Epiphany, 2021
Jack P. Oostveen
pdf-format

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Consequences of the Hijack's Approval
3. A supernatural coincidence
4. Symptoms connected with the root-cause
5. Rebellious spirit contradicts Holy Spirit
6. The Holy Spirit and the free will of men
7. Renewal
8. A second supernatural coincidence?
   
   A renewed rejection as well as a deception regarding the supernatural warning!
9. The actuality of Pope St. John XXIII's Prophecy of Doom
10. Reconciliation and publicly consecration of Russia
11. The actual time
12. References

With this publication I postulate the hijack [01] of the Council on the first working day of the Council as being the fundamental root cause for the paradoxical outcome and all the resulting problems that we perceive and experience in the Church today. Indeed all other troubling topics of the Council on Doctrinal level, Pastoral Care as well as Church's structure could not exists that way if the Council was not hijacked. Here I also refer to some of these topics, such as a false understanding of the Renewal [02], the betrayal concerning the Revelation [03] and all those deliberated ambiguities [04] in the Council's documents. But, all these topics have to be considered as side effects connected to that root cause, the hijack. I also wish in particular to draw attention to the subterfuge that took place even before the opening of the Council regarding submission of the Liturgical Preparatory Document [05] to the Council that factually led to the unexpected promulgation of the 1962 Roman Liturgy, so shortly before the Council. The evidence I present shows the underlying supernatural nature of the hijack as well as the treason against the Church.

Please consider my conclusions as a result of professional skills in problem solving [06]: researching, evaluating, identifying and understanding the root causes of complex multidisciplinary problems at a level of abstraction sufficiently detailed to distinguish symptoms and polemics from the real problem and to identify possible solutions. This is an important approach, as symptoms are often temporal manifestations of a real problem and can change over time, while the real problem is still unchanged. That concept of the temporal manifestation of symptoms is well captured by the following citation from Pope John XXIII's Opening Address to the Second Vatican Council: "the uncertain opinions of men take one anothers place and new-born errors often vanish as quickly as a mist dispelled by the sun".

By admitting the Hijack of the Council - the chain of irregular acts: deliberately initiated by Cardinal Liénart and taken over by Cardinal Frings, supported by an applauding vast majority of Council Fathers and then confirmed by the Presidium of the Council - on the first day of the Council Pope St. John XXIII did not only approve the rebellious spirit behind this Hijack but moreover he allowed it to work within the Council towards a paradoxical outcome. An outcome that has deliberately produced documents with ambiguities, contradictory text sentences and texts that partially silenced doctrine. And as such, the outcome poses a deliberate risk of misinterpretations, which offends the Holly Spirit.

Given this approval by a Pope, it is therefore logical to conclude that only a Pope can address or solve this problem through a definite reconciliation of the Church with the Holy Spirit. As long as this does not happen, then the situation of the Church and the World remains as prophetically well described by Pope St. John XXIII's "doom-scenario" in his Opening Address to the Council: "… they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars". This is indeed the consequence of the hijack and what we witness since the Second Vatican Council.

There appears to be a remarkable supernatural coincidence between the announcement of the Council in 1959 and the opening of the third secret of Fatima by Pope John XXIII. This happened also in 1959 in direct disobedience to Our Lady who instructed that it should not be opened before 1960. It is remarkable that while Pope St. John XXIII was convinced in having the support of the Holy Spirit during the preparations of the Council, he at the same time ignored the unambiguous supernatural warning by our Lady of Fatima. This certainly cannot be without supernatural consequences. Therefore, these acts of disobedience and dismissal respectively provide a critical and important supernatural clue as to why the Pope acted in the way he did regarding the betrayal concerning the Liturgical Preparatory Document and the hijack of the Council. It seems logical therefore to conclude that the Holy Spirit answered the Pope's disobedience and dismissal of the supernatural warning here by withholding His divine inspiration.

In my opinion, this Council Hijack is the fundamental root-cause for much widespread evil in today's Church and the World. Evidently, the strong decrease in priestly and religious vocations as well as the practicing faithful [07 & 08], the rejection of Humanae Vitae by many (even Cardinals and Bishops) and the great abandonment of Pro Life principles (e.g. acceptance of contraception, abortion and euthanasia by many Catholics and clergy), and recently the scandalous Pachamama event in the Vatican and so on are very clear symptoms connected with this root-cause. Indeed, preparations for and the true origins of the hijack can historically be traced to earlier periods, but it is Pope St. John XXIII's formal allowance of the deliberate chain of illegal irregularities prompted by the rebellious spirit that has caused and led to the continuing paradoxical outcomes of Vatican II [09, 10, 11 & 12].

The attitude of the Council Fathers ought to be a humble and gracious collaboration with the intent of the Holy Spirit. However this rebellious spirit deluded the (applauding) vast majority of Council Fathers to take part in their illegal acts of hijacking the Council. This completely contradicts the required attitude. Consequently, it must be concluded that the Holy Spirit's Divine inspiration was withdrawn from anyone freely involved in the hijack or actively cooperating with this rebellious spirit, which after the Council was falsely claimed to be the "Spirit of the Council", a spirit that as described by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto also claimed "... false and erroneous interpretation of Vatican II ..... being one trend of the modern theology that vituperates as anti-conciliar anyone who departs from their monopoly-line of the Councils interpretation".

While the Holy Spirit withdraw Himself from these individuals, He did not do so from the Mystical Body of Christ itself. He protected the Church during the Council and thereafter against the proclamation of complete heresy. This influence can be seen on the one hand, directly through specific interventions of the Holy Father himself like the case with Preliminary Note of Explanation regarding Lumen Gentium and, on the other hand, indirectly through permitting ambiguities or unilateral concealment of parts of the Doctrine that still can be interpret correctly by taking into account what is lacking from the full "Depostum Fidei" as by the hermeneutics of the Church and described in the opening address of the council by Pope St. John XXIII as follows: "in unity and in accordance with the doctrine taught by the Church Fathers", "never depart from the sacred heritage of truth received from the Church Fathers", "The truth of the Lord will remain forever" and "Men, without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine, cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation". And indeed by respecting the free will of men, the Holy Spirit has allowed the paradoxical outcome of the Council as interpreted through the rebellious 'spirit of the Council" instead in accordance with the Church's hermeneutic. Obviously, with regard to the "Hijack of the Council", the applauding vast majority of the Council Fathers must be struck with blindness too by which they did not recognized the true consequences of the ambiguities introduced by the rebellious "Spirit of the Council". Whereas in a Council Document any ambiguity, contradictory text-phrases or a text that partly silenced the Doctrine principally is a risk to interpret such Document falsely. Indeed, this offend the Holly Spirit. Especially, when these are deliberately set up for interpreting opposed to the Church's hermeneutic as stated by Pope St. John XXIII in his Opening Address of the Council "in unity and in accordance with the doctrine taught by the Church Fathers" and "never depart from the sacred heritage of truth received from the Church Fathers". The paradoxical outcome of the Second Vatican Council and its documents, including the ambiguities, the contradictory text-phrases and texts that silenced the Doctrine partly, are still praised as the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Was that the same Holy Spirit that was praised by Pope St. John XXIII for the preparatory work, which was rejected by the rebellious "Spirit of the Council"? Obviously, in contrast to this, we are still missing clear measures to prevent false interpretations?

This confirms the conclusion that the successive post-conciliar Popes, St. Paul VI, St. John-Paul II, and Benedict XVI, were also blinded because of their involvement in the hijack of the Council. These post-conciliar popes were indeed more moderate and showed their good will by advocating continuity with the Church prior to the Council. However, they also showed the consequences of deception and their involvement in the "Hijack of the Council". They indeed were focused on an "appearance renewal" in line with the paradoxical outcome of the Council, but to be created in continuity. That is a renewal in continuity of the Church's structure, its Doctrine, the Liturgy and the Pastoral Care. And so nowadays even a renewal of the renewal can be observed, because the renewal by his predecessors does not fit the view of Pope Francis: too moderate and too little in accordance with the Jesuit post-Vatican II view of the "Spirit of the Council" in which he was immersed almost all of his religious life.

Such renewal is surely not the "doctrinal affirmation and of wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline", which Pope St. John had in mind to heal the "epoch of renewal" to get the "fruits of extraordinary efficaciousness" when he announced the Council and started its preparations: "… a decided resolution to recall certain ancient forms of doctrinal affirmation and of wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline, which in the history of the Church in an epoch of renewal yielded fruits of extraordinary efficaciousness, through clarity of thought, through the solidarity of religious unity, through the living flame of Christian fervour in which we continue to see, even in regard to the well-being of life here on earth, abundant riches from "the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth" (Gen. 27:28). Clearly, St. John XXIII expected the "fruits of extraordinary efficaciousness", a "spiritual renewal", not created by men but as a gift from the Holy Spirit.

While, despite the good intentions and their disagreement with the hardline rebellious spirit, the successive Holy Fathers, the Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedictus XVI were unable to take adequate and appropriate corrective measures to suppress the hardline rebellious spirit in the Church fully? Isnt just because of the "appearance renewal" of the "Spirit of he Council", which they all advocated? Do they have in fact a comparable purpose, while the manner to reach that purpose differs? Certainly for both, it is not the healing of the "epoch of renewal" as it was for Pope St. John XXIII.

Do we also have to consider here the attitude of the successive post-conciliar Popes regarding to the supernatural warning by Our Lady of Fatima? Firstly, a 40 years period of silence about this supernatural warning after Pope St. John XXIII had neglected this message. Finally, after these years of silence it was published by Pope John Paul II in June, 2000. And, at the same time, it also was officially implied that the secret was about the 20th century persecution of Christians that culminated in the failed Pope John Paul II assassination attempt on 13 May 1981. However, this projection clearly does not fit the entire context of this supernatural warning at all. Not any reference to the supernatural coincidence between the opening of the Third Secret of Fatima not before 1960 and the announcement of the Second Vatican Council in 1959. Why this deception concerning the supernatural warning by Our Lady of Fatima? Why did not correct Pope Benedict XVI this falsification? Therefore, despite this officially and falsely implied projection, evidently, this message has still to be considered as a supernatural warning for what will happen in future if the Church continues to follow the rebellious "Spirit of the Council". Like the dissobedience and rejection in 1959, this certainly cannot remain without supernatural consequences too. And so, do we observe here another supernatural coincidence as between the renewed rejection of the supernatural warning and the treachery to Our Lady of Fatima in June 2000 and the creation of several members of the rebellious "Sankt Gallen Group" as Cardinals in February 2001. Also Theodore Edgar McCarrick, Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, S.D.B. and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. were among the newly created Cardinals in 2001.

This no doubt highlights the urgent need to reconcile the Church with the Holy Spirit.

I suggest that as long as the reconciliation between the Church and the Holy Spirit is avoided or delayed, the worse the situation of the Church and the World will become. Once more Pope St. John XXIII's prophetic words during his announcement of the Council are very relevant and telling. Of particular relevance is when he describes lessons from the history of Christianity where the spiritual strength of the Church have protected it and the faithful against these: "errors, which… have always led to fatal and sad divisions, to spiritual and moral decadence and to the ruin of nations". Therefore, as for Nineveh, only through the spiritual means of prayer and penance i.e. reconciliation of the Church with the Holy Spirit, can the Church and the World be saved from its prophesied "doom". The Church urgently needs spiritual healing. The profound words above also confirm and are consistent with the prophecy of the third secret of Our Lady of Fatima. Surely, one must continuously remind the Holy Father that Our Ladys request "to ask that Russia be consecrated to my Immaculate Heart" has not actually been properly or validly carried out. That this is clearly and evidently the case may be definitely concluded from Our Ladys own words in which she said that if her wishes were not carried out: "then Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, bringing new wars and persecution of the Church … and the Holy Father will have much to suffer". This result is very evidently what we continue to experience and witness in our world today.

However, one may ask, how can this consecration take place as long as the rebellious "Spirit of the Council" still manifestly exists within the Church. I suggest that until the Church is purged of this false spirit, it will be impossible for the Holy Father, with the free and willing participation of the entire hierarchy, to publicly consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Do we need to distinguish a two-step process here?

In conclusion, while continuing to address the consequences of the Council Hijack and its (bad) fruits by further and deeper study, a united spiritual effort is above all absolutely necessary too. This shall be done through prayer, penance and sacrifice of all sufferings from the "confusion, bitterness in human relations, and fratricidal wars" with the express intention for the conversion of the Holy Father from further influence by this rebellious "Spirit of the Council" and that his eyes will be opened to the truth regarding the Hijacked Council.

As Jesus said to St. Peter: "when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Lucas 22:32). The conversion (spiritual healing) of Peter (i.e. the Holy Father), will be followed by strengthening of his brethren (i.e. Cardinals and Bishops) by purging the Church of the rebellious spirit and reconciliation with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Father will then be free to publicly consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with the generous and willing participation of his brother Cardinals and Bishops

As can be observed nowadays the Russian errors are more and more spread in the world, especially the leading left-liberal atheist elite and their collaborating politicians.

May we, speculatively, consider here that with regard to the prophecy of the Third Secret of Fatima, two Bishops in White are currently living in the Vatican while only one would be shot? If that happens, would that be the moment for the other Bishop in White, the true Pope, to repent and acknowledge the prophecy? Will he then realize that the Third Secret of Fatima was a real supernatural warning concerning the Second Vatican Council and that The Holy Father must listen to the request of Our Lady of Fatima? Will he then reconciles the Church with the Holy Spirit and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, together with the generous and willing participation of all his brethren?

In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

Oremus: O Holy Spirit the Paraclete inspire and heal us in these troubled times.



References

1. Vatican II: its Hijack, its Spirit and the Consequences;
2. Vatican II: 'Renewal';
3.  Vatican II: 'Two Sources of Revelation';
4.  Vatican II: 'Tracing the ambiguities';
5.  Vatican II: 'Preparatory Document on Liturgy';
6.  Problem Solving;
7. On the shortage of priests;
8. Fruits of Vatican II, part_1;
9. Fruits of Vatican II, part_2;
10. Vatican II, a Council in Threefold?;
11. Risk analysis of Vatican II;
12. Vatican II, the intrinsic risk for failures and clarity of interpretation.

Some more references:

1. • Vatican II as catalyst
   • A chain of irregular acts
   • Opening Address of Pope John XXIII
   • Destruction of norms
   • Continuity, substantial or material
   • The false portrayal
   • The stakes are too high to simply ignore the facts, a proposed solution
   • The rationale
2. The Core Problem: True Ontological Continuity versus False Evolutionary Material Continuity
--!>

--!>