publish this very interesting intervention by the top of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X for the district of France; basically you can see how the two horns of the dilemma, save the tradition and with it, or save the Church Council and with it one of the ways of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, in essence can not be overcome and resolved without addressing the big question of the Council. Now since there is something that is higher than both the Church that the supreme Magisterium, and this is the salvation of souls, for the good of souls seems high time for a rethinking of the council at its best: a favorable opportunity could lie in the fact that next year it occurs in October 50th anniversary of the opening of the Council. We pray that the good of souls in the Church requires great faith and great sacrifice. letter to our brother priests
What is the relationship between the Vatican and the crisis?
Letter quarterly reports to the Society of St. Pius X with the French clergy
What is the relationship between the Vatican and the crisis?
E 'is already a year that the talks doctrine advocated by the Society of Saint Pius X established by the Supreme Pontiff and are held regularly between the experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X. These doctrinal discussions are continuing with the discretion to request such a major and difficult. It 's impossible, and it would be foolish to think of working on complex and subtle under the eye of the cameras television and in front of a forest of microphones. Each of the protagonists, in fact, must be able to express his position, his vision about a problem in front of his peers, even if this expression is still weak and imperfect, in order to receive criticisms and observations of others and to succeed based way to refine and improve what he has to say and defend. It would be imprudent to ridicule and spread to the four winds right now what needs to be filed, depth, better argued. And this from both sides. Then wait without impatience, and praying for the good of the Church, that these discussions will advance enough to present to the public this or that 'final element prepared and able to have the opportunity to become acquainted. However, these theological insights have as main object of our relationship with the Second Vatican Council, and the influence of the latter on the crisis that now crosses the Church. So it seemed useful to offer you a simple but fairly complete summary of our position on this crucial point, the synthesis of the first part is presented in this issue.
Speaking of Vatican II with sensitivity and nuance, but also with honesty and truth, today it is extremely difficult. To suggest that this Council's text, in any of his points, and theological reason for that could not possibly essere interamente estraneo alla crisi attuale, pare totalmente impensabile ed inaccettabile: è il grande tabù ecclesiastico contemporaneo, la questione scottante per eccellenza.
Ho ritenuto che non fosse degno né di voi né di noi schivare tale questione cruciale col pretesto che potrebbe contrariare qualcuno. Mi è sembrato che, tra sacerdoti, tra adulti maturi e responsabili, potessimo liberamente “ parlare di cose che irritano senza irritarci ”. E’ una scommessa sull’intelligenza e sull’apertura mentale.
Rev. Regis de CAQUERAY
QUELLO CHE NON DICIAMO THE VATICAN
that the current crisis based solely on the council
It 'clear that we have never said that the Second Vatican Council is the sole cause of the contemporary de-Christianization, the exclusive source of all the current ills of the Church, the key to complete the religious crisis: it would be a ridiculous idea. On the contrary, it is certain that the crisis experienced by the Church for half a century has multiple explanations, causes very different, that you can quickly establish a basic list.
Malaise in Christianity
It 'clear that the end of the pontificate of Pius XII there was already a deep malaise in the Church, even if external structures seemed solid. Statistics show a gradual but inexorable decline in vocations, well before the Council: between 1950 and 1960, the number of ordinations to the priesthood in France was reduced by one third. The practice began to fall Sunday: always in France, between 1950 and 1960, has already dropped by 20%. The consequences of the Second World War, especially the division between resistant and wait staff, are felt. Restlessness deaf, a spiritual malaise troubles part of the clergy and the faithful, while on each side spread disturbing theological and moral claims. The enormous spread of clandestine seminary of the time, the works of Teilhard de Chardin is one clear sign. You start with a desire for emancipation, and youth, as is normal, is the first to be affected: the great crisis of Catholic, remember, started since the 50 youth organizations. Faced with this illness, which would require appropriate spiritual remedies through a renewal inner part of the Church, unfortunately, is limited to a pastoral habit, without addressing the problem. The Church does not produce enough antibodies to overcome this crisis, of modernism which, under Pope Saint Pius X, was a warning signal. The dangers grow, harbingers of future storms, but the good society cares too little church, trusting an order only from the outside. It 'obvious that this religious malaise more or less common to be a fertile ground for the terrible explosion of the '60s and '70s.
the thirty-year boom
This malaise in the Church depends in part on technical developments, economic and social novel. The postwar knows an extraordinary enrichment of Western nations, the result of diffusion of (engine, electronics, chemicals, etc..), as well as cheap and abundant energy (mainly oil). The medicine starts her amazing progress, in particular open the possibility of dominating the men's fertility by artificial means (oral contraceptive pill). Transport (ships, trains and airplanes), which became rapid, safe and inexpensive, allowing the growth of globalization (now known as globalization) of persons and goods, which encourages the growing development of telecommunications (trivialization of the phone). It 's the third of the boom period of employment for all and increasing living standards.
crisis for European (and world)
These spectacular economic and technical changes are accompanied by important social and cultural trends. The secularization of society, which started in the eighteenth century, continues to progress, leading to a progressive disappearance of the traces of Christianity in society. The increasingly significant success of the "masters of the doubt" (Kant, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, etc..), Calls into question the ability of man to achieve an objective truth, the nobility of her ethical choices, its superiority over the world animal control of his inner life. Marxism, especially nella sua versione leninista, domina una grande parte del mondo, ma anche strati interi della società europea. L’accesso all’indipendenza delle nazioni colonizzate, l’emergere delle loro rivendicazioni politiche, economiche, culturali e religiose contribuiscono al rigetto dell’ “ europocentrismo ”. I vecchi colonizzatori sono messi sul banco degli imputati, le loro opinioni pubbliche sono influenzate dalla coscienza sporca. A causa del prolungamento e dell’universalizzazione dell’obbligo scolastico, dell’ingresso ritardato nel mondo del lavoro, di una certa forma di autonomia finanziaria e della valorizzazione del figlio (conseguenza della riduzione della fecondità), compare una nuova classe in society and claim their share of responsibility and consideration: youth. This crisis for European and world bursts with the events of May 1968, involving both Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia and the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Japan or China, but are particularly massive and spectacular in France.
Crisis and post-conciliar
All these facts and many others that sociological analysis can clarify, are certainly a fertile ground for a global calling into question of tradition, authority, regulation, dominant culture and religion. We are aware of and willingly admit it: the crisis that still suffer the consequences has certainly many and varied causes. The fact that this crisis has exploded more or less at the time of Vatican II does not mean that then it shall be the sole cause and necessary. In general, if an event B occurs after the fact A, it does not mean that A is forced to the cause of B: if I get sick after a walk, it does not prove that I am sick because I walked. We also agree that the Vatican has been the occasion for some of designs that matured long before, and entirely outside of the Council: some priests, example, took advantage of the atmosphere that calls into question that prevailed then to leave the priesthood (an idea that rocked a long time) in better material conditions. On the other hand, the post-Council does not necessarily paid to the Council itself. By many, it is clear, and under the false teaching of "the spirit of the Council", there was a use of the Vatican outside his reality and contrary to his lyrics. In addition, some of the post-conciliar reforms to how they carried out in the facts (for example, the liturgical reform), were not necessarily contained in those documents of Vatican II (there were different possible implementations of the same text), and consequently would not be fair to attribute solely to the Vatican the contested elements of these reforms.
But you can do as if the council had not done?
All these explanations, all of these perspectives, all these nuances, we admit the good-hearted. However, they can not and must cancel an obvious fact: a crisis of extreme religious violence broke out during and after Vatican II. This is not enough at all and prove that the council will be the main cause. But impossible to say no other form of process that the council not to blame for anything. At a minimum, you must consider, ask two concomitant phenomena so visually (Vatican II, the religious and moral crisis) may have no causal link? It would be difficult to drink such a "miracle" to any serious historian.
NOT WHAT YOU SAY ON VATICAN II
That the Council would be illegitimate and flawed from the outset in all
Just as we have never said that Vatican II was the sole and exclusive cause of the crisis, so we never said that the Council was unlawful from the outset, or that its end was completely spoiled and unacceptable. In short, we never claimed that the Vatican was wrong on every point. E 'false and even ridiculous, as in many texts, for example, that the council has simply invoked the doctrine already infallibly taught by the Church.
under the action of October 13, 1962
Vatican II was a council of the Catholic Church convened regularly, which brought together the bishops of the world under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Archbishop Lefebvre has never questioned a priori that council on the contrary, he was a member of the Central Preparatory Commission. Of course, Bishop Lefebvre ha sempre puntato l’indice contro l’ “ azione di forza ” del 13 ottobre 1962 del cardinale Liénart, che ha comportato il rigetto di quasi tutti gli schemi preparati, a vantaggio delle tesi della “ nuova teologia ”e del cattolicesimo liberale sostenute dall’Alleanza europea. Eppure, nessun concilio nella storia aveva goduto di una preparazione “ così vasta, condotta con tale diligenza, e così profonda ” come è stato giustamente detto all’epoca, e Giovanni XXIIII, che aveva seguito quei lavori, ha testimoniato che questi ultimi erano stati eseguiti “ con precisione e cura ”. Mons. Lefebvre ha ritenuto che quell’azione di forza e le sue conseguenze fossero state un disastro per l’orientamento del Concilio, la sue debolezza dottrinale, il suo spirito. Questa situazione ha comportato che i difensori della Tradizione si siano trovati in una situazione inestricabile, di fronte a dei testi impregnati di uno spirito nuovo, poco in armonia con la dottrina tradizionale, spirito nuovo che era difficilissimo, se non impossibile, da cambiare o far scomparire a forza di emendamenti.
L’influenza dei gruppi di pressione
D’altra parte, quando ha parlato del Vaticano II, Mons. Lefebvre ha sottolineato il ruolo importantissimo dei vari “ gruppi di pressione ”, tra i quali citava specialmente i media. Il Vaticano II è stato senz’altro il primo concilio della storia a svolgersi sotto l’occhio di giornali potentissimi, che intimidivano i Padri conciliari, facevano delle campagne per tale tesi, orientavano i voti. Allo stesso modo, Mons. Lefebvre ha ricordato che alcune conferenze episcopali (quelle delle rive del Reno, dall’orientamento nettamente progressista), organizzate assai prima del Concilio, beneficiavano di mezzi umani e finanziari considerevoli (alla fine della terza sessione, una delle loro officine, l’IDOC, si vantava di aver distribuito ai Padri più di quattro milioni di fogli). Infine, Mons. Lefebvre ha deplorato l’influenza di altri gruppi di pressione estremamente attivi su certi soggetti: la massoneria per la libertà religiosa; i protestanti per l’ecumenismo; le organizzazioni israelite per le relazioni con il giudaismo; l’Unione Sovietica per la non condanna del comunismo, ecc.
Una critica sulla base di testi precisi
Tuttavia, Mons. Lefebvre non ha mai condannato in blocco il Vaticano II come un concilio intrinsecamente illegittimo. Anche se ha spesso ricordato i fatti spiacevoli se non scandalosi che hanno viziato il suo svolgimento, conosceva troppo bene la storia della Chiesa per non sapere che altri concili, in passato, avevano conosciuto anch’essi gravi vicissitudini umane. Come diceva dom Guéranger: “ We forget too that church history is better in the future, but that the details seen from very close are not always attractive. " So when he criticized, or "accused" the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre did not do so for an unlawful rule, a priori, but based on specific texts, in clear opposition to the Church's constant tradition and teaching.
what we say about the Vatican II
A pastoral council simply ... but largely emphasized
If we never said that the Vatican is the sole cause the current crisis, nor a council illegitimate in principle, it is clear that we respect his criticism: they are constant and public for forty years. To begin with simple observation, it must be emphasized that the conscience of the Church today is busy, intrusive and obscured by the single reference to Vatican II. If, as we are told, this council is a council like the others, in continuity with the others, though, as we repeated in every way, this council did not change anything essential, and it was the only new way to say, if , proclaimed as the official doctrine, it is a doctrinal and pastoral council, then we call the Second Vatican Council in its place, which is very modest. The men of the Church must stop living alone and from the Vatican.
A pastoral council simply
This twenty-first ecumenical council, in effect, is atypical: not simply a continuation of a continuation of previous Councils, the express will of its founder, Pope John XXIII, who has designed a very special way as a "pastoral council". Of course, every council is pastoral because it is doctrinal, it is better to be pastoral doctrine. But in the case of Vatican II, it was alleged that he was "pastoral" in senso nuovo, perché non voleva né doveva essere “ dottrinale ”. Giovanni XXIII lo precisa nettamente nel suo discorso inaugurale, l’11 ottobre 1962, che darà il tono ai lavori del Vaticano II. Inizia con dichiarare a questo riguardo: “ Il nostro lavoro non consiste neppure, come scopo primario, nel discutere alcuni dei principali temi della dottrina cristiana ”, perché per questo, afferma, “ non ci sarebbe bisogno di riunire un concilio ecumenico ”. “Occorre, prosegue, che questa dottrina certa ed immutabile, alla quale si deve prestare un assenso fedele, sia approfondita ed esposta secondo quanto è richiesto dai nostri tempi. Altro è infatti il deposito della Fede, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, and the manner with which they proclaim, but always in the same direction and in the same sense. Should be given great importance to this method and, if necessary, applied with patience, that you will take the form of exposure that corresponds most closely to the Magisterium, whose nature is predominantly pastoral. ". We just mentioned the Italian version of the speech, the Latin version, a bit 'different (but John XXIII used two formulas in two different times), says: "You will have to resort to a way to present a better match of teaching in the mainly pastoral. " This choice pastorale è stata mantenuta per tutto il Concilio. Inaugurando la seconda sessione, il 29 settembre 1963, il nuovo papa Paolo VI ricordava “ lo scopo più urgente e di natura attualmente più benefica del Concilio, lo scopo pastorale ”. Il 4 dicembre 1963, per la chiusura della seconda sessione, egli sottolineava che i Padri non avevano “ mai perso di vista l’orientamento pastorale di quel concilio ”. Il 7 dicembre 1965, concludeva : “ Il motivo dell’interesse preponderante dato dal Concilio ai valori umani e temporali risiede nel carattere pastorale che il Concilio ha voluto e di cui ha fatto in qualche modo il suo programma ”.
Un concilio che avoid dogmatic stand on the floor
Such designation of Vatican II as a "pastoral council" (and not just the council) expressed a strong desire to avoid placing himself on the floor properly dogmatic. The statements in this regard are very clear. So says John XXIII on 11 October 1962: "Our job is not even, as its primary purpose in discussing some of the main themes of Christian doctrine." On March 6, 1964, then November 16, 1964, the Secretary General of the Council read out a statement of the Doctrinal Commission on the theological qualification of Vatican II: "Taking into account the use of the councils and purpose of the pastoral council present, it does not define how dovente be considered by the Church that the only points on faith and morals that will clearly declared as such. " On December 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI reiterated that, in the Council, "the Magisterium of the Church did not want to rule in the form of extraordinary dogmatic judgments." On 12 January 1966, insisted: "Given its pastoral character, the Council has avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way with the character of the dogmas of infallibility." In a speech July 13, 1988 before the bishops of Chile and taking stock of the consecrations made by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, summed up the choice made by the Vatican as follows: "The truth is that the Council itself did not define any dogma and must be located on a more modest level, simply as a pastoral council." And in an open letter to Benedict XVI published in Witness chrétien (October 26, 2006) of Bishop Jacques Noyer to protest against plans for a motu proprio on the traditional Mass, the old bishop of Amiens wrote these exact words: "If the Vatican II has so marked the modern Church, because it was pastoral, not doctrinal. "
However, a council largely emphasized since its closure
Now, this pastoral council, simply pastoral, which should therefore have a relatively modest place in history and life of the Church, has been widely emphasized. First, its promoters have not hesitated to proclaim that this pastoral Council opened a new era in the history of the Church, which would have seen the triumph of the latter. John XXIII believed that the Vatican would be a "new Pentecost", which involved "a new step forward in the kingdom of Christ in the world." Opening the second session, Paul VI stated that the council would be "the immense spiritual energy of spring awakening and moral, which are like hidden within the Church. " And closing the last session, greeted "the renewal of thought, action, customs, moral strength, joy and hope that was the purpose of the Council." Then, after the close of Vatican II, there was a real deluge of references to this council simply pastoral. It would be possible to detect, in the papal texts of the last forty years, tens of thousands of citations of the Council. To give just one example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, has more than 800 citations of Vatican II, while the winds of doctrine specifically councils that preceded it have entitled to only 200 mentions. To understand the strange nature of this "quotation", just do a comparison with the Roman Catechism or Catechism of the Council of Trent, published in 1566. This was after the Council of Trent, dogmatic council of exceptional importance, which has covered many topics included in that catechism which has, moreover, expressly requires the publication. Now the Council of Trent is mentioned less than fifteen times in the catechism that takes its name. Finally, to get to the bottom of this emphasis merely a pastoral council, Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1975, in an official letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, ended up using these significant words: "The Second Council of the Vatican has less authority in some respects is even more important than that of Nicaea. " That Vatican II is regarded as more important that the council has defined the dogma of the divinity of Christ means that this council simply pastoral surreptitiously become the main reference doctrine of the Church.
a really disproportionate
We say, and we have always said that whatever its content, the Vatican simply pastoral council according to the more formal statements of its supporters, today is a problem in the life of Church for the post completely and enormous proportion that is attributed to the detriment of another twenty ecumenical councils which are, instead, "doctrinal councils." Similarly, the action constant and exclusive access to the Vatican has dropped into oblivion papal teachings of the two centuries that preceded it, however, lessons that are a rich heritage of doctrinal and pastoral, of which the Church would have today a great need.
what we say about the Vatican II
Despite all efforts, it remains a core of controversial texts
Although merely pastoral council of Vatican II was improperly emphasized, as to seem almost like a new birth of the Church, this is not essentially to base our public opposition against him. What we say about him is that, even after the Vatican II cleared through customs a part of its responsibilities in the crisis, we must recognize that this council, in some of his texts, is one of the causes, and the worst of that crisis .
the church through a serious crisis today
And, first of all, it must be recognized by the highest authorities that a major crisis hits today Church. E 'Paul VI said in December 7th, 1968: "The Church is located within an hour of anxiety, self-criticism, it seems even self-destruction. It 's like an interior upheaval, acute and complex. As if struck by the Church itself. " Or ask a June 29, 1972: "The smoke of Satan has entered some crevice in the temple of God: doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction, comparison has been made street." And 'John Paul II to declare February 6, 1981: "The Christians of today, in large part, they feel lost, confused, puzzled and even confused. (...) On every side are widespread idee che contraddicono la verità che fu rivelata ed è sempre stata insegnata. Sono state divulgate delle vere eresie nel campo del dogma e della morale, che suscitano dubbi, confusione, ribellione. Anche la liturgia è stata violata. Immersi in un “ relativismo ” intellettuale e morale, i cristiani sono tentati da un illuminismo vagamente moralista, da un cristianesimo sociologico, senza dogma definito e senza morale oggettiva ”. E’ il cardinale Ratzinger a predicare il 25 marzo 2005: “ Signore, spesso la tua Chiesa ci sembra una barca che sta per affondare, una barca che fa acqua da tutte le parti ”. E’ Benedetto XVI a riconoscere il 22 dicembre 2005: “ Nessuno può negare che, in ampie parti delle Chiesa, la ricezione del Concilio sia avvenuta in modo piuttosto difficile ”.
Questa crisi deriva, almeno in parte, dal Vaticano II?
Questa crisi ha come origini, almeno in parte, il concilio Vaticano II stesso? Riprendiamo il filo della storia per capire la posizione della Fraternità San Pio X a tale riguardo. Mons. Lefebvre ha partecipato attivamente al Concilio. Ha certamente votato fino alla fine, come aveva diritto, contro il decreto sulla libertà religiosa, contro quello sull’ecumenismo e contro la Costituzione Gaudium et spes: ma ciò significa, in controparte, che ha votato per gli altri nove documenti. Non si può quindi affermare che Mons. Lefebvre abbia rifiutato il Concilio in blocco, per principio, ancor prima di esaminarlo. D’altronde , se Mons. Lefebvre fosse stato un oppositore dichiarato, per principio, Paolo VI non gli avrebbe certo indirizzato nel 1972 una lettera di felicitazioni per i suoi 25 anni di episcopato. Mons. Lefebvre reputa, durante il Concilio, che certi testi contengano delle vere “ bombe ” dottrinali a scoppio ritardato. Tuttavia, aspetta di vedere quali conseguenze avranno effettivamente quei testi esplosivi. Mons. Lefebvre applica il principio evangelico: giudicare l’albero dai suoi frutti. Perché un testo può essere precisato, orientato, rettificato dall’interpretazione che se ne dà. Sfortunatamente, l’interpretazione considerata sarà troppo spesso la peggiore. In queste condizioni, si trova costretto a ritornare alle proprie critiche degli anni 1962-1965, e ad affermare nel 1976: “ Accuso il Concilio ”.
Certo, non pretendiamo di essere infallibili nelle nostre critiche
Se noi non attribuiamo al concilio Vaticano II, secondo la dichiarazione esplicita della Commissione dottrinale del 6 marzo 1964 e del 16 novembre 1964, un’infallibilità che non converrebbe affatto ad un concilio semplicemente pastorale, noi pretendiamo ancor meno per noi stessi l’infallibilità. E’ quindi possibile that in all of the criticisms that articulate on some texts of Vatican II, and despite the work and the care taken to put in the form of these criticisms, we have made quiproquo or counterintuitive at some point. This called into question or that may, in detail, to be insufficiently founded, exaggerated, ill have distinguished the essential from the accessory.
But still, despite the efforts of interpretation of the texts at issue
However, after a serious study of the texts of Vatican II, their assumptions and their consequences, and even as it acknowledges that coefficient of uncertainty arising from any inaccuracies in our criticism, the Vatican remains a core of really problematic texts, news of which present a dissonance with the Catholic faith, which is manifested in the fact that these changes are opposed to explicit and constant teaching of the Magisterium of the previous year. Archbishop Lefebvre was mainly found three of these innovations: collegiality, religious freedom and ecumenism (because these three points are explained in a new way by Vatican II). However, if these three are the main objections, does not mean that other claims do not have their importance. The new ecclesiology contained in Lumen Gentium, the new relations of the Church and the world offered by Gaudium et often, for example, without a doubt deserve some criticism too.
Now those texts directly related to the controversial faith
Unfortunately, the texts at issue relate directly to the faith, therefore, eternal salvation. So in our eyes they are fundamentally unacceptable and this explains why, in some way, against our will and against our deepest desire, we are now at a safe distance from certain acts of Rome today. The future Cardinal Bertone, in an article published in 1966 and titled "On receipt of documents of the Magisterium and public disagreement" rightly wrote: "When we talk of the need to check the actual consent of all the bishops around the world or even the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it must be remembered that this consensus can not be understood in a purely synchronic sense, but it must be understood in a diachronic sense. This means that the morally unanimous consent covers all eras of the Church, and is only listening to this all that remains in fidelity to the Apostles. 'If somewhere - Cardinal Ratzinger points out in a studio - it was to create a majority against the faith of the Church of the past, can hardly be a majority ". We say that if you can apparently expect, and physically, there is now a consensus on these synchronic latest odds with faith, it is certain that there is, and will never be, a diachronic consensus. There is, in these new pastoral council of Vatican II, at most, a "majority of [apparent] against the faith of the Church of the past," against the faith of the Church of increasingly unacceptable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment