The following are a few remarks written by an author I discovered only days ago. Just what was Vatican II?
The immaculate Bride of Christ was despoiled and handed over to enemies at Vatican II? What is this “other hand” which wielded so much power at that Council? And how could the Vicar of Christ play pattycake with it to the bitter end?
A quest to be united with the world? Was that the true aim of Vatican II? Plus: doubts about who was really “at the helm” at Vatican II (and, by extension, since it)?
Modernist pirates seized control of the Barque of Peter at Vatican II? And the saintly, misunderstood Pope Paul VI went along with the whole thing?
Destructive Modernists succeeded in embedding anti-Catholic ambiguity in the solemn declarations of an ecumenical council? And Paul VI lent the authority of his name to it all?
Paul VI envisioned a small remnant who would resist the “non-Catholic way of thinking” which triumphed at Vatican II? How odd….
You mean both Paul VI and John Paul II spoke of an apocalyptic confrontation between the true Chruch and an impostor Church, a conflict which was, by all appearances, ushered in during the time of Vatican II? But that’s crazy talk!
+ + +
I hope the problem is as evident to you as it is to me.
The author, David Martin, embraces all the popes since the
Fecund Second Vatican Conchshell Council as genuine Vicars of Christ. And yet, at the same time, he regards the entire (papally ratified and promoted) Conciliar achievement as a scandalous corruption of Catholic teaching by way of ambiguous compromise at best, or as an outright Satanic coup d’état at worst. Lament though he may at how cunningly Paul VI was beguiled by Modernist/ Masonic/ Communist infiltrators, Martin ultimately concedes that Pope Paul VI ratified the Conciliar putsch with his sacrosanct signature. Much like Pope Honorius I, then, Paul VI will be forever regarded as a “helper of heresy” who followed the ecclesiological equivalent of Sergius in their subtle errors. Well, to be more precise, he’s to be so regarded only if one also regards the Second Vatican Council as the work of the enemies of the Faith. If, by contrast, one equanimously embraces the Conciliar novelties, then one can only applaud Paul VI for ratifying and enforcing them with such apparent zeal.
Either way, as I went to great lengths to show in my post about being “between a Rock and a dark place,” one must make a choice. One must either embrace the Conciliar reforms as the work of our legitimate pastors, whereupon one must render un-kvetching submission of mind and heart to the ongoing Conciliar Project, or one must recognize the patent rupture with Catholic Tradition which the Conciliar reforms embody, and reject them as the the perifidious fruit of usurpers of the magisterial and canonical machinery.
The two books by Mr. Martin which I have cited in this post were published in 2013, apparently while Benedict XVI was still pope. I’m curious to know how Mr. Martin, whose zeal for orthodoxy seems as genuine as it is deep, regards the pontificate of Francis, though I have yet to explore the matter. Meanwhile, the dilemma stands: take the red pill and clap along with our Conciliar shepherds, or take the blue pill and reject the fruit as vehemently as one must reject the seeds–as vehemently as one must reject the sowers of such seed. As Our Lord said, Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No.