True Ontological Continuity versus False Evolutionary Material Continuity
O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end.
To restore Creation, the wounded 'dignity of human nature' had to be healed. Therefore, God became incarnate into His Creation through His Son, Jesus Christ, who by his crucifixion triumphed over Satan and restored the 'dignity of human nature' in a wonderful manner. In addition, respecting the free will of man, Christ created the Church, His Mystical Body, for joining Him in His triumph over sin. Thus, the only objective of the Church is the sanctification of every person by baptizing him or her in the name of the Holy Trinity, teaching them to live in accordance with the commandments, following the example of Christ in His words and deeds and leading us all towards eternal life. Our Lord knowing the weakness of the free will of man, sent the Holy Spirit and gave the Church its Sacraments to help and strengthen the faithful.
Both Divine Truth and the Mystical Body of Christ come from God and are therefore intrinsically good and do not need any substantial change. Therefore, any development regarding the Church, its Faith, Traditions and practices must follow a humble ontological continuity without any substantial change: i.e. deepening the understanding of revealed Truth, the Adoration of God, the Sacredness of the Church's Life and Pastoral care in accordance with the Commandments, following the example of Christ. Such ontological continuity is fully consistent with the opening words of Pope John XXIII to the Second Vatican Council: "the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers" and "the truth of the Lord will remain forever". In a similar way, Pope Benedict XVI reinforced and further confirmed this ontological continuity when he wrote (in his letter to the Bishops accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum), "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful"
However, in opposition to this humble ontological continuity, the modernists propagate a continuity based on worldly material evolution and a liberal ideology. This materialistic continuity is based on a comparison with the physical law of 'conservation of matter' where matter bears the continuity within any process, instead of substance or form. This type of continuity is false, because it does not guarantee the continuity of substance: full substantial discontinuity is therefore falsely propagated as continuity. For example, consider the burning of a candle. The wax is transformed through the flame into heat, light and vapour. The heat, light and vapour if carefully measured and collected would materially correspond fully to the amount of wax consumed - i.e. demonstrating conservation (continuity) of matter. Nevertheless, the candle ceases to be or in other words the substance of that candle no longer exists, because that candle was changed by a continuous material process into something else with different material properties, which is no longer a candle. It is factually and physically "discontinued" as a candle, despite the material continuity. Using this analogy, to cover what is de-facto substantial discontinuity, the modernists hide the lie of the intended discontinuity in Church since Vatican II from the well-meaning faithful. They continue today in the same way and mislead the faithful, by slowly making gradual but systematic and ambiguous changes so that it looks like a continuity in the short term. However, factually in the long term these changes are deliberately made in order to prepare their final goal, which is an intended a real break or discontinuity from the True Church as Mystical Body of Christ, into another entity entirely This indeed is a long process, but is becoming more and more objectively manifest in hindsight, when examining the evidence of what has happened in the Church since Vatican II.
These changes concern the Church's structures, its Doctrine, the Adoration of God as well as the sacredness of the Church's Life and its principles of Pastoral Care. Evidently, these changes have not yielded a true deepening of Faith. On the contrary, the modernists continue to argue like "prophets of doom" by means of doomsday scenarios, by which they accuse the Church of evil effects resulting from its outmoded and inadequate structure, its Doctrine, its ecclesiastical Life, the Adoration of God and principles of Pastoral Care. Meanwhile, all people are considered well-intentioned, but victims of that outdated system.
We must refer again to Pope John XXIII and his opening address to Vatican II, because of his warning to the Council Fathers on the "prophets of doom" . From the Pope's definition, these "prophets of doom" are clearly those, who seek to change the present conditions of human society, which are in this context the moral laws and the underlying fundamental doctrines that were so firmly defended by the Church prior to the second Vatican Council. Evidently, one cannot accuse the conservatives of changing these present conditions. In 2012 Pope Benedict XVI stated  ".... this point touches on the real expectations of the Council. The Church, which during the Baroque era was still shaping the world, had from the nineteenth century onwards visibly entered into a negative relationship with the modern era, which had only then properly begun. 'Did it have to remain so?' 'Could the Church not take a positive step into the new era?'". Factually, herewith Pope Benedict XVI clearly described the identity of the "prophets of doom" as given by Pope John XXIII's words "They keep repeating that our times, if compared to past centuries, have been getting worse"
The fruits of these expectations can be observed in the modernists wish to fundamentally change the structures of the Church, its Doctrine, its sacred Life and its principles of Pastoral care, in order to build "a better Church" more comfortable with and aligned to the (secular) world. In other words, the modernists imply that the Mystical Body of Christ is not intrinsically good in and of itself, as it was created by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. They want to rebuild the Church by themselves. This is heretical. Similarly, the modernist ideology denies original sin and its effects on man, and by that also the continuing need to fight against sin. Within this claim, some are going so far as to deny the need to convert people and even suggest that baptism is not necessary for salvation and eternal life.
These people are attached to the liberal ideology of the "new theology". They are that same liberal and modernist wing that hijacked the Council on its first working day, 13th October 1962. Evidently, these "prophets of doom" can also be still found among todays' theologians, Cardinals, Bishops, priests, religious and other faithful. They are still using the same methods to distract the clergy and faithful. They falsely accuse those who warned the Pope and the Church about the ambiguous proposals, of being the 'real' "prophets of doom"! They also accuse anybody who is attached to Tradition, of being 'rigid' because they are blocking progress towards their intended goal. Those, including increasing numbers of young faithful, who find comfort in and spiritual benefit from assisting at the Traditional Latin Mass are being derided as backward looking. It is as if the statement by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007; "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful" should be considered untrue. I contend and put it to you that this adequately proves the point that the "prophets of doom" indeed seriously and persistently intend to establish a definitive ontological break within the Church.
Most worryingly, the suppression of the contemplative religious orders, the orders attached to a life in accordance with pre Vatican II religious vows and those, who changed their Liturgical orientation towards the traditional Latin Liturgy, is factually a denial that the Holy Spirit could work through a life of prayer and tradition. Does not this fact alone prove that these ambiguous changes are truly not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are instead wilfully, purposefully and intentionally meant to propagate an ontological break within the Church?
Today, after a long-term process of ambiguous changes since the Second Vatican Council, it appears that the modernists consider that the time is ripe now for definitive substantial changes like the abolition of compulsory celibacy for priests and the ordination of women as deacons. Indeed, a number of the changes manifest since Vatican II have been initiated by diplomatically and carefully formulated ambiguities within the Council's documents to achieve a majority of "placet" voters (at that time), and have more or less contributed as a pre-conditioning for these final steps, attempts at which we are now witnessing. These pre-conditioning changes were for example: abolition of the anti-modernist oath, reform of several religious vows, reforms of the curia, devolution of power to the majority of bishops conferences, reform of the Liturgy and especially its desecration. This drastic desecration of the liturgy started with the "experimental period" between the reforms of 1965 and 1970, and was then followed by the new and greatly weakened rubrics of the 1970 reform. Through these ambiguous steps, a conviction has been established, which denies that the Holy Spirit also works through minorities, such as for example during the Arian crisis. The truth of the matter is of course that the Holy Spirit continues to work (independently of their age) through all faithful, priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes that humbly collaborate with Him, even the emeriti among them and each in accordance with their ordained or consecrated ministries respectively (Witness His Holiness Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as an excellent and prime example).
While the modernists sought to change the Church substantially during the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI nevertheless blocked this. Although he had allowed, both many ambiguous texts in the Council's Documents, and changes during the Council and immediately thereafter, he protected the structure of the Church by issuing Nota Explicativa Praevia against the introduction of a false collegiality. He did the same for Sacred Doctrine by obliging the Council Committee to replace the draft text, which implicitly denied Tradition as one of the two sources of Revelation, for a text that explicitly spoke of the two sources (Scripture and Tradition). Furthermore, with regard to the compulsory celibacy of priests, Pope Paul VI forbade public discussion on this matter during the Council in a letter of October 11, 1965. This letter was addressed to Cardinal Tisserant and in it, the Pope stated that he would decide on this matter himself ("My Journal of the Council" by Yves Congar page 808). Therefore, in 1967 he published the Encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus on this subject. The same happened regarding the pressure to relax the Church's principles of Pastoral Care on sexual morals, especially with respect to contraception, which Pope Paul VI also rejected from the agenda of the Council, and which resulted in the publication of his 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae. And finally, on request of the first Bishops Conference in 1967, Pope Paul VI addressed in June 30, 1968, the "Credo of the People of God" [Motu Proprio Solemni hac Liturgia].
Consequently, no one can make any claim to the Council for proposing substantial changes regarding collegiality, the two Sources of Revelation (Scripture and Tradition), compulsory celibacy for priests, the ban on ordination of women deacons and contraception. And, despite the fact that the post-conciliar popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have more than once confirmed these doctrines, the modernist rebels continue to constantly oppose these fundamental doctrines.
Once more the accusing finger has been mistakenly and erroneously pointed at the Mystical Body of Christ.
Subsequently a few years after the Council (1968-1970) the modernists spearheaded opposition to these same fundamental doctrines at the "Dutch Pastoral Council". Their revolutionary proposals and requirements were firmly rejected a second time by Pope Paul VI. Finally they concluded, "
However, due to the publication of the book "From the Depths of Our Hearts" by Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah the (non-compliant) Exhortation of Pope Francis could neither confirm the abolition of compulsory Celibacy, nor the ordination of female deacons.
As a result, the modernist reformers should have concluded by now, just like 50 years ago, that they have still been too fast to take that final step to substantially change the Mystical Body of Christ. However by maintaining ambiguities in the Exhortation Querido Amazionia, they are still striving with great impatience towards their intended goal of achieving a substantial change of the Church.
Therefore, more than ever the Church needs Cardinals and Bishops, like Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah, fulfilling their ministerial duty to defend and protect the Church by warning the Pope of the false promptings of Satan through these modernist "prophets of doom".
Clearly the modernists do not want to learn from history! This triple sequence of rejection - the Second Vatican Council itself, the Dutch Pastoral Council and now at the beginning of the German Synodal Path - can be seen as a miracle in itself and a sign from the Holy Spirit to stop the revolutionary endeavor to substantially change the Church?
This is surely a clear signal to return to the sacred patrimony of the Fathers and the everlasting truth of the Lord.
- Pope John XXIII, in his Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council stated about the "prophets of doom": "These people see only ruin and calamity in the present conditions of human society. They keep repeating that our times, if compared to past centuries, have been getting worse. And they act as if they have nothing to learn from history, which is the teacher of life". These "prophets of doom" can be considered more concretely today as "these people see only 'doom' in the present condition of the Church and the world. They keep repeating the suggestion that our time is getting worse due to an outdated Tradition of the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. its Structure, Doctrine, Sacred Life and Pastoral Care. And, by rejecting Tradition i.e. one of the two sources of Revelation, they act as if they have nothing to learn from its continuous and ontological development throughout history, which is the teacher of life"
- Pope Benedict XIV (2012), Preface of 'Joseph Ratzinger, Zur Lehre des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils.' Erster Teilband, (Joseph Ratzinger. Gesammelte Schriften 7/1), re-edited by Mgr. Gerard Ludwig Müller und der 'Institut Papst Benedikt XVI', Regensburg, ISBN 978-3-451-34124-3, Herder Verlag, Freiburg 2012. [English translation by Radio Vatican http:/en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2012/10/10/pope_pens_rare_ article on_his_inside_view_of_ vatican_ii/en1-628717]