Vatican II

Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé No. 35: March 2021

admin FEATURED POSTS - Our Convent section, Letters to Friends and Benefactors

Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé

image

  Pius IX at the First Vatican Council


No. 35: March 2021

Who remembers Vatican I?

The 150th anniversary of Vatican I didn’t get much attention in our de-Christianized world, nor even within the Church. Yet Vatican I was fundamental, for many reasons:

1- The history of the first Vatican Council — as agitated as it is fascinating — represents one of the summits of the combat opposing Revelation and Revolution, for over two centuries. In the presence of Pope Pius IX, mighty bishops, including figures as different as Bishops Manning, Darboy, Dupanloup and Pie, come face to face in battle.

2- The first document of Vatican I, the constitution Dei Filius, on the notion of Faith, exposes the relations between Faith and reason in a particularly balanced fashion. It condemns not only the excess of refusing any Faith (rationalism), but also the error of belittling reason (fideism). In defining the foundations of Faith, it defines at the same time the true methods of Catholic apologetics. Before our simplistic world, which only admits mathematical science on one hand, and subjective, unverifiable opinions (left to the free choice of each person) on the other, the Council affirms the authority of Christian Revelation, which falls under neither category.

3- The second document, the constitution Pastor aeternus, on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, clearly and definitively indicates the goal of the Church’s magisterium, which is not to reveal any new doctrine, but simply to maintain and faithfully proclaim the Revelation handed down by the Apostles (the “deposit of the Faith”). In defining precisely the conditions of an infallible declaration ex cathedra, the document allows us to safely resist the neo-modernist “magisterium” of recent Popes, without relativizing the traditional magisterium of the Church.

4- The unfinished Council, having the time to promulgate only two constitutions, left a certain amount of preparatory work that is still useful today. (For more developments, see the summer 2020 issue of our review Le Sel de la Terre.)

Contrast with Vatican II

Since 1965, the striking contrast with Vatican II provides even more reasons to study Vatican I.

Vatican I was the theatre of a mortal struggle between two types of Catholicism: one that attacks error, and one that dreams of reconciliation with the world, avoiding what Bishop Dupanloup called the “irritating questions.” Whereas Vatican I was, according to Bishop Manning, the Council of Authority in opposition to triumphal Revolution, Vatican II was the Council of the Surrender of authority, drowned in collegiality, manipulated by the politically correct, and humbly submissive to all the orders of the international press.

By its constitution Dei Filius, Vatican I was the council of the clear distinction between the natural and supernatural orders. To the contrary, Vatican II, which obstinately refused to use the word “supernatural,” was the council of the blurring of the two orders. Vatican I was the council of apologetics, clearly exposing and defining the reasons to believe in Catholic doctrine. Vatican II, however, handed over the Catholic Faith to all the sophisms of the modern world.

By its constitution Pastor aeternus, Vatican I was the council of the Magisterium. Vatican II, in refusing to define and condemn, is the council of “dialogue” with the world.

By its unfinished documents, Vatican I clearly traced the path that the following council should have taken. The preparatory texts of Vatican II actually did follow traditional lines, but were quickly discarded. Vatican I, in continuity with the Council of Trent from its very outset, was a council of fidelity; Vatican II was a council of rupture.

lu8412g6gt_tmp_2f3f4b24abf9ef94

Assumption Procession

The Grave Problem of Invalid Baptisms

The liturgical anarchy that has been raging for over 60 years can have some very grave consequences. Two recent examples:

1) On June 24th, 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith officially issued a reminder of the traditional doctrine, according to which the Baptism formula, “We baptize you, in the name of the Father, etc.” is invalid. (This formula, using the plural rather than the singular, is in vogue in modernist circles, as it allows the “People of God” to usurp the role of the priest.)

Hearing of this decision in August, a priest in the archdiocese of Detroit, Fr. Matthew Hood, decided to watch the video of his Baptism… There he saw the deacon using the invalid formula! Invalid Baptism, invalid priesthood… as well as the invalidity of all the sacraments he had himself administered since his “ordination” in 2017.

2) In Brittany, last September, a young girl was preparing for her First Communion. In questioning the parents, the priest realized that the girl had not validly received the sacrament of Baptism: indeed, the God-mother had poured the water while the priest pronounced the words!

Community Chronicle

August 11th: Requiem Mass for the repose of the soul of Mr. Okuniewski, the father of Fr. Hyacinthe-Marie. Providentially, Father was in Poland just a few days earlier, and was able to administer Extreme Unction and Holy Communion to his father before his departure for eternity.

August 14th: Reception of the habit for a new lay brother, Br. Mannes (after the name of Saint Dominic’s brother, who was one of his first companions in the Order).

August 15th: Feast of the Assumption: solemn High Mass celebrated by newly-ordained Fr. Alain, followed by first benedictions, conference on Maximilian Kolbe, and procession.

August 26th: Fr. Marie-Laurent leaves for the Czech Republic to lead a pilgrimage and preach a recollection for a group of faithful.

August 29th and 30th: Fr. Hyacinthe-Marie and Br. Agostinho participate in the pilgrimage at Puy-en-Velay, presided by Bishop Faure.

September: A momentary lifting of the lockdown permits the Fathers to organize a few meetings for our tertiaries at Lyons, Paris, Chartres… in Alsace, Auvergne…

lu8412g6gt_tmp_8123bbc37cce65be

Adoration of the Cross


September 14th: Feast of the Holy Cross: solemn High Mass, followed by the benediction of a new Calvary at the entrance of the property. The next day: benediction of a new outdoor statue of Our Lady, sculpted by our Br. Bernard-Marie.

October 20th: First vows of Br. Antonin, who now starts his studies of philosophy and theology in view of the priesthood.

November 12th: Fr. Prior is at Nimes for the funeral services of Fr. Raffali, a fighter for the Faith since the beginnings of Tradition, and founder of the Stella Maris community for the education of boys.

On the same day: Br. Louis-de-Gonzague (Anthony Scmidt, from Wisconsin) makes his perpetual profession in the Third Order, as an oblate brother living in the Friary.

(see picture below)

lu8412g6gt_tmp_f9f42b0ea64959d0

Late November: It’s the season for plantations! Thanks to a friend of the Friary, we now have a professional orchard next to our vegetable garden (which has more than doubled in size since last year): pears, plums, cherries, apricots, walnuts, hazelnuts, chestnuts, will now (God-willing) be available to the community, even if the economy takes a turn for the worse.

December 8th: Feast of the Immaculate Conception: in lieu of the traditional procession in the streets of Angers (prohibited because of the Corona madness), Fr. Marie-Laurent leads the faithful in a public Rosary in front of the Cathedral.

December 18th-20th: Fathers Marie-Laurent and Hyacinthe-Marie are in Riddes Switzerland preaching an Advent recollection.

December 31st: The Church is full for the Solemn Te Deum sung after the office of Compline.

lu8412g6gt_tmp_a2e49e3ce63f0087


News From Our Worksites

The Construction permit for the new Parish Hall has finally been granted! The work is planned to start after Easter.

lu8412g6gt_tmp_7252602cb3e1321

Parish Hall Project

lu8412g6gt_tmp_cb83522abeb898ce

A new gate has been installed at the South entrance of the property, in order to limit access to “passers-by”, who have become more and more numerous these past years.

The work on the East wing façade is finished. After the parish hall is built, the restoration of the West wing (crumbling stone and leaky roof) will be undertaken.

Thank you, as always, for your continued support, without which none of this would be possible!

lu8412g6gt_tmp_987e67525311b46a

For timely articles and spiritual reading, please go to our website:

www.dominicansavrille.us

To send a donation:

YOU MAY USE PAYPAL (ON OUR WEBSITE), OR SEND TO:

— In the U.S.:

Dominicans of Avrillé, Inc.
P.O. Box 23, Newman Lake, WA. 99025

— In Canada:

Association of St. Dominic

CIBC, 201-21 Street East

Saskatoon (SK) S7K OB8 Canada

Please include a note, and specify:

acc. #40-91531

— In the U.K.:

Association of St. Dominic

R B S Edinburgh, 17 Comiston Road

Edinburgh EH10 6AA

Please specify: acc. # 00105564

For more information :

Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes

49240 Avrillé, France

Bishop Carlo-Maria Vigano

admin conciliar Church, FEATURED POSTS - Articles and Texts section

Bishop Carlo-Maria Vigano

  A Bishop Who Tells the Truth on the Church of Vatican II

Msgr. Carlo Vigano, former apostolic nuncio to the USA from 2011 to 2016, has for a few weeks been publishing increasingly clearer texts showing his awareness of the errors of the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that followed.

He denounces the desire of Freemasonry to institute a “universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical”, as well as “the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies”.

He also shows the failure of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

What supporters of the current pope “affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the Hermeneutic of Continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II on wards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry.”

Look at his declarations on:

— Chiesa et Postconcilio

— Trinity Communications, 2020

A Solely Pastoral Rupture?

admin conciliar Church, FEATURED POSTS - Articles and Texts section, The Fight for the Faith

A Solely Pastoral Rupture?

La Simandre, bimonthly bulletin of the Fraternity of the Transfiguration (Maison Saint-Joseph, Le Bois, F. 36220 Mérigny), in its November-December 2019 issue, published a very remarkable opinion on a recent book by the Rev. Fr. Pierre-Marie Berthe (SSPX).

Le Sel de la terre.

IS IT ACCURATE to write that “The rupture [between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger in May-June 1988] occurred for pastoral reasons, but not for doctrinal and liturgical reasons” (Les dimensions ecclésiales, un défi pour l’Église catholique, Cerf, 2019, p. 711)?

This sentence, written by a priest, seems to reduce the conflict existing since Vatican II to a human side, to “a lack of mutual trust”.

It is true that this sentence introduces another: “It [the rupture] leaves the Protocol of Accord intact, which constitutes a solid basis for a future reconciliation”.

Father, if there was a rupture between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Roman authorities at the time, it was not for psychological reasons, but for doctrinal reasons. You go so far as to write that “Cardinal Ratzinger was unable to dispel the concerns of the Archbishop”.

— The fight for the Mass of all Ages and against the New Mass is doctrinal. I hope you are convinced of this. Archbishop Lefebvre declared this New Ordo “equivocal” and “dangerous for the faith”.

— The fight against the errors of Vatican II is doctrinal. Again, I hope you are convinced of this.

So please, if you do not see that, do not pretend to be the spiritual son of Archbishop Lefebvre. He is the one who ordained the first priests of our Fraternity, and as long as we have a clear head, we will not accept the soul of his fight being misrepresented.

Perhaps it would be better that you leave your community for a quick recognition, which you will easily obtain, given your ideas, in a diocese or in Rome.

Ah! These canonists who want an agreement at all costs and who are ready for all compromises, even if they are doctrinal. For them there is no crisis in the Church and, therefore, no state of necessity.

LE SEL DE LA TERRE N° 111, WINTER 2019-2020

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Twelve) – CONCLUSION

admin The Fight for the Faith

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Twelve) – CONCLUSION

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 12)

CONCLUSION

One could object that we have not cited the numerous passages that can have an acceptable meaning.  It is true that, in this brief study, we have especially noted the defective points of the conciliar texts.  But it suffices, for a text, to contain one error in order to be bad, as the scholastic dictum says: bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu (something is good when it is entirely so; the least defect renders it bad).

We have desired to make a sort of synthesis for understanding the principle defects of the conciliar documents.  We think that this study, in particular, shows that these texts convey a new doctrine, which today permits the conciliar Church to collaborate with the establishment of globalism.

One can also ask why there was not a more lively reaction, during the Council, to reject this new teaching.  It was doubtless necessary to await the application of the Council and the progressive implementation of globalism after 50 years, to better judge these texts and their influence.  The professor Johannes Dörmann began his studies on the new conciliar theology when he understood that the Assisi interreligious meeting in 1986 was a consequence of the Council.1

Today, in retrospect, one can ask if the plans of the High Lodge, devised one and a half centuries ago, are actually being realized:

You wish to establish the reign of the elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon?  Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. […] Lay your nets like Simon Barjona.  Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents […].  You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner – a Revolution which needs only to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire. […]  [The dream] of the secret societies will be accomplished for the most simple of reasons, because it is based on the passions of man. […] our plans will succeed one day above even our most improbable calculations2.

We have put a heavy burden on your shoulders, dear Volpe.  We must work for the immoral education of the Church and come to it, by little means in a gradual manner, to the triumph of the revolutionary idea by a Pope. In this project which has always seemed a superhuman calculation, we walk still groping3.

Msgr. Lefebvre comments on this last phrase:

“Superhuman calculation,” Nubius said; he means a diabolical calculation!  Because it is to calculate the subversion of the Church by its head himself, which Msgr. Delassus4 calls the supreme attack, because one cannot imagine anything more subversive for the Church than a pope won over to liberal ideas, than a pope utilizing the keys of St. Peter in the service of the counter-Church!  But, is not this what we see currently, since Vatican II, since the new Canon Law?  With the false ecumenism and false religious liberty promulgated at Vatican II and applied by the popes with a cold perseverance despite all the wreckage it provokes after more than twenty years5.

Thus, has the supreme attack been committed?  Has the “famous” Masonic dream6 been realized?

Regardless of the—necessarily occult—influence of Freemasonry on the unfolding of the Council, one cannot deny, by simply analyzing the texts, that the doctrine of the Church was modified such that Catholics could collaborate in the construction of the Temple, viz., in the unification of mankind such as the “sons of the widow7” understand it?

Translation by A. A.

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eleven) – The Three Declarations (second and third of three): ‘Nostra ætate’ and ‘Gravissimum educationis’

admin conciliar Church, The Fight for the Faith , ,

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eleven) – The Three Declarations (second and third of three):  ‘Nostra ætate’  and  ‘Gravissimum educationis’

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 11)

The three Declarations (continued)

2. Nostra ætate (NA): Non-Christian Religions

What is the significance of Nostra ætate (NA) on the relations with non-Christian religions?

Like DH, it is a declaration, a text of little importance in principle.  And yet, it too, is one of the most important documents of the Council. 1    In favoring the unity of the human race, it does not suffice to promote ecumenism among Christians; it is also necessary to inaugurate inter-religious dialogue.

How does NA give a new teaching?

Never has the Church praised other “religions”.  She presented herself as the only true religion, the only one that really merits this name because she alone binds [religa] man to God.

But this document describes the false religions positively, ignoring the negative aspects (of jihad of the Muslims, human sacrifices in several “religions”, terrible idolatry, moral infamies, etc.2). Here are some examples:

In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. […] Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. […] The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings […]

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men […] In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. […]

God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues—such is the witness of the Apostle. […] True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. […]

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.

Could you point out a sophism of this new teaching?

For example, the statement: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”

There surely are truths in these false religions, otherwise they would not attract anyone.  But, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. correctly said, truth is captive to error.  But these religions use these partial truths to distance men from the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation.  What good is it to know these truths if one loses his soul?3

What are the consequences of this new teaching?

NA contains the seed for all the inter-religious gatherings that mushroomed after that which John Paul II convoked at Assisi in October 1986.  The different religions are presented as good and able to save their adherents.  The prayers performed in these religions are considered as agreeable to God.

In what concerns Judaism in particular, NA was the beginning of an engagement.4   The Church is no longer presented as the new elect people come to replace the old.5   The old Covenant would still be valid for the Jews, and they would not need to become Christians to be saved.

What does the Church become in this concert of religions?

The Conciliar Church becomes, according to the happy expression of Abbé de Nantes, the MASDU: the Spiritual Animating Movement of Universal Democracy.  Using the moral prestige accumulated by 2000 years of Catholic Tradition, the authorities of the Church contributed to establishing the spiritual nave of the Masonic Temple described by Msgr. Delassus in La Conjuration antichrétienne6.

3. Gravissimum educationis (GE): Christian Education

What do you say about Gravissimum educationis momentum (GE) on Christian education?

Even if it is a document of minor importance, one finds the same usual errors in it:

— a liberal ideology, with references to the declarations of the Rights of Man of 1948 and the rights of the child of 1959 (preamble)—the word “right” occurring 28 times in the text;

— the recommendation of ecumenism—one of the roles of the faculties being to promote “the dialogue with our separated brethren and with non-Christians” (§ 11) in view of the decree on ecumenism and with the method of Ecclesiam Suam;

— the recommendation of the right to religious liberty (§ 7).

We remark that the Council does not state that the purpose of a Catholic school is to transmit the Faith, but instead, that  « its proper function is to create for the school community a special atmosphere animated by the Gospel spirit of freedom and charity, to help youth grow according to the new creatures they were made through baptism » (§ 8).

(To be continued)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Ten) – The Three Declarations (first of three: Dignitatis Humanæ: on religious liberty)

admin The Fight for the Faith ,

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 10)

The three Declarations

1. Dignitatis Humanæ (DH) : religious liberty

What is the significance of Dignitatis humanæ (DH) on religious liberty?

Although DH is only a Declaration, thus in principle a minor text, it has a very great importance1. Cardinal Bea, following his secret visit with the secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches, prepared a schema on this theme, which provoked a serious incident during the last session of the central preparatory commission: Msgr. Lefebvre often spoke of the confrontation between Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, because it can be seen as a prelude of the confrontation between the “two Romes”2.

By adopting the “essential principle of the modern State”3, the Council accepted one of the fundamental claims of Freemasonry: “Christians should not forget that all routes [i.e., all religions] lead to God and sustain this courageous notion of liberty of thought that—and one can truly speak in this regard of a revolution coming out of our Masonic lodges—is marvelously spread over the dome of St. Peter’s4.”

What is the fundamental teaching of DH?

DH (§ 2) teaches that “the human person has a right to religious freedom.  This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”  This right “has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person“; it “is to be recognized in the constitutional law…and thus it is to become a civil right“; and it “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”

Is this teaching opposed to the traditional teaching of the Church?6

Yes, this teaching is opposed to numerous magisterial texts, e.g.,

— to Mirari vos (15 August 1832)5 by Gregory XVI :

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,’ as Augustine was wont to say.”

— to Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) by Pius IX :

“And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.’ From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society…’ But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition”.

— and above all to the condemnation of the propositions of the Syllabus of Pius IX (8 December 1864):

77. « In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. »

Allocution “Nemo Vestrum,”July 26, 1855.

78. « Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. »

Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. « Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. »

Allocution “Nunquam Fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

Is this teaching opposed to the traditional practice of the Church?6

Indeed, from Constantine to Vatican II, the Church has always asked Christian princes to prohibit false cults, “except for real necessity of tolerance“7.  It has never considered that “not disturbing the public order” is a necessary motive of tolerance, except to give this expression a meaning different from that of Vatican II.

But, as St. Thomas Aquinas said: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things…  Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.” (II-II, q. 10, a. 12).

It is thus certain that the declaration DH gives a false teaching.

Does the Conciliar Church not realize the contradiction?

The Conciliar Church does realize the difficulty in reconciling the teachings.  It has authoritatively affirmed that the reconciliation is possible (because, to them, Vatican II cannot be mistaken) and it has spawned many studies to try to reconcile the two teachings, but without success, each study developing a new argument for how the previous one does not suffice8.  Finally, during the doctrinal discussions, the Conciliar Church invited the Society of St. Pius X to “enter into the Church” to help it find a solution!

In fact, the simplest and most honest solution is that of the future Benedict XVI who admitted: « there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy.  Their kernel remains valid, but the particulars determined by circumstances can stand in need of correction.  In this connection, one will probably call to mind […] the pontifical statements of the last century regarding freedom of religion »9.

Is DH based on a false philosophy?

Yes, DH is based on a personalist philosophy in considering that the common good “chiefly consists in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the human person” (§ 6).

Without speaking of the Masonic origin of the doctrine of the Rights of Man, it is at least paradoxical to define the common good as the protection of the rights of particular persons. The particular good is ordered to the common good, not vice versa.  Personalist philosophy, placing the person above society, is the source of a spirit of protest, egoism, and subversion.

(To be continued)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Nine) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 6-9)

admin The Fight for the Faith , , , ,

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Nine) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 6-9)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 10)

The Nine Decrees (continued)

3. The two Decrees on missionary activity and means of social communication

6.  Ad Gentes (AG):  the missionary activity of the Church.

7.  Inter mirifica (IM): the means of social communication.

What sort of charity does Ad Gentes (AG) promote?

Missionary activity is a consequence of the charity that works toward the salvation of souls.  But AG has a false conception of charity:  “Christian charity truly extends to all, without distinction of race, creed, or social condition” (§ 12).  Christian charity certainly extends to all men, but with distinctions.  There is an order in charity: one should first love those who are closest, and especially our brothers in the faith:  “let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” (Gal. 6:10).

What does AG say about ecumenism and religious liberty?

Ecumenism obliges AG, too, should sacrifice to the template:

« The ecumenical spirit should be nurtured in the neophytes, who should take into account that the brethren who believe in Christ are Christ’s disciples, reborn in baptism, sharers with the People of God in very many good things. Insofar as religious conditions allow, ecumenical activity should be furthered in such a way that, excluding any appearance of indifference or confusion on the one hand, or of unhealthy rivalry on the other, Catholics should cooperate in a brotherly spirit with their separated brethren, among to the norms of the Decree on Ecumenism, making before the nations a common profession of faith, insofar as their beliefs are common, in God and in Jesus Christ, and cooperating in social and in technical projects as well as in cultural and religious ones. Let them cooperate especially for the sake of Christ, their common Lord: let His Name be the bond that unites them! This cooperation should be undertaken not only among private persons, but also, subject to approval by the local Ordinary, among churches or ecclesial communities and their works. [§ 15.] »

The content of this paragraph and the reference to the decree UR show that the ecumenism in question here is the false conciliar ecumenism that was condemned in advance by Pius XI in Mortalium animos (6 January 1928).

AG also says: “The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the Faith by unjust vexations on the part of others.” (§ 13).

This phrase would be well-understood if it did not make a footnote to Dignitatis Humanæ, 2, 4, 10. Thus, one should understand by “worrisome wiles” a slight moral pressure exerted by the public powers who would recognize—as is its right—the Catholic religion as the State religion.

What does Inter Mirifica (IM) say about the “wonders of technology“?

In its first paragraph, IM lists the means of social communication (the press, cinema, radio, television, and other such technologies) as “Among the wonderful technological discoveries which men of talent, especially in the present era, have made with God’s help“. One would have liked a bit less praise for these technologies, rapidly becoming powerful means of moral deterioration.

What does IM say about the right to information?

IM demands a “right to information“, provided that there “be full respect for the laws of morality and for the legitimate rights and dignity of the individual.” Yet, DH lists false religious liberty among the rights of man, and GS—we have seen—teaches errors on the dignity of man and the rights of man. The “right to information” is thus not suitably limited: it does not conform to the doctrine of the Church on the liberty of the press1.

Is is not surprising that in 2015, fifty years after the Council, following the attack against the journal Charlie-Hebdo2, the bishops of France signed a text in favor of “freedom of expression“:

« We are unanimous in the defenses of the values of the Republic, liberty, equality, fraternity, and in particular, the defense of freedom of expression. We commit ourselves to continue this course of sharing, dialogue, and fraternity. »

4. The two Decrees Decrees on the eastern Churches and on ecumenism

8. Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE): the eastern Catholic Churches.

9. Unitatis redintegratio (UR): ecumenism.

Which novelties does the text Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE) contain regarding Eastern Catholic Churches?

This decree claims to enlist the Eastern Catholic Churches (also called “uniate” because they are not schismatic like the Orthodox, but united to Rome) in the false conciliar ecumenism.

Also, this is recommended to them: “The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, in accordance with the principles of the decree, ‘About Ecumenism,’ of this Sacred Council” (§ 24).

What is the teaching of this Decree regarding communicatio in sacris?

It is a pure contradiction endangering the principle of non-contradiction, and also the Catholic faith.

The Decree begins by recalling exactly the ban on communicatio in sacris: “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” (§ 26).

But this just reminder is followed by a “but” where the contrary comes: “On the other hand, pastoral experience shows clearly that, as regards our Eastern brethren…”

And without any doctrinal argument, it comes to contradict the posed principle, while specifying that the principles remains posed:

« Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. Further, given the same principles, common participation [communicatio in sacris] by Catholics with their Eastern separated brethren in sacred functions, things and places is allowed for a just cause » [§ 27 and 28].

We are in contradiction with the doctrine and practice of the pre-conciliar Church. We refer the readers to Sel de la terre 40, pp. 79 to 81, where the traditional doctrine on communicatio in sacris will be found. Here are some extracts: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 731, § 2). “One cannot ever ask for, except in the case of necessity, a sacrament from a heretical or schismatic minister; those who contravene this defense will fall under the penalty of excommunication brought against the credentes [those who adhere to the heresy]. In the case of extreme necessity, proximate danger of death, it is only permitted to ask for the necessary sacraments (baptism or absolution or, for lack of absolution, extreme unction). If there is risk of perversion, one must be content with an act of perfect contrition.” (Dictionary of Catholic Theology, article “heresy“, written by A. Michel.)

What is one to think of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio (UR) on ecumenism?

It is one of the worst texts of the Council. It alone would merit a detailed study3.  We will indicate here only the principal errors:

Is the purpose of the Incarnation “the unity of the human race“?

It is known that the most common solution to the question of the motive of the Incarnation is that God incarnated “for our salvation” (Credo of the Mass).

But, until then, no theologian had thought of the motive proposed by the Council, “the unity of the human race“: “What has revealed the love of God among us is that the Father has sent into the world His only-begotten Son, so that, being made man, He might by His redemption give new life to the entire human race and unify it.” (§ 2).

It is true that Our Lord wants to gather his sheep in His fold, but it is necessary, to be a sheep, to begin by believing in Him. Those who refuse to believe cannot participate in this unity.

“The unity of the human race” is not purpose of the Incarnation, but the utopian project sought by Freemasonry.

To attain this goal, the Council will contrive new concepts: “imperfect communion“, “full incorporation“, and “elements of Church“.

Is the conception of “imperfect communion” traditional?

“But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church […]. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” (§ 3).

The concept of full or imperfect communion is an invention of Vatican II4.  Either one fulfills the three conditions for belonging to the Church—baptism, faith, submission to the legitimate hierarchy—and one is in communion with it, or a condition is lacking and one is not in communion: “Est est, non non” (Mt. 5:37).

But what is particularly grave is the suggestion that such an imperfect communion allows one to be saved without it being necessary give up heresy or schism.

What is the danger to the Church of a “full incorporation“?

To be “fully incorporated” in the Church, UR tells us, in addition to the three usual conditions, a 4th condition is necessary:  “possessing the Spirit of Christ” (LG § 14)5.  This means that sinners, as well as Protestants (UR 3), are not fully incorporated into the Church.

The danger is formulating a Church with two categories of members: the category of perfect Christians (the fully incorporated “pure“) and that of imperfect Christians not fully incorporated. And as the sacraments are given in certain cases to Protestants and schismatics, why not also give them to sinners?

How does the concept of “elements of Church” introduce a false idea?

“Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.” (§ 3).

Before Vatican II, one spoke of “remnants“, to designate what remains of the true Church in the communities that are separated from its bosom. This term makes one think of “ruins” and it was judged too negative. Thus it opted for the notion of “elements“, also used in LG, no. 8. But doing this introduced a false idea, suggesting that these elements suffice by themselves to lead one to Christ, without the need to desire belonging to the Church.

Note that this new theology can open the door to a certain recognition of illegitimate unions (concubinage, “trial marriage“, unnatural unions, etc.), as Cardinal Kasper remarked6 and as Le Sel de la terre indicated at the time7.

What is the principal error of this Decree?

The decree tends to destroy the dogma of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Besides what we said regarding “imperfect communion” and the “elements of the Church“, there is the assertion that heretical or schismatic sects also rank as “means of salvation” which the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using (§ 3)8.

If one understands this assertion in the sense that the Holy Ghost can use these sects to save their members even when they do not have any desire to leave them, this proposition is heretical, because it is directly opposed to the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation“9.  To be saved, the at least implicit desire to belong to the Catholic Church is necessary, i.e., the desire to leave these sects.

If one understands this assertion in the sense that the Holy Ghost uses these sects to give their members the desire to belong to the Catholic Church, it is at the very least unrealistic.

But the worst phrase could be: “the separated Churches and Communities […] have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation“. This is to deny the unity of the divine intention to save by the Church that Jesus founded and not by another. To attribute a divine purpose (“mystery of salvation”) to the action of a sect seems to be a blasphemy again the wisdom of God and the unity of His plan.

What else do you note in this decree?

It inaugurates the era of repentance and suggests that the Catholic Church has pardonable faults for the “separated brethren“: “we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren” (§ 7).

It opens the door to communicatio in sacris: “two main principles governing the practice of such common worship [communicatio]: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace” (§ 8). In practice the second principle will serve to sacrifice the first.

It refuses to employ « polemics » in the relations with “the separated brethren“, suppressing in a stroke of the pen a good part of Tradition.

It introduces the idea that “in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths” (§ 11), without recalling that the “last” truth of faith is as necessary as the first for salvation.

§ 12 hopes that “before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the trine God“, placing the divine faith (of Catholics) and human faith of heretics on the same level. This same paragraph hopes for the social collaboration of “Christians“, without taking into account the danger of this collaboration and the change on this point with the previous discipline of the Church.

§ 14 suggests that throughout the centuries the Roman See did not exercise primacy, which implies that the particular Eastern Churches are sisters of the Roman Church, and thus they they were not subject to its ordinary jurisdiction, and that today’s schismatic Eastern Churches are the same as those founded by the Apostles, as if the schism did not introduce any break.

§ 15 also claims that the Eastern schismatics unreservedly benefit  from “apostolic succession“, and it recommends “some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority“.

§ 16 claims that certain aspects of revealed mystery have sometimes been better grasped and explained by the (schismatic) Orientals than by Catholics.

§ 19 reduces the difference between the Catholic faith and the Protestant heresy to differences “in the interpretation of revealed truth“.

§ 23 states that the “separated brethren“, thus heretics, have the “faith in Christ“, as if this were systematically the case; that “The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism“, whereas this is only true for infants or for heretics in invincible ignorance; and that they have “a true charity“, whereas charity does not exist without supernatural faith.

What judgement do you pass on the entire doctrine of the decree?

The doctrine of UR impressively strays, in its whole as in its details, from Catholic theology on the relations between the Church and other Christian sects, such as it was expressed in the preparatory schemas of the First Vatican Council, in the “Ottaviani” schema of Vatican II, and in papal encyclicals, in particular in Satis Cognitum by Leo XIII (29 June 1896), Mortalium Animos by Pius XI (6 January 1928), and Mystici Corporis by Pius XII (29 June 1943).

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eight) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 1-5)

admin conciliar Church, The Fight for the Faith

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eight) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 1-5)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

 

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 8)

 

The Nine Decrees

 

1. The three Decrees on bishops and priests

1. Christus Dominus (CD): the pastoral duty of bishops.

2. Presbyterorum ordinis (PO): the ministry and life of priests.

3. Optatam totius Ecclesiæ renovationem (OT): the formation of priests.

 

How does Christus Dominus (CD) describe the bishop?

[Note from editor:  reminder from a previous article that LG=”Lumen Gentium”]

CD, conforming to LG (especially its chapter 3), views the bishop above all as a pastor (exercising the power to govern) to the detriment of his two other aspects of doctor and pontiff (having the powers of teaching and sanctifying) (§ 1, 2, 9, 11, 16).

Did CD change the doctrine concerning the episcopacy?

The principal change concerns the power given by the consecration.  According to traditional doctrine, only the power of orders is given by the episcopal consecration, with an aptitude to receive jurisdiction1.  But CD, in its § 3, affirms that the bishops receive their “episcopal office” through the “episcopal consecration”, referring to LG § 21: “Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing“.

 

What remarks do you make on Presbyterorum ordinis (PO)?

§ 2 (in accordance with LG § 2, 4, and 17) speaks first of the priesthood of all the baptized (“all the faithful are made a holy and royal priesthood“) and then of the ministerial priesthood (“The same Lord, however, has established ministers among his faithful“), as if the latter emanates from the former, a Protestant idea.

§ 9 encourages priests to share the ecumenical attitude of the Council: “Mindful of the prescripts on ecumenism [a note refers to UR], let them not forget their brothers who do not enjoy full ecclesiastical communion with us.”

Finally, § 12 encourages the priests to be “consistently better instruments in the service of the whole People of God” “to fulfill its pastoral desires of an internal renewal of the Church [understood: the formation of a new Conciliar Church], of the spread of the Gospel in every land [the new evangelization], and of a dialogue with the world of today” [dialogue replacing missionary work]”.  As can be seen, PO expresses, between the lines, a new conception of the priest and his mission.

What remarks do you make on Optatam totius (OT)?

This decree’s aim is to add “new elements…which correspond to the constitutions and decrees of this sacred council and to the changed conditions of our times” (preamble) and “forming the future priests of Christ in the spirit of the renewal promoted by this sacred synod“.  It thus concerns forming priests having the spirit of Vatican II.

In particular, they must be formed for dialogue (§ 15 and 19), a term “completely unknown and unused in the Church’s teaching before the council“2.  OT refers to the encyclical Ecclesiam suam of Paul VI (6 August 1964), which introduced the new conception of dialogue, to the detriment of the missionary spirit.  Before the Council, priests were formed to be missionaries.  Now they are formed for dialogue.

§ 15 is very insufficient regarding what concerns philosophical studies.  There is no mention of Saint Thomas Aquinas, but only of “relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid” (with a reference to Ecclesiam suam of Paul VI); “taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages” is recommended.  Now, the current crisis in the Church essentially adheres to the introduction of a false subjective philosophy to the detriment of the realist philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.  This is why Saint Pius X proposed as the primary remedy of modernism “the scholastic philosophy…which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us” (Pascendi, § 45) and vigorously insisted in his last Motu proprio, Doctoris angelici (29 June 1914): “if they [‘teachers of philosophy and sacred theology’] deviated so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Thomas Aquinas, they exposed themselves to grave risk“.

§ 16 asks to draw one’s inspiration from LG and SC, whose differences we have seen3.

Did not Msgr. Lefebvre rely on OT for the formation of his priests?

OT was prepared by a commission presided over by Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, who was Prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries since 1937 and who held offices in the Curia since 1908, under the reign of St. Pius X. It is not surprising to find there some good passages.  A paragraph of OT (§ 16), which concerned the place of Saint Thomas Aquinas in a course of theology, inspired Msgr. Lefebvre for his seminary; he also drew from this decree the idea of a year of spirituality (§ 12).

2.  The two Decrees on the religious and the laity4

1. Perfectæ caritatis (PC): the renovation and adaptation of religious life.

2. Apostolicam actuositatem (AA): the apostolate of the laity.

What adaptation did Perfectæ caritatis (PC) accomplish?

PC adapts the religious life… to the spirit of the world.

The Church has always honored religious life, which it considers as a state of perfection superior to the ordinary state of Christians, aiming at more easily acquiring sanctity, i.e., the heroic exercise of Christian virtues.

From the preamble, the religious life is presented not as a state of perfection but as “a splendid sign of the heavenly kingdom“.  PC does not speak of state of life, avoids the expression “state of perfection“, and mentions heroic virtues only incidentally to the search for perfection or sanctity5.

Another remarkable absence in this Decree: the virtue of religion (the word does not appear), which nevertheless characterizes religious life to the point of having given it its name.  It is by the assiduous practice of this virtue that the religious easily and rapidly achieve the perfection of Christian life.

In the name of the new “virtue” of equality, PC erases the hierarchy between the Christians of the world and the religious6, between the lay religious and choir religious7.

Thus, the Decree satisfied the objections of the Protestants who did not want to hear talk about a superiority of the religious life over the life in the world, nor of clerics over the laity.

Finally, while encouraging the religious to preserve “their withdrawal from the world” (§ 7), PC “urges them to adjust their way of life to modern needs” (§ 10), “to the needs of our time” (§ 18), “to the requirements of time and…to modern conditions” (§ 20).  And in fact the adaptation “with the needs of our age” (§ 2) will be more applied than the “separation from the world” that characterized the religious life and spirit in the past.

It is no surprise that by revising the constitutions of the religious orders8 after the Council, the religious life in all the Church was destroyed in a few years.  The few religious who remain today –  apart from the resistors who try, against the winds and tides, to conserve the ancient conception of religious life – hardly distinguish themselves from the laity, and not only by the fact that they do not wear a habit!  (Moreover, as an aside, PC also allowed for the adaption of the religious habit9.)

What are the deficiencies of Apostolicam actuositatem (AA)?

This Decree tends to promote the laity unduly, the autonomy of the natural order ambiguously, Catholic action imprudently, false ecumenism, and is silent on the scourge of laicism.

How does AA promote the laity?

The promotion of the laity is done under the pretext of battling against what the progressives call “clericalism” and which, in reality, is only the divine will of a hierarchy between clerics and the laity10.

Without explicitly suppressing this hierarchy, this Decree opens doors that will largely serve, after the Council, to allow the laity into the government of the Church.

Some examples of ambiguous phrases exaggerate the role of the laity:

“The Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate” (§ 2): one should recall that the apostolate of the laity is by nature different from the apostolate of the hierarchy, and that – except in particular cases – the laity first are sanctified by the good exercise of their duty of state: the primary mission of a family mother is to raise her children well, and not to go perform an apostolate outside her home!

“But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.” (§ 2): exaggeration of the “priesthood” of the laity.  For the lay Christian, this “priesthood” consists in offering himself in sacrifice as a holy host (Rom. 12:1), not in exercising an apostolate “in the Church and in the world“.

Can one speak of an autonomy of the natural order?

The Council, in several of its texts, opens the way toward a form of naturalism in insisting on the autonomy of the natural order (§ 7 11).  AA also speaks of the “many areas of human life [that] have become increasingly autonomous” (§ 2), the “autonomy of the family” (§ 11), and the “autonomy of…various lay associations and enterprises” (§ 26).

It is true that there are laws (“law” is called “nomos” in Greek) proper to the natural order, to the family, and to the various human activities, but it is dangerous to speak of  autonomy in an age so distinguished by the spirit of independence and difficulty in submitting to a hierarchy.

It cannot be a coincidence that the “May 1968” [riots in France] took place three years after the end of the Council, and that today all intervention of the Church in the temporal and lay domain is easily interpreted as clericalism.

What does AA say about Catholic action?

An entire paragraph (§ 20) of AA praises Catholic action understood according to Pius XI as a “collaboration of the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy“.  “The most holy Council earnestly recommends these associations [of Catholic action] … which…produced excellent results for Christ’s kingdom.  These societies were deservedly recommended and promoted by the popes and many bishops“.

But it is known how Catholic action, initially conceived by St. Pius X as a movement of Catholics aiming to restore a Catholic society, later became a progressive movement, a so-called apostolate “for the environment“, in fact a center of agitation and protest in the Church.

How does AA sacrifice to ecumenism?

Vatican II having an ecumenical aim, it was necessary that it appear in the decree AA: “The quasi-common heritage of the Gospel and the common duty of Christian witness resulting from it recommend and frequently require the cooperation of Catholics with other Christians … common human values not infrequently call for cooperation between Christians pursuing apostolic aims and those who do not profess Christ’s name but acknowledge these values.  By this…cooperation…the laity bear witness to Christ, the Savior of the world, as well as to the unity of the human family.” (§ 27).

Unfortunately, as will be seen with the decree UR, the ecumenism promoted by the Council is a false ecumenism aiming not for the conversion of non-Catholics, but for the Masonic promotion of the unity of mankind: that thereafter led to the horrors of the various “Assisi” reunions and of post-conciliar interreligious dialogue.

(To be continued)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Seven) – The Four Constitutions (continued): Gaudium et Spes – The Place of the Church in the Modern World

admin The Fight for the Faith ,

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Seven) – Gaudium et Spes – The Place of the Church in the Modern World

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

 

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 7)

 

The Four Constitutions

IV

Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes –  on the place of the Church in the modern world

 

What is the importance of this text?

Because the Council intended to accomplish an updating (aggiornamento) to bring the Church closer to the modern world, this Constitution is the most representative of the Council.  Just as the Syllabus of Pius IX in a way constituted the charter of the position of the Church in the face of the modern world before Vatican II 1, so too is GS the charter of the Conciliar Church:

Gaudium et Spes is (along with the texts on religious liberty and the world religions) a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a sort of counter-Syllabus. […] This text plays the role of a counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt at officially reconciling the Church with the world as it has become since 1789 2.

What is the fundamental error of this text?

The fundamental error of this text, which is that of Vatican II and in a general way that of the Conciliar Church, is having attempted this “official reconciliation of the Church with the world such as it has become since 1789,” whereas Pope Pius IX solemnly condemned in advance such an attitude in the last proposition of the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (condemned proposition).

Msgr. Gaume explains this well in his Petit catéchisme du Syllabus 3:

The Sovereign Pontiff neither can nor should reconcile himself with these three things 4 because they tend to ruin the tutelary authority of the Church, degrade man, and render him wretched5.

The proof is established by the facts; after Vatican II the ruin of the authority of the Church and the degradation and the miserable state of men have only accelerated.

Is there a Freemasonic influence in this text?

Masonic doctrine appears clearly in this text, as it does in the text on religious liberty.  Also, these two documents are the only ones that Archbishop Lefebvre refused to approve at the Council.

Where does the Masonic doctrine of gnosis appear?

In several places, in particular when the text affirms that “the Godlike seed…has been sown in” (§ 3, 2) man, and that “by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man” (§ 22, 2).

GS affirms it of every man; it can only be understood in the perspective of the gnosis according to which there is in the depths of man a spark of divinity, and that man should regain consciousness of his dignity, without having need of the faith or baptism.

Let us note that in § 22, 2 we find the expression “in some fashion” which allows for stating a heresy without clearly affirming it.  But afterwards, “in some fashion” will be suppressed and the heresy of universal redemption will be clearly taught, notably by John-Paul II6.

Where does the Masonic doctrine of humanism appear?

Masonic humanism is a consequence of its gnosis; because man is “Godlike“, one should affirm his dignity and even make him the center of the universe.  GS insists much on the “dignity” of man7.

The entire chapter 1 of GS is related to the dignity of man, notably that of his conscience, independently of whether he follows the moral law or not: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity.” (§ 16, 1).

The dignity of man is not lost, even if he adheres to error: “it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person” (§ 28, 2).

This dignity was even increased, for all men, by the Incarnation: “Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too.  For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.” (§ 22, 2).

This dignity is equal in all men (§ 29, 3); private and public institutions are at its service (§ 29, 4); it establishes the relationship between the Church and the world (§ 40, 1); better than all others, the Church ensures its respect (§ 41); it is necessary to honor and promote it also in social and economic life; consciousness of this dignity has increased in our time (§ 26 and 72), etc.

But the most incredible passage of GS remains the affirmation:

“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” (§ 12).

Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais judges that “this conciliar passage is the expression of an anthropocentrism that verges on blasphemy” 8.

Where does the Masonic doctrine of the rights of man appear?

The text frequently speaks about them (three times more frequently than the duties of man), saying that the Church, in virtue of the Gospel that was confided to it, proclaims them (§ 41, 3), that it asks that they be developed in all regimes that recognize them (§ 41, 3), that these rights are universal and inviolable (§ 26, 2), that it is necessary to respect them (§ 65, 66, 75), protect them (§ 26, 2), where it is affirmed that this is one of the advantages of “socialization“, (§ 29), promote them (including the rights “to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately“, § 73), and defend them (including, if needs be, by strikes—although in certain civilized countries striking is justly forbidden by the law, e.g. in certain Swiss cantons).

In summary:

« With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.  For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored [§ 29, 2]. »

It is known that the doctrine of the Rights of Man, issuing from the masonic lodges, was proclaimed by the French Revolution (afterwards by the United States) and condemned by the Church as the expression of a new right that is not based on the natural law and on the Gospel, but on general will 9.

Subsequently, the more recent popes have sought to proclaim a correct doctrine of “fundamental rights” of the human person in the face of totalitarianism 10.  Whatever the success of such an enterprise is, the text of GS favors the Masonic interpretation of the doctrine of the Rights of Man, even if only because it does not mention any of the condemnations of the novel right 11.

Does GS speak of laicism?

No, not more than the other texts of the Council, whereas a pastoral council should have spoken of this, “the plague which now infects society12“, which consists in denying the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ over society.  Certainly GS asks Catholics to conduct themselves thus within the framework of public life (§ 43, 1), but it specifies that it is “the function of their well-formed Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city” (§ 43, 2).  This detour to “conscience” suffices to annul the objective and obligatory character of the submission of society to Christ the King.  Laicism is very dear to Freemasons, and it is undoubtedly why the Council would not attack it.

Where does the realization of the goal of Freemasonry appear?

The aim of Freemasonry is the “reconstruction of the Temple“, i.e., the reunification of humanity dispersed after the episode of the Tower of Babel.  This Masonic “great work” is performed under the guidance of the Great Architect of the Universe, which is none other than Lucifer seeking to be adored in the place of God and who also prepares the coming of the Antichrist.  He will lead the world government when the aim is implemented13.

Now, we have seen, the Council set itself the goal of working for “the unity of the whole human race” (§ 42, 3), and it is above all in GS that this desire is expressed. In its preface, the text joins the idea of a “brotherhood of all men” (§ 3, 2) to the gnostic thesis of the “Godlike seed” sown in all men:

« Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him, offers to mankind the honest assistance of the Church in fostering that brotherhood of all men which corresponds to this destiny of theirs [§ 3, 2]. »

And in its conclusion, GS returns to the matter, affirming that this is the aim of the constitution and that this “brotherhood of all men” includes all men, believers and unbelievers.

« Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him.  If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love [§ 91, 1]. »

Could you please identify some other errors taught or favored by GS?

  • The text suggests the inversion of the ends of marriage14 and the condemnation of the Catholic doctrine of just war (§ 82), favors conscientious objection (§ 78 and 79), promotes democracy to the detriment of other legitimate forms of government (notably § 31, 3 and 7515), etc.
  • One can even indicate the scandalous silence of GS, a pastoral constitution devoted to the problems of our time, on communism which savagely persecuted Christians then, despite a request from more than 450 bishops.  But this silence was the result of a secret Rome-Moscow pact.
(To be continued)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Six) – The Four Constitutions (continued): Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy

admin The Fight for the Faith

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Six) – The Four Constitutions (continued):  Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

 

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 6)

 

The Four Constitutions

III

Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy

 

What are the principle errors contained this constitution?

SC does not clearly assert errors, but it opens doors that will be greatly opened after the Council.

For example :

— in §22, it is said that the Apostolic See alone—and, within certain limits, the bishop—can regulate the liturgy.  But in §23, innovations are permitted, if it is useful ;

— in §36, it is clearly affirmed that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”.  In the following paragraph, one reads, surprisingly: “But since the use of the mother tongue […] frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.”

Could you give an example of calculated ambiguity?

SC frequently speaks of the “active participation” of the faithful in the liturgy. This expression—which is found roughly twenty times—would be well understood if it favored spiritual participation, because « it is in the cooperation of the power of the sacrament and of human effort, of the seriously Christian life, and of the sincere tendency toward spiritual perfection that the secret of lively faith consists1. »

But, as what followed has shown, in the name of this active participation the liturgy became noisier and noisier, the laity came to take the place of clerics, etc., without any profit for the faithful2.

Are there other errors in SC?

One can collect a certain number of parallels with Protestant doctrine3:

  • the notion of Pascal mystery which stresses our Redemption in the Resurrection of Our Lord and erases the reality of an expiatory sacrifice in the liturgy (§§ 5 and 6);
  • the Presence of Christ in the Mass is practically placed on the same level as His presence in the minister of the liturgical action, in the power of the sacraments, in His word, and in two or three persons united in His name (§7);
  • §34 requests to do a reform of the rites so that they return to the splendor of a noble simplicity and be devoid of “useless repetitions” (this rationalist and anti-liturgical influence will lead to replacing the sacrificial offertory with a simple “presentation of gifts” in the new mass);
  • underlying §37 one finds inculturation and the so-called unity in liturgical plurality, opposed to the true unity of the Church and Roman spirit;
  • §47 uses, for designating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, neither the notion of “repræsentatio” of the Council of Trent, nor that of “renewal” of the later popes (until Pius XII inclusive), but speaks of “perpetuating” the sacrifice and of “memorial”;
  • §55 requests to give, on certain particular occasions, the Eucharist under two species in the manner of Protestants;
  • §81 requires the suppression of somber thoughts on death by using other liturgical colors than black.  This pleases the Protestants who know neither purgatory nor prayer for the deceased.

What judgment should one make of this Constitution?

The tree is judged by its fruits: the very disastrous liturgical reform is the fruit of SC.  In summary, one can say that the liturgy, which was theocentric until Vatican II, became anthropocentric after the Council.  The worship of man took the place of the worship of God.