select here your language
Vatican II, a Council in Threefold?
“By their fruits you will know them” (Matt. 7, 16)
Part I. The general process behind the Council as a catalyst
I.1 The Council According to Pope John XXIII
I.2. The ’Council of Media’
I.3. Interventions by Pope Paul VI
I.4. The ‘Council-of-dissident-theologians’
I.5. Pope John XXIII betrayed
Part II. How the Council was hijacked
II.1. The expectations of the Council
II.2. October 13, 1962
II.3. ‘A fait accompli’ and the Holy Spirit
II.4. Restoration by Pope John XXIII
II.5. The council at work
Part III. The aftermath of the Council
III.1. 1965 -1966
1.1. The Massive Offensive with False Interpretations
1.2. Complaints by Pope Paul VI
1.3. Destruction of the Norms Prior to the Council
2.1. Defence of the Doctrine
2.2. Promulgation of the Reformed Liturgy
2.3. The Address to the Cardinals
2.4. New International Theologian Magazine Communio
3.1. Extraordinary Synod of Bishops
3.2. Evaluation of the 1985-principless
4. More recent period
4.2. 2013 - ...
Part IV. References
The catastrophic decline in male religious memberships throughout the Church  has been summarized here (1P5) and here (Christendom Restauration Society). A closer process analysis shows that, because of the complexity of demographic systems, the sociological explanations alone do not suffice, as they provide no explanation for its scope, magnitude and velocity . The sudden and universal chaos that erupted could only have been a result of a catalyst. The more such a catalyst affects the whole system, the more system-wide the con-sequences will be and the shorter the period will be in which these consequences become vis-ible. It seems that the Second Vatican Council had been misused for precisely this role.
Understanding how the Council became such catalyst will give more insight to the cata-strophic decline as well as all other symptoms that manifested the fruits of Vatican II: the loss of proper understanding of the Priesthood, the loss of sacredness of Liturgical acts, the denial of objective moral laws, the undermining of sacramental marriage, and the near-universal breakdown in obedience. Such an analysis is important for recognizing the origins of these actual problems in the Church and the World of today. From a more extensive process analysis part I highlight the general process behind the Council as a catalyst, while part II concerns the crucial event at which the Council has been hijacked and misused as catalyst. Part III concerns the aftermath and among others it marks the 1985-claim that the Pastoral Council would be infallible in itself and the influence of evolutionistic liberal ideology on the actual pastorate of the Church.
What steps can be taken to prevent religious group for dying out altogether? The authors assert that internal measures should be taken to strengthen the internal spiritual quality, but this can only be done by understanding the root causes of the crisis. This process analysis reveals the root causes.
What were the stated goals and objectives of the council? The primary rule set by Pope John XXIII in his opening address lays out the substantial law for the Council itself as well as for interpreting the Council documents. The primary rule was that the council was to ‘never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’. Accordingly, the Council should be understood as a renewal not only in a kind of continuity with, but more explicit in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers. Consider the following quotes taken from the openings address on October 11, 1962 [3 ]:
- The sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously;
- The Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers;
- The truth of the Lord will remain forever;
- Men, without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine, cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation;
- Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life;
- Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars;
- Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries;
- The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all;
- The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is pre-sented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character;
- How Catholic truth can be communicated to the modern world ‘pure and whole’, without attenuations or alterations, but at the same time in such a way that the minds of our contemporaries are aided in their duty of assenting to it.
In accordance to his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram (1959), at which he condemned in harsh terms anyone who denies the revealed Truth or interferes with the spread of lies or indifferences, these words, intended to set the tone of the council, Pope John XXIII showed no desire to change oneiota of Doctrine [4 ]. From these quotes one can only conclude that he sought the continuation of the traditional teaching of the Fathers, his recent and not-so-recent predecessors.
Thus it was that, with these clear guidelines the Council opened in 1962.
The Second Vatican Council was accompanied by a wave of enthusiasm throughout the Church. Pope John XXIII expressed his optimism in his opening address to the Council, as he chided those who wondered whether this ecumenical Council was opportune. Most faithful, including religious priests, brothers and sisters as well as diocesan priests, received the Council enthusiastically. The reports of the Council by the mass media likewise seemed enthusiastic and uplifting.
The eventual results, as have been well documented by now, were disastrous. Five decades later, February 14, 2013, in an address on the subject of Vatican II, with the clarity provided by hindsight, Pope Benedict XVI alluded to the existence of two Councils: the real Council and the council-of-the-media. This council-of-the-medium reported on the real Council with a bias in favour of rupture and discontinuity, which influenced the way that it was received by the faithful throughout the world.
In the words of Pope Benedict XVI:
- It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world .
The centre of activity of this council-of-the-media was an informal press office located outside the official press office. In contrary to the official press office, this alternative press office was acting without prudence to influence the Council Fathers as well as the world with one-sided reports. There was no objectivity in this informal press office , . The ’news’ that came forth from the council-of-the-media was an early version of what is now commonly referred to as ’fake-news’.
Simply trusting that the Catholic media would report accurately, the unsuspecting faithful were fed healthy doses of propaganda through the Catholic media. Having no reason to suspect that the Catholic mass media would mislead them, and seeing the reports echoed in the secular press, they saw it all as authentic.
And again, more recently, in 2016, Pope-Emeritus Benedict VI spoke of this phenomenon:
- The bishops wanted to renew the faith, to deepen it. However, other forces were working with increasing strength, particularly journalists, who interpreted many things in a completely new way. Eventually people asked, yes, if the bishops are able to change everything, why can’t we all do that? The liturgy began to crumble, and slip into personal preferences. In respect one could soon see that what was originally desired was being driven in a different direction. Since 1965 I have felt it to be a mission to make clear what we genuinely wanted and what we did not want .
Within a few short years any attempt to articulate the original intent of the council, whether by Cardinal Ratzinger, in his later capacity as pope, or anyone else, would be seen as coming from a marginalized and eccentric minority whose opinions should only be tolerated when convenient
While Pope Benedict XVI put responsibility for a false portrayal of the real Council on the council-of-the-media, he referred also to the necessity of a direct intervention by Pope Paul VI to prevent the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum from proclaiming heresy. Suffice to say, the council-of-the-media might be responsible for the false public presentation of the real Council but cannot be held responsible for any text to be proposed by the Council Commissions that required intervention by the Pope. Similarly, it could not be held responsible for any ambiguities and contradictory text left within the final Council documents.
Below, we provide a brief sketch of some interventions that were required in order to avoid the overt promulgation of heresy.
As said, February 14, 2013, in the same address to the Roman Clergy Pope Benedict XVI mentioned a direct intervention by Pope Paul VI regarding the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. This intervention had to do with the two sources of revelation: Scripture and Tradition in accordance with to the Council of Trent.
- Sacrality must therefore be abolished, and profanity now spreads to worship: worship is no longer worship, but a community act, with communal participation: participation understood as activity. These translations, trivializations of the idea of the Council, were virulent in the process of putting the liturgical reform into practice; they were born from a vision of the Council detached from its proper key, that of faith. And the same applies to the question of Scripture: Scripture is a book, it is historical, to be treated historically and only historically, and so on. 
In this intervention, Pope Paul VI urged against the approval of a text on Scripture that considered:
- Scripture as complete, everything is found there; consequently there is no need for Tradition, and so the Magisterium has nothing to say. 
Another intervention that Pope Paul VI found necessary concerned the doctrine of marriage. New theories were being discussed on the floor of the council, even by cardinals such as Léger and Suenens, which reduced the importance of the procreative purpose of marriage and opened the way to its marginalization by elevating its unitive end and the gift of self to an equal or higher level. Pope Paul VI sent the commission four amendments, with orders to insert them in the schema. The illicit nature of artificial contraceptives was to be explicitly taught. It was also to be declared that procreation is not an incidental or parallel end of marriage when compared to the expression of conjugal love, but rather something necessary and primary. All of the amendments were supported by texts from Pius XI’s Casti Connubii, which were also to be inserted .
The amendments were accepted; however, ultimately the quotes taken from Pius XI’s Casti Connubii were left out. But in the end Pope Paul VI insisted on them being added to the schema that the council approved during its fourth session . Meanwhile, the question of contraceptives was referred to a papal commission and subsequently decided by the encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968 .
Pope Paul VI also intervened in the Council by adding Nota Praevia Explicativa to the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. If there was no text that ambiguously suggested a contradictory to the Dogma of Vatican I, there would have been no need at all to add such an explanation of 'how to read' specific parts of this Dogmatic Constitution.
A careful survey of the proceedings of the Council seems to validate the existence of a third Council, which we will refer to as a 'council-of-dissident-theologians', working behind the sce-ne with their own agenda. A review of the past 50 years with the benefit of hindsight provides a wealth of information about this council-of-dissident-theologians that manipulated the course of events and coordinated efforts with the ‘council-of-the-media’.
Thus, we can see the underhand working of these theologians, making an end run to ad-vance an agenda that was counter to the perennial teachings of the Church and the stated law of the council. An admission can be found in a statement by Father Edward Schillebeeckx in the Dutch magazine ‘De Bazuin’ (February 1965):
- We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw out the implicit conclusions .
This is an open admission of deliberately inserting ambiguities into the proposed documents. Some dissident Council Fathers and their theological advisors manipulated the text of the Council’s documents to pave the way for interpretations opposing the Faith after the Council. The widespread optimism, good will and collegial trust held by the majority worked to the advantage of the 'council-of-dissident-theologians'. The objective was to propose ambiguous texts that did not awake the concerns of the majority of the Council Fathers. To avoid backlash, they introduced ambiguous text that could be accepted by the majority of optimistic and unsuspecting Council Fathers, later to be interpreted in a way that would not have been considered acceptable.
After the closure of the real Council this 'council-of-dissident-theologian' continued to promulgate the false interpretation of the ambiguous texts, drawing out the implicit conclusions they had put in them. To assist in their dubious pursuit, and to coordinate their effort with the council-of-the-media they founded and directed the magazine ‘Concilium’. It would soon be an uphill battle for anyone attempting to go back and clarify, as Pope Benedict XVI testifies in his statement “Since 1965 I have felt it to be a mission to make clear what we genuinely wanted and what we did not want”.
The 'council-of-dissident-theologians' also introduced the term Spirit-of-the-Council as an open rule to interpret the Council documents in accordance to their agenda of rupture and discontinuity.
Pope John XXIII wished to make Christian Doctrine understandable for the modern world. Hereto, regarding the New Theology, he implicitly referred to the Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII to search for true elements within the false theories, when he said:
- ... because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained .
However, he continued to warn about the false theories:
- ... these (false theories) are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life .
At the same time, being diplomatic and having the intention to resolve this problem, he warned the New Theology to hold on to the Council’s rule never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers and offered them the medicine-of-mercy:
- The Church in every age has opposed these errors and often has even condemned them and indeed with the greatest severity. But at the present time, the spouse of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity; and, she thinks she meets today's needs by explaining the validity of her doctrine more fully rather than by condemning .
Pope John XXIII was convinced of the power of the Truth and counted on the right norms of honesty of all involved. Though the Pope had every right to expect that the Council Fathers and theologians would listen to him, the result was the exact opposite. While the introduction of the medicine-of-mercy was coupled to the need for a clear and full ex-planation of the Doctrine without any ambiguity, they uncoupled the medicine-of-mercy from the clear and full explanation of the Doctrine. While Pope John XXIII asked for a 'wise organization of mutual co-operation' , he was betrayed by those who he had showed in advance his mercy, and who animated by some noxious spirit, participated in the council-of-dissident-theologians. Thereby, like the complaint of Pope Paul VI spring 1966 , they had created a false portrayal of the legacy of Pope John XXIII. This betrayal continues up to today. The hardliners and their ideological descendants firmly reject the Council’s rule set Pope John XXIII and condemn the Church as She existed prior to the Council, they rigidly strive for the complete suppression of it, thereto lacking any kind of mercy.
Being merciful in advance without any assurance isn’t it a risk? Isn’t it implicitly a decoupling of Justice and Mercy as well as a denying of the sense of discipline? Isn’t it therefore a decoupling of doctrine and discipline?
The council proceeded in threefold. The majority of unsuspecting participants worked toward the stated goals, but for some reason their judgement seems to be clouded to recognize the ambiguities; the council-of-dissident-theologians crafted ambiguous documents to be later interpreted in a manner that the majority would have rejected, and the council-of-the-media provided a false narrative for public consumption and eventual widespread acceptance of that which was not intended. It was the perfect storm. At its conclusion, the revolutionaries quickly solidified their position by hurling accusations of ‘disobedience’ to the Council at anyone questioning their novelties.
Referring to the opening address by Pope John XXIII, it is this false spirit that animated the council-of-dissident-theologians’ and gave rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars throughout the years since the Council. Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Truth, He cannot contradict Himself. The distortions of deliberated ambiguities, contradictory text phrases as well as one-sided quotations of the doctrine can never be considered as the Fruits of a ‘humble and gracious collaboration with the in-tention of the Holy Spirit’. However, by allowing these lethal fruits being produced, the Holy Spirit had respected the free will of man and, in a wonderful way, also protected the Pastoral Council against full heresies by leaving open the possibility to interpret the Council‘s docu-ments by free will in accordance to the rule set by Pope John XXIII: ‘never depart from the sa-cred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’. And, because the Council was set up as Pastoral, the Doctrine of Church has the last word undoubtedly.
While in his opening address Pope John XXIII had expressed optimism, the diary notes of Father Henri de Lubac S.J. [10 ] showed an opposite trend. The German and French bishops were involved in a counter-plan for a total rejection of the preparatory documents. This plan was spearheaded by some theologians of the ‘New Theology’ , [11 ]. By means of their intrigues, three years of work that had been carried out by more than a thousand mem-bers from all over the world, was scuttled.
We refer here to Father Henri de Lubac S.J., who at the very beginning of the Council wrote in his diary:
- ‘... He (Father Daniélou S.J.) is already working on a counterplan, which perhaps will be combined with the one we believe Father Rahner S.J. is preparing’ (October 12. 1962) .
Then reporting on October 19, 1962, about a meeting of a select number of Council Fathers and theologians opposing the preparatory documents:
- ‘At 4 P.M., on the northwest slope of the Janiculum, a meeting at the boarding house where Archbishop Volk of Mainz is staying to study the drafting of a positive doctrinal schema and to examine the proce-dure to follow as to have it accepted while setting aside the schemas of the preparatory commission. There were 25 of us. Nine bishops: Volk, his auxilary, the archbishop of Berlin (Bengsch), Garrone (Toulouse), Guerry (Cambrai) Ancel (auxillery of Lion), Schmitt (Metz), Weber and his Elchinger (Strasbourg). Among the theologians: K. Rahner S.J., J. Ratzinger, H. Kung, Mgr. Philips (Louvain), Daniélou S.J., Rondet, Congar O.P. , Chenu, Labourdette a Dutchman (Piet Fransen SJ or Schillebeeckx O.P.). Very interesting discussion. Karl Rahner S.J. gave some explanations. Then each one gave his opinion, either on the content or on the tactics to adopt. Various possibilities. The German were more scathing than the French. Bishop Elchinger and Bishop Schmitt will serve at liaisons’ .
With a following up on October 22, 1962:
- ‘On Sunday, Fathers Rahner S.J., Congar O.P. and Daniélou S.J. met, following the meeting around Bishop Volk. Congar O.P. is preparing a totally new schema, as a sort of general prooemium that they would try to have accepted by the Commission for Extraordinary Affairs. Rahner S.J. and Daniélou S.J. are preparing a revision of existing texts, as a fall-back position in case Congar’s schema should be rejected on principle’ .
Besides these diary notes another event needs our attention. When, spring 1962, the preparatory documents were sent to the Cardinals and Bishops of the Central Preparatory Commission for a final "placet", Cardinal Franz König of Wien had sent these documents to his theologian advisor Father Karl Rahner S.J., who could not agree with it. He concluded that all documents would be rejected and replaced. Thereto he arranged a three days meeting at the residence of Mgr. Volk of Mainz, one of his pupils, in the late summer 1962 with some German Bishops and theologians, like Mgr. Hermann Volk, Auxillary Bishof Mgr Reusz, Hirschmann S.J. (Frankfurt), Stakemeier (Paderborn), Semmelroth S.J., Grillmeier S.J., Bacht (all three from Frankfurt), Ratzinger (Bonn) und Feiner (Chur). Most of the theologians were also theological advisors of their Bishops and as such present at the Council [12 ].
The success of these efforts produced a paradoxical outcome for Vatican II: the preparatory work that usually foreshadows the results of a council, was nullified and rejected from the first session onward while successive spirits and tendencies followed one upon another. This departure from the original plan did not happen as a result of a decision made by the council, operating within its rules, but started by an irregular act of Cardinal Liénart.
October 13, 45 years after the miracle of the Sun in Fatima, Cardinal Liénart violated the council’s legal framework by reading a prepared text calling for a delay on the vote of the members of the Council’s commissions. This intervention was followed by an intervention of Cardinal Frings, who did so also in the name of Cardinal Königs, in favour of Cardinal Liénart’s proposal, which was then accepted by an applauding majority of Council Fathers. Cardinal Liénart claimed that his act, discovering a letter in his hand and reading it loudly at a microphone, was a spontaneous charismatic inspired action:
- ‘I only spoke because I felt constrained to do so by a higher force, in which I feel obliged to recognize that of the Holy Spirit’ .
But Father Henri de Lubac S.J. reported in his diary in advance about this event:
- ‘Father Daniélou S.J., who had seen a lot of people, thinks that tomorrow the bishops could ask for a de-lay in the elections to the commissions, so as to have the time to clarify their vote’ ;
- ‘.. the French bishops met again; they only, by successive votes, drew up a list of French names that they are proposing for commissions’ .
- ‘We are going to see to it that this Council is not a council of experts’ .
While Yves Congar O.P. reported in his Journal of the Council that Cardinal Liénart did nothing more than reading the letter written by Mgr. Garonne:
- ‘The paper read by Cardinal Liénart on the first day of the First Session had been written by Mgr. Garonne, whose idea it had been, Cardinal Liénart did no more then read it’ .
But, how could Cardinal Frings also react on such spontaneous intervention in the name of Cardinal Königs, while Cardinal Frings as member of the Presidium was sitting at the Presidium, which was not the case with Cardinal Königs. Thus if Cardinal Frings could speak in the name of Cardinal Königs as well as all German and Austrian Episcopates , they would have been informed about this intervention in advance. So, this cannot be called spontaneous at all. It was indeed an irregular deliberate intervention.
And when Cardinal Liénart asked for a delay so that the bishops would know each other better, how could these approximately 2500 bishops know each other better in only 3 days’ period, including a Sunday, while nothing was arranged for it? Obviously, as Father Danièlou S.J. suggested, October 12: the hidden agenda needed more time to arrange sufficient sup-port for getting their own candidates elected. So the suggested spontaneity was a lie.
Furthermore, it has to consider that, because Cardinals Liénart and Frings were part of the Presidium, they could have discussed this matter within the Presidium. However, the Presidium as an executive committee knew that they had no power to overrule the rules set by the Pope: ‘the rules of the Council could not be changed without the approval of the Holy Father’ (October, 16 ). Such a request would have been forwarded to the Pope, but as long as the Pope did not respond, the normal procedure would have carried forward going on.
And because that can take one or two days, this procedure would take too much time to stop voting that same day. Thus a method of ‘breaking the rules’ was chosen. And so by a sudden ‘raid’ Cardinal Liénart started a chain of irregularities to stop the voting on the first working day of the Council.
Some comments on this event can be found in the diary of Father Henri de Lubac S.J.:
- ‘This dramatic little episode is spoken of as a victory of the bishops over the Holy Office. Other victories will no doubt be more difficult’ .
And in the journal by Father Yves Congar O.P.
- ‘... the principle importance rests in the fact that this is a first Conciliar Act, a refusal to accept even the possibility of prefabrication’ and ‘Between the Supreme head (and his Curia) and the individual bishops, there are intermediate groupings. One of the results of the Council ought to be that giving them more pow-er and independence. The importance of this was demonstrated on the very first day’ ;
- ‘That was our first victory’ .
Cardinal Suenens, in his memoirs, emphasized the revolutionary significance of this incident, while at the same time he portrayed Pope John XXIII falsely:
- ‘Happy coup and daring injury to the Regiment! ... The destinies of the Council were decided to a great ex-tent at this moment, John XXIII was glad about it’ .
Apparently, these reactions sounds more like a triumph within a revolutionary rebellion war then like a spirit of mutual mercy .
Now Pope John XXIII was faced with this delay as ‘a fait accompli’. How could he react on this seemingly spontaneous irregular delay? Why, would Pope John XXIII renounce or postpone the Council or dismiss the Presidium, while this incident was argued to be so spontaneous? Would this do more damage to the image of the Council and bring much more delay than accepting this delay? So, Pope John XXIII sanctioned the outcome of this irregular act and the Council went on.
The fact that the Pope sanctioned the outcome does not take away the intentions behind this chain of irregular links.
- (1) Cardinal Liénart, member of the Presidium, reading a paper prepared by Mgr. Garonne. Factually, this was twofold irregular. Firstly the intervention itself, and secondly by addressing the request to the Council Fathers instead of the Holy Father.
- (2) The intervention by Cardinal Frings, who was a member of the Presidium too.
- (3) The applause by a majority of Council Fathers that was officially forbidden [13 ].
- (4) The change of the Council’s rule by the Presidium.
- (5) The lie by Cardinal Liénart to convince the Pope that his intervention was a spontaneous, charismatic inspired act.
All these successive irregularities were breaking the council’s legal framework, showing a deliberate lack of a humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit’. Isn’t it that this has consequences regarding to the help of the Holy Spirit for the individual Council Fathers involved?
Here we must consider the astonishing claim too that this intervention was a charismatic inspiration. He would have us believe that, while the Council was called and prepared by Pope John XXIII by command of the Holy Spirit, at the first working day of the Council the Holy Spirit would promptly turn on the Council by breaking the Council’s legal framework, putting the Pope up to ‘a fait accompli’. This claim is ridiculous, and in contradiction to both, the convocation of the Council [14 ] and the opening address by Pope John XXIII. The latter was only two days past, October 11, at which the Pope expressed his conviction that the preparatory documents were ‘an initial gift of celestial grace by the Holy Spirit’ [15 ].
As Cardinal Suenens suggested that Pope John XXIII would be ‘glad about it’, he would not have told the Pope that he considered this event as ‘a happy coup and a first victory over the Holy Office’ of which the Pope himself was the Prefect. Certainly, looking at the claim by Cardinal Liénart, he would not have told the Pope the truth about this event.
While the lists of the members of the several commissions originally proposed by the Holy Office were based on the preparatory commissions to assure the continuity between the preparatory documents and the final documents. Now the majority of the elected members of the Council Commissions represented a break with the preparation of the Council.
Father Henry de Lubac S.J. reported (October 29) that because the Curia was being ‘forgotten’ by the Council Fathers Pope John XXIII decided to increase the foreseen number of eight members per commission to be appointed by the Pope to nine . Herewith, Pope John XXIII appointed more than the foreseen one-third of the members for each Council Commission, with which he broke the possibility for an absolute majority of the choice of the Council Fathers.
And since he tended to appoint conservative Council Fathers from the ‘Curia’, introducing some religious superiors and to balance nationalities so as to satisfy the small countries this upset those attached to the ‘New Theology’ . Apparently Cardinal Alfrink showed himself very pessimistic:
- 'the choices of John XXIII, is said to have saddened those who desire a renewal’ .
Obviously, he realized very well that by this act of Pope John XXIII, now the Council Fathers and their theologian advisors attached to the ‘New Theology’ within the Council Commission had to make compromises.
While Cardinal Suenens in his memoires suggested that the Pope would be ‘glad’ about the event of October 13 , evidently, by this act Pope John XXIII did the opposite. He tried to resolve the effect of that event of the first working day of the Council as far as possible. Herewith the Pope created a condition that made compromises necessary. Evidently, herewith the Holy Spirit had created a certain condition at which, with respect to the free will of each individual Council Father as well as the theologian advisors, the Council was protect-ed against full heresies. Thereby leaving open to all, the possibility for a ‘humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit’ by free will to work on the Council‘s documents in accordance to the rule set down by Pope John XXIII in his opening address: never de-part from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers. According to this law it appears that the Doctrine of the Church has the last word about the documents of this Pastoral Council without any attenuations or alterations.
The French and Germans joint together to get the rejection of the preparatory docu-ments. After the rejections, due to their different perspectives to reject these documents this co-operation was weakening. The French were focussed on the relationship between Church and State, while the Germans were focussed on the Church itself. Then on request of Cardinal Seunens the Belgian Mgr. Philips, professor at Louvain, jumped in. Now the theologians gathered regularly at the Belgium College discussing the actual topics in the sev-eral commissions, advising each other what to introduce in the texts to be proposed to the Council Fathers. Hereto the French Father Yves Congar O.P. finally moved to the Belgian College .
Regularly the renewal and the medicine-of-mercy were used as arguments, but falsely decoupled from the requirement ‘not to depart the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’. It is, therefore, important to consider the opening address in 1962 speaking about the medicine-of-mercy:
- As the Second Vatican Council begins, it is clearer than ever before that the truth of the Lord re-mains forever (Ps 116:2). Indeed, as age succeeds age, we see the uncertain opinions of men take one another's place and new-born errors often vanish as quickly as a mist dispelled by the sun. The Church in every age has opposed these errors and often has even condemned them and indeed with the greatest severity. But at the present time, the spouse of Christ prefers to use the medicine-of-mercy rather than the weapons of severity; and, she thinks she meets today's needs by explaining the validity of her doctrine more fully rather than by condemning. 
Thus in no way the medicine-of-mercy may be uncoupled from the need to explain the Church’s Doctrine more fully while the condemnation of the old and modern errors were never abrogated. The latter has been showed in the opening address by condemning:
- the ‘uncertain opinions of men’, the ‘new-born errors’, a ‘fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against’ and ‘particularly those ways of life, which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life’ .
Herewith Pope John XXIII clearly condemned the theories of the New Theology like Pope Pius XII did in 1950 by his Encyclical Humani Generis. But Pope John XXIII, as optimistic as he is, expected that these errors would vanish as quickly as a mist dispelled by the sun if the validity of the Doctrine has been explained more fully. Obviously, the medicine-of-mercy does not concern the error itself, but those who have to convert from these errors: not by punishing, but by convincing. The errors are still condemned.
Apparently, regarding to the medicine-of-mercy, how can the Council’s documents with the deliberate ambiguities, contradictory text phrases and one-sided quotations be considered as a more fully explanation of the Church’s doctrine? Therefore, the hermeneutic law set by Pope John XXIII has to be accepted as a conditio sine qua non, not only in a kind of continuity with, but more explicit in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers.
In pursuit of their objective the council-of-dissident-theologians played their hand well; on the one hand by the council-of-media they continued to spread the biased view of the Council in-cluding the portrayals of the Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. On the other hand by publish-ing their intentionally ambiguous and contradictory texts in their own international religious magazine Concilio in multiple languages. With the fathers Karl Rahner S.J., Hans Küng, Ives Congar O.P. and Edward Schillebeeckx O.P. as editors they controlled all publications, by which they were able to exclude papers that departed from their line of interpretation. Still during the Council they started a strong offensive of false interpretation departing from the doctrine of the Church. As described by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto they refused any serious discussion by calling any other interpretation a departure from the Council:
- ... the false and erroneous interpretation of Vatican II ..... being one trend of the modern theology that vituperates as anti-conciliar anyone who departs from their monopoly-line of the Council's interpretation. [ 16]
Thereby replacing the hermeneutic rule set by Pope John XXIII in his opening address and repeated by Pope Paul VI in his closing address in 1965, with the vague ‘spirit of the council’, which in fact is identical with ‘spirit of the council-of-dissident-theologians’ [17 ]. Herewith they intended to eliminate the influence of the conservative minority and the several interventions by Pope Paul VI in favour of the Council’s rule set by Pope John XXIII: ‘never departing from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’ and ‘that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught more effectively’.
The gravity of the falsification of the Council can be recognized by the complaints of Pope Paul VI so shortly after the Council’s closure, spring 1966 :
- (1) a dangerous relativism, (2) a false mystic about Pope John XXIII, (3) nobody is listening to the voice of Pope, (4) a crisis of the celibacy, (5) a false forming of the public opinion, (6) a spirit of Council that has been replaced by a spirit of some Extremist’
On this point Pope Paul VI had also addressed his concerns more officially in 1966:
- ‘It would not be the truth for anybody to imagine that the Vatican Council II represented any kind of break, interruption, or 'liberation' from the teaching of the Church, or that it authorized or promoted any kind of accommodation or conformism with the mentality of our times, in its negative or ephemeral aspects’. 
On July 24, 1966 and in accordance with these concerns, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the new erected Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, issued a Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences addressing some sentences and errors arising from the interpretation of the decrees of Vatican II (Cum Oecumenicum Concilium) [18 ].
However, what about these complaints by Pope Paul VI? If he did not intend to touch the doctrine, wasn’t he aware that the doctrine and discipline are coupled, that they affect each other like the lex orandi, lex credendi? Was he betrayed by some Cardinal advisors he trusted?
And considering that at the beginning of the Council Pope John XXIII showed his mer-cy in advance to the dissident theologians without asking for an assurance from them. He continued by sanctioning a deliberate breaking of the Council’s rule on the first working day of the Council, and with his own break of the Council’s rule by rejecting the preparatory document De Fontibus, while the voting had no absolute majority. Of course, the Pope has the absolute power to decide so, but he cannot prevent the consequences. But because, in this way, Pope John XXIII had undermined the discipline of the Council Fathers and theo-logians, he could not prevent the hijack of the Council and the introduction of deliberately ambiguous texts in the Council’s documents in favour of the evolutionary liberal ideology.
And was Pope Paul VI, still at that time Cardinal Montini, involved in one of the irregular events of the first working day of the Council, like the irregular applause by the majority of the Council Fathers, that went on to break the rule put forward by Pope John XXIII and lead to the hijacking of the Council? Was he then, like so many other Council Fathers, blind to the consequences that doctrinal ambiguities can have, and to the effects of the release of discipline?
Regarding the consequences of the loss of discipline, the first sentence of one of the mi-nor documents, Dignitatis Humanae, (DH 1) can be highlighted here:
- The dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, en-joying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty’
This sentence is really ambiguous. Surely, within the context of the whole doctrine in-cluding what was left out, it can be read as in accordance with the Council’s rule: ‘never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’. But, by not referring to the consequences of original sin on human dignity leaves this quote open to false interpretations in accordance with the evolutionary liberal ideology that denies original sin. In this way the spe-cific text ‘not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty’ meant a release from the discipli-nary obligation to the norms, by leaving these norms to be a subject of conscience. While in addition ‘men should act on their own judgment’ meant that norms need not be taught anymore, because these norms are considered as coming from outside and thus driven by coercion. And by not teaching these norms the conscience cannot be either properly informed or motivated by a sense of duty anymore. So, due to the false interpretation that has been so aggressively dictated by the council-of-dissident-theologians, the conscience has been replaced by undefined and subjective ‘feelings’ that differ from the original norms held prior to the Council. Eventually this created a situation in which the newly developed practices became the absolute norm, rigidly enforced and made obligatory for all faithful, despite the fact that the traditional norms were never abrogated. They accused all faithful for rigidness who are attached to and missioned the traditional norms of the Church’s Doctrine. Even the younger generation born and drowned by the liberal education in the aftermath period of the Council and who make their own choice towards the norms prior to the Council are called rigid by these liberals. Thereby those, who did not wish to depart from the norms in place prior to the Council, were compelled to accept this 'new freedom', like so many priests and religious in the past and even it still happens today, who were sent to so-called sensitivity trainings to break their resistance. But whereby also their mental health became disordered.
Beside the complaints in 1966, Pope Paul VI showed more than once that Vatican II is not a break with the Doctrine: ‘never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’. The most important here are the encyclicals Mysterium Fidei (1965), Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (1967) and Humanae Vitae (1968) as well as the Credo of the People of God (1968). However hardly anyone seems to listen to these teachings by the Pope. In particular the continuation of the Church Teachings on celibacy, marriage and contraception fell out of favour and was under heavy fire from dissident theologians, priests and even Bishops and Cardinals. However besides defending the doctrine and the moral norms directly derived from the doctrine, he had released the obligation regarding the disciplinary rules that seemingly had nothing to do with the doctrine, like the liturgical discipline.
Pope Paul VI, while releasing the liturgical discipline in the rubrics of the reformed Liturgy of 1970, he declared his intention that both liturgical forms, traditional and reformed, maintain the same lex credendi. This intention is fully confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Encyclical Summorum Pontificum. But one can similarly observe a one-sided use of the doctrine expressing the lex credendi in the reformed Liturgy [ 19], [20 ] and [21 ]. Isn’t it that the release of discipline affects the lex orandi negatively, which combined with the poor expression of the lex credendi has opened risks for ongoing vicious spirals degrading the sacredness of the Holy Liturgy?
The consequences of this poor expression of doctrine, is very evident in the following remarkable example. The liberal interpretation of DH1 can be said to have led to the removal of the first part of the second prayer from the offertory of the mass, under the guise of liturgical reform: ‘O God, Who wonderfully formed the dignity of human nature, and more wonderfully restored it’
The original prayer expressed the fullness of the Doctrine of Faith very well. The dignity of human nature that was formed so wonderfully by God, and after it was wounded due to the origin sin by Adam, it was more wonderfully restored by God through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ by His Crucifixion, in which we can participate only through the water of the Baptism and the wine of His Blood as he is the Door to Heaven. Thus, the first part of this prayer that implicitly expresses the continuing reminder of the original sin, has simply been removed without any replacement.
Why was this done? Was this text phrase not important or was it an unnecessary repeti-tion? Anyway, isn't it perhaps that the original prayer did not fit the unrestricted evolution-ary liberal ideology that denies original sin? Isn’t it that in the long term this is suppressing the notion of original sin from the actual memory of Faithfull? Do we meet here, despite the warnings by the Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, a serious blindness by those, who were responsible for the introduction of the reformed Liturgy, and to the true intentions behind the New Theology of the dissident theologians?
On June 23rd, 1972, another important address was given to the Cardinals of the Curia. Here Pope Paul VI clearly condemned the hermeneutic that was confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, calling it the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture:
- ‘... an emergency which We cannot and must not keep hidden: in the first place a false and erroneous in-terpretation of the Council, which would want to break with the tradition, even as regards the doctrine, an interpretation which goes so far that the pre-conciliar Church is rejected and one is allowed to consider a 'new' church, as it were reinvented from the inside, as regards the constitution of the Church, her dogma, custom and law’. [22 ]
And in the same week in his homily on June 29th 1972 he also spoke about:
- ‘... from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.’
Meanwhile, the years between 1966 and 1972 marked a split within the council-of-dissident-theologians , between the hard core of the board of Concilium and a moderated group of theologians that established a new international theological magazine Communio. They accused the board of Concilium of the following [24 ]:
- Acting as a secondary magisterium, or official teaching authority, alongside the bishops. Theologians have a key role to play in the understanding and development of doctrine, but they cannot supplant the bishops’ responsibility of holding and teaching the apostolic faith.
- Launching Vatican III when the ink on the documents of Vatican II was barely dry. They wanted to ride the progressive momentum of Vatican II toward a series of reforms -- women’s ordination, suspension of priestly celibacy, radical reform of the Church’s sex-ual ethic, etc. -- that were by no means justified by the texts of the council.
- Perpetuating the spirit-of-the-council. Councils, they stated, are sometimes necessary in the life of the Church, but they also represent moments when the Church throws itself into question and pauses to decide an issue or controversy.
The idea for this new international theological review was discussed within the Theological Commission, established by Pope Paul VI in 1969. Together with the encyclicals since 1966, the addresses in 1972 and the appointments of moderate Bishops he had contributed to start a process of restoration. However this process could not suppress the extreme dissident theologians. It could also not prevent the ongoing suppression of anyone holding the norms of the Church prior to the Council. Here we encounter firstly the suppressions of Mgr. Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in the early nineteen seventies, the suppressing in general of the Traditional Liturgy but also most recently in 2013 the suppression of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (FI).
1985 marks another important event in the aftermath of Vatican II. Pope John Paul II convened an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the 20th anniversary of the closure of the Council that came up with six agreed upon principles for interpretations, which may be paraphrased as follows [25 ]:
- Each passage and document of the council must be interpreted in the context of all the others, so that the integral teaching of the council may be rightly grasped.
- The four constitutions of the council (those on liturgy, church, revelation and church in the modern world) are the hermeneutical key to the other documents—namely, the council’s nine decrees and three declarations.
- The pastoral import of the documents ought not to be separated from, or set in opposition to, their doctrinal content
- No opposition may be made between the spirit and the letter of Vatican II.
- The council must be interpreted in continuity with the great tradition of the church, including earlier councils.
- Vatican II should be accepted as illuminating the problems of our own day.
Undoubtedly these 1985-principles, born from a compromise between the 'hard core' and the 'moderated' theologians, are ambiguous as well. No reference is made to the hermeneutic rule set by Pope John XXIII in his opening address and being confirmed by Pope Paul VI in his closure address in 1965.
The first two principles create a vicious circle that depending on the interpretation of the ambiguities can become a downwards oriented spiral. In particular, placing the pastoral constitution at the same level as the doctrinal constitution is asking for a fundamental problem. The outcome of the third principle, depends strongly on the results of the first two principles, how one understands the pastorate as it relates to the doctrine.
The same consequence can also be found for the fourth principle; the ambiguity in the Council’s documents allows the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ to become rather creepy. Apparently a false ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ leads to a false interpretation of the documents, while a false interpretation evidently leads to a false ‘Spirit of Vatican II’
Principle 5 can be considered as most important, but is also most dangerous. Though the expression ‘continuity’ can be understood well, as a deepening of the Truth in 'unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers’. But because the term ‘continuity’ fundamentally implicates a ‘change’ without discontinuity this principle leaves open the opportunity for departing from ‘the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’ by a continuing range of infinitely small steps forming a curve away from the Doctrine of the Fathers. A change that will only be recognized in the latter stages of the process as a contradiction to the past. The smaller the steps and the more time each step takes the later it will be recognized as a substantial change. Therefore ‘continuity’ does not express per se the same intention as expressed by the Popes John XXIII and Paul VI: ‘in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers’.
Moreover, the term continuity also bears another danger. A comparison can be made with physics in which the conservation of matter is a fundamental principle. When an explosion destroys any physical form, the conservation of matter guarantees the continuation of matter from which renewed forms can built up. So any change or break of form always is associated with a conservation of matter. This leaves the opportunity that a break of form will be argued as a continuity, because of the continuity of matter.
Then finally principle 6 declares a Pastoral Council as a kind of infallible dogma in itself, including the ambiguities, contradictory text phrases and one-sided use of the doctrine, while that Council in no way attempted to declare any dogma. Placing the pastoral constitution at the same level as the dogmatic constitutions (principle 2), opened the opportunity to replace the orthodoxy with an orthopraxis.
Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the latter being in 1985 Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, had collaborated in the hijack of the Council. Apparently, an act that had lacked the humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit. Were they therefore beaten into blindness to the general rule of the Council set by Pope John XXIII ‘a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers? And if so, it means that they had implicitly agreed with the 1985-principles, which exposed the risks of considering the Pastoral Council as an infallible dogma in itself, and replacing orthodoxy by an orthopraxis as well. Certainly both popes did not follow the evolutionary liberal ideology like those who reject the Church’s norms prior to the Council. Both Popes worked on the restoration of the doctrine that was damaged so heavily by the offensive of false interpretations after the Council. They indeed, allowed the faithful attached to the norms prior to the Council to remain so: these norms were never abrogated. Finally, this has resulted in a slight growth of the male religious memberships between 2004 and 2012, by which the severe decline of the Congregations following the evolutionary liberal ideology has been compensated by an overall growth of the others. And indeed that growth is similar to the growth prior to the Council. Therefore, it is simply a lie to claim that the growth of newly founded orders has caused thecontinued decline of the orders in severe decline.
Since Pope Francis took over the chair of Peter a renewed slight decline of male religious memberships  is observed. He is the first post-Council Pope that was not involved in the Council itself, but educated during the Council and its direct aftermath. This period is characterized by a dissident climate that disobeyed Pope Paul VI and the hermeneutic rule set by Pope John XXIII that also was repeated by Pope Paul VI: ‘never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’.
Apparently, this dissident evolutionary liberal spirit of the Jesuits reflects the way Pope Francis is acting. The evidence for this behaviour we see clearly manifested by:
- Rejecting the norms prior to the Council, as evidenced by:
- Suppressing the Franciscans of the Immaculate for becoming attached to the reli-gious and liturgical norms prior to the Council;
- accusing those attached to these prior norms of being 'rigid';
- Decoupling between pastoral practice and doctrine, by which the pastoral practice lacks any clear objective and absolute norms, such as in the post-synodic apostolic exhortation
- Decoupling between mercy and justice, by which mercy lacks any on objective and absolute norms to judge;
- Replacing absolute and objective norms by a subjective orthopraxis founded on general feelings, by which the main goal of the Church of saving souls, has been replaced by saving the physical world;
- The reply to journalists of ‘Who am I to judge’, expresses very clearly the evolutionary liberal ideology, where ‘men should act on their own judgment’. This ideology does not consider homo-sexual activity as a disordered form of sexuality, and therefore it is also not a moral crime in itself. Consequently, it denies that the homosexual activity in itself is a potential intrinsic source for sexual abuses and suggests that it only becomes a crime if it is ‘driven by coercion’. Therefore they claim that clerical sexual abuse to be a sin of clericalism, in which the moral power over their victims is misused. Following this logic, it becomes very clear that only in case of minors do they consider sexual abuse as a crime. Not because of the sexual abuse itself, but because the victim could not defend themselves. And since it is considered to be a sin of clericalism, the abusers were generally only transferred without a true punishment. Isn't this a false mercy decoupled from justice, which had led to a fundamental lack of compassion towards the victims?
Thus concrete measures against the former Cardinal McCarrick, were first taken after the sexual abuse of a minor became indeed clearly known. In accordance with the evolutionary liberal ideology, the sexual abuses reported in 2013, were not considered as a crime by Pope Francis, these concerned adult seminarians only. On doing this he had demonstrated a disregard for the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers and a lack of justice as well as a lack of compassion towards the victims;
- Arguing by means of modern evolutionary liberal ideology instead of deepening the Doctrine. A clear example of the definitive influence of this liberal ideology on Pope Francis, is the proposition that the death penalty becomes inadmissible, as an organic development of the general opinion; which nowadays considers it as contrary to human dignity. Interestingly the previous two Popes still considered the death penalty as undesirable but still legal. This would require a fundamental examination and deepening of the doctrine concerning the relationship between (un-)desirability and legality of the death penalty.
Let us briefly examine this last point in the light of the Gospels:
- John 19:11: Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
- Luke 23:39-43: And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we re-ceive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
In John 19:11 Jesus confirms that the power Pilate has, to have Him crucified, has been given from above. Herewith, Jesus confirmed that the power of the State regarding the death penalty has come from God. And in Luke 23:39-43 Christ did not deny the words of the 'good' robber, who said about the death penalty: 'we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds' . Then, this robber explained why it was a sin of Pilate and a greater sin for those who had delivered Jesus to Pilate: 'this man hath done no evil'. Then one can observe the true manifestation of Mercy and Justice by Christ, in saying to the 'good' robber: 'Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise'. After the 'good' robber said to Jesus: 'Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? ... Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom'. Mercy only for the robber who converts. Isn’t this a fundamentally clear example of both Justice and Mercy in action?
So, while the Gospel confirms the death penalty is coming from God as a clear responsibility of the State, then any suggested development that ends up into the contrary is indeed then a rupture that breaks with the Gospel. Isn’t it that the death penalty reminds the liberals of objective and absolute norms regarding Justice and Mercy, especially with regard to the final judgment? Isn’t that exactly what the liberals do not accept?
Can we state from this, that Pope Francis repeated here the worldly opinions of the liberals, demonstrating that he has a blind spot for the consequences of the teachings, which depart ‘from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers’? Similarly is he not aware that Pope John XXIII in his opening address had coupled the use of the medicine-of-mercy with the explanation of the validity of the Church’s full doctrine? Pope John XXIII did not abrogate any condemnations made by his predecessors, but explicitly by condemning the uncertain opinions of men’, the ‘new-born errors’, a ‘lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’ [26 ], he confirmed in his Opening Address the condemnation of the main principles of the New Theology by Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis.
We can conclude, therefore, that we must blame the dissident theologians who taught Pope Francis, and who transformed the true Ignatian Spirit into a dissident liberal one. Tragically, it is in this dissident liberal spirit, that Pope Francis has been drowned like so many other Jesuits, and effectively brainwashed for such a long period. Evidently, this had its consequence for the Society of Jesus in general too, as demonstrated by the ongoing severe decline in numbers of Jesuits  that indicates a lack of true spiritual inspiration.
Therefore Pope Francis has to be considered as a fruit and in the same time as a victim of the liberal wing that hijacked the Second Vatican Council, as so many Cardinals, Bishops, priests and faithful are today. So he certainly needs our prayers so that, as St. Peter initially denied to know Jesus thrice, similarly Pope Francis, who has been drowned into and as such betrayed for more than 55 years by the dissident liberal spirit of the Jesuits, may have a change of heart.
1 ‘Fruits of Vatican II; I. Observational Analysis of the Male Religious Memberships: A Willful Ignorance of an Ongoing Catastrophe?’, Jack P. Oostveen and David Sonnier[ http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/Fruits-of-Vatican_II-part_1.htm];
2 ‘Fruits of Vatican II; II Process Analysis Concerning the Religious Memberships: Renewal in Unity and in Accordance with the Doctrine or False Interpretations? http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/Fruits-of-Vatican_II-part_1.htm];
3 ‘Opening address of the Second Vatican Council’ (October 11th), Pope St. John XXIII (1962) [ http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/speeches/1962/documents/hf_j-xxiii_spe_19621011_opening-council.html - because the Vatican website does not provide an English translation of this Opening Address, the translation by http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm has been used];
4 ‘Papst Johannes XXIII begegnen’, Alexandra von Teuffenbach (2005), Sankt UlrichVerlag GmbH, ISBN 3-936484-47-3;
5 ‘Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Clergy - February 14, 2013’, Pope Benedict XVI (2013); [ http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_ 20130214_clero-roma.html];
6‘Henri de Lubac S.J., Vatican Council Notebooks’ vol. 1, Henri de Lubac (2015); Ignatius Press, ISBN 978-1-58617-305-0;
7 ‘My Journal of the Council’, Yves Congar O.P. (2012, English translation); Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minesotta, ISBN 978-0-8146-8029-2;
8 ‘Benedict XVI, last testament in his own words with Peter Seewald’, Peter Seewald (2016); Bloomsburry Publish-ing, ISBN 978-1-4729-4467;
9 ‘Iota Unum, A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century’ Romano Amerio (1985, Dutch trans-lation), Angela Press, ISBN: 9780963903211;
10 ‘Henri de Lubac S.J., Vatican Council Notebooks’ vol. 1, Henri de Lubac (2015); Ignatius Press, ISBN 978-1-58617-305-0;
11 ‘My Journal of the Council’, Yves Congar O.P. (2012, English translation); Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minesotta, ISBN 978-0-8146-8029-2;
12 ‘Aus Liebe und Treue zur Kirche, Eine etwas andere Geschichte des Zweiten Vatikanums’, Alexandra von Teuffen-bach (2004); Morus Verlag, Berlin, Germany, ISSBN3-87554-398-X;
13 ‘Theological Highlights of Vatican II’, Joseph Ratzinger (1966, edition 2009); Paulist Press, ISBN978-0-8091-4610-9;
15 ‘Opening address of the Second Vatican Council’, Pope St. John XXIII (October 11, 1962); [because the Vatican website does not provide an English translation of this Opening Address, the translation by http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2 open.htm has been used here and verified with the Dutch translation];
16 ‘Vatican II, a Counterpoint for History of Council’, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto (2010), ISBN 978-1-58966-1967;
17 ‘Papst Johannes XXIII begegnen’, Alexandra von Teuffenbach (2005), Sankt UlrichVerlag GmbH, ISBN 3-936484-47-3;
18 AAS 58 (1966) 659-661; Nuntius 1 (1967) 17-19; Documenta 3 [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19660724_epistula_en.htm];
19 'Die überlieferte Messe – Geschichte – Gestalt – Thelogie, Michael Fiedrowicz (2012); 2. aktualisierte Auflage, Carthusianus Verlag, ISBN 978-3-941862-12-8;
20 ‘The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite’, Laszlo Dobszay (2010), T&T Clark International, ISBN 978-0-567-03386-4;
21‘The Collects of the Roman Missals, a comparative study of the Sundays in Proper Seasons before and after the Second Vatican Council’, L. Pristas (2013); Boomsbury T&T Clark, ISBN 978-0-567-03384-0;
22‘Die 23 mensis iunii a. 1972: Eminentissimis Sacri Collegii Cardinalium Patribus, Summo Pontifici die Eius nominali felicia ac fausta ominantibus’, AAS-64-1972 [http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-64-1972-ocr.pdf];
23‘Der verwüstete Weinberg’. Dietrich von Hildebrand (1972), LINS-Verlag, A6804 Feldkirch.;
24‘Yves Congar and the Meaning of Vatican II’, Mgr. Robert Barron (2012); [https:// www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/yves-congar-and-the-meaning-of-vatican-ii /445/];
25'Vatican II: The Myth and the Reality’, Avery Dulles (2003) [https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/423/article/vatican-ii-myth-and-reality];
26‘Opening address of the Second Vatican Council’, Pope St. John XXIII (October 11, 1962); [because the Vatican website does not provide an English translation of this Opening Address, the translation by http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2 open.htm has been used here and verified with the Dutch translation];