jump to navigation

A remarkable new book on Vatican II June 28, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Latin Mass.
comments closed

A new book, from a theologian with impeccable credentials and with forwards from a sitting bishop (Mario Oliveri, bishop of Albenga and Imperia in Italy AND Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, former secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and now Archbishop of Colombo), puts forward an interpretation of Vatican II that would have, in years past, been treated with as much contempt as anything coming out of SSPX.  That it is being published by a Pontifical Right organization (Franciscans of the Immaculate) is even more remarkable.  The book, The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion clarifies much of the nature of the council and the documents it produced.  Those attracted to tradition will find much to like; progressives, not so much.  Some excerpts, with my comments following at times:

In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II’s hermeneutic…The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God…the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together…After having said all of this about Vatican II, if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no…But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism–this can be seen above all in Guadium et Spes….

Let me say immediately that not even a single dogmatic definition included in the intentions of LG or the other Vatican II documents. The Council–we do well not to forget this–could not have even proposed one since it had refused to follow along the lines traced out by other Councils…This means that none of its doctrines, unless ascribable to previous conciliar definitions, are infallible or unchangeable, nor are they even binding: he who denies them cannot, for this reason, be called a formal heretic…….It is licit, therefore, to recognize a dogmatic nature in Vatican II only where it re-proposes dogmas defined in previous Councils as the truth of Faith.

My comment – this is an incredibly important point.  As Pope Benedict XVI and many others have pointed out, there have been many, far too many people in the Church who view Vatican II as a complete utter break with the past – there was the Church before Vatican II, and the Church after it, and the two are almost totally unrelated, in their minds, except for the name.  Both this author and Benedict XVI have maintained that this is utterly false – that there can be no discord between the pre-VII and post-VII Church.  As Pope St. Pius X dogmatically defined, all innovations and renovations in Church doctrine must be in union with that doctrine already defined.  What this means, practically, is that if someone tries to tell you that we have to have a sloppy, irreverent liturgy, or bad music, or to water down Catholic doctrine, “because VII says so,” they are completely wrong.   These statements are very strong statements of support for Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity – Vatican II must be seen in the light of, and as an extension and addition to, all previous Church doctrine.

The Council, therefore, in spite of its basic arguments, became imprisoned by the distress of the ‘temporary’ and the tyranny of the ‘relative….

[A] reform is not necessarily a development; it could actually be its opposite….

the signing of insane agreements like that on ‘justification’ which leaves out the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae upon which Luther had founded his reform…frenzied ecumenism [even]…official declarations of the saving efficacy of non-Catholic professions of the Christian faith and even Judaism…How many times the very men, into whose hands Jesus had entrusted the sacred deposit of the Faith, solemnly and pompously said ‘no’ to this or that doctrine, like the Marian Coredemption, because otherwise it will prejudice ecumenical dialogue. It was as if to say, ‘There is no other truth or value besides ecumenical dialogue.’…

This is an enormous statement, as well. There is tremendous confusion within the Church on doctrine, what Catholics believe.  Because some of the documents of Vatican II were written in such an incredibly nebulous way, interpretations have been possible that make ecumenism seem to be the highest goal of Catholicism.  This is a fundamental error.  In addition, much of the ecumenism has been difficult to reconcile with established doctrine, with the Church seeming to compromise on core doctrinal issues like justification in order to reach some meaningless agreement with a protestant sect.  True ecumenism must lead to Rome, as Cardinal Levada recently stated

‘I would not even be ready to believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church were not to compel me to do so’…[quoting St. Augustine]…Tradition, in the last analysis, is the very life of the Church; its action upon the Church comes about through an iter or sacramental or institutional guaranteed by the Holy Spirit…..  Scripture is not, strictly speaking, the living Word of God; it is the witness and memorial of Gods Word. For this reason Scripture is sacred and venerable; yet it does not have the saving efficacy of the other instruments of salvation….Scripture is divinely inspired, Tradition is divinely assisted; both of them pass on the ‘Good News’ of the saving mystery…

Yet another critical issue.  Many of the changes, specifically to the liturgy, that occurred in the Church after Vatican II were made ostensibly to ‘get back to what the early Church was doing,’ or to get closer to some portion of Scripture.  We have been told that Communion in the hand, versus poplum, the Mass as a meal, etc., were practices of the early Church, and to be more ‘authentic’ Christians, we had adopt those practices.  First of all, making such changes seems a tacit admission that the protestant sects were correct in their critique and the Mass as it had evolved over centuries was somehow ‘inauthentic.’  Leaving that gaping chasm of an issue aside, these actions largely ignored the very substantial role that Tradition plays in the doctrine of the Church.  We as Catholics stand not only on Sacred Scripture, but on Sacred Tradition, as well, because many if not most of the practices of the Church were not formally written down and codified until hundreds of years after the death of Christ.  The Church has always taught that Sacred Tradition is instrumental in the organic development of doctrine, and yet after Vatican II many came to believe that hundreds of years of Tradition in the form of the Liturgy should be scrapped and the Mass completely reshaped.  There seems to have been a powerful assumption, shared by some council fathers but especially the periti, the experten, the young priests and theologians who took the documents produced by Vatican II and then turned those broad and often nebulous guidelines into a new Mass, that the Mass formulated at Trent was some kind of artificial construct, and that it needed great amendment to be both more representative of early Christian worship and especially more ecumenical.  I’m not saying the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass, but…..the horrid decline in the Church that has occurred throughout Europe and North America in the meantime has often been associated with a less than inspiring Mass.

There is much more at the original site and here, on the anthropocentric philosophy behind so many of the council documents.  Go check it out

This had to have some high approval to get published.  This is a statement.

To order the book, follow the instructions below. 

You can get this important book written by Msgr. Bruno Gherardini by emailing cm.editrice@immacolata.ws

This is the Catholic publisher.  You simply email them and give your address, saying you want the book.  They will send it. The person manning that email address speaks fluent English but the printed  invoice that comes with the book is in Italian and furthermore lacks an  address (see below, however). They will send you the book and the invoice in euros, and you will end up checking the day’s exchange rate (just google exchange rate and fill in the blanks), and then sending a check (or money order you can get at the post office) for the appropriate amount to Italy, there being no mention of PayPal or Visa-readiness (however, when you email them, you might ask–popularity of this work may have changed the situation). The price is presently (May 2010) ten euros, plus 8,70 euros for shipping.  That’s how they write it, with a comma where we’d have a period, in English. At the exchange rate in effect in May,  2010, that came out to 23.00 and change, and that rounds up nicely to anything you’d care to donate for this effort on their part in support of truth. I gave thirty bucks and now that I think about it, I ought to be ashamed to be so stingy, since this book is another very important step in the right direction and so, of course, the forces of hell are against it.

The mailing address provided upon inquiry, since it is not printed on the invoice, is

CASA MARIANA EDITRICE
VIA PIANO DELLA CROCE, 6
83040  FRIGENTO  (AV)
ITALIA

Dear Lord June 28, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, scandals, Society.
comments closed

This post by its nature is graphic.  But, it’s also very important.  If sexually frank discussions make you squeemish, you may not want to proceed.  Perhaps say a prayer and invoke the protection of St. Michael before reading.

The ongoing scandal in Belgium over this heinous, satanic topic of priest sex abuse that just won’t go away has gotten worse.  Much worse.  There are many sites discussing the abuse itself – I won’t go into that.  But recent news has surfaced of an accompanying issue that is in every way as bad as the sex abuse.  A Belgian politician and Catholic activist by no other choice has written a story in the Brussels Journal describing the contents of children’s catechism material that is extremely graphic and shows images of child sex activity.  These materials were used by essentially all the Church in Belgium for decades for ‘formation’ (of what kind is open to debate) for decades.  Accompanying the pictures of baby girls masturbating, and two toddlers manually stimulating each other, was text including the following:

The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: “Stroking my pussy makes me feel groovy,” “I like to take my knickers off with friends,” “I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex.” The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are “playing doctor” and the little boy says: “Look, my willy is big.”

There is much more that I won’t go into.  The images in the book were of very young children – toddlers and younger.  The text accompanying this material made it plain that the objective lesson to be learned by the pre-teens “studying” this material was that “toddlers experience sexual lust.”  I think parents who have had children in this age range realize the utter ludicrousness of this statement. 

It is important to note that the preparation of and approval of this material for use in the Belgian Church was overseen by the recently retired admitted pedophile Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, of Bruges Belgium, who was a close associate of the also recently retired (and also disgraced) Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Archbishop of Brussels and Primate of Belgium.  This material came into use in 1984.  Complaints were received, culminating in protests by many hundreds of concerned parents outside the Cardinal’s palace in Brussels in 1997 and 1998.  The Cardinal refused to meet with the parents or hear their concerns. 

On Thursday, in response to hundreds, possibly thousands of complaints regarding sexual abuse and concommitant coverup in the Belgian Church, police investigators raided the palace of the Archbishop of Brussels and the Cathedral, going so far as to open tombs in the crypt in the search for materials indicating a coverup in the Belgian Church.  This is awful, on every level possible. 

One final thought – in my post on Friday regarding Dietrich von Hildebrand’s indictment of Church leadership in the wake of Vatican II, I reference his book The Devastated Vineyard.   The driving theme of that book is that the replacement of traditional Church doctrine with modernist, progressive ideals has devastated the Church.  It has led to a collapse of both Faith and Morals.  Cardinal Daneels is one of the more prominent progressives in Europe.  Many feel he was insulated from criticism due to his friendliness with the progressives in the media.  It is very hard not to see the connection between the prime Western progressive ideal of sexual libertinism and these kinds of horrific scandals in the Church.  In this most recent Belgian case, it is difficult not to conclude that the purpose of this disgusting, perverse, satanic material in a Catholic Catechism!! was not to groom more pedophiles.  The person who oversaw its publication and use is a pedophile – Occam’s razor would imply that this was an effort at furthering a vision of child sexuality that would enable pedophilia.

When the ancient Hebrews burned their sons and daughters as offerings to Baal (2 Kgs. 17:16-18), God’s Wrath was severe.  Israel very soon ceased to exist, except for Judah.