By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
Apropos my suspicion that we are currently living in the era of the Great (Universal) Apostasy and that most if not all of the elements are now in place which must occur prior to the appearance of the Antichrist, I provide some additional information. Find HERE... a link to data on severe Earthquakes throughout history beginning with the August 24, 79 A.D. eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Italy which buried the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum that is thought to have killed many thousands of people.
The fascinating albeit disconcerting thing is that prior to 1960 there were roughly 35 severe earthquakes in the period from 79 A.D. through the 1950's. Since then in a period of less than 50 years there have been 50 severe earthquakes (roughly 1 per year) and 26 in the past 10 years alone (roughly 2.5 per year). In 2007 and 2008 there were 6 earthquakes per year representing a marked increase.
These data demonstrate that the incidence of severe earthquakes is steadily increasing particularly in the past decade but markedly so in the past 2 years. There have been a total of just 85 severe earthquakes in 1930 years. Roughly 2/3 of all earthquakes in that period of time have occurred in the past 50 years. This is highly significant and would not be expected on the basis of chance alone.
For those earthquakes which were evaluated since the development of the Richter scale, the minimum value necessary for inclusion in the "severe" category seems quite consistent at greater than 7.0. One caveat which must be mentioned however is that prior to 1900 and the development of the Richter scale technology, these data were not available. However, for the pre-1900 cohort only those in which a large number of deaths resulted were included which would seem to constitute a roughly equivalent measure of severity.
Given what we know from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition these data strongly suggest that the so-called "birth pains" of Matt. 24: 5-8 have begun especially when combined with the other signs which are now present including; "the gospel has been preached throughout the known world, wars, rumors of wars, famines, other severe climate changes, the love of many (horrendous crime and abuse even among families) has grown cold, universal Apostasy and new serious disease manifestations." Obviously, I may have misinterpreted the severity or significance of any of these "signs" which would mean that the birth pains have not yet begun. That is, since no one knows how precisely to interpret the signs a large degree of variability is possible that would result in very different conclusions with respect to the timing involved.
In any case, given the uncertainty involved it seems necessary now more than ever to end the Novus Ordo Missae, reinstitute the Tridentine Latin Mass of Pius V and to either radically correct or totally reject the Second Vatican Council and the conciliar church which has grown out of it.
Friday, September 11, 2009
More Natural Disasters
Devastating Floods Kill Dozens in Turkey
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) -- Two days of torrential rains triggered flash floods in northwestern Turkey, sweeping cars into the sea and sending gushing water into homes and businesses. MORE...
ISTANBUL, Turkey (CNN) -- Two days of torrential rains triggered flash floods in northwestern Turkey, sweeping cars into the sea and sending gushing water into homes and businesses. MORE...
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Rhine Group and Sympathiser's Must be Neutralized
The Rhine Group especially the German Bishops and Periti quite easily took control of the Second Vatican Council and virtually had their way. As time went by it became increasingly apparent that the R.G. espoused theological concepts which are incompatible with Traditional Catholicism. Their absolute control continued in the post-Conciliar period as the implementation phase was carried out e.g. the Concilium. The negative Conciliar fruit which has been forthcoming over the past 40+ years is the direct result of the Rhine Group et al. accomplishing their agenda.
If the disastrous effects which now afflict the Catholic Church are to be reversed it appears that the Neo-Modern heresies sponsored by the Rhine Group must be recognized for what they are and definitively rejected. The Rhine Group and all who support their heterodox teachings must be identified and eliminated from the Church lest they infect even the small remnant of Traditional Catholic believers who still exist ("But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!", Gal. 1:8). The Rhine Group and their followers do not profess/possess the True Faith of Jesus Christ as handed down from the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the martyrs and the saints. It is past time for an orthodox Bishop to come forward and level multiple charges of heresy against the post-Conciliar Vatican and to demand that it defend itself against the charge of heresy/apostasy. The eternal salvation of souls is at stake.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
If the disastrous effects which now afflict the Catholic Church are to be reversed it appears that the Neo-Modern heresies sponsored by the Rhine Group must be recognized for what they are and definitively rejected. The Rhine Group and all who support their heterodox teachings must be identified and eliminated from the Church lest they infect even the small remnant of Traditional Catholic believers who still exist ("But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!", Gal. 1:8). The Rhine Group and their followers do not profess/possess the True Faith of Jesus Christ as handed down from the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the martyrs and the saints. It is past time for an orthodox Bishop to come forward and level multiple charges of heresy against the post-Conciliar Vatican and to demand that it defend itself against the charge of heresy/apostasy. The eternal salvation of souls is at stake.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Rhine Group and Loss of the Faith, in Europe
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
In a recent post HERE...I discussed the fact that Bishops and Theological experts from the Rhine Valley countries effectively hijacked Vatican II. The preceding article documents that over the past several decades radical changes have taken place in Europe including the almost complete loss of Catholic Christianity and in its place the widespread adoption of atheistic secular humanism and most recently the Islamization of Europe through unprecedented in-migration of Muslims who continue to experience much higher birth rates than native Europeans. This has caused an obvious demographic "crisis" from the perspective of the non-Muslim population of Europe.
It is more than a bit ironic that the Rhine Group of European Bishops and their Periti-- who were most responsible for pushing the Second Vatican Council in the direction of Neo-Modernism--represented the very same countries where today Catholic Christianity has virtually ceased to exist. In its place two heterodox belief systems have appeared; atheistic secular humanism and Islam. These developments appear to be related in a cause/effect manner.
The same pattern has appeared throughout much of the devolved West although to a slightly lesser extent. For example, in the United States, Canada and Australia there has since the close of the Council been a very obvious secularization of society while Traditional Catholicism has experienced a severe denouement.
It is noteworthy that the Bishops of Canada and the USA were less aggressive than were the Rhine group Bishops in advocating for and embracing Neo-Modernism and rejecting orthodoxy. While Islamization has occurred in these nations it has been to a lesser extent than that which has transpired in Europe. What seems intuitively obvious and over time virtually incontestable is; the degree to which nations reject the Traditional Catholic Faith in exchange for accepting Neo-Modernist heresies is directly proportional to the amount of secularization and Islamization they experience. The underlying concept here is that "nature hates a vacuum."
Neo-Modernist Theological precepts are really anti-philosophies or contra-Traditional Catholic teachings which undermine the True Faith. As Catholic orthodoxy declines, other systems of thought are allowed to flourish. As Traditional Catholicism in Europe was replaced by a kind of pan-ecumenical least common denominator Protestantism which flowed directly from the Council, the landscape was being prepared for the growth of atheistic secular humanism and Islam. Both of these have more committed adherents than either the adulterated main-stream Protestant sects or the conciliar catholic church.
Some may recall that Benedict XVI decried the fact that the European Union refused in its founding documents to acknowledge its Christian roots. This is tragically comical in that Vatican II--at which he was a Theological expert--did more to insure a radically secularized Europe than virtually anything else. Surely the irony cannot be overlooked by the Neo-Modernist Joseph Ratzinger--now Benedict XVI.
In a recent post HERE...I discussed the fact that Bishops and Theological experts from the Rhine Valley countries effectively hijacked Vatican II. The preceding article documents that over the past several decades radical changes have taken place in Europe including the almost complete loss of Catholic Christianity and in its place the widespread adoption of atheistic secular humanism and most recently the Islamization of Europe through unprecedented in-migration of Muslims who continue to experience much higher birth rates than native Europeans. This has caused an obvious demographic "crisis" from the perspective of the non-Muslim population of Europe.
It is more than a bit ironic that the Rhine Group of European Bishops and their Periti-- who were most responsible for pushing the Second Vatican Council in the direction of Neo-Modernism--represented the very same countries where today Catholic Christianity has virtually ceased to exist. In its place two heterodox belief systems have appeared; atheistic secular humanism and Islam. These developments appear to be related in a cause/effect manner.
The same pattern has appeared throughout much of the devolved West although to a slightly lesser extent. For example, in the United States, Canada and Australia there has since the close of the Council been a very obvious secularization of society while Traditional Catholicism has experienced a severe denouement.
It is noteworthy that the Bishops of Canada and the USA were less aggressive than were the Rhine group Bishops in advocating for and embracing Neo-Modernism and rejecting orthodoxy. While Islamization has occurred in these nations it has been to a lesser extent than that which has transpired in Europe. What seems intuitively obvious and over time virtually incontestable is; the degree to which nations reject the Traditional Catholic Faith in exchange for accepting Neo-Modernist heresies is directly proportional to the amount of secularization and Islamization they experience. The underlying concept here is that "nature hates a vacuum."
Neo-Modernist Theological precepts are really anti-philosophies or contra-Traditional Catholic teachings which undermine the True Faith. As Catholic orthodoxy declines, other systems of thought are allowed to flourish. As Traditional Catholicism in Europe was replaced by a kind of pan-ecumenical least common denominator Protestantism which flowed directly from the Council, the landscape was being prepared for the growth of atheistic secular humanism and Islam. Both of these have more committed adherents than either the adulterated main-stream Protestant sects or the conciliar catholic church.
Some may recall that Benedict XVI decried the fact that the European Union refused in its founding documents to acknowledge its Christian roots. This is tragically comical in that Vatican II--at which he was a Theological expert--did more to insure a radically secularized Europe than virtually anything else. Surely the irony cannot be overlooked by the Neo-Modernist Joseph Ratzinger--now Benedict XVI.
Rape of Europe
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-10-25
The Brussels Journal
The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”
Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”
Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.
Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”
In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.
“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.
This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (Islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.
The Brussels Journal
The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”
Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”
Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.
Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”
In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.
“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.
This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (Islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Rhine Group Controlled Vatican II
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
In reading Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II, I have become increasingly convinced that the Second Vatican Council was hijacked by the Bishops, Theologians and Periti (theological experts) of the Rhine River Valley countries. The most powerful members seem to have been Germany, Austria and the Netherlands although Belgium, Switzerland and France were an influential part of the central European powerhouse that rode roughshod over the council almost from the start but certainly by the beginning of the second session when Paul VI liberalized many of the rules which had been instituted by John XXIII. A similar scenario was suggested by Romano Amerio in his book Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century.
The one overriding characteristic which unified the Rhine group was their theological liberalism. Important liberal (read Neo-Modernist or heterodox) theologians who served as Periti and advised the Rhine Bishops were Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Edward Schillibeeckx, Fr. Aloys Grillmeier, Fr. Otto Semmelroth, Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Hans Kung. These men all espoused ideas which were part of the Modernism that was called the "synthesis of all heresies" by Pope St. Pius X.
The tragedy of the Second Vatican Council was that the Rhine group almost singularly came prepared to advance their radical agenda which aimed to theologically liberalize the Catholic Church. The more orthodox members of the episcopacy were for some reason caught flat-footed. They were entirely ill-prepared for what transpired. It seems odd that they never apprehended the "spirit of rebellion" that was clearly present and growing ever since Pius X wrote his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis on the errors of the Modernists. Inexplicably, the Church behaved as if it had no enemies with which to contend, nor threats from Modernists to defend against and to protect the faithful from. It is difficult not to see a demonic imprint in what transpired.
In reading Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II, I have become increasingly convinced that the Second Vatican Council was hijacked by the Bishops, Theologians and Periti (theological experts) of the Rhine River Valley countries. The most powerful members seem to have been Germany, Austria and the Netherlands although Belgium, Switzerland and France were an influential part of the central European powerhouse that rode roughshod over the council almost from the start but certainly by the beginning of the second session when Paul VI liberalized many of the rules which had been instituted by John XXIII. A similar scenario was suggested by Romano Amerio in his book Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century.
The one overriding characteristic which unified the Rhine group was their theological liberalism. Important liberal (read Neo-Modernist or heterodox) theologians who served as Periti and advised the Rhine Bishops were Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Fr. Edward Schillibeeckx, Fr. Aloys Grillmeier, Fr. Otto Semmelroth, Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Hans Kung. These men all espoused ideas which were part of the Modernism that was called the "synthesis of all heresies" by Pope St. Pius X.
The tragedy of the Second Vatican Council was that the Rhine group almost singularly came prepared to advance their radical agenda which aimed to theologically liberalize the Catholic Church. The more orthodox members of the episcopacy were for some reason caught flat-footed. They were entirely ill-prepared for what transpired. It seems odd that they never apprehended the "spirit of rebellion" that was clearly present and growing ever since Pius X wrote his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis on the errors of the Modernists. Inexplicably, the Church behaved as if it had no enemies with which to contend, nor threats from Modernists to defend against and to protect the faithful from. It is difficult not to see a demonic imprint in what transpired.
Demonic Influence on Rise in Conciliar Church
Catholic exorcist: Demonic influence is strong in today's world
By John Thavis
8/29/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – An Italian exorcist said demonic influence is strong in today's world, affecting individuals and sometimes entire societies.
While it is very rare for a person to be possessed by a demon, history reveals some likely examples – including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, said Pauline Father Gabriele Amorth.
Father Amorth, who works as an exorcist in the Diocese of Rome, made the comments in an interview with Vatican Radio Aug. 27.
Father Amorth said every culture in history has shown an awareness of the existence of evil spirits. With the Bible, he said, these spirits were identified as rebellious angels who "tempt man to evil out of hatred for God."
"The devil can possess not only individuals but also entire groups and populations. For example, I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed by the devil," he said.
"If one thinks of what was committed by people like Stalin or Hitler, certainly they were possessed by the devil. This is seen in their actions, in their behavior and in the horrors they committed," he said.
"Therefore, society also needs to be defended against the devil," he said.
Father Amorth said he thought one reason why the devil's influence was high today is that Christian faith has weakened, replaced in many cases by superstition and an interest in the occult, which he said "open the way to demonic influences."
He said the church teaches that the devil is a pure spirit; he is not seen, but his effects can be seen, he said.
Exorcism, he said, is a prayer made in the name of the church to liberate people stricken by the devil or by his evil influences.
Father Amorth gained notoriety in 2000 when he revealed that Pope John Paul II had performed an impromptu exorcism on a young woman who flew into an apparent rage at the end of a general audience at the Vatican.
In 1999, the Vatican issued a revised Rite of Exorcism, cautioning that cases of actual possession by devils were probably very rare. The church also has emphasized that before an exorcism is performed, it is important to make certain one is dealing with the devil and not a psychological or other illness.
Exorcisms On the Rise
Paul Burnell. National Catholic Register (June 4-10, 2000).
In a world where Satanists appear on prime-time TV, neo-pagan religions gather vast followings and tarot card readings are available in the newspapers, experts say it's no surprise that the number of exorcisms worldwide is rising.
Father James LeBar, exorcist for the Archdiocese of New York, said he has seen a "large explosion" in cases since 1990.
"Ten years ago I had no cases and now I have 300," said Father James LeBar, an exorcist for the Archdiocese of New York.
Most of his cases, he said, don't need an exorcist. They have "unusual things happening — things moving around the house or people claiming to have seen or heard the evil one. Some people suffer the phenomena without actually being possessed. An exorcism is primarily used for people who are possessed by the devil, whose wills have been overtaken by Satan." Father John Hampsch, a psychologist, has also seen more reports of demonic interference.
"I have seen a dramatic rise in cases. In the past three hours before you phoned me, I have had three cases of people suffering serious contamination with the forces of evil. I am dealing with 10 to 15 cases a week."
A popular author and speaker on many areas of faith and spirituality, the Claretian Missionary Father says the demonic takes up much of his time.
"A large amount do not require formal exorcism — they are not cases of possession. They are cases of demonic oppression, obsession, depression infestation ... very painful and very distressing."
Father Hampsch told the Register that today's culture has many "gateways" to the demonic world that usually stop short of full-scale "possession."
"The most obvious way we let Satan into our lives is through sin. Serious and habitual sin can be a gateway. An innocent person can be affected by hexes or curses but I would say most cases of possession needing serious deliverance come about through involvement in the occult, with practices such as Ouija board or tarot cards or some kind of New Age practice. The other form is through some kind of sin addiction such as alcohol, drugs or pornography. A case I was dealing with recently was addicted to pornography and he suffered from demonic manifestations."
THE OUIJA BOARD
For one victim, Dermot (not his real name), a Ouija board caused problems that culminated three years ago.
The father of two in his mid-50s told the Register that when he came to Britain from Galway, Ireland, to work on a building site as a young man, he joined in a group session with the popular board game for a laugh.
Afterward, he used the board again and again, and felt the after-effects for years. "I had all kinds of troubles down the years and I could never understand the terrible blasphemous thoughts that came into my head."
Three years ago, he found himself having to be held down by four priests while a prayer for deliverance was said over his struggling, screaming body.
"I don't know where [that] strength came from as it happened but I do know I felt a new man afterwards" he told the Register.
Cases like his have become much more common in England over the past decade.
Father Jeremy Davies, exorcist for London's Westminster Archdiocese, granted a rare interview to the London-based Catholic Herald April 28 to warn about the dangers of dabbling in the occult.
"There have been more exorcisms, undoubtedly. There are more people in need and the Church is dealing with the problem more effectively," he was quoted saying.
Father Davies, 65, is a former medical doctor and one of six priests who founded the International Association of Exorcists seven years ago. The association now has 200 members.
He stressed that the Church urges great caution in matters involving exorcism.
The 1984 document Ab Aliquot Annis (On The Current Norms Governing Exorcisms), by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cites canon law, which states: "no one may licitly perform exorcisms on those who are possessed unless he has obtained particular and express permission from the local ordinary, and it decrees that this permission is to be granted by the ordinary only to priests who are outstanding in piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life. Bishops are therefore strongly urged to enforce the observance of these prescriptions" (Canon 1172).
Cardinal Ratizinger wrote: "It follows also from these same prescriptions that Christ's faithful may not employ the formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels which is excerpted from that formula made official by order of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, and certainly may not use the entire text of that exorcism. Let all bishops take care to admonish the faithful about this matter whenever such instruction is required."
"Finally, for the same reasons, bishops are asked to guard lest those who lack the required power attempt to lead assemblies in which prayers are employed to obtain liberation from demons, and in the course of which the demons are directly disturbed and an attempt is made to determine their identity. This applies even to cases which, although they do not involve true diabolical possession, nevertheless are seen in some way to manifest diabolical influence" (No. 2-3).
In the conclusion of the brief document, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "Of course, the enunciation of these norms should not stop the faithful of Christ from praying, as Jesus taught us, that they may be freed from evil. Moreover, pastors should take this opportunity to remember what the tradition of the Church teaches about the function properly assigned to the intercession of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles and the saints, even in the spiritual battle of Christians against the evil spirits. "
Mother Nadine Brown said her Omaha, Neb., charismatic community Intercessors Of The Lamb confronts the demonic influence through approved prayers. She warned of the dangers of New Age spirituality and the occult but said she also sees the new interest in spirituality as an opportunity for evangelization, especially among the youth.
"They are looking for a mystical dimension to life. The Church can give it to them, and this is the challenge . ... The Church of the 21st century [must] be mystical," she said. Father Hampsch was also upbeat. "We have seen grace super-abounding ... with a whole series of divine interventions and miracles around the world."
The growth of Eucharistic adoration is a great grace. Indeed the Holy Father has said this year should be intensely Eucharistic. We have even seen an increase in Eucharistic miracles. It is certainly a case of where sin abounds, grace super-abounds.
BEATING THE DEVIL
Revised Rite of Exorcism Coming
After a 20-year process ended on Jan. 26, 1999, the Vatican has produced an updated rite of exorcism, according to the International Association of Exorcists. Translations from the Latin are currently being prepared for the world's bishops' conferences.
"We know there are Catholics who have not received good formation and doubt the existence of the devil, but this is an article of faith and part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church," said Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, in announcing the revisions. "Whoever says the devil does not exist is no longer a believer."
The new text was described as an outgrowth of the old, with more sober language and giving the priest greater flexibility in the choice of prayers to use.
Written in 1614, the previous ritual combined prayers and gestures in keeping with the Middle Ages. Certain aspects of the ritual were more dramatic than liturgical, said the association.
Although the theology of the Church on exorcism remains unaltered, what is new is the simplification of external aspects and the presentation of the texts, written in light of Biblical texts. The premises have also been revised: Specific canonical norms are established to respond to any eventual abuses.
SIGNS OF THE DEVIL
Vatican guidelines say that some signs that a person may be possessed — when all medical explanations have been ruled out — include: "speaking in unknown languages, revealing things that are far away or hidden (or) demonstrating a physical strength not conforming to one's age or health status." At the same time, it cautioned that "these signs are only an indication" and may not be the work of the devil.
"Other manifestations, frequently of a moral and spiritual order" are often present and may include aversion to God, to the name of Jesus, of Mary and of the saints, to the Scripture, to sacramental rites and sacred images, the guidelines said.
Before using the Rite of Exorcisms, the priest must have "moral certainty" that the person involved is truly possessed or obsessed and not suffering from a psychological or physical illness.
The rite is performed in the name of Jesus and calls on the power he gave to his disciples and their successors to cast out evil spirits.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority, which Jesus entrusted to his Church."
In the ritual, the evil spirit is commanded in the name of God and of the Church to depart. The ritual also includes a sprinkling with holy water, the recitation of a litany of the saints, the Lord's Prayer and a creed, a Gospel reading and the Sign of the Cross.
A simple form of exorcism, not changed by the new ritual, is part of the Catholic Church's baptism rites; in it, the Church prays that the one about to be baptized will be protected from evil and from Satan's temptation.
In a series of 1986 audience talks about angels and the devil, Pope John Paul II said Satan has been defeated by Christ's death and resurrection, but he continues to try to win over people.
"It cannot be excluded that in certain cases the Evil Spirit tries to exercise his influence not only on material things, but also on the human body, for which one speaks of diabolical possession:" the Pope said during an audience talk. "It is not always easy to discern that which happens preternaturally in these cases, nor does the Church easily yield to or support the tendency to attribute many occurrences to the intervention of the demon," he said. At the same time, the Pope said, "one cannot deny that in his desire to harm and to lead toward evil, Satan can reach this extreme manifestation" of his power.
Feb. 26, 2008
Exorcisms May Be On The Rise
Mark Phillips Examines The Evidence
(CBS) The Catholic Church has always believed in the idea of demonic possession -- of the fight, within the individual, between good and evil, says CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips.
The ancient ritual of trying to drive evil spirits from tortured souls was dramatically portrayed by Hollywood in "The Exorcist."
The Church, Phillips points out, would rather such graphic religious experiences took place privately.
When one Archbishop, Emanuel Malingo, began holding increasingly popular public exorcisms, the Vatican made him stop. The exorcism scenes weren't pretty, Phillips observes.
There is evidence, though, that the practice of exorcism is experiencing a revival, according to the Washington Post.
Particularly, says Phillips, among the faithful in Poland, so many of whom came to Rome to mourn the death of Pope John Paul II. Demand for exorcism has apparently risen so high, 70 priests now perform the rite there, double the number of five years ago. And the Church is planning a dedicated exorcism center.
Some blame the demand on the residue of the communist years. Father Jerome Hall, of the Washington Theological Union, says, "Once the oppressive regime falls, there's still a residue of pain, of betrayal, of anxiety, of evil. ... Some people who grew up in Eastern Europe would say, 'That's no wonder.' "
But numbers are said to be up elsewhere, as well, reports Phillips. In Italy, 350 trained exorcists are now working. There were only 20 ten years ago.
Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Nanni says, "For the sinners, who want to conquer entities or the devil himself, for them, the situation is very dangerous."
Even in the United States, Phillips notes, one-in-ten Catholics, according to a recent survey, now says they've either submitted to or witnessed an exorcism.
For many, it seems, the ancient battle between good and evil continues today, Phillips concludes.
What's behind the apparent rise in exorcisms?
Father Thomas Williams, Dean of Theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome and a CBS News religion consultant, told co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez on The Early Show Tuesday, "There may be two reasons. One is that there's increased interest in the occult, even in Satanism. Where I live in Italy, Satanic worship is actually on the rise. And this is true in a lot of places in Europe. And the second reason I think is because people are less careful. Honestly, they maybe pray less. They play around with things they shouldn't play with, and then they get into trouble. ... Anyone can be possessed, but I think you really have to open yourself up to it. You have to be un-careful. And I think the spiritual demons, or bad angels, do exist, and I think it's an extreme thing, but it happens sometimes."
How do you know that the person is possessed, and you're not just dealing with a psychological problem?
"Well," Williams responded, "that's the biggest challenge we have. Because obviously, many things that in the past that were considered demonic possession or demonic influence were really just diseases or psychological problems. So, priests work closely with psychologists to try to ascertain the real nature of the pathology or of the problem before performing an exorcism. But prayer never hurts. So if you're just praying for a person, you're not gonna do them any damage."
There are specific signs that a person is possessed, Williams continued; "Three typical signs are speaking strange languages, a language a person's never had any access to whatsoever, and they just become fluent in it. And often accompanied by a change of voice that doesn't even sound like the person. Another is knowledge of secret things. For example, saying things that the person has no way of knowing. And a third is superhuman strength, the ability to lift objects and move things."
What's the process of exorcism like? Is it similar to what the movie portrayed?
"Well, it's similar," Williams replied. "It's mostly based on prayer and reading of sacred scripture, but there are other things used like holy water, a crucifix, etc. It's a long process. It begins with simply praying over the person and asking the person to pray with you. Often, they won't; if there really is some sort of demonic presence there, they will not do that. It's a lot of prayer until there's some sort of manifestation on the part of the demon, if there is one."
By John Thavis
8/29/2006
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – An Italian exorcist said demonic influence is strong in today's world, affecting individuals and sometimes entire societies.
While it is very rare for a person to be possessed by a demon, history reveals some likely examples – including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, said Pauline Father Gabriele Amorth.
Father Amorth, who works as an exorcist in the Diocese of Rome, made the comments in an interview with Vatican Radio Aug. 27.
Father Amorth said every culture in history has shown an awareness of the existence of evil spirits. With the Bible, he said, these spirits were identified as rebellious angels who "tempt man to evil out of hatred for God."
"The devil can possess not only individuals but also entire groups and populations. For example, I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed by the devil," he said.
"If one thinks of what was committed by people like Stalin or Hitler, certainly they were possessed by the devil. This is seen in their actions, in their behavior and in the horrors they committed," he said.
"Therefore, society also needs to be defended against the devil," he said.
Father Amorth said he thought one reason why the devil's influence was high today is that Christian faith has weakened, replaced in many cases by superstition and an interest in the occult, which he said "open the way to demonic influences."
He said the church teaches that the devil is a pure spirit; he is not seen, but his effects can be seen, he said.
Exorcism, he said, is a prayer made in the name of the church to liberate people stricken by the devil or by his evil influences.
Father Amorth gained notoriety in 2000 when he revealed that Pope John Paul II had performed an impromptu exorcism on a young woman who flew into an apparent rage at the end of a general audience at the Vatican.
In 1999, the Vatican issued a revised Rite of Exorcism, cautioning that cases of actual possession by devils were probably very rare. The church also has emphasized that before an exorcism is performed, it is important to make certain one is dealing with the devil and not a psychological or other illness.
Exorcisms On the Rise
Paul Burnell. National Catholic Register (June 4-10, 2000).
In a world where Satanists appear on prime-time TV, neo-pagan religions gather vast followings and tarot card readings are available in the newspapers, experts say it's no surprise that the number of exorcisms worldwide is rising.
Father James LeBar, exorcist for the Archdiocese of New York, said he has seen a "large explosion" in cases since 1990.
"Ten years ago I had no cases and now I have 300," said Father James LeBar, an exorcist for the Archdiocese of New York.
Most of his cases, he said, don't need an exorcist. They have "unusual things happening — things moving around the house or people claiming to have seen or heard the evil one. Some people suffer the phenomena without actually being possessed. An exorcism is primarily used for people who are possessed by the devil, whose wills have been overtaken by Satan." Father John Hampsch, a psychologist, has also seen more reports of demonic interference.
"I have seen a dramatic rise in cases. In the past three hours before you phoned me, I have had three cases of people suffering serious contamination with the forces of evil. I am dealing with 10 to 15 cases a week."
A popular author and speaker on many areas of faith and spirituality, the Claretian Missionary Father says the demonic takes up much of his time.
"A large amount do not require formal exorcism — they are not cases of possession. They are cases of demonic oppression, obsession, depression infestation ... very painful and very distressing."
Father Hampsch told the Register that today's culture has many "gateways" to the demonic world that usually stop short of full-scale "possession."
"The most obvious way we let Satan into our lives is through sin. Serious and habitual sin can be a gateway. An innocent person can be affected by hexes or curses but I would say most cases of possession needing serious deliverance come about through involvement in the occult, with practices such as Ouija board or tarot cards or some kind of New Age practice. The other form is through some kind of sin addiction such as alcohol, drugs or pornography. A case I was dealing with recently was addicted to pornography and he suffered from demonic manifestations."
THE OUIJA BOARD
For one victim, Dermot (not his real name), a Ouija board caused problems that culminated three years ago.
The father of two in his mid-50s told the Register that when he came to Britain from Galway, Ireland, to work on a building site as a young man, he joined in a group session with the popular board game for a laugh.
Afterward, he used the board again and again, and felt the after-effects for years. "I had all kinds of troubles down the years and I could never understand the terrible blasphemous thoughts that came into my head."
Three years ago, he found himself having to be held down by four priests while a prayer for deliverance was said over his struggling, screaming body.
"I don't know where [that] strength came from as it happened but I do know I felt a new man afterwards" he told the Register.
Cases like his have become much more common in England over the past decade.
Father Jeremy Davies, exorcist for London's Westminster Archdiocese, granted a rare interview to the London-based Catholic Herald April 28 to warn about the dangers of dabbling in the occult.
"There have been more exorcisms, undoubtedly. There are more people in need and the Church is dealing with the problem more effectively," he was quoted saying.
Father Davies, 65, is a former medical doctor and one of six priests who founded the International Association of Exorcists seven years ago. The association now has 200 members.
He stressed that the Church urges great caution in matters involving exorcism.
The 1984 document Ab Aliquot Annis (On The Current Norms Governing Exorcisms), by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cites canon law, which states: "no one may licitly perform exorcisms on those who are possessed unless he has obtained particular and express permission from the local ordinary, and it decrees that this permission is to be granted by the ordinary only to priests who are outstanding in piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life. Bishops are therefore strongly urged to enforce the observance of these prescriptions" (Canon 1172).
Cardinal Ratizinger wrote: "It follows also from these same prescriptions that Christ's faithful may not employ the formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels which is excerpted from that formula made official by order of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, and certainly may not use the entire text of that exorcism. Let all bishops take care to admonish the faithful about this matter whenever such instruction is required."
"Finally, for the same reasons, bishops are asked to guard lest those who lack the required power attempt to lead assemblies in which prayers are employed to obtain liberation from demons, and in the course of which the demons are directly disturbed and an attempt is made to determine their identity. This applies even to cases which, although they do not involve true diabolical possession, nevertheless are seen in some way to manifest diabolical influence" (No. 2-3).
In the conclusion of the brief document, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "Of course, the enunciation of these norms should not stop the faithful of Christ from praying, as Jesus taught us, that they may be freed from evil. Moreover, pastors should take this opportunity to remember what the tradition of the Church teaches about the function properly assigned to the intercession of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles and the saints, even in the spiritual battle of Christians against the evil spirits. "
Mother Nadine Brown said her Omaha, Neb., charismatic community Intercessors Of The Lamb confronts the demonic influence through approved prayers. She warned of the dangers of New Age spirituality and the occult but said she also sees the new interest in spirituality as an opportunity for evangelization, especially among the youth.
"They are looking for a mystical dimension to life. The Church can give it to them, and this is the challenge . ... The Church of the 21st century [must] be mystical," she said. Father Hampsch was also upbeat. "We have seen grace super-abounding ... with a whole series of divine interventions and miracles around the world."
The growth of Eucharistic adoration is a great grace. Indeed the Holy Father has said this year should be intensely Eucharistic. We have even seen an increase in Eucharistic miracles. It is certainly a case of where sin abounds, grace super-abounds.
BEATING THE DEVIL
Revised Rite of Exorcism Coming
After a 20-year process ended on Jan. 26, 1999, the Vatican has produced an updated rite of exorcism, according to the International Association of Exorcists. Translations from the Latin are currently being prepared for the world's bishops' conferences.
"We know there are Catholics who have not received good formation and doubt the existence of the devil, but this is an article of faith and part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church," said Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, in announcing the revisions. "Whoever says the devil does not exist is no longer a believer."
The new text was described as an outgrowth of the old, with more sober language and giving the priest greater flexibility in the choice of prayers to use.
Written in 1614, the previous ritual combined prayers and gestures in keeping with the Middle Ages. Certain aspects of the ritual were more dramatic than liturgical, said the association.
Although the theology of the Church on exorcism remains unaltered, what is new is the simplification of external aspects and the presentation of the texts, written in light of Biblical texts. The premises have also been revised: Specific canonical norms are established to respond to any eventual abuses.
SIGNS OF THE DEVIL
Vatican guidelines say that some signs that a person may be possessed — when all medical explanations have been ruled out — include: "speaking in unknown languages, revealing things that are far away or hidden (or) demonstrating a physical strength not conforming to one's age or health status." At the same time, it cautioned that "these signs are only an indication" and may not be the work of the devil.
"Other manifestations, frequently of a moral and spiritual order" are often present and may include aversion to God, to the name of Jesus, of Mary and of the saints, to the Scripture, to sacramental rites and sacred images, the guidelines said.
Before using the Rite of Exorcisms, the priest must have "moral certainty" that the person involved is truly possessed or obsessed and not suffering from a psychological or physical illness.
The rite is performed in the name of Jesus and calls on the power he gave to his disciples and their successors to cast out evil spirits.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority, which Jesus entrusted to his Church."
In the ritual, the evil spirit is commanded in the name of God and of the Church to depart. The ritual also includes a sprinkling with holy water, the recitation of a litany of the saints, the Lord's Prayer and a creed, a Gospel reading and the Sign of the Cross.
A simple form of exorcism, not changed by the new ritual, is part of the Catholic Church's baptism rites; in it, the Church prays that the one about to be baptized will be protected from evil and from Satan's temptation.
In a series of 1986 audience talks about angels and the devil, Pope John Paul II said Satan has been defeated by Christ's death and resurrection, but he continues to try to win over people.
"It cannot be excluded that in certain cases the Evil Spirit tries to exercise his influence not only on material things, but also on the human body, for which one speaks of diabolical possession:" the Pope said during an audience talk. "It is not always easy to discern that which happens preternaturally in these cases, nor does the Church easily yield to or support the tendency to attribute many occurrences to the intervention of the demon," he said. At the same time, the Pope said, "one cannot deny that in his desire to harm and to lead toward evil, Satan can reach this extreme manifestation" of his power.
Feb. 26, 2008
Exorcisms May Be On The Rise
Mark Phillips Examines The Evidence
(CBS) The Catholic Church has always believed in the idea of demonic possession -- of the fight, within the individual, between good and evil, says CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips.
The ancient ritual of trying to drive evil spirits from tortured souls was dramatically portrayed by Hollywood in "The Exorcist."
The Church, Phillips points out, would rather such graphic religious experiences took place privately.
When one Archbishop, Emanuel Malingo, began holding increasingly popular public exorcisms, the Vatican made him stop. The exorcism scenes weren't pretty, Phillips observes.
There is evidence, though, that the practice of exorcism is experiencing a revival, according to the Washington Post.
Particularly, says Phillips, among the faithful in Poland, so many of whom came to Rome to mourn the death of Pope John Paul II. Demand for exorcism has apparently risen so high, 70 priests now perform the rite there, double the number of five years ago. And the Church is planning a dedicated exorcism center.
Some blame the demand on the residue of the communist years. Father Jerome Hall, of the Washington Theological Union, says, "Once the oppressive regime falls, there's still a residue of pain, of betrayal, of anxiety, of evil. ... Some people who grew up in Eastern Europe would say, 'That's no wonder.' "
But numbers are said to be up elsewhere, as well, reports Phillips. In Italy, 350 trained exorcists are now working. There were only 20 ten years ago.
Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Nanni says, "For the sinners, who want to conquer entities or the devil himself, for them, the situation is very dangerous."
Even in the United States, Phillips notes, one-in-ten Catholics, according to a recent survey, now says they've either submitted to or witnessed an exorcism.
For many, it seems, the ancient battle between good and evil continues today, Phillips concludes.
What's behind the apparent rise in exorcisms?
Father Thomas Williams, Dean of Theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome and a CBS News religion consultant, told co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez on The Early Show Tuesday, "There may be two reasons. One is that there's increased interest in the occult, even in Satanism. Where I live in Italy, Satanic worship is actually on the rise. And this is true in a lot of places in Europe. And the second reason I think is because people are less careful. Honestly, they maybe pray less. They play around with things they shouldn't play with, and then they get into trouble. ... Anyone can be possessed, but I think you really have to open yourself up to it. You have to be un-careful. And I think the spiritual demons, or bad angels, do exist, and I think it's an extreme thing, but it happens sometimes."
How do you know that the person is possessed, and you're not just dealing with a psychological problem?
"Well," Williams responded, "that's the biggest challenge we have. Because obviously, many things that in the past that were considered demonic possession or demonic influence were really just diseases or psychological problems. So, priests work closely with psychologists to try to ascertain the real nature of the pathology or of the problem before performing an exorcism. But prayer never hurts. So if you're just praying for a person, you're not gonna do them any damage."
There are specific signs that a person is possessed, Williams continued; "Three typical signs are speaking strange languages, a language a person's never had any access to whatsoever, and they just become fluent in it. And often accompanied by a change of voice that doesn't even sound like the person. Another is knowledge of secret things. For example, saying things that the person has no way of knowing. And a third is superhuman strength, the ability to lift objects and move things."
What's the process of exorcism like? Is it similar to what the movie portrayed?
"Well, it's similar," Williams replied. "It's mostly based on prayer and reading of sacred scripture, but there are other things used like holy water, a crucifix, etc. It's a long process. It begins with simply praying over the person and asking the person to pray with you. Often, they won't; if there really is some sort of demonic presence there, they will not do that. It's a lot of prayer until there's some sort of manifestation on the part of the demon, if there is one."
Monday, September 7, 2009
Saving the Baby
Editor's NOTE:
This article is included primarily to provide more information on the theologically illegitimate concept of Historicism which I have referred to elsewhere on this site. Rev. Sanborn does an excellent job of explaining the way in which it is used by neo-Modernists to alter as they see fit, every doctrine and dogma of the historical Roman Catholic faith--in one fell swoop.
It is impossible to overestimate the power that this concept has in undermining the entire Catholic deposit of the faith. As I have argued before, it is a self-referentially absurd idea since if it were true, it would be impossible to know it. Historicism has no epistemologically valid basis in truth.
How is it possible that the same thing which was true before is false now and vice-versa? If tomorrow a new Pope were to reject all of Vatican II and restore the Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V thereby repudiating the Novus Ordo Missae, according to Historicism there would be nothing contradictory about the fact that what the conciliar church taught yesterday as true can be deemed false tomorrow. This is the very definition of irrationality.
Benedict XVI is able to propound this contradictory notion (Historicism) by repudiating Thomistic philosophy and embracing modern philosophy. He has been quoted as saying that he does not favor Thomism (Scholasticism) because it is too restrictive. This example illustrates very well why he rejects Thomism. If the Church still embraced St. Thomas's philosophy the intellectually bogus concept of Historicism would never have been allowed to see the light of day.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Saving the Baby
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
In a speech to the Curia, Benedict XVI uses desperate measures — including blasphemy — to try to save his baby, Vatican II, from the accusation of discontinuity with the past.
Introduction
BENEDICT XVI GAVE A SPEECH to the members of the Curia on December 22nd, 2005 which is very revealing. He was reminiscing about the year's events to them, among which was the fortieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council, on December 7, 2005.
Ratzinger admitted, in his usual obscure and roundabout manner, that the effects of the Council have been, to a large extent, confusion and turmoil. He quotes Saint Basil, commenting on what happened after the Council of Nicea. Making an analogy to a naval battle, the Saint says: "The harsh cry of those who dispute with one another, the unintelligible chatter, and the confused noise of uninterrupted shouts have filled nearly the whole Church, falsifying the true doctrine of the Faith either by excess or defect." Ratzinger then offers an explanation for the disaster: that there are two interpretations of the Council, one bad, and the other good.
The "Bad" Interpretation of Vatican II
The bad interpretation, he says, is that of discontinuity and rupture. He blames the mass media and certain modern theologians for this. He says that the partisans of this interpretation see Vatican II as not having done enough, think that it retained far too much from the past, and interpret it as a new constitution for the Church, replacing the old one.
Ratzinger distances himself from this interpretation, saying: "The interpretation of discontinuity runs the risk of resulting in a rupture between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church." Such a rupture is the bĂªte noire for the Modernists; it is their Godzilla. For they know that if ever Vatican II should appear to be a rupture with what has gone before, then everything they have done will end in ruin. Indeed, the sedevacantists, who today are considered to be on the outer edges of the theological solar system, will be proven right. Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger will go down in history together with the false popes of the Great Western Schism, and the rest of similar ecclesiastical charlatans who made themselves absurd by trying to be real popes, when they were not.
But history is ruthless in its judgments, and when the propaganda and euphoria of a certain age have passed, — and its politically correct thinking — the tables can easily turn. The Modernists are playing with high stakes in this game of history, since they know that either they will win completely, or lose completely. A state or nation can tolerate political changes without losing its identity, but a 2,000-year-old Church, which claims to be founded by Jesus Christ, and to have the same nature and constitution which He gave it, cannot tolerate any substantial change in its doctrines, disciplines, or worship. All those who have attempted such changes have been consigned to the theological gallows: Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Luther, Cranmer, the Modernists.
In an effort not to end up with these people, Ratzinger offers a solution in order to save his Council, which is to him something like a baby. For it was he, together with the arch-Modernists Rahner and KĂ¼ng, who worked tirelessly at the Council, telling their Modernist European bishops what to think and do, filling up the blank minds of the ignorant and undecided bishops with Modernist theology by means of a daily newsletter. They seized the moment, and they won. KĂ¼ng said that they achieved far more at the Council than they had ever dreamed of. (Editor's emphasis--see Fr. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber for more details)
The "Good" Interpretation of Vatican II:
The License to Contradict All Catholic Dogma
So in the speech Ratzinger strives to save the Council. He calls for the correct interpretation of the Council, which is the interpretation of the reform.
He skillfully proposes a way in which to place all of the traditional teaching of the Church into the dustbin. It is known as historicism. It consists in holding that the Church is always consistent in its fundamental principles, but the historical application of these principles could change from age to age.
"The nature of true reform lies in this combination of multi-leveled continuity and discontinuity. In this process of change through continuity, we had to learn how to understand better than before that the Church's decisions about contingent matters — for example, about actual forms of liberalism or liberal interpretations of the Bible — were necessarily themselves contingent because related to a reality itself changeable."
This gobbledygook means this: that the Church's decisions in the past were based on passing circumstances. As the circumstances change, so can the decisions of the Church change. (Editor's emphasis) He cites the very negative reaction of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) to liberalism as a case in point. This reaction was justified, says Ratzinger, because the principles of the French Revolution were so radical, that they gave no room to the practice of religion.
But now we understand better. Just as the modern world has moderated its hatred for religion, so it was necessary for the Church, he says, to moderate its attitude toward the modern world. "We had to learn how to recognize that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change."
Ratzinger in a single stroke relativizes every decision which the Church ever made. It makes no doctrinal decision of the past, no condemnation of any error, a permanent decision, but one which can and must change as historical circumstances change. This one statement gives the Modernists a license to alter any declaration of the Church in the past. It subjects the teaching of the Church to a perpetual evolution.(Editor's emphasis)
Ratzinger used this historicism in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans in order to cast off the decisions of the Council of Trent, relegating the solemn condemnations to mere "salutary warnings." The same thing was done in the case of the doctrines of Antonio Rosmini, which were condemned by Leo XIII. In their historical context, they say, it was right to condemn these. But now we understand better, and we can lift the condemnations.
Ratzinger's Blasphemy against the Martyrs
So Vatican II approved, on December 7, 1965, the Decree on Religious Liberty, which, he says, "recaptured a deeper heritage of the Church." What is this "deeper heritage?" It is that the martyrs were dying for religious liberty. "The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in which God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, and indeed they therefore died as well for liberty of conscience and for the liberty to profess their own faith, a profession which cannot be imposed by any State, but can only be done with the grace of God, in the liberty of conscience."
Ratzinger would like us to believe that the liberty of conscience to hold to the one, true faith, the Roman Catholic Faith, and the liberty to profess it, which the martyrs were demanding, is the same liberty of conscience and liberty of profession which Vatican II called for. Thus he "saves" Vatican II, by attaching it to the early martyrs. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
It is all a crock of baloney. Vatican II does not claim the right of religious liberty for the Catholic Faith alone, but for every religion. "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."[1]
"Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferal of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties." [2]
Does Ratzinger really expect us to believe that St. Peter was martyred for the right of Romans to offer without hindrance dead chickens to Jupiter? Or that St. Justin accepted death in witness to the right of the cultists of Mithra to sacrifice their sacred bull?[3]
Listen to Pope Pius XII:
"What does not correspond to the truth and to the moral law does not objectively have any right to existence, or to propaganda, or to action." [4]
Listen to Pope Pius IX: "Contrary to the teaching of Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, they do not fear to affirm that — the best form of government is that in which there is not conceded to the authorities the duty of curbing the violators of the Catholic religion with the sanction of penalties.' " [5]
Ratzinger and other Vatican II apologists try to justify the heretical doctrines of this Council concerning religious liberty by attempting to confuse the right to religious liberty to profess the one true faith with a right to profess any religion whatsoever. It is a cunning lie, and they know it.
Listen to Pope Leo XIII:
"Liberty of religion, considered in its relationship to society, is founded upon the principle that the State, even in a Catholic nation, is not bound to profess or to favor any religion; it must take them all into equal consideration legally. It is not here a question of that de facto tolerance which, in given circumstances, can be conceded to the dissident cults, but rather of the recognition granted to them of the very rights that belong only to the one true religion, which God has established in the world and has designated with clear and precise marks and signs, so that everyone can know it as such and embrace it. Furthermore such a liberty indeed places on the same level truth and error, faith and heresy, the Church of Jesus Christ and any human institution whatsoever; with this liberty is established a deplorable and wicked separation between human society and God, who is the author of it; it leads finally to the sad consequences of State indifferentism in religious matters, or what comes to the same thing, its atheism." [6]
Listen to Pius VII:
"By the fact itself that the liberty of all the cults without distinction is established, truth is intermingled with error, and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church outside of which there can be no salvation, is put onto a class with heretical sects and even the Jewish perfidy It is implicitly the disastrous and forever deplorable heresy that St. Augustine mentions in these terms: It affirms that all the heretics are on the right path and speak the truth, an absurdity so monstrous that I cannot believe that any sect really professes it.' " [7]
Ratzinger's blasphemy becomes clearly visible. According to him, the early martyrs died for a doctrine which is "contrary to the teaching of Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers" (Pius IX), "the atheism of the State" (Leo XIII), and for a "disastrous and ever deplorable heresy" (Pius VII). Ratzinger would have been less blasphemous if he had said that they died for the right to fornicate, to commit adultery, or even for a woman's right to have an abortion.
Ratzinger Cannot be Taken Seriously
How can Ratzinger expect us to take him seriously when he tries to brush off this teaching of Leo XIII and other popes, indeed of all previous popes, as merely a reaction to a set of unique historical circumstances? Are not these teachings general moral principles presented to us in a calm and reasonable manner by these Roman Pontiffs? Ratzinger's attempt to discard them by means of historicism will end in failure.
I say end in failure, since there are millions who will defend anything which falls from his mouth, rather than face the specter of sedevacantism. If Ratzinger said Mass in the nude, they would say that he was wearing beautiful traditional vestments. This voluntary blindness will not pass the test of time, however.
An Admission that Vatican II
Contradicts the Teaching of the Church
Ratzinger continues: "By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council revised and even corrected some past decisions." We have finally an admission from them that Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Church in the past. He tries to justify it in this way: "But in an apparent discontinuity it has instead preserved and reinforced its intimate nature and true identity. The Church is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic both before and after the council throughout time." In other words, "despite the fact that the consistent teaching of Pius VI, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII has been trashed by Vatican II, we can still consider ourselves Catholics."
Ratzinger delights in his middle-of-the-road approach to Vatican II, and devotes much time to its praise: "Thus we can today turn our eyes with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council: if we read it and receive it under the guidance of a correct interpretation, it can be and always become a greater force for the ever necessary renewal of the Church."
The Fruits of Vatican II
Turn our eyes with gratitude? Really? Let us look again at the fruits of Vatican II. A certain Fr. C J. McCloskey, in an article entitled "The Church in the US,"[8] gives statistics from the past forty years:
"Let's look at the numbers in the US first. In 1965, at the end of the Council there were 58,000 priests. Now there are 41,000. By 2020, if present trends continue (and there is no sign of a dramatic upsurge in vocations), there will be only 31,000, and half will be over 70. To give an example, I was ordained in 1981 at the age of 27. Today at the age of 52, I can still attend priests' meetings and be one of the younger priests there. In 1965, 1575 new priests were ordained, In 2005, the number was 454, less than a third, and remember that the Catholic population in the US increased from 45.6 million in 1965 to the 64.8 million of 2005, almost a 50% increase. The Venerable John Henry Newman said, "Growth is the only evidence of life." By his definition, the Church in the United States has been and continues to be in sharp decline. Now, quite clearly, there has been a sharp decline in the number of seminarians over this time period. Between 1965 and 2005, the number of seminarians fell from 50,000 (some 42,000 high school and college seminarians, and 8,000 or so graduate seminarians) to today's approximate 5,000, a drop of ninety percent."
"The religious men and women (those taking vows) have even more precipitously declined in the US over this time period. In 1965, there were 22,707 priests; today there are 14,137 with a much higher percentage of them well over the age of 65. Religious brothers have gone from 12,271 to 5,451, and women religious from the astounding number of 179,954 in 1965 to 68,634 in 2005. I should mention here that the attrition in these numbers, as well as that of diocesan priests is not only due to deaths and a dearth of priestly or religious vocations, but also a massive defection, whether sanctioned or not by the Church. Again we do not have time to analyze the multiple causes that caused this precipitous decline in belief and practice; the doubting in questions of faith and morals that was widely spread in the post-conciliar Church after the Council also led many priests and religious to abandon ship into lay married life. Naturally this also has a depressing effect on the recruitment of response to a vocation by young men and women who had seen this exodus in full play. Quite clearly the abandonment or radical changes on the part of many religious congregations of their historical rules, community life, and clothing also had a deleterious effect both on perseverance and recruitment in vocations. There are many more women religious over the age of ninety than under the age of 30 in the US. The number of Catholic nuns, 180,000 in 1965, has fallen by 60%. Their average age is now 68. The number of teaching nuns has fallen 94% from the close of the Council. The number of young men studying to become members of the two principal teaching orders: the Jesuits and Christian Brothers, have fallen by 90 percent and 99%, respectively. There is little sign of growth in this part of the Church in the US. However there are some signs of hope with the arrival of some new religious congregations and revival of others."
"We can now examine the state of what was, in many ways, the pride and joy of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church in America: the educational system that extended from grammar school through hundreds (yes, hundreds) of Catholic colleges and universities. It is accurate to say that there had never been such an extensive, and at least in appearance, such a fundamentally sound, education system, in any place or at any time in the history of the Church. Elementary education was basically taken care of by the parish following the pioneering work of St. John Neumann. The parish also directed many high schools but there were also many directed by the armies of men and women religious. Virtually all of the high schools were single-sex while some were co-institutional i.e., boys and girls in the same building but educated separately. Naturally the combination of stable marriages, relatively large families, and strong catechesis produced not only vocations but also well formed men and women who lived their faith in a coherent way in their professional work, including politics and marital life. That is all virtually gone now."
"Almost half the Catholic schools open in 1965 have closed. There were 4.5 million students in Catholic schools in the mid-1960's. Today there is about half that number. What is even more troubling is that those children still attending Catholic schools (grammar and high) are taught by lay poorly formed Generation X Catholics who often themselves have serious difficulties with aspects of Catholic doctrinal and moral life. Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers accept Church teaching on contraception, 53 percent believed a Catholic woman could get an abortion and remain a good Catholic, 65 percent said Catholics have a right to divorce and remarry, and in a New York Times poll, 70 percent of Catholics ages 18-54 said they believed the Holy Eucharist was but a 'symbolic reminder' of Jesus."
Such are the fruits of Vatican II. Consequently, we Catholics turn our eyes with disgust upon Vatican II, and curse the day that it was conceived in the Modernist brain of John XXIII. Our lives have been miserable ever since. What Ratzinger and his henchmen have done is to throw a wrench into a well-oiled and humming engine of truth, to smash a crystal-clear and precious vase of decency and righteousness, to defile a golden chalice of supernatural beauty by the turpitude of their heresies. They have destroyed our Catholic world and our Catholic lives. And after forty years, as the Catholic world falls down around them, they have nothing better to say or do than to tell us that it is all wonderful. It makes us sick to hear it.
Our Lord said: "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." (Matt. 7: 16-20)
Highlights of Ratzinger's Speech
• The effects of the Council have been in great part negative. To my knowledge this is the first such admission.
• The decisions of the Church in the past are "contingent because they are related to a reality itself changeable." This gives the Modernists the license to discard any of the Church's dogmas or condemnations of error, since they are all attached, in some way, to historical circumstances.
• Vatican II "revised and even corrected some past decisions." This means that the pre-Vatican II decisions were wrong. This is the first admission that Vatican II has actually contradicted the Church's traditional teaching. This is very significant.
• The early martyrs died for Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty. This statement is blasphemy, and is so absurd that no comment is necessary.
NOTES:
[1] Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 2.
[2] Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 4.
[3] One of the central motifs of Mithraism is the tauroctony, the myth of sacrifice by Mithra of a sacred bull created by the supreme deity Ahura Mazda, which Mithra stabs to death in the cave, having been instructed to do so by a crow, sent from Ahura Mazda. In this myth, from the body of the dying bull spring plants, animals, and all the beneficial things of the earth. (Wikipedia)
[4] Ci riesce
[5] Quanta Cura
[6] ĂŒl giunto
[7] Post tam diuturnas
[8] This article is available in its entirety at catholiccitizens.org.
This article is included primarily to provide more information on the theologically illegitimate concept of Historicism which I have referred to elsewhere on this site. Rev. Sanborn does an excellent job of explaining the way in which it is used by neo-Modernists to alter as they see fit, every doctrine and dogma of the historical Roman Catholic faith--in one fell swoop.
It is impossible to overestimate the power that this concept has in undermining the entire Catholic deposit of the faith. As I have argued before, it is a self-referentially absurd idea since if it were true, it would be impossible to know it. Historicism has no epistemologically valid basis in truth.
How is it possible that the same thing which was true before is false now and vice-versa? If tomorrow a new Pope were to reject all of Vatican II and restore the Tridentine Latin Mass of St. Pius V thereby repudiating the Novus Ordo Missae, according to Historicism there would be nothing contradictory about the fact that what the conciliar church taught yesterday as true can be deemed false tomorrow. This is the very definition of irrationality.
Benedict XVI is able to propound this contradictory notion (Historicism) by repudiating Thomistic philosophy and embracing modern philosophy. He has been quoted as saying that he does not favor Thomism (Scholasticism) because it is too restrictive. This example illustrates very well why he rejects Thomism. If the Church still embraced St. Thomas's philosophy the intellectually bogus concept of Historicism would never have been allowed to see the light of day.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Saving the Baby
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
In a speech to the Curia, Benedict XVI uses desperate measures — including blasphemy — to try to save his baby, Vatican II, from the accusation of discontinuity with the past.
Introduction
BENEDICT XVI GAVE A SPEECH to the members of the Curia on December 22nd, 2005 which is very revealing. He was reminiscing about the year's events to them, among which was the fortieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council, on December 7, 2005.
Ratzinger admitted, in his usual obscure and roundabout manner, that the effects of the Council have been, to a large extent, confusion and turmoil. He quotes Saint Basil, commenting on what happened after the Council of Nicea. Making an analogy to a naval battle, the Saint says: "The harsh cry of those who dispute with one another, the unintelligible chatter, and the confused noise of uninterrupted shouts have filled nearly the whole Church, falsifying the true doctrine of the Faith either by excess or defect." Ratzinger then offers an explanation for the disaster: that there are two interpretations of the Council, one bad, and the other good.
The "Bad" Interpretation of Vatican II
The bad interpretation, he says, is that of discontinuity and rupture. He blames the mass media and certain modern theologians for this. He says that the partisans of this interpretation see Vatican II as not having done enough, think that it retained far too much from the past, and interpret it as a new constitution for the Church, replacing the old one.
Ratzinger distances himself from this interpretation, saying: "The interpretation of discontinuity runs the risk of resulting in a rupture between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church." Such a rupture is the bĂªte noire for the Modernists; it is their Godzilla. For they know that if ever Vatican II should appear to be a rupture with what has gone before, then everything they have done will end in ruin. Indeed, the sedevacantists, who today are considered to be on the outer edges of the theological solar system, will be proven right. Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla and Ratzinger will go down in history together with the false popes of the Great Western Schism, and the rest of similar ecclesiastical charlatans who made themselves absurd by trying to be real popes, when they were not.
But history is ruthless in its judgments, and when the propaganda and euphoria of a certain age have passed, — and its politically correct thinking — the tables can easily turn. The Modernists are playing with high stakes in this game of history, since they know that either they will win completely, or lose completely. A state or nation can tolerate political changes without losing its identity, but a 2,000-year-old Church, which claims to be founded by Jesus Christ, and to have the same nature and constitution which He gave it, cannot tolerate any substantial change in its doctrines, disciplines, or worship. All those who have attempted such changes have been consigned to the theological gallows: Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Luther, Cranmer, the Modernists.
In an effort not to end up with these people, Ratzinger offers a solution in order to save his Council, which is to him something like a baby. For it was he, together with the arch-Modernists Rahner and KĂ¼ng, who worked tirelessly at the Council, telling their Modernist European bishops what to think and do, filling up the blank minds of the ignorant and undecided bishops with Modernist theology by means of a daily newsletter. They seized the moment, and they won. KĂ¼ng said that they achieved far more at the Council than they had ever dreamed of. (Editor's emphasis--see Fr. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber for more details)
The "Good" Interpretation of Vatican II:
The License to Contradict All Catholic Dogma
So in the speech Ratzinger strives to save the Council. He calls for the correct interpretation of the Council, which is the interpretation of the reform.
He skillfully proposes a way in which to place all of the traditional teaching of the Church into the dustbin. It is known as historicism. It consists in holding that the Church is always consistent in its fundamental principles, but the historical application of these principles could change from age to age.
"The nature of true reform lies in this combination of multi-leveled continuity and discontinuity. In this process of change through continuity, we had to learn how to understand better than before that the Church's decisions about contingent matters — for example, about actual forms of liberalism or liberal interpretations of the Bible — were necessarily themselves contingent because related to a reality itself changeable."
This gobbledygook means this: that the Church's decisions in the past were based on passing circumstances. As the circumstances change, so can the decisions of the Church change. (Editor's emphasis) He cites the very negative reaction of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) to liberalism as a case in point. This reaction was justified, says Ratzinger, because the principles of the French Revolution were so radical, that they gave no room to the practice of religion.
But now we understand better. Just as the modern world has moderated its hatred for religion, so it was necessary for the Church, he says, to moderate its attitude toward the modern world. "We had to learn how to recognize that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change."
Ratzinger in a single stroke relativizes every decision which the Church ever made. It makes no doctrinal decision of the past, no condemnation of any error, a permanent decision, but one which can and must change as historical circumstances change. This one statement gives the Modernists a license to alter any declaration of the Church in the past. It subjects the teaching of the Church to a perpetual evolution.(Editor's emphasis)
Ratzinger used this historicism in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans in order to cast off the decisions of the Council of Trent, relegating the solemn condemnations to mere "salutary warnings." The same thing was done in the case of the doctrines of Antonio Rosmini, which were condemned by Leo XIII. In their historical context, they say, it was right to condemn these. But now we understand better, and we can lift the condemnations.
Ratzinger's Blasphemy against the Martyrs
So Vatican II approved, on December 7, 1965, the Decree on Religious Liberty, which, he says, "recaptured a deeper heritage of the Church." What is this "deeper heritage?" It is that the martyrs were dying for religious liberty. "The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in which God revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, and indeed they therefore died as well for liberty of conscience and for the liberty to profess their own faith, a profession which cannot be imposed by any State, but can only be done with the grace of God, in the liberty of conscience."
Ratzinger would like us to believe that the liberty of conscience to hold to the one, true faith, the Roman Catholic Faith, and the liberty to profess it, which the martyrs were demanding, is the same liberty of conscience and liberty of profession which Vatican II called for. Thus he "saves" Vatican II, by attaching it to the early martyrs. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
It is all a crock of baloney. Vatican II does not claim the right of religious liberty for the Catholic Faith alone, but for every religion. "This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."[1]
"Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferal of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties." [2]
Does Ratzinger really expect us to believe that St. Peter was martyred for the right of Romans to offer without hindrance dead chickens to Jupiter? Or that St. Justin accepted death in witness to the right of the cultists of Mithra to sacrifice their sacred bull?[3]
Listen to Pope Pius XII:
"What does not correspond to the truth and to the moral law does not objectively have any right to existence, or to propaganda, or to action." [4]
Listen to Pope Pius IX: "Contrary to the teaching of Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, they do not fear to affirm that — the best form of government is that in which there is not conceded to the authorities the duty of curbing the violators of the Catholic religion with the sanction of penalties.' " [5]
Ratzinger and other Vatican II apologists try to justify the heretical doctrines of this Council concerning religious liberty by attempting to confuse the right to religious liberty to profess the one true faith with a right to profess any religion whatsoever. It is a cunning lie, and they know it.
Listen to Pope Leo XIII:
"Liberty of religion, considered in its relationship to society, is founded upon the principle that the State, even in a Catholic nation, is not bound to profess or to favor any religion; it must take them all into equal consideration legally. It is not here a question of that de facto tolerance which, in given circumstances, can be conceded to the dissident cults, but rather of the recognition granted to them of the very rights that belong only to the one true religion, which God has established in the world and has designated with clear and precise marks and signs, so that everyone can know it as such and embrace it. Furthermore such a liberty indeed places on the same level truth and error, faith and heresy, the Church of Jesus Christ and any human institution whatsoever; with this liberty is established a deplorable and wicked separation between human society and God, who is the author of it; it leads finally to the sad consequences of State indifferentism in religious matters, or what comes to the same thing, its atheism." [6]
Listen to Pius VII:
"By the fact itself that the liberty of all the cults without distinction is established, truth is intermingled with error, and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church outside of which there can be no salvation, is put onto a class with heretical sects and even the Jewish perfidy It is implicitly the disastrous and forever deplorable heresy that St. Augustine mentions in these terms: It affirms that all the heretics are on the right path and speak the truth, an absurdity so monstrous that I cannot believe that any sect really professes it.' " [7]
Ratzinger's blasphemy becomes clearly visible. According to him, the early martyrs died for a doctrine which is "contrary to the teaching of Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers" (Pius IX), "the atheism of the State" (Leo XIII), and for a "disastrous and ever deplorable heresy" (Pius VII). Ratzinger would have been less blasphemous if he had said that they died for the right to fornicate, to commit adultery, or even for a woman's right to have an abortion.
Ratzinger Cannot be Taken Seriously
How can Ratzinger expect us to take him seriously when he tries to brush off this teaching of Leo XIII and other popes, indeed of all previous popes, as merely a reaction to a set of unique historical circumstances? Are not these teachings general moral principles presented to us in a calm and reasonable manner by these Roman Pontiffs? Ratzinger's attempt to discard them by means of historicism will end in failure.
I say end in failure, since there are millions who will defend anything which falls from his mouth, rather than face the specter of sedevacantism. If Ratzinger said Mass in the nude, they would say that he was wearing beautiful traditional vestments. This voluntary blindness will not pass the test of time, however.
An Admission that Vatican II
Contradicts the Teaching of the Church
Ratzinger continues: "By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council revised and even corrected some past decisions." We have finally an admission from them that Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Church in the past. He tries to justify it in this way: "But in an apparent discontinuity it has instead preserved and reinforced its intimate nature and true identity. The Church is one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic both before and after the council throughout time." In other words, "despite the fact that the consistent teaching of Pius VI, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII has been trashed by Vatican II, we can still consider ourselves Catholics."
Ratzinger delights in his middle-of-the-road approach to Vatican II, and devotes much time to its praise: "Thus we can today turn our eyes with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council: if we read it and receive it under the guidance of a correct interpretation, it can be and always become a greater force for the ever necessary renewal of the Church."
The Fruits of Vatican II
Turn our eyes with gratitude? Really? Let us look again at the fruits of Vatican II. A certain Fr. C J. McCloskey, in an article entitled "The Church in the US,"[8] gives statistics from the past forty years:
"Let's look at the numbers in the US first. In 1965, at the end of the Council there were 58,000 priests. Now there are 41,000. By 2020, if present trends continue (and there is no sign of a dramatic upsurge in vocations), there will be only 31,000, and half will be over 70. To give an example, I was ordained in 1981 at the age of 27. Today at the age of 52, I can still attend priests' meetings and be one of the younger priests there. In 1965, 1575 new priests were ordained, In 2005, the number was 454, less than a third, and remember that the Catholic population in the US increased from 45.6 million in 1965 to the 64.8 million of 2005, almost a 50% increase. The Venerable John Henry Newman said, "Growth is the only evidence of life." By his definition, the Church in the United States has been and continues to be in sharp decline. Now, quite clearly, there has been a sharp decline in the number of seminarians over this time period. Between 1965 and 2005, the number of seminarians fell from 50,000 (some 42,000 high school and college seminarians, and 8,000 or so graduate seminarians) to today's approximate 5,000, a drop of ninety percent."
"The religious men and women (those taking vows) have even more precipitously declined in the US over this time period. In 1965, there were 22,707 priests; today there are 14,137 with a much higher percentage of them well over the age of 65. Religious brothers have gone from 12,271 to 5,451, and women religious from the astounding number of 179,954 in 1965 to 68,634 in 2005. I should mention here that the attrition in these numbers, as well as that of diocesan priests is not only due to deaths and a dearth of priestly or religious vocations, but also a massive defection, whether sanctioned or not by the Church. Again we do not have time to analyze the multiple causes that caused this precipitous decline in belief and practice; the doubting in questions of faith and morals that was widely spread in the post-conciliar Church after the Council also led many priests and religious to abandon ship into lay married life. Naturally this also has a depressing effect on the recruitment of response to a vocation by young men and women who had seen this exodus in full play. Quite clearly the abandonment or radical changes on the part of many religious congregations of their historical rules, community life, and clothing also had a deleterious effect both on perseverance and recruitment in vocations. There are many more women religious over the age of ninety than under the age of 30 in the US. The number of Catholic nuns, 180,000 in 1965, has fallen by 60%. Their average age is now 68. The number of teaching nuns has fallen 94% from the close of the Council. The number of young men studying to become members of the two principal teaching orders: the Jesuits and Christian Brothers, have fallen by 90 percent and 99%, respectively. There is little sign of growth in this part of the Church in the US. However there are some signs of hope with the arrival of some new religious congregations and revival of others."
"We can now examine the state of what was, in many ways, the pride and joy of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church in America: the educational system that extended from grammar school through hundreds (yes, hundreds) of Catholic colleges and universities. It is accurate to say that there had never been such an extensive, and at least in appearance, such a fundamentally sound, education system, in any place or at any time in the history of the Church. Elementary education was basically taken care of by the parish following the pioneering work of St. John Neumann. The parish also directed many high schools but there were also many directed by the armies of men and women religious. Virtually all of the high schools were single-sex while some were co-institutional i.e., boys and girls in the same building but educated separately. Naturally the combination of stable marriages, relatively large families, and strong catechesis produced not only vocations but also well formed men and women who lived their faith in a coherent way in their professional work, including politics and marital life. That is all virtually gone now."
"Almost half the Catholic schools open in 1965 have closed. There were 4.5 million students in Catholic schools in the mid-1960's. Today there is about half that number. What is even more troubling is that those children still attending Catholic schools (grammar and high) are taught by lay poorly formed Generation X Catholics who often themselves have serious difficulties with aspects of Catholic doctrinal and moral life. Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers accept Church teaching on contraception, 53 percent believed a Catholic woman could get an abortion and remain a good Catholic, 65 percent said Catholics have a right to divorce and remarry, and in a New York Times poll, 70 percent of Catholics ages 18-54 said they believed the Holy Eucharist was but a 'symbolic reminder' of Jesus."
Such are the fruits of Vatican II. Consequently, we Catholics turn our eyes with disgust upon Vatican II, and curse the day that it was conceived in the Modernist brain of John XXIII. Our lives have been miserable ever since. What Ratzinger and his henchmen have done is to throw a wrench into a well-oiled and humming engine of truth, to smash a crystal-clear and precious vase of decency and righteousness, to defile a golden chalice of supernatural beauty by the turpitude of their heresies. They have destroyed our Catholic world and our Catholic lives. And after forty years, as the Catholic world falls down around them, they have nothing better to say or do than to tell us that it is all wonderful. It makes us sick to hear it.
Our Lord said: "By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." (Matt. 7: 16-20)
Highlights of Ratzinger's Speech
• The effects of the Council have been in great part negative. To my knowledge this is the first such admission.
• The decisions of the Church in the past are "contingent because they are related to a reality itself changeable." This gives the Modernists the license to discard any of the Church's dogmas or condemnations of error, since they are all attached, in some way, to historical circumstances.
• Vatican II "revised and even corrected some past decisions." This means that the pre-Vatican II decisions were wrong. This is the first admission that Vatican II has actually contradicted the Church's traditional teaching. This is very significant.
• The early martyrs died for Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty. This statement is blasphemy, and is so absurd that no comment is necessary.
NOTES:
[1] Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 2.
[2] Dignitatis Humanæ, no. 4.
[3] One of the central motifs of Mithraism is the tauroctony, the myth of sacrifice by Mithra of a sacred bull created by the supreme deity Ahura Mazda, which Mithra stabs to death in the cave, having been instructed to do so by a crow, sent from Ahura Mazda. In this myth, from the body of the dying bull spring plants, animals, and all the beneficial things of the earth. (Wikipedia)
[4] Ci riesce
[5] Quanta Cura
[6] ĂŒl giunto
[7] Post tam diuturnas
[8] This article is available in its entirety at catholiccitizens.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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.