Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

12 nov 18

From Martini To Bergoglio. Toward a Vatican Council III


The synod of last October was supposed to be about young people. And instead in concluding it, Pope Francis said that “its first fruit” was “synodality.”

In fact, the most surprising paragraphs of the final document – and also the most contested, with dozens of votes against – were precisely the ones on the “synodal form of the Church.”

Surprising because synodality was practically never talked about, neither in the preparatory phase of the synod, nor in the assembly, nor in the working groups. Only to see it appear in the final document, in the writing of which “L’Osservatore Romano” has revealed that the pope also took part.

An “obvious manipulation,” Sydney archbishop Anthony Fisher called it, giving voice to the protest of not a few synod fathers over this contradictory way of imposing an idea of collegial government with an act of sovereignty from on high.

But then came “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the official voice of Casa Santa Marta, to confirm that it has to be this way, entitling its editorial of commentary on the synod: “The young have reawakened the synodality of the Church.”

And so one’s thoughts go back inexorably to that 1999 synod at which Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a Jesuit like Jorge Mario Bergoglio, sketchedout the “dream” of a Church in a perennial synodal state, listed a series of “disciplinary and doctrinal knots” that had to be addressed collegially, and concluded that for such questions “not even a synod could be sufficient,” but that there was a need for “a more universal and authoritative collegial instrument,” in essence a new ecumenical council, ready to “repeat that experience of communion, of collegiality” which was Vatican II.

Among the questions listed by Martini is none other than the ones that today are at the center of Francis’s pontificate:

– “the position of woman in the Church,”
– “the participation of the laity in some ministerial responsibilities,”
– “sexuality,”
– “the discipline of marriage,”
– “penitential practice,”
– “ecumenical relations with the sister Churches,”
– “the relationship between civil laws and moral laws.”

And like Martini, Francis too keeps hammering away at the “style” with which the Church should address such questions. A permanent “synodal style,” or “a way of being and working together, young and old, in listening and in discernment, in order to arrive at pastoral choices that respond to reality.”

So much for the ordinary life of the Church, on all levels.

But then synodality is also invoked as a form of hierarchical governance of the universal Church, the expression of which are the synods properly so called – not for nothing referred to as “of bishops” – and the ecumenical councils.

Today the idea of a new ecumenical council is fostered by few. What is more vigorous, with the encouragement of Francis, is the discussion on how to bring about the evolution not only of the synods, both local and universal, as consultative and deliberative, but also of the episcopal conferences, decentralizing and multiplying their powers and even endowing them with some “genuine doctrinal authority” (Evangelii Gaudium” 32).

But it is not out of the question that the hypothesis of a new council could also see a growing number of supporters soon. So why not gear up and study again what the councils were in the history of the Church, and what they can continue to be in the future?

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, an authoritative Church historian and president of the pontifical committee for historical sciences from 1998 to 2009, gave a conference on this very subject last October 12 in Rome, reproduced in its entirety on this other page of Settimo Cielo:

> Che cosa significa storia dei concili e a qual fine la si studia

Here below are two extracts from it.

The first concerns the superiority of the council over the pope as affirmed by the decree of Constance “Haec Sancta” of 1415, and reasserted today by not a few theologians.

The second concerns the eventuality of a future new council and its implementation, with almost twice as many bishops as Vatican II.

Enjoy the read!



Right from the start the decree of Constance “Haec Sancta” of 1415 was the object of heated debate between those who upheld the superiority of the council over the pope and their opponents.

Recently it was the jubilee of the council of Constance in 1964 that reignited the discussion.

The problem thought to be particularly pressing was how to reconcile the decree of Constance “Haec Sancta” – which not only Hans Küng, Paul de Vooght and others, at the time following Karl August Fink, celebrated as the “magna carta” of conciliarism, or putting the council before the pope – with the 1870 dogma on the jurisdictional primacy and doctrinal infallibility of the pope.

In this case did not one council, one dogma, perhaps contradict another in an important question of faith?

At the time, therefore, not a few erudite theological pens, including that of a preeminent dogmatist of Freiburg, swung into action in making, with noteworthy expenditure of acumen, attempts at harmonization, of a sometimes almost acrobatic audacity.

And yet… just a bit of history would have been enough to recognize the groundlessness of the problem: the “council” that in April of 1415 had formulated the decree “Haec Sancta” – the stumbling block – was in fact anything but a universal council; it was instead an assembly of supporters of John XXIII. The gathering of Constance became a universal council only when it was joined by the supporters of the other two “schismatic popes” in July of 1415 and in the autumn of 1417.

What was decided in 1415 in Constance was devoid of both canonical and magisterial authority. And in fact, when the newly elected pope Martin V approved the decrees decided in the years 1415-1417, he deliberately left out “Haec Sancta.”



In recent decades there has been repeated talk about a council “Vatican III.” According to some, this should correct the mistaken developments launched by Vatican II, while according to others it should complete the reforms requested at the time.

So should there – and therefore can there – be another universal ecumenical council in the future?

The answer to this question essentially depends on how one would imagine such a “gigantic” council, because that is what it would be.

If a council were to be convened today, the bishops who would have a place and a voice in it would number – according to the situation in 2016 – 5,237. During Vatican II the participating bishops were around 3,044. Just a glance at these numbers is enough to understand that a council of a classical cast would fail for this reason alone. But even supposing that it were possible to resolve the immense logistical and financial difficulties, there are a few simple logical considerations of a sociological and socio-psychological nature that make such a gigantic enterprise look unachievable. Such a high number of participants in a council, who for the most part do not know each other, would be an easily maneuverable mass in the hands of a determined group aware of its own power. The consequences are all too easy to imagine.

The question is therefore how, in what forms and structures, the successors of the apostles can exercise in a collegial manner their ministry as teachers and pastors of the universal Church in the aforementioned circumstances, in a way that would correspond to both the theological and practical-pastoral requirements.

In the search for any historical examples, one looks above all to the council of Vienne of 1311-1312, at which 20 cardinals and 122 bishops participated. The peculiarity lies in how one arrives at these numbers. Two guest lists have been preserved, one papal and one royal. Those who had not been invited could go, but were not obligated to do so. In this way the council was able to keep within contained dimensions, even if the criteria for the selection of the guests – putting the two lists side by side – was not without difficulties. To prevent problems of this kind, the selection of persons to be invited had to be subjected to objective, institutional criteria.

Today and tomorrow, however, a gradual synodal process could make the objections baseless. One could take as an example Martin V, who in the preparatory phase of the council of Pavia-Siena had given the guideline – which in any case was followed by few – to prepare for the universal council with provincial synods. In an analogous way, Vatican I had also been preceded by a series of provincial synods – cf. the “Collectio Lacensis” – which in one form or another prepared the decrees of 1870. Thus, in the various parts of the world, or in the different geographical areas, particular councils could be held to discuss, in the phase of preparation of the universal council, the themes expected to be dealt with at it. The results of these particular councils could be presented, discussed, and addressed in a definitive way, perhaps already in the form of draft decrees, during the council.

The participants at the council would be selected by the particular councils that preceded it, and sent to the universal council with a mandate to represent their particular Churches. Thus it could rightly be called “universalem Ecclesiam repraesentans” and act as such.

This model would make it possible not only to prepare an ecumenical council well in advance, but also to conduct it with a limited duration and number of participants. So why not look back to the first universal council, that of Nicaea in 325, which went down in history as the council of 318 fathers (318 like the “trusted servants” of Abraham in Genesis 14:14)? The “Credo” that they formulated is the same “Credo” that is still proclaimed today by millions of Catholics all over the world on Sundays and feast days. And thus this first general council of just 318 bishops is still a point of crystallization at which truth and error part ways.


(The requirement to precede universal synods and councils with synodal moments in the various local Churches is also emphasized in the extensive document on “Synodality in the life and mission of the Church” published on March 2, 2018 by the international theological commission).

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)Condividi:



Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.  So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.

If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.

Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

This is so because:1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  

Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.  Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  

His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.  The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. 

In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.

 Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters.  The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do.  Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.  Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.  This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.  They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.   May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de PlumeUn ami des Papes

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to IT IS BACK TO THE FUTURE !!! OR IS IT ???

  1. At the end of the book *AA-1025: The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle*, there is a hint that the communist infiltrators are already planning “Vatican III”. Vatican II was certainly a great triumph for the enemies of the Church, but it appears that it was meant to in fact be a relatively minor event; “Vatican III” would be the real destruction of the Church, and the merging of a distorted “Catholicism” with false religions and ideologies to form “one world religion”. While the book’s authenticity has been a subject of debate, given how accurately it has predicted many events in recent years, I would say that it is difficult to dismiss it as a complete fabrication. After all, it is clear that a conspiracy did exist, and continues to exist, attempting to undermine the true Church.

    Any future Council will certainly have to undo the damage caused by Vatican II and what followed. While it is possible that the enemies of the Church will attempt to convene “Vatican III”, it is my expectation that when time does come for the damage to be undone, the vast majority of Catholics will already have gone over into formal heresy and schism with the modernists. It is very likely that perhaps 90% of the faithful, both clergy and laity alike, will leave the Church, and perhaps it is inevitable; after all, the tumor must be excised before the Body can begin to heal. (Oh! How many souls will be lost!)

Comments are closed.