Guest Post by David Martin
On the Feast of Pentecost, 2016, Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a long-time friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict told Dr. Maike Hickson that Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told him in late summer 2000 that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of "a bad council and a bad Mass" that was to come in the future (after 1960).
Consider the writings of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that "the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council" in a move "to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state."
Canon Roca speaks of a New World Order to come (Novus Ordo Seclorum) which would countermand the order of Apostolic Tradition. Yea, he speaks of "a bad council and a bad Mass" that would materialize after 1960, through which a wide body of the church would be misled.
We can understand the significance of 1960 as the appointed year for disclosing the Third Secret, since it was only two years later that they would convene the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), setting into motion the so-called reform of the Mass that would advance the Church's unity with the world.
Bear in mind that Benedict XVI has read the Fatima Third Secret, and being of serious import, he does not speak idly on weighty topics of this nature. Therefore, this latest scoop on the Third Secret should encourage Catholics concerning the documented accounts of what actually took place at Vatican Council II.
COUNCIL INFILTRATED
In a word, Vatican II was hijacked and controlled by the Church's enemies, though this hijacking was done under the guise of a renewal so that unsuspecting Catholics would think that the ensuing change was the work of the Holy Spirit.
There is no disputing the disaster wrought by Vatican II and how it set into motion an insidious departure from tradition that has left the Holy City "half in ruins." Even as we recall the conciliar tempest that first convened in 1962, its gale force continues to uproot the Faith, blow apart revered Catholic practices, topple the Church’s edifice, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church.
Does this mean that Pope John XXIII was guilty of convoking a conspiratorial council? Nay. His design in convening the Council was not to change the Church, but to restate sacred tradition, evidenced in his opening speech at Vatican II on October 11, 1962: "The major interest of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred heritage of Christian truth be safeguarded and expounded with greater efficacy."
Without diluting the Faith, the pope was simply trying to adopt a more effective means of projecting the orthodox Faith to the modern world. His update did not include the watering down of doctrine or the alteration of liturgy, but consisted in utilizing state-of-the-art technology to better project the light of tradition to a spiritually darkened world.
For there were dangers threatening the Faith at that time. Apostasy was forthcoming and man was already on the eve of forgetting his Maker, so the pope was making a special effort to dispel the ensuing darkness and uphold the orthodox Faith "with greater efficacy."
To this end he and his best men worked arduously for almost three years to draft the outline for the Second Vatican Council, known as the 72 schemas. According to the most conservative thinkers of Rome, the preparatory schemata were orthodox and worthy of use, but modernists were enraged that the Holy Father had put together the outline without conferring with them beforehand. Hence a decision was made before the Council to block Pope John’s plan for Vatican II.
According to Michael Davies and many others, a number of "suspect theologians" hijacked the opening session of the Council by seizing control of its drafting commissions, thus enabling them to scrap Pope John’s plan and to draft a new plan of their own. A key instigator of the pack was Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx of the Netherlands, a known heretic who denied the historicity of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Eucharist (Transubstantiation), and who had drafted and disseminated a 480-page critique aimed at rallying the radical "Rhine bishops" to reject the original plan for Vatican II. The design of these progressivists was to revive Luther’s "Reformation" under the guise of a renewal, something that Schillebeeckx had openly confessed to.
Benedict XVI himself pointed out in 2013 how a "virtual council" had risen up to usurp the "real Council" at Vatican II, and lamented how "it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy." (Benedict XVI, addressing the parish churches of Rome, February 14, 2013) This echoes the words of Pope Paul VI who stated that the good efforts at Vatican II were hampered by "the devil" who came along "to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council." (June 29, 1972) Hence it is worth recounting the opening session, that we have a clearer perspective of what really took place at the Second Vatican Council.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE COUNCIL
At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the drafting commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a 30th degree Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Leinart’s action deflected the course of the Council and made history, and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)
In his February 14, 2013, address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’etat at Vatican II: "On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: 'No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.' Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates."
The above statement is of no small significance. Herein Benedict confesses that Liénart and his clique rejected the list of candidates that John XXIII had approved in an "impartial manner," so that they could create their own list and elect their own candidates in a partial manner.
The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites the illegality of this move, saying, "This departure from the original plan" came about "by an act breaking the Council's legal framework" so that "the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen." (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)
When the "election" resumed, a number of radical theologians were then appointed to chair the commissions, including Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, de Lubac, Schillebeeckx and others whose writings had been blacklisted under Pius XII. The liberals now occupied nearly 60% of the seats, giving them the needed power to steer the Council in their direction. Thereupon they proceeded to trash the pope’s carefully prepared agenda that had taken nearly three years to formulate.
Through deceitful promises and skillful use of the media, the Council approved their plan for a new Mass on December 7, 1962, known as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This in turn became the hub of the liturgical reform that was to set the Church on a new revolutionary path of change.
The Constitution was principally the work of the infamous Annibale Bugnini whom the pope had earlier removed from two posts because of sinister activity. The Constitution in fact was the outgrowth of the one schema drafted by Bugnini, which Vatican liberals had spared because of its designs for a new Mass. It is important to note that Monsignor Bugnini, and not the pope, was the author of the New Mass.
What is mind boggling is the dictatorial force wherewith the conciliar elite took the law into their own hands and were able to junk Pope John’s outline for Vatican II without rebuttal. With the procedural rules laid down by the pope, a mere one-third vote was needed to get the schemata passed, which in fact did pass by a 40% vote. But the Rhine fathers stirred up a ruckus and insisted that this minority vote not be honored in favor of the 60% vote against the schemata, even telling the pope, "This is inadmissible!" They abhorred the orthodoxy of the preparatory outline with its strict formulations and resented the idea of having it imposed on them by a pope who "clung to the old absolute traditions."
The pope, fearing a tumult, backed down and consented to let the Rhine fathers have their way against game rules. Though he had planned things differently, his strength failed him at this point, thus allowing the pirates of innovation to wrest the Council from his hands.
Hence the most meticulous and painstaking preparation ever undertaken for any council of Church history was suddenly dumped to the glee of this Council confederacy. Only the liturgical schema remained.
We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was at the center of this coup to usurp the Vatican Council. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, "This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII." (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)
This story of what happened at Vatican II is well documented and has been told in great depth by the most qualified witnesses, including Father Ralph Wiltgen, Monsignor Bandas, Michael Davies, Cardinal Heenan and many others. Archbishop Lefebvre himself who was on the Central Preparatory Committee for checking and overseeing all the Council documents had this to say:
"From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste- paper basket…The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)
This is how the modern "reform" was born. Pope John’s agenda for Vatican II would never resurrect from that point, but would remain buried to this day. The rebellious "virtual council" would now proceed to put together the Vatican II we all know, including its sixteen documents and its reform of the Mass. The documents would contain elements of orthodoxy here and there, but this would only be for cosmetic purposes. Under the pretext of a restoration, the documents would apologize for tradition and would attempt to unite the Catholic Church with other world religions.
That is to say, the documents themselves, and not any misinterpretation thereof, would generate the problems ahead, since they would be penned by the pope’s enemies and not his friends. For instance, it was the Freemason Msgr. Bugnini who oversaw the drafting of the 1964 Vatican II instruction Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. The following from Article 91 laid the foundation for the Novus Ordo Mass:
"The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people"
The Mass of Vatican II was historic in that it marked the first time in history that the priest offered the Holy Sacrifice facing the people with his back to the tabernacle. This point is affirmed by acclaimed liturgist Monsignor Klaus Gamber, whom Pope Benedict while a cardinal proclaimed as a prophet for our time: "We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration facing the people."
Yea, we can say that the profanation of the Mass at Vatican II effectively served to bring about a shift of focus in which the emphasis today is on the community and not on God. The church today is all but alienated from the Faith, thanks to "a bad council and a bad Mass" that altered the Faith.
Before his election to the papacy as Pius XII, Cardinal Pacelli in 1931 gave his response to the Third Secret of Fatima, saying that the Secret of Our Lady was "a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy." It goes to show just how closely the Faith is tied to the liturgy of Holy Mass.
We are grateful to Fr. Dollinger for truthfully relaying what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the Third Secret. His word is certainly credible when we consider that St. Padre Pio was his personal confessor for many years. This speaks volumes!
Fr. Dollinger relayed to Dr. Hickson yet another revelation from his in-depth conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000, namely, that there is still a part of the Third Secret that hasn't been released. "There is more than what we published," Ratzinger said. We pray that Fr. Dollinger might come forward with still more revelations of this kind.
But especially, we pray that Pope Emeritus Benedict will finally disclose the entire Third Secret of Fatima to the Church for its encouragement and edification. The good pope has no one to answer to but God Himself. If His Holiness feels remorse for having fled his post "for fear of the wolves," he can certainly make up for it by disclosing the truth to the Church, even if it has to be done in a private interview. The church today is bewitched by "the operation of error to believe lying" (2 Thess. 2:10), so the truth of the Fatima Secret is needed to liberate the church from this curse. "The truth will make you free." (John 8:32)
