Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: 2Vermont on April 23, 2023, 11:51:26 AM
-
Does anyone know of any bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction(OJ) to have publicly condemned the heresies of Vatican II? Someone like Archbishop Lefebvre or Vigano, but had/has OJ (neither ABL nor Vigano have OJ)? I can't think of anyone from Vatican II times or more recently. If there was someone, what happened to him? If a Novus Ordo bishop with OJ were to publicly condemn Vatican II, what would happen? Would he be excommunicated? Lose his office and therefore his ordinary jurisdiction?
-
Does anyone know of any bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction(OJ) to have publicly condemned the heresies of Vatican II? Someone like Archbishop Lefebvre or Vigano, but had/has OJ (neither ABL nor Vigano have OJ)? I can't think of anyone from Vatican II times or more recently. If there was someone, what happened to him? If a Novus Ordo bishop with OJ were to publicly condemn Vatican II, what would happen? Would he be excommunicated? Lose his office and therefore his ordinary jurisdiction?
Its an interesting (psychological) phenomenon that none of the trad leaders ever come over to tradition until they retire:
Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Lazo, Vigano.
All were already retired.
Conversely, some go back to conciliarism before they die:
Rangel, Rifan, Gerard, Thuc (off and on), et al.
The attack is psychological.
-
Its an interesting (psychological) phenomenon that none of the trad leaders ever come over to tradition until they retire:
Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Lazo, Vigano.
All were already retired.
Conversely, some go back to conciliarism before they die:
Rangel, Rifan, Gerard, Thuc (off and on), et al.
The attack is psychological.
Let’s not forget Bishop Blaise Kurz
-
Its an interesting (psychological) phenomenon that none of the trad leaders ever come over to tradition until they retire:
, de Castro Mayer,
All were already retired.
Bishop De Castro Mayer was a Trad before he retired. He retired in 1981
-
How about Cardinal Archbishop McIntyre?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Francis_McIntyre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Francis_McIntyre)
NY Times in a report from the 60's talked about his being the only American Catholic bishop who stayed firm against the novelties of Vatican II.
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/11/22/archives/vatican-ii-reeducates-the-american-bishops.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1964/11/22/archives/vatican-ii-reeducates-the-american-bishops.html)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/07/17/cardinal-mcintyre-of-los-angeles-dies-at-93/61c0bafe-264c-45f3-80a6-c8a8e19154a8/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/07/17/cardinal-mcintyre-of-los-angeles-dies-at-93/61c0bafe-264c-45f3-80a6-c8a8e19154a8/)
-
Its an interesting (psychological) phenomenon that none of the trad leaders ever come over to tradition until they retire:
Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Lazo, Vigano.
All were already retired.
Conversely, some go back to conciliarism before they die:
Rangel, Rifan, Gerard, Thuc (off and on), et al.
The attack is psychological.
But did any of them have ordinary jurisdiction even before they retired? I don't think so.
-
How about Cardinal Archbishop McIntyre?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Francis_McIntyre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Francis_McIntyre)
NY Times in a report from the 60's talked about his being the only American Catholic bishop who stayed firm against the novelties of Vatican II.
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/11/22/archives/vatican-ii-reeducates-the-american-bishops.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1964/11/22/archives/vatican-ii-reeducates-the-american-bishops.html)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/07/17/cardinal-mcintyre-of-los-angeles-dies-at-93/61c0bafe-264c-45f3-80a6-c8a8e19154a8/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/07/17/cardinal-mcintyre-of-los-angeles-dies-at-93/61c0bafe-264c-45f3-80a6-c8a8e19154a8/)
Doesn't look like he was an ordinary either.
-
So, so far in 60 plus years there has been no ordinary who has publicly condemned Vatican II (before or after retirement). This is why I asked the other questions in my OP. Has this not happened because they know they would be excommunicated and no longer have ordinary jurisdiction?
-
Correction: It looks like Lazo was an ordinary according to Wikipedia, but like Sean said did not speak up until after he retired. It also appears that he was consecrated in the New Rite since he was consecrated bishop in 1970, so technically, because of that, not a true ordinary either.
-
Doesn't look like he was an ordinary either.
I am confused as to what you mean by an ordinary. Do you mean ordinary Bishop meaning without any special privileges. :confused:
Wouldn't an Archbishop have ordinary jurisdiction? He was the Archbishop of Los Angelos until 1970.
"James Francis Aloysius McIntyre (June 25, 1886 – July 16, 1979) was an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as Archbishop of Los Angeles from 1948 to 1970, and was created a cardinal in 1953. He was a highly successful builder of new parishes, churches, and schools. He was notable in Church politics, and his reputation remains highly controversial."
-
Correction: It looks like Lazo was an ordinary according to Wikipedia, but like Sean said did not speak up until after he retired. It also appears that he was consecrated in the New Rite since he was consecrated bishop in 1970, so technically, because of that, not a true ordinary either.
With some of these Asiatic consecrations the new rite may or may not have been used in 1970. My guess is that some of these countries/bishops continued to use the traditional rite of consecration, as some of these countries were slower to adopt the changes than Europe and the West. It is hard to know unless we have evidence of the actual ceremony, anything else would be an assumption.
I knew one priest who was ordained in 1970, and when questioned about his ordination, he said that it was half English/ half Latin. With some of these ecclesiastical clown shows, who knows?
-
I am confused as to what you mean by an ordinary. Do you mean ordinary Bishop meaning without any special privileges. :confused:
Wouldn't an Archbishop have ordinary jurisdiction? He was the Archbishop of Los Angelos until 1970.
"James Francis Aloysius McIntyre (June 25, 1886 – July 16, 1979) was an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as Archbishop of Los Angeles from 1948 to 1970, and was created a cardinal in 1953. He was a highly successful builder of new parishes, churches, and schools. He was notable in Church politics, and his reputation remains highly controversial."
Sorry...I looked at the NY portion of his bio. There doesn't seem to be a lot about his beliefs regarding Vatican II doctrine (and I can't see the NYTimes article). It appears his main focus was liturgical. I'd like to see more.
-
So far the focus has been on the Latin Rite bishops. How about the Eastern Rite bishops? Who has publicly condemned the doctrines of Vatican II?
-
If this happened, imo it would be the beginning of the end of the Crisis.
We just need one man to finally speak up.
-
Here is another Bishop who seems to have stood up against the changes but died in 1971. I would like to know more about Bishop Russell McVinney:
"Gaudium et Spes or the Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, the docuмent which, to quote Michael Davies, "expresses the ethos of Vatican II more accurately than any other." American Bishop Russell McVinney called it "a doubtful compromise with everything which lies at the basis of the evils now affecting humanity" and Cardinal Heenan said it was a treatise unworthy of any Catholic Council. Archbishop Lefebvre, who refused his signature to Gaudium et Spes, pointed to the anti-Catholic philosophical sources of the docuмent, citing Locke, Rousseau and Lamennais."
https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Pope%20St.%20Pius%20X%20&%E2%81%84or%20SSPX/The%20Angelus/HTMLs/187.html (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/Pope St. Pius X &⁄or SSPX/The Angelus/HTMLs/187.html)
From the little research I have done he seems to have stood up for as long as he could against the Vatican II changes.
-
In my opinion due to the invalidity of the (Novus Ordo ) Episcopal Consecration we can look only to the East, at this point in time, for bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction (from my point of view as Catholic of the sedevacantist persuasion). I also think it is a jump to state that an Eastern rite bishop(validly consecrated) who erroneously follows a false pope loses jurisdiction. In our present case, it appears to me that any Eastern bishop, who has retained Ordinary Jurisdiction (or obtained ordinary jurisdiction through common error) is trying to remain united to Peter by adhering to those they (wrongly) believe have held and do hold the papal office.
We are not talking about a bishop going rogue and ignoring a lawful pope, or bishops such as the Greeks who severed themselves from the Church, we are talking about bishops, who, in the greatest fog of confusion in the history of the Church have wrongly identified who the pope is.
Another point to consider, it cannot automatically be assumed that the bishops in question adhere to the heresies of the post Vatican II church. The act of adhering to the man, Francis-Bergoglio, does not in and of itself, cause one to believe heretical or erroneous ideas taught by him.
In addition to the confusion about who the pope is, there is also serious confusion about what Catholics must believe. Many Catholics in our times erroneously believe that they can disagree with the pope, unless he teaches ex cathedra.
It may be that these bishops either do not understand or have not followed the teachings of the post Vatican II (false) popes or it may also be possible that they believe they are not bound to the teachings, but they are bound to the man they believe is Peter.
In order for a lawfully appointed bishop to lose his jurisdiction, he must be a heretic, schismatic or an excommunicate. We may privately study the words and actions of these bishops and draw our conclusions, but we must be slow and careful in our approach. In the case of the post Vatican II claimants, we have a two-fold approach to determine their status. We may more easily make a determination about them by observing their official teaching and laws, and state they have done things that popes cannot do, therefore they do not possess the office. In the case of bishops, we must observe their words and actions and determine if they are indeed heretics. In some cases a determination may be obvious but in others I think it is a very complex process.
-
So they get all sorts of excuses for their impotency.After how many decades is silence complicity?
-
Here is another Bishop who seems to have stood up against the changes but died in 1971. I would like to know more about Bishop Russell McVinney:
From the little research I have done he seems to have stood up for as long as he could against the Vatican II changes.
I found this on the diocesan site:
Between 1962 and 1965, McVinney attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council in Rome. Following the conclusion of the Council, he created a Diocesan Liturgical Commission in June 1964 and one of the first Diocesan Ecuмenical Commissions in the United States in January 1965.
Most Rev. Russell J. McVinney, D.D., LL.D. - Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island - Providence, RI (https://www.dioceseofprovidence.org/most-rev-russell-j-mcvinney-dd-lld)
-
Bishop Richard Ackerman CSSP (same as Lefebvre) of Covington, Kentucky, while to my knowledge never contradicting Vatican II publicly, was a friend of ABL and, I know I heard this somewhere, received his own last rites from priests of the SSPV (not SSPX). I don't have a source, but unless I dreamed it one night, I distinctly recall reading this.
Got to wonder what was going on there. Interesting.
FWIW, Ackerman also consecrated Bishop Mendez of Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
-
So they get all sorts of excuses for their impotency.After how many decades is silence complicity?
[Peter said above:]
In addition to the confusion about who the pope is, there is also serious confusion about what Catholics must believe. Many Catholics in our times erroneously believe that they can disagree with the pope, unless he teaches ex cathedra.
If they think (incorrectly) that they they can disagree with the “pope” unless he teaches [i}ex cathedra[/i], why would they be preaching against VII etc. For a bishop to lose his jurisdiction, he must be a heretic, schismatic or an excommunicate. Silence does not necessarily mean complicity with heresy or schism.[/size]
-
If they think (incorrectly) that they they can disagree with the “pope” unless he teaches [i}ex cathedra[/i], why would they be preaching against VII etc. For a bishop to lose his jurisdiction, he must be a heretic, schismatic or an excommunicate. Silence does not necessarily mean complicity with heresy or schism.[/size]
Still leaves us with impotent bishops in the Eastern Rite and a crisis that never ends.
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not in a good space with this whole mess right now. Supposedly we have to have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (at least that's what is typically asserted), but none of them lift a finger to get us out of this mess.
When all is said and done, the only bishops that are speaking up about the heresies of V2 are the Trad bishops. I'm tired of hearing about the Eastern bishops and the excuses. They've done squat.
-
Still leaves us with impotent bishops in the Eastern Rite and a crisis that never ends.
You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not in a good space with this whole mess right now. Supposedly we have to have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (at least that's what is typically asserted), but none of them lift a finger to get us out of this mess.
When all is said and done, the only bishops that are speaking up about the heresies of V2 are the Trad bishops. I'm tired of hearing about the Eastern bishops and the excuses. They've done squat.
I totally agree with you, 2Vermont regarding the Eastern Bishops. They're doing squat. Some, from my limited perspective of what I've read about them, are open heretics. But I don't think having the Trad bishops as the answer is correct. The Trad Bishops themselves, as far as I know, don't claim that they have habitual jurisdiction.
-
Silence is a form of consent, particularly for someone in authority, such as a bishop. So Novus Ordo bishops who do not condemn Vatican 2 are thereby consenting to it. In order for any of them to not consent to Vatican 2, they would have to publicly repudiate it.
To answer Vermont's question, there were only a couple of bishops with jurisdiction who did so, and refused to consent, even by silence. Abp. Lefebvre is the most well-known example. I believe Bp. Castro Mayer did so too, though I don't know very much about him. Bp. Thuc publicly condemned Vatican 2 and denounced the false papal claimants as anti-popes.
Those are all the ones I'm aware of, and since only public rejection of Vatican 2 can overcome the public presumption that they consent to it, it stands to reason that we must necessarily know who publicly rejects Vatican 2, and since those are the only ones I'm aware of, most likely that's all there is.
There were certainly cardinals and bishops who privately did not accept Vatican 2, but since they did not publicly condemn it, by that omission they thereby publicly accepted it even if privately they didn't.
We don't need to hear them specifically talk about their thoughts on Vatican 2 to know whether they consent to it or not. The absurdity of this is made clear if you substitute a different bishop and a different council, and say the same thing. For example, to say, "I don't know what Cardinal Spellman thought about the Third Council of Constantinople because I believe he never spoke publicly on the matter, so I can't say whether he accepted it or not. For all we know he may have had reservations about it." This is absurd because every bishop is presumed to accept every council of the Church.
-
Silence is a form of consent, particularly for someone in authority, such as a bishop. So Novus Ordo bishops who do not condemn Vatican 2 are thereby consenting to it. In order for any of them to not consent to Vatican 2, they would have to publicly repudiate it.
To answer Vermont's question, there were only a couple of bishops with jurisdiction who did so, and refused to consent, even by silence. Abp. Lefebvre is the most well-known example. I believe Bp. Castro Mayer did so too, though I don't know very much about him. Bp. Thuc publicly condemned Vatican 2 and denounced the false papal claimants as anti-popes.
Those are all the ones I'm aware of, and since only public rejection of Vatican 2 can overcome the public presumption that they consent to it, it stands to reason that we must necessarily know who publicly rejects Vatican 2, and since those are the only ones I'm aware of, most likely that's all there is.
There were certainly cardinals and bishops who privately did not accept Vatican 2, but since they did not publicly condemn it, by that omission they thereby publicly accepted it even if privately they didn't.
We don't need to hear them specifically talk about their thoughts on Vatican 2 to know whether they consent to it or not. The absurdity of this is made clear if you substitute a different bishop and a different council, and say the same thing. For example, to say, "I don't know what Cardinal Spellman thought about the Third Council of Constantinople because I believe he never spoke publicly on the matter, so I can't say whether he accepted it or not. For all we know he may have had reservations about it." This is absurd because every bishop is presumed to accept every council of the Church.
I can see silence in the early years perhaps, but silence decades into the crisis is suspicious at best. No one in (supposed) authority can claim ignorance. If these men are part of the "Teaching Body" that the quoted theologians speak of, then it's obvious that that includes teaching the Faithful against the heresies of Vatican II.
I also wonder whether the Eastern bishops look at the Latin church as a separate church and therefore feel no need to address it ...as long as they state that they are "in communion with the pope".
-
So, so far in 60 plus years there has been no ordinary who has publicly condemned Vatican II (before or after retirement). This is why I asked the other questions in my OP. Has this not happened because they know they would be excommunicated and no longer have ordinary jurisdiction?
Archbishop Thuc was the ordinary of Hue, Viet Nam before being forced to resign when he was not allowed to return to Viet Nam after Vatican 2. He later came to understand the Crisis.
-
Archbishop Thuc was the ordinary of Hue, Viet Nam before being forced to resign when he was not allowed to return to Viet Nam after Vatican 2. He later came to understand the Crisis.
Yes, you are correct. He was an ordinary. And he was excommunicated. This is what I suspect would happen to any ordinary who actually spoke out publicly against Vatican II.
So, those with ordinary jurisdiction would....lose their ordinary jurisdiction.
-
I found this on the diocesan site:
Between 1962 and 1965, McVinney attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council in Rome. Following the conclusion of the Council, he created a Diocesan Liturgical Commission in June 1964 and one of the first Diocesan Ecuмenical Commissions in the United States in January 1965.
Most Rev. Russell J. McVinney, D.D., LL.D. - Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island - Providence, RI (https://www.dioceseofprovidence.org/most-rev-russell-j-mcvinney-dd-lld)
Ugh... So he stood up against Communion in the hand and such but really actually gave in to most other things. A true "conservative" rather than a traditional Catholic. 😣
Thank you for sharing.
-
Archbishop Thuc was the ordinary of Hue, Viet Nam before being forced to resign when he was not allowed to return to Viet Nam after Vatican 2. He later came to understand the Crisis.
Yes, you are correct. He was an ordinary. And he was excommunicated. This is what I suspect would happen to any ordinary who actually spoke out publicly against Vatican II.
So, those with ordinary jurisdiction would....lose their ordinary jurisdiction.
My understanding Archbishop Thục's forced resignation had nothing to do with him speaking out against Vatican II whatsoever, but only the politics re: Viet Nam, as TKGS said. If anyone has evidence of his condemning or speaking out against VII before his forced resignation, I would be very interested to see it.
Bp. Thuc publicly condemned Vatican 2
When did he do this? Can you please provide quotes? I am asking because I am genuinely curious, not having ever seen any quotes by him condemning VII (or, frankly, any quotes at all). My understanding is that, at least at the Council itself, he did not speak out. He was not even part of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum organized by the likes of Archbishops Lefebvre and Sigaud which tried to fight the liberalism during the Council. So I would like to know when exactly he started speaking out against Vatican II (manifested by actual quotes).
The best timeline I can come up with is:
+Thục remained in Rome during the Council years (1962–65)
After the closing of the Second Vatican Council, none of the relevant governments – American, Vietnamese or the Vatican – consented to Thục returning to Vietnam.
Paul VI used this inability to return to force him to resign, and +Thục began his exile in Rome.
So far, I am not aware of any criticism of VII.
1 January 1976, in El Palmar de Troya, Spain, Thục ordained Clemente Domínguez y Gómez.
If anyone here can flesh out this timeline with actual quotes condemning Vatican II & when he said them, I would find it interesting. :popcorn:
-
To answer Vermont's question, there were only a couple of bishops with jurisdiction who did so, and refused to consent, even by silence. Abp. Lefebvre is the most well-known example. I believe Bp. Castro Mayer did so too, though I don't know very much about him. Bp. Thuc publicly condemned Vatican 2 and denounced the false papal claimants as anti-popes.
At the Council itself, there was a group called The Coetus Internationalis Patrum (International Group of Fathers) which tried to fight the liberalism as the Council was underway. Two bishops named above, Abp. Lefebvre & Bp. Castro Mayer were in this group, as well as many others. Sadly, though, too many (all of them?, except for +ABL and +de Castro Mayer in his own diocese) stopped fighting after the Council. e.g. Archbishop Sigaud, a co-founder of the Coetus, "implemented the Novus Ordo Missae in his diocese and did not support Archbishop Lefebvre's Society of St. Pius X." Even Bp. de Castro Mayer didn't do much publicly (meaning: internationally, something the world would know about as with +ABL), as far as I know, other than keeping his own diocese as Traditional as he could. I am not aware of much public condemnation of VII, nor even of much public support for +ABL, until after he was forced to retire.
I have heard it said that some of the more traditional-leaning bishops died soon after VII of a broken heart. Who knows?
As far as bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction over a diocese, not yet retired, the only one I know who at least fought the liberalism within his own diocese (& didn't die soon after VII) is Bp. de Castro Mayer.
[Archbishop Lefebvre was head of a religious order, not a diocesan bishop, in the 1960s.]
-
When did he do this? Can you please provide quotes?
.
There is a very famous public condemnation (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/declaration-of-archbishop-ngo-dinh-thuc/) that Bp. Thuc made of the false church, which should have been made by all the bishops that supposedly were against Vatican 2. One word of this docuмent is worth more than a thousand rumors about some bishop out there who secretly didn't like the new Mass or was passively resistant to the changes after the Council but refused to say anything against it publicly.
Here's what Bp. Thuc said, and this is a public statement:
Declaration of Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc
How does the Catholic Church appear today as we look at it? In Rome, John Paul II reigns as “Pope,” surrounded by the body of Cardinals and of many bishops and prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church seems to be flourishing, along with its bishops and priests. The number of Catholics is great. Daily the Mass is celebrated in so many churches, and on Sundays the churches are full of many faithful who come to hear the Mass and receive Holy Communion.
But in the sight of God, how does today’s Church appear? Are the Masses — both the daily ones and those at which people assist on Sundays — pleasing to God? By no means, because that Mass is the same for Catholics as it is for Protestants — therefore it is displeasing to God and invalid. The only Mass that pleases God is the Mass of St. Pius V, which is offered by few priests and bishops, among whom I count myself.
Therefore, to the extent that I can, I will open seminaries for educating candidates for that priesthood which is pleasing to God.
Besides this “Mass,” which does not please God, there are many other things that God rejects: for example, changes in the ordination of priests, the consecration of bishops, and in the sacraments of Confirmation and of Extreme Unction.
Moreover, the “priests” now hold to:
1) modernism;
2) false ecuмenism
3) the adoration [or cult] of man;
4) the freedom to embrace any religion whatsoever;
5) the unwillingness to condemn heresies and to expel the heretics.
Therefore, in so far as I am a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Chair of the Roman Catholic Church is vacant; and it behooves me, as bishop, to do all that is needed so that the Roman Catholic Church will endure in its mission for the salvation of souls.
February 25, 1982
Munich
+Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc
Archbishop
-
.
There is a very famous public condemnation (https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/declaration-of-archbishop-ngo-dinh-thuc/) that Bp. Thuc made of the false church, which should have been made by all the bishops that supposedly were against Vatican 2. One word of this docuмent is worth more than a thousand rumors about some bishop out there who secretly didn't like the new Mass or was passively resistant to the changes after the Council but refused to say anything against it publicly.
Here's what Bp. Thuc said, and this is a public statement:
Amen Yeti.