Ecclesia Semper Reformanda (a bishop declares war on the Bologna School)

The Priestly Pugilist ^ | 10/17/2009 | Priestly Pugilist

[Balt]

The evil Vatican II; what is one to do? Every morning I walk into church—two days a week it's every evening—to prepare for the Divine Liturgy, I thank my lucky stars I'm in an Eastern Church; for Vatican II told us to return to our traditions. Apparently it told the Latins to turn away from them; and they've been trying to pick up the pieces ever since.

Here at Priestly Pugilist, we've chronicled some of the more noteworthy attempts, primarily because, while Vatican II was clear about the equality of the Churches, practically speaking that message has fallen on deaf ears; and, for the most part, the Latin Church still calls the shots. Thus, how goes the Latin Church, so goes everyone else. It began, as far as your PP can remember, with the very first post of last year, "Give me some tongue" about the return to Communion on the tongue in the Latin Church (I don't know how to link to posts on the other pages—I know it can be done, I just don't know how and I'm not going to find out right this minute—so you'll just have to go there and find it yourself); in fact, there's a whole lot of posts from the 2008 page touching on this subject. Last year's post, "Conversi ad Dominum," was the first of several on the movement for a return of the Eastern orientation of the priest during Mass, for example—a movement championed by the Pope, himself. Ironically, while Vatican II always saw the Eastern Catholic Churches as an ecumenical bridge to the Orthodox, it turns out that they are beginning to serve as sources of instruction for the Latin Church on how to renew yourself without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Looking at it another way, the "reform of the reform," as Pope Benedict likes to call it, is a mixed blessing for us; since the newest additions to the parish families of which I am pastor are all Roman Catholics looking for a sense of mystery and tradition which they can't find in the Latin Church. If the Latin Church were ever to finally get it's act together with regard to it's own rich tradition, that spigot of new blood will probably dry up. In fact, that effect has already taken place in a few cases: I had some students from a nearby university attending last year who have now disappeared because a parish nearer to them has decided to offer the Extraordinary Mass allowed by Pope Benedict. Darn it!

But I try to be philosophical about it, and to rejoice as best I can with my friends in the Latin Church who find great hope in the attempts of their newer and younger bishops to correct the errors of the past. In that process, there is growing sentiment that it wasn't really Vatican II that was the problem, but what happened right after it; a theme that Pope Benedict has touched on in several of his remarks. To sum it up, the basic idea is that the reform that took place after the Council was over was not, in fact, the reform that the Council Fathers had asked for. The Mass that was produced, known as the Novus Ordo, was not a product of Vatican II at all; it was composed after the Council was over, by people who, themselves, were not even at the Council, and was described by the future Pope Benedict as "a manufactured product" completely devoid of any link to Catholic history.

What is really happening is the latest—and one hopes the final—battle between two camps that arose after the Council: the autheticists, led by Cardinal Siri and, after his death, by Cardinal Ratzinger; and the "Bologna School," led by Fr. Giuseppe Dossetti and professor Giuseppe Alberigo, founders of the Bologna Institute which produced the most widely read history of the Council, a massive five volume work called "The History of Vatican II," which appeared almost immediately after the Council, but which was only just completed in 2001.

Giuseppe Card. Siri was Archbishop of Genoa during the Council, and Father Joseph Ratzinger—later Pope Benedict XVI—was a professor of Theology in Munich who served as a peritis or "consulting theologian" to the Council Fathers. Both argued strenuously for a reform which built upon the past. Unfortunately, they didn't write a book, which gave the "Bologna-ites" a larger audience. The Bologna School argued that what the Council really did was completely reinvent the Catholic religion, so much so that even the documents of Vatican II themselves could be ignored. What was important about Vatican II, they argued, was not what was actually contained in the final documents, but the "spirit of Vatican II." They then set out to define what the "spirit of Vatican II" was; and it turned out to have nothing to do with what the Council Fathers actually said. So, for example, where Vatican II said that the vernacular language could be allowed by the local bishop in certain controlled situations, the Bologna School said that what the Council really meant was that any Mass in any language not understood by the people was not a valid form of worship. Where the Council said that religious institutes should return to an authentic interpretation of the spirituality of their founders, Bologna said that nuns should get out of those nasty habits and out of those schools and hospitals and start doing social work. Where the Council said that all Christians should recognize the priesthood of the faithful and collaborate with their priests in the evangelization of the world around them, Bologna blurred the line between clergy and laity, and spoke of the priesthood as a "role" rather than a sacrament. Where the Council said that our discussions with non-Catholics should begin by recognizing what we have in common with our separated brethren, Bologna said that all religions were now of equal merit and it was wrong to try to convert anyone.

The Bologna Institute's approach was a gold mine for liberals who thought the Council just didn't go far enough. It gave them the ammunition they needed to begin the wholesale destruction of the Catholic religion with which most people were familiar. The Institutes book, "The History of Vatican II," began to replace the Council documents themselves in seminaries all over the world. And—perhaps most important of all—it was protégés of the Institute, under the guidance of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, Bologna's most famous son, who wrote the Novus Ordo. Paul VI, who was pope at the time, clearly considered the Bologna book to be the gospel.

The election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope has now become the first hurdle in the Bologna School's attempt to hijack the Council, a hijacking that everyone in Bologna thought was a done deal; and, perhaps spurred on by the Holy Father's own occasional statements and actions, bishops all over the world are now beginning to poke their heads out of their foxholes; and new bishops are being appointed who are willing to take on Bologna head on. Here at Priestly Pugilist, we've tried to give some of these men a voice. One of them is the new bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, Bishop R. Walker Nickless. He's written what amounts to a declaration of war on Bologna, and not a moment too soon. He begins his first pastoral letter as Bishop of Sioux City by reflecting on his own personal commitment to the Council and what it intended to do (as opposed to what actually ended up happening):

My understanding begins with these personal reflections. I studied and was ordained a deacon and priest during the exciting, almost intoxicating, time of the Second Vatican Council. I am thoroughly a product of that momentous time, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries. It has formed the context and culture of my entire ministerial life. Like Pope John Paul the Great, I have no other desire for my ministry than seeing the hopes and reforms of the Second Vatican Council fully implemented and brought to fruition. Like Pope Benedict XVI, I know that, while we have worked hard, there is still much work to do. My understanding of this work has grown and deepened over the past forty years. So it must be for all of us. The Church is always in need of renewal because it is made up of us, imperfect human beings. This is the deepest reason: as individuals and as a Church, we are always called to grow, change, deepen, repent, convert, improve, and learn from our successes and failures in the pursuit of holiness and fidelity to Jesus Christ and the mission He has given us. Moreover, we need to do this in the midst of an ever changing world, culture and society.

I have experienced this as a priest and now, through the biggest change of all for me, as a bishop. Despite my own unworthiness, I have been blessed abundantly by the Lord Jesus Christ in his call to me, in the graces of my episcopal ordination, and in your support and cooperation. I am happy and blessed to be your bishop. Having been called by God and the Church, I want to do my part to fulfill His mission among you. Thus, we need serious reflection and evaluation of the current state and direction, challenges and opportunities, for faith and ministry in our Lord Jesus Christ in our Diocese.

What follows is probably one of the longest pastoral letters ever written by a residential bishop; and it's much too long to reproduce here. But here's the basic thrust of it, and reminds one of President Roosevelt speaking to Congress on the December 8th, 1941:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or—as we would say today—on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject—Church—which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council [...]

It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council. This interpretation sees the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church almost as two different churches. It sees the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past. There can be no split, however, between the Church and her faith before and after the Council. We must stop speaking of the “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II” Church, and stop seeing various characteristics of the Church as “pre” and “post” Vatican II. Instead, we must evaluate them according to their intrinsic value and pastoral effectiveness in this day and age [...]

The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.

Boom! The bomb has been dropped right on Bologna. He goes on to outline pastoral priorities for his diocese, urging priests to offer Mass with greater reverence, hear Confessions for more than one hour per week, and promote Eucharistic adoration, the Liturgy of the Hours, and Marian devotion. “The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned,” he adds.

This is more than just a shot across the bow; this is all-out war! If Pope Benedict continues to promote men like this to the episcopacy, the battle is already won!

Your PP highly recommends you read the whole of Bishop Nickless' letter, which you can find here on his diocesan web site. But don't tell your liberal friends. There's no need to ruin their day.

[vladimir998]

“the Second Vatican Council...the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries.”

Not exactly.

[The Comedian]

[Steelfish]

Vatican II was used as a Trojan Horse for liberal clerics with socialist agendas in mind. They used it to destroy the sacred patrimony of the Catholic Church in its splendid architecture, its rich rituals, robbed the Church of the sacred music, and opened its doors wide open not just for sinners and saints but for avowed and unrepentant heretics and rabid homosexuals. This false inclusivity led to the lowest common denominator- which is banal, insipid, and uninspiring. The consequences have been staggering in Church attendance, calls to the ministry, and a lack of devotion.

[sayuncledave]

I agree completely. I look forward to seeing the results of this, as well as (hopefully) the results of the Vatican’s discussions mentioned here yesterday. After the last 40 years, I still think this is a great time to be a Catholic. I’d be happy with fewer calls of “Social Justice” and more Eucharistic Adoration, just speaking for myself.

[Biggirl]

Yuk! No fan of that!

[Biggirl]

Plus less support for “American Church”, as the generation that supported it passes into history.

[Biggirl]

Plus the horrible scandels in recent years.

[Biggirl]

I hate bologna!

[The Comedian]

I hate bologna!

The Bishop has another assistant!