Church's Crisis
Jack P. Oostveen
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. Both these examples concerns opposite examples of misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church
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 the solidarity of religious unity, through the living flame of Christian fervor" [1]!
This problem probably goes back to the original era of the schism between East and West, and can only be adequately addressed and solved by developing a deeper understanding of the Faith 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 grown 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 by which the problem has been manifested also become visible.
It should be noted that treating symptoms alone will not solve the problem, as this will just worsen the crisis, as has been the case within the Church over the past few 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 [2]. 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.
This process of (theological) science, however, is essentially a human search for deepening the Truth through reason and logic and feeding the devotional love to God but also subjected to the free will of man. 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, 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. To this end, the Pope has the authority to institute an Office to assist him in this executive magisterial role whereas the Pope himself has to decide. Such actions cannot be done by theologians themselves. Moreover the resistance and even the attacks by the theologians against the Holy Office like happened before and during the Second Vatican Council are in fact acts against the Pope's Magisterium [3, 4].
While each "crisis" in the Church can be recognised by different symptoms, the underlying root cause is always a false understanding of the Truth, i.e. Divine Revelation that firstly started with a misunderstanding. In each case the specific underlying false understanding of Divine Revelation or heresy must be identified and refuted 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 present the conclusions and discusses some consequences, while chapter 5 contains several supporting appendices referring to earlier analyses of the Second Vatican Council, its hermeneutic and the Liturgical reform.
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:
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.
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 introduced 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 introduction 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 introduced 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 dual nature of the Church and deliberate obfuscation of the Truth is in complete contrast with Christ's personal call to conversion for every individual human person. And this evidently concerns both the hermeneutical and the Liturgical crises respectively.
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 striving for a "renewal" is in contradiction with this latter interpretation of "continuity", because this "renewal" cannot be a striving of the Church in itself, but only be a gift by the Holy Spirit.
So, both forms of the hermeneutic of "renewal, .. " principally are ambiguous novelties, based on 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.
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.
Moreover, 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. The Didache was mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) and therefore apparently considered as being a lost part of the Canon. However, while this list was requested by the Emperor Constantine as proposal for the Canon. the Council of Rome (382) voted in favor of the alternative list by Athanasius that had also been compiled at the request of Emperor Constantine. Note 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), two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419) as well as the Council of Florence(1431-1449) as an article of Faith and finally also by the Council of Trent(1545-1563).
This use of the Didache as "the oldest 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 another 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 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 understand 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. Schillebeeckx indeed characterized how both, the Hermeneutical Crisis and the Liturgical Crisis are clear symptoms of the Crisis of Faith.
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/liturgical_crisis.html) and here (Chapter 5.2).
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 [2]. 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, and probably even much longer, going back to the great Schism between East and West.
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 a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders of the Church, i.e. the Mystical Body of Christ. This root cause is like a two-edged sword, because within this relationship both orders can be over- and underestimated respectively. 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 regarding the "Mystical Body of Christ" (Chapter 4.2) and how Christ's fulfilment of the Law has worked out in the Sacred Liturgy of the H. Mass as the living Creed (Chapter 4.3>. To aid and assist in this work of deepening our understanding, some aspects are suggested below which may be helpful to good willing theologians, whose first task it is to work on how to solve this crisis by analysing and resolving the true balance between the natural and supernatural orders of the Church. Only by arguing from a position of Truth, the lies can be refuted.
Christ's Sacrifice of His Body on the cross is the same Sacrifice that He offers by His "Mystical Body" and His "Sacramental Body" in the Holy Eucharist.
Primarily the historical Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is perfect and unique. So, what can the Church as His "Mystical Body" add to it if this "Historical Sacrifice" is perfect and unique? And what then about His "Sacramental Body"? This can only mean that the Sacrifice of Christ's "Mystical Body, His Sacramental Body and His Historical Body must be considered supernaturally as one and the same Sacrifice. Therefore, the sufferings of individual faithful offered through the "Mystical Body of Christ" is supernaturally united in the Historical Sacrifice of Christ as well as the Sacramental Sacrifice of Christ, each time the H. Mass is celebrated [46, #81-84].
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".
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 in His grave and (3) His Historical Body in Heaven after His glorious Resurrection and Ascension. 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:
Christ is born to fulfil the Law. 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".
This fulfilment of the Law 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, but with His Conception and Birth: "He was born to fulfil the Law". The Birth of the "Innocent Lamb of God" that was born in the "Stable of the City of David", Bethlehem, i.e. the stable of the lambs usually destined for the Paschal Sacrifice. Therefore the Shepherds of this stable were the first to be informed by the angels about the "Birth of the Lamb of God" in their stable. And as it began with the Conception and Birth of the "Lamb of God" it ended with the Sacrifice of the "Eternal Lamb of God" on the cross after which His glorious resurrection and ascension could take place.
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 the High Priest, Christ" offers the Passover Lamb and then "in Person of the High Priest, Christ" eats first of the Passover Lamb as Sacrificial (Spiritual) Meal, after which the faithful as a "holy priesthood" follow. This is the one, true and eternal Sacrifice of the Eternal Passover Lamb, who is unblemished and 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 a commemoration 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/Spiritual Meal).
The institution of the Eucharist, therefore, does not refer to the Last Supper, but to the Sacrifice of our Lord as the innocent Lamb of God who as Scapegoat bears our sins. As such, the Eucharist is the same true and eternal Sacrifice for our sins in which Christ ultimately fulfilled the entire Old Testament Temple Cult. Mystically, the Eucharist at the Last Supper, preceding the Crucifixion, as well as all those taking place since then at each H. Mass by Christ in His "Mystical Body" is one and the same as the physical Sacrifice at Golgotha, It is Christ, the Eternal High Priest, who offers and sacrifices Himself on the cross for our sins in His Historical Body as well as in His Mystical Body.
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" [5]. 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" [5], "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers" [5], "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" [5] and "the truth of the Lord will remain forever" [5]. 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" [5]. 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).
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; 4] 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).
A method of breaking the rules was deliberately chosen and prepared by the French, German and Belgian Bishops. This (1) was proposed by Fr Dani�lou S.J. in the afternoon of October 12th, 1962 [3, p142); 32], then (2) discussed by the French Bishops on the evening of October 12th [3 p145; ], apparently (3) decided by a restricted number of six Cardinals including Cardinal Montini, the future Pope PaulVI [34, p162] and (4) worked out by Mgr. Garonne [35, p92]. Finally (5) executed by the French senior Cardinal Li�nart on October 13th, who illegally intervened against the procedure of the first working day of the Council [3, 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 [3, p145; 34, p161; 35, p92; 29, p231; 36, p17]. Then supported (7) by an illegal applauding majority of Council Fathers [3, 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 [3, 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 [34, 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; 3, p222].
See for more background here (https://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/hijack.html) .
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 #_chapter04-2)
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.
When Pope John XXIII decided to rewrite the preparatory document De Fontibus he formulated a strict order to the mixed committee that was tasked with this rewriting of De Fontibus 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, so the agreement was 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". 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. But in doing so he actually questioned the Teachings of Trent and Vatican II. 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, 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].
See for more background here (https://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/fruits-of-vatican_ii-part_2.html chapter 05.2.9) and here (http://ecclesiadei.nl/docs/revelation.html).