Home

3. THE SMOKE OF SATAN: The Church in fact is in apostasy now.

CLAIM #6 The adaptation of the Church to liberal ideas represents the cherished goal of organized Masonry and Communism

The book alleges that current apostasy exists in the Church as a result of a long-planned plot by freemasons and communists to infiltrate the Church and poison it from the inside with their modernistic, liberal philosophies.

EVIDENCE FOR INFILTRATION VIA ORGANIZED MASONRY:

Evidence 1: The Anti-Catholic sentiment by Freemasons and communists was shown by the persecution of the children by those forces

my comments: This shows that at that point in time there were people in Portugal, freemasons and perhaps communist sympathizers who did want to curtail the spread and message of the Catholic Church. This doesnt show that they have a cherished goal for the Church to adapt liberal ideals. Only that they didnt like the church at that time and in that place. This shows the potential for infiltration, but is no evidence that it was systematically planned.

Evidence 2: A Masonic Anti-Catholic document, Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. Secret conspiracy in 1800s. The Permanent Instruction is very clear: "The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them. The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day...it may last several years, perhaps a century; but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on...This reputation (as good Catholics) will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries."

Evidence 3: a quote of a prominent Freemason pg (39) "the goal (of Freemasonry) is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use of it by infiltrating it"

my comment: These evidences do show that infiltration was planned by at least SOME freemasons.

Heres what the Freemasons say about Alta Vendita on their website:

"10. Doesn't the Alta Vendita prove that Freemasonry is anti-Catholic?

No.
The current interest in the Alta Vendita, mostly on the part of the extreme anti-Vatican II fringe of the Catholic church,1 was piqued by the 1998 publication of Alta Vendita, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita by John Vennari, a writer for the Catholic Family News.
This little booklet2 reprints a collection of papers reputedly from 1820s Alta Vendita correspondence published by authority of Pope Gregory XVI (1846-1878) in 1859.3
During the early 19th century the people of the Italian states were attempting to expel foreign troops, mostly French and Austrian, and to redefine their political relationship with the aristocracy and the Roman Catholic Church. One of several political and militant groups, the Carbonari promoted republicanism, liberalism and what the Catholic church condemns as "modernism". The Carbonari leadership was titled the Alta Vendita. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Just as the name "Carbonari" was adopted from the charcoal-burners, so also in their secret intercourse they made use of many expressions taken from the occupation of charcoal-burning. The place where the members assembled was called baracca (hut), its interior vendita (place of selling coal), and its surroundings foresta (forest). The members called one another buon cugino (good cousin); those not belonging to the society were pagani (heathens). The Carbonari were divided into two classes: apprentices and masters. No apprentice could rise to the grade of a master before the end of six months. The members made themselves known to one another by secret signs in shaking hands. These signs for masters and apprentices were unlike. One of the underlying principles of the society, it is true, was that the "good brotherhood" rested on religion and virtue; but by this was understood a purely natural conception of religion, and the mention of religion was absolutely forbidden. In reality the association was opposed to the Church. Nevertheless, it venerated St. Theobald as its patron saint. The members belonging to each separate district formed a vendita, called thus from the place of assembly. At the head was the alta vendita, to which deputies were chosen from the other vendite.4
Whether the Carbonari was "opposed to the Church" or only opposed to the temporal and political power of the Church and whether such a distinction is possible is not the issue here. The important point is that after the fall of the Bourbons, its influence rapidly declined and, after 1841, nothing more was heard of it.

Interest in the Alt Venditi was kept alive by such discredited conspiracy theorists as Nester Webster, Edith Starr Miller5 and William Guy Carr 6 and further promoted by the John Birch Society.7

There is nothing in Vennari's booklet, or any other writings on the Alta Venditi, that proves that the group was associated in any fashion with regular Freemasonry, that it had any influence on Freemasonry, that it grew out of the Bavarian Illuminati, or that it continues to exist in any form. []

1. Mario Derksen, in Traditional Insights April 12-14, volume 13, no. 70, believes that Pope John Paul II is promoting indifferentism, syncretism, and humanism. <>. cf.: Archbishop Lefebvre, "They have Uncrowned Him." >.
2. Cretineau-Joly, The Roman Church and Revolution. (2nd volume, original edition, 1859; reprinted by Circle of the French Renaissance, Paris, 1976; cf.: Mgr. Delassus The Anti-Christian Conspiracy, DDB, 1910, Tome III, pp. 1035-1091.
3. John Vennari. The permanent instruction of the Alta Vendita : a masonic blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church . Rockford, IL : Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1998. ISBN: 0895556448
4. "Carbonari." J.P. Kirsch, Transcribed by Gerald M. Knight. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
5. Queenborough, Edith Starr née Miller Paget, Baroness (d. 1933), Abbeville (France) : Imprimerie F. Paillart, 1933. 2v : front. (ports.) illus., facsims. (1 fold.) ; 23 cm [Published posthumously for private circulation only. Published under the auspices of the International league for historical research]. pp. 427-438. Miller is also the author of Common sense in the kitchen, New York: Brentano's, 1918. 55 p. 23 cm. LCCN: 18013347.
6. William Guy Carr, Pawns in The Game, Introduction, 1958.
7. "Demolishing Conspiracy Bromides." Robert W. Lee. The John Birch Society Bulletin, January 1997."



Here's what the Freemasons say they are: "Freemasonry is simply a Fraternityan organization of men, banded together to further develop themselves ethically and morally, and to benefit the community at large!"

Also: "The fraternity utilizes certain rituals, symbols and signs of recognition that are not made public, but Masonry is not a secret society. Its only secrets are its methods of recognition and symbolic instruction. It does not hide its existence, and many Masons proudly wear Masonic rings or lapel pins. Masonry is not a religion, though it is religious in character, requiring a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. Masonry accepts men regardless of their religion and encourages them to participate in their respective religion, and to worship according to their faith."

The above information (except the last quote) comes from the Freemason website,
www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry_faq.html , and the last quote was from a 2003 circus program book put out by the Moolah Shrine Center


my comments: The above admits that Alta Vendita was real, but says it was limited in scope, and died out in 1841. Additionally, it provides evidence of fully discrediting some of the more popular anti-mason conspirators. I'm not going to delve into a study of that, but those who wish to may want to check out what they say.

It looks to me like the book is relying very heavily on this Instruction book which is almost 200 years old, and on very little else, to support their argument. I dont see where the book adequately addresses the idea that after 1841 Alta Vendita pretty much was dead. My thoughts are this: Every powerful institution will have enemies. It is not surprising that the Church has had them too. Clearly the Alta Vendita was anti-Catholic and proposed a way of conquering Catholicism through infiltration. However, it is not clear at all that the plans of a multiple-decade infiltration were carried out at all. Where is the proof that freemasons infiltrated the Church? Apparently, I see from their website that the free masons have been accused of housing the Illuminati, which some people believe is an elaborate cult of Satan Worship, also. I think people can go overboard with conspiracy theories and a society that has certain secrets like the freemasons is a ripe target for those kinds of theories. The combination of secrets and authority make for a condition that is ripe for all kinds of conspiracy theories. But, the books proof is one document and a quote by one of the members. There is no proof of an ongoing society-wide plan to undue Catholicism in the way the book describes. I would think that if there really was an ongoing campaign, then we would have the testimony of thousands of good-hearted Masons who joined without having anti-Catholic feelings who were shocked upon learning of these grand plans if they still exist. But, we dont have that. The silence is deafening. I dont believe that this kind of secret can be kept by over 5 million worldwide members so well. The fact that we have a few writers that have expressed some similar anti-Catholic views is not corroborated by the evidence one would expect to come from the others. The evidence has to be greater than a book 180 years old and a few quotes. If this kind of organized conspiracy were actually carried out, there simply would be more writing and testimony than what actually exists.


Id like to point out a few related misleading headings in the book, in my opinion:

pg 46 heading Masonic Predictions of a Modernist Breakthrough at an Ecumenical Council. None of the quotes are said to be by a Mason. The section heading appears to be misleading, based on the belief in the Masonic conspiracy, which hasnt been proved at all.

pg 47 Masonic Alliance with Communism Another misleading heading. This section is not about some partnership between Communism and Masons, although they may have shared some similar philosophies. It is about a secret plot by communists to infiltrate the church in a big way.



EVIDENCE FOR INFILTRATION VIA COMMUNISM:

Evidence 1. The book refers to a worldwide directive about infiltrating the Catholic Church in the 1930s by the communist party.

my comments. The book doesnt quote this directive anywhere. It is based on hearsay. The word I question here is worldwide. There is no doubt that communism saw the Catholic Church as a threat to its goal of spreading communist philosophies and governments. You cant have two kings of a mountain, so it only makes sense that communism would want to undermine or destroy the Church. So, such a goal seems reasonable. But, the question I have is how successful were they in infiltrating the church? Was it limited to the communist countries or did it really happen worldwide?

Evidence 2. The book quotes Mrs. Bella Dodd, who was a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party. In the 50s, speaking of the activity of the Party in America, she said: "In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within....A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that Right now they are in the highest places in the Church."
.
my comments: This is one quote from one person. My objection is similar to the one regarding the freemasons. If the infiltration was that severe here in America, we would have other corroborating evidence. I think we need more information on Bella Dodd before making a conclusion. Is her testimony reliable? It may be, but two facts should be considered. 1. Having been a high ranking communist party member in America, she was a radical. She therefore may not have been of very sound mind. and 2. Her testimony was in the 1950s, the days that America was extremely paranoid about communist infiltration in our country. Therefore, there was a market for anyone willing to feed this kind of paranoia. Bella Dodd fed the paranoia. And, not only did she testify, she went on the lecture circuit, receiving plenty of attention and possibly money for doing so. In all, there is plenty of reason to doubt her story given the lack of any corroborating evidence for intense communist infiltration of the Catholic Church in America. If her statement were true, where is the supporting evidence?

Evidence 3: Soviet defector and ex-KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn, who defected in 1961 and in 1984 said this penetration of the catholic and other churches is part of the Partys general line in the struggle against religion.

my comments: I think it is likely that in Russia there was great opposition to religion. The many martyrs and persecutions of the Church in Russia clearly attest to that. Penetration, through infiltration, seems possible, but we need some evidence. AND, HERE IT IS!:

Evidence 4: Actual files smuggled by Vassili Mitrokhin and published in 1999 that tell about the KGB cultivating the closest possible relationships with progressive Catholics and financing their activities His writings are considered truthful, with lots of evidence--numerous copies of actual secret KGB files.from many years.

Heres an interesting quote I found about something called the Mitrokhin Dossier. I bolded the parts:
"The "Mitrokhin Dossier," containing documents copied from the secret files of the KGB after the downfall of the Soviet government, indicates that in the early 1980s the top priority of the KGB office in Rome was to penetrate the Vatican diplomatic service. At the time, the Kremlin (Russia) feared that Western governments-- especially the United States-- had access to intelligence information from the Vatican. KGB agents were therefore directed to identify and recruit Vatican staff members who might have access to classified information, and could be persuaded to pass that information along to the KGB.
The KGB documents indicate that the Kremlin recognized that it would be difficult to corrupt Vatican officials. However, Soviet intelligence analysts judged that the effort would pay rich dividends, because Vatican diplomats are renowned for their ability to collect sensitive information from all over the world-- precisely because the Holy See has a deserved reputation for guarding secrets." (27)

my comments: This, to me is very telling. First, it indicates that it was in the 80s that the KGB wanted to penetrate the Vatican in order to get classified information. Nothing is said here about having a motivation to corrupt the Church. But, more importantly, the last part says the Kremlin recognized that it would be difficult to corrupt Vatican officials. Why would it be difficult if the church was already corrupt at the highest levels, as Belle Dodd said 30 years prior? Surely, if they had such a conspiracy scheme going, they would have been able to work with plenty of sources right there in the Vatican, I would think.

Since this is the most credible source of information about secret Russian activities ever found, one would think that the information would be extremely telling regarding the church. Heres some of his further writings, clearly indicating that there was a lot of corruption in the Russian Orthodox Church and some infiltration outside of Russia:

"After Stalin's death...in early 1953, a power struggle among the top Communists prevented them from concentrating on suppressing the ever-stronger resurgence of Christianity. By..1963, Russian Christians had become an overwhelming force in parts of the Soviet Union...By the 1960's, the KGB's task and tactics of combating Christianity both inside and outside the Soviet Union became very similar: "divide, demoralize, and discredit" (p.504) primarily through infiltration of secret agents who were monks, priests, ministers, bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs.
An archive copy of a "Secret KGB directive of 1961" states:
Up to 600 individuals are studying in the two ecclesiastical academies of the Moscow Patriarch and the five ecclesiastical seminaries . . . We must infiltrate our people among the students . . . so that they will subsequently influence the state of affairs within the Russian Orthodox church and exert influence on believers.
The following year KGB general Gribanov was able to boast that within two years: the KGB had infiltrated "reliable agents into" the leading positions of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Catholic dioceses, the Armenian Gregorian Church . . . (which) would make it possible to remove remaining "reactionary Church and sectarian authorities" from their posts.
Father Dimitri Dudko, who was very well known as a dissident priest, claimed that all of the clergy had to cooperate with the KGB in some way as the price for being allowed to do parish work. According to Anatoli Oleinikov, the last deputy chairman of the KGB, before it was dissolved, in 1991, 15 to 20% of the Russian Orthodox priests who had been propositioned had refused. This, of course, meant the end of any career advancementat the very least. "The section of the Orthodox Church most compromised by its association with the KGB was its hierarchy."
From the 1960's to the disintegration of the Soviet state in the early 1990's, a very high priority of the KGB was to insure that no criticism of the Soviet state in matters of religion should reach an international audience...
Among other things, the KGB had no qualms about using its agent priests and bishops abroad for normal espionage tasksincluding the creation of false identities for its other agents ("illegals"), and agent recruitment among émigré communities.
As late as April 1969, Andropov approved "measures to intensify the struggle against . . . the Vatican and the Uniates." A branch of the KGB received instructions "to attempt the agent penetration of all major sections of the Vatican bureaucracy, the Jesuit order, the Russicum and other pontifical colleges training priests for Eastern churches. At this time, or shortly afterwards, the following agents were operating out of Rome: APOSTOL, RASS, SLUGA (Roman clerics), PETROV, ROGULIN (who arrived in January 1968 for three years of study at the Russicum), ANTANAS and VIDMANTAS (from Lithuania, studying at the Gregorian in 1969), ZHIBUTE (A Lithuanian on the Canon Law commission) and DAKTARAS (a Lithuanian bishop), who met with Pope Paul VI in June 1969. Uniate Bishop Dudas, resident in Hungary, was regularly deceived by the female KGB agent POTOCHINA, who was "sent to obtain intelligence on the Vatican's secret contacts with the Ukrainian Uniates," once she had "succeeded in winning Duda's confidence." Four "leading KGB agents in the Russian Orthodox Church" who had regular contact with the Vatican were instructed "to find ways of creating distrust between emigre clerics in Rome and Uniates and other Catholics in the Soviet Union."

By 1973, the KGB managed to plant another agent, PROFESSOR, in the Vatican, who was able to worm his way into the confidence of Cardinal Slipyj. This agent had previously worked for the Czech StB, before he was recruited by the Soviet KGB. By 1975, the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian agencies all had "significant agent positions in the Vatican." Plans were drawn up to cultivate the Uniate leadership and no fewer than seven cardinals . . . as well as an ela-borate series of active measures to influence and discredit the Catholic Church."" (27)

(27) http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/2001-02/books3.html

my comments: THIS IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE INFILTRATION OCCURRED AT A DEEP LEVEL WITHIN THE RUSSIA ORTHODOX CHURCH, with great emphasis on reducing Uniate (in union with Rome) population. There has been a conspiracy to infiltrate the Church within Russia, and some of the other communist countries. It provides evidence that infiltration also occurred by communists within the Vatican but at a much lesser level, as attested to the statement by the Kremlin in the 1980s that it would be difficult to corrupt Vatican officials.


SUMMARY
CLAIM #6 The adaptation of the Church to liberal ideas represents the cherished goal of organized Masonry and Communism

CONCLUSIONS:
This is little evidence to support the idea that there has been an organized ongoing 180 year conspiracy to infiltrate the Church by the Masons. There is good evidence to support the idea that there has been infiltration of the Church within Russia by the KGB. There is little evidence to support the idea that there has been significant infiltration of the Church in the Vatican, although some infiltration has occurred in recent decades. There is also little evidence for such infiltration in the United States and other non-communist countries. The words of Bella Dodd are unsupported by any corroborating evidence, since they pertain to US infiltration. The purpose of the infiltration is described as being for political reasons and to discredit the Church. Those are too vague to ascribe to apostasy, although that would not be an unreasonable way to discredit the Church. However, the communist infiltration for which we do have evidence appears to have been too late to account for the increase in liberal bishops in the decades preceding Vatican II. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that while a lot of infiltration has occurred in Russia (mainly in the Russian Orthodox Church), the number outside of Russia is likely small, and the numbers in the Vatican are very few. The evidence supports the idea that infiltration by communists has occurred, but that it has been too little and too late to have had an apostasy effect on the Church as a whole. It does not support the statements of Bella Dodd implying worldwide infiltration which reached into the highest levels of the Church prior to the 1960s. Any corruption of the Vatican, resulting in apostasy, does not seem to have any basis in a planned infiltration of the freemasons or the communist movement.



CLAIM #5 The men who have governed the Church since 1960 have given the human element of the church an entirely new orientation, reflected in their response to Fatima.


Evidence 1 Not revealing the Third Message
In February, 1960 the Vatican basically said they wont reveal the message many had been awaiting. It was announced anonymously. No one wanted to take credit. And, it reflected a change in the Churchs position toward it, by saying Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She does not pledge Herself to guarantee the veracity of the words which the three shepherds claim to have heard from Our Lady.

My comment: I want to first point out that the book implies that the change in the orientation of the church began in 1960, the year the message was supposed to be revealed. This is not accurate. As detailed on pg 51, signs of change were evident in the 40s and 50s, signs Sister Lucia very well could have known of. The new Pope, John XXIII ascended to the Pontifical Chair in 1958, and the Second Vatican Council began on October 11, 1962 (p62). So, it is not correct to point to 1960 as the date all things began to change.

The only reason 1960 is important is that the Vatican, most likely under pressure from those expecting a response, put out the press release saying they wont reveal the Third Message. Did the church change their orientation toward Fatima? The answer is probably. However, what was their orientation? The book indicated that they recognized the apparitions as valid. The Church didnt change this viewpoint in the press released. But they did say they couldnt guarantee the veracity of the words. Is this a change? Probably. However, the words werent really known until the late 1930s-early1940s. They quickly became very controversial due to things that seemed contradictory to many people. Some doubts within the Church surfaced soon after publication. The book doesnt talk about that. It is not clear to me that the Church really ever adopted a definitive position even toward the first 2 messages. The book says that the Church had adopted First Saturday devotion of the Communion of Reparation, indicated in the 2nd message. It is not clear to me that that was ever officially adopted. To my knowledge the first official Church response to the third message is that given on February 8, 1960. The Church didnt change its orientation toward it because it had never expressed a viewpoint before. Overall though the Church became more doubting, but we cant say that it was due to a change in philosophy or orientation. It may have been strictly in response to the additional words that became available to respond to, which contained a number of seeming contradictions..

Did they not reveal the Third Secret because of their change in orientation? It is possible, since they now expressed doubt as to the veracity of the words. There are other possible reasons. The book contends that the reason they changed their position was due to their new orientation toward dialogue. That may be the reason. On the surface it appears to be quite possible. Another may be that the third message was scary, and there was a lot of fear in the late 50s and early 60s of nuclear annihilation due to the US-Russia nuclear development. Maybe the Vatican was very concerned to not cause a panic by revealing the vision of a city in half-ruin, and piles of corpses and a Pope being shot to death along with others after him, including lay people. Heres what Father Alonso says in 1979: "It is easier to understand today the reasons why the Holy See did not reveal the Secret, and may never do so. To begin with , the circumstances which immediately preceded the year 1960 produced an abnormal atmosphere which made the publication of the Secret inadvisable. To have acted otherwise would have been to contribute to the anxiety and state of panic caused by so many false texts, so many apocalyptic prophecies attributed to Lucia, and so much curiosity provoked by all sectors of the communications media. Apart from this, there was the fear that the true text, once made known, would immediately be distorted by those who are ever eager to thrust before the public the most alarming news with the most sensational interpretations. Most importantly, Fatima and its total message would have been reduced to only this third part...when it is far more than that..We might wonder, furthermore, whether it is reasonable to think that the Holy See would ever directly authorize the publication of a text on matters of such great delicacy. It has never done such a thing."

Another viewpoint is that the secret was not necessarily supposed to be made public. Cardinal Ottaviani said: "..the third part...not indeed for Lucia herself, nor for the world, at least not directly, but rather for the Vicar of Jesus Christ...that which Our Lady revealed to her to be told to the Holy Father; it is important for the Holy Father for whom it was destined. It was addressed to him...we should be content with the fact that in his wisdom he wished it to remain a secret." (28)

(28) The Secret of Fatima, pg 71

However, fear and privacy doesnt justify casting doubt on the veracity of the words. Maybe the Vatican knew other things about Sister Lucia. Maybe they decided that the modernist Jesuit, Father Dhanis made a strong case against the previously held beliefs about Sister Lucia. Maybe they just thought it would be easier to wait until Sister Lucia died. We cant say what their motivation was. Maybe it was a combination of all of these factors. Not revealing the Third Secret doesnt prove they had a change in orientation. However, their expression of doubt about the veracity of the words does show a new change in orientation with regard to the messages. They clearly did have some reservations about proclaiming it completely authentic. However, it does not necessarily follow that the new reservations stem from a new, liberal mindset in the Vatican. This requires other evidences.

Evidence 2 From 1960 forward, Sister Lucia is silenced on orders of the Vatican apparatus

my comment: The evidence presented on pg 299 is strong. Again, I agree that the Vatican had changed its viewpoint on the message. The question becomes why? Why was she silenced? We can only speculate. The same possibilities as in 2 paragraphs above apply here, combined with a desire not to embarrass Sister Lucia or themselves for having changed their position. Also, they maybe dont want to hurt the faith of those who do place a great emphasis on the Fatima messages. Another thing to consider is this: Sister Lucia doesnt have to remain silent. IF she sees the Vatican as fulfilling the unrevealed 3rd Secret about apostasy, she certainly could just spill the beans any time she wanted to. If that is really what she believes, doesnt it seem like she would break the silence and tell the world?

Evidence 3: The documents in the official Fatima archives, which Father Alonso will compile between 1965 and 1976 will be barred from publication, even though they confirm that the prophecies in the first 2 parts had been accurately revealed privately by Sister Lucia long before their fulfillment.

my comment: I couldnt find any reference in the book to support this claim about the prophecies. If the archives were not allowed to be published, what is the evidence that the unpublished works confirm prophecy? Unless this is supplied, it should be considered unsupported and therefore of no value.

Evidence 4 Dramatic changes in Vatican II

my comments: This is undeniable. Many changes came about from Vatican II. One of the stated main purposes of all the changes was to make the faith more understandable to its parishioners, both current and in the future. Another was to reduce its condemnation of dissenting viewpoints from the various non-Catholic Protestant faiths as well as non-Christian faiths. Lastly, the reduction in condemnation extended to non-Christian philosophies, including politically oriented ones, with communism being one of the main ones of interest. I think there is no question that a new orientation began to be implemented in the mid-1960s with the various changes brought about by Vatican II. However, do these changes constitute apostasy? I will review that further under claim #7

SUMMARY:
CLAIM #5 The men who have governed the Church since 1960 have given the human element of the church an entirely new orientation, reflected in their response to Fatima.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, yes the Church underwent significant (though not entirely different) changes in orientation. And, yes they changed their stance, possibly for a number of different reasons, with regard to the veracity of the 3 messages. One of the more likely reasons was due to the doubts Father Dhanis and others displayed in the preceding 2 decades, from an deep analysis of the various writings of Sister Lucia. The Vatican position toward Fatima does appear to have become less accepting by the 1960s. This change may not have anything to do with new thinking within the Vatican, but it could. It could reflect a more cautious viewpoint on certain aspects to apparitions in general, or it may be specific only to Fatima. We cannot know. A change in orientation toward Fatima does not necessarily reflect apostasy, although it could.


CLAIM #7
Rather than fighting against the new orientation, the Church has accepted liberalism in many forms

my comment: This really is the heart of the matter. Did the Church go into apostasy or not?

Evidence 1: Implementing Ostpolitik, a policy by which many members of the Church are made to avoid any condemnation of or active opposition to Communist regimes. This is in direct compromise to the moral liberty of the Catholic Church. As Pope Pius XI said (pg 54) about communism "In the face of such a threat the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent..for it knows that its proper and special mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks"

my comments: This is a real policy and change from the Churchs previous responses to communism. Is this apostasy? I have mixed feelings about this. I can understand why the Church would change its position:. Those previous positions were held before communism had grown so much more powerful, as they had become in the 60s. It is easier to condemn a threat when the threat is new and relatively small. Communism was succeeding in infiltrating the Church and greatly corrupting it in Russia, as well as torturing thousands of devout Catholics in Russia. The Vatican may have decided that one of the main reasons Communism was doing that was the fact that the Vatican had spoken out so harshly against them over the years. So, maybe the Vatican figured that Ostpolitik would reduce the attack on the Church--a kind of Ill back off so that youll back off philosophy. I cant say that I blame them though at all--the old approach wasnt working well at all. An interesting commentary including the Popes misgivings about this policy can be found at http://www.altavista.com/r?ck_sm=79306d09&rpos=4&rpge=1&ref=2000200f8&uid=7e4f5c51dc8f3916&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cwnews.com%2FBrowse%2F1997%2F11%2F6363.htm

The bottom line is that this appears to be a change in orientation that includes silence in the face of evil. However, there is another way to look at it. The Church very well may have maintained a stance against all of the evils of communism, and have spoken about them, but at the same time not labeling such evils. They may have been avoiding an in-your-face provoking attitude, but still been very opposed to its philosophies. Also, behind the scenes, the Church very well may have been fighting communism and its evils. There is no question that this was a change in orientation toward a public policy of condemnation of the evils of communism. Is that apostasy? I think that does rise to a certain level of apostasy, but that in and of itself we should be a bit cautious in our criticism, as it is an extremely sensitive situation. I think it would be too much to say that this alone proves the Church is in deep apostasy.

Evidence 2: The interreligious dialogue that abandons both the conversion of non-Catholics to the one true religion and the dogma that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

my comments: This is perhaps the most disturbing issue to some Traditional Catholics. I am not any kind of expert on this area and may be off the mark completely, but I will attempt to address this as best as I can:

There are two issues here. The first is who is saved. The second is the requirement to convert non-Catholics.

The book itself quotes Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quadem on page 69 "Catholics must not preoccupy themselves with pointless speculation about salvation for those who are not formal members of the Church, since only God knows whom He will save...from among ..humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion" Yet, the book also quotes Pope Ugene IV, the bull Cantate Domino, 1442 (on pg 69) "no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." At first glance, these pre-Vatican II statements seem to completely contradict one another! One says only God knows whom He will save outside the Church. In the other, the Pope is clearly saying that no one will be. How is that to be reconciled?

I did not see how the book attempted to reconcile those two pre-Vatican II statements that seem to clearly contradict one another regarding salvation. The book criticizes the Vatican II approach to this issue, yet fails to address this very basic conflict.

So, prior to Vatican II, we have two seemingly contradictory statements regarding who outside the Church can be saved, we have the emergence of Protestants, who profess love and obedience and a belief in the same risen Christ and share certain other beliefs, and we have no clarification of the prior statements regarding salvation and how to apply those to the Protestants.

It seems to me that the only way to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory pre-Vatican II, and pre Protestant statements is to allow for the possibility that the bosom of the Catholic Church may include people which have not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion, even if Catholics dont recognize them. That is, even some non-Catholics are part of the universal Church of the faithful and are subject to the Pontiff whether they know it or not and whether Catholics know it or not. Only God knows who is truly in the bosom of the Catholic Church and who isnt.

That seems to be what Vatican II is saying. I think it is too strong to say that they have changed their orientation toward salvation and conversion. They still say that the Catholic faith is the true faith, and is the clear path to salvation. The Church of Christ still exists exclusively in the Catholic faith because it represents complete Truth. But, they further discuss the availability of salvation to other non-Catholics, especially believers in God and Christ. And they further explain the relationship of non-Catholics to the Body of Christ, and thus the true Catholic faith. The faith of non-Catholics is not perfect, but there is a relationship to the Catholic faith because of certain Truths held as common belief. As strange as it sounds, this opens up the possibility of considering all Christians to be members of the same Catholic Church of Christ, and thus the offer of attainable salvation being possible for these non-Catholics, though their faith is imperfect.

Editorial comment: I might add that one gets the impression that some Traditionalists almost want the Catholic or hell approach to be correct. Surely not! If so, I cant help but think it reflects an arrogance and a hostility toward non-Catholics which is most un-Christian. Surely, the more people that are subject to salvation, the better. I hope that the Traditionalist might consider the Vatican II position here to be a clarification for which we all can rejoice rather than condemn.

Ok, back to the review: The book leads the reader to think that with Vatican II the need to convert to Catholicism went away. This is not accurate. In the Catechism it clearly says in sections 848: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Perhaps what the book was missing is the idea that there is a difference between an urgency to convert in order to save a completely lost soul and the urgency to convert in order to show the most perfect way to one who has an imperfect faith. Vatican II may be lessening the emphasis on conversion of some as a result of having clarified the formerly existing confusing statements regarding who could be saved.

In conclusion, the pre-Vatican II position required clarification with regard to salvation of not formal members of the Church. The book didnt provide any clarification. In Vatican II, clarification was provided, and it appears to reconcile the very issues that needed to be reconciled. Given this background, it seems more reasonable to conclude that the Church clarified its orientation, rather than changed it. What seems like a change in orientation at first glance is found not necessarily to be when the context is taken into consideration more closely.

While that is my inexpert opinion, it appears that there is much disagreement even among experts as to whether the Vatican II position reflects a reversal or a revision of earlier teaching: Inside the Vatican quotes Cardinal Avery Dulles: "doctrinal development in the social or political area is affected by history and so differs from development of pure dogma. Vatican II statements about religious freedom represent an undeniable, even a dramatic, change from statements of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX and Leo XIII in the 19th century..But examining statements from those papal teachings, Dulles, concluded they were directed against specific targets, and that the teachings understood in their historical context were not contradicted by Vatican II. As the Church adapts her social teaching to changing political and social circumstances, she comes to a sharper perception of certain aspects and consequences of the Gospel." (29)

(29) Inside the Vatican, May 2001, pg 77

So, is the new interreligious dialogue and orientation toward salvation apostasy? I do not think that it is. I think it is reasonable to view it as a clarification of issues of salvation, brought to the forefront with the birth and growth in numbers of Protestant believers in Christ.


Evidence 3:
The introduction of novel and ambiguous language that undermine belief in the dogmas of the faith. Page 62 says this was done in the new ecumenism, a new liturgy, a collegiality that strikes at the heart of the Papal primacy, and a new attitude toward the world.
On pg 67, the book says that Ratzinger introduced the word subsist to purposefully be confusing.

Regarding the new attitude toward the world, Ratzinger talks about the first in the confrontation with liberalism, when he really means acceptance.

my comment: There will always be ambiguities with things people say. The council language itself seems pretty clear about this new attitude toward the world. I dont see the ambiguity the book is referring to. Vatican II clearly wants the Church to take on a new attitude: It says priests should fit themselves to do their part in establishing dialogue with the world and with men of all shades of opinion This is not ambiguous. It is definitely a change though. A dialogue does not mean acceptance. It means communication. How can Catholics convert others if they only condemn?

Regarding the new ecumenism, the book talks about using the phrase the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ, and not only in and not is and not exclusively. I agree this word is not clear. However, to blame it all on a conniving Ratzinger seems naive. I believe that the Council Fathers were very careful to accept the used of the word subsist, and that in no way was Ratzinger pulling a fast one on them. The issue was too important. The discussion in the catechism of the Catholic Church and salvation and non-Catholics seems to be fairly clear, even if that one word isnt.

I have decided to not review the language much more, as it is subject to a lot of different interpretation. I will say that it is likely that the Vatican purposefully used some words that indicated a change in emphasis but at the same time didnt directly contradict prior teaching, but it is speculation to say that they words were chosen so that in the future they could be used in a way to contradict prior teaching. I just think it is hard to show a clear link between the words and a sinister motive. We already know that the Council stated their intentions to be gentler very clearly in opening of Vatican II.(30) Is the ambiguous language a way to introduce apostasy? I think we have to take each issue one by one. The books examples of ambiguous language are not very thorough or convincing.

(30)http://www.vatican2plus40.info/topic-vatican2/v2-history/v2-history-details.htm#Opening_tag


Evidence 4&5: A totally unprecedented reform of the liturgy by abandoning the traditional Latin Rite and permission or toleration for various forms of heteropraxis (unsound practices) such as communion in the hand, altar girls, removal of the tabernacle from the altar, etc., which undermine belief in the Holy Eucharist and the sacrificial priesthood.

my comment: This clearly is a break from tradition. Does it show apostasy? I dont know. It seems to me there are several issues. One is the fact that it is change at all. Would any change be permitted or would any change be subject to the same charge of liberalism? Does any change undermine belief? Is the liturgy considered sacred and therefore not subject to any change, and why? Is it believed that the Roman liturgy is the one Christ taught through the Apostles, and therefore no change is permitted, since we cannot improve on the teachings of Christ? Or, is the objection to change due to the perception that change equals a contradiction of prior teachings? The Vatican has explained many of the reasons for change, yet traditionalists reject their explanations. Why?

First, my understanding is that many believe that the Roman liturgy was taught by Peter and the other apostles through the direction of the Holy Spirit and that it had changed very little prior to Vatican II, and that because it was from God it should not be changed, as any change threatens to show a lack of reverence for Christ. From what I can tell this is not an accurate viewpoint. Here is a list of evidences to support this statement.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to undermine the reverence of the traditional Mass here. Even if it was created just yesterday, it may well be a more reverent way to worship. Nor am I saying that the changes are justified. I am only pointing some misconceptions that some may have with regard to the history of the traditional Mass:

1. The book indicates that the liturgy had not changed much in 1500 years or so prior to Vatican II. However, some changes did take place. :By modern standards, florid and elaborate ceremonies, dress and ornament are seldom esteemed. During the course of centuries, many features or details had crept into the liturgy, and these features are now regarded as unsuited to the worship of God and out of keeping with the real nature and dignity of that worship.:(31) According to this source a number of changes did take place. I wonder if these changes had all happened at once, would they have been subject to the same criticism of liberalism we are seeing with Vatican II? Perhaps part of the reason for the criticism is that fact that so much was changed in a short period of time.

(31)http://www.vatican2plus40.info/topic-vatican2/v2-history/v2-history-details.htm#Opening_tag

2. The book says on pg 79 that :the traditional Catholic Mass in Latin, the Damasian-Gregorian liturgy .. was the center of life of the Church from at least the 4th Century ( and probably earlier).: Since it doesnt say from the time of the Apostles, this quote actually leads one to question the history of the traditional Latin Mass. Here is the explanation one respected traditional Catholic website provided to me:

:Christ's teaching is handed down to us in what is called the Depositum Fidei, the Deposit of Faith. This teaching, which is transmitted through his selected representatives, the Apostles, is known as public revelation and closes with the death of the last Apostle, St. John. The sources, or fonts, of public revelation are two: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture can actually be looked at as a part of Tradition, since it is Tradition that determined which books belonged in the written redaction. St. Paul several times refers to Tradition as being the key determinant of what the Faith is."(32)

The Sacred Scripture is the New testament teaching. It does refer to the breaking of the bread and water baptism, and other traditions of the faith. However, there is not enough reference to the content of worship itself for anyone to know exactly what the first Masses were like, although it is widely held that first century Christians met in homes and usually in secrecy for much of their worship.

It may surprise some (as it did me) to learn that the Deposit of Faith is not a written document at all. It is the title given to a tradition that is believed to have begun with the apostles and handed down. The question I have is--Do we have any evidence of this apostolic tradition--what the Mass was like prior to the 4th Century?

3. It is a mistake to assume that the Mass was the same throughout the world. I dont know much of the history, but I understand that the Roman Mass had serious competitors in the early centuries. The most obvious one is the Eastern Church, which didnt recognize having to submit to the authority of Rome. They developed their own Byzantine Rite which differed from the Roman Catholic Rite. One such Church is St. Thomas the Apostle, which holds that as an Apostle Thomas traveled the farthest distance in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Catholics of southern India proclaim him as the Apostle who brought Christianity to them "...St. Thomas celebrates liturgy according to the Byzantine Rite. Her theological tradition and her laws are those of the Byzantine Church which originated in the city of Constantinople, capital city of the Roman Empire from 325 to 1453. Byzantine civilization was one of the most glorious and durable in human history and the fathers of the Church were able to grow in an understanding of our Lord and His Gospel that was then passed on to many peoples of Eastern Europe (including Russians, Ukranians, Croatians, Hungarians, Slovakians and Romanians)."(33) Another church is the Coptic Church, which claims its origin from Saint Mark, Peters disciple "The Coptic Church is based on the teachings of Saint Mark who brought Christianity to Egypt during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero in the first century, a dozen of years after the Lord's ascension."(34) The Coptic Church had strong beginnings and had their own line of Popes, and it still exists to this day.
(32) traditio website
(33)http://www.saintthomastheapostle.org/introduction2.html
(34)http://www.coptic.net/

For those that hold that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, those other churches existing at the same time dont matter. However, like the Roman Catholic Church those others claim that their beginnings going back to the Apostles too. Without a true Deposit of Faith, which tradition is one to believe is most true? .

4. What some may not know is that the historical record shows that the Roman Mass changed significantly up until about the 7th Century: {36} "Early Christian liturgies apparently featured little music. Augustine and other fifth century bishops introduced congregational singing-despite deep misgivings about its sensuousness-to give noisy crowds something to do that might hold their attention and stop their disrupting the services."(35) and "It is to St. Pope Gregory I (590-604) that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement. St. Gregory certainly received the Canon in the same order and composed of the same prayers that were need for centuries. When was it put together? It certainly was not the work of one man nor was it all composed at one time....Our Canon represents rather the last days of a development that had been going on gradually ever since the first days when Roman Christians met together to obey the command of Christ to celebrate the Eucharist. From references to the Canon found in letters of the early fathers it appears that in the fifth century the Canon prayers went through a complete alteration in their order and that the component prayers, without being change in themselves, were turnaround and rearrange."(36)
And, there is evidence that the Eucharist celebration underwent various changes, based on the Roman document in the mid 3rd century, called The Apostolic Tradition, and considered to have been written by Hippolytus, and writings by Justin in the mid second century. The document by Hippolytus, the schismatic bishop of Rome A.D. 236-237, contains valuable information about church life and order in the early century(16) pg 57. "While the document has difficulties both G. Dix and H. Chadwick have shown that on internal evidence alone there is more to relate the document to early third-century Rome than to other Christian milieux" (37), pg 58. "Its text contains one of the earliest complete Eucharist prayers that we possess, if not the very earliest,pg 173. Many differences are noted with the Roman Mass. In particular The mysteries recalled are only two, Christs death..and resurrection There is a paucity of contacts and parallels between the Apostolic Tradition (writing) and the later liturgy of the Roman community." pg 58

5. As for changes in the Roman Mass after the 7th Century, apparently there were quite a few:
Sacramentaries were books containing the necessary texts for the celebrating of the Eucharist--collect, prayer over the offering, proper preface..and post-communion prayer. by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries almost every church..had its own sacramentary or set of sacramentaries; very rarely did one copy match another exactly.(37), pg66
in general, until the Middle Ages, it was the custom that readings be taken, not from collections of selected passages, but directly from the Bible according to a list..usually three readings--one from the OT, one from the NT, and then a narrative from the Gospels(37), pg 66
In around the 10th to the 13th century the first Missal appeared, and contained what previously had been in 3 separate books. There was a new tendency to regard the celebration of the Eucharist less as a communal activity than as an almost private act of the priest. That is why there had to be the creation of one common book.(37), pg 67
The Ordines Romani contain instructions and directions concerning the actual performance of each liturgical function....the original text has in many cases been altered and interpolations inserted, to satisfy regional or local customs..set over a long period of time, from the seventh century to the fifteenth(16), pg 68

6. Many dont know that the Roman Mass wasnt spoken in Latin until around the mid 3rd century. Until then it was spoken in Greek.(36) Jesus and his disciples didnt speak Latin. They spoke Aramaic. So, the objection to changing the Mass from Latin cannot not be based on an appeal to Apostolic tradition. The reason for the change from Latin was simple: So modern man (thats us) understand it. That rings very true for me personally. I had always thought that the use of a foreign, no-longer-used language by Catholics was strange and off-putting. It was a turn-off to the Church for me. I can understand why Catholics who were used to it could grow to love it and would not want to lose it, but I very much can understand why non-Catholics would be more receptive to the Catholic Church if they used native language in their masses.

7. A couple of other non-Mass, but related issues come to mind: Doctrine clarity, such as those regarding Mary, and the trinity, developed over time--sometimes over centuries, sometimes after much debate. And celibacy, while not a Mass issue, wasnt required of priests until the 13th century. It is thought that one of the reasons for this requirement was to reduce the cost to the Church to support the priests.

(35)http://www.saintgregorys.org/Liturgy/Worship@StGregorys/Notes2.html
(36)http://www.unavoceca.org/Archives/1999/19990328.html
(37) The Study of Liturgy, Cheslyn Jones, editor


Do all of the changes in Vatican II to the liturgy, the use of Latin, the placement of the Eucharist, communion in the hand, etc. reflect apostasy? Well, I dont know. If one assumes they are changes to direct commands from Christ, then they appear to be very mistaken. History shows there have been many changes prior to Vatican II.

SUMMARY
CLAIM #7
Rather than fighting against the new orientation, the Church has accepted liberalism in many forms

CONCLUSIONS: The Church did undergo a lot of change quickly. They provided reasons for the changes. Labeling the changes as liberal is a very subjective issue. There is no question that the Church appears to have a new attitude toward non-Catholics than the past. Their attitude and silence toward Russia is controversial and maybe has gone too far.

The language regarding salvation and conversion of non-Catholics is different than the traditional understanding of many Catholics, but at the same time it seems reasonable to see this as an official Church clarification of these issues, which were not clear previously, due to seemingly contradictory pre-Vatican II statements.

The changes in the liturgy are many. However, I suspect that if people who had a fondness for rules and tradition (traditionalists) of the 1st century who could have gone forward in time even 500 years, they too would have said the church was infiltrated with liberalism and in apostasy since the Mass and the celebration of the Eucharist had changed so much. And, many traditionalists in 500 A.D. would have said the same thing if they attended the typical pre-Vatican II Mass in the 1900s. Was the faith weakened by the many changes from 33 A.D. to 1960? Will it be weakened by changes in Vatican II? Im not as sure as the book is.

The Church is still quite conservative, 35 years after Vatican II with regard to the deeper spiritual matters. It still believes in Real Presence, the Divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and confession of sins, the belief in the Catholic Church as the Gods chosen instrument of Truth, belief in Original Sin, the call to chastity in all areas of life, and Papal authority. It hasnt dropped any of the seven sacraments. And it still strongly opposes abortion and birth control. Is it really fair to say that Modernism, as defined on page 44 in the book, has won or is winning over the Church? Maybe traditionalists are being too hard on the Church. Might it be that what many find offensive about Vatican II really has more to do with change than liberalism?

My personal conclusion is that what the book sees in Vatican II as undermining of the dogmas of Faith are worthy of reflection by Catholics. Maybe the Church has gone too far in some ways (such as the lack of condemnation, and salvation without certain sacraments). The orientation has turned from its prior positions of condemnation, but without being an expert in the subject I cant say that the Church has really become liberal or is not respecting the dogmas of the faith. Clearly to me, many of the Modernist ideas are soundly rejected by the Vatican. I think a Catholic who is troubled by the changes might benefit from two things. First, becoming familiar with the fact that the Church has had many changes throughout its history, many related even to the Eucharist, and the nature of those changes. Second, it may help to review the most personally troubling changes brought about by Vatican II with a Vatican II priest or to research the Vatican II position further so that he/she really understands the thinking behind the changes, before rejecting the modern day Roman Catholic Church in favor of traditional approaches. Apostasy? The books primary focus is on the lack of condemnation of communism, to which I partially agree, and the new openness to non-Catholics, which I do not think is apostasy, for the reasons given herein. The book spends very little time discussing how the many other changes in Vatican II might constitute apostasy, especially in light of the many changes throughout the history of the Church.


CLAIM #8
The consecration of Russia hasnt occurred and cant because it conflicts with the liberal mindset of dialogue.

my comments: Is the failure to explicitly mention Russia in a public consecration ceremony evidence of apostasy? My answer is that the Vatican is under no obligation to consider the request for consecration to be authentic, as they themselves have said. Therefore not consecrating does not constitute apostasy. However, they have taken the position that they have consecrated Russia, and they have implied that they do consider the consecration to be important (at least the Pope does). As such, is not naming Russia explicitly apostasy? No, I dont think it rises to that level. It is not an element of dogma.




CLAIM #3 The unrevealed Third Secret predicts what Catholics see all around them today: ..catastrophic loss of faith and discipline in the Church.

The book claims that the current state of the Church proves that it is in apostasy

Evidence 1: Liberal thinkers like Hans Kung are allowed to express formerly heretical ideas without being disciplined (p59) or excommunicated (as canon law provides). Some ideas he has put forth without Vatican response are the denial of the Divinity of Christ, dismissal of miracles of the Gospel, denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, denial that Christ founded an institutional Church and denial that the Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary.

My comments: He was censored for certain views. But, others apparently were not dealt with. This does seem to reflect an easing of discipline for dissenting views. I havent read his book to know exactly how he presented his ideas, but on the surface and given other evidence presented, it does look as though the discipline by the Church has weakened, under the guise, I suppose, of being more tolerant. Im not sure how to deduce apostasy from this. They arent embracing the dissenting views, so Im not sure since this is more of a discipline issue and not a faith and morals issue.

Evidence 2: Admission by Pope Paul VI that the opening to the world has become a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking, and from somewhere or other the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.

My comments: Again, without knowing the entire context it is hard to evaluate these comments, as it is hard to know exactly what the Pope was really talking about. How pervasive is this invasion? Does it include the parishioners, or just some of the priests, or changes made in Vatican II? It does sound like it speaks to at the least an admission of threats to faith from within. Threats do not equate to victory nor a catastrophic loss. How does one measure how bad the loss really is? This admission is not real clear.

Evidence 3: The declining number of priests. Here are some statistics I found on the web with regard to this:

The ratio of priests to people in 1900 (In America) was approximately 1:900. In 1950 the ratio was approximately 1: 650. In 1999 the ratio was approximately 1: 1200. The 1940's and 1950's saw a significant increase in the number of priests both diocesan and religious.(38) So, while the number of priests per population was almost cut by half in the last 50 years, it was down by 33% for the entire century.

On May 19,2000, the National Catholic Reporter reported that in North America the number of priests serving parishes has dropped 28% in the last 15 years.(39) Thats from 1985. If that is true, then there was only about a 5% drop from 1900 to 1985.

Interestingly, the number of seminarians in South America grew dramatically, from 5334 in 1972 to 26,041 in 2000, an increase of 388%. The number of religious sisters grew from 117,103 in 1972 to 128,875 in 2000, and increase of over 10%. The number bishops grew from 471 in 1977 to 668 in 1997. The number of parishes went from 14,148 in 1977 to 19,047 in 1997. Populations were growing also, so a more valid comparison would be based on pct growth per population. One can deduce from the statistics given that the overall population grew roughly 20%. It does appear there was a slight drop in the number of priests per 10,000 people, from 1.49 in 1977 to 1.27 in 1995.(40)

In Europe, the number dropped 13% from 1978 to 1994.(41)

my comments: Unfortunately, these statistics are not very comprehensive, but clearly there has been a drop in the number of priests over the last half century, although perhaps North America has been hit harder than other countries. Is this due to a loss of faith? It could be. There could be other factors at work too, however. The drop in numbers of priests could reflect an increase in the number of people deciding they dont want to be celibate. Since these declines are occurring during an increased openness toward sexuality in America (the 60s have been called the sexual revolution, with the arrival of the pill) and much of the rest of the world, it is possible that this has played an increasing role in the decline.

Something that the book doesnt talk about is the increase in the overall number of Catholics in North America. The Catholic population is growing in every region of the country. The rate of growth in the Catholic population in the West and the South has been extraordinary. The Catholic population has increased by 261 percent in the West and by 196 percent in the South over the past forty years, while it grew by 52 percent and 59 percent respectively in the East and the Midwest.(38) In the last 15 years there has been an increase in the average parish of 23%.(39) These numbers actually look very encouraging for the Catholic faith. Perhaps Vatican II actually did have some of the effect it wanted--maybe people really do see the Catholic faith as much kinder and gentler and accessable to them than it used to be. If one is to conclude the drop in priests reflects a loss of faith, one could also conclude that the increase in the number of parishioners reflects the opposite, an increase in faith. That may or may not be the case.
It is very possible, as the book indicates, that the quality of faith has declined. That can be measured in some ways, such as the number of regular attendees of Mass, the numbers who believe in certain tenants. I could not find many statistics on this issue. I might suggest that it would be a mistake to assume that the traditional church had a higher number of truly devout. Just because people practice a faith that is devout doesnt mean the people are. Im sure there have always been people who dont really live the faith, no matter how it is practiced in public.


Evidence #4 The sexual abuse scandal.
my comments. It is a terrible thing, but one must keep it in perspective. First, there is no way to judge if the fruit is worse now than before, because society is different. The media digs very deeply into issues these days in ways that were not considered acceptable in the past. Former President Clintons behavior would not have been exposed in prior decades. Not even 40 years ago, as proven by the very recent revelation that John F. Kennedy did the same type of thing and people in the media did know about it. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Roosevelt all had affairs that the press just hushed up. Times are different. Also, children feel more free to speak out now than in the past. We know that the Catholic Church has had very immoral Popes in the past, and has had plenty of scandal in prior centuries. Not just sexual immorality, but also torture and murder. I understand that the Church basically approved the martyr of Joan of Arc, for example. They later decided they were wrong.
Where there is power, there usually is abuse of power. While the book rightly says there has never been a scandal like this known before in the Church, we dont know that these things werent going on, and maybe have been going on throughout the centuries. Another thing to keep in mind is that contrary to how it seems, it isnt 1 out of every 3 or 4 priests, or even 1 out of every 20. It is approximately 1.6 out of every 100 priests that appear to have been rightly accused(42). This is a high number, but may not be that much higher than never-married males in our society in general who are in similar positions of authority.
(38) http://www.nccbuscc.org/plm/summary.htm
(39) http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/051900/051900g.htm
(40) http://www.providence.edu/las/Statistics.htm
(41) http://www.cwnews.com/Browse/1996/10/2776.htm
(42) http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/041602sem2.htm


SUMMARY:
CLAIM #3 The unrevealed Third Secret predicts what Catholics see all around them today: ..catastrophic loss of faith and discipline in the Church.

CONCLUSIONS: This is a difficult area to assess, because it deals with statistics that are difficult to find, and opinions regarding the definition of faith or quality of faith. Based on the evidence available it does appear that the Church is less inclined to pass judgement on more liberal thinkers as it has in the past, so there well me be a decline in discipline. Overall the number of priests has dropped, which may or may not reflect a loss in faith. I dont think there is enough information to make a judgement on the recent sex scandal, to know such behavior is increased over past centuries. The increase in parishioners on the surface appears to reflect an increase in faith, but that may or may not be true. It definitely doesnt support the idea that the Catholic Church is dwindling in numbers. I dont think these evidences given are strong enough to conclude either way whether there has been an overall loss of faith, and whether that loss is catastrophic, but there probably is a reduction of discipline in certain areas.


SUMMARY:
THE SMOKE OF SATAN: The Church is in apostasy now.

The evidence for planned infiltration to create apostasy is weak, except for in Russia, although it may have happened to a slight degree outside of Russia. The Church appears to have had some doubts about the authenticity of the messages of Fatima by the time 1960 arrived, although this may not reflect apostasy in the Church at all, and may have to do with some perceived inconsistencies in the messages rather than inconsistencies between the messages and the new orientation of the Church. The book discusses 3 main areas of apostasy: 1. The lack of condemnation of communism and similar evils. I think this does border on apostasy 2. The new viewpoint of salvation toward certain non-Catholics. I think the book doesnt make their case for apostasy here. 3. The many other changes (loss of Latin mass, liturgy changes, etc.) Although I am not an expert, I dont see clear apostasy here, especially given the long history of many such changes in the Church.

The current health of the Church doesnt seem as bad as the book represents. In fact, it looks like it is thriving in certain areas, especially in North and South America. The scandals and dwindling of priests reflect problems, but the Church has had many problems throughout its history. One cannot deduce apostasy from the current state of the Church.

Overall, clearly much change has occurred. And the current Church has some new problems. But, change and problems are not new to the Church. Change in the liturgy, understanding of many doctrines, the Eucharist, and details of the mass have occurred throughout the history of the Church. Faith can be threatened by change but need not be. The change toward more acceptance of others who love Christ and worship God but in a different way, and toward reducing certain condemnations could reflect a move toward apostasy, but such an accusation should have clear proof due to its seriousness. Clear proof isnt presented in the book. The most important issues of ones own personal faith (ie doctrines regarding Christ, the trinity, and Mary, etc..) have not changed. THOSE kinds of changes would much more clearly reflect apostasy. In my opinion the only change that borders on apostasy is the silence toward the condemnation of communism. The other changes discussed in the book dont have sufficient evidence to deduce apostasy by the Church authority in Rome.

Ohio Laser Eye Surgery