Summer Projects

It's that time of year again, when I start farming out my web design and programming talents for short summer projects.

If you or someone you know has a web site that needs updates, or wants a brand new web site, I'm looking for some work on the side. I, of course, built my own web site, as well as Kevin Tierney's web site, if some kind of portfolio is required. Unfortunately, the real "pizzazz" of those web sites is what goes on behind the scenes - both sites are extremely dynamic and well-automated. For example, I built an administrative module at my site that allows me to simply post a new article, and the main page automatically gets updated to add the new article to the menu.

Anyway - if you need some web work done and have a few hundred dollars to invest, drop me an email.

My Head Hurts

I'm exhausted, and that's all there is to it.

The last three days have been spent in preparation for a rather in-depth article I will be posting this weekend. That preparation included having to plow my way through 350+ pages of a book written by Benedict XVI when he was then Father Ratzinger. I can't exactly describe how or why, but that kind of writing (that is, Modern theology) hurts my head.

I was reading 80-100 pages of this per night for the last few nights. When I finished it, and reached for an older manuscript on Catholic Theology to supplement my research, I literally felt my mind clear up as I read the older text.

It was a strange phenomenon.

On the other hand, by the end of the book I felt like I was finally starting to "click" with Ratzinger, and become more familiar with his thought process. It actually made me want to move on to one of his other texts, as long as I'm in the "mode" of reading Modern theology - perhaps I'll take up his book on the liturgy next.

At any rate - the long nights of reading and writing are finally at an end (for now), and I can now return to whatever it was I wanted to pursue. Keep an eye on the web site for the new article on Ratzinger.

Customer What?

SBC/Yahoo can take a flying leap. They told us last week, as we were hauling boxes and furniture out of the old house, that they would have our phone lines and internet connection transferred by the 25th.

As of 6:00 PM on the 25th, still no internet.

So we called them. Somebody forgot to put our order through, and now it's going to take until May 3 to get the internet connection up and running again.

And do you think they offered any kind of compensation or reparation for the inconvenience? Of course not. They'll be kind enough to not charge us for the past two weeks. Of course, that's a lie - they will charge us for it, and then I'll have to be back on the phone with them in two weeks, arguing to have the charges removed.

Meanwhile, I'm tearing through Joseph Ratzinger's 1968 offering, Introduction to Christianity. The man is impossible to follow sometimes. He is a consummate modernist, at least in terms of his language of choice.

Much, much more on that at a later date.

Here are the five latest essays at the web site:

Mary as Mediatrix of Grace: A Trinitarian Approach (Part 1)

Known in the Breaking of the Bread: Emmaus and the Eucharist

Seven Deadly Sins of Spiritual Piety: The Necessity of the Dark Night of the Soul

The Deficient Prayers of the New Mass: Easter Sunday

The Deficient Prayers of the New Mass: Low Sunday

Something Old, Something New

The actual moving part of the move is complete. The old house has been emptied and the new house has been filled. Now begins the laborious process of unpacking everything and trying to get settled in.

Meanwhile, I have finally finished the work on the Second Edition of my little manuscript, 100 Scripture Verses Every Catholic Should Know. A few minor changes were made, and one major change was made. In the area of "minor changes," I added a table of contents and a charming little cover for the book. In the area of "major change," I went back through and supplied - for each of the 100 verses - a quote from one of the saints, doctors, popes, or Fathers of the Church relating to the verse and/or subject at hand.

It's still primarily a Scripturally-based work, but at least now it has some solid grounding in Tradition as well.

The manuscript is being distributed as a PDF file, which I will be happy to email to you. Suggested donation is $10.00, but free copies are available upon request.

I Want a Copy!

Another Essay Completed!

After many, many months of chipping away at it, I have finally finished and posted my essay on Sacramentalism in St. John's Gospel.

I've always been impressed by the sacramental vision of St. John, and the way he sees the sacraments presented in the ministry of Christ, both in His words and actions. But I've never actually sat down to identify them and draw them out. This essay accomplishes that task, to a large degree.

Alleluia, Alleluia - Blessed Easter Monday!

Resurrexit sicut dixit! Alleluia!

What a weekend. What a Holy Week. What a Lent in general.

And what a glorious thing, to be up to the neck in Easter week, along with all of the special graces which are available in this liturgical season.

Even nature appears to be enjoying the resurrection of her Redeemer - it's a sunny day, warm, blue skies ... wow.

Busy week this week, so the blog and web site might fall a bit silent for a bit. The house is covered with half-packed, half-stacked boxes - we're nearly ready to begin the big move on Wednesday.

Then, of course, we'll be a few days without phone or internet service ... so what can you do?

New postings at the web site include an essay on the footwashing ritual of St. John's Gospel and its connection with the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Read up!

Discussions on Traditionalism

The next installment, Discussions on Traditional Catholicism: Enter Lefebvre, has been posted at the web site.

I can smell the hate mail coming from here ...

Transition and the Fading of this Blogspot

As I continue to make developments on my web site that bring it into closer conformity with what you'd expect to see at a "blog," this particular blogspot will slowly fade from existence - or, more accurately, it will blend with the web site and the two will become one.

On that note, please see my latest posting on the web site, The Pope and the Liberation of the Old Mass, as well as the more recent postings made over the weekend.

Discussions on Traditionalism: Implementing the Council

So we've talked about the Mass a little bit, we've talked about the history of Vatican II, and we've talked about some of the specific documents.

Quite an interesting ride, isn't it? Things have been anything but "normal" in the Church for the past 40 years or so.

I cannot argue with that. You said something earlier, though, about the problem not being so much with the council, but with its implementation. Can you elaborate?

Sure. Our current pope, Benedict XVI, just made mention of this phenomena in his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia last year, 2005.

In that address, he asked the question: "What has been the Council's result? Has it been received properly?"

His answer, in part, was to point to "the description that the great doctor of the Church, Saint Basil, gave of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicaea: he compared it to a naval battle in the darkness of a storm." (Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, Dec. 22, 2005, Asia News Online, emphasis mine)

Granted, the pope wasn't willing to say that this was a perfect description of the post-conciliar Church, but he did have to admit that "some of what has happened does reflect itself in [St. Basil's description]."

And what is the cause of this "naval battle in the darkness of a storm"?

The pope spoke of false interpretations of the council, which he described as "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture", and which, he admitted, "was frequently able to find favour among mass media, and also a certain sector of modern theology." (ibid.)

His description of this false hermeneutic is actually very accurate:

[The false interpretation] asserts that the Council texts as such would still not be the true expression of the spirit of the Council ... the Council would be revealed ... in the drive toward newness that underpin the texts: only this would represent the true spirit of the Council ... because the texts would reflect only imperfectly the true spirit of the Council and its novelty, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts, making room for the new ... In short: it would be necessary to follow not the Council texts, but its spirit. (ibid.)

This is that ambiguous "spirit of Vatican II" that became the justification for so much innovation in the Church after the council.

Do you think your current pope is a Traditionalist, then?

Actually, no, he's just a milder and less radical Modernist, in my opinion. And that's all part of the package of Modernism, really.

How so?

Pope St. Pius X described how Modernists practice what they call "evolution of dogma," and how this evolution - in order to work - has to make advances and innovations, but not too quickly, or else it completely separates itself from its foundation.

Here's how St. Pius X explained it in his encyclical against Modernism:

... it is to be noted that Evolution is due no doubt to those stimulants styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus ... would lead to ruin instead of progress. Hence ... evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force in the Church is tradition ... The progressive force, on the contrary ... lies in the individual consciences and ferments there ...

Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress ... that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its maintenance. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 27)

Our current pope seems to be more on the side of "the conserving force" in the evolution of dogma, which is precisely why he speaks out against the "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" - those words he uses are no accident.

John Vennari summed it up well:

This is why, to give a contemporary example, a warning from a progressivist such as Cardinal Ratzinger does not trouble an extreme-modernist like Hans Küng. Both are serving the opposing sides of the dialectic that Modernism accepts. Küng is the ultra-progressive force, and Ratzinger is merely the conserving force at this stage of the evolutionary process. In time, the views of Küng might be acceptable to Vatican officials, but not yet, since Ratzinger's present duty is one of conservation: to keep the continuous aggiornamento from moving too fast. (John Vennari, "Modernism in a Nutshell", Catholic Family News, August, 2003)

So ultimately you think Benedict XVI is in favor of progressivism and evolution of dogma?

Ultimately, I think he is. He has stated quite clearly in the past that there can be no turning back the clock and returning to the old ways - but he also knows that we can't just run forward recklessly, so he's trying to exercise a little conservatism.

Still, his evaluation of the "spirit of Vatican II" is correct, even if I don't think he's against it for the same reasons Traditionalists are.

How, then, does this "spirit of the council" show itself in everyday life?

Just watch the news; read the headlines.

To take a few examples, a handful of cardinals and some three-dozen priests recently went to a "Modern Orthodox rabbinical school" in New York to study the Torah with the Jews. (see Jennifer Siegel, "Cardinals Study With Orthodox Students", Forward, March 31, 2006) This is all part of the new "evangelization" and "ecumenism" that springs from the "spirit of Vatican II."

Which you think Benedict XVI is trying to stop?

Apparently not! One of the cardinals in attendance was Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard - the article says:

"I should have been in Rome," Ricard told the audience through a translator. "The pope is to receive the new cardinals, but I wrote... him about this meeting in New York City, [and] he said, 'Of course you can go.'" (ibid.)

So while Benedict XVI speaks out against the false spirit of the council, he still approves events like this.

That seems to be a contradiction.

The popes since Paul VI have all been walking contradictions - I think I mentioned it earlier, but Pope Paul VI was reduced to tears many times in his pontificate over that "auto-demolition" of the Church, and yet he certainly took an active role is assisting that destruction.

Then you have the comments made even more recently by a priest in Florida:

"The document on ecumenism published by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council was so inspiring," Father Wallace said. "One idea put forth was that we call members of other Christian churches our brothers and sisters in Christ and not heretics. We were not looking for everyone to become Catholic, but rather brothers and sisters in Christ; family in Christ. I am thankful to have been a part of spreading this good news." ("Bishop-emeritus Dorsey is among this year's jubilarians", The Florida Catholic, Mar. 6, 2006)

Again, there's that false ecumenism: "we were not looking for everyone to become Catholic"?! That's completely out of line, but that's the standard view among the clergy these days.

So why doesn't the Vatican crack down on priests like this?

Because the bureaucrats running the Vatican are in full support of priests like this. Cardinal Walter Kasper said:

In dialogue we can learn from each other. The result will not be a united new super-church ... This is not a so–called ecumenism of return, not a way back, but the Christ- and future-oriented guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth. (Cardinal Walter Kasper, "The ecumenical movement in the 21st century: A contribution from the PCPCU," online source)

Now keep in mind that Cardinal Kasper is the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity - this is the guy in charge of "Christian Unity," and he's saying that the Church has moved past "ecumenism of return" - that is, seeking unity by seeking the conversion and return to the Catholic Church of those who are outside Her.

How did someone with these kinds of ideas get into such a high position of importance?

Pope John Paul II put him in that position, and John Paul II is the same pope who elevated Kasper to the position of Cardinal back in the late 90s.

So his ideas would appear to have even the pope's approval ...

That's the appearance that is created, yes. Of course, who knows why the pope made him a cardinal and put him in charge of the PCPCU? Maybe he just likes the guy, or maybe he was cajoled into rubber-stamping this appointment - but the surface-level evidence would lead the average Catholic to believe that the pope must agree with Kasper's views.

Even more distressing is what was said in the Balamand Statement in 1993.

What's the "Balamand Statement"?

A joint-statement drawn up between representative Catholics and Eastern Orthodox at the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The sessions were held at the Balamand School of Theology in Lebanon, hence the declaration is known more commonly as the "Balamand Statement."

And what did this statement say?

The same thing Kasper said.

Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church ... no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox ... To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church ... special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who ... are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect to the other Church. (Balamand Statement, nos. 22, 30)

This is all terribly confusing, of course, because this is a document drawn up (in part) by official representatives of the Catholic Church - and yet, this obviously isn't a binding document on the faithful. Strictly speaking, it's nothing more than the (wrong) opinions of individual prelates in the Church.

But no one is going to view it that way.

That's the problem. It has all the outward appearances of being an official statement of the Church, and it has all the outward appearances of being authoritative - after all, the pope never denounced it, did he?

I wouldn't know.

Well I can tell you: he didn't. In fact, without going so far as to publicly approve every single statement in this declaration, he gave his general approval in his encyclical on Christian Unity:

In a positive spirit, and on the basis of what we have in common, the Joint Commission has been able to make substantial progress ... these joint affirmations represent the basis for Catholics and Orthodox to be able from now on to bear a faithful and united common witness in our time, that the name of the Lord may be proclaimed and glorified. (Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 59)

He didn't say anything about the "out-dated ecclesiology" of trying to convert the Orthodox, as was stated in the Balamand Statement, but yet he says that these "joint affirmations" (supposedly including the Balamand Statement) form the "basis for Catholics and Orthodox to be able from now on to bear ... united common witness in our time."

So it would appear that, without the Eastern Orthodox ever having returned to the Catholic Church, we are now suddenly able to bear a common witness to the gospel.

And again, this is Kasper's position on Protestantism as well:

The old concept of ecumenism of return today has been replaced by that of a common journey, which directs Christians towards an ecclesial communion comprised as a unity in reconciled diversity. (Cardinal Kasper, The Common Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: A Reason for Hope, quoted in Society of St. Pius X, From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, online source)

And what does the pope have to say about that?

I don't know that John Paul II ever addressed this statement of Kasper's directly, but again, we only have to remember that he was the one who elevated Cardinal Kasper to his position.

And he did indicate, in that encyclical on Christian Unity, that he was open to rethinking how the papacy operates in order to achieve this new vision of unity.

I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility ... in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. (Ut Unum Sint, 95)

There's more of that classic Vatican II-style ambiguity! What does he define as "essential" to the "mission" of the papacy? And what does he mean by "new situation"?

Do you think a future pope will one day renounce his claim to primacy?

It's quite possible. Scary, but quite possible. I mean, in practice, that has been the method of operation for the popes for the last 40 years - not ruling the Church like they should, letting "collegiality" be the guiding principle, etc.

And this is an example of the false spirit of Vatican II?

Certainly. Vatican II nowhere said that "ecumenism of return" was "out-dated ecclesiology," and it certainly never said that the pope should consider a "new situation" with regard to his primacy. It's quite obvious that the council is being abused badly in this respect.

Are there more examples of this kind of abuse?

Yes, plenty - one of the most obvious ones is the New Mass itself. The council said nothing in the document on Liturgical Reform about: the priest celebrating Mass facing the people; all-vernacular Masses; making the Old Mass obsolete and refusing priests their permission to celebrate it; replacing Gregorian Chant with all-new contemporary music; the laity distributing communion; altar girls; or receiving communion in the hand.

In some of those areas, in fact, the council said exactly the opposite of what is being practiced today - so in a very real way, you could say that the New Mass in itself constitutes an abuse of the council.

Can you demonstrate that the council taught the opposite of what is being practiced in the New Mass?

On some of those points, yes. As far as priests facing the people, laypeople distributing communion, altar girls, and communion in the hand, the council was silent. It never said "don't do these things," because it never occurred to the council fathers (at least not the conservative ones) that anyone would even suggest them!

However, on the subject of all-vernacular Masses, the council said, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36, 1)

On the subject of Gregorian Chant, the council said that chant is "specially suited to the Roman liturgy," and thus, "it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." (ibid., 116) In fact, the council specifically decreed that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them" (ibid., 54) - such as the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and other such prayers (probably also the Pater Noster and Confiteor were intended here).

On a related note, the council also said that "the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies." (ibid., 120)

So the council said that Latin is to be retained, that it should be taught to the people so they could use it in the Mass, that Gregorian Chant has "pride of place," and that the pipe organ "is to be held in high esteem." None of that is being done today in your average Catholic parish.

And what were you saying about the Old Mass?

It's been suppressed today, for the most part. In 1984, Pope John Paul II granted an "indult" for priests to say the Old Mass, but only with permission from their bishop, and only under certain conditions. In 1988, he asked for a wider and more generous application (his words) of that "indult," but it still seems as though there is a lot of animosity on the part of bishops towards the Old Mass and those who want to celebrate it.

How so?

Again, just look at the news headlines from time to time.

Most recently, Fr. Phillip Bourret, S.J., was commanded by his superior to stop saying the Old Mass at a private chapel in Santa Clara, CA. (Anthony Gonzales, "Jesuit Priest Commanded to Stop Saying Traditional Latin Mass!", St. Joseph's News Service, March 23, 2006)

In 2004, Fr. Stephen Sommerville was suspended by his bishop for saying the Old Mass. ("Passion priest suspended for Latin Masses", U.S. Catholic, Nov. 1, 2004)

In 2003, Fr. Stephen Zigrang was suspended by his bishop for announcing to his congregation on June 29 that he would no longer be celebrating the New Mass, but would be exclusively using the Old Missal of Pope St. Pius V. (Peter W. Miller, "Texas Pastor Removed Over Latin Masses", Seattle Catholic, Jul. 4, 2003)

In 2005, Mr. Allen Cain passed away, leaving behind his stated wish that his Requiem Mass be celebrated according to the Traditional Rites. His bishop refused, despite the fact that two priests in the diocese expressed their willingness to honor the deceased's request. (Michael Matt, "In the Gullet of a Wolf", The Remnant, January, 2005)

In 2004, Bishop Tod Brown of Orange County, CA, summarily pulled the plug on the Indult Mass in his diocese after the parish priest, Fr. Daniel Johnson, retired from his ministry. (Steven Greenhut, "The Catholic Church's great divide", Orange County Register, May 16, 2004)

In 2000, after Bishop Fellay of the SSPX had been meeting with John Paul II to negotiate the freedom of the Old Mass, several bishops and cardinals threatened rebellion. His Excellency describes the event:

... we saw very quickly the reaction of a certain number of bishops and cardinals: they were furious, furious to the point that some of them (I am speaking of French bishops) threatened disobedience. ("Interview with Bishop Fellay", The Angelus, August 2001, Vol. XXIV/8)

We must consider the Pope's difficult situation ... We learned from Bishop Ricard that in 2000 he himself, along with Cardinal Lustiger and the Archbishop of Lyons, rushed to Rome to forestall concessions to the Society, brandishing the threat of rebellion. We know that the German bishops acted in the same way at the time of the World Youth Conference in Cologne: "It is us or them." By this is meant: "If they are recognized, we will leave the Church and create a schism." ("The Meeting", The Angelus, October 2005, Vol. XXVIII/10)

Wow! They were ready to revolt?

Apparently some very high-ranking prelates in the Church are absolutely against the Old Mass.

And this is, as you said, an abuse of the council.

Absolutely! The council fathers, I contend, would never have signed off on that document on the Liturgy if they had known that the intention was to abolish the Old Mass and then create a brand new one from scratch.

In actual fact, the document says "holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 4)

So the wish of the council was that the Old Mass - which was certainly one of the "lawfully acknowledged rites" at the time this document was written - should be "[preserved] in the future." Six years later, snap, we've got a brand new Mass created out of whole cloth, and the Old Mass is now an occasion of ecclesiastical penalty.

Are there any other examples of how the council has been wrongly implemented?

Well, let's stick with the example of the Liturgy. I said earlier that, for example, altar girls and communion in the hand were never mentioned by the council.

Right. So how did those things come about?

By disobedience - and this is one of the most deadly aspects of what has gone on in the past 40 years ... disobedience is continually rewarded when that disobedience leans towards progressivism. Of course, if the disobedience leans towards Traditionalism (like those priests I mentioned who decided to say the Old Mass without first asking permission), then suddenly the bishops snap into action and start imposing penalties.

So, for example, in 1970, just a year after the New Mass was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document that said:

The traditional liturgical norms of the Church prohibit women (young girls, married women, religious) from serving the priest at the altar, even in women's chapels, houses, convents, schools and institutes. (Liturgicae Instaurationes, 7)

But that didn't stop certain disobedient bishops from allowing the practice in their dioceses, and so 10 years later, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship again had to issue a corrective instruction. The purpose of this document was to single out and correct "the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world ... especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity."

The Congregation pointed out that "Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful, reminded the bishops of the teaching of the council that "No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority," and recalled the words of Pope Paul VI: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense."

Obviously, then, the abuses listed in this document were being perpetrated on a grand-scale, such that they caught the attention of the Vatican and required correction! In specific:

There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers ... If anything has been introduced that is at variance with these indications it is to be corrected. (Inaestimabile Donum, 18, 27)

This was in 1980, you said?

Yes, 10 years after the first instruction from the Congregation. So it would appear that in the intervening 10 years, parishes were using altar girls anyway - and so the Congregation condemned the practice again.

But it didn't stop.

Of course not! This is the conciliar Church we're talking about. The Vatican issues instructions and warnings from time to time, but remember: the pope has abdicated his primacy and authority (at least when it comes to dealing with liberals), so there's rarely any "teeth" to these documents.

In 1982, a letter was sent to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, DC, complaining about the continuation of this abuse. The letter laments that, "far from the abuse ceasing ... it has proliferated, providing another indication of the schismatic attitude of the Bishops of the United States of America, and the complete inability of the Holy See to exercise any control over them." ("Letter to the Apostolic Delegate", The Angelus, Dec. 1982, Vol. V/12)

The letter even details specific cases. St. Catherine of Siena Church in Miami "invited girls to volunteer for training as altar servers." The bishop of Columbus, OH, publicly admitted that "some [parishes] in our own diocese, do have altar girls." A parishioner in Oakland, CA, wrote to his bishop to complain that his parish priest "had announced his intention of using altar girls" in a parish newsletter. The bishop responded, "Father Danielson's allowance of young women who already have been taking part in the Mass is sensible ... I agree with him, and with the authority I have, can approve of his decision."

So what happened?

In 1994, the same Congregation approved the use of altar girls. In response to the question of whether "the liturgical functions which ... can be entrusted to the lay faithful, may be carried out equally by men and women, and if serving at the altar may be included among those functions." The Congregation answered in the affirmative.

A year later, in an Angelus Address given the day before the beginning of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Pope John Paul II said:

The Church is increasingly aware of the need for enhancing [the role of women]. Within the great variety of different and complementary gifts that enrich ecclesial life, many important possibilities are open to them ... To a large extent, it is a question of making full use of the ample room for a lay and feminine presence recognized by the Church's law. I am thinking, for example, of theological teaching, the forms of liturgical ministry permitted, including service at the altar, pastoral and administrative councils, Diocesan Synods and Particular Councils ... (Pope John Paul II, Angelus Address, Sept. 3, 1995, emphasis added)

So he totally reversed himself?

Basically. He forbid altar girls in 1980, and then in 1995 he said that feminine service at the altar is one of the "gifts that enrich ecclesial life."

And what about communion in the hand?

Same situation. Just about a month after the promulgation of the New Mass (which was in April of 1969), the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a document under the title Memoriale Domini (Memorial of the Lord), dealing with the issue of the faithful receiving Holy Communion in their hands, instead of the traditional manner, which is to have the priest place the host directly in their mouths. The document is dated May 19, 1969.

The document laments that "in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately." So apparently the practice sprung up rather quickly - in just a little over a month's time. Of course, it was an abuse, because Rome had not permitted it.

So the Congregation (at the request of Pope Paul VI) submitted a survey of sorts to some of the national conferences of bishops, asking their opinion on the matter. On the question of whether the practice should be admitted, 57% of the bishops said no, and only 26% said yes. Another 15% said yes, but with reservations. So the clear majority was not in favor of the practice.

On the question of whether the practice should be tried as an experiment in a few small locations, 60% said no, and 37% said yes. Again, the majority was not in favor of the practice.

Based on this input, the Congregation declared that "in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful." (emphasis added)

If the Congregation nixed the practice, then, why is it in use today?

Because apparently the Vatican wishes to reward disobedience to its own commands. The document left a loophole, as is apparently the common practice these days. It said that, in those places where communion in the hand had already become the prevailing practice, bishops in those areas could submit a request to Rome to have the practice allowed in their dioceses. Then it goes on to detail some normative guidelines for implementing the practice in those few select territories, where bishops had been given permission by the Holy See.

Uh-oh. I can see where this is heading.

It's not difficult, is it? When the document says "no, don't do this thing," but then essentially says, "however, if you are going to do it, here's how it should be done," it's implicitly admitting that this is going to become common practice. It's a strange anomaly: it's like saying, "don't commit this abuse, but if you're going to, here's the correct way of committing the abuse."

And so what was the outcome?

The abuse continued. Even though Rome had forbid the practice, it flourished, even in dioceses where it had not (according to the condition set by the Congregation) previously been a prevailing practice, and even though the individual bishops had not appealed for or received permission from Rome.

Eventually, these bishops started submitting their requests, and Rome just basically rubber-stamped them all so that communion in the hand became the norm.

The abuse became lawful?

That's what it boils down to. Rome essentially said, "the best way to make you stop disobeying is to make the illegal thing legal, and then it's not disobedience anymore."

And how does this relate to the council?

I think it ties back into the ambiguity regarding collegiality. None of the authorities wanted to upset the new prevailing democratic model of authority, so no one wanted to step on anyone else's toes. The trouble is that, once entire national conferences of bishops voted to allow the practice, the individual bishops who may not have liked the idea succumbed to the pressure - you don't want to be the lone opposition to the voice of the majority, even if you do possess the rightful authority to make your own decisions as a bishop in your own diocese. So they all caved in.

What, in a nutshell, is wrong with this practice?

It erodes the unique dignity of the priest. St. Thomas Aquinas devoted an entire question in his Summa to this issue. He concluded that there were three reasons why only priests should distribute communion, and the third reason is especially pertinent today:

[quote]Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 82, art. 3, emphasis added)[/quote]

Similarly, Pope John Paul II addressed this subject in an Apostolic Letter. He deplored the fact that, after the practice of communion in the hand had been permitted, "cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported," and beyond this, that "the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized." The liberal gestapo basically started imposing the practice, even on those of the laity who didn't want to receive in this way.

So John Paul II wrote, echoing St. Thomas Aquinas:

[quote] ... one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands ... have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact ... they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species ... How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! (John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb. 24, 1980, emphasis added)[/quote]

So this new practice of letting the laity freely handle the Eucharist chips away at this special dignity of the priest, and at the sacramental significance of Holy Orders. It also erodes faith in the Real Presence, because, as has been said before, who will believe that the Eucharist is a holy object if anyone and everyone can handle it? The fact that the Church for so long forbid anyone but the priests from touching the host really underscored the fact that this Sacred Host was something special and holy, and it increased the reverence of the faithful.

So John Paul II was against the practice?

He was a walking contradiction, actually. He appeared as though he couldn't make up his mind on the subject, because he would speak out against it from time to time, but then he himself would actually distribute communion in the hand at his papal Masses, especially the larger Masses at which larger numbers of people were in attendance (such as at World Youth Days).

So, for example, he declared on one occasion:

[quote]I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this ... only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed ... I say this to you as your bishop! (John Paul II, Sermon of March 1,1989, quoted in Br. Alexis Bugnolo, "At the Name of Jesus", Seattle Catholic, May 2, 2003)[/quote]

And on another occasion, he said:

[quote]There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it ... neither will I recommend it! (quoted in 101 Times, Vol.4/2, 1992)[/quote]

And yet he did it himself.

Several times. And people noticed. In the same way, our current pope gave communion in the hand (and to a well-known Protestant at that!) at Pope John Paul II's funeral Mass; he also gave communion in the hand to two cardinals at his first Mass - which is even more confusing. The cardinals, above all people, should be leading the way by example.

So Rome appears to be speaking out of both sides of Her mouth on this point.

Very interesting. When we pick up this discussion again, I want to ask you some questions about Archbishop Lefebvre and his Priestly Society of St. Pius X - I've heard a lot of conflicting reports.

That's because a lot of conflicting reports have been given, even at the Vatican level. But as you suggest, this is a large topic for another time.

Pope to Release Document on the Holy Mass Next Thursday

The blog site Archivum Liturgicum has posted this tid-bit:

La Radio Vaticana annuncia il documento papale sul Rito della Messa

Oggi la Radio Vaticana ha annunciato che la Santita di Nostro Signore BENEDETTO PP. XVI ha firmato un documento avente come argomento il Rito della Messa, cosi come preannunciato da questo blog. Il documento verra con ogni probabilita reso pubblico
in occasione del Giovedi Santo.

Which translates into this provocative news:

Vatican Radio announces papal document on the Rite of Mass

Vatican Radio has announced today that our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has signed a document concerning the Rite of Mass, which was announced in advance on this blog. The document will in all probability be released to the public on the occasion of Holy Thursday.

Is this it?

Is this the long-awaited document which will grant universal freedom to every priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass?

The tension mounts ...

Anything but RadTradism!

Michelle Arnold has posted a follow-up to her lament about having to "survive" the Sunday Mass - the very idea of which still boggles my mind.

I'm still unclear as to how Michelle can see her way clear to rebel against the approved liturgy of her parish - I didn't see anything in her post that indicated that her diocesan bishop disapproved of such liturgies as the one she was forced to "survive," so I'm not sure where she gets the idea that it's ok to complain about it (assuming for the moment the validity of her arguments against "RadTradism," that is).

Still, undaunted by this contradiction, she goes on.

What is my definition of radical Traditionalism? Unlike a devotion to the ancient Catholic customs and disciplines of the Church, radical Traditionalism is when a Catholic allows himself to become so disillusioned with genuine problems in the Church, such as liturgical abuses, and begins to reject the Church’s authority to regulate the Church’s customs and disciplines.

Methinks Michelle still hasn't seen past the tree she's wrapped around in order to see the forest around her. There are "genuine problems in the Church," but "liturgical abuses" don't even begin to scratch the surface.

A larger problem, and one which I would like to see her tackle if she's really interested in addressing the sources of disapproval amongst "RadTrads" and offering solutions, is the problem of why the local ordinary allows the liturgy to be abused.

I personally know a number of Traditionalists who can in no way be termed “RadTrad,” who simply prefer the Tridentine liturgy, and who dislike the black eye given the movement by RadTrads.

This being the case, why can't Michelle come to appreciate her "RadTrad" brethren who prefer, not just the Tridentine liturgy, but all of the rich traditions of the Church (such as the old rites of Holy Baptism complete with their powerful exorcisms, or of Confirmation), and who "dislike the black eye" given to the Church at large by those who suffer no qualms at abusing Her sacred liturgies and customs on a regular basis?

But I can say that the RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult Tridentine or to form indult Tridentine parishes.

Oh, Michelle ... how blind we can be when we choose to ignore the facts. Does it not occur to her that the only reason the pope granted an "indult" at all was because of the growing influence of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priestly society that refused to give up the Tridentine Mass?

In 1980, John Paul II invited the bishops of the world to report back to him on, among other things, "possible resistance that may have arisen" to the "Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI." The bishops reported back that "the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called 'Tridentine' rite was almost completely solved." (Quattuor abhinc annos)

It was in response to this "problem" that the original Tridentine indult was granted.

Further, it was in direct response to the 1988 consecrations of four new bishops for the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre that the pope called for "a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." (Ecclesia Dei adflicta)

In the practical realm of the bishops actually carrying out this wish of the Roman Pontiff, it must be acknowledged that indult Masses have been established primarily in dioceses where there already exists chapels run by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or some other independent priest. A quick scan of the Latin Mass Directory (www.traditio.com) reveals that only one out of the 50 states has a diocesan indult Mass that does not also have a Mass offered by one of the above groups.

In my own diocese, as also in many other dioceses, the indult was set up precisely to counter-act the popularity of the SSPX or other such Traditional groups.

To say that "RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult" just demonstrates a lack of insight into the reality of the situation.

If it were not for the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre and those like him, we would all be "surviving" the Sunday Mass.

I believe that a sharp distinction must be made between Catholic Traditionalism (which is a spirituality allowed by the Church) and RadTradism (which is a movement of Catholics who have allowed themselves to become so angry that it has disturbed their spiritual peace).

Interesting way to frame the issue. Catholics who have allowed their "spiritual peace" to be disturbed? On the contrary, it is precisely by finding the safe harbors offered by the SSPX and independent chapels that "RadTrads" have preserved their sanity, when staying in their abusive Novus Ordo parishes would have ruined not only their "spiritual peace," but perhaps also their faith.

Or is Michelle simply unaware of the statistical facts that reveal a massive decline in faith, vocations, ordinations, morality, and Mass attendance in Novus Ordo circles?

Pope Paul VI lamented that the Church was in "auto-demolition" mode ever since the council, and the numbers show that the faith of millions has been destroyed by the New Mass - are we really to accept this state of affairs and go on putting our souls in harm's way, all for the sake of avoiding "RadTradism"?

It would appear so. Michelle's advice is:

Don’t church-shop. Recently, a gentleman contacted Catholic Answers asking if he could register at a parish outside of his diocese because “all of the parishes in his diocese” were allegedly so problematic that he felt could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese.

Let's stop and think about that for a minute: this poor gentleman "could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese." That is a serious, serious problem. What kind of advice is it, then, to tell someone like this that they need to "be at home" in such a parish by "simply ... attending long enough to become part of parish life"?

Sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that you can't worship as a Catholic in your own parish - our advice is that you learn to worship as a Lutheran in your Catholic parish, and more importantly, get more involved in your parish life. That should work wonders for your faith and salvation. At the very least, it will keep you from falling into "RadTradism," which everyone knows is the only mortal sin left these days.

I also found this statement to be particularly damning:

Parishes are rarely static -- pastors are reassigned, liturgy committees change hands, DREs come and go -- and a parish you think will satisfy you could shift toward laxity within a few years. If you too easily throw in the towel and move on, where will your roaming end?

Now, let me get this straight: pastors get reassigned, liturgy commissions shape-shift, and DREs come and go - and this should be expected to affect the immutable and unchanging faith, particularly as it is expressed in the parish liturgical life, how?

But it does, doesn't it? Michelle is essentially admitting that Catholic parishes have become Protestantized - the faith and worship of the community is subject to personalities now.

This sad state of affairs is the real problem in the Church today. It's not that liturgies get abused, it's that the liturgy and the faith it manifests is so easily shaped and molded by the whims of individuals, and that diocesan bishops are doing little if anything to stop the tragedy.

That is a disease which deserves an inoculation, if ever there was one.

Get to know your priests and religious. When a priest or religious is just a face on the altar or in the classroom, it is easy to depersonalize them into cogs in a “Vatican apparatus.” When you invite them to a meal, bring them Christmas cookies, get to know them on a person-to-person basis, you are inoculated against a tendency to believe the worst about people with whom you might disagree.

Humanitarianism before righteous indignation, eh? I wonder if Michelle will take this advice to heart and bake a nice batch of cookies for her local SSPX priest? Maybe she'll discover that she has less about which to disagree with them.

And finally, there is this:

Examine your conscience. ... If your parish disappoints you, first examine your own conscience to see whether you are yourself a part of the problem.

This is just too scary ... isn't this the diseased mentality which plagues abused children today? Daddy beats me, and Daddy is never wrong, so perhaps I should examine myself and consider whether I deserved this abuse?

That's twisted reasoning, but it seems to translate very well into our current Church situation. My priests are abusing me and my faith by their abuse of the liturgy, and the bishops aren't stopping it; but the Church is always right, so perhaps this is really all my fault? Yes, that's it. I'm the reason behind the abuses in liturgy and teaching in my parish - if only I would repent, all would be well.

Someone inoculate me against that kind of mentality ...

Discussions on Traditionalism: The Council Documents

Before I ask you questions about the council, I wanted to mention that I went to the New Mass this last Sunday to observe.

Not at all like you remembered the Mass, was it?

No! It really seemed much more ... I don't know ...

Laid back. Relaxed. Like "Catholicism Lite," right?

I guess so ...

It's no wonder Mass attendance is down 50%. The New Mass is boring and uninspiring. The solemn chants and majestic organ music have been replaced with folk guitarists singing hippie songs from the 70s and 80s (many of which, by the way, were written by Marty Haugen, who is a Lutheran).

The beautiful vestments that the priests used to wear have been replaced by those bland robes that look like horse blankets.

The glorious high altar has been replaced with a common table, and even the vessels - the gold chalice, the gold paten, etc. - have often been replaced with clear-glass cups and dishes.

I did see quite a bit of that.

Well, there you go - that's the fruit of the council's intention to make the mysteries of Faith more relevant to Modern Man. They brought everything down to Man's level, instead of raising Man up to heaven, and in the process they stripped from the Mass whatever was mysterious and beautiful. Now it's just plain bland.

Anyway, we were going to discuss the council some more.

Yes, I wanted you to back up your previous statements about the documents being ambiguous.

No problem. But first, I want to step back and set the historical scene for you, so you get an idea of how these documents were created and how the ambiguities slipped in.

Ok.

Pope John XXIII announced his intention to call the council in 1959. The council didn't actually open until October of 1962. In the two or so years that came between, there were several Commissions that were given the task of drawing up schemas that would be the basis for the council's official documents.

Like rough outlines?

More or less, yes. So the various Commissions came up with 70 schemas that

... renewed the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I, as well as the wholesale denunciation of the contemporary world already found in Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors." (Gary McEoin, book review for "History Of Vatican II, Volume IIII", National Catholic Reporter, Sept. 22, 2000)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a very conservative and orthodox man, was on the Central Preparatory Commission that was in charge of reviewing the schemas. His recollection was that

... in them the Church’s doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and discretion. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

Ok, so what's the point?

When the council opened, a liberal faction in the council managed to have those original schemas tossed out the window. Lefebvre tells the story of how the matter came to a vote, and the liberals didn't get the required two-thirds majority - but they did come out on top, 60% to 40%.

So they complained to the pope that, basically, 60% was close enough, and they shouldn't be forced to go forward with something that the majority wasn't in favor of - and the pope agreed. So he intervened and that was the end of the 70 schemas.

So they started from scratch?! Ugh.

Yes, basically. It really caused a lot of confusion for the bishops, because they weren't working with the prepared material which they had all had a chance to review before coming to Rome. So for the rest of the council, documents were being drafted for discussion, and then the bishops were being asked to vote before they'd had a chance to really review the new material.

I don't know if you've seen the documents of Vatican II, but they're quite dense. A bishop can't be expected to read and digest so many hundreds of pages, and then cast a responsible vote. Many of the bishops voted in favor of documents of which they had only read parts, and they just trusted the majority - kind of a "go with the flow" scenario.

So who drafted the new documents?

Various commissions, but usually there was some principle architect behind each document. So, for example, the document on Religious Liberty was drafted by the liberal bishop from America, John Courtney Murray; the two documents on the Church, Lumen Gentium and Gaudiem et Spes were mostly the work of Karol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II; the document on the Liturgy was drafted by Annibale Bugnini, who - neatly enough - also ended up being the one largely in charge of implementing the document.

There was definitely a liberal force behind the drafting of the new documents, and Archbishop Lefebvre commented on this:

Anyone who has experience of either civil or clerical meetings will understand the situation in which the Fathers found themselves. In these new schemas, although one could modify a few odd phrases or a few propositions by means of amendments, one could not change their essentials. The consequences would be serious. A text which is biased to begin with can never be entirely corrected. It retains the imprint of whoever drafted it and the thoughts that inspired it. The Council from then on was slanted. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

I think I'm beginning to get a better picture of what went on ...

It was a blitzkrieg. Most of those 2,400 bishops came to Rome expecting to rubber-stamp the prepared schemas, and suddenly they were broadsided by the liberal faction who - it cannot be stressed enough - had really done their homework. The rest just stumbled through the council blindly, looking for some kind of guidance - they didn't know what had hit them.

So the bishops were working with tainted documents to start with.

Right, and mostly documents drawn up by men with progressivist ideas - like Murray, Bugnini, Wojtyla, etc. But these men couldn't just come right out and embed heresies in the documents - they had to craft their statements carefully, with a great degree of ambiguity.

Even still, they raised a lot of red flags. Archbishop Lefebvre was only one of many who stood up and presented "interventions" (formal objections to the documents) during the periods of discussion, objections in which he often complained of how proximate to heresy some of the statements were. He ended up publishing his interventions in a book after the council was over, called I Accuse the Council!

Ok, so we've established that the documents were created with the ambiguities already in them. Can you give some examples?

Yes, I can. Let's start with the first document promulgated by the council: Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Sounds foreboding.

Funny!

This was the document that called for the revision of the Mass; and since it's pretty safe to say that the council fathers had no idea that the New Mass was what was going to result from this document, this is a pretty good place to start looking ambiguity.

Cardinal Heenan once made the comment that neither the council fathers nor the pope foresaw just how radical the liturgical reforms would be, based on the document they approved:

Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts. (John Cardinal Heenan, A Crown of Thorns [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1974], p. 223)

So obviously there must have been enough ambiguity in the document on the Liturgy to warrant the views of the conservative council fathers, as well as the radical plans of the liberals.

So what does this document say, exactly?

Many things. It begins by saying that the liturgical reform is intended "to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change." (SC, 1) Of course, it never defines exactly which "institutions" are "subject to change."

In a similar way, it says a few paragraphs later that "where necessary, the rites [should] be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, [so] that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times." (par. 4) Again, no mention is made of what specific "circumstances and needs of modern times" are being referred to in this paragraph - nor does it define what constitutes "necessity" in the question of revision of the rites. At what point does a particular revision become "necessary?"

The council states that the laity should become more involved in the liturgy by "fully conscious, and active participation" (par. 14), and - incredibly - that "In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else." (par. 14)

What did they mean by "full and active participation"?

That's a very good question, to which this document never once gives a clear answer. And that's pretty amazing, considering that this "full and active participation" - whatever it might mean - is declared by the council to be "the aim to be considered before all else"! You'd think if this was going to be the paramount guiding principle for the reform, it would have received a little more definition.

So who ends up deciding what it means?

Apparently, the Consilium that was later appointed (after the council) to put this document into practice and give it some flesh.

Then this document serves as kind of a "blank check," of sorts?

Exactly. And then it goes on to say that "the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it." (par. 21)

A whole flurry of questions arises from this paragraph: which of the "elements" are "subject to change"? What is the benchmark for deciding if any of these elements has "suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy"?

For that matter, what is this "inner nature of the liturgy"? What makes an element in-or-out of "harmony", suited or "unsuited", to this "inner nature"?

I mean, here the document says that anything out of "harmony" with this ill-defined "inner nature" of the liturgy "not only may but ought to be changed" - but it becomes up to the Consilium to determine what is or is not in harmony with the "inner nature" of the liturgy, so that pretty much leaves everything open to the fate of being revised.

Sounds like a free-for-all.

That is exactly what it turned into. And it didn't help that the very next paragraph accomplished a kind of bait-and-switch: on the one hand, the regulation of the liturgy "depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop." Which is to say that such regulation "belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established." (par. 22, 1-2)

So this power of regulating the liturgy belongs to Rome first, then to the bishop and "territorial bodies of bishops." Got that?

I think so.

Ok, so then the council says, "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." (par. 22, 3)

Which is probably as it should be, don't you think?

Yes! Except for one problem. After the council had finished declaring its ambiguous teaching on "collegiality," the pope and bishops began acting in a much more democratic fashion - so Rome conceded authority over the liturgy to the bishops, and the bishops in turn conceded that authority to ...

Let me guess: the priests and laity.

Uh-huh. And the document actually foresees this eventuality, because it says much later, "It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2" - that's the groups of bishops - "set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice."

So the bishops own the liturgy; but the council wants those bishops to set up liturgical commissions and seek the help of "experts" - whoever they may be.

Then it says:

So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. (SC, par. 44)

Ahhh ... this is something entirely different, isn't it? The bishops set up commissions, the commissions are run by experts - and this "[includes] laymen as circumstances suggest," which means it always includes them, because circumstances always suggest it.

Then comes the blitz: "Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority" - who, of course, is going to roll over and play dead like a good democratic bishop should - "the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments [!!!] whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See."

Promote experiments?

You heard right.

So keep in mind that whenever the document says "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority," it means these lay-led liturgical commissions.

That becomes rather important in statements like this: "The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority ... must ... carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship." (par. 40, 1)

This is what started the liturgical "inculturation" craze. And with no one to regulate the madness except for the liturgical commissions spread from here to kingdom come ... well, now you know why American parishes have Masses that feature folk guitars. That's part of our "culture" ever since the 60s, so it must be considered appropriate to "be admitted into divine worship."

But by that logic, what wouldn't be considered "cultural", and therefore appropriate for the Mass?

Ask the "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority." What the liturgical commissions say is what becomes normal practice.

Moving on ...

Yes ...

Another paragraph says: "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity." Again, no definition whatsoever is given for what is to be considered "noble simplicity" - that becomes a relative measuring stick which manifests itself in different ways depending on who's in charge.

It goes on: "[the rites] should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation." (par. 34)

But what does "useless repetitions" mean? There are plenty of repetitions in the Old Mass - the Kyrie is repeated, the mea culpa is repeated, the Domine non sum dignus is repeated ... the genuflection at the consecration is repeated, and there are dozens of repetitions of the sign of the cross throughout. Who's to say which of these repetitions is "useless"? What makes a thing "useless" or not?

Let me guess: the document doesn't tell us.

No, it doesn't. So one council father might have been perfectly orthodox and would have been thinking one thing when he read "useless repetitions" - maybe he was thinking of just one or two parts of the Mass - but the liberal who reads this (and later gets to help implement it) is thinking about a bunch of things that he's planning on removing from the Mass!

Have you seen enough examples of ambiguity in this document?

Sure. Let's move on to another.

Alright, we'll look at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, called Lumen Gentium.

Where do they get these goofy names for the documents?

The official Latin document names are taken from the first few words of the document. This one begins, "The Light of nations is Christ ..." - and "light of nations" is lumen gentium in Latin.

Ok - just curious. Carry on.

LG was written to "unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission." (par. 1)

It then goes on to review salvation history in a series of paragraphs that are pretty well saturated in Scripture - nothing too out of the ordinary there. In fact, much of what is said in these first six or seven paragraphs is quite orthodox, and worth reading.

However, after doing such a marvelous job of explaining the nature of the Church, the document says, "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him." (par. 8)

This one sentence has caused much consternation, because it is very difficult to say what the council meant by the word "subsists." When Pius XII described the relationship between "the Church of Christ" on the one hand, and "the Catholic Church," on the other hand, he used the verb "is":

... this true Church of Jesus Christ ... is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church ... (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 13, emphasis added)

For whatever reason, the council chose the word "subsists in" to describe that same relationship.

What does the phrase mean - how is it different from what Pius XII said?

It may well not be different at all. But some theologians assumed that it was. Fr. Bouyer is quoted as saying that this phrase

... [proposed] again the idea of the one Church, even if it is presently divided among the diverse Christian Churches, as if among many branches. (quoted in Rev. Donald Sanborn, "A Critical Analysis of Ratzinger's Dominus Jesus", online source)

In the same article, Fr. Congar (another liberal peritus at the council) is quoted as saying:

Thus they are telling us ... that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the "Roman" Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. (ibid.)

So the "subsists in" phrase could mean that the "Church of Christ" is a larger entity that encompasses more than just the Roman Catholic Church?

That's how some theologians interpreted it. Others disagreed. Just recently, in fact, the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity released a document trying to correct this error:

The Council ... wished to do justice to the fact that there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also "elements of the church" ... Understood in this sense "subsistit in" encompasses the essential thrust of the "est" [the word Pius XII used]. But it ... takes account of churches and ecclesial communities ...

Accordingly it is a misunderstanding of "subsistit in" to make it the basis of an ecclesiological pluralism or relativism which implies that the one church of Christ Jesus subsists in many churches, and thus the Catholic Church is merely one among many other churches. (Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, The Decree on Ecumenism – Read Anew After Forty Years, Nov. 11, 2004, emphasis added)

So as you can see, the very fact that there is still this argument going on over this phrase proves that there is a lot of ambiguity in the phrase itself.

It would appear so!

The council document goes on to say that "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of [the Catholic Church's] visible structure." (par. 8)

What are these "elements" that are found outside the Church?

Most likely this refers to things like Sacred Scripture and the various sacraments that are still found in a valid form outside the Church - Protestant baptism, for example, is a valid sacrament, and the Eastern Orthodox still possess valid sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist.

But nevertheless, a statement like this can only lead to confusion - if "elements" of sanctification and truth can be found outside the Church, is this sufficient for salvation? Is the Church still necessary for salvation?

That's why I think it's important that the document immediately adds, "These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity." (par. 8)

So it still affirms that the Catholic Church is the sole source of the sacraments, and that wherever they exist outside the Church, they are intended to lead souls back into the Church ... but it's still a bit ambiguous, taken as a whole, and then combined with other statements in the document.

Such as?

Such as this statement:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (LG, par. 15)

That's ambiguous at best. In "many ways" the Church is "linked" with those outside the unity of the papacy? What does this mean? In what way are they "linked"? In past ages it was more precise: those outside the Church are, objectively speaking, heretics who have no hope of salvation.

That doesn't appear to be the council's position!

Well, but the Church has always said that there is such a thing as "baptism of desire," meaning that some people - through no fault of their own - are not aware of the Church or their obligation to belong to it. But they follow the Divine Law as best as they know it, and are of sufficient good-will such that - had they known better - they would have gladly been a part of the Catholic Church. These souls can be saved because they belong to the Church implicitly - by way of desire.

Pope Pius XII spoke of this when he said that there are those who are outside the Church who "by an unconscious desire and longing ... have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer," but he was more precise than Vatican II, because he immediately added, "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church," and he pleaded with the separated brethren to "correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation." (Mystici Corporis Christi, 103)

So even Pope Pius XII acknowledges that non-Catholics have a "certain relationship" to the Church, but that in their separated state they "cannot be sure of their salvation." Not that their salvation is impossible, but it is by no means guaranteed, especially considering that they are "deprived of ... many heavenly gifts and helps which can only enjoyed in the Catholic Church."

So what did the council say that Pius XII didn't say?

The council simply emphasized the "maybe" aspect of this relationship between the Church and non-Catholics, without as forcefully stating that they are in a gravely deficient situation.

I do have to add, though, that the council did state rather clearly in this document that "the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation ... Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (par. 14)

It just seems like what the council gives with the left hand, it takes away with the right, and vice versa.

And we haven't even touched on the question of those who aren't even professing Christians.

Why, what did the council say about them?

Regarding the Muslims, the document says:

... the plan of salvation also includes ... the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. (LG, par. 16)

Obviously, this statement needs a lot of clarification before it can be given full assent of faith.

Obviously! Is the council saying that Muslims will be saved too?

Not if you read closely - it only says that the plan of salvation includes them - which is true. The plan of salvation includes all men; redemption is not withheld from anyone who desires it.

But what does it mean that the Muslims "along with us adore the one and merciful God?" Can we really say that the Muslims worship the same God as we do?

Do they?

Only in the sense that they're monotheists who believe in the God of Abraham. But the true God is a Trinity, and so it would seem that in order to worship the true God, one would have to accept the Second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ.

But notice that the council didn't say "the true God." It just said "the one and merciful God." Like I said, this needs serious clarification. The statement is too open-ended as it stands.

But enough about salvation - let's move on to that question of collegiality.

Please do.

The fundamental teaching of the Church is that the pope possesses supreme authority in the Church, and that each bishop possesses a similar "monarchical" authority in his own territory - an authority that is derived from the papacy.

The First Vatican Council declared the following:

If anyone therefore should say that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspecting or directing, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters concerning the discipline and rule of the Church throughout the world; or that he has merely the principal part and not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that his power is not ordinary and immediate, whether over each and all the churches, or over each and all the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (On the Church of Christ, Canon III)

At Vatican II, what happened is that two conflicting factions collided and ended up producing a statement that was a hybrid of the two opinions. On the one side was the traditional view: the pope possesses supreme authority in the Church; this authority can and is sometimes extended by the pope to the college of bishops when he convenes an Ecumenical Council. On the other side was the progressive view: the pope, in union with the college of bishops, possesses supreme authority, and the pope only exercises this authority as the representative head of the college of bishops.

That sounds very similar to the Eastern Orthodox position.

I believe it is quite close. It tends to view the pope as merely a figurehead, or a "first among equals."

The resulting council document somewhat blended these two views. The entire third chapter of Lumen Gentium goes back and forth on these points - it's far too lengthy to quote, but a few representative passages should give a decent idea of the conflict:

Jesus Christ ... willed that [the Apostles'] successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. (LG, par. 18)

Notice the order: Jesus established the college of bishops, willed them to exist until the end of time, and secondly, in order to preserve unity in the college, He placed the pope over them.

The Lord Jesus ... appointed twelve to be with Him ... and these apostles He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them. (LG, par. 19)

Again, the order is reversed: the apostolic college was formed, and then Peter was placed over them - "chosen from among them" - you can almost hear the echo of "first among equals" here. This New Testament model is then applied to the modern-day Church:

Just as in the Gospel ... St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. (LG, par. 22)

The emphasis appears to be on the college of bishops here - is that right?

It certainly appears that way. But then the council - as if now speaking with the voice of the traditional council fathers - emphasizes the role of the pope:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head ... In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. (ibid.)

So far so good, but then the council takes away with the left hand ...

The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. (ibid.)

Which statement receives the emphasis here? That the college of bishops "is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church," or that "we understand this body together with its head ... and never without this head"?

Yeah, that doesn't seem to be quite so clear as it was in the First Vatican Council.

It was meant to be ambiguous. And then it meanders into the question of the college of bishops acting as a college - that is, a democratic body of bishops having authority over a single bishop's territory, when really that bishop has authority in his own proper diocese(s).

Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw this problem, and warned the council of it in one of his many interventions:

The national assemblies with their commissions would soon - and unconsciously - be feeding and governing all the flocks, so that the priests as well as the laity would find themselves placed between these two pastors: the bishops, whose authority would be theoretical, and the assembly with its commissions, which would, in fact, hold the exercise of that authority. (Archbishop Lefebvre, I Accuse the Council, quoted in Michael Davies, "Random Thoughts," The Angelus, Dec. 1984, Vol. VII/12)

And did that come to pass?

In many ways, yes it did. It seems more and more than individual bishops don't feel right about exercising their rightful authority in their own diocese(s). You hear stories all the time about how a national synod of bishops will meet together to decide on some practical matter, and all of the bishops will go along with it - even if they individually don't want to.

A good example is communion in the hand - a national conference may approve it, and so an individual bishop will approve it in his diocese, even though he personally is against it, because he doesn't want to contradict the national conference. It works much more like a democracy now.

And all because of some ambiguities in the document ...

That's the story of the whole council. Almost every one of these documents can be neatly chopped up and sorted into two categories: statements that are cleanly orthodox, and statements that are, at best, ambiguous and bordering on the edge of heterodoxy.

The real problem came after the council, when the various synods of bishops starting implementing the council, and the liberal theologians who were at the council as periti began spreading their ideas publicly, citing portions of Vatican II as their justification.

Why didn't the pope put a stop to it?

That may be one of the most difficult questions of all. And that question can be asked of both Pope Paul VI and John Paul II - they both lamented the problems in the Church, but then they both continued to make practical decisions that only exacerbated the problem.

I sense another topic coming up for discussion.

The conciliar popes? Sure. They're a huge part of this, as is the role of Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of Saint Pius X that sought to counter-act the revolution.

Ok, maybe we'll hit those subjects some other time then.

Whenever you're ready.

Discussions on Traditionalism: The Council

So you were going to tell me a few things about Vatican II and why you oppose it.

I think it would be inaccurate to say that I "oppose" the council.

But you believe it was a bad thing for the Church, right?

I think the evidence proves that the results of how the Council was implemented are unquestionably bad. The raw data does not lie.

And what raw data is that?

Kenneth Jones wrote a book in 2003 called Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II - and in this little book he pulled together and reported on all the data that describes what's been happening in the Church since the council.

Without going into every single boring statistic, I'll just throw a few major figures out there:

1) The number of priests in the US is down 35% (and steadily declining)

2) The number of new ordinations in the US is down 70%

3) The number of men studying for the priesthood is down 90% (and thus, 60% of the seminaries have closed their doors)

4) The number of nuns went down 60%

5) Catholic Marriages are down 30%

6) Annulments, on the other hand, are up by the unbelievable rate of 14,700%

7) Attendance at Mass is down 50%

8) The number of conversions (adult baptisms) is down 35%

In addition to those grim numbers, consider these facts about the Modern Church: 90% of Catholics think contraception is ok; 53% of Catholics think abortion is ok; 77% of Catholics think not going to Mass on Sunday is ok.

Wow! What's happening to the Catholic Church?

I think it's safe to say that the Church since the council is deteriorating at an incredible rate. In fact, I know it's safe to say this, because I'm only repeating the words of Pope Paul VI himself. In 1968, just three years after the close of the council, he gave a speech at the Lombard Seminary in Rome, and he said:

The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-destruction. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the council ... It is as if the Church were destroying herself. (Pope Paul VI, Address to the Lombard Seminary of Dec. 7, 1968, printed in L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1968)

If the pope can say that the Church is in the process of "self-destruction" and "attacking itself," certainly I can echo that same sentiment - and the numbers are there to substantiate that claim.

I can see that.

And Pope Paul VI wasn't the only one who publicly admitted that the council was a failure.

Fr. Louis Bouyer, who was certainly in favor of the council, and was in fact invited to attend the council as a peritus (an "expert" who served as a theological advisor), wrote:

Unless we are blind, we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition. (Louis Bouyer, The decomposition of Catholicism [Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1969], p. 3)

And no less an authority than our current pope, when he was still a Cardinal in 1984, said that the results of the council seemed

... cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone ... expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which - to use the words of Pope Paul VI - seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction ... we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part precisely under the sign of a calling back to the Council ... The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church. (Cardinal Ratzinger in L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 24, 1984; quoted in Michael Davies, "God Bless Archbishop Lefebvre!", The Angelus, November 1985, Vol. VIII/11)

And remember, Ratzinger, like Bouyer, was at the council as a peritus, and all in favor of the council. So basically everyone who was in a position to know what was going on, from the inside, says the same thing: the council was a disaster.

So what does this mean for you?

It means I'm going to steer clear of the council and anything that resulted from the council (including the New Mass). If the pope himself looks and says, "the Church is in a process of self-demolition," and I see that the undeniable trend in the Modern Church is loss of faith and holiness, then I need to find a safe harbor until this storm is over.

"Storm" is one way to put it. "Crisis" is another way to put it, as our current pope actually did put it some years ago. Listen again to what he says, and how he ties the crisis in precisely with the liturgy:

I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of ... as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us ... the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so. (quoted in Paul Likoudis, "Cardinal Ratzinger Blames Church Crisis on Liturgical Collapse", The Wanderer, May 8, 1997)

Let's go back to the council, though. You never did explain how it is that you don't "oppose" the council. It sounds to me like you oppose it very much!

Here's the question, though: which teaching of the council, solemnly promulgated and proposed for the assent of faith, do I reject or oppose?

None of them. Because there are none.

That's the trick of this whole deception! It was an Ecumenical (in the sense of "worldwide," not in the sense of "put aside all your religious differences") Council of the Church, and under normal circumstances those councils are infallible. But under normal circumstances, those councils define very clearly some proposition to be believed as a dogma; and then they state the reverse of the dogma and say, "if anyone believes this, he is accursed."

So you see, the other 20 councils of the Church all explicitly taught and defined some dogma, and required it to be accepted as part of the faith. Vatican II simply did not do that.

How can a council come together for three years and not teach anything?

Oh, the council documents have plenty to say - no doubt. But nothing in those documents is explicitly defined, or proposed as a dogma - and it goes without saying that there are no anathemas in there either. So I can't really be accused of being a "Vatican II heretic" if there are no anathemas in the council.

You know what I mean? The Council of Trent said, for example, "if you don't believe that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist, you're a heretic" (I'm paraphrasing, of course); but Vatican II never once says, "if you don't believe that the Muslims worship the same God as we do, you're a heretic," or, "if you don't believe that holding ecumenical services with Protestants is right, you're a heretic."

The council defined nothing, and it anathematized nothing.

So what did it do, then? It must have done something, if it caused all this trouble.

Yes, it did. It promulgated 16 documents - which, I think it was Michael Davies who cynically referred to them as "sixteen essays" - that wax quite poetic on a number of subjects. The problem is that the documents are so ambiguous and imprecise that you walk away doing one of two things: either you're scratching your head and thinking, "huh?", or you're walking away with a vaguely warm and comfortably fuzzy feeling about religion - which probably means you weren't reading it carefully.

You said earlier that the New Mass' biggest problem was that it's ambiguous - now you're saying that Vatican II was ambiguous as well?

What, are you beginning to sense a theme?

Pope St. Pius X wrote an encyclical against Modernism in 1907 called Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and he said in this encyclical - and I'm really paraphrasing here - that the fastest way to unmask a modernist is to get his opinion on the scholasticism championed by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Modernists hate scholasticism. St. Pius X said - no paraphrasing this time - that Modernists "show ... contempt for scholasticism," that they "recognise that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church," that they "have only ridicule and contempt" for scholastic philosophy and theology, and finally, that "the passion for novelty is always united in [Modernists] with hatred of scholasticism." (Pascendi, 41-42)

Then he says what I alluded to a moment ago:

... there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for this system [of scholasticism]. (Pascendi, 42)

Why the Modernist hatred for scholasticism? This gets to your question about ambiguity. Scholasticism is precise. It doesn't leave big question marks or room for a thousand varying interpretations. Modernism literally thrives and feeds on ambiguity.

Again, St. Pius X put it best, when he condemned the Modernists in France:

[Our Apostolic Mandate] requires ... that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in the pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are none the less nefarious ... such are even today the theories of the Sillon which ... are all too often wanting in clarity, logic and truth. (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1)

You don't have to read too far into the Vatican II documents before you find precisely this "dynamic language" which conceals "vague notions and ambiguous expressions with ... high-sounding words," but which most definitely lacks "clarity [and] logic."

So the council was Modernist?

It certainly appears that way from the outside. Probably a more accurate way to say it is this: there was a large faction in the council made up of Modernist bishops and/or bishops who were too trusting of their Modernist periti, to whom they turned for answers. The result is that these 16 documents are loaded with ambiguous phrases which may at first glance look Catholic, but on second glance could actually support a liberal interpretation. The reverse is also true: some phrases look blatantly liberal at first pass, but the more you look, you realize you could understand it in a Catholic way.

And that was entirely on purpose.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx was yet another liberal peritus at the council, and he once said something that revealed both the purpose of the ambiguities, as well as the critical role played by the periti:

We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards. (quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

So the liberals at the council snuck a few things into the documents in an underhanded way? You're saying they fooled everyone?

Some were probably fooled by the ambiguities, thinking, "that sounds strange, but I guess it could be interpreted in a Catholic sense"; some were not fooled, but they were in the minority and were simply out-voted.

So much for your idea of the infallible ecumenical council then!

Whoa, there. Who said anything about the council teaching positive error?

Well, come on - all these ambiguities being sneaked in under the cover of deceit ... I thought the Holy Spirit protected the Church from stuff like that.

The Holy Spirit did protect the Church from Vatican II. With all of those liberals at the council, how on earth do you think the council managed to run its course without once promulgating as dogma some heresy?

The Holy Spirit showed His protection for the Church in this case in a very unforeseen manner: by ensuring that the council would not be a dogmatic council at all.

What's that mean? How can a council be anything but dogmatic?

Well, this is definitely a first, that's for sure. With the previous 20 councils it was assumed that they were being held for the purposes of defining dogma. That's what a council is for. But there really was no purpose for Vatican II.

Cardinal Pellavicini once expressed a very wise sentiment when he said, "To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (quoted in New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1)

So this council was entirely different from the rest. It was called at a time when the Church was doing well, when conversions were up, vocations were on the rise, etc. There was no pressing need, and the one dominant heresy of the age (Communism) wasn't even condemned at the council!

Anyway, we were talking about how a council can be non-dogmatic, and I guess I'm saying that it's a strange contradiction - because "council" is synonymous with "dogmatic" in a lot of ways.

Then why are you saying it wasn't dogmatic?

Because that's what the pope and council fathers said. Once again, I'm not inventing things here, I'm just repeating what the ecclesiastical authorities have said.

Cardinal Felici said at the council:

We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters [of the council documents] those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations. (quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, online source)

"We have to make reservations"?

What else are you going to do? Some of these teachings had a "novel character" about them, but since they were not dogmatically defined ... what are the faithful supposed to do?

Why do you keep saying that these teachings were not dogmatically defined?

Because that's what the popes said who ran the council. John XXIII opened the council and said this at his opening speech:

The Church has always opposed ... errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations ... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. (John XXIII, Opening Speech at the Council, Oct. 11, 1962)

According to Pope John, the council had no intention of condemning anything, but only of "demonstrating the validity" of the Church's teaching by revising "the way in which it is presented." So he labeled the council as "pastoral."

Then, in the year immediately following the council, Pope Paul VI (who closed the council and promulgated its 16 documents) said this at a General Audience:

There are those who ask what authority ... the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium ... given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. (Pope Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966)

There's that word again: "pastoral."

Yes, and here Pope Paul VI sets "pastoral" in contrast to dogmatic - he said the Council "avoided pronouncing ... dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility."

No dogmatic pronouncements. No exercise of the charism of infallibility. Just 16 documents that very ambiguously re-packaged the teaching of the Church, sometimes doing so with a "novel character," about which we must "make reservations."

So this is how you can say you don't oppose the council.

I can't oppose what hasn't been proposed first. These 16 essays are riddled with obscurities and equivocations, so that's the first problem: someone would have to go through the whole council and formulate, with some precision, exactly what these statements mean and what exactly is being proposed; then the pope would have to make it clear that these things were being defined dogmatically, and that anyone who refused to believe them is a heretic.

But I can't be accused of rejecting something that hasn't even been defined.

Ok, this is a lot of extra information to digest, so let me deal with this first, and then we'll talk about some of the specific problems with Vatican II - I want to see proof of some of these "ambiguities" you keep talking about.

As you like it.