… And they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.
What fascinating times we Catholics live in! The anthropological twist that we are experimenting in the Church—in all ecclesial settings, but most especially palpable in the liturgy—wreaks utter havoc. It is the cult of man that has, alas, occupied the minds and hearts of even the highest authorities in Holy Mother Church, as Bl. Paul VI ironically recognized in the last public session at the close of the Second Vatican Council on 7 December 1965:
Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind. This is the current official English translation on the Vatican website.
The official Latin reads: Hanc saltem laudem Concilio tribuite, vos, nostra hac ætate cultores humanitatis, qui veritates rerum naturam transcendentes renuitis, iidemque novum nostrum humanitatis studium agnoscite: nam nos etiam, immo nos præ ceteris, hominis sumus cultores.
A much more accurate English translation would read: we more than anyone else, have the cult of man.
The impression given is that someone in the Holy See decided that to translate “hominis sumus cultores” as “we… have the cult of man”—certainly a faithful translation—sounded un-Catholic, so much so that it reads “we… honor man.” But that’s quite a different translation!
In any case, whatever the translation, the Pope’s discourse is quite clear in its proposition: to recall the Second Vatican Council’s preoccupation with man, enough so that man has actually been placed in the center of the Council’s deliberations. Indeed, a clear anthropological slant has taken the place of the heretofore theocentric orientation in traditional Church Magisterium. Without formally forsaking doctrine, of course, nonetheless the Council’s preoccupation is therefore fundamentally pastoral in nature.
And thus being so, the resulting devastation of the Lord’s Vineyard can be perceived at all levels, and alas, even at the highest levels of apostolic authority, as was the case for Bl. Paul VI in 1965. And under Francis as well with a particularly strong intensity.
It was in a television interview with the recently Francis-appointed Archbishop of Chicago, Msgr. Blase Cupich, who asserted that someone had said it this way: that (St.) John Paul II told us what to do, that Benedict XVI told us why we should do it, and that Francis is telling us to do it. But obviously emphasizing the reigning Pontiff’s style, in other words, that of being eminently “pastoral,” perhaps even implicitly insinuating that Francis’ two predecessors were less so…
In another television interview regarding the Synod on the Family held in Rome in October 2014, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington D.C., took great care in explaining how “doctrine” would not change, but that “pastoral applicability” was a flexible matter.
Do we detect a kind of gnostic dualism here? Can “doctrine,” particularly dogmatic, be one, unchangeable thing, while “pastoral applicability” be another thing altogether, subject to change, although somewhat related to a supposedly unchanging doctrine?
It would seem then that under the pontificate of Francis, now is the time for being more “pastoral,” even—perhaps—to the extent of dispensing with undue doctrinal concerns, or so we are told. And told we are continually, not only by the press, not only by certain key prelates—who seem to represent the Pope’s view on these issues—but clearly insinuated by Francis himself in his addresses: daily homilies, interviews, discourses, etc.
For now is the time… Really? As if the Church only now discovers her pastoral apostolic mission. As if the Church hadn’t always had a pastoral preoccupation ever since her divine-apostolic origins. As if the Church had forgotten, over two millennia!, that her pastoral endeavors always sought to procure the eternal salvation of souls. As if the Church had forgotten that even in her canonical legislation—apparently a cold, pharisaical “legalism” that Francis dislikes, as he repeatedly manifests—the ecclesial Body of Christ has the wisdom of putting the salvation of souls as the highest of her laws: … et præ oculis habita salute animarum, quæ in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet / … and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes. (cf. c. 1752 CIC 1983).
Could it be today, still, what a younger theologian by the name of Joseph Ratzinger, had said in the mid-1970s—certainly not the best of times for the Church—that modern man ran the risk of converting into an idol of worship the times he lives in?
Ironically though, this would not really be anything new. A variant of this idol worship—a golden calf—is what the ancient Hebrews did during the Exodus from those over four hundred years of slavery in Egypt. Another variant is what many Catholics have been doing in more recent times: that of opening up the Church to the modern world.
In fact, this was one of Vatican II’s major goals. The windows and the doors of the Church—it was boldly and proudly said in the 1960s—must be opened to let in the fresh air of a new springtime and a new Pentecost! And yes, windows and doors were indeed opened… but why? And to what?
I’ll tell you what: a pseudo-idol worship of the “signs of the times,” of the modern world, which has resulted in a massive abandonment of Christian life, in individuals and in societies, leading up to what Bl. Paul VI lamented—a bit late in the day—as menacing dark clouds gathering over a doubting Church. And what St. John Paul II termed a “silent apostasy.”
Had not Pius XII feared that the Church one day would doubt, as Peter had doubted?
One cannot choose but to wonder if Paul VI and John Paul II were ever aware of their contribution in helping to bring this about, due to crucial errors in prudential pastoral judgements… i.e. if Paul VI hadn’t sanctioned a pastoral epic failure, as Dietrich von Hildebrand feared: an anthropocentric, drastically “reformed” liturgy that objectively breaks with the Roman liturgical tradition of the Church, and if John Paul II hadn’t been so eager to hold pastorally imprudent inter-religious meetings for “peace” in Assisi, giving the impression of religious indifferentism.
If indeed it is true, as it seems to be the case, that Pope Francis and other prelates according to his mind and heart, are insinuating that unchanging Catholic doctrine is one thing, but changing pastoral applicability of that doctrine is another thing, they are essentially dividing two inseparable dimensions of the same reality: something that should not—indeed, cannot be done—at least not without serious pastoral consequences.
We must not be ingenuous: Catholic doctrine need not be changed in any formal way in order for it to change in practice. That’s much too obvious for the modernist. All doctrine needs is to be simply honored by giving it lip service… which in the Novus Ordo régime really means ignoring it, and have it “changed” informally by an unorthodox pastoral applicability. And voilà! Doctrine remains intact, and yet is no more…
This amounts to nothing else but a dangerous doctrinal/pastoral schizophrenia, that makes the hipocrisy of the Pharisees in the Holy Gospels pale by comparison.
+Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre once wisely remarked that the issues in the Church are always on doctrine. Naturally, because Catholic doctrine is based on divine Revelation: it’s revealed truth of who God is, and who we are, poor sinners, in need of Redemption. Doctrine has therefore an essentially salvific dimension; it’s for our sake and for our salvation. Authentic pastoral care merely applies revealed truths. That’s being a pastor according to God’s own heart.
St. Paul tells of Christ being One, and thus not divided, in an apostolic exhortation to the early Christians to not become divided among themselves: Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:13). To use the phrase in this context, this has many, many “pastoral applications” today as well.
And so, as this threatening doctrinal and pastoral gnostic dualism surrounds us in our times, we Catholics must do what must always be done: hold on fast to Traditions as handed down by the Apostles, as St. Paul exhorts (2 Thess 2:15), which is the divine bimillennial proven antidote to sustain our faith, hope, and charity, in the midst of all our modern-ist ecclesial woes.
We must take heart from the great Father of the Church, St. Irenaeus of Lyon (+202), Bishop and Martyr, in his famous work against the heretics, “Adversus hæreses,” whereby he warns the faithful: The heretics say things similar to us {Catholics}; but they do not think like we do. And also, referring to their false doctrines, which are mere Gnostic deliriums of those who think they’ve discovered something beyond Truth.
Indeed, what possible incoherent doctrinal and pastoral Truth can anyone think to discover beyond Christ’s open Sacred Heart on the Cross—Heart not divided—but whole, pierced out of Love for our Redemption?
“Catholic doctrine need not be changed in any formal way in order for it to change in practice. That’s much too obvious for the modernist. All doctrine needs is to be simply honored by giving it lip service…”
This has been all too obvious these last 50 years, as in for example, the introduction of communion in the hand and the “new mass” leading de facto to a loss in belief of transubstantiation – hence the sacrilegious masses and loss of reverence, without the dogma ever having been EXPLICITLY denied.
To me, St Irenaeus’ statement that “The heretics say things similar to us {Catholics}; but they do not think like we do.” seems like a perfect description of the Bishop of Rome. It is manifestly clear that Francis doesn’t THINK like a Catholic.
PS Someone may argue, how can I know what Francis thinks? I cannot directly enter into his mind, obviously, but it is nevertheless true that we ACT as we BELIEVE. And beliefs do indeed come from the mind, from thoughts.
Our Lord Himself said:
“But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man.”
Matthew 15:18
Welcome aboard Father! Thank you for a first good article:+) Yes, it’s the schizophrenia of “I’ll say one thing but do another.” I recall Our Lord warning His apostles about the Pharisees “do as they say but not as they do.” If the current modernist leadership attempts to splice out pastoral application from doctrine they are no different then the Pharisees…and Our Lord had some terrifying words to say about them.
And yes, the gnostic concept of discovering something “beyond truth” reminds me of the sad nuns on the bus speaking about “living beyond God” which is ludicrous since God is everywhere and all powerful. How do you live beyond existence itself? Delusional.
Sadly Pope JP II and Pope Benedict embraced the errors of Vatican II, promoting them even via Assisi, kissing Korans, no discipline, and focusing on man etc. We cannot judge their hearts but let us pray our Lord has mercy on them and helps us return to Tradition asap:+) God bless~
Thank you, Father, for your insights. Sad to say that when one discusses Holy Mother Church, and the crisis, with any modern Catholic there is no commonality of language or thought.
–
Modern people have no grounding in even the simplest philosophy, and have no idea about the natural law. Can’t attribute fault here because there is no teaching in the home or at school. We need a ‘new Pentecost’ all right!
–
Without knowing why God made us, who we are as ‘human’ beings, and how we are to live out our allotted time here, there can be no change in this crisis.
Dear Father,
Shouldn’t Our Lord’s reigning Vicar be referred to as the Holy Father, Pope Francis I, rather than Francis and Our Lord’s deceased Vicars, as the Holy Fathers, Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II, rather than Paul VI and John Paul II?
According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and summit
Vatican ii council 1965
Chapter 1(12)
Yes, Father Campo, “fascinating” and very sad—“These are the times that try men’s souls.” We need courageous priests to come forward and be what they were ordained to be — consecrated laborers for Christ and His Church with the one true mission to save souls. Thank you, Father, I’m sure we all look forward to your contributions and wise words. The Catholic faithful are in dire need of an oasis in this desert. May God bless you and Our Lady guide you.
“Implore God with prayers and tears to send you a guide who is dispassionate and holy. But you yourself should also study the divine writings – especially the works of the fathers that deal with the practice of the virtues – so that you can compare the teachings of your master with them; for thus you will see and observe them as in a mirror.
Take to heart and keep in mind those of his teachings that agree with the divine writings, but separate out and reject those that are false and incongruent. Otherwise you will be led astray. For in these days there are all too many deceivers and false prophets. ”
+ St. Symeon the New Theologian
Thank you, Father Campo. The term “pastoral” needs banning at this stage, it is so often used to appear to justify the sanctioning of that which is in opposition to Faith and morals, of sinful behaviour.
Pastoral, of course, leads us to The Good Shepherd. “He ruleth me, and I shall want nothing.” But we don’t want to be ruled. We don’t want to ‘be wanting’ in anything, but being ruled? Forget about it.
–
I would rather be a little helpless sheep, ruled by the most Wonderful, Loving, Powerful, Protective Shepherd than be out there floating in the cosmos as ‘man’ relying on my own power.
Blesseds and Saints stand up to the Catholic tests of sainthood. Frauds do not. As soon as someone refers to Paul VI or JPII using titles they have not merited, they lose any credibility they might have had with me. Guardian of the eyes and all that.
Sorry, Father. You might otherwise have had something good to say.
Interesting… The forest for the trees… I honestly don’t believe that the varied manner of address to Popes in this article is inappropriate. That we can legitimately disagree with the prudence of the Church’s declaration of Blessed and Sainthood, does not put us above the action of the Church, nor does said declaration suppose a canonization of a pontificate, in the case of a Pope, though it may imply it because of an inappropriate political decision to “canonize” Vatican II. In any case, the article is respectfully critical of the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II. Be that as it may, the article’s main point is really something else. Notwithstanding, the article may yet have something worthwhile!
Peter Lamb, to use the term Holy Father or the Pope’s name is a matter of legitimate preference. It’s actually no more appropriate or less so to employ either. But when referring to the reigning Pontiff, the Holy See has comfirmed that it’s not Francis I, just Francis. And if you are going to employ the beatified prefix, it’s not St. Paul VI, it’s Bl. Paul VI.
“That we can legitimately disagree with the Church’s declaration of Blessed and Sainthood …”
But Father, I thought canonizations were infallible?
I’m sorry, I should have more clearly specified: it should read “That we can legitimately disagree with the prudence of the Church’s declaration of Blessed and Sainthood…” I’ll modify it in that post.
Dear Father Campo,
No apology necessary! Your article makes excellent points and it is encouraging to read this coming from a priest in an age when too many of our clergy are “going along to get along.” I see no point in creating “red herrings” which distract the reader from the main point of the message. Father, I look forward to your next article. Please write again soon! God bless you!
“Ditto”.
Thank you Father Campo for a very critical, yet charitable article.
I think, though, some of the negative reaction to your article may come from anxiety we feel that matters in the Church are really accelerating and coming to a head in some form or other — especially with this pontificate —- and that more drastic and urgent appeals are now more than ever necessary.
Anyway, with the faith that Christ the King continues to reign and the hope that God in his infinite and eternal Wisdom has a ‘timing’ not as our own, maybe we should resign ourselves to the fact that not all these issues will resolve themselves in our lifetime.
Dear Father,
Thank you for replying. Please understand that, whatever I say, I never mean any disrespect to you personally. The very sad reality is that you are a NO Priest and I am a sedevacantist. Both Catholics, yet poles apart. I did not mean my question as a red herring. I meant it quite genuinely. I have always considered canonizations to fall under the mantle of infallibility and, as far as I know, they do. To my mind the canonization of any of the conciliar popes raises great concerns on a number of levels. Paul VI is a particularly good bad example. In the external forum he was a heretic, a judeo-mason who donned the ephod, the insignia of the High Priest of the Jews, over the papal robes and a sodomite. Now our Mother, the Church, assures us that canonized souls are in heaven and she raises them up as examples of heroic virtue for us, the faithful, to venerate and imitate in virtue. Which of Paul VI’s virtues should we venerate and imitate most? Would our Mother, the Church, give her children stones for bread, or snakes for fish? Yet this is precisely what our New Mother has done! She has even given us a koran-kisser and presider of Assisi to venerate as well. By doing these things has New Mother not exposed herself as a fraud and usurper? Is She really our true Mother of old that bore us? Are these canonizations not in fact very revealing of her falsity to us?
“… we can legitimately disagree with the prudence of the Church’s declaration of Blessed and Sainthood…”
But Father, our Mother was founded by Our Father to lead us to salvation. Our salvation is her prime preoccupation. How can we, her Catholic children, disagree with that which she has infallibly proclaimed? Are we to believe that our true Mother would proclaim anything infallibly, yet imprudently? Our true Mother would never do such a thing! She is spotless and impeccable and the Bride of Christ! I will never disagree with anything she taught me.
Peter Lamb, actually I’m a bi-ritual priest, and my NO is as TLM as possible. I will concede this for the sedevacantists: doubtless you all are having a field day with Francis! Perhaps I can tune even finer my response: we can legitimately disagree with the Pope’s prudential judgement at proclaiming Blessed and Saints. As to the declarations themselves, yes, it is my understanding that such proclamations are minor infallible pronouncements, or at the very least, canonizations. That of course presupposes that we recognize the Pope, in this case, Francis.
Alarico, indeed, God’s timing is not our own necessarily. And no, we probably won’t see all the issues which are greatly troubling the Church resolved in our lifetimes.
Thank you all for wishing to make a commentary!
The rubber hit the road for me especially with canonization of Pope John Paul II. Seemed to be only two alternatives: either canonizations weren’t infallible or I could declare on my own as a layperson that there was no Pope. The dilemna was that I found neither alternative had any support based on Church precedence but I felt there was at least a little bit more of a grey area and even some confusion when it came to the infallibility of canonizations and here’s an example of what I mean: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/canonizzazioni-canonizations-canonizaciones-35158/
Dear Father,
Please don’t get cross with me, but fair is fair. You were ordained in the NO rite; you are obedient to a NO Bishop; You are subject to the NO hierarchy and recognize Bergoglio as the true Pope; you say the NO mass and confect NO sacraments. You are a NO priest.
Infallible is infallible.
Am I incorrect in presupposing that you recognize Francis as Pope? I am presupposing that you recognize all conciliar popes as Popes. The NO, the FSSP and the SSPX recognize Francis and the conciliar popes as being true Popes. Therefore Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II are infallibly canonized and held up for veneration and imitation b Not so?y you all.
Canonization does not open the gates of Heaven for a Pope or anyone else. Our Lord does not make mistakes. If a “canonized saint” is truly in Heaven, then that is where he/she belongs. The Church could canonize someone with the most elaborate ceremony it can possibly do and if the soul does not belong in Heaven, it will make no difference. The judgement of souls belongs to God and God alone. I don’t get too excited over the canonizations of the post-conciliar popes. Our Lord has the last word and does not take instruction from those on earth even if it is the Pope. I agree that the canonizations of post-conciliar popes were merely to canonize Vatican II. Like everything else, that deceptive act will have its consequences. In the end, all of this confusion will be sorted out. In the mean time, “Be Catholic”. We will be judged also.
Dear Fr. Campo,
Thanks for pointing out this vital truth- that the highest priority of the Church must always be the salvation of souls.
___
It’s the key factor in recognizing errors, and the reason it’s important we continue denouncing modernist ideas to redefine public sins like sodomy and adultery, d as things that should be ignored, “pastorally” by the community of the faithful, -NOT treated as the grave scandals condemned by God that they are, which leave the sinner unworthy of Eucharistic reception, and lead them and others to Hell.
__
Pope Francis praised Cardinal Kasper, who we know claims to share this priority of the salvation of souls while denying that any of his beliefs, proposals or
practices works to directly sabotage it. The errant philosophers of this past century, (whom modernists like him follow), in essence reject God’s terms for salvation, claiming the Holy Spirit positions all people on a wide path to “gradual” cosmic oneness in God, WITHOUT requiring of them the specific free-will decisions and actions Our Lord and His Church have always (and urgently) taught are necessary for salvation. These include the renunciation of false beliefs and sin, in exchange for Truth and Baptism which makes possible a continuous sharing in the Divine Life though Sanctifying Grace, which can remain in the soul with the help of the other Sacraments of the Church, especially Confession and the Holy Eucharist. That is the only thing necessary for the community of believers to be able “welcome” someone, and for a person to reach their judgment day free of mortal sin–i.e. saved from Hell and ready for Purgatory or Heaven.
Are canonizations infallible? This question ties directly into the definition of
canonization, which is “[t]he public testimony of the Church to the sanctity and the glory of one of the faithful departed. This testimony is issued in the form of a judgment decreeing to the person in question the honors due to those who are reigning with God in Heaven. By this decree he is inscribed in the catalogue of the Saints, and invoked in public prayers; churches are
dedicated to God in memory of him, his feasts are kept, and public honors are paid to his relics.This judgment of the Church is infallible.”
Notice that it is the public testimony of the Catholic Church that the person being canonized possessed great holiness, and that it is an infallible act of the Church. Does this mean the Church could never canonize someone unworthy of being canonized? Absolutely; the Church could never canonize Martin Luther or Voltaire, for example.
Pope Benedict XIV declared: “The universal Church cannot be led into error concerning matters of morals by the Supreme Pontiff; but this would be the case if he were not infallible in the canonization of saints.”
No writer of repute doubts that this last decree of Canonization is an
exercise of the infallible authority of the Church, for were it mistaken, the whole Church would be led into offering superstitious worship.”
Fr. Faber informs us that Canons 57 and 58 at the time (19th century) declare “precisely the same: ‘Whosoever shall call the just unjust, and the unjust just, is abominable before God. Likewise he who says that a Saint is not a Saint, or on the other hand declares that he who is not a Saint is a Saint, is abominable before God;’ and ‘Whosoever believes a man to be a Saint who is not one, and joins him to the society of God, he violateth Christ.”
“In the Church,” says the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, “there can be no damnable error; but this would be a damnable error, if he were venerated as a Saint who was in reality a sinner.”
“Hence we believe the infallibility of the Church in the Canonization of Saints, and those whom she has canonized to be Saints, not by divine faith, nor by purely human and fallible faith, but on ecclesiastical and infallible faith, founded on the assistance given by the Holy Ghost to the Church.
“Any one who should deny a canonized Saint to be in heaven, would not
thereby be actually a heretic, but he would be (a) temerarius, (b) scandalous, (c) impious, and suspected of heresy.”
What does this mean for those who acknowledge the Vatican II Church to be the Catholic Church?
(1) You must accept the canonization of John Paul II; (2) you must acknowledge that he practiced virtue in a heroic degree; and (3) you must admit that he set a good example for the Faithful.
There is very much more on this intricate subject to be read here:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/canonization-johnpaul2.pdf
So yes, if the NO canonizes Paul VI and JP II it is saying they are in heaven and were models of heroic virtue. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry! I thought Paul VI had been canonized already.
One day, perhaps, St Peter Lamb…
“Not all the saints started well but they all finished well.” ~Saint Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney
Hope so! I’m doing my best. Arn’t you?