The Apostasy of the False Council of Vatican II

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Both Modern Evolution and Modernist Evolution has been concocted for only one reason, to oppose Christ and His Church and provide a basis for the Antichrist.

What must be understood about evolution, both ancient and modern is, in its pagan religious and Gnostic and secular modes it is the same in the essentials – first the Universe is all there is. The ancient (Old Latin) meaning in ancient Rome of Universe was from Uni – one and Versus – turn. Look at the sky above, from one horizon to another it is one turn, or in other words, one arc across the sky. This mindless elemental universe is then thought to give rise to all phenomena spontaneously. A noumenal, unseen immaterial aspect, is posited to conveniently provide a place for all things which don’t add up in strict materialism. The gods and goddesses of paganism all have their place as functionaries of this material Pantheism – strictly speaking the Pantheist god is the universe. Know this, all evolution is in direct and complete opposition to the Catholic Faith. Theistic evolution is only Pantheist evolutionary immanentism with a myth of a god, it may as well be Zeus or whatever, pasted on as an ornament. Ratzinger is a sly Apostate fox in this.

The True God is the Holy Trinity and is NOT a myth. He created everything that has been created. Amen. 

The United States was founded on Heroic Materialism, which also Napoleon embraced. Napoleon also embraced the lie of the Higher Criticism, denying the Immortal supernatural existence of the Son of God Jesus Christ.

Communist Russia was founded on Dialectical Materialism, a slightly differently shaded version of the same thing as Heroic Materialism. Both are ancient Babylonian in essence. Heroic Materialism believes that physical existence is all there is and only those better animals (really no different than Nietzsche’s Superman which the Nazis adopted as their own) come to the fore as the ones to govern it. Dialectical Materialism believes in cascading forces and immanent being within the Universe that reintegrates to cause the progression of the Universe. What nobody addresses is that why doesn’t a physical universe, without a higher personal being who is greater than that universe, just collapse on itself out of lack of purpose?

God has His purposes and that is a profound truth in itself that evolution will never be able to answer or approach or even have any part in. Amen.

From below:

The Question

“Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 133

historicity of his own nature. This is a normal convergence if it is true that faith, incarnate in the human subject, adjusts itself to man’s structures and evolutions. We observe this, moreover, in the Council. To the extent that the Council elaborated its Christological vision of a universe in movement, it experienced the need, a need albeit inadequately satisfied, for an anthropology.”

The Answer

There is a simple answer, this is Teilhard de Chardin’s Diabolically insane idea of a universe and an impersonal pseudo-Christ as a Pantheist Unity. That is only the impersonal finite logos/logoi  of the pagans identifiable with their pagan gods and goddesses enmeshed in a mindless insensate Universe. St. John the Apostle clarifies in the beginning of His Gospel that the True Logos (Word of God) is the living Person, the Immortal Son of God Jesus Christ through whom all that has been created was created.

The universe which God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit created is itself comprised of the elemental physical being with no mind of its own.

The Truth which has nothing to do with the evolutionary lies.

Dabar in Biblical Hebrew and Logos in Septuagint Greek is the same exact meaning, the Word of God united eternally from everlasting to everlasting to the Father in His innermost being. Jesus Christ is the Immortal Word of God. He is the Son of God united to God the Father in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. From Dom Grea: the Holy Spirit is the eternal song of love between the Father and the Son from before all time and creation to eternity everlasting. That doesn’t supplant doctrinal statements about the relationship within the Holy Trinity, but is an orthodox addition to it. It is a statement of correct contemplative theology.

Gospel of St. John Chapter One

The divinity and incarnation of Christ. John bears witness of him. He begins to call his disciples.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

….

The Devil ran the whole Vatican II pseudo-council with the Satan worshipping complicity of the “council fathers.” - “You are of your father the Devil” – Jesus Christ said to the Jews. John 8:44.

See this -

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimarães, Volume I From the Collection: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani?

SPECIAL FOREWORD

by Dr. Malachi Martin

This first volume of the Collection: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? establishes the author Atila Sinke Guimarães as one of the best informed latter-day students of that epochal event, the Second Vatican Council. Up to this moment, the most encyclopedic and detailedly informed examination of the Council was provided by Professor Amerio in his Iota Unum. Guimarães’ Collection bids fair to replace Iota Unum as the best all-purpose source-book about the Council; and it is not hazardous or rash to predict that this work of Guimarães will be a standard reference work on the subject—and well into the 21st century.

The title of this first volume, in The Murky Waters of Vatican II, tells exactly what the contents are. All of us who lived through the years of Vatican 11 (1962-1965) and have had to deal with the consequences can recognize immediately the pinpoint accuracy of this first volume: The ambiguity, cultivated and, as it were, perfected in the composition of the sixteen main documents of the Council, is now seen as the most skillful means devised to undo the essential Roman- ness and Catholicism of the Roman Catholic Church, and to deliver that entire one-billion member institutional organization into the ready and eager hands of those for whom the existence of the traditional papacy and hierarchical organization has long been anathema. One reads in this volume with a certain sickening feeling of the unified way in which the Church’s own theologians and prelates conspired willingly to bring about the present trend to the de-Romanization and de-Catholicizing of the once monolithic institution.

September 25, 1997

“…existence of the traditional papacy and hierarchical organization has long been anathema.” Is a vastly important statement. We are never called to render ANY obedience nor even have ANY communion nor any interaction with Apostate Antipopes nor any Apostate ecclesiastical “authority.” Such Apostate Antipopes and such so called “authorities” have no authority at all and are ipso fact excommunicate and anathema by their own statements and actions.

________________________________________________________________________

From the below –

Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 131

Second, from the standpoint of the aim toward which the Church should tend: “The very word evolution, obstinately under suspicion until then, was introduced three or four times, in spite of the negative reactions, into the text at critical points of Gaudium et Spes as a reinforcement to the word ‘history’…. I am pleased to quote Paul VI, then still Cardinal Montini [Chenu speaking], who makes an excellent comment: ‘The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in permanent evolution toward a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement.’ “15

Third, regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’ (GS 26).”16

Now take the last part –

Third, regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’ (GS 26).”16

To identify the Holy Spirit with evolution is pagan (all the pagan gods evolved), it is monist (which holds that there is no creator God only a universe that takes the place of God), it is Gnostic – one of biggest heresies of Gnosticism was that man evolved to where he could create God and then it is man that is in charge of God and controls Him – this is Theurgy – the most despicable form of black magic that there is.

Now we understand fully the damned Apostate Karol Wojtyla aka PJII or [Anti]Pope John Paul II when he declared that all of the false gods of the Assisi abomination in 2002 were part of the blowing of the Holy Spirit. That is blaspheming the Holy Spirit for which there is no forgiveness – not ever – Our Lord Jesus Christ said so. Amen.Amen.

He said, His statement transcribed is : “That is what the scripture says, the Spirit is a blowing. May the Holy Spirit today blow – speak to the hearts of all of us here present as the wind symbolizes. Lets listen all of us to the words of the Spirit.” After that go back and see the entire 2 hours and 23 minutes before he says that. If you believe that what is shown has anything to do with the Christian faith or true Catholic religion or the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian nor a Catholic. It is sheer Satanic Apostasy. See: FOR THE TAPE ON ASSISI SEE: go to http://rhondasnando.blogspot.com/2013/02/assisi-abomination-of-desolation.html
then go to part 6 at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxe9wx_vts-01-6_news at 19:18-19:54 of 28:25 of part 6 and at 2:23:00-2:23:36 of 2:31:48 of the whole tape which is where John Paul II the Apostate blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

“words of the Spirit” Wojtyla said refering to all the blaspheming of the pagans. Wojtyla is damned.

All of this is termed Charismatic and Pentecostal in V2 language, but it is DAMNED Apostasy. Never forgiven. If, unwittingly, anyone got near this, simply run don’t walk to get away from it and stay away from it. That applies to all of V2.

________________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII, Is There A Doctrine Underlying The Ambiguity

…

pp. 130 - 136

130 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II

2. Subjacent to Ambiguity, the Doctrine of Universal Evolution

§ 10     A first impression comes to the mind of an analyst who wants to determine the doctrinal background underlying the systematic ambiguity of the Council: he notices that the Catholic Church, hitherto immutable in its doctrine and fixed in its structures, is presented as a ‘Church in transition.’

Theologian Hans Kung writes: “Just as John XXIII became a transition pope. . . and Council Vatican II was a transition council, so also is the Catholic Church today a transition Church: it is in transition from a past still not completely elapsed to a future that is just beginning to appear.”11

§ 11     Given his often radical stands, it would not be surprising if it were only Hans Kung who made such a statement. Nevertheless, authors as important as Fr. Chenu, inspirer of the conciliar Fathers’ Message to the World in the beginning of the Council,’12 also admit, like Kung, the same principle of transition applied to the Church and her doctrine. They even go further as they further define this transitional phase and link it to evolutionist principles.

From several standpoints, Fr. Chenu celebrates the introduction of

the idea and the word evolution into conciliar texts.[my comment - note the next statement, that it had never been allowed – the reason is that it is HERETICAL]

First, from the standpoint of the formulation of the Faith: “Relative used to be a dangerous word. . . up until the Council. ‘Official’ theology deemed the formulas expressing the faith to be immutable realities and would not even allow the word evolution, which the Council introduces, into its vocabulary.”13

Continuing from the point of view of dogmatic formulation, Fr. Chenu says: “That she [the Church] may be at the same time one and varied; that she may be one and multiform. For humanity itself is in a multiform evolution. . . . The dogmatic forms, which used to be considered absolute, are relative; relative to time, places, circumstances, evolution. The same realities have different fonnulas.”14

11. H. Kung, Veracidade, p. 112.

12. Jean Puyo interroge le Père Congar, p. 128; R. Laurentin, Bilan de la premiere session, pp. 123f.; H. Fesquet, op. cit., p. 49.

13. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, p. 47.

14. Marie-Dominique Chenu, Interview with the Author, Paris, February 20,

1983.

Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 131

Second, from the standpoint of the aim toward which the Church should tend: “The very word evolution, obstinately under suspicion until then, was introduced three or four times, in spite of the negative reactions, into the text at critical points of Gaudium et Spes as a reinforcement to the word ‘history’…. I am pleased to quote Paul VI, then still Cardinal Montini, who makes an excellent comment: ‘The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in permanent evolution toward a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement.’ “15

Third, regarding the essence of evolution, which is supposedly the “Spirit of God”: “Already chapter II [of Gaudium et Spes], on describing the promotion of the common good in the human community, affirmed the presence of the Spirit in the ‘evolution’ of the world: ‘The Spirit of God, who, with wondrous providence, directs the course of time and renews the face of the earth, assists at this development’ (GS 26).”16

Fr. Chenu then begins to develop the inner core of the conciliar doctrine by contending that it evolves according to the “signs of the times” that are revealed in history: “If one should qualify the Council by a main trait, I would propose to call it ‘prophetic’ in the full force and technical meaning of the word both in theological language and in the sociological vocabulary. A prophet is one who knows how to discern in current events that which places them in the continuity and ruptures of a history on the move. The prophet does not analyze structures and notions in their static condition, but in their dynamism. Thus, according to the famous formula, the future is already present.

…The aggiornamento of which John XXIII spoke is not an updating after which one again returns to the road with definitive formulas; it is a continuous application of one’s intelligence to understand the ‘signs of the times’ that emerge from the new values as Gospel in a world on the move. . . . Evidently, the constitution Gaudium et Spes is where this prophetism is more palpable.

…And it inspires many other declarations or decrees. This is why,

15. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, pp. 185f.

16. M. D. Chenu, “Les signes des temps—Reflexions théologiques,” in V.A., L’Eglise dans le monde de ce temps—Constitution pastorale “Gaudium et spes,” eds. Y. Congar—M. Peuchmaurd (Paris: Cerf, 1967), vol. II, p. 212.

132 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II

gauging well the word and [applying it] in this sense, one can say

that Vatican II is obsolete.

“To the extent that its basic element is prophetic, it requires its own obsolescence. If it is projected—in the proper sense— toward the future, the texts take on a new density inasmuch as the future is present. Needless to say, it is difficult to define fidelity to the first inspiration, but it [fidelity] is the profound law. So if I limit myself to a commentary, a discourse, I will be actually unfaithful. This is why it is normal for those responsible at all levels in their day-to-day decisions not always to be in agreement, as though there were a set of norms to be applied or a dogmatic formula to be taught. One must undoubtedly lament deviations and ramblings, but they do not compromise the principal character of the Council’s innovations.”17

If one were to admit Fr. Chenu’s explanation and draw only the major consequences from it, one sees that it would legitimize the abandonment of the dogmatic formulas of the past. Attachment to them would be “infidelity”; the lack of oneness in Church teaching would be considered normal, and a corollary would be to deny authority—especially that of the Pope—the competence to teach always the same thing everywhere.

Historicity applied to the dogmas of Faith and to authority in the Church makes them relative to such an extent that one could ask whether the concept of historicity differs from Luther’s principle of free interpretation. Since free interpretation relativizes the teaching of Catholic exegetic tradition and historicity extends relativism to the field of exegesis in dogmatics and ecclesiastical authority, one would say that historicity differs from free interpretation only in that it surpasses the latter in its developments, even though both begin from the same principles.

§ 15     In his explanation of the new, historic and evolutionary view of the universe, Fr. Chenu provides elements of an anthropology according to which man should be considered as essentially linked to the evolutionary process. These doctrines, he claims, are the foundations of Vatican II. Fr. Chenu says: “It is not by chance that the Christian is becoming more attentive to the peculiar character of the economy of salvation at a moment when man is becoming vitally aware of the

17. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, pp. l9lf.

Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity? 133

historicity of his own nature. This is a normal convergence if it is true that faith, incarnate in the human subject, adjusts itself to man’s structures and evolutions. We observe this, moreover, in the Council. To the extent that the Council elaborated its Christological vision of a universe in movement, it experienced the need, a need albeit inadequately satisfied, for an anthropology. Now, in this ‘Christian’ anthropology, as it is being set forth more or less explicitly in theological statements, three attributes, three co-essential attributes of man are emerging: First, that man is by nature social; second, that he is so linked to the universe that the very matter of the cosmos is engaged in his destiny; and third, that man exists in history. Let us understand this threefold value. . . written into man’s nature and in some way, too, issuing from it, as distinct from abstract analysis or anything resembling either a timeless idea or an immutable definition. Thus it is that even in its vocabulary, the Council speaks rather of the human condition than of human nature as such, by contrast with Vatican I. Without setting aside an essentialist philosophy, one can readily have recourse to existential analyses.”18

One sees that Fr. Chenu only broaches on some central ideas of the so-called Christian anthropology, its evolutionary character, its warm reception by the Council and its relations with existentialism. But such ideas appear sufficient to confirm the impression that an evolutionary doctrine is subjacent to, and latent in, conciliar ambiguity.

This Item limits itself to verifying the emergence of evolutionary doctrine as one of the principal characteristics of Vatican II. An analysis of this doctrine will be made further on.’19

Fr. Yves Congar, who worked on ten of the 16 schemata of Vatican 11, 20* also rejoices over the introduction of the concepts of evo

18. M. D. Chenu, “The History of Salvation and the Historicity of Man in the Renewal of Theology,” in V.A., Theology of Renewal, vol. I, pp.

163f.

19. Vol. III, Animus Injuriandi-Il, Chap. VI; Vol. VI, Inveniet Fidem?, Chap. IV. 2; Vol. VII, Destructio Dei, Chap. II; Vol. IX, Creatio, Chaps. II, III; Vol. X, Peccatum—Redemptio, Chap. V.

20.* Alain Woodrow, “A Rome: Trente theologiens du monde entier pour accomplir le Concile,” in Informations Catholiques Internationales,

5/15/1969, p. 9.

134 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II

lution and historicity in the Council, historicity that he links with the idea of eschatology.

“One of the great novelties of Vatican II, as far as documents of the ‘magisterium’ are concerned, was the introduction of the eschatological point of view 21 and, therefore, also of historicity. That was lacking, and this grave lack had to do with the predominance of the juridical aspect. Vatican II sees the Spirit of God present in the evolution of the human community, directing the course of time and renewing the face of the earth (GS 26).”22

§ 18     Consistent with his admiration for the harbingers of the nouvelle théoiogie,23 Cardinal Wojtyla in his book, Alle fonti del Rinnovamento, comments on the Constitution Gaudium et Spes. He endorses the same principles defended by Congar and Chenu, taking evolution as a doctrinal substratum of conciliar ecciesiology: “The Church, with the consciousness of the history of salvation that is her

In a book-interview, Congar himself confirms: “I was pretty much involved with the preparation of most of the great conciliar texts: Lumen Gentium, above all chapter II; Gaudium et Spes; Dei Verbum, the texts on Revelation; Ecumenism; Religious Liberty; the Declaration on relations with non-Christians; the Missions. I also worked very much with the Commission of the clergy that elaborated the text Presbyterorum Ordinis” (Jean Puyo interroge le Père Congar, p. 149).

21. About the progressivist notion of eschatology, see Vol. III, Animus Injuriandi—JI, Chap. V.2.

22. Y. Congar, Le Concile de Vatican II, p. 170.

23. According to Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, a friend of Msgr. Wojtyla, in a study circle held at the Polish College during the Council, he declared:

“Prominent theologians like Henri de Lubac, J. Daniélou, Y. Congar, Hans Kung, R. Lombardi, K. Rahner and others, played an extraordinary role in these preparatory works [of the Council]” (Mon ami Karol Wojtyla, Paris: Centurion, 1980, p. 189).

Rocco Buttiglione is no less explicit in this regard: “By stating that the work of Creation is included in that of Redemption and stressing the close connection between them, Wojtyla takes a stand in favor of the nouvelle théologie against positions that distinguish a pure order of nature, in which man fulfills himself as a purely natural being, from an order of grace . . . This was the position of ‘Roman theology’ and was labeled as ‘rightist.’. . . From this standpoint, Wojtyla is certainly an innovator and aligns himself with the progressivist wing of the Council” (Il pensiero di Karol Wojtvla, pp. 226f.).

Is There a Doctrine underlying the Ambiguity?  135

own, goes out to meet that multiform evolution and the consciousness of today’s man, which is linked to it. . . . The paschal mystery of Jesus Christ is as open to eschatology (in fact, it awakens ‘the desire for the future world’) as it is to the evolution of the world, which the Council understands above all as a commitment to make the life of humanity and of men ‘more humane.’ Vatican II stressed the ethical meaning of evolution. .. . According to the doctrine of Vatican II, the Church participates in the evolution of the world not only because the ideal of an ever more humane world is in accordance with the Gospel, but also because the history of salvation, in which the ultimate reality is prepared, necessarily passes by the realization of this world. Furthermore, this reality, almost embryonically and in a mysterious way, is already present in the world through the Church. So it is worthwhile, above all, to pay attention to the way in which the Church, according to the doctrine of the Council, participates in evolution and progress toward an ever more humane world and, therefore, the way that she, in her conscience, continuously overtakes this evolution by orienting herself to the ultimate reality that will also be the ‘plenitude of the kingdom of God.’

“In many passages, but perhaps primarily in chapters III and IV of the Constitution Gaudium et Spes (first part), Vatican II speaks to us about the active participation of the ‘kingdom’ in the evolution of the world....

“The Church, as is evident, participates in the evolution of the world also by means of her own evolution. Vatican II expresses a mature consciousness of this truth and makes it one of the fundamental principles of the renewal program. Here the historic consciousness of the Church is manifested in a particularly clear fashion. One may say that the whole conciliar conception of ‘aggiornamento’ (renovatio acomodata) expresses, above all, this consciousness By emphasizing the participation of the Church in the evolution of the ‘world,’ even by means of her own evolution; and, moreover, by proclaiming its necessity, Vatican II takes a stand in regard to the past and, simultaneously, to the future.

“This is a particular expression of the historic consciousness of the Church, for the habitual category of history is only the past; the history of salvation, on the contrary, continuously

136 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II

reports to a dimension at the same time eschatological, essential, and dynamic, and has, in itself, a unique reason to face the future. It is only in the totality of these dimensions that the Church preserves a full consciousness of her own identity; in it she also finds the basis of the whole program of renewal and aggiornamento. Only on this fundamental condition can the Church participate in the evolution of the world through her own ‘evolution.’ One may say that this is the most profound substratum of the ‘historic consciousness’ of the Church.”24

* * *

§ 19     Several characteristics appear in the texts cited in this Item 2 that point to the evolutionist conception as the foundation of conciliar doctrine.

In brief, this concept of evolution is supposed to influence the teaching of Vatican II by:

• Justifying the relativization of dogmatic formulations.

• Making the Church tend toward an order continuously in movement.

• Reflecting the actual “spirit of God.”

• Making the Church and Catholic doctrine adapt continuously to the “signs of the times.”

• Providing the basis for the Christological vision of a universe in movement and the “Christian” anthropology explained by Vatican II.

• Being present in the very essence of human nature.

• Being the foundation of conciliar eschatology.

• Being the prism for understanding the new ecclesiology born out of the Council.

It is hard not to see, therefore, that the doctrinal substratum of conciliar ambiguity appears to be a new vision of the universe, of man, of the Church and of God Himself. We will opportunely analyze them in this Collection. Here we will limit ourselves to noting that there is a subjacent doctrine supporting ambiguity in the conciliar documents, and that this doctrine is evolution.

24. Karol Wojtyla, Allefonti del rinnovamento—Studio sull’ attuazione del Concilio Vaticano Secondo (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1981), pp. 151-157.