Rorate Caeli

Petition to Pope Benedict XVI for a more in-depth examination of the Second Vatican Council

The following petition was initially published on the Italian blogosphere last month (see Riscossa Cristiana, Una Fides and Messa in Latino), and is signed by the theologians Msgr. Brunero Gherardini (a Canon of St. Peter's Basilica) and Msgr. Antonio Livi (Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Pontifical Lateran University from 2002 to 2008) as well as by Professor Roberto De Mattei and 46 other clerics and laymen, mostly professors and leaders associated with Traditional Catholicism in Italy. Thankfully DICI has now translated this into English:


Petition to Pope Benedict XVI for a more in-depth examination of the Second Vatican Council

To the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, that he might be willing to promote a more in-depth examination of the pastoral council, Vatican II.

Most Holy Father,

Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a priest of the Diocese of Prato and canon of Saint Peter’s Basilica, who is well known as a former professor of Ecclesiology at the Pontifical Lateran University and as dean of Italian theologians, wrote to Your Holiness in 2009 a very respectful and urgent petition calling for the commencement of a critical debate about the documents of Vatican II, a critical debate that would be conducted in a deliberate and public way. This step was seconded in 2010 by Roberto de Mattei, professor of Church History and the History of Christianity at the European University of Rome and vice president of the National Council of Research.

In his petition, Msgr. Gherardini wrote:

“For the good of the Church—and more especially to bring about the salvation of souls, which is her first and highest law (cf. the 1983 CIC, canon 1752)—after decades of liberal exegetical, theological, historiographical and “pastoral” creativity in the name of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, it seemed urgent to me that some clarity be created by answering authoritatively the question about the continuity of this council with the other councils (this time not simply by declaring it so but by proposing a genuine demonstration), the question about its fidelity to the Tradition of the Church.” …

Continue reading HERE.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please Most Holy Father!

Anonymous said...

Powerful. Would be stronger if the FSSP and all the idult traditional groups signed off too. Stronger still - add in the FSSPX and their ilk. Now were talking strength and unity. Maybe on the next one.

Catholic in name and deed.

Anonymous said...

Can someone from the P.I. please comment on the next Archbishop of Manila? Is he as hostile to tradition as he appears to be?

Anonymous said...

I have another suggestion: Let us have a petition that no changes be made to the 1962 Missal for a period of fifty years.

The reasoning here is simple: we are now recovering from the aftermath of a revolution. This would be the very worst time for change, given the liturgical chaos that still reigns. Who wants propers for the Feast of John Paul the Small? Not me.

This present Pope, as I've demonstrated directly a number of times here, loves significant dates; and he loves anniversaries. We have now discovered that there has existed since 2010 a commission charged with drafting changes to our beloved 1962 Missal. What is next year? It is the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of our Missal. I can already hear the echoes in my nightmares: turn to page 219 of the editio typica of the 2012 Missal.

There needs to be an on-line petition against this before it is sprung upon us. Once this is out of the genie's bottle, we shan't easily reverse the process; no, many of us will be scrambling to seek exemptions from it.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Does anyone here know the publication date of the 1962 Missal?

Anonymous said...

My Goodness¡¡, this is a nuclear bomb. I am afraid that BXVI will not answer this petition, or try to clarify the questions pointed out by the petitioners. My guess is that he shall stick to his hermeneutic of continuity with the proposition that the Council has to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, and so leave them as well as traditional Catholics in the stake.
C.M.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Vatican II, I just read a full length articile on the website "Whispers in the Loggia" regarding the new Archbishop of Manila.
He supposedly is a Vatican II supporter, aged 54, and if he got a glowing report on this radical liberal blog...this Arshbishop Tagle, 54, must not be very good at all.

Does anyone know anything different.
Does he support Catholic tradition.

From a first glance, doesn't sound good.

Gratias said...

Too many requests. VC2 should be interpreted in continuity with the Magisterium, said the Holy Father. Our part is to work within the Church for the Glory of God. If all these pronouncements are expected to be answered before one obediently joins the Catholic Church then there will be no reconciliation, and much discord among traditional Catholics.

Joe B said...

But this is exactly what the Vatican - SSPX discussions did on perhaps a lesser scale. This call for an even more public and in depth discussion of Vatican II with resolution bolsters SSPXs stance that they should be accepted without swallowing the council as it has thus far been implemented, or for that matter explained.

Whether such an examination - or is it inquisition - occurs or not, it is a very timely call for generosity in dealing with SSPX.

Amazing. Things are happening now that I thought would never happen short of some astounding public miracle spurring them on. We are seeing the turning of the tide, not all at once, but certainly the turning.

Thank you, Our Lady of Fatima, and thank you, SSPX and your Rosary Crusades.

Jack said...

I 'have seen similar ideas expressed from time to time, from a simple explication of disputed or misunderstood point from a dicastery of the Holy See to a Papal decree of a "Syllabus of errors regarding how V2 is to be understood and implemented."

Speaking as ordinary me, I think it's a good idea.

But whatever such a document may say, if it stops short of revoking the entire council and all actions persuant to it, will traditionalists accept it?

Most holy Theotokos, save us.

Anonymous said...

Nothing will change unless they explain word by word Vatican 2 in the light of the Tradition of the Catholic Church

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.: "I have another suggestion: Let us have a petition that no changes be made to the 1962 Missal for a period of fifty years."

Wishful thinking but not likely. No succeeding Pope is bound by procedural dictates of any of his predecessors. I agree entirely though about a hands-off policy towards the Tridentine Missal. If one really thinks about it, why should the 1962 Missal be on their radar scopes? Truth: jack the Tridentine Missal and all the arguements for and expressions of Sacred Tradition have just been eliminated. Game over! Why then all the angst over wanting the revising and/or changing of prefaces, etc., to the 1962 Missal yet any changes to the Novus Ordo Missal is so laboriously agonzing and committee-ridden? They fear updating the Novus Ordo Missal will try to push it closer to the 1962 one, and that would be so pulling the rug out from under the libs.

Catholic in name and deed: "Powerful. Would be stronger if the FSSP and all the idult traditional groups signed off too. Stronger still--add in the FSSPX and their ilk. Now were talking strength and unity. Maybe on the next one."

That was already in the Soeiety's talks with Rome just recently anyway. It's more than likely redundant and shallow to re-state that over again in a such petition.

RE Arshbishop Tagle: One really does have to meditate and pray why the Pope allowed this one through the cracks if in fact he is on the other side of the fence.

Joe B: "Amazing. Things are happening now that I thought would never happen short of some astounding public miracle spurring them on. We are seeing the turning of the tide, not all at once, but certainly the turning."

Yes, this is true. It is really amazing how much tonnage the Holy Father has moved in the few short years he has been on the Throne. Truly the Holy Spirit!

Prayerfully,

Matt

Anonymous said...

Hmm...for more in-depth examination of VCII, it appears there has to be a convocation of a doctrinal/dogmatic Vatican Council III.
Well, since it took a German (Martin Luther) to tear the Catholic faith apart, it's most apt to have a German who is the Vicar of Christ to restore all things to Christ, no?

Anonymous said...

Matt:

Of course popes are not bound by thier predecessors. But a decision to back away from a revision of 1962 would have a positive effect on future popes.

There was no revision in the Ordinary--not even in typeface or orthography--from 1637 to 1884. That's nearly 250 years. I'm asking for 50 after a revolution in the Church that nearly destroyed her and that continues to cause her decline.

P.K.T.P.

Ferraiuolo said...

Next rosary crusade, kill Vatican II

Picard said...

ok., here under this thread it is not off topic:

There is another very important pice that shows we are at a turning point:

Alcuin Reid suggested just now in an interview that the NOM were a rupture and NOT in continuity with the past /former liturgy!! And that this were a real problem...

see: German fsspx-site, citing/quoting the German Cath. Newspaper Die Tagespost:

http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/startseite/archiv-news/915-lichtblicke-in-der-krise/5961-liturgiewissenschaftler-bestaetigt-die-neue-messe-ist-ein-bruch

That´s really dynamite if you consider it carefully.

We are at a turning point!

Anonymous said...

The simple answer, is for more and more Faithful Catholics rather than agonize about Vatican II, but simply to ingnore most of Vatican II.

Now that Vatican II is not a "god" which is unquestionable, it is possible to criticize and even ignore the most objectionable elements. Which unfortunatly is most of it.

rodrigo said...

Everything points to THIS being genuine. While the original source may be distasteful, I think RORATE would be doing its readers a disservice in ignoring the matter. Coupled with Bp. Williamson's decision to write his latest Eleison Comments on the topic of Judaism and deicide, events suggest an imminent disciplining and/or rupture in the Society.

Pascal said...

Regarding Archbishop-elect Tagle:

On the positive side Msgr. Tagle was one of the very few Filipino bishops to give an indult for the Traditional Latin Mass prior to Summorum Pontificum.

His liturgical practices are no better and no worse than that of most Filipino bishops (which means: sloppy and very bad as far as music and vesture are concerned, but largely by the book as far as the spoken texts and gestures go). He frequently wears civilian clothing in public but in the Philippines this is not surprising, because even conservative priests and bishops there often don't wear clerical dress.

Theologically, he is definitely on the "rupturist" side. I base this judgment on a long lecture on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger that I personally heard him deliver. Msgr. Tagle is a master of theological diplomacy and is a charismatic speaker, but he is unmistakably "Bologna school" in his approach.

I'm not surprised by his appointment. The Philippines suffers from an acute lack of theologians, and bishops capable of communicating with the public. In addition to being one of the handful of Filipino theologians with an international reputation. Bishop Tagle is the only Filipino bishop with a television show and one of the handful with a proven capability for public speaking.

At the same time, Msgr. Tagle represents something that too many Traditionalists and conservatives like to think does not exist despite the overwhelming evidence of the Church's day-to-day life: the newer generation of seminarians, priests and bishops who are firmly Conciliar in their outlook and theology, having known nothing other than Vatican II and its liturgical and theological heritage. Tagle is not even the most liberal of the bishops appointed in the past 12 months: one only has to think of Fonlupt of Rodez.

The "traditionalist turn" that is led by a very few theologians and bishops and which exists in a handful of seminaries and dioceses in the US, Europe, England and continental Western Europe remains practically unknown in the rest of the Church, and its preponderance in the Catholic blogosphere should not be confused with the reality of ecclesiastical and parish life in the whole Roman Catholic Church.

There is a very long way to go, my friends.

-- Pascal
Writing from the Philippines

Pascal said...

"Everything points to THIS being genuine. While the original source may be distasteful, I think RORATE would be doing its readers a disservice in ignoring the matter. Coupled with Bp. Williamson's decision to write his latest Eleison Comments on the topic of Judaism and deicide, events suggest an imminent disciplining and/or rupture in the Society."

We're totally aware of this, and truth be told Rorate received a copy of the letter as well a about a day before "Maurice Pinay" published it.

But then, Rorate is not in the business of publishing unverified private correspondence.

All other comments regarding this topic will be deleted.

Henry said...

As a traditionally believing Catholic (rather than a traditionalist), I wonder whether such a massive study of Vatican II, as the petition calls for, would not reflect an unwarranted obsession with Vatican II and a form of unhealthy navel-gazing on the part of the Church.

Why not just realize that Vatican II was a product of its time--a time suspended between the destruction of world war and the societal chaos of the 1960s. An era totally different from the present one, with problems in the Church now that could never have been envisioned at the time of Vatican II. So why not just accept the obvious fact that the "pastoral solutions" of Vatican II have little or no application to the entirely different and then-unforeseen problems of today, and therefore let the Council and its documents fade away in the natural course of history?

Why spend the rest of our lives agonizing over how the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in continuity with tradition? If they can, so what? If they cannot, so what? What difference, either way, does it really make?

cyrillist said...

P.K.T.P.: "Let us have a petition that no changes be made to the 1962 Missal for a period of fifty years."

The 1962 Missal is the "system restore point" selected by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum. It must not be forgotten that SP was and remains an astonishing and unprecedented coup, even if the hopes it raised are nowhere close to being fulfilled. At the same time, the 1962 Missal should not be seen as an end-all be-all, since it still embodies much that is problematic, most notably Archbishop Bugnini's 1955 Holy Week revisions . For it to be accepted as a final goal would be too much of a concession, as those changes would thus be enshrined for perpetuity.

As for the new petition, it says all the right things in all the right ways, and if its challenge was actually accepted, it's hard to say how the application of its logic could be overcome by anything except the usual brute force. However, if the Vatican could disregard Msgr. Gherardini's petition of 2009, it can certainly disregard this one just as easily. It is to be hoped that its issuance may represent another good-sized rolling stone in what may eventually develop into an avalanche.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"Why spend the rest of our lives agonizing over how the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in continuity with tradition? If they can, so what? If they cannot, so what? What difference, either way, does it really make?"

The salvation of souls seems to be a good enough reason.

Anonymous said...

Joe B wrote:

"Amazing. Things are happening now that I thought would never happen short of some astounding public miracle spurring them on. We are seeing the turning of the tide, not all at once, but certainly the turning."

Joe, I feel exactly the same way. I never thought I would live to see the day.

Delphina

Irenaeus of New York said...

[---
I have another suggestion: Let us have a petition that no changes be made to the 1962 Missal for a period of fifty years.
---]


Be careful what you wish for.

1962 + 50 = 2012

Anonymous said...

Cruise, is it your job? When you die, is Our Lord going to ask you what you did about the documents of Vatican II?

When the lawyer asked Our Lord what he must be to gain salvation, what did He tell him?

If you do the same, you will save your soul as well - despite whether the documents of Vatican II get straightened out or not.

Tradical said...

Why spend the rest of our lives agonizing over how the documents of Vatican II ...
Henry said...15 October, 2011 13:50

Because some of the principles and ambiguities need to be clarified/correct as part of the 'clarification' of Church Teaching.

En autre mos: It is a point of being right or wrong and ensuring that the ambiguities of V2 cannot be reused or recycled.

Anonymous said...

Irenæus of New York:

Didn't you read my entire post? I pointed to this anniversary. That's my point. He'll do this evil deed in 2012. That 's why I want this:

2012 + 50 = 2062.


If we assume that that sciolist, Hans Kook, lives to be about 120 or so, he'll still be safely dead long before it's time to reform the 1962 Missal so that it is closer to the 1920 Missal.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

At this point, I have the following suggestions for the S.S.P.X, as Benedict XVI plans to wreckovate the 1962 Missal, having also forced the Anglican incomers inot the Novus Ordo fake liturgy:

1. Reject the Preamble.

2. Respond to this 'Reform of antiquity' by returning entirely to the 1920 editio typica, with the calendar altered to 1962. What we want now is a Mass text completely untouched by the vile hand of Annibale Bugnini, the Modernist Barbarian. That means nothing after 1948.

Anything touched by Bugnini is ritually impure. You need to wash your hands with lustral water after touching even the 1962 Missal.

It does not matter what the Preamble says or does not say. What matters is that this Pope plans to pollute our Mass by importing prefaces from the Novus Ordo. Bugnini, the mastermind of this banal on-the-spot composition, ended his days exiled in Iran for a reason.

P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

Msgr. Gherardini also said that portions of the documents of Vatican II are infused with Modernism.

That is stunningly striking and controversial. Essentially, portions of Vatican II contain error bordering on heresy.

For instance, in its declaration that non-catholic faiths may be salvific.

But, it's the first-ever pastoral council, therefore in conscience, it can be ignored, and, frankly, should be ignored.

One can therefore remain a good Catholic if, for instance, they ignore Vatican II decree on social communication.

Luther wrongly called James a "gospel of straw." But it would not be wrong to call Vatican II a "council of straw" because it said nothing and did nothing of significance. Though valid, it has not helped the Church. Rightly, it should be thus ignored as other unhelpful councils have been in Church history.

HSE said...

To prepare for the in-depth examination:

"Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing make you afraid.
All things are passing.
God alone never changes.
Patience gains all things.
If you have God you will want for nothing.
God alone suffices."
~The bookmark of Teresa of Avila

Anonymous said...

"...I have the following suggestions for the S.S.P.X, as Benedict XVI plans to wreckovate the 1962 Missal..."

His Holiness made it known in clear terms that changes to the TLM were on the way.

"...mutual enrichment..."

He made it clear that he would toss aside ancient prayers (for example, the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews).

Like it or not, the Novus Ordo will "enrich" the TLM.

Anonymous said...

GOD willing this is a sensible and admirable request. Simple lay folk need to know the truth behind the many falsehoods they have been told. in the name of the "Spirit" of Vat II has come widespread disorientation and often disgust. Why wouldn't the Pope do this as a service to all the millions of confused Catholics? He speaks of our loss of Faith and the diabolical events after the close of the Council due to misinterpretation, so why not an Apostolic Exhortation or Encyclical to set the record straight for all to see? What is he afraid of? Something of this sort, a response, would do more than anything else to correct people's thoughts. Seems like a no-brainer on this one. It is the Pope who opened up the subject in his address to the Cardinals in 2005, Christmas, so now would be the next logical step. For people to ask questions and then receive answers. It would be Cathecal material for future generations and square away the whole mess.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Apostolic Letter Porta Fidei issued "motu proprio" is Pope Benedict XVI's response to this.