Rorate Caeli

Time to restore the fullness of the Magisterium,
suspended after the Council

From the latest of the series of installments of Sandro Magister's Chiesa on the hermeneutics of renewal in continuity, rupture, and the concerns of Traditional Catholics - Dr. Enrico Maria Radaelli, disciple and guardian of the legacy of Romano Amerio, speaks:
A proposal for the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II

THE SUPERNATURAL WAY TO RESTORE PEACE BETWEEN THE PRE- AND POST-COUNCIL

by Enrico Maria Radaelli


The discussion that is taking place on Sandro Magister's website between schools of different and opposed positions on recognizing continuity or discontinuity with Tradition in the ecumenical council Vatican II, in addition to referring to me directly right from its opening salvos, touches closely on some preliminary pages of my recent book "The beauty that saves us." [La bellezza che ci salva]

By far the most significant feature of the book is the demonstrated identification of the "origins of beauty" with those four substantial qualities – true, one, good, beautiful – which Saint Thomas Aquinas says are the names of the Only-Begotten of God: an identification that should clarify once and for all the fundamental and no longer avoidable link that a concept has with its expression, meaning the language and the doctrine that uses it.

It seems obligatory for me to step in and make some clarifications here for those who want to reconstruct that "City of beauty" which is the Church, and so return to the only road (this is the thesis of my book) that can lead us to eternal happiness, that can save us.

I will complete my contribution with the suggestion of the request that deserves to be made to the Holy Father so that, recalling with Brunero Gherardini that the fiftieth anniversary of the Council will fall in 2015 (cf. "Divinitas," 2011, 2, p. 188), the whole Church may take advantage of that extraordinary event to restore the fullness of that "munus docendi," of that magisterium, suspended fifty years ago.


Regarding the topic under discussion, the question has been summarized well by the Dominican theologian Giovanni Cavalcoli: "The heart of the debate is here. We all agree, in fact, that the doctrines already defined [by the dogmatic magisterium of the former Church] present in the conciliar texts are infallible. What is in discussion is if the doctrinal developments, the innovations of the Council, are also infallible."

The Dominican realizes, in fact, that the need is to "respond affirmatively to this question, because otherwise what would happen to continuity, at least as the pope intends it?" And not being able to make, as is obvious, the statements that he would like to make, Fr. Cavalcoli turns them in the opposite direction, to which I will respond here with the answers that would result from following the "alethic," verifying logic taught to us by philosophy.


First question: Is it admissible that the development of a previously defined doctrine of the faith or close to the faith may be false?


Dear Fr. Cavalcoli, in reality you would have greatly preferred to have said: "It is not admissible that the development of a previously defined doctrine of the faith or close to the faith may be false." Instead the answer is: yes, the development can be false, because a true premise does not necessarily lead to a true conclusion, but can also lead to one or more false conclusions, so much so that in all the Councils of the world – even in the dogmatic ones – the most widely divergent positions were pitted against each other precisely because of this possibility. In order to have the desired development in continuity with the truths revealed through grace, it is not enough to be theologians, bishops, cardinals, or popes, but it is necessary to ask for special divine assistance, given by the Holy Spirit only to those Councils which, having been declared solemnly and unquestionably as dogmatic at their opening, have formally guaranteed this divine assistance for themselves. In these supernatural cases, it happens that the development given to supernatural doctrine will be guaranteed as truthful just as its premises were divinely guaranteed as truthful.

This did not happen at the last Council, formally declared as exquisitely pastoral in nature at least three times: at its opening, which is the one that counts, then at the opening of the second session, and finally at the closing; such that in this assembly, true premises sometimes led to conclusions that are at least questionable (to conclusions that, canonically speaking, belong to the third level of magisterial constraint, the one that, dealing with topics of a moral, pastoral, or juridical nature, requires only "religious submission") if not "even mistaken," as Fr. Cavalcoli himself recognizes, contradicting his central thesis, "and in any case not infallible," and that therefore "can also be changed," such that, even if disgracefully they are not formally but only "morally" binding on the pastor who teaches them even in cases that are less than clear, providentially they are not at all obligatorily binding for the obedience of the faithful.

Moreover, if the different levels of magisterium do not correspond to different levels of assent of the faithful, it is not clear what the point is of the different levels of magisterium. The different levels of magisterium are due to the different levels of proximity of knowledge that these have with the first reality, with the revealed divine reality to which they refer, and it is obvious that the doctrines revealed directly by God demand a completely obligatory submission (level one), as do the related doctrines if they are presented through dogmatic definitions or definitive acts (level two). Both the first and the second distinguish themselves from those other doctrines which, not being able to belong to the first group, can be numbered among the second only when multiple prudent, clear, irrefutable arguments can demonstrate their intimate, direct, and evident connection with it in the greatest respect for the principle of Vincent of Lérins ("quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est"), thus guaranteeing that the faithful can also gain a closer knowledge of God through these. All of this, as can be understood, can take place only in the more conscious, intentional, and plaintive exercise by and on the Church of the "munus," of the dogmatic magisterium.

The difference between the doctrines of level one and two and those of level three is given by the certainly supernatural character of the former, which is not guaranteed in the third group: maybe it's there, but maybe it's not. What must be grasped is that the dogmatic "munus" is: 1) a divine gift, and therefore 2) a gift to be requested expressly and 3) when the gift is not requested, it does not offer any guarantee of absolute truth, a lack of guarantee that disconnects the magisterium from any obligation of exactness and the faithful from any obligation of obedience, although requiring their religious submission. Level three could include indications and conjectures of naturalistic origin, and the sieve to verify if, purified from any microbial infestations, it is possible to raise them to the supernatural level can be applied only by bringing them into contact with the dogmatic fire: the straw will burn, but the divine iron, if it is there, will certainly shine in all its splendor.

This is what happened with the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption, now dogmas, or articles of faith now belonging by right to the second group. Until 1854 and 1950 respectively, these belonged to the group of questionable doctrines, the third one, to which nothing is due but "religious submission," just like those novel doctrines which, listed further below here in a brief and summary inventory, would be bundled into the more recent teaching of the Church since 1962. But in 1854 and 1950, the fire of dogma surrounded them with its divine and peculiar marking, it scorched them, it sifted them, it branded them, and finally it sealed them for all eternity as they had been "ab initio" in their most intimate reality: absolutely certain and universally established truths, so that they belong by right to the supernatural branch (the second) even if until then they had not been formally recognized under that splendid vestment. A happy recognition, and here it is necessary to emphasize that it was a recognition of the observers, of the pope in the first place, and not at all a transformation of the subject: as when critics of art, after having examined it from every point of view and approach useful for verifying or disqualifying it – certificates of origin, of transfers of ownership, tests of pigmentation, of glazing, revisions, radiography and reflectography – recognize in a painting the artist's unquestionable and most personal authenticity.

Both of those doctrines reveal themselves to be of divine craftsmanship, and of the most exquisite kind. So if any of those more recent doctrines are of the same sublime hand, this will be discovered calmly through the most splendid of means.


Second question: Can the new dogmatic field be in contradiction with the old?


Obviously no, it cannot in any way. In fact, after Vatican II we did not have any "new dogmatic field," as Fr. Cavalcoli puts it, even if many want to pass of the conciliar and postconciliar innovations as such, although Vatican II was a simple, though solemn and extraordinary, "pastoral field." None of the documents referred to by Dom Basile Valuet in his note 5 declares an authoritativeness of the Council greater than that with which it was invested from the beginning: nothing other than a solemn and universal, meaning ecumenical, "pastoral" gathering intended to give the world some purely pastoral guidelines, refusing explicitly and pointedly to define dogmatically or to issue any sort of anathema.

All the neomodernist luminaries or simply innovators, call them what you will, who (as Professor Roberto de Mattei emphasizes in "Vatican Council II. A story never written") were active in the Church from the time of Pius XII – theologians, bishops, and cardinals of the "théologie nouvelle" like Bea, Câmara, Carlo Colombo, Congar, De Lubac, Döpfner, Frings with his peritus, Ratzinger; König with his, Küng; Garrone with his, Daniélou; Lercaro, Maximos IV, Montini, Suenens, and, almost a group of its own, the three leaders of what is called the school of Bologna: Dossetti, Alberigo, and today Melloni – in the undertaking of Vatican II, and afterward used every sort of expedient to ride roughshod over the rupture with the detested previous doctrines on the same subject, misapplying the uncontested solemnity of the extraordinary gathering; the result of which was that all of them in point of fact produced rupture and discontinuity while proclaiming in words steadfastness and continuity. That there is on their part, and then universally today, a desire for rupture with Tradition can at least be verified: 1) from the most destructive pillaging ever perpetrated on the magnificence of the ancient altars; 2) from the equally universal contemporary refusal of all the bishops of the world except for the very few who give the minimum room to the Tridentine or Gregorian rite of the Mass, in foolish and open disobedience of the directives of the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum." "Lex orandi, lex credendi": if all that is not a rejection of Tradition, then what is it?

In spite of that, and the gravity of all that, one can still not speak of rupture in any way: the Church is "for all days" under the divine guarantee given by Christ in his oath in Matthew 16:18 ("Portæ inferi non prævalebunt") and in Matthew 28:20 ("Ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus") and that shelters it metaphysically from any fear in that sense, even if the danger is always at the gates, and the attempts are often underway. But those who maintain that there has been a rupture – as do some of the aforementioned luminaries, but also the sedevacantists – fall into naturalism.

But neither can one speak of steadfastness, or continuity with Tradition, because it is plain for all to see that the most varied doctrines that emerged from and after the Council – ecclesiology; panecumenism; relations with the other religions; the equation of the God worshiped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims; correction of the "doctrine of replacement" of the Synagogue with the Church into the "doctrine of the two parallel salvations"; unicity of the sources of Revelation; religious freedom; anthropocentric anthropology instead of theocentric; iconoclasm; or what gave rise to the "Novus Ordo Missæ" in place of the Gregorian rite (now slung alongside the former, but subordinately) – are all doctrines that, one after another, would not stand up to the test of the fire of dogma, if one had the courage to try to dogmatize them: a fire that consists in giving them theological substance with a specific request of assistance from the Holy Spirit, as happened back in their time with the "corpus theologicum" placed at the foundation of the Immaculate Conception or of the Assumption of Mary.

Such fragile doctrines are alive only because of the fact that there is no dogmatic barrier raised to disallow their conception and use. But then their false continuity with dogma is imposed in order to demand for them the assent of faith necessary for unity and continuity (cf. pp. 70ff., 205, and 284 of my book referred to previously, "The beauty that saves us"), so that all of them remain on the dangerous and "fragile borderline between continuity and discontinuity" (p. 49), but always on the near side of the dogmatic limit, which, in fact, if applied, would determine their end. Even the affirmation of continuity between these doctrines and Tradition, in my view, commits the offense of naturalism.


Third question: If we deny the infallibility of the doctrinal developments of the Council that depart from previous doctrines of the faith or close to the faith, won't we weaken the power of the continuist thesis?


Of course you weaken it, dear Fr. Cavalcoli, and even more: you annihilate it. And you strengthen the opposite thesis, as it should be, that there is no continuity.

No rupture, but also no continuity. So what then? The way out is suggested by Romano Amerio (1905-1997) with what the author of "Iota Unum" calls "the law of the historical preservation of the Church," revisited on page 41 of my book, according to which "the Church would not be lost in the case that it did not 'match' the truth, but in the case that it 'lost' the truth." And when does the Church not match the truth? When it forgets its teachings, or confuses them, muddies them, mixes them up, as has happened (not for the first time, and not for the last) from the Council until today. And when would it lose the truth? (In the conditional: it has been seen that it cannot in any way lose it.) Only if it struck it with anathema, or if vice versa it dogmatized a false doctrine, things that could be done by the pope and only by the pope, if (in the metaphysically impossible hypothesis that) his dogmatizing and anathematizing lips were not supernaturally bound by the two aforementioned oaths of Our Lord. I would insist on this point, which seems decisive to me.

Here hypotheses are advanced, but – as I say in my book (p. 55) – "leaving to the competency of the pastors any verification of the matter and any subsequent consequences, for example of whether and to what extent anyone may have been or is now involved" in the designated acts. In the very first pages, I show in particular how it is not possible to raise the banks for the river of a salvific beauty except by clearing the mind of any ambiguity, error, or misunderstanding: beauty accompanies only truth (p. 23), and restoring beauty to art, at least to sacred art, cannot be done except by working in the truth of liturgical teaching and action.

What in my view has been perpetrated in the Church for fifty years is a deliberate amalgamation of continuity and rupture. It is the studied government of spurious ideas and intentions in which the Church has been changed without changing it, under the cover (as Monsignor Gherardini neatly illustrates even in his most recent books) of an intentionally suspended magisterium – beginning with the opening discourse of the Council, "Gaudet Mater Ecclesia" – in a completely unnatural and completely invented form, called, with deliberate theological imprecision, "pastoral." The Church has been emptied of the doctrines hardly or not at all fit for ecumenism, and thus disliked by the luminaries seen above, and has been filled with the ecumenical ideas of these same persons, and this has been done without touching in any way the metaphysical vestment of the Church, which is dogmatic by nature (cf. p. 62), meaning supernatural by nature, but working only in that field of its magisterium which impinges only on its "historical preservation."

In other words: there is no formal rupture, nor formal continuity, only because the popes of the last fifty years have refused to ratify in the dogmatic form of level two the doctrines of level three that under their reign are devastating and emptying the Church (cf. p. 285). That means that in this way, the Church no longer matches the truth, but neither does it lose it, because the popes, even on the occasion of a Council, have formally refused both to dogmatize the new doctrines and to strike with anathema the nonetheless disfavored (or corrected, or spun) former doctrines.

As can be seen, one can also maintain that this deplorable situation would constitute a sin of the magisterium, and a grave one, both against faith and against charity (p. 54): it does not seem, in fact, that we may disobey the commandment of the Lord to teach the nations (cf. Matthew 28:19-20) with all the fullness of the gift of understanding bestowed upon us, without thereby "deviating from the rectitude that the act – that is, the 'teaching instructive in right doctrine' – must have" (Summa Theologiae I, 25, 3, ad 2). A sin against the faith because it puts it in danger, and in fact the Church over the past fifty years, emptied of true doctrines, has been emptied of faithful, of religious and priests, becoming a shadow of itself (p. 76). A sin against charity because the faithful are deprived of the beauty of the magisterial teaching and the visual beauty with which only the truth shines, as I illustrate in the whole second chapter of my book. The sin would be one of omission: it would be the sin of "omission of the dogmaticity proper to the Church" (pp. 60ff.), with which the Church intentionally would not supernaturally seal and thus would not guarantee the guidelines for living that it gives us.

This state of sin in which the holy Church would be plunged (this always means: of some men of the holy Church, or the Church in its historical component), if found, should be lifted and even penitentially cleansed, since, as Cardinal José Rosalio Castillo Lara wrote to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1988, its current stubborn and culpable stance "would favor the deplorable tendency [. . .] toward an ambiguous government called 'pastoral', which at bottom is not pastoral, because it leads to overlooking the due exercise of authority to the detriment of the common good of the faithful" (pp. 67f).

In order to restore the Church's parity with the truth, as it has been restored every time it has found itself in such dramatic tempests, there is no other way than to return to the fullness of its "munus docendi," putting through the sieve of dogma, and turning 360 degrees, all the false doctrines with which it is drenched today, and resuming as a "habitus" of its most ordinary and pastoral teaching (in the rigorous sense of the term: "transfer of the divine Word in the dioceses and in the parishes all over the world") the dogmatic stance that supernaturally led it through the centuries until now.

Restoring the suspended magisterial fullness would restore to the historical Church the metaphysical essence virtually taken away from it, and with that would bring back to the earth the divine beauty in all its most distinctive and savory fragrance.


To conclude, a proposal


We need audacity. And we need Tradition. In view of the occasion in 2015, the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of discord, it is necessary to promote a strong and broad request to the highest Throne of the Church, so that, in his kindness, not wasting the truly special occasion of such an exceptional anniversary, he may consider that there is a single act that can bring back peace between the teaching and doctrine dispensed by the Church before and after the fatal assembly, and this one, heroic, extremely humble act is that of bringing close to the supernatural fire of dogma the doctrines mentioned above that are disliked by the faithful on the traditionalist side, and the opposite ones: that which must burn will burn, that which must shine will shine. From now until 2015, we have three full years in front of us. They need to be used to the best advantage. Prayer and intelligence must be brought to maximum pressure: white-hot fire. Without tension, nothing is obtained, as in Laodicea.

This act that is being proposed here, the only one that could bring back into a single wax, as it should be, those two powerful souls that throb in the holy Church and in the same being, one recognizable in the men "especially faithful to what the Church is," the other in the men whose spirit is more bent to its future, and the act that, putting a decisive end to a rather uncharitable and insincere fifty-year situation, summarizes in a supernatural government the holy concepts of Tradition and audacity. In order to rebuild the Church and return to producing beauty, Vatican II must be read through the grid of Tradition, with the fiery audacity of dogma.

So all the traditionalists of the Church, to whatever order, level, and ideological segment they may belong, must come together in a single request, in a single project: to come to 2015 with the most broad, considered, delineated petition that this anniversary may be for the highest Throne the most proper occasion to restore the divine "munus docendi" in its fullness.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not quite sure I understand his proposal. Can anyone distill what he wishes the Holy Father to do?

Gratias said...

VaticanII was indeed a fatal assembly. It did not matter that it admittedly was not a pastoral council. The stench of the spirit of the sixties was too overpowering. All that pomp in St. Peter's just served to convince the bishops that this was something Holy. JP2 participated from the first day to the last, yet never rose to say: Stop! JP2 knew exactly what was intended, yet let the Bugnini liturgy designed by an accused Freemason (the most dedicated enemies of our Church) stand for most of these 50 years. It might still be possible to turn around what was in practice a protestantization of the true Church, but it would help greatly if Cardinals and Bishops came out of the closet and spoke about this great hoax. B16 probably cannot do it because he must use continuity to keep the Church together. Nevertheless, as you know here, Vatican II was a coup of the leftists to capture a 2000-year organization from within to destroy the City of God.

We must not allow them to succed. The antidote is clear to me: attend as many Latin masses as humanly possible.

hilaron said...

I thought this was a great text! A good proposal as well.

Anonymous (05:37): The proposal as I understand it is basically the same as bishop Schneider's. Make an infallible Syllabus of Errors and sift the wheat from the chaff of the teachings and pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council.

Ad maiorem Dei gloria!
David, Sweden

Crouchback said...

Isn't this bringing Vatican II to the fire of Dogma exactly what the talks with the SSPX are all about..??

The SSPX are questioning the "fluffy" bits of Vatican II...???

Surely when the talks are over and the SSPX is still seen to be forging ahead....then the Bishops of the world will have a template on how to build a successfull diocese ...??? in stead of the dogs dinner most of them have been sitting in these last 50 years.

I am not Spartacus said...

Fantastic !!!

But as to a new syllabus?

+++++++++ begin quote ++++++++

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), p. 391.

“...there must be no return to the syllabus...”

++++++ end quote +++++++++

Well, a lot of Ecclesiastical water has since gone under the bridges over The Tiber and we are saved by Hope (Romans 8:24)

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that no one has commented yet on this passage:

"All the neomodernist luminaries or simply innovators, call them what you will, who (as Professor Roberto de Mattei emphasizes in "Vatican Council II. A story never written") were active in the Church from the time of Pius XII – theologians, bishops, and cardinals of the "théologie nouvelle" like Bea, Câmara, Carlo Colombo, Congar, De Lubac, Döpfner, Frings with his peritus, Ratzinger; König with his, Küng; Garrone with his, Daniélou; Lercaro, Maximos IV, Montini, Suenens, and, almost a group of its own, the three leaders of what is called the school of Bologna: Dossetti, Alberigo, and today Melloni – in the undertaking of Vatican II, and afterward used every sort of expedient to ride roughshod over the rupture with the detested previous doctrines on the same subject, misapplying the uncontested solemnity of the extraordinary gathering; the result of which was that all of them in point of fact produced rupture and discontinuity while proclaiming in words steadfastness and continuity."

At least he does not hesitate to name the current Pope as partly responsible for this mess.

Anonymous said...

The liberal Cardinal Suenens praised the Council as the “French Revolution of the Church”.

Quick examples: In the realm of philosophy, Vatican II is the culmination of the movement of the anti-Thomist “New Theology” going on at least since the 1930s, and championed by liberal theologians such as Fathers Rahner, Chenu, Congar, Boulliard von Balthasar, de Lubac, and Ratzinger, all of whom (with the exception of van Balthasar and perhaps Boullliard) were the most influential periti at Vatican II.

The proponents of the “New Theology” held that modern philosophical methods more relevant to “modern man” should replace scholasticism/Thomism as the basis of theology. This is reflected in the deliberate absence of scholastic language in the documents of Vatican II, and in the disappearance of scholasticism/Thomism as the backbone of philosophical formation in Catholic seminaries and universities.

In the realm of doctrine, Cardinal Ratzinger’s praise of Vatican II as a “counter-syllabus [of Pius IX]” suffices for one of the various examples that could be cited. In the realm of morals, we saw the “equalization of the ends of marriage” that occurred in Paragraph 50 of Guadium et spes, a development lauded by the Protestant Observer Robert McAfee Brown. This part of Guadium et Spes gave the impression that the Church no longer teaches the begetting and education of children as the primary end of marriage. This illicit twist is one of the main factors that launched the so-called “birth-control” debate inside the Church, and opened the door for corrupt moral “theologians” – all who continued their careers as “priests in good standing” — to justify all sorts of immoral and deviant sexual behavior, and to teach this “new approach” to college students.

Shortly after the Council, the anti-Modernist Oath was abolished. Our Church leaders who understood the full nature of Vatican II and its consequences were obviously aware they could not keep to the Council’s new direction, and simultaneously fulfill their solemn Oath before God (in the Oath Against Modernism) to teach the faith “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as the Church has always held. Yet whether someone takes the Oath Against Modernism or not, Vatican Council I teaches infallibly the duty of the Catholic to hold to Catholic doctrine “in one and the same doctrine, one in the same sense, and one in the same judgment:” as the Church always taught throughout the centuries. (Dei Filius, Vatican I). It is the nature of objective truth itself.

Last but not least is the Council's failure to condemn international Communism. You would think that a Council which claims to be pastoral would neglect to raise concerns regarding the million who perished under that system. This in itself is sufficient to cast a shadow upon its entire procedings.

Anonymous said...

I read this yesterday and am glad to see it posted here so it can be discussed. Having read Iota Unum several times, I thought that the present article was great!

Gratias, why would JPII have risen to say "Stop!"? What you see is what he wanted, which is why we all waited in vain for almost twenty-seven long, long years for him to "do something". If the truth be known, if the Church wasn't a divine institution, She would be a lot worse today if the church that JPII wrote about and envisioned was made a reality.

The Latin Mass didn't save the Church from Vatican II; it won't "save" Her now.

Delphina

Dan said...

There is a time for simplicity and a time for more complex detail when discussing important ideas and both should at all times say the same thing. The author of this brilliant article has chosen the more "detailed" route of explaining these things, and rightly so.

All of his ideas have been expressed in simpler terms for years, and have been well understood, but it is good to have this thoroughly in-depth review of the situation. We need this thoroughness now more than ever. Thank you for publishing this.

Anonymous said...

Knock some sense into me if I'm being too optimistic, but between this and what Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote, there seems to be something stirring in the VII waters...

Delphina

Mary said...

Personally, I think we need to bring back the anathema.
I have started taking some theology courses and reading documents of earlier church councils left no question regarding what we (the faithful) were to believe of dissident opinions.

Brian said...

One can also maintain that this deplorable situation would constitute a sin of the magisterium, and a grave one, both against faith and against charity (p. 54): it does not seem, in fact, that we may disobey the commandment of the Lord to teach the nations (cf. Matthew 28:19-20) . . . This state of sin in which the holy Church would be plunged . . . should be lifted and even penitentially cleansed, since, as Cardinal José Rosalio Castillo Lara wrote to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1988, its current stubborn and culpable stance "would favor the deplorable tendency [. . .] toward an ambiguous government called 'pastoral', which at bottom is not pastoral, because it leads to overlooking the due exercise of authority to the detriment of the common good of the faithful" (pp. 67f).

Powerful words from Enrico Maria Radaelli

Alan Aversa said...

anonymous: Thank you for the excellent, concise summary of the Church's present crisis. You are spot-on at every point.

Regarding the "New Theology," this is an excellent article: Greenstock, David L., T.O.P., "Thomism and the New Theology," The Thomist, 13 (1950) p. 567.

Regarding Gaudium et Spes's equalizing of the primary and secondary ends of marriage, you forgot to mention that this been extremely influential for the present annulment crisis, the biggest scandal in the U.S. Catholic church: "The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually." (source; cf. What God Hath Joined Together)

Gratias: You are spot-on, too. It gives me so much hope that you all here recognize these things. John Vennari has been right: Vatican II was a failed council. Pope Leo XIII, too, was right about the Freemasons' Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. Although Delphina said that "The Latin Mass didn't save the Church from Vatican II; it won't 'save' Her now," I agree instead with you that all Catholics must "attend as many Latin masses as humanly possible." The change has to be grassroots. Pope Benedict XVI realizes his and others' mistakes during Vatican II. He is effectively publicly atoning for them with Summorum Pontificum and Universæ Ecclesiæ, is he not?

Anonymous said...

""All the neomodernist luminaries or simply innovators, call them what you will, who (as Professor Roberto de Mattei emphasizes in "Vatican Council II. A story never written") were active in the Church from the time of Pius XII – theologians, bishops, and cardinals of the "théologie nouvelle" like Bea, Câmara, Carlo Colombo, Congar, De Lubac, Döpfner, Frings with his peritus, Ratzinger; König with his, Küng; Garrone with his, Daniélou; Lercaro, Maximos IV, Montini, Suenens..."

Calling Patriach Maximos IV of blessed memory "neomodernist" is problematic, to say the least.

LeonG said...

To the modern post-conciliar catholic the magesterium means obey the pope & follow your conscience (dictates of your will) even though the two usually conflict. In the phenomenological mentality these two incompatibilities are reconcilable in the inner-consciousness regardless of sound Roman Catholic reason.

Lee Terry Lovelock-Jemmott said...

Patriarch Maximos IV was a very questionable and suspect Patriarch who seems to land all the 'blame' at Latinist feet and seems to think it opportune to question Latin practices concerning celibate priests because there was supposedly ' Our century suffers from a crisis of priestly vocations and the lack of missionaries, in particular in certain parts of the world, as in South America, Africa, and Asia . To remedy this state of things, would it not be opportune to restudy, in the light of the true interests of the Church and its expansion, especially in mission countries, the question of married priests?' Such thinking was entirely out of touch with what was happening on the ground at that time, The Lord's Church was growing and was doing quite fine until the neo-modernists and Nouvelle Theologie bunch got their chance to ruin Our Lord's creation through the non traditional and highly suspect Vatican II council.

Lee Terry Lovelock-Jemmott said...

Another thing is Patriarch Maximos was othing more than the ecunemist who so violates our church and water our doctrine. He confuses the celebration of liturgy with using the vernacular in Liturgy. When we preach, we do so in the vernacular (pentecost !) but when it comes to Sacred Liturgy, we must do so in languages which can convey sacred truths and which have the heritage to convey those sacred truths properly. Vernaculars just fall short even down to Modern Greek ! Thus the thinking of this Patriarch was not at all consonant with The Lord's Church and was entirely consonant with the Orientalist, sociologists and neo-modernists of that time.

Alan Aversa said...

The correct link in my post above is:

Greenstock, David L., T.O.P., "Thomism and the New Theology," The Thomist, 13 (1950) p. 567.

Also, there are some very good videos on Consecration Now! pertaining to these topics.

Anonymous said...

"When we preach, we do so in the vernacular (pentecost !) but when it comes to Sacred Liturgy, we must do so in languages which can convey sacred truths and which have the heritage to convey those sacred truths properly. Vernaculars just fall short even down to Modern Greek ! Thus the thinking of this Patriarch was not at all consonant with The Lord's Church and was entirely consonant with the Orientalist, sociologists and neo-modernists of that time."

Tell that to Saints Cyril and Methodius, who fought (and received Papal approbation) for the use of the vernacular Slavonic (yes, it WAS vernacular during their time) in the sacred rites, both Roman AND Byzantine. Tell that to Patriarch Cyril VI Tanas of Antioch who together with his entire Church, continued to use Arabic in the divine services even after entering into communion with the See of Peter. Tell that to the father hierarchs of the Romanian Church United with Rome, who kept using vernacular Romanian after entering into union. Are you going to call their way of thinking neo-modernist, too?

LeonG said...

One can understand why the post-conciliar pauline revolutionaries dislikied Professor Amerio enough to make his works forbiden reading. This is always a characteristic liberalist strategy - liberty of conscience for everyone, including heretics and schismatics, pagans and gnostics alike but not Roman Catholic Traditionalists.

LeonG said...

Professor Amerio should be mandatory reading for all NO catholics.

Anonymous said...

Leon G, I agree. I've read that book many times.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Anon 15:59 mentions that after the Council, the Oath Against Modernism was abolished. Dr. Raymond Marcin asserts that the Council Fathers violated their oaths during the proceedings and that this was the fatal flaw of the Council. http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-1015-moral-flaw-vatican-two.htm A Loyal Reader