VATICAN II: RENEWAL OR A NEW RELIGION?

"A Great Renewal." "A Bigger and Better Church." "A Second Pentecost." That's what we were promised when our bishops returned from Rome after having approved sweeping changes to the Church's liturgy, discipline, and its entire orientation.  And yet despite the initial enthusiasm, four decades later the Church and all of society finds itself in the midst of terrible crisis and confusion. We must ask ourselves: has the present crisis been caused by Vatican II itself or by a "misapplication" of it? Is the true "spirit" of Vatican II one of renewal or one of revolution and of a whole new religion? To begin our study of these questions and related issues, let's compare Vatican II to past Church Councils.

How Does Vatican II Stack Up Against Other Ecumenical Councils?

No-one disputes that the Catholic Church had been flourishing before Vatican II. Pope John XXIII commented on "the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality." (Humanæ Salutis, Dec. 25,1961.) It was probably because the Church was doing so well that the Cardinals were shocked when Pope John first announced on Jan. 25, 1959, his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council.

An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of bishops whose decisions are approved and promulgated by the Pope. Before Vatican II, there were twenty such Councils in the history of the Church. The Cardinals well knew that the Church convokes a Council only in cases of absolute necessity. Cardinal Pellavicini stated:

"To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Cardinals had plenty to fear about having a Council in the 1960?s.

As early as May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI had wanted to convoke an Ecumenical Council to condemn the modern errors of Communism and Modernism. The Cardinals at that time voiced strong opposition to the idea, stating that so many bishops had been imbued with Modernist and liberal ideas that such a Council would do more harm to the Church than good. Cardinal Billot said:

"The worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists...are already getting ready...to bring forth a revolution in the Church, like that of 1789 [in France]." (Fr. R. Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality of The Second Vatican Council, (French publ.), pp. 9-10).

Due to the dangers involved, Pope Pius XI gave up on the idea of an ecumenical council. He had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Quas Primas (Dec. 11, 1925) restating the rights of Christ the King, Mortalium Animos (Jan. 6, 1928) condemning false ecumenism, Casti Connubii (Dec. 31, 1930) condemning the errors of divorce, artificial birth control and abortion, Mit Brennender Sorge (Mar. 14, 1937) condemning certain errors of Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris (Mar. 19, 1937) condemning Communism.

Pope Pius XII decided to resume the project of an Ecumenical Council in 1948, (Fr. R. Dulac, p. 10) because new errors had spread in the Church. But he too had to abandon the idea because by his time ideas of revolution and rebellion had spread to even more bishops and the apparent necessity of such a Council was outweighed by the dangers. Pope Pius XII had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Humani Generis (Aug. 12, 1950) where he condemned several modern errors, including the evolutionary errors of Teilhard de Chardin, and Ad Sinarem Gentem (Oct. 7, 1954) where he condemned certain errors of the Communists.

In 1959, when Pope John XXIII talked about holding Vatican II, the spread of Modernism and revolution among the bishops had grown worse still, and it even affected many Cardinals. It had only been due to the strong-armed rule of Pope Pius XII that the "rebel" clergy had been kept under control. Under the good-hearted Pope John XXIII, the rebels were able to get out of control and let loose their revolution in the Church. Nonetheless, there were several Cardinals who advised Pope John XXIII against having an Ecumenical Council. Buoyed up by his boundless enthusiasm, Pope John XXIII ignored the Cardinals, decided to tempt God and held an Ecumenical Council anyway.

The Cardinals knew that at a doctrinal Council the Modernist bishops would prolong the discussion of definitions endlessly and that such a Council would never end. It was decided that Vatican II would be a pastoral Council. (Fr. R. Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books, p. 20). The fact that Vatican II was a pastoral Council and all the other Ecumenical Church Councils in the Church were doctrinal, makes all the difference in the world.

Doctrinal teachings are always true. Every Catholic must believe the same doctrinal teachings. In fact, anyone who deliberately denies any of the infallibly defined teachings of the Church, if acting willfully and not out of ignorance, is a heretic and is automatically excommunicated from the Church. As Pope Pius XII taught on June 29, 1943, in his encyclical ON THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST:

"Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true Faith."

In order that everyone might clearly understand what they have to believe, doctrinal teachings are always expressed in language that is clear, precise and unambiguous.

Pastoral guidelines and "teachings" cannot be judged to be either "true" or "false." This is because pastoral pronouncements, such as whether books or tape recordings might be useful teaching tools to present the Catholic Faith more effectively, do not apply to all Catholics but are applicable only in those areas where they are pastorally helpful. Thus pastoral pronouncements, rather than being "true" or "false," are instead considered to be "helpful" or "not helpful." And so pastoral pronouncements must be interpreted by each bishop and implemented according to the local situation. The wording of pastoral pronouncements must necessarily be general and vague so that they can take into account the diverse pastoral situations of the whole world, from those of the poor agricultural nations to those of the rich industrialized ones.

The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at an Ecumenical Council. To ensure that the teachings at doctrinal Ecumenical Councils are true and contain no error, the Holy Ghost is solemnly invoked at such Councils. As Pope Pius IX taught on March 12, 1870, at the time of Vatican Council I:

"The Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Ghost... it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what is to be believed."

Doctrinal Ecumenical Councils form part of the Church's solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. By the solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost, each and every doctrinal teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium is assured to be infallible.

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither "true" nor "false", and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church's day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

It is a consequence of the Church's infallibility that the doctrine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught "always and everywhere" in the Church. If a new "teaching" does contradict what was taught before, then the new teaching is obviously not infallible. This is confirmed by the infallible proclamation of Vatican Council I on July 18, 1870:

"For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith [Tradition], and might faithfully set it forth."

Thus we may conclude from this that if a "teaching" proposed to us by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is contrary to previous Church teaching, then the new teaching is not infallible, not from the Holy Ghost, and is not to be believed or obeyed. Archbishop Felici, the Council's General Secretary, at the closing of Vatican II, confirmed that we must judge the infallibility of individual pronouncements made by Vatican II by comparing them with previous Church teaching (emphasis ours):

"We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic [infallible] definitions; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations." (Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter, "Ecumenism is a Fraud", Autumn 1988, p. 3; also New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.2).

The Pope said that Vatican II was not Infallible

Pope Paul VI, at the close of Vatican II on Dec. 7, 1965, confirmed that the Council did not make infallible pronouncements. He said that the Council

"as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence."

Later, on Mar. 8, 1972, the same Pope repeated that

"it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions."

The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not infallible was given by Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that:

"Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

Thus we conclude that because Vatican II was not infallible like the previous doctrinal Ecumenical Councils had been, it was possible that not only mere ambiguities but actual errors were able to creep into the Council documents. It is shocking enough to realize that errors were possible in the documents of Vatican II. We must now ask: are the errors there?

Ecumenism - As a result of ecumenism we have put the tabernacle, rosary, beautiful statues and vestments to the side in our churches because these are "unecumenical." Also as a result of ecumenism, we had no condemnation of Communism at Vatican II. This is because of the Vatican-Moscow Agreement of 1962 whereby the Vatican promised not to condemn Communism if Moscow would agree to send delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church to Vatican II. This policy of "no direct condemnation of Communism" is still in effect to this day. (By contrast, during the reign of Pope Pius XII, any Catholic who voted for a Communist candidate in a general election was automatically excommunicated.)

Modern World - Many post-Vatican II reforms, which tend to "water down" the Church's teaching, have been made in order to please the world. ( note that the Beloved Disciple, St. John, warned the people of his day: "Every spirit that dissolveth [waters down] Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist" I Jn. 4:3. St. James the Apostle also said: "the friendship of this world is the enemy of God. Whoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God." Jas. 4:4). These post-Vatican II reforms include the abandonment of a distinctive religious habit for nuns, brothers and priests, a softening of the "offensive" teachings on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality, and the increasing involvement of the Church in socialist "causes." (Pope Pius XII, in a speech given on Mar. 9, 1956, confirmed that: "The Church... has... no mandate... no purpose of a cultural order. The purpose which Christ assigns to Her is of a strictly religious nature.") The true Mission of the Church is to proclaim the Rights of God, and convert men to the Truth so that they may please God and save their souls, and not to proclaim the rights of man, and convert the Church to the world so that the Church may please men.

Religious Liberty - The Vatican II teachings on religious liberty say that a government should not "impose" Catholic morality on others. We'll give the example of how the bishops of two countries "obeyed" this "teaching" of Vatican II.

In Canada in 1968, the Canadian bishops, correctly interpreting the "teachings" of Vatican II, told the Justice Minister of Canada, John Turner (who was a Catholic), that it was not possible for a Catholic to "impose" his moral views on the civil law: nor was it possible for the Canadian Government to act "in an unfair spirit of partisanship" or to "impose the profession of any religion" - such as the Catholic religion - on its citizens. The Vatican II teaching on religious liberty prevents any government from passing laws based on Catholic morality. After the Canadian Bishops advised Mr. Turner, in 1969 he liberalized Canadian laws on abortion, homosexuality, divorce, prostitution and pornography. And so Canada had abortion on demand before the USA did, thanks to the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty. It is also not surprising that the bishops in Canada and elsewhere give no real opposition to the liberalization of laws on abortion, divorce, prostitution, pornography, and homosexuality, as these laws had previously "imposed" upon non-Catholics an "unfair" adherence to Catholic Morality.

In the USA, prior to Vatican II, every film made by Hollywood had to pass the scrutiny of a national board established by the US bishops. After Vatican II, the US bishops realized that their censorship of the movies "imposed" their moral views on the rest of the country. And so, in obedience to Vatican II,  they disbanded their censorship board (much to the delight of the makers of pornography). And so, in a certain way, pornography is widespread in the USA and the rest of the world, because of the Vatican II "teaching" of religious liberty.

And so today, when any politician says: "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to impose my beliefs on others", he or she is only being obedient to the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty. It is also true that when Catholics protest against abortion, they are actually disobeying Vatican II, because they are trying to "impose the profession of any religion" - in this case the Catholic religion - on their fellow citizens.

The Church's true teaching on religious liberty and religious tolerance was very clearly taught by Pope Pius XII on Sept. 7, 1955:

"The Church... regards as an ideal the unity of the people in the true religion and the unanimity of action between itself and the state."

The true religion is the Catholic religion, (if someone doesn't believe this, then why are they still a Catholic?) and although the purpose of the Church is not political, the laws of the state must be made to work in unity with the laws of the Church, which represents the Law of God.

Collegiality - In many countries we can see the disastrous results of the Vatican II teaching of collegiality. In Canada, on September 27, 1968, the Canadian bishops, invoking "collegiality," issued their now famous "Winnipeg Statement," which allowed and even encouraged Canadian Catholics "in good conscience" to disobey the Church's clear position against artificial birth control. It was clearly a teaching of morals and was, in the words of the Canadian bishops, "an exercise of the teaching authority of the Canadian bishops." However,  Pope Pius VI declared in Auctorem Fidei, #85, Aug. 28, 1794, that:

"The proposition stating that: ?...controversies in regard to faith or morals...can be ended by an irrefutable decision made in a national council [of bishops]...? is schismatic and heretical."

From this we can see that in actual fact, by claiming the authority to make decisions on moral teachings, especially when those decisions contradict Church Teaching, the issuing of the Winnipeg Statement itself was a formal act of schism with Rome, the setting up of a schismatic "Canadian Church." The very use of the term "Canadian Church" by the bishops shows that the schism is a reality.

The Church and The Truth - The Church is the source of all truth. This is what Jesus Christ taught when He told His disciples: "When the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all truth." (Jn 16:13.). The Church does teach infallibly, as at the 20 Ecumenical Councils before Vatican II. At these Councils it was necessary to solemnly invoke the guidance of the Holy Ghost to ensure infallibility. As previously noted, the Holy Ghost was not solemnly invoked at Vatican II. Why then is it that some bishops at Vatican II claimed that the Church made errors before Vatican II, but now they refuse to admit that the Church could possibly make an error after Vatican II?

Considering that so many errors were taught at Vatican II, we can only wonder: who benefited by such a Council? Thus, it is only reasonable to ask the question: who won at Vatican II?

Modernists - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the Modernists in the Church? Prof. Van der Ploeg, O.P., the Dutch biblical scholar, said that "the rise of neo-Modernism is historically connected with the Second Vatican Council." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.2)

Communists - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the Communists against the Church? At its 11th Party Congress the Italian Communist Party commented on Vatican II, saying that

"the extraordinary awakening of the Council, which was rightly compared with the Estates General [in France] in 1789, has shown the world that the old politico-religious Bastille [the Church] is shaken to its foundations... A hitherto unforeseen possibility has emerged for us to draw nearer to our final victory... the Council itself is providing us gratis with the best means of reaching the Catholic public... never was the situation so favourable for us." (Bishop Graber, St. Athanasius, pp. 64-65).

Fr. Yves Congar, one of the priest "experts" advising the bishops during Vatican II, confirmed that "the Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution," referring to the Communist Revolution in Russia in October, 1917. (New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.1).

French Revolution of 1789 - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the French Revolution of 1789 in the Church? Cardinal Suenens said, "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church." (New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.1). We also find written in the OSSERVATORE ROMANO, the official Vatican newspaper, on Jan. 18, 1984: "The Church...with the Council, has assumed and surpassed the liberal democratic conquests of the French Revolution." (de Lassus, p. 17). And finally Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking in his new book PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, said that the text of the Vatican II document THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD "represents an attempt at an official reconciliation of the Church with the world as it has been since 1789." (de Lassus, p. 22)

Secret Societies - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the secret societies against the Church? An excommunicated priest named Fr. Roca had this to say at the end of the last century:

"The liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council... the Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the Fathers of the last Council will forge." (Bishop Graber, p. 35)

Fr. Roca could certainly be referring to Collegiality. A Freemason named Yves Marsaudon, in his book ECUMENISM AS SEEN BY A TRADITIONAL FREEMASON, wrote that as of 1908:

"the goal is no longer the destruction of the Church but rather to make use of it by infiltrating it." (Bishop Graber, pp. 38-39)

After Vatican II, the Grand Orient Lodge in France reported a "gigantic revolution in the Church" calling it "a prelude to victory". (Bishop Graber, p. 71)

Protestant Reformers - Did Vatican II represent the final success of the Protestant Reformers in the Church? In the French journal, LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE of July 3, 1983, a mixed group of Catholics and Lutherans declared that

"among the ideas of Vatican Council II, one can find a welcoming of the requests made by Luther." (de Lassus, p. 17)

It is also worth considering the Vatican II debates in November of 1962, during which the bishops were debating a text "on the sources of Revelation." It has always been the teaching of the Church that there are two sources of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition. Scripture of course is the Bible and represents all the written books handed down through the ages, terminating with the Age of the Apostles and containing God's Revelation. Tradition is the second source of Revelation and contains all the other things that Christ taught His Apostles: "To them also He showed Himself alone after His Passion by many proofs, during forty days appearing to them and speaking of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3.) and "Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." (Jn 20:30.). These things taught by Jesus were not written down by the apostles but were passed orally from generation to  generation. They included how to say Mass, how to perform the other sacraments and rituals as well as other aspects of Church teaching. The Protestants deny Sacred Tradition, relying on "Scripture alone." But Pius XII was one of several Popes to teach us as he did on Oct. 24, 1954, about "the double source of Catholic teaching, namely Sacred Scripture and Tradition."
The text that the bishops were debating strongly stressed that there were two sources of Revelation. This offended the Protestants however, and a 62% majority (Wiltgen, pp. 49-51) of bishops voted to suspend discussion on the text until an ecumenical version more pleasing to Protestants could be written.

How could God have allowed the bishops to approve so many errors at Vatican II? The answer may be found in the way the bishops treated the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council. Instead of boldly proclaiming her, the bishops were ashamed of her, and they compromised the Blessed Virgin Mary twice during the Council, because she was not "ecumenical."

The first compromise took place in the Fall of 1963. The bishops were asked to discuss a text on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Very quickly they became divided. Instead of having a document on the Blessed Virgin alone, some bishops thought that the text should be included as part of another document, because this would help foster ecumenical dialogue with "the separated brethren" and also because it would help provide "an antidote to devotional excesses". (Wiltgen, p. 93) How many times since have we heard that Mary should be "put in her proper place?" When the vote was taken on Oct. 29, 1963, the majority of bishops decided not to offend the Protestants and voted to compromise the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the text on her as part of the document on the Church. (Wiltgen, p. 95)

The second compromise of the Blessed Virgin Mary took place in the Fall of 1964. The bishops then resumed discussion on a newly revised text on the Blessed Virgin. In response to the wishes of several bishops, the title "Mary, Mother of the Church" had been removed from the text. Four German priests, including a young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, (Wiltgen, p. 91) requested that all references to "Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces" be removed from the document as well. Despite this, some references were left in the text. The liberals were not satisfied and many of them, including Cardinal Leger of Montreal, Canada, loudly protested the inclusion of the title "Mediatrix" in the text. (Wiltgen, p. 154).

The liberals at Vatican II rejected the Blessed Virgin Mary's title: "Mediatrix of all Graces." However, Pope Pius XI would disagree. On May 8, 1928 he proclaimed:

"Trusting in her intercession with Christ our Lord, who though sole Mediator between God and man, wished however to make His Mother the advocate for sinners and the dispenser and mediatrix of His grace..." (Miserentissimus Redemptor)

Pope Pius XII would also disagree with Fr. Ratzinger. On several occasions, the Pope taught that Mary is the Mediatrix of all Graces. We'll quote two of them:

"Mary is the Mediatrix and Dispenser of graces." (Radio message, Dec. 8, 1953)

"For she [Mary] has been appointed the Mediatrix of all the graces which look toward sanctification..." (Sedes Sapientiae, May 31, 1956)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of France was among those who tried to prevent the liberals from compromising the Blessed Virgin a second time. He wrote the bishops at Vatican II a warning. In this text, dated Oct. 11, 1964, feast of the Motherhood of Mary, he criticized the desire of many to "do away with the title of Mary, Mother of the Church." He also noted that "the ecumenists deplore her being named...as Mediatrix." Recalling the words of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical ON FOSTERING TRUE RELIGIOUS UNITY, Archbishop Lefebvre called on his brother bishops to "pray to the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, for she is at the heart of these disputes and she has always defeated heresies." Those who wanted to compromise the Blessed Virgin Mary refused to take Archbishop Lefebvre's advice.

When the time came for the vote on Oct. 29, 1964, the bishops compromised the Blessed Virgin Mary a second time and voted to approve the watered-down text. This vote proved to be a turning point at Vatican II, because it was only after this that the bishops gave final approval to the texts containing all the errors we have noted above. In retrospect we can see that it was only fitting that just as the majority of bishops and the priests (like Fr. Ratzinger) advising them rejected Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces, so God punished all of them by withholding His graces from them, allowing them to fall into a spiritual blindness, not seeing the errors they were promoting.

Jesus told us that we can judge a tree by the fruits (Mt 7:15-20.). After the Council of Trent, no less than one hundred new religious orders were formed in the Church and those that were already in existence saw tremendous growth. After Vatican II however, the situation was quite different. The disastrous results were felt as early as 1963, the year after the Council had begun. For the period of 25 years prior to Vatican II, the number of men leaving the priesthood annually was about 23 for the whole Church. In 1963 this number jumped to 509 and by 1965, the year the Council ended, it had risen to 1,189. (The Wanderer, Aug.19, 1971)

In France, from 1963 to 1973, seminary enrollment declined by 83%. Mass attendance plummeted 66% in France, 54% in Holland, 50% in Italy and 40% in the U.S.A. Infant baptisms are down 50%, adult conversions 75%, while the divorce rates among Catholics, along with birth control, have reached shocking proportions. (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Council had such immediate and disastrous results on the teaching of the Catholic Faith that the then Prefect of the Holy Office (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Cardinal Ottaviani, wrote to all the bishops and religious superiors of the world on July 24, 1966 asking them to reply to an inquiry on the dangers which threatened certain fundamental truths of our Faith. Today the situation grows increasingly worse as millions of Catholics around the world stop practicing their religion, and millions more who still do practice it, no longer understand even the most elementary of Catholic teachings.

Pope Paul VI commented on the disastrous results that Vatican II was producing in the Church. On Dec. 7, 1968, the Pope lamented that

"the Church finds herself in a time of uncertainty, of self-criticism, and even self-destruction. It is like an internal upheaval... as if the Church were striking blows to herself."

Then on June 29, 1972 the Pope remarked that

"by some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." (de Lassus, p.9)

It is not reasonable to say, as some do, that such rapid and widespread destruction has been the result of "misinterpretations" of Vatican II. If this were so, then we should not expect the destruction to be so violent, and what is more, we should at least expect to find some dioceses or religious orders that did not undergo the same destruction that we find all around us. The fact is that the only diocese that showed a great flowering after Vatican II is the only diocese where the "reforms" of Vatican II were never implemented, and that is the diocese of Campos, Brazil.

As stated above, pastoral pronouncements are not strictly binding upon all Catholics. Thus after Vatican II, bishops were free to accept any and all of the Council's decisions that were pastorally "helpful" or even to accept none of them. The late Bishop de Castro-Mayer of Campos, Brazil (who joined with Archbishop Lefebvre as a witness in defense of the Traditions of the Church) decided to reject the new "teachings" of Vatican II and he also rejected the New "Mass" of Pope Paul VI. The result? While bishops around the world saw the destruction of their dioceses, in the diocese of Campos, Bishop de Castro-Mayer saw his convents and seminaries full, and the people of his diocese continued the uninterrupted practice of their religion. The destruction of the Faith in Campos began only in 1981, when Bishop de Castro-Mayer was forcibly retired by Rome and his successor began to fully implement the "new order" of Vatican II. Despite this, a great number of Catholics in Campos continue to this day to "buck the system" and fight against their new "reformer" bishop and the entire hierarchy who would destroy their Faith with Vatican II. Thus they have built their own churches, their own schools, and are prepared to defend their Faith to the death whenever the new modern bishop calls in the army against them.

So we see that:

• in every place that Vatican II has been applied there has been a disaster to the Faith
• in the one place it has not been applied there has been a continued flowering of the Faith

therefore we must conclude that the present crisis of faith is caused by Vatican II itself, not a misapplication of it. We have also demonstrated that the errors are contained right in the documents of Vatican II, and are not simply the result of misinterpretations.

We have already seen that the bishops at Vatican II promised to make the Church better with their "reforms". This hasn't happened. So what have the reforms created instead?
 

In short, we see that the bishops at Vatican II did not create a renewal of the Catholic Church as they promised, but instead created a new religion with its own system of government, set of teachings and mode of worship that are all in opposition to the Catholic religion.