Posted on 03/29/2006 12:18:14 PM PST by pravknight
Vatican II "in the Light of Tradition"? Pastoral Letter by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul June 29, 1994
Dearly Beloved in Christ,
In the past few years, there has been a rise in the number of conservative publications which attempt to excuse the chaos and confusion in the modern Church of Vatican II by the erroneous argument that there is nothing theologically wrong with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and that the problems supposedly are caused by misinterpretations on the part of liberal priests, religious and laity. These publications enumerate the abuses perpetrated in the Conciliar Church and yet insist that the problem has not been caused by the modern teachings of the Council. They insist that the Vatican II decrees must be interpreted “in the light of tradition.” Let us briefly examine some of the many modern teachings which emanated from the Second Vatican Council and see if they can be interpreted “in the light of tradition.”
First of all, when the term “in the light of tradition” is used, it should mean that references can be found in the Church’s tradition to the particular doctrines in question. To interpret a doctrine “in the light of tradition” should mean that the doctrine has been previously taught by past Popes and Ecumenical Councils.
Let us begin by the examination of Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” As we quote from this official Declaration of the Council, let us ponder how this Declaration could be interpreted “in the light of tradition.”
Declaration of the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Vatican Council II; October 28, 1965)
“From ancient times down to the present, there has existed among divers peoples a certain perception of the hidden power that hovers over the course of things and over the events of human life... Religions bound up with cultural advancement have struggled to reply to these questions with more refined concepts and in more highly developed language.
“Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible fruitfulness of myths and a searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.”
Before we continue with the text, let us consider the overwhelming depth of error contained in these praises of Hinduism. Hinduism is a pantheistic as well as a polytheistic religion. It recognizes various gods in the created world. The world and everything in it, including man, is god. Among the various Hindu divinities, there are three of great importance — Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as god. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. Man is supposedly involved in an endless evolution of birth and death called reincarnation.
How then can this Declaration of Vatican II use the terminology that Hindus make “a loving, trusting flight toward God”? — Which god is referred to? Certainly not the true God.
“And express it through an inexhaustible fruitfulness of myths and a searching philosophical inquiry.” — How can one express “the divine mystery” (which is not defined) through myths and philosophical inquiry?
Did the authors of this Declaration ever hear of the First Commandment of God:
“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before Me”?
Continuing the text of the Declaration:
“Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.”
Buddhism, like Hinduism, is a pantheistic religion which equates the natural order of creation with God and also believes in reincarnation. How then could the Second Vatican council officially declare the praises of this false religion? What kind of doctrine is it to proclaim that Buddhism “teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance”? What is this ambiguous “absolute freedom” and “supreme enlightenment”?
This Declaration, besides its ambiguous language of the Hindu’s “divine mystery” and “loving trusting flight toward God” and the Buddhists’ “state of absolute freedom“ and attainment of “supreme enlightenment,” is purely and simply the ultimate display of religious indifferentism! Religious indifferentism is the false belief, so often condemned by the Catholic Church, which holds that all religions are equally good and that men can attain salvation in the practice of any religion. This is manifestly false because God has revealed the true religion by which He is to be worshipped through His Only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was truly a historical person and He worked the most stupendous miracles to prove His Divine Mission. To maintain that all religions are acceptable is to imply that Jesus Christ wasted His time to reveal the true Faith and found the true Church. Why should He have accomplished this, if, in the final analysis, the man-made religions of the world would also be acceptable.
The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration continues with praises of the Muslims:
“Upon the Muslims, too, the Church looks with esteem... Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
Herein lies a subtle contradiction. If Jesus Christ is acknowledged at least as a prophet by the Muslims, and prophets are truly inspired by God, how do the Muslims deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ Who solemnly and explicitly proclaimed Himself to be God — equal to the Father? Did the Catholic Church ever in its history look with esteem upon the religion of Islam? How can this be interpreted “in the light of tradition”?
Then comes the most preposterous statement of this entire Declaration:
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”
What can be “good and holy” in the worship of false gods and in the practice of false religions?
Following this quote in the Declaration, there is a footnote which is the most damning of all statements:
“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”
Since Vatican Council II, no longer is it the role of the missionaries to convert the people of these religions to Catholicism; their new role is merely to promote the “good” in them?! This doctrine is directly opposed to the mission of the Catholic Church.
Christ founded His Church to teach all nations all things whatsoever He commanded. This was His solemn command to His Apostles and their successors:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:19).
“Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16).
Where would the Catholic Church be today if the Apostles and their successors did not attempt to convert to the true Faith the followers of false religions? Where would the Catholic Church be today if the Apostles and their successors merely tried to promote the “good” found in these false religions?
Continuing the text of the Declaration:
“The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture.”
How does one “in witness of Christian faith acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods” of false religions? Is Christianity, is Catholicism compatible and reconcilable with the worship of false gods?! What are the “spiritual and moral goods” to be found in false worship? Why is there not any reference to the work of conversion of the people of these religions?
Should it be any wonder why so many Catholics since Vatican II have involved themselves in the practices of the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islamism?
Should it be any wonder that since Vatican II, John Paul II and his modernist clergy have publicly gathered together for worship in common with the leaders of these false religions and a multitude of other religions, including Animism, Voodooism, Shintoism, etc.?
What then are we to think of the argument that the decrees of Vatican II must be interpreted “in the light of tradition”? No where in tradition will we find such absurd doctrines. And as for interpretation, we only need to look to the ecumenical affair held in Assisi where 150 religions of the world assembled at the invitation of John Paul II to pray together. As Pope Pius XI so aptly defined such false ecumenism — “it is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God” (Mortalium Animos).
In Christo Jesu et Maria Immaculata, Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI
Spoken like a true schismatic.
The Body of Christ isn't a game - it is a deadly serious matter.
The Holy See is the sole earthly source of authority in Christ's Church.
I think he meant that Latin-rite Catholicism isn't the only game in town. He stated above that he is Melkite.
Herein lies a subtle contradiction. If Jesus Christ is acknowledged at least as a prophet by the Muslims, and prophets are truly inspired by God, how do the Muslims deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ Who solemnly and explicitly proclaimed Himself to be God — equal to the Father? Did the Catholic Church ever in its history look with esteem upon the religion of Islam?
I think I like this guy!
How can this be interpreted “in the light of tradition”?
Not to mention in the light of Scripture.
He said Rome, by which he means the Holy See, in the context of a post in which he stated that he would rather attend a Mass celebrated by a schismatic than by an incompetent bishop in communion with the Holy See.
He stated above that he is Melkite.
He also stated above that "most Eastern Catholics" believe that the Holy See has defected from the faith.
I know this is false, since the same kind of lame theological blundering of the sort perpetrated by Mahony can be found in the Eastern Rite episcopates as well.
Pravknight has an agenda, and it is not that of an obedient Melkite Catholic.
Why do bother posting such drivel? This "bishop" is not Catholic.
Amen.
You mean in the light of your private interpretation of Scripture.
What Vatican decree declared Ngo Dinh Thuc's episcopal consecrations invalid? As far as I know, none.
NeoCats argue that it can, but by its own internal logic, it shouldn't.
A central purpose of Vatican II was to replace Scholasticism with Phenomenology as the philosophy in the Mind of the Church.
Phenomenology says that one must look at any object in a new way, "bracketing" or "suspending" everything previously thought to be true about the object.
Ergo, the Church is not the Kingdom or the Mystical Body of Christ -- the Church is "the People of God."
The Gospel is not a call to prepare for the afterlife; it is a Social Gospel of redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots, calling on lawmakers to protect Rawlsian "basic rights" (housing, health care, a living wage, etc.), and working for World Peace.
The Mass is not a "vertical" Sacrifice to God, but a "horizontal" celebration of a Community joined by one Spirit.
Lumen Gentium is a phenomenological description of what the Church is and who the Pope, bishops, priests, religious and laity are. Nowhere does LG say that the Pope and bishops are supposed to preserve Apostolic Tradition.
Well then, if it's not in their job description, it must not be important.
The "perpetual reform" Vatican II calls for means that the Pope, bishops, theologians, etc. must perpetually look at the Church in newer and newer phenomenological ways. Interpreting V-2 according to "Tradition" would just stunt the growth of the "perpetual reform."
As Heraclitus said, "You never step into the same Church twice."
LOL!
You have made a very important point, however, which is that VatII was the outcome of a fundamental philosophical shift. Many people think it was an expression of Modernism, a theological heresy, but it is much more profound than that and involved people who were not Modernists - but whose entire philosophical underpinnning had, unperceived by them, been transformed by Kant and Hegel and other post-Enlightenment philosophers into something that could not possibly continue to accept Catholic tradition in any sense of the word.
You might enjoy Fr. Jonathan Robinson's new book, The Church and Modernity, which gives a wonderful summary of this ("modern" and "post-modern" thought), particularly its effect upon the liturgy.
Of course, the question is what, if anything, can be done about it.
This is complete nonsense. As someone who has just written a thesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium, I can tell you that the Second Vatican Council did not make the Mass a "horizontal" celebration of the community. According to SC, the Mass is a sacrifice, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and the primary purpose of the liturgy is the worship of God and the sanctification of man that results from worshipping Him. While it also refers to the Church as the People of God, that people is a hierarchically ordered community, not some amorphous, autonomous community that can do whatever it wants. Sacrosanctum Concilium did NOT make the community the subject or the object of the liturgy.
At least get your facts straight if you are going to criticize. This took all of 10 seconds to locate using the "find (on this page)" function in Internet Explorer on the copy of Lumen Gentium on the Vatican website:
Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning,(7*) are passers-on of the apostolic seed.(8*) Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested (9*) and preserved.(10*)
- Lumen Gentium, 20
Credibility, credibility, credibility, credibility, credibility. Or the lack thereof.
I was once a Protestant. Of course you will deny that you rely upon the infallibility of your own scriptural hermaneutic because it would leave you in a lurch.
When I realized Protestantism was a total fabrication of the 16th century Deformers, I bolted?
Then what did?
Actually, most of the documents of VatII did little about anything. They were just tantalizingly vague, in many cases, and nature abhors a vacuum. Obviously, there were people just waiting to rush in and fill that particular vacuum with their own thoughts on the matter.
And what denomination were you?
Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning,(7*) are passers-on of the apostolic seed.(8*) Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested (9*) and preserved.(10*)
- Lumen Gentium, 20
As I read LG 20, it refers singularly to the "small-t" apostolic tradition of preserving the manner in which persons become bishops, in a line going back to the Pentecost. It does not, imho, impinge upon, say, any duty to preserve the Canon, or tenets of the Nicene Creed. To me, it is not worded as a mandate that those chosen to be bishops must hand the faith down exactly as they have received it.
The St. Irenaeus quote implies that if someone is properly appointed a bishop in the apostolic succession, then he will undoubtedly pass on the "apostolic seed" faithfully. I think Church history since Irenaeus in general, and since Vatican II in particular, shows that this cannot be presumed uncritically.
We might also quibble as to how to interpret the metaphor "apostolic seed." Does it mean preserving the totality of the Catholic Faith as it has developed over 1900+ years? Or did the Council Fathers think it meant the sort of "World Peace" Social Gospel described in Gaudium et Spes? I would incline toward the latter. Or perhaps the "seed" is just the Pentecostal blessing of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles being passed along.
Does Sacrosanctum Concilium ever explicitly say that the Mass is the propitiatory sacrifice to God of a spotless victim? As distinct from, say, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving?
Once Lumen Gentium has phenominologically reidentified the Church as the "People of God," the old, "bracketed" notion of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ can be phenomenologically reinterpretted a la Congar as individuals animated by the same Holy Spirit to work for Social Justice and World Peace. This is the phenomenological meaning of "sanctification" -- to be liberated from bourgeois capitalistic selfishness, and to focus on the needs of the Other (like the Good Samaritan or Dorothy Day). The hierarchy guides the congregation to this "sanctification."
The phenomenological approach is that this type of "sanctification" is the true fruit of the graces received through the sacraments, and that real worship of God is not just words and gestures in the church building, but going out and living the Social Gospel by changing the world into the peaceable Kingdom of God.
Forgot to add: I know that the Council Fathers never use the word "transubstantiation," so precisely what they mean by "the body and blood of Christ" is open to interpretation.
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.