Vatican 2 Quotes

“the root of the problem extends back to an agenda put in play more than one hundred years before Vatican II. It is an agenda to replace the supernatural religion of the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ with the natural religion of humanism and globalism.”
― Dr. Taylor Reed Marshall, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within

“It is fashionable today to praise the Church of the first four centuries, to extol primative practice. How would the Church of the first four centuries have regarded Archbishop Whealon? Anyone who is remotely acquainted with Church history can give one answer and one answer only. Archbishop Whealon would have been regarded as an apostate; he would have been anathemized, and every true Catholic bishop would have broken off communion with him.

I believe that the Church of the first four centuries was right. I believe that Archbishop Whealon is at least a de facto apostate. It seems a harsh thing to say. It may make me appear harsh and intolerant - but nonetheless it is the truth. Cardinal Newman has a magnificent sermon upon this very point, "Tolerance of Religious Error". He castigates those who concern us not to uphold truth but to avoid the appearance of being intolerant. Once again I must repeat, those who possess the truth, those who love the truth, cannot tolerate error . . .

Furthermore, I submit that Archbishop Whealon's conduct would have been considered incompatible with Catholicism not only by the Church of the first four centuries - it would have resulted in his immediate excommunication by every Roman Pontiff up to and including Pope John XXIII. I accept that what I am saying will make me appear singular, intemperate, and extreme in the ecumenical climate of the Conciliar Church but the viewpoint I am putting forward would have been accepted by 99% of Catholics up to Vatican II. Read the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, read the relevant encyclicals of Pope Pius XII. If Archbishop Whealon is right, the the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years. (chapter 8)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre: Volume Three

“Now this is exactly the same battle we are presently fighting. Why are we being persecuted? Why am I being persecuted today? And why are you, and all of us who are in Tradition, being persecuted? Because we affirm the truth and condemn error; we condemn liberalism; we condemn modernism. This is inadmissible for the Conciliar Church. The Council has changed all this; now we are supposed to be on good terms with the liberals, with the modernists, with the Freemasons, with the Communists, with everyone; we are supposed to be ecumenical with everyone. We are opposed to this; therefore we are against the Council, we are against the Pope, and so we are condemned! Yes, it is true, condemned! The reasons are the same; the combat is the same.”
― Marcel Lefebvre, The Little Story of My Long Life: The Life of Archbishop Lefebvre as Told by Himself

“As I have said before, the bishops talked about sharing with the poor, but they fail to set an example by their own actions. They meet in the best hotels in Washington and enjoy the best meals. They even hold one of their meetings in Chicago's luxurious Palmer House. How can they justify that? Why don't they meet at a seminary and dine on a seminary menu? Why don't' they give up the luxury of private baths, king-sized beds, expensive liquor, and suites with the best air conditioning? Their actions are so inconsistent with their words that they have lost a tremendous amount of prestige.”
― Paul A. Wickens, Christ Defended: Defending the Roman Catholic Church in America [A Catholic Priest Defends the Church Against Modernism]

“Also noteworthy are the number of enemies of Heaven, as they are revealed by their blasphemies against the Immaculate. In addition to the millions of atheists, agnostics, unchurched, and assorted infidels and pagans, Our Lord includes Orthodox schismatics and the Protestant sects who deny the Immaculate Conception. To be honest, one must also include a large number of Catholics, particularly since the Second Vatican Council, where Mary was explicitly denied Her proper title, "Mediatrix of All Graces", so as not to offend all the other blasphemers.”
― Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight

“Less mysterious was the obituary of Cardinal Siri, delivered shortly after John's death: "It will take forty years to repair the damage this Pope inflicted in four years." Siri was one of those "prophets of doom" Pope John shook his head over. In hindsight, however, Siri sounds like a raving optimist, for as of this writing the damage caused by his Council continues to metastasize, and fragments of restoration are as chimerical as John's "new Pentecost".”
― Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight

“If one notices the carefully crafted ambiguates in Council documents that served as footholds for a surprising variety of novelties. It becomes apparent that each ambiguity tends to dissolve a doctrine unique to Catholicism by favoring an interpretive designed either to attract or flatter non-believers. This recurring feature makes Vatican II unique among all Ecumenical Councils in the 2,000 year history of the Church. Consequently, Vatican II may properly be called an "occult" Council, in the sense that the documents contained "secret knowledge" implanted by initiates, that would be exploited after the Council.

It is even possible that the un-Catholic conciliar novelties are part of the apostasy in the Church that almost certainly is mentioned in the Third Secret.”
― Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight

“As for Paul's famous remark about "the smoke of Satan", no less a journalist than Vittorio Missori has suggested that Paul lifted these words from the Third Secret of Fatima.

Whether this is true or not, it cannot credibly be denied that demonic forces had not only infiltrated the Church, but were doing much of the lever pulling. What else could account for the thorough divergence from orthodoxy that seized the entire Church from 1960 and particularly after the Second Vatican Council? Something that looked a lot like apostacy was winnowing the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.”
― Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight

“One of the most horrifying practical applications of these liberal principles is the laying of the Church open to all errors, particularly the most monstrous error ever thought up by Satan - communism. Communism now has official access to the Vatican and its world revolution is made markedly easier by the official non-resistance of the Church, nay, by her regular support of the revolution, despite the despairing warnings of cardinals who have been through communist jails.

The refusal by this pastoral Council to issue any official condemnation of communism alone suffices to disgrace it for all time, when one remembers the tens of millions of martyrs, of people having their personalities scientifically destroyed in psychiatric hospitals, serving as guinea pigs for all sorts of experiments. And the pastoral Council which brought together 2,350 Bishops said not a word, in spite of the 450 signatures of Fathers demanding a condemnation, which I myself took to Mgr. Felici, secretary of the Council, together with Mgr. Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina.”
― Marcel Lefebvre, A bishop speaks

“We should like to reply to the objection that will certainly be leveed against it on the matter of obedience, and of the jurisdiction by those who seek to impose their liberalization on us. Our reply is - In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the Faith, the chief end of the Church. There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith.

We accept this jurisdiction and this law when they are at the service of the Faith. But who can be the judge of that? The Tradition, the Faith taught for 2,000 years. Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism.

The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, "disobedience" becomes a grave duty.

It is because we believe that our whole faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to "disobey", and to maintain Tradition. The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the successor of Peter, the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say no to the reformed liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made man, who is neither liberal nor reformable.”
― Marcel Lefebvre, A bishop speaks

“Outside the Church of Christ there is no salvation. Vatican II, for all its legion flaws, did not deny this. Nothing in the 1962-1965 Council condemns the Catholic who adheres to the teachings of Pope Leo III and the 1215 statement of the Fourth Lateran Council, "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." At the end of the twentieth century, the Church did not forbid belief in what she believed at the beginning of the fourteenth century, when she infallibly taught through Pope Boniface VII's Bull, Unam Sanctam, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety, and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." No more did Vatican II warn the faithful against those earlier Vicars of Christ in this dogmatic teaching than they themselves departed from the very first Vicar of Christ, Pope St. Peter, who insisted that Jesus Christ is "the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner; neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other Name under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (page 408).”
― Fr. Lawrence Smith, Distributism for Dorothy

“Let us point out, in concluding this brief outline, that Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience." This special insight elucidates why the coming battle between Rome and this one Archbishop became inevitable. His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre had been granted the divine sagacity to see through the demonic shell game being played by the modern Church officials - he saw that the game was fixed and discerned how it was fixed, and therefore he refused to enter the contest. Obedience is certainly a virtue, but no one can compel you to obey an unjust command. Besides, as St. Thomas Aquinas makes clear, faith is a higher virtue than obedience. No one can compel you to be obedient to a command to give up or destroy your faith, much less the faith of others if you are a churchman who has taken a vow to pass on that faith complete, whole and undefiled.”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“The Sacrifice of Cavalry cannot be transformed, the Sacrifice of the Last Supper cannot be transformed - for there was a Sacrifice at the Last Supper - we cannot transform this Sacrifice into a simple, commemorative meal, a simple repast, at which a memory is recalled, this is not possible. To do such a thing would be to destroy the whole of our Religion, to destroy the most precious thing which Our Lord has given us here on earth, the immaculate and divine treasure which He put into the hands of His Church, which He made a priestly Church . . . (sermon of May 25, 1975)”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“How can one call "rebels" those who follow the rules which have been forged by centuries? And how can one call "faithful" those who find it right to reject those rules and even the laws, or who tolerate - through weakness, if not by demagoguery - such shameful dismantling?”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“The statement clearly shows the refusal of the Vatican II papacy to use its authority; things happen "automatically", and those who act bring judgement on themselves (but only on the side of tradition; modernist and progressive churchmen just go on their crazy way with an occasional "tut-tut" from Rome; they are moving in the right direction, only running too fast).”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“Bishop Mamie made clear the reason for his action: ". . . we shall continue to demand that the faithful as well as the clergy accept and apply all the orientation and decisions of the Second Vatican Council, all the teachings of John XXIII and of Paul VI, all the directives of the secretariats instituted by the Council, including the new liturgy." What of the "orientations and teachings" of earlier Councils? What of all the "teachings" of earlier popes and the "directives" of previous secretariats? What of the tradition liturgy, the prayer of the Church for many centuries? Into the dust bin of history with them and do not look back. No Marxist committed to historical inevitability and the utopia future could be more exacting. The new belief was rooted in progress, the only truth was the necessity of change. Onward! Out with the Old Church, in with the New!”
― David Allen White, The Horn of the Unicorn

“Catholics are bound to submit to the Church's established teaching on faith and morals; they are not bound to submit to new attitudes and orientations of liberalized churchmen who are now saying and doing things unheard-of in the Church's entire history. Thus, Catholics have the right, even the duty, to resist this new orientation arising from the ambiguities of the Council and the opinions of the "new theology", which conflict with the perennial and infallible Magisterium. For years, Catholics have labored under the misconception that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case. The Council Fathers repeatedly referred to Vatican II as a pastoral Council. That is, it was a Council that dealt not with defining the Faith, but with measures in the realm of practical and prudential judgment . . . Thus, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of faith. The Council's verbose and ambiguous documents are not on a par with the doctrinal pronouncements of past councils. Vatican II's novelties are not unconditionally binding on the faithful, nor did the Council itself ever say that they were. (pages 74-75)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“Stranger still Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has made the same admission. In the aforementioned interview in 30 Days he said: "The emergency of our time is to show people that the Church of today is the same as the Church has always been." But why is there such an "emergency" in the first place? When in the entire history of the Catholic Church did it ever have to be demonstrated that the Church was still the same as before? Why would such a demonstration even be necessary if there were not a very good reason to suspect that the Church has been changed?

There is indeed good reason to suspect this, as we have shown: Since Vatican II the Catholic Church has undergone and Adaptation precisely along the lines predicted, plotted, and carried out by Her worst enemies. And those in charge of the Catholic Church today refuse to recognize what has happened, even if they are not conscious agents of destruction themselves . . . They blindly and stubbornly defend the Adaptation of the Catholic Church as if it were a dogma of the Faith, while the real dogmas of the Faith are being undermined throughout the Church before their very eyes, while they do nothing.”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“The Message of Fatima had, quite simply, been written out of existence, transformed into slogans of the Adaptation. And in line with this Stalinist Adaptation of the Church there would be censorship of anyone who hearkened to the former understanding of the old terms. In the same letter of February 16, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had demanded that Father Gruner "publicly retract" certain opinions in his apostolate's magazine that the Cardinal deemed objectionable. In a Church teeming with heretical literature which has undermined the faith of millions and engendered their souls, Carinal Castrillon Hoyos wished to censor the Fatima Crusader magazine! And why? Because the magazine had dared to criticize, not Catholic teaching on faith and morals, but the prudential decisions of Carinal Sodano and his collaborators - including their press conferences and dinners with the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev, their cozy relations with the schismatic CPA and their attempt to bury the Message of Fatima under of mountain of false interpretation.

The treatment of Father Gruner, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X, and other perceived obstacles to the new orientation of Vatican II illustrates that the post-conciliar epoch presents a situation very much that lamented by St. Basil at the height of the Arian heresy: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished: an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions . . ."

Only one offense is now vigorously punished today: an accurate observance of the Church's constant pre-conciliar traditions . . .”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

“Here, in miniature, is a paradigm of the basic misunderstanding in the post-Vatican II Church. To many of the members of the hierarchy and indeed to the pope himself, the problem is a problem of obedience: "We say you will now do this, now do it. We say will not do this, so don't. Obey!" To thousands of priests and hundred of thousands of faithful around the world, the problem is a problem of dogma and doctrine: "You now say X when the Church has always said Y. How is this possible? Explain!" The fundamental stand of the traditionalists consists in a belief that the changes in the Church represent a clear and distinct break with twenty centuries of teaching and practice. In all sincerity, they ask for clarification and explanation before they will consider abandoning what they have always believed and what they have always done. The 1974 letter from Dom Antonio to Pope Paul VI stated explicitly his doubts concerning the new Mass and certain new ideas from Vatican II and quite humbly requested enlightenment from the pontiff. The response in this case was typical - silence. The only other response such sincere requests receive is the thunderclap "Obey!" Such responses suggest that the authorities are completely unwilling or unable to debate questions of doctrine and dogma, either out of fear or out of the painful recognition that there has indeed been a significant change in the traditional teachings and practices of the Church that cannot be discussed or explained to anyone's satisfaction.”
― David Allen White, The Mouth of the Lion: Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer & the Last Catholic Diocese

“The consecration ceremony usually begins with the "mandate", the commission from Rome approving the event. Msgr. Fischer explained that in the absence of a mandate from Pope John Paul II, whose vision of the Church is a vision of the "new Church" under which the faithful have suffered at the hands of Bishops Navarro and Corso, a mandate clearly exists from the popes of Tradition, the Rome of All Time, to insure the salvation of souls. In this clear wish of the Eternal Church, the mandate is given.

Next came the interrogation or the examination of the bishop-elect by the consecrator (and two co-consecrators, who always speak all the words of the ceremony simultaneously with the consecrator). The bishop-elect was asked if he would teach the Scriptures to the people, if he would "receive, keep and teach with reverence the traditions of the orthodox fathers," if he would submit to the authority of the Holy Father (a conundrum - it is no longer possible to answer "yes" unreservedly to both the second and third questions; a "yes" answer to question three regarding the current pope requires a "no" answer to question two, since there exists a clear break between the "orthodox Fathers" and the present pope; a "yes" answer to question two requires a qualified "yes" to question three, "yes" insofar as the pope upholds the tradition spoken of in question two, but "no" insofar as he breaks with the "traditions of the orthodox Fathers" - only muddled modernist thought could produce such confusion) . . .”
― David Allen White, The Mouth of the Lion: Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer & the Last Catholic Diocese

“We cleave with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic Faith and to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the new-Protestant trend clearly manifested throughout Vatican II Council and, later, in all the reforms born out of it. (Doctrinal Declaration of 1974)”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“Either we choose what the Popes have taught and we therefore choose the Church; or we choose what was said by the Council. But we can not choose both simultaneously, since they are contradictory.”
― Marcel Lefebvre

“Now it was during the Council that the enemies of the Church infiltrated her, and their first objective was to demolish and destroy the Mass insofar as they could. you can read the books of Michael Davies, an English Catholic, who has written magnificent works which demonstrate how the liturgical reform of Vatican II closely resemble that produced under Cranmer at the birth of English Protestantism. If one reads the history of that liturgical transformation, made also by Luther, one sees that now it is exactly the same procedure which is being slowly followed and to all appearances, still apparently good and Catholic. But is just that character of the Mass which is sacrificial and redemptive of sim, through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which they have removed. They have made of the Mass a simple assembly, one among others, merely presided over by the priest. That is not the Mass! (Jubilee Sermon of September 1979)”
― Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Collected Works Volume 1

“However, it will be found that more often than not the abuses committed in the name of Vatican II have no specific justification in an official document. The Constitution on the Liturgy contains much sound doctrine, some important doctrinal points which could have received much clearer emphasis - why was the word "transubstantiation" not used? - and some guidelines for reform which, in certain respects, have proved a blueprint for revolution. It does not contain one word to indicate that by 1973 it would be possible , in some countries, for standing communicants to receive the host in their hands from a girl in a mini-skirt, not as an aberration but in accordance with regulations laid down by the Vatican. But the fact that they have the approval of the Vatican does not in any way affect the fact that they are abuses. The atmosphere the Council generated (the "spirit of Vatican II") and the documents it promulgated set in motion a process of self-destruction, as the statistics cited in Appendix IX prove beyond any possible doubt. (pages 227-8)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“In many respects, the documents were a dead letter from the day they were promulgated, and there is no longer a great deal to gain from insisting that they mean one thing rather than another. What is needed is a clear restatement of authentic doctrine, and a reinstatement of traditional practices (particularly the Mass of St. Pius V), which could bring an end to the present chaos - even if it meant the departure of large numbers of those whose adherence to the Church is no more than nominal. (page 228)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“We must make it clear that we will not allow any interpretation of the Council to be used to browbeat us into changing a single article of our traditional Catholic faith, and that far from regarding it as some sort of super-council, we regard it as the least of all the councils; that when seeking clear and definite guidance we will look back to its predecessors. (page 229)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“When a Protestant praises some aspect of a Vatican II document as a step towards Protestantism, it can be argued that he is in error as this cannot be the case - but prior to the Council, Catholic teaching had been stated so clearly and so explicitly that no such impression could have been given. Only one interpretation, the orthodox Catholic interpretation, was possible. (page 84)”
― Michael Treharne Davies, Pope John's Council

“On February 16, 2001, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos sent Father Gruner another letter, renewing the threat of "excommunication" and demanding that he "publicly retract" criticism of Cardinal Sadano, and other matters of free opinion in the Church, found certain articles in The Fatima Crusader - an unprecedented demand, and one that is quite ludicrous considering the profusion of heretical literature, promoted by unfaithful priests and even bishops during his tenure about which Cardinal Hoyos did nothing. (page 215)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle: Book Two

“And yet, while there has been no "direct action" by the Vatican against priests who sexually abuse nuns, Father Nicholas Gruner was declared "suspended" in the Congregation for the Clergy's only public announcement concerning the "discipline" of any of the Church's 260,000 diocesan priests in 2001 - "suspended" for an offense that has never been specified, for none exists. "Suspended", in fact, for no other reason than that he has not desisted from promoting the authentic Message of Fatima. Such are the Vatican's priorities under the "new orientation" of the Catholic Church and the Secretary of State's Party Line on Fatima. (page 202)”
― Paul L. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle: Book Two