A “Bad Council” has Deceived “Even the Elect”

But in fact, Vatican II did just that. ⁽¹⁾ The Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium called for cultural diversity, which led to secular deviations like replacing Latin with vernacular or bringing into the Mass indigenous ‘feather dance liturgy’ as we’ve seen done at the Vatican and beyond. This indigenous “Catholic” worship can be traced back to Vatican II.

Consider the following excerpt from Sacrosanctum Concilium.

In the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity (the old Mass) … rather does she respect the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy [and] in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 37)

What this did was to open the door to liturgical inculturation, which is widespread today with the use of vernacular and elements of pop culture, pagan dress, pagan liturgy, pagan music, etc. The ordinance and genius of the omnipotent Creator was cast aside for the so-called genius of races and peoples who are neither capable nor authorized to introduce elements of worship into the Mass. It’s all part of Rome’s latter-day ‘decentralization of the Church.’

Celebration Facing the People

And yes, Vatican II did call for Celebration of Mass facing the people. In the September 26, 1964 Vatican II instruction, Inter Oecumenici, article 91, it states:

"The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people."

What this brought about was a historic shift of focus where the emphasis today is on the community and not on God. The focus now is on man as we see the people bowing to one another in guru fashion, fulfilling the prophetic statement of Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII) after being presented with the Third Secret of Fatima in the early 1930s. He said:

“A day is coming when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.”

The future pope spoke of the new church of man and the empowerment of the laity that would be set in motion by a future council, yet there are those who deny that Vatican II proposed this. And whereas the Council didn’t use that exact term it nonetheless instigated a lay revolt against hierarchical authority, which is nothing more than the Leninist clenched fist applied in an ecclesial context.

The Fallacy of a Common Priesthood

Vatican II in fact introduced the idea of the laity being a common priesthood, which opened the way to rebel divergencies like using lay Eucharistic ministers, lay liturgical planners, and women speakers at Mass. The conciliar document Lumen Gentium states:

The common priesthood of the faithful and ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ (Lumen Gentium 10).
For the record, there is no such thing as a “common priesthood of the faithful.” That was Luther’s idea. The priest alone offers the Holy Sacrifice as the Alter Christus, and there is nothing that lay people can do to contribute to this for the simple reason that they are not empowered. They don’t have that special anointing from the Holy Spirit.

The Writers of the Documents Tell the Whole Story

In assessing Vatican II, we need to look more at the writers of the documents than the documents themselves. 2 Many of these authors were former "suspect theologians" who had been forbidden to write or preach under Pope Pius XII. Some were even Masonic.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who Pope John XXIII had appointed to oversee the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council, said that a whole "galaxy" of Masonic periti had infiltrated the Council. This anti-Church coalition rejected Pope John’s plan for Vatican II. (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open letter to Confused Catholics).

In the goodness of his heart, Pope John exonerated these "suspects" believing they would assist his plan to double-down on Catholic tradition, but instead they stabbed him in the back and moved forward with their polluted documents aimed at changing the Catholic Church.

One suspect author worth calling out is the late ex-priest Gregory Baum, the author of the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate who had raped a nun and began living a steady homosexual life in 1964 while drafting the document. Nostra Aetate is heretical in that it states that Muslims ‘adore the one God who has spoken to men,’ dignifies Hinduism, and says that Jews do not need conversion to Christ. Baum and many like him were main force at Vatican II.

A Bad Council and a Bad Mass

Let us not forget that the Blessed Virgin in her Third Secret of Fatima spoke of a "bad council" and "bad Mass" to come. Cardinal Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) who knew the Third Secret told this to St. Padre Pio's close friend and altar server Fr. Ingo Dollinger. Fr. Dollinger maintained this faithful testimony until his death on June 11, 2017.

Vatican II indeed was a “bad council,” but unfortunately even conservatives today bow to this conciliar golden calf fulfilling Christ’s prophecy that “even the elect” would be deceived in the last times (Mt. 24:24). And whereas Christ here was speaking more of the signs and wonders that Satan would work in the air – signs of the New World Order -- Vatican II was a major foundation block that helped set in motion this New Order or Novus Ordo.

And of course, there is the prophetic revelation of Christ himself concerning Vatican II as delivered to the late seer Veronica of the Cross.

“On that date, as promised at Fatima, satan entered My Church upon earth. He brought with him his agents. And satan himself, the deceiver of all mankind, sat in on Vatican II and maneuvered all the outsiders to come in and distort My doctrines and distort the truth.” (June 18, 1986)

Consider now the prediction of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893) concerning a bad mass to come.

“The liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council" in a move “to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state.”

Canon Roca speaks of a transformation of the ancient Roman rite that would war against the Order of Tradition. He speaks of the New Order of Vatican II (Novus Ordo) that would provide an opening for this Masonic thread to weave itself into the Church’s fabric and cloak the Mystical Body with a new garb.

In light of this and other documented evidence why do Catholics feel that they must hold on to Vatican II?

1. That is, in a general way, without necessarily mentioning some of these particulars by name. But even particulars were mentioned in the document(s) like celebration facing the people or the Council’s primary wish to unite the Catholic Church with other “Christian” religions (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).