OUR LADY OF FATIMA  CATHOLIC CHURCH

Like Clockwork...
...re-creating "church"...

August 28th, 2006

You bring the Pope - I'll make the tea and we can talk about re-creating "Church"

Like clockwork my e-mail box fills up after almost every column with some very bizarre theological ramblings. The latest:

Few serious and uncomplicated traditionalists ever thought that Ratzinger could ever change the habits of a lifetime and declare the Vatican 2 project a big mistake, let alone take steps to turn the clock back. The only value one can put on Fellay's advances towards Rome is to occasionally remind her of what the Church really stood for before the rot set in. Indeed, before the conversion of Russia or even of the world can be contemplated, the conversion of Rome it seems has to be a number one priority in order to restore credible authority over the Catholic world. Before then that great deposit of faith must rest in safer hands.

 

An opportunity has now arisen where the terms for that Catholic restoration must harden as the conciliar authorities realise the growing weakness of their position. The experiment of blending ancient church doctrine with modern German philosophy has failed and conciliar popes have now sunk to the level of ratifying the agenda of liberalism as it develops. Adding a spiritual gloss to the activities of modern man seems to be their new raison d'etre. Therefore, it is no longer sufficient to merely expand the Latin Mass among passive and confused Catholic communities but to work towards the creation of a traditionalist hierarchy more qualified to ensure the apostolic succession. Limited goals are the preserve of nostalgic museum keepers, side-chapel beggars and theatrical promoters because there is no genuine honest place in the conciliar new world for them. It is puzzling and illogical why they still think there is.    

Well it makes for interesting reading but a far cry from Catholic reality.

Few serious and uncomplicated traditionalists ever thought that Ratzinger could ever change the habits of a lifetime and declare the Vatican 2 project a big mistake, let alone take steps to turn the clock back. 

As a matter of fact I have never believed that Pope Benedict XVI would declare Vatican II to have been a big mistake. In a speech in Chile in 1988 he stated the following:

There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. (...) It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

The e-mail author also seems to think that Tissier's tabula rasa is actually going to happen. Depend upon it - ecumenical councils do NOT get swept under the rug. In this, as in so many other matters trads are becoming like their Orthodox counterparts - full-blown schismatics. The parallels are quite amazing. The Orthodox (it will be remembered) accept only the first seven Ecumenical councils and reject the rest. Trads accept twenty and reject the twenty-first: Vatican II. The problem was outlined in detail by Cardinal Ratzinger in the same speech:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. (...) All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith. 

Our e-mailer continues:

The only value one can put on Fellay's advances towards Rome is to occasionally remind her of what the Church really stood for before the rot set in. Indeed, before the conversion of Russia or even of the world can be contemplated, the conversion of Rome it seems has to be a number one priority in order to restore credible authority over the Catholic world. 

We're back to the "two Romes theory". It's beginning to sound a lot like the celebrated Anglican theologian Dr. Edward Pusey who in the nineteenth century invented the three branch theory: the Catholic Church is made up of the Romans, the Anglicans and the Orthodox. Pope Leo XIII took exception to the theory and denounced it as un-Catholic. The "two Romes theory" will no doubt eventually grace the pages of the updated Denzinger as a condemned proposition. Yet again Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this issue in 1988:

The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the 'Conciliar Church.'. The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the 'Conciliar Church' which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.

Yes Ratzi gets to the heart of the problem - the rejection of Vatican II is the root cause of the Lefebvrist problem. Now we begin to head towards "twilight zone theology":

Before then that great deposit of faith must rest in safer hands.

Who does our e-mailer have in mind - Pope Bernard from Menzingen ? The SSPX has already arrogated the Papal authority in matters of marriage dispensations for the "superior general" (you can't get more schismatic than that). The other week I was reminiscing with a former SSPX priest who reminded me that our Canon Law professor actually attacked the Society's stance that it had the authority to annul marriages. I remember hearing him say this with my own ears back in 1993. No the deposit of faith rests in the hands of the Successor of St Peter not in the hands of Bernard Fellay.

What "opportunity" ? (I think I need a Prozac prescription.) So the Church has been in a bit of a mess for 40 years - try the four centuries of turbulence following Nicaea I ! But the "cherry on the cake of nuts" (to quote Fr. Cekada):

Therefore, it is no longer sufficient to merely expand the Latin Mass among passive and confused Catholic communities but to work towards the creation of a traditionalist hierarchy more qualified to ensure the apostolic succession. Limited goals are the preserve of nostalgic museum keepers, side-chapel beggars and theatrical promoters because there is no genuine honest place in the conciliar new world for them. It is puzzling and illogical why they still think there is.

Now we need to create a parallel church and a parallel hierarchy ! See I told you that some trads are beginning to look and sound like their Orthodox counterparts: the "siege mentality" is now leading to the obvious conclusion: we need to create a parallel church so that the "Rome of all time" can be saved. Anyone for a conclave now ? (As long as you elect me I'll attend.)  

+TF

Copyright© Our Lady of Fatima Spring Hill, 10401 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida, 34608, USA