Roberto de
Mattei
Corrispondenza
Romana
August 2, 2017
Rorate Caeli,
Corrispondenza Romana and other Catholic
news-outlets, carried a valuable intervention by Monsignor Athanasius Schneider
on the “Interpretation of the Second
Vatican Council and its relationship with the current crisis in the Church”.
According to the auxiliary Bishop of Astana, Vatican II was a pastoral Council
and its texts should be read and judged in the light of the perennial teaching
of the Church. In fact “From an objective point of
view, the statements of the Magisterium (Popes and councils) of definitive
character, have more value and more weight compared with the statements of
pastoral character, which have naturally a changeable and temporary quality
depending on historical circumstances or responding to pastoral situations of a
certain period of time, as it is the case with the major part of the statements
of Vatican II.”
Monsignor Schneider’s article was followed on July 31st by a balanced
comment from Don Angel Citati of the FSSPX (http://www.sanpiox.it/attualita/1991-suaviter-in-modo-fortiter-in-re), according to
which the German Bishop’s position recalls very closely what was repeated
constantly by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre: “To
say that we evaluate the Council’s
documents “in the light of Tradition”, means, evidently, three indissoluble
things: that we accept those that are in keeping with Tradition; that we
interpret those that are ambiguous according to Tradition; that we reject those
that are contrary to Tradition” ( (Mons. M. Lefebvre, Vi trasmetto quello che ho ricevuto. Tradizione perenne e futuro della
Chiesa, [I transmit what
I have received. Perennial
Tradition and the future of the Church] by Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario
Palmaro, Sugarco Edizioni, Milano 2010, p. 91). Having been published on
the official site of the Italian District, Don Citati’s article helps us
understand what might be the base of an agreement to regularize the canonical
situation of the Fraternity of Pius X.
It must be added that, on the theological
level, all of the distinctions can and have to be made to interpret the texts
of Vatican II, which was a legitimate Council: the twenty-first in the Catholic
Church. Its documents from time to time may be defined pastoral or dogmatic, provisional
or definitive, in keeping or not in keeping with Tradition. Monsignor Brunero
Gheradini, in his recent works offers us an example of how a theological
judgment may be articulated, if it wants to be precise (Il
Concilio Vaticano II un discorso da fare, Casa Mariana, Frigento 2009 e Id., Un Concilio
mancato, Lindau, Torino 2011). Each text, for a theologian, has a different
quality and a different degree of authority and cogency. Hence the debate is open.
On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable
block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins,
its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in
mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church,
initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and
comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only
unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church.
Since this year is the centenary of the Apparitions of Fatima, let us consider this point only. When Vatican II opened in October 1962, Catholics from all over the world were waiting for the disclosing of the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary. John Haffert’s Blue Army led a mass campaign for years in this regard. What better occasion for John XXIII ( died 3rd June 1963), Paul VI and with circa 3000 bishops gathered around them, in the very heart of Christendom, to meet Our Lady’s requests in a solemn and unanimous way? On February 3rd 1964, Monsignor Geraldo de Proença Sigaud, personally delivered to Paul VI, a petition signed by 510 prelates from 78 countries, which implored the Pontiff, in union with all the bishops, to consecrate the world and in an explicit manner, Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Pope and most of the Council Fathers ignored the appeal.
Since this year is the centenary of the Apparitions of Fatima, let us consider this point only. When Vatican II opened in October 1962, Catholics from all over the world were waiting for the disclosing of the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary. John Haffert’s Blue Army led a mass campaign for years in this regard. What better occasion for John XXIII ( died 3rd June 1963), Paul VI and with circa 3000 bishops gathered around them, in the very heart of Christendom, to meet Our Lady’s requests in a solemn and unanimous way? On February 3rd 1964, Monsignor Geraldo de Proença Sigaud, personally delivered to Paul VI, a petition signed by 510 prelates from 78 countries, which implored the Pontiff, in union with all the bishops, to consecrate the world and in an explicit manner, Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Pope and most of the Council Fathers ignored the appeal.
If the Consecration request had been done, great graces would have poured down
on humanity. A movement of a return to the natural and Christian law would have
begun. Communism would have fallen many years earlier, in an non-fictitious
way, but authentic and real. Russia would have converted and the world would
have experienced an age of peace and order. Our Lady had promised this.
The failed consecration allowed Russia to continue spreading its errors
throughout the world and these errors conquered the highest ranks of the
Church, inviting a terrible chastisement for all of humanity. Paul VI and the
majority of the Council Fathers assumed a historical responsibility for which
today we gauge the consequences.
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
