Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: What V2 was supposed to be  (Read 1159 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Reputation: +829/-139
  • Gender: Male
Re: What V2 was supposed to be
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2023, 06:45:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I posted an excerpt of one of the schema here before, the one on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-vatican-ii-schema-excerpt-from-the-dogmatic-constitution-of-the-church/msg871881/#msg871881

    It's interesting to read these "orthodox" schema, which show that the pre-V2 mindset of the "conservatives" who prepared them shared tendencies that flowered into the more  liberal  docuмents that ultimately resulted from V2. One can understand, I think, why there were so many less "no" votes to the ultimate docuмents, which are so criticized in Trad circles today. 

    For example, on EEENS,  we have this:


    Quote
    Just as no one can be saved except by receiving baptism--by which anyone who does not pose some obstacle to incorporation3 becomes a member of the Church--or at least by desire for baptism,4 so also no one can attain salvation unless he is a member of the Church or at least is ordered towards the Church by desire. But for anyone to attain to salvation, it is not enough that he be really a member of the Church or be by desire ordered towards it; it is also required that he die in the state of grace, joined to God by faith, hope, and charity. 5

    Footnote 5 is to the Holy Office Letter of 1949, with its censure of "Feeneyism."

    Here's more:


    Quote
    As for those ordered by desire towards the Church, these include not only catechumens,12 who, moved by the Spirit, consciously and explicitly desire to enter the Church, but also those who, even if not knowing that the Catholic Church is the true and sole Church of Christ, still, by God's grace, implicitly and unknowingly desire the equivalent,13 either because they sincerely will what Christ himself wills or because, though ignorant of Christ, they sincerely desire to fulfil the will of God their Creator. The gifts of heavenly grace will never be wanting to those who sincerely desire and ask to be renewed by the divine light.14

    Of course, almost all Feeneyites recognize that the problems pre-date V2, and you can see that in the schema. Unlike most if not all Sedes - certainly about all the Sede bishops and priests - they don't have an almost mythic regard of "golden days" for the pre-V2 Church. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline dxcat40

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1595
    • Reputation: +913/-411
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #16 on: March 22, 2023, 08:08:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for sharing the excerpt, Decem


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41883
    • Reputation: +23934/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #17 on: March 22, 2023, 08:57:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I posted an excerpt of one of the schema here before, the one on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-vatican-ii-schema-excerpt-from-the-dogmatic-constitution-of-the-church/msg871881/#msg871881

    It's interesting to read these "orthodox" schema, which show that the pre-V2 mindset of the "conservatives" who prepared them shared tendencies that flowered into the more  liberal  docuмents that ultimately resulted from V2. One can understand, I think, why there were so many less "no" votes to the ultimate docuмents, which are so criticized in Trad circles today.

    For example, on EEENS,  we have this:


    Footnote 5 is to the Holy Office Letter of 1949, with its censure of "Feeneyism."

    Here's more:


    Of course, almost all Feeneyites recognize that the problems pre-date V2, and you can see that in the schema. Unlike most if not all Sedes - certainly about all the Sede bishops and priests - they don't have an almost mythic regard of "golden days" for the pre-V2 Church.

    Indeed, the contagion of full-blown EENS-denial was absolutely rampant.  Regardless of what one thinks of Father Feeney, if you read the one treatment the Dimonds have of Father Feeney, the statements made by Father Feeney's fellow Jesuits make your hair stand on end.  Not only is Cardinal Cushing on record as having stated,  "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense!  Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." but Father's fellow Jesuits were even worse.  When Father Feeney was excommunicated, the newspaper headlines (and I'm sure they consulted with the Church first) read, "Vatican says that there is salvation outside the Church."

    This is why Archbishop Lefebvre believed in "Anonymous Catholics," where people could be in the Church without even knowing it, but are saved BY the Church (that's precisely Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" position as well).

    Why did he believe this?  It was because he was taught this by teachers whom he considered otherwise orthodox and conservative and reliable at seminary.  This stuff was everywhere.

    So, when Father Feeney sensed that there was something very wrong in the Church, and went in search of what that was, he was entirely alone.  Everyone else thought that the Church was flourishing.  Buildings were going up left and right, and people were converting in droves, so that the estimates were that by 2020 the US would be a majority Catholic country.  Seminaries and convents were full, to the point that the US had to send priests on missions and turn away religious vocations ... because they didn't have room for them all.

    So Father alone sensed that there was something rotten in Denmark, so to speak.  And he rightly realized that it had to do with EENS.  And it wasn't just EENS, but the ecclesiology that comes from EENS-deninal.

    MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
    MINOR:  Non-Catholics, including infidels, can be saved. (widespread belief).
    CONCLUSION:  Non-Catholics, including infidels, can somehow be IN the Church.

    This is V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell, where the Catholic Church has a subsistent "core" composed of actual Catholics, but also includes all manner of heretics, and even infidels.  Indeed, these are our separated brethren, separated because they're not actual Catholics, but brethren because they're really in the Church.  There are then different degrees of material separation from the Church, even if these types are all formall united to (the soul of) the Church.

    Karl Rahner rightly held that the biggest revolution at V2 was with regard to EENS and Catholic ecclesiology, but was stunned that the "conservative Fathers" didn't make a peep about it.  Here was the most revolutionary thing about V2 and it went by unnoticed even by the conservative group, individuals like Archbishop Lefebvre, who was one of the group's leaders.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41883
    • Reputation: +23934/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #18 on: March 22, 2023, 09:26:01 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Karl Rahner rightly held that the biggest revolution at V2 was with regard to EENS and Catholic ecclesiology, but was stunned that the "conservative Fathers" didn't make a peep about it.  Here was the most revolutionary thing about V2 and it went by unnoticed even by the conservative group, individuals like Archbishop Lefebvre, who was one of the group's leaders.

    And this trend continues, so that 90% of Trad Catholics (my personal swag at a number) have this loosey-goosey view of EENS, but I find this incredibly ironic, as I see (agreeing with Rahner) that the core/root issue or error with Vatican II is rooted in the same view of EENS and the same ecclesiology as that of Vatican II.

    Bishop Sanborn, when asked in debates about what the core heresy of V2 is, always begins with V2 ecclesiology.  But then he says that non-Catholics can be saved.  But this necessarily (as per the above syllogism) means that non-Catholics can be inside the Church.  Thus ... Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.  Dr. Fastiggi exploited this contradiction and therefore won the debate against Bishop Sanborn.

    If someone were to convince me of the prevailing view of EENS among Trads, that heretics, schismatics, and even infidels (Hindus in Tibet) can be saved, then I would be compelled to drop all theologial opposition to Vatican II (and the NOM would be a separate issue).  Really, all that would remain would be Religious Liberty, but I can make a compelling case for that from this new ecclesiology as well.

    MAJOR:  People have a God-given right to save their souls.
    MINOR:  People save their souls by doing what (they believe to be) God's will (even if it isn't).
    CONCLUSION:  People have a God-given right to do what (they believe to be) God's will (even if it isn't).

    This is the foundation of the "subjectivism" that Bishop Williamson rightly holds to be the fundamental error of Vatican II.

    So you start with doctrinal subjectivism (with Wojtyla's religious indifferentism) and the next step is moral subjectivism (which is where we are with Bergoglio today) ... and all of Vatican II is clearly explained.

    But people for some reason fail to see that EENS-denial is the "Rosetta Stone" to interpreting and unlocking all of Vatican II.

    Some, such as Bishop Sanborn and the SVs, who are the most hostile to Father Feeney, have this mindset because they have overreacted to the R&R underselling of the Church's infallibility, by exaggerating and overselling it.  To them, a long rambling speculative (in his own language) allocution (aka speech) by Pius XII to a group of midwives might as well have been a dogmatic bull or solemn dogmatic definition issued with the full weight of papal authority to the Universal Church.  To them, Suprema Haec, which per Canon Law isn't even merely authentic Magisterium, as it never appeared in AAS, is on a par with the Council of Florence.  I've even heard SVs claim that any book with an imprimatur on it must be regarded as free of error, and therefore effectively infallible.  Of course, nearly all of them also reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as tainted with Modernism.  So they're rather selective about applying their principles.  To these SVs, "Feeneyites" are just as much as the V2 Modernists, and Father Feeney a heretic just as bad as a Hans Kung.  So they ironically cling to the same ecclesiology that they condemn as the chief heresy of Vatican II.  I find this utterly inexplicable.  And Karl Rahner was also at a loss to explain it, that those who opposed Vatican II failed to see the most revolutionary aspect of it.

    Oh, the SVs have also extended infallibility to the Church's "theologians" per what I call "Cekadism".  Theologians have never been regarded as infallible, and are not part of the teaching Church.  At best, they can be considered a reflection of the "Believing Church".  For 700 years, they all got it wrong in following unanimously the erroneous opinion of St. Augustine regarding the fate of infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptismm.  And what of the fact that all the Church's theologians all got behind Vatican II (with the exception of one or two who can rightly be called "theologians", such as +Guerard des Lauriers).  What's a "theologian" anyway?  What criterial define a theologian?  At any rate, they nearly-unanimously backed Vatican II, and continued to do so until the present day.  So what happened to the infallibility of theologians suddenly?  Did they all suddenly defect from the Church one Tuesday morning in 1963 at 9:35 AM?  But just a few years prior, their works were effectively infallible?  When they were condemning Father Feeney they were infallible, but then when they embraced the theology of Vatican II they were not infallible, and not Catholic theologians anymore?  This is mind-boggling nonsense.  BTW, Msgr. Fenton, one of these pre-V2 theologians, explicitly rejects Cekadism in passages that I have cited before.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #19 on: March 22, 2023, 10:58:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Indeed, the contagion of full-blown EENS-denial was absolutely rampant.  Regardless of what one thinks of Father Feeney, if you read the one treatment the Dimonds have of Father Feeney, the statements made by Father Feeney's fellow Jesuits make your hair stand on end.  Not only is Cardinal Cushing on record as having stated,  "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense!  Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." but Father's fellow Jesuits were even worse.  When Father Feeney was excommunicated, the newspaper headlines (and I'm sure they consulted with the Church first) read, "Vatican says that there is salvation outside the Church."

    This is why Archbishop Lefebvre believed in "Anonymous Catholics," where people could be in the Church without even knowing it, but are saved BY the Church (that's precisely Rahner's "Anonymous Christian" position as well).

    Why did he believe this?  It was because he was taught this by teachers whom he considered otherwise orthodox and conservative and reliable at seminary.  This stuff was everywhere.

    So, when Father Feeney sensed that there was something very wrong in the Church, and went in search of what that was, he was entirely alone.  Everyone else thought that the Church was flourishing.  Buildings were going up left and right, and people were converting in droves, so that the estimates were that by 2020 the US would be a majority Catholic country.  Seminaries and convents were full, to the point that the US had to send priests on missions and turn away religious vocations ... because they didn't have room for them all.

    So Father alone sensed that there was something rotten in Denmark, so to speak.  And he rightly realized that it had to do with EENS.  And it wasn't just EENS, but the ecclesiology that comes from EENS-deninal.

    MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church (dogma).
    MINOR:  Non-Catholics, including infidels, can be saved. (widespread belief).
    CONCLUSION:  Non-Catholics, including infidels, can somehow be IN the Church.

    This is V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell, where the Catholic Church has a subsistent "core" composed of actual Catholics, but also includes all manner of heretics, and even infidels.  Indeed, these are our separated brethren, separated because they're not actual Catholics, but brethren because they're really in the Church.  There are then different degrees of material separation from the Church, even if these types are all formall united to (the soul of) the Church.

    Karl Rahner rightly held that the biggest revolution at V2 was with regard to EENS and Catholic ecclesiology, but was stunned that the "conservative Fathers" didn't make a peep about it.  Here was the most revolutionary thing about V2 and it went by unnoticed even by the conservative group, individuals like Archbishop Lefebvre, who was one of the group's leaders.

    We do agree on something. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #20 on: March 22, 2023, 11:14:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • If someone were to convince me of the prevailing view of EENS among Trads, that heretics, schismatics, and even infidels (Hindus in Tibet) can be saved, then I would be compelled to drop all theologial opposition to Vatican II (and the NOM would be a separate issue).  Really, all that would remain would be Religious Liberty, but I can make a compelling case for that from this new ecclesiology as well.

    MAJOR:  People have a God-given right to save their souls.
    MINOR:  People save their souls by doing what (they believe to be) God's will (even if it isn't).
    CONCLUSION:  People have a God-given right to do what (they believe to be) God's will (even if it isn't).

    This is the foundation of the "subjectivism" that Bishop Williamson rightly holds to be the fundamental error of Vatican II.

    So you start with doctrinal subjectivism (with Wojtyla's religious indifferentism) and the next step is moral subjectivism (which is where we are with Bergoglio today) ... and all of Vatican II is clearly explained.

    But people for some reason fail to see that EENS-denial is the "Rosetta Stone" to interpreting and unlocking all of Vatican II.

    Some, such as Bishop Sanborn and the SVs, who are the most hostile to Father Feeney, have this mindset because they have overreacted to the R&R underselling of the Church's infallibility, by exaggerating and overselling it.  To them, a long rambling speculative (in his own language) allocution (aka speech) by Pius XII to a group of midwives might as well have been a dogmatic bull or solemn dogmatic definition issued with the full weight of papal authority to the Universal Church.  To them, Suprema Haec, which per Canon Law isn't even merely authentic Magisterium, as it never appeared in AAS, is on a par with the Council of Florence.  I've even heard SVs claim that any book with an imprimatur on it must be regarded as free of error, and therefore effectively infallible.  Of course, nearly all of them also reject the Pius XII Holy Week Rites as tainted with Modernism.  So they're rather selective about applying their principles.  To these SVs, "Feeneyites" are just as much as the V2 Modernists, and Father Feeney a heretic just as bad as a Hans Kung.  So they ironically cling to the same ecclesiology that they condemn as the chief heresy of Vatican II.  I find this utterly inexplicable.  And Karl Rahner was also at a loss to explain it, that those who opposed Vatican II failed to see the most revolutionary aspect of it.

    Oh, the SVs have also extended infallibility to the Church's "theologians" per what I call "Cekadism".  Theologians have never been regarded as infallible, and are not part of the teaching Church.  At best, they can be considered a reflection of the "Believing Church".  For 700 years, they all got it wrong in following unanimously the erroneous opinion of St. Augustine regarding the fate of infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptismm.  And what of the fact that all the Church's theologians all got behind Vatican II (with the exception of one or two who can rightly be called "theologians", such as +Guerard des Lauriers).  What's a "theologian" anyway?  What criterial define a theologian?  At any rate, they nearly-unanimously backed Vatican II, and continued to do so until the present day.  So what happened to the infallibility of theologians suddenly?  Did they all suddenly defect from the Church one Tuesday morning in 1963 at 9:35 AM?  But just a few years prior, their works were effectively infallible?  When they were condemning Father Feeney they were infallible, but then when they embraced the theology of Vatican II they were not infallible, and not Catholic theologians anymore?  This is mind-boggling nonsense.  BTW, Msgr. Fenton, one of these pre-V2 theologians, explicitly rejects Cekadism in passages that I have cited before.

    Great post, on which I comment on parts individually. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #21 on: March 22, 2023, 11:43:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • This is the foundation of the "subjectivism" that Bishop Williamson rightly holds to be the fundamental error of Vatican II.

    So you start with doctrinal subjectivism (with Wojtyla's religious indifferentism) and the next step is moral subjectivism (which is where we are with Bergoglio today) ... and all of Vatican II is clearly explained.

    But people for some reason fail to see that EENS-denial is the "Rosetta Stone" to interpreting and unlocking all of Vatican II.



    Interesting thought on the connection between the doctrinal error and moral subjectivism. Very much worth reflecting deeper upon. 

    I see the "Rosetta Stone" as to the depression of the God factor in the determination of who is saved, and the elevation of the human factor, man's consent and cooperation in salvation. After all, if all human beings have a free choice of salvation, it's just not "fair" that non-Catholics (who "believe" in Christ even), and then non-Christians (some of whom, e.g., Jєωs, Muslims, even "believe" in "God") have no shot at salvation - so goes the thinking. 

    And that way of thinking makes some sense if, in fact, all men have a shot at salvation, since all men are not Catholic. 

    So I back this up to a failure to hold to a traditional Catholic idea of predestination: whether you like it or not - and yes, the elect have free will and consent freely to grace and salvation - it is purely God's determination, divorced from any human action or deserving, that makes the difference between a saved man and a damned.

    Bishop Sanborn gave a great sermon on this, the "Catholic doctrine of Predestination." He used the example of God walking through a ward of terminal patients, and stopping randomly at a bed saying, "this one," and going on down the ward and then saying, "that one," etc., and that, God's gratuitous and free choice, being the determiner of salvation. 

    EENS is a dogma reflecting how and where God's choice resides: in Catholics, or more properly, in certain of those "inside" the Catholic Church. So EENS is related to Predestination. 

    In light of Sanborn being right on Predestination, his liberality on EENS is even more confounding. 

    We like being in control, and this makes us extremely uneasy. It's a dogma that is readily rejected using our human, imperfect sense of justice. 

    I have a whole thread on this, with quotations from St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the annotations of the Haydock Bible, etc. : 

    https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg733125/#msg733125
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Kazimierz

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7388
    • Reputation: +3488/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #22 on: March 22, 2023, 11:52:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Read the book "Prometheus" if possible. It does a very good to excellent job showing the foundations of the ecclesial revolution that was V2.
    Da pacem Domine in diebus nostris
    Qui non est alius
    Qui pugnet pro nobis
    Nisi  tu Deus noster


    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +829/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #23 on: March 22, 2023, 11:55:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course, St. Thomas, who held to the Catholic dogma of Predestination I mentioned above, also believed that all men - who reached the age of reason (but that's a separate and deep issue) - had a shot at salvation by their free will, and resolved the fact that not all men are Catholic or Christian by believing that, if the non-Christian truly sought God with a sincere heart, God would reveal the essentials of the Christian faith to him internally (for lack of a better word), or a priest or evangelist would reach him and instruct him on the faith.

    That is the Thomistic solution preserving both EENS and the chance for all men to be saved.

    Of course, the case of infants puts his solution to a severe test, since a baby born in non-Christian lands, who dies in infancy, is incapable of what Pius XII called an "act of love" for God. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2718
    • Reputation: +956/-248
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Re: What V2 was supposed to be
    « Reply #24 on: March 22, 2023, 01:57:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I find that pointing out all the corruption surrounding Vatican II only seems to have the effect of pointing to smoke, but no fire.

    What of Roncalli/Pope Leo 23?  What can be said of that man?  His profile?
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle