Summary

    This study concerns the current crisis in the Church. To this end, some specific aspects are firstly elucidated in an introduction, and is followed by a problem analysis to clarify the root cause of the crisis. One of the fundamental symptoms is identified as a misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church, i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ. This fundamental symptom is like a two-edged sword because both orders can be over- and underestimated. From this, the root cause or heresy can be recognized as a lack of sincere belief in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and no or insufficient adherence to it as Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, understanding this aspect of the Creed needs to be confirmed, deepened and strengthened in the way the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople did concerning the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity respectively. This should be done according Pope John XXIIIrd's call in his announcement of the Council: "through clarity of thought, through the solidarity of religious unity, through the living flame of Christian fervor" [1]!

    This problem probably goes back to the original era of the schism between East and West, and can only be adequately addressed and solved by developing a deeper understanding of the Faith regarding the Mystical Body of Christ. What is to be understood with the Mystical Body of Christ in relation to the Body of Christ sacrificed on the Cross, which is perfect and unique to which nothing can be added? Is Christ's Mystical Body supernaturally one and the same as the unique Body of the historical Christ in a way like the Eucharist is the Sacrificial Body of Christ? How the Mystical Body of Christ does participates together with the Sacrificial Body of Christ in the unique and perfect Sacrifice of the historical Christ? These questions are addressed in conclusion together with a discussion on some consequences in the Closure.

Content

1    Introduction
2    Problem Analysis
2.1   The Divided Church
2.2   Hidden Underlying Motivation
2.3   Common Symptom
3    Root Cause
4    Conclusion
4.1   General
4.2   Mystical Body of Christ
4.3   Peter
5    Closure
5.1   Some Observations
5.2   Christ's Imprisonment
5.3   Peter's Denial of Christ
5.4   Paving the Road to the Cross
6    Appendices
6.1   Appendix 1, Division within the Church
6.2   Appendix 2, Introducing Ambiguities
6.3   Appendix 3, Breaking the Rules
6.4   Appendix 4, Pope John XXIII praising the Preparatory Documents
6.5   Appendix 5, Accusing the Church
6.6   Appendix 6, Shortening De Fontibus
7    References

The Actual Church Crisis, a Problem Analysis

Jack P. Oostveen

1    Introduction

    When we survey the Church today, the actual situation is clearly marked by a myriad of symptoms indicating that the Church is in a real state of "crisis". Any real crisis in the Church is always the result of a heresy which needs to be identified and refuted. Therefore, we should not just complain about and treat the symptoms, but instead, we should analyse, define and refute the underlying heresy itself, which is the real root cause of the "crisis". After identification of the root cause, and only through a deeper understanding of the Faith can the underlying heresy be successfully refuted and combatted.

    In general, any phenomenon can be considered from different points of view. This also applies to the current crisis in the Church. Exploiting my background as a qualified practicing and scientific engineer, this study is based on an engineering approach to problem solving and analysis. Any complex problem, even the current crisis in the Church, must be approached systematically and with a well-founded problem analysis to identify the root cause. This must be done in a broader context than just that of one's own field, to find the right way to solve the problem. For an analysis to be valid, it must not be limited to the first or even second level of abstraction, which only exposes more symptoms. A well-founded problem analysis requires digging deeper to find the common cause of the various symptoms (the root cause) and the truth about the underlying problem. At the same time, the connections between the various symptoms by which the problem has been manifested also become visible.

    It should be noted that treating symptoms alone will not solve the problem, as this will just worsen the crisis, as has been the case within the Church over the past few centuries.

    Let us remind ourselves that theology is "the science of God", based on Divine Revelation. The purpose of theology is deepening our understanding of Divine Revelation, i.e. our Faith [2]. Divine Revelation was actively revealed by Christ to and through His Apostles until the death of the last Apostle. This Divine Revelation was firstly passed on orally and by example of Christ to the Apostles. Subsequently it was passed on by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles both orally and in writing as well as by their examples exclusively in the early Catholic and Apostolic Church. After the death of the last Apostle the Divine Revelation is preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Catholic and Apostolic Church concerning the examples of the Apostles, their oral as well as their written words. Therefore, after the apostolic era, deeper understanding of Divine Revelation could only growth through enlightenment from the Holy Spirit as a theological "organic growth" exclusively within the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it cannot contradict itself.

    This process of (theological) science, however, is essentially a human search for deepening the Truth through reason and logic and feeding the devotional love to God. Therefore, it is subjected to the free will of man. It is therefore open to human imperfections and shortcomings, such as pride, prejudice and focusing on only one aspect with the danger to ignore or even to deny other aspects, which hinders Divine Inspiration. But as a science its methods should fundamentally be based on the process of "organic growth" like any other (natural) science. Therefore, if through human imperfection this process of deepening went wrong or failed it will consequently result in an incorrect understanding of Divine Revelation. And if this is neither identified nor sufficiently corrected by the Church it will lead sooner or later to a "crisis" within the Church.

    Due to these recognized human imperfections Christ gave His authority to Peter, to lead the Church and to affirm his brethren in their faith. This includes the Magisterium (1) to protect the Faith from false beliefs or heresies, and (2) as a good shepherd to his sheep protecting the faithful from confusion. Among other things, this also means controlling and judging theological research. To this end, the Pope has the authority to institute an Office to assist him in this executive magisterial role whereas he himself decides. Such actions cannot be done by theologians themselves. Moreover the resistance and even the attacks by the theologians against the Holy Office, like it happened before and during the Secod Vatican Council, are in fact acts against the Pope's Magisterium [28].

    While each "crisis" in the Church can be recognised by different symptoms, the underlying root cause is always a false understanding of the Truth, i.e. Divine Revelation. In each case the specific underlying false understanding of Divine Revelation or heresy must be identified and refuted to solve the problem.

    This document is a follow-up to earlier analyses of the Second Vatican Council, its hermeneutic and the Liturgical reform. Starting with the introduction here in chapter 1, subsequently the Problem Analysis in chapter 2 and identifying the root cause in chapter 3. Chapter 4 and chapter 5 present the conclusions and discusses some consequences, while chapter 6 contains several supporting appendices from the mentioned earlier analyses. .

2    Problem Analysis

2.1    The Divided Church

    From the analyses of the Second Vatican Council, its practice and its aftermath regarding the hermeneutical crisis and the liturgical crisis, a similar division within the Church can be observed (cf Appendix 1). Both these crises have their roots from the era before the Council. This can only mean that there must be a common underlying root cause from before the Council which has led to the divisions which Pope John XXIII warned of in his Announcement of the Council in 1959: ".. they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars" [1].

     These actual divisions within the Church is therefore the common symptom resulting from an underlying root cause. And because the attitude of man is the mirror of man's mind, to determine and identify the root cause, the symptoms must be analysed for their common character and motives. Here we must also distinguish between the fundamental free will of man as created by God and the actual underlying motives. While free will essentially concerns the intention behind why and how one is acting, the intention is also either of good or of bad will. In addition, despite an intended good will, one can be innocently misled and blinded by multiple reasons that cause what is objectively a bad motive is seen as good and ultimately admit the mistake and suffer remorsefully from its consequences. On the other hand, one can also convert after being at first ill-willed, while it is impossible to rectify past deeds about which he will suffer consciously and repentantly. Only our Good Lord knows the true intentions. This search for the actual motives is not intended to be judgemental, but to find their common character.

    To assist further in this analysis, the underlying common motives must be considered. Here are a restricted number of questions to help with this:

1. What was the motivation behind preferring a fallible interpretation of a manuscript found by archaeological research, such as the Didache, in place of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition of the Church, in redefining the Holy Mass? Note that the Didache is a non-apostolic text written by (an) anonymous author(s) and was lost for centuries before it was re-discovered in 1873 as an 11^th century, unique manuscript (1056) and republished in 1883. And as such, the provenance of this document is then dated somewhere between 50 and 150 AD. It is from this non-canonical document the Liturgical Movement developed a theory that suggestively redefined the Holy Mass into a memorial meal [3, p54; 4, p18; 5, p11; 6, p21]. This is despite Fortescue [7, p5-6] and even Jungmann [5, p10-11] acknowledging that this theory cannot be found in the Holy Scripture at all. This is an act of pride against the preserving and protecting guidance of the Holy Spirit!
2. What was the motivation for knowingly misleading the Church by introducing deliberately (embryonic) ambiguities into the Liturgical (preparatory) document (cf Appendix 2) instead of maintaining a "clarity of thought" as required by Pope John XXIII [1]? Why was the real intention to redefine the H. Mass after the Council hidden by introducing these (embryonic) ambiguities? Why a redefinition of the Sacred Liturgy in a way that goes back to a hypothetical assumption how it would have been in the early Church by which the entire historical preservation of the Sacred Tradition of the Liturgy and its devotions by the Holy Spirit were putting aside into a dustbin? This urge to ignore and eliminate Sacred Tradition should actually be recognized in the words of Pope Francis as truly backwardism and indietrism! This clearly is an act of pride against the preserving and protecting guidance of the Holy Spirit!
3. What is the motivation behind a deliberate manipulation of the Council through a chain of acts that violated the Council's legal framework and then claiming that this would be a humble and gracious collaboration with the Holy Spirit to replace the preparatory documents (cf Appendix 3)? This claim is clearly in contrast with the three years of divinely inspired preparations as praised by Pope John XXIII "a first sign of the work of the Holy Spirit" (cf Appendix 4). Because the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, this chain of deliberately unlawful acts is certainly not the way the Holy Spirit inspired. This is truly a conspiracy against "the solidarity of religious unity and the living flame of Christian fervor" as required by Pope John XXIII [1]. Subsequently, what was the motivation behind the deliberately introduced ambiguities in the newly written council documents for re-interpreting them after the Council [8; 9, #50]? Why were these motives deliberately hidden behind ambiguities instead of being presented with "clarity of thought" as required by Pope John XXIII? And these too are acts of pride and distrust against the preserving and protecting guidance of the Holy Spirit!
4. What is the motivation of those supporting the hermeneutic of "renewal through of reform in discontinuity and rupture", suggesting that the Second Vatican Council rejects the Church prior to the Council, its structure, its teaching, its ministry and its liturgy [9, #53]? Why this striving for a renewal of the Church by a reform that considered the Church of the early times of Christianity was the perfect one? This is, in the words of Pope Francis, true backwardism and indietrism. Once again this may be considered an act of pride and distrust against the preserving and protecting guidance of the Holy Spirit!

    By missing the "clarity of thought, the solidarity of religious unity" and the "living flame of Christian fervor" as Pope John XXIIII had called for [1], objectively, all these motives involve a fundamental lack of trust in or even a conscious denial of the guaranteed everlasting supernatural protection and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church. This includes the (historical) development of our understanding of the Truth through "organic growth" as well as the structure, the teachings, the ministry of the Church and its liturgy (including devotions) throughout the centuries. In addition, some accuse the Church of being responsible for the various schisms and "all the evils in the world" (cf Appendix 5). This clearly sounds like a denial of the sacred and supernatural nature and character of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

    While the material existence of the Church as Mystical Body of Christ consists of (1) the Militant Church with the actual living Pope leading the fight against sin, (2) the Suffering Church that atones for its sin, and (3) the Triumphant Church that has triumphed over sin, the true form of the Church as Mystical Body of Christ has fundamentally a supernatural and a spiritual nature, namely Christ Himself. Although members of the Militant Church are individually sinners along with all other sinners in the world, they are mandated to use their free will and with the aim of the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments given by Christ to fight against, to atone for, and ultimately to triumph over their sins, while the Church as Mystical Body of Christ is and remains innocent, because Christ is without sin.

2.2    The Hidden Motivation

    In contrast, however, some consider the Church as merely an anthropological and sociological institution and community, they do not consider its supernatural nature while some go so far that they deliberately deny it. Therefore, they project the sin of the world onto the Mystical Body of Christ and wish to reform the Church, its structure, its teaching, its ministry and its liturgy into a merely secular institution. Could this perhaps be the hidden underlying core motivation in answer to all the questions posed above?

    Those who choose the material world and consider only the natural and secular aspect of the Church, are rejecting the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. They also deny that the Mystical Body of Christ is the mystical innocent "Lamb of God", thereby scapegoating the Church in place of the false worldly ideologies, especially the "errors of Russia" that offers the world a better life with freedom from morality and spirituality and for which Our lady of Fatima warned. This is analogous with and like what the "Children of Israel" did at the trial of Jesus prior to His Crucifixion when they denounced Him as their Scapegoat in place of Barabbas, who was a fighter for the worldly freedom of Israel. Mystically, both scapegoating actions can supernaturally be seen as one and the same. What should this mean and imply?

    And even if we suppose that those involved were all blindly misled, but essentially of good will and loving Christ, this is a clear manifestation of a misunderstanding how the Holy Spirit guides and preserves the Church. This even touches the meaning of the Credo's "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

2.3    The Common Symptom

    Do we observe here the fundamental common symptom regarding to the current "crisis" in the Church:

    It is precisely this lack of true faith and misunderstanding that is behind the actual striving for a renewal of the Church by a reform of the Doctrine through the Pastoral Care as well as a reform of the Liturgy, which amounts to a reform of the entire "Mystical Body of Christ". To this end, ambiguously and as a novelty the institution of mental and physical healthy emeriti was proposed to Pope Paul VI and subsequently instituted by him. Due to this institution the resistance against the introduced novelties by the elderly priests could easily be suppressed.

    This all came forth from the hijack of the Second Vatican Council during its first General Meeting on October 13^th 1962, (cf Appendix 3) and continued among others through the introduction of the hermeneutics of "renewal, .." [12], which was a deliberate novelty introduced after the Council to interpret the ambiguities placed into the Council's documents in contrast to the intention of the majority of the Council Fathers.

    This crucial misunderstanding of the dual nature of the Church and deliberate obfuscation of the Truth is on the one hand in complete contrast with Christ's personal call to conversion for every individual human person. And on the other hand this evidently concerns both the hermeneutical and the Liturgical crises respectively.

The hermeneutical crisis

1. The main task of Peter and the Church is to convert all of humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ by preaching the Gospel and baptising them (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark. 16:15-16; Acts 1:8). A striving for a renewal of the Church by a reform of its structure, its doctrine, its ministry and its liturgy, as if the Church is established and owned by its members, is a clear disorder concerning the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders.
2. A renewal of the Church after a Council should be understood as a good and true spiritual gift from the Holy Spirit if it would be carried out in a way as specified by Pope John XXIII [1]: "through clarity of thought, through the solidarity of religious unity, and through the living flame of Christian passion" by "doctrinal confirmation and wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline". Evidently, the Church cannot strive to create a renewal by itself. This is a clear disorder concerning the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders. And because the Council lacks precisely that "clarity of thought" and "doctrinal confirmation" [1] through the removal of the Preparatory documents and deliberately introduced ambiguities into the final documents, the gift of a renewal as Pope John XXIII expected, will never be granted
3. A reform of the Church i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ [11] can only be initiated by the Holy Spirit through a deeper understanding of Faith and Doctrine, as was done in the past through the refutation of heresies. Development of and gaining a deeper understanding can never depart from or even reject the Church of the earlier ages, otherwise it is not a deepening at all but a clear manifestation of the denial of the supernatural nature of the Church. Moreover any valid reform should be an organic growth, with a character as specified by Pope John XXIII as "in unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Fathers" [10].

    Note that by analogy "continuity" can be likened to that of a trajectory or path following straight or curved lines. And because a curved line always diverges from a straight line, when starting from the same point, the type and direction of "continuity" must always be well defined ab initio. This Pope John XXIII did very well and clearly at the start of Vatican II, by mandating a straight-line path of continuity following and maintaining the direction of Sacred Tradition [1]. The "continuity" defined solely by "organic growth", as used by Pope Benedict XVI, lacks such a clear definition of "continuity" [12] by which it can potentially diverge in any direction as well as in "continuity" with the original straight line i.e. the Sacred Tradition of the Church prior to Vatican II. However, a striving for a "renewal" is in contradiction with this latter interpretation of "continuity", because this "renewal" can only be a gift by the Holy Spirit.

    So, both forms of the hermeneutic of "renewal, .. " are ambiguous novelties, based on a clear misunderstanding of the protecting and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church, particularly the supernatural and divine aspects regarding its nature as the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Liturgical crisis

    In accordance with the theory proclaimed by the mainstream theologians of the Liturgical Movement from at least the early twentieth century up to the Second Vatican Council, the origin of the H. Mass in the first century is considered as distinguishable into two parts, namely (1) the ordinary synaxis of the Synagogue [55, p43; 56, p44; 57, p392; 59, p6, p70] and (2) the Last Supper, with the nucleus of the Eucharist proper [56, p18; 57, p11; 58, p21; 59, p54]. They refer to an assumed practice of the H. Mass in the "Primitive" Church founded on "interpretations" of Liturgical fragments from the first Centuries. And under the header "Meaning of the Mass - the Mass and the Church" (1948) [57, p175-195] Fr. Jungmann argued "the Eucharistic institution does more than commemorate our Saviour" and By referring to Fr. De la Taille (1921) [57, p182 note 2] he considered that the H. Mass refers to both, the "Sacrifice of Christ" and the "Sacrifice of the Church", at which "the (Last Supper) meal is a sufficiently striking proof of that" the participation of the Church as the "Sacrifice of the Church" [7, p179]. With this novelty they divided the full commemoration of Christ into a commemoration of Christ and a commemoration of the Church i.e. the Faithful with all potential abuses this latter will entails. This is in very contrast to Christ's Institution "Do this in memory of me" and therefore had led to the Liturgical Crisis.

    But what does it mean: the "Sacrifice of the Church", when the Church is the "Mystical Body of Christ" [511, #81-84]. The "Sacrifice of the Church" is then supernaturally included in the "Sacrifice of Christ" and as such the Church is fully participating in any H. Mass' Sacrifice, independent of the number of faithful attended that particular H. Mass. Therefore the suggested meal-option is not only unnecessary for a participation of the Church in the H. Mass. In fact it denies the Church's participation, especially the "Church Militant", in the ">i>Body of Christ". Apparently, this is precisely a clear misunderstanding of the protecting and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church, particularly the supernatural and divine aspects regarding its nature as the Mystical Body of Christ.

    Moreover, Christ was born to fulfil the entire Law from the innocent Lamb of God, born in the Stable of David, towards the end as appointed by the "Children of Israel" to be sacrificed as Scapegoat on the Cross being the climax of the fulfilment. Therefore the institution of the H. Eucharist by Christ "Do this in memory of me" cannot be understand as something else than being that the Holy Mass is the Sacrifice of Christ.

    See also Chapter 4.2 and for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/liturgical_crisis.html).

3    Root cause

    While this study principally meant to be a non-theological engineering approach to a problem analysis of the current crisis within the Roman Catholic Church, the result appears to have a strong similarity with the theological analysis described by Cardinal Siri in 1981 [2]. He showed how the theology of three of the most influential theologians of the "New Theology" at the Council, namely Karl Rahner, Henry de Lubac and Maritain more generally were subject to:

    The supernatural character of the Church is inherent due to its institution by Christ our Lord and includes the guaranteed everlasting supernatural protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. This protection and guidance not only covers its structure, teachings, ministry and liturgy, but also its natural order and material existence in the world as manifested by its human members, who are all sinners.

    The fundamental statement of our Faith in the creed "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" is crucial concerning the Root Cause of the crisis of the Church:

    Therefore, like the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople which deepened and strengthened Creed regarding the second and the third Persons of the Trinity, this aspect of our Faith in the Church as Mystical Body of Christ, needs to be deepened and strengthened too, to resolve the present crisis in the Church.

    Note that, this root cause is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the true distinction between the natural and supernatural orders, which is like a two-edged sword that touches both sides. On one side, there are those who overestimate the natural over the supernatural order, such as the 16^th century Reformation did, and on the other side, there are those who overestimate the supernatural over the natural order, such as Ultramontanism does. Obviously, in essence, the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, respectively, only treated these direct symptoms, while the root cause remains untreated. This just worsens the crisis, as is the case within the Church over the past few centuries, and probably even much longer, going back to the great Schism between East and West.

4    Conclusion

4.1   General

    This study concerns a problem analysis of the current crisis in the Church. To this end, the root cause is identified as 'a lack of sincere belief in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and no adherence to it'. This root cause has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church, i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ. This root cause is like a two-edged sword, because within this relationship both orders can be over- and underestimated respectively. The actual crisis should be solved by analysing the true balance between the natural and supernatural orders of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

    The analysis shows that it is an age-old problem which Trent and Vatican I had only touched on symptoms when compared with the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Both those Councils had deepened the Creed in more detail with respect to the "organic growth" of the understanding of the second and the third Persons of the Holy Trinity. However further deepening of the Creed in case of our belief in the Church especially as the "Mystical Body of Christ" by which this problem continues to persist and proliferate and should be addressed in more detail.

    This problem, therefore, can only be adequately addressed and solved by working for a deeper understanding of the Faith regarding the "Mystical Body of Christ". To aid and assist in this work of deepening our understanding, some important aspects are suggested below which may be helpful to good willing theologians in the Church whose first task it is to work on how to solve this crisis by analysing and helping to resolve the true balance between the natural and supernatural orders of the Church. Only by arguing from a position of Truth can the lies be refuted.

4.2   Mystical Body of Christ

    Primarily the historical Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is perfect and unique. So, what can the Church as His Mystical Body add to it if this historical Sacrifice is perfect and unique? This can only mean that the Sacrifice of Christ's Mystical Body and His historical Body must be considered supernaturally as one and the same Sacrifice. Therefore, the sufferings of individual faithful offered through the "Mystical Body of Christ" is supernaturally united in the historical Sacrifice of Christ as well as the Sacramental Sacrifice of Christ, each time the H.Mass is celebrated [11, #81-#84].

    As the Holy Revelation speaks about (1) the Historical, (2) the Sacramental and (3) the Mystical "Body of Christ", whereas Christ is one, unique and undivided. In addition to the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Mystical Corporus Christi (1943) that concerns the "Militant Church" mainly, this would mean that the several expressions of the "Body of Christ" must supernaturally be one and the same, unique "Body of Christ". And as such the Church would be fully participating in the entire historical life of Christ, including His last week of suffering, His Sacrifice on the Cross, His death as well as His Resurrection and Ascension.

    Notice that all these distinctions of the "Body of Christ" were materially taken from the world in a similar way after they were firstly dedicated to God before becoming "Body of Christ" with one and the same spiritual form, Christ Himself. First of all, the "Historical Body of Christ" was taken from the Holy Virgin Mary, as prepared by the Holy Spirit. Through her free will she dedicated her body by offering her virginity to God. Secondly the "Sacramental Body of Christ" is taken from the world as prepared by the Holy Spirit through the unleavened bread at the Last Supper that stands for being unblemished. As such, it is dedicated to God each time at the H. Mass, when the Priest firstly offers "Bread and Wine" to God at the Offertory, by which this "Bread and Wine" is prepared for becoming the "Sacramental Body of Christ" through the Consecration, and offered "In Personna Christi" by the Priest. Thirdly, the "Mystical Body of Christ" is taken from the world too, when man prepared and inspired by the Holy Spirit dedicates themselves by free will to God through the Baptism becoming a member of the "Mystical Body of Christ".

    In addition to these similarities, the "historical Body of Christ" can also be distinguished by (1) His historical Body walking on earth before His Death on the Cross, (2) His historical Body in His grave and (3) His historical Body in Heaven after His glorious Resurrection and Ascension. While a similar distinction can be made regarding the "Mystical Body of Christ", namely (1) the Militant Church on earth with the actual living Pope leading the fight against sin, (2) the Suffering Church in "Purgatory" that atones for its sins and (3) the Triumphant Church in Heaven that has triumphed over sin.

    And as mentioned in chapter 2.1, while the members of the Militant Church are individual sinners along with all other sinners in the world, they are mandated by their free will with the grace and enlightenment from the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments given by Christ to fight against, atone for, and ultimately to triumph over their sins, while the Church itself as "Mystical Body of Christ" is and remains innocent, because Christ Himself is without sin.

    Consequently, this will mean that regarding Christ's perfect and unique Sacrifice on the Cross, His death and His resurrection, the Church as His "Mystical Body" once will supernaturally participate in these events too. While in the current era the Church is accused by many for being the source of all evil through its Doctrine and Ministry, its exclusively male celibate priestly hierarchical structure, its contemplation, its pastoral care as well as for the sin of its members, etc. This supernatural participation of the Church in Christ's historical life can currently be observed in how the "Mystical Body of Christ" is considered as Scapegoat.

    Additionally, it seems that the current era of confusion as manifested after the Second Vatican Council is very likely the confusion of the Apostles and other followers of Christ when He handed Himself over to be crucified. A confusion caused by a misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and supernatural order of Christ by the Apostles as well as of His Mystical Body currently. A confusion that is currently originated with Second Vatican Council. On the one hand had led to a rejection of the pre-Vatican II Church in favour of a renewed one through a worldly movement to reform the Church like the "Synodal Way". On the other hand had led to a situation by which many people choose for the worldwide left-liberal ideology based on the "errors of Russia", which claims to free the world from slavery of Truth and morality. This is most likely a participation in the historically and unique event in which the "Children of Israel" charged Christ as their "Scapegoat" and choose Barabbas representing the worldly fight for the freedom of Israel.

4.3   Peter

    In addition, a lack of proper understanding, a misunderstanding or even a denial of the supernatural order of the "Mystical Body of Christ", may concern the understanding of Peter, who deliberately denied Christ three times, although he was warned for it. Despite knowledge of the weaknesses in Simon's character, Christ had appointed him as Peter on whom He would build His Church. Christ could do so because He also knew in advance Peter's good will, how he loved Him, how he would convert and consciously and remorsefully suffered after he realised how he had denied knowing Christ by free will.

    Similarly, Christ, as head of His Mystical Body, knows all the "ins and outs" of each candidate Pope, their characters, their past actions, their strengths, their weaknesses, their fears, their blind spots and how easily they can deny knowing Christ by free, but misled will. But he also knows their good will, how they loves Him and how they will conscious and remorseful suffer for Him, just like He knew Peter. Of course, he knows this even before a candidate pope has been chosen by the divinely enlightened free will of the cardinals. In this way, Christ supernaturally appoints His Vicar, in accordance with participation in His Mystical Life on earth. In doing this, Christ uses the weakness of the natural order to reveal the greatness of the supernatural order. He does this by guiding His Church through history by the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in a similar manner to His Historical Body, consistently respecting the Pope's free will.

    Here two more questions arises on the subject of Divine Inspiration by the Holy Spirit and the free will of the Popes, namely:

1.     Firstly, can a Pope elected by divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit deny by free will to know Christ, like Peter did.
   It is Christ who had allowed Simon by his free will to deny Him three times at the moment Christ was imprisoned and standing before the Sanhedrin, despite He had called Simon from the first meeting on "Cephas", which means "Peter" ("Rock") (John 1:42). Above all, Christ had explicitly appointed Simon as being the "Rock" on which He would build His Church (Matt. 16:18), He had specifically prayed for him (Luke 22:32) and had warned him for it (Luke 22:31,34), even a few hours before he did so.
       So, what about a Pope, as successor of Peter, can Christ allow a Pope to deny knowing Him by his free will, likewise Peter denied Christ? Is a Pope as successor of Peter more than Peter or is his free will imprisoned by the Holy Spirit by which he cannot reject or contradict the Divine Inspiration by free will? When Christ prayed for Peter and warned him "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. .. Simon, that your faith may not fall. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32), how the more will this be valid for the Popes. Furthermore where was Peter when Christ walked the Via Dolorosa, bearing the Cross and was then crucified? And wasit not the case that St. Paul had to correct Peter too? Therefore, a Pope who in his love for Christ, through his free, but misguided will is (partially) blind to the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and surrounds himself with heretical advisors who do not hesitate to manipulate him, with all the consequences that entails, can deny to know Christ. And of course Christ can continuously make use of the good, but misguided free will of such Pope because he knows his love for Him and his conscientious and remorseful suffering and conversion all like Peter did (Lk 22:62).
       The dogmatic Doctrine promulgated at the First Vatican Council against Ultramontanism makes clear that the infallible word of a Pope is indeed restricted so that the above described situation is not necessarily excluded [13, p581-p587]. And therefore, despite knowing Christ, a Pope, being misled and (partially) blind to the Divine Inspiration, is able to deny knowing Christ like Peter did, but appointed by Christ as His Vicar, he will convert and consciously and remorsefully suffer in his love for Christ, like Peter did (Luke 22:32, John 21:15-17). Just as in the historical moment of Peter's denial occurred shortly before Christ's condemnation and crucifixion, one might also expect this phenomenon will play a role in the end times, with the mystical body of Christ paricipating in Christ's unique Sacrifice on the cross.
2.     Secondly, how can the prophesized Antichrist "reign on the seat of Peter" if any Pope is supernaturally chosen by Christ through the election by the Cardinals with the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
   What about this? Isn't this that then someone is "reigning on the seat of Peter" who is not chosen by Christ as His Substitute? But how can that happen? Speculatively and seemingly be logically, it must be asked, how can a Pope be unlawfully elected? Isn't it that through a misunderstanding of the supernatural nature of the Mystical Body of Christ also the supernatural nature of the Papacy is misunderstood? Isn't it that the Pope as successor of Peter and Substitute of Christ is one, unique and undivided person? What does it mean when a resigned Pope kept the "Munus of Peter" for himself and leaved his successor the "Ministerium of Peter" only? Isn't it a consequence that such successor, in fact, only is validly elected as "Vicar" of the "Vicar of Christ", while objectively the unlawfully resigned Pope still is the "Vicar of Christ"? But as being the "Vicar" of the "Vicar of Christ", he serves our respect as would he be the Pope himself. And after the death of the unlawfully resigned Pope isn't he still the valid appointed "Vicar" of the "Vicar of Christ" formally handling the current affairs only, but without the specific divine inspiration that belongs to the "Munus of Peter"? Does he then, by completely misguidedly striving for the "renewal in discontinuity and rupture" of the Church into a unlawfully Form contrary to the institution by Christ? Could this be the way in which Christ leads His Mystical Body, the Church, to participate in His Sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary? Be that as it may, His Mystical Body will also rise with Christ and all people of goodwill will be gathered in Him.

5    Closure

5.1   Some Observations

    From the misunderstanding of the natural and supernatural order of the Mystical Body of Christ the following has been observed as similarity between the current state of the Church and the last days of Christ.

    Firstly, it seems that the current era of confusion is very likely the confusion of the Apostles and other followers of Christ when He handed Himself over to be crucified.

    Secondly, the Mystical Body of Christ is considered as Scapegoat. It is accused by many for being the source of all evil through its Doctrine, its exclusively male celibate priestly hierarchical structure, its contemplation, its pastoral care as well as for the sin of its members, etc. All this can be considered as a participation in the historically and unique event in which the Children of Israel charged Christ as their Scapegoat and choose Barabbas representing the worldly fight for the freedom of Israel.

    The following shows more similarities between the current situation of the Church and the last days of Christ. Like Christ's imprisonment, Peter's denial of Christ and the paving of the road to the Cross.

5.2   Christ's Imprisonment?

    Pope John XXIII certainly showed his good will through his 1959 Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram when he condemned all those who deny the Revealed Truth of God or obstruct it by spreading lies or apparently well designed [14]. In the same year Pope John XXIII had also announced the Council [1] and commissioned the preparatory documents. However, in 1960, when he opened the supernatural message of Our Lady of Fatima as ordered by Our Lady of Fatima, he rejected this message as not intended for him and this era. He did so, although the specific order not to open before 1960, should indicate that it must have been specifically intended for this era. Was Pope John XXIII misled here, by which he was blind to the intent of this supernatural message and can such a rejection remain without consequences?

    Subsequently, at the end of the preparatory period and at the beginning of the Council, Pope John XXIII was deceived at least three times. First (1) on the preparatory document of the Liturgy (cf Appendix 2), then (2) on the irregular actions during the first general assembly of the Council (cf Appendix 3) and finally (3) on the withdrawal of the dogmatic preparatory document De Fontibus (cf Appendix 6). In order of the preparatory document De Fontibus he formulated a strict order to the mixed committee he had appointed. It had to be rewritten by shortening De Fontibus: "everyone knows full well that the same teaching was already presented by the Trident Council and Vatican I" [15, p94]. However a majority of this mixed commission had voted for the following statement by which they deluded Pope John XXIII: "and everything should be omitted from it that says, suggests or denies that the Holy Scripture does not reach as far as tradition and that separates scripture and tradition from one another" [16, p246, p259]. Each time Pope John XXIII was deceived, he showed his good will by taking countermeasures, except regarding to this last one, because of his death. But in this latter case, finally, Pope Paul VI intervened on this subject on January 1964 [16, p400, p412], which finally after a long period of resistance became the following text proposed by Pope Paul VI himself: "Consequently, it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about all the points of revelation", October 1965 [16, p403/409); 18, p407/8].

    With the exception of measures against Fr. Bugnini personally, Pope John XXIII took no countermeasures against those who had deceived him, but only measures to eliminate or minimize the consequences of these deceptive actions. However, these measures turned out to have been insufficient and therefore inadequate. This has led to much confusion among the Council Fathers, priests and faithful of goodwill. While, on the other hand, those who reject the Church prior to the Council considered this as a confirmation to go on for the renewal of the Church by a reform after their ideas. They did so, mostly with the aim of the confused and misled ones of good will. Here it can postulate that may be due to the rejection of the supernatural message of Our Lady of Fatima by his free will, the Divine Inspiration for efficient measures was missing here. Although it is only one witness, it must be mentioned that Jean Guitton - the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council - claimed that Pope's John XXIII last words on his deathbed were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council". Was this the reaction of Pope John XXIII, now after the third case of deception? Anyway, it was too late, because his successor, Pope Paul VI, continued the Council. And the fact remains that Pope John XXIII did not sign a single document of the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, it is also a fact that the optimistic expectations of Pope John XXIII were based on the contents of the Preparatory Documents that one by one were rejected and replaced. Moreover, the memory of Pope John XXII was completely abused by creating a false mystical image of him. To this point, it was only a few month after the closure of the Council, Spring 1966, by a letter to Fr Herbert Schauf, Fr Sebastiaan Tromp S.J reported about a private audience at which Pope Paul VI had expressed his concern about the situation in the whole Church: "a dangerous relativism, a false mystic about Pope John XXIII, nobody is listening to the voice of Pope Paul VI, a crisis of the celibacy, a false forming of the public opinion and a spirit of Council that has been replaced by a spirit of some Extremists" [?, p118].

    Did Christ, who had taken in advantage of the weakness in the character of Pope John XXIII in respect of his misguided free will, allow here the imprisonment of His Mystical Body by the rebellious spirit that want to renewal the Church "in discontinuity and rupture" against, just like he did with His historic Body in Gethsemane? Do we understand this supernatural similarity with the captivity of Christ well? Namely, that He Himself had allowed His capture by the servants of the Sanhedrin (Mark 10:32-34, 14:50) to place Himself, the innocent "Lamb of God", as "Scapegoat" on Calvary's cross for the sins of the world?.

     Do we understand the true similarity between the today's confusion and that of the Apostles and other pupils who fled from Him when He was captured? A state of confusion that is founded on the same misunderstanding about the supernatural nature of Christ as well as of the Church as His Mystical Body by which so many Faithful fled away from the Church?

5.3   Peter's Denial of Christ?

    Is it this same confusion of Peter, in which the Church participates as evidenced in the reign of the three post-Vatican II Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI? As Christ knew before their successive elections that during the Council they, deceived by their blindness, collaborated among and with those who rejected the pre-Council Church for a "renewal of the Church in discontinuity and rupture. These Popes did so even before they were elected due to a misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and supernatural order and collaborated also in the hijack of the Council, even though out of good will. They only wanted a "renewal through a reform of the Church in continuity" with the pre-conciliar Church. After they were elected Pope respectively, these Popes took remedial measures that expressed their idea of continuity with the pre-Conciliar Church. However, in response to the enormous resistance of those who strove for a "renewal through a reform in discontinuity and rupture" encountered against these remedial measures, and fearing a schism of the Church, they nevertheless allowed the continuation to strive for a "renewal through a reform in discontinuity and rupture", making the remedial measures inadequate and insufficient. In this way, despite knowing Christ, these three Pope's respectively had denied "to know Christ", in his fullness of the Mystical Body of Christ. And after each of them realized what he had done, he consciously suffered in his love for Christ, just as Peter did. And like Peter fled away after the third time he denied to know Christ, the third of them, Pope Benedict XVI, fled away from his seat and consciously suffered with his last words "Lord, I love you!" Subsequently, this apparently ambiguous behaviour of these three popes has thrown the well-intentioned Cardinals, Bishops, priests and faithful into enormous confusion, similar to the confusion among the Apostles and other followers of Christ.

5.4   Paving the Road to the Cross?

    Regarding the actual situation of the Church today, it may be observed that Pope Francis is dismantling one by one all restorative measures that were taken by his post-Vatican II predecessors through which he is creating a renewed Church in discontinuity to the Church prior to the Council. Herewith, by arguing that these measures were pastoral only, he turned around their "renewal through reform in continuity" into a "renewal through reform in discontinuity and rupture".

    Certainly, all what can be said about the actuality sounds speculative. But it is true that Pope Francis grew up in the Peron era of Argentina and that he is spiritually a fruit of more than 60 years modern Jesuit spirit. His words really echoes the ideas of Fr. Pierrre Teilhard de Chardin S.J. (1881-1955) and his defender Fr. Henry de Lubac S.J. (1896-1991). That, therefore, his good will might be heavily or even fully misled and blinded, due to which he has surrounded himself by advisors with the same spirit of "renewal through reform in discontinuity and rupture".

    Isn't Pope Francis aware that the "Synodal Way", he is promoting, is not a new concept and that it has been rejected by all his post-council predecessors. It was already introduced by the spirit of "renewal, through reform in discontinuity and rupture" as blueprint for the "Dutch Pastoral Council" shortly after the Council (1966-1970) [21, p19]. Pope Paul VI rejected the final conclusion of this "Dutch Pastoral Council" in 1970 by not confirming the final conclusion. Moreover he required Cardinal Alfrink to reject the final conclusion before he would receive him in audience [19, 21, p217-277]. The organisers concluded "We are too fast". And in addition to this rejection by Pope Paul VI, in 1980, it was Pope John Paul II, assisted by his Prefect of the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith and his successor, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, who rejected the outcome of the "Dutch Pastoral Council" again, when he called for an "Extraordinary Synod of the Dutch Episcopate" in Rome. The Dutch Bishops had to write and sign a common document rejecting the conclusions of the "Dutch Pastoral Council" [20, 21, p298 note 603]].

    Is this "Church of Synodality" the end station of the destruction of the Mystical Body of Christ by the "renewal through a reform in discontinuity and rupture"? Is it nowadays, over 50 years after their first trial by the "Dutch Pastoral Council", the moment that Christ in His Mystical Body supernaturally sacrifices His Body, being the innocent "Lamb of God" as "Scapegoat" after the "Children of Israel" have chosen for the renewed Church that destructs His Mystical Body, like the "Children of Israel" once choose for Barabbas and subsequently sent Christ away to crucify? Will this supernaturally be the same, unique and perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary?

    Is Pope Francis here, completely deluded and blinded? Anyhow, what it may be, isn't it that following his misled good will, he is paving the road to the supernatural participation of the Church in His unique and perfect Sacrifice of His Body through the renewal of the Church by the "Synodal Way" and Anti-Christ" over the renewed Church. --> Will this be finally accomplished as prophesied in the "Third Secret of Fatima" by a conversion of the Pope who then will realise the truth of what he has done by what he had considered as good? "And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it 'a Bishop dressed in White' we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God" [22]. So for sure Pope Francis needs our prayers very well, but also our warnings for what he is doing, especially warnings by Dubia's of Cardinals as it is specifically their job to defend and protect the Pope against attacks by Satan.

    Could this be the way in which Christ leads His Mystical Body, the Church, to participate in His Sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary? Certainly His Mystical Body will also rise with Christ and all people of goodwill will be gathered in Him.

6    Appendices

6.1     Appendix 1, Division of the Church

    A division can currently be recognised in the Church regarding the hermeneutic of the documents of Vatican II. Indeed, these are (1) the hermeneutics of "In unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Fathers" [10]. This hermeneutic is explicitly expressed in his opening address, October 11, 1962, by Pope John XXIII as legislator of the Council when he adds the following: "the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all" [10], "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers" [10], "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" [10] and "the truth of the Lord will remain forever" [10]. From all these characteristics this hermeneutic is shortly called here the hermeneutic of "in unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Fathers" [10]. Furthermore (2) the hermeneutic of "Renewal, of reform " as distinguished by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 [12] into (2a) "Renewal, of reform in discontinuity and rupture" and (2b) "Renewal, of reform in continuity" respectively.

    In the same way, even similarly, a division can be recognised in the Church regarding the liturgy into three movements confronting each other. Namely, those (1), who accepts Trent's definition that "Eucharist is a Sacrifice" and subsequently are strongly attached to the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal). Those (2a), who conform the Liturgical Movement rejects Trent s definition "Eucharist is a Sacrifice" and replaced it for a meaning that the Eucharist would be the "proper of the memorial meal of the Last Supper" and subsequently suppresses the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal). They also do not take clear measures against the abuses in the use of the 1969 Missal. Finally those (2b) who are accepting this "proper of the memorial meal of the Last Supper" of the Liturgical Movement, but still interpret the Eucharist's proper according Trent's "Eucharist is a Sacrifice". This latter group is promoting the use of the 1969 Missal, but because of the loss of sacredness and the increase of abuses, they step over to allow also the use the 1962 Missal for an exchange of sacredness onto the 1969 Missal.

    See here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/hijack.html) and here (http://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/liturgical_crisis.html) for more background.

6.2   Appendix 2, Introduction of Ambiguities

    It is generally acknowledged, and well documented that many ambiguities exist within the Vatican II documents [9; 23; 24]. These ambiguities were deliberate, and have had significant consequences for the Church.    One must first recall the words spoken by the secretary of the "Consilium"-commission when he was still secretary of the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy, Fr. Bugnini, at Domus Mariae on November 11^th, 1961, to a small number of select members and consultants of the sub-commission on the evening before the plenary meeting on 12-15 November: "It would be most inconvenient for articles of our Constitution to be rejected by the Central Commission or by the Council itself. That is why we must tread carefully and discreetly. Carefully, so that proposals be made in an acceptable manner (modo acceptabile), or, in my opinion, formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything: let many things be said in embryo (in nuce) and in this way let the door remain open to legitimate and possible post-conciliar deductions and applications: let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and [that] might invalidate all the rest, even what is straightforward and harmless (ingenua et innocentia). We must proceed discreetly. Not everything is to be asked or demanded from the Council the essentials, the fundamental principles [are]" [25, p82]. Here Yves Chiron refers to: "Pontificia Commissio de Sacra Liturgia Preeaparatoria Concilii Vaticani II": Documenti, Testi, Verbali (Rome: Edizione Liturgiche, 2013) Angelo Lameri, 433).

    As scheduled the draft Preparatory Liturgical Document went to the Central Preparatory Commission for transforming the draft into a final document. This Central Preparatory Commission had made changes and removed some undefined, radical and far-reaching proposals. This should be reworked by the executive subcommittee for the amendments in accordance to the decisions of the General Preparatory Commiittee. However, in contrary to the Central Preparatory Commission they replaced these undefined, radical and far-reaching proposals back in the final document. And this final document was then sent to Pope John XXIII falsely claiming that this final version would be in accordance to the Central Preparatory Commission.

    Now, as there was no time to rewrite the final Preparatory Liturgical Document Pope John XXII accepted the falsified version and send it as scheduled to the Council Fathers. However he took the following measures. (1) Within a short era he promulgated surprisingly the 1962 Missal. And above all (2) fr. Bugnini was removed on orders from Holy See from his Chair at the Papal University [25, p84] and (3) passed as secretary of the Council Commission [25, p83]. Apparently fr. Bugnini was held responsible for the undefined, radical and far-reaching proposals, as called by him the embryonal ambiguities [25, p85]. Furthermore, at the Council (4) Cardinal Ottaviani should witness about the falsification of the Preparatory Document [25, p84-85, 89], however halfway Cardinal Alfrink turned off his microphone [25, p276].

    While this method had been initiated by Fr. Annibale Bugnini in the preparatory period of the Council, it is confirmed as also having been common practice within the Council's Commissions, and used with the specific intention of deluding the majority of Council Fathers. Near the end of the Council during an interview published in the Dutch Dominican weekly "Bazuin", on the occasion of publication of the first edition of the International Theological Magazine Concilium (February 1965), Fr. Schillebeeckx O.P. confirmed that this "spirit of lies and deceit" had worked behind the scenes of the Council too. He said [9 (#50)]: "We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw out implicit conclusions" [9, #50]. On the other hand, while the theological horizon and criterion of assessment are placed within the classical distinction between dogmatic and pastoral, It was also Schillebeeckx who claimed "The pastoral Council becomes doctrinal, precisely on account of its pastoral character. Pastoral demands call for doctrinal deepening" [41, pXLIII note 24]. Precisely, this is the path how due to the questioning of the classical pastoral in relation to the modern times opposed to the traditional understanding of the Doctrine.

This was indeed why Pope Paul VI had to intervene several times like by adding the Nota Praevia to the Council Document Lumen Gentium, on the celebacy and the source of Revelation.

    See here (http://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/ambiguity.html) for more background.

6.3   Appendix 3, Breaking the Rules

    A method of breaking the rules was deliberately chosen and prepared by the French. This (1) was proposed by Fr Danièlou S.J. in the afternoon of October 12th, 1962 [26, p142); 27], then (2) discussed by the French Bishops on the evening of October 12th [26, p145; 28], apparently (3) decided by a restricted number of six Cardinals including Cardinal Montini, the futur Pope PaulVI [29, p162] and (4) worked out by Mgr. Garonne [30, p92]. Finally (5) executed by the French senior Cardinal Liéart on October 13th, who illegally intervened against the procedure of the first working day of the Council [26, p145; 29, (p161); 30, p92; 31, p16; 24, p230] and (6) illegally supported by Cardinal Frings, also in the name of the Cardinals K nig and D pfner [26, p145; 29, p161; 30, p92; 24, p231; 31, p17]. Then supported (7) by an illegal applauding majority of Council Fathers [26, p145; 29, p162], which was officially forbidden [24], and (8) finally the rule set by Pope John XXIII was illegally overruled by the Presidium [26, p145; 29, p162; 30, p92; 24, p231; 32; 31, p17].

    Evidently, this was not at all "sudden and spontaneous" as Cardinal Liéart claimed but a deliberate chain of illegal acts [9]. And, instead of the Council Father (9) made efforts to get to know one another from country to country for ensuring greater cordiality, greater freedom and confidence, getting better informed about each other's as argued by Cardinal Liéart [30, p92], they started (10) to campaign for establishing lists of their own candidates for the Council Commissions only [29, p162; 31, p17; 24]. Here (11) the Frings-Liéart list representing the "progressive"-tendency won by a landslide, obtaining almost half of the seats in the commissions [9, #41-#43; 29, p162; 31, p18; 32; 33; 34; 36, p123/4].

    Obviously Pope John XXIII seemingly had accepted the outcome of these illegal acts, however by taking the following measures he showed his disagreement. By the following measures he could only intend to decline the effect of the illegal acts. He changed the rule that the Council Fathers had to appoint 2/3 of the members of the Council commission by stipulating that the Pope (1) will appoint one additional member, i.e. 9 instead of 8, so that the members chosen by the Council Fathers would could never have an absolute majority [30, p126; 31, p16]. And the members appointed by Pope John XXIII (2) were more likely to be "conservatives" [30, p126; 26, p222].

    See here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/hijack.html) for more background.

6.4   Appendix 4, Pope John XXIII praising the Preparatory Documents

    Remarkably, when Pope John XXIII convoked the Council, December 1961, he declared that the problem he had raised in January 1959 had been solved through the Holy Spirit. He praised the work of the preparatory commissions and expressed himself as very optimistic about the results of the Council as a manifestation of the fruits of the Holy Spirit: "Then, if we turn our attention to the Church, we see that it has not remained a lifeless spectator in the face of these events, but has followed step by step the evolution of peoples, scientific progress, and social revolution. It has opposed decisively the materialistic ideologies which deny faith. Lastly, it has witnessed the rise and growth of the immense energies of the apostolate of prayer, of action in all fields. It has seen the emergence of a clergy constantly better equipped in learning and virtue for its mission; and of a laity which as became ever more conscious of its responsibilities within the bosom of the Church, and in a special way, of its duty to collaborate with the Church hierarchy. Thus, though the world may appear profoundly changed, the Christian community is also in great part transformed and renewed It has therefore strengthened itself socially in unity; it has been reinvigorated intellectually; it has been interiorly purified and is thus ready for trial . . ." [14] and "Three years have passed during which we have seen, day by day, the little seed develop and become, with the blessing of God, a great tree. ... Before deciding the questions that had to be studied in view of the forthcoming Council, we wished to hear beforehand the wise and enlightened opinions of the College of Cardinals, of the episcopate of the whole world, of the sacred congregations of the Roman Curia, of the general superiors of orders and religious congregations, of Catholic universities, and of ecclesiastical faculties. This work of consultation was carried out within a year, and there emerged clearly from this the points that had to be submitted to a thorough study. We then instituted the different preparatory organizations to which we entrusted the arduous task of drawing up the doctrinal and disciplinary projects, which we intend to submit to the Council. We finally have the joy of announcing that this intense work of study, to which the cardinals, bishops, prelates, theologians, canonists, and experts from all over the world have given their valuable contribution, is now nearing its end. " [14]

    It is very clear that Pope John XXIII's optimistic expectations regarding the Council can only come from the preparatory documents and has nothing to do with the final outcome of the Council that is based on the removal of the preparatory documents.

    See here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html#_chapter04-2) for more background.

6.5 Appendix 5, Accusing the Church

    From the end of the nineteenth century onwards, different schools of thought emerged from what Pope Pius XII called the "New Theology". However, this movement referred to itself as "Resourcement Theology" because it claimed to aim at retrieving forgotten or neglected themes from Scripture, from the Church Fathers, from the liturgy and from the works of classical theologians. This phenomenon included the biblical movement, the ecumenical movement, the liturgical renewal, the patristic renewal (especially advocated by those who launched the Sources Chrétiennes series) and the renewal of Thomism. This movement was strongly condemned in its extreme forms by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis [37].

    While theologians attached to the "New Theology" opposed the Papal teaching contained in Humani Generis, they nevertheless suggested that the main purpose of their movement was to return to earlier sources of the undivided Church. In this way, they hide the real purpose behind their search into these sources. Did they therefore disagree with the Doctrine of the Church and its preservation by the Holy Spirit? Hiding the motivation to reinterpret ancient sources includes the intrinsic risk that past developments in the deeper understanding of Truth will be rejected and considered incorrect. This can be well recognized, because some harken back to the first Vatican Council as being a false development that led to a schism concerning the Pope's infallibility (Anti-infallibism). Others go back to the Council of Trent and accuse it as being "on the whole inadequate" to heal Luther's schism (Reformation) [38]. Then others go even further back to the pre-Constantine era (political liberals, supporting the idea of modern democracy). These, considered as historically false developments, seem to be the foundation of the New Theology. With regard to this foundation, this is indeed why in the post-conciliar era the Church regularly came forwards with all kind of historical excuses for what the Resourcement Theology considered as historically false.

    In this manner, the "Resourcement Movement" accuses the Church itself of being the actual cause of the evil of schisms, which implies that the Holy Spirit would have improperly preserved and guided the Church. Such an accusation is supported by statements such as "without doubt vital members were removed along with diseased ones (as is often frankly stated by Protestant theologians today)" [38]. This ignores the ever-present possibility for individual conversions of so-called "vital members". Also arguments such as "This is not the place to discuss the loss of substance that accompanied this amputation. ... But we want to study here the internal Catholic development" [38] might be considered in essence as further allegations against the Church and the Holy Spirit. Clearly they did not intend to argue about the Protestant's "loss of substance" in the light of the Church teachings. But sought the source of evil within the "internal Catholic development"

    Apparently, it were these theologians with their Bishops and even Cardinals, advised by them, who came forwards with all kinds of "prophesised doom-scenarios" against the preparatory documents, specifically the doctrinal ones. They went so far that some of these Cardinals had plead to the Pope as "Prophets of Doom" for delaying (i.e. to stop) the preparation of the Council. Such in full contrast to the words of St. Pope John XXIII, who called in his Convocation to the Bishops these Preparatory Documents the result of the "blessing of God" [39]. Who spoke the Truth here, was it the Pope in his convocation or were it the "prophets of doom" who rejected the preparatory work. So was the preparatory work blessed by the Holy Spirit or not.

    See here (http://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/revelation.html) for more background.

6.6 Appendix 6, Shortening De Fontibus

    When Pope John XXIII decided to rewrite the preparatory document De Fontibus he formulated a strict order to the mixed committee that was tasked with this rewriting of De Fontibus in order to shorten and to re-emphasise adherence to the general principles defined by Trent and Vatican I: "But the task of this commission should be to revise, shorten and adapt the scheme, but to adhere to the more general principles. Moreover, everyone knows that the same doctrine was presented by the Tridentine Council and Vatican I"[40, p94]. While he in his opening address had made clear "Never depart from the sacred heritage of truth received from the Church Fathers" and "in unity and in accord with the teachings of the Church Fathers"[10].

    On February 23^rd, 1963, when the president of the mixed committee, Cardinal Ottaviani, had left the meeting early for his duty as prefect of the Holy Office, the second president, Cardinal Bea, took over the presidency of that particular meeting just before a voting should take place. While the question for voting about the sufficiency/insufficiency of the Tradition and Scripture was formulated under the presidency of Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bea changed the question for voting, so the agreement was to be that nothing was to be said about insufficiency, nothing in favour or against: "everything should be omitted from it that says, suggests or denies that the Holy Scripture does not reach as far as Tradition and that separates Scripture and Tradition from one another". With a majority of 22/9 this statement was accepted [40, p246; 21, p259]. By this so-called neutral formulation Cardinal Bea was seeking to prevent resistance from the Reformation regarding ecumenism. But in doing so he actually questioned the Teachings of Trent and Vatican II. Moreover, this was contrary to the assignment of Pope John XXIII too.

    Because of his death Pope John XXIII could not intervene against this deceit. But by contrast, as described by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI intervened on this subject with "the Church's certainty about her Faith is not born only of an isolated book, but has need of the Church herself as a subject enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit. Only then does the Scripture speak with all its authority." [38]. Consequently, the Sacred Scripture can only be well understood within the Tradition and through the Magisterium. Pope Paul VI did so after a first intervention by a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, September 24, 1965 and after that Cardinal Ottaviani failed to get a majority, Pope Paul VI finally sent the theological commission a number of text-proposals from which they had to choose to adopt into the final schema, so that it could be read in accordance to the Doctrine of the Church, October 18, 1965.[14, p246, 16, p259, p403/409;17, p400, p412, 18, p407/8].

    See here (http://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html chapter 05.2.9) and here (http://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/revelation.html) for more background.

7    References

1. "Announcement of the Second Vatican Council", Pope John XXIII (1959), [http://vatican2voice.org/91docs/announcement.htm];
2. "Gethsemane, the Origins and Rise of Intellectual Revolution in the Church", Giuseppe Cardinal Siri (1981, Sophia Institute Press, ISBN 978-1-64413-682-9;
3. "On the Historical Development of the Liturgy", Anton Baumstark (1921), reprint by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minesota (2011), ISBN 978-0-8146-6096-6, [an internet link to the pdf version can be found here: https://litpress.org/Products/GetSample/6096/9780814660966];
4. "Het Heilig Missoffer, het middelpunt van onze Eredienst", Pio Parsch, Utrecht, Wed. J. R. van Rossum, 1937 (Dutch);
5. "The Mass of the Roman Rite: its origins and development (Volumes 1 and 2) (Missarum Sollemnia)", Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J. (1951), ISBN-13 978-0-87061-274-9 [an internet link to the pdf version can be found here: https://www.ccwatershed.org/2014/01/25/josef-jungmann-study-roman-rite-mass-pdf/];
6. "Liturgie Uebermorgen, Gedanken zur Geschichte und Zukunft des Gottesdienstes", Klaus Gamber (1966), Herder Verlag, Germany;
7. "The Mass: a study of the Roman Liturgy", Adrian Fortescue {1917), The Westminster Library, Longmans, Green and Co, London [public domain reprint]; a 1912 version can be found on the internet [https://archive.org/details/massstudyofroman00fort];
8. "The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, A Counterpoint for the History of the Council", Agostino Marchetto (2010), Scranton Press, ISBN 978-1-58966-196-7;
9. "Iota Unum, a Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century" (Dutch translation), Romano Amerio (1980), Angela Press, ISBN 9780964003211;
10. "Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, Opening address of the Second Vatican Council" (October 11th) , Pope John XXIII (1962) [because the Vatican website does not provide an English translation of this Opening Address, the translation by http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm has been used and verified by the official Dutch translation ];
11. "Mystici Corporis Christi", Encyclical of Pope Pius XII (1943), [https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html];
12. "Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmass greetings" , Pope Benedict XVI , Thursday 22 December 2005, [https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html];
13. "De Katholieke Kerk, Godsdienstleer en Apologie III, de Pauselijke Onfeilbaarheid", Prof. Mag. J.D.M. Maes O.P. (1946), Het Spectrum Utrecht (Dutch);
14. "Convocation of the Second Vatican Council", Saint Pope John XXIII (1961); [http://vatican2voice.org/91docs/ convoke.htm];
15. "Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp S.J.", Band 2/1 (1962-1963), Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Bautz Verlag, ISBN 978-3-88309-625-4;
16. "Heribert Schauf, Tagebuch zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil (1960-1965)", Alexandra von Teufenbach, Bautz Verlag, ISBN 978-3-95948-548-7;
17. "Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp S.J.", Band 3/1 (1963-1964), Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Bautz Verlag, ISBN 978-3-88309-929-3;
18. "Henri de Lubac S.J., Vatican Council Notebooks" volume two, Henri de Lubac (2015); Ignatius Press, ISBN 978-1-62164-012-7;
19. "The Pastoral Council and the Collapse of the Catholic Faith in the Netherlands", Solène Tadié (2023), National Catholic Register. [https://www.ncregister.com/news/the-pastoral-council-and-the-collapse-of-the-catholic-faith-in-the-netherlands];
20. http://secretariat.synod.va/content/synod/en/synodal_assemblies/1980---particular-synod-for-the-netherlands--the-pastoral-situat.html;
21. "Het Pastoraal Concilie van de Nederlandse kerkprovincie(1966-1970) en het bisdom Roermond in de jaren zestig", P.W.F.M. Hamans (2018ISBN: 978-90-6257-073-7;
22. "The message of Fatima , The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Iria-Fatima, on 13 July 1917", Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2000) [https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html];
23. "In the Murky Water of Vatican II", Atila Sinke Guimarães (1997), Tradition in Action, Inc., ISBN-13:978-0-9726516-7-7;
24. "Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Eine bislang ungeschriebene Geschicht", Roberto de Mattei (German translation, 2012), Sarto Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH Stuttgard, ISBN 978-3-932691-98-0;
25. "Annibale Bugnini, Reformer of Liturgy", Yves Chiron (2018); Angelico Press, ISBN 978-1-62138-411-3;
26. "Henri de Lubac S.J., Vatican Council Notebooks" volume one, Henri de Lubac (2015); Ignatius Press, ISBN 978-1-58617-305-0;
27. http://www.volgconcilie.be/Deelnemers/heusschen.html (Flemish/Dutch);
28. http://www.volgconcilie.be/DagOpDag/67.html (Flemish/Dutch);
29. Paul VI, the Divided Pope , Yves Chiron, Angelo Press, ISBN 978-1-62138-840-1 (2022), p 162;
30. My Journal of the Council , Yves Congar O.P. (2012, English translation); Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minesotta, ISBN 978-0-8146-8029-2;
31. Der Rhein fliesst in den Tiber , P. Ralph M. Wiltgen S.V.D. (1988), Lins-verlag, Feldkirch, Germany;
32. http://www.volgconcilie.be/DagOpDag/68.html (Flemish/Dutch);
33. http://www.volgconcilie.be/DagOpDag/68.html (Flemish/Dutch);
34. http://www.volgconcilie.be/Deelnemers/heusschen.html (Flemish/Dutch);
35. http://www.volgconcilie.be/Deelnemers/schillebeeckx.html" (Flemish/Dutch);
36. "Aus Liebe und Treue zur Kirche, Eine etwas andere Geschichte des Zweiten Vatikanums", Alexandra von Teuffenbach (2004), Morus Verlag, Berlin, Germany, ISSBN3-87554-408-X;
37. "Humani Generis", Encyclical by Pope Pius XII (1950) [http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html];
38. "Theological Highlights of Vatican II", Joseph Ratzinger (1966) [Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2022)], Paulist Press, ISBN 978-0-8091-4610-9;
39. "Convocation of the Second Vatican Council", Pope John XXIII (1961); [http://vatican2voice.org/91docs/convoke.htm];
40. "Address of His Holliness Pope Benedict XVI, February 14^th, 2013", Pope Benedict XVI, [https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma.html];
41. "Vatican II, a Pastoral Council - Hermeneutics of Council Teaching", Serafino M. Lanzetta (2016), ISBN 978-085244-888-5;