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.

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”). ...

Reminder: Iota Unum online

Several chapters of Romano Amerio's opus magnum, Iota Unum, are available at the website the Asian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), courtesy of Angelus Press. 

[Tip: reader/commenter]

Amerio is back!

ROMA, April 23, 2007 – In “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the magazine of the Rome Jesuits printed with the prior scrutiny and authorization of the Vatican secretariat of state, a review has been published that signals the end of a taboo.

The taboo is the one that has obliterated from public discussion, for decades, the thought of the most authoritative and erudite representative of criticism of the twentieth century Church in the name of the great Tradition: the Swiss philologist and philosopher Romano Amerio (in the photo), who died in Lugano in 1997, at the age of 92.

[From the review:]

...Of course, it is not possible to share the negative judgment extended to the Council in its entirety and to all the positive things it produced. ...

Read whole article at Chiesa.

The Love Bout

I recently posted this comment on the Pertinacious Papist. Most of the folks there were having an argument about beer and did not appreciate the interruption (at this point I should import one of those smiley things, but I can't bring myself to do it). So, I thought I'd run it up our flag:

.
Neo-con fainthearts! Be the first on your block to discover:

.

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=45538&eng=y
.
No puns! No personalized love goop mixing with theological cotton-candy spinning! No Catholic Narnimaniacal fantasizing passing as theology! No youthful burbling! No youthful adulation of youthful burbling! No theologipalooza book-signing tours!

.
No stones -- just bread!

.
Yes, it's Romano Amerio, safely dead and buried, but whose magnum opus still packs more punch [Look, mom! It even has an INDEX!!] than do the collected works of all of the male cheerleaders who have followed him.

.
Read Iota Unum TODAY!! Benedict has.

Benedict and Amerio: reading from the same page

As rumors and words continue to come from Europe (from all sides and pointing to different directions), Sandro Magister (confirming Andrea Tornielli's article of last week) comments on the Pope's meeting of February 13 and defends the notion that Pope Benedict shares the same concerns as the greatest Catholic thinker of the the second half of the 20th century (in my modest opinion), the Swiss Romano Amerio, author of Iota Unum and Stat Veritas (the most popular of his immense number of writings).

Magister also transcribes an article by Father Divo Barsotti on Romano Amerio. I wholeheartedly agree with these words:

Romano Amerio was a layman, a layman who knew the Lord. He knew the Creed, and became its shining witness. I have always had the impression – although I never met him personally – of seeing in him a true Christian, one who was never afraid of facing the most demanding themes of Revelation.

What is astonishing – and constitutes his greatness – is that, although he was a layman, he was a true witness. He was not theologian or a man of religion, but one who received from God the charism of seeing that which is implicit in Christian teaching. He sensed this, and accepted his role. He did what the Lord inspired him to do.

The entire Christian world has reason to thank God for Romano Amerio, who in these difficult times spoke so clearly about the foundations of Revelation.

Behold the Council: the Pope at the pinnacle...

"Behold the Council: the Pope at the pinnacle, and, around him and with him, the cardinals, the bishops of all rites and of all nations, the most competent doctors and masters of the most diverse degrees of specialization."

Pope Blessed John XXIII, Apostolic Letter "Le Voci che da Tutti".

Perusing an old issue of the discontinued marvel which was the French journal "Itinéraires", I believe I found the answer to a riddle proposed by the folks at the Cornell Society.

After the Pope's remarkable homily of December 8, one of the most beautiful pieces of Marian devotion written in the past 50 years (I spoke of it here and here), there were doubts regarding this passage:

Indelibly printed in my memory is the moment when, hearing his [Paul VI's] words: "Mariam Sanctissimam declaramus Matrem Ecclesiae" - "We declare Mary the Most Holy Mother of the Church", the Fathers spontaneously rose at once and paid homage to the Mother of God, to our Mother, to the Mother of the Church, with a standing ovation.

The philosopher Romano Amerio, the most precise analyst of the Church in the 20th century, had a quite different recollection, as registered in Iota Unum:

"the Holy Father proceeded to make the solemn proclamation in his speech closing the third session of the Council on 21 November 1964, and was received in silence by an assembly usually quick to applaud".

The contemporary editorial of Itinéraires (1965, vol. 1, p. 50) describes the scene:

"Along with the [new conciliar] texts, there are and there will be, little by little, certain precisions, even anedoctal, and of the Conciliar Fathers standing for the proclamation of Mary Mother of the Church, and those who did not stand up, and those who ended up standing up."

If there is a video somewhere of this exact moment, it would be interesting to see who rose and who did not. It seems clear both the Pope and Amerio are right: there was great enthusiasm from some, and great disappointment from others (the clique of Lady-haters whose influence was so great throughout the Council), as well as a considerable amount of latecomers...