Posted on 09/25/2021 2:43:30 PM PDT by ebb tide
“To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.” This is the fundamental reason Pope Francis gives in the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes for the ultimate abolition of the celebration of the Mass according to the traditional form of the Roman Rite. The supporters of these celebrations supposedly doubt the Council and thus call into question the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church.
To doubt, according to Larousse, is both “to be uncertain about the reality of a fact” and “not to have confidence in.” It seems difficult to question the very existence of the Second Vatican Council. The question of trust is more delicate and could be formulated as follows: Is it permissible to question whether it was indeed the Holy Spirit who directed the Council? First of all, it is surprising to note that the Holy Father seems to think that the opponents of the Council are questioning the intentions of the Council Fathers. However, it is clear that the objections or reservations about the Council expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Schneider, Msgr. Gherardini, Jean Madiran, Roberto de Mattei, etc., concern texts and facts, not intentions, which, as we know, even if they are good, can pave the way to hell, and remain the secret of consciences.
The course of the Council
Opened on October 11, 1962 by Pope John XXIII, the Council ended on December 8, 1965 with the famous closing address of Paul VI. Is it reasonable to think that during these three years the 2,500 Council Fathers were continuously faithful to the breath of the Holy Spirit? A few facts, among others, allow us to doubt it.
As early as October 13, the date of the first meeting of the Fathers, things did not go as planned. While the participants were supposed to vote to elect the members of the working commissions based on the lists of those who had participated in the elaboration of the preparatory schemas, Cardinal Liénart, President of the Assembly of Cardinals and Archbishops of France, and then Cardinal Frings, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, intervened so that the vote would not take place immediately, but at a later date, in order (they argued) to allow the Fathers to get to know each other. The vote took place on October 16, with intense lobbying to promote bishops in the commissions who were largely different from the ones who had prepared the initial plans. The Council opened with a veritable rebellion against the modus operandi planned and validated by the pope. Some historians speak of “the October revolution in the Church.” Was that day of October 13 really animated by the Holy Spirit?
On October 30, Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Holy Office, already elderly and almost blind, intervened to protest against the radical changes to the Mass that were being proposed. Caught up in his subject, he exceeded his allotted speaking time. Cardinal Alfrink, president of the session, had his microphone cut off. Cardinal Ottaviani noticed this and, humiliated, had to sit down again. The most powerful cardinal in the Curia had been silenced, and many of the Council Fathers applauded with joy. “See how they love one another.”
In October 1965, four hundred and fifty Council Fathers sent a petition to the commission in charge of the document on the Church in the world [Gaudium et Spes], asking that the question of Communism be addressed, which did not seem to be unrelated to the subject. Mysteriously, this petition disappeared and the question was not addressed. It was later learned that secret negotiations had taken place in 1962 between Cardinal Tisserant, representing the Holy See, and Archbishop Nicodemus, representing the Moscow Patriarchate, ensuring that the question of Communism would not be discussed at the Council in exchange for allowing the presence of Eastern Orthodox observers. This silence on the part of the Council caused astonishment among the bishops, especially those from Eastern Europe and Asia, who were suffering from Communist persecution.
The texts of the Council
The Acts of the Council represent 789 pages in the text published by Éditions du Cerf in 1966. They consist of four “constitutions” (two of them dogmatic), nine “decrees,” three “declarations” (a new category), and various “messages.” Many of these texts are long, very long, too long. They all breathe (in Cardinal Ratzinger’s expression) a “naïve optimism,” which no longer seems to be very relevant.
As for the degree of authority these documents possess, the question is lost in conjecture. Is it possible to entertain doubts about a “pastoral” constitution on the Church in the world “today” (Gaudium et Spes) that was written in 1965? Or about a decree on the means of social communication (Inter Mirifica) written in 1963, therefore before the appearance of the Internet? For example, it institutes an annual day in each diocese “during which the faithful will be instructed in their duties in this area and invited to pray for this cause and to make financial contributions to it.” Is it not pathetic, with the benefit of hindsight, that Gaudium et Spes states: “At the same time there is a growing awareness of the eminent dignity of the human person, who is superior to all things and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable”? At a time when abortion is commonplace and publicly funded, and at a time when the application of Sharia law is becoming more and more widespread, this statement is at least doubtful. And let us not forget the serious doctrinal questions posed by the declaration on religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae, or that on relations with non-Christian religions Nostra Aetate.
After the Council
The words of the Gospel are clearer than the conciliar texts: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them… A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire” (Matt 7:15-19). We will not be cruel enough to insist on the advanced state of decomposition in which the Church finds itself today: the collapse of vocations and religious practice, the absence of liturgical and doctrinal unity, the virtual schism of the Church in Germany, etc. Not to mention the increasing distance of civil legislation from the teaching of the Church or even from simple respect for the natural law. Faced with this collapse, the most lucid of the innovators justified themselves: “Without the Council, the situation would be worse.” Objectively, on the one hand it is difficult to imagine anything worse, and on the other hand there is never a shred of reasoning to support this desperate statement. The massive and inescapable fact is that the communities and priests who have maintained traditional forms of practice and apostolate have not only not participated in this general collapse, but have even burgeoned in the midst of a generally very hostile ecclesial environment.
This is perhaps the crux of the difficulty. For Pope Francis, ordained in 1969, as well as for bishops who have just retired (Bishop Minnerath, etc.), the years of the Council were those of their studies and their first steps in the priestly life. They sincerely believed in the “new Pentecost” that was to regenerate the Church. However, at the end of the road the result was not there; quite the contrary. Hence an understandable bitterness. Worse: the methods they had all rejected turned out to be fruitful. They now enliven the youngest and most dynamic part of the Christian people. This is an unbearable affront that should be wiped out because it raises a painful question that many people refuse to ask themselves: Have we not made a mistake?
Courageous men can, like the first apostles after their failure to follow Christ to the Cross, come to sacrifice their lives for God in the end. But ah… l’amour-propre!
Ping
Ping
By any objective metric of Church participation (baptism, marriages, vocations to the priesthood, Catholic school enrollment), the last 50 years have been disastrous at least for the Western world. And yet there are powerful prelates in the Church who want to double-down or triple-down on the liberalism that has coincided with the decline.
This is something that I struggle to understand... what are they thinking? They’re clearly wrong, but I believe it’s a mistake to assume that they’re all wrong for the same reason. I think that there are three basic mindsets at work ...
1. The sincere, but misguided liberal. He honestly believes that the Vat2 reforms were the beginning of The New Pentecost. He is either willfully blind to the reality of how things actually played out in the pews OR he believes that liberalism didn’t really fail because it was never actually tried. In his imagination, the liberal reforms were stymied by conservatives, and the only way to get back on track is to rid the Church of the last vestiges of conservatives.
2. The cynical homosexual. He couldn’t really care less whether the Vat2 reforms are good or bad, or bring people in or drive them away, but he favors maximum liberalism for ulterior motives (i.e., a more free-wheeling Church makes for a more conducive playground for his own personal proclivities).
3. The Satanist/communist/infiltrator. His goal is to tear down the Church from within. What we see as metrics of the Church’s decline (plummeting baptisms, vocations, marriages, etc.), he sees as metrics of success, as destruction is his goal.
The question is... which one of these applies to your favorite liberal bishop, cardinal or pope? Or are they some combination of two or all three?
Vatican II was a pastoral council, not a doctrinal council.
I can not understand the mentality that would pronounce a “New Pentecost”. Revelation ened with the death of the last apostle.
All the machinations and intrigues surrounding V2 and every other synod, Council etc. is interesting, but not worth the time to read. V2 is sitll an Ecumenical Council and there fore an exercise of the Church’s infallibility. Griping about its erroneous applications is a work of mercy often. 😀
Which group would you say Bergoglio is in?
Your “liberal hogwash, in contradiction to the magisterial teachings of the Church”, Amoris Laetitia, quotes your beloved, “infallible” Second Vatican Council four times in it’s heretical justification of adultery.
Put that in your modernist pipe and smoke it.
Does a heretic pope use Vat2 to justify adultery?
Yes; it is used by a heretic pope to justify adultery. The apostate pope sources Vat2 four times in Amoris Laetitia.
Superficially at least, everything that he says and does is consistent with #1 (misguided liberal). He constantly make statements suggesting that he believes that the only real problem in the Church is rigid conservatives. Purge them, and the Church would prosper.
But... I wonder. Could it really be #3? Did Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, his communist boss at his chemistry lab job recruit a troubled, angry young man as an infiltrator? I’m not sure that we can rule that out.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
[Matthew 7:17]
Do you even read the Bible, amihow?
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
[Matthew 7:17]
Here they are:
Yes - Vat2 discourages non-Catholics from seeking conversion to the True Faith. Only then can one possibly love God with all his/her heart.
Yes - What is best for our neighbors is bringing them into the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Vat 2 does not do that.
Yes - Vat2 purposely avoided addressing the threat of Communism. The same Communism which Bergoglio now embraces in Red China and thus many underground Catholics are deprived of the Mass and the sacraments; and worse, some are apostatizing over to Bergoglio's beloved "state church".
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
[Matthew 7:17]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.