A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Words of the Fathers, Vol. 2 – Yves Congar September 5, 2013

I said yesterday I hoped to get back to my series on the Words of the “fathers” of Vatican II, so here I am.  Yves Congar was a French theologian who has maintained a reputation as something of a “moderate” during the storms and tussles of Vatican II, and its subsequent implementation.  His private words and public actions, however, reveal a man who was anything but moderate.  Or, perhaps he could only be considered moderate in comparison to out and out apostates like Fr. Hans Kung, a close collaborator of Fr. Congar’s at the Council.  But there is no question Fr. Congar embraced modernism, and considered himself a disciple of Teilhard de Chardin. Here below, culled primarily from Roberto de Mattei’s epic The Second Vatican Council: an unwritten history, Fr. Yves Congar, in his own words (I add emphasis and comments):

(Various statements regarding bishops and others who opposed Fr. Congar’s self-described “revolution” in the Church):

• Of Archbishop Piero Parente, assessor of the Holy Office: “the man who condemned Fr. Chenu, the fascist, the monophysite”
• Of Fr. Sebastian Tromp, secretary of the Theological Commission at VII: “has a fascist temperment.”
• Of future Cardinal Luigi Ciappi “a poor and petty soul who was ultra-prudent, ultra-curial, super-papalist.” [As if those are bad things!]
• Cardinal Pizzardo: “this wretched freak, this sub-mediocrity with no culture, no horizon (vision), no humanity.”
• “The Congregation for Studies, with the imbecile Pizzardo, Staffa, and Romeo, is the archetypal concentration of cretins.”
• On Fr. Carlo Balic, president of the Pontifical International Marian Academy: “A Dalmatian street vendor…….a clown…….a fairground tumbler.”

Regarding his “struggle” against the orthodox theologians of the so-called “Roman school,” Congar described his work as a “mission:”

“My work displeases them because they realize very well that its whole aim is to bring back into circulation certain ideas, certain things that they have been endeavoring to shut out for four hundred years, [a clear reference to the errors of the protestant revolt] and above all for the past hundred. [a clear reference to the errors of modernism, which Fr. Congar felt had been unfairly, unreasonably condemend – by a Saint!] But that is my vocation and my service in the name of the gospel and tradition.”

Regarding Congar’s rejection of, or desire to radically redefine, the Primacy of Peter:

“For a thousand years everything among us has been seen and construed from the papal angle, not from that of the episcoplate and its collegiality. Now THIS history, THIS theology, THIS canon law needs to be done.” [As I said yesterday, “collegiality” means transferring authority in the Church from the still mostly orthodox Vatican, to the progressive dominated national episcopal conferences. The references to “THIS” theology, etc., refers to progressive/modernist attempts to undo Vatican I and redefine the nature of authority in the Church on much more protestant lines.  Such redefinition would give the modernist academics freedom to engage in all manner of heresy without concern of reproof or rebuttal from Rome.  Collegiality was “sold” to the bishops at Vatican II as transferring power from Rome to THEM, but what really happened, was that the bureaucracies of the national episcopal conferences grew tremendously in authority while local ordinaries actually lost much of the authority they already had.  Today’s bishops are generally so hamstrung – voluntarily – by the national conferences that they have effectively must less power over their local churches than a predecessor from 100 years ago did.]

On the great push by many orthodox conciliar fathers to have the Pope consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to the demand of Our Lady of Fatima:

“I am campaigning, AS MUCH AS I CAN, against a consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, because I can see the danger that a move in this direction would constitute.” [what on earth could the “danger” be to answering Our Lady’s specific request?  The danger was to sacred “ecumenism,” and the desire for the great indifferent one world church Congar and other disciples of de Chardin constantly pointed at, and adopted as their highest priority. That is also why Congar developed great antipathy towards the Traditional Mass.]

More on Congar’s Marian views:

Congar, a member of the sub-committee on Marian meditation, belonged to the group of “anti-Marian” theologians, who were determined to do everything possible to avoid having the council increase devotion to the Blessed Virgin. “How are a few, already overburdened,” he writes, “to struggle against the enormous mass of fanatical Mariologues?” [Gee……does Fr. Congar seem more protestant, than Catholic, to you? Sadly, in the end, the anti-Marian faction was mostly successful, blocking the release of a separate conciliar document on the Blessed Mother and watering down all mention of the Blessed Mother as Mediatrix of All Grace to near nil.  And this was “a great victory.”]

When Paul VI’s direct intervention watered down some of the extreme ecumenical language in Guadium Et Spes, Congar noted: “It is undeniable, that this morning was CATASTROPHIC from the point of view of the ecumenical climate.” [Awww…..poor ecumenists.  How long will they be condemned to meet for weeks on end at 5 star resorts in Davos?!  The horror!]

On how the Church began to change radically, even during the council, which Congar notes approvingly: “Little by little we are escaping from the era of Pius IX and Pius XII (I mention them here only from the point of view of their refusal of the world as it is). [Think about that.  One of the most compelling criticisms of VII was its myopic optimism, its unrelenting acceptance of the world, and man, as fundamentally good.  Is this what Christ said?  Did Christ counsel us about the world? What about virtually all the great Saints and theologians? Did they say “the world is great, be like the world?!”]  Everything is cohering……..The page is being turned over on Augustinianism and on the Middle Ages.” [Yes, we should really move past that stuffy St. Augustine, one of the two greatest minds to ever grace the Church, with all his “negative ecclesiology” with its un-groovy hangups on sin, judgment, conversion, repentence, etc.  Totally, like, not cool, man.  You can almost smell the bong smoke.]

Regarding Pope Paul VI’s speech closing the Council in Dec 1965, “The pope’s speech……a veritable declaration of the complete acceptance of the modern human being and of the primacy of anthropology.” [by which he means, evolution and Teilhardian modernism] “Looking at things objectively, I did a great deal to prepare for the council, elaborating and diffusing the ideas that the council consecrated. At the council itself, I did a great deal of work. I could almost say: ‘I worked harder than any of them.’ [1 Cor 15:10], but that would, no doubt, not be true: think of Phillips, for example.” [Thank goodness, he almost went into maniacal hubris there]

Another event, that I think sums it all up and is all we need to know: “Congar knelt at the tomb of St. Paul and invoked Luther, “who had wanted to reaffirm ‘the gospel’ for which Paul had struggled.”  [This statement is so beyond wrong its amazing. I would say, it’s diabolical.  Think on what Luther wrought…..you either have to be a raving indifferentist/universal salvationist, or simply not care…….]

Finally, incorporating a good deal of de Mattei’s prose, a bit about Fr. Congar’s pre-conciliar book True and False Reform, wherein, I think, one can find the entire progressive game plan for the council: “In a book entitled True and False Reform, Fr. Yves Congar presented as “true” a “reform” of the Church that would prove to be, more than a true reform, a genuine revolution. To the Dominican theologian Congar we owe one of the first articulations of the formula of the “primacy of the pastoral,” which introduced the distinction between dogmas and their formulation, as though the expression of doctrine could change without affecting the content. The modernist reform of “faith without dogmas” was now replaced by a non-dogmatic formulation of the faith, which counted on changing the faith itself, without appearing to touch doctrine.  [That is entirely what occurred at Vatican II – remember, Vatican II defined no new dogmas. But through its “pastoral approach” and its central orientation to “represent Catholic Dogma to modern man” through “new formulations,” so much of what the Church has always believed has, in the minds of most faithful, been radically changed. In fact, this plan by Congar is diabolically brilliant, as it accomplishes the modernist goal of no set dogma by simply constantly changing the “non-dogmatic” formulations presented to the people.]  With this attitude he proposed to change the Church from within, through “a reform without schism.” “We don’t need to create another church,” he explained; “what we need to some degree is a church that is other.” [That is to say, a “church” that becomes something radically different from what it has always been, and must be.  It is the old modernist program of heresy subsuming the Church from within, but simply with a slightly different spin.  Thus, the “conservative” Yves Congar.]

It must be noted, finally, the Yves Congar’s books, including True and False Reform, were banned by the Holy Office in 1952. He was forbidden to teach or publish in 1954. He was yet another of a long line of modernists whose careers were saved by the ascension of John XXIII to the papal throne in 1958. Others include Fr. Anibale Bugnini, Jacques Maritain, Henri de Lubac……