Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II: A Pendulum People, We Are

https://harvestingthefruit.com/a-pendulum-people-we-are/ ^

[piusv]

The interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently published on the website Adelante la Fe (the Spanish language partner of Rorate Caeli) is quickly making its rounds in traditional (aka Catholic) circles, and for good reason.

In reviewing reactions, it occurs to me that we are very much a pendulum people; given to extremes and far too quick to grant hero status to better-than-average clerics at the drop of a biretta.

No doubt, Bishop Schneider offered some praiseworthy commentary in the interview, but a little perspective may be in order to prevent us from getting carried away.

Much of the attention (and praise) being given to His Excellency concerns his assessment of the Society of St. Pius X, a topic on which he is rather well qualified to speak after having recently visited two of the Society’s seminaries as an envoy of the Holy See.

Of the SSPX, Bishop Schneider said (among other things):

I am keeping a good impression of my visits. I could observe a sound theological, spiritual and human reality in the two Seminars … To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, meanwhile they should be accepted as they are …  Apparently, Bishop Schneider and I are in practical agreement, even though I am at liberty to say it more directly:

The withholding of formal canonical recognition of the SSPX, and likewise formal jurisdiction from their bishops and priests, is a grave injustice.

Bishop Schneider also seems to acknowledge that such recognition and jurisdiction is being withheld from the SSPX due to their unwillingness to endorse the Second Vatican Council as an “integral part of the Tradition of the Church.”

On this note, Bishop Schneider states:

I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the “condicio sine qua non”, since it was an assembly with primarily pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do.  So far so good.

When he gets down to articulating the reasons why lockstep acceptance of the Council (as an “integral part of Tradition”) should not be the necessary condition for the Society’s recognition, however, we find evidence that Bishop Schneider, for all of his laudable attributes, is himself infected with no small amount of the conciliar disease:

When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of a pastoral reality in the Church, which is Vatican II. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do.  While one can rightly say that Vatican II, according to every pope who has reigned during and since, formally enjoys no status beyond that of “a pastoral reality” (as Bishop Schneider puts it); the fact of the matter is, the conciliar texts are not the benign, blameless, time-bound decrees he paints them to be; rather, at the very least they contain grave invitations to doctrinal error (if not outright error in its own right).

Two brief examples concern the Council’s treatment of the Church’s relationship with the Jews, and its assessment of the heretical communities vis-à-vis salvation.

In other words, it simply is not reality to say that such “parts of the conciliar statements” possess “value,” temporary or otherwise.

Doctrinal ambiguities (much more doctrinal errors) serve no purpose other than to obscure the truth (read: Christ), ultimately leading souls astray.

As such, simply consigning the conciliar text to that which had value in a day-gone-by is not by any means a way forward; rather, the ambiguities and errors must be identified and condemned outright.

Furthermore, the Holy See, properly speaking, has not “over-estimated” the Council; rather, the post-conciliar popes (and those in positions of authority in the Church in union with them) have simply accepted the conciliar text for what it says and acted upon it.

In other words, it was in allowing the conciliar text to inform their words and deeds almost exclusively for nearly five decades that the popes gave rise to a new church that scarcely resembles the Holy Catholic Church, even as it operates under its name.

Likewise, it is untrue that the SSPX has in any way “over-evaluated” the Council’s importance. On the contrary; the damage that the Council has done is so immense as to be truly incalculable!

In short, denying, or at the very least downplaying, the central role of the Second Vatican Council in creating the current ecclesial crisis is a dead end that will only serve to perpetuate said crisis. This, unfortunately, is precisely the position Bishop Schneider appears determined to promote.

This much becomes clear when he says:

[The Society’s current condition] should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly loose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles.  While the overall sentiment is admirable, I beg to differ with the suggestion that “the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days” has ever had, much less has, any authentic Catholic credibility to lose.

And let’s not beat around the bush: That “history” is going to reproach the Holy See for withholding recognition from the SSPX should be the least of anyone’s concern; the far more breathtaking reality is that Almighty God will one day demand recompense of the popes who so denied them.

Moving away from the SSPX to broader concerns, Bishop Schneider was asked to address what he had labeled:

The five wounds in Christ’s liturgical mystical body: the priest turned towards the congregation, Holy Communion taken in the hand, the new Offertory prayers, the disappearance of Latin in liturgical celebrations and the performing of some ministries, such as those of lector and acolyte, by women.  As for how these wounds have been produced, Bishop Schenider insisted:

None of these liturgical wounds can even remotely be supported by “Sacrosanctum Concilium”, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy of the II Vatican Council.  Once again, we see evidence of an untenable tendency to hold the Council practically harmless.

While it is true that Sacrosanctum Concilium does not directly call for any of the aforementioned five “wounds,” it did most certainly open the door for these unthinkable innovations (even if the majority of the Council Fathers could not foresee it) by virtue of the fact that the document is constructed upon the dangerous notion that the sacred liturgy is rightly considered a tool to be leveraged in the work of ecumenism.

This much is made clear in Art. 1 wherein the reason for “undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” is stated thus:

This sacred Council desires … to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)  Each one of the five liturgical innovations cited by Bishop Schneider was motivated by a desire to make Holy Mass a more comfortable experience for Protestants, and the unsavory truth is that the Council endorsed that misguided desire as if it were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

As a remedy, Bishop Schneider suggests (among other things):

To ask the Holy See to issue a document, which will grant to the celebrant the freedom of choice between the modern and the traditional offertory prayers during the celebration of the Holy Mass in the ordinary form; the same document of the Holy See could encourage the celebration ad Dominum or ad orientem and dissuade and restrict the practice of Communion in hand … [And] to spread more the celebration of the liturgy in the ancient form  While the restoration of the traditional Offertory to the Novus Ordo and encouraging traditional liturgical practices may sound wonderful at first blush, these suggestions begin with a false and decidedly dangerous premise; namely, that this bastard rite is by absolute necessity here to stay.

That simply isn’t true.

In spite of Benedict the Abdicator’s creative verbal posturing, the Novus Ordo Missae is not simply one form of the ancient Roman Rite; it is a brand new rite that was created in the 1960’s by a select group of impious men that met around a conference table to haggle over its contents; even going so far as to pen “Eucharistic Prayers” to replace the Canon of the Roman Mass as it had existed almost completely unchanged for some 1,500 years.

The solution to this unprecedented encroachment on holy ground is not to appoint a different group of men to gather around yet another conference table to hash out a reform-of-the-reform (which promises to be an endless endeavor), but to return to the Mass of Ages that developed organically like a pearl of great price over the course of two millennia.

Look, I get it; neither Bishop Schneider nor any other cleric who wishes to retain his “full communion” status is going to issue a public call for the abrogation of the Novus Ordo.

I offer these observations just the same to lend a bit of perspective to this dreadful situation wherein, difficult as it is to admit, even the shining stars of modern day Rome, including Bishop Schneider (whose views on ecumenical dialogue and religious liberty are thoroughly conciliar), obviously haven’t escaped the diabolical disorientation of which Our Blessed Lady forewarned.

[piusv]

Again, in order to see proper formatting of quotes within this article, go to the actual link.

[piusv]

Two brief examples concern the Council’s treatment of the Church’s relationship with the Jews, and its assessment of the heretical communities vis-à-vis salvation. In other words, it simply is not reality to say that such “parts of the conciliar statements” possess “value,” temporary or otherwise. Doctrinal ambiguities (much more doctrinal errors) serve no purpose other than to obscure the truth (read: Christ), ultimately leading souls astray. As such, simply consigning the conciliar text to that which had value in a day-gone-by is not by any means a way forward; rather, the ambiguities and errors must be identified and condemned outright. Furthermore, the Holy See, properly speaking, has not “over-estimated” the Council; rather, the post-conciliar popes (and those in positions of authority in the Church in union with them) have simply accepted the conciliar text for what it says and acted upon it. In other words, it was in allowing the conciliar text to inform their words and deeds almost exclusively for nearly five decades that the popes gave rise to a new church that scarcely resembles the Holy Catholic Church, even as it operates under its name.

Home-run.

[HurriKane]

I really appreciate your posting this article about the conciliar church, I always look forward to reading your posts and replies on this topic, I have been studying this topic for the past year, the damage done by the conciliar church has been great and grave, a “reform of the reform” will only perpetuate the errors, so too a “hybrid form” which I read about elsewhere, only a true restoration of the extraordinary form will save us and our souls... Blessings, HK

[piusv]

Good to hear from you, thank you. I’m sure there are many more lurkers out there who are contemplating all of this, trying to make sense of it.

[BlatherNaut]

Vatican II Responsible

Assisi Revisited

"...We quote from the Canadian Catholic Register, January 10, 1987, quoting NC News Service, “The unity shown by world religious leaders who prayed for peace in Assisi, Italy, last October (1986) was “visible illustration” of the Second Vatican Council’s call for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, Pope John Paul II said.” This speech was laced with quotations from the documents of Vatican II, which he said showed how “such a great event sprang from the teaching of the council.” Here we have the source of all this – Vatican II – and there can be no question of “misrepresentation” since the Pope himself has interpreted it. Our Lord did not call for “ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.” Our Lord said: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”..."

------------

"Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent." Romans 16: 17-18

--------------

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles." (Decrees of the First Vatican Council Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff)

Ecumenism = new doctrine

[BlatherNaut]

As such, simply consigning the conciliar text to that which had value in a day-gone-by is not by any means a way forward; rather, the ambiguities and errors must be identified and condemned outright.

At some point in the future when sanity returns to the Church, the entire council may well be condemned outright. Ditto Laudato si'.

[piusv]

Ecumenism = new doctrine

Agreed. But folks still insist that VII was just "pastoral".

[piusv]

We need Catholic bishops and popes for that.

[BlatherNaut]

Agreed. But folks still insist that VII was just "pastoral".

Popes John XXIII and Paul VI insisted VII was just pastoral.

..."It is clear, as the following extracts confirm, that neither did Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council,authorize the council to treat dogma nor did Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the council, intend them to be part of the essential Magisterium of the Church. Both regarded the council to be pastoral, not dogmatic, in nature, and therefore not part of the essential Magisterium of the Church.

Some have noted that the titles of two of the documents, Lumen Gentium (On the Church) and Dei Verbum (On divine revelation), are preceded by the word "dogmatic." Canonists have noted that the authority of a document is determined not by its mere title. Rather, the authority is determined by the intent of the pope who promulgated the document.

What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of Vatican II? That, according to the two popes of the council, it was merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the essential Magisterium of the Church. In holding that understanding, Catholics are simply obeying the words of the two popes themselves. Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one's Catholic faith..."

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt

Ecumenism = new doctrine

And therefore not true doctrine, and thus no more binding than any other fallible opinion. "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

[piusv]

Before Vatican II, there was never such a thing called a "Pastoral Council" in the history of the Church. Vatican II was a General Council and is listed as such in the 21 Ecumenical/General Councils at New Advent. General Councils are (supposed to be) infallible.

Although I'm not sure why anyone would give any credibility to what Paul VI or JXXIII may have said given they were the ones who foisted this horror on us, I do get that believing this was just "pastoral" in nature helps certain Catholics sleep better at night.

[BlatherNaut]

Although I'm not sure why anyone would give any credibility to what Paul VI or JXXIII may have said given they were the ones who foisted this horror on us

No reason to assume they were lying. The Church is under the protection of the Holy Spirit. The novelties promoted by VII (intended to change the culture of the Church rather than define doctrine) conflict with Tradition. Neither Popes nor councils are empowered by God to contravene the Deposit of Faith. And Paul VI did not have the right to abrogate the Mass canonized by Pope St. Pius V, so he attempted to suppress it via praxis. The "pastoral" aberrations promoted by VII are not binding because they conflict with the Deposit of Faith.

"...According to the General Secretary of Vatican II, distinctions must be made: the dogmatic definitions of the past must of course be adhered to, but “reservations” must be made regarding any doctrines of a “novel character”. Never before in the history of the Catholic Church had a council ever taken pains to declare that it was not teaching infallibly, unless it should “openly declare so”, which it never did. And that a General Secretary should confide that “reservations” must be made about its teachings of “a novel character” is quite staggering. Vatican II was clearly unlike any ecumenical council which preceded it..."

http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.html

"...As one can see, here too Paul VI expressly declared that Vatican II did not intend to teach, through dogmatic definitions, any Chapterof doctrine, and therefore, necessarily, Vatican II is in no part covered by infallibility, since infallibility is tied only to the “truths” taught by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium as revealed – and, therefore, to be believed “de fide divina”, aut “catholica” – by the Solemn Magisterium and by the Ecumenical Councils, or even by the Supreme Pontiff, as regards dogmatic definitions..."

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdf

[piusv]

No reason to assume they were lying. The Church is under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The words you keep quoting were not made through the Holy Spirit. They were comments at a "General Audience". You can not assert that those comments are free from error because the Holy Spirit protects the Church. If you can say that then you might as well say that all of Francis' comments are true because the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Vatican II was clearly unlike any ecumenical council which preceded it..."

It shouldn't be because all ecumenical councils are infallible. That is Catholic teaching. Now, perhaps Paul VI isn't "lying" but it does seem strange that he also says things that contradict other things he says (well, maybe not so strange because this is what Modernist heretics do). There are quotes from Paul VI that suggest just the opposite. Here is what he had to say about VII in 1964 in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam:

Much progress has therefore been made. Suffice it here to refer to the relevant findings of the First Ecumenical Vatican Council. From these it is obvious that the doctrine concerning the Church is one which must claim the attention not only of pastors and teachers, but also of the faithful, and indeed of all Christians. This doctrine is a necessary stepping-stone to the understanding of Christ and His work. It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.

Vatican II...had the task of not just dealing with doctrine but also DEFINING IT.

[piusv]

http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm

[BlatherNaut]

My impression after reading this is that the author views all teachings of an ecumenical council as infallible, and such infallibility as being without limits, even if invoked to contradict God Himself. He doesn't seem to recognize distinctions between types of councils, regarding everything taught by an ecumenical council as automatically infallible. Is this an accurate view? According to Romano Amerio (a VII peritus) it isn't. "As a matter of fact, no part of the council's decrees is declared to constitute a dogmatic definition, but it is well understood that where a doctrine already defined in the past is reaffirmed, there can be no doubt about its theological status. However, to return to the comparison between types of council, it must be firmly maintained that the dogmatic sort are the more important, as a consequence of a philosophical truth prior to all theological propositions, and also as something revealed in Scripture". (Romano Amerio - Iota Unum)

If the universal teaching authority, i.e. the pope and the bishops with moral unanimity, pass on to the faithful a teaching as revealed, the faithful are obliged under pain of heresy to believe that doctrine with divine faith.

IIRC, during the Arian heresy, 90% of the teaching authority succumbed to error.

Moreover in the celebrated case of religious liberty, concerning which Vatican II flagrantly taught in almost identical words the direct opposite of Pope Pius IX’sQuanta Cura (an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium), the Council insisted that its doctrine concerned a natural human right founded on the dignity of the human person as made known by divine revelation.

In this case, Divine Revelation was invoked to justify flaunting the teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium? If this teaching is automatically infallible, then to be a believing Catholic is in essence to be at the mercy of capricious churchmen whose doctrines du jour MUST be accepted as infallible, even if they contradict previous infallible teachings, and without reference to the Deposit of Faith [the sum total of revealed truths given by Christ to his Church; truths guarded by the Church and taught infallibly… (The Concise Catholic Dictionary, Imprimatur Archbishop of Milwaukee, 1943)]

Faith and reason must always be in harmony.

5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. Vatican I

It is all we need to make good the claim that Vatican II fulfilled the conditions for infallibility… if Paul VI was a true pope. For it was certainly an occasion on which, in all appearance, pope and bishops united in transmitting to the faithful a substantial body of religious tenets presented as being authentic Catholic doctrine.

Authentic Catholic doctrine must conform to the Deposit of Faith and to Magisterial teachings.

13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. – Vatican I

[piusv]

Have you read up on general/ecumenical councils and their related infallibility? I suggest you start there.

Bottom line: if this was a true, valid ecumenical council, then it is to be considered infallible. If a so-called “ecumenical council” taught error, then it can not be a valid council of the Catholic Church. Those promulgating such error can not be legitimate authority.

Comparing Vatican II with the Arian heresy is a false comparison. Individual bishops believed in the Arian heresy. They did not, as a whole with the pope, teach the rest of the Church the Arian heresy as Church doctrine in an ecumenical council.

[BlatherNaut]

Bottom line: if this was a true, valid ecumenical council, then it is to be considered infallible.

So if a "true, valid ecumenical council" teaches that all the faithful must wear green shirts on earth day and sing hymns to Gaia, such a teaching must be considered infallible?

[piusv]

No, it would mean that it wasn’t a true valid ecumenical council.

[piusv]

Or that the authority promulgating such heresy would not be legitimate given the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error.

[BlatherNaut]

Where is it written that Popes (who have supreme and complete power and jurisdiction to decide questions of faith and morals and to arrange the discipline of the universal Church) may not convene general councils for practical ("pastoral") purposes?

When the supreme authority (the Pope) communicates his intention that only certain council teachings be considered infallible (“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.”) how is that not the final word on the subject?