Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Cardinal Kasper's Admission....Traddy's Are NOT Wrong

I know I'm a little behind due to Spring planting, but I just came across this and WOW!!!!  Those of you who know me best, know that I've been saying this since at least 1994!  His Eminence says and I quote,

In many places, they had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them.  Thus the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction. [...] For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the Council are part of the Church's daily life.  But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the Church, which were expected at that time, but rather a Church which has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis. 
BOOM!  Literally.  This admission by one of the most liberal Catholic Cardinals since the Council itself  has come out and said that compromise and conflict were intentional.  He has admitted that the ambiguity of the Council was built in and that it was intentional.  That there were designs on delimitations (for those who might better understand it in these terms, deregulation).

Now when we read the documents, we find that there is a clear reason why there are no dogmas or doctrines defined, because there was never any intention to do so.  We find that documents like Sacrosanctum Concilium and Nostrae Aetate were intentionally vague and deregulatory.  We see that the leadership of the Church did have an agenda to effect the daily life of the Church in a way which was unclear, but the burning question is why?  What is the reason for the deregulation or delimiting?  If the texts had a huge potential for conflict (which has been realized), why were they ratified?

So, what now?  Those of us who have been calling this out now know that the premise we've been forwarding is correct.  We must go about proving it.

Why is this coming out now?  I think that perhaps (and this is my own opinion) that the baby boomer generation is starting to feel it's mortality, whereas before they had an air of invincibility.  I think that they are trying to set their legacy as really being proponents for change and this is a way to do it.  They've gone so long lying about the reality of what the documents of Vatican Council II actually said that now it has come time to say the truth and defend their actions so that they can put their mark firmly into history.  The Boomers lived their lives saying, "Don't trust anyone over 30...."  Now they are in their 60's and 70's and the truth is coming out...they didn't.  They were changing for the sake of change, not only in society, but as it has been admitted, in the leadership's actions surrounding the Church.

This is a sad commentary on a generation that didn't trust.  They didn't trust society, they didn't trust the Church.  They didn't trust in God.  And this is what we are left with, a false premise which defined two generations of Catholics.

The reality is that my generation didn't buy it, and those of us that are left (or are coming back) are those who will have to fix it.  And the first step is proving our premise.  A premise which was just spelled out by His Eminence.


  1. Andy Milam, I'm here from Southern Orders for the first time, and I'm well pleased! "They've gone so long lying about the reality of what the documents of Vatican Council II actually said..." While it is good to acknowledge the vagaries of VCII documents, I think we must also insist that much of post-VCII culture is contrary to the Council documents. VCII did not define limits as Trent did, but VCII does explicitly define itself as limited by Tradition.

  2. Welcome to the blog! I hope you enjoy my musings.

  3. Mr. Milam,

    I have enjoyed your commentary at the Fr. Z site, and popped over here to see more about the commenter. These are some great thoughts that you have on this topic. However, I would like to point out one aspect about the ambiguity issue.

    A frequently-held Traditionalist position is that the ambiguities are essential parts of the documents themselves. This itself seems to be borne out by the Cardinal's comments. However, a second part of that particular Traditionalist position is that the ambiguities themselves invalidate the documents wherever they CAN be misconstrued or poorly implemented.

    However, my own analysis on these ambiguities is as follows: 1) They WERE put in intentionally. 2) They were put in by the Progressives to get THEIR (often heretical) interpretation into the documents themselves. 3) The Progressives have used, are using, and will use THEIR interpretations to create and sustain the Spirit of Vatican II. 4) The non-Progressives let the ambiguities into the documents in the spirit of compromise. 5) The non-Progressives knew then and know now, as explained by Pope Benedict, that all teachings must be interpreted in a hermeneutic of continuity. 6) Thus, a heretical interpretation of an ambiguity in a Council document is an INVALID interpretation, and, no matter how much used, carries NO WEIGHT.

    I see the ambiguities making it into the document as being the Progressive's version of a "Hail Mary" pass--and once the ambiguities made it in, the Progressives thought they had changed Church teaching. (They certainly act that way now.) However, the non-Progressives knew that ambiguities could go in, but only consistent, continuous doctrine could come out, thanks to the action of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Progressives goal was thwarted by the very means they used to try to accomplish it. Therefore, nothing invalid or contradictory can be read into the ambiguities, even if the ambiguities were intentionally placed into the documents.

    Now, whether letting in the ambiguities just to get documents passed is ever a good PRUDENTIAL move, well, let's say time has proven that it was NOT.

    Michael Val
    (who hasn't read every document of VII, and it's been a while since he has read those he did)

  4. The three disputed teachings, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality, have been vigorously implemented in practice and in canon law by the entire heirarchy of the Church, from the very top to the bottom, not just by a number of 'progressives.' As Amerio and Gherardini among a growing number of theologians have argued, those texts and their associated practices must be explicitly repudiated. I am unsure of the recommendation of this post, that the premises be 'proven.' They have been proven (google Gleize Ocariz and you will see a clear statement with citations of traditional teaching on the three major issues side by side with the council texts). What they must be is implemented, the poison bits stuck in the throat of our sleeping Church Militant expelled. The need is most urgent, since the issues are not only theological in scope, but entirely social, entirely political. If we do not expell the idea that all religious beliefs are paths to heaven, even atheism, Europe is going to be lost to Islam. That is the thesis of Christopher Caldwell, an economist (Reflections on the Revolution in Europe), and he is only one of a growing number of professionals beginning to understand and sound the alarm regarding a castrated Catholic Church.

  5. I did not mean to sign in as unknown, but I couldn't make the other options work. I am the Unknown above, Janet Baker, the White Lily Blog, Chicago.

  6. October 7, 2013

    Pope Francis is interpreting magisterial documents with an objective error : he is using a dead man walking and visible theory