"The Ottaviani Intervention"
Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
September 25th, 1969
Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.
Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.
Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.
A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci
Brief Summary
I History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.
II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.
V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.
VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.
VII The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.
VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the deposit of Faith.
I History of the Change
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.
In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".
This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.
The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.
Rejected by Synod
Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.
The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.
An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernist of Protestants.
II Definition of the Mass
Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":
"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, 'where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them', is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".
The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.
In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII, 20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.
In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbol value. More will be said about this point later.
This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately in an absolute sense.
We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy.
As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. (Editor's emphasis) The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, while the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.
We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.
III Presentation of the Ends
We now come to the ends of the Mass.
1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).
This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.
2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.
3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink". (Editor's emphasis)
"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy generosity we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become for us the bread of life (or spiritual drink)".
There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
Suppression of Great Prayers
In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.
Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress to union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.
IV The Essence
We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.
The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these reasons:
1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)
Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine. (Editor's emphasis)
2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)
The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored. (Editor's emphasis)
The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.
Note, too, the suppressions:
* of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;
* of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
* of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration; of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
* of the pall protecting the chalice;
* of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
* of the consecration of movable altars;
* of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses);
* of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
* of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
* of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)
All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated. (Editor's Emphasis)
3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.
Separation of Altar and Tabernacle
Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped, bare table. (Editor's emphasis) Once again the contrast is made between 'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety: altar is set up against altar.
In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted a disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain.
The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. (Editor's emphasis) This was shown above all by three things:
a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in the mystery realised by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.
b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the centre of the page and often in a different colour, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.
"To separate the Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating two things which, of their very nature, must remain together". (PIUS XII, Allocution to the International Liturgy Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956). cf. also Mediator Dei, 1.5, note 28.
c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory.) This referred to Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did ("Haec . . . in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of the old - proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the 'beginning'. The concluding idea of 'commemoration' will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action.
The narrative mode is now emphasised by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in whole Person the priest acts: (Editor's emphasis) "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").
Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming. (Editor's emphasis)
This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comest", where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.
V The Elements of Sacrifice
We come now to the realisation of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.
In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false - from the opening definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48). "Qua salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae mysterium".
A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence.
This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.
In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. (Editor's emphasis) From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorised to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).
Priest as Mere President
2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi. (Editor's emphasis) Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.
In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".
Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has been suppressed. (Editor's emphasis)
Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.
(Editor's emphasis)
The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the people: "a little more a man than the rest", to quite the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher. Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood and the Word of God.
3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation", is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself" (no. 60), instead one ones which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri".
In this context the following are to be noted:
1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord", the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age (John, XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24);
2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of grace;
3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against the Powers of Darkness - looking towards a future which having lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.
The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all who seek you with a sincere heart".
Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the dead whose faith is known to you alone".
Furthermore, in none of three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any reference, as has already been said, to that state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice. (Editor's emphasis)
Desacralizing the Church
Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first.
The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.
The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.
A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite, missa est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.
The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here.
The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.
The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: (Editor's emphasis) the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes commentator himself from his constantly being required to 'explain' what he is about to accomplish) - of readings (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-Scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorised to read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).
Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.
VI The Destruction of Unity
We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, and spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document - whether in text, rubrics or instructions - would be a vast undertaking.
By Priest or Parson
No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, among other things, that it could be recited with perfect tranquillity of conscience by a priest who no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass - hence even by a Protestant minister.
The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilise according to the varying circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal legitimate variations and adaptations". Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and 'constant revision' of the liturgical books". The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad congregations."
The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety of tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all . . . may ascend more fragrant than any incense".
Council of Trent Rejected
The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian Chant, which even the Council recognised as "liturgiae romanae proprium" (Sacros Conc. no 116), ordering that "principem locum obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and Gradual.
From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise? (Editor's emphasis)
It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.
(Editor's emphasis)
VII The Alienation of the Orthodox
The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result - utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies - can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie.
Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.
Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.
By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.
VIII The Abandonment of Defences
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal "should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)
When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones today. (Editor's emphasis)
It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates" Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defences of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements.
These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we see today only too clearly - to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries.
And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most critical moment - of the Church's history!
Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
(Editor's emphasis)
Special note about the above document:
When studying the issues involved in the new liturgy, you may come across the assertion that Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document retracting his words above. But here is what happened, as recounted at www.tradition.com:
A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal's signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. [Ed. Agustoni was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]
Now it has come to light that this Agustoni [Ed. along with his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which that fabricated the "New Mass" and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary.
So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal's secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal's public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony "retraction," which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never "retracted," in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
When Paul VI Gave His Shepherd's Staff and Fisherman's Ring to the UN: One of the Saddest, Darkest Days In History
By: Stephen Hand
Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports
Is the Church now to be thought of as coterminus with humanity? With Paul VI the Conciliar church appears to yield to a New Order of the world with a New Mass, New Ordinal, New Catechism, and New Morality.
Paul VI before the UN "The Church is evolving into a higher form...the Church is seeking self-knowledge..." --Paul VI, Dialogues, Apostle for Our Time Pope Paul VI by Msgr. John C. Clancy.
Paul VI: "The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in permanent evolution towards a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement..." ---Giovani Montini, aka Paul VI, Jacques Duquesne, interroge le Pere Chenu, pp. 185f, emphasis added.)
How is it I could not see it until Hans Kung dined with Benedict XVI and left with his priesthood in tact, and his New Order global ethic blessed by the Holy See? And even then I did not want to see. Heresies can now coexist in the Church in a new unheard of pluralism? How could this be? For me it was this astonishing realization alone which threw me into a crisis of faith and made me rethink my 'conservative' approach to the Second Vatican Council.
I have highlighted Paul's auctioning off his papal Tiara elsewhere. The Abbe de Nantes, however, in his 1972 Accusations Against Paul VI records what many fear could possibly amount to the most terrible deed in human history after the betrayal of Christ by Judas (a presumably 'sincere' man too), when juxtaposed to the warning of Pius X below. Instead of giving away any number of other items which would have brought in hefty sums for the poor, Paul VI, that dark mysterious man, chose specifically to give up his papal insignia, specifically his Shepherd's Crook and Fisherman's Ring to U Thant the Buddhist head of that great parody of Catholic universalism, the new pantheon, located today in New York.
The symbolism could not have been richer. The two world's, the City of God and the City of Man (James 4:4), reconciled into a new kind of beastly alliance. Not good. From the time of the pontificate of Paul VI an infection which Pius X said had hitherto hid in the arteries and veins of the Church spread with vicious speed, destroying everything in its path, sparing for the most part only those ends which the UN would tolerate (at least temporarily). From now on any traditional orthodox elements would exist mostly on paper, if at all, since the strange Council undermined the state's ability to enforce them (Religious "Liberty").
There would be a new "shepherd" now, the UN, the "last great hope for mankind," (Paul VI) which would seek by persuasion, bribery and force a new unity for "humankind" without any need of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd and Prince of Peace. Thus the Church was plunged into a great apostasy. Was it the one foretold (2 Thess 2:1-4; Lk 18:8, etc)? While we cannot know for certain, it would be foolhardy to simply presume otherwise.
Pope St. Pius X:
"...this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2). —Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical: Restoration of All Things in Christ
Pope and WCC look to Christian unity at ecumenical "festival": For the first time, a general secretary of the World Council of Churches has taken part with a pope in a Rome service to mark the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, and together they have remembered the centenary of this initiative born in the United States in 1908. ... Cont. (but in the WCC there is not even a consensus on Christology. There are more heresies circulating there than you can shake a stick at. No consensus is possible, but for all to return to Christ's Church)
Note: Is the Church now to be thought of as coterminus with humanity? Does anyone believe the WCC is preparing to accept the Vatican I traditional teaching regarding submission to the Roman Pontiff and acceptance of all Catholic teaching which Leo XIII taught cannot be dissented from in "any point" without loss of the whole Christian faith (Satis Cognitum)? Or is this another step to that "unity" in "pluralism" that appears to have been long under way and which can only dilute all involved?
Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports
Is the Church now to be thought of as coterminus with humanity? With Paul VI the Conciliar church appears to yield to a New Order of the world with a New Mass, New Ordinal, New Catechism, and New Morality.
Paul VI before the UN "The Church is evolving into a higher form...the Church is seeking self-knowledge..." --Paul VI, Dialogues, Apostle for Our Time Pope Paul VI by Msgr. John C. Clancy.
Paul VI: "The order toward which Christianity tends is not a static one; it is an order in permanent evolution towards a better form; it is an equilibrium in movement..." ---Giovani Montini, aka Paul VI, Jacques Duquesne, interroge le Pere Chenu, pp. 185f, emphasis added.)
How is it I could not see it until Hans Kung dined with Benedict XVI and left with his priesthood in tact, and his New Order global ethic blessed by the Holy See? And even then I did not want to see. Heresies can now coexist in the Church in a new unheard of pluralism? How could this be? For me it was this astonishing realization alone which threw me into a crisis of faith and made me rethink my 'conservative' approach to the Second Vatican Council.
I have highlighted Paul's auctioning off his papal Tiara elsewhere. The Abbe de Nantes, however, in his 1972 Accusations Against Paul VI records what many fear could possibly amount to the most terrible deed in human history after the betrayal of Christ by Judas (a presumably 'sincere' man too), when juxtaposed to the warning of Pius X below. Instead of giving away any number of other items which would have brought in hefty sums for the poor, Paul VI, that dark mysterious man, chose specifically to give up his papal insignia, specifically his Shepherd's Crook and Fisherman's Ring to U Thant the Buddhist head of that great parody of Catholic universalism, the new pantheon, located today in New York.
The symbolism could not have been richer. The two world's, the City of God and the City of Man (James 4:4), reconciled into a new kind of beastly alliance. Not good. From the time of the pontificate of Paul VI an infection which Pius X said had hitherto hid in the arteries and veins of the Church spread with vicious speed, destroying everything in its path, sparing for the most part only those ends which the UN would tolerate (at least temporarily). From now on any traditional orthodox elements would exist mostly on paper, if at all, since the strange Council undermined the state's ability to enforce them (Religious "Liberty").
There would be a new "shepherd" now, the UN, the "last great hope for mankind," (Paul VI) which would seek by persuasion, bribery and force a new unity for "humankind" without any need of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd and Prince of Peace. Thus the Church was plunged into a great apostasy. Was it the one foretold (2 Thess 2:1-4; Lk 18:8, etc)? While we cannot know for certain, it would be foolhardy to simply presume otherwise.
Pope St. Pius X:
"...this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2). —Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical: Restoration of All Things in Christ
Pope and WCC look to Christian unity at ecumenical "festival": For the first time, a general secretary of the World Council of Churches has taken part with a pope in a Rome service to mark the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, and together they have remembered the centenary of this initiative born in the United States in 1908. ... Cont. (but in the WCC there is not even a consensus on Christology. There are more heresies circulating there than you can shake a stick at. No consensus is possible, but for all to return to Christ's Church)
Note: Is the Church now to be thought of as coterminus with humanity? Does anyone believe the WCC is preparing to accept the Vatican I traditional teaching regarding submission to the Roman Pontiff and acceptance of all Catholic teaching which Leo XIII taught cannot be dissented from in "any point" without loss of the whole Christian faith (Satis Cognitum)? Or is this another step to that "unity" in "pluralism" that appears to have been long under way and which can only dilute all involved?
No Evidence that "Historicism" is Compatible with Sacred Scripture or Tradition
About a year ago I suggested that Progressivist (Heterodox) theologians should prove that the so-called "doctrine" of Historicism is taught in either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. To date, no responses have been forthcoming. At that time I argued on the basis of logic that the concept of Historicism is self-contradictory. That is to say, it is totally incompatible with right-reason.
It is not surprising that no attempt has been made to defend Historicism on philosophical or theological grounds. Yet, it remains the organizing principle in virtue of which the Conciliar Church continues to deny the obvious contradictions which exist between its assertions and pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma. It allows Progressivists to dodge the indictment that their claims violate the law of non-contradiction--a fundamental precept of "first principles of being" i.e. metaphysics.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
It is not surprising that no attempt has been made to defend Historicism on philosophical or theological grounds. Yet, it remains the organizing principle in virtue of which the Conciliar Church continues to deny the obvious contradictions which exist between its assertions and pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma. It allows Progressivists to dodge the indictment that their claims violate the law of non-contradiction--a fundamental precept of "first principles of being" i.e. metaphysics.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Suggestions on How to Correct Vatican II: What Can Be Saved / Restored Via A New Council or Papal Acts
By: Stephen Hand
Monday, June 1, 2009
Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports
Gleaned from the writings of many theologians and confessors who seek to realign the Council with Sacred Tradition.
By virtually every index Vatican II has been calamitous for the Church [See the Fruits of Vatican II]. It has blurred or erased traditional Catholic doctrines involving us in the most serious contradictions, intended or not; it has decimated Catholic Religious Orders and vocations, closing churches everywhere to this day, it has suppressed Confession [half hour or hour on Saturdays for whole churches] and involved us in the most grave moral scandals thanks in no small part to heretical teachers with their new "Christologies," new ecclesiologies and morals, and yet who are not warned and expelled but allowed to teach in our schools and seminaries to this very hour.
The Roman Catholic Church is virtually collapsing---and that collapse began with Vatican II and its (at least) obscuring, ambiguous principles. Therefore it must be the "pastoral" thing for a true Pope to correct, fix, the problems and unambiguously realign the Church to the perennial pre-conciliar doctrinal and spiritual tradition, else we are involved in ecclesial suicide---or murder. A pope must both feed the sheep and protect them from the wolves. To do only one or the other would amount to a culpable reckless disregard for the office for which Christ commissioned him.
Below are suggestions on how to do the pastoral thing in favor of perennial Catholic teaching and praxis:
Reaffirm and Realign Church Teaching and praxis in accordance with the whole of sacred tradition, the unequivocal teachings of pre-Vatican II popes, especially the Council of Trent and Vatican I. Express sadness that ambiguity or carelessness at best blurred or erased such teachings and gave rise to false impressions across many lines.
New Global Developments: It is a good thing to emphasize the global interrelatedness of the peoples of the earth and to emphasize the need for peace, peacemaking, cooperation and trade among peoples, global nuclear disarmament, all the while affirming the splendid diversity of sovereign nations, which sovereignty should be affirmed and not co-opted by internationalist schemes of any sort.
Catholic Ecumenism: It is a good thing to set out with renewed love and sensitivity to seek to explain the Catholic Faith to all who express a will to dialog, yet without compromising the Faith which cannot change; realizing that love alone cannot transcend doctrinal differences which must be acknowledged in all intellectual and spiritual honesty. The aim should be to better explain the Faith to all and to affirm what is good in others. Where differences must remain this should not in any way prevent our active cooperation with other ecclesial communities who feel they cannot in conscience accept Catholic doctrine, nor we theirs. Such cooperation in those things which Christ taught cannot but be a good for the whole world: peacemaking, works of mercy, unbounded charity towards the poor and the weak, together. This new fraternal spirit, while it cannot lead to communion in worship, can still be a sign of peace to the world.
Collegiality: Reiterate the unambiguous teachings of Vatican I, emphasizing that collegiality comes into being only when the bishops of the world are consulted as a bloc at the behest of the Pope, as for instance in an ecumenical Council or synod.
The Restoration of Catholic Nations: This should be viewed as no more of a threat to anyone than (in principle) Israel or Islamic nations, etc., should be. Birds of a feather naturally flock together according to the natural law. This need not in any way prevent or impede the aforementioned cooperation in every thing possible. Catholic states may very well and with great profit opt for the restoration of monarchy, as an image and sign of Christ the King, along with democratic, parliamentary representation of the people within the boundaries of the natural and moral laws. Moral evils alone should not be tolerated and should be given no place in Catholic nations; those who disagree should be free to leave.
Religious Liberty: restore the perennial Catholic teaching that while Catholic states---whatever their form of government--- must affirm the Catholic Church as the official Church and soul of any Catholic nation, reasonable toleration should be showed to religious minorities which are not subversive of the Catholic state itself; and love should be shown towards all, especially those who have sought refuge because persecuted in other lands.
Address the Ambiguities of Modern Technology and Science: It is unseemly for Church officials to pronounce on scientific theories (which should be acknowledged as such, as with, say, Darwinism, as opposed to the "hard," practical sciences); better to acknowledge the often times dangerous ambiguities which mix the undeniably good with that which is undeniably bad according to perennial Catholic teaching and principles.
Restore the Traditional Catholic Mass to the whole Church as the Mass of all ages, and cease all liturgical experimentation which has born such deleterious fruit for decades; at the same time affirming the traditional Tridentine Catholic theology of the Mass as the greatest gift and means of sanctification and catechesis for the whole Church always. This was the Mass which sanctified the saints and martyrs who lacked nothing and we must treasure it above all, and abolish the Novus Ordo liturgy which has served as the engine of the revolutionaries, ---the fruits of which have hurt the Church immeasurably---which problems did not exist prior to 1969.
This would be a start. And traditional Catholics await the day when it (or something very close to it) will be restored. Truth is ever young. The Truth is ever modern. ---7/1/08
"Many have elevated the Council as if it were a superdogma, when in truth, it was not dogmatic at all” ---Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, chief of Human Life International’s Rome bureau, Remnant Jan 28, 2009
VATICAN I: " The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith... and therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are, by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, irreformable." (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870)
However we look at it, it is difficult: whether we ask the documents of Vatican II to interpret the post-conciliar fruits, or whether we ask the fruits, beginning almost immediately from the time of the Council, to interpret the documents.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports
Gleaned from the writings of many theologians and confessors who seek to realign the Council with Sacred Tradition.
By virtually every index Vatican II has been calamitous for the Church [See the Fruits of Vatican II]. It has blurred or erased traditional Catholic doctrines involving us in the most serious contradictions, intended or not; it has decimated Catholic Religious Orders and vocations, closing churches everywhere to this day, it has suppressed Confession [half hour or hour on Saturdays for whole churches] and involved us in the most grave moral scandals thanks in no small part to heretical teachers with their new "Christologies," new ecclesiologies and morals, and yet who are not warned and expelled but allowed to teach in our schools and seminaries to this very hour.
The Roman Catholic Church is virtually collapsing---and that collapse began with Vatican II and its (at least) obscuring, ambiguous principles. Therefore it must be the "pastoral" thing for a true Pope to correct, fix, the problems and unambiguously realign the Church to the perennial pre-conciliar doctrinal and spiritual tradition, else we are involved in ecclesial suicide---or murder. A pope must both feed the sheep and protect them from the wolves. To do only one or the other would amount to a culpable reckless disregard for the office for which Christ commissioned him.
Below are suggestions on how to do the pastoral thing in favor of perennial Catholic teaching and praxis:
Reaffirm and Realign Church Teaching and praxis in accordance with the whole of sacred tradition, the unequivocal teachings of pre-Vatican II popes, especially the Council of Trent and Vatican I. Express sadness that ambiguity or carelessness at best blurred or erased such teachings and gave rise to false impressions across many lines.
New Global Developments: It is a good thing to emphasize the global interrelatedness of the peoples of the earth and to emphasize the need for peace, peacemaking, cooperation and trade among peoples, global nuclear disarmament, all the while affirming the splendid diversity of sovereign nations, which sovereignty should be affirmed and not co-opted by internationalist schemes of any sort.
Catholic Ecumenism: It is a good thing to set out with renewed love and sensitivity to seek to explain the Catholic Faith to all who express a will to dialog, yet without compromising the Faith which cannot change; realizing that love alone cannot transcend doctrinal differences which must be acknowledged in all intellectual and spiritual honesty. The aim should be to better explain the Faith to all and to affirm what is good in others. Where differences must remain this should not in any way prevent our active cooperation with other ecclesial communities who feel they cannot in conscience accept Catholic doctrine, nor we theirs. Such cooperation in those things which Christ taught cannot but be a good for the whole world: peacemaking, works of mercy, unbounded charity towards the poor and the weak, together. This new fraternal spirit, while it cannot lead to communion in worship, can still be a sign of peace to the world.
Collegiality: Reiterate the unambiguous teachings of Vatican I, emphasizing that collegiality comes into being only when the bishops of the world are consulted as a bloc at the behest of the Pope, as for instance in an ecumenical Council or synod.
The Restoration of Catholic Nations: This should be viewed as no more of a threat to anyone than (in principle) Israel or Islamic nations, etc., should be. Birds of a feather naturally flock together according to the natural law. This need not in any way prevent or impede the aforementioned cooperation in every thing possible. Catholic states may very well and with great profit opt for the restoration of monarchy, as an image and sign of Christ the King, along with democratic, parliamentary representation of the people within the boundaries of the natural and moral laws. Moral evils alone should not be tolerated and should be given no place in Catholic nations; those who disagree should be free to leave.
Religious Liberty: restore the perennial Catholic teaching that while Catholic states---whatever their form of government--- must affirm the Catholic Church as the official Church and soul of any Catholic nation, reasonable toleration should be showed to religious minorities which are not subversive of the Catholic state itself; and love should be shown towards all, especially those who have sought refuge because persecuted in other lands.
Address the Ambiguities of Modern Technology and Science: It is unseemly for Church officials to pronounce on scientific theories (which should be acknowledged as such, as with, say, Darwinism, as opposed to the "hard," practical sciences); better to acknowledge the often times dangerous ambiguities which mix the undeniably good with that which is undeniably bad according to perennial Catholic teaching and principles.
Restore the Traditional Catholic Mass to the whole Church as the Mass of all ages, and cease all liturgical experimentation which has born such deleterious fruit for decades; at the same time affirming the traditional Tridentine Catholic theology of the Mass as the greatest gift and means of sanctification and catechesis for the whole Church always. This was the Mass which sanctified the saints and martyrs who lacked nothing and we must treasure it above all, and abolish the Novus Ordo liturgy which has served as the engine of the revolutionaries, ---the fruits of which have hurt the Church immeasurably---which problems did not exist prior to 1969.
This would be a start. And traditional Catholics await the day when it (or something very close to it) will be restored. Truth is ever young. The Truth is ever modern. ---7/1/08
"Many have elevated the Council as if it were a superdogma, when in truth, it was not dogmatic at all” ---Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, chief of Human Life International’s Rome bureau, Remnant Jan 28, 2009
VATICAN I: " The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith... and therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are, by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, irreformable." (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870)
However we look at it, it is difficult: whether we ask the documents of Vatican II to interpret the post-conciliar fruits, or whether we ask the fruits, beginning almost immediately from the time of the Council, to interpret the documents.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Conciliar (post-Vatican II) Popes Embraced Modern Philosophy
Perhaps the most troublesome feature of the Progressivism which the Conciliar Popes have embraced is the fundamental underlying assumption upon which it is constructed. That is to say, Progressivism--from a philosophical perspective--repudiates classical "first principles of being" for example the law of non-contradiction. The later first came under fire with Descartes's "turn to the subject" in which he inverted the traditional metaphysics (I think therefore I am) where being comes before thinking. Later Emanuel Kant totally eviscerated the classical notion of metaphysics as did the modern philosophers who followed him--many of whom Progressivist's admire and upon which their Novelle-Theologie is based.
The so-called perennial philosophy as articulated by the Scholastic's who produced the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis--was rejected at the second Vatican Council in favor of a philosophical construct that was grounded in the modern philosophical currents of Existentialism and Phenomenology--totally devoid of metaphysics in the traditional sense. Therefore, the Conciliar "new-theology" is perfectly comfortable embracing concepts which are contradictory and otherwise mutually exclusive. Dogmas either no longer exist or come to mean whatever enlightened Progressivist theologians contend they mean--at a given time in history. This explains the false Historicism which Cardinal Ottaviani warned against and which Progressivist's employ to de-legitimize traditional Roman Catholic teaching.
It was always difficult for me to understand how Pope John Paul II could be so effusive in his praise of modern philosophy and modernism per se. When one learns that he was intellectually enamored by the teaching of multiple continental idealists including Edmond Husserl (Phenomenology) and his pupil Max Scheler (philosophy of personality and values), Frederick Schleiermacher (religious idealism where sentiment alone is the foundation of religion), and Frederick von Schelling (objective idealism) it all becomes clear. He embraced modern philosophical concepts, rejected classical/traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics and appears to have attempted a synthesis between Traditional Roman Catholicism and Modern Philosophy/Theology--an impossible task as the two are fundamentally irreconcilable given that after Kant and Hegel, metaphysics in any traditional sense no longer exists.
Pope Benedict has followed in Pope John Paul II's footsteps. He has been a proponent of the New Theology since before the Council--based as it is in modern philosophy, and has never repudiated it. This no doubt explains why he has not corrected the likes of Hans Kung or applied any sanctions whatsoever to dissident Theologians. In the Nouvelle Theologie there really is no such thing as heresy, dogma in the traditional sense or apostasy. Rather than discipline for wayward Theologians--Pope John XXIII normalized Dialogue with those who disagree meaning no corrective/punitive action was from then-on to be taken. That approach has prevailed ever since. Tragically, Traditional Catholics should not look to the present Pope for a return to orthodoxy in belief or practice (barring Divine intervention of course) since it would require a total rejection of his life-long investment in the New Theology and the Modern Philosophy upon which it is based. Recall that Pope Benedict has made it clear that he is unimpressed with Scholasticism!
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
The so-called perennial philosophy as articulated by the Scholastic's who produced the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis--was rejected at the second Vatican Council in favor of a philosophical construct that was grounded in the modern philosophical currents of Existentialism and Phenomenology--totally devoid of metaphysics in the traditional sense. Therefore, the Conciliar "new-theology" is perfectly comfortable embracing concepts which are contradictory and otherwise mutually exclusive. Dogmas either no longer exist or come to mean whatever enlightened Progressivist theologians contend they mean--at a given time in history. This explains the false Historicism which Cardinal Ottaviani warned against and which Progressivist's employ to de-legitimize traditional Roman Catholic teaching.
It was always difficult for me to understand how Pope John Paul II could be so effusive in his praise of modern philosophy and modernism per se. When one learns that he was intellectually enamored by the teaching of multiple continental idealists including Edmond Husserl (Phenomenology) and his pupil Max Scheler (philosophy of personality and values), Frederick Schleiermacher (religious idealism where sentiment alone is the foundation of religion), and Frederick von Schelling (objective idealism) it all becomes clear. He embraced modern philosophical concepts, rejected classical/traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics and appears to have attempted a synthesis between Traditional Roman Catholicism and Modern Philosophy/Theology--an impossible task as the two are fundamentally irreconcilable given that after Kant and Hegel, metaphysics in any traditional sense no longer exists.
Pope Benedict has followed in Pope John Paul II's footsteps. He has been a proponent of the New Theology since before the Council--based as it is in modern philosophy, and has never repudiated it. This no doubt explains why he has not corrected the likes of Hans Kung or applied any sanctions whatsoever to dissident Theologians. In the Nouvelle Theologie there really is no such thing as heresy, dogma in the traditional sense or apostasy. Rather than discipline for wayward Theologians--Pope John XXIII normalized Dialogue with those who disagree meaning no corrective/punitive action was from then-on to be taken. That approach has prevailed ever since. Tragically, Traditional Catholics should not look to the present Pope for a return to orthodoxy in belief or practice (barring Divine intervention of course) since it would require a total rejection of his life-long investment in the New Theology and the Modern Philosophy upon which it is based. Recall that Pope Benedict has made it clear that he is unimpressed with Scholasticism!
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Great Western Schism: Lessons for the Troubled Catholic Present from its Chaotic Past (Part I)
by Dr. John Rao
Why Study the Great Western Schism?
A detailed review of the chaotic years of the Great Western Schism is extremely helpful in coming to terms with the troubled Catholic present. It is useful, in this context, for three reasons. First of all, it shows us — as do all historical studies — that crises do not pop up out of nowhere, and that a given generation's miseries generally have been prepared in a previous age suffering from perhaps even more fundamental woes. Secondly, it demonstrates that resolution of the specifics of any given ecclesiastical disaster may not proceed precisely "by the book", especially if the problems involved are basically new ones and have not been confronted by theologians and canonists adequately before. Finally, it points to the fact that the Church's full awakening from a nightmare which has diverted her energies away from her real mission is a very difficult enterprise indeed; that it cannot be accomplished "on the cheap"; that if it is to take place at all, it must be built not only upon a humble digestion of the lessons taught by recent adversity, but also on a deeper inspection of all of the wisdom that the book and jewel box of her Tradition contain. Only thus can she truly arouse herself from her doctrinal and pastoral slumber and be better armed for the next inevitable battle with her outer and inner demons. ...Cont.
--->Dr. John Rao's website
Dr. John C. Rao, D. Phil. Oxon., is Associate Professor of History at St. John's University, Director of the Roman Forum/Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute, and former President of Una Voce America. A well-regarded speaker as well as writer, Dr. Rao presents a lecture series on Church history in New York and as part of the Roman Forum's Summer Symposium at Lake Garda in Italy. The New York lecture series is open to the general public, and applications for the Summer Symposium are available through the Roman Forum's website. Tapes of those and other lectures are available from Keepthefaith.org.
by Dr. John RaoWhy Study the Great Western Schism?
A detailed review of the chaotic years of the Great Western Schism is extremely helpful in coming to terms with the troubled Catholic present. It is useful, in this context, for three reasons. First of all, it shows us — as do all historical studies — that crises do not pop up out of nowhere, and that a given generation's miseries generally have been prepared in a previous age suffering from perhaps even more fundamental woes. Secondly, it demonstrates that resolution of the specifics of any given ecclesiastical disaster may not proceed precisely "by the book", especially if the problems involved are basically new ones and have not been confronted by theologians and canonists adequately before. Finally, it points to the fact that the Church's full awakening from a nightmare which has diverted her energies away from her real mission is a very difficult enterprise indeed; that it cannot be accomplished "on the cheap"; that if it is to take place at all, it must be built not only upon a humble digestion of the lessons taught by recent adversity, but also on a deeper inspection of all of the wisdom that the book and jewel box of her Tradition contain. Only thus can she truly arouse herself from her doctrinal and pastoral slumber and be better armed for the next inevitable battle with her outer and inner demons. ...Cont.
--->Dr. John Rao's website
Dr. John C. Rao, D. Phil. Oxon., is Associate Professor of History at St. John's University, Director of the Roman Forum/Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute, and former President of Una Voce America. A well-regarded speaker as well as writer, Dr. Rao presents a lecture series on Church history in New York and as part of the Roman Forum's Summer Symposium at Lake Garda in Italy. The New York lecture series is open to the general public, and applications for the Summer Symposium are available through the Roman Forum's website. Tapes of those and other lectures are available from Keepthefaith.org.
When Benedict XVI Subverted Vatican II
By: Stephen Hand
The traditional Mass of the saints, prophets and Doctors of the Faith is our catechism
Whether he intended it or not (I think not, others disagree) when Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI on Saturday July 7, 2007 issued the Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" and wrote the following, he subverted the Second Vatican Council and much of its orientation:
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the [Tridentine] Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated...MORE...
The traditional Mass of the saints, prophets and Doctors of the Faith is our catechism
Whether he intended it or not (I think not, others disagree) when Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI on Saturday July 7, 2007 issued the Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" and wrote the following, he subverted the Second Vatican Council and much of its orientation:
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the [Tridentine] Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated...MORE...
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Vatican II Created a Pan-Ecumenical Religion
The post-Vatican II period has been characterized by persistent calls for "unity" by progressivist theologians and the hierarchy of the Holy See albeit a "forced" and false unity which has required that all doctrinal/dogmatic differences between various religions be ignored--e.g. Pope Paul VI kissing the feet of the Greek Orthodox prelate, Pope Benedict praying with members of multiple other religions and distributing communion to heretics including Brother Roger Shuutz of the Taze community, Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran etc. This has apparently been done in hopes of creating a one-world universal pan-ecumenical religion.
An important part of this Conciliar ecumenical development program has been the promulgation of so-called "anonymous Christianity" in which it is purported that all human beings have the "seeds of the Word" within them by virtue (presumably) of being created in God's image and are thus by extension recipients of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross. Thus, even polytheists and atheists are said to be capable of being saved without conversion to Christianity let alone Roman Catholicism.
What this means is that the pan-ecumenical religion of the post-Vatican II Conciliar Church is also characterized by an acceptance of if not outright belief in universal salvation--for example see the supportive writings of Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar and conservative Catholic Priest (Protestant minister turned Roman Catholic) editor of First Things Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (who quotes Balthasar on universal salvation) among other progressivist theologians such as Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, Fr. Marie Dominique Chenu, Fr. Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Fr, Luis Maldonado (Rahner's disciple), Cardinal's Avery Dulles, Julius Dophner, Yves Congar etc. Not only is it no longer necessary to convert to Roman Catholicism to be saved, all people with a sincere belief (albeit temporary) system who try to live by some kind of moral code--are assumed to be saved--Fr. Hans Kung for example has written essentially as much. Kung has also said:
"Decisive doctrinal differences in understanding the sacraments, above all in determining their relationship with the word as well as their origins, number, and efficacy can be considered outdated. In principle, this is valid also for the problem of the Eucharist...From the standpoint of the New Testament, it is certain that we do not need any uniform Church, much less any uniform theology..." (Vaticano III: problemi e prospective per il futuro," V. A., Verso las chiesa del terzo milennio, pp. 77-78)
Apparently, Kung believes that it is immaterial whether Jesus Christ is substantially present in a unique way in the Eucharist. The doctrine of the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist like all other doctrinal differences is of no consequence when it comes to building the pan-ecumenical post-Conciliar universal religion of Progressivist's. What we have here is total doctrinal and liturgical anarchy/nihilism--virtually anything counts as religious belief/worship including satanism and atheism provided they are seriously/sincerely held--at least temporarily.
If one assumes that Progressivist's desire to create a pan-ecumenical religion which they term the "Church of Christ" open to schismatics, apostates, even to atheists and that doing so has become the overriding concern, to the complete repudiation of all traditional doctrine/dogma and in its place construct a generic global religion based solely on a feelings-based communitarian amalgam of disparate entities--it is possible to understand all of the seemingly incomprehensible developments which have befallen the Roman Catholic Church since 1962.
This is a shocking statement but on careful analysis it is the only one which seems to fit the evidence when looked at dispassionately in an a-posteriori way. Progressivists have systematically secularized the Roman Catholic Church and have managed through "dialogue" to remove all doctrinal stumbling blocks to the creation of a pan-ecumenical religious entity based solely on visceral comfortability and sincerity of belief. Moreover, this new universal entity via the doctrine of anonymous Christianity (invoking "seeds of the Word") provides salvation for all-- even avowed atheists. This begins to sound dangerously close to the total apostacy prophesied in Sacred Scripture.
How is it possible to harmonize this with the traditional (perennial) teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes without violating the law of non-contradiction? No wonder Vatican II repudiated Thomism and the entire scholastic system with its exquisite attention to definition, detail and rigor in polemics.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
An important part of this Conciliar ecumenical development program has been the promulgation of so-called "anonymous Christianity" in which it is purported that all human beings have the "seeds of the Word" within them by virtue (presumably) of being created in God's image and are thus by extension recipients of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross. Thus, even polytheists and atheists are said to be capable of being saved without conversion to Christianity let alone Roman Catholicism.
What this means is that the pan-ecumenical religion of the post-Vatican II Conciliar Church is also characterized by an acceptance of if not outright belief in universal salvation--for example see the supportive writings of Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar and conservative Catholic Priest (Protestant minister turned Roman Catholic) editor of First Things Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (who quotes Balthasar on universal salvation) among other progressivist theologians such as Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, Fr. Marie Dominique Chenu, Fr. Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Fr, Luis Maldonado (Rahner's disciple), Cardinal's Avery Dulles, Julius Dophner, Yves Congar etc. Not only is it no longer necessary to convert to Roman Catholicism to be saved, all people with a sincere belief (albeit temporary) system who try to live by some kind of moral code--are assumed to be saved--Fr. Hans Kung for example has written essentially as much. Kung has also said:
"Decisive doctrinal differences in understanding the sacraments, above all in determining their relationship with the word as well as their origins, number, and efficacy can be considered outdated. In principle, this is valid also for the problem of the Eucharist...From the standpoint of the New Testament, it is certain that we do not need any uniform Church, much less any uniform theology..." (Vaticano III: problemi e prospective per il futuro," V. A., Verso las chiesa del terzo milennio, pp. 77-78)
Apparently, Kung believes that it is immaterial whether Jesus Christ is substantially present in a unique way in the Eucharist. The doctrine of the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist like all other doctrinal differences is of no consequence when it comes to building the pan-ecumenical post-Conciliar universal religion of Progressivist's. What we have here is total doctrinal and liturgical anarchy/nihilism--virtually anything counts as religious belief/worship including satanism and atheism provided they are seriously/sincerely held--at least temporarily.
If one assumes that Progressivist's desire to create a pan-ecumenical religion which they term the "Church of Christ" open to schismatics, apostates, even to atheists and that doing so has become the overriding concern, to the complete repudiation of all traditional doctrine/dogma and in its place construct a generic global religion based solely on a feelings-based communitarian amalgam of disparate entities--it is possible to understand all of the seemingly incomprehensible developments which have befallen the Roman Catholic Church since 1962.
This is a shocking statement but on careful analysis it is the only one which seems to fit the evidence when looked at dispassionately in an a-posteriori way. Progressivists have systematically secularized the Roman Catholic Church and have managed through "dialogue" to remove all doctrinal stumbling blocks to the creation of a pan-ecumenical religious entity based solely on visceral comfortability and sincerity of belief. Moreover, this new universal entity via the doctrine of anonymous Christianity (invoking "seeds of the Word") provides salvation for all-- even avowed atheists. This begins to sound dangerously close to the total apostacy prophesied in Sacred Scripture.
How is it possible to harmonize this with the traditional (perennial) teachings of the pre-Vatican II popes without violating the law of non-contradiction? No wonder Vatican II repudiated Thomism and the entire scholastic system with its exquisite attention to definition, detail and rigor in polemics.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Cardinal Ottaviani on False Historicism
SH: Regarding those who taught that the Church must change in relation to her duties to the state and in other respects, Cardinal Ottaviani the head of the Holy Office under Pius XII in 1953 reiterated the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church: "The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.
To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions.
Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.
In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus. In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."
Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."
Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages. For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows." ---Excerpt, Duties of the Catholic State In Regard to Religion, 1953
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”
”
Benedict Issues Statement Asserting That Jesus Established ‘Only One Church’
MSNBC-July 10, 2008---Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.
“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.
“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.
Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.
“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.
‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day. ...Cont.
--->Note: Catholics must welcome in hope any movement in the direction of the immutable pre-conciliar infallible dogmatic certainties which defined the Church for over 1,900 years. Yet concerns remain, specifically 1.) the matter of the grievously ambiguous texts of the Second Vatican Council which future neo-modernists will undoubtedly exploit; ambiguity which the preconciliar Church did not knowingly tolerate. 2.) also, and critically important, the fact that until now Benedict has shown no inclination to extirpate heretics who spread their heresies, destroying souls in Catholic schools and seminaries to this very hour (for me this is crucial), heretics who remain in "communion" with Benedict, saying the same Creeds (without believing them) and incensing the same altar-tables as he, leaving us mired in so small incoherence (See-click Labels below this post). 3.) An unprecedented ecumenism which involves "the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together" which in the past was always condemned and forbidden as communicatio in sacris.
But one must nevertheless hope. One wonders, however, what is new here; the report above mentions the August 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith while the present pope was the head of that office. Now let's consider that document.
Whether one agrees with the other opinions or polemical tone of the author of the study that follows or not, his arguments / analysis demand answers which have stumped me. So I proceed to it forthwith in hopes that the Vatican will reply to it and not simply ignore the profound questions raised by the document itself. /Stephen Hand
Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus: A Critical Analysis by Bishop Donald Sanborn
Introduction
In August, 2000 the Vatican issued a document entitled Dominus Iesus, which was touted by the press as a defense of the Church's traditional teaching that the Catholic Church is the unique means of salvation. The Wanderer, true to form in sanitizing everything which emerges from the modernists in the Vatican, called it a new Syllabus of Errors. (The Syllabus of Errors was the wonderful document issued by Pope Pius IX in 1864 which condemned modern errors). But is this document a true defense of the Catholic Faith? No. In fact, it contains explicit heresy, and is the boldest and most complete explanation of modernist Church theology to date.
A. The Catholic doctrine concerning the unicity of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that she alone is the unique Church of Christ, and that all other religions, whether Christian or non-Christian, are sects. They are false religions. St. Cyprian said, "There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth." [1]
B. Who are members of the Catholic Church? The Church teaches that those people are members of the Catholic Church who have been validly baptized, and who have not been excluded from the Catholic Church by means of heresy, schism, or excommunication. Pope Pius XII teaches in his encyclical Mystici Corporis:
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. 'For in one spirit' says the Apostle, 'were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.' As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."[2] Cont.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Historicism, the "Key" to Conciliar Chaos
As discussed in other posts, Historicism is the conceptual framework which Progressivists have embraced in order to justify their repudiation of the perennial Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma that characterized offical Church teaching for most of the past 2 thousand years. This neo-modernist theory holds that all dogma and doctrine is applicable only to the time period in which it was propounded a notion which totally contradicts the very definition of doctrine (being that doctrine is fundamentally characterized by its immutability). Thus in one fell-swoop the Progressivists have managed to avoid the charge that their teachings violate the law of non-contradiction--diabolically clever that!
Through the use of the "doctrine" of Historicism, Progressivists have been able to foist a totally ad-hoc set of propositions upon the Catholic faithful none of which bear any actual resemblance to perennial Roman Catholic theology. For example, there is the lack of discipline which all post-Conciliar Popes have evinced with regard to those among the hierarchy and certain neo-modernist theologians who by pre-Vatican II standards have repeatedly embraced and circulated totally heterodox (heretical) views. Since the entire concept of doctrinal/dogmatic integrity is no longer applicable by virtue of the acceptance of Historicism, heresy itself is also an antiquated notion and thus not worthy of sanction. As a result, not one progressivist of note who has promulgated heretical views (from the perspective of pre-Vatican II teaching) has been formally and properly disciplined for their transgressions.
Pope John Paul II was notorious for his inability or unwillingness to provide proper disciplinary oversight a reality which greatly disturbed theological conservatives. Viewed in light of Historicism and with the knowledge in retrospect that he embraced Progressivism, his lack of action is completely consistent with the neo-modernist bent that he and other Progressivists so enthusiastically sought to normalize.
If one assumes that Progressivists desire to create a pan-ecumenical religion which they term the "Church of Christ" open to schismatics, apostates, even to atheists and that doing so has become the overriding concern, to the complete repudiation of all traditional doctrine/dogma and in its place construct a generic global religion based solely on a feelings-based communitarian amalgam of disparate entities--it is possible to understand all of the seemingly incomprehensible developments which have befallen the Roman Catholic Church since 1962. This is a shocking statement but on careful analysis it is the only one which seems to fit the evidence when looked at dispassionately in an a-posteriori way. Progressivists have systematically secularized the Roman Catholic Church and have managed through "dialogue" to remove all doctrinal stumbling blocks to the creation of a pan-ecumenical religious entity based solely on visceral comfortability and sincerity of belief.
For any Catholic who attempts to make sense of all the disparate statements and actions of the Conciliar Church, it is impossible to know how far Progressivists might go in way of mirroring the post-modern world. The Novus Ordo Missae has been almost completely and systematically Protestantized. The 10 commandments and the 2 great laws of Christ are now passe. What seems to matter is whether a person is true to whatever belief system one has at a given moment recognizing that it could change any time. This is apparently the reason why no serious effort is now being made to convert non-Catholics. From the perspective of Progressivists, it simply doesn't matter all that much what current religion one espouses.
Traditional Catholics should ask Progressivists what evidence exists in either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that doctrine/dogma was intended to apply only to the time in which it was promulgated. The assumption that Historicism is a correct theological view is contradictory of the very notion upon which Historicism itself is based. In other words, it is impossible to know if Historicism is a legitimate conceptual belief--due to it being self-referentially absurd--i.e. if Historicism is true you could not know it. The idea that the Progressivist hierarchy could foist with ease such an obviously irrational idea on the faithful is more than disturbing and suggests a demonic origin to this writer.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Through the use of the "doctrine" of Historicism, Progressivists have been able to foist a totally ad-hoc set of propositions upon the Catholic faithful none of which bear any actual resemblance to perennial Roman Catholic theology. For example, there is the lack of discipline which all post-Conciliar Popes have evinced with regard to those among the hierarchy and certain neo-modernist theologians who by pre-Vatican II standards have repeatedly embraced and circulated totally heterodox (heretical) views. Since the entire concept of doctrinal/dogmatic integrity is no longer applicable by virtue of the acceptance of Historicism, heresy itself is also an antiquated notion and thus not worthy of sanction. As a result, not one progressivist of note who has promulgated heretical views (from the perspective of pre-Vatican II teaching) has been formally and properly disciplined for their transgressions.
Pope John Paul II was notorious for his inability or unwillingness to provide proper disciplinary oversight a reality which greatly disturbed theological conservatives. Viewed in light of Historicism and with the knowledge in retrospect that he embraced Progressivism, his lack of action is completely consistent with the neo-modernist bent that he and other Progressivists so enthusiastically sought to normalize.
If one assumes that Progressivists desire to create a pan-ecumenical religion which they term the "Church of Christ" open to schismatics, apostates, even to atheists and that doing so has become the overriding concern, to the complete repudiation of all traditional doctrine/dogma and in its place construct a generic global religion based solely on a feelings-based communitarian amalgam of disparate entities--it is possible to understand all of the seemingly incomprehensible developments which have befallen the Roman Catholic Church since 1962. This is a shocking statement but on careful analysis it is the only one which seems to fit the evidence when looked at dispassionately in an a-posteriori way. Progressivists have systematically secularized the Roman Catholic Church and have managed through "dialogue" to remove all doctrinal stumbling blocks to the creation of a pan-ecumenical religious entity based solely on visceral comfortability and sincerity of belief.
For any Catholic who attempts to make sense of all the disparate statements and actions of the Conciliar Church, it is impossible to know how far Progressivists might go in way of mirroring the post-modern world. The Novus Ordo Missae has been almost completely and systematically Protestantized. The 10 commandments and the 2 great laws of Christ are now passe. What seems to matter is whether a person is true to whatever belief system one has at a given moment recognizing that it could change any time. This is apparently the reason why no serious effort is now being made to convert non-Catholics. From the perspective of Progressivists, it simply doesn't matter all that much what current religion one espouses.
Traditional Catholics should ask Progressivists what evidence exists in either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition that doctrine/dogma was intended to apply only to the time in which it was promulgated. The assumption that Historicism is a correct theological view is contradictory of the very notion upon which Historicism itself is based. In other words, it is impossible to know if Historicism is a legitimate conceptual belief--due to it being self-referentially absurd--i.e. if Historicism is true you could not know it. The idea that the Progressivist hierarchy could foist with ease such an obviously irrational idea on the faithful is more than disturbing and suggests a demonic origin to this writer.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Monday, July 7, 2008
Conciliar Church Embraced "Feelings" Abandoned Dogma/Doctrine
Unity and Ecumenism seem to have been the constant overarching theme of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. The "unity" which has been so fervently sought by post-conciliar Popes however would appear to have been purchased at the expense of doctrinal integrity--meaning that it is a false unity.
Progressivists have managed to completely eliminate all doctrinal differences with other religious groups by simply purporting that doctrine/dogma is valid only for the time in which it is produced--another way of saying that dogma/doctrine is passe. This concept referred to as Historicism has been embraced by all of the post-Vatican II popes especially Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI who all but totally rejects the clarity of Thomism and the doctrinal corpus which was so fully developed in the scholastic period.
What "unites" these varied and disparate groups post-Vatican II is a "feelings" based pan-religiosity in the absence of all dogma/doctrine. Progressivists appear to accept all fervantly held beliefs and belief systems including atheism in their willingness to include adherents in the newly constructed "church of Christ." Obviously this Indifferentism is incompatible with all prior (pre-1962) Magisterial teaching on the subject. Understanding this goes a long way to explaining the otherwise inconceivable practices of post-Conciliar Popes participating in non-Catholic even non-Christian worship services etc.
Progressivists have managed to completely eliminate all doctrinal differences with other religious groups by simply purporting that doctrine/dogma is valid only for the time in which it is produced--another way of saying that dogma/doctrine is passe. This concept referred to as Historicism has been embraced by all of the post-Vatican II popes especially Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI who all but totally rejects the clarity of Thomism and the doctrinal corpus which was so fully developed in the scholastic period.
What "unites" these varied and disparate groups post-Vatican II is a "feelings" based pan-religiosity in the absence of all dogma/doctrine. Progressivists appear to accept all fervantly held beliefs and belief systems including atheism in their willingness to include adherents in the newly constructed "church of Christ." Obviously this Indifferentism is incompatible with all prior (pre-1962) Magisterial teaching on the subject. Understanding this goes a long way to explaining the otherwise inconceivable practices of post-Conciliar Popes participating in non-Catholic even non-Christian worship services etc.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Progressivism Explains Papal Embrace of Other Religions
Many Roman Catholics in the United States were puzzled by the aggressive embrace of non-Catholic and non-Christian religions and religious leaders that Pope Benedict XVI made throughout his recent visit to America. In this he was clearly following in the path of Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI.
Since Vatican II in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has radically altered its view of non-Catholic "religions" even to the extent of claiming that the Holy Spirit utilizes them in a salvific way--an idea which prior to the second Vatican Council was clearly understood as having been anathematized. While the Roman Catholic Church pre-Vatican II consistently held that non-Catholics could through invincible ignorance be saved, she was unswerving in her doctrinal teaching that schismatic and apostate groups were inherently illegitimate.
In an attempt to force what has become a pan-religious ecumenism or false unity, Progressivists who now control the Roman Catholic Church have succeeded in destroying all pre-existent dogmatic/doctrinal elements which for almost 2000 years characterized the Roman Catholic faith. This has allowed the very highest Vatican prelates including Popes to welcome into the newly created (Church of Christ) fold virtually every religion including atheists.
By completely endorsing the intellectually bankrupt modern philosophies which emanated out of the Enlightenment (by definition a system designed to replace Christianity) Progressivists have repudiated Thomism and with it all of scholastic philosophy and Traditional Roman Catholic Theology. The Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis has been abandoned in the realm of moral and dogmatic Theology by the neo-Modern Progressivists who now control the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church--note that Pope Benedict XVI has famously said that he rejects Thomism as too limiting. This loss of orientation largely explains why homosexually active Priests and Bishops have not been eliminated, why the Church has been subjected to a homosexual abuse crisis of monumental proportions and why the contemporary Catholic Church is virtually devoid of doctrinal/dogmatic stability. Why would any thougtful person be attracted to a religion with no immutable principles in either the moral or dogmatic realm? We should not be surprised that millions of Catholics have left the Church.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Since Vatican II in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has radically altered its view of non-Catholic "religions" even to the extent of claiming that the Holy Spirit utilizes them in a salvific way--an idea which prior to the second Vatican Council was clearly understood as having been anathematized. While the Roman Catholic Church pre-Vatican II consistently held that non-Catholics could through invincible ignorance be saved, she was unswerving in her doctrinal teaching that schismatic and apostate groups were inherently illegitimate.
In an attempt to force what has become a pan-religious ecumenism or false unity, Progressivists who now control the Roman Catholic Church have succeeded in destroying all pre-existent dogmatic/doctrinal elements which for almost 2000 years characterized the Roman Catholic faith. This has allowed the very highest Vatican prelates including Popes to welcome into the newly created (Church of Christ) fold virtually every religion including atheists.
By completely endorsing the intellectually bankrupt modern philosophies which emanated out of the Enlightenment (by definition a system designed to replace Christianity) Progressivists have repudiated Thomism and with it all of scholastic philosophy and Traditional Roman Catholic Theology. The Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis has been abandoned in the realm of moral and dogmatic Theology by the neo-Modern Progressivists who now control the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church--note that Pope Benedict XVI has famously said that he rejects Thomism as too limiting. This loss of orientation largely explains why homosexually active Priests and Bishops have not been eliminated, why the Church has been subjected to a homosexual abuse crisis of monumental proportions and why the contemporary Catholic Church is virtually devoid of doctrinal/dogmatic stability. Why would any thougtful person be attracted to a religion with no immutable principles in either the moral or dogmatic realm? We should not be surprised that millions of Catholics have left the Church.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Thursday, June 26, 2008
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
In reciting the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, and in light of the changes resulting from Vatican II, one may rightly ask: what is meant by "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?" Clearly, something different entirely was envisioned by Progressivists--read Heresiarchs. These individuals developed the "New Theology", managed to entirely prevail at and after the Second Vatican Council and succeeded in completely redefining the concept of the "Church of Christ."
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, traditional Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic Church was identical to the Church of Christ. Post Vatican II, the Church of Christ according to Conciliar documents only "subsists in" that is; exists in or can be found in the Roman Catholic Church and more importantly is no longer identical with it. The Church of Christ according to the Council is said to exist or be found in other entities as well to varying degrees--those which in the past were termed schismatic or apostate such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant sects.
Moreover,in light of Vatican II eclesiology even non-Christian Monotheistic sects such as Judaism and Islam can be considered in some sense part of the Church of Christ albeit to lesser degrees than the Roman Catholic Church or those who have "separated" themselves from it. In other words, an entity larger and more encompassing than the Roman Catholic Church is now said to define the "Church of Christ" even though the so-called fullest manifestation of it is apparently to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a profound alteration in Catholic teaching and from a philosophical perspective appears to violate the law of non-contradiction--it is not logically possible for the Church of Christ to be identical with the Roman Catholic Church and yet not be identical to it at the same time. Clearly the new view is logically incompatible with that which was held for almost 2000 years if words are to have any meaning. Unfortunately, Progressivist teaching is dependent upon language deconstruction where familiar words are retained and utilized but given an entirely knew connotation.
What progressivists/neomodernists have done it seems is to create a kind of sliding scale for Christianity where some sects apparently possess more truth than others and presumably more fully reflect the intentions of Jesus Christ-- at least as the Progressivists conceive of it. In light of Conciliar teaching, it would seem not to matter any longer what religion one actually professes so long as it is a sincerely held belief system--since some religions contradict the doctrinal content of others. How this does not amount to the Indifferentism which the pre-Conciliar popes anathematized is beyond comprehension.
The only potentially viable explanation for the above dilemma is the one offered by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wherein the concept of Historicism is invoked by which all doctrinal/dogmatic statements are said to apply only to the time in which they were formulated. This of course results in complete doctrinal anarchy/relativity. By functioning as a kind of "get out of jail free card" it allows neo-modernists to explain away those Roman Catholic doctrines/dogmas which are now said to be outdated--read false. In fact, "dogma" as traditionally understood no longer exists in light of Conciliar and post-Conciliar Progressivist thought. The newly invented version of the "Church of Christ" is thus in position to judge which tenets of each religion are true and which are false from the perspective of the current time period in which we live. Obviously, these "truths" will no doubt change as well at some later date. What this means from a practical standpoint is that Roman Catholics are now confronted with total and complete theological anarchy/nihilism where once existed immutable dogmatic truths.
What logically seems to emanate from the New Theology is the creation of a kind of pan-religious ecumenism in which doctrine/dogma has become for all intents and purposes meaningless--replaced by the "feel-good" experiential church of contemporary record. It is not surprising that Progressivists found it necessary to abandon the precsision of the Thomistic (Scholastic) system in order to promulgate their false "theology." For those Catholics who try to make sense of Vatican II teaching, the situation is extremely challenging--if not irreconcilable with the tenets of traditional Roman Catholicism. The fact that no one in the Vatican has been willing to adequately address the issue of contradictory Conciliar teaching is cause for even more alarm. Historicism invoked as the only possible explanation is of course intellectually bankrupt from the perspective of scholastic philosophy or even first principles of being for that matter. Perhaps that is the reason why Pope Benedict and the other progressivists have been so negatively predisposed to Thomism.
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, traditional Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic Church was identical to the Church of Christ. Post Vatican II, the Church of Christ according to Conciliar documents only "subsists in" that is; exists in or can be found in the Roman Catholic Church and more importantly is no longer identical with it. The Church of Christ according to the Council is said to exist or be found in other entities as well to varying degrees--those which in the past were termed schismatic or apostate such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant sects.
Moreover,in light of Vatican II eclesiology even non-Christian Monotheistic sects such as Judaism and Islam can be considered in some sense part of the Church of Christ albeit to lesser degrees than the Roman Catholic Church or those who have "separated" themselves from it. In other words, an entity larger and more encompassing than the Roman Catholic Church is now said to define the "Church of Christ" even though the so-called fullest manifestation of it is apparently to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a profound alteration in Catholic teaching and from a philosophical perspective appears to violate the law of non-contradiction--it is not logically possible for the Church of Christ to be identical with the Roman Catholic Church and yet not be identical to it at the same time. Clearly the new view is logically incompatible with that which was held for almost 2000 years if words are to have any meaning. Unfortunately, Progressivist teaching is dependent upon language deconstruction where familiar words are retained and utilized but given an entirely knew connotation.
What progressivists/neomodernists have done it seems is to create a kind of sliding scale for Christianity where some sects apparently possess more truth than others and presumably more fully reflect the intentions of Jesus Christ-- at least as the Progressivists conceive of it. In light of Conciliar teaching, it would seem not to matter any longer what religion one actually professes so long as it is a sincerely held belief system--since some religions contradict the doctrinal content of others. How this does not amount to the Indifferentism which the pre-Conciliar popes anathematized is beyond comprehension.
The only potentially viable explanation for the above dilemma is the one offered by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wherein the concept of Historicism is invoked by which all doctrinal/dogmatic statements are said to apply only to the time in which they were formulated. This of course results in complete doctrinal anarchy/relativity. By functioning as a kind of "get out of jail free card" it allows neo-modernists to explain away those Roman Catholic doctrines/dogmas which are now said to be outdated--read false. In fact, "dogma" as traditionally understood no longer exists in light of Conciliar and post-Conciliar Progressivist thought. The newly invented version of the "Church of Christ" is thus in position to judge which tenets of each religion are true and which are false from the perspective of the current time period in which we live. Obviously, these "truths" will no doubt change as well at some later date. What this means from a practical standpoint is that Roman Catholics are now confronted with total and complete theological anarchy/nihilism where once existed immutable dogmatic truths.
What logically seems to emanate from the New Theology is the creation of a kind of pan-religious ecumenism in which doctrine/dogma has become for all intents and purposes meaningless--replaced by the "feel-good" experiential church of contemporary record. It is not surprising that Progressivists found it necessary to abandon the precsision of the Thomistic (Scholastic) system in order to promulgate their false "theology." For those Catholics who try to make sense of Vatican II teaching, the situation is extremely challenging--if not irreconcilable with the tenets of traditional Roman Catholicism. The fact that no one in the Vatican has been willing to adequately address the issue of contradictory Conciliar teaching is cause for even more alarm. Historicism invoked as the only possible explanation is of course intellectually bankrupt from the perspective of scholastic philosophy or even first principles of being for that matter. Perhaps that is the reason why Pope Benedict and the other progressivists have been so negatively predisposed to Thomism.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Atilla Sinke Guimaraes: Post-Conciliar Popes all Progressivists
I am currently reading Atilla Sinke Guimaraes's Desire to Destroy, (the first of two parts, volume IV of his extensive series Eli, Eli lama Sabacthani) after having completed his In the Murky Waters of Vatican II. In it he presents persuasive evidence that Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI intentionally gave the neo-modernists (progressivists) what amounted to free reign over the second Vatican Council. Among those mentioned are; Fr's. (later) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Hans KĂ¼ng, Edward Shillebeeckx, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Marie Dominique Chenu, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Karol Wyjtola (Pope John Paul II) and others--many of whom were among those that Pope Pius XII accused of harboring modernist sympathies.
Guimaraes clearly believes that all of the post-Conciliar Popes have embraced progressivism that is neo-modernism. He alleges that Vatican II represents a clear rupture with the Roman Catholic Church of pre-Conciliar record. What is amazing to me is that there was no huge outcry (at the time of the Council) that much of its teaching was totally incompatible (by the law of non-contradiction) with prior yet constant magisterial teaching. It is as if all of the faithful orthodox and traditional members of the Council simply abdicated their responsibility to maintain the faith.
Guimaraes clearly believes that all of the post-Conciliar Popes have embraced progressivism that is neo-modernism. He alleges that Vatican II represents a clear rupture with the Roman Catholic Church of pre-Conciliar record. What is amazing to me is that there was no huge outcry (at the time of the Council) that much of its teaching was totally incompatible (by the law of non-contradiction) with prior yet constant magisterial teaching. It is as if all of the faithful orthodox and traditional members of the Council simply abdicated their responsibility to maintain the faith.
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.