Eleison Comments

Part I – the essence of Vatican II is a glorification of man disguised by Church officials as Catholicism. Part II – the New Man of V II is free: from reality, by subjectivism; from morality, by conscience; by grace, from nature. Part III – the Newchurch of VII is no longer against the world, nor against other religions, it is the Newchurch of niceness and dialogue with everybody. In Part IV of his book, Fr Calderón asks if Vatican II amounts to a new religion, and he says it does, because it no longer renders worship to the Holy Trinity, because Catholicism’s 1 Revelation and Tradition, 2 central act of worship, and 3 Incarnate God, have all been essentially changed.

1 The true Church’s doctrine is changed because a Catholic can believe either in the object itself, for instance the Incarnation, or in an objective proposition expressing that object, for instance “God became incarnate.” The proposition expresses the mystery inadequately, but it expresses it truly, and for the believer to save his soul, sufficiently. But Newchurch is modernist, and for modernists no propositions can be objective. Therefore in Newchurch there can only be subjective experience of the mystery (Dei Verbum#2; LG#4), which leaves doctrine wide open to the vagaries of all kinds of charismatic subjects. For in Newchurch, the Mystery is present in the living Church community, with which the doctrine of both Revelation and Tradition may and must evolve in their changing historical circumstances. Thus Newfaith is a frame of mind enabling one to experience and interpret the Mystery in some communion. The formulae or creeds merely follow. Newscripture is merely the foundational fixing of that experience, a model for God’s people to follow. Neworthodoxy is thinking with the Newchurch-community, so that a refuser of that Newcommunity is the worst of heretics, e.g. Archbishop Lefebvre.

2 As for worship, the medieval religion of the Cross is depressing! So Newchurch will keep the joy, but eliminate the sacrifice. Thus if it was men’s sin that led to men’s debt to God, which led to Christ’s paying the debt by sacrifice, let us get rid of sin. God is above and beyond suffering, so men’s sins do not hurt Him, He may lament for them but He would never punish anyone with eternal Hell. Christ died merely as the Father’s instrument (G&S#22) to show solidarity with men, so it is not Christ but the Father who saves us, and not by the Cross but by the Resurrection which was wrought by the Father to glorify man! So the Mass renamed, i.e. the “Paschal Mystery,” is to glorify man, and God should thank man for being so glorious for Him! This string of blasphemous lies, clearly orienting the New Mass imposed on the Church by Paul VI in 1969, is implicit rather than explicit in VII’s decree on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, because it dated from early in the Council when the modernists needed still to tread carefully. But from 1969 onwards the brakes have been off. Church liturgy is now in chaos.

3 As for the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, at the centre of Christianity and of the true Catholic Church, He is treated of directly in two VII documents, Gaudium et Spes and Ad Gentes. Fr Calderón declares that the doctrine of both documents is the same: the Cross is horrible, so it is better to be a mere man of peace than an adopted son of God by suffering. Man is in the image of God (by his freedom), so the more man he makes himself, the more divine he becomes. Therefore Jesus Christ became man not for man to become adoptive son of God, but for man to become more fully man! Moreover, nowhere does VII state that Jesus Christ is truly and properly God, nor does it once mention the Hypostatic Union. Conciliar theologians fluctuate in their language between Tradition and Newtheology, according to their audience.

4 Fr Calderón’s conclusion is that the dignity of man is the final purpose of VII, and final purposes in effect make religions, so VII is a different religion from Catholicism, whose final purpose is the (extrinsic) glory of God. Thus with VII, grace is to free human nature, Jesus is the man who came to make us more human, and Mass is no longer the sacrifice owed to God, but the thanksgiving of mankind crowning the Creator, because it is more free than He is, because it is capable also of choosing evil!

Kyrie eleison.

After studying in Part II of The Religion of Man the New-Man that emerges from the Council, in Part III of his book on Vatican II Fr Calderón studies the Council’s Newchurch, a new Church indeed. The one true religion of the one true God was founded by Jesus Christ, Incarnate God, to “teach all nations” (Mt. XXVIII, 20), so as to reach all souls and save as many of them as possible. To adapt such an ambitious Church to modern man, to protect modern humanism, such a Church must be re-defined and down-sized, radically changed, while disguising the change. Therefore 1 Newchurch no longer has a mission to all mankind, and 2 i t will no longer interfere in the World-part of mankind. 3 Even in the Church-part of mankind it will no longer be the only church, and 4 it will need to be re-defined to fulfil its new role.

1 Catholic Tradition teaches that the “Kingdom of God” and the “Church” are two expressions for exactly the same reality. Both have the same mission of universal outreach. But to adapt that Church to a world in which it is less universal in reality every day, Vatican II will distinguish between the Kingdom of God which is universal in reality, being present invisibly in all men’s hearts, and the Newchurch which is universal only in intention, because it is all the time visibly building and extending the Kingdom in men’s lives. The Newchurch is also universal as being the “sacrament” or sign of the unity of all men (LG#1).

2 Here is where the Newchurch liberates worldly powers from any Church domination. The glorification of man made the “Kingdom of God” no longer potential to all men by baptism, but actual to all men by nature. Therefore nature has taken over from religion, and so Newchurch may signal the Kingdom’s universality but it cannot assert or claim it. Therefore politics are free from religion, and Newchurch need only purify them in their own domain. Here is Maritain’s Newchristendom, in which Mammon may take over the world, as we have seen since Vatican II. The Council was in fact the logical conclusion of the long decline of the true Christendom from the Middle Ages. But then Newchristendom is godless? No, Maritain’s New World, neither believing nor baptised, is still freed by Christ and heading for glory.

3 This liberal down-sizing of the Church is followed by the ecumenical down-sizing. Ever since Protestantism broke up the Catholic Church, the broken fragments have tried to re-unite. The true Church wanted and wants no part in their vain quest for their lost unity, unless they rejoin the Catholic Church, but the glorification of man makes the Newchurch glorify non-Catholics and want to reach out to them. So in non-Catholic Christians it will glorify the lifeless “traces” of Catholicism, still present but lifeless among them, e.g. among the Orthodox, valid Orders without jurisdiction; among the Protestants Scripture without authoritative interpretation; and it will make them into living “elements” (Unitatis Redintegratio). In non-Christian mankind it will find “seeds of the Word,” i.e. any truth and goodness which are sparks of the Word that “enlightens all men coming into the world” (Jn.I, 9) (Nostra Aetate), because all rational beings have been chosen out by God to glorify Him, and all chosen are saved.

But how can the Council upgrade in this way all non-Catholics without down-grading Catholics? By declaring that the all-embracing “Church of Christ” “subsists,” i.e. exists in some special way, in the Catholic Church (LG#8). But “subsists” is merely a verbal trick – if it upgrades non-Catholics, how can it not down-grade Catholics? If it does not down-grade non-Catholics, how can it up-grade Catholics?

4 Finally, how is the Newchurch to be re-defined to fulfil its new role? As “People of God,” necessarily democratic, so that the priesthood of Orders will be blurred into the “priesthood” of baptism (I Pet. II, 5) and all Newchurch will be priestly with a mission to all the World, and so that bishops will be promoted to govern the Church alongside the Pope (LG#22). Another word vague enough to correspond to the vagueness of notions of Newchurch is “Communion,” whose main activity is “Dialogue” with all men, so that nobody is ever wrong, and everybody can be nice to everybody else. Forget doctrine or truth!

Kyrie eleison.

In his book “Prometheus, the religion of man” Fr. Alvaro Calderón presents Vatican II as being essentially a humanism, disguised as Catholicism by officials of the Church. This disguise gave unprecedented authority to the humanism and called for unprecedented skill to put it together. Now humanism arose in the 14^th century to defend purely human values against the supposedly inhuman demands of the poverty, chastity and obedience of the Catholic Middle Ages, and also against Church authority supposedly treating human beings like children. So to affirm human dignity, humanism will assert human liberty, and it will give rise to liberalism in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, to super-liberalism in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. To the false liberty of this super-liberalism Vatican II will strive to adapt the true Church of God. Thus the Council will “liberate” man’s mind by subjectivism, his will by “conscience” and his nature by having it served by grace instead of lifted by grace.

Subjectivism is the error of making truth independent of the object and dependent instead on the human subject. Ultimately this results in sheer madness, which Vatican II wanted to avoid, but it wanted enough subjectivism to guarantee freedom of thought. So it resorted to the “inadequacy of dogmatic formulae.”

Now it is true that no human words can possibly tell or express the fullness of divine realities, but words can tell something, for instance “God exists” is true, while “God does not exist” is false. Therefore words are not wholly inadequate to express dogmas, in fact if I believe in a number of dogmas expressed in words, as the Church demands of a Catholic, I can save my soul. But Vatican II (Dei Verbum) says that God reveals Himself, not a doctrine in words, and He Himself is known by subjective experience, not by objective words. Thus doctrines may come and go without touching the realities behind them, and so Vatican II can change the dogmas without supposedly departing from Truth or Tradition! Therefore all kinds of theology are licit, and all kinds of religions! So Christianity’s superiority is merely cultural!

So how does Vatican II liberate the will? It is already liberated. If there is no more truth or falsehood, then it is equally true or false that stealing and lying are wrong. Ultimately, again, this position ends in sheer madness, so how will Vatican II affirm the liberty of the mind and yet steer clear of the dissolution of all morals? By “conscience.” Within every man’s heart, but without words, speaks God by a moral inclination towards good and away from evil in a manner to which no words can be adequate, yet with an unchanging substance down all the ages. Thus my will is not fettered by the Ten Commandments from outside me, but I will incline freely from inside, thus remaining free to do what is right. But in reality, will I? – what about original sin? In reality, morals are objective, they are rational and they can and must be expressed in universal rules. Mere subjective “conscience” is far too weak to stand up to original sin.

Finally, how does Vatican II put God’s grace below, instead of above, man’s nature? “Grace perfects nature” is a classic Catholic principle, so grace perfects man by repairing his highest quality, his freedom, which is enslaved by sin. So the grace of Christ liberates and serves the nature of man, revealing man to himself (Gaudium et Spes,#24), by the Incarnation. But did not the Incarnation firstly reveal God to man?

In conclusion, Fr Calderón shows how Vatican II, while fundamentally humanistic, embellishes humanism with Catholic decorations: liberty, yes, but in God’s image! Subjectivism, yes, but of inner truth including the mystery of God, which reveals man’s own mystery! Conscience, yes, but naturally partaking of Eternal Law, so that men naturally fulfil it, so that God’s will is bound to be in line with man’s will! Grace, yes, but perfecting man’s nature by freeing us from the slavery of sin! Thus how much more beautiful is humanism made by the riches and heritage of the Church!

Kyrie eleison.