|
February 1997 No. 20
THE TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY SINCE VATICAN II
My contribution to this Theological Congress of SISINoNo will be to explain that the crisis in the Catholic Church is the transfer of the authority of the universal Magisterium to the authority of theologians. This transfer showed itself in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council, and, over the last 30 years, the theologians have done what they accomplished what they sought at the Council, i.e., that theologians themselves be participants in the teaching office of the Church. I have among my papers many newspaper clippings which prove this desire continues to rear its head. I must admit the Council, at least on this matter, reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Church. The danger became apparent immediately afterwards, however. One must not forget the strategical method of the innovators, the bishops, and the Conciliar experts, that is, to introduce into the texts of Vatican II ambiguous expressions which they planned to interpret innovatively only after publication of the documents. Concerning this fact there is the statement of the Dutch Dominican, Fr. Edward Schillibeecx, recorded in my book Iota Unum [distributed by Angelus Press, Kansas City, MO. Price: $24.95]:
By this he means to say, "We use diplomatic language, i.e., double-entendre, in which the text is formulated first in an ambiguous manner which we then clarify or highlight as it suits us.” This is how the Conciliar documents, admitting of loose and weak methodology, would reinforce their innovative pronouncements.
It cannot be forgotten that the first and greatest scandal, which must be attributed to Pope John XXIII, came from the agreement that Protestant experts at the Council should not merely observe the work of the Commissions but actually be consulted as authors. The results are that certain texts of the Council are the work not only of bishops or theologians but also of Protestants. The transfer of the authority of which we speak is one of the changes most deeply rooted in Rationalism, Humanism, and Naturalism. Its trademark principle is that the truths of the Faith are inspired exclusively by the activity of the human intellect. According to traditional doctrine, faith surpasses reason. In the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in order to believe, one must go beyond reason, for faith is extrinsic to it. Being beyond reason does not mean being opposed to it, rather it is complementary to it, a necessary help, and it is precisely for this reason that faith surpasses it. The purpose of the Church's Magisterium is to in still supernatural convictions in the minds of the faithful so they will learn them, apply them, and forever adhere to them. The word teach means to act in such a way that one may know hat he did not know before. Moreover, the office of the Magisterium includes apologetics. Because the master must defend what he teaches, he must defend it by employing motives supplied by biblical authority, hence from motives of the supernatural order, or even from motives of the natural order. Also, to teach something means to ensure its retention by those to whom it has been taught because the master must see that his teaching be neither set aside nor changed. At the time of the Second Vatican Council the didactic principles recalled here were in the process of dissolving into uncertainty. In witness of this there is the statement of Card. Heenan, Primate of the Church in England, who in one of the first sessions of the Council; said:
In other words, when no one teaches any longer, everyone teaches, and when there is no longer one truth taught, a multitude of opinions are circulated. But the Primate of England understates the case! Today, the Magisterial Office is no longer exercised even in the pontificate! If, as we have seen, the Magisterium is the manifestation of the Divine Word deposited in the Church, and the Church has as its mission and its duty to teach and to preach, then this manifestation of the Divine Word in the current pontificate has failed or at least has declined. I wouldn't have written 57 critical commentaries on the document Tertio Milennio Adveniente if the Holy Father had always taught and manifested the Divine Word which is itself the true "living Magisterium" in the Church, and, if he did not consistently fail to express clearly and directly the truth. I drafted these commentaries precisely because the Holy Father no longer imparts to the faithful, in the full exercise of his Magisterium, the assistance which they expect from the Supreme Teacher. He speaks, but he does not proclaim what he ought to proclaim. This is because even in the most important documents, every word of the Pope is no longer the Magisterium, but recently, very often, it is nothing more than the views, thoughts, and reflections widespread within the Church today. I must state emphatically that the Pope in his statements reflects entirely that system of thought in which mankind today takes such delight.
PRIVATE DOCTRINEPrivate doctrine is the unique expression of an individual, but that is not the case here. Rather, this concerns teachings which have been circulated and become preponderant in the greater part of theology. Thus, one reads in Tertio Milennio Adveniente of Pope John Paul II:
And in Ut Unum Sint:
Even the pronouncements of Pope John Paul II have assumed a character foreign to that of the supreme Magisterial Office. When the Pope does not proclaim the Divine Word which has been entrusted to him and which he is obligated to proclaim, he expresses his personal views in the sense mentioned earlier, but he does not express the Word of God. Thus we find ourselves facing the decline of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Pope ought to preserve and proclaim the full deposit of Faith and divine revelation, but now he expresses them only partially. From the moment the pope abandons his first duty, a great crisis arises in the Church, because Her heart has been struck. There exists no other corrective agent superior to the Pontiff. In the last 30 years, thousands of bishops, religious superiors, prelates of the Curia, and now the Supreme Pontiffs themselves have progressively weakened this doctrinal foundation, thereby dynamiting the supernatural base of the Faith into a myriad of private opinions. This proceeds from the fact that the principle of the Roman pontificate is the true principle of the Church. If the pope fails, the Church fails, and, if the pope is overthrown, so is the Church. The Supreme Pontiff is the only principle of authority .He is the Vicar of Christ who has received from Christ the command to confirm his brothers in the Faith. "To confirm" means "to render strong; to render firm." Therefore, in the crisis of the Council, the Liberals made great strides to dole out the infallible Magisterium between the pope and the bishops. On the whole, the anti- papal movement prevailed, because this anti-papal, anti-Roman, anti- authoritarian spirit was quite wide- spread. Even the faithful were convinced that infallibility must be interpreted in a new way. More- over, as we have seen, Pope John Paul II himself made anti-papal statements in Ut Unum Sint:
This simply means that one must not renounce it, but, at the same time, one can renounce it. It is an absolute principle, but it is not an absolute principle. The infallibility of the pope is an immovable rock, but when one says "but,..." the destruction of the principle is under-way. The new formula will be a modification of the truth which was previously defined as unchangeable. Propositions already circulate of Lutheran theologians supported by Catholic theologians explaining how Protestants can accept infallibility if understood as remaining a unique custom of the Roman Church. In the words quoted above, the Holy Father seems to accede to this idea. He appears ready to limit infallibility in such a manner that, no longer being universal, it would cease to be a dogma of Faith. But by this the very nature of the Church would be thereby undermined, because if certain dioceses believe and others do not, the essence of the doctrine is compromised. The Church and the Faith are one and the same thing. Whereas with this formula, the faith of the Church would be one thing in Rome and another in Berlin, for instance. During the last 30 years, papal supremacy has suffered more serious blows than those it suffered at the Second Vatican Council itself. This deadly assault has been concealed by the fact that throughout the world, however, the moral authority of the pontiff has increased. This increase has no religious significance nor any supernatural qualities whatsoever. The pope is revered insofar as he represents the humanitarian idea the basis of the New World Order, condemned in The Syllabus:
The Holy Father appears to support this idea because he speaks often of a "new world," of a world in which nations live and respect one another in their proper and distinct traditions, of a world of concord and brotherhood in which peace will reign over all nations. Among world leaders, the Holy Father never speaks with the authority of Christ as His representative on earth. He never speaks of Christ the King! Never! The discourses delivered at the UN were entirely humanitarian and only by obligation were certain polite references made to Christ. The speech reeked with humanitarianism because its end was humanitarian. The Holy Father still speaks of a "new evangelization." This does not refer to the Good News, but consists in the novelty of an humanitarian pronouncement which refers only vaguely to the Catholic religious ideals professed with authority in St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 4:5): "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism." The Holy Father sanctions an entirely human religiosity in which all religions deserve respect because they all tend to the good of humanity. If our religion, however, dissolves into a form of universal religious sentiment, our religion exists no longer. If our religion has not pride of place, it is nothing. If it is not itself the light, it is darkened.
THE POPE AND MORALITY Regarding the defence of moral precepts, such as the indissolubility of marriage, abortion, and the keeping of the Ten Commandments in general, the Holy Father has done his duty. But in other matters, as we have seen above, especially those concerning dogma, the dissolution of doctrine into the mere personal opinion of the Pope is increasing. The successes of the Holy Father in the world have been astounding. He generates thousands of reports and participates in meetings world-wide. The pope participates on equal terms at ecumenical gatherings. This is significant, because, in this manner, Pope John Paul II has managed to conquer the world so to speak. The world is imbued with his ideas on ecumenism; on the equal merit of all religions in themselves to lead to Christ; on the need for various people to associate while retaining their traditional practices and own cultural convictions, etc. The Holy Father is greeted with enthusiasm, not because he is the Roman Pontiff, but because he is regarded as the highest representative of this prevailing attitude concerning "the good world." A special feature of the Holy Father is his peculiarity on the difficult matters of morality denied by the world. What the world fails to realise, however, because it is never reminded, is that the rejection of moral teachings comprises the rejection of dogma. The moral law is a manifestation of the Divine Word made incarnate and known as Christ. The moral law relates directly to the Divine Word. The denial of the moral law is an implied, though nonetheless real, denial of the Divine Word. The origin of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff proceeds from its being the vicarious expression of the Divine Word. Papal authority must express the moral law according to the Incarnate Word. Today, however, this fundamental truth has been placed in doubt. We read in the encyclical Tertio Milennio Adveniente how Christianity is a response to the aspiration which arises from all religions: from Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. When it is said or implied that man is saved without grace, without Baptism, simply by virtue of his actions as a good, sincere, just, and religious man, this approaches the spirit of Pelagianism. Theologians ought to give great attention to the Pelagian system [which denies that original sin is inherited by the human race from Adam and Eve-Ed.], because the world is infected with its spirit. The final stage is the decline of the authority of the episcopal Magisterium. This relinquishing of authority to theologians is centered upon private opinions to the detriment of the Universal Teaching and of Tradition.
THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS There is, however, something even more troubling; there is a second reality, more extensive, caused by the resignation of the episcopal Magisterium which is circulating through the whole world in the form of the most disparate, varied, and rich theological opinions. These opinions are disparate, because one calls a thing disparate when it differs in something essential. These opinions are varied, because one calls a thing varied when it differs in something accidental. Two disparate things are two things of a different type. Two varied things are two things which can apply to the same type. The same applies to theological opinions which have sullied the post-conciliar Catholic world. These opinions split off from the one and holy doctrine because they are not derived from the same supernatural roots which form Catholic doctrine. I call these theological opinions rich in the sense these theologians use it-i.e., there is a "richness" of theological thought when the Catholic Froth is co-mingled with the spirit of alien religions like Protestantism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Animism. Turning our attention then to these disparate, varied, and rich theological opinions, we can say that today teaching of the Faith is no longer one. The unity of the Church must be essentially theological and doctrinal because it concerns matters of the intellect, and not a unity of merely appearance. Yet, the Holy Father maintains there exists a moral unity among the various religions, all directed to salvation. Thus, all religions and cultures are "ideally" one, without doctrinal unity .This amounts to admitting they are doctrinally disparate; it is merely in the details that theoretical differences are found.
THE UNITY OF THE FAITH As for the unity of Faith, each one of us must have the a priori certitude that what he holds as true is the same as what all other Catholics of the world-past and present- hold as true. I must have the certainty of believing what other Catholics believe without having to take a poll to ascertain what they profess. In my book, Iota Unum, speaking of infallibility, I said that when a Catholic utters a truth of the Faith, he is infallible. For example, the Holy Father has proclaimed in- fallibly that the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin. Thus, when I repeat the definition of the Sovereign Pontiff, I am infallible. This doctrine places in evidence the univocal aspect of the teaching of the Faith. I say "univocal" because of so many voices, of millions of voices, of myriads of men, all of whom profess and have always professed the one doctrine of the Word Begotten of the Mind of the Father.
The Faith that is by nature one and univocal has become today that of the charismatics, which is not that of the Neo-Catechumenate Way, which is not that of Card. Ratzinger , which is not that of Card. Martini, and which is not that of the Pope. Furthermore, each one of them appears on radio and television and writes in journals and books, bearing witness to his "particular" faith. All of these testimonies, all of these manifestations of faith, have in common a certain rapport with the Catholic Faith, but they are opinions outside the Catholic Faith and contrary to it. Can we say that these theologians are still Catholic? Thirty years since Vatican II, we can prove to what extent this movement prevailed because Catholics today interpret the Articles of Faith according to the manner expounded by these theologians.
WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE TODAYI have examined various dogmas of Faith which are no longer believed by Catholics, precisely because they are denied by modern theology .This means these Catholics no longer believe the dogmas of Faith according to the Nicene Creed. What do Christians believe today concerning Hell? They believe what theologians discuss in Avenire [an avant-garde liberal French journal] or what Radio Maria warmly supports. For instance, they believe that there is no Hell, or, if Hell exists, it is not eternal. Thus, Hell is probably empty [see Angelus Press English- Language Edition of SISINONO, Oct. 1993, No.4-Ed.]. But St. Gregory the Great in one of his homilies maintains with certainty the dam- nation of Herod Agrippa:
What do Catholics today believe concerning the Genesis account of Creation?-They believe it is merely a symbolic narrative. This is to deny the decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1906 which confirmed the historical character of the sacred narrative of the Pentateuch! What do Catholics today believe concerning the Holy Eucharist? - They believe that the Eucharist is not the real and personal presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, but the real presence of the Christian people. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord is present they say, but the Lord who is present is mystically the Christian people. Thus, the Christian people are present in the Eucharist. That is today's common opinion. What do Catholics today believe concerning predestinqtion? - Modern theologians totally distort this concept by speaking of it as an anticipation of things in man, not as a determination of things in man on the part of God This is a serious falsification, because predestination concerns our last end, and our last end is the most important thing there is. If the end of man is falsified, what remains of man? Thus, we have just seen that the tendencies which appeared after Vatican II have been imposed, over turning the accepted teachings of Catholic Church. After 30 years, we can confirm the success of these tendencies.
THE FRUITS OF THE LOSS OF UNITY The Catholic Faith has shattered into a thousand opinions concerning the Last Things, the virginity of Mary, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the sacraments, the Catholic Church, the Primacy of Peter, and even the Trinity. No article of the Creed-the formula of Faith professed at Mass-has not been shattered by a multitude of opinions expressed in spite of and contrary to the unchangeable nature of these doctrines. Thus, the Catholic loses his faith because unity is lost. There is no Faith if it is not one. This scattering of opinion signifies the dissolution of the Faith. The Summa Theologica defines well the break-up of the Catholic Faith: Therefore, it is necessary to say that infidelity has for its formal object the fundamental T
Those who deny the articles of the Faith professed on Sundaymoming no longer accuse themselves in Confession! Formerly, there were Arians, Donatists, Sabellians, followed by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Waldensians. Today, heretics remain Catholic {i.e., "pseudo-Catholics"), because there is no longer the fear of inconsistency nor have they the decency to distinguish Catholic teaching from non-Catholic teaching. Inconsistency is a serious matter. The principle of inconsistency is one of the first principles, and it is a matter most serious for existence, because it is in the most strict relation to existence. If existence is serious, that is, if it is a first principle, then its contradiction, its opposition, is also serious. When we are in this order of thought, we are at its most profound. One cannot go deeper. Thus we must pay attention to inconsistency. We must fear it and have a horror of it. Today, inconsistency does not frighten; one greets it; one welcomes it; one embraces it. Everything is its contrary, and non-Catholics are also Catholics. St. Augustine distinguishes three concepts in the act of faith-Credere Deo,. credere Deum,. credere in Deum. What opinion do theologians today have of these three aspects of the act of Christian Faith? It seems to me that the concept that is becoming blurred is that of God as a thing believed, credere Deum, i.e., that God, taken as a matter of faith, is dissolved. This is contrasted by believing in God, credere in Deum, i.e., to conform oneself by a movement of the intellect to the will of God. This even modem theologians support. However, it is the concept nearest to the Lutheran idea of faith. St Thomas explains that "[o]ne approaches God by believing (ST, II-II, q.2, ad.2); "Faith is entrusted to charity." If I do not believe in God, I cannot believe in God. In effect, if I do not believe in the existence of God as it is proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, how can I believe in the force of its authority? The decline of the Supreme Authority has led to the replacement of the teaching authority of the Church which, from the hierarchy of the Magisterium, has been transferred to the mass of theologians. This represents the dissolution of authority, because by believing in it, faith is involved, since the motive of faith is "to believe what God has said." In effect, if one doubts the providential existence of authority, one cannot believe that the Holy Scriptures derive their origin from it. Furthermore, today, the Holy Scriptures are read as a genre of literature, analogous to those of Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, which are nothing more than human traditions. They say God is not the Author of Holy Scripture; He is merely their fruit and consequence. All of these theologians believe what they believe only because their reasonings and opinions authorise them to believe. This is their authority. It is not the supernatural Authority which has been revealed and which leads to a belief beyond reason, but a purely intellectual, thoughtful, scientific, and demonstrable authority. St. Thomas Aquinas (ST, II-IIa, q.5, a.3) inquires if a heretic who denies an article of Faith can have an informed faith with regard to the other articles. St. Thomas responds in the negative since the articles of Faith are believed because they are revealed by God. Men cannot reject one and accept others. If he proceeds in such a way he has already denied the principle of Faith. All the articles of Faith are to be believed "because they have been revealed." To exclude an article of Faith is to deny that it is revealed, thus, the general principle of the Faith, which is not within us [subjective] but outside us [objective, is endangered. St. Thomas teaches constantly that the formal cause of the Faith is precisely the truthfulness of God. [A formal cause is the very essence of a thing which makes it to be what and how it is; e.g., a rational soul is the formal cause of man. - Ed.] Today man wishes to believe only what he can understand. Because of this, his faith is rooted in himself and not where it ought to be, that is, in God, in Jesus Christ, in the revealed Word, as the Apostle recalls:
In general, the importance of the act of faith is underestimated. "To believe" seems to be merely an arbitrary psychological attitude. But in fact, "to believe," implies the sacrifice of the supreme principle of man. We could not make a greater sacrifice. Why?-Because to sacrifice our intellect, the most exalted part of man, is an incredible action that cannot be done without grace. The arrogance of personal reasoning is manifested in the conceit of choosing, "1 shall not believe this doctrine because it seems to me neither reasonable nor possible. This one, on the contrary, I do believe because I find it reasonable and possible." Heresy is a Greek word meaning "I take." Heresy is a selective "taking" of things to believe. This selection is made on the basis of individual criteria, whereas the articles of the Faith must be believed be cause they have been revealed, and that's it! The role of theology is to clarify and to articulate well what we believe. For example, if we believe in the Immaculate Conception, theology must explain the concepts of "immaculate" and "conception." It must apply a multitude of clarifications to all points of doctrine so that it may be revealed in its totality and in all its depth. On the contrary, innovative theologians rely on the principle that what we believe must be entirely understood by human reason alone. To arrive at this element of intelligibility, they deny the substance of the Faith. As far as the new theologians are concerned, for anyone to claim they understand something concerning the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a heresy! To understand something, which, of itself, is above the intellect, is a thing they cannot comprehend. According to them, if you pretend to understand it in your mind, then you are a heretic, you deny the supernatural order, and you deny the order of the Faith!
CAUSES OF THE DISSOLUTION OF DOCTRINE Are there some general causes for this dissolution of doctrine into private opinion and for the replacement of the episcopal authority of the teaching office by private inspiration? There are some general moral causes in each act. Certain theologians succumb to pride, others to jealousy, and others to unreasonable motive. The causes of this New Theology are as many as the disordered minds that promote it. Why does such a one become envious? Why does another seek vainglory and desire to shine? Regarding these individual causes, we must blame the devil. On the contrary, the ultimate causes cannot be assigned to individuals. They are not something on which we can easily put our finger. Definitely, it is the spirit of the world which has penetrated the Church The substance of the world no longer identifies itself with the substance of the Church, but it has corrupted and continues to corrupt the substance of the Church. The conclusion of this evolution is a secret hidden in the heart of God. One night, a short time ago, I dreamed I was in a doorway and the Holy Father, Pope John XXIII, was in the same doorway with me. There were other people present also whom I could not distinguish. I heard them as they addressed themselves to him, "Holiness." After a while, I spoke distinctly and in a very loud voice, using these words:
When I had finished, the Holy Father, who had a book in his hand, crossed the threshold and laid the book on a table. This dream contains a doctrine that the men of the Church today pervert. This is the doctrine according to which the fundamental is intelligence and not love, not the will, not emotion, not impulse, not piety, but reason, knowledge, truth, contemplation, thought, purpose: the Word. Today, innovative theologians no longer hold as fundamental the Word, but rather Love. However, speaking this way, they can no longer maintain Love in its truth, and this love is one that has been falsified. If Love abandons its essential relation with Reason, Love itself is distorted. Love without order confuses love of self with love of others and love of each thing. Because it is rightly the Word which judges, it is the Divine Word which must set the limit, the foundation, and the horizon. On the contrary, Love by itself is incapable of judgement. Thus, Love must always relate itself to what precedes Love, just as a river must flow in its bed and not overflow its banks. Love proceeds from the Word and is measured by the Word. These modern theologians have forgotten that their words are not, and ought not to be, their own, but ought to be words that are uncreated and divinely inspired: words revealed by the Divine Word in His unique revelation of love accomplished in the spirit of truth. Isn't that exactly what the Divine Word said concerning the Spirit of the Father?
Romano Amerio
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109 |
