It was with great empathy that I read Samuel Frankel’s anguished article entitled “SOS: Millions of Catholics Overboard!” in the December 31 issue of The Remnant.  One can easily appreciate his consternation and frustration over the condition of the Church, and the vicious cycle of the seemingly endless conflict between Traditionalism and liberalism.

   His plea that someone in the Vatican would read his words in the hope that something can be done is truly heartfelt.  As he notes, millions have “gone overboard since the ill-fated Second Vatican Council.”  His finest observation appears in the very last paragraph: “. . . the only hope we all have, is in the restoration of the Catholic Church.”

   But as long as liberal bishops, clerics and laity can plead the Council to justify their stances, the division in the Church will continue.  It is time to face the fact squarely that the Council itself is the root of the difficulty, not the solution as some mistakenly contend.  Progressivists have been hiding behind their Council for the past 45 years and they will continue to do so indefinitely.  Unless . . .

   There have been roughly 15 false councils in the history of the Church.   Unless the Second Vatican Council is numbered among them, by being rejected, repudiated, repealed, and overthrown by loyal Catholics, there will be no restoration of the Church. 

  It is doubtful that such a restoration can transpire under the present Holy Father, unless he changes his

views on the Council.  As one of its architects, Pope Benedict is in the camp of those who continue to

hope that all will be well when the Council is “properly implemented.”  As mentioned above, I beg to

differ with this viewpoint – the Council is not the answer to the problem, the Council IS the problem.

    A sea change must occur, especially by the hierarchy, in the attitude towards the Council.  For some

reason, even many good and loyal Catholics cannot perceive clearly that the Council holds the Church

hostage under the false premises of ecumenism, religious liberty, and tolerance of sin and error under the

guise of dialog.

   For example, there are only a few courageous traditionalists who would acknowledge (and we have seen such articles in The Remnant) that the document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, essentially permits one to publicly worship the golden calf and propagate its cult. Such liberty is not part of a “hermeneutic” of continuity with tradition, or a legitimate development of doctrine: it is apostasy pure and simple.  (Please see my new article, “Dignitatis Humanae vs. Domine, non sum dignus,” at www.frankrega.com/dignitatis.htm)

    As long as we are under the yoke of the Council, as long as other religions are considered on a par with the True Religion, as long as ecumenism fails to recognize Jesus Christ as the ONLY savior, there will be no restoration of the Church.  On the other hand, we know for certain that in the end the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.  Will the overthrow of the very Council that intentionally refused to condemn atheistic Communism and all its attendant errors, be part of Her triumph?