VATICAN II «DISQUALIFIED»!
The Ecumenical Councils of the past all ended in the solemn definition of truths
pertaining to dogma or morals, worded in a manner that left no loophole for schism or
heresy, and backed up with anathemas. Such Acts of the Solemn Magisterium were universally
recognised as infallible and binding.
Vatican II having from the beginning decided that it would not issue any condemnations,
the question arose time and again during its sessions, of the exact degree of "theological
authority" claimed by the Acts which were promulgated by it. Were these to be
regarded as infallible, by virtue of being expressions of the "Ordinary
Magisterium" of the Church, as representing the unanimous conviction of the Pope and
Bishops in accordance with the Church’s Tradition? For if this is not the case, then
the Acts of the Council must of necessity be fallible, and in that case it is difficult to
see by what right they can be enforced to the extent of virtually excluding from the
communion of the Church those who reject them.
The Doctrinal Commission spent a year preparing replies to these fundamental questions,
and these were published in an Appendix to the Constitution Lumen Gentium. The
answers are sibylline or, shall we say, a model of double-talk, and three theologians of
world-wide renown have given their commentaries on the text. They are Revs. Betti, from
Italy, Ratzinger from Germany (a disciple of Rahner), and Congar from France, whose
extremely important and interesting study has appeared in the collection Unam Sanctam.
We shall try here to sum up what they have to say.
"The conclusions concerning the theological status of the Constitution on the
Church" are equally applicable "to the other dogmatic documents promulgated by
the Council. They have to be considered under two aspects, the one being doctrinal, the
other canonical".
1). Doctrinal considerations
According to Betti: "In order to be accepted as a truth of the Faith, that is, as
unchangeable, any such truth has to be clearly defined in terms which leave no doubt that
it is intended as such…" Regarding the Vatican II Constitution on the Church,
"the manner in which this is put forward does not fulfil the conditions laid down for
such a definition." Ratzinger expresses a similar view: "We cannot find anything
of such a nature in these texts… The passage which approaches closest to a dogmatic
definition is the one which treats of the sacramental character of the bishop’s
office – but as there is no indication of its origin in Revelation, we cannot look
upon it as a statement of dogma, but rather as upon the expression of the Council’s
unanimous viewpoint on a doctrinal matter…" And Congar: "The Council did
not wish to make any new dogmatic definitions in the strict sense of the word. Its choice
of terms is not such as would be proper to such definitions."
But what then, Ratzinger goes on to ask, is the exact status of the Council texts? And
his reply to this is: "The question must remain an open one. We have to admit that it
has not been completely clarified by the somewhat involved discussion of the theological
commission." So we have to acknowledge that this "greatest of all Councils"
still remains shrouded in uncertainty!
Upon the first point then, their conclusion is that there is in the writings of
Vatican II no dogmatic definition involving the Church’s infallibility and hence no
pronouncement on matters of Faith which is guaranteed by the solemn Magisterium and which
thereby commands the assent of all. With this conclusion we are in entire agreement.
2). Canonical considerations
"With regard to the other matters dealt with by the Council (be it noted here
that, as we have just seen, NONE of the Acts of Vatican II are classed as dogmatic in the
strict sense, and therefore these "other matters" must include everything
contained within these same Acts)... as these are an expression of the teaching of the
Church’s Supreme Magisterium, each and every one of the faithful must receive them
and assent to them, in accordance with the intentions of the Council itself..." If
the statement came to an end here, we should be left with the impression, which is in fact
what we are always led to believe, that we are under an obligation to accept all the Acts
of the Council and to follow them in every detail. But to say so is to betray the Faith
and Law of the Church. For the statement goes on: ‘‘… in accordance with
the intentions of the Council itself, to whatever extent this is indicated by the subject
matter or by the terminology that is used, and interpreted according to the usual norms of
theology." And so we are back at an explanation which is couched in deliberately
obscure terms, open to whatever interpretation the theologians care to give it.
Congar has his own interpretation. The sacramental nature of the bishops’ office
seems to him to be beyond dispute: "It is difficult to see why the Council did not
express a dogmatic decision on this point. But it would have been the only case of its
kind. There are certain other questions (why does he not say which he has in mind?)
upon which the Council does no more than to express, in a solemn manner, what is believed
by all: one could even say that it is giving expression, through a unanimous act of the
solemn magisterium, to what is the universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium."
When he goes on to say that "nevertheless this cannot be taken to mean entirely the
same as a dogmatic definition; however, the teaching proposed is to be looked upon as if
it were thus put forward with the unanimous voice of the entire magisterium", I must
repeat, NO AND A THOUSAND TIMES NO. The Council took explicit care not to make any
authoritative decisions and it is a gross abuse to try and force us to agree to everything
as though the Church’s authority were involved. What right have Fr Congar and
the others to force us, just because it is their views which have carried the day, when
the Pope and the bishops have not done so? It is all part of their attempt to raise the
Collegiality which is so dear to their hearts to the same rank as the "primacy"
of the Pope, infallibly defined at Vatican I.
Ratzinger tells us: "The sum total represents an expression of the Church’s
Supreme Magisterium. Hence it must to a certain extent (?) command our assent" Why,
if you please? "This document is the result of intense study extending over several
years and represents an expression of the faith of the Church assembled in Council. It is
the Credo to be proclaimed to the modern world, and forms the basis of the Church’s
own inward renewal and this must be founded on something really solid." Indeed it
should, but if the Council took care to avoid such solid foundations for its
proclamations, and laid no claim to infallibility, why should we be obliged to accept
these as if they were infallible?
Betti, in his turn, also insists on placing Vatican II on a par with the great Councils
of the past – Trent and Vatican I. "The teaching contained in Lumen Gentium,
taken in its entirety, is more than a mere concerted summary of theological opinion and,
upon certain points (why does he not tell us which?), it gives the authoritative answer,
expressed in clear, doctrinal terms (?) which do not admit any further dispute. Alongside
such definitions, which partake ‘of the heavenly wisdom of the synods’ (a
quotation from Pius VI), all controversy must be likened to ‘debates of human
ignorance’ (but Pius VI was not referring to a pastoral Council!)"
Nevertheless, Betti has to admit that; however much he tries to equate Lumen Gentium
and the (infallible) constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, the two, while
being equally authentic" are not of the same degree of certainty. "With regard
to the certainty attaching to them, we have to admit that there is a difference, which
stems from the different way in which the teaching of Vatican II is put forward,
particularly with reference to its relationship to divine revelation... The teaching of
Vatican II does not constitute a doctrinal definition in the narrow sense of the
word."
We learn, moreover that, "for this reason, its repudiation does not entail the
ipso facto penalty of being deprived of the Church’s communion as does the profession
of a heresy." But he is quick to qualify this: "Even though its
infallibility is not expressed in an explicit manner, we must not conclude that it is
therefore non-existent. (!!!) As a matter of fact (you will see in a moment the extent
of sophistry underlying these words) just as an infallible pronouncement expresses
something which the Church universal believes, so, similarly, the fact that something is
held by the whole Church indicates that it is infallible." From this false
premise there follows the monstrous conclusion: "Our duty to assent to it precedes
any obligation imposed from outside which requires such assent." In other words,
the constraint precedes the law, and it is Betti, Congar and Co who enforce the
(non-existent) law! Betti argues: "Considering the matter in this light, we can see
that there is no need of any formal sanctions to oblige the faithful to accept and put
into practice the Constitution, under pain of being expelled from the Church’s
communion. For he who would oppose it, goes against the current of the Holy Spirit, which
passed through the Council at high tension, and the successors of the Apostles, together
with the successor of Peter, were bearing witness to this when they called upon all who
are baptised to follow their teaching." This is followed by a quotation from Acts
2.42: "These occupied themselves continually with the apostles’ teaching, their
fellowship in the breaking of bread, and the fixed times of prayer..." Its supporters
are trying to raise the Council to the status of a New Pentecost!
This Solemn Magisterium which will not act solemnly, this infallible Magisterium which
has no intention of speaking infallibly, of excommunicating anyone, allows itself to be
played up as being so solemn, so infallible, that everything it says anywhere in its
Constitutions, Declarations or Decrees, is the result of the "Spirit"
circulating within it "at high tension"! And it places its seal upon this
injustice by "disqualifying" – laying open to general defamation –
those who do not toe the line, who for very good reasons refuse to accept as obligatory
certain Acts which cannot on any evidence be shown to be binding.
Where do you go from here? Betti who, let us recall, was writing in 1964, when the
Council was still sitting, suggested in a bout of wishful thinking: "Were such a
profession of faith incorporating all these new elements laid before the Council Fathers
for their approval... we should have one more proof that the teaching Church forms
together with the Church of the taught, a single community of believers. And there would
thus be an external criterion, if any such were needed (!) to show that Vatican II is not
to be looked upon as a second class Council." But there was no such proposal made,
and therefore Vatican II must remain – in the words of Betti – "a second
class Council", a Council of division and uncertainty, a Council which has
disqualified itself!
Vatican III, on the other hand, shall, with the unanimous approval of the Pope and
bishops and all the faithful, be a First Class Council, a Council for the reconciliation
of all in the truth of the Catholic Church. This means that it must be honest enough to do
what Vatican II did not wish to do – to state the truths of Revelation in clear and
unchangeable terms and back these up with condemnations. In order to achieve this, there
is no need for years and years of preparation, nor even for a spiritual high tension! All
that is necessary is that the Solemn Magisterium should assume what is its proper function
– the teaching of that revealed doctrine which is found unchanged and perfect in the
Apostolic Tradition, and which contains all the Church needs for her life until the end of
the world.
And then, at last, this extraordinary, sinister Council of the New Reformation, Vatican
II, will be finally "disqualified". Amen.
PREPARING FOR VATICAN III
THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
(Preliminary Schema)
The Church was founded by Our Lord, as part of God’s design from the beginning, in
order that there might be continued through her the work of Redemption begun in the
Incarnation, and its fruits extended to the whole of sinful mankind. For it is through the
Church and only through the Church that men are enabled to return to their Heavenly Father
and, through the Son and in the unity of the same Holy Spirit, attain life everlasting.
The Church is a society which, while of divine origin, forms also part of human history
and has therefore a visible, hierarchical structure. Jesus Christ is and remains her
Living Lord, and it is through her that He continues His ministry of teaching,
sanctification, and government – at the hands of a hierarchy headed by the Pope, His
Vicar on earth. It is to her that He sends His Holy Spirit to aid the hierarchy,
invisibly, in the exercise of their God-given powers and, secondarily, to help the
faithful to receive and accept the supernatural gifts which He grants them. In this sense,
the Church is a mystery – that while she is a definitive, human organisation she is
like no other such body in that she was founded by Christ Himself and is assured for all
time of the continuing aid of the Holy Spirit sent by Him. This is appropriately expressed
in the designation of Mystical Body of Christ. The four hallmarks of the Church are that
she is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Who are the members of this visible Church? In the first place, those who have, through
Baptism and the Profession of the Catholic Faith, formally become members, provided they
persevere within her communion. In addition, there are others who, in a less evident
manner, also belong to the Church, as a result of divine grace bestowed upon them,
provided they have some rudiment of true Faith. The grace they thus receive even in the
absence of the Sacraments, and which enables them to attain salvation and sanctity, comes
to them only through the Church and in no other way.
THE REFORMATION OF LUTHER
Following their forcible separation from the One Church, the 16th century Reformers
devised a new notion of a Church existing only in a spiritual sense, without visible
boundaries, and within which a life of divine grace was able to persist without the
visible human support of a hierarchy. In as far as their brainchild had any concrete form
at all, it was a purely human institution and not that which was founded by Jesus Christ.
This concept was to be carried to its logical conclusion by the Modernists of the 20th
Century, who adopted the idealised notion of "the Christian Church", which for
them became eventually identified with the whole of mankind. In this thinking the
"Holy Spirit" comes to mean the same as man’s collective consciousness,
while the "Gospel" is equated with evolution and progress. What is common to all
these heresies is that in them the concept of the Church has become separated from Christ,
who is no longer acknowledged as her Founder and Master. Once the human frontiers and
historical continuity of the Church of Rome are thus discarded, the concept can be freely
extended to include the whole "community of believers" gathered under the wings
of a hazy so-called "Spirit".
THE REFORMATION OF VATICAN II
The Constitution Lumen Gentium purports to depict the Church as she sees herself
today, in contrast with the former precise and dogmatic definition. When the Council
refers to the Church as "the light of the world", this is in defiance of all
traditional teaching as we find it expressed up to and including Pius XII’s Mystici
Corporis Christi – for the "light" is one that shines for, and
in the service of, the world. When the Constitution refers to the Church as a
"Mystery", this opens the way to any meaning you care to think of, for the
clear-cut definitions of the past have been discarded. In adopting the unfortunate term
"the People of God" to represent what it understands by the Church, the Council
seemed to envisage an amorphous crowd instead of an organised society with a specific
historical origin, hierarchical structure and clearly defined powers. In a mysterious
manner – is this what they understand by "the mystery of the Church"?
– this amorphous crowd is made one through "the Spirit". The pyramid which
formerly rested upon its base and was crowned by its summit which was Christ, has been
toppled over and is being crushed by its own base... We are left with "the
Spirit" as the soul of the Church, and the Church as the soul of the World.
At last, in Chapter 3, we learn that there is such a thing as a hierarchy, but its
function seems primarily to be that of acting as representatives or servants of the People
of God and of the rest of the world. It is this new interpretation which opened the way to
the contestation of authority in every shape or form... As truth and laws emanate from the
People in the first place – for it is they who speak with the prophetic voice of the
Spirit – so the bishops, closer to them than is the Pope, are therefore more imbued
with the Spirit than he, who needs to lean upon the College of Bishops in order to carry
out his mission... So the Pope is no longer the Head who makes infallible decisions on
matters of truth or law but rather the representative of the will and conscience of the
majority... The laity have been promoted into a People of Prophets, Priests and Kings, or
perhaps we ought to say, into a People of gods who, together, are involved in the
"building of the world".
And so, since the Council and as a result of the upheaval caused by the thinking of
Vatican II: (1) The visible and hierarchical structure of the Roman Church has been voided
of its very essence, persisting only out of inertia. (2) The hierarchy itself, which also
remains formally in existence, has lost its powers, and at each rung of the hierarchical
ladder we see the authority which belongs to it contested by the rung below. The result of
this state of affairs is anarchy. (3) The Church herself has come to consider herself as
merely one section of the People of God which, together with other communities –
Christian or non-Christian, including even humanistic and revolutionary movements –
is journeying along the road which leads to the formation of one great universal church.
This entire reasoning is false because it is based on a false definition of the Church.
For the Church is not a community of people but a society whose existence precedes that of
its individual members, who owe their spiritual existence to her. This society which is
the Church was founded by Christ and is dependent for its continuing existence, unity and
sanctification upon the hierarchy. Its supernatural life comes through the Holy Spirit
acting invisibly but in a manner closely associated with the visible sacraments and
institutions established according to the wishes of Christ its Founder.
THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
MISREPRESENTED BY VATICAN II
We find today that the very concept of the Church as a concrete, hierarchical entity is
being contested in the name of the "Gospel". The term however must be understood
to mean rather, "The Gospel according to the Spirit", "The Good
Tidings", "The Message of Liberation" which is proclaimed to all men in
order to help then to achieve their worldly aims.
In this new philosophy there is no place for the Church’s teaching Magisterium. On
the contrary, man can hear the "message" more clearly without the intervention
of such a human authority, which he must needs mistrust. Every man his own prophet!
The supposed Gospel message has taken on the form of a vague humanism or quietism, a
philosophy which offers instant salvation, without fear of damnation, without any need for
divine grace or personal merit. It is a Gospel which teaches that man is born in a state
of perfection and persists in this, regardless. Mankind is busy at its task of building a
world which is in a state of constant progress, and Christ takes on the role of supervisor
of these earthly labours. THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION HAS BECOME OUTDATED.
To put across this new idea the postconciliar theologians and progressive bishops are
at pains to paint us a misleading picture of the early Church as a free and easy society.
The updated do-it-yourself Church will then appear to be a return to this.
In the words of the Bishop of Troyes , "the Church has no frontiers." But how
can a society without frontiers claim to have any concrete existence at all? That is a
contradiction in terms.
"The Church is striving to achieve parliamentary democracy." (Mgr Matagrin,
Bishop of Grenoble) How can you say this of a society whose structure is essentially
hierarchical, as is that of the Church, whose King is Christ and the Pope His Secretary of
State.
"The Church is a people on the march": this is the idea underlying the
thinking of Cardinal Suenens; a people guided in their onward march by a divine instinct,
by "the Spirit". A flattering concept perhaps, with little meaning –
calculated however to wipe out the idea of the Church as a fixed structure with
long-established institutions and a rigid system of laws.
No amount of such "evangelism" will bring us any closer to the evangelists
– but it puts before the faithful a completely false ideal of what religion is
supposed to be, and they are thus, step by step, enticed away from the Church and into
apostasy.
One step further along the line are the "militants", the overt
revolutionaries who are no longer interested in any sort of "renewal" of the
Church, but prefer to make up their own. It is alarming to read, in the Fonds commun
obligatoire for religious instruction sent out by our (i.e. the French) hierarchy in
secret, so as to avoid advance criticism, about "building the Church", in one
great "creative adventure" by your group or form: the expression appears over
and over again. It all encourages us to picture "the Church of the future" as we
see it already in the various splinter groups calling themselves Christian communities but
which are to all intents and purposes in schism, and out-side any doctrinal, liturgical or
even moral discipline. That these can go on existing with any pretence of continuity with
the official Church is due to the tolerance shown them by the hierarchy, who thus bear the
responsibility for this continuous haemorrhage.
It is noteworthy that while this newly invented Church is supposed to be open to
everyone – for is not every man my brother – it remains closed precisely against
those Catholics who remain true to their Faith. This must make it evident that these
attempts to create a new and universal Church are schismatic in their essence – even
if they have the encouragement of the bishops and of the Pope himself.
It is Vatican II that lies at the origin of all this. How often do we hear the
progressives claiming that they are only carrying on that which had been initiated by
Vatican II! When, at the Synod, they found themselves beaten back, this was because the
Synod had turned its back on the progress made by the Council. Cardinal Garrone had said,
even during the Council, that this "represented a complete and fundamental change in
perspective".
It is therefore to the writings of the Council that we must turn to find the new
thinking which underlies these fundamental changes.
The two Acts of the Council which treat of the Church are the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen
Gentium and the Decree Christus Dominus. This, a document of lesser standing,
deals with the "Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church". On reading the
long discussions in the collection Unam Sanctam (Nos 51, Vol. I, II, III, and No
74) you begin to understand why there was so much to lose or gain in those debates. The
choice of terms used to define the nature of the Church might well rouse the
contestants’ passions, because the consequences of the new definitions would be vast
indeed, even from the social and political point of view. The same applies to the debates
upon collegiality.
Lumen Gentium, Chapter I, "Christ is the light of all nations"
These very opening words, biblical though they be, prepare the way for an erroneous new
idea. While Christ had indeed told His Apostles that they "are the light of the
world", "the salt of the earth", John XXIII used the term with reference to
the Church, and in a new and different sense. Formerly, it had been understood to mean
that the Church, like Our Lord Himself, was something so perfect that all mankind would be
attracted and converted by her light. Our Modernists however, prefer to think of a
floodlight whose function is to illuminate the site upon which all are toiling together,
believers and non-believers, busy at "building the world". The function of tie
Church becomes simply that of aiding them in their labours. The Church of Vatican II
exists for the world – that is what is meant by "the Church as the universal
sacrament of salvation". (LG, 48) "By her relationship with Christ, the Church
is a kind of sacrament or sign of intimate union with God, and of the unity of all
mankind... The conditions of this age lend special urgency to the Church’s task of
bringing all men to full union with Christ, since mankind today is joined together more
closely than ever before by social, technical, and cultural bonds." (LG, 1) It is
only God who is being left out.
In this novel function of the Church, it is the laity who hold pride of place. When we
read of the Church as "the soul of the world", it is the laity who "must do
their part to nourish the world with spiritual fruits... In a word, ‘what the soul is
to the body, let Christians be to the world’." (LG, 38) However classical the
terminology, the meaning is new. Instead of being told that there is no salvation outside
the Church, we are today told that the Church is "the universal sacrament of
salvation", A CHURCH FOR ALL MEN!
"The People of God" (LG, Chapter II)
Gradually, each wicked little step following on the next, the metamorphosis continues.
We learn that the Church is a "mystery" – that phrase so dear to the heart
of Paul VI who, jointly with Cardinal Suenens, was the moving spirit behind the
Constitution. In spite of protests by the minority that the Church, being something
visible and concrete, could not correctly be described as a mystery, they insisted on the
description which thus pushed into the background the classical definition of the Church
as a distinct hierarchical organisation founded by Christ and continuing to be sustained
in existence by Him. The term "Mystical Body of Christ", which Pius XII had made
the cornerstone of his encyclical on the Church, was referred to as
"unsatisfactory" by Cardinal Garrone!
So we come to the wonderful new designation invented by the Council – that of the
Church as "the People of God". The term came as a surprise – it was sprung
upon the Council as the result of divine inspiration – how could it be otherwise?
– by Cardinal Suenens. The original plan had been that the chapter on the
"Mystery of the Church" should be followed by a discussion of the hierarchy and
its function, and it was Suenens who proposed the amendment that a consideration of
"the People of God" should precede that of the hierarchy. His argument was that
the bishops themselves individually were after all, only a part of this people. It is as
though you defined a family as consisting of a certain number of children, some of whom
were designated as parents, because it was their special role to be at the beck and call
of the remaining children!... However, the assembled Fathers seemed to think the amendment
was fabulous and most definitely "inspired".
Once you have embarked upon the slippery slope, you can extend the concept of the
People of God to include, first "the other Christian Churches", then the
non-Christian monotheistic religions, then… the potential boundaries of the new
Church are without limits. This is the "People" which is filled with the
‘Spirit", endowed with the gift of prophecy, which shares in the "royal
priesthood" – a people of gods whose servants are the hierarchy.
The key passage seems to be in Par. 8, where the invisible aspect of the Church is
given an excessive emphasis as opposed to that of its concrete, visible, existence –
though many of the expressions have a beautiful and genuine ring about them. The
implication is that it is this ill-defined Church – signified by "People of
God" – which receives the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, rather than the
institutional hierarchical Church. The mere inversion of the order of chapters – that
on the People of God preceding that on the Hierarchy – thus contributed enormously to
the perversions that followed.
Chapter III treats of THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH –
a concept which the Council has turned upside down. "For the nurturing and constant
growth of the People of God, Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of
ministries, which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers who are endowed
with sacred power are servants of their brethren, so that all who are of the People of
God, and therefore enjoy a true Christian dignity, can work toward a common goal freely
and in an orderly way, and arrive at salvation." These are the opening words of the
chapter, and they give us a clue to the whole new concept of a Sovereign People, whose
pastors are their servants and representatives.
We read time and again, in Lumen Gentium as well as in Christus Dominus
(CD) references to the bishops’ duty to serve the People of God. They quote the
example of Christ who "did not come to have service done him; he came to serve
others". (Mk 10.45) The analogy is false, because to refuse to be waited upon, in the
case of a Prince of the Church, derives from his personal modesty as an individual; it
does not in any way detract from the authority of his office. Nor are we denying that the
aim of the bishops’ function is indeed the good of their flock, but to speak of being
"in the service of the community" suggests that it is the subjects who lay down
the law. While both LG and CD recall also the classical doctrine concerning the threefold
power of the bishops, it has become only too clear since how this is being allowed to fall
into oblivion while the new idea of the service of the community, first introduced by the
Council, now holds sway and has paved the way towards anarchy.
The Council’s preferred image of itself was that of a constituent assembly, which
was about to replace the outdated "juridism" by a new "universal
brotherhood" and "evangelical liberty". Thinking of themselves as the
delegates of the People of God, the bishops became anxious to stress the solidarity of
their "assembly" and to look upon themselves as forming, jointly with the Pope,
the governing body of the universal Church. And so there followed a new stress upon
collegiality and the attempt to give it an importance parallel with the primacy of the
Pope.
Where have these high-sounding sentiments led to in practice? While those now claiming
to be servants have lost (at least to all intents and purposes) the clearly-defined powers
attaching to their offices, they have in actual fact been able to assume the unlimited
power of tyrants. The pretence of humility has led to an incredible degree of collective
pride, and the demagogy and show of false optimism to the must appalling despotism.
As an example of the resulting abuse of power we will quote the question of the
removability or otherwise of parish priests. On the pretext of introducing stability, it
has been made simpler to transfer priests in an arbitrary manner: "Pastors should
enjoy in their respective parishes that stability of office which the good of souls
demands. Hence, although the distinction between removable and irremovable pastors is to
be abrogated, the procedure for transferring and removing pastors is to be re-examined and
simplified. In this way, while natural and canonical equity are preserved, the bishop can
better provide for the needs of the good of souls." (CD, Par 31) In practice, this
amounts to the wholesale suppression of legal safeguards, and allowing the bishop to
arrange matters in an entirely arbitrary manner, according to his personal view of
"the needs of the good of souls." Here and in connection with other matters
concerning the "Bishops’ Pastoral Office", it is evident that the
possibility of the bishop’s being found in any way wanting in his duty appeared
inconceivable to the Council. In their case, as in that of the laity, while lip service
was paid to their freedom and dignity, these were in practice suppressed in favour of the
powers of the collective bodies which are supposed to represent them… The Council did
not apparently envisage any problems or conflicts which could not be simply solved by
"the Episcopate" and its all-powerful Collegiality.
The battle over Collegiality
We have seen how the canonical safeguards of both priests and faithful had gone by the
board, for they were not there to defend their rights. For that matter, they had no idea
that these were being threatened. For the Council Fathers the only problem of note was
that of the Pope’s authority, for it would not do to make an open attack on this.
That is how there came to be fought the great Battle over Collegiality.
The word "collegiality" has come to refer to the collective, representative
power of the episcopate as opposed to the absolute and personal authority of the
Sovereign. The bishops wished to claim that their powers came to them directly from God
and not through the Pope. In fact, they seemed think they had received this divine power
by virtue of their function as the representatives of the People of gods! It was this
question which underlay the debate upon the sacramental nature of the bishops’
office. The Pope’s authority must necessarily be threatened thereby, for how could
two sorts of authority co-exist side by side if they arose independently of each other,
neither being subordinated to the other? Moreover, the bishops preferred the idea of a
collective authority whose domain was the entire Church to the individual rule of each
over his own diocese and his own flock. Mgr Lefebvre and his theological adviser, our dear
and venerated Abbé Berto, two of the most outstanding men among the minority, remarked
immediately that in striking a blow at the Pope’s authority the bishops were hitting
out also at their own. But the blind or inert majority took no heed and allowed themselves
to be thus dispossessed in favour of... of exactly what? Of their "collegial
consciousness" or some such empty phrase which flattered their vanity.
The old "juridism" had been suppressed only to give way to a new and violent
one. They demanded, first, that there should be set up in Rome a "parliament" in
order to "assist" the Pope in his task. The calling of the Synod and the setting
up of its permanent Secretariat was the Pope’s response to this. Having won the first
round, they wanted this "consultative" assembly to be given
"legislative" power so that it might dictate its decisions to the Pontiff. The
second demand was for the setting up of national or continental Episcopal Conferences with
a canonical authority greater than that over individual dioceses and which should
eventually replace the authority of the territorial bishop in his own diocese. We are
unable to find any solid foundation for the legislative authority ascribed to these
Episcopal Conferences in Par. 38 of CD, and attempts by theologians to show any such basis
have not been successful.
The dispute over collegiality as opposed to papal authority was a bitter one. The
supporters of collegiality seemed to have carried the day when those trying to uphold
papal authority managed to introduce a Nota Praevia which would serve partially to
neutralise the venom in the text itself. According to the latter (i.e. the main text of Lumen
Gentium), it is the episcopal college which takes pride of place, which is the
depositary of those "spiritual gifts" which were bestowed on the Apostles by the
Holy Spirit. (Par. 21) It is the episcopal college that is referred to when we read, in a
sentence of exceptional ambiguity (Par. 22) that, "together with its head, the Roman
Pontiff, and never without this head, the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and
full power over the universal Church." In the Nota Praevia, on the other hand,
this bishops’ Magna Carta is refuted point by point: (1) No, it is not true to say
that the episcopal college is a college in the strict sense, unless it be gathered
together in an ecumenical Council. (2) It does not inherit the extraordinary power that
belonged to the College of the Apostles. (3) It is not true to say that membership of the
College follows automatically as a result of episcopal consecration – it depends on a
formal decision of the Pope, who is the Head of the College. (4) The College has no right
to restrict the powers of the Pope in any way.
It may have been a clever and original idea to promulgate an Act of a Council so as to
incorporate a note containing the antidote to the venom present in the main text, but
nevertheless, it is the principle of collegiality which has held the field and led, with
the connivance of Paul VI, to numerous inroads upon the personal and sovereign authority
of the Pope. We see how the de facto legislative authority has been delegated to
assemblies and commissions which are guaranteed to approve with overwhelming majorities
whatever decision has been prepared for them in advance.
Chapter IV - The Promotion of the Laity.
It had been one of the great ideas of the innovators to promote the faithful from being
mere sheep fit only to be shorn, into being The Laity. This is in fact a logical
consequence of the novel function of the Church, which, we have seen, is to serve the
World. When politics and culture count for more than religion and liturgy, then the
function of the laity becomes more important than that of the priest. It is their task to
change all things in the name of the Gospel… Such an inversion of values tolls the
knell of sacral religion and of the classical concept of the Church (which they refer to
as that of the Counter-Reformation), concerned with the things of God and the supernatural
life. Just as Luther ousted St Augustine in proposing his idea of a Christian religion
"by Faith alone", so we see St Thomas giving way to Teilhard and his cosmic
evolution put into the place of the Christian hope of Eternity.
One result of this exaltation of the laity, and the charismatic gifts ascribed to the
latter for the transformation and sanctification of the world, must be to detract from the
status of the priest, already reduced at the expense of the bishops’ image. We note
how this latter has been inflated at the expense of the Papacy on the one hand, and of the
priest on the other. By also inflating the image of the laity they left little over for
the ordinary priest, who functions merely as a sort of deputy for the bishop, carrying out
what has been delegated to him; he is not in any sense irreplaceable. The work that
matters is done by the laity, whom he is supposed in a vague sort of way to encourage,
advise and regale with the Word. And – final absurdity that would make us laugh if it
were not so sad – while more and more priests are demanding the right to take up a
trade, to join unions, so the bishops are more and more ready to give the laity a greater
and greater part to play in the ministry – even to conducting funerals, distributing
Holy Communion, preaching and, who knows, one day – that of "presiding at the
Eucharist"?
The last four chapters of LG either give a false picture of the Church’s doctrine
in order to bring it into line with the new thinking, or else they show it up as outdated.
Chapter V endows all and sundry with holiness, regardless of their state of life
and without requiring any particular effort on their part. To be human is to be holy!
Chapter VI, discussing the religious life, does not consider it as a means of
spiritual progress, as the most perfect way to salvation, but as some form of (effortless)
perfection that has been already achieved, in anticipation of the Kingdom to come.
Chapter VII discusses, in rather vague, biblical terms, the aims and ends of
life. It is out of keeping with the rest of the Constitution which is so overwhelmingly
oriented towards the things of the present world.
Chapter VIII, on the Blessed Virgin, has little bearing on what has gone before
– except that its reference to Our Lady’s humility and poverty, Her "spirit
of service" can, in the ambiguous context of the present Constitution, contribute to
turning the Mother of God into a model example of "militant Christian laity".
SOLVE ET COAGULA…
In accordance with this Masonic motto, the New Reformation has systematically broken
down (or "dissolved") the established hierarchical system which was based on
direct and responsible rule by individual heads who were personally answerable to their
superiors and to God.
Parallel with the process of dissolution we note the emergence of a new system
("cohesion") which is spontaneous and haphazard in appearance. Indeed the
superficial observer may note only the appearance of chaos without realising that there is
order behind it – the order imposed by a secret power determined to enforce its own
ideology to the exclusion of all else. The aim is the formation of a new, frontierless
society – the so-called new "church" open to all regardless of faith or
unbelief – but one which in fact excludes and ruthlessly suppresses the adherents of
the old order.
There is no closer analogy to the post-Vatican II Church than the course of events in a
state following Communist revolution – initial disintegration succeeded by
"popular democracy".
A SCHEMA FOR RESTORATION BY VATICAN III
The new Council will have a basis on which to work in the preparation of its schema on
the Church, drawing both upon the outline Constitution prepared for the First Vatican
Council, which had no time to adopt and promulgate it, and upon the Encyclical of Pius XII
Mystici Corporis Christi. Even the preliminary schema of Vatican II still contains
the same teaching, of which some remains, but mixed with error, in the Constitution Lumen
Gentium.
Chapter I. The Mystical Body of Christ
The Council must reaffirm that we understand by the Church the visible, historical
entity known as the Church of Rome, and it must formally repudiate any attempt to look
upon it as one religious community among many.
Chapter II. The Sacred Hierarchy
The Church of Christ is not a company of equals, in which all have equal rights. The
power instituted by God for teaching, sanctification, and government is bestowed only on
certain individuals. It must be reaffirmed that God’s work is carried out through the
priesthood, and that Christ’s heirs were, first the Apostles and their Chief and
next, the bishops and the Pope, who however cannot claim the full extent of the power
bestowed upon the Apostles.
Two distinctions will thus have to be emphasised – first, that between Peter and
the remaining Apostles – and similarly with regard to their successors, and secondly,
the distinction between the body of bishops and the Apostles themselves. The special
privileges which were bestowed upon the Twelve – those of personal holiness,
infallible inspiration, of power over the Church as a whole, and the gift of miracles,
cannot be claimed by their successors. They have no right to look upon themselves as the
new founders of a Church! Regarding the distinction between personal and collegial
exercise of the bishops’ authority, there will be little difficulty for the Church
makes provision only for the exercise of personal authority, whether by Pope or bishops.
Collegial authority as such does not exist, except as regards the form in which decisions
are taken, as in an ecumenical Council – the decisions themselves remaining personal
and, in the case of a "collegial" decision, depending entirely on the
Pope’s personal agreement for their validity.
Chapter III. The Faithful
While in the case of the hierarchy, their very function is a holy and divine one, these
are called upon to strive for holiness through the works they undertake. This chapter must
include a definition of membership of the Church: thus includes mystical and invisible as
well as formal overt membership, but the issue was confused by the Council, which threw
the gates of the city open indiscriminately – while imprisoning those of its citizens
who would not toe the line.
Chapter IV. The Church in the World
Vatican III must reaffirm that it is God alone whom the Church must serve, and not the
World… In seeking the Kingdom of God, the rest will be added unto her, and She will
guide men to a Christian order in secular society.
While awaiting Vatican III, we ask our Pastors to recognise the Church as a true
entity, defined by unchanging doctrine. We ask them to carry out their duties with regard
to the members of this Church. These are to teach the truth and to condemn error, to
sanctify those in their charge by assuring them of valid sacraments, forbidding all
sacrilege, and to govern them in accordance with the law of God and the Church, resisting
injustice and abuse. Why should it always be the Church’s children who are rejected
as if they did not belong to it? |