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.

1.       It may all be very ecumenical and ‘Christ-like’ of His Grace, Archbishop Frank Little of Melbourne, Australia, 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”.

          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 brand-mark 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, this 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 baptized 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 and extol ‘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.

2.       From what we read in so-called ‘official documents’, many Religious appear to be firmly convinced, that their blatantly modernistic ideas of the Religious Vows can be traced to Vatican II. So was one Sr. Kelly recently allowed to write in the Melbourne diocesan paper The Advocate (May 4, 1978) that (luckily for the good nuns): “Canon Law on Religious mostly good”. In the body of the article under this headline she enlightened us on the following:

“Participants also discussed changing interpretations of the Religious Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.”

          For 2000 years they have always meant only one thing. Now hear how this timeless meaning is being changed into its opposite and, through the philosophy of sameness, still held up to us as being the same.

“Formerly (i.e. for 2000 years, ever since the days of Our Lady and Her Son) poverty meant: do without, Sr. Kelly said. Now it means: transcend material things. Chastity meant: Stay away from. Now it means: loving availability of service. Obedience meant: Do not do this or that. Now it means: mutuality (between community leader and member) in discerning the Father’s will.”

          If this cannot be traced to the Second Vatican Council, although strongly implied here, then where does it come from?

          During the Second Vatican Council a book appeared entitled: Generation of the Third Eye, in which some 20 leading American Catholics on the sunny side of 40 were asked to write down candidly their experiences as Catholics and what they hoped the Council would change. This book is a marvellous example of the ‘bypass’ we are talking about here, illustrating the modernism quite rampant in ‘intellectual Catholic circles’ at that time, and what they expected would eventually be able to be traced back to the Council. A Nun was also asked to write her thoughts on the matter, and here is part of what she had to say:

“Our community is going through a phase of Karl Rahner spirituality and these past few months I have been meditating on a Cross Currents reprint of his Reflections on Obedience. Here, with his characteristic gift of brushing away the non-essential, Rahner finds the meaning of religious obedience in ‘the permanent binding of oneself to a definite mode of life’ ... . Obedience, then, is by no means to be understood as a mere abstract readiness to do the will of another ...”

[It may help if the reader knows that this dear soul is, amongst other things, (don’t laugh!) a member of the society for Existential Phenomenology ... She continues]:

“As a nun I am solidly behind Card. Suenens’ exhortation that the religious orders of women be represented at the Council and - even more importantly - that they participate actively in the revision of Canon Law, which will enable them to make needed changes in their own Constitutions ...”

          It appears to me that there is a great similarity between the Sr. Kelly mentality and that of the ‘Nun in the bypass’ who could not trace her ideas to the Second Vatican Council. Instead, she claims to be greatly inspired by a theologian who has thrown his enormous weight behind the teilhardian ‘theology’ of the rejection of Original Sin, supporting the master’s advocacy of polygenism ‘even on scientific grounds’!, but not without disastrous effects to his reputation.

          What Fr. Rahner “sweeps away in those articles with his characteristic gift” is very essential to Dogma and Catholic Faith, and was not supported by Vatican II. Furthermore, the art of ‘sticking to one’s lifestyle’ has nothing to do with the Vow of Obedience, but can quite easily have a lot to do with ‘doing your own thing’, pigheadedness, and worse ...

          If this is the sound of some of the earlier ‘Catholic’ voices-in-the-bypass, what were the non-Catholics encouraged to say?

3.       The following is taken from a book called The Coming World Church by a group of Protestant scholars, who gathered their evidence from various existing documents on the activities of the World Council of Churches. It was printed in 1963 and so was researched and compiled some years before Vatican II. Obviously, the Second Vatican Council does not inspire either the teaching reported herein, or the theories advanced, or the practices put into operation. So no bishop may claim inspiration from Vatican II, if he contemplates joining up with the world body described in this book: the World Council of Churches.

“Dr. G. Bromley Oxnam is credited with having prepared the blueprints for both the National Council of Churches (American) and the WCC. He thoroughly understood the role they would play in achieving his dream of ‘The coming Great Church’.”

          [Now listen carefully to what this ‘dream’ is based on]:

“In his book On the Rock, this late great ecumenist bypassed all the basic tenets of evangelical Christian doctrine, and called for the abandonment of all traditional and organizational barriers to church union. He proposed first to bring about inclusive cooperative Protestant action in the realm of church functions. Next he would create an ecumenical ministry. The bishop himself said he would be gladly re-ordained under this system. He declared:

“I would gladly kneel in a service of mutual sharing in which the blessings of the different ordinations might be symbolically conferred upon me.”

Then Oxnam enlarges the picture:

“United actions in many fields would follow ... missions ... education ... united theological seminaries ... the ministers of the church. The union of American christianity would electrify the world and accelerate the trend towards union in every continent. ‘Finally’ said the bishop, ‘it will be possible to kneel before a common altar with the Roman Catholic Church, beg forgiveness of the Christ for disunity and sharing the bread and wine of holy communion, rise in his Spirit to form the Holy Catholic Church to which all Christians may belong’.”

          If this is the theory, then (still quoting from the same book) what is the practice?

“In America this ecumenical church is being built through the actions of Councils affiliated with the National Council of Churches, (NCC, like the one existing in Australia) and in mergers of various denominations. The Northern California Council of Churches will make a good example. A local Council has a Comity Committee which has assigned certain territories to certain denominations to the exclusion of all others. Before any new church can be established, permit must be secured (coercion) from the local Council of Churches. City planning commissions and even national housing administrators are advised that maverick churches, that is, those that do not bear the stamp of Council approval, should not be allowed to construct buildings in areas under their control.”

          And now comes the crunch ...

“All pastors of Churches which have been allocated specific territories by the Comity Commission are advised that they represent not only their own denomination but also the Ecumenical church. They are required to emphasize the teachings which their denominations share with the rest of Christendom. In other words, the ecumenical church already exists in the thinking of the Council, as does an ecumenical ministry, with all planning for the future motivated by a determination to achieve One Church for One World.” [End of quote].

          This leaves in clarity as with regard to both theory and practice nothing to be desired.

          It is becoming pretty obvious that the Catholic Church which neither can nor will go along with this sort of ecumenism, as it is impossible to bind Her to teach only what is shared by the rest of ‘christendom’, is heading for the classification of a “maverick Church” by the unanimous decision of all the churches and councils which DO go along with it, including the ‘Catholic’ slice that joined them ... It is quite likely that in the years to come many bishops of the Roman Catholic Church will start contemplating the step which has been taken here in the Archdiocese of Melbourne and its suffragan diocese of Ballarat, and will take their dioceses within the Council of Churches, with the inevitable consequences as described here, including that they will leave the Catholics who do not want to join up to fend for themselves as best they can. The American experience (already dating from 1963) is a sobering thought for all of us.

          A few pages back the question was asked:

          “When will it be popular to start persecuting?”

          Here is one answer:

• When individual Catholics have been effectively isolated by this type of action.

• When they are not allowed to talk about, or teach, the doctrines not shared by the rest of ‘christendom’.

• When they are only allowed to stress the ‘cosmic christ’ of the WCC, the one shared by all the denominations.

• When they are requested to take ‘communion’ from an ecumenical minister whose Sunday it happens to be.

• And when they refuse to go along with any of this ...

          It is interesting to see in this context what, by Divine Revelation, we know will happen; and what St. John described in the 13th chapter of the Book of Revelation: how the second beast (or the false prophet) which looks like the Lamb but speaks like the Dragon will do everything in its power to use the religious unity of the world to obtain the political unity under the first beast. He also tells us that “The whole world will run after the beast.” In support of this interpretation we quote here the official teaching of Pope St. Pius X who wrote in 1910:

“... for the establishment of a One-World ‘Church’ which shall have neither dogma nor hierarchy, neither discipline of the mind nor curb on the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, will bring back to the world the reign of legalised cunning and brute force and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.”

          Same thing. Only this time the information is raised above the level of private interpretation of Scripture to the authentic voice of the Magisterium. And we can be sure of one thing: the ‘ecumenism’ and practices of the One-World ‘Church’, held up here by Pope St. Pius X as a warning for us, can never be traced back to Vatican II. Whoever contemplates joining up with such a global agglomerate, can only do so on the inspiration of the bypass where the rejects of Vatican II congregate ...