As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre described in his They Have Uncrowned Him, Cardinal Ratzinger saw the disastrous aftermath of Vatican II and believed that the solution was to return to the “true Council,” which had not yet emerged. Cardinal Ratzinger expressed that view in 1985 (above), and again in his final address to the clergy of Rome as Benedict XVI, before stepping aside to make way for Francis:

“We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy . . . and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force. And it is our task, especially in this Year of Faith, on the basis of this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed.”

So, according to Benedict XVI, there are “many disasters” flowing from Vatican II. Those problems have led so many souls to leave the Faith and, perhaps worse, caused many of those who still call themselves Catholic to fight against what the Church has always taught. But, according to Benedict XVI, this crisis was not what many of the Council’s leaders intended, so it cannot be caused by the true Council — it must have been caused by the media and social pressures.

The innovations of Vatican II have given us a natural experiment... If all the problems in the wake of Vatican II were due to external causes, those external causes would have exerted a similar influence on Traditional Catholic communities. Traditional Catholics are not perfect, but it is evident that they have retained the immutable Faith as it existed prior to Vatican II while most Catholics in Novus Ordo churches have generally adopted heterodox views.

Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this line of reasoning entirely:

“I certainly want to consider the external causes of the crisis in the Church, particularly a liberal and pleasure-seeking mentality that has spread over society, even Christian society. But precisely what did Vatican II do to oppose this? Nothing! Or rather, Vatican II only pushed in this direction! I will make use of a comparison: What would you think if, in the face of a threatening tidal wave, the Dutch government decided one fine day to open its dikes in order to avoid the shock? And if it excused itself afterward, after the total inundation of the country: ‘We had nothing at all to do with it, it was the tidal wave!’ Now that is exactly what the Council did: it opened all the traditional barriers to spirit of the world by declaring the opening to the world, by religious liberty, by the pastoral Constitution ‘The Church in the Modern World’ (Gaudium et spes), which are the very spirit of the Council and not the anti-spirit!” (They Have Uncrowned Him, pp. 232-233)

Not a single innovation of Vatican II did anything other than exacerbate the problems facing the Church and society. As Michael Matt’s recent Remnant Underground illustrates, Vatican II was a universal wrecking ball, razing everything good and holy to make room for Satan’s globalists. Worse, the pre-Vatican II popes had warned that this was precisely what would happen if the Church’s shepherds did not vigilantly safeguard the Faith against error.

Moreover, the innovations of Vatican II have given us a natural experiment because the Traditional Catholics did not accept the Novus Ordo Mass, or the new notions of ecumenism and religious liberty. If all the problems in the wake of Vatican II were due to external causes, those external causes would have exerted a similar influence on Traditional Catholic communities. However, that is clearly not what we have seen. Traditional Catholics are not perfect, but it is evident that they have retained the immutable Faith as it existed prior to Vatican II while most Catholics in Novus Ordo churches have generally adopted heterodox views.

Despite all of this, many faithful Catholics feel that they must defend Vatican II in order to preserve their belief that Vatican II, as an ecumenical council, could not have promoted errors. This particular debate has remained heated for nearly sixty years, and hinges on how much significance we place on the various ways in which John XXIII, Paul VI, and the leading Council Fathers characterized the Council as pastoral rather than dogmatic. As we have experienced, debating the matter within that framework of whether a pastoral council can contain errors will almost certainly ensure that faithful Catholics remain divided on the question.

Many Catholics follow Benedict XVI’s reasoning to conclude that it takes time for a council to bear good fruits. But that was not the test Jesus gave us: He did not tell us that sometimes a good tree will bear putrid and lethal fruits for several decades but we just need to keep eating them because one day they might be good.

But we are not compelled to evaluate Vatican II solely in terms of its status as a pastoral council. Whereas relatively few faithful Catholics have any reason to hold definite beliefs on whether a “pastoral council” can contain errors, all of us understand what the Faith teaches us about how God loves His Church. As such, it is worth considering what our views on the Council imply about our views of God.

Fruits. Jesus taught us that we must judge a tree by its fruits: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:18). Reasonable people can apply Our Lord’s test without difficulty. So, has Vatican II produced good fruits or bad fruits?

Everyone acknowledges that the fruits that appear to be from Vatican II are bad, but many Catholics follow Benedict XVI’s reasoning to conclude that it takes time for a council to bear good fruits. But that was not the test Jesus gave us: He did not tell us that sometimes a good tree will bear putrid and lethal fruits for several decades but we just need to keep eating them because one day they might be good. A good tree may initially produce smaller and less bountiful fruit but, contrary to the thesis of Vatican II’s defenders, it will not produce deadly fruits for generations.

RTV Sponsor — Our Lady of Victory School

We are much more faithful to the test that God gave us if we conclude that Vatican II has produced bad fruits because it is a bad tree. As argued in a recent article, all indications suggest that John XXIII’s Council produced bad fruits because he ostentatiously rejected the protections of the Holy Ghost.

Deceptions. Our Faith teaches us that God can neither deceive nor be deceived. This does not mean that Christians will perfectly understand God — we never will — but it does mean that God and His Church will not clearly tell us one truth for hundreds of years and subsequently ask us to accept a truth that contradicts the first truth.

Liberals, conservatives, and Traditional Catholics all agree that the architects and primary authorities charged with interpreting Vatican II believe that it “changed” what the Church had taught prior to the Council. The most visible and profound change relates to the view of non-Catholics.

If it is no longer true — as we heard from Vatican II — that there is no salvation outside the Church (other than in very limited circumstances), then God’s Church deceived us on this incredibly vital point for almost two thousand years. If God deceived us on that, why would we believe Him in anything else?

Catholics have always believed that Our Lord was speaking clearly and sincerely when He told His disciples to “teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). Think of all the missionaries who offered their lives trying to convert non-Catholics, and all the martyrs who died rather than compromise on a single point of Faith. For hundreds of years the Church held these saints up to all Catholics as worthy of emulation. But with Vatican II’s ecumenism and religious liberty, we know that the orientation changed.

If it is no longer true — as we heard from Vatican II — that there is no salvation outside the Church (other than in very limited circumstances), then God’s Church deceived us on this incredibly vital point for almost two thousand years. If God deceived us on that, why would we believe Him in anything else?

Mistakes. Even well-meaning and saintly Catholics make mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes. But God does not make mistakes. Many defenders of the Council look at the obvious ambiguities and argue that certain unfortunate passages suggest erroneous beliefs but never formally cross the line into error. They argue this because they mistakenly believe that the presence of actual errors in the Council documents would mean that the Holy Ghost had not protected the Church.

Stepping back, though, what does this suggest about the protection of the Holy Ghost? Why should we be comfortable arguing the Holy Ghost allowed the Council to produce such lethal ambiguities that would be interpreted in the worst possible ways? It is as though these defenders of the Council think that it was not the best work of the Holy Ghost — some catastrophic mistakes were made — but it was still good enough for technical conformity with their view of what an ecumenical council should be.

We are left with a choice. We can follow men like Francis who suggest that God deceptively allowed a good Council to produce horrid fruits. Or we can conclude that because God will not be mocked, He allowed the Council to produce bad fruits to show that He did not protect it.

Rather than adopting these blasphemous views about God, we should see the Council for what it truly was. For almost two hundred years, the pre-Vatican II popes warned that anti-Catholic forces were trying to insert Liberal and Modernist ideas into Catholic thinking. These popes insisted that Catholics must never accept these errors, lest they cause immense harm to the Church. Tragically, John XXIII’s rejection of the protections of the Holy Ghost allowed men like Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, and Henri de Lubac to insert their poisonous ideas into the Council documents.

So when we see that the Council produced bad fruits we are left with a choice. We can follow men like Francis who suggest that God deceptively allowed a good Council to produce horrid fruits. Or we can conclude that because God will not be mocked, He allowed the Council to produce bad fruits to show that He did not protect it.

Many of the most trustworthy Catholics in the Church today have come to the conclusion that the nature of the Council as pastoral rather than dogmatic allowed it to produce its evident errors. Those who remain uncertain on the analysis of the Council’s theological status should consider how their view of Vatican II reflects their view of God. If we believe in a perfect God Who loved us so much to entrust His Church with the immutable truths and graces we need to make it to Heaven, we should know with certainty that He was not responsible for Vatican II. May God grant the remaining faithful shepherds in the Church the wisdom and courage to follow the example of Archbishop Lefebvre in defending Our Lord’s Church by rejecting the errors of John XXIII’s Council. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Latest from RTV — VATICAN II, 60 YEARS LATER: Can You Handle the Truth? (includes never-before-seen vintage video)