Archive for the ‘new ecclesiology’ Category

With the Lefebvrists, Ecumenism doesn’t come cheap: a response, part 1

Monday, July 5th, 2010

I was recently reading an article by Sandro Magister from chiesa.espressonline.it on the dialogue between the Society of Saint Pius X and Rome entitled “With the Lefebvrists, Ecumenism Doesn’t Come Cheap”, and what hit me was the profound dishonesty committed by Sandro Magister from his onesidedness position with Rome and his softening of language on the teachings of Vatican II. As a result, one would be lead to the conclusion that there is nothing adversely wrong with the teachings of Vatican II.

See article

The truth couldn’t be any more to the contrary.

When the Vatican II documents were promulgated, they were written during the time when people did not have easy access to the official documents of the Church. The only people who had seen the documents of Vatican II were necessarily bishops and cardinals and those who were present at the council (1962-1965). Many of the theologians had studied them, but not the ordinary people until now.

But let’s get the point across. The principle ideas behind Vatican II are not something that suddenly showed up from nowhere. The ideas behind the teaching of ecumenism (ceaseless dialogue with religions), expanded ecclesiology (branch theory et al), religious liberty (social right of religions), and collegiality (the supreme authority of the bishops and pope), had their political counterparts in the French Revolution, had their theological foundation in New Theology (Modernism) condemned by the Catholic Church many times under the universal and ordinary magisterium, had their driving force from persons of questionable orthodoxy previously held with suspicion by the Holy Office.

In the article “With the Lefebvrists, Ecumenism Doesn’t Come Cheap”, the contention is not on ‘freedom of conscience and religion’. If we are merely speaking of freedom in regard to the conscience and religion, we are not even discussing what Vatican II documents have taught. We would be foolhardy to think those ideas are false on grounds of freedom.  If we are just talking about freedom of conscience and religion, we are talking about something else not mentioned in Vatican II documents.

When we talk of ecclesiology, we are in agreement that there is a problem in fact with Vatican II teaching on ecclesiology compare to the previous magisterium teachings on the nature and essence of the Church, which cannot change by mere whim of a council.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Modernism, Vatican II Council, Vatican II documents, controversy, new ecclesiology, religious ecumenism, religious liberty, response, world news | No Comments »

Triumph of (Modernist) theologians over diplomats in Vatican

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Benedict XVI is rushing to push forward Modernist ideologies in higher places by promoting the so-called Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Quebec as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Archbishop Rino Fisichella as the first President of the new Pontifical Commission for Promotion of the New Evangelization, “a new Vatican department devoted to reawakening the faith in the West, especially Europe”, and Bishop Kurt Koch of Basel, Switzerland, as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews.

See NCR article

There is a New Evangelization on the horizon. For how can the new faith revitalize Europe and the West with the more same old stuff, such as with the right of religious liberty of man of every religion, ecumenism (cooperation of religions for the betterment of mankind), collegiality (that the bishops with the Pope hold supreme authority in the Church, in spite of the fact that that Pope alone has that power, consequently making bishops autonomous in their own dioceses in union with the Pope), and false ecclesiology (that the Church of God is not identical to the Catholic Church, but rather much bigger than the Catholic Church, however subsists in the Catholic Church in the fullness of truth)?

Even Kasper at a farewell session with reporters in Rome, described the effort to restore Christian unity as the “construction site of the church of the future.”

Yes, you heard it right, there is a need of Christian unity and that is the hope of the church of the future. However passé is the notion of Christian unity in the Catholic Church, no longer by the profession of one faith and under the rule of the Pope.

“Instead of accusing others, and even the pope, of wishing to go back to before the council, everyone would be well advised to look over their own books and reassess their own personal position on the council,” he wrote. “Not everything that was said and done after the council, was therefore done in accordance with the council.” said Koch.

But which portion from above was not prescribed by the Second Vatican Council? All of them? Yet, it is the same old stuff we have been getting from Rome for over 50 years. It is a renovation of Vatican II and we are anticipating the results. There is no going back to before the council, because there is no good in doing that, but to keep looking over their own books and reassess their own personal position on the council, endlessly.

And who can forget the religious relations with the Jews who have rejected Christ? After all, their covenant is still valid?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Benedict XVI, Cardinal Kasper, Modernism, Modernist, Vatican news, controversy, new ecclesiology, religious ecumenism, religious liberty, response | 1 Comment »

Benedict XVI on Vatican II

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

Vatican City, Jun 3, 2010 / 09:31 pm (CNA).- The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Roman (LOR) published an article this week on a meeting of the international theological and cultural review “Communio,” which was founded 38 years ago by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and Joseph Ratzinger. The text highlights the Holy Father’s perspective on the Second Vatican Council, its importance in the history of the Church in continuity with tradition and the concept of the ecclesiology of “communion” as it relates to “mission.”

Today, notes the article’s author theology professor Erio Castellucci, we have two hermeneutics—keys to its interpretation and application—which resulted from Vatican II. “They were defined by the Holy Father in his 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia as those ‘of discontinuity and rupture’ and of ‘reform, renewal and continuity.’”

Castelluci recalls that on the occasion, Pope Benedict “took a position flatly in favor of the second.”

The first hermeneutic, explained the Holy Father at the time, “risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.”

Read more

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Benedict XVI, Modernism, Modernist, controversy, new ecclesiology, news event | 1 Comment »

Benedict XVI’s ecclesiology in “plurality of understanding”

Monday, May 24th, 2010

I have not heard this in the history of the Catholic Church, until modern-day teaching of Benedict XVI.

“The Spirit triggers a process of reunification of the divided and dispersed parts of the human family; persons, often reduced to individuals in competition or in conflict with each other, reached by the Spirit of Christ, open themselves to the experience of communion, can involve them to such an extent as to make of them a new organism, a new subject: the Church. This is the effect of God’s work: unity; thus unity is the sign of recognition, the “business card” of the Church in the course of her universal history. From the very beginning, from the day of Pentecost, she speaks all languages. The universal Church precedes the particular Churches, and the latter must always conform to the former according to a criterion of unity and universality. The Church never remains a prisoner within political, racial and cultural confines; she cannot be confused with states not with federations of states, because her unity is of a different type and aspires to transcend every human frontier.”


“From this, dear brothers, there derives a practical criterion of discernment for Christian life: When a person or a community, limits itself to its own way of thinking and acting, it is a sign that it has distanced itself from the Holy Spirit. The path of Christians and of the particular Churches must always confront itself with the path of the one and catholic Church, and harmonize with it. This does not mean that the unity created by the Holy Spirit is a kind of homogenization. On the contrary, that is rather the model of Babel, that is, the imposition of a culture of unity that we could call “technological.” The Bible, in fact, tells us (cf. Genesis 11:1-9) that in Babel everyone spoke the same language. At Pentecost, however, the Apostles speak different languages in such a way that everyone understands the message in his own tongue. The unity of the Spirit is manifested in the plurality of understanding. The Church is one and multiple by her nature, destined as she is to live among all nations, all peoples, and in the most diverse social contexts. She responds to her vocation to be a sign and instrument of unity of the human race (cf. “Lumen Gentium,” 1) only if she remains free from every state and every particular culture. Always and in every place the Church must truly be catholic and universal, the house of all in which each one can find a place.”

See Zenit article

Tags: , ,
Posted in Benedict XVI, global bank, new ecclesiology | 1 Comment »