After the talks: 'You have to choose' An open letter to Sì Sì No No by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.

After the talks: 'You have to choose'

An open letter to Sì Sì No No

by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli, O.P.

Dear Friends,

I read the article “Punti fermi” ["Firm Points], in [the] 31st October 2011 [issue of Sì Sì No No, the influential Traditional Catholic Italian journal closely linked to the SSPX], and the section by “Dominicus” on the matter of such sensitive character as truth in theology and our Holy Catholic Faith - with quotations from Thomist authors, as is your habit - made me think immediately of my mission as a Son of St. Dominic, of which you are already aware, having quoted me at other times in your journal.

So I would like to take the opportunity of thanking you once again, as a Dominican professor of Theology in Bologna, who has been following you for many years - in fact, since the 1980s when I was working at the Secretariat of State, where even your interesting Bollettino used to arrive.

For some time now there has been a frank discussion going on between us, with regard to very important themes of topical interest in ecclesial circles; in particular, how to interpret and what value to attribute to some of the doctrinal teachings of Vatican II, which present novelty with respect to Tradition and the preceding Magisterium of the Church. Novelty which makes one think of a “rupture” or of a “contradiction”, rather like saying the Council was wrong or it teaches falsity, when referring to immutable truths from previous doctrine that cannot be reformed, i.e. dogmatic faith, or anyway, even if it is not defined as belonging to the faith, nonetheless of the substance of the faith. The first one, you are acquainted with well, in your knowledge of traditional hermeneutics, is de fide credenda or divine-theological faith, the second one is de fide tenenda or ecclesiastical faith.

I know that you insist with much argumentation based on Tradition, on Holy Scripture, on the preceding Magisterium of theologians, in sustaining the thesis of “rupture” and “contradiction”, which means, if I understand correctly, even if I note in you a certain reserve or reluctance in saying it, that, according to you, the Council contains heresies and thus, with that, the Popes and the teaching body of the Church have abandoned the true path of the faith previously defined, are leading us on a deceptive road, have betrayed Tradition, cheating us with empty and indemonstrable assurances of “continuity” advancing the pretext of doctrinal “progress” or “development”, which pleases the Modernists, and this makes it understandable why the Council itself has yielded to Modernism. (1)

At the same time, however, you consider yourselves and want to be Roman Catholics, recognizing the authority of the Pope as Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, infallible interpreter, who has the ultimate word in the teachings of Christ, Master, to whom we owe obedience in matters of faith; you must recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Councils as well as the Divinity of the Church, “pillar and foundation of truth” and light of the people.

Now, I ask myself, how can these two convictions be brought together: you say, “the Council is in error, but we believe in the indefectibility of the Church and we want to be Catholics; in fact, it is in the name of our being Catholics, faithful to Tradition and the Gospel that we say the Council is wrong de facto in dogma and in the doctrine of the faith.”

You sustain that, with the excuse of a mistaken notion of its “pastoral” [nature], the Council and the subsequent Popes, in reality, have manipulated doctrine, have deviated from the truth, have mutated that which should never have been mutated, and want to dish out novel doctrines which deny what the Church has always, everywhere and universally taught in matters of faith.

You say that the Council proposes a false concept of the Church, which is no longer the true one, previously taught. It is no longer the “Church of the Ages”. The concept of Revelation has been falsified. The Mass that has been submitted to us is half-protestant, it is no longer the “Mass of Ages”. A conciliar collegiality has been submitted to us, an ecumenism that suggests indifferentism, a “religious liberty” that suggests relativism. The Council is contaminated by the errors of the Enlightment, of the French Revolution, of anthropocentrism, of naturalism, of Liberalism, of pantheism, of Protestantism; in other words, of all the errors of modernity. But all of these doctrines are either false or heretical. So, the Magisterium of the Council teaches us heresy. Well, then, is the Church no longer lumen gentium? Is it no longer the pillar and sustainer of the Truth?

Yes – you say – we believe in the indefectibility of the Church as a teaching subject, but not in relation to the object taught, i.e. doctrine. This is the same distinction wrought by Küng, a heretic, with the difference, that while for him, as a historicist, the Magisterium is fallible because immutable truth does not exist, for you, who believe in immutable truth, the Magisterium is fallible because it can stray from this truth.

I notice that this distinction between subject and object has no sense when we are dealing with teaching the truths of the faith or connected to the faith or when the truth previously defined from Scripture and Tradition, has been taken up again, explained or developed. Here the object, that is doctrinal teaching, is ruled by the subject: the subject is indefectible because it teaches the truth infallibly. In the object, the Church cannot err, otherwise we would have to say that Christ deceived [Her] when He promised to assist Her until the end of time and lead Her to the fullness of truth.

You insist on the fact that the Council did not want to define new dogmas in order to deny the infallibility of its doctrines, or that is the impression that you give, but you do not have the courage to say it openly: to conclude that the doctrines of the Council are false, wrong, heretical. This lack of courage, “courage” in fact, that would be a scandal worthy of the protestants, or modernists, in some way is what saves you. But this does not prevent you leaving a vague idea of your false conviction. Are you not aware, in fact, that there is something off in your reasoning? Is the Church’s Magisterium, in matters of faith, infallible or fallible? You have to choose.

It is here that we will see if you are truly Catholic or crypto-Protestants, or, despite your intentions to the contrary – crypto-Modernists. But at least the Modernists are coherent: as a principal, they have a relativist and evolutionist gnoseology. How can you, Thomists, who claim the existence of an immutable and definite truth and also see the Church as teacher of the truth, end up alongside the Protestants and Modernists by saying that the Church can err de facto in the doctrine of the truth?

The Magisterium is not only infallible when it proclaims or defines a dogma, but also when it simply teaches a truth of the faith or close to the faith, without declaring the need to define it. It is enough that is about matters of the faith, as in the case of the new conciliar doctrines. It is this teaching that is found in the [Motu Proprio] Ad tuendam fidem, which you most certainly know. Besides, when you negate infallibility, certainly with this you do not identify sic et simpliciter, the fallible with the actually false. And yet you do not exclude the possibility of error, you do not deny that in the future, that which is taught today will become false or show itself to be false.

Now this contrasts with the Divine mission of teaching the Gospel which was entrusted to the Church by Christ. Therefore, denying the infallibility of the Magisterium is against the faith and so it is heresy. The moment you accuse, even in a veiled way, the Council of having fallen into heresy, you do not realize that you have fallen in it yourselves.

If the Church cannot be other than infallible in doctrine (defined or non-defined) it can err in pastoral matters. And it is on this point that it is permitted to criticize the Council. For example, it has a far too optimistic attitude with regard to the modern world and it is too vague and indulgent in condemning and confuting errors. The Council’s language lacks juridical form, and it is at times imprecise and equivocal and lends to modernist interpretations. Modernism is a heresy and so it makes no sense to accuse the Council of heresy. It must be interpreted in line with Tradition.

Such errors or imprudence, then, instead of being corrected in the period after the Council, have further worsened, arriving at the present situation in which heresies of every type freely circulate without anyone intervening. I have also written a book to deal with this grave pastoral problem. (La questione dell’eresia oggi, Edizioni Vivere In, Monopoli (BA), 2008).

You say that the situation is disastrous, Modernism is reigning, heresies are spreading, orthodox (Catholics) are marginalized, priests do not intervene and even go off the tracks themselves and give scandal. All of this is true, but you, what are you doing to remedy this situation? Certainly faith in the indefectibility of the Church is good, but the Church is also indefectible, above all, in teaching the truth.

Trust in Our Lady is excellent, but Mary, Mother of the Truth and Founder of the Church, desires that you accept docilely and trustingly, not only the pre-conciliar Magisterium but also the post-conciliar one, making an effort to see the continuity and discerning in it, an enhanced knowledge of the Word of God.

The way to remedy this situation is specifically a correct interpretation and application of the Council, as the Pontiffs of the last fifty years have been saying. The problem is that Rome finds it hard to intervene in correcting the deviations because it does not have the support of the episcopate.

Modernism is indeed rampant and finds its greatest exponent in Karl Rahner (2). Modernism can be defeated, not by turning back to the past, but by a sound recall to Tradition and actually applying the Council which teaches us a healthy modernity. We are in fact, Christians of the 21st century not of the 19th or 16th [centuries].

If anything, let us ask the Holy Father to explain, to clarify or to interpret for us the controversial points in a definitive way, unequivocally and precisely, those that the modernists play with, but let us do it with trust not setting off with the false conviction that in reality there is no continuity.

It is true that continuity has to be demonstrated, but it is absolutely indemonstrable that there is no continuity. It is not because it is not objectively there, but it is because it is us, subjectively, that do not understand it. Otherwise, I repeat one more time, we will have to conclude that Christ has deceived us. Do we want to arrive at this conclusion? Do we want to correct the Church that has strayed from the truth? So, now, who is infallible? The Church or ourselves?

Fraternally,

P.Giovanni Cavalcoli,OP

Christmas 2011

________________________________
Notes

[1]As you know , along with the Pope I am sustainer of continuity and I believe that I have been able to show this in my recent boo,. Progresso nella continuità. La questione del Concilio Vaticano II e del Postconcilio, Edizioni, Fede e Cultura, Verona 2011.

[2] Allow me to indicate my critique of Rahner in the book – Karl Rahner- The Council Betrayed. (Il Concilio Tradito).

[Source: Riscossa Cristiana. Tip and translation: Contributor Francesca Romana]

SOURCE

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on January 9, 2012 at 8:25am

It never ceases to amaze me how the modernists or even the neo-conservatives can make 2+2=5 and think it is logical.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John-mary chijioke mbah on January 9, 2012 at 9:06am

I just keep wondering if they don't see the damage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan on January 16, 2012 at 6:43am

RORATE CAELI

After the talks: "Would you kindly explain where the continuity is?"

Background: On Christmas Day, 2011, Father Giovanni Cavalcoli, a respected theologian and a Friar Preacher in the Convent of Saint Dominic in Bologna - where the Founder himself is buried - authored an open letter to Italian traditional Catholic journal Sì Sì No No, dealing with matters central to the ongoing debate on the Second Vatican Council, its interpretation, the so-called hermeneutics of reform in continuity and in rupture, and the degrees of obedience owed to different teachings of the Church and to the words of our most Holy and Apostolic Father, the Bishop of Rome and universal Pastor. Rorate published a translation of this letter earlier this week. Unsurprisingly, all these matters are at the very heart of the current debate between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), following the doctrinal talks held between 2009 and 2011.

We publish below the response of the Sì Sì No No editorial team to the letter, part of the ongoing discussion. (Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan on January 16, 2012 at 6:47am

January 3, 2012

Reverend Father Giovanni Cavalcoli,

We gladly respond to your letter sent to us at Christmas.

The Second Vatican Council did not want “to define and bind belief” (Cfr. Vatican Council I. DB 1800) (1) and so it did not want to impose infallibility, thus it can be fallible. The Church is indefectible and God does not permit errors in Her dogmatic or infallibly assisted teachings. (2)

The Church as subject is always one; She is and will always be “pillar and sustainer of the Truth ”, even if the object or doctrine taught by Her may be multiple regarding “the way” and the “substance”. Now the Second Vatican Council is “pastoral” (as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI said explicitly (3)unlike certain theologians who are not part of the teaching Church and instead, have dogmatized it). So the doctrine of Vatican II is different regarding “the way” of the other XX Councils preceding it and in some cases it even deviates from “the substance”.

We believe in the indefectibility of the Church as subject and also in the infallibility of the doctrine taught by Her, but according to the conditions set out by the First Vatican Council, not those set out by theologians. Now, the will to define a doctrine as divine revelation and to bind the faithful to believe in it by Faith for their eternal salvation, is taught infallibly by the First Vatican Council (DB,1800).

When the Church teaches the truths of the Faith, the Subject teacher and the Object taught are divinely and infallibly assisted. On this we have never had any doubt. As you have written rightly in your letter “the object of Faith taught is the rule of the Church as subject”. Therefore, the Magisterium is not an Absolute and must transmit the doctrine revealed by God, without changing it. Revelation is the rule of the Magisterium. Whereas, you Reverend Father, tend to make even the non-infallibly assisted Magisterium an Absolute, independent from the Faith.

A few lines further on, when you write that “denying the infallibility of the Magisterium goes against the Faith and therefore is heretical”, you contradict what you have written previously (which we have just cited) and does not complete the definition of the infallible Magisterium. According to the First Vatican Council in the will to define and bind belief it is necessary for the infallible assistance on the part of God to the Magisterium in (DB,1800). In some matters, you tend in good faith, to substitute yourself for the Magisterium and excommunicate and declare heretical, right, left and centre, promulgating new dogmatic definitions which deviate from those of the Church.

Christ did not deceive the Church when He promised to assist Her “until the end of the world”, but there are different types of assistance and not all of them are infallible.

Some doctrines of the Second Vatican Council seem to be erroneous to us, but it is up to the teaching authority of the Church to have the last word on them, not us, nor you for that matter.

Finally, you write: “it is absolutely indemonstrable that there is no continuity”.

Would you kindly explain – without denying the principle of non-contradiction – where the continuity is between the Catholic Faith and the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in the following four points:

Gaudium et spes no.12: “all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.” This extract could be interpreted in an orthodox manner, if all inanimate things, plants and animals were ordered to man and man to God, but Gaudium et spes no.24 specifies that: “man is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself,” (propter seipsam). This error must be read in the light of the pan- Christianism (of Teilhard de Chardin) and of Gaudium et spes no.22 “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.” Note well: every man, not all of human nature.

On the 7^th December 1965 during his address at the 9^th session of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI came to proclaim: “the religion of God Who became man has met the religion (for that is what it is) of man who makes himself God. What happened? A clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. […]A feeling of boundless sympathy (for every man not for human nature) has permeated the whole of it. (…) 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.” (4) Note well! Pope Paul VI says “all of the Council” not only the ‘spirit of the Council’, not only the radical hermeneutic of rupture with Catholic Tradition. Now here, the authentic interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is given by Pope Paul VI and not Tizio, Caio, Sempronio nor Don Cantone (equivalent of: Tom, Dick or Harry), nor myself. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI urges the “modern humanists” that is, the atheists, who “reject the truths” of supernatural Faith, which transcend human reason “ to give credit” to “all of the Council” for this “religion of man that makes himself God” on his own strength without the free gift of sanctifying grace. But if “all of the Council”, and not its hazardous interpretation or its “spirit” can and must please the atheist or pantheists, it cannot please the Christians, who believe in the supernatural truths revealed by God which distinguish the creature from the Creator. As we can deduce from what Pope Paul VI said, it is the text itself of the Council which is in rupture with the Catholic Faith and as such cannot be accepted. The heart of the “problem at the present time” is really the foolish hope of reconciling the irreconcilable: theocentrism and anthropocentrism. The Roman–Rite Mass and the “Novus Ordo Missae”, Divine-Apostolic Tradition and Vatican II.
In 1976, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla while preaching on a spiritual retreat to Pope Paul VI and his collaborators (published in Italian under the title Segno di contradizione. Meditazioni, (Milano Gribaudi, 1977) initiates the meditation with: “Christ reveals man fully to himself” (Chap. XII pp. 114 -112)and with Gaudium et spes no.22 asserts: “the conciliar text, applying itself to the category of the mystery of man, explains the anthropological character or even the anthropocentricity of Revelation offered to men in Christ. This Revelation is concentrated on man […] The Son of God, through His Incarnation, has united Himself to every man, and became – as Man – one of us. […] Here are the central points on which we could reduce the Council’s teaching regarding man and his mystery” (pp. 115-116). In short, this is the concentrated essence of the texts of the Second Vatican Council: the cult of man, pantheism and anthropological idolatry. It is not I that is saying this, but Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, in the light of Pope Paul VI and the pastoral Council concluded by him, that is, the “authentic” interpreters of Vatican II. Cardinal Wojtyla speaks of man and not of human nature.

Pope John Paul II affirms in his first encyclical (1979) ‘Redemptor hominis’ no.9 : “God, who in Him (Christ) draws near again to humanity, to each human being, giving him the thrice holy ‘Spirit of truth’.” And again in ‘Redemptor hominis’ no.11: “the dignity that each human being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity.” Still in ‘Redemptor hominis’ no.13: “We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever […] Man, without any exceptions – has been redeemed by Christ, because – without any exceptions – Christ is in someway united with man even when man is not aware of it. (…) the mystery (of Redemption) in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother.” In his second encyclical (1980) ‘Dives in misericordia’ no.1 Pope John Paul II affirms: “While the various currents of human thought both in the past and at the present have tended and still tend to separate theocentrism and anthropocentrism, and even to set them in opposition to each other, the Church [conciliar,ndr) […]seeks to link them up […] in a deep and organic way. And this is also one of the basic principles, perhaps the most important one, of the teaching of the last Council.” In his third encyclical ‘Dominum et vivificantem’ (1986) in no.50, Pope John Paul II writes: “ ‘The Word became flesh.’ The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity with God not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, of everything that is "flesh": the whole of humanity, the entire visible and material world. The Incarnation, then, also has a cosmic significance, a cosmic dimension. The "first-born of all creation, becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also "flesh" -and in this reality with all "flesh," with the whole of creation.”

With every good wish for a Happy New Year, rich in grace,

Sì Sì No No

______________________

Notes

Cfr. Cipriano, voice “Dogma” in “The Catholic Encyclopedia” Vatican City, 1950, vol.IV, col. 1792-1804; Giacinto Ameri, voice “Dogmatic Definitions” in “The Catholic Encyclopedia”, Vatican City, 1950 vol. IV col. 1306-1307.
Everything that is written in this reply has been explained with precise Magisterial quotations in ‘Si si no no’, so as not make this reply too cumbersome, we , therefore refer the reader to our articles.
Cited by us in ‘Si si no no’
Enchiridion Vaticanum. Document of the Second Vatican Council. Official text and Italian translation, Bologna. Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 9a ed., 1971. Speeches and messages, pp. 282-283.