Everybody is familiar with Our Lord’s parable about the rich having difficulties getting into the Kingdom of Heaven, so much so, that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

          The little story was bound to conjure up in the minds of His listeners the not unfamiliar sight of a rich merchant arriving after dark with his camels at the gates of Jerusalem or some other big city, only to find them closed. Provision was made for such an eventuality in that a traveller could present himself at the needle’s eye, a little opening in the wall, where he was expected to dismount, unload his beast of burden and pass his possessions through the needle’s eye to the guard at the other end. After all that he could, if he could manage it, try to get his camel through the narrow opening as well.

          If in times of war or other great upheavals, it was considered necessary to close the gates, the procedure at the needle’s eye had the additional advantage of providing the guards with the necessary facilities of checking each caller’s intentions and bona fides as a traveller or a citizen, by means of a minute inspection of baggage and credentials. If from whatever was presented for inspection some, or most, or even all was refused entry, the caller could either choose to stay outside the wall with his rejected belongings, or else leave them behind and proceed to join his family and friends inside.

          There was, however, a third possibility. He could bypass procedures and try to force his way in by illegal entry. But then, according to the words of Our Lord as recorded in John 10:1, it is legitimate to consider him a thief and a brigand. (It is important to keep this in mind!).

          If these are legitimate associations which Our Lord wanted attached to the parable of the needle’s eye, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that His Sacred teaching extends to cover any inordinate attachment, not only to riches and material possessions, but also to erroneous opinions, prejudices and bad intentions.

          In conclusion of this little digression on a familiar theme, I wish to point out that neither the parable nor the proceedings at the needle’s eye were meant to be a tribunal, sitting in judgement over personal guilt or innocence. People were free to either pass through the narrow opening, leaving, if necessary, their property behind if it was impossible to bring in or had been refused entry; or refuse to come in, preferring to stay outside with their belongings.

          Neither did Vatican II sit in judgement on anybody; but, inexorably, it did bring to the surface unacceptable cargo: erroneous opinions and yes, even bad intentions. On each occasion bringing out, in greater clarity, the proper teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.

          There is no doubt that the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church passed through Vatican II with flying colours. The Council goes out of its way in its actual wording to firmly base itself on this Tradition; and in innumerable references, both to the earliest documents of the Church and to encyclicals of later Popes as well as to the decisions of other Ecumenical Councils, Vatican II provides us with a rich panorama of its own orthodoxy.

          This puts a grave obligation on anyone, not only to accept the Council’s declared decision and intention to stay wholly within the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, but also to explain its teaching in the Light of that Tradition.

          From the many places in the conciliar documents, where the Council either bases itself explicitly on the teaching of Traditions or declares that its own teaching is in line with this sacred Tradition, we have room here only for a few examples. Then, encouraged by such expressions of genuine orthodoxy, the reader can easily augment the score by a careful reading of the conciliar text.

          From these, and many other quotations like these, it must become patently clear that, whenever the Council is breaking new ground (Religious Liberty, Ecumenism), she nevertheless is at pains not only to draw inspiration from Tradition, but also to declare that, what is being taught, is truly Catholic. The Modernists, teilhardians and marxist Catholics will not have a bar of this; that is why, in their utter disappointment with Vatican II, they are increasingly turning their attention to means of controlling the government of the Church so they can direct the Church to “Vatican III”.

          There is a subtle difference between the official traditional teaching of the Magisterium and the way it was allowed to grow and become accepted and put into practice by Catholics of a given period. We are dealing here with opinions and beliefs which had grown over Tradition and the Deposit of Faith so that they became considered and accepted as part thereof. It is obvious that in this area the Church from time to time must take stock and bring in the necessary corrections.

          For example, the watchfulness of the Church in the days of St. Paul against any contamination of Jewish teaching on the purity of the Gospel, the watchfulness of the same Church in the days of the Reformation against reformed inroads into Catholicism, and the watchfulness of the Church of our times against corruption through modernism and Communism could in practice be lived by Catholics in a state of animosity against those offending people, which would offend the Universal Law of charity.

          The way the Faith is sometimes lived in practice shows how a particular opinion about the implementation of the Faith has grown up, and this may need corrections, not only of the practice itself, but also of the opinion about the manner of implementation. And so we have:

1. The Catholic Faith;

2. The authentic Magisterium’s teaching about the Faith;

3. The practice of the Faith;

4. An opinion about the practice of the Faith.

          In the hurly-burly of everyday life, (2) and (4) sometimes get mixed up, and when pre-Vatican II Catholic Life came before the Bar of Vatican II, our Holy Mother the Church acknowledged the essential, traditional goodness and truth thereof, but was nevertheless forced to bring in many corrections. And that was not always appreciated or even accepted.

          For example, the Church teaches that Catholic Faith and Protestant Faith are not the same.

          In practice we stay away from each other’s services.

          Opinion about this practice: it is a good thing that we stay away from each other’s services. This opinion became accepted as inviolate.

          Vatican II sounded a warning and gave a new directive.

          Archbishop Lefebvre’s reaction: “They have changed the Faith! This goes against           Tradition ...”

          Teilhardian/modernist reaction: “Thank God they have changed the Faith! After all,           all faith is the same ...”

          Needless to say, neither reaction is right. But if these are the only claims the good Catholics hear, then it is small wonder that their enthusiasm for Vatican II is dampened. Since Vatican II was a Pastoral Council, it was mainly in this area of erroneous opinions about the practice of the Faith that most of the sifting out of otherwise very orthodox Catholics had to be done, and where Catholics were reminded that the fate of the non-Catholics was very much their concern and that this concern demanded the acceptance of the Cross: the Cross of a renewed effort at apostleship.

          And it was precisely in this area that people like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre refused to give up their ‘belongings’ and preferred to stay with them outside the walls ... . It is no good him claiming he was asked to give up essentials to the Faith. Vatican II did nothing of the kind: we all needed training for a tough time ahead, and at times that is not very pleasant. But those of us who did respond, and accepted the discipline and the corrections, very soon started to feel the benefits of true renewal and to obtain the fruits the Church wanted us Catholics to receive from a filial acceptance of the Spirit of the Council. We will return to this in the final chapter of this paper.

          Meanwhile, what were some of the ‘untouchables’ Vatican II held up against the Light, and from which it sifted out what, in that very Light, it considered in need of correction?

(a)     The Liturgy.

          Few of us would have expected that this would have been the very first area where the Council deemed reform necessary. Yet, from the deep-seated revolt that has risen in some quarters of the Church against the Council decisions in reforming the Liturgy, it has come to light that erroneous opinions had become established around the Latin Liturgy which stood in need of correction. I have dealt in more detail with these matters in a previous paper: In Defence of the Novus Ordo Missae of His Holiness Pope Paul VI in which I showed that objections to the Novus Ordo Missae raised from history, Tradition, theology and Faith were inadmissible in the Light of True Faith, and only managed to show up the defects in the objectors.

          Some may still maintain that the Novus Ordo did not come from Vatican II, but the late Holy Father Pope Paul VI has effectively blocked the path of this reasoning on numerous occasions. In this and the following, we are here not dealing with the intentions some Council Fathers may have had in introducing, supporting or rejecting the rich material brought out for discussion, but with the effect these deliberations and decisions had on the Faithful. Or at least were meant to have had.

(b)     The Nature of the Catholic Church.

          For 1900 years the Church has taught authoritatively (including through Vatican II) and the faithful have always believed that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. And so we came to expect that this Council would have stated “... that the church Christ founded EXISTS in the Catholic Church ...” However, the Council, in dealing with this very question, used the word SUBSISTS:

“This Church, constituted and organised in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor” (Lumen Gentium #8).”

          This is a fortuitous choice of words. If the Council had chosen the word “exists”, it would then be natural to assume that the Council was teaching that the Catholic Church extends as far as it exists: in the visible society of Catholics here on earth. And once again the burning question ‘to whom do the elements of grace and truth and holiness belong found outside Her’ would still not have been resolved. But ‘subsists’ means more than ‘exists’, and by using the word ‘subsists’ the Council can now claim what in fact She did claim, that:

“the many elements of sanctification and of Truth ... found outside Her visible structure, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity.”

          This is profound. The Council abstains from telling us what all the Modernists have been at pains to tell us ad nauseam, that it is now conciliar teaching, that the bearers of these elements of holiness and truth are members of the Catholic Church. But the Council did tell us that the possessors of these elements of holiness and truth can thank the Catholic Church of Christ for their existence. The Catholic Church, whilst subsisting in the visible society of Catholics, extends invisibly further to give to non-Catholics the elements of truth and holiness they may possess, without making the possessors of these elements members.

          And so, the Catholic Church is essential for non-Catholics so they can possess the graces necessary for salvation. The Modernists have pounced on this word ‘subsists’ to claim that the Council has shifted ground on the age-old teaching of the Church so that it now means to include non-Catholics as members. But the conciliar teaching is much more profound than that, and going by the choice of wording used in the text it is obvious that the Council has taught us with much greater clarity where the Catholic Church can be seen to subsist, and how far She invisibly extends.

(c)     On True Ecumenism and Religious Liberty.

          Two further areas of worry for orthodox Catholics can be found in the conciliar teaching on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty. Mainly because of the false claims made by the Modernists concerning this conciliar teaching. That is why earlier in this paper I have gone to the trouble of quoting words taken from these two Decrees of Vatican II, words which recommend themselves for their orthodoxy and which are the foundation of the teachings to follow.

          At present time it is virtually impossible to find out where in practice the true ecumenism envisaged and taught by Vatican II can be found, since so much of what Vatican II rejected in this area is being proposed as coming from this Council. And the same goes for true Religious Liberty: Catholics claiming for themselves a freedom of conscience which is tantamount to rejecting Catholic Faith in favour of an imaginary new-found ‘freedom’. But not all the trouble comes from the false claims made in these areas: much of it stems from erroneous convictions adopted by pre-conciliar Catholics who used the safety of their ignorance as a pretext and excuse for aloofness and inaction.

          To be reminded of one’s ecumenical obligations is painful, and the use made everywhere of the false ecumenism and the bogus ‘freedom of conscience’ by the teilhardians, marxists and Modernists must not deter us to put into practice what Vatican II taught us with authority and truthfulness in these matters.

          These few examples must suffice to show us that, irrespective of rampant falsehoods made available everywhere to warp the impact of Vatican II, which may have frightened off orthodox Catholics, these Catholics are thereby not excused from looking into themselves to see if there is something within themselves which Vatican II sifted out but which they refuse to give up, and which is the real reason why they allow a mistrust of the Council to continue in their lives. For if this is the case, then they miss out on enormous graces which the Cross of Vatican II was meant to unleash in their lives and in the lives of the souls entrusted to their care ...

          If we can be sure of one thing, it is that Teilhardian Modernism and Evolution got blocked by the Sacred Council in no uncertain way. Nothing of this was allowed through. It is absolutely impossible to maintain that, even if force was used on the text, the sacred documents refer - however remotely - to an evolutionary spirit. Everything is solid, traditional language. The examples one can choose are myriad:

          This clearly establishes, from the opening paragraph of the First Document promulgated: The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the traditional acceptance of the Real Distinction between the natural and the supernatural rejected by the teilhardians. The Council accepts Sacrifice, Redemption, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, all unacceptable to the reigning Modernists as well as being unobtainable by mere human efforts, (such as ‘belief’ in evolution).

          No trace of modernism or evolution here: Real Distinction between God and man taught, divinity of Christ acclaimed, the fact that Christ was and is a Divine Person stressed, etc.

          No ‘inter-communion’ here. ‘Penance’ is not admitted in an evolutionary system, since in such a system sin does not exist, only mistakes.

          In an evolutionary system, the faithful would be part of the evolving world like everybody else.

          A Church which still holds fast to the teaching of the existence of ‘grace’ as something ‘that flows from a fountain’ is certainly not a Church that is inspired by modernism and ‘evolution’.

          So the Council still believes in, and teaches the existence of, absolutes: an absolute moral order of Supernatural origin, coming from outside man i.e. from man’s Creator, and which is written in his totallity as creature, as a rational creature. With this clear teaching, the Council unequivocally rejects situation ethics and the primacy of a subjective moral code as is taught by Kohlberg and innumerable ‘catholic’ moralists.

          So the Council sticks to her teaching about obedience to a transcending, absolute and universal moral law, written by God in man’s heart, and that God’s grace is needed to keep that law.

          These last three are the final blow to evolution, teilhardism and modernism: this sustained and orthodox teaching on Original Sin and our First Parents.

          This must do to show by overwhelming evidence that, no matter where one opens the Conciliar documents, one will always find authentic teaching of the Catholic Church of Tradition and the total absence of any trace of teilhardian evolution: neo and systematic modernism. Whatever was brought into the Council tainted by evolution and modernism was ruthlessly sifted out and rejected.

          This means that, if the post-Conciliar Church became saturated with the heresies of Modernism, they did not come from this Council nor from the Catholic Church. The harbingers of these evils forced their way into the sheepfold, not through the Gate, but through some other way. (John 10: 1).