Friday, May 29, 2015

How Vatican II was being 'hijacked' by liberal revisionists already during the Council, and not merely afterwards by those who implemented it

We've all heard the commonplace canard that the collapse of the faith that occurred in the wake of Vatican II was the result of a poor implementation of an otherwise unimpeachable, infallible ecumenical council. The documents, we are constantly assured, are crystal clear and in no manner deficient.

Likewise, we've all heard (unless we've forgotten or repressed the news) individuals protesting ambiguities in Vatican II documents. Michael Davies famously referred to "time bombs" in the Vatican II constitution on sacred liturgy; Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called for a "New Syllabus" for a correct reading of Vatican II; and others more recently, like Cardinal Kasper himself, have admitted that many of the documents contain intentional ambiguities that were introduced by dissenting factions at the Council:
"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013 - emphasis added)
Well, which is it? Either the documents are clear or they're not. They can't be both. It's not enough to say that the documents can be interpreted in light of tradition. A lot of things can -- even propositions clear as mud, if you squint. The question is whether they are clear and unambiguous (and, going beyond the subject of this post, whether they have been interpreted with consistent, unambiguous clarity in the half-century since the Council).

Lately I have been reviewing a number of posts on this topic by Boniface over at Unam Sanctam Catholicam, including his excellent review of Roberto de Mattei's magisterial study, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story and some other articles. But what was especially interesting was to re-read his study of what the Council Fathers themselves had to say about ambiguity in the Council documents. The statements are all taken from the public acts of the Council -- statements put forth, not by obscure fathers, but heads of religious orders, like the Irish Dominican Michael Browne; archbishops of major sees like Cardinal Siri of Genoa; Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office; even the Karol Wojtyla, who criticizes two documents for ambiguity; and none other than Paul VI himself, who admits "fundamental contradictions" in the final text of Lumen Gentium, contradictions that will eventually lead him to publishing an explanatory note to the document. Boniface writes:
(1) That the critique of ambiguity in the documents of Vatican II is not some canard invented and bandied about by traditionalist Catholic bloggers, but was in fact a substantial charge made against many conciliar documents by the Council Fathers themselves. It was, and remains, a legitimate criticism of the documents of the Second Vatican Council that must be taken seriously since the Council Fathers themselves took it so seriously.

(2) That to offer this critique does not imply any "denial of the Council", heterodoxy, or poor taste - if it does, then similar accusations must be leveled against Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the hundreds and hundreds of bishops who all voted non placet on many conciliar documents and did not thereby become heretics by doing so. What we are dealing with when looking at the question of ambiguity is a simple acknowledgement of fact - the documents have inherent ambiguities, and as much was admitted by scores of Council Fathers.
Nor was it the case that these ambiguities were all eventually clarified to the satisfaction of the Council Fathers before the Vatican II documents reached their final form for publication. Indeed, many were published with their resident ambiguities and even contradictions in them far from unresolved, and in one case overriding 249 negative votes, including objections posed by none other than Archbishop Karol Wojtyla of Cracow!

The documents selected as examples by Boniface include Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae (to which Wojtyla had objections), Dei Verbum, Gaudium et spes, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Nostra Aetate. Sacrosanctum Concilium is omitted from discussion, not because it doesn't contain loopholes through which one could drive a truck, as one observer put it, but because of its ample treatment by others, most notably Michael Davies.

There are dozens of examples of specific criticisms Boniface examines -- far too many to quote here. Let a couple from his first example (Lumen Gentium) suffice (without the footnotes):
In September 1964, during the opening of the third session, a group of conservative bishops presented a document ("Note Addressed to the Holy Father on the Schema Constitutio De Ecclesia") to Paul VI which expressed "serious reservations" about the chapter on Chapter 3, saying that the teaching contained therein was "uncertain" and contained "doctrines and opinions that are often vague or insufficiently clear in their terms, their true meanings, or in their aims." The document also called the teaching of collegiality "a new doctrine, which, until 1958 or rather 1962, represented only the opinions of a few theologians." The document was signed by twenty-five cardinals and thirteen superiors of religious orders, including the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

... Amazingly, Paul VI himself noted in a letter back to Cardinal Larraona, dated October 18, 1964, that Chapter 3 of what would become Lumen Gentium did in fact contain "fundamentally contradictory statements", and said that these "objections [are] supported in Our personal opinion." These concerns would later cause Paul VI, not to amend Lumen Gentium, but to add an explanatory note to the document. (emphasis added)
By way of conclusion, Boniface writes:
As anyone can see, the documents of the Second Vatican Council were problematic from their inception, and this much was admitted by the Council Fathers. While they all had their own concerns, questions and difficulties, the theme that connected them all was ambiguity, expressed in such terms as "lack of clarity", "greater precision needed", "insufficiently clear", "lacking distinction", "perplexing", and so on. This was the opinion of a great many of the Council Fathers, even some of the liberals and (in the case of Lumen Gentium), Paul VI himself.

Given this straightforward evidence, this obvious matter of fact, it is no longer tenable for anyone to assert that the charges of ambiguity in conciliar documents is a recent invention by Traditionalists, nor that it is without merit or unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the documents of the Second Vatican Council do contain problematic ambiguities that need to be addressed and remedied. It does not detract from the validity or authority of the Council to simply admit this; many Council Fathers admitted it, and they did not consider it disobedient or schismatic to do so. Rather, they saw it as their duty as bishops to ensure that the faith was expounded in the most clear, precise, and easy to understand manner as possible. In posting these citations from these same fathers, we do so hoping the problems that went unheeded in 1962-65 will one day be satisfactorily addressed.
Finally, Boniface also has a post on why a purely legal (administrative) solution to these problems won't work, apart from spiritual reawakening from the ground up. Pray for Mother Church, our shepherds and our fellow Catholics. We desperately need God's help.


Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

So, the Koran has its satanic verses as do we.

Yay ecumenism

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

A conspiracy of modernists formed prior to the opening of the council and they met secretly and they seized control of the council on the first day, that is one important fact developed and proved by Prof Mattei;

About conspiracies, the redoubtable Prof Mattei observs,

Minorities, when they organize, always do so discretely, and sometimes secretly. It is not inappropriate to speak, in this sense, about conventicles and conspiracies. Today, in order to belittle a historical study, critics accuse it of leaning toward a "conspiracy theory." To admit the existence of conspiracies is simply to admit that history is shaped by men's freedom and it is not the result of a World Spirit or Reason that is immanent in history, of which men are only the instruments. Actually, there is no major historical event, starting from the two major revolutions of the modern era, the French and the Russian, that was not started by more or less successful "conspiracies....

The must read author goes on to quote from the 12/03/1962 diary entry of Bishop Borromeo:

We are in the full flowering of modernism. Not the naive, frank, aggressive and combative modernism of the days of Pius X, no. Today's modernism is subtler, more disguised, more penetrating, and more hypocritical. It does not want to stir up another storm; It wants the whole Church to find that it has become modernist without noticing...Thus today's modernism salvages all of Christianity, its dogmas and its organization, but empties it all out and turns it on its head. It is no longer a religion that comes from God, but a religion that comes directly from man and indirectly from the divine element that is in man

Vatican Two appears to have been a modernist revolution within the form of Catholicism.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Prof Mattei observes that at least two hermeneutics were quarreling with each other about what the documents meant which illustrates the ambiguity of the documents because a hermeneutics must be resorted to for they are not clear in their meaning and on page 350 he shows how if the proposed schema on the church was accepted as it (it was) then the council was essentially accepting that for over 18 centuries the Church had been acting in opposition to divine law and, thus the protestants and orthodox were right all along in their criticism of the church .

Pope Blessed Paul VI entertained the "Confidential note' of Cardinal Larranoa and, despite admitting the documents "schema's doctrine and its fundamentally contradictory statements - objections supported in
our personal opinion by arguments tat are not beyond dispute but then the Pope added that the note was too late in arriving just before the start of the third expediency.

Cardinal Larrona responded to the Pope "unless some formulas are not revised, in many questions dispute among the theologians we will end up taking a position contrary to's magisterium and by its practice of entire centuries..

Eh, ya gotta break a few irreformable doctrines if ya want some scrambled ecumenism.

Read the book, It completely eviscerates any idea of continuity.

V2 was a rocket fueled by a modernist conspiracy and when it landed it wrought grave destruction and claims that it binds us is complete and utter B.S. for it did not have one- NOT ONE - decree or canon that we layman had to accept of be labeled anathema

O, and prior to the opening of the council, Cardinal Bea was traveling al over hell and creation meeting with heretics in Bern Basel, Strasbourg, Heidelberg, Tubingen, Essen, Liverpool, London etc and you can bet your bottom euro he wasn't preaching conversion

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Pages 253-258 were the key for Raider Fan for therein is described the battle between two minority forces at the Council but owing to its superior organisation and its conspiracy that was actualised prior to the council, the modernist minority gained the whip hand early and drove the too-late-responding conservatives out of any area of authority/influence.

Another excellent virtue of those pages is Mattei's take down of the "conspiracy" label as applying only to kooks. In a few short lines he proves "The Paranoid Style in American politics" was in service to the establishment.

Once you identify your enemies as insane you are not required to respond to them

He accurately observes minority/conspiratorial action in previous revolutions, Russia and French, and that is what fueled the V2 rocket.

The Abbe de Nantes observed that is just one - JUST ONE - Cardinal of Bishop had raised during V2 and clearly stated he would NOT accept these doctrinal changes then that would have been it for the modernists.

Imagine if Lefebvre had just walked out of the Council rather than sign what he knew were duplicitous documents

Anonymous said...

For the record,

YOU are a decent man, Philip Blosser. Temporally, that is probably not in your best interest. IF God is real and is the God I thought the nuns taught me about, 50 years ago, then mercy should be yours in the FINAL analysis.

Pray, then, for those of us like myself who have despaired that mercy may be shown us for the time BEFORE we gave up or lost hope.



Jacobi said...

Michael Davies was right.

There is currently a definite desire to paint the positive side of Vatican II and its documents, and that is proper, so long as it is clearly understood that Reformers, those we were so warned about by St Pius X and at least three other Popes, prepared for, by inserted their periti, and succeeded in introducing extensive ambiguity, confusion, and contradiction. I have read the documents myself and am quite sure of this.

All of which was used after the Council, by the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” Reformers to attempt to alter the teaching of the Church. We still have the sad effects of that with us today.

The whole point of ambiguity is that you can take out of it what you wish. This was the deliberate weapon used by the Reformers. But the Church is about Truth and we must have clarity, not uncertainty in the Teaching documents of the Church.

This matter has to be sorted out. Personally I think nothing other than a further Council will be required to do so. Bishop Schneider has suggested a Syllabus and that may well be a first step, but I suspect another Council such as was Trent, to sort out the confusion will be required.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

The Second Vatican Council is responsible for what seems to be the fatal wounding of Roman Catholicism. It was a pastoral council that is not binding - there were no Canons or Decrees to which one was constrained to pledge their spiritual troth or be judged anathema- but, rather, it was a triumph of the New Theology (modernism) that was actualised on the first day of the Council.

A conspiracy amongst modernists had formed and was active prior to the opening of the council and it had secret meetings etc and it was successful to the extent that although it was a minority party within the council (the other minority party was the conservative party) its preparation and connections prepared it to successfully seize control of the counci by force on the very first day and even though it was a minority party,it convinced the other Council Fathers that it was the vanguard of the future and if they wanted anything they had to go along.

The minority modernist revolutionary conspirators ended up attracting those willing to go along thinking an advantage would accrue to them in a manner similar to how the radical minority of revolutionaries ended-up attracting the the Kerensky outfit in the Russian revolution and the Girondists in the French revolution.

Simply stated, Vatican Two was a revolution within the form of Catholicism and what the world sees now is what some theologians saw happening during the council - the Church was becoming man centered.

Now, even though the Pastoral Council has failed utterly - every objective measurement of Catholicism has declined, the numbers of Priests Religious, Religious Orders, Mass attendance, belief in the real presence on the Eucharist etc etc - those in charge refuse to acknowledge their failure and return to that which existed for nineteen centuries prior to the opening of Vatican Two.

So, the Faith is being defended and passed on by traditionalists within the domestic church (the family) until such time as we get a Pope who will not bow down before man and his putative wonderfulness.

Said otherwise, the Roman Catholic Church is recapitulating within herself the passion of Jesus Christ and, in the not too distant future, she will appear to the world to be dead and buried in its grave, and so its sudden and magnificent resurrection will shock the world and prove to the world that Jesus is, and always has been, the head of His Church (Matt 16:18,19)

Of course, Raider Fan will not be alive to see the resurrection.