Now that we are convinced of the fact and the reasons why it is ‘full speed ahead’ for the Modernists after Vatican II, it would be very instructive to draw the attention of the reader to some very interesting bits and pieces of information, which reveal the existence of a detour: a network of channels and pipelines used by the religious leaders of the world to bypass the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, at the same time that they attempt to involve the Church with the trafficking along the doctrinal drug trails, unceasingly preparing for the day when the ‘doctrine’ of their own making will be taught by a ‘church’ of their own making, approved by a ‘pope’ of their own making, one that may look like the Lamb but speaks like the Dragon (Apoc. 13:11).

          Some of this evidence clearly points to conclusions reached or decisions taken prior to, or at the latest concurrent with, the Second Vatican Council. This means that neither these decisions and conclusions nor the ‘teachings’ they contain can in any way be traced to the ‘inspiration’ and ‘insights’ of Vatican II. A few examples will be helpful.

          It may look very ecumenical and ‘Christlike’ of the former Archbishop of Melbourne, Australia, Sir Frank Little to ask for, and obtain, from his Senate of Priests permission to join the Victorian branch of the World Council of Churches, but what follows has been officially stated in reports from a WCC organised World Conference, “The Eighth Conference on World Missions” in Bangkok, 1973.

          In 1974 there appeared on the world scene an English translation of an incredible German book, written by a Lutheran Doctor in Theology, which book dispelled any doubts many may still have about the ‘religious’ future of the world. The title of the book is Bangkok 73, and its author is Prof. Peter Beyerhaus. If anyone still needs convincing that Modernism is conceived in Hell, this book will achieve that.

          Prof. Beyerhaus is one of that rare breed of international theologians still wholly uncontaminated by Modernism, and his book Bangkok 73 is an eyewitness account of what actually took place before and at the 8th Conference on World Mission, held at Bangkok in 1973, under the auspices of the World Council of Churches. The title of this World Conference on Missions was - significantly enough – “Salvation Today”.

          In his book Prof. Beyerhaus explains to us the unbelievable but total contradiction that took place at the Conference: how 326 serious, mission-minded delegates can come together to study the advance of global missionary activity, and can come out with the exact opposite: calling for a halt, a moratorium on missionary activity, thinking that they were still the same people, and that they were doing God and the missions a good turn ..!

          In this contradiction lies the most accurate description one could ever hope to give of Modernism and all its off-shoots, expressing in its brevity the most fundamental objection the Holy Church could ever have against it.

          Prof. Beyerhaus meets the issue head-on. “The true key”, he says “to the planning of the course and to the full understanding of the Bangkok Conference itself lies in the professed ‘equation’ between a systematically staged socio-psychological experiment (i.e. group-dynamics: ‘brainwashing’) and the action of the Holy Spirit”.

          And the professor then sets out to show from every angle and with a welter of detail how this perversion “of equating brainwashing with the Holy Spirit” was carried out. Nothing was left to chance! Even the objection that such an exercise is impossible is squarely met. The poor delegates did not have a chance from the word go. Why? Because they became involved!

          And judging by the innumerable Catholics who now believe the opposite of what the Church taught us before, who no longer can tell the difference between Catholic Faith and any other faith, and who think that ‘being on the pill’ and accepting Church teaching can go together: the experiment did not stop at Bangkok, but has swept the world.

          In describing all the aspects of how the basic rules of brainwashing were applied at Bangkok, Prof. Beyerhaus lays bare the most crucial, central brandmark of Modernism, stamped on it by the inventors of the ‘philosophy of sameness’: “the complete mutual openness, so that people can expose their vulnerability without questioning”. He quotes Dr. Hoffmann in an interview for the South West German Radio:

“We hope that there are enough people here who are vulnerable and who will let themselves be wounded, so that they can hear the strange things and the unheard of things which have never yet been heard that others will say to them ...”

And Prof. Beyerhaus’ comment:

“This meant that we should be ready to call all the convictions in question, and all the presuppositions we brought with us, and even that we should abandon them in order to open ourselves up to ‘unheard-of things’, perhaps even that which contradicts our Christian Faith ...!”

          When the white delegates “became involved” and accepted this condition, and were subsequently confronted by the coloured delegates with all the evils of colonialism and with the ‘evils of missionary activities’ carried out in name of colonialism, the stony-faced white delegates were eventually made to feel so crushed that they not only became ashamed of their colour, but ever so much more importantly for the marxists staging the show (and for Satan behind them) became ashamed of their Christian religion. And to make up for the evils done, they voted for the moratorium on mission activity.

          The reader is now sufficiently up-to-date with the thrust and the mechanics of this “Eighth Conference on World Missions” to grasp what Prof. Beyerhaus is saying on the reports that emanated from it.

“These reports sketch the blurred contours of an approaching unified religion in which Christianity contributes merely some formal suggestions for the general ideas of God, religion and salvation. Inasmuch as the name of Christ in the sense of the Cosmic Christology promulgated at New Dehli (1961), is still retained, all this is a typical, alluring example of syncretism.” (P.53)

          So the World Council of Churches has adopted the “cosmic Christ” of Teilhard de Chardin, that evolutionary figment of a feverish imagination ...

          One more report from Prof. Beyerhaus’ book quoted here is one on ‘communal prayer’:

“The meditation is a compilation of ten modern beatitudes, which, with ecumenical generosity, embrace all modern religious, social and political experiences of ‘salvation’: from American Pentecostalism, through Chinese Maoism to ‘God-is-dead’ theology. The following are among them:

You were a poor Mexican baptised by the Holy Spirit and the blood of the Lamb.

I rejoice with you, my brother.

You were an intellectual Chinese who broke through the barrier between yourself and the dung-smelling peasant.

I rejoice with you, my brother.

You found all the traditional language meaningless and became ‘an atheist by the grace of God’.

I rejoice with you, my brother.

Thus for the first time in the history of Christianity, an ecumenical conference has here joined in rejoicing over the fact that someone had become an atheist and that even ‘by the grace of God’ ....” (P. 73)

          Are we allowed to wonder how Archbishop F. Little of Melbourne and bishop R. Mulkearns from the diocese of Ballarat would fare in any ecumenical gathering where, because of their membership of the World Council of Churches, they would be asked to join in extolling ‘beatitudes’ which reject a dung-smelling peasant by Christianity, but rejoice over someone becoming an atheist “by the grace of God ...”

          It is all very well for bishops to claim ‘Vatican II ecumenism’ on their side to justify association with the World Council of Churches; but the New Dehli World Conference of the WCC, in which the ‘Cosmic Christ of Teilhard de Chardin’ was officially adopted when it adopted his ‘cosmic christology’, happened to take place in 196l, and so can only be reached by a detour, bypassing Vatican II, since Vatican II BLOCKED teilhardism and filtered it out for rejection. And so no ecumenism can be claimed by any Catholic bishop, who would link his (Arch)diocese with teilhardian heresies and syncretism through his association with the World Council of Churches. Not only would membership stifle all protest against the blatant display of marxism on the World Council as witnessed by the extolling of atheism, but it would furthermore make Catholics agreeable to the formulations of such policies, a fact to which the reports of all the World Conferences of the WCC since the New Dehli debacle have testified: Upsala, Kyoto, Louvain, and beyond.

          Indeed, here we are confronted by the blurred contours of a unified world ‘religion’ in which Catholic laypeople, religious, bishops and cardinals are actively engaged.

This poisoning of Catholic minds goes to the heart of the modern problem.

          Who is it who wrote the following words:

“The [Genesis] account tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term “original sin”. What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp in which one's relatives are imprisoned. What does original sin mean? ... this requires nothing less than trying to understand the human person better. ... each of us enters into a situation in which relationality has been hurt. Consequently each person is, from the start, damaged in his relationships ...” [!]

          Did a Modernist write this? Are these words found in the works of Teilhard de Chardin, or in the writings of the late Raymond Brown? Is this taken from a spurious book written by some ‘theologian’ high up in the WCC? No one can be surprised that these very words caused a great scandal in the Church and a storm of indignation when it became known that they were first said, and then printed, by no other than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Holy Office, i.e. the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the second in command after the Holy Father.

          Let us compare this with what Teilhard de Chardin wrote:

“Without exaggeration one can say ‘Original Sin’, in the formulation still current today, is one of the principal obstacles to the intensive and extensive movement of progress in Christian thought. An embarrassment or scandal for those of goodwill at the same time that it is a refuge for narrow spirits.”

          [This quote is from Teilhard’s third attack on the Catholic Dogma of Original Sin, 1947].

          Here the axe is not being laid by Card. Joseph Ratzinger and by Teilhard de Chardin “to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibres” [Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi, 1907]. Here we have room to quote one such Catholic reaction:

“The Cardinal’s comments on original sin contradict 1900 years of Catholic teaching and Tradition, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the councils and popes. The true position of the Church as opposed to the Cardinal’s views was summed up by Pope Paul VI:

‘... the doctrine of original sin ... is a truth revealed by God in various passages of the Old and of the New Testaments. But especially in the texts you well know of as Genesis 3:1-20. ... It is therefore evident that the explanations of original sin by some modern authors will seem to you irreconcilable with true Catholic doctrine. ... these explanations do not even agree with the teaching of Scripture, of sacred Tradition and the Church Magisterium, according to which the sin of the first man is transmitted to all his descendants not through imitation but through propagation’.” [Pope Paul VI in Credo of the People of God.]     (Paul Ellwanger, Texas).

          Now how did Joseph Card. Ratzinger, a bishop of the Church, get himself tangled up with contradiction of Catholic doctrine? The reason is the same for the vast majority of these cases: no other than the fear the stony-faced whites experienced in Bangkok 73: the fear of being considered backward with regard to ‘science’ and Protestant exegesis. The fear of being considered an old-fashioned, pre-Vatican II laughingstock. The fear of being considered a fundamentalist in the ferocious onslaught of Modernism, and in the global drive for ‘religious unity’. Fear of being stamped and to be universally known as a “narrow spirit”. One does well to remember that both Card. Ratzinger and Teilhard de Chardin are talking here about Catholic Dogma ...

          And then there is another Cardinal, Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who in October 1999 signed the Joint Declaration with the Lutheran World Federation on the doctrine of Justification: a declaration so defective that the Holy See up till now has not seen fit to accept it. In his recommendation of this Joint Decleration Card. Cassidy wrote, amongst other undesirables, the following:

“Let us all beware, however, not to place new obstacles along that way. We must avoid developments in doctrine and in ecumenical relationships that would hinder our progress towards the unity we seek ...”

          How can a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church ‘forget’ that “developments in doctrine” are the sole prerogative of the Holy Spirit. Does he literally mean: No dogmatic definitions from now on until I have given my approval? This would effectively banish the declaration of the next Marian dogma, that of Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces.