"WHAT TO DO WITH VATICAN II?"
by a priest of the sspx
Si certains lecteurs veulent rendre service et traduire des articles mis en ligne, qu'ils n'hésitent pas à nous écrire et nous mettrons au dessus de l'article : "en cours de traduction", afin que plusieurs personnes ne fassent pas en même temps le travail. Merci d'avance à ceux qui pourront faire quelque chose.
On what should be done with the teachings of Vatican II, the worst catastrophe in the history of the Church, there is no unanimity among the traditionalists.
Summarizing the main positions, it can be said that while some think that the texts of the council should make the distinction of truths and errors, accepting those and rejecting errors, others by contrast, claim healthiest is to declare the nullity of the whole council.
The question is in terms of this problem, using a simple analogy: what should be done with a poisoned cake? Would separate it poisonous from harmless, or throw the whole pie to the dump? Regarding council, perhaps a few good theologians are able to do that separation or distinction (work up to them will be extremely hard, frequently), but what about the common faithful?
We note, with concern, a tendency to adhere the first position, i.e., to reject the council, except as to the good parts, or-put inversely-, to accept the Vatican II, except bad parts. In fact, such is the idea of Bishop Fellay (cf. Doctrinal Statement, April 2012).
Given the serious consequences that may result, we find very important that among the traditionalists, not to evade the question.
On this matter, some quotes that we can illustrate:
a) Appointment of Archbishop Lefebvre ("fideliter" No. 66, November-December 1988): "Assuming that within a certain time Rome call us, that want to meet us again, to continue the dialogue, then it would be me who impose conditions. I will not accept longer to be in the situation where we found during conversations. That ended. I would present the doctrinal question: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you? Do you agree with the "Quanta Cura" of Pius IX, "Inmmortale Dei" and "Libertas" by Pope Leo XIII, with "Pascendi" of St. Pius X, with "Quas Primas" of Pius XI, with "Humani Generis" of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their statements? Do you accept the oath against modernism yet? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept your predecessor’s doctrine, it is useless to talk. While you do not accept reform The Council considering the doctrine of these Popes that preceded you, no dialogue is possible. It is useless." But history has proved that Rome modernists adhere to the council in such way that seems highly unlikely that someday they accept correct it.
b) Appointment of Bishop Williamson (Eleison Comment 269, September 8, 2012, "The Ambiguity of April"): “Pre-conciliar Tradition has got to be the measure and judge of Council teachings (and not the other way round). 2/ So Conciliar and post-conciliar teaching must all be sifted according to the whole of Traditional teaching prior to the Council, 3/ so as not to clash with anything that the Magisterium taught prior to the Council, 4/ accepting no interpretation or text that breaks with the pre-conciliar Tradition or Magisterium.”
c) Appointment of the "Breviary of SSPX" (1): «The Council itself encouraged liberal trends (and momentum will become Vatican post-conciliar policy) and separates itself from traditional Catholic teaching, but does not have authority for any of both things. Our position must be: "We refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestantism trend that is manifested clearly at Vatican II and after all the reforms that it arose» «And around these neo-modernist trends turns around the Council.»
d) Appointment of R.P. Alvaro Calderon ("The Teaching Authority of the Council Vatican II ", presentation at the Symposium for the 40th anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II): "The conciliar statements can not contribute in anything to ordinary teaching, as the vice that affects them prevents to link them to the declarations of the previous authentic statements. If a page, to give an example, which seems to reinforce and advance the Traditional teaching is precisely, is that one about the authority of hierarchical magisterium”, in Lumen Gentium n.25 of. Can we at least rescue this text? Certainly not, because in the previous chapter this same document is subordinate the duty to teach of the hierarchy to sensus fidei, forcing n.25 it compels to understand a very different doctrine to what is taught by the Vatican I. Moreover, the same notion of infallibility is blurred by holding that dogmatic formulas are always inadequate to express the revealed mystery, always allowing a degree of pluralism. (...) The Conciliar Magisterium not only lacks of authority, but it is reprehensible... It is clear that the doctrine that animates the conciliar documents belongs to the new theology, repeatedly condemned by previous Popes, generally, because of its intrinsic relativism. Therefore, the conciliar doctrine lacks not only as a simple authentic magisterium, is not exempt only of theological authority, but it is reprehensible as a whole, at least being imbued of relativism of the modern thought, revealed by their deliberate ambiguity language... we ended our discussion by expressing vehement hope that this symposium in the forty years of Vatican II solemnly declare the nullity of the conciliar magisterium. Because the vast multitude of our works has proved that its doctrine is perverted by the angle you look at it (...)" Very similar is the thought of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais regard
Our view: since salus animarum suprema lex, we think that we should choose for the safest for the souls and therefore adhere to the idea to reject all the council annulling the same, which does not implies to declare the falsity of any and all parts of the council, but to proclaim no value to Vatican II as "Magisterium of the Church" to safeguard the souls, for the good of the Church and to the glory of God.
A Priest of the SSPX