New Book Examines Vatican II

[una_fides]

As I said, given that they lied before (and I think there are people in Rome who just possibly may have figured this out - it isn’t exactly rocket science) and given that the Mandatum was a screaming, laughing, crying, roaring flop of the first order, the likelyhood that it will be reinstituted is less than the likelyhood that we will all be required to go back to “outdoor plumbing”. Rome has enough to do to try to ride herd on the issue already on their plate. There never has been a time where excommunication was wielded to eliminate each an every scandalous and/or heretical individual; the process takes years, not months or weeks; there are not enough tribunals to handle the number that would use them (giving even more years to the process if there were); the number of priests that would effectively be eliminated would go beyond crippling the Church and the Church’s first issue is not the teaching, but the administration of the sacraments, which Sacramental Theology holds that a heretic can do in spite of his position, say, on ABC.

In short, it ain’t a gonna happen, and dwelling on it is at the level of day dreaming. I would prefer to be more practical.

And as I suggested here, that amounts to day dreaming.

As I noted, there are a whole lot of faithful who simply do not understand why and how Rome works they way they do. Not only has B 16 not excommunicated him, but neither did the last three popes. Granted JP 1 only had a month to do it… there is an element of the faithful whose reaction is similar to the Red Queen: “Off with their heads!”. The Pope is not the Red Queen, obviously.

Not directly related, but the news is that we just had a bishop step down, and the short explanation has been “physical exhaustion”. What seems to be the general reading was not that he was unwilling to uphold the Church’s teaching (he seemed to be spot-on about issues of abortion and politicians being denied Communion), but that he did not have the ability to lead; he was apparently causing more chaos by the way he responded to these and related issues than he was in making any headway on them.

One can come in swinging, and there is certainly an element of visceral response (right on!) to such. But that all too often wins the battle and loses the war.

Part of the problem is that when you are in the mud up to your hips, it is hard to see that the overall problem is changing, as one can only see the immediate mud. Change will be gradual, and it will occur over a longer period of time than we want. For example, the liturgical silliness that has pervaded the OF since the late 60’s is dying off if for no other reason than that we are now two generations or more beyond the priests who first inrtoduced that. The newer priests today simply have other issues than those priests of the 60’s. The new group - often called the John Paul 2 priests - came into the priesthood inspired by the examples and preaching and teaching of JP2; they have listened to him and been inspired by him, not by some radical theologian who wants to reduce morality to situational ethics. They have studied Theology of the Body, and they get it; it has done for sexual morality what Vatican 2 wanted to do with the Church in general; take the 2000 year history, practices and teaching of the Church and bring them a fresh way of the what and why of the Church.

What we have had presented to us has not, in all too many circumstances, been authentic to the Church’s past. But we have new priests who are, and for that we should be excited. It won’t happen fast enough to suit those who want to see the craziness stop. But it will happen.

Something we seem to easily forget is that Christ came that all might be drawn to the Father. It should be clear in any reading that not all were, and he was not the least hesitant to take on those who persisted in stubborn sin. The Pharisees were teaching falsely, and he was very open about their falsity. But the very bottom line was that he did not come to send people to hell; he did not come to condemn falsehood but to lead to truth. Leading to truth involved making clear what was false; but the primary mission was leading to truth, not exposing falsehood. The Church’s primary mission is leading to truth; so when we do not perceive them as persuing all falsehood and “whacking heads off”, it is perhaps that we are wanting something that is not the primary mission. Both JP2 and B 16 have chosen the path of leading to truth; it is a gradual path, and one that can easily be lost sight of in the cacophony around us. But if we lose sight, if we fail to listen, if we grow impatient, if we want someone to proverbially stand up and shout “SHUT UP!” instead of quietly but firmly speaking the truth, is the fault with them?

Or with us?

You seem to be forgetting eternal Rome, not just the Rome for the past 4 popes. The Church has always condemned heresy and yes that is part of her primary mission for you cannot lead people to the truth if they also do not know that what they believe is an error. You can say that x is true, but if someone thinks that y is x or that y is compatible with x or that someone can believe y but really cannot because of x then the Church needs to condemn y so that people can know the truth. And the truth would be that y in this case would be heresy. (Sounds like an algebra problem I know. ) The Church has been excommunicating for 2000 years. Why stop now? Why now are the only excommunications being done by modern popes being done on those who are trying to continue with the Church’s 2000 year old Tradition whereas people like Hans Kung can openly deny dogmas of the faith and get away with it? If the Church is on the side of the truth and if the Church is about preserving her Tradition–all 2000 years of it and not just the new stuff that’s come about from V2–then she needs to be handing out excommunications on those who are leading the sheep astray rather than those who are trying to preserve the Church’s unchanged Tradition.

And no I will not continue to be content with the vague wording and the Church trying to appease heretics and infidels rather than be true to her nature and Tradition even though that will offend. Christ said that the world will reject us and our teachings just as it rejected him and killed him. Today it seems the world is growing more and more fond of the Church as the Church continues to bend over backwards to try to appease everyone except for those who are within the Church and just want to hear the same old truth in the same straightforward and no nonsense language that the Church had previously been imploring for the past 2000 years before this “great” “pastoral” Council came along and changed everything.

 

[Through_Him]

So to those responding or whoever wants to respond. What I am determining is that Modernism, it certainly is an ism, is the "golden calf " that is on the altar. On another thread they are discussing Moses and Aaron. The golden calf was what the people wanted and Aaron gave in. Modernism is such a broad term but it could also even be a part of EWTN. In the way it has been becoming more modern. Kind of commercial like. No offense meant to be taken though.

Moses came down from the hill and was pretty angry at what he saw. Well we all know the rest of the story, as there was a big shake up in leadership and Moses was very angry at Aaron too.
This is a little confusing to me but am trying to relate it to too much liberalism and trying to not blame the protestants so much as modernism.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I relate modernism to a part of the “modern” epistemology that requires things “up to date”. It is the modern epoch to think that we know better due to a “progress” of evolution that develops intellect and will as opposed to God creating man with intellect and free will to make moral choices. This error is seen in Tellihard de Chardin and his “Omega Point” in which man is evolving irrespective of man’s own choices. This is the ideology of evolutionism drawn from the theory of evolution. It is an interpretation of evolution used to come to a world view.

It is also seen in logical positivism, behaviorism, and pragmatism. These, and others, are ideologies coming from the facts involved and used to base one’s world view on in opposition to God and the Church. The Church hasn’t adopted these ideologies but those of dubious faith have and they are seen in the likes of the Jesus Seminar, Fr, Richard Rohr and his “Cosmic Christ”, Emerging Church movement, and progressive dissenters and their ilk.

Relationship with God comes from a desire for holiness out of love for God, Who is Truth, Love, and Holiness itself. The saints point to this and the doctrine of the Church keeps us within the lines. It is legalistic when it becomes one line, like the old law of the Pharisees, stifling charity. This is what Vat II changed.

 

[Layman]

I thought Modernism in religion was simple: That doctrine can be updated; the truth changed to suit ‘The New Thinking’ of the current time.

In the world it means an ideology based upon newness or lateness being a good in itself. Which does not logically follow, unless the product deteriorates naturally, but it’s great for marketing: “New Daz Whiteness!”. It implies your watch or car has gone stale and you need to replace it or that the new version has benefits you need.

In engineering I understand it’s not a good idea to tinker with a machine or process that’s working well, unless you’re happy to debug unintended consequences; ‘risk versus reward’.

 

[Shoshana]

Etymologically, modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas, “the abuse of what is modern”, as the Abbé Gaudaud explains (La Foi catholique, I, 1908, p. 248). The modern ideas of which we speak are not as old as the period called “modern times”. Though Protestantism has generated them little by little, it did not understand from the beginning that such would be its sequel.
newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

 

[Through_Him]

Here is another good article on modernism.
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9611fea2.asp

I suppose the fruits of the labor are what to pay attention to and I see it more as it was a cult.
It went from a fad to really liberal. It is sad that the civil liberties groups are standing behind just about anything these days.

 

[Through_Him]

Etymologically, modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas, “the abuse of what is modern”, as the Abbé Gaudaud explains (La Foi catholique, I, 1908, p. 248). The modern ideas of which we speak are not as old as the period called “modern times”. Though Protestantism has generated them little by little, it did not understand from the beginning that such would be its sequel.
newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

Your URL’s did not work but thanks for the advent reference. I see the intermingling of the protestant influence. Especially in the music. We are mind body and soul and believe with all three suppose to anyways. So if our intellect gets too big and wants to dominate or kick out the feelings, not good. But I see the protestant music is influencing and trying to rule the soul, and the Church. It would be nice to start minimizing some of the agendas and effects of the music. One way one of our priests in our cluster, does this and the others are catching on, well I’m not so sure it works, but we only sing or are led into a gathering hymn or sending forth is we only use one verse. Yes the processsion has to be done in one verse. Just an idea.

 

[I_Believe]

You seem to be forgetting eternal Rome, not just the Rome for the past 4 popes. The Church has always condemned heresy and yes that is part of her primary mission for you cannot lead people to the truth if they also do not know that what they believe is an error. You can say that x is true, but if someone thinks that y is x or that y is compatible with x or that someone can believe y but really cannot because of x then the Church needs to condemn y so that people can know the truth. And the truth would be that y in this case would be heresy. (Sounds like an algebra problem I know. ) The Church has been excommunicating for 2000 years. Why stop now? Why now are the only excommunications being done by modern popes being done on those who are trying to continue with the Church’s 2000 year old Tradition whereas people like Hans Kung can openly deny dogmas of the faith and get away with it? If the Church is on the side of the truth and if the Church is about preserving her Tradition–all 2000 years of it and not just the new stuff that’s come about from V2–then she needs to be handing out excommunications on those who are leading the sheep astray rather than those who are trying to preserve the Church’s unchanged Tradition.

And no I will not continue to be content with the vague wording and the Church trying to appease heretics and infidels rather than be true to her nature and Tradition even though that will offend. Christ said that the world will reject us and our teachings just as it rejected him and killed him. Today it seems the world is growing more and more fond of the Church as the Church continues to bend over backwards to try to appease everyone except for those who are within the Church and just want to hear the same old truth in the same straightforward and no nonsense language that the Church had previously been imploring for the past 2000 years before this “great” “pastoral” Council came along and changed everything.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

And no I will not continue to be content with the vague wording and the Church trying to appease heretics and infidels rather than be true to her nature and Tradition even though that will offend. Christ said that the world will reject us and our teachings just as it rejected him and killed him. Today it seems the world is growing more and more fond of the Church as the Church continues to bend over backwards to try to appease everyone except for those who are within the Church and just want to hear the same old truth in the same straightforward and no nonsense language that the Church had previously been imploring for the past 2000 years before this “great” “pastoral” Council came along and changed everything.

I really think it is only vague if one doesn’t prayerfully study what is said in the documents. The Church is more than the sum total of those who compose Her and more than just a series of precepts and doctrines that “result” in sanctification. She is the Bride of Christ and is protected by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Dissent comes from many angles.

From Vat II UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO chap 2 par.11:

Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.

This is only “vague” when someone doesn’t want to work at doing this but wants to tell others “believe doctrine A, B, and C, or leave”. In the Church’s wisdom, She sets before us the loving attitude that people today are more readily willing to hear. This is not a change in doctrine and not even a weakening of the faith but a change in style prophetically given over 40 years ago.

Modernism is a mixed concept of multiple ideologies infecting people, not Church teaching, and we can see the results in a loss of faith and an attitude of “I will not serve”, even among Catholics. Faith in Christ and trust in the Church is the only thing that will lead us out of it.

 

[otjm]

You seem to be forgetting eternal Rome, not just the Rome for the past 4 popes. The Church has always condemned heresy and yes that is part of her primary mission for you cannot lead people to the truth if they also do not know that what they believe is an error. You can say that x is true, but if someone thinks that y is x or that y is compatible with x or that someone can believe y but really cannot because of x then the Church needs to condemn y so that people can know the truth. And the truth would be that y in this case would be heresy. (Sounds like an algebra problem I know. ) The Church has been excommunicating for 2000 years. Why stop now? Why now are the only excommunications being done by modern popes being done on those who are trying to continue with the Church’s 2000 year old Tradition whereas people like Hans Kung can openly deny dogmas of the faith and get away with it?

Your obvious reference to Lefabvre has been answered elsewhere and I don’t want to get off topic. The Church has never excommunicated to the degree you seem to think; take for example, the issues afoot in the very early 1900’s, up to about 1910 - 1915. Pope Pius X had his hands full with what has been labeled Modernism. For all the people involved in the issues surrounding that - and there were many in academia - only two were excommunicated. To presume that they were the only two deserving is beond laughable. As to Kung, obviously the Church applied sanctions. Your desire for the ultimate sanction of excommunication a) seems to presume that there are no other sanctions, and b) seems to presume that the Church always applies this sanction, and to all who may be deserving of it. Both are false. The Church has never wholesale excommunicated people. And it does not do so and it did not do so in the past against anyone and everyone who may have strayed from the truth.

If the Church is on the side of the truth and if the Church is about preserving her Tradition–all 2000 years of it and not just the new stuff that’s come about from V2–then she needs to be handing out excommunications on those who are leading the sheep astray rather than those who are trying to preserve the Church’s unchanged Tradition.

Lefabvre was not excommunicated for defending the 2000 year tradition. He was excommunicated for violating a direct order of the Pope on a matter that was specifically and entirely within the exclusive power of the Pope to do - to determine who would become a bishop.

And no I will not continue to be content with the vague wording and the Church trying to appease heretics and infidels rather than be true to her nature and Tradition even though that will offend.

It may be your opinion that the Church is trying to appease someone, but you have yet to show any efactual evidence that the Church has chosen to act for the reason of appeasement. It is simply your unfounded opinion.

Christ said that the world will reject us and our teachings just as it rejected him and killed him. Today it seems the world is growing more and more fond of the Church as the Church continues to bend over backwards to try to appease everyone except for those who are within the Church and just want to hear the same old truth in the same straightforward and no nonsense language that the Church had previously been imploring for the past 2000 years before this “great” “pastoral” Council came along and changed everything.

The church looked at the issue of the “same old language” and realized that they were attempting to engage others in a battle the others were no longer fighting. In short, the Church had gotten itself stuck in a time warp. And Vatican 2 did not “change everything” by any stretch of the imagination.

Much of what you complain about “changing” has nothing to do with the documebnts of Vatican 2. The fact that it came after the documents were written is not proof that it came about because of them. Most of what you complain about came about in spite of them.

 

[numealinesimpet]

giuseppe (quoting from the author in Latin Mass Magazine))
“Should somebody ask me whether modernism was ultimately let into the very fabric of the Council’s documents to the point that the Fathers themselves were infected by it, my answer would be yes and no.”

Rory
Very good. “True acceptance of Vatican II” means that one has to accept the conditions under which it was promulgated. The two popes of the Council insisted that no new dogma was defined. Paul VI pointed to the disclaimer at the end of Lumen Gentium when asked if the Council carried with it the note of infallibility. Our current pope has said the same before he was pope. It seems to me that this permits us to judge the documents in light of the Tradition that preceded it. To this point, the Society of St. Pius X is charged with non-acceptance of Vatican II for saying “yes and no” about it as this author is reported to have said. I foresee the day when His Holiness Pope Benedict faces down the snapping and snarling of the wolves who would make this Council not merely another ecumenical council, but a “super council” to which all and everyone must submit under pain of sin.

Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the Church at which the Holy Ghost was safeguarding the purity of doctrine, albeit in a different way than with past councils. But think about it. What if the popes who promulgated the Councils from Nicea to Vatican I had made the disclaimers that Pope Paul made regarding Vatican II? On what basis would the Church discipline Arians in the Church or the Old Catholics who deny papal infallibility if the popes of those councils had said that the note of infallibility was lacking for the Council in question? Imagine Bl. Pius IX or St. Sylvester saying this about their councils and the results:

1. “Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975, To the rectors of the Universities of the Society of Jesus

1. “Today we are concluding the the Council of ( )…But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…”

Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965

1. "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give 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. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

1. “Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.”

Addendum of Nov. 16, 1964 (alluded to by Paul VI above) in the Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium.

It seems to me that those who insist that each document of the Second Vatican Council carries the weight of defined infallibility are completely out of touch with what Pope Paul VI himself said about it. Obedience to the popes, and “true acceptance of the Council” requires that we accept these qualifications which were given to the Council by the Vicar of Christ before, during, and after its promulgation. This is what permits me to have a clear conscience about questioning some documents which may have been misinterpreted. But furthermore, there is no strict obligation to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition. The popes have made it clear that it is possible that there may be an irreconcilable conflict, and if there is, Tradition will trump any council that "avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

Perhaps when a book sits on the pope’s desk that says “yes and no” as to whether modernist error could be said to have crept into the fabric of the council texts themselves, the Holy Spirit is moving the Church as a whole to recognize the distinctions between this Council and those which preceded it. Huzzah!

Wonderful piece of scholarship. Thank you, Rory.
NB that the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, although ordered to be inserted by Pope Paul VI, was left out of the supposedly definitive edition of Vatican II documents by Fr Flannery, O.P., published around 1975. This was the book that I, and others, studied in all good faith in those days, to learn what the Council had taught and mandated.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I really think it is only vague if one doesn’t prayerfully study what is said in the documents. The Church is more than the sum total of those who compose Her and more than just a series of precepts and doctrines that “result” in sanctification. She is the Bride of Christ and is protected by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Dissent comes from many angles.

From Vat II UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO chap 2 par.11:
Quote:
Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

Point of Order, Earnest Bunbury! I did read UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO so many decades ago now, highlighter in hand. The final “false irenicism” paragraph that you quote, so obviously inserted by Pope Paul VI, actually contradicts the tenor of the entire document up until then. It was typical of the times that, instead of confronting the bishops, the pope simply inserted a paragraph at the end that effectively contradicted the rest of the document. This is exactly the kind of thing that has led to the decades of confusion since then. The partisans on each side of the many subsequent controversies have been able to select quotes to support their position. That is why the request for definitive answers, explicitly repudiating the false teachings, coming from the SSPX and now from this worthy Franciscan, are at timely as ever they were.

For those wishing to check all this first hand, simply google UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO and see for yourself.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Your obvious reference to Lefebvre has been answered elsewhere and I don’t want to get off topic. …

Agreed. Raised, anyway, if not answered. However, since the point has been raised…

Lefebvre was not excommunicated for defending the 2000 year tradition. He was excommunicated for violating a direct order of the Pope on a matter that was specifically and entirely within the exclusive power of the Pope to do - to determine who would become a bishop.

The pope was not empowered to change reality. The reality was that Mgr Lefebvre was running the only Seminary that was consciously acting in accordance with the Oath against Modernism. It wasn’t just “any old seminary” and Mgr Lefebvre wasn’t just “any old bishop”. It is not, therefore, in accord with reality to attempt to narrow the question to one of mere discipline. That would only be true “other things being equal”. Mgr Lefebvre was acting within his capacity as an archbishop to safeguard the Faith in a time of extreme peril. That is why, this year, and after thirty years of determined opposition, one of the daughter seminaries of the SSPX has been having to turn away applicants through lack of space, and send them to another SSPX seminary further away. The Truth will Out.

 

[Shoshana]

Unfortunetly, Pope Paul VI’s greatest glory was the encyclycal ‘Humane Vitae’ that was certainly prophetic!

That being said, here is a statement (quoted from Socci’s book, ‘The fourth Secret’)about the changes to the Mass that happened at that time;

:Even more embarrassing is the response that (Montini) he will give ot his friend Jean Guitton in November 1976. During a private meeting Guitton, confronted with the disastrous product of the liturgical reform with its many permitted abuses, indicated to Paul VI the irrationality and authoritarianism with which it was proceeding: ‘The general opinion cannot admit that all Masses are allowed except that of St Pius V, the Mass that all of the bishops said during the Council.’ Then he said to the Pope that ‘It would be suspicious…to annul the interdiction in France of the Mass of St Pius V that the Council never pretended to abolish.’ The response by Montini is preremptory and chilling: ‘This never!’ Even more incredible is the motivation: ‘This Mass, as we have at Econe, became a symbol of condemnation of the Council. I will never accept that one can condemn the Council by means of a symbol.’ (John Guitton, *The Secret Paul VI, pp144-145.) *It is useless to underline, as Guitton did, that the Council had not all wanted to abolish that Mass, that the new ligurgy has been disastrous for the Church, and that it was an authoritarian imposition by Paul VI himself, who should have taken responsibility instead of offering the excuse of the Coucil. Pope Montini was stubborn and did not wish to give a victory to Econe and to his other critics. While watching the church ‘auto-demolishing’ itself, he did not wish to admit that he had erred. Thus he remained until the end. P201

Joseph Ratzinger, My Life, P115). In these pages the future Pope recalls ‘the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, with the almost complete prohibition of the preceding missal.’ Ratzinger comments: ‘I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The preceding missal was produced by Pius V in 1570, in keeping with the council of Trent; it was therefore normal that, after 400 years and a new council, a pope would publish a new missal. But the historical truth is otherwise. Pius V limited himself to making a revision of the Roman Missal than in use, as had always happened in the living history of the Church down through the centuries…without ever substituting one missal for another. This has always involved a continuous process of growth and purification, in which, however, continuity has never been destroyed…Now instead,’ writes Ratzinger, ‘the promulgation of a ban of the Missal which had developed over the course of centuries, from the time of the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, has produced a rupture in the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. Pieces of the edifice were taken and a new one constructed from them…What is dramatically necessary for the life of the Church is a renewal of liturgical conscience, a liturgical reconciliation, which returns to recognizing the unity of the history of the liturgy and understand Vatican II not as a rupture, but as an evolutionary moment.’ (pp113-115)

 

[otjm]

Agreed. Raised, anyway, if not answered. However, since the point has been raised…

The pope was not empowered to change reality. The reality was that Mgr Lefebvre was running the only Seminary that was consciously acting in accordance with the Oath against Modernism. It wasn’t just “any old seminary” and Mgr Lefebvre wasn’t just “any old bishop”. It is not, therefore, in accord with reality to attempt to narrow the question to one of mere discipline. That would only be true “other things being equal”. Mgr Lefebvre was acting within his capacity as an archbishop to safeguard the Faith in a time of extreme peril. That is the answer always given by the SSPX. However, the Pope is the supreme lawgiver and what has eminated from Rome is that there was not, in fact, extreme peril such that he could defy the direct order of the Pope. And as a matter of fact, Rome in lifting the excommunication did just that - lifted it; they did not declare that Lefebvre had duly acted per extreme peril. The truth has already outed; it is just that certain parties wish to continue to deny it.

The excommunications have b een lifted. It is time to move on to whatever else needs to be resolved.

 

[Shoshana]

That is the answer always given by the SSPX. However, the Pope is the supreme lawgiver and what has eminated from Rome is that there was not, in fact, extreme peril such that he could defy the direct order of the Pope. And as a matter of fact, Rome in lifting the excommunication did just that - lifted it; they did not declare that Lefebvre had duly acted per extreme peril. The truth has already outed; it is just that certain parties wish to continue to deny it.

The excommunications have b een lifted. It is time to move on to whatever else needs to be resolved.

Unfortunetly, i believe that the Pope’s hands are tied sometinmes. JP2 tried to reveal the Third Secret in its entirety but was not allowed to…

And then there is the case when 450 bishops would not agree to sign a pact with Russia so communism would not be declared intrisically evil in Vatican 2…

The Pope told them to sit down and be quiet…Padre Pio had much to cry about…

 

[numealinesimpet]

The pope was not empowered to change reality. The reality was that Mgr Lefebvre was running the only Seminary that was consciously acting in accordance with the Oath against Modernism. It wasn’t just “any old seminary” and Mgr Lefebvre wasn’t just “any old bishop”. It is not, therefore, in accord with reality to attempt to narrow the question to one of mere discipline. That would only be true “other things being equal”. Mgr Lefebvre was acting within his capacity as an archbishop to safeguard the Faith in a time of extreme peril.

That is the answer always given by the SSPX. However, the Pope is the supreme lawgiver and what has emanated from Rome is that there was not, in fact, extreme peril such that he could defy the direct order of the Pope.

Firstly, this was never stated explicitly. All that was done was to pass over in silence the perfectly legal recourse of Mgr Lefebvre et al. to the canons that covered cases of perceived emergency (canons 1323, 1324 +1321).

And as a matter of fact, Rome in lifting the excommunication did just that - lifted it; they did not declare that Lefebvre had duly acted per extreme peril. The truth has already outed; it is just that certain parties wish to continue to deny it.
The excommunications have been lifted. It is time to move on to whatever else needs to be resolved.

I agree. But others keep on raising it again. Bp Fellay asked only for the decree of excommunications to be lifted “without prejudice” to whether they were valid in the first place. He knew that the Vatican would never just say, “Hey, we made a mistake and then took twenty years to do something about it”. In point of fact, the matter has been sidestepped, and I for one am content with that. It is indeed time to move on - to tackle the unfinished business of the confusion inflicted by the equivocal words of the Vatican II documents. But when somebody talks as if the Lefebvre case has been proved against him, I will point out the contrary reality. Not only is it the reality that the Church was reeling under a deluge of the Modernist heresy, but it is the reality that the New Code of Canon Law gives legal force to one’s subjective opinions about a State of emergency. Readers unclear about this are invited to consult the other threads on this Forum, including
“An Open Letter to Confused Catholics”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=365131&goto=newpost
“Condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s Consecrations - isn’t that Sinful?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=364868&goto=newpost
or
“Three Points on the Recent SSPX Ordinations”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=349683&goto=newpost

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Point of Order, Earnest Bunbury! I did read UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO so many decades ago now, highlighter in hand. The final “false irenicism” paragraph that you quote, so obviously inserted by Pope Paul VI, actually contradicts the tenor of the entire document up until then. It was typical of the times that, instead of confronting the bishops, the pope simply inserted a paragraph at the end that effectively contradicted the rest of the document. This is exactly the kind of thing that has led to the decades of confusion since then. The partisans on each side of the many subsequent controversies have been able to select quotes to support their position. That is why the request for definitive answers, explicitly repudiating the false teachings, coming from the SSPX and now from this worthy Franciscan, are at timely as ever they were.

For those wishing to check all this first hand, simply google UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO and see for yourself.

Unitatis Redintegratio:

1. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

No false peace based on denying the Catholic faith here. There can be no dialogue unless distinctions are presented. False irenicism comes from denying any distinctions exist.

1. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them.

The holiness of life in the conversion away from sin that brings us in union with God. Far from denying any differences or denying protestants are wrong, highlighting that they are wrong and pointing out the differences makes others defensive and combative. This forum itself has rules against this very polemics as a way of dialogue but it is wrong for the Church to have the same requests? It is Jesus being chastised for eating with sinners all over again.

 

[una_fides]

Your obvious reference to Lefabvre has been answered elsewhere and I don’t want to get off topic. The Church has never excommunicated to the degree you seem to think; take for example, the issues afoot in the very early 1900’s, up to about 1910 - 1915. Pope Pius X had his hands full with what has been labeled Modernism. For all the people involved in the issues surrounding that - and there were many in academia - only two were excommunicated. To presume that they were the only two deserving is beond laughable. As to Kung, obviously the Church applied sanctions. Your desire for the ultimate sanction of excommunication a) seems to presume that there are no other sanctions, and b) seems to presume that the Church always applies this sanction, and to all who may be deserving of it. Both are false. The Church has never wholesale excommunicated people. And it does not do so and it did not do so in the past against anyone and everyone who may have strayed from the truth.

I never said that the Church dished out excommunications in such high numbers, only that she has more in the past than today. I am more pointing out that modern popes have been lax on condemning heresies and have promulgated documents with vague wording on various issues that have blurred the lines between truth and error. And seriously you are not saying that the Church now is excommunicating to the same degree as she has in the past.

Lefabvre was not excommunicated for defending the 2000 year tradition. He was excommunicated for violating a direct order of the Pope on a matter that was specifically and entirely within the exclusive power of the Pope to do - to determine who would become a bishop.

And why not let him appoint the bishops? Aren’t there more important fights to wage rather than on those who wish to uphold the Church’s Tradition and preserve her Traditional liturgy? Instead of excommunicating heretics like Kung, JP2 excommunicates Lefebvre, who in ordaining the bishops, was trying to ensure that the Church’s tradition would be preserved.

It may be your opinion that the Church is trying to appease someone, but you have yet to show any efactual evidence that the Church has chosen to act for the reason of appeasement. It is simply your unfounded opinion.The church looked at the issue of the “same old language” and realized that they were attempting to engage others in a battle the others were no longer fighting.

Are you kidding? Others were no longer fighting? Have you heard the things our “separated brethren” still say about the Catholic Church?! They are certainly at war with us and at war with our gospel as are the others outside the Church who promote their deceptions and lies.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Unitatis Redintegratio:

(text)
No false peace based on denying the Catholic faith here. There can be no dialogue unless distinctions are presented. False irenicism comes from denying any distinctions exist.
(text)
No false peace based on denying the Catholic faith here. There can be no dialogue unless distinctions are presented. False irenicism comes from denying any distinctions exist.

The holiness of life in the conversion away from sin that brings us in union with God. Far from denying any differences or denying protestants are wrong, highlighting that they are wrong and pointing out the differences makes others defensive and combative. This forum itself has rules against this very polemics as a way of dialogue but it is wrong for the Church to have the same requests? It is Jesus being chastised for eating with sinners all over again.

You are illustrating exactly the point. This document, like the other Vatican II documents, veers from one side to the other on basic issues, and hints at things without really nailing them down. Therefore partisans of both sides can cherry-pick the quotes that support their own view, as (if I may say so with respect) you have done yourself here. Often, over the years, this has been done in all honesty – might I say naivete.
The full, authoritative text of Unitatis Redintegratio in English can be found on the Vatican Website:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

A good critique of the text can be found on
“Ambiguity Series - Problems with Unitatis Redintegratio”
verbum1.blogspot.com/2009/03/ambiguity-series-problems-with-unitatis.html

But before we delve into this Vatican II document, let us do what these documents themselves hardly ever do, and make a face-to-face comparison with a pre-Vatican II papal pronouncement. This is what Pope Pius XI had to say about the Protestant ecumenical movement, which was very active in the eraly 20th century. Note the clear and concise manner in which he states what ecumenism for Catholics really means:–

“…the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it…

it would be foolish and out of place to say that the Mystical Body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head…

in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government…

Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”

*** Mortalium Animos ***

Now let us hear the words of no less a personage than Cardinal Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity – a John Paul II appointee:–

“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’*** This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”***

Cdl Kasper is, of all people, the head of a commission that should (according to orthodox interpretations) be seeking the return of Christians to the Catholic Church as converts. Yet he repudiates this doctrine and feels safe to invoke the Second Vatican council to support his statements.

Now the Holy Spirit has watched over this council by preventing it from pronouncing a direct heresy in the forthright way of the pre-Conciliar popes. Nonetheless the text abounds with insinuations and omissions that allow heresy to claim the support of the council. This is what the “trads” have been despairingly trying to bring to the attention of the church, not only from immediately after the council, but during the very sessions of the council themselves.

Here is just one example; actually the text abounds with them.

Unitatis Redintegratio Ch 3 reads:

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.”

Calling people outside the Church “brothers” or “sisters” implies that they are a part of the “family” or rather the Body of Christ – which they are not. Now it is Catholic doctrine that if a Protestant sect performs a valid baptism on an infant then the infant is a member of the Catholic Church. There is but “one Faith, one Baptism” and One church. This text, however, states that these people are at the same time “separated” and “brothers.” What sense does this make? As for the last part,while we would have some kind of “respect and affection” for non-Catholic denominations, by respecting the things that are really, true at the same time we would have to condemn and shun their errors as well. Neglecting to mention how the Catholic Church is also displeased with their errors leaves the doorway open for a liberal to say, “See, the Council says we have respect and affection for other Christians! We must stop trying to convert them!”
And this is precisely what Cdl Kaspar does say.