Was God Behind the Ambiguities of Vatican II? by Robert Sungenis  

Transcribed by Lawrence Myers (video posted on BWSG FB forum 11 Aug. 2015). The full video can be viewed here:  

Hi…this Robert Sungenis…I hope you will enjoy and be well-informed from this study titled “Was God behind the Ambiguities of Vatican II?”  If after listening you have any questions regarding the topic please write to me at Cairomeo@aol.com – now let’s get on with our study.

(0.35) Was God behind the ambiguities of Vatican II?  A biblical answer to an intriguing question.  Anyone who has studied Vatican II knows that there was something very unique and some say very strange about its contents.  Although one could say that easily 90% of Vatican II’s teaching are traditional and orthodox it is that extra 10% that has caused such controversy the last 40 years.

(1.05) The 10% that precipitates all the problems can be boiled down to the two main categories.  Category no. 1 deals with concepts that have little if any precedent in Catholic Tradition.  The main culprits in this category are the concepts of Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism which appear in such docuмents as Gaudium et Spes, Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate and a few others.

(1.35) Not only are the concepts of Religious Liberty and Ecuмenism considered Novel in the Annals of Catholic Thought but many make the argument that they actually countermand previous teachings which were Anti-Ecuмenical and Anti-Religious Liberty.

(1.50) I am speaking here specifically about the Teachings of Pius IX, Pius X and Pius XI the latter’s 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos being the most recent example.

(2.05) Yet for all the arguments for and against the significance of the Authority of Vatican II it is an undeniable fact that Pope Paul VI stated quite plainly it was not an Infallible or Dogmatic Council but merely a Pastoral Council.  In fact, being only a Pastoral Council its non-Traditional Teachings could some day be modified or even reversed but does that mean that the non-Traditional Teachings of Vatican II may actually contain errors?

(2.34) To that possibility some say “Yes”, others say “No”.  Those who say “Yes” point precisely to Paul VI’s statement that it was not an Infallible Council.  Those who say “No” point to the fact that it was an Ecuмenical Council and God would not lead us into Error in any case.

(2.53) In between the “Yes” and the “No” however is Category No. 2 that is what many people recognise as The Ambiguities of Vatican II.  Many say that these Ambiguities were deliberately forced into the Council by Liberal Bishops and Theologians who later planned on interpreting them to their Liberal meanings.

 (3.15) The Dutch Progressivist Theologian Edward Schillebeeckx made quite a name for himself in making this very boast.

 

(3.20) One of the more infamous Ambiguities is contained in the docuмent Dei Verbum.  In Chapter 3 No. 11 the following statement is made, quote “Therefore since everything asserted by Inspired Authors or Sacred Writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit it follows that the Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that Truth which God wanted to put into Sacred Writings for the sake of our Salvation.” Unquote.

 

(4.00) To the casual reader this statement may not seem problematic but as it turns out it can be read in one of two ways:  

A. That Scripture is without Error in all that is says and all that it says is put there for the sake of our Salvation; or

 

B. That Scripture is without Errors specifically in those things that were written for the sake of our Salvation but other things that are not dealing with our Salvation for example, History, Science etc… may be in Error.

(4.32) Now which of these two do you think Progressivist Theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henry de Lubac, Raymond Brown et al opted for when Vatican II was completed?

 (4.48) If you know anything about the past 40 years you know that it was almost exclusively Option B.  In fact Option B is taught in all of our Major Catholic Seminaries and Universities throughout the World thanks in a large part to the late Fr Raymond Brown who, in his book Biblical Exegis and Church Doctrine and later summed up in the Jerome Biblical Commentary writes,

(5.13) Quote: “Scriptural Teaching is Truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the Salvific Purpose of God.”  Unquote p. 1,169.  In other words, if it does not talk about Salvation it may indeed contain Errors and thanks to the Pontifical Biblical Commission of which Raymond Brown was the President and which was stocked with more Liberal minded theologians than the Bibliography of one of Hans Kung’s books the Teaching that Scripture contains Errors has enjoyed the Façade of Authority with the seeming approval of the Vatican Hierarchy.

 

(5.51) But as anyone who is familiar with this subject knows Option A has always been the Doctrine of the Church and it was stated quite clearly by Popes and Councils prior to Vatican II.  For example Pope Leo XII stated in Providentissimus Deus:

(6.10) Quote: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow Inspiration to certain parts of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the Sacred Writer has erred.”   Unquote.

 

(6.22) Pope Pius X condemned the following notion in Lamentabali Sane, quote: “Divine Inspiration does not extend to all Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”  Unquote

 

(6.40) Pope Benedict XV stated in Spiritus Paraclitus quote: “The Divine Inspiration extends to all parts of Sacred Scripture without distinction and that No Error could occur in the Inspired Texts.” Unquote.

 

(6.54) Pope Pius XII re-iterated Pope Leo’s statement in Divino Afflante Spiritu quote: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow Inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the Sacred Writer has erred.” and condemned the following notion in Humani Generis quote:

“Immunity from Error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”  Unquote.

(7.25) Vatican Council I stated (quote): “But the Church holds these books as Sacred and Canonical not because having been put together by human industry alone they were then approved by its authority nor because they contain Revelation without error but because having been written by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit they have God as their Author and as such they have been handed down to the Church itself.” (unquote)

 

(7.52) He further says “Further this Supernatural Revelation is contained in the written books from the Apostles themselves by the Dictation of the Holy Spirit and has been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand.  God inspired the Human Authors of the Sacred Books and it was as True Authors that they consigned to Writing whatever He wanted written and no more.” (unquote)

(8.22) So you ask “How can anyone get the Notion that Scripture contains Errors?”.  Well, that is a long story.  A story that started about two hundred years ago.  Actually it was the Liberal Protestants who were the first to advance the Concept of an Errant Scripture.  Leo XIII and Pius X however forbade Catholics to even entertain the Idea but that began to change in the 1940s and 1950s when Liberal Catholic Theologians badly outnumbered their Traditional counterparts.  As happened to the Protestants the Liberal Catholics invaded the Seminaries and Universities with their new-fangled Teachings.  They were just waiting for any Stamp of Approval from the Church even if it was an Ambiguous One.

(9.10) Lo! and behold!  Vatican II gave them just what they needed by using all of the Ecclesiastical and Political Power they could the Liberals succeeded in placing a highly ambiguous statement in Dei Verbum 11 and, thus, Vatican II opened up a Pandora’s Box of counter-possibilities upon which the Liberal Theologians gorged themselves like Vultures on a Dead Carcass.

(9.42) Here’s how it went down.  There were actually three versions of Dei Verbum’s clause “Without Error for the sake of Salvation.” (Unquote) prior to the one finally decided upon.  One of them was so bad, since it actually stated that Scripture contained Errors, that Pope Paul VI who happened to find out about it by a secret memo from a concerned Cardinal had it excised from the docuмent just in the nick of time since voting on the Clause was going to take place the very next day.

(10.14) In his New Jerome Biblical Commentary Fr Raymond Brown actually makes an allusion to the rejected version in saying quote: “But Pre-Voting Debates show an awareness of Errors in the Bible.” (unquote).

(10.29) Notice that Fr Brown doesn’t say that the Pre-Voting was rejected by Paul VI instead Brown shades the truth and makes it look like that Pre-Voting was actually the Precedent for what appeared in Dei Verbum 11.

(10.44) This is typical of the shell game that Liberals have played with Catholic Teaching for the Last 40 Years.  After Paul VI excised the Pre-Voting Consensus he and the Liberals dickered back and forth.  What finally appeared in Dei Verbum 11 was the Compromise but everyone knew that the Statement was weak and ambiguous.

(11.07)  All previous Papal and Conciliar declarations on Scripture were clear, straight forward and dogmatic concerning the fact that there were No Errors in Scripture hence the Liberals may not have succeeded in actually changing the Doctrine but they welded (?) down enough to give themselves room to advance their concept of an Errant Scripture as long as after the Council the Pope did not stop them which neither he nor John Paul II did they would teach this New-Fangled Doctrine in all the Seminaries and Universities of the World and tell everyone that it was based on Vatican II thus what Paul VI took away with the right hand he gave back to them with the left.  These are the kinds of subtleties with which we are dealing in these Strange Times.  I will say more about this issue later.

(11.57) Could such weak and ambiguous statements actually end up in Vatican II?  An Ecuмenical Council?  Unfortunately the answer is “Yes”.  Not only did it happen in Dei Verbum but it happened in many docuмents and statements of the Council, I simply don’t have the time nor the space to go into too many more of them.  But as background information the following is important to know:

(12.24) On October 13 1962 Vatican II’s bishops met to vote on the Schemas for the Council – the Schemas are the Directives on Issues which the Council seeks to discuss – three years had been devoted to preparing these Schemas, a half dozen in all, the Schemas were approved by John XXIII and written in the Traditionally accepted manner with straight forward Declarations in anticipation of Canon – incidentally one of the Schemas sought to establish Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, a favourite topic of derision among the Liberal Theologians who were seeking to divest the Church of the embarrassing Doctrine in order to make Ecuмenical inroads with Protestants.

(13.08) As it happened a vote occurred to determine the Candidates who would Head up the Commissions concerning the handling of the Vatican II Schemas – in violation of the Procedural Rules Cardinal Achille Lienart, one of the German Liberal Prelates, seized the microphone and began reading a Statement demanding Consultation before any vote.  Pope John XXIII then allowed a completely new Slate of Candidates and the vote was postponed.  Throwing their weight around the German members succeeded in packing the Commissions with Liberal Candidates achieving majorities on all the Key Commissions.  Not surprisingly, Vatican Council’s Original Schemas were discarded.

(13.50) Thus, Lienart’s calculating disruption left the Council without written preparation.  The Dogmatic Schemas were then replaced with Pastoral Formulations drafted by the very Liberals who had previously been placed on Pius XII’s List of Heterodox and Modernist Theologians, for example Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henry de Lubac and others.

(14.18) In place of the original half dozen Schemas which were to be discussed over only two or three sessions the Liberals produced docuмents at Vatican II that exceeded the length of other Councils by at least ten times and which took three years to amass. The rest is history.

(14.36) The events leading up to the rejection of the Original Schemas were detailed, amongst other sources, in the book The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay, the pen-name adopted by a dozen priests who were living in Rome prior to Vatican II.  They knew beforehand of the Modernist Plot to get control of Vatican II.  To try to stop the Plot they distributed copies of their book to all the Bishops that attended the Council.  For whatever reason John XXIII died without stopping the Liberal Hijacking of the Council.

(15.11) Cardinal Montini who had promised the Bishops he would allow the Council to move forward was soon elected as the next Pope, Paul VI.  To get a fuller picture of these behind-the-scenes activities we need to know another piece of information.

(15.27) During this time the Fatima Visions were heavy on the Mind of the Prelature.  It had been known for quite some time that Sr Lucy was told by Our Lady to have the Third Secret revealed in 1960.  Two years prior to that however Pope John XXIII had already been planning for Vatican II.  He was planning to bring a Breath of Fresh Air to the Church and his message was very optimistic.  He had grand visions of bringing the World and the Church closer together but upon reading the Fatima Secret he was obviously struck by the very ominous message it contained.

(16.04) According to Fatima Scholars, as well as the Testimony of Cardinal Oddi, the Secret speaks of a Catastrophic Loss of faith which did not square well with John XXIII’s Dream of a New Pentecost.  In essence the Church had a crucial choice to make “Would she reveal the Third Secret and warn the world of its imminent plunge into Apostasy because of man’s sins” or “Would she ignore Fatima and seek to make gestures to the World and especially Russia despite that Our Lady of Fatima warned ‘Russia would spread its errors throughout the World.’?”

(16.42) This was probably the most important decision of the Twentieth Century.  Unfortunately the wrong one was made.

(16.49) The Church then decided to make political ties with Russia rather than reveal the Message of Fatima.  In place of telling Communist Russia it was evil the Vatican chose to make a political Pact with them in 1962 known as the Pact of Metz after the place it was signed in France.  In this Pact the Vatican agreed, to the Absolute Contradiction of the Fatima Message not to condemn either Russia or Communism and not to place any Negative Statements about them in all 16 docuмents of Vatican II.

(17.27) The Agreement is signed by Cardinal Tisserant and attested to by his personal Secretary Monsignor Roche and Metropolitan Nikodin Head of the KGB controlled Russian Orthodox Church.  In return Russia agreed to send two Orthodox Prelates to the Council, a gesture Most welcomed by the Vatican.

(17.52) So we see that there was a lot of Behind the Scenes Activity taking place during Vatican II – Politics, Ecuмenism and Liberal Theology seemed to Rule the Day.  Why is this important to know?  Because it is obvious that these Political Ideologies had an overwhelming effect on what Vatican II finally produced.  At least in that 10% area where it seemed that Vatican II departed from Traditional Church Teaching.

(18.19) But here is the main question we need to answer “Since Vatican II was an Ecuмenical Council - the 21st of the Catholic Church - would it be possible to conclude,  considering the Ambiguities some of its docuмents contained, that God had an Active Role and allowed the Ambiguities to enter in?”  This a very intriguing question.

(18.41) It is one thing to say that Liberals forced Ambiguous Statements into Vatican II’s docuмents but it is quite another to put the Onus on the Holy Spirit.

(18.51) One way to Reason this out, as we noted before, is that Vatican II was specifically not stated to be an Infallible or Dogmatic Council as stated before by the Reigning Pope who signed off on the Council the other is that it is rather hard for someone to prove that there are Errors in Vatican II’s docuмents precisely because the Statements are So Ambiguous – for example, someone might Accuse Dei Verbum 11 of teaching that there are Errors in Scripture but in reality Dei Verbum 11 doesn’t explicitly say there are Errors in Scripture.  As we saw it all depends on how one reads the statement.

(19.29) Even some of the more outlandish statements of Vatican II dealing with Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty seem to have the Cover of Ambiguity and because of that may not fall into the Area of Error, for example,Dignitatis Humani No. 4 states, quote: “They, i.e. Non-Catholic Religious Communities, must be allowed to honour the Supreme Godhead with Public Worship.” Unquote.

(20.00) On the one hand a Critic of Vatican II could have quite a visceral reaction to the Statement for, if read in a certain way, it appears to be saying that Non-Catholics have every right to worship outside of the Catholic Church without the least consequence, that they never have the Requirement to seek Worship in the Catholic Church and that they can worship under the auspices of Doctrine which are diametrically opposed to Catholicism.

(20.25) That wish may indeed have been in the thoughts of the liberal minded authors of Dignitatis Humani but there is no way to prove it since the Statement does not say so explicitly.  It is sufficiently Ambiguous to lend itself to the completely opposite interpretation, at least, if one tries real hard.  The Statement does not deny that Public Worship is Catholic Worship moreover the Church does not want to be accused of forbidding someone from honouring the Supreme Godhead.  In short Dignitatis Humani No. 4 is just a General Statement without any teeth.

(21.02) Let’s take another seemingly outlandish statement of Vatican II.  Nostra Aetate No. 2 says quote: “In Hinduism Men explore the Divine Mystery and express it.” Unquote.

(21.17) Again a Critic of Vatican II would tend to be nauseated by such a Statement accusing the Council of Teaching Syncretism if not Pagan Idol Worship.  The critic may be right for that might have been in the mind of some of the Council Authors and the Authors may have been desperately trying to get their idea across without showing their Red Suit and Forked Tails, so to speak.

(21.41) From another perspective this statement is quite innocuous however and, of course, ambiguous.  It gives no command or requirement.  It simply makes an indicative statement that Hinduism explores what is Divine.  Well, as a statement of fact there aren’t any religions that don’t explore what is divine.  They can explore all they want but what they conclude from what they explore is another story altogether.

(22.08) They will even express what they explore.  Who is not going to express what he explores?  We can just tell that they are wrong when they express it.  The Church has been doing that for two thousand years with Pagan Religions.  Moreover, notice that Nostra Aetate does not say that Hindus find the Divine.  All men explore according to Romans 1 18-20 but not all men find – that is because they love their sins too much and don’t want to come to the Truth as Jesus said in John 3.19.

(22.48) Before leaving this example I have to mention that contrary to the Inter-Religious Prayer Meetings conducted at Assissi Nostra Aetate does not tell the Hindu to pray to the Divine Mystery or even suggest that they do so.  As I said earlier Vatican II issues no commands to these Pagan Religions it just makes indicative statements that may look like allowances.  Telling other Religions to pray to their False Gods for worldly favours is an unprecedented misinterpretation of both Vatican II and every other Traditional Teaching of the Church.

(23.24) One can prove this rather easily.  The Vatican II docuмents that mention Prayer are Ad Gentes, Apostolicam (LM – full name is Apostolicam Actuositatem), Christus Dominus, Dei Verbum. Gaudium et Spes, Inter Mirifica, Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Atrartum Coitus, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Perfectae Caritatis, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Unitatis Redintegratio.

(23.55) In none of these docuмents is it ever advised, advocated, encouraged, suggested, implied, proposed, recommended, predicted or are the Faithful directed to seek the help of Pagan Religions to either persuade God to help with the world’s problems or as a gesture or anticipation of Future Unity.  It is simply not there.

(24.18) Moreover, the only time Vatican II allows Catholics to pray with Non-Catholics is when they seeking to bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church.  Now back to our issue.

(24.33) I hope you beginning to see the picture a little clearer.  Vatican II…at least the 10% with which we have problems… was written in such a way to escape blatant Heresy but with enough cleverness and ambiguity to allow future Progressivists to interpret it the way they want and get away with it…at least for now.

(24.52 They are very smart.  The Devil never shows his pitchfork and Red Suit.  He comes looking just like Christ - 2nd Corinthians 11, 13-15.

(25.05) But this also means the Holy Spirit allowed Vatican II’s docuмents to contain these Ambiguities.

(25.11) We cannot escape the fact, for example, that prior to Vatican II the Church had not even so much as suggested that there were Errors in Scripture but after Vatican II there are two camps in the Church – the Majority who thinks Scripture contains Errors and the Minority who don’t.  We cannot deny that the Division is caused precisely because of the Wording of Dei Verbum.  In contrast Vatican I didn’t have these problems.  Its statements were very straightforward.  It said that A equals A and B does not equal Non-B and he who does not accept them quote: “Let him be anathema.”  Unquote.  As did all other Dogmatic Councils.

(26.02)  Scriptures Answer to the Dilemma – Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the Ulterior Motives of the Liberal Prelates and their Virtual Hijacking of Vatican II I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these Ambiguities to occur.  In short there is an interesting Working Principle in Scripture – As a Punishment for your Sin God will allow you to pursue and be condemned by what you sinfully desire.  This is what I believe happened in Vatican II.  The Progressivist Bishops and Theologians sought for a way to push their Heterodox Ways into the Church so God allowed them to do so as a Witness and Judgment against them.

(26.49)  He would allow the Council to have its Ambiguities so that those who would interpret them contrary to 19 centuries of Catholic Dogma would lead themselves into Sin and ultimately into God’s Judgment.  Unfortunately as is always the case the Sheep suffer for what the Shepherds do wrong and as as result we have all been wandering in a Spiritual Desert of Liberal Theology for the Past 40 Years.

(27.19)  I am going to go to both the Old and New Testaments to show you how the above Principle works.  There I think you will see some surprising answers concerning how God deals with those who are seeking to undermine His program.

(27.35)  First I will go to the Old Testament for there is a Wealth of Information in those narratives for our day.  In fact one of the most important and pervasive teachings of the New Testament is that Old Testament Events were written as Warnings to Christians in the New Testament not to fall into the same Sins and experience the same Judgments from God.

(27.58)  For example, in 1st Corinthians chap. 10, vv 1-12, after recounting the sad plight of how the Israelites lost faith in God during their treck through the desert and were eventually condemned St Paul warns that the same Sins and Divine Judgment could happen to the Corinthian Church.  He writes in verse 11, quote:  “Now these things happened to them as an example and they were written for our instruction upon whom the Ends of the Ages has come therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.”  Unquote.

 

(28.34)  What was happening in the Corinthian Church that would make Paul give them such an Ominous Warning?  Well, if you read the Epistle you will see that almost every Chapter is filled with an Indictment against the Bad Behaviour and Lack of Faith within the Corinthian membership.  By the End of Paul’s Second Letter they still had not improved a Great Deal.  In fact they were turning out Just like the Israelites to whom Paul originally compared them.  So much so that Paul warned them that they were going to lose their Salvation - 2ndCorinthians 12, v 20 to 2nd Corinthians 13, v 5.

(29.18)  The same thing is true for many of the other Books of the New Testament – Galatians, 2nd Timothy,Hebrews, 2nd Peter, James, Jude and many others all speak of the same problems occurring in the Churches.  Similar to Paul’s Method the other Writers hearken back to the Sins of Israel in the Old Testament and God’s Judgment for those Sins as a Dire Warning to the Christians of their day.

(29.44) The Apocalypse gives the Final Tally – of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor to whom John writes, Five of the Seven Churches, that is 70%, are so bad that they are on the Verge of Collapse and they are Ripe for God’s Judgment.

(30.00) The rest of the Apocalypse tells how the Church at large is infiltrated by Satan and his hordes and it is not a pretty picture.  Unfortunately in today’s Church many Catholics think that we are immune to these things and that God will not judge the Church or that a large majority of its members could not actually go into Apostasy “because,…” they say, “the Gates of Hell will not prevail.”

(30.33)  Unfortunately, they misunderstand what that clause really means.  It does not mean that Satan cannot infiltrate and persecute the Church, it only means that in the end he will not prevail against the Church.

 

(30.48)  Since the New Testament writers refer so often to the stories in the Old Testament to show how God deals with Sin and Rebellion we will take a little Survey of His Dealings and perhaps after we are done we can get a clearer answer to our question about the Ambiguities of Vatican II.

(31.08)  The time is about 1445 BC…Israel has just come out of Egypt after being captive for 230 years.  They are travelling through the desert in order to reach the Promised Land.  Not long after their departure from Egypt God called Moses up to Mt Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments.  Because he was gone for forty days the Israelites complained that God and Moses had abandoned them but actually God was testing them.

(31.38)  So in place of God they made a Golden Calf and worshipped it for food and protection in the hostile desert.  When Moses came down from the Mount he was, of course, extremely upset as was God.  God was so upset that he told Moses He was going to destroy the Israelites right then and there.  Only Moses’ pleading with God spared them from Final Judgment.  In order to persuade God to relent of His Wrath Moses lay prostrate on the ground for Forty Days without nourishment even at that God still killed many of the Israelites for their breach - Exodus 32 and 33 and Deuteronomy Chap. 9.

(32.21)  You would think that after this horrible experience Israel would have learned its lesson but shortly after they showed their True Colours again as God was continuing to feed the Israelites with Manna from Heaven they got tired of it and complained to Moses.  Not only did they complain but they began to accuse him of forcing them to leave Egypt where they had all the good meat they wanted to eat.

(32.49)  How do you think God reacted to this complaint?  That’s right!  Not very pleasantly at all.  Numbers 11 tells us that God said “You want meat?  I will give you meat.  I will give you so much it will come out of your noses and you will loathe it.”  Unquote.

(33.06) As promised God brought quail to the camp, enough to cover the whole area, about three miles wide and three feet deep of quail meat, that people gathered the quail but while they ate it God brought a plague upon them and many were killed.

(33.23)  So we see that rather than placate the Israelites God gave them what they wanted but He gave it to them in a way they least expected.  He used their own lustful desires to punish them.  There were many other incidents like this that took place.  I can only give you a short survey.

(33.44) Here is another story – Numbers 13 and 14 tell of the time that Israel is nearing the Land of Canaan.  God tells them to send out spies for 40 days to size up the Land before they send the Israeli Army to conquer it.  The spies go out but bring a fearful report back to the Camp complaining that the people of Canaan are too big and fierce to conquer which, of course, makes God look foolish for bringing them thus far.  How do you think God reacted to this?

(34.20)  That’s right…not very warmly at all.  God said that for every day they spied the Land – forty days – they would spend a Year in the Desert wandering around in circles until that Generation died off.  So Israel spent the next Forty Years in the Desert as a direct punishment from God – Numbers 32, v. 13.

(34.42)  Only two of the original group that left Egypt were allowed to enter Canaan.  The original group according to the Census taken in Numbers was 600,000 men, which, when women and children were added probably exceeded two million people coming out of Egypt.  So two people out of two million were allowed to enter Canaan.

(35.02) That’s what you call a Remnant.  Again, remember, these are the stories to which the New Testament writers appeal to demonstrate that God still works the same way with today’s Church.  We might compare Israel’s wandering in the Desert for Forty Years to what is occurring in our day.  If so what would be the case?  Well I can’t help but suggest that the Contemporary Church has been wandering in the Spiritual Desert left in the wake of Vatican II that happened just two years shy of Forty Years to go – 1965-2003.

(35.43) The Land of Canaan to which we were headed was the Peace offered by Our Lady in the Message of Fatima.  All the Church had to do was to consecrate Russia as specified by Our Lady and Peace would have come and the World would be evangelised.  But the Church looked at the Russian Bear and said “Oh no.  They are too fierce for us.  They are too big to conquer.  We can’t tell them that they are the World’s Cause of Evil for they will treat us even worse.”  Doesn’t that sound precisely like what the Israelites told Moses about the Giants in the Land of Canaan?  Yes.  The comparisons are eerily similar.

(36.23) Speaking of Fatima many think that the Consecration of the World in 1984 finally obeyed Our Lady but even if that were the case which it is not, the Church is only admitting that she did not consecrate Russia for the prior 55 years that the Command was given in 1929.  That is Five Pontificates of Direct Disobedience to God, and what does God do in the face of Deliberate Disobedience for what may seem trivial to us?  Well, I think the experience of the Israelites in the Desert for Forty Years says it all.  And again it is this very Old Testament story that Paul uses to warn the New Testament Church that God will do the same thing to them if they do not repent.

– 1st Corinthians 10 vv. 1-12 and Hebrews Chap. 3 & 4.

(37.15) The Last Forty Years of the Catholic Church says it all too.  Not only are we now made aware of a worldwide ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and paedophile scandal which has been brewing precisely for the last Forty Years but since the End of Vatican II the number of priests has declined by 30% and nearly half of the priests today are over 65 years of age.  In 1965 the Church in the US ordained 1,575 new priests…in 2002 a pitiful 450 were ordained…one quarter of the amount in 1965.

(37.56)  The number of Seminarians dropped from 45,000 in 1965 to an astounding 4,700 in 2002.  Nearly 400 of the 600 Seminaries open in 1965 have closed.  In 1965 there were 180,000 catholic nuns…104,000 of them as Teaching Nuns.  Today there are 75,000 Nuns and only 8,200 of them teach but most of the 75,000 are over 70 years of age.

(38.32) In 1965 there were 912 Christian Brothers Seminaries…in 2000 there were seven left.  The Franciscans decreased from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.  The Jesuits from over 3,500 in 1965 to 389 in 2000.

(38.58) Half of all Catholic Schools have closed since 1965 and the Student Population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000.  For Parochial Schools it has fallen from 4.5 million to below 2 million.  In 1958 75% of Catholics attended Mass on Sunday.  In 2002 only 25% attended.  Marriage annulments in 1965 were 338 in 2002 there were over 50,000.

(39.35) Only 10% of Lay Religious Teachers accept the Church’s Teaching on Contraception and most openly teach against it.  53% of Catholics believe that a Catholic can have an Abortion.  65% believe that Catholics can divorce and re-marry.  77% believe that one does not have to attend Mass to be a good Catholic.  A New York Times poll revealed that 70% of Catholics between 18 and 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a Symbolic Reminder of Jesus. Some Springtime!

(40.10)  Back to Israel.  I am going to skip over much of their sordid history of Rebellion against God and go to an incident that again has an uncanny resemblance to what is happening in our day.  After the Judges period, approx. 400 years, Israel was vying for Leadership in the World.  The Judges and Priests had been their Leaders but the people began to complain to Samuel that they wanted a King to lead them quote:  “Just like all the other Nations.” Unquote. 1st Daniel 8 v. 5.

(40.46) One might think that this was a Legitimate Request after all Samuel’s two sons turned out to be worthless Judges for the people but listen to what God tells Samuel quote:

(40.58) “The Lord said to Samuel ‘Listen to the Voice of the People in regard to all that they say to you for they have not rejected you but they have rejected me from being King over them.  Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I have brought them up from Egypt even to this day in that they have forsaken me and served other Gods so they are doing to you also.’” Unquote

(41.25) Did you catch that?  God says “Give them what they want.”  Even though He admits that their clamouring for a King is a clear sign of Rebellion against Him…a Rebellion on par with the worshipping of the Golden Calf which almost got them destroyed…God tells Samuel to let them have their King so that as they demanded they can be like all the other Nations.

(41.50) In other words they did not like the way God was leading them.  They wanted a lifestyle and a prestige that accompanied it like the Rest of the World.  They wanted to be liked, not isolated and looked down upon.  But what was the Future to hold for Israel and their King?  Well here is the Tally – three of their Original Kings – Saul, David and Solomon – had two which ended up in Apostasy, Saul and Solomon both, 1st Daniel 15, vv 1-35, 1st Kings 11 vv 1-13.

(42.27)  Israel’s Northern Ten Tribes had Twenty Kings up to the time they were conquered by the Assyrians in 722 BC as a Final Judgment for their Apostasy.  What happened to those Twenty Kings?  Have you ever read the Oft-repeated biographies of the Kings in the Old Testament?  It goes something like this – Now in the blank year of King So-and-so King Watchamacallit came to power and he reigned blank years and he walked in all the Sins of his Father and he did Evil in the Sight of the Lord then Watchamacallit slept with his Fathers and they buried him in the City of David.

(43.07)  Well, this horrid Epitaph was given to all Twenty of Israel’s Kings.  None of them were good – not one.  Some of them were so bad, for example Jeroboam and Manasseh, that they actually set up pagan idol worship in the Temple of God - 1st Kings 12, 25-33, 2nd Kings 21, 1-18.  A precursor to the Abomination of Desolation.

(43.36) Were the Southern Tribes any better?  A little, but not much.  They had Twenty Kings too.  Ten of them were given a good Epitaph but only two of them had a really clean record, Zedekiah and Josiah.  The other eight did some bad things, for example by keeping the high places so Israelites could worship Foreign Deities.

(44.00) So out of a total of forty-three Kings from Saul to Zedekiah, only three Kings David, Zedekiah and Josiah did not forsake the Law of God, Sirach 49, vv 5-8, or as we more commonly know Ecclesiasticus 49, vv 5-8.

(44.20)  In other words 94% of Israel’s Kings were bad, some really bad.  That is what Israel received after they clamoured to God for a King, like quote “All the other Nations” Unquote.

(44.38)  Now remember what I said about the New Testament Writers using Old Testament History to show us what was going to happen in New Testament Times.  Well, the same applies to our Leaders in the Church today…what was the clamour for Vatican II?  Was it not that the Church needed to get out of the Stone Age and be like all of the other Nations of the World.  Just like Israel when they asked for a King.

(45.02) Wasn’t it from complaints that the Truth God gave us in the Past were inadequate and that we needed New Visions and New Perspectives from which to View the World?  Just like the Israelites grew tired of the Manna God gave them and wanted the Meat of Egypt?

(45.17) Wasn’t it a Desire to begin appreciating Other religions and their Gods and Ecuмenism just like the Israelites wanted to Worship the Golden Calf and set up Idols in the Temple of God?  Wasn’t it as we saw with the Rejection of the Fatima Message in 1960 a Desire to Placate and become Friends with the World for Fear of what the World would do to the Church if it did not buckle under?

(45.39) Oh yes!  And for all the See No Evil – Hear No Evil people out there we admit that many of these problems were already budding prior to Vatican II, after all wasn’t it Pius XI and Pius XII who failed to consecrate Russia as they were ordered to do.  Both of them were already showing Signs of Fearing the Bolsheviks in Russia and thus making Secret Deals with them.

(46.05) After Pius XI did the Bolsheviks eventually turned on him resulting in his 1937 Encyclical Divini Redemptoris against Communism.

(46.15) Monsignor Montini, the Future Paul VI, was already making Secret Deals with the Russians in the Pontificate of Pius XII which upon discovery Pius XII ousted him.

(46.28) Reason it out for yourselves If the Church by attempting a Consecration of Russia in 1984 has automatically indicted itself of Disobedience Against Heaven by admitting that all the Previous Popes since 1929 failed to Obey the Lord regarding Fatima what does that say for the Church for most of the Twentieth Century?

(46.50) This not to Deny the Magnificent Teachings of Pius XI and Pius XII such as Mortalium Animos, Quas Primas and Humani Generis but the Fact remains that Our Lady requested at Fatima for the Consecration of Russia and it has yet to be obeyed.

(47.10) But after Vatican II the problems multiply exponentially.  For the last Forty Years the Prelates of the Church have committed some of the Worst Blasphemies ever recorded.  I don’t need to mention them here.  The Catholic Family News has done an excellent job of cataloguing them for you.

(47.29) All I want to point out is that the Cry of Vatican II is the same as the Cry of Israel in the Days of Samuel:“We want to be like the Rest of the Nations” and, of course, my inkling is that God said the same thing about the 1960 Catholic Church that He said about Israel in Samuel’s Day “They have forsaken me and served other Gods.  Now listen to their Voice.”

(47.53) What better evidence do we have of Churchmen who have served Other Gods and that we were forced to listen to their Voice than the Effects of Ecuмenism begun after Vatican II that, among other things, has culminated in the Calling of 160 Pagan Religions at Assisi to pray to their False Gods alongside of Catholics not once but twice and for the measly illusion of World Peace?

(48.21) Never mind Calling them to Assisi, Home of the Great Evangelist St Francis, to Repent to God for their Sins and ask for Eternal Piece from His Wrath, “No.  That kind of Gospel is Passe today.  Poor St Francis, he is probably turning over in his grave today watching Pagans pour into his old City with their Pagan Gods.”

(48.48) Good Catholics shouldn’t be surprised, if they know their History, although Times are far worse today than ever in the Church’s History, many of our previous Prelates were notorious Sinners both Morally and Doctrinally.  Their Epitaphs could be written just like the Kings of Israel: “Pope So-and-so reigned for ten years and he did Evil in the Sight of the Lord, Bishop Watchamacallit reigned for twenty years and he did Evil in the Sight of the Lord.”

(49.17) In almost every Century there has been Corruption in the Church mostly at the Highest Levels of the Hierarchy, for example, we might write the Epitaph of Pope Sergius III who reigned from 904 to 911 who illegitimately fathered Pope John XI who reigned from 931 to 935 as the following:

(49.39) “And Sergius did Evil in the Sight of the Lord.”  Sergius has been called “An Unscrupulous Man who ruled the Church arrogantly.”

(49.51) Alexander VI who reigned from 1471 to 1503 had at least six children, four of them by a Roman Lady Vanozza dei Cattanei.

(50.02) “This is evidence” says the book The Popes A Precise Biography of History published by Burns & Oates (Publishers to the Holy See) “that Alexander maintained a Mistress after he became Pope and that her influence persuaded him to make her brother Alessandro Farnese, later Paul III, a Cardinal” – Unquote.

(50.30) Alexander VI became especially known for advancing his children’s careers.  John XII who reigned from 955 to 964, who became Pope at age 16, is described in the Catholic Encyclopaedia as quote: “A coarse immoral man whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel and the moral corruption of Rome was spoken of as a general odium.” – unquote.

(50.58) “There is no doubt,” wrote the authors of The Popes “that he, John, XII, was a scandal to the whole Church.”

(51.08) At times Popes and Bishops have accepted Bribes for favours as well as murdered political opponents.  Sixtus IV who reigned from 1471 to 1484 made Nepotism, quote “The chief influence of Papal policies” unquote.  His Revenues which exceeded 60,000 gold ducats a year - quote “enabled him to lead a life of luxury which astonished contemporaries and shocked many.” Unquote.

(51.36) Pope Innocent VIII who reigned from 1484 to 1492, a man whose morals were unsuitable for the Papacy would - quote “Openly avow his illegitimate children” unquote.

(51.49) The list goes on and on.  The scandals of immorality coming from Rome under some Pontificates would make monthly headlines in our National Inquirer.

(52.05) In one of the most audacious instances of Papal Arrogance Pope Stephen VII exhumed the body of his predecessor Pope Formosus and dressed him in Papal Garb so that he could condemn the corpse at a mock trial and take his power.  Stephen had the three benediction fingers of Formosus cut off and the rest of the body was dragged naked through the town and eventually thrown into the Tiber.  Stephen subsequently declared all of Formosus’s ordinations invalid causing an Ecclesiastical Problem of Towering Proportions.

(52.39) Pope John XXII gives a glimpse into some of the more unruly and unorthodox members of the Papacy.  He is also noted for his preaching the Error that the Souls of the Just do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Final Judgment.  Various Theologians and Prelates rose up to oppose the Pope’s Teaching and fortunately John recanted that Error before he died.

(53.02) At one point there were three claimants to the Papal Crown.  As the story goes Benedict IX having been chased out of town by angry mobs eventually sold the Papal Office to his Godfather Giovanni Graziano who began his reign in 1045 under the name of Gregory VI.  Benedict returned in 1047 and resumed his Papal Throne but without Gregory being deposed.  To add even more confusion Sylvester III also set himself up as Pope and thus there were three Popes, each with his own private army to protect his home turf.

 

(53.43) Eventually Citizens of Rome had to appeal to the Emperor Henry III to settle the issue.  Henry then marched into Rome with a bigger Army than All Three of the Popes’ Armies, deposed them all and named Clement II as the True Pope.  But after Henry’s Armies left the wiley Benedict came back and ruled as Pope for another eight months until Henry returned and chased him out again.  The Catholic Encyclopaedia calls Benedict, Benedict IX quote: “A disgrace to the Chair of Peter” unquote.

(54.19) As you can see the follies and crimes of some of the Catholic Hierarchy often equal those of the Kings and Princes of Israel and Juda.  I am not making any of these things up.  Among the more popular books a good portion of this information can be found, as mentioned, in the Catholic Encyclopaedia often on gorey detail.

(54.39) So when you read about all the Murderers, sɛҳuąƖ Escapades, Political Intrigues, Financial Scheming and other such Evils among the Old Testament Kings and Princes don’t think you are reading something Foreign to New Testament Times.  No, as St Paul said, “These Narratives were written down for our sake to show that the Same Sin can and will happen among the Leaders of the New Testament Church”.

(55.09)  If the New Testament had covered the whole 2000 year history of the Church as the Old Testament covered the whole history of Israel you would be reading in Scripture in stark and dramatic detail about the Sordid Tales of Faithlessness and Sin.  Wasn’t it Jesus who said: “When I return, will I find Faith on Earth?” -Luke 18, v. 18.

(55.32) Wasn’t it Paul who upbraided Pope Peter for quote: “Deserting the Gospel?” unquote – Galatians 2,14.

(55.40) In fact just as only a percentage of Kings earned the Epitaph, quote: “And he did good in the Sight of the Lord All His Days” – unquote so it is the case with the Prelates of the New Testament.  As the old saying goes “What is past, is prologue.”

(56.00) But I haven’t even gotten to the real thrust of this piece yet.  I saved that for last.  We were talking about the Ambiguities of Vatican II before I went off on this Tirade.  We still have the question on the floor “Would God allow such Ambiguities to enter a Council?”  Well, you tell me.  After reading how God responded to the Jews when they rebelled against him and knowing that the New Testament says that God responds to the Church in the same manner do you think the Liberals who hijacked Vatican II were going to get a free ride?  Not on your life.

(56.36) God is the same yesterday, today and forever the Scripture says.  If you don’t believe so then you are reading Scripture through Rose-coloured glasses.  Let me be more specific: “What did God do to Israel when they were clamouring to change the Laws God gave to them?”

(56.53) You might find this hard to believe but instead of saying “No.” God actually added more Laws to the books.  Laws that He said were not good for them.  Laws that they could not live by and even Laws that contained Ambiguity.  Why?  So that the people would fall deeper into their Sin and God could expose them for the Rebels they wanted to be.

(57.17) Here’s how God tells it to Ezechiel in Ezechiel 20, vv 23-25 quote: “Also I swore to them in the Wilderness that I would scatter them among the Nations and disperse them among the Lands because they had not observed My Ordinances but had rejected My Statutes and had profaned my Sabbaths and their eyes were on the Idols of their Fathers.  I also gave them Statutes that were not good and Ordinances by which they could not live.” Unquote.

(58.28) Did you catch that last line?  He says: “I also gave them Statutes that were not good and Ordinances by which they could not live.”

(58.38) The Jews thought that in receiving more Laws they were being Blessed by God because basically they were Law Lovers not God Lovers but God says He gave them Statutes that were not good.  Well that helps answer the question as to whether God would allow Ambiguities in a Non-Infallible, Pastoral and Liberal oriented Council, does it not?

(59.02) As you can see for yourself God is not neutral in these matters.  He takes an Active Role.  If you go into Rebellion He will lay down the Path for you and watch you follow it to your own Destruction.  We are not done yet.  Here is how God accomplished giving them Statutes that were not good and the Ambiguities to go along with them.

(59.26) Remember the conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees about Marriage and Divorce in Matthew 19, vv 1-9 – they asked Jesus if a Man could Divorce his wife quote “For every Cause” Unquote.  Of course, Jesus said “No”, because from the beginning of Creation Men were not to Divorce and re-marry “What God has put together Man could not put asunder.”  So the Pharisees pull out what they think is their ultimate weapon to trap Jesus, the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24, vv 1-4 which gave them permission to divorce.

(1.00.04) But Jesus retorts that the permission for divorce was given because of their quote “Hardness of Hearts” Unquote.  That is their continual sin and rebellion against God.  Isn’t that what we just read in Ezechiel 20, vv 23-25? “Yes.”  Because of their Sins God gave them Statutes that were not good.  From the time of Moses to the time of Jesus Jєωιѕн men were divorcing their wives for every cause based on a Law that was given to them for their Sin.  Sadly everything from the wife making a badly cooked meal to the husband’s interest in another woman was a cause for divorce and Israelite Society suffered dire consequences because of it – seeMalachi Chap. 2, vv 10-17.

(1.00.58) But where did this idea of Divorce for Every Cause originate?  Surely the Jews who were so meticulous about obeying every jot and tittle of the Law would not flirt with this provision so grievously?  Surely the Jews who asked Jesus if Divorce was permitted for every Cause had to have some Precedent for their question?  That they did.

(1.01.22) During Jesus’s day there were two Schools of Thought among the Pharisees regarding Divorce – the School of Hillel, the Liberal faction of Israel at the time, held that Divorce Law of Deuteronomy 24, v.1, allowed Divorce for every Cause.  The School of Shammai, the Traditional faction, held that Divorce was allowed only for Fornication.  Why was there such disparity among those who considered themselves Experts in the Law?  Because…get this…the Law in Deuteronomy was Ambiguous.  It was deliberately made that way because of Israel’s Hardness of Heart in seeking to Divorce their Wives.

(1.02.10)  They wanted Divorce and God let them have it just like he let them have the Quail that poisoned them.

(1.02.12) Here’s the scoop, Deuteronomy 24 v. 1 says that when a man divorces his wife quote “because he has found some indecency in her” unquote “he is to give her a bill of divorcement and send her out of his house.”  As far as it goes this sounds clear but in actuality as all scholars agree it is very ambiguous.

(1.02.39) The phrase - quote “some indecency” unquote – is from the Hebrew words “Erwat Dabar”.  Other Bibles translate it as “Uncleanness”  i.e. in the Douay-Rheims and King James version.  Or “some unseemly thing” the American Standard Version of 1901.  “Something indecent”  the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible.

(1.03.11) Another translation is “something objectionable” in the New Revised Standard Version and “some impropriety” in the New Jerusalem Bible and, finally, “something shameful” in the New Living Translation.

(1.03.34) You can see by the word “something” that no Translator really knows what the phrase means.  Why?  Because in Hebrew it is a very ambiguous phrase created by putting the words in a Grammatical Hebrew structure known as the Construct Form.  The first word when not used in the Construct Form is the word “Erwat” which refers to someone’s nakedness - e.g. Genesis 9.22 or Leviticus 18.6.

(1.04.04) The second word is the common word “Dabar” in Hebrew which refers to a matter or thing.  The Construct Form requires the word to be translated “Nakedness of a thing” or “Nakedness of a matter” . Some might be tempted to translate it as “a matter of nakedness”  but that would be contrary to the Hebrew Construct Form.

(1.04.34) In fact of it was “a matter of nakedness” there wouldn’t be a problem in understanding it since it would be most naturally referring to an act of fornication and the Schools of Hillel and Shamai wouldn’t have had a dispute about its meaning.  Still, since the word “Erwat” refers to nakedness it would be hard for a Hebrew Exegete not to centre a definition around “nakedness” but the problem in defining “Dabar” is further compounded by the fact that it only appears one other time in the Hebrew Old Testament, in a most peculiar place.  InDeuteronomy 23 v. 15 God tells the Israelites that when they need to defecate they are to go outside the camp, dig a hole and do their duty.  God further says they are to do so because – quote – “The Lord walks through the Camp and does not want to see Erwat Dabar” – unquote.

(1.05.35) Here ‘Erwat Dabar’ is associated with ‘unsightly and reeking human excrement’ that would appear distasteful to God.  It does not refer to fornication, at least not directly but merely something unpleasing or distasteful, at least in Deuteronomy 23 v.15.

(1.05.56) The upshot is this no one knew exactly what “Erwat Dabar” meant.  It was a highly Ambiguous Phrase and thus the Jews were divided on its meaning which led many of them to think they could divorce their wives for any reason under the Sun and Boy!  They accepted that Ambiguity like Bees to Honey, at least until the day that Jesus told them the Truth about why the Divorce Law was given but until then the Hillel Liberals of Jesus’s Day interpreted it in the most Liberal fashion they could.  Whereas the Shamai Traditionalists interpreted it in a most conservative way, i.e. in referring only to fornication.

(1.06.39)  The School of Shamai had Tradition on their side since from the Beginning of Time Divorce was permitted for fornication which is why Jesus uses the clause “Except for Fornication” in Matthew 19 v.9 and it is why the Catholic Church allows Divorce for Fornication but not re-marriage regardless of the Mosaic Divorce Law.

(1.07.01) The School of Shamai also had the evidence that when God divorced Israel He said it was for the Reason of her Fornication and Adultery – Jeremiah 3 v.8, Isaias 50 v.1 compare with Ecclesiasticus or Sirach 23 vv.32-33.

(1.07.22) Accordingly Joseph sought to divorce Mary for what he thought was an Act of Infidelity on her partMatthew 1 v.19.  So the circuмstantial evidence leans heavily in favour of the School of Shamai but you could not tell that from the phrase “Erwat Daba” in Deuteronomy 24 v.1 since lexically speaking it was as Ambiguous a phrase as they come.

(1.07.50) As Ambiguous as it was it is astounding that it ruled Israel’s Divorce Courts for 1,400 years until the Coming of Jesus.  Why?  As we saw in Jesus’s explanation to the Pharisees this deliberately Ambiguous Phrase was given to them because of their quote:  “Hardness of Hearts” unquote.  The same Hard Hearts that led them to Worship the Golden Calf, to complain about the Manna, to ask for a King as the other Nations of the World and about three dozen other instances of Sin and Rebellion that I simply don’t have the space to mention.

(1.08.28) Now remember what I have repeated many times in this Essay, the Narratives of the Old Testament were written down for our Instruction and Warning 1st Corinthians 10 vv. 1-12 and Hebrews Chap 3 through Chap. 6.  If one wants to find out what is Happening in the Church all one needs to do is Read the History of Israel to find out for what is Past is Prologue regarding the Sins of Men.  That is the Principal Reason the Old Testament is so valuable to us today.

(1.09.00) So let us answer the question one more time: Is it possible for God to have Allowed Ambiguities in Vatican Council II?

(1.09.09) Well in Israel we see God Himself saying in Ezechiel 20.25 that He gave them Statutes that were not good and we see in Deuteronomy 24 v.1 that He allowed the deliberately Ambiguous Phrase “Erwat Dabar” to Rule Israel’s Divorce Courts even against His own established Laws put in place since the time Adam and Eve.  I believe the same is True of Vatican II.

(1.09.40) This Non-Infallible, Non-Dogmatic Pastoral Experiment was Ruled by Liberals from Start to Finish saved only from Blatant Heresy from some behind the scenes work from a Few Concerned Bishops and Cardinals.

(1.09.54) The Liberals did not want to hear the Negative Message of Fatima, they wanted Ecuмenism.  They did not want to preach the Gospel of Sin and Hell, they wanted to be sophisticated and worldly like the Nations around them.

(1.10.08) Most of all they wanted to demote Scripture’s Authority so they could have the Freedom to live their lives the way they desired.  You see what was really behind the Liberals attempt to say that Scripture contained Errors was the Desire to remove Scripture from its uncompromising edicts against such things as ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, Divorce and Re-Marriage, the Limited Role of Women in the Church and many other things.

(1.10.33) Let me tell you something “We aren’t seeing a large proportion of our Bishops and Priests as ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs today, or Women playing Priests upon our Altars, or Couples receiving Annulments at Will, or about a Dozen other Debaucheries today just by Happenstance”.  These are all the results of a Re-interpretation of Scripture based on the Liberal Consensus stemming from the Ambiguity in Vatican II docuмents that Scripture is prone to Error, contains Cultural Biases and narrow minded perspectives and, in some cases, Downright Bigotry.

(1.11.10) Today’s Liberals now claim, for example, that the New Testament is quote: “Anti-Semitic” unquote and that the Pharisees were actually good people who were given a bad rap by the Ignorant Apostles.

(1.11.24) They can claim these things because as they interpret Dei Verbum 11 of Vatican Scripture is only inerrant when it touches on Matters of Salvation, not on Matters of Culture, sɛҳuąƖ Relations, Civility, Worship, Politics, Social Law etc…

(1.11.44) And, of course, the Liberal back up their claims by saying that Scripture is also prone to Error in Matters of Science including, Psychology, Biology or any other Modern Discipline thus if Modern Science claims that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is caused by Genetic Pre-disposition rather than as Scripture claims the Individuals Free Will to Obey or Disobey God then Science Trumps Scripture since in regards to DNA, Chromosones and Genes Scripture is way out of its Parameters of Inerrancy.

(1.12.23) You see St Paul when he condemned ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as a Damnable Sin was way beyond his Expertise for only when he spoke about Salvation was he guarded by Inerrancy.  Paul had no recourse to Modern Science and, therefore, he had no way of knowing about Genetic Predispositions to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.  This is the kind of Garbage that is being taught in our Catholic Seminaries today thanks to all the Liberals coming out of Vatican II and the Ambiguities they forced upon it.

(1.12.54) But in the Final Analysis the Ambiguities, the Re-interpretations of Scripture, the attempt to change Catholic Doctrine is all permitted by God for their Hardness of Hearts and eventuality it will serve as the Evidence He needs to judge and condemn them as was the case with the School of Hillel’s presumptuous interpretation of the Mosaic Law there is no precedent in History for the Liberals to interpret the Ambiguities of Vatican II in their favour but in their blindness they have done so and to their own destruction.

(1.13.28) The Traditionalists, on the other hand, will still interpret Vatican II’s docuмents the same way the Church has always interpreted the Church’s Truth as Doctrines that cannot change and will not change no matter what Heirs of Authority some presume for themselves to change them.  It will not change because simply it is not their’s to change.