New blog on the kid : Is "Vatican II" in Continuity with Trent and Vatican "I"? · Creation vs. Evolution : Agreeing with the Biblical World View
It would seem Montini and Ratzinger claimed so:
- Montini / "Paul VI" to Mgr Lefèbvre
- “You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose. How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?”
- Then "Cardinal" Ratzinger
- (subdivisions added by me)
- a) “One must clarify first of all that Vatican II is based on the same authority as Vatican I and as the Council of Trent: that is the pope and the college of bishops in communion with him. b) Concerning the content, we must also recall that Vatican II falls in close continuity with the two previous Councils and that it re-iterates them on certain decisive points. (…) It is impossible to side ‘for’ the Council of Trent and Vatican I and ‘against’ Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II, denies the authority which upholds the other two Councils and abolishes it in its very principle. [This applies also for what is called ‘traditionalism’, in its extreme forms.] c) Here, any partisan choice destroys the whole, [the very history of the Church], which can only exist as an undivided unity.”
This is quoted from :
On the Authority of the Second Vatican Council: Infallible or not?
By Fr. Pierre Marie O.P. in (SSPX) Newsletter of the District of Asia April - December 2008
The original contexts are Letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 29, 1975 and Cardinal Ratzinger, in the Ratzinger Report for which latter the explanation of the brackets is given as:
(French edition, 1985, pp. 28-29 with the following remark: “Words … in brackets have been added on the manuscript of the present book.” in Sel de la Terre, n. 35, p.33)
- To Montini's argument
- St. Athanasius also combatted the even more recent Council of Sirmium, one confession of which had (though by force, then not universally known) obtained a signature from Pope Liberius.
- To Ratzinger's argument a)
- Only if Roncalli and Montini ("John XXIII" and "Paul VI") were real Popes and the bishops in union with them not in de facto schism.
- To Ratzinger's argument b)
- If "Vatican II" reiterates Trent or Vatican "I" on nine points of ten, or nineteen of twenty or ninenty nine of hundred, and contradicts either on one, and that one is dogmatic, "Vatican II" is thereby shown heretical.
- To Ratzinger's argument c)
- While the real Church of Christ certainly exists as an undivided whole, again and again it seems to be divided, as groups of unfaithful leave her in important numbers. Under Rohoboam the Samarians left her, siding with Jeroboam, under Our Lord Himself and St Peter Jews left her, siding with Hannas and Caiphas, under St Leo IX, Michael Caerularius left her, and under Leo X and successors, Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, the two Sozzini and Münzer left her, followed by Anglicans and Calvinists, and joined by earlier dissidents like Valdensians and Moravians.
So, is the undivided unity that of Vatican II or that of some version of Trads? SSPX, Sede, some version of Orthopapism? Note, one false such continuation may truly denounce another false one, SSPX can be false and yet on some points truly denounce Vatican II, like Lutheranism was false and on some points truly denounced Zwingli and Calvin.
Note, in 2008, I was still straying among the Orthodox, and while not denying filioque (which was not a great hit with them), I considered instead of Popes, each ordinary as successor of St Peter and the chorepiskopoi or auxiliaries as successors of the other among the twelve. This would have meant in 1975 Mgr Lefèbvre was equally a successor of St Peter, by being emeritus archbishop in Dakar and in Tulle, as Paul VI by being bishop of Rome or as recently before John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco or as their contemporaries in Moscow, Alexy I and Pimen. The faithful ones being Lefèbvre and Maximovich.
I do now deny this possibility, while adhering to Pope Michael - if you deny it, adhering to Pope Michael (or even back then hoping "Benedict XVI" was restoring things) is more logical than SSPX.
In that light, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II would have been non-ecumenical councils, the validity of which doesn't automatically imply infallibility, but Trent and Vatican I (except as I though then, on papacy) were in fact faithful to apostolic tradition. Trent coincided largely with the "equally" not ecumenical councils of Jerusalem and Iasi, which condemned Protestantism on the Orthodox side.
Note, on some of the divisions of schismatics from the Church, it is not immediately apparent to all which side is the really traditional one. In 1053 Rome and Constantinople each could see its bishop as continuing in the line of his forebears. In AD 33 to 70, Judaism could say "look, we have the temple" - as had been the case before then. For Catholicism, there may be a situation in which Vatican II seems to be in continuity due to such institutional factors, followed by one in which this is apparently no longer so - destruction of Temple and ... well, Amoris Laetitia (though for my part, I was already convinced at "canonisation" of Wojtyla and Roncalli).
I have elaborated a bit long on the argument c), undivided continuity of the Church. Let's go a little bit deeper about arguments a) and b), non-papality of Roncalli and Montini and successors and material contradiction against the known magisterium of the past. I feel I was a bit shallow. A bit summary.
We can take a shortcut : if Wojtyla and Ratzinger, succeeding Roncalli and Montini and in faithful obedience to Vatican II contradict on one item Trent or Vatican I, it is not just Bergoglio who is a cuckoo in the Vatican II nest, it is the Vatican II nest itself which is bad.
Around the time of second Assisi prayer meeting, the one for peace in Bosnia and which was apparently answered by Srebrenica massacre, the worst massacre in the Bosnia war, "John Paul II" also did some other things. Pastorally, he made peace with psychiatry (I only know this from a p-d-effed headline in a British Catholic newspaper also mentioning Assisi II, and that one not available, and I did not get any reply when I sought a confirmation from the now redaction of that paper). Liturgically, he changed the year of Christ's birth from 5199 after the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth and 2957 after the Flood to "unknown ages" and "several thousand years". This contradicts the unanimity of the Fathers that Biblical chronology is reliable. In doctrinally related canons, Ratzinger condemned Fundamentalist Bible reading. While it is true some Fundamentalists, or even most, do reject the non-literal senses, notably the allegorical, the main problem Ratzinger has with them is they do NOT relativise the literal one. Hereby he contradicted a consensus of fathers which refused to relativise the literal sense.
I have written previously on both things:
Creation vs. Evolution : Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four
Great Bishop of Geneva! : Apostatic Rejection of "Fundamentalism" in 1994
Or, you can take a more direct approach on Vatican II:
In English : Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Is gaudium et spes an orthodox text?
Or in French : Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Gaudium et Spes pas si Orthodoxe que ça, quand même ...
An even more direct question is, how could so many external trappings of Catholicism go to the Vatican II sect, if in fact is is, as Traditionalism of divers shades (including Pope Michael who rejects the term, since it is so associated with SSPX and the Recognise and Resist position, which I cannot defend on such long terms any more than he likes it) not identic to the Catholic Church? One would have to take into consideration the possibility of a Pope not being sufficiently vigilant. Was Pope Pius XI non-vigilant and Pacelli / Pius XII a non-pope? Or was Pius XII non-vigilant, opening a back door to heresy without thinking he was doing that? Either way, the considerations about Pius XII may well centre on Humani Generis. On which, "surprise, surprise", I have also written previously:
MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchinson
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Fr Spitzer's Wrong on This One - Huge Wrong (Humani Generis Revisited)
And, since the case of Evolution is in so many minds associated with Galileo and Providentissimus Deus, let's note that Pope Leo XIII never in that encyclical actually said in so many words that one is allowed to believe Heliocentrism as understood by the "science" of his time, nor that the potential solution of phenomenal language pertains exclusively to the Geocentric language of the Bible, so that his words on that one would mean he recommended it in this particular case, nor that it solves ALL the Geocentric language passages in the Bible. I argued specifically against Protestant Fundies that phenomenal language does NOT solve the verse Joshua 10:12.
HGL's F.B. writings : A "Biblical" Heliocentric Misciting Holy Scripture
Same point, but not involving someone else's copyright:
New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
So, how do Heliocentrism and Evolution contradict Trent, which never directly took a stance on them? Because they contradict the unanimity of the Fathers:
In Latin : New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
Hans Georg Lundahl
Saint Ubaldo of Gubbio
Tuesday in the Pentecost Novena