St. Basil's economy of silence

 

The example of St. Basil of Caesarea shows that, even in a doctrinal crisis of the Church, the steadfast profession and defense of the Faith is not incompatible with a prudential attitude, seeking an accommodation with those who are in error—a practical, realistic approach, aimed at bringing them back to orthodoxy, while preserving the souls entrusted to us.

This article by Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara (a professor of history at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota) first appeared on sspx.org on March 9, 2012.

In the face of heresy: St. Basil's "economy of silence"

In the fourth century, St. Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, confronted a hornets’ nest of theological controversy. The Pneumatomachian heresy, an offshoot of Arianism, denied the consubstantiality (homoousia) of the Holy Ghost. The Arians themselves held that the Son was a creature of the Father and the creator of all other things, and so it was only logical for them to consider the Holy Ghost as a creature of the Son. At the same time, some “conservative” semi-Arians, who believed the Son was of a similar nature (homoiousios) to the Father, and the Anomoeans, who denied any such similarity in nature, began explicitly teaching that the Holy Ghost was simply a higher-ranking angel. Even among orthodox Catholics, some considered the term “consubstantial” to be suspect, because not of biblical origin, and opposed its use by the Council of Nicaea on these grounds.

Faced with this situation, St. Basil, while never yielding to error or denying the orthodox belief, carefully avoided the use of the term “consubstantial” (homoousios) in his discussions with heretics. Simply employing this word aroused immediate opposition and effectively ended any effort at discussion or proselytism. Therefore, in order not to burn down the bridges, Basil approached the question of the Holy Ghost’s divinity obliquely. He made use of the terms “community of nature” (physike koinonia) and especially “equality of honor” (homotimia). Each amount to the same meaning as “consubstantial,” since equal dignity and honor with the Father and the Son necessarily presupposes identity of substance. Thus, the traditional doxology implies the Holy Ghost’s divinity; one who is not God cannot be equal to God in dignity. Though his tactic avoided direct controversy, Basil made every effort to answer even insignificant objections with meticulous exactitude. He wanted not only to oppose the error, but also to bring as many heretics as possible back to orthodoxy.

In a letter addressed to the clergy of Tarsus, Basil explained the motives and general attitude that guided his discussions with heretics. In it, he shows his doctrinal orthodoxy, his realistic understanding of the concrete situation, both his own and that of his church of Caesarea, and his zeal and prudence in seeking a solution for the greater good of souls and the preservation of his church:

The present time shows a great inclination toward the destruction of the churches […]. Further, as to the building up of the Church, the correction of errors, compassion toward the weak among the brethren, and protection for those who are sound—not one of these things exists.[…]

 

Therefore, there is need of great zeal and great care in such a time, so that the churches may receive some benefit. And it is a benefit to those hitherto separated to be united. Moreover, there would be union, if we would be willing to accommodate ourselves to the weaker in whatever matters do not harm to souls.

 

[…] We ask you to receive in communion those who do not say that the Holy Ghost is a creature, in order that blasphemers may be left alone, and that either being ashamed they may return to the truth, or continuing in their sin may be held unworthy of credit because of their small number.

 

Therefore, let us seek for nothing more, but hold out to the brethren who wish to be united with us the Creed of Nicaea; and, if they agree with it, let us require further that they must not say that the Holy Ghost is a creature, nor be in communion with those who say it.

 

But I think that we should demand nothing beyond this. In fact, I am convinced that by a longer association and an experience together without strife, even if it should be necessary to add more for the purpose of explanation, the Lord who makes all things work together unto good for those who love Him will grant it."[1]

 

This is what St. Athanasius and St. Gregory of Nazianzus called the “economy” of St. Basil. Nonetheless, this method met with fierce opposition from many who otherwise shared Basil’s orthodox belief, as it is clear from his own description of the situation.

What storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the churches? [...] Every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken […]. We attack one another. We are overthrown by one another, [and] if our enemy is not the first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side."

 

For, in spite of his explanations, St. Basil’s attitude led to the questioning of his orthodoxy by some firebrands who, disregarding his pastoral approach and themselves risking much less than he, demanded a total, uncompromising exposition of the truth—that is, a more outspoken declaration of his belief in the divinity of the Holy Ghost. As his friend St. Gregory of Nazianzus reported in a letter:

Many people have accused us of not being firm in matters of faith—people who sincerely share our concerns. Some accuse us openly of sacrilegious opinions, others of cowardice: of sacrilege, those who think we are no longer in a healthy state of mind; of cowardice, those who charge us with concealing our real thoughts. […] I shall tell you what recently happened.

 

There was a party, and among the guests present were not a few distinguished people who are our friends; one of them belongs to those who bear both the name and the garb of piety.[2] […] The conversation turned to you and me, as often happens […]. But while everyone admired your way of governing, and spoke, in addition, of our having shared a philosophic life—spoke of our friendship and of Athens, and of our agreement and like-mindedness on every subject — the so-called philosopher became indignant. “What is all this, my friends?” he said, crying out in an insolent way.

 

You are such liars and flatterers! Let these gentlemen be praised for their other qualities, if you like, and I will make no objection; but I will not grant the most important quality. Basil is wrongly praised for orthodoxy—and Gregory wrongly, as well! The one betrays the faith by the public discourses he holds, the other is an accomplice in the betrayal by not objecting! […] I heard the great Basil speaking excellent and perfect things about the divinity of the Father and the Son, as no one else could easily do, but gliding past the Spirit […].

 

Then he said, turning to me, 'And why on earth do you, my friend, speak so openly of the Spirit as God […] while he [St. Basil] plays down the fact in murky expressions, and only lays out doctrine in a sketchy way. He will not speak the truth frankly, but bathes our ears in language more political than pious, concealing the ambiguity in the power of his words.” “Since I live in obscurity,” I said, "and am unknown to most people, and since both what I do say and the fact that I say anything at all is hardly noticed, I can be a philosopher without risk. But his pronouncements are more important, since he is better known both on his own account and on account of his Church. Everything he says is public, and a great war is going on about him; the heretics are eager to criticize a simple word, let alone Basil himself, so that he might be expelled from the Church—he who remains virtually the only spark of truth, the force of life, while everyone around him is tainted with heresy—and that this evil might take root in the city, and then, using this Church as a kind of base of operations, overrun the whole world.'

 

The better path, then, for us is that the truth be managed prudently, that we yield a bit to our times as one would to a cloud, rather than let the truth be destroyed by the bright clarity of our proclamation.[3] For us, after all, there is no harm in recognizing the Spirit as God through other expressions that lead in that direction—for truth is found less in sounds than in the understanding; but for the Church, there will be a great loss if truth is put to flight through the defeat of a single man!"[4]

 

Although many objected to this idea of “prudent management” of the truth, to his “economy” of silence, “which seemed to them a vapid way of playing with words” and “cowardice rather than doctrine,”[5] St. Basil felt that answering these charges against him was beneath his dignity.

Nonetheless, many of his friends took up his defense. For example, St. Athanasius wrote to the presbyter Palladius, encouraging obedience and suggesting that God should be praised on account of St. Basil’s great goal and his “economy.”[6]

[…] I have learned from our beloved Dianius that [the monks at Caesarea] are vexed, and are opposing our beloved bishop Basil […]. I have pointed out to them what is fitting, namely that as children they should obey their father, and not oppose what he approves.

 

For if he were suspected as touching the truth, they would do well to combat him. But if they are confident, as we all are, that he is a glory to the Church, contending rather on behalf of the truth and teaching those who require it, it is not right to combat such a man, but rather to accept with thanks his good conscience. For from what the beloved Dianius has related, they appear to be vexed without cause. For he, as I am confident, to the weak becomes weak to gain the weak.

 

But let our beloved friends look at the scope of his truth, and at his special purpose, and glorify the Lord Who has given such a bishop to Cappadocia as any district must pray to have. And do you, beloved, be good enough to point out to them the duty of obeying, as I write. For this is at once calculated to render them well disposed toward their father, and will preserve peace to the churches […]”[7]

 

It is beyond any doubt that St. Basil’s hesitation and “economy” with the truth were dictated by prudential reasons, pastoral and canonical, and not by theological ones.

His reticence to call the Holy Ghost “God” in his treatise De Spiritu Sancto is based on the fact that the Council of Nicaea itself didn’t use the term—and St. Basil considered that he had to loyally submit to the canonical function and superiority of the ecumenical council:

We are not able to add anything at all to the Nicene Creed, not the slightest thing, except the glorification of the Holy Spirit, because our Fathers made mention of this part cursorily, since at that time no inquiry had yet been stirred up regarding it [...]."[8]

 

Moreover, he never called the Holy Ghost homoousion because the terms homoousios and ousia, of philosophical and not biblical origin, were used primarily for material and created substance. The heretics even used these words to support their theory of the subordinate status of the Holy Ghost. In addition, a more open declaration of doctrine would have only poured oil on the fire.

The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople at last decided the controversy. It adjourned in 381, two years after Basil’s death, having made some important additions to the third article of the Nicene Creed:

We believe… in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets..."[9]

 

Although not using St. Basil’s exact words, the Council effectively expressed his conceptions, affirming the belief in divine nature of the Holy Ghost, who must be worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, and, without explicitly calling Him “God,” emphasized His divine operations as the giver of life and the one who reveals through the prophets.

Thus, St. Basil’s teaching and “economic” attitude—both prudent and patient—opened the way for the final resolution of the theological uncertainties and the end of the heresy.

Bibliography

Daley, Brian, SJ. Gregory of Nazianzus. London: Routledge, 2006.

Rousseau, Philip. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Tsirpanlis, Constantine N. Some reflections on St. Basil’s pneumatology: The “economy” of silence. in: Kleronomia, 13. Thessaloniki: 1981.

Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A guide to the literature and its background. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

---

Footnotes

1 Basil of Caesarea, Letter 113. FC (Fathers of the Church), vol. 13, pp. 239-240.

2 I.e., a monk.

3 Patrologia Graeca (Migne) 37, col. 115: “Praestat, itaque oeconomiam quandam ad veritatem adhibitam fuisse, nobis videlicet tempori, quasi nebulae quidam, nonnihil cedentibus, quam u tea ob praedicationis perspicuitatem opprimeretur.”

4 Gregory of Nazianzus, Letter 58, in Daley, pp. 179-180.

5 The same letter, in ibidem.

6 Cf. Tsirpanlis.

7 Athanasius, Letter 53, to Palladius.

8 Basil, Letter 258, to Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus. FC, vol.28, II, pp.218-219. Cf. also Tsirpanlis.

9 Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. New York: McKay, 1972. p.298.

Addition to Open letter to the diocesan Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church

The author of this letter, Mr. Oostveen (first from left) in a FIUV activity some years ago. 

The stakes are too high to simply ignore this fact; a proposed solution

Addition to Open letter to the diocesan Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church

This letter has been sent by e-mail to about 3100 Bishops (Diocesan and Auxiliary)

2 February, 2019 -- Presentation of the Lord - Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Your Excellency,

For the good of the Holy Catholic Church, I respectfully ask once more a little of your valuable time to consider the following, and with an earnest request to present this to the Holy Father and to the President of your Bishop’s Conference.
 

I refer to my mail of last month [http://www.ecclesiadei.nl/docs/open_letter.html] which identified for you the source of the “confusion, bitterness in human relations and fratricidal wars” that is evident in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. As befits a good engineer, after presenting you with the results of the problem analysis and its root cause, I now present to you a solution for the problem. Because the problem started due to the lack of “a gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and continued with the introduction of the vague “spirit of the Council” in place of the clear hermeneutic rule set by Pope John XXIII, this problem is in essence of a supernatural origin. It therefore needs a supernatural solution, which expresses the unity between begging for mercy, a true confession of Faith and doing penance. The stakes are too high to simply ignore this fact.
 

My proposed solution is threefold:

First: The Church must in a gracious and humble manner, publicly request Mercy from the Holy Spirit This needs to be done by taking into account that the lack of “a gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and its consequent “confusion, bitterness in human relations and fratricidal wars”, has penetrated so deeply into the Church that it has left virtually no one unaffected. 

Second: A public confession of Faith shall be made by all the Clergy and Hierarchy. This can follow the model of an extended Creed, like that of Pope Paul VI (Motu Proprio Solemnia Hac Liturgia, June 1968). In accordance with the Council opening address of Pope John XXIII, this creed should explain the full Doctrine “pure and integral”, “without attenuations or distortion” and in an understandable way without any ambiguity. This is essential, because the Church should "never depart the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Father", and above all, it should always act “in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers” [Ref. 1], [Ref. 2].

Third: The Church must publicly do penance. This is fundamentally necessary due to the lack of “a gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” by the majority of Council Fathers, and because so many Bishops, priests and religious had and have rejected the hermeneutic as set by Pope John XXIII. Such penance could be done by obliging all priests to celebrate individually – not as concelebrants - a number of Holy Masses that shall include the reading (in whole or in parts) of the extended Creed as a homily. The intentions of those masses shall be for all victims of that lack of gracious collaboration, over the last five decades both inside and outside the Church, for the healing of the wounds caused, for the conversion of all those who are still attached to that revolutionary spirit, and for the repose of the souls of those who have already died. [Ref. 3 ].

With my heartfelt gratitude for your kind and generous consideration, I offer you the assurance of my filial support and prayers, I hope for a speedy reply, and I humbly ask for the grace of your blessing.

Faithfully in Christo

Reference 1

 

The lack of gracious collaboration and the rejection of the hermeneutic as defined by Pope John XXIII has been initiated by those who were attached to the New Theology that in its turn was strongly influenced by modern ideologies. Here, among other points, this Creed should include a clear explanation why, in the light of the Truth, all ideologies of the modern times are principally false. This is especially so regarding the subject of unrestricted evolutionism that implicitly denies the Truth of original sin.

Reference 2

Given the subject of the upcoming meeting of the presidents of the Bishops' Conferences in the Vatican, sexual abuse by clergy is necessarily very topical. To this end, and especially because of the influence of silencing and implicit denial of original sin, this Creed should unequivocally include the Doctrine of the Church on sexuality: 

• Procreation must be stated (reiterated) as the first goal of sexuality.
• Homosexual activity must be acknowledged as and considered to be the main source of sexual abuse by clergy, but indeed not the only one. This can be clearly deduced from the statistics of the situation, where about 80% (USA) and 85% (the Netherlands) of the victims of sexual abuse by the clergy are male. Like all other disordered forms of sexuality, homosexuality exists due to original sin and our consequent fallen nature. Homosexual activity is therefore objectively a sin against the natural order, and as such one of the sources of sexual abuse. Though the abuse of priestly power in general is a grave sin, and creating victims of sexual abuse by that power is even a very grave sin, yet it has to be distinguished from the sexual abuse itself. The abuse of power over their victims, as well as the covering-up of sexual abuse by clergy, would not exist here without the evident lack of self-control due to a weakness of will, and the loss of discipline over their sexual feelings by the abusers. Therefore, the sexual abuse by members of the clergy must be considered as a matter of very grave sinfulness generally, precisely because it is also a violence against the vows they solemnly made to God at ordination.
• However, because, sexual abuse outside the Church is considerably more prevalent than that by the clergy, the very large numbers of those victims cannot count on any mea culpa’ by the worldly abusers. On the contrary, what can these victims expect from ideologist physicians, psychologists, politicians, jurists, public media and so on. They are the same people whom have strived for so many decades towards political acceptance and legalisation in favour of all kinds of disordered forms of sexuality, as if these would be normal forms of sexual behaviour. This makes the responsibility of the Church, not only towards the victims of the sexual abuse by clergy, but to all victims inside and outside the Church, all the more important and necessary.
• A responsibility not only for explaining the full Doctrine on sexuality “pure and integral”, “without attenuations or distortion”, in an understandable way without any ambiguity, but also for restoring and maintaining the unity between Doctrine and discipline.

Reference 3

The rationale for proposing that “all priests shall celebrate individually – not as concelebrants - a number of Holy Masses”, is because only in this way one can be sure that all priests will be confronted individually with the text of the Creed as a penitential act.

One of the Holy Masses offered should focus on the part of the Creed that explains the full Doctrine on sexuality. The intention shall be for healing the wounds of all victims of sexual abuse, both inside and outside the Church, as well as for true repentance and conversion of the abusers, and all who covered up or made the abuses possible.

Vatican II and the hermeneutic law of Pope John XXIII

Jack Oostveen, author of this letter, with Pope Benedict XVI

Open letter to the diocesan Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church

This letter has been sent by e-mail to about 3100 Bishops (Diocesan and Auxiliary ).

 

January 13th, 2019 – Sunday after Epiphany, the baptism of the lord.

Your Excellency,For the good of the Church I respectfully request some of your valuable time in bringing the following matter to your attention and with a request to present this to the Holy Father.
 

It is a fact that the most of you were ordained after the Second Vatican Council. At the opening of the Council, only the eldest among you were about 19 years old and maybe young seminarians, while others were still in their childhood or even among the growing population of “not-yet-born”. Therefore, the Council is becoming more and more a historical event of which one has only second hand knowledge, which confronts us with contradictory ways of understanding the underlying hermeneutics: ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ being the main problems.
 

Herewith, it appears that lethal fruits are more and more manifestly apparent in the Church, namely “confusion, bitterness in human relations and fratricidal wars”. I maintain that these are direct consequences of the fact that a majority of Council Fathers and their theologians had acted in free will, contrary to a “gracious collaboration concerning the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” even on the first working day of the Council [Ref. 1]. And I also provide evidence that false portrayals of Pope John XXIII and the Council’s objectives have been deliberately created [Ref. 2]. This has led in subsequent years to a deliberate and deceitful referencing of the so-called ‘Spirit of the Council’ for interpreting the Council’s documents, in a manner contradictory to the hermeneutic law as set by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address.
 

Pope John XXIII stated this as being: a renewal, not in a vague kind of continuity or a discontinuity, but explicitly in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers, never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers” [Ref. 3].
 

Consequently, referring to the ‘Spirit of the Council’ has led to a departure “from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, by which more and more faithful have lost their Faith. Others wandering as sheep found themselves focussing on Sacred Tradition (i.e. “the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”) as their anchorage of Faith. While some others who consider that the false portrayals were true, have reached the ultimate conclusion and accused Pope John XXIII for what was laid down in these false portrayals. Therefore, those who have created and cherished these false portrayals or who have continually proclaimed them, bear a great responsibility for the consequences.
 

Evidently, with the words of Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address we find here a clear and prophetical explanation why these lethal fruits exist since the years of Vatican II:

‘Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars’

 

Nevertheless, one must acknowledge that by allowing these irregular acts and their lethal fruits, the Holy Spirit always respect the free will of man, even that of each individual Council Father and their theological advisors individually. Just like Jesus respected the free will of Peter, when he three times denied knowing Jesus. Whereas, at the same time and above all in a wonderful way, the Holy Spirit also protected the Pastoral Council against creating full heresies. This by leaving open the possibility of interpreting the Council’s documents by free will in accordance with the rule set by the lawmaker of the Council, Pope John XXIII when he stated: “a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers”. Thereby, given that the Council was set up as “Pastoral”, the full Doctrine of the Church is the leading guide and has to be maintained “pure and integral” and undoubtedly “without attenuations or distortion” [Ref. 4].

Please, I humbly beg you for your heartfelt and sincere prayers for the Holy Father. While Pope Francis has been drowned in, and as such betrayed for more than 55 years, by the dissident liberal spirit of the Jesuits, he certainly needs and deserves our spiritual support. So that, as St. Peter initially denied to know Jesus thrice, similarly, he may have a change of heart, following which he can also confirm his brethren.

With my heartfelt gratitude for your kind and generous consideration, I offer you the assurance of my filial support and prayers, I hope for a speedy reply, and I humbly ask for the grace of your blessing.

Faithfully in Christo

-o-o-o-o-

 

Additionally to this letter:

To whom, who has some difficulties regarding the conservative understanding of Pope John XXIII, please, consider the Opening Address of the Council by Pope John XXIII as well as the following contributions of Peter Kwasnewski published at the New Liturgical Movenent:

1. The Opening Address by Pope John XXIII on the on the Vatican website only in Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese. The English translation can be found outside the Vatican website here.
2. Remembering the Real John XXIII
3. A New Series: Pope John XXIII in His Own Words
4. John XXIII in His Own Words (2): The Mass and the Priesthood
5. John XXIII in His Own Words (3): Devotion to Saint Pius X and Blessed Pius IX
6. John XXIII in His Own Words (4): The Defense of Catholic Truth
7. St John XXIII Asks the Faithful Not to Applaud in Church

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 1

This concerns a chain of irregular acts on October 13th, 1962, the first working day of the Council, that were deliberately initiated by Father Yves Congar O.P. and had been discussed by the French Bishops on the previous evening, October 12th. These irregular acts are enumerated as follows:

1. Cardinal Liénart, a member of the Presidium, reading a paper prepared by Mgr. Garonne. This was doubly irregular, firstly the intervention itself, and secondly by addressing the request for changing the Council’s rule for that specific day to the Council Fathers instead of towards the Holy Father.
2. An intervention by Cardinal Frings, also a member of the Presidium, confirming the intervention by Cardinal Liénart. He also did this in the name of Cardinal König, who did not belong to the Presidium. Evidently, this meant that these German Cardinals were informed by the French, prior to this first session.
3. The applause that was started by a few Council Fathers, but which grew to include the majority. This occurred despite the fact that it was officially forbidden to applaud.
4. The change of the Council’s rule by the Presidium.
5. The lie by Cardinal Liénart to convince the Pope that his intervention, which was deliberate, premediated and prepared at the evening before was a spontaneous, charismatically inspired act.

All these successive irregularities broke the council’s legal framework, putting Pope John XXIII in a situation of ‘a fait accompli’ and demonstrating a lack of ‘a humble and gracious collaboration with the intention of the Holy Spirit’. Surely, it is obvious that these acts have had direct consequences regarding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for each individual Council Father involved.

(Return to letter)

 

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 2

 

Among others, these false portrayals become clear by referring to the quote from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII about the “prophets of doom”. Even during the Council, by using the pseudonym ‘Xavier Rynne’, a Redemptorist priest and theology professor had anonymously made such a false portrayals in his book “Letters from Vatican City”, which was internationally published in several languages. He wrote that regarding this quotation, Pope John XXIII especially mentioned here the conservative Curial Cardinals, and that he would agree with the objectives of the dissident liberal Council Fathers. With this he made a statement that still is hugely cherished by the liberal wing, as it was recently referred to in that way by Pope Francis in his Opening Address to the Synod of Youth.

 

For a good understanding to whom Pope John XXIII had referred as the “prophets of doom”, please first consider the full context of this quotation. He stated:

“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty. We feel we must disagree with those prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand”

 

So, to which of the following groups among the Council Fathers did Pope John XXIII refer to?

 

1. Was it the conservative wing, who accepted to discuss the preparatory documents, which were called by Pope John XXIII in his Opening Address as the “initial gift of celestial grace”? At the time of the Opening Address, they had nothing to fear from this Council, and in what way would they have been motivated to predict “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world, by seeking to prevent the Council? Moreover, they had encouraged Pope John XXIII to call this Council.

 

2. Or was it the liberal wing, who disagreed with this “initial gift of celestial grace” and worked on its replacement? They had at the time of the opening address, to fear for a full condemnation of their liberal thoughts by the Council, as this was clearly present in the preparatory documents and even mentioned in the Opening Address itself. Herein Pope John XXIII condemned the ‘uncertain opinions of men’ and the ‘new-born errors’, as well as he acknowledged that there certainly were ‘fallacious teachings, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’.

 

Isn’t it obvious that it must be the liberal wing? Because of their knowledge of the progress of the preparatory work, they had to fear most the outcome of the Council and therefore had every motive to come up with “doom” scenarios for the Church and the world to prevent the Council proceeding as originally planned. At the start of the Council, it was the liberal wing that confronted Pope John XXIII with “a fait accompli” by deliberately breaking the Council’s rule on the first working day of the Council, creating a conditional situation to reject and replace the preparatory documents. Wasn’t it the liberal wing which after the Council made efforts to replace the hermeneutic rule as set by Pope John XXIII’s objectives for the Council? Even despite Pope Paul VI repeated the original hermeneutic rule in his closure address to the Council: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”, they changed this rule for a vague and ambiguous terminology “spirit of the council”. In this way they were able to eliminate all undesired conservative influences, including the interventions by Pope Paul VI and the original hermeneutic rule of Pope John XXIII. (Return to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 3

To further explain and clearly illustrate these false portrayals, I beg you to consider the following quotes taken from the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII on October 11th, 1962. These were the stated goals and objectives of the Second Vatican Council, were they not?

1. The sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously;
2. The Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers;
3. Men, without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine, cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.
4. The truth of the Lord will remain forever;
5. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a wellbeing based exclusively on the comforts of life;
6. Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries;
7. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all;
8. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character;
9. To transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Clearly, these quotations from Pope John XXIII are fully in accordance with his Encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, 1959, in which he condemned in harsh terms anyone who denies the revealed Truth or interferes by the spread of lies or indifferences. It is very obvious from these citations that Pope John XXIII showed absolutely no desire to change one iota of Doctrine. From this Opening Address one can only conclude that he sought the traditional teaching of the Fathers, his ‘recent and not-so-recent predecessors’, so that the primary rule of the Council should be understood as: a renewal in unity and in accordance with the Doctrine taught by the Fathers: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”?. And evidently a “renewal” clearly meant how ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion’. Thereby it appears that, as a ‘conditio sine qua none’, the use of the term ‘medicine of mercy’ may never be decoupled from the need to explain 'the validity of its doctrine more fully’ as he said: ‘pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion'. He did not abrogate any condemnations made by his predecessors, rather he spoke about ‘uncertain opinions of men’, ‘newborn errors’, and ‘fallacious teaching, opinions, and concepts to be guarded against’ in a way he confirmed the condemnation by Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis, of the main principles of the New Theology.

Isn’t it obvious that the Council’s documents with their deliberate ambiguities, contradictory texts and one-sided use of the doctrine cannot be interpreted well, without the correct application of the hermeneutic that considered the full use of the Church’s doctrine: “never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers”? This should be the hermeneutic rule for interpreting and referring to the Second Vatican Council.

(Retour to letter)

-o-o-o-o-

Reference 4

To provide you with more factual information on this statement, please, find here the additional document: Vatican II, a Council in threefold?. This document is the extended summary of two other reports. Report 1 is an observational analysis of the evaluation of male religious memberships since 1950 that can be found here , while Report 2 concerns a substantial analysis concerning the general process behind the observations in Report 1 (here ).
(Return to letter)

Quotes to reflect upon (11)

Venerable Pope Pius XII celebrating Holy Mass

The liturgical movement is thus shown forth as a sign of the providential dispositions of God for the present time, of the movement of the Holy Ghost in the Church, to draw men more closely to the mysteries of the faith and the riches of grace which flow from the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical life.

 ...

As We have said in the encyclical Mediator Dei, the liturgy is a vital function of the Church as a whole, and not of a single group or “movement” only: “The sacred liturgy is the public worship of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.” 

… 

Therefore everything is directed towards God, His service and His glory. The Church, filled with the gifts and the life of God, devotes itself with an interior and spontaneous movement to the adoration and praise of the infinite God, and through the liturgy, renders Him, as from a society, the worship that is due to Him.

… 

The solemn liturgical ceremonies are, besides, a profession of faith in action. They express the great truths of faith concerning the inscrutable designs of God’s generosity and His inexhaustible goodness to men, concerning the love and mercy of the heavenly Father for the world, to save which He sent His Son and delivered Him to death. Thus, the Church in the liturgy abundantly dispenses the treasures of the “deposit of faith,” the truth of Christ.

The care of the hierarchy extends still further to everything which contributes to the greater beauty and dignity of the liturgical ceremonies, whether in the matter of places of worship, of furnishings, of liturgical vestments, of sacred music or sacred art.

...

1) The Action of Christ

What is this principal action of the eucharistic sacrifice? We have spoken of it explicitly in the Allocution of November 2, 1954. We then quoted, first, the teaching of the Council of Trent:

In this divine sacrifice which takes place at Mass, the same Christ is present and is immolated in an unbloody manner who on the cross once and for all offered Himself in a bloody manner . . . . For the victim is one and the same, now offering Himself through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the Cross; only the manner of offering is different.

We then continued in these terms:

Therefore it is the priest-celebrant, and he alone, who, putting on the person of Christ, sacrifices: not the people, nor clerics, nor even priests who reverently assist. All these, however, can and should take an active part in the sacrifice.

 ...

2) The Presence of Christ

Anyone who adheres sincerely to this doctrine does not think of the formulating objections against the presence of the tabernacle on the altar. In the Instruction of the Holy Office “On Sacred Art” of June 30, 1952, the Holy See insists, among other things, on this point:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation strictly commands that the prescriptions of Canons 1268, par. 2, and 1269, par. 1, be faithfully observed: “The Most Blessed Sacrament should be kept in the most distinguished and honorable place in the church, and hence as a rule at the main altar unless some other be considered more convenient and suitable for the veneration and worship due to so great a Sacrament. . . . The Most Blessed Sacrament must be kept in an immovable tabernacle set in the middle of the altar.”

It is not so much to the material presence of the tabernacle on the altar as to a tendency toward a lesser esteem for the presence and the action of Christ in the tabernacle that We would like to draw your attention. The sacrifice of the altar is considered sufficient, and the importance of Him who accomplished it is diminished. But the person of the Lord must occupy the centre of worship, for it is that which unifies the relations of the altar and the tabernacle and gives to them their meaning.

3) The Infinite and Divine Majesty of Christ

In conclusion we would like to add two observations on “the liturgy and the past” and “the liturgy and the present time.”

The liturgy and the past. In the matter of liturgy, as in many other spheres, one must avoid two extreme attitudes with regard to the past: a blind attachment and a complete contempt. There are found in the liturgy unchangeable elements, a sacred content which transcends time, but also elements which are variable and transitory, and sometimes even imperfect. The present-day attitude of liturgical milieux towards the past seems to Us in general to be entirely sound: there is investigation, serious study, attachment to that which truly deserves it, without, moreover, a falling into excess. Here and there, however, there appear ideas and erring tendencies, oppositions, enthusiasms or condemnations with whose concrete from you are well acquainted and of which We have said a word above.

The liturgy and the present time. the liturgy confers on the life of the Church, and even on the whole religious attitude of today, a characteristic mark. Above all, one notices an active and intelligent participation by the faithful in liturgical actions. On the part of the Church, the liturgy today admits of a preoccupation with progress, but also with conservation and defence. She returns to the past without slavishly copying it, and creates anew in the ceremonies themselves, in the use of the vernacular, in popular chant and in the building of churches. It would be, however, superfluous to recall once again that the Church has serious reasons for retaining steadfastly in the Latin rite the unconditional obligation of the celebrating priest to use the Latin language, and, likewise, for insisting that the Gregorian chant at the holy sacrifice shall be in the language of the Church. The faithful, on their part, are concerned with responding to the measures taken by the Church, but in so doing they adopt profoundly different attitudes. Some will show readiness, enthusiasm, occasionally even a too active desire, which demands interventions of authority. Others will show indifference and even opposition. Thus is manifested the diversity of temperaments, as also preferences for individual piety or for community worship.

Allocution by Pope Pius XII, taken from The Assisi Papers: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Assisi-Rome, September 18-22, 1956. Published as a Supplement to Worship, by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn, 1957: pp. 223-236.

Saint John Paul II on liturgical abuses

A suffering Saint John Paul II

"I would like to ask forgiveness — in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate — for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people."  Letter Dominicae Cenae, n. 12 (1980)

"But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends). In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic Liturgy ...

None of these things can bring good results. The consequences are — and cannot fail to be — the impairing of the unity of Faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions." Instruction Inaestimabile Donum, Foreword (1980)

"On occasion there have been noted illicit omissions or additions, rites invented outside the framework of established norms; postures or songs which are not conducive to faith or to a sense of the sacred; abuses in the practice of general absolution; confusion between the ministerial priesthood, linked with Ordination, and the common priesthood of the faithful, which has its foundation in Baptism. It cannot be tolerated that certain priests should take upon themselves the right to compose Eucharistic Prayers or to substitute profane readings for texts from Sacred Scripture. Initiatives of this sort, far from being linked with the liturgical reform as such, or with the books which have issued from it, are in direct contradiction to it, disfigure it and deprive the Christian people of the genuine treasures of the Liturgy of the Church. It is for the bishops to root out such abuses." “Apostolic Letter” Vicesimus Quintus Annus, n. 13 (1988)

"The Bishop’s place in the Church’s sanctifying mission leads him to have special concern for the observance of liturgical law in his diocese… Unfortunately, excesses in one direction or another have led to a certain polarization within communities. ...The spiritual vitality of your communities depends greatly on the dignified and worthy celebration of the liturgy. In all of this you need the support and help of your priests and all the faithful, but the greatest responsibility lies with you who have received the fullness of the sacrament of the priesthood." Address to Episcopal Conference of Australia, n. 3 (1993)

"To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal in the years since the Council is, first, to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which has developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in this priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis; as a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, and sometimes even grave scandal." Address to Episcopal Conference of the United States, n. 1 (1998)


"Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation." “Encyclical” Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10 (2003)

"In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease." Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 4 (2004)

New Series: Hall of Honour of Maltese Traditional Catholics

This Blog will soon start a new series: a virtual Hall of Honour of those Maltese (clerics and laity) who strove to ensure that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is celebrated in Malta in accordance with Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

If you feel someone is deserving of such a recognition, send us the person's credentials and biographical highlights and we will consider it for our next presentation. Don't just send a name, but send us verifiable proof at pro.tridentina.malta@gmail.com .

This is our small contribution and recognition of those esteemed and committed Traditional Catholics who strove - or are striving - to forever uphold, preserve and perpetuate the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church, contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Updated schedule of Masses in Latin

On this page, one can find an updated schedule of Holy Masses in Latin (both forms of the Roman Rite) that are regularly held in the Archdiocese of Malta.

The Holy Mass is the central act of Catholic worship. As such, the liturgical actions, gestures, and prayers must reflect the true Catholic Faith. In all its details, Holy Mass reflects what Catholics believe, and vice versa: What Catholics believe is reflected in the Holy Mass. 

A common Catholic adage is that the law of prayer is the law of belief: Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Remembering St. Pius V's Quo Primum

Philip Agius, Pro Tridentina (Malta) member, next to St. Pius V monument in Valletta.

Quo Primum is a papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on 14 July, 1570, which set in stone for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church, i.e. Latin.

A papal bull is a solemn instrument that popes use for various questions such as doctrinal decisions, canonizations, disciplinary questions, jubilees and the like. Only occasionally have they been used for the liturgy.

Quo Primum is above all a legal document although it also contains some doctrinal elements. As such it is not intended to be definitive in the same way as a doctrinal definition would be and would not bind St. Pius V himself or future popes if they decided to further fine-tune the missal.

The saintly Pope's concern was to ensure as much unity as possible for the liturgy in a time when such unity was sorely needed. Even so, the same bull contains a clause exempting any Church which had its own ordo more than 200 years old. Many local Churches could have availed of this concession but most preferred to adopt the new missal for practical reasons. Some religious orders and some dioceses such as Lyon in France and Milan in Italy did opt to legitimately maintain their own rite.
 

A couple of years after publishing Quo Primum, St. Pius V added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. This slight change indicates that, except in matters of faith and morals, a pope's disciplinary decrees in matters such as the non-essential elements of liturgical rites are never "set in stone" and can be changed by a subsequent Supreme Pontiff whenever he believes that the duty of feeding Christ's flock requires it.

(Adapted from EWTN Q&A)