Archbishop Vigano on the Revolution of Vatican II

We should thank former Pope Benedict XVI for his decision to abdicate. His departure has provided the opportunity, via the heretical dispositions of his successor, for the defects of the Second Vatican Council to be revealed for what they are. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has highlighted them in splendid fashion in an address he gave on October 24^th, 2020, reproduced below. Nothing published on this website in support of the contention that that Council was not an ecumenical, or general, council of the Catholic Church can match the comprehensiveness of the Archbishop’s critique. We agree with his verdict that the Second Vatican Council is a cancer. It is a cancer in the Mystical Body of Christ.

SCAPEGOATING FRANCIS
How the Revolution of Vatican II serves the New World Order

As each of us has probably understood, we find ourselves in an historical moment in time; events of the past, which once seemed disconnected, prove now to be unequivocally connected, both in the principles that inspire them and in the goals they seek to achieve. A fair and objective look at the current situation cannot help but grasp the perfect coherence between the evolution of the global political framework and the role that the Catholic Church has assumed in the establishment of the New World Order. To be more precise, one should speak about the role of that apparent majority in the Church, which is actually small in number but extremely powerful, and which, for brevity’s sake, I will summarize as the Deep Church.

Obviously, there are not two Churches, something that would be impossible, blasphemous, and heretical. Nor has the one true Church of Christ today failed in her mission, perverting herself into a sect. The Church of Christ has nothing to do with those who, for the past sixty years, have executed a plan to occupy her. The overlap between the Catholic Hierarchy and the members of the Deep Church is not a theological fact, but rather a historical reality that defies the usual categories and, as such, must be analysed.

We know that the New World Order project consists in the establishment of tyranny by Freemasonry: a project that dates back to the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the end of the Catholic Monarchies, and the declaration of war on the Church. We can say that the New World Order is the antithesis of Christian society, it would be the realisation of the diabolical Civitas Diaboli – City of the Devil – opposed to the Civitas Dei – City of God – in the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, God and Satan.

In this struggle, Providence has placed the Church of Christ, and in particular the Supreme Pontiff, as kathèkon – that is, the one who opposes the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess 2:6-7). And Sacred Scripture warns us that at the manifestation of the Antichrist, this obstacle – the kathèkon – will have ceased to exist. It seems quite evident to me that the end times are now approaching before our eyes, since the mystery of iniquity has spread throughout the world with the disappearance of the courageous opposition of the kathèkon.[1]

With regard to the incompatibility between the City of God and the City of Satan, the Jesuit advisor to Francis, Antonio Spadaro, sets aside Sacred Scripture and Tradition, making the Bergoglian embrassons-nous his own. According to the Director of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti

“also remains a message with a strong political value, because – we could say – it overturns the logic of the apocalypse that prevails today. It is the fundamentalist logic that fights against the world, because it believes that it is the opposite of God, that is, an idol, and therefore to be destroyed as soon as possible in order to accelerate the end of time. The abyss of the apocalypse, in fact, before which there are no more brothers: only apostates or martyrs running “against” time. […] We are not militants or apostates, but all brothers.”^[1]

This strategy of discrediting the interlocutor with the slur of “integralist” is evidently aimed at facilitating the action of the enemy within the Church, seeking to disarm the opposition and discourage dissent. We also find it in the civil sphere, where the democrats and the Deep State arrogate to themselves the right to decide whom to grant political legitimacy and whom to condemn without appeal to media ostracism. The method is always the same, because the one inspiring is the same. Just as the falsification of History and of the sources, is always the same: if the past disavows the revolutionary narrative, the followers of the Revolution censor the past and replace historical fact with a myth. Even St. Francis is a victim of this adulteration that would have him be the standard-bearer of poverty and pacifism that are as alien to the spirit of Catholic orthodoxy as they are instrumental to the dominant ideology. Proof of this is the last, fraudulent recourse to the Poverello of Assisi in Fratelli Tutti to justify dialogue, ecumenism, and the universal brotherhood of the Bergoglian anti-church.

Let us not make the mistake of presenting the current events as “normal”, judging what happens with the legal, canonical, and sociological parameters that such normality would presuppose. In extraordinary times—and the present crisis in the Church is indeed extraordinary—events go beyond the ordinary known to our fathers. In extraordinary times, we can hear a Pope deceive the faithful; see Princes of the Church accused of crimes that in other times would have aroused horror and been met with severe punishment; witness in our churches liturgical rites that seem to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind; see Prelates process the unclean idol of the pachamama into St. Peter’s Basilica; and hear the Vicar of Christ apologise to the worshippers of that simulacrum if a Catholic dares to throw it into the Tiber. In these extraordinary times, we hear a conspirator—Cardinal Godfried Danneels—tell us that, since the death of John Paul II, the Mafia of St. Gallen had been plotting to elect one of their own to Peter’s Chair, which later turned out to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In the face of this disconcerting revelation, we might well be astonished that neither Cardinals nor Bishops have expressed their indignation nor asked that the truth be brought to light.

The coexistence of good and evil, of saints and the damned, in the ecclesial body, has always accompanied the earthly events of the Church, beginning with the betrayal of Judas Iscariot. And it is indeed significant that the anti-church tries to rehabilitate Judas—and with him the worst heresiarchs—as exemplary models, “anti-saints” and “anti-martyrs,” and thereby legitimising themselves in their own heresies, immorality and vices. The coexistence – I was saying – of the good and the wicked, of which the Gospel speaks in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, seems to have morphed into the prevalence of the latter over the former. The difference is that vice and deviations once despised are today not only practised and tolerated more, but even encouraged and praised, while virtue and fidelity to the teaching of Christ are despised, mocked and even condemned.

For sixty years, we have witnessed the eclipse of the true Church by an anti-church that has progressively appropriated her name, occupied the Roman Curia and her Dicasteries, Dioceses and Parishes, Seminaries and Universities, Convents and Monasteries. The anti-church has usurped her authority, and its ministers wear her sacred garments; it uses her prestige and power to appropriate her treasures, assets, and finances.

Just as happens in nature, this eclipse does not take place all at once; it passes from light to darkness when a celestial body inserts itself between the sun and us. This is a relatively slow but inexorable process, in which the moon of the anti-church follows its orbit until it overlaps the sun, generating a cone of shadow that projects over the earth. We now find ourselves in this doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary cone of shadow. It is not yet the total eclipse that we will see at the end of time, under the reign of the Antichrist. But it is a partial eclipse, which lets us see the luminous crown of the sun encircling the black disk of the moon.

The process that led to today’s eclipse of the Church began with Modernism, without a doubt. The anti-church followed its orbit despite the solemn condemnations of the Magisterium, which in that phase shone with the splendour of Truth. But with the Second Vatican Council, the darkness of this spurious entity came over the Church. Initially it obscured only a small part, but the darkness gradually increased. Whoever then pointed to the sun, deducing that the moon would certainly obscure it, was accused of being a “prophet of doom”, with those forms of fanaticism and intemperance that arise from ignorance and prejudice. The case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few other Prelates confirms, on the one hand, the far-sightedness of these shepherds and, on the other hand, the disjointed reaction of their adversaries; who, out of fear of losing power, used all their authority to deny the evidence and kept hidden their own true intentions.

To continue the analogy: we can say that, in the sky of the Faith, an eclipse is a rare and extraordinary phenomenon. But to deny that, during the eclipse, darkness spreads—just because this does not happen under ordinary conditions—is not a sign of faith in the indefectibility of the Church, but rather an obstinate denial of the evidence, or bad faith. The Holy Church, according to Christ’s promises, will never be overwhelmed by the gates of hell, but that does not mean that she will not be – or is not already – overshadowed by her infernal forgery, that moon which, not by chance, we see under the feet of the Woman of the Revelation: “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1).

The moon lies under the feet of the Woman who is above all mutability, above all earthly corruption, above the law of fate and the kingdom of the spirit of this world. And this is because that Woman, who is at once the image of Mary Most Holy and of the Church, is amicta sole, clothed with the Sun of Righteousness that is Christ, “exempted from all demonic power as she takes part in the mystery of the immutability of Christ” (Saint Ambrose). She remains unbruised if not in her militant kingdom, certainly in the suffering one in Purgatory and in the triumphant one in Paradise. St. Jerome, commenting on the words of Scripture, reminds us that “the gates of hell are sins and vices, especially the teachings of heretics”. We know therefore that even the “synthesis of all heresies” represented by Modernism and its updated conciliar version, can never definitively obscure the splendour of the Bride of Christ, but only for the brief period of the eclipse that Providence, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed, to draw from it a greater good.

In this talk, I wish especially to deal with the relationship between the revolution of Vatican II and the establishment of the New World Order. The focal element of this analysis consists in highlighting the abandonment on the part of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy, even at the top, of the supernatural dimension of the Church and its eschatological role. With the Council, the Innovators erased the divine origin of the Church from their theological horizon, creating an entity of human origin similar to a philanthropic organization. The first consequence of this ontological subversion was the necessary denial of the fact that the Bride of Christ is not, and cannot be, subject to change by those who exercise vicarious authority in the name of the Lord. She is neither the property of the Pope nor of the Bishops or theologians, and, as such, any attempt at “aggiornamento” lowers her to the level of a company that, in order to garner profit, renews its own commercial offer, sells its leftovers stock, and follows the fashion of the moment. The Church, on the other hand, is a supernatural and divine reality: she adapts the way she preaches the Gospel to the nations, but she can never change the content of a single iota (Mt 5:18), nor deny her transcendent momentum by lowering herself to mere social service. On the opposite side, the anti-church proudly lays claims to the right to perform a paradigm shift not only by changing the way doctrine is expounded, but the doctrine itself. This is confirmed by the words of Massimo Fagggioli’s comment on the new Encyclical Fratelli Tutti:

“Pope Francis’ pontificate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on [the] death penalty, [and] war.”^[2]

Insisting on what the Magisterium teaches is useless. The Innovators’ brazen claim to have the right to change the Faith stubbornly follows the modernist approach.

The Council’s first error consists mainly in the lack of a transcendent perspective—the result of a spiritual crisis that was already latent—and in the attempt to establish paradise on earth, with a sterile human horizon. In line with this approach, Fratelli tutti sees the fulfilment of an earthly utopia and social redemption in human brotherhood, pax œcumenica between religions and welcoming migrants.

As I have written on other occasions, the revolutionary demands of the Nouvelle Théologie found fertile ground in the Council Fathers because of a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis the world. There was a time, in the postwar period, when the revolution led by Freemasonry in the civil, political and cultural spheres, breached the Catholic élite, persuading it of its inadequacy in the face of an epochal challenge that is now inescapable. Instead of questioning themselves and their faith, this élite—bishops, theologians, intellectuals—recklessly attributed responsibility for the imminent failure of the Church to her rock-solid hierarchical structure, and to her monolithic doctrinal and moral teaching. Looking at the defeat of the European civilization that the Church had helped to form, the élite thought that the lack of agreement with the world was caused by the intransigence of the Papacy and the moral rigidity of priests not wanting to come to terms with the Zeitgeist, and “open up”.

This ideological approach stems from the false assumption that, between the Church and the contemporary world, there can be an alliance, a consonance of intent, a friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth, since there can be no respite in the struggle between God and Satan, between Light and Darkness. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). This is an enmity willed by God Himself, which places Mary Most Holy— and the Church—as eternal enemies of the ancient serpent. The world has its own prince (Jn 12:31), who is the “enemy” (Mt 13:28), a “murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44) and a “liar” (Jn 8:44). Courting a pact of non-belligerence with the world means coming to terms with Satan. This overturns and perverts the very essence of the Church, whose mission is to convert as many souls to Christ for the greater glory of God, without ever laying down arms against those who want to attract them to themselves and to damnation.

The Church’s sense of inferiority and failure[2] before the world created the “perfect storm” for the revolution to take root in the Council Fathers and by extension in the Christian people, in whom obedience to the Hierarchy had been cultivated perhaps more than fidelity to the depositum fidei. Let me it be clear: obedience to the Sacred Pastors is certainly praiseworthy if the commands are legitimate. But obedience ceases to be a virtue and, in fact, becomes servility if it is an end in itself and if it contradicts the purpose to which it is ordained, namely Faith and Morals. We should add that this sense of inferiority was introduced into the ecclesial body with displays of great theatre, such as the removal of the tiara by Paul VI, the return of the Ottoman flagship banners conquered at Lepanto, the flaunted ecumenical embraces with the schismatic Athenagoras, the requests for forgiveness for the Crusades, the abolition of the Index and the Clergy’s focus on the poor, in place of the alleged triumphalism of Pius XII. The coup de grâce of this attitude was codified in the Reformed Liturgy which manifests its embarrassment of Catholic dogma by silencing it – and thus denying it indirectly. The ritual change engendered a doctrinal change, which led the faithful to believe that the Mass is a simple fraternal banquet and that the Most Holy Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ’s presence among us.

The Council Fathers’ sense of inadequacy was only increased by the work of the Innovators, whose heretical ideas coincided with the demands of the world. A comparative analysis of modern thought confirms the idem sentire [of the same feeling or mind] of the conspirators with every element of the revolutionary ideology:

All these principles, propagated by Freemasonry ideologues and New World Order supporters, coincide with the revolutionary ideas of the Council:

There is an almost grotesque aspect of this levelling and dumbing down of the hierarchy to comply with mainstream thought. The hierarchy’s desire to please its persecutors and serve its enemies always comes too late and is out of sync, giving the impression that the Bishops are irremediably outdated, indeed not in step with the times. They lead those who see them so enthusiastically conniving with their own extinction to believe that this demonstration of courtesan submission to the politically correct comes not so much from a true ideological persuasion, but rather from the fear of being swept away, of losing power, and no longer having that prestige that the world still pays them, nonetheless. They do not realise—or do not want to admit—that the prestige and authority whose custodians they are, comes from the authority and prestige of the Church of Christ, and not from the miserable, pitiful counterfeit of her which they have fashioned.

When this anti-church is fully established in the total eclipse of the Catholic Church, the authority of its leaders will depend on the degree of subjugation to the New World Order, which will not tolerate any divergence from its own creed and will ruthlessly apply that dogmatism, fanaticism, and fundamentalism that many Prelates and self-styled intellectuals criticise in those who remain faithful to the Magisterium today. In this way, the Deep Church may continue to bear the trademark “Catholic Church” but it will be the slave of the New Order thinking reminiscent of the Jews who, after denying the Kingship of Christ before Pilate, were enslaved to the civil authority of their time: “We have no other king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Today’s Caesar commands us to close the churches, wear a mask, and suspend the celebrations under the pretext of a pseudo-pandemic. The communist regime persecutes the Chinese Catholics, and the world hears nothing but silence from Rome. Tomorrow a new Titus will sack the Council temple, transporting its remains to some museum, and divine vengeance at the hands of the pagans will have been achieved once again.

Some might say that the Council Fathers and Popes who presided over that assembly, did not realise the implications that their approval of the Vatican II documents would have for the future of the Church. If this were the case—i.e., if there had been any subsequent regrets in their hasty approval of heretical texts or texts close to heresy—it is difficult to understand why they were unable to put an immediate stop to abuses, correct errors, clarify misunderstandings and omissions. And above all, it is incomprehensible why the ecclesiastical Authority has been so ruthless against those who defended the Catholic Truth, and, at the same time, so terribly accommodating to rebels and heretics. In any case, the responsibility for the conciliar crisis must be laid at the feet of the Authority which, even amid a thousand appeals to collegiality and pastoralism, has jealously guarded its prerogatives, exercising them only in one direction, that is, against the pusillus grex [little flock] and never against the enemies of God and of the Church. The very rare exceptions, when a heretic theologian or revolutionary religious has been censored by the Holy Office, only offer tragic confirmation of a rule that has been enforced for decades; not to mention that many of them, in recent times, have been rehabilitated without any abjuration of their errors and even promoted to institutional positions in the Roman Curia or Pontifical Athenaeums.

This is the reality, as it emerges from my analysis. However, we know that, in addition to the progressive wing of the Council and the traditional Catholic wing, there is a part of the Episcopate, the clergy, and the people that attempts to keep equal distance from what it considers two extremes. I am talking about the so-called “conservatives,” that is, a centrist part of the ecclesial body that ends up “carrying water” for the Revolutionaries because, while rejecting their excesses, it shares the same principles. The error of the “conservatives” lies in giving a negative connotation to traditionalism and in placing it on the opposite side of progressivism. Their aurea mediocritas [via media] consists in arbitrarily placing themselves not between two vices, but between virtue and vice. They are the ones who criticise the excesses of the pachamama or of the most extreme of Bergoglio’s statements, but who do not tolerate the Council’s being questioned, let alone the intrinsic link between the conciliar cancer and the current metastasis. The correlation between political conservatism and religious conservatism consists in adopting the “centre”, a synthesis between the “right” thesis and the “left” antithesis, according to the Hegelian approach so cherished by moderate supporters of the Council.

In the civil sphere, the Deep State has managed political and social dissent by using organisations and movements that are apparently in opposition, but which are actually instrumental to maintaining power. Similarly, in the ecclesial sphere, the Deep Church uses the moderate “conservatives” to give an appearance of offering freedom to the faithful. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum itself, for example, while granting the celebration in the extraordinary form, demands saltem impliciter [at least implicitly] that we accept the Council and recognise the lawfulness of the reformed liturgy. This ploy prevents those who benefit from the Motu Proprio from raising any objection, or they risk the dissolution of the Ecclesia Dei communities. And it instils in the Christian people the dangerous idea that a good thing, in order to have legitimacy in the Church and society, must necessarily be accompanied by a bad thing, or at least something less good. However, only a misguided mind would seek to afford equal rights to both good and evil. It matters little if one is personally in favour of good, when he recognises the legitimacy of those who are in favour of evil. In this sense, the “freedom to choose” abortion theorised by democratic politicians finds its counterbalance in the no less aberrant “religious freedom” theorised by the Council, which today is stubbornly defended by the anti-church. If it is not permissible for a Catholic to support a politician who defends the right to abortion, it is even less permissible to approve a Prelate who defends the “freedom” of an individual to endanger his immortal soul by “choosing” to remain in mortal sin. This is not mercy; this is gross dereliction of spiritual duty before God in order to curry the favour and approval of Man.

This analysis would hardly be complete without a word on the neo-language so popular in the ecclesiastical sphere. Traditional Catholic vocabulary has been deliberately modified, in order to change the content it expresses. The same has happened in the liturgy and preaching, where the clarity of the Catholic exposition has been replaced by ambiguity or the implicit denial of dogmatic truth. The examples are endless. This phenomenon also goes back to Vatican II, which sought to develop “Catholic” versions of the slogans of the world. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasise that all those expressions that are borrowed from secularist lexicons are also part of the neo-language. Let us consider the Bergoglio’s insistence on the “outgoing church”, on openness as a positive value. Similarly, I quote now from Fratelli tutti:

“A living and dynamic people, a people with a future, is one constantly open to a new synthesis through its ability to welcome differences” (Fratelli Tutti, 160).

“We want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home and goes forth from its places of worship, goes forth from its sacristies, in order to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign of unity… to build bridges, to break down walls, to sow seeds of reconciliation” (ibid.).

The similarity with the Open Society sought after by Soros’ globalist ideology is so striking as to almost constitute an Open Religion counterpoint to it.

And this Open Religion is perfectly in tune with the intentions of globalism. From the political meetings “for a New Humanism” blessed by the leaders of the Church to the participation of the progressive intelligentsia in green propaganda, it all chases after the mainstream thought, in the sad and grotesque attempt to please the world. The stark contrast with the words of the Apostle is clear: “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

The Catholic Church lives under the gaze of God; she exists for His glory and for the salvation of souls. The anti-church lives under the gaze of the world, pandering to the blasphemous apotheosis of man and the damnation of souls. During the last session of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, before all the Synod Fathers, these astonishing words of Paul VI resounded in the Vatican Basilica:

“The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognise our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honour mankind.”^[4]

This sympathy – in the etymological sense of συμπάϑεια, that is, participation in the sentiment of the other – is the figure of the Council and of the new religion (for such it is) of the anti-church. An anti-church born of the unclean union between the Church and the world, between the heavenly Jerusalem and hellish Babylon. Note well: the first time a Pontiff mentioned the “new humanism” was at the final session of Vatican II and today we find it repeated as a mantra by those who consider it a perfect and coherent expression of the revolutionary mens [mentality] of the Council.^[5]

Always in view of this communion of intent between the New World Order and the anti-church, we must remember the Global Compact on Education, a project designed by Bergoglio “to generate a change on a planetary scale, so that education is a creator of brotherhood, peace and justice. An even more urgent need in this time marked by the pandemic”.^[6] Promoted in collaboration with the United Nations, this “process of formation in the relationship and culture of encounter also finds space and value in the ‘common home’ with all creatures, since people, just as they are formed to the logic of communion and solidarity, are already working “to recover serene harmony with creation”, and to configure the world as “a space of true brotherhood” (Gaudium et Spes, 37).”^[7] As can be seen, the ideological reference is always and only to Vatican II, because only from that moment on did the anti-church place man in the place of God, the creature in the place of the Creator.

The “new humanism” obviously has an environmental and ecological frame into which are grafted both the Encyclical Laudato Sì and Green Theology – the “Church with an Amazonian face” of the 2019 Synod of Bishops, with its idolatrous worship of pachamama (mother earth) in the presence of the Roman Sanhedrin. The Church’s attitude[3] during Covid-19 demonstrated, on the one hand, the hierarchy’s submission to the diktats of the State, in violation of the Libertas Ecclesiae, which the Pope should have firmly defended. It also put on display the denial of any supernatural meaning of the pandemic, replacing the righteous wrath of God offended by the countless sins of humanity and nations with a more disturbing and destructive fury of Nature, offended by the lack of respect for the environment. I would like to emphasise that attributing a personal identity to Nature, almost endowed with intellect and will, is a prelude to her divinization. We have already seen a sacrilegious prelude to this, under the very dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.

The bottom line is this: conformity on the part of the anti-church with the dominant ideology of the modern world establishes a real cooperation with powerful representatives of the deep state, starting with those working towards a “sustainable economy” involving Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Sachs, John Elkann, and Gunter Pauli.^[8]

It will be useful to remember that the sustainable economy also has implications for agriculture and the world of work in general. The deep state needs to secure low-cost labour through immigration, which at the same time contributes to the cancellation of the religious, cultural and linguistic identity of the nations involved. The deep church lends an ideological and pseudo-theological basis to this invasion plan, and at the same time guarantees a share in the lucrative business of hospitality. We can understand Bergoglio’s insistence on the theme of migrants, also reiterated in Fratelli Tutti: “A xenophobic mentality of closure and self-restraint is spreading” (ibid. 39). “Migrations will constitute a founding element of the future of the world” (ibid. 40). Bergoglio used the expression “founding element,” stating that it is not possible to hypothesise a future without migrations.

Allow me a brief word about the political situation in the United States on the eve of the presidential election. Fratelli Tutti seems to be a form of Vatican endorsement of the Democratic candidate in clear opposition to Donald Trump and comes a few days after Francis refused to grant audience to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Rome. This confirms which side the children of light are on, and who the children of darkness are.

The theme of brotherhood, an obsession for Bergoglio, finds its first formulation in Nostra Ætate and Dignitatis Humanae. The latest Encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, is the manifesto of this Masonic vision, in which the cry Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité replaced the Gospel, for the sake of a unity among men that leaves out God. Note that the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed in Abu Dhabi on February 4, 2019 was proudly defended by Bergoglio with these words:

“From the Catholic point of view the document did not go one millimetre beyond the Second Vatican Council.”

Cardinal Miguel Ayuso Guixot, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, comments in La Civiltà Cattolica:

“With the Council, the embankment gradually cracked and then broke. The river of dialogue has spread with the Council Declarations Nostra Ætate on the relationship between the Church and believers of other religions and Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, themes and documents that are closely linked to each other, and have allowed St. John Paul II to give life to meetings such as the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on October 27, 1986 and Benedict XVI, twenty-five years later, to make us live in the city of St. Francis the Day of Reflection, Dialogue and Prayer for Peace and Justice in the World – Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace. Therefore, the Catholic Church’s commitment to interreligious dialogue, which opens the way to peace and fraternity, is part of her original mission and has its roots in the Council event.”^[9]

Once again, the cancer of Vatican II confirms that it is at the origin of Bergoglian metastasis. The fil rouge [common thread] that unites the Council with the cult of the pachamama also passes through Assisi, as my Brother Athanasius Schneider rightly pointed out in his recent speech.^[10]

And speaking of the anti-church, Bishop Fulton Sheen describes the Antichrist: “Since his religion will be brotherhood without the paternity of God, he will deceive even the elect.”^[11] We seem to see the prophecy of the venerable American Archbishop coming true before our eyes.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the infamous Grand Lodge of Spain, after having warmly congratulated its paladin raised to the Throne, has once again paid homage to Bergoglio with these words:

“The great principle of this initiatory school has not changed in three centuries: the construction of a universal brotherhood where human beings call themselves brothers to each other beyond their specific beliefs, their ideologies, the colour of their skin, their social extraction, their language, their culture or their nationality. This fraternal dream clashed with religious fundamentalism which, in the case of the Catholic Church, led to harsh texts condemning the tolerance of Freemasonry in the 19th century. Pope Francis’ latest encyclical shows how far the present Catholic Church is from its previous positions. In “Fratelli Tutti”, the pope embraced the Universal Brotherhood, the great principle of modern Freemasonry.”^[12]

“These are the principles that Freemasonry has always pursued and guarded for the elevation of Humanity.”^[13]

Austen Ivereigh, the hagiographer of Bergoglio, confirms with satisfaction this interpretation that a Catholic would rightly consider at least disturbing.^[14]

I remember that in the masonic documents of the Alta Vendita, since the nineteenth century, an infiltration of Free Masonry into the Church was planned:

“You, too, will fish some friends and lead them to the feet of the Apostolic See. You will have preached revolution in Tiara and Cope, proceeded under the cross and banner, a revolution that will need only a little help to set the quarters of the world on fire.”^[15]

Allow me to conclude this examination of the links between the Council and the present crisis by emphasising a reversal that I consider extremely important and significant. I am referring to the relationship of the individual layman and community of the faithful with God. While in the Church of Christ the relationship of the soul with the Lord is eminently personal even when it is conveyed by the Sacred Minister in the liturgical action, in the conciliar church the community and the group relationship prevails. Think of their insistence in wanting to make the Baptism of a child, or the wedding of a married couple, “an act of the community”; or the impossibility of receiving Holy Communion individually outside of Mass, and of the common practice of approaching Communion during Mass even without the necessary conditions. All of this is sanctioned on the basis of a Protestantised concept of participation in the Eucharistic banquet, from which no guest is excluded. Under this understanding of community, the person loses his individuality, losing himself in the anonymous community of the celebration.

So too, the relationship of the social body with God disappears in a personalism that eliminates the role of mediation of both the Church and the State. Individualisation in the moral field enters into this as well, where the rights and preferences of the individual become grounds for the eradication of social morality. This is done in the name of an “inclusiveness” that legitimates every vice and moral aberration. Society—understood as the union of several individuals aimed at the pursuit of a common goal—is divided into a multiplicity of individuals, each of whom has his own purpose. This is the result of an ideological upheaval that deserves to be analysed in depth, because of its implications both in the ecclesial and civil spheres. It is evident, however, that the first step of this revolution is to be found in the conciliar mens, beginning with the indoctrination of the Christian people constituted by the Reformed Liturgy, in which the individual merges into the assembly by depersonalising himself, and the community devolves into a collection of individuals by losing their identity.

Philosophy teaches us that to a cause always corresponds a certain effect. We have seen that the actions carried out during Vatican II have had the desired effect, giving concrete form to that anthropological turning point which today has led to the apostasy of the anti-church and the eclipse of the true Church of Christ. We must therefore understand that, if we want to undo the harmful effects we see before us, it is necessary and indispensable to remove the factors that caused them. If this is our goal, it is clear that accepting—or even partially accepting—those revolutionary principles would make our efforts useless and counterproductive. We must therefore be clear about the objectives to be achieved, ordering our action to the goals. But we must all be aware that in this work of restoration no exceptions to the principles are possible, precisely because failure to share them would prevent any chance of success.

Therefore, let us put aside, once and for all, the vain distinctions concerning the presumed goodness of the Council, the betrayal of the will of the Synod Fathers, the letter and spirit of Vatican II, the magisterial weight (or lack thereof) of its acts, and the hermeneutic of continuity versus that of rupture. The anti-church has used the label “Ecumenical Council” to give authority and legal force to its revolutionary agenda, just as Bergoglio calls his political manifesto of allegiance to the New World Order an “encyclical letter”. The cunning of the enemy has isolated the healthy part of the Church, torn between having to recognise the subversive nature of the Council documents, thus having to exclude them from the Magisterial corpus, and having to deny reality by declaring them apodictically orthodox in order to safeguard the infallibility of the Magisterium. The Dubia represented a humiliation for those Princes of the Church, but without untying the doctrinal knots brought to the attention of the Roman Pontiff. Bergoglio does not respond, precisely because he does not want to deny or confirm the implied errors, thus exposing himself to the risk of being declared a heretic and losing the papacy. This is the same method used with the Council where ambiguity and the use of imprecise terminology prevent the condemnation of the error that has been implied. But the jurist knows very well that, in addition to the blatant violation of the law, one can also commit a crime by circumventing it, using it for evil purposes: contra legem fit, quod in fraudem legis fit. [that which circumvents the law is against the law.]

The only way to win this battle is to go back to doing what the Church has always done, and to stop doing what the anti-church asks of us today—that which the true Church has always condemned. Let us put Our Lord Jesus Christ, King and High Priest, back at the centre of the life of the Church; and before that, at the centre of the life of our communities, of our families, of ourselves. Let us restore the crown to Our Lady Mary Most Holy, Queen and Mother of the Church.

Let us return to celebrate the traditional Holy Liturgy worthily, and to pray with the words of the Saints, not with the ramblings of the modernists and heretics. Let us begin again to savour the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the Mystics, and to throw into the fire the works imbued with modernism and immanentist sentimentalism. Let us support, with prayer and material help, the many good priests who remain faithful to the true Faith, and withdraw all support from those who have come to terms with the world and its lies.

And above all—I ask you in the name of God!—let us abandon that sense of inferiority that our adversaries have accustomed us to accept: in the Lord’s war, they do not humiliate us (we certainly deserve every humiliation for our sins). No, they humiliate the Majesty of God and the Bride of the Immaculate Lamb. The Truth that we embrace does not come from us, but from God! That Truth be denied, accept that it must justify itself before the heresies and errors of the anti-church, is not an act of humility, but of cowardice and pusillanimity. Let us be inspired by the example of the Holy Maccabees Martyrs, before a new Antiochus who asks us to sacrifice to idols and to abandon the true God. Let us respond with their words, praying to the Lord: “So now, O Sovereign of the heavens, send a good angel to spread terror and trembling before us. By the might of your arm may these blasphemers who come against your holy people be struck down” (2 Mac 15:23).

Let me conclude my talk today with a personal memory. When I was Apostolic Nuncio in Nigeria, I learned about a magnificent popular tradition that came out from the terrible war in Biafra, and which continues to this day. I personally took part in it during a pastoral visit to the Archdiocese of Onitsha, and I was very impressed by it. This tradition—called “Block Rosary Children”—consists in gathering thousands of children (even very young ones) in each village or neighbourhood for the recitation of the Holy Rosary to implore peace—each child holding a little piece of wood, like a mini altar, with an image of Our Lady and a small candle on it.

In the days leading up to November 3rd, I invite everyone to join in a Rosary Crusade: a sort of siege of Jericho, not with seven trumpets made of ram’s horns sounded by priests, but with the Hail Mary’s of the little ones and the innocent to bring down the walls of the Deep State and of the Deep Church.

Let us join with little ones in a Block Rosary Children, imploring the Woman clothed with the Sun, that the Reign of Our Lady and Mother may be restored, and the eclipse that afflicts us shortened.

^[1] Padre Antonio Spadaro sj, Fratelli Tutti, la risposta di Francesco alla crisi del nostro tempo, in Formiche, 4 Ottobre 2020 (qui).

^[2] «Pope Francis’ pontificate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on death penalty, war»,

^[3] «Dovremmo evitare di cadere in questi quattro atteggiamenti perversi, che certo non aiutano alla ricerca onesta e al dialogo sincero e produttivo sulla costruzione del futuro del nostro pianeta: negazione, indifferenza, rassegnazione e fiducia in soluzioni inadeguate», cfr. https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/papa-su-clima-basta-negazionismi-su-riscaldamento-globale

^[4] «Religio, id est cultus Dei, qui homo fieri voluit, atque religio – talis enim est aestimanda – id est cultus hominis, qui fieri vult Deus, inter se congressae sunt. Quid tamen accidit? Certamen, proelium, anathema? Id sane haberi potuerat, sed plane non accidit. Vetus illa de bono Samaritano narratio excmplum fuit atque norma, ad quam Concilii nostri spiritualis ratio directa est. Etenim, immensus quidam erga homines amor Concilium penitus pervasit. Perspectae et iterum consideratae hominum necessitates, quae eo molestiores fiunt, quo magis huius terrae filius crescit, totum nostrae huius Synodi studium detinuerunt. Hanc saltem laudem Concilio tribuite, vos, nostra hac aetate cultores humanitatis, qui veritates rerum naturam transcendentes renuitis, iidemque novum nostrum humanitatis studium agnoscite: nam nos etiam, immo nos prae ceteris, hominis sumus cultores». Paolo VI, Allocuzione per l’ultima sessione del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II, 7 Dicembre 1965,cfr. http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html

^[7] Congregazione per l’Educazione Cattolica, Lettera Circolare alle scuole, università e istituzioni educative, 10 Settembre 2020, cfr. http://www.educatio.va/content/dam/cec/Documenti/2020-09/IT-CONGREGATIO-LETTERA-COVID.pdf

^[9] Card. Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, Il documento sulla Fraternità umana nel solco del Concilio Vaticano II, 3 Febbraio 2020. Cfr. https://www.laciviltacattolica.it/news/il-documento-sulla-fratellanza-umana-nel-solco-del-concilio-vaticano-ii/

^[10] https://www.cfnews.org.uk/bishop-schneider-pachamama-worship-in-rome-was-prepared-by-assisi-meetings/

^[11] Mons. Fulton Sheen, discorso radiofonico del 26 Gennaio 1947. Cfr. https://www.tempi.it/fulton-sheen-e-linganno-del-grande-umanitario/

^[15] «Vous amènerez des amis autour de la Chaire apostolique. Vous aurez prêché une révolution en tiare et en chape, marchant avec la croix et la bannière, une révolution qui n’aura besoin que d’être un tout petit peu aiguillonnée pour mettre le feu aux quatre coins du monde». Cfr. Jacques Cretineau-Joly, L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution, Parigi, Henri Plon, 1859 (qui).

[1] One of our readers, Matthew Murphy, has suggested that His Grace may have confused kathèkon with katekhon; cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katechon .

[2] His Grace would better have said “the Catholic élite’s sense of inferiority and failure”. The Church has no such sense.

[3] His Grace ought better to have said “The attitude of the Church’s prelates”