VITW's First Anniversary

As of this month, April 2008, VITW turns one year old, brandishing over 65 posts and nearly 5,000 page views, bringing to the internet the story of Traditional Catholicism. A big thanks to what regular readers are left hanging after the long interims between posts.

Behind the Council: An Introduction to Vatican II

We've introduced a few prominent Traditional Catholics, and will continue to do so, so to familiarize our readers with some of these key figures and what they did, and what it means. This is the history aspect, the history of Traditional Catholicism, ever since it became known as "traditional" so as to differentiate itself from the changes and modernizations and syncretism of Vatican II and its champions. And before actually telling the whole story we thought it best to introduce some of the characters and events involved in an effort to facilitate a fuller understanding of it, to avoid putting the cart before the horse. But in truth, the only real way to present the history is to tell what it was all about, this story actually begins with the Protestant Revolutions of the 16th century, but the immediate concern is Vatican II and fissure that resulted, is to describe what caused it. The Ottaviani Intervention has been described en pase, but to appreciate it fully, one must understand what was actually being proposed, and why those clerics opposed these changes, and what prompted their actions. This requires an understanding of modernity, the council, and its authors. What happened that there came a need for a movement for a return to or preservation of tradition? What was either incompatible with, or hostile to, that tradition? And so I've resolved to provide a brief introduction to the the thinking behind Vatican II as the Council Fathers and theologians saw it, and as historians have recorded it, which will soon be followed with the story of the Council and its opposition.


Ushering in a Reform

In order to be a witness to the truth, inflame the faith of Christians, and to minister to the welfare of the modern world, Pope John XXIII announced that he would summon a general Council. From the time of his election he had sought a new way of interacting with the world, as well as a renewed Church, a new direction, for the Church, and in particular to papal and Curial affairs. The "Pope"1 would assume a "pastoral" role in the Church, he would be humble and simple, and so the pontiff chose to be referred to as simply "John". He worked to change the atmosphere of veneration for the office he had assumed, and to limit the length of pontifical ceremonies and to reduce the forms and titles by which popes are addressed. The Church was seeming to be stuck in the Renaissance, there was too much undue pomp and celebration for the ceremonies of the Church, and it was thought that it was unappealing to Modern world, almost as though the Church were trapped in one point in time and could not move on.

The Council was to operate on the theme "aggiornamento", a "bringing up to date", or "modernization" of the Church, it was to be a going back to the simple and pure practices of the early Church. There was to be, as Cardinal Bea put it, "a reassessment of the doctrines of the Church", as well as internal ecclesiastical affairs, which meant that the Roman Curia would have to be reorganized, and a move away from the condemnatory character of the Office. The Sacraments would have to be reformed, especially the mass, liturgical ceremonies and the laws regarding education, the seminaries, and marriage. The practices of the Church had to be updated to accommodate the modern world in the spirit of the pure faith of the Early Church.

Ever since the Protestant Revolts in the 16th century the Church had been in a "Counter-Reformation" mode, leaving the Church with a suspicious view towards all things new. The Church had been on the defensive from the vicious attacks of dissenters, but that was four centuries [almost five] ago, and the world had moved on, and now it was time for the Church to move on, and to heal this schism. The Fathers at Vatican II saw the exclusiveness and rigidity of the Church, and failure to acknowledge its own many other indigences, as a barrier to this. Instead of condemning the modern world, it needed to dialogue with it. It needed to open up and work with it, instead of against it.
The Church could never be one as long as it remained at variance with its separated members, and like a good shepherd, it needed to go to them and seek to bring them back into the fold, it needed to accept that they had issues with the Church, and that these things needed to be resolved. The Church could never keep up with the world as long as it insisted that the modern world was evil, as long as it insisted on dwelling on its glory days, it needed to move into the modern world, and keep itself abreast of modern achievements if it was ever to accomplish its goal to unite all peoples in Christ.

To realize this, they vied for a redefinition, a reformulation, of the rights of laymen and bishops in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They wanted a change in the apparel, the vestiture, of clerics and prelates. The time had come, it was perceived, when a re-evaluation of the mission of the Church was in order, as well as her responsibilities. It was thought that the Church was too pyramidal, too hierarchical. The Pope was seen as being idolized, and the power of the Church was too centralized, it seemed that the rights of the college of bishops were being depreciated, as each of the Apostles had equally received the charism to preach, to teach, and to baptize all men everywhere, including Peter whose position was, to serve his brethren, not to be an autocrat.

Over the Course of history, it was thought, the Western Church had several times had "adopted" the features of the political societies with which it was allied, as all as worldly institutions do, adopting the legal structure of the Roman Empire, in the Fourth and fifth centuries, and becoming a feudal power, in the Middle Ages, the monarchical power of the Pope had been overemphasized until that power was so centralized, as if he alone governed the Church, a centralization which had led to Josephism and Gallicanism as a reaction against this centralization of power within the Church, until gradually the rights of the bishops seemed to have been belittled, that the supremacy of the pope had been so over emphasized and there had been such a shift away from the original constitution of the Church on the College of the Apostles, that the Church was becoming totalitarian, and this, as they saw it, was not the will of Christ. They perceived that this would hamper the assimilation of dismembered Christians and the spirit of ecumenism in the Church. And so there was needed a restoration of the theology of the episcopate, the teaching of Vatican I was to be set in a pastoral and ecumenical formation. To fully explain "the bond joining the head of the Church and the apostolic college" in order to preclude the "danger of misunderstandings" among the Protestants and Orthodox. This restoration would curtail the notion of a pyramidal Church and emphasize the fact that bishops, laity, and religious, were all part of the people of God and that all the members of the Church were equal by virtue of their baptism.

When the First Vatican Council was called, the schema was not, rather, to "disassociate" the Pope from the bishops in defining his supremacy, this only occurred because of political upheaval which had brought the Council to an abrupt end, leaving its work incomplete. This abrupt end, as a result, caused the development of theologizations concerning the nature of the Church which was, in large part, one-sided and not true to the original vision of the Redeemer. In more recent times, it was thought, this notion of almost totalitarian rule had been exaggerated until the need to reform this imbalance had become incumbent upon the summoning of another Council.

To add to this "imbalance" in the structure of the Church, they reasoned, there was judgementalism and suspicion of new ideas and methods, following the condemnation of Modernism in 1907. Every thinker, theologian, and scholar, who did not conform to the Curia's "litmus tests", as it were, were suspected of heresy. It was like a new Spanish Inquisition, where the writings and teachings of Catholics in every field were subjected to a kind of inspection by the rigid and closed-minded clerics in the Curia. Because of this, the works of eminent orthodox historians and theologians such as Msgrs. Louis Duchesne, Le Chartier, and Pierre Batiffol were put on the Index Prohibitorum and "unfairly" charged of Modernism and of promoting relativism. And so even a minor slip in doctrine, dogmatic or moral, came to be the end of many an ecclesiastical career.
A contributing factor to this rigidity was that most of the Curials had never really been acquainted with an other religious experience except through textbook caricatured propositions in seminary. It was, the problem that is, the jealousness of doctrine, and almost fear for them, and for conformity in practice which would lead to a very suspicious and condemnatory perspective of the Modern world.

And thus this "backward" attitude, which resisted the new spirit of ecumenism and unity, prompted Roncalli, soon after his elevation, to bring the Church to terms with that new spirit and to bring the Church out of the Middle Ages and Counter-Reformation and into the Modern world. The Church needed to gather its members who were separated by historical prejudice and misunderstandings, such as the Greek Orthodox and the Protestants, The Church needed a Reform, it was time for the Church to be born anew and to re-assume its position and mission in the world, it was time for a "new springtime".

______________
Footnotes:

1. A reference to the office of "the Papacy", not rather, to the person, as the Papacy would thence forth be considered in a more pastoral light, as a father, and no longer as if he were a monarch.

An Introduction: Michael Davies

Michael Davies (March 13, 1936 - Sept. 25, 2004) was an English Author, teacher, and international lecturer, authoring seventeen books concerning the liturgy, most notable are his triple-volumed sets "The Liturgical Revolution": Cranmer's Godly Order; Pope John's Council; and Pope Paul's New Mass, and "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre", and his short work "Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II—The Destruction of Catholic Faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship". Born in 1936 and raised in Somerset England, he served in the regular Light Infantry (1954-1960) in the Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, and the EOKA campaign in Cyprus. A convert to Catholicism in 1956, he taught for three decades in Catholic schools[1] before retiring in 1992. In addition to his published books, he was the author dozens of pamphlets and articles relating to the Catholic Faith and liturgy, and served as president of the International Una Voce Federation for the preservation of the Latin Mass (1995-2003), traveling to Rome & abroad holding discussions with members of the Roman Curia, including the then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger[2]. He died suddenly of a heart attack on September 25, 2004.

______________
Endnotes:
[1] Holding his first teaching position at St. Ignatius Loyola Prep. School, Buckhurst Hill (1964 – 1967), and then in St. Mary’s Primary School, Beckenham, Kent (1967-1994) until retiring.
[2] On October 24, 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger held an audience with about 3,000 indult Catholics from various areas of the globe; Michael Davies represented the English-speaking world.

An Introduction: Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga (1899-1976)

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J. (Oct. 12, 1899 - April 28, 1976) was a Mexican Doctor of Philosophy, Theology and Canon Law, international author and lecturer, authoring about five dozen books concerning the errors of modernist theology and philosophy which were rampant in the Church of his day, including "The new Montinian Church", "Sede Vacante: Paul VI is not a legitimate Pope", "For Christ and Against Christ," "Apostolate," "The New Mass Is Not the One Catholic Mass" and "Vacant See.". He was ordained to the priesthood a Jesuit, an order which he had joined in 1916 in Barcelona, Spain, and which he would leave 36 years later, on April 30, 1930, celebrating his first mass on May 2nd.

When the changes of Vatican II were administered, he led a resistance to them and promoted what became known as "sedevacantism", that the Roman Catholic Church had been modernized with modernist errors and had been infiltrated by its enemies, that the claimants to the papacy post Pius XII were invalid claimants due to their modernist conduct. As a result of this, in 1972, he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic bishops' conference of Mexico. Fr. Sáenz died on April 28, 1976, after which his work was continued by Frs. Adolfo Zamora and Moisés Carmona in Mexico and Frs. Francis E. Fenton and Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J. in the United States.

_______________

Related Posts:

• An Introduction: Ngô Đình Thục (1897–1984)
• Characters of the Intervention: Bacci
• Characters of the Intervention: Ottaviani
• Characters of the Intervention: Des Lauriers

VITW 2.0

We apologize for the lack of posts here recently at VITW. You may notice that several posts have been pulled from the main page. These have been pulled for editing and revision to improve readability and update them as new information becomes available, or moved to more appropriate pages. Reposts of some of these were intended to be available on New Year's, but things have been more complicated lately, some of us are kind of bogged down with the hectic struggle of having everything working for the holy days, and then taking it all down again, relocating, taking care of newborns, working jobs, education, ect., so we ask that our readers be patient as we work, as much as time allows, towards a few more posts for the '08 edition of Voice in the Wilderness. We're planning to come out with some new articles soon: the Cassiciacum thesis, the conglomeration of similar posts, a series on Lefebvre and the SSPX, and an article describing in-brief the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney and more, plus the above mentioned revisions, hopefully the first of which will be as soon as the second week of February.

An Introduction: Ngô Đình Thục (1897–1984)

Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, was Roman Catholic Archbishop of Huế, Vietnam. He was born in Huế, on October 6, 1897, the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, in Phu-Cam, Vietnam, Archdiocese of Huế. His family was of some distinguishment, though some of them, later on, met with an undesirable end.[1] Thục became a minor seminarian at age twelve in An Ninh, where he studied for about eight years, and became a major seminarian at the major seminary in Huế, where he studied philosophy. Thục was ordained to the priesthood by the Apostolic Vicar of Huế Bishop Eugène-Marie-Joseph Allys on Dec. 20, 1925, and taught at the Sorbonne in Paris for about a year before he went to Rome to study theology, where he was awared three doctorates, from the Pontifical Gregorian University, in philosophy, theology, and Canon law. He then returned to Vietnam, two years after his ordination, where became a professor at the College of Vietnamese Brothers in Huế, a professor at the major seminary in Huế, and Dean of the College of Providence.

On January 8, 1938, Fr. Thục was chosen by Pope Pius XI to direct the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinh Long and act as bishop. His Holiness sent, as his emissary, Archbishop Antonio Fernand Drapier, Apostolic Delegate to Indochina, to consecrate Thuc as Bishop for this position[2], in which Thục may have also been delegated special faculties to consecrate bishops without a mandate[3]. Nineteen years later, Bishop Thục founded the Dalat University and in 1960, Thục was delegated, by John XXIII, successor to Archbishop Jean-Baptiste Urrutia, who resigned his post after dozen years, as Archbishop of Huế. After the Council, Archbishop Thục was not allowed to return to Vietnam and thus began his life in exile, first in Rome, then on in Toulon, France.[4]

Five years after the Palmar de Troya incidents, May 7, 1981, Bishop Thục consecrated Fr. Michel Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. a principle theologian and author of the Ottaviani Intervention. Later on that year, october 17, while in Munich, Germany, bishop Thục consecrated Fathers Moises Carmona, and Adolfo Zamora from Mexico.
About a year later, Thục conditionally consecrated the former Old Catholic bishop, Christian Datessen. Earlier that year[1982], Thục issued a declaration pronouncing his sedevacantism, after which he departed Germany for the United States at the invitation of Bp. Louis Vezelis O.F.M., a Franciscan former missionary priest, who was consecrated in the Thục line, with whom he took up residence.[5] Archbishop Thục then fell into the hands of a group of Vietnamese priests, while in New York, and was taken to a Vietnamese Roman Catholic monastery [the Vietnamese American religious Congregation of the Mother Co-Redemptrix] in Missouri, where he was inaccessible, and eventually died, for an uncertain reason, perhaps, on December 13, 1984.

________________
End Notes:

[1] His brother, Ngô Đình Diệm, was the first president of South Vietnam, and was later assassinated on Nov. 1, 1963, his nephew was Cardinal François Xavier Nguyễn Văn Thuận; Thục's brother, Ngô Ðình Khôi, was buried alive for refusing to be minister in the communist regime. Thục's other brothers Ngô Đình Nhu and Ngô Đình Cẩn were assassinated as well. Thục and Luyen were the only members of the family who escaped assassination, Luyen by serving as ambassador in London, and Thục was in Rome for the second Vatican Council.

[2] After Archbishop Drapier had consecrated Thục, he [Drapier] neglected to consecrate the other candidates as bishops and thus appointed Thục to do so. Philippe Nguyen-Kim-Dien was among those candidates whom Thục, in turn, consecrated as Bishop of Can-Tho right after his own consecration, and who acted as Thục's successor as Archbishop of Hue; he [Nguyen-Kim-Dien] is also thought to have been a Communist sympathizer.

[3] It is believed that when in Rome, Thục had a private audience with His Holiness Pius XI and obtained from him, and some years later again from Pius XII, an apostolic mandate to consecrate bishops in times of dire necessity when communications would be nearly impossible or the flock in danger. This is recorded in the Dec. issue of the"The Seraph" in 1983 where is written his advice to the Vietnamese bishops, whom he had consecrated, of what to do if ever the Communists took power, "not to publish the names of newly ordained priests; request from the Holy See the faculty for each Bishop to name one or two successors without having to request authorization from the Holy See in case of breakdown of communication with the Vatican." Pope Pius XI is supposed to have granted Thục a motu proprio stating "'In virtue of the fullness of powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we institute as our legate Pierre Martin Ngô-Dinh-Thục, titular Bishop of Saigon, for purposes known to us, with all the powers required.' Given at Rome, near Saint Peter, on March 15, 1938, in the seventeenth year of our pontificate."

[4] According to the logs, Archbishop Thục was Archbishop of Huế from 1960 to 1968 when he was forced to resign by Paul VI. Thục recorded "Paul VI had bad feelings toward my family, and especially towards myself going to the extent of even imposing my resignation as archbishop before the fixed age for the age for retirement of bishops. In my stead, he named one of his favorites imbued with the political philosophy of 'opening to the East.'"
[5] Bp. Vezelis operates a friary in Rochester, NY, where Thục resided from December 1982 until January 1984.
[P. S.] Thục was the principal consecrator of Bishops Antoine Nguyên Van Thien (born 1906) and Michel Nguyên Khác Ngu (born 1909), the oldest living Catholic bishops in Vietnam.

________________
Related Posts:

• An Interview with Fr. Neil Webster on the Last Days of Bishop Thục by MHFM
• Bishop Louis Responds: His story of how it all happened - on the last days of Bishop Thục.

________________
External Links:

• Abp. Thục: A Brief Defense by Bp. Daniel Dolan
• The Validity of the Thục Consecrations by Fr. Anthony Cekada
• Declaration of Archbishop Thục
• Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc Wikipedia article

The Oath Against Modernism

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910. To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .