Thursday, June 26, 2008

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

In reciting the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, and in light of the changes resulting from Vatican II, one may rightly ask: what is meant by "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?" Clearly, something different entirely was envisioned by Progressivists--read Heresiarchs. These individuals developed the "New Theology", managed to entirely prevail at and after the Second Vatican Council and succeeded in completely redefining the concept of the "Church of Christ."

Prior to the Second Vatican Council, traditional Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic Church was identical to the Church of Christ. Post Vatican II, the Church of Christ according to Conciliar documents only "subsists in" that is; exists in or can be found in the Roman Catholic Church and more importantly is no longer identical with it. The Church of Christ according to the Council is said to exist or be found in other entities as well to varying degrees--those which in the past were termed schismatic or apostate such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant sects.

Moreover,in light of Vatican II eclesiology even non-Christian Monotheistic sects such as Judaism and Islam can be considered in some sense part of the Church of Christ albeit to lesser degrees than the Roman Catholic Church or those who have "separated" themselves from it. In other words, an entity larger and more encompassing than the Roman Catholic Church is now said to define the "Church of Christ" even though the so-called fullest manifestation of it is apparently to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a profound alteration in Catholic teaching and from a philosophical perspective appears to violate the law of non-contradiction--it is not logically possible for the Church of Christ to be identical with the Roman Catholic Church and yet not be identical to it at the same time. Clearly the new view is logically incompatible with that which was held for almost 2000 years if words are to have any meaning. Unfortunately, Progressivist teaching is dependent upon language deconstruction where familiar words are retained and utilized but given an entirely knew connotation.

What progressivists/neomodernists have done it seems is to create a kind of sliding scale for Christianity where some sects apparently possess more truth than others and presumably more fully reflect the intentions of Jesus Christ-- at least as the Progressivists conceive of it. In light of Conciliar teaching, it would seem not to matter any longer what religion one actually professes so long as it is a sincerely held belief system--since some religions contradict the doctrinal content of others. How this does not amount to the Indifferentism which the pre-Conciliar popes anathematized is beyond comprehension.

The only potentially viable explanation for the above dilemma is the one offered by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wherein the concept of Historicism is invoked by which all doctrinal/dogmatic statements are said to apply only to the time in which they were formulated. This of course results in complete doctrinal anarchy/relativity. By functioning as a kind of "get out of jail free card" it allows neo-modernists to explain away those Roman Catholic doctrines/dogmas which are now said to be outdated--read false. In fact, "dogma" as traditionally understood no longer exists in light of Conciliar and post-Conciliar Progressivist thought. The newly invented version of the "Church of Christ" is thus in position to judge which tenets of each religion are true and which are false from the perspective of the current time period in which we live. Obviously, these "truths" will no doubt change as well at some later date. What this means from a practical standpoint is that Roman Catholics are now confronted with total and complete theological anarchy/nihilism where once existed immutable dogmatic truths.

What logically seems to emanate from the New Theology is the creation of a kind of pan-religious ecumenism in which doctrine/dogma has become for all intents and purposes meaningless--replaced by the "feel-good" experiential church of contemporary record. It is not surprising that Progressivists found it necessary to abandon the precsision of the Thomistic (Scholastic) system in order to promulgate their false "theology." For those Catholics who try to make sense of Vatican II teaching, the situation is extremely challenging--if not irreconcilable with the tenets of traditional Roman Catholicism. The fact that no one in the Vatican has been willing to adequately address the issue of contradictory Conciliar teaching is cause for even more alarm. Historicism invoked as the only possible explanation is of course intellectually bankrupt from the perspective of scholastic philosophy or even first principles of being for that matter. Perhaps that is the reason why Pope Benedict and the other progressivists have been so negatively predisposed to Thomism.

What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?

In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?

What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)

This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.