By David Martin
While the gale force of the post-conciliar tempest continues to uproot the Faith, dislodge morals, blow apart revered traditions, topple the Church's edifice, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church, there are those who insist that the problem today isn’t due to Vatican II but to a “misinterpretation” of the Council.
Unfortunately, misinterpretation had nothing to do with this, for this revolution was the result of years of careful planning. We might see the conciliar documents as the blueprint for this plan. The ambiguities, omissions, and outright errors in the documents were deliberately calculated by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these errors in the text after the Council closed.
If we have lay people today assuming priestly functions as “Eucharistic ministers,” it’s because Vatican II defines the laity as a “common priesthood.” (LG 10) If the Church today ecumenically dignifies other religions, it’s because Vatican II says that “Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” (UR-3) Clearly, there was a plan for change in the works.
Protestants Helped Draft the Documents
According to the preeminent Catholic writer and historian Michael Davies, the ensuing “disease of ecumania” that spread throughout the Church after Vatican II was the “direct result of the presence of Protestant observers at the Second Vatican Council.” In his book on the new Mass, Davies states, “Six Protestant observers were invited to advise this Consilium. They played an active part in the preparation of the new Mass.” (Pope Paul’s New Mass)
Far from being mere observers, these delegates were acting as an advisory board to the Second Vatican Council. Monsignor Baum (later Cardinal Baum) in an interview with the Detroit News on June 27, 1967, commented on the role of these six Protestant participants. “They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on the Catholic liturgical renewal.”
According to Dr. Moorman who headed the Anglican delegation at Vatican II, these participants were able to “make their views known at special weekly meetings of the Unity Secretariat and had personal contacts with the Council fathers.”
Professor Oscar Cullman of the Lutheran delegation summed it up on December 4, 1965: “The hopes of the Protestants for Vatican II have not only been fulfilled, but… have gone far beyond what was believed possible.” (Xavier Rynne, The Fourth Session)
In a book published by Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, one of the Protestant “observers” at Vatican II, he praised the Council's decree on ecumenism because it acknowledges the ecclesial reality of Protestant assemblies and because it negates the need for non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic Church. (Dr. McAfee Brown, The Ecumenical Revolution)
Cardinal Augustin Bea S.J., who headed the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, boasted of the contribution made by these Protestant advisors in formulating the conciliar decree on Ecumenism. “I do not hesitate to assert that they have contributed in a decisive way to bringing about this result.”
Professor B. Mondin of the Pontifical Propaganda College for the Missions stated that observers such as Dr. Cullman made “a valid contribution” to drawing up the Council Documents.”
Is it any wonder that Vatican II was instrumental in setting into motion an unprecedented departure from Church tradition? The fact is that professed enemies of the Church were at the helm assisting in the drafting of documents for an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church!
This is not to suggest that the Second Vatican Council wasn’t started with good intentions, but that it was infiltrated through the orchestration of Judases within the Vatican. There is an abundance of documented evidence showing that Vatican II was hijacked in the opening session by rebel bishops because Pope John XXIII had planned the Council without their advice and against their designs.
We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was part of this scheme to usurp Vatican II. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic and personal friend of Pope Paul VI, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, “This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII.” (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)
Let us diverge briefly to recall the turbulent opening session which deflected the course of the Council and set the Bark of Peter on a new and uncharted course that would eventually land it shipwreck onto secular coasts.
At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. Their objective was to gain control of the conciliar drafting commissions. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a suspected Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Liénart’s action deflected the course of the Council and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)
In his February 14, 2013 address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’ etat at Vatican II: “On the programme for this first day were the elections of the
Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: ‘No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.’ Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so, it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates.”
The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites how the legal framework of the Council was violated by this act: “This departure from the original plan” came about “by an act breaking the Council’s legal framework” so that “the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen.” (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)
After illicitly blocking the vote, this rebellious “Rhine group” resorted to boorish methods to force-install several of their own members onto the drafting commissions, so that from October 16 on nearly sixty-percent of the commissions were now chaired by “suspect theologians” that previously had been restricted under Pius XII. These would include dissenters like Hans Kung, Schillebeechx, and the pseudo-mystic Karl Rahner, the Council darling, who for the entirety of Vatican II was dating the notorious feminist Luise Rinser who had clamored for abortion and women priests. The enemies of the Faith had captured the key positions of the Council, thus enabling them to draft perfidious documents for the misguiding of the Church, i.e. the 16 documents of Vatican II.
The true conciliar documents were the 72 schemas which John XXIII had approved before the Council. According to Archbishop Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee for checking all the documents, the schemas were worthy and orthodox, and should have been used, but to his dismay the Rhine fathers illicitly rejected Pope John’s outline after it had been approved through a 40% vote. Consider Lefebvre’s words:
“From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it… We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket. The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready…. Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
This vituperative counter-council which warred against the true Council was fueled by a coalition of periti that were Communistic in orientation. One such agent who participated at the Second Vatican Council expressed his horror over the good schemas of John XXIII.
“Hearing that Pope John had appointed a commission to draw the schemas for the forthcoming Council, I immediately started to work on counter-schemas with the help of avant-garde theologians (Rhine fathers) who had been won over to our way of thinking. Thanks to my contacts I managed to obtain copies of the projected papal schemas: they were terrible! I was in a cold sweat! If these schemas are carried, my work of 20 years will have been in vain. I hastily put the finishing touch to my counter-schemas, and I circulated them. Eventually, they were tabled at the Council.” (Marie Carré, AA 1025, Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle)Pope Benedict XVI himself points out how a “virtual council” had risen up to usurp the “real Council” at Vatican II, lamenting how “it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy." (Speaking to the clergy of Rome, February 14, 2013)
Romano Amerio summed up the situation perfectly: “A distinctive feature of Vatican II is its paradoxical outcome, by which all the preparatory work that usually directs the debates, marks the outlook and foreshadows the results of a council, was nullified and rejected from the first session onward.”
Hence it is conceivable that the Council at this point—on account of two violations against its legal framework, i.e. the illicit rejection of the candidates for the commissions and the illicit rejection of the 72 schemas that had been legitimately approved—had gone from being a valid council to a revolution. The fruits of the Council certainly suggest this. Can we honestly say that even one conversion to the Faith resulted from Vatican II?
It was for reason that Pope Paul VI lamented the outcome of the Council at its close, saying, “Profane and secular humanism has revealed itself in its terrible, anticlerical stature, and in one sense has defied the Council. The religion of God made man has met the religion of man who makes himself God.” (December 7, 1965)
The Holy Father also said in 1970: “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 Kingdom of God within the Church or within its souls.”
It was for reason that the pope on June 29, 1972 let out with his historic S.O.S. as to why Vatican II failed.
“From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God”Interestingly, Cardinal Ratzinger in summer 2000 allegedly told his friend Fr. Ingo Dollinger—a close friend and spiritual child of St. Padre Pio—that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of “a bad council and a bad Mass” to come, presumably referencing the Second Vatican Council.(One Peter Five, May 15, 2016)
Needless to say, Vatican II was an infernally precipitated disaster that sent the Church floundering into turbulent straits. Far from being the work of God that was simply misinterpreted, the Council was a carefully calculated revolution that was later implemented according to plan.
Some argue that Vatican II incorporates elements of dogma and orthodoxy into its documents, which it does, but it does so in such a way that these elements are now seen in the light of the Council instead of in the light of tradition. What Vatican II did was to provide a new lens wherewith to look at the Church and it deliberately retained elements of orthodoxy to alter our understanding of it while at the same time using these elements as exterior cover to give the Council an air of legitimacy. Archbishop Lefebvre explains:
“The good texts [of the Council] have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (I Accuse the Council, 1998)
Hence, the display of orthodoxy and error side by side served to sell the novel teachings while giving innovators a chance to place a new spin on the old teachings, and thus advance the denial thereof. Fr. Linus Clovis, who is a leading conservative voice in the Catholic Church today points out how this insidious ploy to advance error under the cloak of goodness was in the works even before the Second Vatican Council.
“In Auctorem Fidei, Pius VI noted that innovators, to insinuate their errors, hide subtleties in seemingly innocuous words allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying a statement, or of leaving its meaning up to an individual’s personal inclination. Celestine I observed that Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with obscure ones; at times, intermingling one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very things which he confessed.
“The modernist innovators, having deceived the overly optimistic John XXIII, seized power at the opening session and, replaced the orthodox preparatory schemas with their own ambiguous documents, whereby to feign profession of orthodoxy while at the same time possessing a means of denying the very orthodoxy which they purported to confess, and hence was born the revolution that is Vatican II.” (Fr. Linus F. Clovis Ph.D, JCL, M.Sc. STB, Dip.Ed.)
If what has been alleged thus far about Vatican II is true, then its documents will certainly bear the fingerprints of collusion. One needn't look any further than the conciliar document on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which emphatically seeks to unite the Catholic Church with other religions.
The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. 
Along these lines, the document also says:
lt is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. 
This proposed “interfaith worship” is forbidden by the Catholic Church, yet the document fully recommends this on the false basis that God works through other religions.
The Holy Spirit does not refuse to make use of other religions as a means of salvation.
This pseudo ecumenism advocated by the Council is grounded in the fallacy that baptized Catholics who fall away into other religions are still members of Christ’s Church.
The differences that exist in varying degrees between them [separated brethren] and the Catholic Church … do indeed create many obstacles … But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body. [UR-3]
This contradicts the encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII which dogmatically defined that only those who profess the One True Faith are included as members of Christ’s Church.
Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943)In spite of this, Unitatis Redintegratio perfidiously asserts that life-giving elements of faith operate outside the confines of the Catholic Church.
Many of the significant elements and endowments which to-gether go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith. [UR-3]
The document furthermore states that the Holy Spirit engenders the thinking and activity of these separated churches.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation. [UR-3]
The foregoing is heretical since Christ does not abide in other religions, nor do the aforementioned churches in any way constitute part of the One Universal Church Under Peter.
Pope Boniface VIII dogmatically decreed:
There is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. — Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Boniface VIII
Similarly, Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the heresy that "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation," yet the Vatican II document defies this official Church teaching.
What is mind boggling is that the Council document Gaudium et Spes (in conjunction with those on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism) directly opposed the Syllabus of Errors and sought to revive the rebellious principles of the French Revolution of 1789. None less than Cardinal Ratzinger attested to this in 1982.
"We might say that it [Gaudium et Spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus… Let us be content to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 381, Ignatius Press)
The late Cardinal Suenens himself, who was a participant at Vatican II, famously said, “Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church.”
The hub of the conciliar "reform" was the December 4, 1963 document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which called for a general revision of the Mass, wherein "elements" accumulated through time "are now to be discarded" and "the rites are to be simplified" so that "active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved." (50) What is absurd is that there was nothing of the liturgy that needed restoring in 1963. The rite of the Mass had remained perfectly intact through the centuries and needed no additions, deletions, or reforms. Consider again section 21 of Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time.
Note the gross contradiction displayed. The document says that only the mutable elements of the liturgy (like the addition of new feast days) may be changed, yet it proposes a general restoration of the liturgy itself—the rite. This is clarified in the next paragraph.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease [e.g. vernacular] and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community. 
According to the document, the traditional Mass didn’t meet the needs of God’s people. What we were seeing at the Council was a revolt against the everlasting ordinance, which was reminiscent of how the Pharisees had stirred the people up against Jesus. The conciliar Pharisees likewise stirred the people up against Jesus’ doctrine because in their hearts they protested the Faith.
Sacrosanctum Concilium proposed that “other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are to be restored.” (50) This would include the injury suffered by Luther and the Reformation through their expulsion by the Council of Trent, which Vatican II lamented as an unfortunate “accident of history.”
Elements of Protestantism indeed were “restored” after the Council to take away from the Mass and empower the people. Consider this attempt to restore the “common prayer” of the Reformation.
On Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, “the common prayer” or “the prayer of the faithful.” By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, and for the civil authorities. (Concilium 53)
That Vatican II colluded with advocates of the Reformation is evidenced by the words of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent figure of the Council, when he remarked: “One is astonished to find oneself more in sympathy with the thinking of Christian, non-Catholic ‘observers’ than with the views of one’s own brethren on the other side of the dividing line. The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation.”
Professor George Lindbeck, of the Yale Divinity School, and Lutheran observer at Vatican II, noted that: "The Council marked the end of the Counter-Reformation." (The Tablet, Feb. 16, 1963)
In Reformationalist fashion, Vatican II proposed that strict uniformity in the liturgy be avoided and that the customs of races and peoples be incorporated into the Mass.
In the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity [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... Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself. (37)
What this did was to open the door to cultural diversity, which is widespread today with the use of vernacular and elements of pop culture, pagan dress and music, etc. The ordinance and genius of the Omnipotent One was cast aside for the so-called genius of races and peoples who are neither capable nor authorized to introduce elements of worship to the Mass.
What we were seeing in 1963 was the beginning of that “healthy decentralization” of the Church advocated by Pope Francis. The Council indeed did not advocate “a rigid uniformity” imposed from the Curial level because the plan was to eventually delegate liturgical decisions to local bishops and even to lay persons under their jurisdiction. Is it any wonder that the Church today has become an anarchic merry-go-round?
Active Lay Participation
At the heart of the Concilium is its central theme of “active participation of the faithful” as expressed in article 14: “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is 1 demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people’ (1 Peter 2:9) have a right and obligation by reason of their 2 baptism.”
Here conciliar draftsmen have put their own twist on the scripture verse to advance their own revolutionary designs. This verse about “a royal priesthood” is merely figurative to indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mystical Body, since the principal function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. In that spiritual sense, the laity are a priestly or sacrificial people. They are called to atone and to follow the sacrificial Lamb in his sacrificial sufferings that they might reign with Christ as “a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” This Bible verse references their call to atonement and has nothing to do with the functions and dignities of the priesthood. Innovators were only seeing this as a means of advancing their communistic lay empowerment agenda.
With Vatican II came the new definition of the priesthood as The People of God. It sees the whole Church as one priesthood but in different ranks, with the ordained ministerial priesthood being only one rank thereof. “The people of God is not only an assembly of various peoples, but in itself is made up of different ranks.” (Lumen Gentium 13) What is promoted here is the fallacy that we are all priests of one hierarchy.
The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood are nonetheless ordered one to another; each in its own proper way shares in the one priesthood of Christ. (LG-10)
For the record, there is no such thing as a “common priesthood of the faithful.” This was Luther's idea. The priest alone offers the Holy Sacrifice as the Alter Christus, and there is nothing lay people can do to contribute to the Holy Sacrifice for the simple reason that they are not empowered; they don't have that special anointing from the Holy Spirit.
The modern-day empowerment of the laity was promoted to instigate a people’s revolt against the priesthood in keeping with the Council's theme of human rights. The Leninist “clench-fist” idea was simply applied in a liturgical way.
In every which way Vatican II undermines the Christo-centric concept of the Eucharist as opposed to the old Tridentine formula which so beautifully nurtured it through the centuries. This is seen in article 7 of Institutio Generalis, governing the celebration of the Novos Ordo, which sets forth a new and humanistic definition of the Mass never before seen in Church history:
The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the people of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst. (Mt. XVIII, 20)
Here we see the Mass reduced to a meeting 3 or assembly in which Christ’s sacrifice is merely remembered. There is no reference made to the reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice, which is the essence of the Mass and the heart of Christ’s Mystical Body. The miracle of Transubstantiation alone—effected by the priest—is what brings about the physical and supernatural presence of Christ at Mass, yet the document heretically implies that his presence is brought about by the assembly of people numbering two or three (or more), as if they collectively were the priest.
The assembly is not a priesthood nor is the presence of “two or three” necessary for a valid Mass. This is a Protestant idea which underscores the new post-conciliar church of man, which is ego-centric and not Christo-centric.
Because of these socialist and Reformationalist principles of lay empowerment that were introduced at Vatican II, the role of the priest has been greatly diminished where he is seen more as the “president” of an assembly. The idea of appeasing God through the Holy Sacrifice has virtually been replaced with appeasing the people with change. The constant fuss about "Scripture" and "Liturgy of the Word" was deliberately introduced to take away from the Mass and to plug the Protestant idea of "sola scriptura." The constant harping on pet terms and clichés foreign to the Church’s vocabulary (People of God, ministry, reconciliation, initiation, renewal, etc.) was a clear signal to the faithful that a new program of indoctrination was underway. The clamor circulated at the Council about human rights, human dignity and religious liberty worked together to nourish this tumor of intellectual pride so that the Church in our time is now infected with its cancer.
Instrument of the Freemasons
Nay, the outcome of Vatican II was no “misinterpretation” but the fruits of a well-orchestrated plan that was in the works long ago. When the Freemason Canon Roca predicted in the 1800s that “the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council,” he was speaking the mind of the international Freemasons.
Let us switch the channel and consider the notorious Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, which should be enough to convince any Catholic that the enemies of the Faith were firmly entrenched at the Second Vatican Council. Nostra Aetate says:
Muslims adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.… They value the moral life and worship God. (3)
Had the Council fathers forgotten the Quran’s teaching that Christ is not the Son of God? Had they considered its barbaric teaching that anyone who is not Muslim should be slain? Christ, whose divinity the Quran rejects, is the only True God “who has spoken to men,” so do we “misinterpret” Nostra Aetate by alleging it is dignifying an idolatrous religion? No, we do not.
Sodomite Ex-Priest Drafted Nostra Aetate
It shouldn’t surprise us that the notorious ex-priest and gay-marriage advocate 4 Gregory Baum, who married an ex-nun while a priest and who for decades was living an active homosexual life, was the one who drafted Nostra Aetate for the Second Vatican Council.
Dr. Michael Higgins, the vice president for Mission and Catholic Identity at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, in a tribute to Baum published in Commonweal in 2011 noted his key role during Vatican II. “The council was the making of Gregory Baum,” he wrote. “He served in various capacities on the commissions charged with preparing documents.… Beginning his work in November 1960, he concluded it with the council’s end in December 1965, an apprenticeship that culminated in his writing the first draft of Nostra Aetate.” (Life Site News, February 17, 2017)
Needless to say, the radical changes of today do not reflect a misinterpretation of Vatican II, but a true interpretation as intended by its liberal architects. The few good parts of the documents penned by the few good people were simply allowed as religious cover to ensure the elicitation of Pope Paul’s signature, without which the progressivist plan would never succeed. To that end, it was more important to Vatican liberals that the documents appeared orthodox than liberal.
Some will argue that the Vatican II documents are simply ambiguous and contain no explicit error, but ambiguity is the smoking gun of the devil. If the documents are ambiguous, it’s telling us they are not the work of God, since God is never ambiguous.
In a video published by Catholic Family News on February 6, 2015, John Venari—citing documented sources like The Rhine flows into the Tiber by Father Ralph Wiltgen, Pope John's Council by Michael Davies, and Iota Unum by Professor Romano Amerio—summed it up when he said:
“The ambiguities, the omissions, and the lack of precision is this council were no accident. They were the result of deliberate calculations by progressivist theologians and bishops who intended to exploit these flaws in the text after the Council closed.”
The documents indeed were carefully worded in ambiguous fashion where proposals often have a double meaning which lend themselves to the progressivist plan to later implement sneaky changes while at the same time fooling the innocent into thinking they mean something else. For instance, in article 7 of the Concilium it states: “In the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.” On the surface this sounds very holy, namely, that we are all called to adore God at Holy Mass with one mind, but what the conciliar architects really meant is that lay people perform the liturgy, not just the priest, that they too assume duties and dignities of the priest as if they were part of a “common priesthood.”
This ties in with the often-repeated theme of “active participation by the faithful,” which is another ambiguous bombshell. On the one hand this can be taken to mean that Catholics should actively be involved with their religion by reading the lives of the saints, going to confession and sanctifying their souls in the fear of God, but what liberals really meant is that they should be busy-body activists engaging in the liturgical revolution against the priesthood. Though the particulars of today’s revolution are not necessarily spelled out in the conciliar documents (lay lectors, Eucharistic ministers, etc.), they nonetheless have their foundation in the documents and fulfill the conciliar vision of “active participation by the faithful.”
The wording of all sixteen documents was deliberately planned this way where proposals have an ambiguous or double meaning which can be interpreted more than one way.
For instance, the term “religious communities” which normally would mean Catholic communities is often used in the documents to mean non-Catholic communities, or the word “catholicity” which normally would mean our oneness with the Church of Rome is now used to mean oneness with the universal body of world churches.
The Council goes so far as to even redefine “One Universal Church” to mean the ecumenical world body of churches.
This movement toward unity is called ‘ecumenical’—the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal. [Unitatis Redintegratio 1]
The end result of this insidious double-talk is that union with Christ has been diminished while unity with the world has been enhanced. Unfortunately, this oneness with the flesh and world has reached the point today that Rome is now blessing gay and adulterous unions, even to the extent that gay and adulterous persons in some cases can now receive Holy Communion. (Amoris Laetitia 305)
In an article by Cardinal Kasper that appeared in the April 12, 2013 issue of L'Osservatore Romano, he non-reservedly admitted the confusion and contradiction lying within the conciliar documents themselves, when he said: “In many places the Council fathers had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those in the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict and open selective reception in either direction.”
The late Fr. Malachi Martin who served as advisor to three popes, made it clear that there are calculated errors in the Vatican II documents, and in a 1996 interview with Bernard Janzen, he referred to the document on Religious Liberty as “the document of license,” which he said endorses Planned Parenthood’s idea that “you make up your own mind.”
1 On the contrary, the very nature of the liturgy demands that only the priest perform it since he alone offers the Mass, not the people. The active participation of the laity is to follow quietly and receive Christ’s blessing through his representative the priest.
2 Note how baptism is used here as a pitch for human rights. In the low Mass there is nothing of the liturgy that lay people perform, therefore it is an error to suggest that baptism entitles them to the right to share in its performance.
3 The Mass is likewise reduced to a supper so that what is promoted is the fallacy that the Mass is a community meal attended by “two or more.”
4 Baum passed away on October 18, 2017. Steve Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews has written: "Msgr. Foy, whom I personally knew very well, possessed documents which claimed that Gregory Baum was a Marxist spy sent to Canada to infiltrate and corrupt the Catholic Church.