{"id":2079,"date":"2020-06-12T14:20:03","date_gmt":"2020-06-12T14:20:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/freemasonrywatch.info\/alta_vendita\/"},"modified":"2020-06-12T14:20:03","modified_gmt":"2020-06-12T14:20:03","slug":"alta_vendita","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/freemasonrywatch.org\/blog\/alta_vendita\/","title":{"rendered":"Freemasonry and the Subversion of the Catholic Church – The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n


\n“Our ultimate aim is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea.”
\n<\/i><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n


\nThe Permanent Instruction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\n\"Alta\"Alta<\/center><\/p>\n


\nFreemasonry is an association . . . an institution . . . so it is said
\n. . . but it is not that at all. Let us lift up all the veils, risking even to
\nevoke numberless protestations. FREEMASONRY IS A CHURCH: It is the
\nCounter-Church, Counter-Catholicism: It is the other church — the church of
\nHERESY, of Freethought.<\/i><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Freemasonry and the Subversion of the Catholic Church
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

By John Vennari<\/p>\n

Editor, Catholic Family News<\/p>\n

Transcript of a Speech given at the Fatima Peace Conference in Rome,
\nOctober, 2001<\/p>\n

This talk will be a brief expose of the 19th Century Masonic document
\n\u0093The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita\u0094, which mapped out a
\nblueprint, a plan, which will help us to understand what is the
\n\u0093diabolic disorientation of the upper hierarchy\u0094 of which Sister Lucy
\nspoke. The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, I believe,
\nexplains the root of that diabolic disorientation.<\/p>\n

The Alta Vendita<\/i> was the highest lodge of the Carbonari, an
\nItalian secret society with links to Freemasonry and which, along with
\nFreemasonry, was condemned by the Catholic Church.1 Father E. Cahill,
\nSJ, in his book Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement<\/i>
\nstates that the Alta Vendita<\/i> was \u0093commonly supposed to have been
\nat the time the governing center of European Freemasonry\u00942 The Carbonari
\nwere most active in Italy and France.<\/p>\n

In his book Athanasius and the Church of Our Time<\/i>, Bishop
\nRudolph Graber quoted a Freemason who declared that \u0093the goal (of
\nFreemasonry) is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use
\nof it by infiltrating it.\u00943<\/p>\n

In other words, since Freemasonry cannot completely obliterate
\nChrist\u0092s Church, it plans not only to eradicate the influence of
\nCatholicism in society, but to use the Church\u0092s structure as an
\ninstrument of \u0093renewal,\u0094 \u0093progress\u0094 and \u0093enlightenment\u0094 – as means of
\nfurthering many of its own principles and goals.<\/p>\n

An Outline<\/b><\/p>\n

The strategy advanced in the Permanent Instruction of the Alta
\nVendita<\/i> is astonishing in its audacity and cunning. From the start,
\nthe document tells of a process that will take decades to accomplish.
\nThose who drew up the document knew that they would not see its
\nfulfillment. They were inaugurating a work that would be carried on by
\nsucceeding generations of the initiated. The Permanent Instruction
\nsays, \u0093In our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on.\u0094<\/i><\/p>\n

The Instruction<\/i> called for the dissemination of liberal ideas
\nand axioms throughout society and within the institutions of the
\nCatholic Church so that laity, seminarians, clerics and prelates would,
\nover the years, gradually be imbued with progressive principles.<\/p>\n

In time, this mind-set would be so pervasive that priests would be
\nordained, bishops would be consecrated, and cardinals would be nominated
\nwhose thinking was in step with the modern thought rooted in the
\n\u0093Principles of 1789\u0094 (pluralism, equality of religions, separation of
\nChurch and State, etc.)<\/p>\n

Eventually, a Pope would be elected from these ranks who would lead
\nthe Church on the path of \u0093enlightenment and renewal\u0094. It must be
\nstressed that it was not<\/i> their aim to place a Freemason on the
\nChair of Peter. Their goal was to effect an environment that would
\neventually produce a Pope and a hierarchy won over to the ideas of
\nliberal Catholicism, all the while believing themselves to be faithful
\nCatholics.<\/p>\n

These Catholic leaders, then, would no longer oppose the modern ideas
\nof the revolution (as had been the consistent practice of the Popes from
\n1789 until 1958 who condemned these liberal principles) but would
\namalgamate them into the Church. The end result would be a Catholic
\nclergy and laity marching under the banner of the enlightenment all the
\nwhile thinking they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys.<\/p>\n

Is it Possible?<\/b><\/p>\n

For those who may believe this scheme to be too far- fetched, a goal
\ntoo hopeless for the enemy to attain, it should be noted that both Pope
\nPius IX and Pope Leo XIII asked that the Permanent Instruction<\/i> be
\npublished, no doubt, in order to prevent such a tragedy from taking
\nplace. These great Pontiffs knew that such a calamity was not
\nimpossible.<\/p>\n

However, if such a dark state of affairs would come to pass, that
\nthere would be three unmistakable means of recognizing it:<\/p>\n

1)<\/b> It would produce an upheaval of such magnitude that the
\nentire world would realize that the Catholic Church had undergone a
\nmajor revolution in line with modern ideas. It would be clear to all
\nthat an \u0093updating\u0094 had taken place.<\/p>\n

2)<\/b> A new theology would be introduced that would be in
\ncontradiction to previous teachings.<\/p>\n

3)<\/b> The Freemasons themselves would voice their
\ncockle-doodle of triumph believing that the Catholic Church had
\nfinally \u0093seen the light\u0094 on such points as pluralism, the secular
\nstate, equality of religions, and whatever other compromises had
\nbeen achieved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Authenticity of the Alta Vendita Documents<\/b><\/p>\n

The secret papers of the Alta Vendita, highest lodge of the Carbonari
\n(an Italian secret society) that fell into the hands of Pope Gregory XVI
\nembrace a period that goes from 1820 to 1846. They were published at the
\nrequest of Blessed Pope Pius IX by Cretineau-Joly in his work The
\nRoman Church and Revolution.<\/i>4<\/p>\n

With the brief of approbation of February 25, 1861 which he addressed
\nto the author, Pope Pius IX guaranteed the authenticity of these
\ndocuments, but he did not allow anyone to divulge the true members of
\nthe Alta Vendita<\/i> implicated in this correspondence.<\/p>\n

The full text of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita<\/i>
\nis also contained in Msgr. George E. Dillon\u0092s book, Grand Orient
\nFreemasonry Unmasked.<\/i> When Pope Leo XIII was presented with a copy
\nof Msgr. Dillon\u0092s book, he was so impressed that he ordered an Italian
\nversion to be completed and published at his own expense.5<\/p>\n

In the encyclical Humanum Genus<\/i>, Leo XIII called upon Catholic
\nleaders to \u0093tear off the mask from Freemasonry and make plain to all
\nwhat it really is\u0094.6 The publication of these documents is a means of
\n\u0093tearing off the mask\u0094. And if the Popes asked that these letters be
\npublished, it is because they want all Catholics to know the secret
\nsocieties\u0092 plans to subvert the Church from within so that Catholics
\nwould be on their guard and hopefully, prevent such a catastrophe from
\ntaking place.<\/p>\n

The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita<\/b><\/p>\n

What follows is not the entire Instruction<\/i>, but the section
\nthat is most pertinent to our discussion.<\/p>\n

The document reads:<\/p>\n

\u0093The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret
\nsocieties; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step
\ntoward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them.<\/p>\n

\u0093The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a
\nday, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps
\na century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes
\non.<\/p>\n

\u0093We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them
\nneophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be
\na ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals
\nor prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise,
\nshould enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an
\nincentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That
\nelevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to
\napostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice
\nus. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as
\nthe Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs
\n…<\/i><\/p>\n

\u0093With that we shall march more securely towards the assault on
\nthe Church than with the pamphlets of our brethren in France and
\neven the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this?
\nIt is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God
\nhas built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need
\ngunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the
\nsuccessor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as
\ngood, for this crusade, as all the Urban II\u0092s and all the Saint
\nBernards in Christendom.<\/p>\n

\u0093We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our
\nefforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed.
\nNevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn
\nup, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as
\nearly as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is
\nbarely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain
\nsecret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge
\nof the supreme Vente<\/u><\/b> some advice that they should
\ninstill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a
\nmemorandum …<\/p>\n

\u0093Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions,
\nit is a question first of shaping him … for this Pope, a
\ngeneration worthy of the reign we are dreaming of.<\/i> Leave old
\npeople and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it
\nis possible, even to the children … You will contrive for
\nyourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure
\npatriots.<\/p>\n

\u0093This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst
\nof the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a
\nfew years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have
\noverrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign\u0092s council,
\nthey will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And
\nthis Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily
\nmore or less imbued with the<\/i> Italian and humanitarian
\nprinciples that we are going to begin to put into circulation<\/i>.
\nIt is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the
\nground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the
\nhighest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this
\nsmall seed will produce.<\/p>\n

\u0093In the path that we are laying out for our brethren, there are
\nfound great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind
\nto master. They will triumph over them by experience and by
\nclearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important
\nto put all the sails to the wind in order to reach it. You want to
\nrevolutionize Italy, look for the Pope whose portrait we have just
\ndrawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the
\nthrone of the prostitute of Babylon, let the Clergy march under
\nyour standard, always believing that they are marching under the
\nbanner of the apostolic keys<\/i>. You intend to make the last
\nvestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares
\nlike Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and
\nthe monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do
\nnot hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The
\nfisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends
\naround the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a revolution
\nin tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner<\/i>, a
\nrevolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set
\nfire to the four corners of the world.\u00947<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It now remains for us to examine how successful this design has been.<\/p>\n

The Enlightenment, My Friend, is Blowin\u0092 in the Wind<\/b><\/p>\n

Throughout the 19th Century, society had become increasingly
\npermeated with the liberal principles of the French Revolution to the
\ngreat detriment of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic State. The
\nsupposedly \u0093kinder and gentler\u0094 notions of pluralism, religious
\nindifferentism, a democracy which believes all authority comes from the
\npeople, false notions of liberty, interfaith gatherings, separation of
\nChurch and State and other novelties were gripping the minds of
\npost-enlightenment Europe infecting Statesmen and Churchmen alike.<\/p>\n

The Popes of the 19th Century and early 20th Century waged war
\nagainst these dangerous trends in full battle-dress. With clearsighted
\npresence of mind rooted in an uncompromised certitude of Faith, these
\nPopes were not taken in. They knew that evil principles, no matter how
\nhonorable they may appear, cannot bear good fruit, and these were evil
\nprinciples at their worst, since they were rooted not only in heresy,
\nbut apostasy.<\/p>\n

Like commanding generals who recognize the duty to hold their ground
\nat all cost, these Popes aimed powerful cannons at the errors of the
\nmodern world and fired incessantly. The encyclicals were their
\ncannonballs and they never missed their target.<\/p>\n

The most devastating blast came in the form of Blessed Pope Pius IX\u0092s
\nmonumental 1864 Syllabus of Errors<\/i>, and when the smoke cleared,
\nall involved in the battle were in no doubt as to who was on what side.
\nThe line of demarcation had been drawn clearly. In this great
\nSyllabus<\/i>, Pius IX condemned the principle errors of the modern
\nworld, not because they were modern, but because these new ideas were
\nrooted in pantheistic naturalism and therefore, incompatible with
\nCatholic doctrine, as well as being destructive to society.<\/p>\n

The teachings in the Syllabus<\/i> were counter-liberalism, and the
\nprinciples of liberalism were counter-syllabus. This was unquestionably
\nrecognized by all parties. Father Denis Fahey referred to this showdown
\nas \u0093Pius IX vs. the Pantheistic Deification of Man.\u00948 Speaking for the
\nother side, the French Freemason Ferdinand Buissont declared likewise,
\n\u0093A school cannot remain neutral between the Syllabus and the Declaration
\nof the Rights of Man.\u00949<\/p>\n

Yet the 19th Century saw a new breed of Catholic who utopianly sought
\na compromise between the two. These men looked for what they believed to
\nbe \u0093good\u0094 in the principles of 1789 and tried to introduce them into the
\nChurch. Many clergymen, infected by the spirit of the age, were caught
\ninto this net that had been \u0093cast into the sacristies and into the
\nseminaries\u0094. These men came to be known as liberal Catholics. Blessed
\nPope Pius IX regarded them with absolute horror. He said these
\n\u0093liberal-Catholics\u0094 were the \u0093worst enemies of the Church\u0094.<\/p>\n

In a letter to the French deputation headed by the Bishop of Nevers
\non June 18, 1871, Blessed Pius IX said:<\/p>\n

\u0093That which I fear is not the Commune of Paris – no – that which
\nI fear is liberal Catholicism … I have said so more than forty
\ntimes, and I repeat it to you now, through the love that I bear you.
\nThe real scourge of France is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavors
\nto unite two principles as repugnant to each other as fire and
\nwater.\u009410<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet in spite of this, the numbers of liberal Catholics steadily
\nincreased.<\/p>\n

Pope Pius X and Modernism<\/b><\/p>\n

This crisis reached a peak around the turn of the century when the
\nliberalism of 1789 that had been \u0093blowin\u0092 in the wind\u0094 swirled into the
\ntornado of modernism. Fr. Vincent Miceli identified this heresy as such
\nby describing modernism\u0092s \u0093trinity of parents\u0094. He wrote:<\/p>\n

\u00931) Its religious ancestor is the Protestant Reformation<\/p>\n

\u00932) its philosophical parent is the Enlightenment<\/p>\n

\u00933) its political pedigree comes from the French Revolution.\u009411<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pope St. Pius X, who ascended to the Papal chair in 1903, recognized
\nmodernism as a most deadly plague that must be arrested. He wrote that
\nthe most important obligation of the Pope is to insure the purity and
\nintegrity of Catholic doctrine, and further stated that if he did
\nnothing, then he would have failed in his essential duty.12<\/p>\n

St. Pius X waged war on modernism, issued an encyclical (Pascendi)
\nand Syllabus (Lamentabili<\/i>) against it, instituted the
\nAnti-Modernist Oath to be sworn by all priests and teachers, purged the
\nseminaries and universities of modernists and excommunicated the
\nstubborn and unrepentant.<\/p>\n

Pius X effectively halted the spread of modernism in his day. It is
\nreported, however, that when he was congratulated for eradicating this
\ngrave error, Pius X immediately responded that despite all his efforts,
\nhe had not succeeded in killing this beast, but had only driven it
\nunderground. He warned that if Church leaders were not vigilant, it
\nwould return in the future more virulent than ever.13<\/p>\n

Curia on the Alert<\/b><\/p>\n

A little-known drama that unfolded during the reign of Pope Pius XI
\ndemonstrates that the underground current of modernist though was alive
\nand well in the immediate post-Pius X period.<\/p>\n

Father Raymond Dulac relates that at the secret consistory of May 23,
\n1923, Pope Pius XI questioned the thirty Cardinals of the Curia on the
\ntimeliness of summoning an ecumenical council. In attendance were
\nillustrious prelates such as Merry del Val, De Lai, Gasparri, Boggiani
\nand Billot.<\/p>\n

The Cardinals advised against it.<\/p>\n

Cardinal Billot warned, \u0093The existence of profound differences in the
\nmidst of the episcopacy itself cannot be concealed … [They] run the
\nrisk of giving place to discussions that will be prolonged
\nindefinitely.\u0094<\/p>\n

Boggiani recalled the Modernist theories from which, he said, a part
\nof the clergy and of the bishops are not exempt. \u0093This mentality can
\nincline certain Fathers to present motions, to introduce methods
\nincompatible with Catholic traditions.\u0094<\/p>\n

Billot was even more precise. He expresses his fear of seeing the
\ncouncil \u0093maneuvered\u0094 by \u0093the worst enemies of the Church, the
\nModernists, who are already getting ready, as certain indications show,
\nto bring forth the revolution<\/i> in the Church, a new 1789.\u0094<\/i>14<\/p>\n

In discouraging the idea of a Council for such reasons, these
\nCardinals showed themselves more apt at recognizing the \u0093signs of the
\ntimes\u0094 then all the post-Vatican II theologians combined. Yet their
\ncaution may have been rooted in something deeper. They may also have
\nbeen haunted by the writings of the infamous, illumin\u00e9, the
\nexcommunicated Canon Roca (1830-1893) who preached revolution and Church
\n\u0093reform\u0094, and who predicted the subversion of the Church that would be
\nbrought about by a Council.<\/p>\n

Roca\u0092s Revolutionary Ravings<\/b><\/p>\n

In his book Athanasius and the Church of Our Time<\/i>, Bishop
\nGraber quotes Roca\u0092s prediction of a \u0093newly illuminated Church\u0094 which
\nwould be influenced by the socialism of Jesus”.15<\/p>\n

In the mid-19th Century, Roca predicted \u0093The new church, which might
\nnot be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original
\nform of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and
\ncanonical jurisdiction from Rome.\u0094<\/p>\n

Roca also predicted a liturgical reform. With reference to the future
\nliturgy, he believed \u0093that the divine cult in the form directed by the
\nliturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will
\nshortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council,<\/b><\/i>
\nwhich will restore to it the venerable simplicity of the golden age of
\nthe Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern
\ncivilization.\u0094<\/p>\n

He foretold that through this council will come \u0093a perfect accord
\nbetween the ideals of modern civilization and the ideal of Christ and
\nHis Gospel. This will be the consecration of the New Social Order and
\nthe solemn baptism of modern civilization.\u0094<\/p>\n

Roca also spoke of the future of the Papacy. He wrote \u0093There is a
\nsacrifice in the offing which represents a solemn act of expiation …
\nThe Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which
\nthe fathers of the last council will forge<\/b><\/i>. The papal caesar is
\na host [victim] crowned for the sacrifice.\u0094<\/p>\n

Roca enthusiastically predicted a \u0093new religion, new dogma, new
\nritual, new priesthood.\u0094 He called the new priests \u0093progressists\u0094 and
\nspeaks of the \u0093suppression\u0094 of the soutane [cassock] and the \u0093marriage
\nof priests.\u009416<\/p>\n

Chilling echos of Roca and The Alta Vendita<\/i> are to be found in
\nthe words of the Rosicrucian, Dr. Rudolph Steiner who declared in 1910
\n\u0093We need a council and a Pope to proclaim it.\u009417 Bishop Graber,
\ncommenting on these predictions remarks \u0093A few years ago this was still
\ninconceivable to us, but today … \u009418<\/p>\n

The Great Council that Never Was<\/b><\/p>\n

Around 1948, Pope Pius XII, at the request of the staunchly orthodox
\nCardinal Ruffini, considered calling a general Council and even spent a
\nfew years making the necessary preparations. There is evidence that
\nprogressive elements in Rome eventually dissuaded Pius XII from bringing
\nit to realization since this Council showed definite signs of being in
\nsync with Humani Generis<\/i>. Like this great 1950 encyclical, the
\nnew Council would combat \u0093false opinions which threaten to undermine the
\nfoundations of Catholic doctrine.\u009419<\/p>\n

Tragically, Pope Pius XII became convinced that he was too advanced
\nin years to shoulder such a momentous task, and resigned that \u0093this will
\nbe for my successor.\u009420<\/p>\n

\u0093Roncalli Will Canonize Ecumenism\u0094<\/b><\/p>\n

Throughout the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII, the Holy Office under
\nthe able leadership of Cardinal Ottaviani maintained a safe Catholic
\nlandscape by keeping the wild horses of modernism firmly corralled. Many
\nof today\u0092s modernist theologians disdainfully recount how they and their
\nfriends had been \u0093muzzled\u0094 during this period.<\/p>\n

Yet even Ottaviani could not prevent what was to happen in 1958. A
\nnew type of Pope \u0093whom the progressives believed to favor their cause\u009421
\nwould ascend to the Pontifical Chair and would force a reluctant
\nOttaviani to remove the latch, open the corral and brace himself for the
\nstampede.<\/p>\n

However, such a state of affairs was not unforeseen. At the news of
\nthe death of Pius XII, the old Dom Lambert Beauduin, a friend of
\nRoncalli\u0092s (the future John XXIII) confided to Father Bouyer: \u0093If they
\nelect Roncalli, everything would be saved; he would be capable of
\ncalling a council and of consecrating ecumenism.\u009422<\/p>\n

And so it happened just as Dom Lambert foretold. Roncalli was
\nelected, called a Council and consecrated ecumenism. The \u0093revolution in
\ntiara and cope\u0094 was underway.<\/p>\n

Pope John\u0092s Revolution<\/b><\/p>\n

It is well known and superbly documented23 that a clique of liberal
\ntheologians (periti) and bishops hijacked Vatican II with an agenda to
\nremake the Church into their own image through the implementation of a
\n\u0093new theology\u0094. Critics and defenders of Vatican II are in agreement on
\nthis point.<\/p>\n

In his book Vatican II Revisited<\/i>, Bishop Aloysius J. Wycislo
\n(a rhapsodic advocate of the Vatican II revolution) declares with giddy
\nenthusiasm that \u0093theologians and biblical scholars who had been \u0091under a
\ncloud\u0092 for years surfaced as periti<\/i> (theological experts advising
\nthe bishops at the Council), and their post-Vatican II books and
\ncommentaries became popular reading.\u009424<\/p>\n

He noted that \u0093Pope Pius XII\u0092s encyclical Humani Generis<\/i> had
\n… a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar
\ntheologians\u0094,22 and explains that \u0093During the early preparation of the
\nCouncil, those theologians (mainly French, with some Germans) whose
\nactivities had been restricted by Pope Pius XII, were still under a
\ncloud. Pope John quietly lifted the ban affecting some of the most
\ninfluential ones. Yet a number remained suspect to the officials of the
\nHoly Office.\u009426<\/p>\n

Wycislo sings the praises of triumphant progressives such as Hans
\nKung, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri Delubac,
\nEdward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum, who had been considered suspect
\nbefore the Council (for good reason), that are now the leading lights of
\npost-Vatican II theology.27<\/p>\n

In effect, those whom Pope Pius XII considered unfit to be walking
\nthe streets of Catholicism were now in control of the town. And as if to
\ncrown their achievements, the Oath Against Modernism<\/i> was quietly
\nsuppressed shortly after the close of the Council. St. Pius X had
\npredicted correctly. Lack of vigilance in authority had provoked
\nmodernism to return with a vengeance.<\/p>\n

\u0093Marching Under a New Banner\u0094<\/b><\/p>\n

There were countless battles at Vatican II between the International
\nGroup of Fathers who fought to maintain Tradition, and the progressive
\nRhine group. Tragically, in the end, it was the liberal and modernist
\nelement that prevailed.<\/p>\n

It was obvious to anyone who had eyes to see was that the Second
\nVatican Council promulgated many ideas that had formerly been anathema
\nto Church teaching, but that were in-step with modern thought<\/i>.
\nThis did not happen by accident, but by design.<\/p>\n

The progressivists at Vatican II avoided condemnations of Modernist
\nerrors. They also deliberately planted ambiguities in the Council texts
\nwhich they intended to exploit after the Council. The liberal Council
\nperitus<\/i>, Father Edward Schillebeeckx admitted \u0093we have used
\nambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret
\nthem afterwards.\u0094 28<\/p>\n

By utilizing deliberate ambiguities, the Council documents promoted
\nan ecumenism that had been condemned by Pope Pius XI, a religious
\nliberty that had been condemned by the 19th Century Popes (especially
\nBlessed Pope Pius IX), a new liturgy along the lines of Protestantism
\nand ecumenism that Bugnini called \u0093a major conquest of the Catholic
\nChurch\u0094, a collegiality that strikes at the heart of the Papal primacy,
\nand a \u0093new attitude toward the world\u0094 – especially in one of the most
\nradical of all the Council documents, Gaudium et Spes<\/i>. (Even
\nCardinal Ratzinger admitted that Gaudium et Spes is permeated by the
\nspirit of Teilhard de Chardin)29<\/p>\n

As the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita<\/i> had hoped,
\nthe notions of liberal culture had finally won adherence among the major
\nplayers in the Catholic hierarchy and was thus spread throughout the
\nentire Church. The result has been an unprecedented crisis of Faith
\nwhich continues to worsen. While at the same time, countless highly
\nplaced Churchmen, obviously inebriated by the \u0093spirit of Vatican II\u0094,
\ncontinuously praise those Council reforms that have brought this
\ncalamity to pass.<\/p>\n

Cheers from the Masonic Bleachers<\/b><\/p>\n

Yet, not only many of our Church leaders, but Freemasons also
\ncelebrate the turn of events wrought by the Council. They rejoice that
\nCatholics have finally \u0093seen the light,\u0094 and that many of their Masonic
\nprinciples have been sanctioned by the Church.<\/p>\n

Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite, in his book Ecumenism Viewed
\nby a Traditional Freemason<\/i> praised the ecumenism nurtured at Vatican
\nII. He said:<\/p>\n

\u0093Catholics … must not forget that all roads lead to God. And
\nthey will have to accept that this courageous idea of freethinking,
\nwhich we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our
\nMasonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St.
\nPeter\u0092s.\u009430<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yves Marsaudon said further, \u0093One can say that ecumenism is the
\nlegitimate son of Freemasonry\u0094 31<\/p>\n

The post-Vatican II spirit of doubt and revolution obviously warmed
\nthe heart of French Freemason Jacques Mitterrand, who wrote approvingly:<\/p>\n

\u0093Something has changed within the Church, and replies given by
\nthe Pope to the most urgent questions such as priestly celibacy and
\nbirth control, are hotly debated within the Church itself; the word
\nof the Sovereign Pontiff is questioned by bishops, by priests, by
\nthe faithful. For a Freemason, a man who questions dogma is already
\na Freemason without an apron.\u009432<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Marcel Prelot, a senator for the Doubs region in France, is probably
\nthe most accurate in describing what has really taken place. He writes:<\/p>\n

\u0093We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions
\nto prevail with the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there
\ncame Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and
\nprinciples of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and
\nofficially accepted by Holy Church.\u009433<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A Break with the Past<\/b><\/p>\n

Those \u0093conservatives\u0094 who deny that Vatican II constitutes a break
\nwith tradition, and that it contradicts previous magisterium have failed
\nto listen to the very movers and shakers of the Council who shamelessly
\nacknowledge it.<\/p>\n

Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reform remarked with quiet
\nsatisfaction that \u0093The Church has had, peacefully, its October
\nrevolution.\u009434<\/p>\n

Congar also admitted, as if its something to be proud of, that
\nVatican II\u0092s Declaration on Religious Liberty<\/i> is contrary to the
\nSyllabus<\/i> of Pope Pius IX. He said:<\/p>\n

\u0093It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by
\nVatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus<\/i>
\nof 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16,
\n17 and 19 of this document.\u009435<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lastly, a few years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger, apparently unruffled by
\nthe admission, wrote that he sees the Vatican II text Gaudium et Spes<\/i>
\nas a \u0093counter-Syllabus\u0094<\/b>. He said:<\/p>\n

\u0093If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Guadium
\net Spes<\/i>) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the
\ntexts on religious liberty, and world religions,) it is a revision
\nof the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus … Let us be
\ncontent to say here that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and,
\nas such, represent on the part of the Church, an attempt at an
\nofficial reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789″.36<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.<\/p>\n

This comment by Cardinal Ratzinger is disturbing, especially since it
\ncame from the man who, as the head of the Sacred Congregation for the
\nDoctrine of the Faith, is supposedly in charge of guarding the purity of
\nCatholic doctrine.<\/p>\n

Yet we can also cite a similar statement by the progressivist
\nCardinal Suenens, one of the most liberal prelates of this century,
\nhimself a Council father, spoke glowing of the old regimes that have
\ncome crashing down. The words he used in praise of the Council are the
\nmost telling, the most chilling and the most damning. Suenens declared
\n\u0093Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church.\u009437<\/p>\n

The Status of the Vatican II documents<\/b><\/p>\n

Of course, Catholics have the right, even the duty, to resist those
\nteachings coming from the Council that conflict with the perennial
\nMagisterium.<\/p>\n

For years, Catholics have labored under the misconception that they
\nmust accept the pastoral<\/i> Council, Vatican II, with the same
\nassent of faith that they owed to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is
\nnot the case.<\/p>\n

The Council Fathers repeatedly referred to Vatican II as a
\npastoral<\/i> Council – that is, it was a Council that dealt with not
\ndefining<\/i> the Faith, but with implementing it.<\/p>\n

The fact that Vatican II is inferior to a Dogmatic council is
\nconfirmed by the testimony of the Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris.
\nNow at his own request, this testimony was not unsealed until after his
\ndeath:<\/p>\n

\u0093I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not
\naiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a
\nstatement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I
\nwould have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to
\nbe reformed.\u009438<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Then there is the important testimony from the Council\u0092s Secretary,
\nArchbishop (later Cardinal) Pericle Felici. At the close of Vatican II,
\nthe bishops asked Archbishop Felici for that which the theologians call
\nthe \u0093theological note\u0094 of the Council . That is, the doctrinal \u0093weight\u0094
\nof Vatican II\u0092s teachings. Felici replied:<\/p>\n

\u0093We have to distinguish according to the schemas<\/i> and the
\nchapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic
\ndefinitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a
\nnovel character, we have to make reservations.\u009439<\/b><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Pope Paul VI himself also made similar comments that \u0093Given the
\nCouncil\u0092s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary
\nmanner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.\u009440<\/p>\n

Thus, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an
\nunqualified assent of faith. The verbose and ambagious statement of
\nVatican II are not on a par with dogmatic pronouncements. Vatican II\u0092s
\nnovelties are not unconditionally binding on the faithful. Catholics may
\n\u0093make reservations\u0094 and even resist<\/b><\/i> any teaching from the
\nCouncil that would conflict with the perennial Magisterium.<\/p>\n

\u0093A Revolution in Tiara and Cope\u0094<\/b><\/p>\n

The post-Vatican II revolution bears all the hallmarks of the
\nfulfilling of the designs of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta
\nVendita<\/i> as well as the prophecies of Canon Roca:<\/p>\n

1)<\/b> The entire world has witnessed a profound change in the
\nCatholic Church on an international scale that is in step with the
\nmodern world.
\n2)<\/b> Vatican II\u0092s defenders and detractors both demonstrate
\nthat certain teachings of the Council constitute a break with the
\npast .
\n3)<\/b> The Freemasons themselves rejoice that thanks to the
\nCouncil, their ideas \u0093have spread magnificently over the dome of
\nSaint Peter\u0092s\u0094.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, the passion that our Holy Church is presently suffering is
\nreally no great mystery. By recklessly ignoring the Popes of the past,
\nour present Church leaders have erected a compromised structure that is
\ncollapsing upon itself. Though Pope Paul VI lamented that \u0093the Church is
\nin a state of auto-demolition\u0094, he, as does the present Pontificate,
\ninsisted that the disastrous aggiornamento<\/i> responsible for this
\nauto-demolition be continued full-steam.<\/p>\n

There is one final point I wish to make. I am not claiming that every
\nchurchman who promotes novel practices, such as ecumenism, are
\ndeliberately acting as enemies of the Church. The renowned priest of the
\n19th Century, Father Frederick Faber, was a true prophet when he said in
\na remarkable sermon preached at Pentecost, 1861 in the London Oratory:<\/p>\n

\u0093We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one
\nside and all the manifestly bad men were on the other, there would
\nbe no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by
\nlying wonders. It is the good men, once good, we must hope good
\nstill, who are to do the work of anti-christ and so sadly to crucify
\nthe Lord afresh .. . Bear in mind this feature of the last
\ndays, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the
\nwrong side.\u009441<\/i><\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, I believe that many (not all) Churchmen who have succumb to the
\nspirit of the age, and promote the Council\u0092s new agenda, are good men on
\nthe wrong side.<\/p>\n

The Need for Resistance<\/b><\/p>\n

As I said when I opened this presentation, I believe that the
\nPermanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita and its effects helps to
\nexplain what Sister Lucy was talking about when she warned of the
\ndiabolic disorientation of the upper hierarchy, a term she used numerous
\ntimes.<\/p>\n

In the face of such diabolic disorientation<\/i> the only response
\nfor all Catholics concerned are:<\/p>\n

1)<\/b> to pray much, especially the Rosary.
\n2)<\/b> to learn and live the Traditional Doctrine and morals of
\nthe Catholic Church as it is found in pre-Vatican II Catholic
\nwritings,
\n3)<\/b> to adhere to the Latin Tridentine Mass where the Catholic
\nfaith and devotion are found in their fullness uninfected by today\u0092s
\nnovus ordo<\/i> of ecumenism,
\n4)<\/b> to resist with all one\u0092s soul the liberal post-Vatican II
\ntrends wreaking such havoc on the Mystical Body of Christ,
\n5)<\/b> to charitably instruct others in the traditions of the
\nFaith and warn them of the errors of the times.
\n6)<\/b> to pray that a contagious return to sanity may sweep
\nthrough a sufficient number of the hierarchy.
\n7)<\/b> never to compromise,
\n8)<\/b> And lastly, the reason we are here: to practice, and to
\nmake known to the best of our abilities the requests of Our Lady of
\nFatima.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Footnotes:<\/b><\/p>\n

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia,<\/i> Vo. 3 (New York Encyclopeida
\nPress, 1913), pp. 330-331.<\/p>\n

2. Rev. E. Cahill, J.S., Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement
\n(Dublin: Gill, 1959), p. 101.<\/p>\n

3. Bishop Graber, Athanasius and the Church of our Time<\/i>, P. 39,
\nChristian Book Club, Palmdale, CA.<\/p>\n

4. 2nd volume, original edition, 1859, reprinted by Circle of the French
\nRenaissance, Paris 1976; Msgr. Delassus produced these documents again
\nin his work The Anti-Christian Conspiracy<\/i>, DDB, 1910, Tome III,
\npp. 1035-1092.<\/p>\n

5. Michael Davies, Pope John\u0092s Council<\/i>, p.166 Angelus Press,
\nKansas City, MO.<\/p>\n

6. Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus<\/i>, par. 31, Tan Books and
\nPublishers, Rockford, IL.<\/p>\n

7. Msgr. Dillon, Grand Orient Freemasonary Unmasked<\/i>, pp. 51-56
\nfull text of Alta Vendita<\/i> – Christian Book Club, Palmdale, CA.<\/p>\n

8. Father Denis Fahey. Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World<\/i>,
\nChapter VII, Regina Publications, Dublin Ireland.<\/p>\n

9. Ibid. p. 116.<\/p>\n

10. Quoted from The Catholic Doctrine, Father Michael Muller<\/i>
\n(Benzinger, 1888?) p. 282<\/p>\n

11. Fr. Vincent Micelli, The Antichrist<\/i>, p. 133, Roman Catholic
\nBooks, Harrison, NY.<\/p>\n

12. Pope Pius X, Pascendi (Encyclical Against Modernism)<\/i> Par. 1<\/p>\n

13. Fr. Vincent Micelli, The Antichrist<\/i>, cassette lecture, Keep
\nthe Faith, Inc. Ramsey, NJ.<\/p>\n

14. Raymond Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality at the Second Council of
\nthe Vatican<\/i>, Paris Cedre, 1979, pp. 9-10.<\/p>\n

15. Athanasius and the Church of Our Time<\/i>, p. 34.<\/p>\n

16. A full account of all of Roca\u0092s quotes here printed is found in
\nAthanasius and the Church of Our TIme<\/i>, pp. 31-40.<\/p>\n

17. Ibid. p. 36.<\/p>\n

18. Ibid. p. 35.<\/p>\n

19. A full account of this fascinating history is found in \u0093The Whole
\nTruth About Fatima\u0094, Vol 3: The Third Secret<\/i> by Fr\u00e8re Michel of the
\nHoly Trinity, pp. 257 to 304, Immaculate Heart Publications, Ft. Erie,
\nOnt.<\/p>\n

20. Ibid. p. 298.<\/p>\n

21. Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonary and the Vatican<\/i>, p. 14.<\/p>\n

22. L. Bouyer, Dom Lambert Beauduin, a Man of the Church<\/i>,
\nCasterman, 1964, pp. 180-181, quoted by Father Dilder Bonneterre in
\nThe Liturgical Movement<\/i>, Ed. Fideliter, 1980, p. 119.<\/p>\n

23. i.e., The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber<\/i> by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen,
\nTan Books and Publishers, Pope John\u0092s Council<\/i>, by Michael Davies,
\nAngelus Press, Kansas City, MO, and even Vatican II Revisited<\/i>,
\n(see next footnote) which sings praises of the reform.<\/p>\n

24. Most Reverend Aloysius S.J. Wycislo, Vatican II Revisted,
\nReflections By One Who Was There<\/i>, p. x, Alba House, Staten Island,
\nNew York.<\/p>\n

25. Ibid. p. 33.<\/p>\n

26. Ibid. p. 27.<\/p>\n

27. Ibid. pp. 27 to 34.<\/p>\n

28. Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre, Kansas
\nCity, Angelus Press, 1992), p. 106.<\/i><\/p>\n

29. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology,
\n(Ignatius Press), p. 334.<\/i><\/p>\n

30. Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 88-89.<\/i><\/p>\n

31. Yves Marsuadon, Oecumensisme vu par un Macon de Tradition , pp.
\n119-120.<\/i><\/p>\n

32. Lew Catholicsme Liberal, 1969.<\/i><\/p>\n

33. Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 100.<\/i><\/p>\n

34. Yves Congar, O.P. quoted by Father George de Nantes, CRC, no. 113,
\np.3.<\/p>\n

350. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, Tequi, Paris, 1985, p.
\n42).<\/p>\n

36.Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 100.<\/p>\n

37. Ibid. p. 100.<\/p>\n

38. Interview of Bishop Morris by Kiernon Wood, Catholic World News,
\nSept. 27, 1997.<\/p>\n

39.Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 107.<\/p>\n

40. Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966, in Inseganmenti di
\nPaolo VI, vo. 4, p. 700, cited from Atila Sinke Guimaraes, In the Murky
\nwaters of Vatican II, Metaire: Maeta, 1997; TAN 1999), pp. 111-112.<\/p>\n

41. Quote taken from The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World,
\nfather Denis Fahey, (Regina Publications, Dublin, first printed in 1935)
\np. xi.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"Share<\/a>