On Wednesday, Leo launched a new initiative with an Introduction to his planned General Audience series consisting of catechesis on the documents of Vatican II. For how long this weekly series will go on is anyone’s guess, but it seems likely to go on up to and perhaps beyond Lent.
In any case, beginning today, the akaCatholic Podcast will respond to each of Leo’s weekly catechetic sessions with a closer look at what he had to say and how it compares and contrasts with what the Church has always taught.
Beneath the video, a transcript will be provided for those who prefer to read. Your comments (on YouTube) are most welcome.
TRANSCRIPT
As most of you know, on Wednesday, January 7th, Leo announced that he intends to provide weekly catechesis on the documents of the Second Vatican Council. And so here, following each of Leo’s general audience presentations on Vatican II, we’re going to take a closer look at what he had to say and how it compares with what the Council actually stated, in context, by employing what I call the hermeneutic of cohesion. (I’ll provide a link below so you can see exactly what I’m talking about.)
And even more importantly, we’re going to see how his catechesis relates to the traditional doctrine of the Church. In other words, the teachings of previous Councils, the pre-conciliar papal magisterium, the insights provided by the pre-conciliar approved theologians and so on.
Yesterday, Leo got the ball rolling with an “introductory catechesis,” he calls it, proposing to offer a re-reading of the Council documents. Now I’m all for re-reading the conciliar text, provided, however, it’s done by the light of what the Church had consistently taught up to that point and then condemning each and every instance of an obvious rupture.
Now, I have no misgivings that that’s what Leo has in mind, however, that’s exactly what we’re going to do here.
Leo quoted John Paul II as saying in the year 2000:
I feel more than ever the duty to point to the Council as the great grace from which the Church has benefited in the 20th century.
Now evidently, Leo, like John Paul the second before him, is so diabolically deprived of any sensus Catholicus that he imagines that the Church benefited from such post-conciliar phenomena as bankrupt parishes and dioceses; seminaries that became homosexual hothouses and that eventually produced men who carried out the homosexual abuse of minors; rejection of the Social Kingship of Christ, which actually inspired a concerted effort on the part of the Vatican to discourage the Catholic State; the abandonment of the Church’s actual mission – we saw this post-Vatican II in the 20th century, so much so that for a churchman or a theologian, or any Catholic for that matter, to just simply repeat the words of St. Peter as spoken to the Jews on the day of Pentecost:
Do penance and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.
This is now considered anti-Semitic and something for which the Church should apologize profusely.
We could go on here, but presumably you get the point. I would challenge anybody to point to the great blessings for the Church that were the result of Vatican II. They’re simply not there.
Leo went on to say, “Along with the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea in 2025, we commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council.”
And so thinking of this, we would probably do well to consider the striking similarities between the Council of Nicaea and Vatican Council II.
CRICKETS
Okay, moving on. Leo said that we must not, “extinguish the Council’s prophecy and to continue seeking ways and means to implement its insights.”
And he said that this should be done, “not through hearsay or the interpretations that have been given to it, but by rereading its documents and reflecting on their content.” And the reason Leo says this is necessary is because, “it is the Magisterium that still constitutes the guiding light of the Church’s journey today.”
And so this raises a question: If the Magisterium is the guiding light, in particular as it applies to the documents of Vatican II, what are we to make of the alleged Magisterium of the past 60 years?
Think about it, from Paul the Pathetic, to John Paul the Great Ecumenist, to Benedict the Fearful Bavarian, to Francis the Loquacious, each and every one of these putative popes were dedicated to providing an authoritative interpretation of Vatican Council II. In fact, they provided us with a crystal clear example of what Vatican II looks like in action.
And so one wonders, why is Leo now proposing to do so anew?
Well, the reason for this is actually fairly simple. Vatican II is, and it always has been, an exercise in novelty. And as such, that exercise is never really complete. This means that the magisterium, such as it was expressed in bygone years, may not be capable of guiding the Church along the way today.
In his address to the bishops at Vatican II on December 7, 1965, the day before its formal closing, Paul VI indicated as much when he said this:
And if quite a few questions raised during the course of the Council itself still await appropriate answers, in the post-conciliar period, God willing, the Council’s generous and well-regulated energies will be applied to the study of such questions.
In other words, what he’s indicating here is that the work of the Council goes on. Earlier in that same year, in September of ’65, Paul VI had put the mechanism in place, at least one of the mechanisms, that would keep the Council’s exercise and novelty humming along even after its formal closing, and that mechanism is called the Synod of Bishops.
In the so-called Apostolic Letter that established the Synod of Bishops as a permanent part of the conciliar Curia, Montini stated its purposes moving forward. And among those purposes is this:
To facilitate agreement at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.
Now I challenge you, tell me please, in September of ’65, which essential matters of doctrine, matters of authentic Catholic doctrine that is, were as yet so unclear that agreement among the members of the Church, the hierarchy in particular, did not exist?
Again, keep in mind, Montini’s speaking about essential matters of doctrine. In other words, those doctrines that are foundational and have to do with the essence of the Catholic faith.
So the answer is pretty obvious, isn’t it? The Catholic answer, anyway, is that there were none, there were no essential matters of doctrine that were up for discussion. But in the conciliar mindset, all of them are. And so this Vatican II exercise in novelty simply must continue. And it does continue in our day, for one, in the form of the Synod of Bishops.
At this, I’m sure you recall that one of Leo’s first declarations to the world, spoken from the loggia at St. Peter’s on the day of his election, was this: “We want to be a synodal church.”
Speak for yourself, Leo!
And so it is with this in mind that he is now embarking on a re-reading of the documents of Vatican II, in his words, to examine its “prophecy.”
It should only make sense that he would consider the content of the Council to be a matter of prophecy. And why do I say that? Well, because treating the text more as a foretelling than as a collection of objective teachings, this allows for, and in fact it demands, a constant re-reading of the text, a re-reading that’s ever new and ever changing based on one’s assessment of the current events of the day, right? Or what is termed in Councilspeak as “the signs of the times,” something that Leo will refer to later on.
In his introductory catechesis, Leo alluded to this when he said that the Council documents will “prove particularly pertinent in relation to the new needs of the Church.”
This really jumped out at me, the new needs of the Church, and I think it’s important because, you see, the pre- conciliar popes often taught that the Church is a “perfect society.”
By this, they weren’t implying that the faithful, up to and including the popes, are perfect in themselves, but rather, as Pope Leo XIII explained in his Encyclical, Immortale Dei:
The Church is a society chartered as of divine right, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and lovingkindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action.
In other words, what Pope Leo XIII was telling us is that the Church in all ages, by our Lord’s generous provision, it’s ever endowed with everything that she needs in order to accomplish the purpose for which she was established. In other words, the Church is never lacking in what she needs. There are no new needs for which our Lord has not already accounted and provided.
To imagine that the Church at various times has new needs, well, this seems to imply that she is at times lacking, i.e., that the Church must somehow look beyond herself in order to be all that Christ established her to be.
Now, I’m sure some viewers might be thinking to themselves, I think maybe you’re reading a little bit too much into this, but I can assure you that I’m not when we look back to what the Council actually said.
In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, the Council states concerning the people of God – which, incidentally, the document Lumen Gentium has already told us is the Church, the People of God is the Church, Gaudium et Spes says this:
The People of God and the human race in whose midst it lives renders service to each other.
The belief that the Church is somehow serviced or receives a service of some kind by those who are outside of her, well, this is irreconcilable with the firm conviction so clearly taught up to that point that the Church is a perfect society.
We see more of this in the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, where we find this gem:
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification and can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
Well, as you might expect, John Paul the Great Ecumenist carried that message forward in the document Ut Unum Sint on ecumenism where he said:
The Second Vatican Council made it clear that elements present among other Christians can contribute to the edification of Catholics.
Needless to say, Francis carried that ball forward himself in Evangelii Gaudium. Ranting about non-Catholic self-identified Christians, he said this:
If we really believe in the abundantly free working of the Holy Spirit, we can learn so much from one another … It’s about reaping what the Spirit has sown in them, which is also meant to be a gift for us.
And so, you see, the Catholic Church, in the conciliar mindset, can learn a thing or two from the heretics and the schismatics!
Not only does this amount to a rejection of the Church as a perfect society, it’s worse than that in a way; it’s an inversion of the Divine Commission by which our Lord established a teaching Church.
The Vatican II Church by contrast? Well, this is a learning Church. It’s a listening Church. It’s a synodalChurch.
Now getting back to the People of God as conceived by the Council, which, as I mentioned, considers the People of God to be synonymous with the Church:
It’s really important to know that the People of God, insofar as the Council is concerned, includes all of the baptized. In other words, it includes the Protestants, the schismatics, and even arguably those who have apostatized entirely.
So, with that in mind, consider what Leo went on to say. He said:
When Pope St. John the 23rd opened the Council on October 11, 1962, he initiated an important liturgical reform, by placing the mystery of salvation and the active conscious participation of all the People of God at the center.
Now there’s no doubt that we’re going to discuss this in some more detail when Leo offers his so-called catechesis on Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. But for now, know this, ecumenism was a driving force behind nearly everything the Council taught.
And so, understood in content, it’s perfectly clear that the active and conscious participation in the liturgy that the Council encouraged, well, that included, and perhaps even first and foremost, that of the Protestants, which explains precisely why the Novus Ordo is so man-centered and earthbound, and why it’s such a comfortable experience for the heretics. We’ll have more to say on that in future episode, I’m sure.
Drawing from the language of the Council, Leo refers to the Church as, “a sacrament of unity between God and his people.”
Now, once again, I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity to talk about this in some more detail, in this case, when Leo addresses the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. But for now, suffice it to say that the Church is not a sacrament. There are only seven sacraments. I’ve got news for you, there are not eight of them!
And those sacraments are entrusted to, and administered by, the Church, which is, according to tradition, defined as a visible society of men who are united in faith, charity, worship, and government.
Calling the Church “a sacrament,” well, it’s intentionally vague. It’s meant to distract from the visible, the knowable nature of the Mystical Body of Christ, and therefore the visible and knowable nature of membership in the Church.
And why on earth would the Council want to replace that very clear definition of the Church with this ethereal, subjective thing?
Well, the reason is simple: It’s to accommodate the heretics, like many of the things that the Council did. Elsewhere, Leo stresses this vague understanding of what the Church actually is by quoting Paul VI as saying:
Thanks to the Second Vatican Council, the Church becomes word, the Church becomes message, the Church becomes conversation.
Now there’s some truth to this insofar as he’s speaking about the conciliar church. Pius XII described the one true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, just as I mentioned, a visible society of men united in faith, charity, worship, and governance.
Leo then says of the Church that she is, “committing itself to seeking the truth through the path of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and dialogue with people of goodwill.”
Did you get that? The conciliar church makes no claim at all to possessing the fullness of truth. Rather, it seeks the truth, and it seeks it through ecumenism, chatting it up with people of other religions, and even with people of so-called goodwill who are of no religion at all, i.e., atheists.
The Council’s ecclesiology, my friends, it simply isn’t Catholic in any way. It describes a church that is needy, a church that is lacking. In the words of Paul VI, it is a church that becomes word, message, and conversation.
It’s just so effeminate and so ethereal and subjective and impossible to get your hands around.
Now, the most concrete expression of the Church that was given by Leo in his introductory catechesis on Wednesday is that she is called to “collaborate with humanity in the construction of a more just and more fraternal society.”
And Leo went on to say, “We are called to remain attentive interpreters of the signs of the times, joyful heralds of the gospel, courageous witnesses of justice and peace.”
Now these sound like noble aspirations, a society built on justice and peace, but at this I’m going to call to your attention once again to the words of Pope Pius XI as taught in Quas Primas. He tells us this:
Society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony when once men recognize both in private and in public life that Christ is King.
That’s the Catholic recipe for peace, harmony, discipline, liberty and so on. It’s not a re-reading the documents of Vatican that describes a church that becomes conversation.
And needless to say – and we’ll talk about this I’m sure again in future episodes – Vatican Council II essentially dethroned Christ the King and put man in his place.
The leaders of the pre-conciliar church can collaborate with the rest of humanity all they want, but apart from proclaiming and giving heed to the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, their efforts are going to lead only to hell on earth, and unfortunately, it’s going to lead to eternal Hell for many souls who are being deceived.
And so with that, I’m going to wrap it up today and encourage you to tune in next week for our next edition of Conciliar Catechesis Watch, a motif taken from Novus Ordo Watch. We’re going to keep an eye on what Leo has to say in his General Audiences on Wednesdays, and I want to try to confine my comments to responding to the things that he says, but of course, it’s going to be necessary throughout to veer off into other parts of the Council documents because we need to understand Vatican II as a complete whole, not just individual snippets taken from one document or the next.
We have to look at the totality of what the Council had to say in order to come to an understanding of what the Council considers the definition of the words that they use. And very often, you’re going to find that the definitions at play are not Catholic definitions, even if the words are familiar.
I’m also going to ask you – for those who are interested and haven’t yet seen my series with Kevin Davis at Catholic Family Podcast, where I’m going through the key documents of the Council one by one – to please do so. I’ll provide a link below and I thank you for joining me and I look forward to seeing you next week.
The Hermeneutic of Cohesion explained.
Vatican II Revisited on Catholic Family Podcast
