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.

Vatican II was a disaster for the Catholic Church. For the future of the same Church it is essential for Catholics wishing to save their souls to see why it was such a disaster. Fr. Alvaro Calderón, professor of Thomist Philosophy and Theology at the Priestly Seminary of the Society of St Pius X at La Reja in Argentina, wrote ten years ago a book proving that Vatican II from inside the Church replaced the religion of God with the religion of man. The first of the four Parts of the book, to tell what Vatican II was, starts out with a three-part definition: it was the officialisation of a humanism dressed up as Catholicism.

Firstly it was a humanism, in other words a glorifying of man at the expense of God. The Middle Ages were followed by a series of humanisms, e.g. the Renaissance, the Reformation, the French Revolution, but each time the humanism had perished, says Calderón, because it cut with the Catholic Church. End result? Two World Wars. But this time it would be the churchmen themselves who would create the new humanism to fit the Catholic Church. Hence the unprecedented officialisation by Vatican II of what had always been a grave error denounced by the Church, but this time the churchmen would know how to make it seem Catholic. Thus they would reach out to the man-centred modern world by their new humanism, but at the same time they were intent upon staying within the Church, supposedly to save both modern man from his godlessness and the modern Church from its sterile isolation. At best the churchmen of Vatican II had good intentions, at worst they knew that their new reconciliation of opposed forces would not work, except to destroy the Church, but that is what the very worst of them wanted.

So why would the new reconciliation not work? Because Paul VI wanted a new humanism, neither inhumanly oriented towards God, like in the Middle Ages, nor excessively reacting against that like in modern times, but a new balance between the two excesses which would show that the greater glory of God coincides with the glory of man. For instance man is the greatest creation of his Creator, so to glorify man is also to glorify God. And man is in the image of God by being free, so the more free he is, the more he glorifies God. Therefore to promote human dignity and freedom is to glorify not only man but also God. However, if one starts out from the glory of man, who cannot see the risk of slipping back into the glory of man? Moreover, God is the one and only altogether Perfect Being who cannot therefore need or want for anything outside of His own intrinsic glory. Only secondarily, for his extrinsic glory, can He want or desire any creature’s goodness outside of His own. Therefore the truth is that both God and man are primarily oriented towards God, and God can only be secondarily oriented towards man.

But here are some quotes from the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes: “Man is centre and summit of all things on earth . . . lord and governor of all creation” (#12) – is that not rather God? “The love of God and neighbour is the First Commandment” (#24) – does neighbour appear in the First Commandment? “Man is the only creature loved by God for himself” (#24). For man himself? The deviation is grave, but subtle, and in the Council’s own texts it is rather implicit than explicit, but it emerges more clearly in Church teaching after the Council, for instance in the New Catechism (e.g. 293, 294, 299). In effect, says Fr Calderón, the Council puts man on the throne of Creation, and God at his service.

Similarly, Vatican II turns authority upside down. Humanism is always against authority, but the New Humanism must look Catholic, so it must look for a different way for Christ’s authority to reign in the modern Church and world. But Christ said that he came to serve (Mt. XXV, 25–28). So the Newhierarchy would make itself democratic from top to bottom in order to serve modern man in a way understood by him. But where in the Newhierarchy will there be the authority of God be to lift men to Heaven? It will be dissolved, and with authority dissolved in the Church, authority will be dissolved everywhere, as we see around us in 2019.

Fr Calderón’s Part II will be the New Man of Vatican II, Part III the New Church, Part IV the New Religion.

Kyrie eleison.

When Archbishop Lefebvre thought of the future of the Society of St Pius X, he used to hope that it would contribute to studies of the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council, because that was the main archway through which arrived in the 1960’s the unprecedented multitude of problems with which Church and world have been afflicted ever since. No doubt the Society has contributed to some extent to such studies, but would it be itself afflicted today as it is, some think unto death, if its priests had had a better grasp of the sickness of Vatican II, attractive, highly contagious, and deadly for the true Faith? One may well ask.

However, in 2010 there did appear in Spanish a full-blooded study of the problem by an Argentinian priest of the Society, Fr Alvaro Calderón, a fully qualified thomist, teaching philosophy and theology at the Society’s seminary in Argentina. His book’s title is “Prometheus, the Religion of Man,” and it is subtitled “An Essay to Interpret Vatican II.” Its 320 pages conclude with the dramatic accusation that Vatican II is idolatry, already in its documents and not just in its aftermath. Apparently the book has been translated into French, but if such a translation exists, certainly it has never appeared, most likely to protect the Council’s Newchurch and its bastard offspring, the Newsociety. In fact the book needs to be translated and to appear in a multitude of languages.

To help explain why these “Comments” so often blame Vatican II, they will offer to readers an overview of the book in a series of issues. It is a hazardous undertaking to present in a few articles of some 750 words each a densely argued book of 320 pages, but it is far too important that Catholics get at least a handle on the full malice of Vatican II for the effort not to be made. So these articles will be less for professional theologians requiring rather more depth and precision to be persuaded, than they will be for ordinary souls seeking some explanation for the devastation of Church and world being wrought all around them. To wreak such devastation, Vatican II had to be deep and coherent. Let these issues of the “Comments” be at least enough to suggest the thomistic depth and coherence of Fr. Calderón’s book.

The accusation that Vatican II is idolatry could hardly be more serious, but in his book it is backed up by a series of references to the 16 documents of Vatican II itself, especially Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium. The problem is, as he will explain, that for historical reasons the authors of Vatican II took special care to disguise their idolatrous doctrine so that it would not appear to be out of line with Catholic Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre himself at the time signed on to 14 of the 16 documents, as he would never have done a few years later when the fruits of the disguise had become clear. Therefore the documents are skilfully ambiguous, having one letter and quite another spirit. Therefore to this day both Catholics sincerely loyal to the Church and modernists seeking to transform the Church can and do claim that the letter of the documents is Catholic, but the great advantage of an analysis like Fr. Calderón’s is to argue from the documents themselves that their spirit is to fabricate an entirely new religion centred on man. Thus in reality the neo-modernism of Vatican II is quite especially slippery and perfidious.

Is the Spanish edition of such a book still available? One hopes so. In any case the printer is listed as Luis Maria Campos 1592, Morón, Bs. As., Argentina, Tel. 4696–2094. At the Internet site https://www.scribd.com/document/116861810/PRH can be found in 132 pages the text in Spanish of Fr. Calderón’s book.

The book is in four Parts: Part I, what Vatican II was, a definition; Parts II-IV, what Vatican II did: it made: Part II a new MAN, Part III a new CHURCH, Part IV a new RELIGION. In these “Eleison Comments should follow four articles (perhaps interrupted), corresponding to the four Parts.

Kyrie eleison.