Evidence of Vatican II's "striking departure" from the Church's teachings on Ecumenism & Liturgy

The most direct historical example of a papal prohibition on attending ecumenical gatherings involving non-Catholics and pagan religions is Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1895.

In that year, Leo XIII issued an encyclical condemning the 1893 Chicago gathering — the first Parliament of the World’s Religions — which brought together representatives of many Christian denominations, as well as Jews, Muslims, and various pagan and non-Christian groups www.signofthecrossmedia.com. The pope viewed the event as promoting the “heresy of Americanism” and as giving the impression that the Catholic Church regarded other religions as true or good in themselves. As a result, he forbade Catholics from attending any future Parliament of the World’s Religions www.signofthecrossmedia.com.

Leo XIII’s 1895 encyclical, often referred to in this context, was part of a broader series of condemnations of ecumenical and interreligious gatherings that he believed undermined Catholic doctrine and unity. His opposition was rooted in the belief that such events risked "fostering indifferentism" — the idea that all religions are equally valid — and that Catholics should not be seen as on equal footing with non-Catholic or pagan traditions www.signofthecrossmedia.com.

The "indifferentism" (the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance) that Pope Leo XIII was gravely concerned about came to fruition following Vatican II due to the "ambiguity" found in the very wording of that Council's document on Ecumenism, Unitatis (UNITY) Redintegratio (RECOVERY) where we read throughout the decree and especially in Chapter II, #8, paragraph 3 where it specifically mentions how Catholics should "foster & welcome" every opportunity to participate in "ecumenical gatherings"  with those who have "different Christian beliefs."

Pope John Paul II "extended" Vatican II's "paramount goal" for "UNITY," regardless of major differences of religious beliefs, to also "welcome & include" leaders of "pagan religions" to his "ecumenical gatherings" around the world!  John Paul II even invited priests of various "pagan religions" to perform their "pagan rituals" at Masses he said, in the name of "UNITY!" 

 
Examples of Pope John Paul II involved in "pagan religious ceremonies" in the name of "UNITY" would be:

JPII Being "Exorcized" by an Indian Priestess - On August 1, 2002, at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City at a Mass he said. 

Various Pagan Sects Worship False Gods in Assisi - In January 2002 at the invitation of John Paul II, different pagan sects worshipped their false gods in various chapels of the Basilica of Assisi and the Franciscan Monastery.

John Paul II Receives a Ritual "Blessing" from an Indian Shaman - During his visit to Phoenix in 1987, John Paul II received a ritual "blessing" from an Indian shaman using an eagle's feather. The "blessing" was given by Pima shaman Emmet White. After the pagan ritual, JPII said that the act had "enriched the Church."

JPII Being "Blessed" by a Hindu Religious Woman - Upon his arrival to celebrate a Mass at a stadium in New Delhi, India, February 2, 1986, a smiling John Paul II receives a "blessing" from a Hindu religious woman.  This is an act to ask for the protection of Hindu deities.  This "Abomination of Desolation" event "welcomed" by John Paul II, along with the other 3 cited above are only a few of the "sacrilegious" pagan ritual episodes Pope John Paul II participated in during his papacy.  The others are simply "too extensive" to list in this article.

Lamentably, John Paul II, God rest his soul, was not the only post-Conciliar pope to be "guilty as charged" for proliferating "indifferentism."  Every post-Conciliar pope did, even Pope Benedict XVI.  Benedict XVI Initiated in Pagan Rituals - During his stay in Sydney for World Youth Day -2008, Benedict XVI received a kind of "blessing" from one of the many Aborigine witch doctors he met.  Even though we don't know for sure the date this picture was taken, it was probably on the day of the final Papal Mass where Benedict allowed pagan tribal customs to be part of the sacred liturgy.  An article by the late Gary L. Morella, a devoted Catholic who authored many articles in various Catholic publications, wrote an article about Pope Benedict's final Mass in Sydney titled "The Sydney Outrage" in which he defines what Pope Benedict XVI allowed during this Mass with Fuji dancers wearing pagan symbols and carrying the Gospel in a procession as the "bastardization of the Mass."  To read Mr. Morella's article click on this link: The Sydney Outrage by Gary L. Morella

Should you elect not to read Mr. Morella's article, I feel it is of the utmost importance that I share with you what Mr. Morella had to say in the opening statement of his article as it truly describes what has happened since Pope Paul VI replaced the Mass of the Church (the sacred Latin Mass of course) that had been said for centuries with the New Order Mass that was purposely "desacralized" in order to make it similar to a Protestant worship service.  That said, the following is what Mr. Morella had to say.

"There was a time when attending Holy Mass was something very special in that the supernatural was visibly felt. It was a unique Catholic act. Now it has been reduced to the banalities of the world where the profane has replaced the sacred."

FYI, there were many clerics at Vatican II who would have agreed with Mr. Morella's assessment of what Catholics once experienced at Mass, and "more often than not" no longer experience at Pope Paul VI's New Order Mass due to the "liturgical banalities" introduced to that Mass.  A few of the clerics I am referring to were two highly respected cardinals, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani & Cardinal Antonio Bacci, and two liturgical experts,
Fr. Louis Bouyer & Fr. Joseph Gelineau, S.J., who both served as lead liturgical consultants at Vatican II. 

One of the most direct and well-documented criticisms of the Novus Ordo Missae came from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office.  In a September 25, 1969, letter to Pope Paul VI, Ottaviani and co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci presented a Short Critical Study of the new Mass, warning that it represented a “striking departure” from the Catholic theology of the Mass as defined in Session XXII of the Council of Trent EWTN Global Catholic Television Network+1.

Ottaviani’s letter emphasized that the Novus Ordo:

Suppressed the central role of the Real Presence, removing key prayers such as “Receive, Holy Trinity, this Oblation” from the Offertory and eliminating the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity from ordinary use www.knightsrepublic.com.  Additionally, Cardinal Ottaviani should have mentioned the fact that what further suppresses the "Real Presence" as being the "central role" in the Novus Ordo Mass is the noticeable "absence of the Tabernacle from the altar," where Jesus is fully present in His Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist!   Moreover, the Tabernacle should be in the very center of the sanctuary as that is the most sacred area of the church and not set off to the side of the sanctuary as it patently is in the vast majority of Novus Ordo churches.  That conveys the wrong message entirely as Our Lord's presence in the Holy Eucharist dwelling in the Tabernacle should be the "center of attention" for worship and "never" set off to the side!  That is logically, liturgically, spiritually and theologically "diabolically disorientated" and more importantly "offensive" to Our Lord and Our Lady.  Without a doubt the Novus Ordo "tables" in the center of the sanctuary, devoid of the Tabernacle and consequently "devoid" of the "Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist" makes the liturgy seem more like a "supper" than a "sacrifice," which was the intention of Pope Paul VI as you will learn further on in my article.

Reduced the Mass to a “supper” rather than a sacrifice of praise to the Trinity CATHOLIC TRADITION.

Altered the altar’s symbolism, calling it “the table” and suggesting the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart, as if a relic CATHOLIC TRADITION.

Granted autonomous priestly powers to the laity, making the priest appear “nothing more than a Protestant minister” CATHOLIC TRADITION.

Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci, who was a good friend of Pope Paul VI concluded that "abandoning" centuries-old liturgical tradition for a liturgy “teeming with insinuations or manifesting errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith” was an “incalculable error” CATHOLIC TRADITION.  Their critique of the New Order Mass clearly reflected a "deep concern" that the "revolutionary reforms" Pope Paul VI allowed Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to subsume into the Mass, risked undermining "doctrinal clarity" and the "unity" of the Church!  

As history showed the cardinals' "deep concerns" about - how the Novus Ordo Mass with its "striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass" would "adversely" impact the Church, definitively came to past, with "marked disunity" in the Church along with "significant doctrinal confusion & disagreement" among Catholics, priests and laity alike, in the aftermath of Vatican II.  While in the seminary from 1968-1975 with the SMA Fathers (Society of African Missions) both "disunity" and "doctrinal disagreement" were on "full display!"  Truth be told that was the situation in most seminaries, convents and monasteries in the 1960's & 1970's.

Fr. Joseph Gelineau, S.J. was even more concerned the damage the Novus Ordo Mass could do to the Church than cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci as is evident in what he wrote in his book Demain la liturgie (translated as Tomorrow the Liturgy) published in 1965.

“To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists.  It has been destroyed! The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules … is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism.  It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” Fr. Joseph Gelineau, S.J.

Who was responsible for the Novus Ordo Mass being "impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism?"  Pope Paul VI, which is well-documented!  For example:

In an article titled "The Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass," Cardinal Alfonso Stickler, a Sacrae Theologiae Doctor & Canon Lawyer, discusses Pope Paul VI's "protestantizing" of the Mass and mentions that Jean Guitton, a peritus at Vatican II and a friend of Paul VI, said that Pope Paul VI's purpose was to "assimilate as much as possible of the new Catholic liturgy to Protestant worship" (Latin Mass Magazine, Summer 1995).  Then, to directly quote Mr. Guitton in Christian Order, October 1994 ...  

French philosopher Jean Guitton says that Pope Paul VI revealed to him that it was his [the Pope's] intention to assimilate as much as possible of the new Catholic liturgy to Protestant worship.  

Cardinal Stickler cites no one but Jean Guitton.

Another example of Pope Paul VI's "vested interest" in "protestantizing" the Novus Ordo Mass occurred on December 19, 1993, during a debate on Lumiere 101 (Radio Courtoisie), when Jean Guitton, affirmed that:

"Paul VI's intention concerning the liturgy, concerning putting the liturgy into modern languages, was to reform the Catholic liturgy so that it would closely coincide with the Protestant liturgy ... with the Protestant Supper."

Later on, in the debate Mr. Guitton said: "I repeat that Paul VI did everything in his power to bring the Mass - beyond the Council of Trent and into agreement with the Protestant Supper."

In regard to Fr. Joseph Gelineau statement about the Novus Ordo Mass bearing within it a "poison harmful to the faith," he was not the only priest who believed the New Order Mass had a "toxic chemistry" that could do grave damage to one's faith, Padre Pio and his dear friend Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the former Chief Exorcist at the Vatican did as well. That is why in "good conscience," Padre Pio and Fr. Amorth "never said" the Novus Ordo Mass.

In addition to the aforenoted clerics who "adamantly opposed" Pope Paul VI's "radical changes" in the Mass, historical evidence shows that the "majority of bishops" at Vatican II also "stood in opposition" to Paul VI's liturgical reforms.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider has publicly argued that the "majority of bishops" at the Second Vatican Council were "in fact" not in favor of the sweeping liturgical reforms that led to the 1969–70 Novus Ordo Missae.  Drawing on conciliar texts, eyewitness accounts, and postconciliar documents, Bishop Schneider says that the present form of the Mass is "not the authentic fruit of Vatican II," but the result of a later "rupture" imposed under the guise of reform nuntiatoria.org.

Bishop Schneider "rejects" the official postconciliar narrative that the liturgical changes were an “organic development” in continuity with tradition, which I'm glad he did as he is correct, unlike the majority of our bishops as well as our cardinals.  Furthermore, Bishop Schneider insists that Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC 23) explicitly forbids “novelties” unless they grow from existing forms, and that the Novus Ordo introduced many elements that did not exist before epistles.online+1.  Once again, I concur with Bishop Schneider's analysis.  He also points to the Acta of the Council, where most debates centered on vernacular vs. Latin use, but not on concrete structural reforms of the Mass epistles.online.

The bottom line is, upon objective scrutiny of what the majority of the bishops at Vatican II thought about the proposed liturgical changes - to claim that the Novus Ordo liturgical changes were an “organic development” in continuity with tradition is utter "ABSURDITY!"

Given today's "clear & evident" APOSTASY, CONFUSION, CHAOS & DIVISION in the Church, due of course to Vatican II's "striking discontinuity with tradition" in the matter of Ecumenism & Liturgy, which Our Lady of Good Success foretold, how can anyone "in their right mind" not want to insist that Rome reexamine Vatican II "in light of what has transpired" since that ominous Council?

Sincerely in Jesus, Mary & Joseph, Larry Welch

Nota bene: I wish a "reexamination of Vatican II" was done when I was in the seminary from 1968-1975 with the SMA Fathers (Society of African Missions).  That said: "It's never too late!"  Ergo, I pray that Pope Leo will "come to his senses" and do so!  Because, without question Vatican II "Institutionalized Progressivism" in the Church, and it spread throughout the Church, like a cancer metastasizing thru the body, and invaded every area of Church life - since the close of that Council 61 years ago.  Sadly, Vatican II's "Progressivism" created the present "State of Apostasy" in the Church, which historically is at an "unprecedented" level.  Our Lady of Good Success in Quito, Ecuador in the 16th century "foretold" there would be such an "abomination" in the Church, that would begin to unfold in the mid 20th century, the time of Vatican II of course.  In 1973 Our Lady of Akita, Japan also "foretold" of a time that her Church would be infiltrated with Apostasy from "the top down."  Unless one is living under a rock somewhere or on some other planet, the current state of affairs in the Church is precisely what Our Lady warned us about in Quito and in Akita.  Oremus!