What Vatican II Could Have Been

 

My best friend is an ardent reader of what have been called "alternate history books." The premise of these books is to posit a realistic scenario (or scenarios) if something in history had happened differently. To give but a single example of such books, there is one entitled Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hirohito & Hitler: What Might Have Happened if the A-Bomb Had Been Ready Early by Jim Mangi. A description is given by the publisher:

...what might have happened if the atom bomb had been available somewhat earlier than it really was (?) What if the atomic bomb had been ready for deployment in, say, February 1945? Had the atomic bomb been ready sooner, how would this have affected the war in Europe, and in particular Germany’s surrender? What would the impact have been in the war in the Pacific against Imperial Japan, and how would the Soviets have reacted? And what would the following Cold War have looked like? These are all questions and scenarios that the author rigorously examines. Solidly based on real people and actual events, in this book James Mangi describes the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb getting an earlier start after President Roosevelt appointed an energetic scientist, Walter Mendenhall, to study the feasibility of the bomb, instead of the more traditional bureaucrat, Lyman Briggs, he actually chose. This scenario, he reveals, might well have produced a war-ending atomic bomb earlier, the effects of which rippled through the post-war world.

I must admit that it is most interesting to ponder such things, even though I almost exclusively read non-fiction. These books are partial non-fiction as they are based on certain real persons, facts, and situations. The rest is fictitious speculation and conjecture. I'm willing to bet many (perhaps even most) Traditionalists have wondered what the Church and the world would have been like now had the Robber Council never taken place. 

Recently, I was reading the original drafts of six documents of Vatican II, translated from the Latin by a Vatican II sect priest, Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak (ordained 1963). I started contemplating a different kind of alternate Church history. What if Cardinal Ottaviani had been validly elected at the October 1958 conclave and had taken the name of "Pope Pius XIII"? (Fr. DePauw informed me that it was Cardinal Ottaviani, not Siri, who was the favorite to win, and Ottaviani was so sure of the outcome, he even chose the name Pius prior to entering that fateful conclave ---Introibo). What if those drafts (called schemas) had been duly passed by a True Council called by Pope Pius XIII to combat modern errors? Thanks to Fr. Komonchak, we can have a pretty good speculative outlook. 

Although these schemata carry no Magisterial authority at all (as they were never passed), it nevertheless shows what the most erudite, orthodox, approved theologians taught on various subjects, and furthermore believed that it was ripe for being defined by the Church. I must admit, those theologians were prescient; it was as if they knew what would happen if certain errors were left unchecked. I will highlight some salient points, and you, the reader, can imagine what Vatican II could have been. 

A Catalogue of Errors Condemned

Preliminary note: These schemata were the product of the very best and most Anti-Modernist approved theologians under Pope Pius XII. However, they were drafts made to be worked on at the Council. If there were a true pope, each schema would be debated and subject to additions, omissions, and alterations by the Council. When in final form, if it should pass by majority vote of the Bishops, it would then be presented to the pope for his approval and promulgation. Only then would it have binding Magisterial authority. For my purposes here, I will assume these schemata were each in their final form and approved/promulgated by (the alternate history) Pope Pius XIII. 

What follows is what jumped out at me while reading each schema. The six drafts were:

1. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE SOURCES OF REVELATION (SR).

2.  DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH (CC).

3. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DEFENDING INTACT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH (DDF)

4.  DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHRISTIAN MORAL ORDER (CMO)

5. A DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON CHASTITY, MARRIAGE, THE FAMILY, AND VIRGINITY (CMFV).

6. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, AND MOTHER OF MEN (BVM)

The text of each schema cited will be in red font. My commentary will be in the usual black font and all emphasis (in red or black) is mine.

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (CC)

a) The One True Church of Christ is the Mystical Body of Christ and Identical To the Apostolic Roman Church. 

Para. #4: But of all the figures, because it more clearly expresses the social element along with the mystical, the principal one is the figure of the body which, at Christ's inspiration, Paul used: "And he is the Head of the Body of the Church" (Col 1:18); "which is His Body and the fulness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23). For all those who have entered the Church through baptism and have put on Christ in the communion of the saints, since they share in the one Eucharistic Bread, are made perfect in the unity of the one Body: "Because there is one bread, we, though many, are one body, for we all share in the one bread" (1 Cor 10:17). 

This paragraph cites to Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Mystici Corporis, and raises its teaching (already taught since St. Paul himself) to dogma. 

Concluding paragraph: The holy Synod teaches and solemnly professes, therefore, that there is only a single true Church of Jesus Christ, that Church which in the Creed we proclaim to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, the Church which the Savior acquired for Himself on the cross and joined to Himself as body to head and as bride to bridegroom, the Church which, after His resurrection, He handed over to be governed by St. Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. Therefore, only the

Catholic Roman is rightly called the Church.

A most beautiful exposition of Catholic dogma that unequivocally states the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is identical to the Catholic Roman Church. In the footnote, it explains the appellation "Catholic Roman:"  The First Vatican Council deliberately said "Catholic apostolic Roman" and not "Roman Catholic," because the latter smacks of the doctrine of the three branches. The so-called "Branch Theory" was advanced by Anglican heretics in the 18th century. They taught that the Catholic Church is comprised of three "branches;" the Eastern Church, the Roman Church, and the Anglican Church. These schismatic branches, according to the heretical theory, will eventually be united into the future "ecumenical" Church, a synthesis of all of the confessional Churches at present separated in practice but united in origin and substance with the reality of apostolic Catholicism. To avoid any connection with such false ecclesiology, the term "Catholic Roman" Church was employed. 

Compare the damnable Vatican II sect document on the Church which replaced this one, Lumen Gentium, para. #8:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

The Church of Christ is therefore distinct from the Catholic Roman Church. It "subsists" there because it contains all the "elements" but it subsists in other sects too according to how many "elements" each one has. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. This is the heresy in ecclesiology that leads to all the other errors and heresies in Vatican II. 

b) Feeneyism Condemned. Baptism of Desire is Expressly Taught. 

Para. #8: The Holy Synod teaches, as God's Holy Church has always taught, that the Church is necessary for salvation and that no one can be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ, nevertheless refuses to enter her or to persevere in Her. Just as no one can be saved except by receiving baptism--by which anyone who does not pose some obstacle to incorporation becomes a member of the Church--or at least by desire for baptism, so also no one can attain salvation unless he is a member of the Church or at least is ordered towards the Church by desire. But for anyone to attain to salvation, it is not enough that he be really a member of the Church or be by desire ordered towards it; it is also required that he die in the state of grace, joined to God by faith, hope, and charity.

Cited by the schema as authorities for this formulation:  For the teaching of the Church, see the Athanasian Creed (Dz 40); Pelagius II, Letter Dilectionis vestris (Dz 247); Innocent III, Profession of Faith for the Waldensians (Dz 423); Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (Dz 468); Clement VI, Epist. Super quibusdam (Dz 570b); the Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites (Dz 714); the Tridentine Profession of Faith (Dz 1000); Benedict XIV, Profession of Faith for the Maronites (Dz 1473); Gregory XVI, Enc. Mirari vos (Dz 1613); Pius IX, Enc. Quanto conficiamur maerore (Dz 1677); Syllabus, n. 16-17 (Dz 1716-17); Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (AAS 35 [1943], pp. 242-43); Humani generis (Dz 2319); Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, Aug. 8, 1949.

Note well that the top theologians cite to the very documents the Feeneyites claim exclude Baptism of Desire (e.g., Unam Sanctam). Bye, bye Fred and Bobby! For someone who wishes to do all God wants of him, and leads a morally upright life by cooperating with actual graces, God can, before the moment of death, infuse his intellect with Faith, and give him perfect contrition so as to fill the soul with sanctifying grace. He therefore dies within the Church and in the state of grace; the requirements to be saved. 

c) That the Sacraments are not permitted to non-Catholics, is once more affirmed.

Para. #54: The principal obstacle to liturgical communion between Catholics and the separated brethren is the nature of the communion in worship by which the members of the Church themselves are linked with one another. For the communion of the members of the Church with one another in their sacred worship is a gift of Christ himself, given solely to his one Church, by which the union in faith and in communion under one supreme pastor is consummated and which is a sign of that unity in truth and love by which the Church is the mystical Body of Christ and already here on earth a figure and anticipation of heavenly union in Christ.

Since, therefore, in the sacred liturgy, carried out by ministers in Christ's name and with the Church's mandate, the communion of the faithful confesses the faith of the Church (see Acts 2:42), active participation in the sacred liturgy must per se be considered a certain profession of faith.

Consequently, the active participation of dissident Christians both in the very worship of the Church in general and in particular receptions of the sacraments generally cannot be permitted, since, intrinsically, it is contrary to the unity of faith and communion and, extrinsically, it obscures the sign of the unity of the Body of Christ, and from such defects the dangers of religious indifferentism, interconfessionalism, and scandal often flow.

Compare to Vatican II's decree for Eastern Rite Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, para. #27:

Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. 

d) There is but One True Church of Christ that ALWAYS possesses Unity, Catholicity, Holiness, and Apostolicity.

Para. #48: Since the Church, as the One and unique institution of salvation, was built by Christ to be the one and only sign lifted up among the nations, nothing can ever intrinsically violate Her unity.

The Church is always One, Catholic, Holy, and Apostolic. No amount of those leaving to start or join false sects can ever change that. Compare to Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #4 where heretical and schismatic sects impede the Church from being "fully Catholic:"

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to Her, in those of her sons who, though attached to Her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with Her. Furthermore, the Church Herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life Her full catholicity in all Her bearings. 

e) Religious Liberty Condemned.

Para. #42: The good of the State itself requires that the civil power not consider itself indifferent towards religion. It was established by God to help men acquire a truly human perfection; it must, therefore, not only provide its members the opportunity to procure temporal goods, both material and cultural, but must also assist them so that the spiritual goods for leading a religious life can more easily abound. Among those goods none is to be more highly regarded than to know and acknowledge God and to fulfil the duties owed to God, for these are the foundations of all private virtue, and indeed of all public virtue as well.

These duties toward God are not to be fulfilled only by individual citizens, but also by the civil power, which in its public acts represents the civil society. For God is the author of civil society and the source of all the goods which through it flow down to every member. Although, in the order willed by Christ, liturgical worship belongs only to God's Church, still the civil society must also worship God in some social way.

In the light of its nature, it will especially do this if by procuring the common good it faithfully observes the laws of God established by the divine Majesty for this economy of salvation. This demands above all that full freedom be granted to the Church and that whatever the Church judges to hinder the attainment of the eternal goal is excluded from legislation, governing, and public activity. The goal indeed should be to make it easier to live a life on Christian principles, one conducive to eternal life.  

Ironically, the very American theologian censured by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for his heretical teachings on Church and State, the Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray, was to  become the principle author of the heretical Vatican II declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. 

In 1954, the Holy Office solemnly condemned Murray's four principle errors:

• the Catholic state is not the ideal
• full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic state
• it is sufficient for the state to guarantee the freedom of the Catholic Church by a general guarantee of religious liberty
• the teaching of Pope Leo XIII on the obligations of States to God is not applicable to the democratic state.

Murray was ordered to submit his writings to the censors in Rome before publication. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to write no more on the topic of religious liberty, to which he acquiesced.

In 1957-1958, the Holy Office was preparing a document on religious freedom. A draft included a list of 21 errors, 14 of which were drawn from Murray’s writings. When Pope Pius XII died and Roncalli was "elected," the condemnations of error were ordered scrapped by His Wickedness, false "Pope" John XXIII. Here is what Dignitatis Humanae, para. #3 heretically teaches:

The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious. 

 From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith (DDF)

a) The True Catholic Development of Doctrine is clearly Expounded and Defended.

Para. #31:The Sacred Council, therefore, acknowledges and professes that true development in understanding and presenting the doctrine of faith does take place in Christ's Church, in such a way that new definitions of revealed truth can even be made. But it declares legitimate only a development which consists simply in an increase in human knowledge about revelation, and not in the growth of the deposit itself. For the deposit remains in itself immutable, since any truth that may be proposed newly by the Church is contained therein at least implicitly and therefore is supported by divine authority.

Compare with the Modernist conception of development of doctrine contained in the Vatican II's declaration on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, para. #8:

The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realties and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk. 2:19, 51). It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in Her. 

The last sentence is telling: Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in Her. The "plenitude of truth" is evidently the same thing as the "whole, complete truth" towards which the Holy Ghost leads. The "Spirit of God" leads to the "whole, complete truth" which the Church however does not yet possess; otherwise it would not have need of being led nor of tending there incessantly. This is to say that the Church does not yet fully possess Revelation and has not a true, perfect deposit of Faith. This is clearly heretical.

In 1907, Pope St. Pius X, CONDEMNED the following propositions of the Modernists in Lamentabili Sane:

21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.

54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

All of the above condemned propositions show the Modernist heresy of "development" whereby dogmas (and even the Church Herself) "evolve" over time into something completely different since truth is not immutable according to Modernism. Vatican II adopted this idea. 

b) The Rightful Place of Private Revelations.

Para. #32: With regard to private revelations which are claimed to have occurred after the death of the Apostles, the Holy Synod declares that they are to be subjected completely to the judgment of the Church's Pastors, lest the faithful be deceived, since Christ warned, "False prophets will arise and will deceive many" (Mt 24:11). It also declares that they are worthy of consideration only when they are in total agreement with the truths contained in the public treasury of faith and when they promote the living of the Christian life under the leadership of the Pastors. They cannot offer an opportunity to bring forth any ecclesiastical institutions unless they have a dogmatic foundation elsewhere. And, finally, it is never permitted because of them to introduce new doctrines or to begin new undertakings if the Church is unwilling. It further teaches that we neither must nor can give private revelations, even approved ones, the assent of Catholic faith but only the assent of human faith, according to the rules of prudence if these indicate that such revelations are probable and piously credible.

The Christian faithful should thus carefully restrain immoderate curiosity about wonders that are not sufficiently approved by the Church's Pastors. For there are people who pursue such things as if the very Deposit of faith were insufficient to nourish the Christian life or as if richer pastures lie before the sheep of Christ outside the Deposit. 

c) Occultism forcefully condemned. 

Para. #33: Such curiosity becomes truly pernicious when it moves believers to give themselves over to the superstition of divination of any form, but especially to that spiritualism that attempts by human effort to evoke sensible communication with spirits or with separated souls in order to attain various information or various helps. "There shall not be found among you anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.. For the Lord abominates all these things" (Dt 18:10-12). The Apostolic See has not neglected in various of its documents to oppose evil spiritualism with appropriate remedies.

Para. #34: In many regions superstition is creeping widely and is being spread more every day, sometimes also deceitfully under the false title of parapsychology, the discipline whose task it is to explain facts that appear to contradict the ordinary laws of psychology. The Sacred Council declares that the divine law prohibits as a very serious sin against religion both to want to call out the souls of the dead and to wish to establish perceptible communications with them or with any other spirits,

however it may be done, publicly or privately, even if the intention is to address only good spirits and the whole exhibition has the appearance of propriety, piety and religion. It forbids all Christians even out of mere curiosity to attend or to promote in any way spiritualist sessions or other meetings of this sort.

Para. #35: The Holy Synod does, however, exhort all the faithful to imitate the example of holy Mother Church by praying for the faithful departed that they may attain the vision of God and intercede with Him for us; it also exhorts them to commend themselves to the holy Angels who in God's fatherly providence guard the human race and are ready by direction, assistance, and enlightenment to help individuals not to succumb to their malicious enemies.

The approved theologians saw the ugly head of the occult slowly beginning to rise during the 1950s.

Had this condemnation emanated from a true Council, led by a true pope, I have no doubts in my mind that the occult revival and invasion after Vatican II--which made occult practices ubiquitous---would never had happened. 

d) Polygenism condemned. 

Para. #49: The sacred Synod, therefore, rejects the views of those who assert either that after Adam there have been here on earth true men who did not derive by natural generation from that one first parent or that Adam represents some multitude of first parents; such views contradict Catholic doctrine.

For it is not at all apparent how such views are compatible with the sources of revealed truth, and the acts of the Church's Magisterium present about original sin, which proceeds from the sin truly committed by the one Adam and which is transmitted to all by generation, and which is in each person as his own.

Here, the schema ratifies the condemnation of Pope Pius XII regarding polygenism in para. #37 of his encyclical Humani Generis:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. 

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Christian Moral Order (CMO)

a) Moral Relativism Condemned.

Para. #1: When the infinitely good and infinitely holy God revealed the mystery of his holiness and love in the work of creation and redemption, he at the same time showed men the way of love and holiness. For this reason, in accord with the Apostle's statement, "This is the will of God, your sanctification" (1 Th 4:3), the Second Vatican Council [this is a schema; this is what Vatican II was intended to profess, but did not] solemnly professes that there is an ordering [ordinatio] of the same infinitely good and infinitely holy God by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human acts. This ordering of divine wisdom, which men share by knowledge, becomes the rule and norm of holiness for them so that, as Sacred Scripture teaches, they may be holy as God Himself is holy.

Observing this moral order with the help of God, without which no one can serve the divine will, man conforms his will to the will of God; and, sharing in the law of liberty (see Jas 1:25), he not only becomes a faithful servant of God, but also shares in that freedom of the children of God in virtue of which, freed from the slavery of sin,  he can tend towards his ultimate end, which in this economy of salvation is God himself, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, to be possessed in heaven by contemplation and by love. The moral order, therefore, is not a fiction of the human mind, but really exists, just as the will of God, infinitely wise, good, and holy, really exists.  

b) "Situation Ethics" condemned.

Para. #15: Finally, there are people who so make love the only criterion of morality and its single norm that they think the other virtues are not important. It is true that the love by which the just love God above all things and love the neighbor because of God is "greater" than faith, hope, and the other virtues (1 Cor 13:13); it does not, however, remove the need for both these kinds of virtues, but so nourishes and fosters them that we may come "to the extent of the full stature of Christ" (Eph 4:13).

The Holy Council therefore encourages that all the activities of the Christian faithful "be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14). But they should not therefore make the mistake of thinking that a man "acts in a Christian manner" only when love is the motive or that the other virtues are unimportant, as if God crowned only an explicit act of love. For acts ofthe just that proceed from another proper motive or impulse condignly merit the growth of grace and of glory, not however without that love.

Care should likewise be taken that simple people not misunderstand the statement, "Love and do what you wish," and mistakenly think that only one precept, namely Thou shalt love, has to be kept in the Christian life. For such a life is reduced to some uncertain feeling of love, completely neglecting the keeping of the commandments, in contradiction of the Lord himself, who said,

"If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17), and elsewhere---

"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me" (Jn 14:21).

"Situation Ethics" is a system made popular by Episcopal "priest" turned atheist, Joseph Fletcher (d.1991). Fletcher wrote ten books and hundreds of articles, book reviews, and translations. Situation ethics essentially states that other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served. Fletcher supported abortion on demand, euthanasia, infanticide, contraception, pre-marital sex, and every form of sexual perversion. In his 1966 book, Situation Ethics, Fletcher wrote, Whether any form of sex is good or evil depends on whether love is fully served. (pg. 139). He also opined that ...only the end justifies the means. (pg. 120). Vatican II never mentions (let alone condemns) moral relativism or situation ethics. 

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on Chastity, Marriage, the Family, and Virginity (CMVF)

(a) Transgenderism condemned.

Para. #4: It should be noted that God alone is the absolute lord of man's life and of its integrity, particularly with respect to what makes man naturally capable of and associates him with God in the propagation of human life.

Attempts to change one's sex, therefore, when this is sufficiently determined, are wicked; nor is it allowed, in order to save the health of the whole man, to mutilate his genital organs or to render them infertile, if there are other ways to provide for his health.

 Nor in any case is or can there be a right to transplant into the human body the sexual organs of animals which produce the germinative cells of their own genus, or vice-versa; nor also to try to unite the human germ cells of each sex in a laboratory, even if this is done without violating modesty and chastity and solely for the sake of scientific progress. 

This principle condemns transgenderism before it was even known by the general public. As to the experiments with gametes, the footnote in the schema had this to say:

Here the Constitution has in mind all those modern experiments being made to unite the vital human germ cells, even independently of an intention at artificial fertilization, but for other purposes. Many

are waiting for the Church clearly to say that these experiments are in every hypothesis illicit, even if civil legislatures until now, as far as we know, are doing nothing; indeed materialists may take the occasion publicly to ridicule divine principles in the newspapers.

b) So-called "free love" and false ideas about marriage condemned.

Para. #22: The Sacred Synod must severely condemn so-called "temporary" or "experimental" or "companionate" marriages. It also rejects as unworthy of a man and especially of a Christian those instructions by which through various skills a real hedonism in sacred and holy marriage is propagated.

It also rejects theories by which a violation of marital fidelity is considered allowed to spouses, either when the mutual love between the couple has failed or when the sexual impulse is falsely thought to be impossible to keep within the limits of monogamous marriage.

It is also mistaken to state that civil authority itself never has the power to punish adulterers, and indeed with an equal penalty for both men and women. It also rebukes those who say, and indeed under the pretext of benefitting the Church, that mixed marriages are generally and in themselves to be fostered rather than tolerated. That position is also mistaken which maintains that a marriage can be declared invalid or dissolved solely because of a failure of love.

Finally the Sacred Synod most severely condemns so-called "free love," by which, under a false pretext of constructing a new fraternity and society, sin is committed against the divine order and a lethal wound is inflicted not only on marriage but also on the family and society. 

Compare to the Vatican II sect having "marriage preparation" classes for "cohabitating couples." These fornicators, living in a persistent state of mortal sin, are not made to separate bed and board, confess, and stay chaste until marriage. 

c) Feminism Condemned.

Para. #26: It is mistaken, therefore, to deny the divine origin of the family and to subvert the order which God set within it or to remove it from the control and influence of the divine order and of the Church. And therefore this Sacred Synod, while it defends the rights of the woman, rejects that evil form of emancipation by which, whether as a daughter or a wife or a mother, her proper nature, function, and role are disfigured by some false view of her equality with the man.

Nor does it approve of that way of acting by which some people, indeed civil authority itself, moved by some false exaltation of freedom, either denies or belittles or, what is worse, practically destroys, to the detriment of the family's good, the natural and distinct qualities of man and woman.

d) Periodic Abstinence vindicated.

Para. #27: Today especially, a distinctive sign of truly Christian parents should be that generous way

of acting, one in accordance with the norms of Christian virtues, with which they think correctly about the number of their children and act accordingly. The Sacred Synod is not at all unaware of the many and great difficulties which spouses may encounter on this matter. It therefore teaches in general that by divine law, natural or positive, there is no universal norm with regard to the number of children to be had in each family. In each case should be considered what individual conditions, the good of the whole family and of society suggest, according to the dictates of Christian prudence, linked also with the other virtues. In their particular deliberations, the faithful should not be moved only by temporal and material considerations, but first of all by supernatural ones, and they should be led by the light of reason and of faith.

And, as befits Christians, in measuring the number of their children, they should be mindful of divine Providence by which all things are wisely ordered. In so serious a matter, the faithful should avoid irrational and blind instinct and the various forms of hedonism.

If they both agree and if they have a just cause, it is licit for the faithful to make use of marriage only on those days which are known to be infertile. But renouncing the use of marriage becomes illicit for them if, as the Apostle noted (see 1 Cor 7:5), it brings the spouses into a proximate danger of sin. Let the supreme rule be the Apostle's general advice: "Let all your acts be done with charity" (1 Cor 16:14). And therefore values and reasons that are merely medical, eugenic, economic, social or of some other temporal and material order, may not be opposed to, preferred to, or equated with the values and reasons of a higher order, the order of religion and morality. (Emphasis mine). 

Remember that the greatest approved theologians, noted for their orthodoxy, knew that periodic abstinence was permissible for just cause--as this schema demonstrates. This gives the lie to Fred and Bobby Dimond, wreaking havoc on married people's consciences that they must have, in all cases, the most children possible. It was a false pope that allowed this document to be destroyed! Can you imagine if this passed in a true Council with a true pope? It would be a world where Fred and Bobby would need to get real jobs suited to their dispositions and intellects (e.g., asking customers, "Would you like fries with that?").

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and Mother of Men (BVM)

a) The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redmeptrix of the Human Race.

Para. #2: The Word of the eternal Father willed to receive his human nature from a woman so that as

death came from a woman so also life would arise for us from a woman and thus liberation would be accomplished by both sexes

He did not accomplish this, however, until the designated Mother, redeemed in a more sublime way by the foreseen merits of Christ, had given her free acceptance (see Lk 1:38) so that by the incarnation the Son of God would become her Son also and the new Adam and Savior of the world. By this consent Mary, the daughter of Adam, not only became the Mother of Jesus, the one divine Mediator and Redeemer, but with him and under him also joined her work in accomplishing the redemption of the human race. This salvific consent of the Mother of God and thus her participation in the work of redemption lasted from the time of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ until his death; it especially shone forth when, not without the divine plan, she stood by the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), when she powerfully shared her only Son’s, with him and through him with all her heart offered him as the price of our redemption, and when she was given to men as their Mother by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross (see Jn 19:26-27). Because, however, the mystery of human redemption was not completed until the Holy Ghost Christ had promised came on the day of Pentecost, we contemplate Mary in the Cenacle with the Apostles persevering in prayer (see Acts 1:14) imploring by her prayers too the outpouring of the Spirit.

b) The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mediatrix of All Grace.

Para. #3: This humble "handmaid of the Lord," for whom "he who is mighty has done great things" (see Lk 1:49), is called the Mediatrix of all graces because she was associated with Christ in acquiring these graces, and she is invoked by the Church as our advocate and Mother of Mercy, because even now she remains the associate of the glorious Christ in heaven and intercedes for all through Christ so that in the conferral of all graces to men there is present the maternal charity of the Blessed Virgin. But in no way is the mediation of our only Mediator--according to the absolute sense of the words of the Apostle (1 Tm 2:5): "There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus"--obscured or diminished; indeed this mediation of Christ is extolled and honored. For it is in Christ that Mary is Mediatrix, and her mediation comes, not from any necessity, but from the divine pleasure and from the superabundance and virtue of the merits of Jesus; it rests on the mediation of Christ, entirely depends on it, and obtains its entire force from it.

This was the hardest schema for the Modernists to relegate to the trash bin. Devotion to Mary and her privileges was "in the DNA," so to speak, of lay Catholics and Catholic clergymen. The Modernists went to work quickly to stop it. Led by arch-Modernist Cardinal Frings, his henchman peritus (theological expert), Fr. Ratzinger (later false pope Benedict XVI), and the wicked theologian Fr. Karl Rahner, the Modernists made the plea that keeping this schema would "alienate the Protestants" and impede the "ecumenical movement" as it would be "hard for the Protestants to understand." Cardinal Spellman of New York, was fighting alongside the Traditionalists at that point, and submitted a written intervention composed with the help of Fr. DePauw.

Cardinal Spellman's intervention asked in disbelief how they could not define important Marian doctrines “because they would be rather difficult for Protestants to understand.” The Cardinal was opposed to this sort of reasoning, he said, because “the task of the Ecumenical Council is to teach the members of the Church, rather than those outside of it.” In the closest vote of the Robber Council, the Marian schema was discarded by a vote of 1,114 Council Fathers in favor of scrapping it, and 1,097 Council Fathers wanting to retain it. The Modernists won by 17 votes. 

Conclusion

Had Roncalli not usurped the throne of St. Peter as false pope John XXIII, the above is what Vatican II (if it were called at all) could have been. The world we would be living in would be so different; in the best way imaginable. The Church, far from being underground, would be in all Her glory. Let us always remember what was taken from us, and resolve all the more to hold on to the One True Faith, True Mass, and true sacraments. 

The words of John Greenleaf Whittier come to mind: For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, “It might have been.”