There are some interesting parallels between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the spiritual terrorism since Vatican II, which began on October 11, 1962.
We have been repeatedly told that since 9/11, everything has changed. Everything is different. We look at terrorism in a new way. The relationship between security and freedom has changed dramatically. Basically, nothing is as it was before September 11, 2001. The USA is now "irrevocably" committed to this "new war" against terrorism.
Sound familiar? With Vatican II, the Church has allegedly taken on a "new direction" and shed her "old skin." She is said to have begun a new era, a new age, committing herself to "ecumenism" and "dialogue" in an "irrevocable" way (John Paul II's very own words).
In his encyclical Dives in Misericordia, published in 1980, John Paul II writes: "In continuing the great task of implementing the Second Vatican Council, in which we can rightly see a new phase of the self-realization of the church. . . ." (par. 173).
What? A "new phase of self-realization"? What is this? Has the Church become Hegelian? We have different "stages of consciousness" now, through which the Church passes? Such statements ought to ring the alarm bells of every Catholic! There is no such thing as "self-realization" in the Church, or "stages of consciousness." This is Hegelian nonsense (G.W.F. Hegel, died 1831, was a philosopher of the worst sort, whose thought was embraced by many modernists, such as Teilhard de Chardin. In Hegel, contradictions are not problematic but good.).
Think about it. Once we start speaking about some sort of "self-realization" at a "stage" which the "pilgrim Church" has now "reached," what's to keep this "stage" from "further expanding" into all sorts of other heretical nonsense? Perhaps one day the "Church" will "realize" the "stage" at which all religions are really one and the same thing, all mere "expressions" of a "desire" of the "human spirit" for God? And perhaps one day the Church will "realize" that she has been wrong for so long concerning dogma and morals? And honestly, just how far away are we from this modernistic heresy? How many prelates and clergy in the post-Vatican II church already believe this, anyway?
Perhaps the bluntest admission of the arrival of a new religion was made by John Paul II as Cardinal Karol Wojtyla in his 1977 book Sign of Contradiction: "The Church of our day has become particularly conscious of this truth; and it was in the light of this truth that the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature" [Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction (New York, NY: Seabury Press, 1979), p. 17].
This is absolute heresy. The Church cannot redefine her nature because it does not change because the Church is what she is. "Nature" denotes what something is, and what the Church is doesn't change in the 1960's. We are supposed to believe here, however, that for 1900 years the Church's definition of her own nature was defective or a mere reflection of the times. But see, now that the "glorious" 1960's had arrived, finally came the great "enlightenment"!
Note how Wojtyla uses the term "Church of our day," a notion so tenuous and flimsy that I am reminded of my favorite restaurant's "soup of the day." One thing about the "soup of the day" is certain: it won't be the same tomorrow.
That clearly a new religion has come into being is further attested to by the constant reference to Vatican II as a "new Pentecost." The true Pentecost occurred in 33 AD, and it is traditionally understood as the "birthday" of the Church. It was then that the Catholic Church came officially into being, and by that time the Old Covenant had completely ceased and was forever ended. What meaning can a "new" Pentecost have if not the creation of another church? A false church?
The Catholic Church's greatest visionary ever, Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nineteenth-century German Augustinian nun who bore the stigmata, once told of the following vision she had:
"I saw many pastors cherishing dangerous ideas against the Church. . . . They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise."
[Rev. Karl Schmoeger, The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 2, pp. 352-53; available at www.tanbooks.com]
One cannot start a new religion masquerading as the Catholic religion just like that. It has to be convincing. If John XXIII had simply started to issue new teachings in encyclicals, it would have never worked. Besides, since encyclicals do not leave too much of an impression on the secular world, his successor, whoever he would have been, could have simply ignored or contradicted them, and the flame of the new religion would have been smothered right at the outset.
No, something else had to be done. Catholicism had to be reinvented from the bottom up. There was only one way to do it: a council needed to be called. With no specific purpose other than some vague notion of "teaching doctrines more faithfully" and "making the Faith relevant to modern man" (excuse me?), a perfect ground for confusion and obfuscation was laid. Under the pretext and the half-truth that the substance of the Faith was one thing and the expression of that Faith another, traditional terminology was laid aside, thereby opening the floodgates to the sewers of heresy and error and all sorts of impiety and iniquity. Because words have meanings.
The council, Vatican II, was the perfect "Ground Zero." This was the ground from which the new religion would spring, and since it inevitably aroused the attention of the entire secular world, it would be very difficult for John XXIII's successor, no matter who he would be, to stop, cancel, or undo it. The council necessarily involved the entire Church in a very substantial way. It would obviously issue numerous documents, and it would always involve the collaboration of hundreds of bishops. A better "rock" on which to build the new religion can hardly be imagined. Now it was not just the work of John XXIII, it was the work of the entire episcopate, so to speak.
We find this corroborated in the post-conciliar writings and daily affairs of the Novus Ordo Establishment. Look up almost any issue you want, and the references will always be to Vatican II primarily and mostly. At times, they will still refer to Pius XII and other pre-conciliar material, but only if convenient, if possible at all, and then often only secondarily. Ask a question on EWTN about Scriptural inerrancy, the function of Sacred Tradition, the essence of the Church, the significance of the Redemption, the purpose of liturgy, or missionary activity, and chances are you will immediately be directed to Vatican II. It is the alpha and omega of the New Religion.
Pick up the New Catechism and see how many footnotes there are to Vatican II (and after). Check John Paul II's encyclicals and see how many footnotes there are to Vatican II (and after). You'd think Vatican II was the only event in the Church that ever really mattered. You'd think that Vatican II is a blueprint of the Church, a sort of "fundamental constitution" of what the Catholic Church is and does, a "ground zero" from which the Church derives everything she is, has, does, and works towards. At Vatican II, the hierarchy "reinvented" Catholicism. They wiped the slate clean, as it were, and started afresh. This is the point from which all further "Catholic" thought was to develop. Everything before is either forgotten, ignored, or downplayed.
This council was a freemasonic plan. An apostate of the worst kind, ex-canon Roca (1830-1893), ordained a priest in 1858 but later defecting to the Freemasons and being excommunicated, forecasted the hijacking of the Catholic Church in eerie detail. Here are some of his quotes:
"The new church, which might not be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original form of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and canon jurisdiction from Rome."
"…the divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council, which will restore to it the venerable simplicity [sic] of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization."
"The papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge."
These scary quotes are taken from Marquis de Franquerie, L'Infallibilite Pontificale, p. 48, which, in turn, is quoted in Bishop Rudolf Graber's book Athanasius and the Church of Our Time (Hawthorne, CA: Christian Book Club of America, 1974), p. 35. (I believe this book can still be purchased from www.omnicbc.com)
The first two quotes have definitely come to pass, and John Paul II is trying his best to make the third one come true as well, at least outwardly. Years ago, he invited Catholic and Protestant theologians to bring forth suggestions as to how the papacy could be changed to make it more ecumenical, though-and here comes the ever-recurring disclaimer-while retaining all that is strictly necessary for the papacy to remain, well, the papacy. Such contradictory notions we find all the time in John Paul II. He goes to Assisi and invites the diabolical false religions to "pray for peace," and then he says he's not engaging in religious indifferentism. He condemns abortion (and rightly so) but then mingles with the Anglican Archlayman of Canterbury and his false religion, which supports abortion. He claims to be totally devoted to Mary, but then refuses to heed her requests.
Though of course not everything was perfect when Pius XII died on October 9 of 1958, still, we can say that, to use some nautical imagery, the Church that Pius XII left behind was a beautiful flagship. Today, 45 years later, she is a paddle boat, listing badly and taking on bilge water that threatens to capsize it.
In 1958, John XXIII inherited a well-cultivated vineyard, and when only 20 years later Paul VI died, the vineyard was devastated. Yes, it all happened in less than 20 years. And I don't mean to suggest that Pius XII was a perfect Pope. He made imprudent decisions, he raised Roncalli to the rank of cardinal, he gave Montini the see of Venice. No question, the clerics and prelates of the Novus Ordo religion all came out of the pre-Vatican II Church. But weak or imprudent though he may have been, by all means, the Church was still flourishing greatly under Pius XII. No one could have imagined that, essentially, 12 years after his death, the Church was virtually unrecognizable. The damage that John XXIII and Paul VI did in less than 12 years was so devastating that the diabolical has to have been involved.
Again, this was made possible only by Ground Zero, the Council. It was the sine qua non for the success of the Revolution, and like 9/11/2001, nothing would be the same after. But with God's grace, we can turn the clock back. Yes, we can. In fact, we have promises from Heaven that in the end, the Church will be even more glorious than before. Russia will be consecrated to Mary's Immaculate Heart. The Revolution will be defeated. It is only a matter of time. In the meantime, persevere. Assist at the True Mass only. Make your First Saturday reparations. Pray your Rosaries. Make the Stations of the Cross. Fast. Do penance. And always hold to the Catholic Faith, without which no one can be saved.
May Christ be blest!