"Vae
mihi si non evangilzavero"
(I Corinthians, IX, 16)
I understand that some people are not familiar with the language used by the author of this article, unfortunately it cannot be written in a simpler way because it would lose its depth and its veracity. Please, people who do not understand any word or set of phrases, let me know by telegram, wapsapp or by my email, I am here to serve you, thank you in advance.
Without referring to the unexpected ways in which the Council Fathers found themselves when dealing with certain uprooted schemes of the Church's magisterium, we intend in the pages that follow to echo that word that the Council Fathers have not been able to forget: Caveamus ”( let's take care). Let us beware that we are influenced by an absolutely irreconcilable spirit with which the Roman Pontiffs and previous Councils tirelessly endeavored to spread among Christians. It is not about a spirit of progress, but of rupture and suicide.
The
statements of some Fathers in this regard are guiding: some affirm that between
the past statements and those of the authors of certain schemes there is no
contradiction, because the circumstances have changed. What the Magisterium of
the Church affirmed a hundred years ago was valid for those times, but not for
ours. There are others who take refuge in the mystery of the Church. Others
consider that a Council is intended to modify the doctrine of previous
Councils. Finally, others maintain that the entire Council is above the
ordinary magisterium, which is why it can dispense with it and stand alone. You
can also hear the voice of the liberal press affirming that the Church finally
admits the evolution of dogma. Is it possible to discern the reason, at least
apparent, that allowed these revolutionary theses to be officially installed in
the deliberations of the council? We believe we have the authority to affirm
that this occurred in favor of an ecumenism presented first as Catholic and
that, during the course of the Sessions, it was transformed into rationalist
ecumenism.
That spirit of non-Catholic ecumenism has been the instrument used by mysterious hands to try to break and pervert the doctrine taught from evangelical times to the present day, a doctrine that has flowed and continues to flow so much blood of martyrs. As inconceivable as it may seem, this has happened: from now on, in the history of the Church, there will always be talk of those theses contrary to doctrine that, under the pretext of ecumenism, were presented to the Vatican II Council Fathers. In this way, efforts were made to elaborate schemes that attenuate or even make disappear certain points of specifically Catholic doctrine that could displease the Orthodox and, especially, the Protestants. We would like to address some examples of the proposed new theses. We find it useful to develop the traditional Catholic theses on these points, since it is a doctrine known to all, taught in our catechisms, which nourishes our Liturgy and which has been the object of the strongest and most luminous teachings of the Popes for a century. . Expressing the pain experienced by the Fathers, firmly attached to the continuity of the doctrine when listening to the exposition of the new theses made by the official rapporteurs of the Commissions, is an impossible task. We thought of the voices of the Popes whose bodies lay buried in the precise place where we were. We were thinking of the immense scandal that the press would soon make for the way they broadcast these exhibitions.
The
Primacy of Peter
Let us first look at the Primacy of Peter, which we want to displace for the benefit of a poorly defined and poorly understood collegiality, culminating in a challenge to common sense. How much better and more profitable it would have been to point out the role of the bishop in the Church in relation to his particular flock under Peter's watch, and to show how - through that particular flock - it is due out of charity to the universal Church, beginning with the Churches that are close to him, followed by those of the missions, and then by the entire Church, but in immediate dependence on Peter, what is the only one that is due in justice and directly to all the Churches and to the whole Church!
But let's look at the new thesis and the two statements it contains:
1) Everything, absolutely all power over the Church has been entrusted only to Peter.
2) All that same power has also been entrusted to Peter and the Apostles collectively. If truly all power has been entrusted only to Peter, what others may have they will have received from him. If the bishops have with Peter a part in the universal government, a part that Peter cannot take from them, Peter no longer has all the power by himself. Let them not speak of mystery! The contradiction is manifest. In the second case, Peter has but the largest share of power, which has been condemned by Vatican I: "If someone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the highest parts and not the fullness of the supreme power, let him be anathema." After Peter, the Curia is attacked, which is considered the Pope's secretariat, when in reality it is the noblest part of the particular Church of Rome, a Church whose faith is unfailing and which is the Mother and Teacher of all the Churches. The eyes of the Fathers should be directed towards it, because they can be certain that there they will find the truth. Why is the Church of Rome intended to be silent? Where would the light come from if the Council Fathers of the Church of Rome were silent? On the other hand, to insert between the bishop of Rome and the Church the episcopal body of the Universal Church in an institutionalized (democratized) way it would mean taking away from the Church of Rome its title of Mother of all Churches. With this we do not want to contradict the possibility that the Sovereign Pontiff consult the bishops more frequently and modify, if he considers it appropriate, some modalities or structures of the Curia. But the purpose of those who aspire to create a new legal institution adhering to a collegiality always in exercise, could make the new institution the electoral body of the Sovereign Pontiff. Because it is inconceivable that the Pope is not elected by his clergy given that he must be Bishop of Rome to later be Peter's successor.
The
virgin Mary
to
the Eucharist
It will have been observed that with regard to the Eucharist - although this subject has not been dealt with ex professo - there are two allusions that tend to diminish the estimation of the Real Presence of Our Lord. At the end of the outline on the Sacred Scriptures, the Eucharist is placed on the same footing with the Scriptures, this cannot be. How can we not think of all those Gospels that have since replaced the Eucharist on the main altars of our Churches! It is stated, on the other hand, that Protestants lack "the full reality of the Eucharist." What Eucharist is it about? It certainly cannot be of the Catholic Eucharist, since the real presence is not among them, as well as the sacramental one. Therefore, it is a Protestant “Eucharist”.
The
revelation
In all the schemes related to Revelation, the value of Tradition tends to be minimized for the benefit of Scripture, in the Protestant style. The faithful and priests are overly reproached for not encouraging greater devotion to Sacred Scripture. Indeed, the Scriptures have been destined to the Community of the people of God in their heads and not to each individual member in isolation, as the Protestants maintain. That is why the church, like a mother, offers the milk of doctrine to her children through its happy presentation in the Liturgy, in the catechism, in the Sunday homily. It is within the order of nature for Scripture to be taught to us by authorized persons. Our Lord wanted it that way. We have nothing to take from the Protestants, whose history has sufficiently demonstrated that Scripture alone cannot maintain unity or preserve from error.
The
Truth of the Church
The Truth of the Church obviously has consequences that annoy Protestants and also certain liberal-infused Catholics. From now on the new dogma that will occupy the place that corresponded to the Truth of the Church will be that of the dignity of the human person together with the supreme good of freedom: (Understand well "new dogma" not contained in the Divine Revelation of the Church) two notions that avoid defining clearly. It follows, according to our innovators, that the freedom to publicly manifest the religion of one's own conscience is a strict right of every human person that no other person in the world can prohibit. (Allusion is made, where everyone is right and Truth becomes subjective and ceases to be OBJECTIVE) to freedom of conscience. Whether it is a true or false religion, which promotes virtues or vices, they do not care. The only limit will be a common good that they jealously avoid defining! Consequently, it would be necessary to review the agreements between the Vatican and the nations that justly recognize a preferential situation for the Catholic religion. The state should be neutral in matters of religion. Many state constitutions would have to be revised, not only in the nations of the Catholic religion. Have those new legislators of human nature have thought that the Pope is also head of state? Will the Vatican be invited to secularize him? Accordingly, Catholics would lose the right to act to establish or re-establish a Catholic state. His duty would be to maintain the religious indifferentism of the state. Remembering Gregory XVI, Pius IX described this attitude as "delirium" and, even more, as "Freedom from perdition" (Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864). Leo XIII dealt with the subject in his admirable Encyclical Libertas præstantissimum. But all of that was appropriate for its time, not for nineteen sixty-four!
The freedom desired by those who consider it an absolute good is chimerical. If it is admitted that freedom is usually restricted in the moral order, how much more will it not be in the order of intellectual choice! God has admirably attended to the deficiencies of human nature through the families that surround us: the one in which we were born and that should educate us, that is, the homeland, whose leaders should facilitate the normal development of families towards material perfection. , moral and spiritual; the Church, through its dioceses whose Father is the Bishop, whose parishes form religious cells where souls are born to divine life and are nourished in this life with the sacraments. Defining freedom as the absence of coercion means destroying all the authorities placed by God within these families to facilitate the good use of the freedom that has been given to us to spontaneously seek the Good and eventually to provide it, as occurs with children and assimilated.
The truth of the
Church is the raison d'être of her evangelizing zeal, of her proselytism, and
therefore the profound rationale for missionary, priestly and religious
vocations that demand generosity, sacrifice, perseverance in afflictions and
crosses. That zeal, that fire that wants to embrace the world annoys
Protestants.
Thus,
a scheme will be drawn about the Church in the world that will jealously avoid
speaking of evangelization. The entire earthly city can be built without the
intervention of priests, men and women religious, sacraments, the Sacrifice of
the Mass, Catholic institutions, such as schools, spiritual works and materials
of charity! ... In such a spirit a scheme on the Missions it becomes very
difficult. Will the novices thus fill the seminaries and novitiates? The Truth
of the Church is also the raison d'être of Catholic schools. With the new dogma
it is suggested that it would be preferable to merge them with the other
schools as long as they observe natural law (sic). Obviously, there is no room
left for teaching Brothers or Sister ... The admirable Encyclical of Pius XI on
the education of the youth was for nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, not for
nineteen hundred and sixty-four! ...
The
social doctrine of the Church
The
social doctrine of the Church also annoys ecumenism.
Thus
the doctrine also affirmed by John XXIII of private property as an essential
right of human nature would have no foundation except in positive law! The
class and national struggle would be necessary for progress and for the
continuous evolution of social structures. The common good would be a notion in
continuous evolution and "since nobody is universal, nobody would have a
complete vision of the common good", of which, however, a new definition
is given: "Freedom
and the fullness of human life" .
What remains of the teachings of the Popes on the social doctrine of the Church: Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Pacem in Terris? We are in nineteen seventy-four. Let them tell us, then what will happen tomorrow with the teachings of one thousand nine hundred and sixty-four in one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four ... These examples are enough to show that In the commissions, a majority of members prevail, won by an ecumenism that is not only alien to the Catholic, but which, according to its own confession, strangely resembles the modernism condemned by Saint Pius X and of which Pope Paul VI tells us in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam who has seen his resurgence. The liberal press has taken possession of these theses before they have been proposed as soon as they were presented in the diagrams and, particularly, when they obtained a significant majority in the council chamber. Once the victory was obtained, the way was open to all dialogues, that is, to all transactions. At last they concluded, that is to say, they had an end to "papolatry" and the monarchical regime of the Church, the Holy Office and the Index, consciences were liberated, and so on.
What should we do in the face of this debauchery, in the face of this storm?
1) Unfailingly keep our faith, our adherence to everything that the Church has always taught us, without being upset or discouraged. Our Lord tests our faith, as he did with the apostles, as he did with Abraham. In order to do this, the feeling that we are going to perish must really dominate us. In this way, the Victory of Truth will be authentically God's victory and not ours.
2) Be objective. Recognize the positive aspects that are manifested in the wishes of the Council Fathers, wishes that unfortunately and despite themselves have been used to establish legal texts that serve theses that most of the Fathers themselves had not even imagined. Let us try to define these desires as follows: Deep desire for greater collaboration in favor of a more intense effectiveness of the apostolate: collaboration between pastors and with the Supreme Pastor. Who could condemn such a wish? I wish to express to the separated brothers and to the whole world his great charity so that everyone may turn to Our Lord and to His Church outside of which there is no salvation. Desire to give the Church greater simplicity, in her liturgy, in the habitual behavior of pastors and, in particular, of her bishops, in the formation of clergy who prepare them more directly for their pastoral ministry, but within tradition millennial of the Church. Tendency is motivated by the fear of no longer being heard or understood by the whole of the faithful people. These so legitimate and opportune desires could be perfectly manifested in admirable texts and orientations adapted to our time without the collegiality, ill-founded and ill-defined; without religious freedom, false; without the statement about the Jews, untimely; without indications of demolition of the authority of the Pope, without denying the title of Mother of the Church to the Virgin Mary, and without slandering the Roman Curia. It is not, as a whole, the Fathers of the Council who encouraged these texts with such wording that expresses a new doctrine, but a group of Fathers and periti who took advantage of the very legitimate wishes of the Fathers to introduce their doctrines. The schemes, thank God, do not yet have a definitive wording. The pope has not yet approved them in public session. For the rest, the Council has affirmed its will not to define any new dogma, but to be a pastoral and ecumenical Council. The Church of Rome, the only unfailing one among all the particular Churches, remains firmly in the faith; most cardinals do not approve of the new theses. The Council Fathers who perform important tasks in the Roman church, as well as the majority, without almost all of the Roman theologians, do not stand alongside the novadores. That is fundamental, because the faithful of the whole world must unite around that Church of Rome, Teacher of Truth; Saint Irenaeus already affirmed this.
4)
Pray and do penance. Pray to the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, since She
is at the center of all debates and has always conquered all heresies. In Her
the Council Fathers will find unanimity, like the children around their Mother.
She watches over the Successor of Peter and will act in such a way that Peter
always confirms his brothers in the faith, in the faith that was that of the
Apostles and of Peter in particular and of all his successors. You have to do
penance to merit the aid of the grace of Our Lord; penance in the fulfillment
of our duties of state without fainting, without abandonment, without
discouragement, despite the infernal environment of debauchery, impudence,
contempt for authority, abuse of oneself and others.
Let us be confident: God is almighty and has given Our Lord all power in heaven and on earth. Will these powers be less in 1964 than in 1870, less in the last Council than in all the previous ones? Our Lord will not abandon the promises of perpetually attending the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
"Confidite, ego sum, nolite timere" (Mk 6:50).
Oh, Mary, Mother of the Church, show that you are our Mother!
Note. This writing is from 1964, at present all these reforms have already been signed and put into practice with the disastrous spiritual consequences that are devastating Christianity or what remains of it.
Today, more than ever, they are wolves in sheep's clothing, mercenaries and robbers are those who have the audacity to “condemn” the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church and, if possible, erase it from the face of the earth, which is impossible because for this they would have to defeat and defeat the One True God in three persons.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario