New Book Examines Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

giuseppeTO

Guest
André Marie August 18th, 2009
According to The Latin Mass magazine, Italy has just witnessed the publication of a soon-to-be blockbuster on Vatican II. Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, a renowned 85-year-old theologian of the Roman school, has descriptively entitled his work Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion. The volume is published by Casa Mariana Editrice, a publishing house connected to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and it boasts a forward by Bishop Mario Oliveri (of the Albenga and Imperia diocese) and an introduction by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the former secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who is now the Archbishop of Colombo and Metropolitan of the Church in Sri Lanka.

The web site of the Society of Scholastics, on whose Board of Advisors the author sits, says that Monsignor Brunero Gherardini resides “at the Vatican as a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, he is the secretary for the Pontifical Academy of Theology, professor emeritus at the Pontifical Lateran University, and the editor of Divinitas magazine.” Divinitas is a respected Roman journal of theology.

Alessandro Zangrando, the Rome Correspondent for The Latin Mass, gives us a sneak preview by way of some excerpts from the book, which he says has reportedly reached the Pope’s desk, and is soon to be published in English.

Monsignor Gherardini laments a “misguided ecumenism, in search of what unites, rather than of what divides. … We entered into a new spirit of conciliation, adaptation, resignation, wary of other people’s preconditions, almost as though we believed, perhaps without admitting it, that the truth was on the other side. 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. No, because the supernatural spirit is not at all absent from the Council thanks to its open profession of the Faith in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the universal redemption of the Word, along with its deep conviction about the universal calling to sanctity, its acceptance [of] and faith in the sanctifying effect of the sacraments, its particularly high regard for the liturgical and Eucharistic worship, the sanctifying role of the Church and a theologically nourished devotion to Mary. My answer is also yes, because modernistic ideas still can be found in several Council documents, notably in Gaudium et Spes, and a few prominent Council Fathers were openly sympathetic to old and new modernitsts. They wished to have a Church in a pilgrimage toward the Truth, like every other pilgrim, a friend and ally of every other researcher, endorsing even in the field of sacred studies, the same critical methodology applicable to every other science. In short, their Church was to be a kind of research laboratory rather than a dispenser of Truths from on high.”

The book ends by requesting that the Supreme Pontiff, “clarify definitively every aspect and contents of the last Council. Such omnia reparare [reparation of everything] could be accomplished through a great papal document, which would go down in history as a sign and witness of the vigilant and responsible exercise of His ministry as the Successor of Peter.”

I would think that the arrival of such a book is an occurrence of major import. First, it is authored by a weighty and respected theologian, who is a priest in good standing with the Church — not a man that can be taken as a spokesman for a movement, a mere controversialist, or an “interested party” in the debate. Second, its forward and preface are by two seated diocesan ordinaries (one, a former Roman curial official who may well return to the Holy See one of these days). Third, it is published by a publishing house attached to a vibrant and young branch of the Franciscan Order, raised to Pontifical Right status by none other than Pope John Paul II. That Order itself boasts some accomplished theologians (such as the American, Father Peter Damien Fehlner, FI). Finally, if Mr. Zangrando’s contacts are correct, and the book is indeed on the Pope’s desk, the Roman Pontiff may choose to respond positively to the just-quoted respectful appeal made to his authority, or at least pave the way for his successor to do this.

If the passages provided by The Latin Mass are any indication, Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion may also provide a wonderful catalyst for the Rome-SSPX dialogue.
 
Wow sounds like a great book. Finally the discussion is being opened. People are waking up to the modernism.
 
Iota Unum, Animus Delendi, the Murky Waters, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber… .

And now this… Well, time to pick up another one when it is readable, God willing.

It gives a fellow headaches but it’s necessary for greater understanding. .

Though I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone.
 
Sounds to me like perfect timing for this book as the discussions begin with SSPX and the Vatican.
 
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!
 
Rory,

Great evaluation on the Council. Perhaps we’ll live to see some REAL progress regarding V2.
 
This will be a good discussion. Maybe there will be a new council. Vatican III ? Have to go watch a football game right now though.🙂
 
This will be a good discussion. Maybe there will be a new council. Vatican III ? Have to go watch a football game right now though.🙂
Would be nice, get back to clear texts and get rid of ambigious statements.
 
This will be a good discussion. Maybe there will be a new council. Vatican III ? Have to go watch a football game right now though.🙂
Given the present state of the Church, I’m afraid that a Vatican III right now would be disastrous. There needs to be more reform of the reform and a serious dialogue opened up so that the modernists can begin to be flushed out and suppressed, as they have been in the past such as under Pius X, before a third Vatican Council could be called to rescind the errors of ambiguities in the former.
 
There needs to be more reform of the reform and a serious dialogue opened up so that the modernists can begin to be flushed out and suppressed, as they have been in the past such as under Pius X, before a third Vatican Council could be called to rescind the errors of ambiguities in the former.
Right. Flushed out and surpressed, which is why they died out during his pontificate. Which is of course why their permutations did not exist at the time of Vatican 2, and had no influence on what came after.

My recollection is that at the time of Vatican 2, all priests had to take an oath against Modernism.

Looks like it did a bang-up stellar job of flushing out and surpressing Modernism and/or any permutations occuring since the 19th century.

“I don’t think we are in Kansas any more, Toto.”
 
Right. Flushed out and surpressed, which is why they died out during his pontificate. Which is of course why their permutations did not exist at the time of Vatican 2, and had no influence on what came after.

My recollection is that at the time of Vatican 2, all priests had to take an oath against Modernism.

Looks like it did a bang-up stellar job of flushing out and surpressing Modernism and/or any permutations occuring since the 19th century.

“I don’t think we are in Kansas any more, Toto.”
If only priests were still made to take the Oath Against Modernism today. I know so many priests who would be unable to do so because they teach things clearly contrary. I am shocked that you actually think that modernist errors were not around during and after Vatican II. It seems today it’s rare to find a priest who is not infected to some degree or another.

Here is an excerpt from the Oath:

“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.”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

I have often heard priests and lay persons saying how “Vatican II changed things” and now “the Church no longer teaches…” x,y, and z. Now no one can commit a mortal sin, there’s no need to go to confession, and Jesus didn’t really rise bodily from the dead… the list goes on and on with the errors currently being taught by very many priests today. They mistakenly think that the Church can change her teachings or interpret them in a different way than how they have always meant.

No salvation outside the Church is a great example. The Church has always taught that the dogma means what it says and has never interpreted it as meaning “without the Church there is no salvation.” (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) Extra in Latin means outside not without, which would be sine. The ancients knew what words they were using and knew what these words meant and explained their meanings. Hence we have the following explanations that you would never hear coming from a pope or bishop today: no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/

Modernism has not affected the Church before, during, or after the Council??? Are you kidding me?
 
FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
 
FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
The new method of explaining things in vague wording that can be interpreted falsely and then no clarification given when people wrongly interpret the documents produces serious problems. You must admit.

The Church’s teaching on inerrancy of Scripture is another great example. Just because the Pope says the Church didn’t change her teachings does not mean that the priests have not said she has and do not continue to teach otherwise. I’m not advocating that the Church is apostate or that she is teaching heresy, but I am saying that the vague wording and unwillingness to purge heresy is a serious problem that has resulted in the crisis of faith we’ve been experiencing for the past 40 years.
 
Socci’s book: The fourth Secret
  • John 23 inaugurated the Council in October 1962 with a discourse that remains celebrated for its infelicitous irony concerning the children of Fatima: ‘To us it seems necessary to disagree with the prophets of doom who are forever forecasting calamity, almost as if the world’s end is imminent.’ Evidently, Roncalli felt that his ‘prophetic spirit’ was much more acute than that of the ‘Queen of prophets.’ In fact, he announced a splendid springtime for the church, and we have seen that a dark and and freezing winter arrived. P197
  • In that solemn discourse Pope Roncalli added: ‘The church today prefers to use the arms of mercy instead of the arms of severity’ and to give ‘teachings rather than condemnations.’ He then affirmed: ‘Not that there are lacking false doctrines, opinions, and dangerous concepts…] but …] not it seems that men are of themselves inclined to condemn then.’ (Allocution at the opening of Vatican Council II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, October 11, 1962). Apart from the ‘prophetic talent’ that pope Roncalli here demonstrates (shortly thereafter 1968 will explode, and the entire world will become drunk with terrifying ideologies), taking these words of the Pope literally one would deduce that there is no longer any need of the church as Mother and Teacher. P197
  • To tell the truth, on September 13, 1964, Pope Montini confided to the same French friend(John Guitton) that he expected to see ‘lay people animated by the spirit of prophecy,’ but he expected them as ‘fruits of the Council, not by the election (and gift) of Heaven as with the children of Fatima. We are still awaiting the ‘prophets’ born of the Council. On the other hand, there were soon seen other ‘fruits’ of the Council—terrible fruits. P200
  • It was precisely Montini—the Pope according to whom ‘the Church does not have need’ of the extraordinary assistance of the Madonna and can do without Her maternal aid—who shortly thereafter had to recognize that, within a few years of the council’s conclusion, the church was in the process of auto-demolition. Paul VI even shouted out desperately his apocalyptic felling that ‘from somewhere or other, the smoke of Satan has entered the smoke of Satan had entered the temple of God.’ Then he added bitterly: It was believed that after the Council there should come a day of sunshine in the history of the church, Instead there came a day of clouds, tempests, of darkness. P200
  • Pope Montini hinted at some self-criticism (‘The opening to the Church became a true and proper invasion of the Church by worldly thinking. We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent.) However, it was seen quite clearly who had opened the door to the world and to the ‘smoke of Satan.’ In fact, he persisted in error: The most devastating of the errors was the traumatic ‘coup d’etat’ by a minority ‘revolution’ that imposed the liturgical reform (with a thousand abuses), hailed by Paul VI but clearly not blessed by God. The prohibition of the millennial Latin liturgy of the Church was effectuated by a decision that contravened even the documents of the Council. The modality and the contents of the ‘coup d’etat’ have had disastrous effects on the orthodoxy and faith of the people, while-as the writer Guido Ceronetti has noted-that folly ‘pleased Communist authorities…who were not stupid, having in their bestial ignorance of the sacred perceived that a crack had been opened. P201
 
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)
 
  • The unimpeachable witness, Henri de Lubac, who even took part in the cause, made this terrible diagnosis: The drama of Vatican II consists in the fact that instead of having been conducted by saints, as was the Council of Trent, it was monopolized by intellectuals. Above all it was monopolized by certain theologians, whose theology started off with the preconception of updating the faith according to the demands of the world and to emancipate it form pre-supposed condition of inferiority with respect for modern civilization. The place of theology ceased to be a Christian community, that is, the Church became the interpretation of individuals; In this sense the post-Conciliar period represented the victory of Protestantism within Catholicism.’ P203
  • The victory of Protestantism within Roman Catholicism? Is this not already an apocalyptic event? And the sign of this Protestant victory was precisely the hostility (Pelegian, modernist, and activist) against Mary which was manifested during the Council and in the post-conciliar Church. It is also seen in the hostility to Fatima and the hard-fought battle which had been waged against the recognition of our Lady’s titles—Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-Redemptrix—which springs forth from all Catholic Tradition. Yet, in the tempest of the post-conciliar period, only one thing has descended into crisis: the Marian sanctuaries which represented the lifeboat for rescuing the faith and the people, so despised by theologians precisely because they are linked to Mary, ‘Help of Christians.’ P203
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top