“Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Mathew 7:1-5)

Today more than at any time since Vatican II closed, Catholics who strive to adhere to what the Catholic Church taught and practiced for the centuries leading up to Vatican II face growing hostility from those who purport to defend the Council and its various initiatives. We see this hostility from the Vatican and its representatives, from groups of Catholic laity, and even from the FBI. The basic rationale for such hostility seems to be that so-called Traditional Catholics cannot be tolerated because they “reject” Vatican II, which is ironic given the fact that the ostensible purpose of Vatican II was to accommodate and unite all baptized Christians, the vast majority of whom obviously reject the Council’s documents.

The Council’s architects had to win the support of conservative Council Fathers by counterbalancing their liberal passages with conflicting passages that reaffirmed pre-Vatican II tradition. Not surprisingly, then, those who most viciously attack Traditional Catholics show their contempt for the key orthodox passages in the Council’s documents in the process of denouncing Traditional Catholics for questioning the heterodox passages.

That irony becomes something tremendously more disturbing once we recognize that the Council’s architects had to win the support of conservative Council Fathers by counterbalancing their liberal passages with conflicting passages that reaffirmed pre-Vatican II tradition, such that no rational Catholic can actually accept all of Vatican II. Not surprisingly, then, those who most viciously attack Traditional Catholics show their contempt for the key orthodox passages in the Council’s documents in the process of denouncing Traditional Catholics for questioning the heterodox passages. The most charitable defense we can proffer for these “great defenders of Vatican II” is that many of them have never read the Council’s documents, or else cannot fathom what they mean.

Fortunately for purposes of the present analysis, the passages considered below are among the most comprehensible passages in the Council’s documents because they were almost certainly added to pacify the conservative Council Fathers. Moreover, it is pointless to try to interpret the conservative passages that follow in the light of the heterodox passages from the same documents because the entire process involved a layering of inconsistent ideas with no real attempt to harmonize them. Thus, the following passages require no further interpretation other than to briefly identify the ways in which they contradict the words and deeds of the Council’s most ardent defenders.

Religious Liberty Cannot Contradict Traditional Teaching. The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, was so clearly opposed to pre-Vatican II teaching that Paul VI was compelled to add the following statement to the document to win the support of conservative Council Fathers:

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore [the Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

According to Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae did not disturb any of the traditional Catholic doctrine on religious liberty, so we must logically be able to insist that the following propositions, among all others, from Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors are still condemned:

• “15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
• “16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”
• “17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.”
• “18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.”

Interestingly, the entire Vatican II project falls apart if these statements from the Syllabus of Errors are still condemned; and Paul VI’s addition to Dignitatis Humanae assured us that they are in fact still condemned.

It should be self-evident that Traditional Catholics are persecuted precisely because they “fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all,” and yet we see that Vatican II clearly stated that this is a duty for all faithful. As such, those who attack Traditional Catholics are themselves opposing Vatican II and the Catholic Church.

We Must Defend Catholic Tradition. The Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, affirmed the duty of Catholics to combat all innovations that threaten Catholic tradition:

“Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3).”

It should be self-evident that Traditional Catholics are persecuted precisely because they “fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all,” and yet we see that Vatican II clearly stated that this is a duty for all faithful. As such, those who attack Traditional Catholics are themselves opposing Vatican II and the Catholic Church.

We Must Try to Convert Souls to Catholicism. Although a primary purpose of the Council was to diminish the immutable truth that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (absent extraordinary circumstances), the innovators could not banish the idea entirely. Thus, the Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, Ad Gentes, spoke of the need for Catholics to lead souls to the Catholic Church:

“Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it. Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.”

We know, of course, that this contradicts Francis’s prohibition on trying to convert souls to Catholicism, but it also repudiates the entire false ecumenism movement that animated Vatican II. It is the Church’s “sacred duty” to preach the Gospel, not to make sure souls are “inculpably ignorant” of the need to become Catholic. If we reflect on what has transpired in the name of Vatican II for the past sixty years, though, we see that countless seemingly independent initiatives coalesce around the common theme of convincing Catholics and non-Catholics alike that there is no real need for them to be Catholic.

Catholics Must Practice the Unadulterated Faith to Be Saved. Not only do we need to be Catholic, we must actually practice the Faith to be saved, as the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, made clear:

“All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.”

This opposes essentially everything we see not only from Francis but also from most bishops who implemented the innovations of Vatican II. We know, for instance, that most “Novus Ordo Catholics” oppose the Church’s immutable teachings on fundamental moral issues. Tellingly, though, the harshest criticism of Traditional Catholics from Francis and his collaborators relates to our “rigid” and “backward” insistence that we must respond to God’s grace “in thought, word, and deed” by following His commandments. Thus, according to Vatican II, it would be better to never know the Catholic Faith than to practice it in the way that Francis wants us to practice it.

We know from Traditionis Custodes that most opposition to Traditional Catholics centers around the notion that the Traditional Latin Mass is a banner for opposition to Vatican II. And so the defenders of Vatican II frequently howl that we must attend the Mass that resulted from the Council.

All Reforms to the Mass Must Be Organic. We know from Traditionis Custodes that most opposition to Traditional Catholics centers around the notion that the Traditional Latin Mass is a banner for opposition to Vatican II. And so the defenders of Vatican II frequently howl that we must attend the Mass that resulted from the Council, the Novus Ordo Missae. But if we look at the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, we can see various ways in which it tells us that the Novus Ordo Missae does not meet Vatican II’s minimum standards for a reformed Mass. For example, all innovations must be required to promote the “good of the Church,” and grow organically from the preexisting forms:

“Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”

Of itself, this tells us conclusively that the Novus Ordo Missae does not conform to the standards of Vatican II because most of the changes were not required for the good of the Church, and none flowed organically from the Traditional Latin Mass. In fact, the exact opposite is the case: the changes have been disastrous for the Church by the most important metrics — particularly Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence — and were a radical departure from the form that had existed.

The Traditional Latin Mass’s Substance Must Be Preserved. Although Sacrosanctum Concilium permitted reform of the Mass, it made it clear that the substance of the Traditional Latin Mass must be preserved:

“The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.”

Nothing in this even remotely contemplates or permits anything approaching the demolition of the Traditional Latin Mass achieved by the Freemason architect of the Novus Ordo, Annibale Bugnini. As such, any Catholic wishing to respect and comply with the requirements of Vatican II has a duty to avoid the Novus Ordo Missae.

Christ is King. Finally, the Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, asserted what so many Catholics want to deny today:

“While helping the world and receiving many benefits from it, the Church has a single intention: that God's kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass. . . . For God's Word, by whom all things were made, was Himself made flesh so that as perfect man He might save all men and sum up all things in Himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings. He it is Whom the Father raised from the dead, lifted on high and stationed at His right hand, making Him judge of the living and the dead. Enlivened and united in His Spirit, we journey toward the consummation of human history, one which fully accords with the counsel of God's love: ‘To reestablish all things in Christ, both those in the heavens and those on the earth’ (Eph. 11:10). The Lord Himself speaks: ‘Behold I come quickly! And my reward is with me, to render to each one according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:12-13).’”

Christ is the goal of human history; He is the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization; He is the center of the human race; He is the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings; He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end; and it is the Church’s “single intention” that God’s kingdom may come. Thus says Vatican II, and yet the “great defenders of Vatican II” persecute Traditional Catholics because we assert that Christ is King.

Thanks to Francis’s treachery, and the blatantly heretical and preposterous Synod on Synodality, the world now sees the true face of Vatican II, and it is not holy.

We could add many other examples from Vatican II’s documents, but these should more than suffice to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who persecute Traditional Catholics for failing to accept Vatican II. They castigate us for questioning the heterodox passages of the Council’s documents while, through their words and deeds, they unambiguously reject the Council’s orthodox passages. These defenders of the Council should remove the enormous beams from their eyes before seeking to remove tiny motes from the eyes of those who find fault with Vatican II.

But the Vatican II revolution was never about trying to help the Church, and we ought to acknowledge that something far more nefarious took place at the Council. Thanks to Francis’s treachery, and the blatantly heretical and preposterous Synod on Synodality, the world now sees the true face of Vatican II, and it is not holy. Indeed, if we soberly reflect on everything we now know about the Council, it should be abundantly clear that the entire effort was orchestrated by enemies of the Church who sought to diminish and distort the holy influence of the Catholic Faith on the world.

Vatican II has been an unprecedented disaster for the Church and the world. Those who still insist on foisting it on Catholics are insulting God, Holy Mother Church, and all the saints. Christ has risen, Christ is King, and we must reject the blasphemous lies of those hypocrites who attempt to uncrown Our Lord by demanding that we accept Vatican II’s anti-Catholic innovations, while they discard the immutable Catholic truths it affirms. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Latest from RTV — CHRIST is KING: Candace Owens Is Right