Did Paul VI Condemn Vatican II?

Image

Religious Liberty, Collegial Equality, Ecumenical Fraternity

How does it happen that the gates of hell are now causing us so much trouble? The Church has always been disturbed by persecution and heresies, by conflicts with temporal powers, sometimes by immoral conduct of the clergy, sometimes even of popes. But this time the crisis seems to go much deeper, since it affects the Faith itself.  The Modernism we face is not a heresy like the others: it is the main drain of all heresies. Persecution now comes not only from outside but from within the Church. The scandal of dissolute living, or just giving up, has become endemic among the clergy, while the mercenaries who abandon the sheep to the wolves are encouraged and honoured.

I am sometimes accused of painting too black a picture of the situation, of viewing it too disapprovingly, of taking pleasure at being disgruntled over changes which are perfectly logical and necessary.  Yet the same Pope who was the heart and soul of Vatican II commented several times on the decomposition on which I have commented so sadly. On December 7, 1969 Paul VI said, “The Church finds herself in a period of anxiety, of self-criticism, one could say of self-destruction. It is like an internal upheaval, serious and complex–as if the Church were flagellating herself.”

The following year he added, “In many areas the Council has not so far given us peace but rather stirred up troubles and problems that in no way serve to strengthen the the Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls.” Then, going on to raise a cry of alarm, on June 29, 1972 (Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul), “The smoke of Satan has entered by some crack into the temple of God; doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction and confrontation  have come to the surface… doubt has entered our consciences.”

Where is the crack? We can pinpoint the time with precision…

Click here to read the rest of this chapter from Archbishop Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

Comment

Religious liberty, collegial equality and ecumenical fraternity are concepts so commonplace in modern society that most contemporary Catholics are puzzled at the very idea that there could be anything wrong with them.  How can this collective error be corrected?  

And is Pope Paul VI less culpable than his successors in the Petrine Office with regard to the crisis in the Church post-Vatican II? After all, he did, it seems, try to raise the alarm… didn’t he?  He did, in fact, condemn the Council… didn’t he?

62 responses

  1. The Revolution of 1789 may have been the crack through which the smoke of Satan entered the world (actually it was more likely Luther), but Montini himself was the crack, along with Roncalli, through which it entered the Church, and was then enthroned on June 29, 1963 (according to Fr. Malachi Martin). They were both liberals, modernists, humanists, both under suspicion during the reign of Pius XII for their forbidden diplomatic ties with Communists.

    What better evidence for the “diabolical disorientation” than Paul VI lamenting the state of the Church, without realizing that he himself was responsible for it? But I disagree that he condemned the Council, no more than he really condemned any of the errors and heresies that were spreading throughout the Church like wildfire during his reign. He noted them, but never corrected them. In fact, he lived and died by the Council and his new Mass, and did everything he could to promote his destructive agenda. I used to think that Paul VI was the worst Pope in the history of the Church, until Francis the Red-Nosed appeared.

    I doubt the errors of which you speak, Editor, will be corrected until a Pope performs the Consecration, at which point, we hopefully presume, many scales will fall from many eyes.

    • Great Pretender,

      “Montini himself was the crack, along with Roncalli, through which it entered the Church.”

      I couldn’t agree more. If Paul VI had acted in time, when he saw the destruction being caused by the Council, he could have changed the course of history, instead of wringing his hands and doing nothing.

  2. Pope Paul VI also said in his June 1972 homily:
    “We believe, that something preternatural has come into the world specifically to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking out in a hymn of joy for having recovered in fullness the awareness of herself.”
    (“Crediamo, in qualcosa di preternaturale venunto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nell’inno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé.”)

  3. Perfect, 3LS. The destruction of the Church seen as the recovery of her fullness = the diabolical disorientation. Impervious to reality, impervious to truth, impervious to Christ, impervious to Mary, impervious to faith and Tradition. That is why I believe this invincible blindness, among the useful idiots (and Paul VI was the Useful Idiot par excellence) will disappear only through the supernatural power of the Consecration. It will never matter that modernism has sent the Church to her Cross: the reply will always be, “We are in the midst of a new creation.”

    (But if the Church was destined from her birth to re-create the Passion of her Founder, as His Mystical Body, then perhaps we could say that modernism is simply the means to that end. As Judas was the means to the Crucifixion.)

    Abp. Lefebvre, when asked whether he thought Montini was a freemason, replied “It doesn’t matter: he thinks like one.”

  4. I am an adherent to the viewpoint of a certain Fr. Denis Fahey CSSp. He said that ‘history can only be understood as the acceptance or rejection of Our Lord’s programme for order’. Therefore, we can see that the Protestant reformation, the French revolution of 1789, the Russian revolution of 1917 and the social revolution of the 1960s, along with Vatican II, was a clear and wholehearted rejection of Our Lord’s programme for order. When I read the comments of Paul VI, I don’t see an artisan condemning his own handiwork, I see a man condemning others for the way in which his reforms were carried out. The people at the top never blame themselves, they always blame the lackeys.

  5. Dear Editor,
    I read in RIVAROL n°3136 of 10th April 2014 that “Angelo Roncalli was initiated into Freemasonry in 1935 to the rank of Rosicrucians…” Do you have any information on this?

    • Lionel,

      No, I’ve never heard that but neither do I pay any attention to these claims.

      We cannot possibly know for sure in most of these cases, whether or not someone was a Freemason. In the case of Archbishop Bugnini, it seems very well documented that he was a Freemason. One of our top Scots Catholic journalists published details including his Masonic name, some years ago, but in most cases it is virtually impossible to verify membership of a secret society like the Freemasons.

      All we need to know is where he went wrong in his conduct as Pope. His motives etc. cannot be definitively known and we are prohibited from drawing any conclusions about possible motives.

      What we DO know about Pope Roncalli is bad enough. Let’s not enquire further!

      • Thank you very much!
        I was dubitative and just wanted to verify.
        One thing I know is that when at the Council Vatican II cardinal Suenens among others asked Paul VI to canonize John XXIII, he refused categorically to do so…
        Pau VI must have had some idea on this issue!…

    • Pope Roncalli, most certainly did have links with Freemasonry. He received his red hat from none other than the President of France, M. Vincent Auriol, a noted Atheist and Freemason. The President claimed he was utilising the ancient right of King of France to elevate the Patriarch of Venice to the Sacred College. Tell me, why would a Republican statesman, an Atheist and a Freemason do this? Think on that NO French President before or after did this, even practising Catholics such as Coty or De Gaulle- and De Gaulle was a royalist, which tells me he would be more willing than most to claim the royal prerogatives.

      • Catholic Convert,

        Leo has answered this claim about the President of France in a response to Dowden. I’m unable to spare the time to search it out, but I suspect it’s on the Luther thread. Popes give red hats, not politicians or presidents.

          • Catholic Convert,

            Nobody’s saying he was a good pope. Just that it was no President of France who gave him the red hat.

            Look, it’s a huge mistake to focus on these kinds of sensationalist claims. They simply do not matter. Who cares? All we know is that he was a very bad pope. So were many of his predecessors. We don’t hunt around to find out details of WHY they were bad – we just take care not to be unduly influenced by any false teachings which they may have promoted privately. We know they didn’t/couldn’t make any false teaching binding on us, so the rest is by the way.

            Take my humbug 😀 advice, CC, and don’t get into the habit of worrying about or seeking information on this sort of stuff. If you’re going to get into a habit at all, try the Carmelites 😀

            • CC

              If you would like a choice, the masons have quite a nice rig- out too but have some bad habits though.

            • In the dispute Catholic Convert vs Editor, the Editor has got it wrong (again). It is not a sensationalist claim – the President did confer the red hat. It was a ‘white tie’ diplomatic do, following a convention that heads of state would confer the honour. Dr Roncalli had had the good sense to abandon Pius X’s utterly daft policies and revert to Leo XIII’s more astute line. He de-fused an extremely tense situation where perhaps 30 Nazi collaborators among the French episcopate were going to be sacked (if not worse). All the President did was follow the usual protocol, except that he threw in a Legion on Honour for good luck – the ribbon rather clashed with the nuncio’s watered silk costume. So, nothing sinister, nothing sensationalist, nothing masonic. Just a good diplomatic job well done and it looks like higher honours still are coming the nuncio’s way,

              The custom, incidentally, lasted into the 1960s when the authorities started to get protests that the Spanish Dictator, Franco, was no longer a suitable person to be handing out red hats.

              • Dowden,

                Would you provide a link to verify your claim that the President of France appointed cardinals (conferred red hats) I always understood that at the time of the western schism, the king had some influence over the papal candidates but not to the extent that they appointed cardinals. I’d appreciate a link to read, thanks.

  6. Pope Paul VI presents a very real problem for the Church – a problem that she will one day have to confront. Take a look at this quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:

    “For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is it that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply.”

    (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration to Figaro, shortly after his suspension by Paul VI, August 27th, 1976)

    Did Pope Paul VI condemn the Second Vatican Council? No, I don’t think he did. From what I know about the Pope Paul VI pontificate, he was a very weak man who was incredibly indecisive. However, this isn’t the full story. I don’t think Pope Paul VI was any less culpable than his predecessors. Indeed, he did a lot to damage the papacy.

    Remember, this was the man who gave away the Papal Tiara to an American museum and his Ring of the Fisherman to the Archbishop of Canterbury! He also oversaw the implementation of Vatican II. If he condemned it, why would he allow it to be implemented.

    Many people point to Humanae Vitae and declare that Pope Paul VI was a great pope. Well, I think Humanae Vitae was more about the Holy Ghost protecting the Church. We know that Paul VI set up a commission to study the issue of artificial contraception. This committee recommended that the ban be lifted. Now, why on earth did the pope set up this commission in the first place? Why set up a commission to study something that had already been condemned several times by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium – including the recently published Gaudium Et Spes?

    It is easy to say he was a weak man. Undoubtedly he was, but this isn’t the whole story. He was a liberal. I will finish with another quote from Archbishop Lefebvre.

    “The real solution… is given us by a friend of Paul VI, Cardinal Danielou. In his Memoirs, published by a member of his family, the cardinal clearly states, “It is clear that Paul VI is a liberal Pope.” Paul VI repeated the exact words of Lammenais at the end of the Council: “L’Eglise ne demande que la liberte”—the Church only seeks freedom—a doctrine condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX. This explains the historic evolution experienced by the Church over the last few decades, and it describes Paul VI’s personal behavior very well. The liberal, as I have told you, is a man who lives in constant contradiction. He states the principles, and does the opposite; he is perpetually incoherent.”

    • “Many people point to Humanae Vitae and declare that Pope Paul VI was a great pope. Well, I think Humanae Vitae was more about the Holy Ghost protecting the Church.”

      Absolutely. Well said.

      Indeed, a very interesting post altogether, Petrus. I’d forgotten about the Tiara and Fisherman’s ring. Disgraceful.

      For the record, folks, I don’t think for a second that Paul VI condemned the Council. He self-evidently did not. But you have to admit, I do have a flair for annoying headlines – yes? no? 😀

  7. I think Paul VI was a weak Pope; a character fundamentally unsuited to the role – which is, (supposed to be), after all an absolutist monarchy. Such a role requires a confident, single-minded outlook, which this Pope did not possess.

    I think its clear from some of his pronouncements that he lamented how the Council turned out and its negative effects. He speaks of the smoke of Satan entering the Church “through some fissure”, and mentions how the Council has “not yet” brought us peace or happiness. Its clear he had a negative view and yet did not seem strong enough to attack the Council directly, instead rather dancing around the topic in his way.

    I have a book “Restoring the bastions” which mentions how Paul was unhappy with how things were going during the Council, but was not strong enough to rectify this. An example is given were he was unhappy with one of the documents produced (relating to Church governance / collegiality, if I recall) and yet did not have the backbone to reject it. Instead, he attached a note (soon forgotten) clarifying what he would have preferred the document to say.

    How pathetic – viewed against that context, it is hardly surprising that he dances around the topic vaguely, in his latter lamenting of the Council.

    We do not all relish confrontation, yet its disappointing that he was such a wet-blanket – even if he lacked the courage to reject aspects of the Council himself, he could have called upon men such as ++Lefebvre, or Cardinal Ottaviani etc to do his fighting for him.

    Yet he seems to have just sat transfixed and helpless, doing nothing, like a rabbit in the headlights. At times I wonder if he was not chosen as Pope precisely because he would be so easily to manipulate / defeat. That it is recorded that he was reduced to tears at one point during the Council – when the disagreements between Catholics and Modernists reached fever pitch – shows how utterly unsuited and ineffectual he was for the role of Pope.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      “We do not all relish confrontation, yet its disappointing that he was such a wet-blanket – even if he lacked the courage to reject aspects of the Council himself, he could have called upon men such as ++Lefebvre, or Cardinal Ottaviani etc to do his fighting for him.”

      That’s a very important nail you’ve hit on the head there. It never ceases to amaze me how these modern popes, all of them “utterly unsuited and ineffectual” to quote your words about Paul VI, did not refuse the office when elected. The candidate is always asked if he will accept, and all he/they had to say was “no, thank you.”

      Even when interviewed for Heads of RE posts, I, like the other candidates, was always asked whether, if invited to take the post, would I accept. I know of at least one candidate for a management post in a school in which I was employed, who said “no” – having seen round the school he decided he didn’t want the post. That’s a person of integrity. Taking a post only to make a mess of it, is cowardly. PS, just for the record, that candidate did not meet me on his visit for interview, so don’t blame moi 😀

  8. One of my sons, then only 15 years old, said: “These Popes will have a lot to answer for when you look at the state of the Church today.” So out of the mouths of babes or what? If babes can work it out, why not Popes, bishops, priests and adult Catholics??

    • Olaf419,

      I often think that – why can’t other people see this, why can’t the popes see it? It is just unbelievable that they don’t.

  9. Can someone put forward my cause for canonisation? Believe me, I am an exemplary parent who keeps all the rules. Have I portrayed heroic virtue? Probably. Never mind the old fashioned miracles: we don’t need these anymore. Just canonise me….when I’m dead a few weeks of course!

      • Great Pretender,

        I saw that Onion satire somewhere else (maybe you on another thread?) but they spoil it at the end with the bit about vestments etc. Still, brings a smile. Or should that be “a hollow laugh”? 😀

      • Greatpretender51,

        BIG CLEARANCE SALE IN THE VATICAN

        This pamphlet illustrates perfectly how the Authorities of the Church have lost the “notion of holiness”; they have changed and adapted procedures at their convenience, they notably dismissed the much required “promoter of the faith” and it resulted that they no longer have the sense of discernment, they gave it up. The “essential criterion of Charity” has indeed been abandoned, then it is clear that it is no longer included in the proceedings of canonization… Even those interested far to these questions realized it… Such-and-such personage looks a little nicer than the others, one does not particularly seek to deepen, he looks pleasant, so he is declared “holy” and everyone follows like sheep… and therefore, the Magisterium has become ridiculous and has lost all credibility and that is how “mercenaries” despise their flocks and complete the destruction of our beloved Church… It is simply dreadful and scandalous.
        I do not rejoice about the canonization of the conciliar Popes who “uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ” by substituting “the cult of man” to “that of God” and thus scuttled the Holy Church, leading us inevitably to disaster…
        This is “the man who makes himself God” instead of “God made man”; to the “new religion” correspond “new saints”!
        All this is extremely disturbing and certainly deleterious. LD

    • Crofterlady,

      Worry not – I’ll be there leading the blogging community in a noisy chant along the lines of “Saint Now!” “Immediately if not sooner!”

    • Don’t give up hope of sainthood Crofterlady, if they’ll canonise John Paul II they’ll canonise anyone.

    • Crofterlady,

      Ofcourse, I will put forward the cause for your canonization! You seem like a dutiful parent, you blog on CT and most certainly exercise fraternal charity. I am not going to judge you on whether or not you have portrayed heroic virtue, never! Natural virtue suffices. I’m not sure you have to be dead before the process is begun- we will joyfully recognize your saintliness and celebrate it! 😀

  10. The pics of the tombstone of Pope Paul VI’s mother are very weird. Bishop Fellay said it’s a masonic grave. So there is the possibility that his family was involved in masonry.

    • Crofterlady
      Someone had published photos of her grave and pointed out that her tombstone had masonic symbols. Last year Bishop Fellay gave a sermon or a talk and he said he sent a priest to take photos of it and that it is masonic. I think her name was Judith Alghisi, so if you search that and “grave” you might find them.

      • If you search her name and “masonic tombstone” you might find it faster.
        I think her husband died first so another family member must be responsible, if Mrs. Alghisi was not the author. It’s odd that it’s on her stone and not her husbands. The symbol can probably be deciphered.

    • GP,

      That’s – I think I’m correct in saying – the Bayside website. I take nothing seriously from them.

      I really don’t buy the imposter theories, whether about Pope Paul VI or Sister Lucia. Massive collusion would be required and I honestly can’t see what is to be gained.

    • GP51,

      I don’t think it’s a fake Pope Paul VI. I totally think it’s a fake Sr. Lucia, but I learned that from Dr. Marion Horvat, not Bayside. 🙂
      I disagree with Dr. Horvat about some things, but I have to admit she’s got a lot of guts to tackle the fake Sr. Lucy thing. It’s a ridiculous thing, I didn’t believe it, mainly because I grew up thinking that’s who she was. I saw no adult pictures of Sr. Lucia taken before 1967 except a couple of tiny blurry ones. When I studied Dr. Horvat’s articles I was flabbergasted!
      I’ve done many caricatures and portraits of people, I know faces. It’s not the same woman. She didn’t even try! It’s ludicrous. How did Sr. Lucia change from a swarthy long-faced, full lipped, apple-cheeked, Portugese nun with beautiful deep eyes into a round faced, thin-lipped, pale Polish nun with a completely different eye expression? Where did her lips go? Full lips don’t go away, it’s impossible.
      Furthermore the fake Sr. Lucy sat down with Pope John Paul II and together they decided not to mention Russia in the consecration! She accepted the Novus Ordo Mass and she was always happy, happy. She grapped JPII’s hand right after Holy Communion and kissed it!
      Anyway, kudos to Dr. Horvat for risking ridicule to expose this.

      • 3LittleShepherds,

        What is the point of having a “fake” Sr Lucia (or Paul VI) and what happened to the real one? Why did none of her family identify the fake? Goodness, I wish someone would produce a fake Pope Francis. He’s have to be an improvement on the real one…

        Sorry, but it doesn’t make sense to me. People change. I posted a photo of myself taken over thirty years ago in our February newsletter and have been fighting off proposals of marriage ever since 😀 whereas the up to date photo of myself posted on the blog for April Fool’s Day (say nothing) met with a pronounced silence and not even a hint of it being a fake. People do change in appearance. In the past few months I’ve been stopped twice at the local supermarket by a friend from many years ago. I had to look at her carefully and still didn’t recognise her until she laughed and reminded me (second time in a few short months) of her name. I think she looks totally different from when I knew her in our youth and I can’t explain how it is that she recognises me because I’d kill anyone who suggested I looked like this thirty years ago.

        Did I write “thirty” years ago? And me only 29? I need to stop typing so fast!

        • Hehe. I knew that current pic was you immediately, without reading the caption! I only saw your young picture once (on my phone) but there is no difference between the two except ordinary maturity. Same everything and Irish? eyes, if I’m not mistaken. My mother was very keen on my studying eye expression so that I could do portraits. I could always caricature but learned to actually reproduce the look out of someone’s eyes. From memory Sr. Lucia’s eyes are deep looking and there is a smokey ring around her iris, the look is tender. Lucy #2 has clear eyes, very clean, her expression is almost blank and there’s none of the same person looking out. It isn’t her.

          I don’t know why she would be replaced. I don’t know what the Third Secret stated. I just want to side with Dr. Horvat out of respect for Sr. Lucia.

          On the other hand, I completely understand how hard this is for people. I personally will choose the natural explanation for most conspiracy theories. I just can’t on this one.

          • Well, I must study the photos of the “two” Sr Lucys more closely to see if I can see what you can see, if you see what I mean. I just can’t see the point and I think of all the work and effort that would have to have gone into keeping up such a conspiracy. Somebody, somewhere along the line would surely have blown the whistle. Anyway, might be worth thinking of having a blog discussion on that some time. Then again, how do we know the photos are authentic?

            • It might be good to have a blog about the two “doubles”, Paul VI and Sr Lucy. I’m not sure what to think about that myself, so it might be good to hear what others think.

%d bloggers like this: