Chapter I, Part 1 the problem: is it the same church? Vatican 2 can be described as a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. Prior to this event the Church considered herself a 'perfect society' in no need of change




старонка18/33
Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер1.21 Mb.
1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   33

The Council itself


As to the documents themselves, there are sixteen of these, and all sixteen are consider to be 'established synodally' - that is to say, agreed upon by the majority of the Fathers present at the council. These sixteen documents are entitled 'Constitutions', 'Decrees', and 'Declarations', distinctions which in the practical order are meaningless. Despite the 'pastoral' nature of the Council, two of these are labeled 'dogmatic'. In total then number some 739 pages of fine print and reading through them requires, as Father Houghton has remarked, 'a sufficient supply of anti-soporifics'. (Vatican I runs to 42 pages of large print, and the Council of Trent to 179 pages.) . Their tone is 'prolix in the extreme' and as Michael Davies states, 'much of their content consists of little more than long series of the most banal truisms imaginable.'

Yet the council is important, for it introduced into the bosom of the church a whole host of 'new directions' that are bearing fruit in our days. As Father Avery Dulles said: 'Vatican II adopted a number of positions which had been enunciated by the Reformation Churches, e.g., the primacy of Scripture, the supernatural efficacy of the preached word, the priesthood of the laity, and the vernacular liturgy.'



Cardinal Willebrands, Paul VI's legate to the World Lutheran Assembly at Evian stated in July of 1970 that: 'Has not the Second Vatican council itself welcomed certain demands which, among others, were expressed by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are better expressed today than formerly? Luther gave his age a quite extraordinary lead in theology and the Christian life.'

And Cardinal Suenens tells us that: 'It is possible to draw up an impressive list of theses which Rome has taught in the past and up until yesterday as being the only ones, and which the Council Fathers have thrown out.' (May 15, 1969)



Cardinal Suenens who likened Vatican II to a 'French Revolution in the Church', also told us that the Council was only 'a stage, and not a terminus'. Those who would dismiss this dismal projection as rhetoric would do well to listen to Paul VI who said that 'the Conciliar Decrees are not so much a destination as a point of departure towards new goals... the seeds of life planted by the Council in the soil of the Church must grow and achieve full maturity.' The point is important because John Paul II considers 'the coherent realization of the teaching and directives of the Second Vatican Council... to be the principal task of this [his] pontificate.'

'A point of departure towards new goals!' According to British analyst William McSweeney, the impact of the council on the Church 'was to carry forward the most fundamental reappraisal of its doctrine, liturgy and relationship to the world in it 2000-year history.' Schillebeeckx prepared a list of council actions that he considered to be significant innovations. His list totaled sixty-eight and covered the liturgy, the Church, revelation, bishops and priests, the laity, non-Catholics, freedom of conscious and religious institutes.

Let us not forget that almost all the changes in the post-Conciliar Church are either 'blamed' on the Council, or said to derive from it as a 'mandate from the Holy Spirit'. Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them 'abuses' that result from the 'misinterpretation' of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an 'excuse' or in fact the 'source' of the 'autodemolition' of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, 'there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master.' (CRC May 1980. Even the Council's apologist Michael Davies tells us that 'no rational person can deny that up to the present Vatican II has produced no good fruit.'

CHAPTER X, part 2
VATICAN II - THE INTRODUCTION



How the Council was subverted
None of the Modernist ideation introduced by means of the Council into the bosom of the Church was new. These ideas, the gestalt of the modern world, had been around for centuries, and in fact had been repeatedly condemned by the traditional Church in such documents as Mirari vos, The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and the Encyclical Pascendi of Pius XI. Over the past century however, they had gained an increased momentum and had as it were permeated the seminaries, and thus the minds of increasing numbers of clergy. In the course of time many of these rose to positions of authority.

Sufficient documentation is available for us to reconstruct the events at the Council. One of the best of these is Father Wiltgen's The Rhine flows into the Tiber, an analogy for the modernist German theologians flowing into conservative Rome. Father Wiltgen was the 'International Publicity Director in Rome' for the Council, and was the founder during the Council of 'an independent and multilingual council News Service' . As such he had excellent access to the material he reports in his book - and in so far as he approved of what the Council achieved, his text becomes a valuable source of information. His information moreover is confirmed by numerous other sources. We have as a result, a 'play by play' description of how the 'liberal' theologians captured the Council. What was proclaimed by the world press as a 'spontaneous outbreak of liberal sentiment', was in fact, as several authors have pointed out, part of a pre-determined plan to subvert the Council.

We have already called attention to the role that John XXIII played in setting the stage. The Curia had for two years been preparing a series of orthodox 'schemas' for discussion. Most of the Fathers (some 2,800 Bishops or their equivalent) were not well read theologians. Many were skilled administrators and came to the Council 'psychologically unprepared' (Cardinal Heenan) and feeling their way' (Bishop Lucey). They brought with them periti or 'experts' who were to assist them on theological matters, periti who were almost to a man Modernist in outlook. Other 'hierarchies came to the Council knowing what they wanted and having prepared a way to get it' (Bishop Lucey) .The takeover was surprisingly easy. As Cardinal Heenan stated, 'the first General Congregation had scarcely begun when the [Modernist] northern bishops went into action.' Brian Kaiser tells us 'cardinals Suenens, Alfrink, Frings, Doepfner, Koenig, Lienart and Bea conferred by phone' the night before the opening session, and received assurances from the John XXIII that their plan had his approval . Within fifteen minutes of the opening of the first session, the years of preparatory work (the Schemas prepared by the Curia) and the suggested list of individuals for the various commissions (traditional Curial members) were thrown out.This was called by several 'The First Victory' of the 'European Alliance', and was quite correctly characterized in the newspapers as 'Bishops in Revolt' . The Marxist journal Il Paese openly stated that 'the Devil has entered the Council.' What followed has been described as a 'Blitzkrieg' (Michael Davies) and a 'demolition exercise' (Henri Fesquet). It was only a matter of time and manoeuvre before the liberal element took over the ten commissions that controlled the various new schemas presented for voting. The 'Council Presidency' established by Roncalli was helpless, which was of course as he intended. Instead of intervening on the side of 'tradition', he allowed things to proceed exactly as he wished, only intervening when it was necessary to support the 'democratic forces'.

Initially, any individual Father could rise to voice objection to the statements of the various schemas. Soon this was limited to ten minutes . As opposition gathered to the modernist clique, those in control required that five Fathers had to agree and speak in conjunction before they would be recognized by the chair. Before long the number was raised to 70!. Soon all objections had to be submitted in writing to the various commissions which in turn allowed for considerable behind-the-scene machinations and suppression or 're-wording' of those objections that could not be ignored. A petition signed by over 400 Fathers requesting the condemnation of Communism was simply and conveniently lost. Complaints made directly to the Pope were ignored , and on occasion the Pope directly intervened to force through a given vote. Both the press and the various liberal organizations within and without the Church carried on heavy propaganda in favor of the 'liberalizing' of the Church. Cardinal Frings and Lienart and the members of the 'Northern Alliance' were the 'good guys', while Cardinal Ottaviani and the conservative members of the Curia were the 'villains' standing 'in the way of progress'. The majority of the Fathers present were Church dignitaries rather than theologians and hence were heavily dependent upon the periti or experts who were almost invariably in the neo-modernist camp. A list of these periti would include almost all the heretical theologians of the post-Conciliar Church, such men as Charles Davis, Hans Kung, Gregory Baum, Edward Schillebeeckx, Bernard Haring, Y. Congar, Karl Rahner and Rene Laurentin. Adequate time was frequently not given for proper discussion of the issues, and many of the Fathers admitted to having voted along with the majority without even having read the schemas or amendments in question at all. As Dr. Moorman, leader of the Anglican delegation has stated: 'there was a very real division among the Fathers, a deep feeling that two big forces were coming to grips and that this was not just a clash of opinions, but of policies and even of moralities.' Archbishop Lefebvre, looking back over the early sessions, noted that 'the Council was under siege by the progressive forces from its very first day. We felt it, we sensed it... We were convinced that something irregular was happening.' But as we have pointed out, the traditional forces were 'psychologically unprepared', and the liberal forces 'came to the Council knowing what they wanted and having prepared a way to get it.' Things were pushed along very rapidly, and it was only towards the end of the Council that the orthodox Fathers were able to get organized. By the time the Coetus Internationalis Patrum became a cohesive force, it was far to late.


The use of ambiguity


Only one major problem remained for the liberals who had captured the Council. They had to express their views in a manner that was not clearly and overtly heretical. (This would have created much stronger opposition and resistance.) The solution was the ambiguous statement. As Cardinal Heenan stated 'the framing of amendments for the vote of the Fathers was the most delicate part of the commission's work. A determined group could wear down the opposition and produce a formula patent of both an orthodox and modernistic interpretation.' Whenever protests were raised against such tactics, the objector was informed that the Council was 'pastoral' and not 'dogmatic'. What resulted has been described by Archbishop Lefebvre as 'a conglomeration of ambiguities, inexactitudes, vaguely expressed feelings, terms susceptible of any interpretation and opening wide of all doors' There are of course many statements in the documents that appear good, for it is characteristic of heresy that it comes cloaked in the garb of orthodoxy. The documents themselves are prolix, full of vague phraseology and psycologisms. Terms are frequently used (such as 'salvation history') that are capable of multiple interpretations . Statements made in one paragraph are qualified several paragraphs later so that multiple interpretations and quoting out of context become possible. In fairness to the liberals, some of the periti such as Yves Congar and Schillebeeckx disapproved of such methods and wished to state the liberal viewpoint openly and clearly. They were of course overruled. Lest the reader feel that this opinion is unjust, I shall quote Professor O. Cullmann, one of the most distinguished Protestant 'observers' at the Council:
'The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. Thus every affirmation of the power of bishops is accompanied in a manner which is almost tedious by the insistence upon the authority of the Pope... This is the reason why, even while accepting that these are compromise-texts, I do not share the pessimism of those who subscribe to the slogan that 'Nothing good will come out of the Council!' All the texts are formulated in such a manner that no door is closed and that they will not present any future obstacle to discussions among Catholics or dialogue with non-Catholics, as was the case with the dogmatic decisions of previous Councils.'

Ambiguity and 'double-speak' has always been the refuge of the scoundrel who wishes to lie, not only to his neighbor, but to himself. How does a naughty child respond to an accusing parent from whom he wishes to hide the truth while not clearly telling a lie? He equivocates. He departs from the Scriptural injunction to 'say yea for yea and nay for nay' The modernist has basically lost his faith in Revelation, and if he wishes to remain within the visible church, he must either change the meaning of certain words, or else change the words so that they mean one thing to him and another to the faithful. Thus, as one modernist put it, 'one learns the use of double meaning, the tortuously complex sentence and paragraphs which conceal meaning rather than reveal it.' The existential theologian has a positive dislike for clarity. As Father Daley said of Tyrrell: 'He believed that clearness was a snare for the unwary, and that snare was avoided as long as one distrusts clearness and recognizes it as a note of inadequacy.' Pius X in his Encyclical Pascandi noted that the writings of the modernist clique appear 'tentative and vague', while those of the Church are always 'firm and constant'. He further said, 'it is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systemic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast'.

It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. Yet despite this one, when one reads the documents as a whole, one finds there is a certain 'animus' or spirit which is 'offensive to pious ears'. There is, as Cardinal Suenens has said, 'an internal logic in Vatican II which in several cases has been grasped and acted on, showing in everyday practice the priority of life over law. The spirit behind the texts was stronger than the words themselves.' It is this undercurrent that has flowed forth as 'the Spirit of Vatican II', a 'spirit' that accepts almost all the modernist concepts such as 'progress', 'dynamic evolution', and 'universalism' . Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who deny that such a spirit exists would do well to consider the statement of John Paul II to the effect that it was his 'firm will to go forward on the way of unity in THE SPIRIT OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL....' (inauguration ceremony of his pontificate).

The "animus" of Vatican II

In order to understand the real nature of Vatican II the reader must recognize that what occurred was not a 'debate' between conservative and liberal factions of the Church - as if there is a spectrum of opinion from which the faithful can choose - but rather a fight between those who felt it was their obligation to preserve intact the entire 'deposit of the faith' and those who were bent on adapting Christianity to the contemporary world; a battle waged between those who see the Roman Catholic Church as the 'visible' church founded by Christ, and therefore a Church that was entitled to certain privileges (whether the world accorded them to her or not), and those who dreamt of a 'union' of all 'men of good will'; of those who thought the Church possessed the 'fullness of the truth' and those who thought 'Christians were joined with the rest of men in the search for Truth'. The Church of All Times lost this battle at the council, but the fight still continues, sometimes in minor skirmishes, and sometimes in open warfare. Scripture informs us that the final outcome can be anticipated. There will be a 'great apostasy', but 'the Gates of Hell will not prevail'.

The remainder of this chapter will be divided into two sections. First, we will give a series of quotations from the documents of sufficient length as to make that accusation of having taken them out of context implausible. We shall then string together a selected series off Conciliar statements in conjunction with their interpretative understanding by the post-Conciliar 'pontiffs'. It is this that will provide us with the clearest insight into their import.


The documents themselves

Space does not allow us to sample the entire corpus of Vatican II in detail, and hence particular attention will be given to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, (identified as Ch.) and The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (identified as Eccl.), both considered by Paul VI and John Paul II as fundamental documents.

'The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one' (Ch. 5).

'To a certain extent the human intellect is also broadening its dominion over time: over the past by means of historical knowledge; over the future by the art of projecting and by planning. Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only bring men hope of improved self knowledge...' (CH. 5).

'This characteristic of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord Himself. By reason of it, the Catholic Church strives energetically and constantly to bring all humanity with all its riches back to Christ its Head in the unity of His Spirit... All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the People of God, a unity which is the harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. And there belong to it or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind. For all men are called to salvation by the grace of God...' (Eccl. 13)

'Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, [emphasis mine]is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent' (Ch. 29)

'Moreover, in virtue of her mission and nature, she [the Church] is bound to no particular form of human culture, nor to any political, economic, or social system... for this reason the Church admonishes her own sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strife between nations and races in this family spirit of God's children...' (Ch. 42).

'Thanks to the experience of past ages, the progress of the sciences, and the treasures hidden in the various forms of human culture, the nature of man himself is more clearly revealed and new roads to truth are opened...' (Ch. 42).

'It is a fact bearing on the very person of man that he can come to an authentic and full humanity only through culture, that is, through the cultivation of natural goods and values Wherever human life is involved, therefore, nature and culture are quite intimately connected...' (Ch. 53).

'In every group or nation, there is an ever-increasing number of men and women who are conscious that they themselves are the artisans and the authors of the culture of their community. thus we are witnesses to the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by his responsibility towards his brothers and towards history...' (Ch.55).

'The Culture of today possesses particular characteristics. for example, the so-called exact sciences sharpen critical judgment to a very fine edge. Recent psychological research explains human activity more profoundly. Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing men to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects... Thus little by little, a more universal form of human culture is developing, one which will promote and express the unity of the human race to the degree that it preserves the particular features of different cultures...' (Ch. 54).

'Man's social nature makes it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on each other. From the beginning, the subject and goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person, which for its part and by its very nature stands completely in need of social life... This social life is not something added on to man. Hence through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue, he develops all his gifts and is able to rise to his destiny...' (Ch. 25).

'Thus, through her individual members and her whole community, the church believes she can contribute greatly towards making the family of man and its history more human. In addition, the Catholic Church gladly holds in high esteem the things which other Christian Churches or ecclesiastical communities have done or are doing cooperatively by way of achieving the same goal...' (Ch. 40).

'It has pleased God to make men holy and save them not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness. So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen men not just as individuals, but as members of a certain community. god called these chosen ones 'His People'... This communitarian character is developed and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ' (Ch. 32).

'The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today's social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms. for the promotion of unity belongs to tie innermost nature of the Church, since she is, by her relationship with Christ, both a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God and the unity of all mankind...' (Ch. 42).

'Because the human race today is joint more and more in civic, economic and social unity, it is much more necessary that priests, united in concern and effort under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every ground of division, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God...' (Ch. 43).

'Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine. Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and an ever-advancing technology' (Ch. 62).

Such then is a potpourri of statements drawn from the solemn teaching magisterium of the post-Conciliar Church. It is these ideas which its members must 'religiously observe' and to which they must give their intellectual assent. But what evidence is there for the claim that 'the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic one'? And how Christian is this 'new humanism' of which we are witnesses to the birth of, and which is defined 'first of all by man's responsibility towards his brothers and history: rather than towards God? And since when does man 'rise to his destiny through reciprocal duties and fraternal dialogue'? Where in Scripture does it tell us we are saved as members of a community rather than as individuals? Since when has it been the Church's function to make 'the family of man more human'? And what is all this talk of 'unity', 'the process of wholesome socialization' that 'belongs to the innermost nature of the Church' and which permits - nay, advocates - the 'wiping out of every ground of division' which might impede it? For the Church to state that she is 'tied to no political, social or economic structure' is for her to state that she can live with any political, social or economic structure in the world today, including Communism. And how can the Church proclaim that all discrimination with regard to matters of religion should 'be irradicated'? Surely, if she believes she is the true religion, she cannot fail to discriminate between herself and other false religions. And what is all this nonsense about 'adapting our morality and religious practice to the discoveries of modern science' - as if these themselves are not always in a state of flux. All this is a far cry from the Church of our forefathers.

No wonder that the Protestant observer Dr. McAfee Brown said that 'there are even occasional hints that the Council Fathers have listened to the gospel of Marx as well as the Gospel of Mark.' Truly, as Father Campion, periti and translator of this document states, 'Theological 'aggiornamento' means more than a rephrasing of conventional theological teaching in contemporary terminology' . Archbishop Lefebvre and Michael Davies refer to these and similar passages as 'time bombs'. They are in fact much more; they are unequivocal proof that the faithful - and not only the faithful, but humanity itself - were 'sold out' at the Council. It will take an intellectual agility well beyond the capacity of most people to interpret such statements 'in the light of tradition'. Any one wishing to understand what has happened to the Church in our times, would do well to study these documents with care. As the Abbe of Nantes said, these documents provide 'a vast launching pad for... the subversive operations' of the Modernists.(CRC May, 1980)



CHAPTER X, part 3

Second Vatican Council


Vatican II - the creation of a New Church


Isolated quotations do not provide us with a complete picture. In order to understand the Council's goals, and achievements, it is necessary to provide quotations from various parts of the documents along with their authoritative interpretations by the post-Conciliar 'pontiffs'. We shall do this under four headings: 1) The New Orientations - seeing history and the world in a different light. 2) The New Church - how the post-Conciliar Church sees itself. 3) The New Understanding of man's nature; and 4) Why a Church at all.
I - THE NEW ORIENTATIONS SEEING HISTORY AND THE WORLD IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT

'The traditional doctrinal formulations were forged in the light of a general world-view that has by now become obsolete; an unconditional allegiance to any single view of the universe, such as the Christian, seems to demand, impresses the modern mind as fanatical and unscientific... The claim that some privileged source... contains the totality of saving truth is likewise distasteful... The assertion that divine revelation was complete in the first century of our era seems completely antic to the modern concept of progress.'
Avery Dulles, S.J., Doctrines do Grow.

Founded on a 'rock', the Church has always been considered as a monolithic, stable and unchanging institution - one that existed and functioned in saecula saeculorum, that is, throughout all ages past, present and future. She saw herself as a 'perfect society', as a divine institution established by Christ. Distinguishing this Church from the inevitable failings of its members (for who of us can live up to Christ?) there was neither need for change, nor room for improvement.



The Church has always been happy to use the discoveries of science for good ends, and indeed, many of these are the result of Catholic efforts. She is not against 'progress' if by this one means better mouse traps and ice boxes. But progress as usually understood, implies that man himself is improving, becoming more civilized, more intelligent and more advanced with each passing generation. This kind of progress is an illusion which the Church has always eschewed. The idea that man himself can and has progressed is the very negation of his celestial origin and destiny. It denies that his intrinsic nature is fixed, that he is made in the image of God and that he has sustained the wound of Adam's sin. It further denies the perfection of the Patriarchs, the Holy Family and the saints. As for evolution, she has always held that creation ex nihilo was de fide. In the words of Vatican I: 'if anyone does not admit the world and everything it , both spiritual and material, have been produced in their entire substance by God out of nothing -ex nihilo - let him be anathema.' But evolution as a biological possibility is one thing; evolution as applied to mankind or truth is quite another. As Pope Pius XII said some 35 years ago: 'these false evolutionary notions with their denial of all that is fixed or abiding in human experience, have paved the way for a new philosophy of error' (Humani generis). The traditional outlook saw these two pseudo-concepts of 'progress' and 'evolution' as the 'opiates of the people,' always promising them an unrealizable utopia in the future while deflecting their attention from the present. No longer the command to 'be ye perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect', but rather the illusion that progress and evolution, thanks to science, will produce a world so perfect that man will no longer have to strive to be good.

Gaudium et Spes starts with a long tale of changes affecting mankind, the perpetual justification for innovation. Everything changes, the world, time, but especially man who is described as participating in a perpetual 'progression'. John XXIII believed there had been 'a real progress of humankind's collective moral awareness through always deeper discovery of its dignity... and that divine providence was leading us to a new order of human relations... ' Vatican II proceeded to make this principle magisterial. 'The human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one... Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing men to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects... Man's social nature makes it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on each other... Citizens have the right and duty... to contribute to the true progress of their community... Developing nations should strongly desire to seek the complete human fulfillment of their citizens in the explicit and fixed goal of progress... May the faithful therefore, live in very close union with the men of their time. Let them strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and feeling, as expressed in their culture. Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine. Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with an ever-advancing technology.' (All from Ch. or Eccl.) For those who may still doubt, let me quote from John Paul II's speech at Puebla: 'In these past ten years (since the Council) how much progress humanity has made, and with humanity and at its service, how much progress the Church has made...'

Not only progress, but evolution. John Paul II has magisterially told us that 'all the observations concerning the development of life lead to a conclusion: the evolution of living beings of which science seeks to determine the stages and to determine the mechanism, presents an internal finality... a finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge...' An editorial in the L'Osservatore Romano attributed to John Paul II was even more specific. 'no one today any longer believes in tradition, but rather in rational progress. tradition today appears as something that has been bypassed by history. Progress on the other hand presents itself as an authentic promise inborn in the very soul of man.'

If Evolution and Progress are true, if, as the Council teaches, 'the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic and evolutionary one', then it follows that the world has changed since the time of Christ, and logically, if the Church is to survive, it must also change. Paul VI in discussing the Council expressed this clearly.'if the world changes religion should also change. ...the order to which Christianity tends is not static, but an order in continual evolution towards a higher form' (Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man). If the Church is evolving, so also are her doctrines. And so the Council teaches that 'as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their fulfillment in her...' Elsewhere she assures us that 'new roads to truth are opened.' The statement is quite extraordinary in so far as the Church has always taught that the revelation given us by Christ and the Apostles was final and definitive, and to that body of revealed truth nothing has been, or ever will be added. One must of course distinguish between the legitimate development of a doctrine - its being made more explicit and explained in clearer ways - and the evolution of a doctrine - which implies some form of transformation or change in its intrinsic nature. Thus, as we will show, the doctrine on Religious Liberty as taught by Vatican II can never be considered a 'development' of previous teaching, but only as an 'evolution' into something new. a kind of 'ongoing revelation.' And as innumerable post-Conciliar theologians have noted, the Council, while not using the phrase, embraced the concept in principle. And why not when Paul VI teaches: The new Church 'seeks to adapt itself to the languages, to the customs and to the inclinations of the men of our times, men completely engrossed in the rapidity of material evolution and similar necessities of their individual circumstances. This 'openness' is of the very essence of the [new] Church.. The restrictions of orthodoxy do not coincide with pastoral charity'.(Talk given in Milan when he was a Cardinal).

All this involved a new orientation towards the world itself. The traditional Church taught us to be in the world, but not to 'conform ourselves to it'. The Apostle John instructed us: 'Love not the world nor the things that are in the world. If any man love the world the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world passeth away.' What thinking person does not realize that the world - the modern world - has walked away from all the Church has ever stood for. What then is the attitude of the new Church? John Paul II gives us the answer: 'the Second Vatican Council laid the foundations for a substantially new relationship between the Church and world, between the Church and modern culture' (College, Dec. 22, 1980) Paul VI was more specific: 'we must never forget that the fundamental attitude of Catholics who wish to convert the world must be, first of all, to love the world, to love our times, to love our civilization, our technical achievements, and above all, to love the world... the Council puts before us, a panoramic vision of the world; how can the Church, how can we, do other than behold this world and love it. The Council is a solemn act of love for mankind, love for men of today, whoever and wherever they may be, love for all'(Bodart, La Biologie et l'avenire de l'homme).

John Paul II, following in the steps of his 'spiritual father' (Paul VI), confirms this commitment. 'The contemporary Church', he tells us, 'has a particular sensibility towards history, and wishes to be in every extension of the term, 'the Church of the contemporary world''(Talk to the Roman Curia, Dec 22, 1980).

Thus the Church of all times has been changed into the Church of our times. A static Church has been changed into an evolutionary and progressive Church. It has even been given new titles - Paul VI called it 'the Church of the Council' and Cardinal Benini 'the post-Conciliar Church'. A true Council would have spoken of the role of the Church IN the modern world. Vatican II created the Church OF the modern world. John XXIII referred to the result as a 'New Pentecost', Paul VI called it an Epiphany and John Paul II speaks of a 'New Advent'. - 'We find ourselves in a certain way in the midst of a new Advent, a time of expectation...' Vatican II provides 'the foundation for ever more achievements of the people of God's march towards the Promised Land in this state of history...' (Redemptor Hominis). Progress of course is never fixed, and so, once the Church accepts the principle of adapting itself to the modern world, it has committed itself to a perpetual state of flux. This is what Aggiornamento is all about. This is why the Grand Mufti in Paris invited Catholics who wished to be part of an unchanging religion to become Moslems.

This new orientation resulted in the need for the Church to accept a host of ideas it once considered inimical. The ideology of the modern world is not only evolutionary and progressive; it is also Anthropocentric and secular. It envisions itself as dialectically passing from its present condition towards some utopian state in which all men will be united in a socialist structure where there will no longer be any suffering or want. Thus the new Church gladly witnesses to the 'birth of a new humanism', and welcomes 'today's social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization' (Ch.42). Indeed, she considers herself the 'instrument' and 'sacramental sign of this unity'. She is even willing to make her most precious possession - the Blessed Eucharist - a symbol of this unity.

But the world the Church wishes to embrace has no use for her. It had long ago deserted the bosom of the Father and gone off 'into a far country' to seek its own fortune. It has no interest in being 'saved', much less in building up the Kingship of Christ. A Church which seeks to embrace the world's values and to find a place for itself in the milieu of an 'anti-Christian' society, must redefine itself in terms that are meaningful to that society. Paul VI gave us some idea of how this was to be achieved. 'From the start the Council has propagated a wave of serenity and of optimism, a Christianity that is exciting and positive, loving life, mankind and earthly values... an intention of making Christianity acceptable and lovable, indulgent and open, free of mediaeval rigorism and of pessimistic understanding of man and his customs...' (Doc. Cath. No. 1538). But the Church went farther than this. She not only wished to make herself lovable, she wished to become the 'servant of the world'. Having abdicated her spiritual leadership, she had no choice but to declare her desire to be of use 'in service and fellowship'. Let us see how she does this.



CHAPTER X, part 4
VATICAN II



II - THE NEW CHURCH - HOW THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH SEES ITSELF

The world has never been more alienated and more divided than in our times. Wars, famines, and disasters abound. Enormous numbers of people on every continent are being reduced to a state of destitution. Almost everyone sees the solution to this problem, not in a return to Christian principles (if only on the socio-economic level), but in internationalizing the world. Our shrinking planet must unite - must create a world in which the principles of the French Revolution - 'Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood' - will prevail. The new Church, 'seeking to define herself, to understand what it truly is', finds in the fostering of this unity a veritable raison d'etre. And thus it is that she 'admonishes her sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strive between nations and races in this family spirit of God's children.' And further, she tells her priests that they must, 'under the leadership of the Bishops and the Supreme Pontiff', work to 'wipe out every ground of division... whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language OR RELIGION...so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God'(Ch.43).

According to Giancarlo Zizola, John XXIII saw this unity as being achieved in three stages: unity of Christians; unity of all believers in God; and then unity of all men. We will show how this concept is developed by the Council, but first we must see how the Church developed a new concept of unity.

Unity

Unity is a characteristic of the traditional Church. She is in fact defined as ONE: 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic'. These four qualities are completely interdependent. Loose one and you loose them all. The Church is Holy because 'she is without spot or wrinkle in her faith which admits of no sin of error against the revealed word of God' She is called Catholic because her teachings not only extend across time and space, but because the term means 'universal' and her truths apply throughout the entire universe, in heaven, on earth and in hell. She is called Apostolic because she teaches the same doctrines which the Apostles taught, and because she retains intact the Apostolic Succession, that 'Iniatic chain' which enables her to provide the sacraments. Finally, she is called One because she is united under one head, she agrees in one faith and she offers throughout her body one sacrifice. She is one because she is united with Christ who is One.

Let us be quite clear on what the traditional Church teaches. As a de fide statement of the Holy Office puts it: 'That the Unity of the Church is absolute and indivisible, and that the Church has never lost its unity, nor ever can'

Pope Pius XII taught the same doctrine in affirming that 'only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of baptism and profess the true faith and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom for a very grave crime, by the legitimate authority' (Mystici corporis Christi)

The Anglican convert Cardinal Henry Manning, faced with the Anglo-Catholic Ecumenical movement during the last century expressed with precision the position of the Church:

'We believe union to be a very precious gift, and only less precious than truth... We are ready to purchase the reunion of our departed brethren at any cost less than the sacrifice of one jot of the supernatural order of unity and faith... We can offer unity only on the condition on which we hold it -unconditional submission to the living and perpetual voice of the Church of God... it is contrary to charity to put a straw across the path of those who profess to desire union. But there is something more divine than union, that is the Faith. There is no unity possible except by the way of truth. Truth first, unity afterwards. Truth the cause, unity the effect. To invert this order is to overthrow the Divine procedure. the unity of Babel ended in confusion. To unite the Anglican, the Greek and the Catholic Church in any conceivable way would only end in a Babel of tongues, intellects and wills. '

The Catholic Church then, by definition, has Unity. As Bishop John Milner said 'if we unite ourselves with' the Anglo-Catholic Ecumenical Movement, ' the Universal Church would disunite itself from us'

The post-Conciliar Church teaches differently. She claims that she has 'lost her unity' and that the various divisions among Christians constitute a scandal which must be repaired. The Decree on Ecumenism is entitled Unitatis Redintegratio or the 'restoring of unity'. Pope John XXIII established his extra-curial 'Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity' and specified that Unity was the term - not Reunion. The texts of the documents nowhere specify that the Church is already endowed with the charism of Unity. Many of the statements are vague and ambiguous such as 'in all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united...' or 'the Spirit guides the Church into the fullness of truth and gives her a unity of fellowship and service', or 'the union of the human family is greatly fortified and fulfilled by the unity, founded on Christ, of the family of God's sons'. But it is quite specific in other places - 'Promoting the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the Chief concerns of the Second Sacred Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican...' 'It is the goal of the Council... to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ...' and 'This sacred Synod...moved by a desire for the restoration of unity among all the followers of Christ...'

Many 'followers of Christ' are a long way from being or accepting Catholicism. How are they to be united to the Church? Again, the Council provides the answer. 'all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated with Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored with the title of Christian, and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the sons of the Catholic Church... From her very beginnings there arose in this one and only Church of God certain rifts which the apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries more widespread disagreements appeared and quite large Communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -developments for which, at times, men on both sides were to blame. However, one cannot impute the sin of separation to those who at present are born into these Communities and are instilled therein with Christ's faith. The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers; for men who believe in Christ and who have been properly baptized are brought into a certain though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church' (Decree on Ecumenism).

We see then one possible solution. All who have been baptized are declared to be partially in union. Half or even One quarter Catholicism is acceptable. But this goes against the teaching of the Church. As St. Fulgentius said in post-Apostolic times: 'neither baptism, nor liberal alms, nor death itself can avail a man anything in the order of salvation, if he does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church' (Ad Petrum Diaconum). As for ' justification through faith in Baptism', this is pure Lutheranism, for Luther taught that 'A Christian or baptized man cannot loose his salvation, even if he would, by sins, however numerous, unless he refuses to believe' (The Babylonian Captivity.)

Despite these obvious problems, the Council proceeded to delineate yet another basis for its innovative concept of unity.



CHAPTER X, part 5
VATICAN II




'It is hard to recognize the Church, the people of God, as clearly being God's people. The more vociferously they claim the title, the less Godlike seem their actions.'
Fr. John McGoey, Celibacy

The term, as the Council admits, originally applied to the Jews of the Old Dispensation. And with justice the Council applies it to those, whether Greek or Jew, who accepted the New Dispensation. But now comes the hitch. How are these people defined? Remember, Protestants claim not only to have accepted the New Dispensation, but to be the only ones to understand it properly. In the document Lumen Gentium one finds 'the People of God' defined in a variety of ways. For example, as those who 'believe in Christ... born of the living water and the Holy Spirit.' Such of course can be Catholic, but by no means excludes any of the most liberal Protestants. But let us go on. The same text tells us in a passage which John Paul II calls the 'key to the entire thinking of the Council' that 'All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the People of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. And there belong to it or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind. For all men are called to salvation by the grace of God.' We are not yet finished, for the texts go on to specify that not only are Protestants and Jews related in some way to the People of God, but even those 'who have not yet received the gospel' And here we come to another key passage: 'THE CHURCH IS A KIND OF SACRAMENT OF INTIMATE UNION WITH GOD AND THE UNITY OF ALL MANKIND, THAT IS, SHE IS A SIGN AND AN INSTRUMENT OF SUCH UNION AND UNITY...' Indeed, according to the documents of Vatican II, 'it is necessary that priests, united in concern and effort under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every ground of division so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the Family of God.' This is serious business, for as mentioned above, the Council instructs us that 'every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or RELIGION is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent.' We see here delineated John XXIIIthree levels of unity, that of Christians, that of people who believe in God, and finally, all of mankind.

Lest it should be thought that I quote out of context, allow me to give John Paul II's interpretation of these statements. Returning from a trip in Africa, graced with the blessings of the snake charming priestess, he referred to the teaching of Lumen Gentium and its enumeration of 'the different categories which form the People of God'. He then proceeded to tell us that each of these was 'full of the particular hope of salvation: and that this can be 'accomplished equally outside the visible Church.' In a discourse given to the Roman Curia in 1981 he stated that 'in these truly plenary gatherings, the ecclesial communities of different countries make real the fundamental second chapter of Lumen Gentium which treats of the numerous 'spheres' of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it, even on the part of those who do not yet form a part of it.' He further said that the objective of pastors is to 'call together the people of God according to different senses and different dimensions. IN THIS CALLING TOGETHER THE CHURCH RECOGNIZES HERSELF AND REALIZES HERSELF.'

1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   33


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка