Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke Endorse Radical Traditionalists

Cardinals George Pell and Raymond Burke

Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal Raymond Burke are among two of the most well known and influential cardinals in the Catholic Church.  Cardinal Pell, former archbishop of Sydney, Australia, is currently the Prefect of the newly created Secretariat for the Economy.  Cardinal Raymond Burke is a canon lawyer and former archbishop of LaCrosse Wisconsin and St. Louis, Missouri and former head of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest Court in the Catholic Church.  He is currently patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke joined forces last year with three other cardinals when they wrote a book defending against Cardinal Walter Kasper's call for communion to the divorced and remarried.  

It seems Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke have once again joined forces. Both have written letters in support of the 23rd Annual Summer Symposium of the Roman Forum. Below are the letters:

The "Dr. Rao" to whom Cardinal Pell's letter is directed is Dr. John Rao, an associate professor of history at St. John's College in Queens, New York. He is also head of The Roman Forum founded in 1968 by Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, and whose headquarters is now at Dr. Rao's office in Greenwich Village. I have personally met Dr. Rao and attended several of his lectures. He is no slouch. He earned a D.Phil. in Modern European History from Oxford University, and has done extensive writing and speaking.

Dr. Rao is a prime example of why it is so easy to get sucked into the message of radical traditionalism.  Dr. Rao is no kook.  He is a highly educated and highly intelligent individual.  He speaks to the real issues of our time.  And he seems to give real answers to the problems.  

Except that he doesn't.

Dr. John Rao
Credit:  catholicidentityconference.com

Catholics Leaving The Church and The Need for Vatican II: Part 2

Credit:  salesianity.blogspot.com

In the first part of this post [HERE], I wrote about the crisis in the Catholic Church here in the West in which so many have left the Church in the last 50 years.   No one can point to any one reason for this crisis.  Western society in general has become spiritually and morally depraved, and it is inevitable that the Church has been infected to one degree or another.  But as I pointed out in my post, we need to look at the pre-conciliar Church and how and what was taught to the laity.  I showed that on the local level, the pre-concilar Church taught about  the evil of sin, but not enough about the love and mercy of God.

As a result, many of us were taught an unhealthy fear of a God who must be appeased before he struck us down for stepping out of line in even the slightest way. We never came to really know the great loving and merciful God who created us and poured His Life out on the Cross to save us from death. I was one of those who left in that time, and as I wrote, I left because the Church had become a burden to me. I had come to see God as a bogeyman out to get me. At age 14 I rejected a life of fear as I had come to know it and, like millions of others, that meant rejecting the Catholic Church

It is vital that the Church teach about sin and the consequences thereof, both physical and spiritual. But to discuss sin WITHOUT discussing the love and mercy of God is actually dangerous. This can lead to fundamentalist thinking in which obedience to rules and law is an end in itself, and the love of God and of neighbor is forgotten.

It was from this kind of thinking that much abuse originated in the Catholic Church. In the pre-concilar Church era  it was common to hear about abusive nuns and priests who would slap a child for the slightest, often unintentional infraction. This would at times escalate, and then we had the following as described in an article from TIME Magazine [HERE], regarding the abuse in Irish Catholic schools in the 1950's:

James Quinn and his classmates called it the blackjack — five layers and 18 in. (46 cm) of leather, studded with coins and other metal objects. The priests at the school Quinn attended in rural Ireland in the 1950s each carried a blackjack and used it, along with bamboo rods and other objects, to dole out almost daily beatings to hundreds of children. "Whatever class you went to, you got a beating from whoever was in charge," says Quinn, now 70. "But knowing what other people went through, I know I was one of the lucky ones."

Catholics Leaving The Church and the Need for Vatican II: Part 1

Credit:  www.thelocal.de

When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's, Catholic churches were packed every week for Sunday Mass. There were 5 to 6 Masses or more, and the pews were filled for all of them. There were long lines for confession on Saturday. Many Catholics defined their lives by their neighborhood parish.

However, as we are all well aware, all churches in western society, including Catholic churches, have been emptying out for the past 50 years. Religious belief and practice now play a very minor role, if any role at all, in most lives. Many conservative and traditional Catholics say it is not rocket science to figure out what happened in the Catholic Church. These people tell us that before Vatican II, when people were held to a "stricter standard" and "knew" Church teachings, the Church was strong. Then the Second Vatican Council happened, which many feel watered down Church teachings, and that caused a mass exodus out of the Church.

A typical response to the situation was laid out by Father John Zuhlsdorf, who did a blog post in August 2013 entitled, "Institutional collapse: a fruit of Vatican II?" [HERE]. Father Z quotes from an article by Louie Verrecchio, a bomb throwing traditionalist who writes his own blog entitled "Harvesting the Fruit of the Vatican II" and who has all but completely denounced Pope Francis as a heretic. In fact, a couple of weeks ago Verrecchio called for the bishops to denounce Pope Francis as a heretic and recently posted an article on his blog entitled, "Pope Francis Hates the Catholic Faith". That should tell you everything you need to know.

In any event. Verrecchio based his article cited by Father Z on another article written by Dr. Ralph Martin who succinctly describes the current situation of the Catholic Church in the West:

"There is something like an institutional collapse going on, evidenced by the vast numbers of schools closing, parishes merging, clustering and closing and the multiple assignments that many young priests now are asked to manage. Besides the institutional collapse, there is evidence of a widespread repudiation of the teaching of Christ and the Church by vast numbers of Catholics."

Verrecchio agreed with Dr. Martin's assessment but complained that "he [Dr. Martin] leaves the disease undiagnosed."

Verrechio then gives us his diagnosis:

With the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment, the subsequent anti-religion rebellion of the French Revolution, and the profound intellectual rejection of the Christian worldview symbolized by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, forces were unleashed in Western culture that eventually led to not only a repudiation of the church-state relationships that had evolved over many centuries but a repudiation of religion itself as a legitimate shaper of culture.

What Martin leaves unaddressed is the degree to which these “intellectual currents” were unleashed, not only in Western culture at the hands of determined secularists, but in the very heart of Catholicism via the Second Vatican Council at the hands of determined churchmen.

Karl Rahner Was Right: The Changing Face of Catholicism

There is an interesting psychological phenomenon that was identified in 1972 called "Groupthink". Wikipedia [HERE] gives us the definition:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Social Psychologist Irving Janis is responsible for identifying groupthink.  Janis gave eight symptoms of groupthink, as follows:

Type I: Over estimations of the group — its power and morality

• Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

• Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

• Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

• Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

• Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

• Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

• Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"

• Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Vatican II: A Case of Selective Hearing

Songwriter Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song in the 1960's called "The Boxer", which has some great lines it.  For purposes of this posting, I point out the following line:

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.  

As far as being a Catholic is concerned, this statement is never truer than when discussing the Second Vatican Council and the ramifications therefrom. Father John Zuhlsdorf recently linked to an article from almost five years ago concerning a letter from Bishop R. Walker Nickless. The article was originally posted on Lifesitenews.com and is entitled "Sioux City Bishop Calls for 'Exorcism' of  'Spirit of Vatican II'".  You can read Father Z's post here. The article refers to the 17-page letter written by Bishop Nickless in 2009. He was the then-newly appointed bishop of that diocese, and this was his first letter as bishop.

Father Z's readers saw this and read it as a bishop condemning Vatican II and all that came from it, despite the fact that this was not in any way the intention of Bishop Nickless. Here is the first part of the article as posted by Father Z (the comments in red are his):

Bp. Nickless (D. Sioux City): we must “exorcize” the “spirit of Vatican II”

Posted on 31 May 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have mentioned Bishop Nickless of Sioux City before.

This is from LifeSite:

Sioux City Bishop Calls for “Exorcism” of “Spirit of Vatican II”

By Kathleen Gilbert

SIOUX CITY, Iowa, October 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholics must learn to “exorcise” the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” to end the secularization that has “wreaked havoc” on the Church since the Council, says Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Notice that this very clearly says that the Bishop feels "the spirit of Vatican II" needs to be exorcised, which is not Vatican II itself.  Yet the comments left by readers make it very clear that they completely disregard the words of the Bishop and equate the "spirit" of Vatican II with the Council.  Even the few excerpts from the article made it clear that this was not what His Excellency was saying.  The next two paragraphs as quoted by Father Z make that very plain.   The words in bold are from Father Z's post:

In a pastoral letter issued Thursday to the lay and religious of his diocese, Nickless wrote that he has “no other desire” than to see the reforms of Vatican II implemented properly. However, he said, “It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council.”

The “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” under the guise of the “spirit of Vatican II,” sees “the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past,” explained the bishop. However, “There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council.”

This makes it very plain that the Bishop does not believe that Vatican II constitutes a break with the past or a "rupture" in Church teaching. He plainly says that those who teach such are teaching falsehoods. The LifesiteNews article continues, and unless the reader is careful, he can continue to read this as Bishop Nickless condemning the Vatican II council:

This “hermeneutic of discontinuity,” said Nickless, “emphasizes the ‘engagement with the world’ to the exclusion of the deposit of faith.”

“This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world,” he said.  “The Church that seeks simply what works or is ‘useful’ in the end becomes useless.”

It is important to note that Bishop Nickless is not condemning Vatican II as "systematically dismantling that Catholic Faith", but blames the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity." As quoted above, His Excellency believes that "There can be no split … between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."

The article was so old that the link to the Bishop's original letter was broken.  Fortunately, one of Father Z's readers provided a working link, and therefore we are able to read the Bishop's entire letter, which is here.  Other than the one reader posting a working link, none of Father's Z's readers seem to question the broken link and are presumably not interested in reading the actual letter.  Father Z originally posted about this letter in 2009, and he quoted from the letter at that time, so I don't understand why he did not correct his readers who got it so wrong, as can be seen from their comments.

Here are some of the comments to Father Z's blog:

1. Gratias says:

   31 May 2013 at 10:45 am

   The Church has been taken over by the outside world and they still are not pleased with us. V2 was a rupture and a mistake.
   
   

   
2. Bob B. says:

   31 May 2013 at 12:48 pm

   I’ll bet Fishwrap is having a fit right about now.
   
   
3. backtothefuture says:

   31 May 2013 at 2:42 pm

   We need to exorcise the whole council on the whole.
   
   
4. Catholic Johnny says:
5. 31 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

   Your Excellence, this may be a little more difficult than you think. We have an obstacle in the way of your much needed suggestion: Pope John Paul “the great”:

   “Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…”

   This, Bishop Nickless is THE ‘spirit of Vatican II’.
   Kyrie Eleison!
6. 
7. Nancy D. says:

   2 June 2013 at 10:51 am

   Vatican II is a rupture because it made the erroneous claim that the Jews and the Moslems worship the same God as we do, when the fact is, we, who are Catholic, worship The True God, The God of our Salvation, Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Holy Trinity, for “God so Loved us, that He sent His Only Son…”.

   God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. There Is only One Spirit of Love Between The Father and The Son.

I find all of these comments to be very disconcerting. Unlike Bishop Nickless, who is attacking the false "Spirit of Vatican II", these comments are attacking the Council itself. None of these readers seem to understand Bishop Nicklass' message. I won't accuse Father Z of encouraging these kind of comments, but I do question why he let these comments stand without some response or correction.

The 17-page letter from Bishop Nickless is actually a wonderful teaching tool as to the real meaning of Vatican II and why it has not borne the anticipated fruit of its founding fathers.

Would Bishop Nickless agree that "V2 was a rupture and a mistake"? Hardly. This is what he wrote in his letter:

I studied and was ordained a deacon and priest during the exciting, almost intoxicating, time of the Second Vatican Council. I am thoroughly a product of that momentous time, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries. It has formed the context and culture of my entire ministerial life. Like Pope John Paul the Great, I have no other desire for my ministry than seeing the hopes and reforms of the Second Vatican Council fully implemented and brought to fruition.

Portions of this excerpt were included in the Lifesite news article, but Father Z did not use these quotes. If he had used these quotes, would Father Z's readers still make such comments as: "Wow, what a great Bishop!" or "Please, dear papal nuncio, Cardinal Ouellet and Pope Francis, we need a few more bishops like this guy!"  Something tells me that their sentiments would be very different if they realized that this is how His Excellency actually views Vatican II.  

As can also be seen from the above quote, Bishop Nickless has great admiration and respect for Blessed John Paul II (who was not a Blessed at the time this letter was written), even calling him "Pope John Paul the Great."  Unlike "Catholic Johnny" above, Bishop Nickless sees Blessed John Paul as anything but an "obstacle."

Bishop Nickless quoted from Blessed John XXIII's opening sermon at the Council:

In opening the Council, Blessed John stated that the “greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council” was twofold: “that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be [both] guarded and taught more efficaciously.” Later in the speech, he elaborated on this: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.” The teachings of the Church, our identity and culture as Catholics, must be loved and guarded, yet brought forth and taught in a way understandable to the modern world. 

Bishop Nickless goes on to explain how this is what the "New Evangelization" is all about.  The substance of the Church's teaching is not new, but the way in which it is presented to a changing world is new.  This is the heart and soul of the meaning of Vatican II, and this was the driving force of the pontificate of Blessed John Paul II:

Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul the Great constantly preached the same thing in calling for a “New Evangelization” of the faithful, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and all those who do not know Jesus Christ or the Church. This New Evangelization was to be “new not in content but in ardor, methods, and expression.”  It is readily apparent from his teaching and ministry that for Pope John Paul the Great, the New Evangelization was the true fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the Council was the beginning and blueprint for evangelization in the modern world. He explicitly stated this as his particular mission at the time of his election, and he lived it to the end.  He spent his entire pontificate interpreting and implementing the Council’s documents according to the light of the Holy Spirit, given in virtue of his office, amid the changing circumstances of the Church and the world.

Bishop Nickless readily admits that something has gone terribly wrong since Vatican II.   He quotes from Pope Benedict XVI:

The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or—as we would say today—on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarreled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

Bishop Nickless is telling us that the false "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" has been the root of the crisis in the Church and has presented a false interpretation of Vatican II:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject – Church – which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the postconciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council.

Bishop Nickless quotes extensively from Pope Benedict XVI and says:

the “spirit of Vatican II” must be found only in the letter of the documents themselves. The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work.

Coincidentally, Michael Voris just released a Vortex video, which you can watch here, regarding comments made by Cardinal Walter Kaspar who has suddenly come to the conclusion that the Vatican II documents were purposely made ambiguous as a result of "compromise forumlas" which "open the door to a selective reception in either direction."  Michael Voris finds this "admission" by Cardinal Kaspar to be "stunning, absolutely stunning" . . . "that the (Vatican II) documents were deliberately written in such a way to please everyone and cause confusion and conflict."  Hmmmm.  That is not what Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa said, nor is it what Pope Benedict XVI has said, or even our current Holy Father, Pope Francis, who called the Council "a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit" in a homily on April 16 of this year (you can read an article about this homily here).

Quote from Cardinal Kaspar

Michael Voris, to bolster his position, goes on to quote from Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. From the Vortex video:

About two years ago – a very well respected bishop .. Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan was addressing a large group of bishops and cardinals in Rome. He suggested that the time has come for a Syllabus of Errors to be published by the Holy Father clearing up the misinterpretations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council which have become so rampant.

Bishop Schneider

You can read the address by Bishop Schneider here.  You will see that he quotes extensively from Vatican II documents and in a very positive light.  Bishop Schneider give us basically the same argument as that of Bishop Nickless:  Vatican II has been grossly misinterpreted, and that has been the cause of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider has only praise for the true intentions of Vatican II, as can be seen in the following quotes:

According to an expression of Blessed Pope John XXIII in the speech given at the final general congregation of the first session of the Council, December 7, 1962, the one purpose of the Council and the one hope and confidence of the Pope and the Council Fathers consists in this: “To make ever more known to the men of our time the Gospel of Christ, that it be practiced willingly and that it penetrate deeply into every aspect of society.” (loc. cit., pp. 881-882). Can there be a more authentic and more Catholic pastoral principle and method than this?

Bishop Schneider explains what he feels are the reasons we have not seen greater fruit from Vatican II:

In substance, there were two impediments against the true intention of the Council and its Magisterium bearing abundant and lasting fruits. One was found outside the Church, in the violent process of cultural and social revolution in the 1960s, which, like every powerful social phenomenon, penetrated within the Church, contaminating vast ranges of people and institutions with its spirit of rupture. The other impediment showed itself in the lack of wise and intrepid Pastors of the Church who would be ready to defend the purity and integrity of the faith and of the liturgical and pastoral life, not letting themselves be influenced either by praise or by fear (“nec laudibus, nec timore”).

Bishop Schneider sums up his position on Vatican II in his final statement:

Thus there truly is the need for a conciliar Syllabus with doctrinal value, and moreover there is need to increase the number of holy, courageous pastors, profoundly rooted in the tradition of the Church, free from any type of mentality of rupture whether in the field of doctrine or of liturgy. In fact, these two elements constitute the indispensable condition so that doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral confusion may diminish notably and the pastoral work of the Second Vatican Council may bear many and lasting fruits in the spirit of tradition, which joins us with the spirit that reigns at all times, everywhere, and in all true children of the Catholic Church, which is the one and the true Church of God on the earth.

I have shown in previous posts that Michael Voris tends to make very misleading statements, but I think he has outdone himself this time when he invokes Bishop Schneider to back up his argument that Vatican II has been the source of the crisis in the Church.  Bishop Schneider would be the first disagree with Voris.

Interestingly, Father Z posted in regard to the Vortex video about the Vatican II documents.  Father Z starts out his post by writing, "I will remind the readership that in the greater arc of the Church’s history, Vatican II wasn’t all that important."  He writes further, "Vatican II has taken on a kind of mythic importance in the identity of many Catholics of a certain age."  These statements would seem to indicate that Father Z is not in step in his view of Vatican II with Bishop Nickless, whom he had praised just a few days prior, or with any of our recent Popes, including Pope Francis, or with Bishop Schneider, to name just a few good and holy men of the Church, all of whom defend Vatican II and place great importance on it.

Father Z offers his take on Vatican II: "During Vatican II, after many of the working drafts and schemata were junked, committees and subcommittees, working under pressure and time constraints, cobbled the documents together.  Is it any wonder that the documents have some problems?"  I guess Father Z doesn't give much importance to the influence of the Holy Spirit.

So Father Z agrees with Voris that there are problems with the documents in Vatican II.  Again, he would not seem to be in step with any of the post-conciliar Popes or with Bishop R. Walker Nickless or with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  It should be noted that in January 2011, Father Z praised Bishop Schneider and even did a podcast on the aforementioned speech, which can be found here.  Yet, Father Z's statements in this last post would seem to be at odds with those of Bishop Schneider.  It all gets quite confusing.

Again, the comments to Father Z's post are more enlightening than the actual post.  The following comment is typical of many that were posted, and to which Father Z made no response:

Johnno says:

4 June 2013 at 3:43 pm

There’s a false equivalence here between Vatican II and previous councils.

Previous Councils sought to clarify and nail down certain things and reduce ambguity as much as possible.

Vatican II’s purpose, according to the testimony of those who were involved, seemed primarily set on the objective to purposely further ambiguity and water down the Catholic faith so as to somehow trick Protestants and the world into imagining that they could find common ground with us and therefore join in… An idea so ill-conceivably and amazingly stupid that it makes far more sense to reach the conclusion that the architects of Vatican II didn’t seek to clarify Catholicism or explain ambguities and answer divisive topics like other councils, but rather to destroy tenets of the Catholic Church itself so that it would join the modern world in all its glorious progress.

Regardless of however you want to see it, Vatican II’s supposed goals were never met and are colossal failures, and the only reason we continue to try and find some light in its darkness is to avoid responsibility for it. That and stubborn pride. Whatever good we do salvage from it is likely God making lemonade from the lemons we fostered upon His Church.

The bottom line is this:  All of the Holy Fathers in the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century have told us that Vatican II was an important council and a good and holy council.  The purpose of this council was to aid in spreading the saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a changing world.  Many have tried to hijack this council and make it into something it was never meant to be:  a reform of the Church.  If we try to belittle the council or worse, condemn it, we have fallen into the trap of Satan himself.  

Pope Francis

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholicculture.org wrote a brilliant post in regard to the previously mentioned April 16 address by Pope Francis in which he said that the Council "is a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit."  From Dr. Mirus:

Just as the Modernists ignore the Magisterium as a relic of the past, replacing it with the spirit of the current age, the Traditionalists ignore the contemporary Magisterium, replacing it with the spirit of some previous age. But please note that these descriptions are not perfect, and that one can have a fairly liberal or a fairly conservative outlook without really crossing the line into either camp. If we agree that the actual Conciliar texts are a great gift of the Holy Spirit for authentic Catholic renewal, it is safe to say we are in neither group. But in any case, the Pope rebukes both groups, insisting that the Council was a wholly legitimate and continuous growth or development of the Church, which everyone is bound to accept and act upon:

Everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it…. The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit…. But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council?

Pope Francis, in other words, has the same view of the Council as his predecessors, which is really the only properly Catholic view. The same points were made by Paul VI; and by John Paul II; and by Benedict XVI. Every pope since the Council has insisted upon its faithful implementation. And yet too many of us still find ourselves either in one camp or the other, or else we are all too willing to accept things as they are, and to make a comfortable ecclesiastical place for ourselves in the status quo. Indeed, how many churchmen themselves fall into this more universal third category?

We need to turn off all of the chaos and clamor around us and even our own deceptive voices and open our minds and hearts to the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to guide us into all truth.

Credit:  thesestonewalls.com

Pope Paul VI To Be Declared Venerable

Pope Paul VI

I just recently saw the headline that Pope Paul VI is to be declared venerable on December 20.  I searched around the Internet to look for commentary on this story, and surprisingly at first found next to nothing.  The following is from Romereports.com and repeated on several different websites:

December 14, 2012. (Romereports.com) (-VIDEO ONLY-) On December 20, Benedict XVI will declare former Pope Paul VI venerable. Cardinals belonging to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints approved on December 10 a report on the heroic virtues of Paul VI.

The former Pope had a very important role in the Second Vatican Council. The acceptance of his heroic virtues falls exactly 50 years since the start of the Second Vatican Council.

The beatification of Pope John Paul II caused no small controversy in the Church.  More than a few of my traditional Catholic friends had some serious problems with it, feeling John Paul II had not been faithful to the teachings of the Church.  Many Traditionalists feel even more strongly that Pope Paul VI was the cause of many evils in the Church because of, among other things, his introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass in 1969.

At first I didn't see any reaction from the Catholic blogosphere on this story, but now the first rumblings are starting to emerge with a posting from A Reluctant Sinner which can be found here.  Many felt that the beatification of John Paul II was basically a political move on the part of the Vatican, and A Reluctant Sinner seems to feel this is also true in regard to Pope Paul VI:

The near infallible Andre Tornielli ('Vatican Insider',La Stampa) reported last week that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints has “given the go ahead for [Pope] Paul VI’s beatification.” On 10 December, it seems that the Congregation’s cardinals and bishops voted unanimously in favour of recognising the ‘heroic virtues’ of Giovanni Battista Montini -- who was Pope from 1963-78.

This means it is highly likely that Pope Benedict XVI will now promulgate a decree of heroic virtues, granting the Conciliar and post-Conciliar Pope Paul the title ‘Venerable’. It is expected that the Holy Father will issue this decree on or soon after 20 December, when he is next scheduled to meet Cardinal Angelo Amato, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

According to Tornielli, Pope Benedict XVI is very keen to beatify his predecessor before the end of the Year of Faith, which closes on the Feast of Christ the King 2013. The Italian Vaticanologist explains that 2013 marks the 50th anniversary of Montini’s election as Pope and is also the 35th anniversary of his death. He also reports that there are already two miracles attributed to Pope Paul VI’s intercession – one involving the healing of an unborn child and the other the miraculous and unexplained restoration to health of a nun who had a tumour.

It is my understanding that when the Pope beatifies or canonizes someone, this is an act of infallibility, not a calculated political move.  We may not understand or intellectually accept what the Pope does, but the fact is that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Vicar of Christ to mislead the Church.  We either believe this or we don't.  Mt. 16:19 tells us this: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.."

This being the case, I'm not quite sure how Reluctant Sinner can make the following statement:

Though no expert in the rather eccentric[?] field of canonisation [thank you for this admission], I am a bit uneasy at the way modern popes seem obsessed with raising their immediate predecessors to the Altars [and as a lay person, it matters what you think because . . .?]. It makes me think of the Roman Emperors, who would more often than not deify the Caesar who had been reigning just before them. Sometimes, and for the sake of decency, then, I feel it might be better to be a bit less hasty about these things – there is nothing wrong in waiting centuries before declaring someone a saint. Fast-track beatifications and canonisations can, sometimes at least, prove to be a source of confusion.

St. Gregory the Great

Hmmm.   Canonization is an "eccentric field"?  Plus, I have to admit, I'm very uncomfortable with comparing the Vicar of Christ beatifying his predecessor with Roman Emperors deifying Caesar.  Is it really the job of the laity to offer our opinion about what the Pope should do "for the sake of decency" and that we feel "it might be better to be a bit less hasty about these things"?  Reluctant Sinner feels "there is nothing wrong in waiting centuries before declaring someone a saint."  I wonder how Reluctant Sinner would have felt had he been alive at the time of the canonization of St. Anthony of Padua, who was canonized less than a year after his death, or St. Gregory the Great, who was declared a saint on the day of his death.  Does Reluctant Sinner feel these were "sources of confusion"?

After offering these opinions, Reluctant Sinner admits that he knows very little about "Montini" as he refers to Pope Paul VI.  (I find it interesting that those who are critical of popes will often refer to them using their surnames instead of their papal titles, a practice I find very disrespectful):

I do not know much about Montini. To be honest, I have never really felt the urge to seek his heavenly intercession, and I don't know many who have. What did he do that was so saintly, bar being pope, which is not a guarantee of personal holiness? Of course, he did publish Humanae Vitae in the face of strong opposition from liberals and modernists in the Church, and he also recognised that Marian devotion had all but disappeared under his watch, and tried correcting this tragic loss. He also appeared to have been a simple man, and a man of prayer.

Is Reluctant Sinner telling us that no one should be beatified or canonized unless he or she is popular among the Church laity?  I didn't realize that was a requirement.  I will admit that it is rather generous of Reluctant Sinner to give some credit to Pope Paul VI for doing a "few" good things, such as publishing Humanae Vitae, which as I have stated on this blog, is arguably the most important document of the 20th Century.

Liturgical abuse which become all too common in the Church

Ah, and now come the arguments I was waiting for.

But, it could be argued that the Church suffered near collapse during his pontificate, as the decrees of the Second Vatican Council were implemented in a way we now know to have been contrary to the real mind of the Church. Liturgical abuses went viral soon after the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI, whilst Marxist ideology and lack of discipline infiltrated se  minaries, and priests and nuns abandoned their vocations in droves. And, of course, traditional Catholics were virtually persecuted within their own Church during Montini's [again using his surname] pontificate, as those attached to the 'old Mass' had to metaphorically take to the catacombs! (I am not suggesting he was behind the purge of the old rite [that's kind of you], just that it seemed most virulent and unchecked during his reign.)

As we know, Paul VI was aware of the chaos that was causing such confusion to the faithful in the 1960s and 70s, which led so many souls out of the Church. He was concerned about the dark clouds that had blackened the post-Conciliar skies. He famously announced, after going into a sort of trance[?] during his homily (see here) for the Feast of St Peter and St Paul 1972, that: ‘By some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered into the Church.’ He therefore knowingly tried to steer the Barque of Peter through some of the stormiest seas the Church has ever seen. Some say he often went off course, whilst others think he did what was needed at the time.

The Magesterium of the
Church has been faithfully
guided by the Holy Spirit
since the first Pentecost

"Some say he went off course"?  Why would we listen to anyone who makes such a statement and, even more to the point, why would you repeat it?  We were promised by our Lord Himself that the Vicar of Christ cannot "go off course."  That is not to say that he cannot personally jump the track, but he can never lead the Church astray.  See above, Matthew 16:19.

Reluctant Sinner goes on to say that "It is a Christian hope that all members of the Church, all the baptised, will one day become saints."  He admits that there are many saints in heaven who are unknown to us on earth. He also says that most souls will have to spend time in Purgatory and that not all men are saved, which is undoubtedly true. But what has all of this to do with the Vicar of Christ declaring someone venerable?

Reluctant Sinner then goes on to give us more of his opinion:

Having said all that, then, I find it odd that nearly every pope from the time of the Second Vatican Council onwards has been fast-tracked to sainthood. Surely, there are holier popes than these -- ones who have been hanging about, waiting for canonisation, or just some form of recognition, for centuries? What about Blessed Urban II, when will he finally be canonised? What about Leo XIII, a great man indeed, or the angelic Venerable Pope Pius XII? And what about all the other saintly bishops, priests, religious, and lay men and women who already have popular cults, but whose canonisation processes have ground to a bureaucratic halt?

Again, this makes it sound like canonization has become a political move rather than an infallible act of the Pope, which I find to be a very disconcerting statement.  It is not the job of the laity to decide who should or should not be canonized.  I believe offering opinions such as these shed no light whatsoever on the subject and serve only to cause more division in the Church.

And now Reluctant Sinner give us what has become the stereotypical description about the state of the Church since Vatican II.

Since Vatican II, the Church has suffered greatly. The past 50 years have brought little light and an awful amount of darkness and distress for the Catholic Church. Surely, then, it seems a little strange to be rushing to raise some men to the Altars whose pontificates were not that great compared to some others. In centuries to come, will it be said that Papa Montini's [Papa Montini?] reign was one of truly happy memory?

Pope Paul VI
wearing Papal Tiara

Who are we, the laity, to decide which pontificates are "greater" than others?  And what's with the disrespectful "Papa Montini" crack?

Even though I labeled it "stereotypical", I certainly agree that the last 50 years of the Church have been a time of great upheaval.  I have done other posts on this blog about what some say is an unprecedented crisis of faith in the Church.

This crisis has produced basically two groups seemingly in direct opposition to one another, but I feel are, in reality, two sides of the same coin.  Progressives see the questioning of authority and the breakdown of traditional beliefs and practices in the Church as a good thing.  They feel it is time to bring the church up to date and more in line with contemporary needs and mores of our modern culture.

Then, of course, there are the "Traditionalists" at the other end of the spectrum who feel that anything that happened from Vatican II on is suspect and almost no one in the Church hierarchy, from the Pope on down, is to be trusted.  Some seem to believe that Our Lord has basically lost control of His own Church.  They may not realize that this is what they are saying, but when we read such commentary as we have seen here from Reluctant Sinner, there can be no other conclusion.  To even suggest that a pope "went off course" is to call Jesus Christ a liar, who told us that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

The unifying factor between these two groups is rejection of authority.

Since we know that the Pope cannot go against the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we have to ask why we have seen all these troubling events.  Why has our Lord allowed these things to happen in the Church?  Why is the Church of 2012 (almost 2013) seemingly so different from the Church of 1962?

I believe that our Lord has given us the answer to this question in the Old Testament, more specifically in the ancient Israelites' journey from Egypt, where they had been held as slaves, to the Promised Land, a land "flowing with milk and honey".

Moses parting the Red Sea

Moses, who was chosen to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, was most definitely a man of God.  Yet the Israelites, under Moses' guidance, were constantly rebelling against God and being punished for it.  The first sign of rebellion among the Israelites happened as soon as they departed from Egypt.  God, under the leadership of Moses, led the Israelites out of Egypt straight to the Red Sea, putting the Israelites between the Red Sea and Pharaoh's army, which was in hot pursuit.

From Exodus 14:

¹⁰ As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians, marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the Lord. ¹¹ They said to Moses, “Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? ¹² Didn’t we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians’? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!”

Now granted, things did not look good for the Israelites.  It looked like their choice was to drown in the Red Sea or be killed by Pharaoh's army.  But remember, they had just seen tremendous miracles that caused Pharaoh to allow them to leave.  They had just gone through the first Passover when the first born of all creatures, both human and animal, in the entire land of Egypt were destroyed by the angel of death, save for the Israelites, who were not touched.  Despite having just seen the Hand of God in freeing them from slavery to the Egyptians, the Israelites started moaning and complaining and accusing Moses, who was chosen by God, of leading them directly to their deaths.

Are we really any different than the ancient Israelites?  Our Lord came down from heaven, took on the form of a man, died and rose from the dead, freed us from slavery to the devil and to our own fallen nature, and gave us the Gift of the Holy Spirit, who is the Third Person of God, to guide, lead and comfort us at all times.  He gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter and all of his successors and promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church.  In 2000 years of history great nations have risen and fallen, and the Church has persevered, always coming through the ashes stronger than before.

Yet, like the Israelites who, as soon as they were faced with difficulty immediately forgot all the Lord had done for them, so we too forget all that the Lord has done for us in the last 2000 years: the great miracles and saints, the unswerving protection and guidance.  We moan and complain and accuse the one chosen and led by the Holy Spirit of basically leading us to our spiritual deaths.

"But," some say, "what about all of the terrible things that have happened in the past 50 years?  Pope Paul VI basically dismantled 2000 years of church history.  And now we're going to canonize this 'Montini' guy?  This is not venerable but scandalous!"

So why would our Lord, who promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, allow so much scandal to occur?

Again, the answer can be found with the ancient Israelites.

Israelites worshiping the golden calf

Shortly after God rescued the Israelites from Pharaoh's army by parting the Red Sea and then drowning Pharaoh and his army in that same Red Sea, Moses went up to Mount Sinai for 40 days to receive the Law of God.  During his absence, the Israelites became restless and not knowing what had happened to Moses, decided to take matters into their own hands.  They made a golden calf and pronounced this the god who had freed them from slavery in Egypt.  They then began partying "like it was 1999," to borrow a phrase, engaging in all kinds of debauchery.  From Exodus 32:

¹⁹ When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. ²⁰ And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

This seems rather odd, that Moses would make the people drink the golden calf, but this says to me that he is saying to them that if they wanted their own god, he would allow them to have it in full force and see what this "god" was really made of, that it was no "god" at all.  Also at this point our Lord was telling Moses that he was ready to destroy all of the Israelites and give the Promised Land to Moses' descendants.  Moses interceded on behalf of the people and God relented.  However, the Israelites still paid a heavy price when Moses sent the Levites through the camp to kill the worst of the sinners - about 3000 people - and the Lord struck the Israelites with a plague, killing even more.

God sent quail on
ancient Israel

A similar thing happened when the Israelites started complaining that they were bored with the manna which the Lord gave them everyday from heaven.  They complained that they wanted meat.  Moses said, okay, you want meat, you'll get it until it comes out of your nostrils.  Numbers 11:

18 The Lord heard you when you wailed, “If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!” Now the Lord will give you meat, and you will eat it. ¹⁹ You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, ²⁰ but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the Lord, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, “Why did we ever leave Egypt?”   

Again, when the Israelites rebelled against God, the answer was to give them exactly what they asked for, to let them see the full consequences of their actions.  They rejected the manna from heaven and wanted their own food instead.  So our Lord gave them what they asked for.

Pope Leo XIII

How does this story about meat and manna and the ancient Israelites relate to the crisis of faith in the Church?  The crisis of faith we now see in the Church is not something that just spontaneously occurred after Vatican II.  This crisis of faith can be defined by the term "Modernism".  Wikipedia actually has a pretty good definition:  "Modernism refers to theological opinions expressed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but with influence reaching into the 21st century, which are characterized by a break with the past. Catholic modernists form an amorphous group. The term "modernist" appears in Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis."  Modernism has been a creeping infection in the Church for over 100 years, and is something that Popes have been speaking out against since the time of Pope Leo XIII in the 1800's.  As noted, Pope Pius X wrote the famous encyclical, PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS in 1907 warning about the dangers of Modernism.  Pope St. Pius X also was the one who instituted the oath against modernism which all priests were required to take until the time of Pope Paul VI.  All of the popes up to the time of Vatican II warned about and fought against this terrible scourge that has afflicted so much of the church.

So why have the Popes since the time of Vatican II seemingly dismantled all that their predecessors did in fighting the terrible spiritual disease of Modernism?  Why did Pope Paul VI introduced a New Mass?  Why did Pope Paul VI drop the requirement that priests take an oath against Modernism?  Why did Pope John Paul II allow communion in the hand, altar girls, etc?  Why have we seen so many Catholics actively rebelling against Church authority and still calling themselves "Catholic?"

From Pope St. Pius X

The disease of Modernism, despite the best efforts of the Vatican, had run rampant through many seminaries.  It came into full bloom and infected the laity in 1968 with the publication  of Humanae Vitae, as I wrote in my post about Vatican II, which you can read here.  When soon-to-be Venerable Pope Paul VI released Humanae Vitae and told the Church and the world in no uncertain terms that the use of birth control was and is a mortal sin, subjecting our souls to eternal damnation, there was a major revolt among both the clergy and the laity that continues to this day.   This exactly mirrors the rebellion of the Israelites against Moses and ultimately, against God Himself.

When the vast majority of the Church rose up in rebellion against Pope Paul VI, I believe our Lord looked at us and said, okay, you want to choose your own way, you want to decide for yourselves and take of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and I'm going to let you do it. I have been warning you through the Magesterium for centuries and even more so during the last century, how deadly this decision is, but now you're going to find out firsthand.  Reluctant Sinner wants to blame Pope Paul VI for the fact that "Liturgical abuses went viral soon after the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI, whilst Marxist ideology and lack of discipline infiltrated seminaries, and priests and nuns abandoned their vocations in droves. And, of course, traditional Catholics were virtually persecuted within their own Church during Montini's  pontificate, as those attached to the 'old Mass' had to metaphorically take to the catacombs!"

A world of difference between a Smart Car
and a Rolls Royce Bentley

The reason all of these evils infiltrated the Church is because this is what the Church wanted.  This is what they asked for when they basically turned their backs on the Vicar of Christ and said, "Later for you, buddy."  As even Reluctant Sinner admits, Pope Paul VI warned us in 1972 that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.  If we believe the words of Christ, we know that it could not have entered in through the Magesterium.  I believe that since the Pope is guided in everything he does by the Holy Spirit, he was also inspired by the Holy Spirit to take away the beautiful Mass of the Ages and in its place, give us the New Mass, while most certainly a valid Mass, left way too much room for abuse as we saw in the following decades. It was like going from a top of the line Rolls Royce to a Smart Car.  The Smart Car gets you where you want to go, but what a loss.

We wanted to go our own way, and our Lord allowed us to do just that.  The spiritual catastrophe that followed was the result of our own willfulness   We wonder why the Popes since Vatican II have seemed so powerless to stop the rebellion in the Church.  I believe God has held back their hands in order to allow the Church to learn a lesson which she refused to learn any other way.  That is what we have seen in the past 50 years in the Church, and spiritually, it is more destructive than any war has ever been.  Millions and millions of souls have been lost, both spiritually and physically.  To have to stand back and watch this devastation must have caused unbearable suffering in our Popes from Pope Paul VI to Blessed John Paul II to our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and even to John Paul I during his short reign.  I have no doubt that just as Moses pleaded for God to spare the children of Israel, our Holy Fathers have pleaded with Him to spare the Church.

Pope Paul VI and future Pope John Paul II

This comment on Reluctant Sinner' blog echoes my feelings:

Catherine said...
The more I have read of Pope Paul VI's writings in recent years, the more I am totally impressed by him and by his complete dedication to Christ. So if the news is true, then I rejoice, and also think that it is well past time that this courageous witness to the truth of Jesus Christ was honoured like this.18 December 2012 01:53

Pope John Paul I and
future Pope John Paul II

I believe our popes in the 20th Century and now into the 21st Century have been men of remarkable spiritual courage and devotion to our Lord.   They have reigned over a Church that has been as close to complete chaos as we have ever seen in her 2000 year history.  Not only have these popes had to deal with a hateful, anti-God world, but they have had to deal with it in the Body of Christ on a scale never seen before.

Canonization is always a reason to rejoice.  Holy Mother Church is recognizing that one of her children is advancing towards sainthood.  We now have someone else who can intervene on our behalf.   And certainly soon-to-be Venerable Pope Paul VI is acutely aware of the crisis we face on this earth and knows what to ask for.  Let us pray to him that he will go before our Lord and plead that our hearts be softened and turned toward our Savior and His Vicar here on earth.