This study concerns the current crisis in the Church. To this end, some specific aspects are firstly elucidated in an introduction, and is followed by a problem analysis to clarify the root cause of the crisis. One of the fundamental symptoms is identified as a misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church, i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ. This fundamental symptom is like a two-edged sword because both orders can be over- and underestimated. Like on the one hand the 16th Century Reformation and on the other hand the Ultramontanism. These two examples show us the opposite consequences of how the "misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church" can manifest itself in reality.
From this, the root cause or heresy can be recognized as a lack of sincere belief in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and no or insufficient adherence to it as Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, understanding this aspect of the Creed needs to be confirmed, deepened and strengthened in the way the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople did concerning the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity respectively. This should be done according Pope John XXIIIrd's call in his announcement of the Council: "through clarity of thought, through solidarity of religious unity, through living flame of Christian fervor" by a "doctrinal confirmation and wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline" [1] and in his Opening Adress as well: "in unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Fathers" [2, Appendix 1]!
As stated by Pope John XXIII in his Announcement of the Council, this problem goes back to the Apostolic era. Hereto, the Apostles wrote their letters, supplemented the oral proclamation of the Gospel to solve problems of the local Churches that often resulted from a misunderstanding of the Gospel. In the same way St. John additionally wrote the Fourth Gospel to refute the Gnostic and Ebionist heresies of the first century. A Gospel that is clearly complementary and supplementary in character and is therefore a first example of deepening the Revelation to refute a heresy.
Over the centuries, this problem continues to appear in different forms and each time it has to be adequately addressed and solved by developing a deeper understanding of Faith. And in our case more specifically regarding the "Mystical Body of Christ". What is to be understood with the "Mystical Body of Christ" in relation to the "Body of Christ sacrificed on the Cross", which is perfect and unique to which nothing can be added? Is "Christ's Mystical Body" supernaturally one and the same as the unique "Body of the historical Christ" in a way like the Eucharist is the "Sacrificial Body of Christ"? How the "Mystical Body of Christ" does participates together with the "Sacrificial Body of Christ" in the unique and perfect "Sacrifice of the historical Christ"? These questions are addressed in conclusion.
When we survey the Church today, the actual situation is clearly marked by a myriad of symptoms indicating that the Church is in a real state of "crisis". Any real crisis in the Church is always the result of a heresy which needs to be identified and refuted. Therefore, we should not just complain about and treat the symptoms, but instead, we should analyse, define and refute the underlying heresy itself, which is the real root cause of the "crisis". After identification of the root cause, and only through a deeper understanding of the Faith the underlying heresy can successfully be refuted and combatted: the "organic growth' of the understanding of Faith.
In general, any phenomenon can be considered from different points of view. This also applies to the current crisis in the Church. Exploiting my background as a qualified practicing and scientific engineer, this study is based on an engineering approach to problem analysis and solving. Any complex problem, even the current crisis in the Church, must be approached systematically and with a well-founded problem analysis to identify the root cause. This must be done in a broader context than just that of one's own field, to find the right way to solve the problem. For an analysis to be valid, it must not be limited to the first or even second level of abstraction, which only exposes more symptoms. A well-founded problem analysis requires digging deeper to find the common cause of the various symptoms (the root cause) and the truth about the underlying heresy. At the same time, the connections between the various symptoms with which the problem manifests itself also become visible.
It should be noted that treating symptoms alone will not solve the problem. It will only aggravate the crisis, as has been the case in the Church in past centuries.
Let us remind ourselves that theology is "the science of God", based on Divine Revelation. The purpose of theology is deepening our understanding of Divine Revelation, i.e. our Faith [3]. Divine Revelation was actively revealed by Christ to and through His Apostles until the death of the last Apostle. This Divine Revelation was firstly passed on orally and by example by Christ to the Apostles. Subsequently it was passed on by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles both orally and in writing as well as by their examples exclusively in the early Catholic and Apostolic Church. After the death of the last Apostle the Divine Revelation is preserved by the Holy Spirit within the Catholic and Apostolic Church which concerns the examples of the Apostles, their oral as well as their written words. Therefore, after the apostolic era, deeper understanding of Divine Revelation could only growth through enlightenment from the Holy Spirit as a theological "Organic Growth" exclusively within the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it cannot contradict itself.
However, this process of (theological) science is essentially a human quest for deepening the Truth through reason and logic, nourished by a devotional love to God, but it is also subject to the free will of man in all its limitations. This means that, principally, it is open to human imperfections and shortcomings, such as pride, prejudice and focusing on only one aspect with the danger to ignore or even to deny other aspects, which hinders Divine Inspiration. But as a science its methods should fundamentally be based on the process of "Organic Growth" like any other (natural) science. Therefore, if through human imperfection this process of deepening went wrong or failed it will consequently result in an incorrect understanding of Divine Revelation. And if this is neither identified nor sufficiently corrected by the Magisterium of the Church it will lead sooner or later to a "crisis" within the Church.
Due to these recognized human imperfections Christ gave His authority to Peter as His Substitute, to lead the Church and to affirm his brethren in their faith. This includes the Magisterium of Peter (1) to protect the Faith from false beliefs or heresies, and (2) as a good shepherd to his sheep protecting the faithful from confusion. Among other things, this also means controlling and judging theological research as a personal duty to Peter. To this end, the Pope has the authority to institute an Office, presided by the Pope himself, to assist and advice him in this executive magisterial role, in which he himself decides. This cannot be left to any Cardinal, Bishop or theologian, who is not authorized for it by the Pope. Moreover the resistance and even the attacks by theologians against the Holy Office like it had happened before, during and after the Second Vatican Council are in fact acts against this Magisterium of the Pope [4, 5].
While each "crisis" in the Church can be recognised by several symptoms, the underlying root cause is always a false understanding of the Truth that firstly started with a misunderstanding. In each case the specific underlying false understanding of Divine Revelation or heresy must be identified and refuted by the maturation process of "Organic Growth" to solve the problem.
Starting with the introduction in this chapter, subsequently the Problem Analysis in chapter 2 and identifying the root cause in chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents the conclusions and discusses some of the consequences, while chapter 5 contains several supporting appendices referring to earlier analyses of the Second Vatican Council, its hermeneutic and the Liturgical reform.
In 1959 Pope John XXIII condemned in his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram all those who deny the Revealed Truth of God or obstruct it by spreading lies. In the same year Pope John XXIII gave us in the Announcement of the Council the constitutional rules, which are consistent with a perfect problem analysis: "The great problem confronting the world after almost two thousand years remains unchanged: Christ is ever resplendent as the centre of history and of life. Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars" [https://vatican2voice.org/91docs/announcement.htm].
Pope John XXIII clearly refers here to the fundamental and original, yet supernatural mission of the Church to convert the world as the purpose of the Council. By also referring to the current "epoch of renewal” generally, Pope John XXIII very clearly reminded the Church how this should be solved in unity with the Fathers, namely: "through clarity of thought, through the solidarity of religious unity, and through the living flame of Christian passion" by a "doctrinal confirmation and the wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline" [https://vatican2voice.org/91docs/announcement.htm].
These statements can certainly be discerned as Divine Inspiration. See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html. chapter 4.2)
Remarkably, when Pope John XXIII convoked the Council, December 1961, he declared that the problem he had raised in January 1959 had been solved through the Holy Spirit. He praised the work of the preparatory commissions and expressed himself as very optimistic about the results of the Council as a manifestation of the fruits of the Holy Spirit: "Then, if we turn our attention to the Church, we see that it has not remained a lifeless spectator in the face of these events, but has followed step by step the evolution of peoples, scientific progress, and social revolution. It has opposed decisively the materialistic ideologies which deny faith. Lastly, it has witnessed the rise and growth of the immense energies of the apostolate of prayer, of action in all fields. It has seen the emergence of a clergy constantly better equipped in learning and virtue for its mission; and of a laity which as became ever more conscious of its responsibilities within the bosom of the Church, and in a special way, of its duty to collaborate with the Church hierarchy. Thus, though the world may appear profoundly changed, the Christian community is also in great part transformed and renewed It has therefore strengthened itself socially in unity; it has been reinvigorated intellectually; it has been interiorly purified and is thus ready for trial . . ." [6] and "Three years have passed during which we have seen, day by day, the little seed develop and become, with the blessing of God, a great tree. ... Before deciding the questions that had to be studied in view of the forthcoming Council, we wished to hear beforehand the wise and enlightened opinions of the College of Cardinals, of the episcopate of the whole world, of the sacred congregations of the Roman Curia, of the general superiors of orders and religious congregations, of Catholic universities, and of ecclesiastical faculties. This work of consultation was carried out within a year, and there emerged clearly from this the points that had to be submitted to a thorough study. We then instituted the different preparatory organizations to which we entrusted the arduous task of drawing up the doctrinal and disciplinary projects, which we intend to submit to the Council. We finally have the joy of announcing that this intense work of study, to which the cardinals, bishops, prelates, theologians, canonists, and experts from all over the world have given their valuable contribution, is now nearing its end" [6].
It is very clear that Pope John XXIII's optimistic expectations regarding the Council could only come from the preparatory documents and had nothing to do with the final outcome of the Council that is based on the removal of the preparatory documents.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html, chapter 5.1)
In 1962 in his Opening Address, as legislator of the Council, he repeated more than once another clear constitutional rule for the Council: (1) "the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all", (2) "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers", (3) "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" and (4) "the Truth of the Lord will remain forever" [https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm].
This Opening Address by Pope John XXIII, the legislator of the Council, expresses the true constitutional rules of the Church for a Council. And, of course, these rules are precisely because they are the constitutional rules for a Council also the true hermeneutical rules of the Church to interprete the Council’s documents. And so any deception and betrayal, any deliberately introduced ambiguity and any other deliberately and afterwards introduced hermeneutic is in full contrast to the true hermeneutic of the Church.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html, chapter 5.1)
With the enthusiasm of the discovery of the Didache (cf Appendix 2) at the end of the 19th century, the "Liturgical Movement" and the "New Theology", the latter of which called itself the "Resourcement Movement", replaced the traditional teachings, which had been developed over the centuries through a deepening of understanding of Revelation, a process of maturation resulting from the refutation of heresies, i.e. "organic growth", with a so-called "modern" but amateurish archaeological research into ancient sources, including non-canonical and apocryphal writings in order to reconstruct the ancient Church. In this way old customs may be reintroduced, with the risk that these old customs contain sources of heresies that predate the maturing process by which they were abolished, and that these heresies will thereby be revived again.
In this they did not hesitate, blinded and with a certain arrogance and proud attitude of knowing better, to interpret fragments from canonical books, which were of divine inspiration, from the perspective of apocryphal writings, which, like the Didache, were not of divine inspiration, rather than the other way around. In doing so, they came up with all sorts of hypothetical theories. It is clear that this could only lead to false ideas about the nature of the "Mystical Body of Christ", with all the consequences for the papacy and the supernatural mission of the Church.
Herewith a perceived coherence and similarity can be found strongly connected to the fundamental errors formulated by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis (HG) by which he warned against the “New Theology”, namely:
It is through this arrogant and proud attitude that they could not recognize the supernatural mission of the Church, by which they rebelliously condemned the preparatory documents of the Council and accused the "Mystical Body of Christ" of wrong decisions in the past regarding theological and liturgical developments. More specifically regarding to both, the Middle-Ages concerning with what they call all kinds of superfluous devotions and the Council of Trent with an overly harsh condemnation of the Reformation by which the Church choose for the wrong direction. To them this should be corrected but no way from outside, as the Reformation had tried and failed, but this time from within.
Due to their prejudice, they accused the Holy Spirit for not having preserved the "Mystical Body of Christ" properly and proclaimed Christ in "His Mystical Body" guilty of all kinds of "doomsday scenarios". They accused as true "Prophets of Doom" Christ in "His Mystical Body" as "Scapegoat" guilty for historical schisms, for misunderstanding the Revelation, for introducing all kinds of superfluous devotions, and for making wrong decisions regarding the liturgy, especially during the Middle-Ages. But, also regarding the Council of Trent, in particular, a supposedly too harsh judgment of the Reformation. And since, according to them, a continuation of these "doomsday scenarios" for the Church and the World would further deteriorate, the pre-Council "Mystical Body of Christ" would have to be reformed by restoring it to its "supposed" origins. That is what both the "New Theology" and the "Liturgical Movement" claimed to be aiming for based on their archaeological research!
In this they sought, under the guise of "renewal", to reform the "Mystical Body of Christ", the so-called "renewal through reform" to change the structure, the doctrine, the pastoral care, the ministry and the liturgy of the "Mystical Body of Christ" in confirmation to the World. To this end, these "Prophets of Doom"" deliberately and systematically implemented ambiguities, especially embryonic ones, in the Council’s documents. All in all, with the intention of misleading as many well-meaning Council Fathers as possible, so that they would obtain a majority for their proposals, which they would then reinterpret after the Council according to their secret intentions. In order to defend the secret purpose of their conspiracy, as true "Prophets of Doom" they did not hesitate to falsely label their opponents who warned of the ambiguities and more specifically the consequences behind the implemented embryonal ambiguities as "Prophets of Doom".
Therefore, a minority of Council Fathers, cardinals, bishops and theological experts involved in the Council, in a spirit of rebellion and deception, wanted to change the original intention of the Council as proclaimed by Pope John XXIII. So by condemning the preparatory documents they wish to bring the Council in line with the results of the archeological research by the "Liturgical Movement" and the "New Theology" respectively. Hereto a method of breaking the rules was deliberately chosen and prepared by the French, German and Belgian Bishops. Pope Paul VI himself admitted to Jean Guitton that a few days earlier, during a private meeting of six or seven cardinals, of which he was one, it had been decided (1) that Cardinal Liénard would intervene [34, p162]. Then (2) it was supposedly proposed by Father Danièlou S.J. on the afternoon of October 12th, 1962 [4, p142; 32], (3) discussed by the French Bishops on the evening of October 12th [4 p145] and (4) worked out by Mgr. Garonne [35, p92]. Finally (5) executed by the French senior Cardinal Liénart on October 13th, who illegally intervened against the procedure of the first working day of the Council [4, p145; 34, p161; 35, p92; 37, p16; 29, p230] and (6) illegally supported by Cardinal Frings, also in the name of the Cardinals Koenig and Doepfner [4, p145; 34, p161; 35, p92; 29, p231; 36, p17]. Then supported (7) by an illegal applauding majority of Council Fathers [4, p145; 34, p162], while applauding was officially forbidden [29], and (8) finally the rule set by Pope John XXIII was illegally overruled by the Presidium [4, p145; 34, p162; 35, p92; 29, p231; 37; 36, p17].
Evidently, this was not at all "sudden and spontaneous" as Cardinal Linéart claimed towards Pope John XXIII, but a deliberate chain of illegal acts [14] initiated by some Cardinals to which Cardinal Montini, as confidant of Pope John XXIII, was involved too. One should note here that by being a part of these illegal acts of conspiracy and not warning Pope for it, he in fact had betrayed the Pope John XXIII. What consequence would that have for his own Papacy as successor of Pope John XXIII, especially regarding to the divine inspration?
And, instead of the Council Fathers (9) made efforts to get to know one another from country to country for ensuring greater cordiality, greater freedom and confidence, getting better informed about each other's as argued by Cardinal Liénart [35, p92], they started (10) to campaign for establishing lists of their own candidates for the Council Commissions only [44, p162; 36, p17; 29]. Here (11) the Frings-Liénart list representing the "progressive"-tendency won by a landslide, obtaining almost half of the seats in the commissions [14, #41-43; 34, p162; 36, p18; 37; 38; 39; 40, p123/4].
Obviously Pope John XXIII seemingly had accepted the outcome of these illegal acts, however by taking the measures he showed his disagreement. He changed the rule that the Council Fathers had to appoint 2/3 of the members of the Council commission by stipulating that the Pope (1) will appoint one additional member, i.e. 9 instead of 8, so that the members chosen by the Council Fathers could never have an absolute majority [35, p126; 37, p16]. And the members appointed by Pope John XXIII (2) were more likely to be "conservatives" [35, p126; 4, p222]. By these measures he could only intend to decline the effect of the illegal acts. Note here that Pope John XXIII could take no other measure, except the drastic measure of stopping the Council which he had opened just a few days before. He could not punish these cardinals and bishops by excluding them from participating in the Council either.
It is this chain of illegal acts that like a hijack has changed the outcome of the Council. Anyway those Cardinals who before the opening of the Council plaid Pope John XXIII to stop or delay the Council, changed their mind after this Chain of illagal acts and wanted to continue the Council after the death of Pope John XXIII.
When Pope John XXIII finally decided to rewrite the preparatory document "De Fontibus" on the sources of Revelation, he formulated a strict order to the mixed committee that was tasked with this rewriting in order to shorten and to re-emphasise adherence to the general principles defined by Trent and Vatican I: "But the task of this commission should be to revise, shorten and adapt the scheme, but to adhere to the more general principles. Moreover, everyone knows that the same doctrine was presented by the Tridentine Council and Vatican I"[43, p94]. While he in his opening address had made clear "Never depart from the sacred heritage of truth received from the Church Fathers" and "in unity and in accord with the teachings of the Church Fathers"[15].
On February 23rd, 1963, when the president of the mixed committee, Cardinal Ottaviani, had left the meeting early for his duty as prefect of the Holy Office, the second president, Cardinal Bea, took over the presidency of that particular meeting just before a voting should take place. While the question for voting about the sufficiency/insufficiency of the Tradition and Scripture was formulated under the presidency of Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bea changed the question for voting. Now, the proposal became to be that nothing was to be said about insufficiency, nothing in favour or against: "everything should be omitted from it that says, suggests or denies that the Holy Scripture does not reach as far as Tradition and that separates Scripture and Tradition from one another". This has led to a lot of confusion among the members of the committee. Then, with a majority of 22/9 this statement was accepted [7, p246; 34, p259]. By this so-called neutral formulation Cardinal Bea was seeking to prevent resistance from the Reformation regarding ecumenism. By doing so he actually questioned the Teachings of Trent and Vatican I. Moreover, this was contrary to the assignment of Pope John XXIII.
Because of his death, Pope John XXIII could not intervene against this deceit. But by contrast, as described by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI intervened on this subject with "the Church's certainty about her Faith is not born only of an isolated book, but has need of the Church herself as a subject enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit. Only then does the Scripture speak with all its authority" [44]. Consequently, the Sacred Scripture can only be well understood within the Tradition and through the Magisterium.
Pope Paul VI did so after a first intervention by a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, September 24, 1965 and after that Cardinal Ottaviani failed to get a majority within the Council's Theological Commission, Pope Paul VI finally sent the Theological Commission a number of text-proposals from which they had to choose to adopt into the final schema, so that it could be read in accordance to the Doctrine of the Church, October 18, 1965.[44, p246; 45, p259, p403/409; 44, p400, p412; 4, p407/8].
After the Council, new hermeneutics were devised based on the "renewal through reform...." to reinterpret the deliberately implemented ambiguities according to their secret intentions. “In discontinuity” by those, who sought a rupture with the pre-council era and “in continuity” by those who were of good will but misguided by the first ones. They did so in reaction on the “in discontinuity and rupture”, because they did not intend any rupture with the pre-council era. But still they had collaborated together for the “renewal through reform” of the “Mystical Body of Christ” by which they could not stop the spirit of rupture, but still tried to come to a compromise. Both, they silenced the true intention of Pope John XXIII for the Council and hermeneutic of the Church as proclaimed by Pope John XXIII, the legislator of the Council, in his Announcement and Opening Address of the Council (Note 1).
In any case, this striving for a hermeneutic of “renewal” of the “Mystical Body of Christ” clearly demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the true distinction between the natural and supernatural orders of the “Mystical Body of Christ”. A “renewal” of the “Mystical Body of Christ” cannot be sought by man in a reform of the Church as defined by the so-called “hermeneutics of renewal through reform”. The true renewal is a gift of the Holy Spirit as fruit of true and well-lived Faith like addressed by Pope John XXIII: “Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace” (Note 1).
Notice that Pope Paul VI in his address to the Cardinals of the Curia on 23 June 1972, the 7th years after the Council’s closing, not only gave a clear description of what Pope Benedict XVI called in 2005 the "hermeneutic of renewal through reform in discontinuity and rupture", but also a clear condemnation of it: "... an emergency that we cannot and must not hide: first of all, a false and erroneous interpretation of the Council, which would like to break with tradition, even as regards doctrine, an interpretation that goes so far as to reject the pre-conciliar Church and to consider a 'new' Church, as it were reinvented from within, as regards the constitution of the Church, her dogma, custom and law" (see also the end of Note 1)
Therefore, any deliberate hermeneutic introduced to reinterpret deliberately implemented ambiguities in accordance with a secret purpose contrary to the clear teaching of the Church should objectively be condemned.
Convinced of their theories and knowing that many Council Fathers would not accept these, all sorts of ambiguities were deliberately implemented, especially so-called embryonic ones, in the preparatory document on the liturgy, with the intention to reinterpret these expressions after the Council.
Although the Central Commission of Cardinals had discovered and removed some of them, the subsequent executive commission to implement the changes as desired by the Central Commission reinstated these ambiguities. Then, Pope John XXIII had no choice but to respond to this deception shortly before the opening of the Council by, among other things, an unexpected promulgation of the 1962 Missal, which was in fact the actual state of art of the regular reform that was taking place. This should have been a sign to the Council Fathers. He did this while this regular reform was underway and with the forged preparatory document filled with embryonic ambiguities, a far-reaching 'undefined reform' was being proposed. All of this clearly lacks any "clarity of thought”, “solidarity of religious unity”, “living flame of Christian passion", "doctrinal confirmation” and “wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline" (Note 1).
After the Council, these theologians and liturgists continued their pursuit of what we now call “reform in discontinuity” by reinterpreting the ambiguities, especially the embryonic ones. But at the direction of Pope Paul VI, this was partially corrected. Finally, in 1969, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Missal, and misguided as he was, with an incomplete and ambiguous description of the Holy Mass, with all the consequences that entailed. To correct this after the intervention by two Cardinals, Pope Paul VI added the definition of Trent to this description and made his intention explicitly clear during two consecutive Wednesday audiences: a "reform in continuity" with the 1962 Missal and in line of his Encyclical Mysterium Fidei. In accordance with Roman law it is from these explicit given intentions of Pope Paul VI as legislator objectively clear how the 1969 Missal as liturgical law has validly to be understood. But because of the intentions laid down in this Missal by theologians and liturgists in a spirit of “reform in discontinuity”. it is dangerously filled with ambiguities that make it easy to reinterpret the 1969 Missal in opposition to the true intentions of Pope Paul VI and the 1962 Missal as well, and leaving it open to all kinds of abuses. This endeavor combined all the above-mentioned aspects of the Encyclical Humani Generis (HG 5, 6, 7, 8).
For many years, however, the vast majority of young priests have been educated in the rebellious spirit of these theologians and liturgists, with all the consequences this entails. Thanks to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, more and more young priests and faithful are discovering the 1962 Missal and feel themselves strongly attracted to it. In this, the many practices of liturgical abuse, inspired by the false interpretations of the 1969 Missal, have certainly played an undeniable role. That is why those who support and spread precisely this
It is from the final analysis of the Church's crisis that some aspects of the (liturgical) crisis became more understandable and could be deepened: false interpretation of the 1969 Missal are now trying to ban the 1962 Missal, as if this Missal were in conflict with the 1969 Missal. Such a position is completely contrary to the clear intention of Pope Paul VI.
All this is clearly in contrast to the words of Pope John XXIII at the Announement and the Opening Address of the Council. It lacks "clarity of thought" and "doctrinal confirmation" by deliberately implementing ambiguities, it lacks the "solidarity of religious unity" and "living flame of Christian passion" by a spirit of conspiracy and deceit and it lacks "wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline" by wishing to change both, the original intention of the Council as well as the "Mystical Body of Christ". This cannot come from the Holy Spirit.
Notice that any deliberate ambiguity to mislead other Council Fathers and to reinterpret it afterwards in accordance with the secret intention behind it, must objectively be condemned.
Both these crises have their roots from the era before the Council. This can only mean that there must be a common underlying root cause from before the Council which has been activated at the Council leading to the divisions for which Pope John XXIII had warned in his Announcement of the Council in 1959: ". . . they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars" [1].
These actual hermeneutical and liturgical divisions within the Church are therefore symptoms resulting from an underlying root cause. And because the attitude of man is the mirror of man's mind, to determine and identify the root cause, these symptoms must be analysed for their common character and motives. Here we must also distinguish between the fundamental free will of man as created by God and the actual underlying motives. While free will essentially concerns the intention behind why and how one is acting, the intention is also either of good or of bad will. In addition, despite an intended good will, one can be innocently misled and blinded by multiple reasons that cause what is objectively a bad motive but seen as good and ultimately admit the mistake and suffer remorsefully from its consequences. On the other hand, one can also convert after being at first ill-willed, while it is impossible to rectify past deeds about which he will suffer consciously and repentantly. Only our Good Lord knows the true intentions. This search for the actual motives is not intended to be judgemental, but to find their common character.
To assist further in this analysis, the underlying common motives must be considered. Here are a restricted number of questions to help with this:
By missing the "clarity of thought, the solidarity of religious unity" and the "living flame of Christian fervor" as Pope John XXIIII had called for [1], objectively, all these motives involve a fundamental lack of trust in or even a conscious denial of the guaranteed everlasting supernatural protection and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church. This includes the (historical) development of our understanding of the Truth through "organic growth" as well as the structure, the teachings, the ministry of the Church and its liturgy (including devotions) throughout the centuries. In addition, some accuse the Church of being responsible for the various schisms and "all the evils in the world" (cf Appendix 5) . This clearly sounds like a denial of the sacred and supernatural nature and character of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
Those, who consider the Church as merely an anthropological and sociological institution and community, do not consider its supernatural nature. Some goes so far that they deliberately deny the supernatural nature of the Church. Therefore, they project the sin of the world onto the Mystical Body of Christ and wish to renew the Church by a reform of its structure, its teaching, its ministry and its liturgy into a merely secular institution. Could this perhaps be a hidden underlying core motivation in answer to the questions posed above?
Considering the Church purely "of the world" instead of acknowledging and retaining its dualistic natural and supernatural nature as founded by Christ himself.
Those who choose the material world and consider only the natural and secular aspect of the Church, are rejecting the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. Consequently, they also deny that the Mystical Body of Christ is the mystical innocent "Lamb of God", thereby scapegoating the Church in stead of the false worldly ideologies of men. This concerns especially the "errors of Russia" for which our Lady of Fatima had warned. These "errors of Russia" are nowadays spread all over the world, offering the world a better life with freedom from morality and spirituality. This is analogous with how the "Children of Israel" denounced Christ as their Scapegoat in stead of Barabbas, who was the fighter for the worldly freedom of Israel. Supernaturally, both scapegoating actions can be seen as one and the same. What should this mean and imply?
Note that while the material existence of the Church as Mystical Body of Christ consists of (1) the Militant Church with the actual living Pope leading the fight against sin, (2) the Suffering Church that atones for its sin, and (3) the Triumphant Church that has triumphed over sin, the true form of the Church as Mystical Body of Christ has fundamentally a supernatural and a spiritual nature, namely Christ Himself. Although members of the Militant Church are individually sinners along with all other sinners in the world, they are mandated by their free will and with the aim of the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments given by Christ to fight against, to atone for, and ultimately to triumph over their sins, while the Church as Mystical Body of Christ is and remains innocent, because Christ is without sin.
From the analyses of the Second Vatican Council, its practice and its aftermath regarding the hermeneutics and liturgy, a similar division within the Church can be observed (cf Appendix 1)
The character of these divisions may be described as follows:
Otherwise, if we suppose that those involved were all blindly misled, but essentially of good will and loving Christ, this is a clear manifestation of a misunderstanding how the Holy Spirit guides and preserves the Church. Do we observe here the fundamental common symptom regarding to the current "crisis" in the Church:
A misunderstanding of the protecting and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church, particularly the supernatural and divine aspects regarding its nature as the Mystical Body of Christ.
It is precisely this lack of true faith and misunderstanding that is behind the actual striving for a renewal of the Church by a reform of the Doctrine through the Pastoral Care as well as a reform of the Liturgy, which amounts to a reform of the entire "Mystical Body of Christ". Ambiguously, to this end, all kinds of novelties have been proposed during till shortly after the Second Vatican Council to the Pope and subsequently instituted. Like among others, replacing the elderly, but still mental and physical healthy, Cardinals, Bishops and priests outside the active priestly service into an instituted group of emeriti. And precisely due to this novelty the natural resistance of these elderly Cardinals, Bishops and priests against the implemented novelties to reform the Church was easily to be broken and suppressed: the emeriti may not intervene in the work of their successors.
This all came forth from the hijack of the Second Vatican Council during its first General Meeting on October 13th 1962, (cf Appendix 3). This rebellious spirit continued among others through the deliberate implementing of ambiguities in the Council's documents and successively the hermeneutics of "renewal, .." [15], which were novelties deliberately introduced for interpreting these ambiguities after the Council in contrast to the intention of the majority of the Council Fathers.
It must be noted here that any deliberately implemented ambiguity introduced to delude (a majority of) Council Fathers by hiding the true intention, is a grave sin against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth
This crucial misunderstanding of the supernatural aspects of the Church's nature and the deliberate obfuscation of the Truth is in complete contrast with Christ's personal call for the conversion of every individual human person:
Note that by analogy "continuity" can be likened to that of a trajectory or path following straight or curved lines. And because a curved line always diverges from a straight line, when starting from the same point, the type and direction of "continuity" must always be well defined ab initio. This Pope John XXIII did very well and clearly at the start of Vatican II, by mandating a straight-line path of continuity following and maintaining the direction of Sacred Tradition [1]. The "continuity" defined solely by "organic growth", as used by Pope Benedict XVI, lacks such a clear definition of "continuity" [15] by which it can potentially diverge in any direction as well as in "continuity" with the original straight line i.e. the Sacred Tradition of the Church prior to Vatican II. However, a strive for a "renewal" as such contradicts this latter interpretation of "continuity", because this "renewal" cannot be a strive of the Church in itself, but only be a gift by the Holy Spirit.
Thus, both forms of the hermeneutics of "renewal, .. " are in principle ambiguous novelties, based on a misunderstanding of the protective and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church, especially the supernatural and divine aspects with regard to her nature as the "Mystical Body of Christ". Here one must consider very carefully what use the Church has from a renewal, if her members do not convert and renew themselves! Is it not true that it is precisely that spirit of arrogance and pride that is linked to the will to renew the Church that blocks any renewal.
In accordance with the theory proclaimed by mainstream theologians of the Liturgical Movement from at least the early twentieth century up to the Second Vatican Council. The origin of the H. Mass in the first century should be considered as distinguishable into two parts of different sources, independently of each other. Namely (1) the ordinary synaxis of the Synagogue [8, p43; 9, p44; 10, p392; 12, p6, p70] and (2) the Last Supper, with the nucleus of the Eucharist proper [9, p18; 10, p11; 11, p21; 12, p54]. They refer to a hypothetically assumed practice of the H. Mass in the "Primitive" Church founded on "interpretations" of Liturgical fragments from the first Centuries. And under the header "Meaning of the Mass - the Mass and the Church" [10, p175-195] Fr. Jungmann (1948) argued "the Eucharistic institution does more than commemorate our Saviour" and by referring to Fr. De la Taille (1921) [10, p182 note 2] he considered that the H. Mass refers to both, the "Sacrifice of Christ" and the "Sacrifice of the Church", at which "the (Last Supper) meal is a sufficiently striking proof of that" the participation of the Church as the "Sacrifice of the Church" [10, p179]. With this novelty the full commemoration of Christ is divided into a commemoration of Christ and a commemoration of the Church i.e. the Faithful with all potential abuses this latter will entails. This is in very contrast to Christ's Institution "Do this in memory of me" and therefore had led to the Liturgical Crisis.
But what does it truly mean: the "Sacrifice of the Church", when the Church is the "Mystical Body of Christ" [16, #81-84]. The "Sacrifice of the Church" is then supernaturally included in the "Sacrifice of Christ" and as such the Church is fully participating in any H. Mass' Sacrifice, independent of the number of faithful attending [17, #32]. Therefore the suggested meal-option is not only unnecessary for a participation of the Church in the H. Mass. It is in fact a denial of the Church's participation, especially of the "Church Militant", in the "Body of Christ". Apparently, the Liturgical Movement is misunderstanding the protecting and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church, particularly the supernatural and divine aspects regarding its nature as the Mystical Body of Christ.
Ultimately, Christ was born to fulfill the entire Law and Prophets (Matt. 5:17): the innocent "Lamb of God", born in the "Stable of David" to be sacrificed as "Scapegoat" on the Cross is the climax of the fulfilment of the Law. Therefore the institution of the H. Eucharist by Christ "Do this in memory of me" cannot be understood as something else than being that the Holy Mass is fully focussed on the Sacrifice of Christ. The suggestion that the first part of the H. Mass with the readings would be taken over from the Synagogue instead of being the preparation of the Priest and the faithful for the Sacrifice is clearly a demonstration of misunderstanding the distinction of the natural and supernatural orders of Christ and His "Mystical Body".
Apparently it is Fr. Schillebeeckx who on the one hand quoted a theologian from the doctrinal commission of the Council: "We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw out implicit conclusions" [14, #50; 31]. While, on the other hand, he stated that "The pastoral Council becomes doctrinal, precisely on account of its pastoral character. Pastoral demands call for doctrinal deepening" [7, pXLIII note 24]. So, while the theological horizon and criterion of assessment are placed within the classical distinction between dogmatic and pastoral, it is precisely, this path how, due to the questioning of the classical pastoral in relation to the modern times, they opposed to the traditional Doctrine. Herewith Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx indeed stated unconsciously how both, the Hermeneutical Crisis and the Liturgical Crisis are clear symptoms of the Crisis of Faith.
While this study principally meant to be a non-theological engineering approach to a problem analysis of the current crisis within the Roman Catholic Church, the result appears to have a strong similarity with the theological analysis described by Cardinal Siri in 1981 [3]. He showed how the theology of three of the most influential theologians of the "New Theology" at the Council, namely Karl Rahner, Henry de Lubac and Maritain more generally were subjected to:
A misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders.
The supernatural character of the Church is inherent due to its institution by Christ our Lord and includes the guaranteed everlasting supernatural protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. This protection and guidance not only covers its structure, teachings, ministry and liturgy, but also its natural order and material existence in the world as manifested by its human members, who are all sinners.
The fundamental statement of our Faith in the creed "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" is crucial concerning the Root Cause of the crisis of the Church:
A lack of sincere belief in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and no adherence to it, is the heresy and final root cause of the crisis
Therefore, like the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople which deepened and strengthened Creed regarding the second and the third Persons of the Trinity, this aspect of our Faith in the Church as Mystical Body of Christ, needs to be deepened and strengthened too, to resolve the present crisis in the Church.
Note, this root cause is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the true distinction between the natural and supernatural orders, which is like a two-edged sword that touches both sides. On one side, there are those who overestimate the natural over the supernatural order, such as the 16th century Reformation did, and on the other side, there are those who overestimate the supernatural over the natural order, such as Ultramontanism does. Obviously, in essence, the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, respectively, only treated these direct symptoms, while the root cause remains untreated. This just worsens the crisis, as is the case within the Church over the past few centuries.
This study concerns a problem analysis of the current crisis in the Church. To this end, the root cause is identified as 'a lack of sincere belief in the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and no adherence to it'. This root cause has led to the following fundamental symptom: "misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church as Mystical Body of Christ" and is in turn responsible for a wide variety of symptoms under which the crisis in the Church is visible. This fundamental symptom basicly works like a two-edged sword, because within this relationship both orders can be over- and underestimated respectively. This creates the danger that actions in one direction by some could provoke an opposing response into another direction by others, which could ultimately result in a battle if the root cause is not sufficiently corrected.
It also leads to the disappearance of the proper distinction between the natural and supernatural orders, the distinction between "nature" and "grace" also fades away. This has catastrophic consequences with regard to the reality of our participation in the divine nature and our Childhood of God through baptism and the "Mystical Body of Christ". All this then degenerates into a metaphor, in which everything "supernatural" is reduced to the domain of created human nature with all its consequences, especially for morality!
Note that such over- and underestimations in both directions have indeed occurred in the past. Such as the Reformation, which vastly overestimated the natural order in relation to the supernatural order, and conversely the Ultramontanism, which overestimated the supernatural order over the natural. Both are concrete examples of the fundamental symptom mentioned above.
The actual crisis should be solved by analysing the true balance between the natural and supernatural orders of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
Therefore this problem can only be adequately addressed and solved by working for a deeper understanding of the Faith by "Organic Growth". In support of this work of deepening our understanding, below are presented some aspects regarding the way in which the fulfillment of the Law by Christ (Chapter 5.1) and the “Mystical Body of Christ” (Chapter 5.2) constitute the fundamental essence of the Sacred Liturgy of the Holy Mass as the living Creed. May this be useful to those whose first task is to work on how to resolve this crisis by analyzing and resolving the true balance between the natural and supernatural orders of the Church. Only by modestly distancing oneself from every form of arrogance and pride at all levels of the hierarchy can one argue from a position of Truth that refutes the lies.
Luke 18:31-34:
- Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
- For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
- And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
- And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken
While discussions of the Holy Mass by the "Liturgical Movement" [01; 02; 03; 04] generally is about a Christianized Synagogue Service and the Last Supper with a Nucleus of the Euchrist's Proper as the origin of the Holy Mass without referring to the essential links regardng to Old Testament Temple Cult. After all, Christ was born to fulfil the Law that precisely concerns the Old Testament Temple Cult. These discussions were more about (alleged) historical developments regarding the form founded on amaterish archeology, than about the essence of the Holy Mass. And especially this archeology had to do with a misunderstanding of the true distinction between the natural and supernatural orders. Because of this, they went so far as to judge the correctness of development that was preserved by the Holy Spirit through "Organic Growth". Indeed, as it is based on archeology, in which they set aside the Doctrine and Practices, which have been matured by the Holy Spirit throughout the ages through the "Organic Growth" under the refutation of heresies and the adoration of Christ in all aspects of how He has fulfilled the Law. It is indeed this pride that resulted in their blindness to see the essence that Christ was born to fulfill the Law and how that is connected to the fulfillment of the Old Testament Temple Cult. Namely that Christ fulfilled the Law that regulates the Jewish Temple Cult in its entirety, which also means that the Holy Mass is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Temple Cult with the "Eucharist is a Sacrifice".
It is Christ, Priest in the order of Melchisedech, who finally fulfilled the Law by offering His Body for our sins on Golgotha (Lk 24:44-49). As the Jewish Temple Cult is the subject of the Law, this fulfilment must be linked to the Old Testament Temple Cult and so the H. Mass either. Therefore, the fulfilment of the Law must follow Exodus in its context of the "Exodus from Egypt, the land of slavery" into the "Exodus from the land of slavery of sin".
The fulfilment of the Law, certainly, did not start with Christ hanging on the Cross, Christ standing before the Sanhedrin or Christ instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper or something like that. Apparently, Christ's fulfillment of the Law refers to His entire earthly life, from Conception to His Death on the Cross. He, the "Innocent Lamb of God" was born in the Stable of David. This was the Stable from which the lambs were destinated to be sacrificed in the Temple. So Christ, as the "Innocent Lamb of God", was born in this Stable to be sacrificed in the Temple. Despite one could not find any sin, Christ was sentenced to death. Then He was led out of the City of Jerusalem as "Scapegoat" where He was crucified on the Cross for our sins. Thus it is Christ, Priest in the order of Melchisedech, who ultimately as the climax of the fulfilment of the Law offered His Body for our sins on Golgotha (Lk 24:44-49). The Holy Mass can therefore only be associated with this ultimate culmination, the climax of the fulfillment of the Old Testament Temple Cult through the two related Temple Feasts of "Passover" and "Yom Kippur".
This fulfillment is therefore connected to the books of the Old Testament, which proclaimed the Law. It therefore follows Exodus and Leviticus among others in its context of the "Exodus from Egypt, the land of slavery", which had a paradigm shift by its fulfillment to the "Exodus from the land of the slavery of sin".
This process of fulfilment follows the Law as given in the Old Testament Temple Cult. Without claiming to be complete an overview of the fulfilment is given here in its main points as follows:
Thus "a holy priesthood" who "offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (I Peter 2:5) during which the ordained priests "in Person of Christ, the High Priest" offers the Passover Lamb and then also "in Person of Christ" eats first of the sacrificed Passover Lamb, after which the faithful as a "holy priesthood" follow to participate in the Sacrifice og Christ. This is the one, true and eternal Sacrifice of the Eternal Passover Lamb, who is unblemished and as being appointed "Scapegoat" He is bearing our sins. In this way Christ used the context of the Passover as a Memory of the "Exodus from Egypt, the land of slavery" and through the associated "Yom Kippur" for a paradigm shift into the Memory of Christ as a Memory of the "Exodus from the land of slavery of sin" by which He is the door to Heaven.
The institution of the Eucharist by Christ at the Last Supper was on the Thursday evening. This Last Supper could therefore neither be a Sabbath meal, as suggested by the new Offertory prayers of the 1969 Reform, nor the Sacrificial Passover Meal of Pesach. It was one day too early for it. Rather, it was the first meal of the 14th day of the first month when the 7-day Feast of the Unleavened Bread began. Whereas the Unleavened Bread signifies being unblemished (I Cor. 5:7, I John 3:5, Hebr. 7:26) in contrast to the leaven bread that stands as the common symbol for sin (Amos 4:5, Hosea 7:4, Lk 12:1, Matt. 16:6-12, Gal. 5:9, I Cor. 5:6-8). So, the Last Supper was the first Passover Meal at which the symbolic Unleavened Bread was eaten in the evening before the Sacrificial Passover Meal. It was from this meal that Christ used the symbolic Unleavened Bread and Wine for a paradigm shift into His innocent and unblemished Body and Blood. That is why Christ had to institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper by commanding the Apostles, "Do this in remembrance of me". With "Do this ..." He did not command them to repeat the Last Supper, but to repeat His Acts in union with and in commemoration of His Sacrifice on the cross as the ultimate fulfilment of the Law: "He took the Bread and blessed it", "He took the Cup and blessed it" (= Offertory: taking Bread and Wine from profane use to prepare them by offering it for sacred use), then "He consecrated both, Bread and Wine" (= Consecration) with "the Remembrance" (= Anamnesis), after which "He broke the consecrated Bread" (= Fraction) and finally "he gave to eat the consecrated Bread and Wine, His Flesh and Blood" (= Communion as the Sacrificial Meal).
This all means that ". . . in remembrance of me" can only be the remembrance of Christ's fulfillment of the law in all its facets, how He has redeemed us.
Since the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is perfect and unique, how can the Church participate in this perfect and unique Sacrifice? This can only be done in and through Christ who, in the Holy Mass, continues this perfect and unique Sacrifice on the Cross through the Church as His “Mystical Body” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-31; Col. 1:18; 2:18-20; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:19; 4:13) and the ordained priests, acting “In Personna Christi”. It is indeed Christ who, in our “temporal reality”, continues His perfect and unique “Sacrifice” in a supernatural and sacramental way in His “Mystical Body”.
This can only mean that the Sacrifice of Christ's Historical Body, His Sacramental Body and His "Mystical Body are to be considered supernaturally as one and the same Sacrifice of Christ. It is through membership in the "Mystical Body of Christ", through Baptism and the Sacraments that one participates in the "Sacrifice of Christ". Therefore, the sufferings of individual believers offered by the "Mystical Body of Christ" are supernaturally united in the Historical Sacrifice of Christ and the Sacramental Sacrifice of Christ, every time Holy Mass is celebrated [46, #81-84].
As the Sacred Revelation speaks about (1) the Historical, (2) the Sacramental and (3) the Mystical "Body of Christ", while Christ is one, unique and undivided. In addition to the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Mystical Corporus Christi (1943) that concerns the "Militant Church" mainly, this would mean that the several expressions of the "Body of Christ" must supernaturally be one and the same, unique "Body of Christ". And as such the Church would be fully participating in the entire historical life of Christ, including His last week of Suffering, His Sacrifice on the Cross, His death as well as His Resurrection and Ascension.
Notice that all these distinctions of the "Body of Christ" were materially taken from the world in a similar way after they were firstly dedicated to God before becoming "Body of Christ" with one and the same spiritual form, Christ Himself. First of all, the "Historical Body of Christ" was taken from the Holy Virgin Mary, as prepared by the Holy Spirit. Through her free will she dedicated her body by offering her virginity to God. Secondly the "Sacramental Body of Christ" is taken from the world as prepared by the Holy Spirit through the unleavened bread at the Last Supper that stands for being unblemished. As such, it is dedicated to God each time at the H. Mass, when the Priest firstly offers "Bread and Wine" to God at the Offertory, by which this "Bread and Wine" is prepared for becoming the "Sacramental Body of Christ" through the Consecration, and offered "In Personna Christi" by the Priest. Thirdly, the "Mystical Body of Christ" is taken from the world too, when man prepared and inspired by the Holy Spirit dedicates themselves by free will to God through the Baptism becoming a member of the "Mystical Body of Christ". And more specifically, the priests, who act in the name of Christ, are chosen from among those, who by their own free will, by their oath of virginity, have dedicated their bodies to the Lord, as Mary also did, and through whom Christ then offered His Sacramental Body.
In addition to these similarities, the "Historical Body of Christ" can also be distinguished by (1) His Historical Body walking on earth before His Death on the Cross, (2) His Historical Body offered on the Cross and buried in His grave and (3) His Historical Body after His glorious Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven. While a similar distinction can be made regarding the "Mystical Body of Christ", namely (1) the Militant Church on earth with the actual living Pope leading the fight against sin, (2) the Suffering Church in "Purgatory" that atones for its sins and (3) the Triumphant Church in Heaven that has triumphed over sin.
And as mentioned in chapter 2.1, while the members of the Militant Church are individual sinners along with all other sinners in the world, they are mandated by their free will with the grace and enlightenment from the Holy Spirit through the Sacraments given by Christ to fight against, atone for, and ultimately to triumph over their sins, while the Church itself as "Mystical Body of Christ" is and remains innocent, because Christ Himself is without sin.
Now, besides the reference through "in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to our faith in the "Mystical Body of Christ", also a reference can be recognized between the entire closures of the Creed and the "Mystical Body of Christ" in her distinguished forms respectively.
Namely:
"And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken". While one of the twelve had betrayed Him, Christ delivered Himself to the servants of the Sanhedrin to be captured. Then the others fled from Him in confusion, because none of them understood the supernatural nature of Christ well. Finally it was only one of those who stood with His Mother under the Cross. Even Peter, who hid himself among the servants of the Sanhedrin was afraid for what should happen after being recognized as one of Christ's disciples, denied three times that he knew Christ.
However what is happening nowadays. With the fundamental symptom of the "misunderstanding of distinction between natural and supernatural orders" but nowadays of the "Mystical Body of Christ" among all levels of the hierarchy, theologians and faithful results in a confusion, especially regarding the supernatural nature of the Church. Is not this basicly a clear simularity.
Nowadays, due to the misunderstanding of the natural and supernatural order of the "Mystical Body of Christ" the following may be observed as similarity between the current state of the Church and the last days of Christ.
In addition, this lack of proper understanding, a misunderstanding or even a denial of the supernatural order of the "Mystical Body of Christ" may directly concern the understanding of the supernatural essence of the "Substitute or Vicar of Christ" i.e. Peter as instituted by Christ. As a Double-edged Sword on the one hand this can lead to an underestimation of his supernatural character, like the 16th century Reformation did. On the other hand, it can also lead to an overestimation of the supernatural character of Peter, like considering the words and acts by an actual Vicar of Christ in itself would be infallible like the Ultramontanism is doing.
Peter denied Christ three times, even though he was warned about it before. Despite knowing the weaknesses in Simon's character, Christ had appointed him as Peter on whom He built His Church. Christ could do this because He knew in advance Peter's good will, how he loves Him, how he would repent and suffer consciously and contritely after realizing how he had denied knowing Christ by his own free will.
In the same way, Christ, as head of His Mystical Body, knows all the "ins and outs" of each candidate Pope, their characters, their past actions, their strengths and weaknesses, their fears, their blind spots and how easily they can be deceived. But He also knows their good will, how they love Him and how they will consciously and repentantly suffer for Him, just as Peter did.
Of course, He knows this even before a candidate for the papacy is chosen by the free will of each individual cardinal elector enlightened by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Hereto, Christ knows and respects the free will of each individual cardinal elector in the conclave, even if he is blind to the divine inspiration because he has been deceived into participating in a conspiracy. In this way, Christ supernaturally 'appoints' His Vicar who participates and fits into His supernatural plan for His Mystical Body. In doing so, Christ uses the weakness of the natural order to reveal the greatness of the supernatural order. In this way He is guiding His Church through history by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, consistently respecting the free will of men, also that of the Pope.
Here the question arises on the subject of Divine Inspiration by the Holy Spirit and the free will of the Popes. Can a Pope divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit deny by free will to know Christ? Or maybe better to say: can a Pope by free will reject the Divine Inspiration by which he may deny to know Christ?
It is Christ who had allowed Simon to deny Him three times when Christ was imprisoned and standing before the Sanhedrin, even though He had warned him only a few hours before (Luke 22:31, 34). And still Peter did so, after the capture of Christ, while he was among the servants of the Sanhedrin and afraid to be recognised as one of the followers of Christ and for what that would entail for him. As such, he tried to pass himself off as unrecognizable to these servants, but still he was recognised by some.
So, what about a Pope, as successor of Peter, can Christ allow a Pope to deny knowing Him by his free will, likewise Peter denied Christ? Is a Pope as successor of Peter more than Peter? Is the free will of a Pope imprisoned by the Holy Spirit by which he cannot reject or contradict the Divine Inspiration by free will? But, when Christ prayed for Peter and warned him "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. Simon that your faith may not fall. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32). Certainly Christ knew his good will, but also that Satan should sift him him and that he should finally convert and sorrowfully suffers for it. Do we have to consider this as a historical event only or is it also a warningful prophecy? How the more will this warning be valid for the Popes.
But what does this then mean? Is the Pope then converting from this freely misled will precisely at the moment he is elected by the Cardinals, or does he finally convert later during his Popeship and maybe even near the end of his life, unknown for everyone? Could that indeed happen?
Furthermore, what was Peter doing, when Christ walked the Via Dolorosa, bearing the Cross? And then at Calvary what was Peter doing, when the Apostle John joined Mother Mary under the Cross. So, what was Peter doing, after "he went out and wept bitterly" (Luke 22:62)? And is it not that St. Paul had to rebuke Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11-14)? Therefore, a Pope who in his love for Christ, by his free and intended good, but misled will can actually act wrongly and due to this he becomes (partially) blind to the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Then he can surround himself with heretical advisors who do not hesitate to delude and manipulate him, with all the consequences that entailed, afraid for what will happen. Then he can deny to know Christ. And of course Christ can still continuously make use of the intended good, but misled free will of such Pope because He knows his love for Him. How he finally will convert and will consciously and remorsefully suffer for Him, all like Peter (Luke 22:62).
Isn't this ultimately prophesied in the "Third Secret of Fatima": the conversion of a bishop dressed in white, the Pope, who suffers in contrition after seeing the truth and realizing all he has done out of a deluded good will? Would this be the fulfilment of the prophecy of our Lady of Fatima: "And we saw in an immense light that is God: something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it a Bishop dressed in White we had the impression that it was the Holy Father. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God" [19].
Could this be the way in which Christ leads His Mystical Body, the Church, to participate in His Sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary? Be that as it may, His Mystical Body will also rise with Christ and all people of goodwill will be gathered in Him.
Pope John XXIII certainly showed his good will, par example through his 1959 Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram (June 29th) when he condemned all those who deny the Revealed Truth of God or obstruct it by spreading lies [6]. Indeed the same year Pope John XXIII had announced the Council (January 25th) and commissioned the preparatory documents. Whereas Pope John XXIII gave us in the Announcement of the Council the constitutional rules, which are consistent with a perfect problem analysis:
"The great problem confronting the world after almost two thousand years remains unchanged: Christ is ever resplendent as the centre of history and of life. Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars" [1].
By also referring to the current "epoch of renewal" of the World, Pope John XXIII very clearly reminded the Church how this should be solved in unity with the Fathers, namely (Appendix 1). ): "through clarity of thought, through the solidarity of religious unity, and through the living flame of Christian passion" by a "doctrinal confirmation and the wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline" [1]. These statements can certainly be discerned as Divine Inspiration. In his Opening Address, as legislator of the Council, he even added other clear constitutional rules for the Council: "the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all" [2], "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers" [2], "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" [2] and "the Truth of the Lord will remain forever" [2].
This expresses the true constitutional rules for the Council. And of course as it is the true constitutional rules for the Council, it must be true rulw ofthe Hermeneutic of the Council either. Moreover, it clearly shows the truly good will of Pope John XXIII as legislater of the Council too.
However, also in 1959, August 17th, he opened the supernatural message of Our Lady of Fatima instead of waitng until 1960 as required by Our Lady of Fatima. He rejected this message as not intended for him and this era. He did so, although the specific order not to open before 1960, should indicate that it must have been specifically intended for this era. Was Pope John XXIII too proud to recognise the intention of this message or was he misguided by someone he trusted, by which he became blind to the intention of this supernatural message. Can such a rejection remain without consequences?
Subsequently, at the end of the preparatory period and the beginning of the Council, Pope John XXIII was deceived at least three times. It was very remarkable that in all these cases the Cardinals, Bishops and theologians involved, disagreed, in contrast to Pope John XXIII (cf Appendix 4), disagreed the preparatory documents as an unrealistic approach to great problems facing the world today. They preferred to see them replaced by newly (re)written documents. All these deceiving acts were from after Pope John XXIII had rejected the supernatural Message of Fatima.
First (1) on the preparatory document of the Liturgy (cf Appendix 2), then (2) on the irregular actions during the first general assembly of the Council (cf Appendix 3) and finally (3) on the withdrawal of the dogmatic preparatory document De Fontibus (cf Appendix 6).
In order of the preparatory document "De Fontibus" Pope John XXIII formulated a strict order to the mixed committee he had appointed. They had to be rewritten "De Fontibus" by shortening: "everyone knows full well that the same teaching was already presented by the Trident Council and Vatican I" [20, p94]. However, a majority of this mixed commission came up with fundamentally different wording, thus deluding Pope John XXIII, even on his deathbed: "and everything should be omitted from it that says, suggests or denies that the Holy Scripture does not reach as far as tradition and that separates scripture and tradition from one another" [21, p246, p259].
Furthermore, each time Pope John XXIII was deceived, he showed his good will by taking countermeasures, except regarding to this last deception: he died. Here it can postulate that may be due to the rejection of the supernatural message of Our Lady of Fatima by his free will, the Divine Inspiration for efficient measures was missing. Although it is only one witness, it must be mentioned that Jean Guitton - the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at the Council - claimed that Pope's John XXIII last words on his deathbed were: "Stop the Council; stop the Council". However, he died and his successor, Pope Paul VI, continued the Council.
But with respect to this last deception, finally, Pope Paul VI intervened on this subject on January 1964 [21, p400, p412], which finally after a long period of resistance became the following text proposed by Pope Paul VI: "Consequently, it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about all the points of revelation", October 1965 [21, p403/409; 22, p407/8].
Thus, with the exception of measures against Fr. Bugnini personally, Pope John XXIII took no countermeasures against all others, who had deceived him. He only took measures to eliminate or minimize the consequences of these deceptive actions. Note that the cardinals and bishops who had deceived him were also Council Fathers, whom he could not simply exclude from the Council without stopping the Council itself. This latter was completely contrary to his optimistic expectations based on the preparatory documents, and this should have been emotional for him personally.
The countermeasures, however, turned out to have been insufficient and therefore inadequate. This has led to much confusion among the Council Fathers, priests and faithful of good will.
While on the other hand, those who had deceived him, considered this lack of personal countermeasures as a confirmation to continue their quest for a "renewal of the Church through a reform in discontinuity and rupture". Of which, because it concerns a "reform in discontinuity and rupture", this "renewal" is a clear ambiguity that in fact means a "replacement": a "replacement of the Body of Christ" through a so-called "reform in discontinuity and rupture" into another Body. Indeed, they sought to "reform" or transform the Structure, the Doctrine, the Liturgy and the Ministry of the Church as well as the Pastoral Care by the Church. They did this with the help of those who had been misled by the confusion and who were generally of good will and believed that they were seeking a "spiritual renewal of the Church through a reform in continuity" to address the problems of the world. Those, who were misled by listening to them as "Prophets of Doom", who predicted all kinds of disasters if the Church would not be reformed in the renewed way they desired. This could happen despite the warning of Pope John XXIII in his opening speech. Also because these prophets of doom knew how to word this warning in such a way that those who warned about the consequences of their novelties and innovations were seen as prophets of doom.
Note, it is this phenomenon we encounter within the division of the actual Church.
After all, it is a clear fact that Pope John XXIII did not sign any document of the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, it is also a fact that the optimistic expectation of Pope John XXIII was based solely on the preparatory documents [appendix 4] and it was precisely these that were rejected and replaced by the rebellious spirit that had hijacked the Council. Moreover, they not only hijacked the Council, but by misrepresenting Pope John XXIII, they hijacked his optimistic expectations by projecting them onto the final results of the Council. While precisely these final results, which were in stark contrast to the preparatory documents, were completely unknown to and not at all expected by Pope John XXIII.
To this point, it was only a few month after the closure of the Council, Spring 1966, by a letter to Fr Herbert Schauf, Fr Sebastiaan Tromp S.J reported about a private audience at which Pope Paul VI had expressed his concern about the situation in the whole Church: "a dangerous relativism, a false mystic about Pope John XXIII, nobody is listening to the voice of Pope Paul VI, a crisis of the celibacy, a false forming of the public opinion and a spirit of Council that has been replaced by a spirit of some Extremists" [23, p118].
Christ took advantage of the weakness in Pope John XXIII's character regarding his good but misguided free will. Then through the death of Pope John XXIII, He prevented the Council from stopping. In this way He has allowed the captivity of His Mystical Body by the rebellious spirit, which wishes to replace His Mystical Body through a "renewal of His Mystical Body through a reform in discontinuity and rupture". Thereto they accused the Mystical Body of Christ for all kinds of evil through its Strcture, its Doctrine, its Liurgy, its Ministry and its Pastoral Care Herewith they declare His Mystical Body as being a Scapegoat, like the Jews did. Do we properly understand this supernatural similarity to Christ's captivity? Namely that He allowed Himself to be captured by the servants of the Sanhedrin (Mark 10:32-34, 14:50) in order to offer Himself, the innocent "Lamb of God" (Pesach), as "Scapegoat" (Yom Kippur) on the cross of Calvary for the sins of the world? Nowadays, the Innocent Mystical Body of Christ will be replaced into the Scapegoat bearing the Sin of the World. Isn't this the climax concerning the entirity of the participation in the fulfilment of the Law!
In 1959 Pope John XXIII condemned in his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram all those who deny the Revealed Truth of God or obstruct it by spreading lies. In the same year Pope John XXIII gave us in the Announcement of the Council the constitutional rules, which are consistent with a perfect problem analysis: "The great problem confronting the world after almost two thousand years remains unchanged: Christ is ever resplendent as the centre of history and of life. Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars" [https://vatican2voice.org/91docs/announcement.htm].
Pope John XXIII clearly refers here to the fundamental and original, yet supernatural mission of the Church to convert the world as the purpose of the Council. By also referring to the current "epoch of renewal” generally, Pope John XXIII very clearly reminded the Church how this should be solved in unity with the Fathers, namely: "through clarity of thought, through the solidarity of religious unity, and through the living flame of Christian passion" by a "doctrinal confirmation and the wise provision of ecclesiastical discipline" [https://vatican2voice.org/91docs/announcement.htm].
These statements can certainly be discerned as Divine Inspiration. See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html. chapter 4.2)
Remarkably, when Pope John XXIII convoked the Council, December 1961, he declared that the problem he had raised in January 1959 had been solved through the Holy Spirit. He praised the work of the preparatory commissions and expressed himself as very optimistic about the results of the Council as a manifestation of the fruits of the Holy Spirit: "Then, if we turn our attention to the Church, we see that it has not remained a lifeless spectator in the face of these events, but has followed step by step the evolution of peoples, scientific progress, and social revolution. It has opposed decisively the materialistic ideologies which deny faith. Lastly, it has witnessed the rise and growth of the immense energies of the apostolate of prayer, of action in all fields. It has seen the emergence of a clergy constantly better equipped in learning and virtue for its mission; and of a laity which as became ever more conscious of its responsibilities within the bosom of the Church, and in a special way, of its duty to collaborate with the Church hierarchy. Thus, though the world may appear profoundly changed, the Christian community is also in great part transformed and renewed It has therefore strengthened itself socially in unity; it has been reinvigorated intellectually; it has been interiorly purified and is thus ready for trial . . ." [6] and "Three years have passed during which we have seen, day by day, the little seed develop and become, with the blessing of God, a great tree. ... Before deciding the questions that had to be studied in view of the forthcoming Council, we wished to hear beforehand the wise and enlightened opinions of the College of Cardinals, of the episcopate of the whole world, of the sacred congregations of the Roman Curia, of the general superiors of orders and religious congregations, of Catholic universities, and of ecclesiastical faculties. This work of consultation was carried out within a year, and there emerged clearly from this the points that had to be submitted to a thorough study. We then instituted the different preparatory organizations to which we entrusted the arduous task of drawing up the doctrinal and disciplinary projects, which we intend to submit to the Council. We finally have the joy of announcing that this intense work of study, to which the cardinals, bishops, prelates, theologians, canonists, and experts from all over the world have given their valuable contribution, is now nearing its end" [6].
It is very clear that Pope John XXIII's optimistic expectations regarding the Council could only come from the preparatory documents and had nothing to do with the final outcome of the Council that is based on the removal of the preparatory documents.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html, chapter 5.1)
In 1962 in his Opening Address, as legislator of the Council, he repeated more than once another clear constitutional rule for the Council: (1) "the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all", (2) "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers", (3) "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" and (4) "the Truth of the Lord will remain forever" [https://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm].
This Opening Address by Pope John XXIII, the legislator of the Council, expresses the true constitutional rules of the Church for a Council. And, of course, these rules are precisely because they are the constitutional rules for a Council also the true hermeneutical rules of the Church to interprete the Council’s documents. And so any deception and betrayal, any deliberately introduced ambiguity and any other deliberately and afterwards introduced hermeneutic is in full contrast to the true hermeneutic of the Church.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html, chapter 5.1)
It is certainly very remarkable how the Liturgical Movement in the first half of the 20th Century accepted in a kind of admiration for novelties the rediscovered document of the Didache on which they built their new theories. Because the Didache was mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) it was apparently considered as being a lost part of the Canon. However, while this list was requested by the Emperor Constantine (273/280[?]-337) as proposal for the Canon, the Council of Rome (382) voted in favor of the alternative list by Athanasius (296/298[?]-373) that had also been compiled at the request of Emperor Constantine. Note that the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius and Athanasius were already dead at the moment of the Roman Council and that Eusebius and Athanasius were opponents in the case of Arianism.
The final List of the Canon did not include the Didache, which is then confirmed by the Synod of Hippo (393) as well as the two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). While the Council of Florence (1431-1449) called it an article of Faith, which was finally confirmed by the Council of Trent(1545-1563).
The suggestion that the Didache would be an "old Christian writing preserved apart from the New Testament canon" [8, p54] is in fact an accusation against the Holy Spirit, who would not properly have preserved the various Councils by presenting the Didache on the so-called list of apocryphal books. This is a clear example of misunderstanding the protecting and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church, particularly the supernatural and divine aspects regarding its nature as "Mystical Body of Christ". Which has a disastrous effect on the Sacrality of the Liturgy.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/didache.html).
A method of breaking the rules was deliberately chosen and prepared by the French, German and Belgian Bishops. Pope Paul VI himself admitted to Jean Guitton that a few days earlier, during a private meeting of six or seven cardinals, of which he was one, it had been decided (1) that Cardinal Liénard would intervene [34, p162]. Then itT (2) was supposedly proposed by Fr Danièlou S.J. in the afternoon of October 12, 1962 [4, p142); 32], (3) discussed by the French Bishops on the evening of October 12 [4 p145; ] and (4) worked out by Mgr. Garonne [35, p92]. Finally (5) executed by the French senior Cardinal Liénart on October 13, who illegally intervened against the procedure of the first working day of the Council [4, p145; 34, p161; 35, p92; 37, p16; 29, p230] and (6) illegally supported by Cardinal Frings, also in the name of the Cardinals Koenig and Doepfner [4, p145; 34, p161; 35, p92; 29, p231; 36, p17]. Then supported (7) by an illegal applauding majority of Council Fathers [4, p145; 34, p162], while applauding was officially forbidden [29], and (8) finally the rule set by Pope John XXIII was illegally overruled by the Presidium [4, p145; 34, p162; 35, p92; 29, p231; 37; 36, p17].
Evidently, this was not at all "sudden and spontaneous" as Cardinal Lin art claimed but a deliberate chain of illegal acts [14]. And, instead of the Council Fathers (9) made efforts to get to know one another from country to country for ensuring greater cordiality, greater freedom and confidence, getting better informed about each other's as argued by Cardinal Li nart [35, p92], they started (10) to campaign for establishing lists of their own candidates for the Council Commissions only [44, p162; 36, p17; 29]. Here (11) the Frings-Li art list representing the "progressive"-tendency won by a landslide, obtaining almost half of the seats in the commissions [14, #41-43; 34, p162; 36, p18; 37; 38; 39; 40, p123/4].
Obviously Pope John XXIII seemingly had accepted the outcome of these illegal acts, however by taking the following measures he showed his disagreement. By the following measures he could only intend to decline the effect of the illegal acts. He changed the rule that the Council Fathers had to appoint 2/3 of the members of the Council commission by stipulating that the Pope (1) will appoint one additional member, i.e. 9 instead of 8, so that the members chosen by the Council Fathers could never have an absolute majority [35, p126; 37, p16]. And the members appointed by Pope John XXIII (2) were more likely to be "conservatives" [35, p126; 4, p222].
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/hijack.html) .
It is generally acknowledged, and well documented that many ambiguities exist within the Vatican II documents [14; 28; 29]. These ambiguities were deliberate, and have had significant consequences for the Church.One must first recall the words spoken by the secretary of the "Consilium"-commission when he was still secretary of the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy, Fr. Bugnini, at Domus Mariae on November 11th, 1961, to a small number of select members and consultants of the sub-commission on the evening before the plenary meeting on 12-15 November: "It would be most inconvenient for articles of our Constitution to be rejected by the Central Commission or by the Council itself. That is why we must tread carefully and discreetly. Carefully, so that proposals be made in an acceptable manner (modo acceptabile), or, in my opinion, formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything: let many things be said in embryo (in nuce) and in this way let the door remain open to legitimate and possible post-conciliar deductions and applications: let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and [that] might invalidate all the rest, even what is straightforward and harmless (ingenua et innocentia). We must proceed discreetly. Not everything is to be asked or demanded from the Council the essentials, the fundamental principles [are]" [30, p82]. Here Yves Chiron refers to: "Pontificia Commissio de Sacra Liturgia Preeaparatoria Concilii Vaticani II": Documenti, Testi, Verbali (Rome: Edizione Liturgiche, 2013) Angelo Lameri, 433).
As scheduled the draft Preparatory Liturgical Document went to the Central Preparatory Commission for transforming the draft into a final document. This Central Preparatory Commission had made changes and removed some undefined, radical and far-reaching proposals. This should be reworked by the executive subcommittee for the amendments in accordance to the decisions of the General Preparatory Committee. However, in contrary to the Central Preparatory Commission they replaced these undefined, radical and far-reaching proposals back in the final document. And this final document was then sent to Pope John XXIII falsely claiming that this final version would be in accordance to the Central Preparatory Commission.
Now, as there was no time to rewrite the final Preparatory Liturgical Document Pope John XXII accepted the falsified version and send it as scheduled to the Council Fathers. However he took the following measures. (1) Within a short era he promulgated surprisingly the 1962 Missal. And above all (2) fr. Bugnini was removed on orders from Holy See from his Chair at the Papal University [30, p8; 5] and (3) passed as secretary of the Council Commission [30, p83]. Apparently Fr. Bugnini was held responsible for the undefined, radical and far-reaching proposals, as called by him the embryonal ambiguities [30, p84]. Furthermore, at the Council (4) Cardinal Ottaviani should witness about the falsification of the Preparatory Document [30, p84-85, 89], however halfway Cardinal Alfrink turned off his microphone [30, p276].
 |
| In the Dutch Dominican weekly "Bazuin", volume 48, number 16 (Jan. 23rd, 1965), pp. 4-6, fr. Schillebeeckx quotes a theologian of the Theologian Commission, when he complained about the deliberately ambiguous text: "We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw out implicit conclusions" [31] |
This was indeed why Pope Paul VI had to intervene by adding the Nota Praevia to the Council Document Lumen Gentium.
See for more background here (http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/ambiguity.html).
From the end of the nineteenth century onwards, different schools of thought emerged from what Pope Pius XII called the "New Theology". However, this movement referred to itself as "Resourcement Theology" because it claimed to aim at retrieving forgotten or neglected themes from Scripture, from the Church Fathers, from the liturgy and from the works of classical theologians. This phenomenon included the biblical movement, the ecumenical movement, the liturgical renewal, the patristic renewal (especially advocated by those who launched the Sources Chr tiennes series) and the renewal of Thomism. This movement was strongly condemned in its extreme forms by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis [41].
While theologians attached to the "New Theology" opposed the Papal teaching contained in "Humani Generis", they nevertheless suggested that the main purpose of their movement was to return to earlier sources of the undivided Church. In this way, they hide the real purpose behind their search into these sources. Did they therefore disagree with the Doctrine of the Church and its preservation by the Holy Spirit? Hiding the motivation to reinterpret ancient sources includes the intrinsic risk that past developments in the deeper understanding of Truth will be rejected and considered incorrect. This can be well recognized, because some harken back to the first Vatican Council as being a false development that led to a schism concerning the Pope's infallibility (Anti-infallibism). Others go back to the Council of Trent and accuse it as being "on the whole inadequate" to heal Luther's schism (Reformation) [42]. Then others go even further back to the pre-Constantine era (political liberals, supporting the idea of modern democracy). These, considered as historically false developments, seem to be the foundation of the New Theology. With regard to this foundation, this is indeed why in the post-conciliar era the Church regularly came forwards with all kind of historical excuses for what the Resourcement Theology considered as historically false.
In this manner, the "Resourcement Movement" accuses the Church itself of being the actual cause of the evil of schisms, which implies that the Holy Spirit would have improperly preserved and guided the Church. Such an accusation is supported by statements such as "without doubt vital members were removed along with diseased ones (as is often frankly stated by Protestant theologians today)" [42]. This ignores the ever-present possibility for individual conversions of so-called "vital members". Also arguments such as "This is not the place to discuss the loss of substance that accompanied this amputation. ... But we want to study here the internal Catholic development" [42] might be considered in essence as further allegations against the Church and the Holy Spirit. Clearly they did not intend to argue about the Protestant's "loss of substance" in the light of the Church teachings. But sought the source of evil within the "internal Catholic development"
Apparently, it were these theologians with their Bishops and even Cardinals, advised by them, who came forwards with all kinds of "prophesised doom-scenarios" against the preparatory documents, specifically the doctrinal ones. They went so far that some of these Cardinals had plead to the Pope as "Prophets of Doom" for delaying (i.e. to stop) the preparation of the Council. Such in full contrast to the words of St. Pope John XXIII, who called in his Convocation to the Bishops these Preparatory Documents the result of the "blessing of God" [?] or were it the "prophets of doom" who rejected the preparatory work. So was the preparatory work blessed by the Holy Spirit or not.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html)
A division can currently be recognised in the Church regarding the hermeneutic of the documents of Vatican II. Indeed, these are (1) the hermeneutics of "In unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Fathers" [2]. This hermeneutic is explicitly expressed in his opening address, October 11, 1962, by Pope John XXIII as legislator of the Council when he adds the following: "the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all" [2], "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers" [2], "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" [2] and "the truth of the Lord will remain forever" [2]. From all these characteristics this hermeneutic is shortly called here the hermeneutic of "in unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Fathers" [2]. Furthermore (2) the hermeneutic of "Renewal, of reform" as distinguished by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 [15] into (2a) "Renewal, of reform in discontinuity and rupture" and (2b) "Renewal, of reform in continuity" respectively.
In the same way, even similarly, a division can be recognised in the Church regarding the liturgy into three movements confronting each other. Namely, those (1), who accepts Trent's definition that "Eucharist is a Sacrifice" and subsequently are strongly attached to the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal). Those (2a), who conform the Liturgical Movement rejects Trent s definition "Eucharist is a Sacrifice" and replaced it for a meaning that the Eucharist would be the "proper of the memorial meal of the Last Supper" and subsequently suppresses the Traditional Latin Mass (1962 Missal). They also do not take clear measures against the abuses in the use of the 1969 Missal. Finally those (2b) who are accepting this "proper of the memorial meal of the Last Supper" of the Liturgical Movement, but still interpret the Eucharist's proper according Trent's "Eucharist is a Sacrifice". This latter group is promoting the use of the 1969 Missal, but because of the loss of sacredness and the increase of abuses, they step more and more over to use and/or allow also the use of the 1962 Missal for an exchange of sacredness onto the 1969 Missal.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/hijack.html)
and here (http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/liturgical_crisis.html).