+
JMJ
So, I took a glance at The Remnant's article: With His Catechesis on Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, Leo XIV Proves the SSPX Correct (link) and the following stood out:
Although the time that separates us from this event is not so long, it is equally true that the generation of bishops, theologians and believers of Vatican II is no longer with us. ... By choosing this word [mystery], it did not intend to say that the Church is something obscure or incomprehensible, as is commonly thought when the word ‘mystery’ is heard. It is exactly the opposite: indeed, when Saint Paul uses the word, especially in the Letter to the Ephesians, he wishes to indicate a reality that was previously hidden and is now revealed. It refers to God’s plan, which has a purpose: to unite all creatures thanks to the reconciliatory action of Jesus Christ, an action that was accomplished through his death on the cross.”
Suffice to say that, inspite of five pontificates (P6, JP1, SJP2, B16, F1) trying to make V2 fit, they never seem to be able to do it with significant references to what the Catholic Church taught before V2. To my memory, comments invited, there hasn't been a significant document that issued some doctrine that didn't in some way tear down, pick away or at least undermine some aspect of 'Traditional' Church Teaching.
Oh wait I just remembered one ... PSJP2's declaration forbidding Catholic Priestesses (Ordinatio Sacerdotis link).
I think one could sum up a fare portion of this crisis being do to the Sins of Omission committed by the hundreds of members of the Catholic Church in positions of authority that have become hirelings.
Which has led us to this point in history. If there aren't more shepherds ... then not much is going to change for the Church as a whole.
Attached is a recent article that sent my thoughts in the direction of Sins of Omission and the Second Vatican Council.
P^3
Courtesy of FSSPX.News: Sin of Omission: Vatican II and the Sources of Revelation
Read amidst the twists and turns of the German Synodal Path:
“This difference in status [that between clergy and laity], to which different rights and duties are attached, continues to mark ecclesiastical law and the liturgy to this day. However, it is not biblical. Clericalism is rooted in the emphasis placed upon this difference in status.”[1]
Apparently, the mere fact that Sacred Scripture does not mention it is sufficient to disqualify the distinction between clergy and laity. And yet, it is well known that many elements of Catholic doctrine are not found in the Bible: the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, her Immaculate Conception, the very canon of the Scriptures, etc. “There are many things,” says St. Augustine, “which the universal Church observes, and which, for that very reason, one is justified in believing to have been ordained by the Apostles, despite the absence of written texts.”[2]
Should we view this tendentious insinuation from the German synod as a peculiarity of the most radical progressives? Truth be told, no; they can base their stance on a controversy predating the Second Vatican Council—one that resulted in one of those compromise texts in which the Council specialized, and in which it excelled at leaving things unsaid!
Indeed, as the discussion approached regarding the conciliar schema on Revelation—originally titled De fontibus Revelationis (On the Sources of Revelation)—the reformist fringe demanded that the text speak not of two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, but of only one. The arguments put forward for rejecting the initial schema cited a lack of pastoral spirit and ecumenical sensitivity. It is understandable that emphasizing Tradition as a source of Revelation—alongside Scripture—meant that the latter was not left to stand alone; this effectively challenged one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation. For this reason, the text ultimately adopted takes great care—even when discussing Tradition—to present it as inseparable from Scripture, and steadfastly refrains from asserting that certain truths of faith are not to be found in the Bible. The only sentence that might have alluded to this survived the debate in the following form: “It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that is revealed.”[3] In other words, it effectively says nothing at all.
During the debates, on September 24, 1965, Pope Paul VI had the citation from St. Augustine—cited above—forwarded to the Council’s Doctrinal Commission. Yet, “although it was duly transmitted to the proper authorities, this text—for reasons unknown—was never actually brought to the attention of the Commission.”[4] It is procedural maneuver that appears not to have been an exception during this Council.
If one were to undertake a revision of the Council, it would undoubtedly be necessary to affirm, once and for all, that not all the truths constituting the Deposit of Faith are to be found explicitly within Sacred Scripture.
Sources
1.https://www.synodalerweg.de/fileadmin/Synodalerweg/Dokumente_Reden_Beitraege/beschluesse-broschueren/Franzoesisch/SW_4_-_L_existence_sacerdotale_aujourd_hui._Texte_fondamental.pdf ; our italics.
2. “Sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia et ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non reperiantur. ”, St. Augustin, De baptismo contra Donatistas, V, XXIII, 31. “There are many things which the whole Church holds, and for this reason the precepts of the Apostles are well believed, although written records are not found,” St. Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, V, XXIII, 31.
3. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, November 18, 1965, n°9.
4. P. Giovanni Caprile, SJ, February 5, 1966, cited in Vatican II – Divine Revelation, vol. 2, Cerf, coll. Unam sanctam 70b, Paris 1968, p. 674.
(Sources : La Porte Latine - FSSPX Actualités)
Comments
Post a Comment