| Home - Latest News | Introduction | Bayside Prophecies | Directives from Heaven | Shopping Cart | Testimonies | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos | Bible | Radio Program |

These Last Days News - June 24, 2010

With the Lefebvrists, Ecumenism Doesn't Come Cheap...

TRADITIONALIST
"We hear all names coming forward to Our ears of churches being born anew, called the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. My child and My children, We need no more Traditionalists running around and creating new churches. We have to remain steadfast and firm in our convictions that with enough prayer, and also the firm example of holiness among many, this will not happen. We do not condemn those who make these side churches, the Traditional Roman Catholic churches; they mean well, but they are being led astray. There will be eventually an American Catholic Church if this continues. This is not approved by Heaven.... It is most urgent that this breaking away stop now before it evolves into a major schism." - Jesus, September 14, 1985 

Chiesa reported on June 2, 2010:

At the beginning of 2009, the pope's decision to lift the excommunication of four bishops ordained illicitly by Lefebvre  – a decision poorly communicated and poorly understood inside and outside of the Church – caused a storm of confusion and criticism.

In order to clarify the meaning of his action, Benedict XVI sent a letter to the bishops on March 10 of last year. In it, he explained that the lifting of the excommunication was intended to call "those thus punished to repent and to return to unity." And he stressed that the journey of reconciliation had yet to be undertaken, because the dispute was of a doctrinal nature and concerned the acceptance of Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar magisterium of the popes.

In confirmation of this doctrinal nature of the dispute, the pope closely joined the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei" – charged with dialoguing with the Lefebvrists and with other similar groups – with the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

In the same letter to the bishops, Benedict XVI explained that the call to the unity of faith must apply to all Christians. And therefore it is senseless to "casually let drift farther from the Church" the 491 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university institutes, 117 brothers, 164 sisters, and thousands of faithful who make up the Lefebvrist community.

But the pope also noted, with regret, that there is an intolerance in the Church aimed both at the Lefebvrists and at those who "dare to approach them."

Benedict XVI himself is a target of this intolerance. He wrote to the bishops that because of his efforts to reconcile the Lefebvrists with the Church, "some groups openly accused the pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before [Vatican Council II]."

These criticisms have recently reappeared, even in theologically sophisticated forms. For example, in a cerebral commentary written by Eberhard Schockenhoff, professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg, in the April 2010 issue of the German Jesuit magazine "Stimmen der Zeit," reproduced in its entirety, in Italian, in the latest issue of "Il Regno."

Schockenhoff is a professor of moral theology at the University of Freigburg, and was a disciple and assistant of Walter Kasper, now a cardinal and president of the pontifical council for Christian unity.

In his commentary, Schockenhoff correctly writes that the real disagreement between the Church of Rome and the Lefebvrists does not concern the Mass in Latin, but the teaching of Vatican II, especially on ecclesiology and on freedom of conscience and religion.

But he also writes that Rome is wrong to whip up restrictive interpretations of the conciliar texts to offer to the Lefebvrists in the hope that these will be accepted by them. Because in Schockenhoff's view, this is exactly what is happening in the closed-door meetings organized by "Ecclesia Dei."

Rome – Schockenhoff writes – wants to extract a verbal acknowledgment of the freedom of conscience and religion, the  cornerstones of modern culture, from no less than the Lefebvrists, the most dogged enemies of modernity. But doing this is like trying to "square the circle," impossible. No one would ever believe in the sincerity of such a reconciliation, even if it were signed.

In condemning the "hermeneutic tightrope walk" by which the Church of Rome wants to reconcile the Lefebvrists to itself, with grave harm to the correct interpretation of the Council, Schockenhoff repeatedly cites Ratzinger the theologian and his "Platonist-Augustinian conception of conscience": a conception "too different" – he writes – from that of the conciliar declaration "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious freedom.

The work by Ratzinger that is cited is from 1992. Inexplicably, however, Schockenhoff does not cite a much more pertinent and recent text by Ratzinger, after he became pope. 

This key text is the final part of the memorable speech that Benedict XVI gave to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005, on the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

In explaining how to interpret the Council correctly, Benedict XVI shows how it did in fact introduce new developments with respect to the past, but always in continuity with "the deepest patrimony of the Church."

 And as an example of this interplay between newness and continuity, the pope illustrates precisely the conciliar ideas on freedom of religion: the main point of division between the Church and the Lefebvrists.

From this speech onward, it becomes clear that for Benedict XVI, the Lefebvrists can reconcile with the Church only if they accept everything written in "Dignitatis Humanae" according to the interpretation of it made by the pope, and not according to another more restrictive, or "Platonist-Augustinian," interpretation.

The following is the extensive concluding passage of Benedict XVI's speech on December 22, 2005.

"IN THIS PROCESS OF CHANGE THROUGH CONTINUITY..."

by Benedict XVI

[...] The Council had to find a new definition of the relationship between the Church and the modern age. This relationship started out difficultly with the Galileo trial. It broke completely, when Kant defined “religion within pure reason” and when, in the radical phase of the French Revolution, an image of the state and of man was spread that practically intended to crowd out the Church and faith. The clash of the Church's faith with a radical liberalism and also with natural sciences that claimed to embrace, with its knowledge, the totality of reality to its outmost borders, stubbornly setting itself to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had provoked in the 19th century under Pius IX, on the part of the Church, a harsh and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, there were apparently no grounds for an positive and fruitful agreement, and drastic were also the refusals on the part of those who felt they were the representatives of the modern age. 

However, in the meantime, the modern age also had its development. It was becoming clear that the American Revolution had offered a model of the modern state that was different from that theorized by the radical tendencies that had emerged from the second phase of the French Revolution. Natural sciences began, in a more and more clear way, to reflect their own limits, imposed by their own method which, though achieving great things, was nevertheless not able to comprehend the totality of reality.

Thus, both sides began to progressively open up to each other. In the period between the two world wars and even more after the second world war, Catholic statement had shown that a modern lay state can exist, which nevertheless is not neutral with respect to values, but lives tapping into the great ethical fonts of Christianity. Catholic social doctrine, as it developed, had become an important model between radical liberalism and the Marxist theory of the state. Natural sciences, which would unreservedly profess to its own method in which God had no access, realized ever more clearly that this method was not comprehensive of the totality of reality and thus opened once again their doors to God, knowing that reality is greater than naturalistic method and what it can embrace. 

It could be said that three tiers of questions were formed that now, at the hour of Vatican II, awaited a response. 

First and foremost, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between faith and modern science; this regarded, however, not only natural sciences, but also historical sciences because, in a certain school, the historical-critical method claimed for itself the final words on the interpretation of the Bible and, demanding full exclusiveness for its understanding of Sacred Scriptures, it opposed, on important points, the interpretation that the faith of the Church had elaborated. 

Secondly, it was necessary to define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the modern state, which made room to citizens of various religions and ideologies, acting impartially towards these religions and simply taking on the responsibility for the orderly and tolerant coexistence between citizens and for their freedom to exercise their religion. 

To this, thirdly, was connected in a more general way the problem of religious tolerance – a question that called for a new definition of the relationship between Christian faith and religion in the world. In particular, in the face of the recent crimes of the National-Socialist regime and, in general, in a retrospective look on a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. 

These are all important subjects – these great themes of the second part of the Council – upon which we cannot now dwell much here. It is clear that in all these sectors, which together are one problem, some discontinuities would emerge. Although this may not have been fully appreciated at first, the discontinuities that did emerge – notwithstanding distinct concrete historical situations and their needs – did prevent continuity at the level of principles. 

The nature of true reform lies in this combination of multi-leveled continuity and discontinuity. 

In this process of change through continuity we had to learn how to understand better than before that the Church’s decisions about contingent matters – for example, about actual forms of liberalism or liberal interpretations of the Bible – were necessarily themselves contingent because related to a reality itself changeable. 

We had to learn how to recognize that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change. 

Thus, for example, with freedom of religion seen as expressing mankind’s inability to find truth, relativism becomes the canon. From being a social and historical necessity it is incorrectly elevated to a metaphysical level that loses its true meaning. It therefore becomes unacceptable to those who believe that mankind can reach the truth of God and, based on truth’s inner dignity, is related to such knowledge. 

This is completely different from viewing freedom of religion as a necessity that human coexistence requires or even seeing it as an inherent consequence of the truth that such freedom cannot be imposed from the outside but must come from a conviction from within. 

By adopting a decree on religious freedom, the Second Vatican Council recognized and made its own an essential principle of the modern state. And in doing so, it reconnected with the wider heritage of the Church. 

The Church itself is conscious that it is fully in sync with the teachings of Jesus (cf Mt 22: 21), the Church of the early martyrs, and with all the martyrs. Although the early Church dutifully prayed for emperors and political leaders as a matter of fact (cf 1 Tm 2: 2), it refused to worship them and thus rejected the state religion. In dying for their faith in the one God revealed in Jesus Christ, the martyrs of the early Church also died on behalf of freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own religion. No state can impose any religion; instead, religion must be freely chosen with the grace of God and in freedom of conscience. 

A missionary Church required to proclaim its message to all the nations must commit itself to freedom of religion. It must pass on the gift of truth that exists for all and at the same time reassure nations and governments that it does not want to destroy their identities and cultures. It must show that it brings an answer they intimately expect. This answer is not lost among the many cultures, but instead enhances unity among men and thus peace among nations. 

By defining in a new way the relationship between the faith of the Church and some essential elements of modern thinking, the Second Vatican Council revised and even corrected some past decisions. But in an apparent discontinuity it has instead preserved and reinforced its intimate nature and true identity. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic both before and after the Council, throughout time. It “presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God,” announcing the cross and death of the Lord until he comes (cf Lumen gentium, 8). 

Yet those who expected that with this fundamental “Yes” to the modern age, all tensions would melt away, and that this “opening up to the world” would render everything harmonious, underestimated the inner tensions and contradictions of the modern age; they underestimated the internal tensions and the dangerous fragility of human nature, which have threatened man’s journey throughout all historical periods and configurations. Given man’s new power over himself and over matter, these dangers have not disappeared; instead, they have acquired a new dimension. We can clearly illustrate this by looking at current history. 

In our time too, the Church remains a “sign of contradiction” (Lk 2: 34) and for this reason in 1976 pope John Paul II, then a cardinal, gave it as the title to the spiritual exercises he preached to Pope Paul VI and the Roman curia. The Council could not abolish this Gospel contradiction in the face of the dangers and errors of mankind. What it did do was put aside wrong or superfluous contradictions in order to present to our world the requirements of the Gospel in all its greatness and purity. 

The steps that the Council took toward the modern age – which in a rather imprecise manner has been presented as an “opening up to the world” – belongs decisively among the perennial problems of the ever changing relationship between faith and reason. 

Undoubtedly, the Council faced situations that existed before. In his first Epistle, saint Peter urged Christians to be ready to answer (apo-logia) anyone who asked them the logos, the reason for their faith (cf 3:15). This meant that biblical faith had to interact with and relate to Greek culture, learning how to recognize, by interpreting distinctions as well as through contact and affinity with the latter, the one God-given reason. 

When Medieval Christianity, largely schooled in the Platonic tradition, came into contact with Aristotle’s ideas via Jewish and Arab philosophers in the 13th century, faith and reason almost became irreconcilable. But saint Thomas Aquinas was especially able to find a new synthesis between faith and Aristotelian philosophy. Faith could relate in a positive manner with the dominant notions of reason of the time. 

The exacting disputes between modern reason and Christian faith, which started off on the wrong foot with Galileo’s trial, went through several phases. But by the time the Second Vatican Council was convened new thinking was possible. The new approach found in the conciliar papers sets out only guidelines but also the essential direction so that the dialogue between faith and reason, very important nowadays, has found its orientation in Vatican II. 

This dialogue must now be developed with the openmindedness, but also with that clarity in the discernment of spirits that the world rightly expects from us. We can look back with gratitude to the Second Vatican Council. If we read and accept it guided by a correct interpretation, it can become a great force in the ever necessary renewal of the Church. [...] 

Teilhard de Chardin is in hell
https://www.tldm.org/news6/teilhard.htm

Heresy, O mournful heresy!
https://www.tldm.org/news4/heresy.htm

Public dissenters and heretics in the Catholic Church
https://www.tldm.org/news6/dissenters.htm

Liberals "follow in the footsteps of Lucifer"
https://www.tldm.org/news7/LiberalsFollowLucifer.htm

Women "priests": a recent history
https://www.tldm.org/news4/womenpriests.htm

Women "priests" a heresy
https://www.tldm.org/news4/womenpriests2.htm

Bishop rules priest rendered "unfit" for priesthood over campaign for women priests
https://www.tldm.org/News8/WomenPriests4.htm

Bishop says that 2/3 of high school catechetical materials are faulty
https://www.tldm.org/news6/catechisms.htm

"Pro-choice" position is heresy says Oregon Catholic bishop
https://www.tldm.org/News9/ProChoiceHeresy.htm 

Vatican confirms Bishop Bruskewitz justified in excommunicating Call to Action members in his diocese
https://www.tldm.org/News9/BruskewitzExcommunicatesCallToAction.htm 

Repeated defiance of Rome: Cardinal Martini defies Pope; sabotages Church’s teaching on life
https://www.tldm.org/News10/EuthanasiaCardinalMartini.htm