Rorate Caeli

Crisis in the Church in the Central African Republic

(I'm surprised that this isn't getting more attention. CAP)
The Catholic clergy of the Central African Republic launched a strike last May 27 to protest the removal of Bangui Archbishop Paulin Pomodimo -- who is only 54 years old and had been appointed as Archbishop in 2003 -- after the Vatican found him guilty of "a moral attitude which is not always in conformity with his commitments to follow Christ in chastity, poverty and obedience". Another bishop, François-Xavier Yombandje, had resigned last May 16, apparently for the same reason. Msgr. Yombandje had once been the President of the Central African Bishop's episcopal conference, while Archbishop Pomodimo had been the senior cleric in the whole country.
During the strike, all parishes were closed and all religious services and sacraments were suspended. The strike, initially intended to last indefinitely, was lifted on May 28; the spokesman of the country's diocesan clergy, Mathurin Paze Lekissan, asserted that their protest was aimed at the "lack of consultation" from the Vatican over the replacement of Archbishop Pomodimo. The strike itself came after a general gathering in Bangui cathedral of the indigenous clergy of the country had denounced the Holy See's "discrimination" against Archbishop Pomodimo.
The episcopal resignations came in the wake of a Vatican investigation into the Church in the Central African Republic, which confimed the widespread disregard for the vow of celibacy among the clergy of that nation. Reporting on the situation, a local newspaper claimed that in the majority of parishes in the country, the priests cohabit with women and often have children of their own.
The Central African Republic -- once a French colony -- is 21% Catholic, and is reputed to be a bastion of Catholicism in Africa. In the wake of the endless crisis in the Church in the West, Catholic publications have often taken to unreservedly praising Africa as the hope of the Church. Perhaps a reality check is needed.
Sources: Catholic Culture and Africa News. (Each linked site leads to other news articles on the same situation)

71 comments:

LeonG said...

The very integral divisions the western church since the 1960s have slowly but most certainly infected the church in Africa over the years. This is not new. Personal evidence could be observed,for example, amongst the Jesuits in Zimbabwe in the 1970s and 1980s who permitted all type of liturgical inculturations, the character of which was modelled and propagated by the papacy of the time.

Many missionaries thence arrived with their new ethos fired by the relativist spirit of Nostra Aetate & liturgical creativity. This has coupled up with a much diluted sense of ecclesiastical discipline. Presbyters have become increasingly able to act independently with a sense of locational detachment from what used to be the sole source of all authority in The Church. Rome has undermined this by its liberalist approaches.

Study and restudy the processes of the councils of the 1960s and the ethos of simmering rebellion is clear. Its outcome we witness before us. Our Blessed Lady admonishes but who is listening amidst the spirit of ecumenical and interreligious egalitianism of the contemporary church? Everywhere is compromise, everywhere is division. Africa is no different and follows rapidly in the train of Latin America, North America and Asia. The empirical evidence of encroaching chaos resounds. Who can ignore it?

Gideon Ertner said...

I can't get myself too worked up about this news. In a sense, I feel that if these problems are more or less limited to lax discipline, it presents a welcome contrast to the problems we have in the western world. Lax discipline is caused by the flaws in human nature which all the faithful experience and is not so diabolical as when prelates proclaim that we have to 'learn' from other religions.

Priests living with their 'wives' and protesting when Rome begins to discipline them? Nothing we haven't seen before. We can deal with that. In fact, we should be so lucky if that was the worst kind of problem we had to deal with.

Anonymous said...

This is a disgrace. But the Vatican of Benedict XVI deserves high praise for removing these people. The Vatican of John Paul II installed them. Certainly they were not ignorant of their behavior at that time.

I read not long ago of a priest who had many Vatican connections who said that the corruption , dissent, and decay permitted by and ignored by the Vatican of John Paul II was/is so extensive and so deep, that it will take years for the Church to recover from his pontificate.

Santo subito? I don't think so.

Jordanes said...

The strike, initially intended to last indefinitely, was lifted on May 28; the spokesman of the country's diocesan clergy, Mathurin Paze Lekissan, asserted that their protest was aimed at the "lack of consultation" from the Vatican over the replacement of Archbishop Pomodimo. ***

There's some chutzpah for you -- priests openly flout their vows of celibacy and then whine that St. Peter didn't consult them about who their next bishop should. And who appointed Lekissan the spokesman of the country's diocesan clergy? What gives him the right to that role, or to say anything in public at all in the wake of this shame scandal? If he had any discretion at all, he'd keep his mouth shut.

Prodinoscopus said...

Priests going on strike and withholding the sacraments from the faithful? I have never heard of such a thing. Is there any precedent?

Angelo said...

It would be useful & appropriate to give a thumb nail sketch of the missionary apostolate to Africa of the previous century to fully comprehend the great accomplishments of those heroic missionaries & to compare the fruits of their missionary activities to the present sad circumstances in Central Africa.
The Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers was founded (or should I say revitalized) by Francois Libermann, formally Jacob, until his miraculous conversion & baptism in 1826. This missionary order was the largest & most well known of all the missionary orders. Upon his priestly ordination, Msg. Libermann acquired a large group of disciples who were soon enthusiastic about his idea of launching an entire army of apostle on Africa amongst the most disadvantage blacks. His institute eventually became known as the “Congregation of the Holy Ghost under the patronage of the Holy & Immaculate Heart of Mary.” It was through the fruitful labors of the CHG, the Franciscan, the Benedictines, the Marists, & others that the Catholic faith was planted and expanded in Africa.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre played a vital & major role as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers in developing the African apostolate that had been previously established. The Archbishop resigned his position in the wake of the turmoil of the Council. It is a pity that all the good that he & others achieved are now being eroded & swept away.

For an in depth history of the missionary activities in Africa, and to gain an understanding of what is occurring there presently, I recommend to your readers
The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, published by Angelus Press.

Gideon Ertner said...

Prodinoscopus, agree about the strike part. Even in the remotest part of Dark Age Germany, no Priest, no matter how lax, would have contemplated such a despicable and revolting thing.

Benedicta said...

Some of the comments on this post are interesting such as "we've seen worse, this is not so bad" and the like.
Probably we've seen worse. But does it mean that "bad" can be "good" in certain cases? Is it good because other cases are worse? or is it bad because it IS bad? Are there mortal sins "better" than others? Some you would recommend for XXIth century Catholics?
Just asking...

ElizabethD said...

I have always thought the jubilation over the Church's growth in Africa was a little premature.

A lot of the Africans have been very poorly catechized on every level, and there are all sorts of abuses permitted, both in the moral and the liturgical spheres. Does anybody remember the tragic events of a few years ago, when it was found that many poor young women who had gone into religious orders (basically because they knew they would get to eat regularly and have a roof over their heads) had been raped or were essentially being used as concubines by the local clergy?

I think a big problem was that there was a rush to get native clergy and even bishops, a huge mistake, to my mind. It would have been better to make sure that the Faith was well-established (and well-admininistered) there first. But I suppose the political pressure to immediately ordain or elevate native clergy was pretty intense.

Anonymous said...

These and everything else evil in the Church are the fruits of Vatican II.

The famous "Springtime of Vatican II" and the "new Evangelization".

All JP II catchwords.

We see how empty and worthless they really are!

Does the SSPX or the ICRSP have much of a presence in Africa? That's the only hope of the Church there....as it is the only hope in Europe, Latin America, Asia, etc.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Vatican will act just as strongly throughout Central and South America where all this is just simply culturally taken for granted? BTW, does this explain why there are all these vocations in Africa?

St. Rafael said...

This is not Lefebvre's Africa anymore. Widespread heresy, liberalism is everywhere. Celibacy ignored while syncretism takes place on a daily basis with Catholic priests letting animism and every other sort of paganism, pantheism mix togther with Catholicism.

Africa is mission territory for conversion and needs traditional Catholicism with a good dose of Thomism.

Jordanes said...

These and everything else evil in the Church are the fruits of Vatican II. ***

What a mindbogglingly stupid thing to say. "EVERYTHING else evil in the Church"??? Really?? I suppose it was Vatican II who at the beginning of creation said to God, "Non serviam," and fell from heaven, taking a third of the angels with him.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
No Mr. it is not such a stupid thing to say, although not at the beginning of time, but more recently, after 1965, that certain clergy, AmChurch, Belgium, German, Austrian and various other episcopal conferences, threatened Rome with "non serviam".
Charles Dupuy

Michael said...

The primary impetus for The Church of Rome to demand celibacy was a practical solution to nepotism among the clergy. The Eastern Rite disagreed. These current realities cannot be ignored by the Vatican. The Church appears to need to safeguard chastity among priests by accommodating those who need to marry. The Holy Ghost appears to have withdrawn the charism of celibacy revealing many signs and symptoms world wide. To enforce Dogma and enforce celibacy during this Age of Aquarius may be a self-destructive stretch. The African experience is not unique to Africa. That said, I rely on the Papacy to discern the Holy Spirit.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg FL

Anonymous said...

Its a shame they do not remove some of these clowns we have here in the USA- The one in LA. AND WASHINGTON D.C., Come to mine.

Anonymous said...

Only one thing comes into my mind: "THE GREAT APOSTASY".

At this point, I think all we can do is do our part.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes has wrote, " What a mindbogglingly stupid thing to say..."

Easy with your "stupid" remarks. The shoe is on the other foot now, don't go shutting down the thread when the next comment calls you to task for your remarks.

Just like you to deflect the absurdity of V2 onto something else. Sure the blogger over stated but you ignore the context of this post.There was more to the post then the "everything" you focus on.

In light of the over all context of that post I would say your comment is the stupid and mind boggling one...in this sense; the Church has always battled original sin and has also been forewarned about the evil unleashed on the last days (our days). The warnings tell of apostasy within (you know a third of the stars fallen).

Many equate this with V2. I agree with the post, V2 is the dearth of the Church.

By its fruit Jordanes, by its fruit.

Anon Vingt Trois

Anonymous said...

"These and everything else evil in the Church are the fruits of Vatican II. ***

What a mindbogglingly stupid thing to say."

No, not stupid. Just truthful. Maybe alittle hardline...but truthful all the same.

I didn't go back to the beginning of time to speak of evils...just the last 40 years.

When you look at the collapse of all the good work of the Missionary Orders in the Church from the late 18th thru the mid 20th centuries in Africa, Asia, and S.America, the complete destruction of religious life in the USA, most of Western Europe, the emptying of thousands of religious Orders and seminaries, monasteries, and friaries, the closing down of 40% of all diosecean parishes (Camden NJ, and other places in the USA due to a lack of priests), the collapse of the entire Catholic parochial educational system in the USA since Vatican II, (97% staffed by nuns 1960, 1.5% 2009), the total withdrawl of nearly all nursing Orders of sisters from the USA Catholic health systems (a fact duplicated in Western Europe), the rampant unchecked dissent, disobedience, heresy, liturgical abuses everywhere, the massive turnaway from the Faith in most countries (Mass attendance USA 1960=80%, 2009= 24% (that's high compared to Western Europe--average 20% in most countries but down as low as 2% in Belgium, France, and Netherlands).


Take a quick peek at the stats. Compare pre-Vatican II (before 1962), to now...and I'll bet you'll get my point.

To deny that Vatican II is the cause after researching thru it all (like I did)...now that would be mindbogglingly stupid!!

dcs said...

It is impossible that everything evil in the Church is a fruit of Vatican II. If this were the case then Vatican II itself is evil, but it is obviously not a fruit of itself.

Gideon Ertner said...

"These and everything else evil in the Church are the fruits of Vatican II."

Have you ever heard of something called concupiscence?

"...there are all sorts of abuses permitted, both in the moral and the liturgical spheres."

Yet African priests who come to the West consistently tend to celebrate the liturgy more reverently than their western confreres.

"I think a big problem was that there was a rush to get native clergy and even bishops, a huge mistake, to my mind."

This may well be true. Yet it took centuries for South America to get native clergy, and they're not exactly that much better off.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Does the SSPX or the ICRSP have much of a presence in Africa?"

Well, there's always the web. It seems that both the ICRSS and the FSSPX do have missions in Libreville, Gabon.

The FSSP also has missions in Africa, in Nigeria. I was privileged to meet their superior, Fr. John Berg, once, and he told me that they had a very good relationship with the local Bishop who was extremely troubled by the novel ideas (such as Communion in the hand) which his young priests brought with them from their studies in the West. Apparently, the poor guys thought that Africa was far behind the West so they had to implement these modern ideas to be up to date.

Intriguingly, Fr. Berg had been told by an African that in his tribe, even though drums and dancing were much used for festivals, when it came to sacred functions they had always observed silence.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Are there mortal sins "better" than others?"

Well, no - I'd say "less bad".

Some mortal sins are easier to understand and deal with than others. Personally, I see Modernism and New Age to be vastly more insidious threats to the Faith than any number of incontinent Priests (and I believe that history supports this). Also, not every mortal sin will be punished equally severely in Hell.

M.A. said...

"Does the SSPX or the ICRSP have much of a presence in Africa? That's the only hope of the Church..."

The Institute does have several missions in Africa, but I couldn't tell you much more than that.

Ottaviani said...

Many African Catholics are receptive to Tradition when it is fully explained to them. The crass racism of liberals who say that the traditional liturgy is "too Roman" or "too European" for them and doesn't fit in with their cultural needs. The traditional mass is the most multi-cultural thing going in the church! No one is discriminated at it!

Jordanes said...

No, not stupid. Just truthful. Maybe a little hardline...but truthful all the same. ***

A statement that is completely and utterly false cannot be truthful, and it is unquestionably the truth that Vatican II is NOT the cause of everything evil in the Church. That's a laughably extreme hyperbole, and such a comment simply cannot be taken seriously.

Just like you to deflect the absurdity of V2 onto something else. ***

Rubbish. I wasn't deflecting, I was responding specifically to a foolish comment.

Sure the blogger over statedThat's for sure.

but you ignore the context of this post.There was more to the post then the "everything" you focus on. ***

The context is the scandalous violations of discipline among the clergy of Africa. The silly comment to which I objected attributes that situation, and literally every other evil that exists in the Church, to Vatican II. Of course there could be a connection between Vatican II and African priests keeping concubines, but I'd be interested in seeing some compelling evidence that would distinguish that proposition from a post hoc fallacy.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes:
Like I said, and I'll repeat again"

Go to the stats. Research the state of the Church everywhere before Vatican II, and then look at the stats now.

I'm not going to go thru the litany of disasters of Vatican II again, but truth remains that ALL aspects of Catholic life have been seriously damaged by the reforms/deforms of Vatican II in and of itself, and also of the deviations that came afterwards.

We have had a series of Popes who, still claiming the "good fruit of Vatican II" (stated as recently as last week by Benedict XVI), have chosen to do nothing to stop the destruction of the Faith.

NONE of these massive problems existed before Vatican II.
Yes, there were some slovenly celebrations of Holy Mass in some countries by priests (but not liturgical abuses). And certainly not on a wide scale.
And people would be naive not to agree that there were isolated cases of priestly scandals regarding sex (but not the enormous abuses and cases which seem to stem mostly from 1964-1994).
The pre-Vatican II Church was not perfect. Nothing is. Only God.

But the pre-Vatican II Church in nearly all catagory of Catholic life was flourishing, which you absolutely can not say of the Catholic Church of today.

Not just me, but many, many learned priest -liturgists and other scholars also point to Vatican II as the root cause of the disaster in the Church.

In so many words, Benedict XVI did so also. But he can't very well come out and condemn a Council he participated in, and in those days unfortunatly was a strong liberal supporter of.

Jordanes said...

Note to A.S. Redding: That's not up to me, but to the weblog owner.

Anonymous said...

SSPX priests to Africa? Well send all the foreign ones from the Asia District out to Africa, and send some TLM saying African priests over to Asia to substitue for them.

John said...

Mr. Brennan,
You said, "The Holy Ghost appears to have withdrawn the charism of celibacy revealing many signs and symptoms world wide."
With due respect, I disagree that celebacy is a charism, a gift of the Holy Ghost. Rather, I think it is a discipline - something difficult to do, but is done, nevertheless, for a greater good. If we see in our age a great number of priests giving up celebacy - and we do - then I propose an alternative explanation: The temptation of the flesh, coupled with a loss of appreciation for the great spiritual disciplines that have always been used to combat such temptations. There has been a radical shift in Catholic spirituality, away from the combat mindset towards a somewhat New-Age approach. At the same time, societies have been giving up the social mores that have been protecting women for millenia. I think together, these changes have affected most Catholic mens' ability to overcome temptations of the flesh. Of course, a priest is just as susceptible - perhaps even moreso, given the devil's tactics. In this case, the general thread of comments here are correct - loss of celebacy is another symptom of the changes in the Church over the past 50 years.

Anonymous said...

John,

The church disagrees. Celibacy is one of the "Evangelical Counsel."

Gideon Ertner said...

Vatican II is not the source of the breakdown in the Church the last 40 years. In my analysis, the rot set in long before. Vatican II was manipulated by the Modernists and the Marxists to facilitate their agenda, and they were assisted in this by quasi-modernist, liberalist, pantheist, and libertarian tendencies which had slowly become more and more prevalent in the Church over at least the preceding 100 years. The reasons for this were many, but chiefly rooted in a decline in belief in objective truth as well as in the understanding of the sacred; this was caused by the advance of rationalism, atheistic science, and the idea of human autonomy in governance.

In some respects, this development is not unlike that which happened in Southern Europe in the Renaissance, with the tragic consequences seen in the 'Reformation'. The major difference, as I see it, is that this time it was well-organised groups (Marxists and Masons) who worked for the subversion of the Church.

The teaching of Vatican II is inconsequential in all this. Very few people know what the council documents actually say; all post-Vat II reforms were carried out according to its purported 'spirit', as presented by the rebels and the overly optimistic and deluded folks who had drunk the kool-aid. Interestingly, Liberals who read the council documents are apalled by them.

Anonymous said...

Gideon wrote, "Very few people know what the council documents actually say;.."

I agree with your statements, the rot has crept in since the French revolution and was planned well in advance. V2 bears all the fruit.

Good background books for V2 documents are:
1) 'Iota Unum' by Prof. Romero
2) 'The Rhine Flows into the Tiber' by Fr. Wiltgen
3) 'I Accuse the Counsel' by Archbishop Lefebvre.

dcs said...

Anonymous, it is *chastity* that is one of the evangelical counsels (along with poverty and obedience), not celibacy. One who is celibate is unmarried - it is possible to be celibate but unchaste.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus writes:

"Priests going on strike and withholding the sacraments from the faithful? I have never heard of such a thing. Is there any precedent?"

Interesting observation. Now, I wonder, suppose there were an S.S.P.X chapel there. Would faithful be 'asked' not to attend its Masses when the priests of the 'regularised' Church were illegally, illicitly, immorally withhholding the Sacraments?

But every cloud has a silver lining. Imagine all the good that might come from withholding a corrupted liturgy concocted in committee on the advice of six Protestant heretics? Who knows? Perhaps the faithful will have no choice but to go back to the real thing. The sellers of the singalong Mass have gone on strike. What a disaster!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Gideon Ertner writes:

"Vatican II is not the source of the breakdown in the Church the last 40 years."

That statement implies that there is one single source and Vatican II is not it. I would agree that Vatican II is not the root cause but its ambiguous expressions and inappropriate emphases (e.g. no condemnation of communism, too much focus on collegiality, no separate document on our Lady, &c.) were certainly a catalyst for the disaster. We must keep in mind that the periti at the Council claimed that it would usher in a new springtime of renewal. What followed was not a effloresence but a deracination. Instead of a pastoral paradise, we got a banal desert. The spirit falsely attributed to the Council was one cause of this. The content of the documents was another, whether owing to their presentation or to their focus. The Church was facing a crisis but failed to address it. Instead of continuing her efforts to convert the world, she tried to compromise with it. Justice and evil shall meet and embrace; truth and error shall kiss.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the presence of tradition in Africa.

The F.S.S.P. has one apostolate in one Diocese (Orlu) in all of Nigeria. There is one every-Sunday T.L.M. in all of Nigeria, for 18 million souls. One diocese has it; the other 49 do not.

Gabon is well served by both the I.C.R. and the S.S.P.X.

South Africa has a small S.S.P.X apostolate. Recently, it got its first regularised T.L.M., at Johannesburg. The S.S.P.X has every-Sunday Masses in Pretoria, Durban, and Johannesburg, and some on a less frequent basis in Port Elisabeth and Cape Town. 24 of the 27 dioceses in S.A. have no T.L.M. on any basis whatever.

Benin has one T.L.M. for the Diocese of Natitingou. The other nine dioceses there have nothing. NOTHING!

The S.S.P.X has an every-Sunday Mass in Harare, capital of Zimbabwe, where 37% of the faithful of that country live. It also has one in Nairobi, capital of Kenya.

Most of the majority Catholic countries in Africa have no Gregorian Mass on any basis whatsoever. These include both Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, Lesotho, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Cape Verde, São Tomé e Principe, Lesotho, and the Seychelles. Large and important countries with no T.L.M. include Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Ghana, well, the list goes on and on.

Missionaries in Africa don't convert people much anymore. They just merge animism with Catholicism. They were 'inspired' to do this by Vatican II documents, those which Ogard loves so much. These documents are orthodox and as clear as a bell. Despite this, they've been misread so that œcumenism has morphed into inculturation. Odd, that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Let us suppose that Vatican II had been the first œcumenical council instead of the twenty-second, all the necessary dogma from the first twenty-one having been clear from the Scriptures. So, in the Year 325, the brilliant heroes meet to coach the bishops: Rahner and Courtney Murray and Kung and the whole crowd. They come to fix a problem which doesn't exist. They replace the perfect valve with a brand new defective one.

Shorty after Vatican II ends, disaster strikes and the Church, which had spread even to the British isles by 325, suddenly suffers a massive setback: vocations evaporate, the faithful stop coming to Mass and revert to a new paganism, holy ascetics are replaced by sodomite predators, heresy is preached from the pulpit, Judas Iscariot is declared a saint in Austria (St. Satan will be next) and so forth. What would be the solution to the problem? Answer: the rigours of Trent, the rigours of Lateran IV, the rigours of Thomism. The only way to rout the rot would be to re-invent Tradition.

But we needn't re-invent it; we can return. Now dad gets angrier and angrier--like a mad dog--when mum tries to convince him to turn the car around and go back to that fork in the road forty miles back. You're lost, dear!

Jordanes is right that not all the problems of the Church come from Vatican II. Only most of them do.

P.K.T.P.

Ogard said...

There is no single shred of evidence that the Crisis in the CA Republic - and that is the subject of the Post - is due to Vatican II or mostly due to Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

To Ogard:

The question is whether or not the situation in the CAR is part of a general breakdown in discipline which followed the 1960s. One needn't allege that the Second Vatican Council was the sole cause or the root cause. One need only ask if the reforms urged by that Council contributed to a breakdown in faith and discipline, the two being connected: lex orandi, lex credendi.

I find it hard to believe that the priests trained in Africa under the rigours of previous discipline often had concubines. Did Archbishop Lefebvre's seminarians have concubines after they were ordained? We are finding that this is now a problem, and we notice it because it was not a problem in the past. The change seems to have occurred in the aftermath of the Council. Is there a connexion between the reforms and the change in discipline? I ask because there definitely is a connexion between the reforms and the Council itself, even if the latter went beyond what was urged by the former.

In order to make a reasonable assessement regarding causation, it would be best to look at the problem of the concubines in a larger context. There is considerable evidence, for example, that the huge exodus from the Church and the fall in vocations, churchgoing, reception of Sacraments, and adherence to Catholic teaching in the West immediately followed the close of the Council. Kenneth C. Jones's "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" demonstrates this dramatically. In the case of Québec, one parish priest put it simply in an N.F.B. documentary: At the beginning of 1966, my church was full; at the end of that same year, it was almost empty.

In Africa, there were enormous changes in worship following the Council. These can be attributed in part to 'inculturation'. It resulted in ever more creative translations of the Liturgy and cultural adaptations in how it was to be celebrated. Those who introduced these changes definitely used Vatican II as a justification for them, especially "Sacrosanctum Concilium" (e.g. Nos. 37-40).

So the allegation is that wild reform in liturgy (lex orandi) is connected to changes in belief (lex credendi) which, in turn, affect discipline: how we act reflects what we believe. Yes, there is a connexion. It is not coincidence that all these problems have followed the Council instead of, say, the First World War or the Great Depression. Of course, one can always challenge the connexion between any cause and effect. Here in Canada, we have the police alleging that just because a man died immediately after being tasered, it does not mean that the taser caused the heart attack. It might be pure coincidence. It's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ogard, about your comment, "...post-Vat II reforms were carried out according to its purported 'spirit', as presented by the rebels and the overly optimistic and deluded folks who had drunk the kool-aid. Interestingly, Liberals who read the council documents are apalled by them."

The liberals are appalled because they think V2 didn't do enough. They want to annihilate any vestige that remains of the Church Militant. They are ravenous wolves.

However,there hated for V2 does not mean that V2 documents are worth the paper they are written on. Prof. Romerio, Fr. Witgen and Bsp. Lefebvre have much to say on that.

Anon Vingt Trois

Ogard said...

It is irrational to insist that the Post Hoc necessarily implies Propter Hoc.

To change the subject: Re: ANONYMOUS ABOUT BOOKS. - Fr. Wiltgen’s is an excellent piece of non-polemical journalism which tries to be impartial, but it is far from comprehensive; nor is it meant to be. I would say: it is an easy and interesting reading, fully in accord with the Teaching of the Church.

The Archbishop Lefebvre’s book contains his interventions on drafts, not on final texts, all of which, or all but two, he has signed. It is a demanding piece to understand without having at fingertips the schemata on which he comments. Unless one is prepared to accept the interventions uncritically, however it would be necessary to peruse other interventions, as well as replies of commissions involved in drafting final texts. But I do not think these interventions and replies are available in vernaculars.

Ultimately, one has no better alternative to the reading of final texts - to start with; and then perusing details with help of a theological commentary. I use the five volumes edited by Vorgrimler, in which Ratzinger was a member of editorial committee, and co-author of commentary on LG, DV, UR, and GS. It has to be taken with a salt – one has to distinguish between the authors’ views and the factual information they provide - but it is useful, and I don’t know of any that is more informative. But without a competent theological commentary one is – cripple.

It is all too much for an ordinary mortal, but really, to “agree” or “disagree” on the basis of gossip and popular or quasi-theological literature is ridiculous. In practice, an individual has to choose between willing and unconditional Religious Assent as demanded by classical moral theology, not only of an ordinary mortal but of theologians as well; or making of himself a DIY magisterium.

Anonymous said...

Ogard writes:

"It is irrational to insist that the Post Hoc necessarily implies Propter Hoc."

It is also irrational to insist that a later thing cannot possibly be caused by something which preceded it, and that is what the Ogard Philosophy 101 crowd has come to think. So proud at having learned a little Latin phrase, they are convinced that we cannot allege a connexion between two things unless we have the sort of proof one might need to prove a case in criminal law.

Au contraire, in order to assess causal relation, we look at a number of factors, such as how much time passed between the two successive events and whether or not there is a plausible reason for supposing a connexion. It is the experience of Holy Church and a principle of her fathers that how we pray affects what we believe, and that what we believe affects how we behave. Believe it or not!

Notice how, following the Council, the wild change in liturgical practice was accompanied by a massive decline in faith and a massive decline in Catholic praxis? I wonder, could there be a connexion? Nah. 'Post hoc'! The ladies tripping lightly through the sanctuary in their purple leotards during the Canon--and the delicious little cakes with raisins used by Father for the Eucharist--are in no way connected to the decline in attendance at the same church on Sunday. It just happened by coincidence that the liturgical chaos done in the name of Vatican II (every abuse being justified by reference to one of its texts) was accompanied by huge declines in self-identification as Catholic, declines in Catholic belief, and declines in Church attendance; and by declines in recourse to Confession, the practice of indulgences, presence at retreats, use of the scapulars, recitation of the Rosary, observance of fasting and abstinence--you name it. Countries like France, over 90% Catholic before the Council, are now only 75% Catholic, and these 'Catholics' confess that the Eucharist is 'just a piece of bread', just a symbol. Ask a typical Catholic in Canada if he's practised an indulgence lately, and he'll ask you what that is.

Before the Council, attendance at Mass in Quebec stood at over 80%. Today, it stands at 5%. That's five per cent! In the same Province, as a joke, one company sells delicious little cookies which look exactly like communion hosts. In the U.S.A., there has been a 92% decline in vocations from 1965 to 2000. But of course, none of this is in any way connected to the Council or the spirit which animated its periti. Perish the thought!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon Vingt Trois:

There is ample evidence for your allegation that liberals want to deracinate every vestige of tradition. One of the few things which had remained unchanged by the revolution was the Most Holy Rosary of our Lady. That's why John Paul the Small tried to alter it. I note that there had been a previous attempt in the 1970s which had failed miserably. Back then, they also tried to add a Fifteenth Station to the Way of the Cross. I am proud to say that I have never used his new mysteries and I am sure that I never shall.

What is striking to me is that the liberals changed even the liturgical terminology in order to erase any continuity with the past. The Mass of the Catechumens became the 'Liturgy of the Herd', um, I men, 'Word'; the Mass of the Faithful became the Liturgy of the Eucharist; the Canon became the Eucharistic Prayer; the Secret became the Prayer over the Gifts; the Collect became the 'Opening Prayer'; the Intoit became the 'Entrance Song' . I once did a study of this and found that they changed nearly every single liturgical term. This is significant. Gone now is the culture of Tacts and Graduals, Sequences and Alleluias, Collects and Postcommunion Verses. Any historian knows that one of the keys to a successful revolution is to change all the terminology. This breaks the connexion with the past. It's why the French Revolutionaris even changed the names of the days of the week. Confucious say . . . .

In addition, every idiot in a frock coat suddenly started saying 'Lumen Gentium' and 'Sacrosanctum Concilium' as if they were books in the Bible. In fact, Vatican II texts became the new Scripture of a revolutionary new Church. The old Scriptures had too many 'bad' texts telling women to cover their heads in church and saying that sodomites had no place in the Kingdom of God. Notice how, before Vatican II, there was no tribe of nitwits saying 'Pastor Æternus' every time they sneezed? Now they say 'Vatican II' at table more often than 'please pass the salt'. When I hear 'Lumen Gentium', I'll ususally say, No thank you, I've already eaten.

Some people will say, Why do you focus fetishistically on all these little changes? My answer is always the same: It takes far less energy to mention small changes than it does to effect them. So why did somebody go to all the trouble to change everything?, and I do mean everything. Today, almost the only thing distinctively Catholic about many churches is the word 'Catholic' on the sign outside. The devil, my friends, is in the details.

P.K.T.P.

Ogard said...

Anon Vingt Trois - Your quote can be misunderstood as if the text was mine. I do not mean that you did it deliberately, but have to "hedge" myself because of others.

I did not see your comment when posting mine that follows it, about the books you had recommended earlier.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, thanks again for your contributions and observations, but please try to watch your tone somewhat. Rhetoric such as "the Ogard Philosophy 101 crowd" and "John Paul the Small" are clever but needlessly antagonising of those with whom you disagree. The typos in one of your two most recent comments are suggestive of haste (although whenever I have typos it’s only because my keyboard doesn’t know how to spell). A good rule we all should remember is to take a few moments to think about our comments and see if we might not want to phrase things a little differently.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's last comments:

I apologise for the typos. To me, a spelling error is a mortal sin. After all, getting English right is my profession.

On the use of such terms as 'John Paul the Small' and references to first-year philosophy adherents, I can't say that I agree with you. I prefer humour, light banter, and even a bit of saunciness. It's more fun and people (esp. Americans, I'm afraid) are too serious these days. Also, I don't see this as a serious intellectual forum; it's only a blog. There are no doctoral referees here and for good reason.

I suppose the question of tone depends on what the blogmasters prefer. I've been on sites which allow wild attacks on one extreme and only formal arguments on the other. Still, I'll certainly take your observations into consideration.

To return to the Phil. 101 comment for a moment, I was trying to use hyperbole to draw attention to a very common problem today. In the past, there might have been a tendency to jump too quickly to the conclusion that a second event must have been caused by an immediately preceding one. This is known as the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy. Unfortunately, as more people learned about it, overcorrection became all too common. We now have a tribe of people who think that you must prove a causal connexion by the sort of evidence one would need to convict a someone of first-degree murder. This is entirely false. It is the opposite extreme and just as illogical.

It is one thing to point out that sunrises are not caused by the preceding crowing of the cock. It would be quite another thing to require 'absolute proof' to believe that your headache was caused by the concussion you suffered when you fell off the garage roof. Of course, the headache could be from intense light on a bright day, but that's not likely. When a child puts his hand on the stove and yells 'ow', this is connected to the fact that the element was on. Sure, it's remotely possible that he yelled for a different reason.

So, when we see that massive change in the Church is justified by its implementers by references to Vatican II, and when we see that, immediately thereafter, half the flock leaves for good and the other half stops believing in the Eucharist, there is good reason to imagine a connexion. Those who object 'post hoc' are indeed initiates from Phil. 101.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ogard,
Not sure what you mean. It seems clear to me that I cut and pasted your comment (in quotations) and added my own observation underneath it. By all means hedge away, I sometimes miss the point.

I don't think Mr. Perkins misunderstood. Bring it Mr. Perkins!


Anon Vingt Trois

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, I'm only concerned that your humor could derail the debate into personal attacks, something we must always eschew.

Ogard said...

Anon Vingt Trois, to clarify: the quoted extract isn't mine - that is what I wanted to convey. No criticizm is implied - just wanted to put the things right.

Ogard said...

I did not "insist that a later thing cannot possibly be caused by something which preceded it". I meant, to put it differently although what I said should have been clear enough, that one must provide evidence of the causal relation of the two; and that in the debated case there is no shread of it. And there isn't indeed. In fact, better evidence to the contrary can be provided.

Anonymous said...

Ogard, properly speaking, one cannot find evidence for causal relations. Evidence is a measuring of data. One finds evidence that one thing is larger or smaller or wider or heavier or rounder or narrower than another thing. One finds plausible explanations for causal relations. For instance, the coroner may find most plausible that the victim drowned, since his lungs were full of water, even though it is possible that he died of a preceding heart attack and the deceased body then drowned. The latter is statistically less likely and therefore less plausible. But it is likelihood of the first which makes it credible: neither is ruled out by the evidence.

What I have alleged is that Vatican II documents are causally related to the coming of concubinage among African priests. I am not claiming that the documents are the sole or root cause but an important--even crucial--contributing cause.

In the 1970s, every time a reformer wanted to change the liturgy or discipline of the faithful, he cited a Vatican II document as a pretext for this. For example, inculturation was justified by Sacrosanctum Concilium, especially nos. 37-40. A change in liturgy and praxis causes a change in belief: lex orandi, lex credendi. A change in belief, in turn, causes a change in moral behaviour: what we believe affects how we act. In most sub-Saharan African cultures, celibacy is unknown and considered foreign. So a breakdown in the Catholic praxis--especially one justified by a false principle of 'inculturation'--will enable a return to the preceding behavioural norm, and this results in concubinage.

Changes such as turning to concubinage among priests were not some isolated case: they were part of a whole network of change in behaviour throughout the Church. All these changes were causally related in a chain to Vatican II documents. Hence the massive turning to sexual inversion in the priesthood is also causally related to Vatican II.

To be continued . . . .

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Continued P.K.T.P. text:

But it is clear enough that the Church never intended in these documents to promote concubinage, for example. So how did this come to be? It is because the documents were formulated mostly by liberal (read heretical) periti who got control of the drafting stage at the Council. These 'experts' were men such as Frs. Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Henri de Lubac, Gregory Baum, and John Courntey Murray. Some of them had been canonically warned for errors in the past. In the case of Murray, the curia tried to stop his attendance but the Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore said that he would not attend if Murray didn't come with him.

How the 'Rhine Group' and other liberals got control of the drafting process is explained in detail in Michael Davies's "Pope John's Council". To get the assent of the bishops, they used the sort of bureaucratic tactics mentioned often in the B.B.C. t.v. series "Yes, Minister". For example, they would deluge bishops with endless documents "which could run into hundreds of pages" (p. 37, Davies). I suppose the trick here is to appeal to bishops' natural pride. Nobody wants to admit that he needs more time to peruse and consider a document, for that might suggest a lack in intelligence. It's a old trick. The presenter of the endless text implies that it is easy to digest, and then the reader is afraid to admit that it was not.

The main trick was to write ambiguous formulations which could later be deliberately misinterpreted by the implementers of the Council.

Another trick was to write general exception paragraphs which wiped out the principle of a clause. A good example of this is Clause 116 of S.C. on liturgical music. The first paragraph establishes Gregorian Chant as the standard for the future liturgy. The second paragraph allows everything--everything!--else by invoking "the spirit of the liturgical action" and then referring back to Clause 30, which demands the active participation of the faithful. (Most people won't bother flipping back to the earlier clause, especially if this tactic is used repeatedly: it wears one down.) The result? Since most faithful can't actively participate in Gregorian Chant, Chant is abolished! I challenge you, Ogard, to find just five New Masses in the U.S.A. which are chanted! And yet look at the opening paragraph of Clause 116: "Gregorian Chant . . . should be given pride of place in liturgical services".

So, yes, Ogard, there is a causal connexion between 'Vatican II' and concubinage among African priests. The latter is part of a massive breakdown in faith and morals which was justified by ambiguous documents formulated by heretics and then assented to by well-meaning bishops. The majority of the bishops were inspired by the Holy Ghost. But the controlling periti were animated by the spirit of error, and it has a different master! Hence the need today for a MASSIVE clarification. Better to rely on the tried and true in the meantime; and, even after the clarification, why turn to broken texts when superior pre-conciliar texts are available as guides?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

New observation on Vatican II as a cause of concubinage and other evils:

The liberal is one who thinks that Vatican II is all sweetness and light. If bad things followed it, this is because more needed to be done to revolutionise the Church. If only Edward Schillebeeckx had been pope!, cries the liberal.

The neo-con (often a convert determined to provie his loyalty to NewChurch) also thinks that Vatican II was all sweetness and light. The problem is that the liberal enemy got control of the Church after the Council and misimplemented it. If only Joseph Ratzinger had been pope in 1965 instead of having to wait to 2005!, they cry.

The traditionalist knows that the Council itself was bad, not only its implementation. While it is presumed to be doctrinally sound, it is misexpressed and this is no small matter, for it violates the strict duty of prelates to proclaim the faith univocally so as not to lose souls, which is the very *highest* law. So the misexpression of the Council makes it TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE to the traditionalist even though it is doctrinally sound. The traditionalist is like the vicious Singaporean businessman who says, 'This plan no good. We start over.' Hence New Coke is rejected and Coke Classic returns.

Continued . . . .

Anonymous said...

Continuation of P.K.T.P. . . . . (how I love stops)

Now the neo-con (and there are some of these on this blog) cheerleader is an apriorist; he loves to engage in a priori thinking. For emotional reasons and out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to the Pope, he starts the logical process with the conclusion and then he works backwards, hunting for premises from which he can deduce it.

The conclusion to be defended is that Vatican II is nothing but sweetness and light. 'I love you, Vatican II, you're so wonderful! Kissy-kissy! Smoooch! I love the Council because it was approved by the popes, and the popes can never go wrong! I will defend thee to the death, Vatican II. I proclaim my loyalty to thee.'

Many of these neo-cons, as already mentioned, are former Prots who feel a need to prove their loyalty to the Church, although, to be fair, it must be mentioned that an archtraditionalist, Bsp. Williamson, was also a former heretic.

To have a true sensus catholicus, one must be a traditionalist, one must rely on what is reasonable, and one must be logical. It doesn't preclude being emotional. Some of us are descended from ancestors who had to fight to keep their faith. The Scottish Jacobite Catholics who arrived in my country, Canada, between 1772 and 1805, are a superb example of this. But traditional faithful know that popes are not gods. St. Catherine of Siena didn't think so exactly.

Now the traditionalist was minding his own business in 1965. Then a Council closed and chaos decimated the Church in just ten years. Why was this Council called? Councils are usually called to deal with a threat to the Faith, such as Arianism or the threat posed by the Cathars or the Lutherans. In contrast, between 1955 and 1965, the Church was growing according to every measurable indicator (as Kenneth C. Jones has proved), while the same indicators showed a fall for the mainstream Protestants. Why fix what is working?

Anyway, trads are those who looked at the effects and considered probable causes. They faced the facts and stayed with what had worked. Neo-cons are dreamers who think that they can wish the Council documents into bastions of good pastoral direction. No can do. Let's look the facts straight in the face: Edward Schillebeeckx and Pope St. Pius X are not on the same team!

P.K.T.P.

Ogard said...

There is nothing in Vatican II documents that could in any way be a cause of the sad state of affairs in the CAF, neither directly nor indirectly by way of other deviations from Faith. I am well familiar with all the stories mentioned, on this occasion and earlier, and know more.

In any case, to accuse an Ecumenical Council on the basis of circumstantial evidence, if there were any at all, is irreconcilable with the Catholic Faith.

Jordanes said...

The traditionalist knows that the Council itself was bad, not only its implementation. ***

Or rather, thinks it was bad.

From what I gather, those whom you call "neo-cons" would be, generally speaking, orthodox Catholics who strive to be faithful and obedient to the Church, but who are not traditionalists. I'm certainly not "neo-con" in any way, neither politically (I note that some of those Scots Jacobites who fled to Canada are among my mother's kin, and that has something important to do with my politics) nor, where the label is inappropriate and misleading to the point of uselessness, in matters of the faith. Anyway I certainly don't see Vatican II as all sweetness and light, and I can't fathom how anybody who knows about the proceedings and declarations of the council would be able to think that.

I'd also question whether or not Catholic traditionalism even existed prior to Vatican II. It seems to have arisen in reaction to the great trauma that began to beset the Church during and right after the council.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's points:

1. I did not have Jordanes in mind when I wrote my comments (it also seems that we share some common heritage, although I'm only one-quarter from that background).

2. Yes, I think that the Council was bad but I also *know* it with moral certitude, which is enough, even if imperfect. I am like the nun in "Doubt" who 'knows' that the priest is up to no good. She had her certitude ("I know people") from experience, and I have mine. Conviction is less than absolute proof but considerably more than mere opinion.

3. Oh, yes, Jordanes, most neo-cons do think that the Council was 'good but misimplemented'; they do not think that it was inherently bad in any particular way. They think what they please in the strictly literal sense: they think true what beliefs please them.

3. Before the Council, nearly all Catholics were traditionalists, because that is what is natural for a Catholic to be. It is taught that tradition, like Nature and Scripture, is a mean by which truth is conveyed to us by God. The Holy Ghost has indeed inspired the fathers over the centuries, so our traditional practices are a sacred treasure to be preserved and fostered in every way.

But there was a minority before the Council that was not traditionalist. These were the Modernists and their intellectual relatives. Pope St. Pius X tried to rout them but his successor, Benedict XV, was more tolerant in removing these rank weeds from the ecclesial garden. The liberal periti, men like Courtney Murray, were in their rank.

If you had asked the average Catholic in 1960 if he wanted a vernacular Mass, he would have said, 'No, that would be Protestant'. A lingua sacra is needed because a Holy Sacrifice is a sacred action and the Latin, like the Eastern iconostasis, is a barrier which keeps the nincompoops from standing between the priest and God: you can't monkey with a frozen language, a language which asserts that the meaning of divine action is ultimately mysterious.

Not all self-identified Catholics are traditionalists today. We now have traditionalists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, and even charismatics. We now parallel the heretical Church of England with its Anglo-Catholics, High Churchers, Broad Churchers, Low Churchers and Evangelicals. This parallel should worry us. Has NewChurch become a Protestant sect? It certainly looks like one, down to the potted plants in the nave and the bathrobes worn by the 'Altar staff'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ogard enthuses,

"To accuse an Ecumenical Council on the basis of circumstantial evidence, . . . is irreconcilable with the Catholic Faith."

Where is your 'evidence' for this wild statement? From what fantasy did you dream up this imagined principle? It sounds as if it comes from a police show on television. We are not before a court of law in a criminal trial here. We do not need 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' as defined in criminal law in order to find the accused, the Council, guilty of malice aforethought. And it's a good thing. Our purpose is not to find enough cause to hang a man. That's not our job and it is beyond our competence.

Historians are not criminal lawyers and nor are (most) contributors on blogs. We do not need a smoking gun to find that the Council, the fathers of whom claimed that it would usher in a new springtime, contributed to a complete breakdown in faith and morals.

Forty years later, priests sodomise adolescent boys by the thousands, African priests have concubines, only 17% of faithful in the U.S.A. even know what the word 'transubstantiation' means, and only 5% of professed Catholics in Quebec attend Church on Sunday. Since the Council, church attendance in the U.S.A. has falled from over 80% to just 25%, and vocations to the priesthood fell 92% from 1965 to 2000. If the Council did not contribute to this state of affairs, it sure as hell hasn't prevented it! Wake up!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Just for fun, I thought I'd add another example to show how the Council was misexpressed and how this has led to disaster.

Consider Articles 36 and 54 of "Sacrosanctum Concilium". 36 proclaims, "The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". 54 allows a "suitable place" for the vernacular languages. But 36 includes general exceptions and Clause 40 adds more. What most people will not notice is that, in no part of the Mass is Latin *required* by S.C. Reading it, Latin seems to be a general requirement with exceptoins in parts pertaining to the people. But if you have the mind of a lawyer, you will see that this is only held up as a preferred situation, not a required one.

So what was the result? S.C. was promulgated on 4 December, 1963. On 29 November, 1964, less than one year later and while the Council was still sitting, IN A SINGLE DAY, the entire Mass was converted into the vernacualar in Anglophone countries.

Had you attended Mass in the morning in, say, Milwaukee, on Saturday, 28 November, you would have assisted at a Mass entirely in Latin, except that, under an indult, the Gospel and Epistle were repeated in English (although, in many parts of Canada, even the lections were in LATIN ONLY as late as that day). The VERY NEXT DAY, the entire liturgy would have been celebrated in English, with not so much as a Dominus vobiscum in Latin.

There's a word for this. I'm trying to remember it. Got it! The word is 'revolution'. Within a year of this change, as testified by one priest in an N.F.B. documentary from Quebec, his church went from full to empty.

'Post hoc, post hoc, post hoc, swwaak', said the neo-con parrot.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Great Posts Mr. Perkins. Bring it!

I am from Canada too, hey. My thanks to the TLM for showing me the Catholic faith as it is meant to be lived.

My wife is a neo con. She told me a story of how as a young girl she used to go to church everyday with her grandfather. When V2 swept through, her grandfather wept bitterly saying that he now had give up everything he believed in.

Grandfather adapted to V2 and so did his family. How sad.

Ogard said...

I would agree that the Vatican II was not “all sweetness and light”, and would readily apply it to most if not all ecumenical councils. After all, none was a fax-machine printout dispatched from Heaven. My only complaint is that the texts could have been more condensed, to give less excuse to those who are reluctant to read them, and thus self-deprived of knowledge. But, one has to keep in mind that the editors of drafts had to cope with 2500 bishops, as different from some other “ecumenical” councils, like Trent, which on some sessions had an attendance of as much as 50 (fifty); and, in the sixtieths, the editors had no electronic facilities.

Many complain that is contains ambiguities, which is not something to complain about unless the ambiguities are deliberate, while to accuse somebody of the latter would be a calumny. Human language is ambiguous and this problem is encountered particularly if it is used for concepts that refer to what is essentially a mystery for which any language is only approximately adequate. Vatican I was ambiguous too; likewise: Nicea, Ephesus, Calcedon – to mention just a few off hand. Not to mention the doctrine of Pius IX.

On the other hand, it can’t be disputed that the Vatican II is the greatest council in the history from the following viewpoints: number of the bishops and theologians (which might well have exceeded all the other council together), massive scholarly expertize, volume of positively proposed doctrine, a great step forward in the proposed doctrine and practice in the following areas: ecclesiology, Revelation and its transmission, ecumenism, relation to the non-Christian religions, and doctrine on religious liberty.

There are omissions, of course, but which council was without omissions?

No evidence thus far has been adduced that it was even a remote cause of the situation in the CAR

The Church was a pressure-cooker long before the Council: Humani Generis (false “trends”), Mortalium Animos (panchristianism), Oath, Pascendi and Lamentabili (modernism). Those who might have had something good to say were suppressed because of errors which were associated with it. It was the cause of resentment and secret dissent (“Let the pope writes encyclicals: there are some who are determined to take no note” – Pius XII). As the situation turned intolerable John XXIII summoned the Council to enable everybody to say what he wanted. So, the Council was summoned but no solution found although all proposals were considered, and all that was of value was adopted. Nor can the solution be found, because the Church is a communion of those who are in willingly, not by force: it they refuse to cooperate, the Pope can take issue with a few but it is like a drop in the ocean. Suspensions and excommunication are of no use: they would declare all that “null and void” as we know it only too well.

Those among us who are still Catholics have no choice but to gather together around the Pope, whether we like it or not. Alternative is the useless individualism – the way to Hell, but way of “orthodoxy”.

Anonymous said...

Ogard,
You say that Vatican 2 is a "great step forward...ecumenism, relation to the non-Christian religions, and doctrine on religious liberty.ecumenism."______ Precisely the opposite. When was the last time you heard a NO priest ask for the conversion of unbelievers to the Catholic Church? This is a doctrine of the faith.

"So, the Council was summoned but no solution found although all proposals were considered, and all that was of value was adopted."______ How do you know that all proposals were considered? What proofs do you have? Are you asking us to accept circumstantial evidence supporting your argument when you handily dismiss circumstantial evidence to the contrary? How come the preparatory schema documents were scuttled from the start? One hand giveth the other taketh...a revolutionary tactic. You live in Utopia.

"Nor can the solution be found, because the Church is a communion of those who are in willingly, not by force:..." _______The Church has doctrines, to be obeyed. Did you swallow the kool aide about the Church being a communion of believers? That is protestantism.

"Suspensions and excommunication are of no use: they would declare all that “null and void” as we know it only too well."_______If only a faithful remnant remains that would be the true Church. Pope Benedict XV1 needs to get down to business doesn't he.

"Those among us who are still Catholics have no choice but to gather together around the Pope, whether we like it or not."_______Sure I support the Pope but I am not obligated to obey unjust laws.

Perhaps the "pressure cooker" you described has its source. Perhaps there was even a plan. Starts with d and ends with l.

Anon

Anonymous said...

Ogard writes:

"Many complain that is contains ambiguities, which is not something to complain about unless the ambiguities are deliberate, while to accuse somebody of the latter would be a calumny."

It's not a calumny at all. It's a reasonable conclusion given the facts. It is Ogard who is self-deprived of knowledge. Again, it was a cabal of material heretics who took over the drafting process. Ogard needs to read Davies's book entitled "Pope John's Mass", particularly chapters five and six. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the clauses in S.C. on, say, liturgical language and sacred music were DELIBERATELY written so that their positive general principles could be reversed in implementation. I have demonstrated this in reference to clauses 116, 40, 36, 52, and so forth. Ogard might review these points. But he might actually see the light if he reads Davies's book. The best books on this subject are in French but Davies is perhaps the most accessible in the English tongue.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ogard's other comments make me wonder if he is a Modernist himself of an ally of Modernists. He writes of the "massive scholarly expertize [sic]" of these heretics who took over the drafting process. They were experts only in the wild fantasies of their own minds and in the opinion of that bastion of ignorance and stupidity: the world press.

P.K.T.P.

Ogard said...

I haven't yet seen evidence that the situation in the CAR is caused by Vatican II. If it is not submitted, in not more than ten to twenty lines, after this comment, I will no longer read PKTS' comments.

Anonymous said...

Ogard, you are on a wild goose chase. As I remarked earlier, what you should be looking for is plausible arguments, not 'evidence'. There is good reason for supposing the connexion, as I have explained. No need to read any nore of my comments.

P.K.T.P.

Ogard said...

ANON
Regarding the ecumenism etc., the following errors of fact generally circulate among “traditionalists”, and I am going into it, because it might be of general interest.

Firstly, ecumenism (UR) is confused with the relation of the Church and the non-Christian religions (NE), and both are put together in a basket with the Declaration on Religious Liberty (DH) which has nothing to do with either.

Secondly, the ecumenism and the relations with the non-Christians are confused with conversions, which have nothing to do with them. Vatican II has little to say about the latter (UR 4/4, in passing).

Thirdly, conversion is conceived as an activity aimed at making individuals or groups to “join the club”, and “traditionalists” have that in mind by their notion of “return” to the Church of those whose ancestors separated long time ago, although they themselves did not leave the Church and can’t return to what they did not leave in the first place. The group conversion was the work of pre-Vatican II missionaries, who did a great job in spreading the minimum doctrine, just enough for the conversion to be acceptable, which made sense under the circumstances. I understand from a friend and moral theologian who lives in Africa that little attention was paid to the moral doctrine. It is a legitimate practice, i.e. to leave a person, in a confessional or elsewhere, in error if one can reasonably assume that telling the moral truth fully will be too much for those who are supposed to accept it. In other words, they will not convert, or if, in confessional, the priest would, by refusing absolution, make a formal sinner of what is, while in ignorance, only a material sinner, and thus deprive him of sacraments of the living. The rationale of this practice is that by receiving grace through sacraments, although unworthy in a material sense, yet worthily in a subjective sense, he will grow in faith and in understanding of morality, and improve gradually, which wouldn’t be the case if one were to refuse him admission into the Church, or absolution in the confessional. The set back of this practice is that it can back-fire: an example is the CAR the cause of which, or at least one of the causes, can be traced back to the preconciliar times of easy conversions.

Fourthly, Decree on Ecumenism is put in the same basket with the Encyclical Mortalium Animos. The latter has nothing to do with ecumenism and it isn’t used by the Decree even as a reference. It is a condemnation of the Panchristianism, which is now abandoned even by the Protestants who initiated it. In passing, Pius XI thought that by telling to the Orthodox that they should abandon the “errors of Fotius” and submit to him was all that he could do. He failed to address the question how they could do it without violating their conscience, while the violation of conscience, according to the classical moral theology, is a formal sin regardless of whether the conscience is in error or not.

Fiftly, Decree on Ecumenism is taken as a plan for unity by a doctrinal sell-out, and expected to materialize within our lifetime. Both false. There can be no reunion without doctrinal agreement, and, as far as the Catholic and Eastern Churches are concerned, it cannot involve any doctrinal solution that would compromise what each party irrevocably believes to be the truth. It is not an overnight project but the beginning of a long-term work that binds in conscience those who want to follow Christ sincerely.

Sixthly, the old papal encyclicals are put in opposition with the Dignitatis Humanae, while the latter clearly states that its purpose is not to oppose the encyclicals (1/3). In my opinion the two in fact deal with different matters. The encyclicals are about the rights, affirmed or denied, of religions in a society. The DH is about, the duty, and therefore the right, of a man to search the truth, which he can’t materialize without freedom, individually or in religious communities.

Anonymous said...

On Ogard's six points, all I can say is to read other material. I my opinion your discourse is pro V2 gobbly goook and doesn't hold water.

After 40 years of V2 my friend, we have a Church in crisis and the pastoral objectives have failed miserably. The opening to world has let the smoke of Satan in. Think about that.

It is time to take back our Catholic heritage. I can rely on pre V2 teaching.

Anonymous said...

is celibacy still relevant today?
priesthood by nature has nothing to do with celibacy. It's time for the church to seriously re-think it's policy about celibacy to priests.

Anonymous said...

Confused anon said, "is celibacy still relevant today? "

Yes!

It is you who needs to rethink your stance on celibacy, not the Church.

Fornicating priests are weak priests, their sin in no indicator that celibacy is wrong for these 'times'.

These 'times' have much evil. The Church is forever asked to compromise for the world - which is sick with sin.

The Church needs faithful well formed priests to guide us to Heaven.