Rorate Caeli

La trahison des clercs - Barsotti, Radaelli, and the "original sin" of the Council: a pastoral language born of the diabolical pride of clerics


It is not a matter that concerns the members of a specific priestly society, or even all traditional-minded Catholics - it is the main concern of the future of the Church. What does she want to be: the chosen people of God and sacred depositary of His treasures of salvation, to be transmitted to all the world as faithfully as her Lord first gave them to her, or something else? Outside her own structure that is her proper language - the words of the Word, via, veritas et vita  -, her message falls apart, as well as her purpose and her vitality. (Read also: Obedience and the Power of Modernists, by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.)

Fr. Divo Barsotti, a major Italian theologian of the 20th century and a friend of Paul VI, and Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli, the great disciple of Swiss Catholic thinker Romano Amerio - known to all Traditional Catholics by his popular work on the Council Iota Unum -, are the main voices of what can surely be considered the most relevant article by Sandro Magister in a long time.

In a new book sent to the printing press in recent days, Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli - philosopher, theologian, and beloved disciple of one of the greatest traditionalist Catholic thinkers of the twentieth century, the Swiss Romano Amerio (1905-1997) - cites three passages taken from the unpublished diaries of Fr. Divo Barsotti (1914-2006).
...

Fr. Barsotti wrote:

"I am perplexed with regard to the Council: the plethora of documents, their length, often their language, these frightened me. They are documents that bear witness to a purely human assurance more than two a simple firmness of faith. But above all I am outraged by the behavior of the theologians.”

"The Council is the supreme exercise of the magisterium, and is justified only by a supreme necessity. Could not the fearful gravity of the present situation of the Church stem precisely from the foolishness of having wanted to provoke and tempt the Lord? Was there the desire, perhaps, to constrain God to speak when there was not this supreme necessity? Is that the way it is? In order to justify a Council that presumed to renew all things, it had to be affirmed that everything was going poorly, something that is done constantly, if not by the episcopate then by the theologians.”

"Nothing seems to me more grave, contrary to the holiness of God, than the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical, that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”

...

In Radaelli's view, the current crisis of the Church is not the result of a mistaken application of the Council, but of an original sin committed by the Council itself.

This original sin is claimed to be the abandoning of dogmatic language - proper to all of the previous councils, with the affirmation of the truth and the condemnation of errors - and its replacement with a vague new “pastoral” language.

It must be said - and Radaelli points this out - that even the scholars of progressive orientation recognize in pastoral language a decisive and distinctive innovation of the last Council. This is what has been maintained recently, for example, by the Jesuit John O'Malley in his widely-read book "What Happened at Vatican II."

But while for O'Malley and the progressives the new language adopted by the Council is judged in an entirely positive light, for Radaelli, for Roberto de Mattei, and for other representatives of traditionalist thought - as for Romano Amerio before them - pastoral language is stigmatized as the root of all evil.

According to them, in fact, the Council presumed - wrongfully - that the obedience due to the dogmatic teaching of the Church also applied to pastoral language, thus elevating to unquestionable “superdogmas" affirmations and arguments devoid of a real dogmatic foundation, about which instead it is said to be legitimate and obligatory to advance criticisms and reservations.

From the two opposed languages, dogmatic and pastoral, Radaelli sees the emergence and separation "almost of two Churches.”

In the first, that of the most consistent traditionalists, he also includes the Lefebvrists, fully “Catholic by doctrine and by rite” and “obedient to dogma,” even if they are disobedient to the pope to the point of having been excommunicated for 25 years. It is the Church that, precisely because of its fidelity to dogma, “rejects Vatican II as an assembly in total rupture with Tradition.”

He assigns to the second Church all of the others, meaning almost all of the bishops, priests, and faithful, including the current pope. It is the Church that has renounced dogmatic language and “is in everything the daughter of Vatican II, proclaiming it - even from the highest throne, but without ever setting out proof of this - in total continuity with the preconciliar Church, albeit within the setting of a certain reform.”

How does Radaelli see the healing of this opposition? In his judgment, “it is not the model of Church obedient to dogma that must once again submit to the pope,” but “it is rather the model obedient to the pope that must once again submit to dogma.”

In other words:

"It is not Ecône [editor's note: the community of the Lefebvrists] that must submit to Rome, but Rome to Heaven: every difficulty between Ecône and Rome will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the dogmatic language that is proper to it.”

In order for this goal to be reached, Radaelli presupposes two things:

- that Rome would guarantee to the Lefebvrists the right to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments exclusively according to the rite of St. Pius V;

- and that the obedience required for Vatican II would be brought back within the limits of its “false-pastoral” language, and therefore be subject to criticisms and reservations.

But before this culmination - Radaelli adds - two other requests would have to be granted:

- the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors";

- The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in the light of Tradition.”

...
But even with the traditionalists who have remained in communion with the Church - from Radaelli to de Mattei to Gherardini - the rift is getting wider. They no longer conceal their disappointment with the pontificate of Benedict XVI, in which they had initially placed some hopes. In their judgment, only a decisive return of the magisterium of the pope and the bishops to dogmatic pronouncements can bring the Church back to the right path, with the resulting correction of all of the errors propagated by the pastoral language of the Council.

Errors that Radaelli lists on a page of his book as follows, calling them “real and proper heresies”:

“Ecclesiology, collegiality, single source of Revelation, ecumenism, syncretism, irenicism (especially toward Protestantism, Islamism, and Judaism), the modification of the 'doctrine of replacement' of the Synagogue with the Church into the 'doctrine of the two parallel salvations,' anthropocentrism, loss of the last things (and of both limbo and hell), of proper theodicy (leading to much atheism as a 'flight from a bad Father'), of the meaning of sin and grace, liturgical de-dogmatization, aniconology, subversion of religious freedom, in addition to the 'dislocation of the divine Monotriad' by which freedom dethrones the truth.”

Radaelli concludes his book with an appeal to “lay down weapons” addressed both to the “innovating brethren” and to the “traditionalist brethren” (as he prefers to call them, instead of “traditionalists”). ...

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Finally! Finally! Finally! Someone has the courage to say it like needs to be said. These are very joyful tidings!

rjh

a penitent said...

Fr. Barsotti was called before the Divine Judge in 2006 and his private thoughts revealed and reviewed before The Supreme Head of the Catholic Church - Our Lord Jesus Christ.

What was Our Divine Judges' reward or punitive rebuke for Fr. Barsotti's thoughts privately transcribed into his diary which we are now reading 7 years later:

"Nothing seems to me more grave, contrary to the holiness of God, than the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical, that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”

Divine Providence has allowed these words to be revealed. . .May our reflections on them be pleasing to Our Divine Judge - Christ Our King. We should each hear the echo of Fr. Barsotti's concern that no steps of renewal should be considered "without the effort. . .[toward our own]holiness"[first].

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Whenever I hear the word "pastoral," I reach for my revolver...

Jim Paton said...

No offence Fr. But Sede revolvers fire blanks...

Gratias said...

VC2 did happen and will not go away. Our Pope is the best thing traditional Catholics could have hoped for. May Benedict live a long life. We have to move beyond the Council and do what we can for the propagation of the Faith with the laws we were given: Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

A few good bishops can make a huge difference, but unfortunately we cannot influence these appointments. Teaching the TLM in Seminaries would be a place to start. And no more councils for 100 years, please. The timing of VC2 could not have been much worse, except for the present era perhaps.

Rick DeLano said...

As others have noted above, it is incredibly consoling to read these words, and to know that their are voices in the Church now ready to utter them, and to stand behind them.

May God bless Fr. Barsotti and the Holy Catholic Church!

Peter A. said...

Thank you Fr. Cekada for your comment.

Adfero said...

I reach for my AR-15!

Common Sense said...

Well, well, well. We've always been arguing our point how the mysterium iniquitatis propelled by revolution manifest itself. Even the Satanists are running out of ideas on how to fool and deceive others. It is an excellent article. Finally the truth surfaces. Well, it's up to every Tom, Dick and Harry to open their eyes, admit the facts and not clog up this forum with nonesense. By every passing day, life evolves into a living nightmare. With their demonic impudence and folly (which is the modernists' modus operandi), they would like to drag us into unspeakable tyranny and actual total extinction so that no one can reproach their consciences anymore. I love it, Rorate Caeli. Let the mother of all debates get under way.

Inquisitor said...

No offence Fr. But Sede revolvers fire blanks...

Dear Mr. Jim Paton,

The truth is never a blank, even if it is fired by a sede-vacantist, because the truth comes from God.

Being wrong about one point of doctrine does not necessarily make a person wrong about every point. Besides, your post does not disprove what Fr. Cekada said in his post.

Best Regards.

A Mom said...

Thank you so much for posting this.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

Jim Paton said...
No offence Fr. But Sede revolvers fire blanks...


,,, but only where we're forbidden to use live ammo!

Kidding aside, I find these comments about Vatican II absolutely astounding, coming as they do from "mainstream" sources — talk of an "original sin committed by the Council itself," a "separation of almost two churches," "Rome" must "submit.. to heaven," "errors propagated by the pastoral language of the Council," etc.

It is the language of rupture and defection — the same starting point that set many Catholics on the road to sedevacantism. I doubt that Radaelli will end up there, but it is striking to see him denounce the once sacrosanct "new springtime" as the cause of all our ills. Bravo to that!

iowapapist said...

Forgive my lack of charity, but I must laude Jim Patton's retort. It may be offensive, but, somehow, it is extremely funny.

StevieD said...

I am so grateful that the smoke seems to be clearing a little and we now understand a little, at least of, what happened.

Long-Skirts said...

Fr. Divo Barsotti wote:

"It is not Ecône [editor's note: the community of the Lefebvrists] that must submit to Rome, but Rome to Heaven: every difficulty between Ecône and Rome will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the dogmatic language that is proper to it.”

"So let it be written; so let it be done"!

j hughes dunphy said...

Please pray for a return to a sense of sin, not only amongst the laity, but especially amongst the clergy, in particular the bishops, the pope, and the presbyters. The only fail-safe way to do this is the following: As the Mass itself has always been clearly a sin sacrifice theologically and liturgically from the Upper Room to VatII, this holy Tradition must be renewed. Now only the Tridentine,not the current translation or manipulations of the Novus Ordo, can ever come up to this expectation unless it be a word for word translation from the perennial Latin Mass of the Ages.
When this is done from Pope Benedict XVI on down consistently to the priests in your local parish, then can there ever be
the sought after kind of holiness of worship in the Church again that preserved the Catholic faith for centuries and will continue to do so hereafter!
Deo Gratias,
J Hughes Dunphy

Matt said...

This is just one more affirmation of what we've already known. It's the details though which gives one pause.

Maranatha said...

Roberto de Mattei's book about the council is now available in English.

Pardon the pun said...

"It is not Ecône [editor's note: the community of the Lefebvrists] that must submit to Rome, but Rome to Heaven: every difficulty between Ecône and Rome will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the dogmatic language that is proper to it.”

Indeed! There is not an iota of room for speculation otherwise.

Whats Up! said...

I am so glad and relieved this truth as been publically and clearly uttered!

Let us pray that the Church, with Almighty Gods good guidance can move past the "pride and errors" of the Council and bring our Church back to strength.

Woody said...

Reading Prof. De Mattei's book very much reinforces the learning of this article, and it is most highly recommended. I am just at the point of the start of the council but already he has covered the survival of modernism as a hidden stream during the twenties, thirties and forties, e.g. Chenu, De Lubac, Danielou, Balthasar, et al. The liturgical movement, the work of Augustin Bea, who could be a real eminence grise of the modernist side before and at the council, and then other things: the deaths of Cardinals Tardini and Ruffini right before the council, removing two of the stalwarts of the Roman School, which along with other such events make it seem very much as if the Good Lord was permitting this trial to come about, as indeed a Passion of the Church. So, as Fr. Christopher Henderson, CPM, says in his last conference in the 2009 Lenten Mission on this subject, referring to Fatima, "only she can he'p us now." See the Lenten Mission series at www.audiosancto.org.

KK said...

This reminds me of an old friend's essay written in 1990 for The Remnant back in our youth (or "blue collar" days). Surely much simpler but still the same sentiments:

Blue-Collar Catholics were left in the lurch by the Second Vatican Council reformation. The Council was an affair of and for the Catholic intelligentsia, that is the episcopate and the theologate, who sought to develop a Christian-humanism in response to the academic challenges of a hostile secular intelligentsia. In doing so this Catholic elite flagrantly disregarded the sensibilities of the ordinary Catholic faithful, and foolishly, if not insidiously, afforded the secular rapacious access to the sacred.

Entire essay here: http://dilsaver.org/10.html

Wesley Winfield said...

"...the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors";

AMEN TO THAT!!!


Woody said...

Roger Scruton is generally considered to be the premier conservative thinker writing in English today. I have the honor to be his acquaintance and can attest to his erudition, concern for the Permanent Things, and his gentility. Not to mention that he has suffered greatly for his adherence to true conservative principles in an England which is now far gone. Thus, this statement, at the end of the English language translation of his introduction to Sr. Radaelli's new book, bears great weight:"This book should be read by all who have the teaching of the Christian faith as their concern. They will be surprised by it, but only because simple truths have now become surprising." Let us hope that the book is translated into English very, very soon. Perhaps by Mr. Miller and his team who did the translation for Prof. de Mattei's book.

Roger Scruton

LeonG said...

Amerio and Radaelli have given me immense insights into my own accusations of a new church which is founded on a new paradigm most definitively not Catholic. Indeed, this is not only a disappointing papacy but a highly misleading one of which the very mixed messages can scarcely conceal the rampant liberal modernistic tendancy a la Teilhard and most certainly protestant in its undercurrent.

Those who have all along defended its liturgiical praxis as catholic need to look again with their eyes truly open. The NO liturgical basis is at the very epicentre of this non-Catholic language. It is this Archbishop Lefebvre called "poison" with a "spirit of protestantism". Cardinal Ottaviani himself called it a radical departure from the Latin Mass.

With foundations such as these we can well understnad why the shifting sands of modernism have reduced the modern church to a state of pastoral chaos and systemic liturgical abuse astride ecumenical and interconfessional radicalism.

Indeed, heresy abounds - let us call a spade what it really is please.

LeonG said...

Jim Patton

Sede revolvers do not always fire blanks, as you put it, whether one is sedvacantist or not. In the current climate I can well-appreciate why Fr Cekada and others have become like this. You do not even necessarily need to be a Roman Catholic to understand the nature of the current tragedy - thus, even non-Catholic musicians, writers and other noted professionals petitoned Pope Paul VI not to abolish The Latin Mass.

John McFarland said...

Recall the fate of Sr. Rafaella's mentor Amerio Romano's Iota Unum: the complete silent treatment.

Recall also who translated it into English, and has kept it in print all these years? The Society of St. Pius X.

To my great joy (with God's grace, Iota Unum made a traditionalist out of me), things have now reached the point where Sr. Rafaella has put himself forward as a paladin of the traditional restoration and the Society's implicit ally.

Will other good standing traditionalists begin to join the coalition?

And how will the conservative conciliarists like ++DiNoia and Fr. Cavalcoli react? And what will be the counter-reaction of what might be called good standing traditionalists to the conservative conciliarist reaction?

I take it for granted that Sr. Rafaella is not so naive as to think that the return of theologians to dogmatic language (a diplomatic way of saying, to dogma, and hence to tradition) is something that theologians can accomplish sua sponte.

It was not sua sponte that Bea et al. went and asked the Jews and the Masons and the Orthodox and the Communists what they wanted from the Church. It was not sua sponte that the neo-modernists attained membership on the pre-conciliar commission, or the presidency of the Council.

Nor will it be sua sponte that the SSPX and its explicit and implicit allies will purge the Church of the bitter fruits of those actions and their playing out during and after the Council.

P.S. May I suggest that those who want to educate themselves on all this betake themselves to sspx.org, back numbers of the Angelus on angelusonline.org, and the Angelus Press backlist. Sr. Rafaella and the more learned good standing traditionalists has advised us that they know quite a bit about the progressivist wheel. Others have more recently rediscovered that wheel. The SSPX has been running a continuing education course on the wheel for years. Rediscovery is not necessary.

Tom said...

Part 1 of 2 (Rorate permitting)

Whats Up! said..."I am so glad and relieved this truth as been publically and clearly uttered!

"Let us pray that the Church, with Almighty Gods good guidance can move past the "pride and errors" of the Council and bring our Church back to strength."

The Church could be brought back to strength if only Her children obeyed The Apostolic See and, for example Vatican II.

Examples:

Vatican II teaches that the Catholic Church is the one and only True Church of Jesus Christ.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO: "Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.

"In order to establish this His holy Church everywhere in the world till the end of time, Christ entrusted to the College of the Twelve the task of teaching, ruling and sanctifying...He selected Peter...on him He would build His Church.

"Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven...the Church, then, is God's only flock; it is like a standard lifted high for the nations to see it."

In his 1995 Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, Pope Venerable John Paul II referenced Vatican II when he declared the following:

"Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity" and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good."

The Pope continued with the following:

"The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is — in God's plan — an essential requisite of full and visible communion."

On and on, The Apostolic See and Vatican II have upheld Church teachings.

Vatican II demands the retention of Latin during Mass and upholds Gregorian chant's previliged status in regard to liturgical music.

Catholic are exhorted to embrace popular devotions, indulgences and Marian piety.

Vatican II condemns artificial birth control, abortion and evil entertainment.

Vatican II exhorts the world to embrace holiness.

To claim otherwise in regard to all of the above is absurd.

Tom

Tom said...

Part 2 of 2

Vatican II commands that the Faithful must be led to sing or say the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass that pertain to them.

The Apostolic See, in accord with the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, teaches that "the Church is the new people of God." (Nostra Aetate 4.)

The same applies to the teaching, which the Church proclaims "and ever must proclaim Christ 'the way, the truth, and the life', in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(Nostra Aetate 2.)

If one wishes to argue, for example, that the Traditional Roman Mass is, as compared to the Novus Ordo, more powerful in its ability to instill Catholic identity into the Faithful...fine.

I agree with that. To claim that Vatican II is weak/ambigious in regard to certain passages...fine.

We know that is reality. That is why, as we all agree, that Vatican II must be viewed via the light of Holy Tradition.

We agree that Pope Benedict XVI would do well to heed Bishop Athanasius Schneider's call for "the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors".

Yes, it's time for all of the above. It is right, proper and necessary to examine and criticize respectfully Vatican II.

But it is false, utterly and demonstrably, to claim as do certain folks that Vatican II created a "new Church" and said "new Church" marks The Apostlic See. Said folks are wrong.

Finally, the end to the crisis of faith will begin to ease when the Latin Church returns primarily to the Traditional Roman Mass. But that isn't the be all and end all to Holy Mother Church's difficulties. The TLM and beautiful Divine Liturgies were in place for centuries as grave errors, schisms, heresies and the falling away of countless Catholics assaulted Holy Mother Church.

Regardless as to the Latin Church's primary Mass, a Catholic — priest, religious, laymen — who wishes to disobey Jesus Christ will do so.

Tom

NIANTIC said...

Excellent and beautiful article. I just finished reading Roberto de Mattei's "The second Vatican Council (the unwritten story)". I highly recommend this book to all!
My take on this Council is very chilling in one way. I do not for one moment believe that this Council was either inspired or guided by The Holy Spirit. A minority of Modernists, highly organized, basically rammed through the humanist and ecumenical positions developed already for decades prior to this Council. The majority of the "yea" votes I ascribe to the "go along to get along" crowd of prelates. A good number of these Modernists were put in positions of influence by Pope Paul Vl after the Council and they used the ambiguities of the texts to implement the "spirit of Vll". Example; the NewMass fabricated to please the Protestants in the hope that they would join and unite into a brave new world church, but not God.
So there is no pure continuity and adherence to Tradition. There is pure "pastoral" confusion and diversion into la la land outer space. There is in the documents plenty of"on the one hand" and "but on the other hand". You can read and interpret according to your preferences.

Again; by their fruits you will know them. Truer words were never spoken especially as to this "mother council of all councils".

Bottom line to me: It was a disaster and I am afraid also an insult to God. Puny and arrogant men decided to act as gods and what horrible legacy they have left us.

Pray for a Pontiff who will undo the damage and restore all things to Christ!

Common Sense said...

Did you start singing your own song again, Tom? It looks like you refuse to learn. I would like to think that you're not trolling.

Gil said...

"On and on, The Apostolic See and Vatican II have upheld Church teachings. Vatican II demands the retention of Latin during Mass and upholds Gregorian chant's previliged status in regard to liturgical music.

Catholic are exhorted to embrace popular devotions, indulgences and Marian piety. Vatican II condemns artificial birth control, abortion and evil entertainment.

Vatican II exhorts the world to embrace holiness. To claim otherwise in regard to all of the above is absurd."

That's all true, Tom. But why aren't we living it at most of our parishes? What happened to us after Vatican II? The council says it black and white and we can all read it. But it's not being lived in most places. Never, never any latin and chant in my parish. That's for sure.

kend said...

Tom, you said that:
"Vatican II demands the retention of Latin during Mass and upholds Gregorian chant's previliged [sic] status in regard to liturgical music."

while its true that is what the VII document says, why is it there is neither any Latin in any Novus Ordo Mass, nor anything even resembling Gregorian Chant?

Tom said...

Common Sense said..."Did you start singing your own song again, Tom? It looks like you refuse to learn. I would like to think that you're not trolling."

I would like to think that you're not trolling. Did you start singing your own song again?

I am an orthodox Catholic who favors the Traditional Roman Mass, Holy Tradition and lives in 100 percent peace and and docility with The Apostolic See.

Does that apply to you? I would like to think that you are not a troll who attempts to attack Catholic Traditionalists who live in peace with The Apostolic See.

Vatican II teaches that the Catholic Church is the New Israel. Vatican II teaches that Catholics are the "new people of God." (Nostra Aetate)

Vatican II teaches that the New Israel, the new People of God are, by Jesus Christ's authority, taught, ruled and sanctified by the Roman Pontiff.

Therefore, I march in lockstep with Pope Benedict XVI's/The Apostolic See's holy teachings.

Does that apply to you? I would like to think that you are not a troll who attempts to spread dissension against orthodox Catholics who favor the Traditional Roman Mass and march in lockstep with Pope Benedict XVI's/The Apostolic See's holy teachings.

The bottom line is as follows: I do not march in lockstep with you or anybody who may promote teachings that differ from that which The Apostolic See holds.

I do not march in lockstep with anybody who teaches a faith that differs from the True Faith as taught by Pope Benedict XVI.

If that bothers you, then you will simply have to deal with that.

Jesus Christ established His Holy Catholic Church. He established Rome as His Church's Apostolic See.

Jesus Christ established the Bishop of Rome as His Vicar who teaches, governs and sanctifies the New Israel and New People of God.

That is what I believe. How about you?

Pope Benedict XVI and nobody else...not a society of priests, the guy down the street or a professor...teaches, governs and sanctifies the new People of God.

I would like to think that you are not a troll who attacks the above.

Tom

Tom said...

Tom, said..."Vatican II demands the retention of Latin during Mass and upholds Gregorian chant's previliged [sic] status in regard to liturgical music."

kend replied..."while its true that is what the VII document says, why is it there is neither any Latin in any Novus Ordo Mass, nor anything even resembling Gregorian Chant?"

Kend, my point is that certain folks claim that Vatican II teaches a different Faith or failed to uphold the True Faith.

They place blame for the collapse of the Church upon Vatican II.

My point, and it's impossible to deny, is that time and again Vatican II promotes the Faith.

Examples:

Vatican II teaches that the Faithful must be led to sing or say in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass that pertain to the Faithful.

Vatican II teaches that Gregorian chant enjoys first-place status in regard to liturgical music during Mass.

Kend, why are those teachings not upheld? Simple disobedience to Vatican II's teachings is the answer.

The same reason as to why Vatican II's condemnations of artificial birth control and abortion are rejected widely throughout the Church.

The point is that anybody who bashes and trashes Vatican II as a whole in that said Council created a new Church and Faith are 100 percent incorrect.

Are certain parts of Vatican II optimistic (The Church in the Modern World) overly so? Yes.

Are certain Vatican II texts ambigious? Yes.

That is one reason as to why embrace Bishop Athanasius Schneider's call for "the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors".

Vatican II is neither the "super council" as certain folks have claimed nor the instigator of a "new Church" as other folks have claimed.

Tom

Tom said...

Tom said..."On and on, The Apostolic See and Vatican II have upheld Church teachings. Vatican II demands the retention of Latin during Mass and upholds Gregorian chant's previliged status in regard to liturgical music.

"Catholic are exhorted to embrace popular devotions, indulgences and Marian piety. Vatican II condemns artificial birth control, abortion and evil entertainment.

"Vatican II exhorts the world to embrace holiness. To claim otherwise in regard to all of the above is absurd."
-------------

Gil said..."That's all true, Tom. But why aren't we living it at most of our parishes? What happened to us after Vatican II? The council says it black and white and we can all read it.

"But it's not being lived in most places. Never, never any latin and chant in my parish. That's for sure."

Again, Gil, that is the result of disobedience to that which is taught by Vatican II.

Incredibly, certain folks blame Vatican II for the virtual disappearance from our parishes of Latin, Gergorian chant, resistance to evil forms of entertainment, popular devotions, Marian piety and resistance to artificial birth control and abortion.

Vatican II ehorts Catholics to retain Latin and Gregorian chant and resist artificial birth control and abortion.

Vatican II exhorts Catholics to embrace Our Ever-Virgin Mother of God. Vatican II exhorts us to embrace popular devotions, resist evil forms of entertainment and to cultivate a strong sense of holiness.

But certain folks pretend that Vatican II did not exhort such things.

Vatican II texts teach holy things to holy people. But Vatican II did implement itself.

Ask your bishop and pastor as to why they refuse to uphold, for example, Vatican II teachings in regard to Latin (and Gregorian chant).

Tom

Tom said...

Tom said..."On and on, The Apostolic See and Vatican II have upheld Church teachings. Vatican II demands the retention of Latin during Mass and upholds Gregorian chant's previliged status in regard to liturgical music.

"Catholic are exhorted to embrace popular devotions, indulgences and Marian piety. Vatican II condemns artificial birth control, abortion and evil entertainment.

"Vatican II exhorts the world to embrace holiness. To claim otherwise in regard to all of the above is absurd."
-------------

Gil said..."That's all true, Tom. But why aren't we living it at most of our parishes? What happened to us after Vatican II? The council says it black and white and we can all read it.

"But it's not being lived in most places. Never, never any latin and chant in my parish. That's for sure."

Again, Gil, that is the result of disobedience to that which is taught by Vatican II.

Incredibly, certain folks blame Vatican II for the virtual disappearance from our parishes of Latin, Gergorian chant, resistance to evil forms of entertainment, popular devotions, Marian piety and resistance to artificial birth control and abortion.

Vatican II ehorts Catholics to retain Latin and Gregorian chant and resist artificial birth control and abortion.

Vatican II exhorts Catholics to embrace Our Ever-Virgin Mother of God. Vatican II exhorts us to embrace popular devotions, resist evil forms of entertainment and to cultivate a strong sense of holiness.

But certain folks pretend that Vatican II did not exhort such things.

Vatican II texts teach holy things to holy people. But Vatican II did implement itself.

Ask your bishop and pastor as to why they refuse to uphold, for example, Vatican II teachings in regard to Latin (and Gregorian chant).

Tom

Common Sense said...

He who doesn't march with St Pius X and Ven. Pius XII doesn't march with the truth of Christ and doesn't march with the Catholic Church, Tom. It's quite possible that you attempt to be a good Catholic, but your march by your own admission follows the footsteps of our Holy Father Benedict XVI, and that is a march of revolution. We follow St. Thomas Aquinas - what about you? We are not interested in pious sentiments and sophistry but the peace of Christ in the reign of Christ.

Due to the revolution, the Church not only lost, almost completely, any influence in social, political, economic and military life, but also the last vestiges of any sound reasoning. We Catholics, under the reign of the last few Popes, have been reduced to the beggar's pouch, and worse is coming. Is that what you want? There is no guarantee whatsoever that the Holy Father and whatever following he has is still under the shade of a green branch of an otherwise dead tree.

My intention is to look from the perspective of the timeless teachings of the Church, and not from the perspective of Rahner, Conger and other illuminaries.

Understood said...

Tom, you love the Hippie Council. We get it. Please, enough already.

Gratias said...

If not a troll, perhaps Tom is a Community Organizer.

Benedict Carter said...

NC - have managed to beat internet censorship in my current country of residence with a VPN. Not sure how long it will work, so will comment quickly!

TOM - "I do not march in lockstep with anybody who teaches a faith that differs from the True Faith as taught by Pope Benedict XVI."

Sorry, that should, but doesn't work.

The True Faith taught by Benedict XVI includes his fond belief, echoing a German protestant (!) that St. John didn't write St. John's Gospel.

Do you hold to that view as well?

Luciana Cuppo said...

To Benedict Carter at 8:17:

Pope Benedict XVI does not think that Saint Peter wrote his First Letter, either - or at least not all by himself. He said so in his Address to the Roman seminarians, thread "Petrus Apostolus" on this blog.

Concerning Radaelli's new book: Yes, an English translation is a desideratum. Meanwhile, the original English Preface by Roger Scruton is online at:
www.enricomariaradaelli.it/aureadomus/convivium/convivium_domani_roger_scruton.html
An English translation of the comment to Radaelli's book by Brunero Gherardini is online at:
www.centreleonardboyle.com/Radaelli.html

Cheers, Luciana Cuppo

John McFarland said...

Tom,

Saturday was in feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the light of the Council of Ephesus.

The account of St. Cyril's life in Gueranger's The Liturgical Year recalls Christmas Day 428, when which Nestorius as Bishop of Constantinople pronounced from the pulpit his infamous denial of the Blessed Mother's divine maternity.

The account thus continues:

"The multitude shuddered with horror. Eusebius, a simple layman, rose to give expression to the general indignation, and protested against this impiety."

We simple layman who know the faith can also recognize that which contradicts the faith.

It is better when we have the learned to help us.

But if we do not, we cannot let theological fast shuffles deprive us of our faith.

Tom said...

Gratias said..."If not a troll, perhaps Tom is a Community Organizer."

I am not that talented and capable. I am simply a very unimportant man who loves Holy Mother Church, the Traditional Roman Mass, Holy Tradition and has great love and respect for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Despite that, I must identify myself, unfortunately, as a sinner. Please pray for me. Thank you.

Peace and good health to you and your family.

Tom

Tom said...

John McFarland said..."Tom, We simple layman who know the faith can also recognize that which contradicts the faith. It is better when we have the learned to help us. But if we do not, we cannot let theological fast shuffles deprive us of our faith."

Mister John McFarland, I agree most certainly that simple laymen who know the Faith also are aware of that which contradicts the Faith.

That is why I resist anybody, or, at least statements, that are contrary to the Faith as held and promoted by the Apostolic See.

For example, I refuse to accept the declaration that the Novus Ordo is "evil". The same applies to the declaration that Vatican II contained errors.

Those declarations are contrary to the Faith of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. As a simple laymen, I recognize that.

However, I am within my rights as a Catholic to believe that as compared to the Novus Ordo, the Traditional Roman Mass is more powerful and in expressing the Faith.

The Traditional Roman Mass is more powerful in instilling Catholic identity into the Faithful.

I recognize that certain parts of Vatican II are weak, ambigious and overly optimistic. We certainly have the right to criticize Vatican II respectfully.

I recognize that such novelties as Communion in the hand, EMs, altar girls and the manner in which ecumenism has often been practiced have weakened the Church.

I do not, however, march in lockstep with certain Catholics, priests or otherwise, who promote teachings that the Apostolic See has rejected.

Pax.

Tom

Common Everyday Catholic said...

Tom, the contrast in rites has less to do with expression of the Faith than it does SATISFACTION for sin. The Novus Ordo service is a rejection of all things Catholic. No invocation of saints, no acknowledgement of great unworthiness, no beseeching of God's mercy, no Oblation, no NOTHING that is even remotely akin to the Mass of the Apostles according to Jesus Christ.