradition in Action, Los Angeles, California, 2001) p. 128. The exact title is Animus Delendi - I (the first of two books with this title).

18. Ibid.

19. “Vital life” seems to be just another term for the “Vital Imminence” condemned in Pope Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, Pascendi. See p. 8, English translation by Newman Press.

20. Greenstock, David, “Thomism and the New Theology”, The Thomist (October, 1950). The entire article is well worth reading if one wishes to grasp the erroneous nature of the “New Theology”.

21. Published in the Angelicum in 1946. First English translation published in Catholic Family News, August 1997, “Where is the New Theology Taking Us?”

22. Animus Delendi - I, p. 129.

23. Ibid., pp. 146-149.

24. These observations are from Msgr. Kelly's book The Battle for the American Church, quoted by John Vennari in “Vatican Praises Purveyor of Heresy”, The Fatima Crusader, Spring/Summer 1998.

25. Ibid.

26. Cited from Guimarães, Animus Delendi - I, p. 60.

27. Ibid., p. 61.

28. Ibid., p. 59.

29. Ibid., p. 62.

30. Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Faith and Reason.

31. Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 88-89.

32. Yves Marsaudon, Oecumènisme vu par un Maçon de Tradition (pp. 119-120).

33. Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 88-89.

34. Ibid., p. 100.

35. Bishop Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, p. 64.

36. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, (Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 1988) p. 229. Here Archbishop Lefebvre also notes that the Communist newspaper Izvestia demanded that Pope Paul VI condemn him and his seminary at Ecône.

37. The progressivist periti at the Council are on record stating, “We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council, we shall draw the conclusions implicit in it.” In Father Ralph Wiltgen's book, The Rhine flows into the Tiber, p. 242.

38. The progressivist Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was the major architect of the liturgical revolution which culminated in the New Mass (Novus Ordo). He was eventually banished from the Vatican to Iran because Pope Paul VI was shown documents demonstrating that Bugnini was a Freemason. Michael Davies devotes an entire chapter to Archbishop Bugnini in Pope Paul's New Mass, (Angelus Press, Kansas City, 1992) Chapter 24.

39. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1987) p. 334.

40. Speech to the Lombard College, December 7, 1968.

41. Speech of June 30, 1972.

42. Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, Encyclical on Atheistic Communism, March 19, 1937.

43. Yves Congar, O.P., “Le Concile au jours le jours deuxième section” (“The Council day by day, second session”), (Paris, Cerf, 1964) p. 115.

44. In truth, there can be no such thing as a “Counter-Syllabus”, since Blessed Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of 1864 is plainly a solemn, definitive teaching binding on all Catholics (can. 750 § 2). In Paragraph 6 of the Encyclical Quanta Cura which was issued with the Syllabus on Dec. 8, 1864, Blessed Pope Pius IX stated solemnly: “Amid, therefore, so great perversity of depraved opinions, We, well remembering Our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for Our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to Us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right to raise up Our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by Our Apostolic Authority, We reprobate, proscribe and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this Letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned. (Our emphasis) Taken from The Popes Against Modern Errors, (TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1999) p. 21.

45. Yves Congar, La Crise d'Eglise et Msgr. Lefebvre, (Paris, Cerf, 1977) p. 54.

46. Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 100.

47. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382.

48. Ibid., p. 191.

49. L'Osservatore Romano, English Weekly Edition, July 2, 1990, p. 5.

50. Ibid.

51. In the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII taught that “the true Church of Jesus Christ ... is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church.” This clearly means that the Church of Christ is not composed of the Catholic Church and other “Christian” denominations. Pope Pius XII reiterated this doctrine in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis: “The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”

52. Taken from Vatican II, the Work That Needs to Be Done, edited by David Tracy with Hans Küng and Johann Metz (Concillium, Seabury Press, NY, 1978) p. 91 (emphasis added).

53. L'Osservatore Romano, Italian edition, October 8, 2000, p. 4: “Quando i Padri conciliar sostituirono la parola ‘è’ con la parola ‘subsistit’ lo fecera con un scopo ben preciso. Il concetto espresso da ‘è’ (essere) è piu ampio di quello espresso da ‘sussistere.’ ‘Sussistere’ un modo ben preciso di essere, ossia essere come soggeto che esiste in sé. I Padri conciliari dunque intendevano dire che l'essere della Chiesa in quanto tale è un entità piu ampia della Chiesa cattolica romana.”

54. See statements by Father Schillebeeckx in the Dutch magazine De Bauzuin, No. 16, 1965, quoted in the French translation in Itineraires, No. 155, 1971, p. 40.

55. Frankfurter Allgemeine, September 22, 2000; Italian translation in L'Osservatore Romano, October 8, 2000.

56. Adista, Feb. 26, 2001. English translation quoted from “Where Have They Hidden the Body?” by Christopher Ferrara, The Remnant, June 30, 2001.

57. “We, with the approval of the sacred council, teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.” (D.S. 1839)

58. “But if anyone presumes to contradict this Our definition (God forbid that he do so): let him be anathema.” (D.S. 1840)

59. AAS 42-142.

60. “On the Ecumenical Movement,” December 20, 1949.

61. (Emphasis added) Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Joseph Ratzinger [Paulist Press, New York, 1966], p. 65-66. This section of the book focuses on the deliberate ecumenical foundation on which is based the Council document Lumen Gentium. For a more complete discussion of Father Ratzinger's book, see “Vatican II vs. the Unity Willed by Christ,” by J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, Dec. 2000.

62. Even if Cardinal Ratzinger would completely change his own personal views to a more orthodox position, the Council texts themselves remain ambiguous, imprecise, and appear to be oriented toward an unorthodox ecumenism which does not seek the conversion of non-Catholics to Catholicism.

63. E. Schillebeeckx, OP, Igreja ou igrejas?, in V.A. Cinco problemas que desafiam a Igreja hoje, pp. 26f. Cited from In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Atila Sinke Guimarães, (Maeta, Metairie, 1997) p. 243.

64. SIDIC is an association identifying itself as Catholic that was “founded in Rome in 1965 at the request of a group of experts of the Second Vatican Council following the promulgation of Nostra Aetate”, to promote Catholic-Jewish “dialogue”. The Rome-based SIDIC has local representatives in the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, France, Holland, Israel, Italy, United States.

65. The full quote reads, “Lefebvre's refusal to accept ecumenism originates in clear teachings from the Magisterium: the encyclical Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII (1896); the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI (1928); the Dec. 20, 1949, Instruction of the Holy Office regarding ecumenism. The only ecumenism accepted by Lefebvre and his followers is that which strives for the unconditional return of the members of other confessions to the one Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. This hardened sectarianism is precisely the kind of logic which Vatican II, through profound reflection on the nature of the Church, refused to accept. Though rooted in Tradition [sic] the scope of the Council's reflection was without precedent in the history of Christianity. For integralists, ecumenism is one of the fundamental betrayals by Vatican II.” (Emphasis added) Service International de Documentation Judéo-Chrètienne, Rome, [English edition from Washington, D.C.] Vol. XXXII, No. 3, 1999, p. 22.

66. The verbal ambiguity used by Vatican II to advance this false notion is found in Lumen Gentium 8 wherein it says “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” rather than Pope Pius XII's definition that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church [Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII]. See previous discussion and footnotes in this chapter concerning the origin and effect of this ambiguity, as admitted by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

67. For a brief account of Father Popian's story, see “Vatican says, Do Not Convert to Catholicism”, John Vennari, Catholic Family News, Dec. 2001. See also “Vatican says, ‘You Must Not Become Catholic!’”, John Vennari, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 69, Winter 2002. Father Popian's testimony on audio cassette entitled “Vatican's Ostpolitik and Ecumenism Tried to Prevent My Conversion to Catholicism” is also available from the Fatima Center, 17000 State Route 30, Constable, NY 12926.

68. “We are a Sign of Contradiction”, interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX, Latin Mass Magazine, Fall 2001, p. 11.

69. Balamand Statement, nn. 13 and 30. The Balamand Statement (1993) was cited approvingly by Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59.

70. Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei, Encyclical Letter on the Peace of Christ in His Kingdom, December 23, 1922.

71. Ibid.

72. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, Encyclical on the Kingship of Christ, December 11, 1925.

73. Pope John Paul II's Message for World Day of Peace, January 1, 2001. “Dialogue Between Cultures for a Civilization of Love and Peace”.

74. Addenda to Lumen Gentium, Explanatory Note of the Theological Commission, in Walter M. Abbott, S.J., ed., The Documents of Vatican II, (New York: America Press, 1966) pp. 97-98.

75. Bishop Morris' personal testimony reported in an article by Kieron Wood, Catholic World News, January 22, 1997.

76. The Documents of Vatican II, Editor Walter Abbott, S.J., p. 98.

77. Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 107.

78. Pope Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966, in Inseganmenti di Paolo VI, vol. 4, p. 700, cited from Atila Sinke Guimarães, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Metairie, Louisiana: Maeta, 1997; TAN 1999, pp. 111-112.



The Devil's Final Battle Order Desk:

Order On-Line Now Get The Printable Order Form
Order On-line Toll Free Mail Order

Use your Credit Card
to order The Devil's Final Battle for quick delivery.

At: 1-800-954-8737 and we will be happy to take your credit card details.

Click Here to go to our printable order form to mail along with your check or money order.