Special Major Article: "THE RECONCILER: ending the great equivocation on Vatican II" - In age of no dogmas, why should Spirit of Vatican II be the only one?

The History of the Catholic Church does not begin in 1963. On the anniversary of Humanae Vitae, an article by Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, with a reminder of who truly betrayed the Church and the Council -- those who dogmatize what they want to say it said while throwing away the entire previous history and doctrine of the Church, which is why they rejected and still reject the firm doctrine merely repeated at Humanae Vitae. Plus, with Pope Francis' recognition of the work of Abp. Agostino Marchetto, a vast selection of recent publications that intend to end any equivocation on the history and doctrinal value of Vatican II in relation with the entire history and Tradition of the Church. RORATE

***

___________________________________________

THE RECONCILER

Historian sees merit in Pope Francis for having reopened the debate on Vatican II: in order for it to emerge from the Great Equivocation.

Roberto de Mattei

[published in Italian daily Il Foglio - July 12, 2014 edition]

Was the Second Vatican Council a council that was “betrayed”? By whom?

It is a pertinent question, following the publication of Instrumentum Laboris, the Vatican document that will lead the discussion in the upcoming Synod on the Family. The texts cited by Instrumentum Laboris are in fact, only from the Council or post-council, almost as if a radical shift has occurred in the magisterium of the Church since the 1960s on the theme of the family which is of crucial importance today.

The Bologna School has no doubts: there had been this theological and pastoral shift , but Paul VI stifled the incentive. All of the regrets of “The History of Vatican Council II”, written by Giuseppe Alberigo, are staked on the contrast between the “prophet”, John XXIII, who inaugurated the “new Pentecost” in the Church, and the icy John Baptist Montini who ditched it. Behind this historical reading of Vatican II and now re-proposed by Alberigo’s followers, Alberto Melloni, Giuseppe Ruggieri and Massimo Faggioli, is the innovative theology of Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and most of all, Karl Rahner. Up to 1965, during the last weeks of the final session, at a conference entitled “The Council: the beginning of a beginning” , the German Jesuit, presented Vatican II as the beginning of a new era in the history of the Church, destined to renovate the community of believers, in an analogous manner to what had happened at the First Council of Jerusalem. Paul VI had betrayed the Council with the Nota praevia in 1964, in which he wanted to limit the significance of collegiality introduced by Lumen Gentium but most of all [he betrayed it]with the “repressive” encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

The controversies that followed Humanae Vitae created the first great hermeneutical rupture among the protagonists of Vatican II.

In 1972 the international journal Communio was founded by Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac, and it opposed Concilium in which Karl Rahner, Yves Congar,and Edward Schillebeecks wrote. It was de Lubac who coined the expression “para- council” to condemn that atmosphere of feverish agitation in the years following Vatican II brought on by many theologians to force their conclusions [ideas, interpretations].

In a long interview granted to Angelo Scola in 1985 (“Journey into the Council” Supplement to no. 10, 1985, 30 Giorni, pages 6-30), De Lubac described the “para-council” as a movement of pressure from the media which had intended to influence the Council and post-council on themes such as the primacy of the pontiff and the relationship of the Church with the world.

The same year, Hans Urs von Balthasar, who in 1962 had suggested “Knocking Down The Bastions”(his book, Boria, Turin 2008) in an interview from the same magazine, 30 Giorni, (“Journey into the Post-Council by A. Scola, Edit. Milan 1985), protested that all the expectations of the council had dissolved into “American optimism”. The site Papalepapale recently re-published an interview given to Vittorio Messori by Balthasar in which the German theologian sustained that ‘dialogue’ had shown itself to be “a chimera” and affirmed the necessity of returning to sound doctrine and “to the Tridentine model” of the seminary.

Special guest-post: "Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X" by Don Pio Pace

Following his very widely read first op-ed here, we are very honored to post this new article by a very wise, knowledgeable, and highly influential cleric, writing under the pen name of don Pio Pace.

His second contribution is one that is dear to the heart of all true Catholics of good will: what really happened with the Society of Saint Pius X in the final weeks of the Ratzinger pontificate? And, most importantly for the moment, what can we truly expect on this subject during the Franciscan pontificate?

____________________________________

Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X

a guest-post by Fr. Pio Pace

In the seemingly endless soap opera of the reconciliation between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X, an extraordinary historic offer presented itself in February 2013. A missed opportunity. It happened after the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI, on February 12, 2013: a personal prelature for the SSPX, a Prelature of Saint Pius X, that had been the object of the negotiations that had been interrupted in June 2012, was once again proposed to Bp. Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society, to be erected on February 22, 2013, feast of the Chair of Saint Peter. But the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X did not follow through with it. It would have been necessary, it is true, to lead from both sides, quickly and efficaciously, final negotiations, in particular regarding the adherence formula, that I will mention later on. The pre-conclave then opened up in March, marked by an extremely violent mood on the reform of the Roman Curia, based on the implicit accusation of impotence of the pontificate that had just ended: one of the failures attributed to Benedict XVI was to have invested in vain on a reconciliation with the Traditionalists, by handing them useless tokens, in particular by way of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the removal of excommunications of Abp.Lefebvre's bishps. At that moment in time, before the conclave, taking into account the psychological weight that the Lefebvre question still had at the time, it is not doubtful that, if the last act of the Pontificate of Benedict XVI had been the canonical reintegration of the most visible opponents of the Council, this would have allowed a reduction of the deficit in the "balance of the pontificate" under the cardinals' consideration. And, above all, it would have been what all would be talking about! Instead, the fracture line between "restorationist" and "liberal" cardinals, that had marked the 1978 and 2005 conclaves, became obsolete in the 2013 conclave.

***

The new pontificate ignores the community founded by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. Up until then, the SSPX prompted in the Church, at least in Rome, great interest in its events and gestures. There was great interest in its growth -- less so after 1988, but still quite noteworthy since Catholicism in the West is in continuous decline. The criticism, even if badly formulated, of Vatican II and the existence of this priestly reservoir hostile to the conciliar line was a permanent "interrogation," as it is said.

But all the attention that the pontificate of Benedict XVI had given to the "good interpretation" of Vatican II (inaugural address to the Curia, of December 22, 2005; farewell address of February 14, 2013, to the Roman Clergy) suddenly vanished. True, by having recently welcomed the Franciscans of the Immaculate on June 10, Pope Francis once again expressed his esteem for an interpreter of the Council who is in a line "of continuity," Abp. Agostino Marchetto  (Il Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Per una sua corretta ermeneutica, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2012). But everyone knows that Francis is a outsider to this debate. While he is not a follower of a theoretical "rupture," he is not at all interested in the attempts that imply proving a "continuity" between the last council and the preceding Magisterium. Vatican II is not for him a collection of texts that contradict, bend, or reformulate this or that prior dogma; Vatican II is a pastoral work of opening up to the world, a "return to the Gospel." Period. As for the prior Magisterium, without calling it into question theoretically, he wishes to apply to it a kind of flexibility (the expression is by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, a key figure in the Francis Curia), a flexibility that involves putting into parentheses the "rigidities" of doctrine, particularly in moral matters. The Pope has for the ancient Magisterium, for the teaching of Vatican II, and also for the theological concerns of Benedict XVI the respect one has for an elderly person, that nonetheless must not prevent the concern for the true life of the people of today and their concrete problems, for whom Catholicism must be above all a message of joy and mercy.

What is the place, in this context, for doctrinal discussion in general, and for criticism of the conciliar texts in particular? The orientation of Pope Bergoglio leads into part-time unemployment not only Traditionalist theologians, but also classical theologians, and even Progressive theologians -- the Pope being, by mental layout, impervious to this "leftwing" trend -- except for their moral liberalism. Now, that intense reflection and that theological-magisterial activity that had always taken place between the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exist anymore. One could qualify this stunning new situation that prevails in the Pontifical Palaces -- perhaps one must say "the Pontifical Inns" -- as being the ground level of magisterial teaching.

***

Nevertheless, if the Francis pontificate is in fact so lightly favorable to the expression of the critical charism of the Society of Saint Pius X, it could, paradoxically, make the obtaining of a canonical recognition easier. The meeting with the Pope that was set up for Bp. Fellay, about six months ago, in a hall of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, while he and his collaborators had a meal in the refectory in the company of Abp. Pozzo and Abp. Di Noia, shows that permanent contacts clearly reestablished between the superiors of the SSPX and the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and that they are approved by the Pope. On which bases were these relations reestablished? Precisely from the fact of the absence of interest of the Pope for the hermeneutical questions regarding Vatican II, it seems that the famous doctrinal "conditions" presented to Bp. Fellay were placed in the file boxes. It is anyway what emerges from the information that persons in charge of relations with the traditionalists let out: they gather that submitting to the signature of Bp. Fellay doctrinal declarations that were too strict was a mistake.

De Mattei answers dissident leader of Franciscans of the Immaculate- "Christian is my name, Catholic my surname." - If there's a "Crypto-Lefebvrianism", its head is Benedict XVI - Abp. Marchetto? We discuss together, with no spirit of demonization

Christianus mihi nomen est, catholicus cognomen

Roberto de Mattei

Corrispondenza Romana 

June 27, 2014

The ultimate criteria of judgment for a Catholic must be the one of the Church: to love and hate what the Church loves and hates: loving the truth in all of its uniqueness and integrity and hating error in all of its multiplicity of expressions. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy remain the final measure of judgment which Christian Reason must be subject to.

In 1542, Pope Paul II, instituted the Congregation of the Roman Inquisition, afterwards called the Holy Office and nowadays named the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the aim of guarding the purity of orthodoxy. In 1571, Saint Pius V, supported it with the Congregation of Index which had the task of indicating all the books deforming correct Catholic Doctrine. In 2002, L’Index Librorum prohibitorum 1600-1966 was published by the Centre d’Études de la Renaissance at Sherbrooke University, and gathers together all of the condemned works until the suppression of the Index, which Paul VI wanted in 1966.  From Protestantism to Illuminism, from Catholic liberalism to modernism, there is not one heterodox writer that has not been singled out and condemned for the good of the Church and for the salvation of souls.

The Index established a precious instrument to help Catholics know and detest errors and heresies. The Holy Office was the supreme tribunal which every Catholic could turn to when they had doubts and perplexities in matters of faith and morals. To the Congregation for the Faith, which followed the Holy Office, we owe, in recent years, a number of notifications, such as Dominus Jesus in 2000 or Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Homosexual Unions in 2003.

After the disturbing declarations by Cardinal Kasper at the Consistory in February 2014, on the theme of the divorced and remarried, and the equally disquieting document Instrumentum laboris, presented on June 26th, in preparation for the upcoming Synod on the Family, it would be right to expect a clarifying statement from the Congregation (today presided over by Cardinal Müller) about the grave problems on the table in matters relating to the family and sexual morality.

Today, however, there is an attempt to substitute orthodoxy with “orthopraxy”.

The international theological publication “Concilium” dedicated its latest number to the theme: From “anathema sit” to “Who am I to judge?” starting with Pope Francis’ famous sentence on homosexuality: “who am I to judge,” pronounced during the return flight from Brazil in July 2013. The authors define orthodoxy as “metaphysical violence”. They retain that the formulas and dogmas cannot comprehend historical evolution, but each problem must be collocated in its historical and socio-political context. The concept of orthodoxy must be surpassed, or at least re-dimensioned, since, it is used as “a point of reference to suffocate freedom of thought and as a weapon to control and punish.” (“Concilium”, 2/2014, p.11). The primacy of doctrine must be substituted by pastoral praxis, as Father Juan Carlos Scannone explains, intervening in support of Cardinal Kasper, in the article Serene Theology On One’s Knees found in the “Civiltà Cattolica” of June 7, 2014.

The categories of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are being set aside as antiquated. And new semantic expressions are emerging. One of the most curious is “crypto-lefebvrianism”:

Francis endorses the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity"Papal letter praises critic of "Bologna School" as "best interpreter of the Second Vatican Council"

In his latest post for his personal blog, Sandro Magister publicized the text of a letter sent by Pope Francis to Abp. Agostino Marchetto, a former Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. He is best-known as the author of The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Counterpoint for the History of the Council, which criticizes the "Bologna School' and champions the "hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" as proposed by Benedict XVI, most notably in his speech of December 22, 2005.

Also striking is the thanks directed to Archbishop Marchetto for having corrected an unspecified "mistake or imprecision" of Pope Francis.

Here is Rorate's translation of the letter, with our emphases:

Dear Abp. Marchetto,  

With these lines I wish to be close to you and join myself to the act of presentation of the book “Primato pontificio ed episcopato. Dal primo millennio al Concilio ecumenico Vaticano II” [Pontifical primacy and episcopate: from the first millennium to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council"]. I beg you to consider myself spiritually present [there].  

The topic of the book is an homage to the love that you have for the Church, a loyal and at the same time poetic love. Loyalty and poetry are not an object of trade: they cannot be bought or sold, they simply are virtues that are rooted in the heart of a son who feels the Church to be a Mother; or, in order to be more precise, and saying it with an Ignatian familiar "tone", as "the Holy Mother the hierarchical Church".  

You have made this love manifest in many ways, including correcting a mistake or imprecision on my part - and for that I thank you from the heart -, but above all it is manifest in all your purity in the studies made on the Second Vatican Council. I once told you, dear Abp. Marchetto, and I wish to repeat it today, that I consider you to be the best interpreter [ermeneuta] of the Second Vatican Council.  

I know that this is a gift from God, but I also know that you made it bear fruit. I am grateful to you for all the good that you do for us with your testimony of love for the Church, and I ask the Lord that you be abundantly blessed.  

I beg you please not to forget to pray for me. May Jesus bless you, and may the Virgin protect you.  

Vatican, October 7, 2013  

Fraternally,  

Francis

Card. Brandmüller: Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae non-binding

Yesterday, a new book authored by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller (Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences), Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, and Mons. Nicola Bux was presented to the media in the studios of Radio Vaticana: “Le ‘chiavi’ di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II” (The keys of Benedict XVI for the interpretation of Vatican II, Cantagalli, Siena). 

In an interview to Radio Vaticana, Abp. Marchetto answered several questions, including the following: 

 Q. – Let us return to the hermeneutic of discontinuity, of rupture, and the hermeneutic of reform: which one prevails today within the Church?