Taking Insanity Seriously
Thomas A. Droleskey
The revolutionary nature of the "Second" Vatican Council and the abominable "liturgy" wrought in its aftermath was represented as such by many of its leaders in the 1960s. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his band of conciliar revolutionaries have long sought to "reconcile" the conciliar revolution with the perennial teaching and liturgical praxis of the Catholic Church by claiming that dogmatic truth, which he admits is absolute in its nature, can never be understood adequately at any one time and is necessarily distorted by the use of language that reflects the subject circumstances of the historical moment in which a particular formation has been made.
Ratzinger has, as Benedict XVI, sought to give a "papal" explanation for this direct defiance of the nature of dogmatic truth as defined by the [First] Vatican Council, by making advertence to the positivistic exercise known as "the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," a semantic device he unveiled three years ago now in a Christmas address to the members of the conciliar curia:
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature (December 22, 2005.)
The then Father Joseph Ratzinger had written pretty much the same thing thirty-four years earlier:
In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger reiterated this apostasy, which runs contrary even to natural reason, in 1990 when presenting a document entitled Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation:
The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time. (Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6; Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete.)
These views have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church in no uncertain terms. No semantic device of Hegelian positivism engineered by "progressive minds" can make true that which the Catholic Church has condemned. The "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" is a bald-faced lie from beginning to end, contradicting both natural reason and the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church from which no one may dissent and remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing:
Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts." On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason"; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's views on the nature of dogmatic truth have been condemned in no uncertain terms by the authority of the Catholic Church. Using the falsehood of the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," however, Ratzinger/Benedict has been able to justify the new ecclesiology and religious liberty and the separation of Church and State as well as to reject what he calls disparagingly the "ecumenism of the return" and to dismiss the dogmatic formula of the Doctrine of Justification decreed by the Council of Trent and to overturn Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of forty the propositions of the late Father Antonio Rosmini. As Pope Saint Pius X noted in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
No one who hates Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, is a reliable teacher of the Catholic Faith. Alas, as has been noted on this site endlessly, Ratzinger/Benedict must reject Scholasticism in favor of his condemned "New Theology" in order to strip away the "filter" of Thomistic thought so as to project conciliarism into the work of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. For Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, however, God would have had to have hidden from dogmatic councils and from true popes the "truth" of this hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" as they, dogmatic councils and true popes, taught error about the nature of dogmatic truth and about the propositions they condemned but that have been embraced by the conciliarists. God will not be mocked. And the conciliarists mock God as they assert that the process of "revelation" is as yet unfolding as dogmatic truths undergo "adjustments" given the historical circumstances in which the mythical entity known as "modern man" lives.
When all is said and done, however, each "school" of conciliar revolutionary thought accepts the fact that there have been "innovations" wrought by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath, however much they may differ on the degree of the "continuity" such innovations represent from the past. This is one of the essential points made by Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña, Vicar General of the Sacerdotal Society of the Holy Cross and of the "Personal Prelature" Opus Dei, in article that he wrote to explain that the "Second" Vatican Council, though only a "pastoral" council, provided binding doctrines to which Catholics must give their full assent. There is great significance to this exercise in positivism (asserting that something is so because it has been asserted as being so) because Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña is one of those who have been involved in the "doctrinal discussions" with representatives from the Society of Saint Pius X concerning the "meaning" of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "adhesion" that is due its teaching:
forthcoming 50th anniversary of the convocation of the Second Vatican
Council (25 December 1961) is a cause for celebration, but also for
renewed reflection on the reception and application of the Conciliar
and above the more directly practical aspects of this reception and
application, both positive and negative, it seems appropriate also to
recall the nature of the intellectual assent that is owed to the
teachings of the Council. Although we are dealing here with a well-known
doctrine, about which there is an extensive bibliography, it is
nevertheless useful to review it in its essential points, given the
persistence - also in public opinion - of misunderstandings regarding
the continuity of some Conciliar teachings with previous teachings of
the Church's Magisterium.
of all, it is not pointless to recall that the pastoral motivation of
the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal – since all pastoral
activity is necessarily based on doctrine. But, above all, it is
important to emphasise that precisely because doctrine is aimed at
salvation, the teaching of doctrine is an integral part of all pastoral
work. Furthermore, within the Documents of the Council it is obvious
that there are many strictly doctrinal teachings: on Divine Revelation,
on the Church, etc. As Blessed John Paul II wrote: “With the help of
God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a
considerable collection of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms which
were presented to the whole Church” (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, 11 October 1992, Introduction).
Second Vatican Council did not define any dogma, in the sense that it
proposed no doctrine with a definitive act. However, even if the
Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of
infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to
be considered "fallible" - in the sense that what is proposed is somehow
a “provisional doctrine” or just an “authoritative opinion”. Every
authentic expression of the Magisterium must be received for what it
truly is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession,
speak with the “charism of truth” (Dei Verbum, n. 8), “endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), “and by the light of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).
charism, this authority and this light were certainly present at the
Second Vatican Council; to deny this to the entire episcopate gathered
to teach the universal Church cum Petro and sub Petro, would be to deny something of the very essence of the Church (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 24 June 1973, nn. 2-5).
not all the affirmations contained in the Conciliar documents have the
same doctrinal value and therefore not all require the same degree of
assent. The various levels of assent owed to doctrines proposed by the
Magisterium were outlined in Vatican II’s Constitution Lumen Gentium (n. 25), and subsequently synthesised in the three clauses added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in the formula of the Professio fidei published in 1989 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Blessed John Paul II.
affirmations of the Second Vatican Council that recall truths of the
faith naturally require the assent of theological faith, not because
they were taught by this Council but because they have already been
taught infallibly as such by the Church, either by a solemn judgement or
by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. So also a full and
definitive assent is required for the other doctrines set forth by the
Second Vatican Council which have already been proposed by a previous
definitive act of the Magisterium.
Council’s other doctrinal teachings require of the faithful a degree of
assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. Precisely
because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on
rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an
act of faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely
disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine
assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of
faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” (Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 24 May
1990, n. 23). This obedience to the Magisterium of the Church does not
limit freedom but, on the contrary, is the source of freedom. Christ’s
words: “he who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16) are addressed also to the
successors of the Apostles; and to listen to Christ means to receive in
itself the truth which will make you free (cf. Jn 8:32).
of the Magisterium may contain elements that are not exactly doctrinal —
as is the case in the documents of the Second Vatican Council —
elements whose nature is more or less circumstantial (descriptions of
the state of a society, suggestions, exhortations, etc.). Such matters
are received with respect and gratitude, but do not require an
intellectual assent in the strictest sense (cf. Instruction Donum Veritatis, nn. 24-31).
The Interpretation of Teachings
unity of the Church and unity in the faith are inseparable, and this
also involves the unity of the Magisterium of the Church in every age,
since the Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation
transmitted by Sacred Scripture and by Tradition. This means, among
other things, that an essential characteristic of the Magisterium is its
continuity and consistency through history. Continuity does not mean an
absence of development; down the centuries the Church deepens in her
knowledge, in her understanding and, consequently, also in her
magisterial teaching of Catholic faith and morals.
number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the
documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of
the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc.
These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed
with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect
and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of
controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial
teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition. In the face of such
difficulties in understanding the continuity of certain Conciliar
Teachings with the tradition, the Catholic attitude, having taken into
account the unity of the Magisterium, is to seek a unitive
interpretation in which the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the
preceding Magisterial documents illuminate each other. Not only should
the Second Vatican Council be interpreted in the light of previous
Magisterial documents, but also some of these earlier magisterial
documents can be understood better in the light of the Second Vatican
Council. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. It should be
remembered, for example, that the meaning of important concepts adopted
in the First Council of Nicaea in the formulation of the Trinitarian and
Christological faith (hypóstasis, ousía), were greatly clarified by later Councils.
interpretation of the innovations taught by the Second Vatican Council
must therefore reject, as Benedict XVI put it, “a hermeneutic of
discontinuity and rupture,” while it must affirm the “hermeneutic of
reform, of renewal within continuity” (Discourse, 22 December
2005). These are innovations in the sense that they explain new aspects
which have not previously been formulated by the Magisterium, but which
do not doctrinally contradict previous Magisterial documents. This is so
even though, in certain cases — for example, concerning religious
freedom — these innovations imply very different consequences at the
level of historical decisions concerning juridical and
political applications of the teaching, especially given the changes in
historical and social conditions. An authentic interpretation of
Conciliar texts can only be made by the Magisterium of the Church
herself. Therefore, in the theological work of the interpretation of
passages in the Conciliar texts which arouse queries or seem to present
difficulties, it is above all necessary to take into account the sense
in which they have been interpreted in subsequent Magisterial
interventions. Nevertheless, there remains space for legitimate
theological freedom to explain in one way or in another how certain
formulations present in the Conciliar texts do not contradict the
Tradition and, therefore, to explain the correct meaning of some
expressions contained in those passages.
in this regard, it does not seem superfluous to call to mind that
almost half a century has passed since the conclusion of the Second
Vatican Council and that in these decades four Roman Pontiffs have
succeeded one another on the Chair of Peter. An assessment of the
teaching of these Popes and the corresponding assent of the Episcopate
to that teaching should transform a possible situation of difficulty
into a serene and joyful acceptance of the Magisterium, the authentic
interpreter of the doctrine of the faith. This must be possible and is
to be hoped for, even if aspects that are not entirely understood
remain. In any case, there remains legitimate room for theological
freedom and for further opportune in-depth study. As Benedict XVI wrote
recently: “the essential content that for centuries has formed the
heritage of all believers needs to be confirmed, understood and explored
ever anew, so as to bear consistent witness in historical circumstances
very different from those of the pas
t” (Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio Porta Fidei
, 11 October 2011, n. 4). (On Adhesion to the "Second" Vatican Council
Innovation of its nature, however, has been rejected consistently by the authority of the Catholic Church and manifests of its very perverse nature a defection from the Catholic Faith.
"Continuity in discontinuity"? No true Sovereign Pontiff of the Catholic Church has even spoken in such Orwellian doublespeak. "Innovation in continuity"? The Catholic Church has consistently condemned innovation and innovators. Pope Saint Pius X did so in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Innovators are not friends of the Catholic Faith. Pope Gregory XVI made this abundantly clear in Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834:
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834.)
Pope Saint Pius X explained in Pascendi Dominci Gregis the Modernist proclivity for twisting the truth and for even contradicting their own theories on occasion while appearing to pious and devout to the faithful:
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."
This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Ratzinger/Benedict has been of a contradictory mind with respect to the conciliar revolution he helped to planned and unleash. Although he wrote in his explanatory letter to Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, that the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service were but two forms of the "one" Roman Rite, that there had been no "rupture," he wrote just the opposite on at least two different occasions in the past. Consider the contradiction between that explanatory letter and what Ratzinger wrote in his own memoirs, Milestones:
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, explanatory letter to Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.)
The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impress had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: 1927-1977)
Alas, the representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X who had to engage Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña in the "doctrinal discussions" that resulted in the so-called "Doctrinal Preamble" of nearly three months ago now (see Just Sign On The Dotted Line P.S. Don't Sweat The Details), although correct to point out the contradictions of the teaching of the Catholic Church contained in the "Second" Vatican Council and in the "magisterium" of the conciliar points, adhere to an incorrect ecclesiology that renders unto those outside of what purports to be the Catholic Church's magisterium the "right" to "sift" through various documents in order to determine their orthodoxy. This is nothing other than a recrudescence of the Gallicanism that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and critiqued as opposed to the Faith by Bishop Emile Bougaud in the Nineteenth Century:
6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it
is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary
rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good
government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith
and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of
which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.
7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously
a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this
"against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God
and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that
a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they
prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the
consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these
customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of
law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.
8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a
bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church
cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the
exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever,
a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often
as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that
it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and
coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does
not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)
The violent attacks of Protestantism against the
Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it
scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror;
nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all,
perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing
closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard
against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his
treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her
sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of
Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that
agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See,
and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of
fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already
notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign
Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church,"
were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in
the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others
might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by
principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must
love him that governs her, else she can never obey.
These weaknesses should at least have been hidden
in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere
and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no!
parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A
strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world;
kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were
really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates,
bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to
Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the
Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his
words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined,
and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or
dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are
strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to
universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the
Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors,
December 8, 1864; see also two appendices below, reprised from five
days ago to drive home the point that no one can sift through the words
of a true pope to "determine" their orthodoxy as popes cannot err on
matters of Faith and Morals.)
Actually, all of angst over which provisions of the "Second" Vatican Council bind those Catholics who find themselves ensnared in the traps of a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church in the belief that it is indeed Holy Mother Church was resolved on December 8, 1965, when Giovanni Montini/Paul VI issued his Apostolic Brief, In Spiritu Sancto to mark the close of the "Second" Vatican Council:
APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING
OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies of
Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St.
Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul,
must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church.
In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat
of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the
hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest
because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed
carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune,
because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all
it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians
still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the
help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees,
declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the
synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all
intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical
council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened
October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
We decided moreover that all that has been established
synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the
glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and
peace of all men. We have approved and established these things,
decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and
are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain
full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by
those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so
that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these
things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be
invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the
fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF - IN SPIRITU SANCTO.)
No Catholic can dissent legitimately from the teaching proposed by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. It took me far too long to recognize this fact and then to act upon it. It's really pretty simple: the Catholic Church cannot give us liturgies that are incentives to impiety or doctrines that are in any ambiguous of contradictory of what she has taught from time immemorial. It's really that simple.
We cannot take the insanity of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seriously. Indeed, we must not do so.
Those who want to believe in insanity can continue to do so. Those who want to hold to the truths of the Catholic Faith will cling to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its officials who have expelled themselves from the true Church by means of their multiple defections from the Catholic Faith. There is no such thing as the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." It is a lie and it is without a shred of Patristic or dogmatic support whatsoever. Catholics believe in sanity, not insanity, which is why they reject, utterly and completely, any assertion that a true pope could hold even "privately" to such a fundamental error as a member in good standing of the Catholic Church.
As Bishop George Hay noted over two hundred years ago now, Catholics must not be in "communion" with those who have made publicly manifest their defections from the Faith:
Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)
Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better.
(Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
Conciliarism is a false religion. We must the counsel of Saint John the Evangelist, whose feast day occurs exactly three weeks from today, and have nothing at all to do with the "shepherds" of such a false religion.
Today is the Feast of Saint Nicholas of Myra, who is said to have slapped Arius at the Council of Nicea. The prayer composed by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., for this feast day is very relevant to our own days of apostasy and betrayal:
Holy pontiff Nicholas, how great is thy glory in
God's Church! Thou didst confess the name of Jesus before the proconsuls
of the world's empire and suffer persecution for His name's sake;
afterwards thou wast witness to the wonderful workings of God, when He
restored peace to His Church; and a short time after this again, thou
didst open thy lips, in the assembly of the three hundred and eighteen
fathers, to confess with supreme authority the Divinity of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, for whose sake so many millions of martyrs had already
shed their blood. Receive the devout felicitations of the Christian
people throughout the universe, who thrill with joy when the think of
thy glorious merits. Help us by thy prayers during these days when we
are preparing for the coming of Him, whom thou didst proclaim to be
consubstantial with the Father. Vouchsafe to assist our faith and to
obtain fresh fervor to our love. Thou now beholdest face to face that
Word by whom all things were made and redeemed; beseech Him to permit
our unworthiness to approach Him. Be thou our intercessor with Him. Thou
hast taught us to now Him as the sovereign and eternal God; teach us
also to love Him as the supreme benefactor of the children of Adam. It
was that tender compassion for the sufferings of they fellow-men, which
made all thy miracles to be so many acts of kindness: cease not, now
that thou art in the company of the angels, to have pity on us and to
succour our miseries.
Stir up and increase the faith of mankind in the
Saviour whom the Lord hath sent them. May this be one of the fruits of
thy prayers, that the divine Word may be no longer unknown and forgotten
in this world, which He has redeemed with His Blood. Ask for the
pastors of the Church that spirit of charity, which shone so brilliantly
in thee; that spirit which makes them like their divine Master, and
wins them the hearts of their people.
Remember, too, O holy pontiff, that Church of the
east which still loves thee so fervently. When thou wast on this earth,
God gave thee power to raise the dead to life; pray now, that the true
life, which consists in faith and unity, may return once more and
animate that body which schism has robbed of its soul. By thy
supplications, obtain of God that the sacrifice of the Lamb, who is soon
to visit us, may be again and soon celebrated under the cupolas of St.
Sophia. May the sanctuaries of Kiev and Moscow became resanctified by
the return of the people to unity. May the pride of the crescent be
humbled into submission to the cross, and the schismatic be brought to
acknowledge the power of the keys of St. Peter' that thus there may be
henceforth neither Scythian, nor barbarian, but one fold under one
Shepherd. (As found in Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)
Every Rosary we pray, offered up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the state of the Church Militant on earth and for that of the world-at-large, and those of the whole world, including the conciliarists who blaspheme God regularly by means of lies such as the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of the very Mother of God who brought forth her Divine Son on Christmas Day.
Let us take confidence always in this triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we let her, who was given by her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to be our own Mother as she was given by Him to Saint John the Beloved, who represented us at the foot of the Holy Cross, to be his Mother. The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate.
Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.
A continued Blessed Christmas to you all--and a blessed Feast Day to all named after the Beloved Apostle, Saint John the Evangelist.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Nicholas of Myra, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints