Posted on 11/25/2004 10:27:28 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
"BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them," the Bible tells us. If we are totally objective we must admit that up to the present Vatican II has produced no good fruits at all. This might appear to be an outrageous and irresponsible allegation, but a careful examination of the facts will prove that it is totally objective. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has stated that the reforms enacted in the name of Vatican II "have contributed and are still contributing to the demolition of the Church, the ruin of the priesthood, the destruction of the Sacrifice and the sacraments, the disappearance of the religious life, as well to the emergence of a naturalist and Teilhardian doctrine in universities, seminaries, and the religious education of children—a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism, and condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church."
I have no doubt that there are many who would consider such an allegation unworthy of consideration simply because it had been made by Archbishop Lefebvre. Well, for those who are unwilling to accept this gloomy assessment of the fruits of the Council, let us quote another authority who, one might hope, would not be dismissed so lightly. I refer to Pope Paul VI. The Council had no more ardent advocate than this unhappy Pontiff. But by 1968 he had reached the stage of lamenting the fact that the Church was engaged in a process of self-destruction (autodistruzione). On the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, 1972, he went as far as saying that somehow or other Satan had found an opening into the Church and was suffocating the fruits of the Second Vatican Council. Father Louis Bouyer, the French Oratorian, is one of the most distinguished theologians and liturgists in the Church today. He had been an expert adviser at Vatican II, a peritus (some of the periti were orthodox). Soon after the Council closed, Father Bouyer wrote an enthusiastic book explaining the great benefits it would bring. In 1969 he wrote another book, The Decomposition of Catholicism, in which he set out the reality of the Council as opposed to the hopes it had engendered. "Unless we are blind," he wrote, "we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped for regeneration of Catholicism than its decomposition."
The self-destruction of the Church according to Pope Paul VI, the decomposition of Catholicism, according to Father Bouyer—that is the reality of the Church since Vatican II. And as for the liturgy, here is Father Bouyer's assessment: "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church."
Fantasy versus Fact Officially, of course, the Church is not undergoing a process of self-destruction. We are witnessing not decomposition but renewal. In an article in the Toronto Star this month, 6 October 1984, Cardinal Emmet Carter, an aging and rather silly liberal, heaped praise upon Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council. Cardinal Carter writes:
He was wonderful. It was he who brought the Second Vatican Council to fulfilment and fruition. He implemented its decrees with remarkable insightful application and faithful interpretation. He was harried, hounded, and harassed by small-minded people who were making the fatal error of thinking that the Council had abolished the Catholic Church instead of renewing it. Well, according to my dictionary, "renewal" involves transferring to new life, invigorating, or regenerating. It would be interesting if Cardinal Carter could tell us exactly where this renewal or regeneration is taking place—certainly not in his own country of Canada where the Catholic Church is characterized by what can only be described as an accelerating degeneration. This is true of almost every country in the western world. In every aspect of the life of the Church subject to statistical evaluation the renewal of which the Cardinal speaks exists only in the realm of fantasy. In the real world Mass attendance has decreased by percentages ranging from a modest 22% in England to 70% in France and Holland; there has been a catastrophic decline in baptisms, as much as 50% in Britain and the U.S.A. Conversions has declined by anything from 25% to 80%, while ordinations have declined by as much as 97%. To make matters worse there has been an exodus from the priestly and religious life. In the U.S.A. alone, 10,000 priests have abandoned their vocation and over 50,000 nuns have left their convents. I might add that the decline in seminary enrollment and exodus from the priesthood is much less alarming than the fact that many of those being ordained appear to have a very inadequate grasp of the Catholic Faith, which is putting it mildly!
The majority of laymen will have felt the effect of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in six main areas: the liturgy; the religious education of Catholic children; the moral teaching of the Church; the increasing political involvement of the clergy, principally on behalf of left-wing causes; ecumenism; and what I will term "democratic dialogue."
Before making a brief comment on each of these areas, I must mention once more the distinction I made earlier between the Council itself and the Council as an event. The abuses, abominations, and imbecilities which now proliferate throughout the Church can rarely be justified by citing a direct instruction of the Council. They originated rather in the ubiquitous "Spirit" of the Council which emanated from the Council as an event, but those who complain about any post-conciliar aberration will be condemned for opposing the Second Vatican Council by the priest, bishop or religious sister perpetrating the abuse; yet in many cases these abuses are diametrically opposed to what the Council actually ordered.
The outrages which scandalize the faithful were not envisaged, let alone mandated, by the bishops who voted for the Council document on the liturgy. In some cases they were initiated by the zealots who took control of the Commissions set up to implement the Council after the bishops had returned to the dioceses. The late Archbishop R.J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, the most cultured and erudite American bishop of the post-war era, considered that the greatest mistake of the Council Fathers was to allow the implementation of the Council to fall into the hands of these men, taken in the main from the ranks of the periti. God forbid that the interpretation of the Council should ever fall into the hands of these men, England's Cardinal Heenan had warned. But this is precisely what happened. Other abuses were initiated by rebellious priests, and rather than discipline them the Vatican eventually capitulated and legalized their rebellion. Communion in the hand provides such an example. As every student of history knows, surrendering to the demands of rebels never brings about an end to the rebellion, it simply prompts further demands. In 1980 I had a long discussion with Cardinal Seper who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. He admitted to me that the Pope no longer exercised effective control over the bishops in the U.S.A. A good number of American dioceses are now, to all intents and purposes, autonomous Modernist enclaves where the only crime is to be loyal to the Pope or to Tradition.
1. Liturgical Abuses But to return to the subject of the liturgy, Father Louis Bouyer, whom I have already cited, claims that there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name in the Catholic Church today, and that what has been imposed upon us in the name of the Council represents, in fact, a contradiction of what the Fathers of the Council and the great figures of the Liturgical Movement desired. The Council authorized no more than a moderate liturgical reform which no reasonable person would have opposed. It stated that all lawfully acknowledged liturgical rites were to be preserved and fostered in every way, and that there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them. But what has happened? Let Father Joseph Gelineau tell us. Father Gelineau was a peritus at the Council and he has been in the vanguard of the elite corps of liturgical commisars which has been imposing liturgical changes on us since it ended. Father Gelineau is, however, an honest commissar. He makes no secret of what has happened since the Council; and I quote:
To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.
The rite of Mass as you knew it until the post-conciliar revolution began in 1965 was the culmination of a gradual and natural development under the influence of the Holy Ghost which lasted for fifteen hundred years. By the year of Our Lord 1570, it had reached a near perfection as anything upon this earth can ever be. Father Faber described it as "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven." In the year 1570, Pope St. Pius V codified the Roman Rite of the Mass as it then existed forever. No priest, he said, could ever be forced to say any other form of Mass. Vatican II ordered that all lawfully acknowledged rites should be preserved and fostered in every way. That is what the Council ordered. Father Gelineau boasts that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. That is what has happened.
There are two categories of people whose views are listened to with the greatest respect by Catholic bishops today: Protestants and sociologists. Well, here is the testimony of a man who is a Protestant and a sociologist. Professor Peter L. Berger is a Lutheran professor of sociology. In a lecture delivered at the Harvard Club in New York on 11 May 1978, he commented upon the changes in our liturgy from the dispassionate standpoint of a professional sociologist. He remarked that if a thoroughly malicious member of his own profession, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible, had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.
Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, probably the greatest Catholic philosopher and lay theologian in the English-speaking world this century, made an almost identical remark: "Truly," he said, "if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better."
Malcolm Muggeridge is one of the most distinguished converts received into the Church since the Council. He held back from this step for many years largely due to the crazy antics of so many Catholic clerics. He made the mistake of confusing the Church itself with individual churchmen. He told me in a long interview I had with him last year that he now recognizes this was a mistake, but that he still holds to an opinion he expressed before his conversion, that if our bishops stationed men with ships outside our churches to keep people away they could not be doing a more effective job.
I have cited these three men because they are not ignorant, they are not illiterate; their opinions cannot be dismissed as of no consequence as are those of us of lesser intellectual stature who dare to suggest that the new clothes worn by the Emperor of the great conciliar renewal do not exist, that the alleged renewal is no more than a delusion concocted by those in authority who dare not face up to the fact of a disintegrating Church.
2. Irreligious Education The second way in which many Catholic laymen have been affected by the spirit of the Council concerns the education of their children. In place of the Catholic Faith bequeathed to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and which He commanded His Church to teach, we are gradually seeing a mish-mash of philanthropy and sociology. Many of the defective texts used today are clearly the progeny of the notorious Dutch Catechism which was published in 1967, within only two years of the closing of Vatican II. The state of the Church in Holland has now degenerated to the extent that being an orthodox Catholic there is akin to being a Catholic in England in penal times. Professor van der Ploeg, one of Europe's most outstanding Biblical scholars, assessed the Catechism as follows:
The Dutch Catechism is, from one end to the other, a manual of Modernism for which it aims to win an acceptance everywhere. In order not to alarm its readers the true import of its teaching is frequently concealed by deceptive and ambiguous phrasing, although at times the authors have the insolence to flaunt it openly. The Dutch Catechism has already caused incalculable harm throughout the world, as a Roman Cardinal confided to me recently. The Dutch Catechism was written for adults; but it became the model for countless textbooks for adults and children. Its influence upon the quite deplorable Veritas series, which is widely used in Ireland and Great Britain, is obvious. In a lecture given in Paris on 8 January 1983, Archbishop Ryan of Dublin, lamented the fact that in spite of the time, money and energy spent on the production of elaborate textbooks and tapes many children emerge from the primary and post primary schools without a basic knowledge of the Faith and the Christian way of life. Canon George Telford is a priest of my own diocese of Southwark. He was at one time our Catechetical Director, as well as being Vice Chairman of the National Department of Catechetics. Canon Telford is a very orthodox priest who believed that children in Catholic schools should be taught the Catholic Faith. He fought an almost lone fight for a number of years, enduring much criticism and even abuse, but finally resigned when it was clear that he could expect no backing whatsoever from the bishops in his attempt to uphold orthodoxy. In his letter of resignation he made a statement which says all that needs to be said about contemporary catechetics:
Modern catechetics is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its strictures and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for Catholic Faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution. The authentic renewal of catechesis will come not from them but from the faithful. "Theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt"—that is the religious education being given to the generality of children in our Catholic schools today. I cannot imagine anyone better qualified than Canon Telford to make such an assessment.
Cardinal Ratzinger, the present Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke at the same conference as Archbishop Ryan. He admitted candidly that there is a crisis in catechetics; that it had been a fundamental and grave mistake to suppress the catechism; that the method of teaching the Faith had come to be considered as more important than what was taught; this resulted in the attitude that religion must be adapted to what is acceptable to man, rather than man adapting his life to the demands of the Faith; behind the rejection of the catechism and the collapse of traditional religious instruction lies a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma; and that the experience of the community is the ultimate criterion for deciding belief. The Cardinal had no hesitation in telling us where we must go to discover what it is that we must believe—it is the Catechism of the Council of Trent published by St. Pius V.
Cardinal Ratzinger's courageous declaration has given new heart to many parents throughout the world who have been fighting the dilution of the Faith for almost twenty years now, and had been ridiculed for making precisely the claims that the Cardinal has now made. Almost invariably, diocesan bishops had sided with the catechetical directors who were destroying the faith of Catholic children. Parents or teachers who protested at the new textbooks were told that they were against the Council, that they were ignorant, that they were unchristian—or all three, and a few other things besides! Yet now the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has endorsed their stand, just when some of them were beginning to fear that perhaps they really were ignorant and unbalanced.
Typical side-issue tactic! I do not have to defend the Pope in his attempts to reconcile schismatics - either old schismatics OR the "new" schismatics. It is his "job" to do both! The fact is that the greater blame rests on the "new" schismatics - for the blame always is greater on the initiators - not on their children or their children's children. Look to your own condition, Robert, before you judge the Pope.
Which particular apparition did the BVM speak of "the abomination of desolations" sevry?
One is entitled to hope that he is on his way to being a saint? How are YOU progressing?
"The 'new order' is an abomination ....Believe me, its days are numbered."
To be sure but it is coming up to a half century since the Council and the plundering, reforms and revisions go on. It could be another half century before we see signs of a general turning back to the Church we know. Quite how that will happen is hard to know unless one believes in the maxim that things will get much worse before they get better.
Why don't you slanderers at least get your story in order? Perhaps because lying and slandering are much more complicated than telling the truth. It's hard to remember which lie you told last.
Here is what your fellow anti-Traditionalist Stephen Hand said about Michael Davies in his article "The Fall of Michael Davies - The Lefebvrist Worm in Una Voce":
[O]ne looks to the overall and longstanding theology of Davies, Una Voce International president, who wrote recently regarding Protocol 1411, opposing the Holy Father:"Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew from the 1988 agreement with the Holy See because he felt that the Vatican could not be relied upon to keep its promises. It would appear that there are now powerful forces in the Curia determined to prove that he was right"
Davies remains heavily indebted to and rooted in Lefebvre's errors of disposition, suspicion, and fact. Indeed, Davies' entire theological outlook (as we will see in part below) is thoroughly colored by his long and lasting debt to his mentor. More recently he has taken to bed with the Mattities, speaking at their conferences with the signers of schismatic screeds against the Pope, with Feeneyites also. Much of the Integrist bacteria has been spawned in Davies' old glass. For years---up to and after Lefebvre's death----Davies was and remains the microphone and press agent / apologist for the errors of Lefebvre, which is why he has never repudiated the SSPX (even if Una Voce is inclusive of others), why he allows that organization to continue to sell his books to this day.
I have read a lot of Davies' articles from the seventies and eighties, and in every case Davies took the most optimistic possible viewpoint. For several years after 1978 he was positive that JPII was going to solve all the problems in the Church. He was always a "glass half full" kind of guy, In fact, his articles only become heated and vehement when discussing those more pessimistic than himself, sedevacantists and such. But overall, one has to give him credit for always making the best of the situation, and whenever his optimism strayed too far into fantasy, he would eventually correct himself.
He was never excommunicated. The pope, incorrectly, declared that he had excommunicated himself.
Read the Balamand Statement. The Vatican says that 'schism' is a path to salvation. That would make schism a good thing. Therefore JPII thinks schism is a good thing.
I am also glad to have documentation supporting my assessment of what went on and when it went on.
I can't help but believe that if all Catholics knew the truth about the state of the Church by 1960,there would be far less bickering between those who see the Tridentine Mass as a cure-all and those who kknow it is far more complex than that. Every minute we spend arguing each other gives respite to the real enemies within,and they laugh.
Get serious.
There are a lot of people pointing to 2010 - the masons, the 'stock pickers', and others. It's generally for something that supposedly marks the end of the "US-era", in some way or other. The masons will be happy with that. But the 'euros' won't necessarily be the beneficiaries. Anyway - have to see what happens.
He clearly saw all the problems. His Cranmer's Godly Order basically lays out the steps in 'Vatican II reform'. But he never ultimately wanted to make that connection. Maybe he had a change of heart, at the last. But his writings essentially catalogue many of the fundamental errors since the mid-60s.
This isn't someone you want to quote on much of anything. I have Hand's original book. And he went on essentially to repudiate most EVERYTHING he wrote. He's a flake. He can bitch all he likes about Davies. It means nothing. You'd learn more from Carville telling the Republican how to run the GOP.
Thanks for the link to Father Harrison's article. I wish every Freeper who calls himself C/catholic could read it and understand the Golden Legend and how the enemy worked,then and now.
He was never excommunicated. The pope, incorrectly, declared that he had excommunicated himself.This is a case of denial of facts which are self-evident.
There are relevant documents on the case:
Some Documents on the Case
1. 1988, May 5 - PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre
2. 1988, July 1 - DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
3. 1988, July 2 - "ECCLESIA DEI" - Apostolic Letter of John Paul II
4. 1993, June 28 - USA APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE to Mrs. PATRICIA MORLEY
5. 1995, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to Scott Windsor
6. 1996, Aug. 24 - THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre
7. 1996, Oct. 31 - Responses from THE PONTIFICAL CONGREGATION OF BISHOPS, and THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
8. 1998, Oct. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to F. John Loughnan
9. 2002, Aug. 14 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to unknown person [1]
10. 2002, Apr. 15 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to unknown person [2]
11. 2002, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Second Reply to unknown person [1]
12. 2003, Jan. 18 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Communicated to Una Voce America - being a follow up to that of Sept. 27, 2002
The actual Decree of Excomunication is as follows:
Quote:
DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a scismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sentientae as envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
("ipso facto" - by the fact or the act itself)
Source: http://www.latin-mass.org/excommunication.html
End Quote:
The Excommunication for the crime of schism was authorized by the Supreme Pontiff, who is the Supreme Legislator, and the Supreme Interpreter of the Law.
YOU say "He was never excommunicated. The pope, incorrectly, declared that he had excommunicated himself."
Hmmmmmmmm! So, Habemus Papem, eh? Papa Grey Ghost11 !
Then you agree with me that giving the remains of the great Church fathers to the schismatic Greek Orthodox is just wrong - and for so many reasons.
As someone else pointed out, the Vatican also has supported the official Commie church in Red China, as the Chicoms simultaneously persecute real Catholics, as they persecute various other 'unsanctioned' organizations.
But this Gantin letter was answered, above, and by others. You don't convince anyone by ignoring replies. You have to address them, and consider them. Playing politically correct may suit you - so you think. But look at the LM. They have played PC. And they're waning. The anchors are moving on. The expectations are lowered. PC will do that to you. Reply, instead. Read the objections to YOUR objections. Consider them fairly.
The Vatican says that 'schism' is a path to salvation.Judging from your first post - I cannot accept that your statement is accurate.
Then you agree with me that giving the remains of the great Church fathers to the schismatic Greek Orthodox is just wrong - and for so many reasons.Not necessarily so! If you remember, there were MUTUAL excommunications between the East and West - "for so many reasons" - one of which was the theft of relics and holy things by the West - and, of course, the desecration of Santa Sophia. But, you are aware of these things, aren't you?As someone else pointed out, the Vatican also has supported the official Commie church in Red China, as the Chicoms simultaneously persecute real Catholics, as they persecute various other 'unsanctioned' organizations.
I think you are "putting words into the mouth" of that poster re the Chinese! Shame on you. The Church has had to "live with" the State from her inception. Sometimes, She has fared very badly; sometimes She has become dominant. Whatever the circumstances - She HAS survived, and will survive until the end of time. That doesn't mean that She will survive in the United States of America, or in Canada, etc.; but She will still survive the attacks of Communists, Anarchists, Protestants and Integrists!
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.