OUR LADY OF FATIMA  CATHOLIC CHURCH

Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg ?

March 21, 2007

"Do you want total war ?"

It was February 18, 1943. Germany had lost the battle of Stalingrad. The German people were suffering unaccustomed losses abroad  and austerities at home. Dr. Josef Goebbels gave his most famous and impassioned speech to rouse the flagging German spirits. The speech was a rhetorical success, the outcome total failure. His most celebrated lines are those quoted above. You can see a clip of the Total War speech online.

Well I've been battling away of late - always on a very friendly basis. I was speaking with my "opponent" last night at great length. During our conversation it became apparent to both of us that perhaps our readers were misunderstanding our amicable debate. Although the language seems a little fraught at times, the actual irony is we both derive a great deal of humor by our extended debate. It comes as no surprise in Trad circles that debates of this kind are usually filled with the bitterest of polemics. This is not the case with us. Indeed the very title of this column is just meant to be a continued spoof of our discussion: "Do you want total war ?" There is no war between us. Obviously we disagree on the fundamental nature of ecumenical councils and infallibility, but always in the nicest of possible ways. I had intended to call this piece "Blog Wars" but then my debating adversary suggested the title above when he spoke of "total war" between us. He was speaking facetiously, I hasten to add !!!

Now that you understand the debate is just a friendly sparring with no animosity whatsoever, back to our quarry.

There are four broad issues I wish to discuss:

1/ What is the nature of the infallibility of an ecumenical council ?
2/ Did John XXIII, Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger intend to endorse the possibility that a council could teach error ?
3/ What are we to make of the "Smoke of Satan" speech by Paul VI ?
4/ If I accept the Council why do I not join the Modern Church ?

The Infallibility of An Ecumenical Council

To begin with, infallibility (papal or ecclesial) is NOT a positive charism. It is not the same as Biblical inspiration where the Holy Spirit positively moves the author to write down the revealed Word of God. Infallibility is a NEGATIVE charism that prevents the Pope (or in this case the Church) from teaching error. Thus at Vatican II the Council Fathers were held back from endorsing error by virtue of a negative intervention on the part of God. I am not saying that the Council documents are infallible in the sense that they enjoy the same inspiration as Scripture. That notion would be absurd. My opinion is based firmly on the clear, consistent and constant teachings of all the reputable theologians prior to the Council that the universal body of bishops gathered in Ecumenical session cannot teach error if that teaching is ratified by the Pope who is the personal guarantor of the infallibility of the Council. If we allow the contrary to be true we could never be sure if the Church was deceiving us or not.

Yesterday evening my friend made the statement that the theologians had to be wrong on this question. I asked why he said this and he replied that this quite obviously could not refer to our situation where Vatican II had taught error. So now the theologians are wrong ? I encountered precisely the same answer from a priest in the SSPX who taught us that the Ordinary Magisterium could be fallible. Prior to Vatican II the theologians had argued back and forth on the question, a definitive answer has still not been reached. When I asked the priest, privately, why he had taught us this, his response was identical - the theologians are wrong since their position does not agree with our situation. I politely observed to him, that he might indeed be correct, but on what authority did he presume to alter Church teaching in the classroom and not tell us that he was doing so. I only found out about this deception by reading one of the theological treatises in the library. No I cannot accept that a priest should motu proprio (now there's an expression that needs absolutely no translation or explanation now !) alter or reject what the theologians teach because of the inconvenience of their teaching to his own pet theories. The argument about the univocal nature of "teach" is completely bogus - a smokescreen to conceal the truck-load of errors that he would introduce if he is correct.

The objection was made: well if you accept the theologians prior to the Council why not the new ones ? The response must necessarily be that the modern theologians can certainly be accepted provided their speculations are in accord with the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church.

Can a "Pastoral" Council teach error ?

In one response to my quotations of the theologians the following statements were asserted:

"The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character." Pope John XIII opening address to the Council.

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmata carrying the mark of infallibility. " Pope Paul VI general audience of 12 January 1966

"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." Cardinal Ratzinger

Whilst the Council avoided making any definitions, can we use these quotations to assert the statement that "Vatican II contains error" ? Who will judge what the error is ? What criteria will be used ? You see all objectivity is lost and everything becomes subjective. Catholic = what I say it is. Clearly there are "apparent" problems with the Second Vatican Council. The Pope's call for a new "hermeneutic of continuity is clear proof that Rome recognizes this. Ultimately there must be some way to reconcile the divergences but the Pope alone has the authority to do so. We must await his intervention, all the while presuming he intends to do something not just talk about it. 

What about the "Smoke of Satan" ?

Yesterday evening I received two e-mails connected with this debate. The first raised the objection of Pope Paul VI saying the "Smoke of satan had entered the Church".

I thought it was the ‘smoke of Satan’ not the Holy Ghost that had entered the Vatican ?  Who was it that said that?

Actually the questioner was mistaken as I later demonstrated:

In respect of your quotation of Pope Paul VI about satan entering the Church I beg to point out a most important aspect concerning the dates:

 

Vatican II was 1962 - 65

 

Pope Paul VI made the speech in 1972

 

Clearly the Pope was speaking about events following the Council not the Council itself.

I forgot to send you the link: http://www.olfatima.com/smokeofsatan.html

 

Nowhere does the Pope attribute the crisis to the council.

Referring to the situation of the Church of today (IE 1972), the Holy Father then affirmed that he had the feeling that “Satan’s smoke has made its way into the temple of God through some crack”. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction, confrontation. People no longer trust the Church; they trust the secular profane prophet that speaks to us from some newspaper or from some social movement, running after him and asking him if he has the formula of real life. (...)

 

This state of uncertainty reigns in the Church, too. People thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would come for the history of the Church. There came, on the contrary, a day of clouds, storm, darkness, search, uncertainty. (...)

 

How has this come about? The Pope confided his view to those present; that there has been the intervention of a hostile power. His name is the Devil, the mysterious being who is referred to also in St. Peter’s Letter. The mention of this enemy of men returns so often, moreover, in the Gospel on Christ’s own lips. “We believe—the Holy Father remarked—in something preternatural that has come into the world for the very purpose of disturbing and stifling the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy at having regained full awareness of herself. It is for this reason that we would like, more than ever at this moment, to be capable of exercising the function, which God assigned to Peter, of strengthening our brothers in the Faith. We would like to transmit to you this charism of certainty that the Lord gives to him who represents him, even unworthily, on this earth.” Faith gives us certainty, security, when it is based on the Word of God accepted and found in agreement with our reason and human mind. He who believes with simplicity, with humility, feels he is on the right path, that he has an inner testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of truth.

Why don't you join the New Church ?

The second e-mailer commended me on my defense of the Council and encouraged me to keep doing so. He then asked the following question which was precisely what my adversary said to me on the telephone last night:

How would you respond to someone who tells you you should join the Novus Ordo if you believe that the pope is the pope?

The answer has to do with the "rightfulness" of our disagreement. I am not saying Vatican II is the inspired Word of God. I believe ultimately by some means it shall be shown to be in perfect continuity with the past. What those means are I cannot say. The theologians clearly teach that the Bishops in ecumenical session cannot teach us error. Thus we find ourselves resisting legitimate authority but on what grounds ? The problem is that the implementation of the Council was used as a pretext to introduce all sorts of novelties into the Church and the authority of the Council is used at every twist and turn by neo-modernists to foist all sorts of nonsense upon us. It is Archbishop Lefebvre himself who shows us in what legitimate resistance consists in the following passage that speaks of his visit with Pope Paul VI:

The next day, Saturday, at quarter past ten, I went to Castelgandolfo, and there I really believe the Holy Angels had driven out the Vatican employees because I had come back there: there were two Swiss Guards at the entrance, and after that I encountered only Mgr X (not Mgr. Y: their names are very alike). Mgr. X, the Canadian, conducted me to the lift. Only the lift man was there, that is all, and I went up. The three of us went up to the first floor, and there, accompanied by Mgr. X, I went through all the rooms: there are at least seven or eight before you come to the Holy Father's office. Not a living soul! Usually - I have often been to private audience in the days of Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, and even Pope Paul VI - there is always at least one Swiss Guard, always a gendarme, always several people: a private chamberlain, a monseigneur who is present if only to keep an eye on things and prevent incidents. But the rooms were empty - nothing, absolutely nothing. So I went to the Holy Father's office, where I found the Holy Father with Mgr. Benelli at his side. I greeted the Holy Father and I greeted Mgr. Benelli. We seated ourselves at once, and the audience began.

The Holy Father was lively enough at the beginning - one could almost call it somewhat violent in a way: one could feel that he was deeply wounded and rather provoked by what we are doing. He said to me:

"You condemn me, you condemn me. I am a Modernist. I am a Protestant. It cannot be allowed, you are doing an evil work, you ought not to continue, you are causing scandal in the Church, etc..." with nervous irritability.

I kept quiet, you may be sure. After that he said to me:

"Well, speak now, speak. What have you to say?"

I said to him:

"Holy Father, I come here, but not as the head of the traditionalists. You have said I am head of the traditionalists. I deny flatly that I am head of the traditionalists. I am only a Catholic, a priest, a bishop, among millions of Catholics, thousands of priests and other bishops who are torn and pulled apart in conscience, in mind, in heart. On the one side we desire to submit to you entirely, to follow you in everything, to have no reserves about your person, and on the other side we are aware that the lines taken by the Holy See since the Council, and the whole new orientation, turn us away from your predecessors. What then are we to do? We find ourselves obliged either to attach ourselves to your predecessors or to attach ourselves to your person and separate ourselves from your predecessors. For Catholics to be torn like that is unheard of, unbelievable. And it is not I who have provoked that, it is not a movement made by me, it is a feeling that comes from the hearts of the faithful, millions of the faithful whom I do not know. I have no idea how many there are. They are all over the world, everywhere. Everybody is uneasy about this upset that has happened in the Church in the last ten years, about the ruins accumulating in the Church. Here are examples: there is a basic attitude in people, an interior attitude which makes them now unchangeable. They will not change because they have chosen: they have made their choice for Tradition and for those who maintain Tradition. There are examples like that of the religious Sisters I saw two days ago, good religious who wish to keep their religious life, who teach children as their parents want them to be taught - many parents bring their children to them because they will receive a Catholic education from these religious. So, here are religious keeping their religious habit; and just because they wish to preserve the old prayer and to keep the old catechism they are excommunicated. The Superior General has been dismissed. The bishop has been five times, requiring them to abandon their religious habit because they have been reduced to the lay state. People who see that do not understand. And, side by side with that, nuns who discard their habit, return to all the worldly vanities, no longer have a religious rule, no longer pray - they are officially approved by bishops, and no one says a word against them! The man in the street, the poor Christian, seeing these things cannot accept them. That is impossible. Then it is the same for priests. Good priests who say their Mass well, who pray, who are to be found in the confessional, who preach true doctrine, who visit the sick, who wear their soutane, who are true priests loved by their people because they keep the Old Mass, the Mass of their ordination, who keep the old catechism, are thrown on the street as worthless creatures, all but excommunicated. And then priests go into factories, never dress as priests so that there is no knowing what they are, preach revolution - and they are officially accepted, and nobody says anything to them. As for me, I am in the same case. I try to make priests, good priests as they were made formerly; there are many vocations, the young men are admired by the people who see them in trains, on the underground; they are greeted, admired, congratulated on their dress and bearing; and I am suspended a divinis! And the bishops who have no more seminarians, no young priests, nothing, and whose seminaries no longer make good priests - nothing is said to them! You understand; the poor average Christian sees it clearly. He has chosen and he will not budge. He has reached his limit. It is impossible."


"That is not true. You do not train good priests," he said to me, "because you make them take an oath against the Pope."

"What!" I answered. "An oath against the Pope? I who, on the contrary, try to give them respect for the Pope, respect for the successor of Peter! On the contrary, we pray for the Holy Father, and you will never be able to show me this oath which they take against the Pope. Can you give me a copy of it?"

And now, officially, the Vatican spokesmen have published in today's paper, where you can read it, the Vatican denial, saying that it is not true, that the Holy Father did not say that to me: the Holy Father did not say to me that I made my seminarians and young priests take an oath against the Pope. But how could I have invented that? How invent anything of the kind? It is unthinkable. But now they deny it: the Holy Father did not say it. It is incredible. And obviously I have no tape recording. I did not write out the whole conversation, so I cannot prove the contrary materially. But my very reaction! I cannot forget how I reacted to that assertion by the Holy Father. I can still see myself gesturing and saying: "But how, Holy Father, can you possibly say such a thing! Can you show me a copy of the oath?" And now they are saying it is not true. It is extraordinary!

Then the Holy Father said to me, further:

"It is true, is it not, that you condemn me?"

I had the strong impression that it all came back rather to his person, that he was personally hurt:

"You condemn me, so what ought I to do? Must I hand in my resignation and let you take my place?"

"Oh!" I put my head in my hands.

"Holy Father, do not say such things. No, no, no, no!" I then said:

"Holy Father, let me continue. You have the solution of the problem in your hands. You need say only one word to the bishops: receive fraternally, with understanding and charity all those groups of traditionalists, all those who wish to keep the prayer of former days, the sacraments as before, the catechism as before. Receive them, give them places of worship, settle with them so that they can pray and remain in relation with you, in intimate relation with their bishops. You need say only one word to the bishops and everything will return to order and at that moment we shall have no more problems. Things will return to order. As for the seminary, I myself shall have no difficulty in going to the bishops and asking them to implant my priests in their dioceses: things will be done normally. I myself am very willing to renew relations with a commission you could name from the Congregation of Religious to come to the seminary. But clearly we shall keep and wish to continue the practice of Tradition. We should be allowed to maintain that practice. But I want to return to normal and official relations with the Holy See and with the Congregations. Beyond that I want nothing.”

He then said to me:

“I must reflect, I must pray, I must consult the Consistory, I must consult the Curia. I cannot give you an answer. We shall see.”

After that he said to me: "We will pray together."

I said: "Most willingly, Holy Father."

We then said the Pater Noster, Veni Creator, and an Ave Maria, and he then led me back very pleasantly, but with difficulty - his walk was painful, and he dragged his legs a little. In the room to the side he waited until Domenico came for me; and he had a small medal given to Don Domenico. We then left. Mgr. Benelli did not open his mouth; he did nothing but write all the time, like a secretary. He did not bother me at all. It was as though Mgr. Benelli were not present. I think it did not trouble the Holy Father, just as it did not trouble me, because he did not open his mouth, and gave no sign. I then said twice again that he had the solution of the problem in his hands. He then showed his satisfaction at having had this interview, this dialogue. I said I was always at his disposal. We then left.

Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol 1. Michael Davies, Angelus Press, 1979 pp 277-282

One final salvo in this long debate, what are we to make of the Archbishop's interview with Pope John Paul II ?

I continued: “As to the Council, there are certainly things in the Council which are hard to admit; but I should be ready to sign a sentence like this: 'I accept the Acts of the Council interpreted in the sense of tradition.' That is a sentence which I think I could eventually accept and sign, if you so wish.”

“But that is fine, fine! But that is ordinary and obvious! Would you really agree to sign such a sentence?"

I replied: "Certainly, I am ready to sign it, provided it contains the phrase 'interpreted in the sense of tradition'."

He said again: "But that is just ordinary."

Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol 2 Michael Davies, Angelus Press, 1983 pp 261 & 262

+TF

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