Letter from Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary

[SemperFidelis]

stas.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/451.html
Fr. Yves le Roux:

Dear friends and benefactors,

Why is it important to consider this Council? Do we not risk drifting into a systematically negative criticism that is itself non-Catholic?

Obviously, we cannot define ourselves as against the Second Vatican Council. We have no need to define ourselves in function of something else. It is sufficient for us to be Catholics - Catholics whose ideal is to fight as soldiers of Christ to bring about His kingdom, and especially His social kingdom on earth. But a soldier can only fight effectively if he is armed and trained to fight; if he has received an adequate training and knows his enemy. That is why it is important to meditate on this fateful Council.

It is not our intention here to launch into a deep study of the Council. We simply want to warn against the danger of getting used to the current situation in the Church and to show what our reaction ought to be in the face of this disaster which Archbishop Lefebvre rightly called “the Third World War.”

We must not fear to say it: the present situation is revolutionary. From the first session of the Council, with a shocking lack of even the most elementary respect for the rules of propriety, a commando force took over the command posts in the Council, thanks to a long-prepared infiltration, and indelibly marked it with Liberalism. Afterwards, strengthened by the influence acquired within the Council and thanks to its efficacious technique of infiltration, that commando force worked from within for the destruction of the Church. Until the day of this wicked attack, the Church had to fend off assaults coming from the outside, and the attackers never attained a definitive success. Realizing the futility of his efforts, Satan changed strategy and attacked Holy Mother Church from within. He infiltrated his henchmen, spreading error in seminaries, so that the young clergy would be tainted without even knowing it.

The danger for us would be to forget this and think that the present situation is only a simple crisis that will pass away by itself. Let us not be deceived: the enemies of the Church have sworn Her destruction - and that of our souls — and they will keep fighting to the very end. They will seem to be ready to make some concessions and grant some permissions. They will give way nimbly, hoping that we will take the bait, but they will never agree to give up their goal - the complete destruction of Holy Mother Church.

They already have claimed victory. They are mistaken. Their battle is lost in advance and their momentary triumph resembles that of the enemies of Christ on Good Friday. Let’s not fool ourselves: error will not win. Christ permits this success as a chastisement, to purify His Church and to bring Her to His side on the cross. We must look beyond external appearances, and find within our souls the peaceful certainty that God permits the present humiliation of His Church in order to assimilate Her more completely to His Son. He will share with Her the triumph of His Resurrection. We must wait for that hour, while remaining always vigilant, as the temptation to seek peace by compromising will be great.

We must also be attentive to see that the error of Liberalism - that error that makes a religion out of human freedom and whose poisons we daily drink, even unwittingly — does not furtively enter into our souls. Let us remember St. Augustine’s warning: “By seeing everything, we end enduring everything, and by enduring everything, we are ready to accept anything.” That is to say that what at the beginning justly scandalizes us, little by little becomes so habitual that we take part in it, and thus, unconsciously, we drink the poison. If we are not on our guard, we will be so filled up with this mortal error of Liberalism that, in turn, we will also fall and contribute to the destruction of the Church.

This is the time to be vigilant. We must pray and be formed at the source of the true doctrine, so that error will not contaminate us.

After forty years of seeing the application of the decrees of the Council, we can follow the advice of Our Lord and judge the tree by its fruits. Certain advocates of the Council challenge this evangelical judgment and try to separate the Council from its aftermath. But it is not so! The reforms that followed are, in fact, the natural outcome of the Council. Without the Council, these disastrous reforms would never have seen the light of day.

The most blameworthy consequence of the Council has been the destruction of the sense of the sacred. We see that very clearly in the systematic destruction of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

By Faith, by the knowledge we have of Him, we adhere to God directly and enter into His intimacy. By Hope we raise our hearts above all created things and soar towards God, to adore Him as our Creator and Redeemer and, with a holy impatience, long to possess Him in eternity. By Charity, we love God through Our Lord Jesus Christ, as He loves Himself. Faith, Hope, and Charity establish us in God and, through these virtues, we live in His holy Presence. These virtues find their most beautiful expression in the Liturgy when the Priest offers the Holy Mass and we unite ourselves to him, giving God the homage that is due.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Fr. Yves le Roux:

Today, the new liturgy shows, sadly but clearly, that the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are no longer considered that holy path towards God. There is no transcendence, and it is not unusual to hear, in one way or another, that strange profession of faith of Pope Paul VI: “We have, more than any other, the Cult of Man.” Does this mean that Faith, Hope and Charity are now the expression of faith in Man, of hope placed in him and of charity reduced to only a vague philanthropy? Alas, it is impossible think otherwise, when we see that the new theology teaches that all men are to be saved, and yearns for a golden age on earth where we will be united to everyone, our differences behind us, in a universal brotherhood.

Such ideas are a profanation of the theological virtues. Faith in Man, who will save himself as Man because he is mysteriously united to Christ by his human nature. Hope of a universal peace when men will finally recognize the inestimable value of their humanity which enables them to live in mutual respect of their irreconcilable differences - a mutual respect that they dare to call Charity…

In one word: Faith in Man, Hope in Man, Love of Man. Omnipresent Man, who has thus become the center of a new worship! We face a profanation of the mystery of the Incarnation, which is no longer the revelation of the Love of God for Man, but instead the revelation of the intrinsic value of Man himself.

There is no longer anything sacred but Man!

What more can we say about this delirium? May God have pity on us - the children of God ask for the bread of doctrine, but they have received only stones for food!

How shall we react in the face of this “destruction of the holy place,” as Pope Pius XII said? Above all, we must not react in a human way, because acting in this manner will expose us to great dangers. We might be even tempted to abandon the struggle, because humanly speaking no solution seems possible. The enemies of the Church have seized the citadel and hang on solidly to the key positions from which they will not be thrown out. A natural weariness can lead us to excessive and dangerous decisions.

Our reaction ought to be a reaction prompted by Faith, and only by Faith. We must not reduce the mystery of the Passion of the Church to an intellectual problem, or worse, to a sentimental one. It is not for us to understand this mystery of the identification of the Church with Christ crucified, but to acknowledge that it is a providential design of God and then adore Him.

In concrete, we must remain faithful to this adoration due to God, following the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins, who teaches us to hold fast to what the Church has always and everywhere taught. That is to say, our attachment to Tradition is not a question of custom or preference, but a question of Faith and of fidelity to this Faith. This is also why we cannot sign some practical agreement with “neo-modernist Rome,” because we would be drawn into a slippery slope of compromise and would, slowly but surely, lose the Faith.

If our reaction is truly prompted by Faith, we will wish to offer reparation. Reparation is, in fact, an important duty for a Christian. In ascending to Heaven, Our Lord imposed on us the duty of making reparation for the insults against Him and His Holy Mother. Is not the destruction of the Faith in the very heart of the Church an insult against Christ, Who left us, as our inheritance, the Deposit of Faith to transmit unchanged? This loss of Faith, apart from being most insulting to Christ, is the source of the eternal loss of innumerable souls.

Our duty is clear - we cannot let the insult pass without desiring to make reparation for it. Our reparation consists of living in a way that renders homage to God, and not in enjoying the sinful pleasures that the world proposes. We will make reparation by loyally fulfilling the duties of our state in life. This fidelity to duty rests on two pillars - prayer and penance. A soul that desires to offer reparation is essentially a soul of prayer and sacrifice.

Our prayer must be, above all, the offering of the Most Precious Blood of Christ to His Father during the Mass, of course, but also during the day, uniting ourselves in spirit to the Masses being celebrated throughout the world, and reciting our Rosary, through which we are united to Our Lady and to Her prayer of intercession.

Our prayer must go forth before the throne of God, to implore the grace of obtaining numerous priestly and religious vocations, so that the glory of God may be manifested and souls will not be abandoned, but receive the graces they need.

We pray simply to ask pardon for all those who have introduced novelties in the Church, prayers that repeat for them the words of Our Crucified Lord: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Let us not forget also to pray for those who follow these mercenaries and are lost.

Our times are critical. The Immaculate Spouse of Christ, our Holy Mother the Church, agonizes, insulted and mocked. Her children no longer know what it is to be Christians or no longer dare to affirm it loudly and forcefully. Vocations are diminishing, and we fear that tomorrow, deprived of pastors, men will fall into idolatry, as a great number of them already have, alas! The Second Vatican Council promised us a new springtime in the Church, but has left behind it only rubble piling up.

Our times are critical. It is not, however, a time for despair. It is the hour of the Cross. It is also, mysteriously, the hour of victory. It is the time when we need to go to Mary, who stood strong in Her unwavering Faith, praying and uniting Her sorrows with the sufferings of Her Son. She is our Mother and She will protect us, so that we will keep the Faith by prayer and mortification.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Fr. Yves le Roux:

Our Lady has vanquished all heresies. She will overcome Modernism, She has promised so at Fatima, affirming that in the end Her Immaculate Heart shall triumph. More than ever, we must use our Rosary as a powerful weapon and enlist as Catholics, as soldiers, in the army of our Mother, and tirelessly pray our Rosaries. Our Lady is our Hope. The day will come - and may it please God to be soon! - when She will receive the filial homage of the Holy Father, consecrating Russia to Her. Faithful to Her promise, She will then defeat the materialism and atheism that have spread everywhere, even into the sanctuary!

Thanks to Our Lady’s intervention, fruit of our devotion to the Rosary, victory is ours. We have the peaceful certainty of it. It suffices for us to be Her children, to enter joyously in the school of Our Lady, praying and doing penance as She has so often asked us to do. Do not doubt the power of prayer united to penance. As Our Lady specifically said at Pontmain: “Pray, my children. My Son allows Himself to be moved by your prayers.”

And if Our Lord hears us, who could succeed against us? Let us pray. We are the youthfulness of God and of Holy Mother Church. We belong to the youth full of faith, of the faith that vanquishes the world, ready to live and to die defending the honor of God, repairing thus the offenses committed against Him.

In Christo Sacerdote et Maria.

Fr. Yves le Roux

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Wow, what a great letter. It’s wonderful to read the words of this true soldier of Christ. Long live Christ the King!

 

[Layman]

Quote:“The most blameworthy consequence of the Council has been the destruction of the sense of the sacred.”

I agree. What is there to fear or be awed by in modern Masses? They are now a ‘celebration’. Coupled with populism, a lack of preaching about Hell and an emphasis on ‘Jesus loves you’, it’s no wonder people chat at Mass; they’re being cued that, well, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

It appears to me, at least from what I can gather in this priest’s letter, that it is another condemnation, not simply of what happened after the Second Vatican Council, but the Council itself. It also seems to indirectly imply that no Catholic who attends the Ordinary Form of the Mass can call themselves a “true” or “Traditional” Catholic, but that the Ordinary Form MUST be rejected and that it will soon die and be gone forever.

I believe, however, that ANY baptized Catholic who holds the teachings of Holy Church to be true is both a true AND Traditional Catholic, regardless of whether they attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass or the Ordinary Form. A true and Traditional Catholic holds all of the Catholic Church’s teachings and does not reject any of its Ecumenical Councils or the decrees that came out of them…not even the Second Vatican Council, because by definition, such a Catholic is not free to do so. We may question the prudential decisions of the Holy Father, but we are not free to reject his authority because the authority he has is from Christ Himself.

 

[SemperFidelis]

A true and Traditional Catholic holds all of the Catholic Church’s teachings and does not reject any of its Ecumenical Councils or the decrees that came out of them…not even the Second Vatican Council, because by definition, such a Catholic is not free to do so.

catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

Despite what this congregation may say, while it is true that the decrees of the Council did not fall under the umbrella of infallibility (since it did not define any doctrine or dogma), it does not at all mean that we as Catholics are free to dissent when it comes to holding them as authoritative. It means, then, that a Catholic who believes they may reject any part of the Second Vatican Council–or any Ecumenical Council, as the Old Catholics did when rejecting papal infallibility defined at First Vatican Council–falls into the Protestant notion of belief in one’s own authority as being superior to that of the Council Fathers. I believe that their understanding of authority in relation to the Council is faulty.

What is so often forgotten is that legitimate authority is always to be respected AND obeyed unless that authority orders a person to commit sin. No pope during, or since, the Council has ordered anyone to commit sin or violate the Ten Commandments. Thus, to believe that just because the most recent Ecumenical Council was “pastoral” in nature gives one license to reject it, in part or in whole, is to not have a Traditional view of obedience. The Church respects a person’s conscience in that they may disagree, but that person may not put themselves on a level of authority equal to that of a Council or pope. For example, canon law is not infallible and may be subject to change, but violating it can get one excommunicated. Same with the Second Vatican Council; its decrees hold the weight of authority because of the popes (John XXIII and Paul VI) and bishops in communion with them who convened it and outlined its decrees. And while dogma/doctrine was not defined among the Council decrees, two Dogmatic Constitutions did come out of it afterwards.

It is erroneous to say, “The Council does not have the authority to bind Catholics because of its pastoral nature,” because it is like saying, “I respect the Holy Father’s authority but only when he defines something dogmatically or pronounces anathemas.” Therefore, a Traditional Catholic not only respects, but OBEYS legitimate authority as long as that authority does not order them to sin. To do otherwise is to actually show disrespect for that authority (in this case, the popes and the other Council Fathers), because that leads a person to believe their personal authority is superior to even that of a pope, and that is not Catholic thinking.

I apologize if I do not take the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to be my ultimate authority on whether or not an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church is to be accepted. My highest authority is the Lord God, and after Him is His Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI. I believe that this pope is doing good things for the Church, although he is not doing it to “satisfy” or “give victory” to the self-styled “traditionalist” Catholics; his work is for UNITY among all Catholics, and his work is one of reconciling those who went astray. But, as it stands, Pope Benedict XVI is not budging on the Second Vatican Council, nor does he believe that any part of it is to be rewritten or recanted, especially in the talks involving the SSPX. Acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, for the SSPX and for any Catholic who believes that it does not have any binding authority, is non-negotiable.

 

[Luke65]

Wow. Well, Fr. le Roux sounds like a Saint in the making! But two issues: first, I don’t know what the big deal about giving our assent to VCII is all about. I read the decrees and I see a thing of beauty! I see the machinations of the heretics and apostates thwarted by the Holy Spirit at every turn! I love it! Reading the decrees of VII should only strengthen our faith that this is God’s Church. And there is much helpful pastoral guidance there too. Sure, the traitors have used the ambiguities our Lord gave them to hang themselves. God’s will be done. And of course, the flock has been greatly harmed by them. But that’s why our Lord Jesus appeared ahead of time to St. Faustina with His Divine Mercy devotion, along with many other devotions, and indulgences. God works in all things for the good of those who love Him. Be not afraid!

The other issue is giving our assent to the validity of the OF. Again, I don’t see the problem. It’s valid. Sure, the TLM lends itself to a more and much better spiritual experience. But there are plenty of Protestants who have said it might have been too much of a culture shock for them to convert if not for the OF. Again, God works in all things for the good of those who love Him.

So, Fr. le Roux, you can separate the decrees of VII from some of those who participated in them, and the rotten fruit that has come since then. The fruit was rotten to begin with - VII just helped to expose that fact. And we look at that fruit and thank God it’s not us. We see the chastisements of God and we repent. Our Lord is calling His sheep back to the flock. The Holy Spirit is lighting a fire under the laity to hunger for great shepherds like yourself. But we must all be one. God bless you all.

 

[SemperFidelis]

It is erroneous to say, “The Council does not have the authority to bind Catholics because of its pastoral nature,” because it is like saying, “I respect the Holy Father’s authority but only when he defines something dogmatically or pronounces anathemas.” Therefore, a Traditional Catholic not only respects, but OBEYS legitimate authority as long as that authority does not order them to sin. To do otherwise is to actually show disrespect for that authority (in this case, the popes and the other Council Fathers), because that leads a person to believe their personal authority is superior to even that of a pope, and that is not Catholic thinking.

You didn’t read the whole article did you? Br. Andre Marie proves through the application of theology that the majority of what is in the Council documents belongs to the authority of the non-infallible, merely Authentic Magisterium. Such is the nature of the Authentic Magisterium, as explained by a pre-Vatican II theologian
Dom Paul Nau:

The duty of Catholics, when confronted with a document of the Ordinary Magisterium, is to be that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

You didn’t read the whole article did you? Br. Andre Marie proves through the application of theology that the majority of what is in the Council documents belongs to the authority of the non-infallible, merely Authentic Magisterium. Such is the nature of the Authentic Magisterium, as explained by a pre-Vatican II theologian

Even if it belongs to the “merely” Authentic Magisterium, the Council and its documents still carry the weight of papal authority and demand assent from Catholics, both lay and clergy. Nothing in the documents themselves departed from authentic Tradition, but continue to teach what the Church has always taught. It has been said that there is some ambiguity in the wording of documents from previous Ecumenical Councils, not just the Second Vatican Council, and their meaning is not always clear; however, understanding of them does become clearer over time. Catholic dogma and doctrine have not changed, nor can they ever be changed. That is not to say, however, that how we understand it cannot change, either. This is what we see in the documents of the Second Vatican Council; they dealt primarily with disciplines in the Church, which can be changed, but their roots are firmly planted in Sacred Tradition. There were no “novelties” in the Council documents that were not in line with Church Tradition and history, so I believe this priest’s reason to counsel Catholics to reject not only the results of misinterpretation of the Council, but the Council itself, is unfounded.

Not all papal pronouncements come under infallibility, but they demand assent and obedience from all of the faithful UNLESS they are a command to commit sin. Misinterpretation of the Council documents may have led to errors being taught by some members of the clergy, but it does not prove that the documents themselves taught error, because any Ecumenical Council convoked by the pope and bishops in communion with him is protected by the Holy Spirit and thus cannot produce erroneous teaching, even if there were no doctrines or dogma defined. So, even if the Second Vatican Council was “merely” a pastoral Council, it does not mean that Catholics may ride roughshod over it and say they are free to reject it; by rejecting the documents of the Council, they are also rejecting their underlying foundation, which may be found in doctrine, dogma, Sacred Scripture/Tradition, or any number of elements which are part of the Deposit of Faith. That is taking on a Protestant mode of thinking, and how dare we think our own wants and desires for the Church supersede the authority of the Chair of Peter!

As I said, one may not agree with the Second Vatican Council’s documents if they feel it does not square with their conscience, but a Catholic may not lead other Catholics into disobedience to legitimate authority (i.e., the pope and bishops in communion with him), which is a sin. Any true and Traditional Catholic knows that authority ceases to be legitimate ONLY when it commands someone to sin against their conscience. Perhaps you might be able to show me where the documents of the Second Vatican Council invite Catholics to commit sin, either implicitly or explicitly.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Nothing in the documents themselves departed from authentic Tradition, but continue to teach what the Church has always taught. It has been said that there is some ambiguity in the wording of documents from previous Ecumenical Councils, not just the Second Vatican Council, and their meaning is not always clear; however, understanding of them does become clearer over time.

Traditional Catholics claim, and for very good reasons, that several of the Vatican II documents teach exactly contrary to what the Church taught prior to the Council, epecially with respect to religious liberty. They claim, for example, that what was condemned as a heresy in the Syllabus of Pius IX and Pius X was taught as true at Vatican II.

And Traditional Catholics are not along in making this claim. Here’s what two other Catholics said about this - and one of them happens to be our current Pope:

**Cardinal Ratzinger: ** "If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus …

[F]irst in central Europe, conditioned by the situation, the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 [the time of the Masonic French Revolution] was still lacking.

In reality, the mentality that preceded the revolution [the Catholic mentality] still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities [thankfully]; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method …

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. … (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

The principles of 1789 (those of the Masonic French Revolution) wer condemned over and over again by the Popes.

The next quote is from the Vatican II peritus, Yves Congar:

Yves Congar: "It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.”

The encyclical Quanta Cura and the accompanying Syllabus or errors met every requirement for an infallible document. Unfortunately, errors do not cease to be errors simply because the calendar reads a later date; or because the principles of Freemasonry have reformed the world.

Traditional Catholic still reject the errors condemned by infallibly in the Syllabus (which are also condemned in other encyclicals). Since Traditional Catholic agree with Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar - that Vatican II taught the contrary - Traditional Catholics refuse to accept as true, errors that have been formally condemned. And let me also say, these errors were not only condemned in the Syllabus. They were condemned over and over again from the time they first emerged, right up to the time of Vatican II.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

DonaNobis_Pacem:

Catholic dogma and doctrine have not changed, nor can they ever be changed. **That is not to say, however, that how we understand **it cannot change, either.

That’s also incorrect. The understanding of dogmas cannot change. Dogmas must be understood with exactly the same meaning, the same sense, and the exact same understanding.

First Vatican Council: ". For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding…

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

The claim that our understanding of dogmas can change over time is known as “evolution of doctrine”, and is one of the root errors of the modernists. Therefore, in the Oath Against Modernism, that Pope Pius X made every Priest take (before Paul VI abolished it), says the following:

Oath Against Modernism: " . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day… Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God."

I would encourage you to read the book, They Have Uncrowned Him, by Archbishop Lefebvre. That is one of the most complete books on the teachings of Vatican II in light of what the Church taught prior to the Council. It explains in great detail what Liberalism is and what the Church taught with respect to its errors. It clears up a lot of the confusion in modern thinking.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

I would encourage you to read the book, They Have Uncrowned Him, by Archbishop Lefebvre. That is one of the most complete books on the teachings of Vatican II in light of what the Church taught prior to the Council. It explains in great detail what Liberalism is and what the Church taught with respect to its errors. It clears up a lot of the confusion in modern thinking.

Thank you for the suggestion, but I prefer to stay with what the Church teaches. I apologize if it does not please you that I do not take Archbishop Lefebvre to be my ultimate authority on the Church and Her teachings, but a true AND Traditional Catholic will remain obedient to the legitimate authority in place as chosen by Christ. To claim obedience to an archbishop who, very sadly, died excommunicate from Holy Church would put my soul’s own salvation at risk. The only true hope of salvation for me is to cling to the hem of the successor of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI.

I also get the impression that you are also saying that the Second Vatican Council, since it did not define anything infallibly, was not protected by the Holy Spirit, since you use quotes from people to claim that it did teach error. That is impossible, since no Ecumenical Council ever convoked in the history of the Church–and that includes the most recent one–has ever been without the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you believe, as Lefebvre did, that the Holy Spirit was “on vacation”, but no true Traditional Catholic could believe that without calling into question the very promise of Christ. It is a truth of the faith that, when a pope convenes an Ecumenical Council with the bishops in communion with him, NO ERROR OR HERESY can be defined or promulgated within the Council’s documents. Also, true Traditional Catholics take all of the Church’s Councils and teachings as a whole, neither what came only from Second Vatican Council onwards nor what came only from before the Council.

As to understanding of dogma, take the dogma of papal infallibility. It was believed by many Catholics prior to Vatican Council I, but it had never been officially and infallibly defined prior to that Council. It was something that we today know and hold as infallible, yet the Old Catholics rejected as an error; they then separated from the Church, and things have gone wrong with them ever since. One cannot say that the Second Vatican Council taught error or had any contained in its documents without running the risk of going down the same road as the Old Catholics. Again, one may disagree with some of the documents of the Council, but one may not believe that any of it contains error or heresy without putting his very faith in the Church in jeopardy, because then it makes null and void the promise of Christ to protect His Church from teaching these things as part of the Deposit of Faith.

I sense a strong “vibe”, if you will, that there are people who think they (or a dissident bishop who died outside the Church) should be my authority when it comes to matters of faith, or who will advocate disobedience because they agree that an Ecumenical Council of the Church taught error/heresy and must be condemned. And it seems that they will stop at nothing to quiet me. It looks like you will get what you want, as I am bowing out of this thread. I no longer see a point in trying to reason with people who label my opinions and, admittedly, limited understanding of the Second Vatican Council and the Faith (as much as I have tried to gain a few kernels of knowledge about them both) as being the product of a mind tainted by “modernism”.

 

[Luke65]

Traditional Catholics claim, and for very good reasons, that several of the Vatican II documents teach exactly contrary to what the Church taught prior to the Council, epecially with respect to religious liberty.

My brother, here is an article by Robert Sungenis - no modernist! - that addresses this very point. But here is the main point:

The conclusion that Paul VI did not bind anyone to Vatican II’s decrees is, of course, wrong. It would be an exercie in futility to issue conciliar teachings and yet hold no one accountable to them. Be that as it may, Paul VI’s 1966 remark, which stated that there were “no extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility” within Vatican II’s documents, means that there are no extraordinary dogmatic definitions in Vatican II’s documents, opposite of what we find, for example, in the canons of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which do contain extraordinary dogmatic definitions.

Rather, Vatican II, because it is infallibly decreed by the reigning pope to be affirming, and not contradicting, all previous Catholic dogmatic teaching, thus, all its teachings must be considered as infallible as all previous dogmatic teachings, regardless of whether Vatican II defined anything infallibly.

In effect, it must be accepted that Vatican II, because it was affirmed with the same infallible language as previous ecumenical councils, cannot be interpreted as going against any previous dogmatic teaching; and that if an interpretation is foisted upon Vatican II that is at variance with previous dogmatic teaching, then, ipso facto, that interpretation is in error.

Please let me know if you disagree with any of the points he makes, and we can discuss them here or by PM. God bless.

 

[Luke65]

Catholic dogma and doctrine have not changed, nor can they ever be changed. That is not to say, however, that how we understand it cannot change, either.

This is the only thing I think you could state less ambiguously. If you would substitute the highlighted word “change” with something like “deepen” it would be helpful. The point being, we cannot interpret any doctrines in a way that is contrary to how the Church has always interpreted them. God bless.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Thank you for the suggestion, but I prefer to stay with what the Church teaches. I apologize if it does not please you that I do not take Archbishop Lefebvre to be my ultimate authority on the Church and Her teachings

The book I recommended is not merely opinions of Archbishop Lefebvre. He provides the teaching of the Popes with respect to the errors of Liberalism, covering a period of approximately 200 years, which was when the errors first emerged.

I also get the impression that you are also saying that the Second Vatican Council, since it did not define anything infallibly, was not protected by the Holy Spirit, since you use quotes from people to claim that it did teach error.

According to the quotes I provided from Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar, Vatican II taught the contrary of the Syllabus. I agree with them. In fact, Vatican II is interpreted by just about everyone as teaching exactly contrary to the Popes for approximately 200 years with respect to religious liberty; and exactly contrary to the practice of the Church on that point for about 1700 years.

That is impossible, since no Ecumenical Council ever convoked in the history of the Church–and that includes the most recent one–has ever been without the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

For one, Vatican II was different than other Councils, since it was merely pastoral, rather than dogmatic.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “…differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II…** The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”**

The Holy Ghost will protect the Church from error when the Pope defines a dogma to be held universally by all Catholics, or when the Pope ratifies dogmas defined by a council. ratifies a dogma defined by a Council, because such actions engage the extraordinary, and thus infallible, magisterium.

Pope Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964.** In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” **

According to Paul VI, Vatican II specifically “avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority”.

Therefore, since it specifically avoided engaging the extraordinary magisterium, it is within the realm of possibility that it could teach error - since infallibility is only guaranteed when it is exercised, and Vatican II explicitly “avoided” exercising it.

Now, the universal ordinary magisterium is also infallible. But for the something to be a teaching of he universal ordinary magisterium, it must be a teaching that has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”, which rules out any novelties, such as Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty.

true Traditional Catholics take all of the Church’s Councils and teachings as a whole, neither what came only from Second Vatican Council onwards nor what came only from before the Council.

But what if a new teaching is presented that is contrary to a previous infallible teaching? You claim that is impossible, but the reality is, everyone interprets Vatican II as teaching what was formally condemned by the Church - including Cardinal Ratzinger.

In truth, anyone who reads what the Church taught prior to Vatican II with respect to religious liberty, and then compares it with Dignitatis Humanae will see very clearly that Vatican II teaches exactly what was condemned prior to the council.

(Since you said you are bowing out of this thread, I won’t take the time to look up the quotes and provide a comparison between what Vatican II teaches and what the Popes explicitly condemned as an error over and over again for the 150 years proceeding it.)

As to understanding of dogma, take the dogma of papal infallibility. It was believed by many Catholics prior to Vatican Council I, but it had never been officially and infallibly defined prior to that Council.

But in your first post, you claimed that the understanding of dogmas can change, which is an error formally condemned by Vatican I, as the quote I provided shows. When Vatican I defined the dogma of Papal Infallibility, there was no change in understanding from what the Church taught prior to the definition.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Again, one may disagree with some of the documents of the Council, but one may not believe that any of it contains error or heresy without putting his very faith in the Church in jeopardy, because then it makes null and void the promise of Christ to protect His Church from teaching these things as part of the Deposit of Faith.

Since Vatican II specifically “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility” I have no problem believing that it taught error. What I cannot accept, however, is that infallible teachings (such as those contained in the Syllabus), or teachings that form part of the universal and ordinary magisterium (which is also infallible) were in error.

If we have a contradiction between infallible teachings and teachings that are not protected by infallibility, I will stick with those I know to be true. And I happen to agree with Cardinal Ratzinger who said Vatican II was a “counter-syllabus”.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

My brother, here is an article by Robert Sungenis - no modernist! - that addresses this very point. But here is the main point:

Please let me know if you disagree with any of the points he makes, and we can discuss them here or by PM. God bless.

First of all, I’m not a fan of Robert Sungenis, especially on theological and ecclesial matters. He had a debate with a Sedevacantist named John Lane and, in my opinion, embarrassed himself. Some of his statements were so clearly wrong that John Lane asked him numerous times to name one book he had read on ecclesiology. He never named one, but instead threatened to walk out of the debate (probably because he was embarrassed for not being able to produce a title).

But to your point. Let me make a few admissions. First of all, I am personally still trying to interpret Dignitatis Humanae “in light of tradition”. In many places it appears to say (and is interpreted as saying) what it does not actually say. There are also distinctions that can be brought to the interpretation that enables a person to interpret the document in accord with what the Church has always taught. To do this requires a lot of twisting and, I would even say, taking out of context, but it is possible with most of it.

For example, when it speaks of “religious communities” having a right to profess their doctrines, the statement is correct if the term “religious community” is interpreted as referring to Catholic religious communities. This “interpretation” does not fit in with the context, but if it is interpreted in that way it is not contrary to what the Church has always taught.

There are many other examples of how one can twist the document and make, what appears to be a rank error, fit in with what the Church has always taught. However, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE that I have ever heard of (including Father Harrison) interprets Dignitatis Humanae in the manner. They all interpret it as being contrary to what the Church has always taught.

They all interpret it as saying that man, based in his “dignity”, has the right to profess his religion, whatever religion that may be. That is exactly 180 degrees contrary to what the Church has always taught, and exactly what was condemned as an error in the Syllabus. Here’s what the Syllabus condemned as a heretical statement:

[It is an error to believe that] “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus of Pius IX, #15).

So, to claim that every man has a right, based on his “dignity”, to embrace and profess whatever religion he chooses, is an error. The reason it is an error is because man’s rights flow from his duties, while his duties correspond to the Rights of God. Let me give you an example:

God’s Rights: God has the right to command that man obey his commandments.

Man’s duty: Man then has a corresponding duty to obey what God commands.

Mans’s rights: Lastly, man has the right to the means necessary to fulfill his duties toward God.

Since man’s rights flow from his duties, man never has a right to violate what God commands; and since the first commandment forbids false religions, man does not have a right to practice them. In fact, man has a duty not to practice them since God forbids it. The state may tolerate false worship, but it can never be said that practicing a false religion is a right of man - much less a right based on his “dignity”. Violations of God’s law are acts contrary to man’s dignity; therefore, forbidding them actually protects the dignity of man.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Now, regarding what Sungenis wrote: I disagree with him, but rather than laying out my argument, I will refer you to a “back and forth” between John Salza and another person on his website. My position is virtually identical to that of John, at least with respect to the documents of the second Vatican Council.

Jim: Hello Mr. Salza, I listened to you on Relevant Radio last night talking about SSPX–you seem knowledgeable in the area. I was wondering if you can help me out? A friend gave this to me–and I have not been able to refute their position. If you can please give examples of teaching use prior to Vatican II that refute the claims or actually support the new teaching as it is clearing stated in the article cannot be done but actually condemned the new—please provide. Then if this is possible why doesn.t the old teaching claimed in article really refute the new as is being made line by line by Bp Sanborn–what is the teaching saying it not clearly comdemning the new? Attachment (The New Ecclesiology, by Donald Sandborn) Note: this is a very good summary of the evidence that the post-conciliar ecclesiology differs from the Tradition of the Church.

J.Salza: Jim, only the teachings of VII which reiterated previous infallible teaching are infallible. The rest are not; they are reformable. This shouldn’t surprise you. The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When VI [Vatican I] was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years. The gift of infallibility is limited to either ex cathedra statements or the exercise of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, when a teaching was taught “by all, always and everywhere.” The pastoral teachings of VII, especially regarding ecumenism, dialogue, religious liberty, and even the “subsist” ecclesiology are not infallible because they are undefined concepts and were not taught by the Church “by all, always and everywhere.” That is why the Holy Ghost prevented the Church from binding Catholics to them. They are subject to reform. And in the future, they will be reformed. So don’t let it worry you too much. God is still in charge. I believe He is using VII to sift out the heretics and to purify the Church.

Here’s a link to the rest.