Let’s not overstate Bugnini’s role in propagating the Novus Ordo

From the book The Second Vatican Council:An Unwritten Story, comes the following excerpt:

“There were those who tried to place all the responsibility fort eh Novus Ordo on the shoulders of Monsignor Bugnini, interpreting his removal from office as Pope Montini’s response to the treason of which he was supposedly the victim. The testimonies to the contrary are utterly conclusive and no surprising, Paul VI, one of his biographers Yves Chiron wrote, will no doubt go down in history as the pope who brought the Second Vatican Council to its conclusion, but also as the one who gave the Church a new Mass. From the 1930’s on, in fact, the young Montni, under the influence of Father Bevilacqua, had been a follower of the “Liturgical Movement,” in which he saw the ecllesial expression of Maritian’s humanism.”

Earlier in the book, Roberto de Mattei recounts that Monsignor Bugnini was only removed from the concillium and exiled to Tehran after what might be said to be a type of blackmail that would have exposed the Masonic influence in the hierarchy itself. So too the victim mentality that often is spoken of in connection to Paul VI was a real aspect of Paul VI’s personality, it might have been related to the war he was so heavily involved with under Pius XII.  For more on the victim mentality of Paul VI in action read Michael Davie’s Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre which is mind blowing!

Happy New Year! Pray for the Holy Father!

+JMJ+

Roberto deMattei: How Vatican II had a real and lasting effect on religious sisters

The Following is an excerpt from the fantastic work "The Second Vatican Council - An Unwritten Story" by Professor Robert deMattei:

The “Updating” of religious life

“… Cardinal Spellman, as he opened the debate on November 10, asserted that, with the introduction of some modifications, the text could be accepted. Spellman denounced the risks of the so called modernization or “updating” of religious life, in an implicit polemic against Cardinal Suenens who in a book devoted to the Apostolic Development of the Religious Women (published in English as the Nun in the world), had proposed a radical reform of women’s religious life and saw in Vatican Council II the opportunity to carry it out. This reform, for the primate of Belgium, would have to redefine the role of women religious, by giving them an adequate “social training” and by making them spiritual directors of lay women. To this end it would be necessary to eliminate mercilessly certain “out of date” and “redundant” devotions that tended to “make the life of prayer mechanical and to atrophy it,” and to transform the “spiritual exercises of women religious so as “to amend and simplify them, to give their piety a a more biblical, liturgical, ecclesiastical and apostolic basis.”

Cardinal Suenens invited nuns to be more sincere and open in their mutual relations and to engage in “constructive self-criticism” of their religious practices.” He added that women religious must avoid giving the impression of “living outside the world they are trying to save,” as though isolated in a ghetto; the religious habit will have to be completely adapted to relations with the world and dispense with forms and rituals that no longer are part of our era. The concept of “obedience” also will have to be revise: the renunciation of one’s own will must not be placed before the service of the common good. The common good sometimes requires that subjects assert their point of view before superiors make a decision…

Bishop Guilly found it “truly surprising” that the schema on religious contained “so little about the other orders and congregations that are dedicated strictly to contemplative life.” It is precisely ‘these men and these women who with their prayers and their austeritites, their silence and their sacrifices, contribute more than all the others to the advancement of the Church’s apostolate.”

How Archbishop Karol Wojityla and Archbishop Lefebvre were silenced at the council on Religious Liberty

Most people think that Archbishop Lefebvre was stubborn and unwilling to work with the Vatican at any expense, but this is a grave mis-characterization.  For instance, when the first document exploring “Religious Liberty” was provided to the council fathers, the English and Italian speaking fathers sided with the document, while Spanish, Polish speaking fathers and those from the mission field stood strong in favor of Cardinal Ottoviani’s stance against the Cardinal Bea document.   It is interesting to note that even a young Archbishop Karol Wojtyla (later to be JPII) stood against the revolutionaries proclaiming that only the truth will set men free!

Below you will find an excerpt from Roberto de Mattei’s book on the council explaining how the attempt to reign in the revolution was thwarted by the French and Pope Paul Vi himself:

“On October 9, Cardinal Bea received a letter from Bishop Felici informing him of the Holy Father’s wish that the text on religious liberty be rewritten and telling him that for this purpose a Joint Commission would be set up, comprised of members of the Secretariat for Christian Unity and the Theological Commission, along with Cardinal Michael Browne, the master general of the Dominicans Aniceto Fernandez, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Carlo Colombo. Apart from the last-mentioned, a man on whom the Pope relied, the other three were staunch opponents of the declaration on religious liberty. 

The progressives immediately mobilized, alarmed especially by the name of Archbishop Lefebvre. On Sunday, October 11, there was an afternoon meeting at the residence of Cardinal Frings, attended by Cardinals Leger, Joseph-Charles Lefebvre, Meyer, Ritter, Silva Henriquez, Dopfner and Alfrink attended. That same evening a dramatically phrased letter, signed by thirteen cardinals, arrived on the pope’s desk. It read: “Not without great sorrow have we learned that the declaration on religious liberty (…) is to be sent to a certain Joint Commission, of which, it is said, four members have already been designated, three of whom seem to stand in contradiction to the orientation of the council on this question.” 

On October 12 a note by the Secretary of State referred to the fact that the French episcopate was not disposed to accept the possible nomination of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as a member of the commission for the revision of the schema. The note, passed on by Cardinal Cicognani to the pope, was expressed in these words: “1) His Excellency Bishop Marcello Lefebvre (sic) would be considered as a sort of lack  of confidence in the episcopacy, among whom such a nomination would not be favorably received (sic, given the more than ‘extremist’ positions that Archbishop Lefebvre has taken in various circumstances. I thought it advisable to authorize Bishop Martin to announce that no nomination had been made and that Archbishop Lefebvre will not be among those chose beforehand.” 

Two days later, the notice was made public by the daily Il Messagero and caused quite a stir. On October 16, in the new instructions conveyed by the Secretary of State to Bishop Felici, the names of Archbishop Lefebvre and of Father Fernandez had disappeared and the role of the commission was reappraised. The two principal “theorists” of religious liberty, John Courtney Murray and Pietro Pavan, would assume the task of working on the revision of the text, favoring an “Anglo-Italian” approach of a political-juridical type rather than the theological and moral one, as the French-speaking theologians were requesting with these words: “You shall see, our document will be approved.” In an interview with Daniel Pezeril, the pope asserted: “perhaps I am slow. But I know what I want. After all, it is my right to give careful consideration. Bishop Pavan described Paul VI’s intervention on the conciliar document as “decisive.”

When Cardinal Ottaviani squared off with Cardinal Bea on Religious Freedom/Tolerance

Two years after the title for Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was invented and promptly given to Venerable Pius XII’s confessor Cardinal Bea, a battle of two conflicting understandings of the church’s teaching on the Religious Toleration/Religious Freedom came to ahead.  The story is related in Roberto de Mattei’s  book The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story:

Bea and Ottaviani square off

Buy the Book!!

On June 19, 1962, the next to last day of the final session, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bea came into direct conflict. Two schemas were presented: one from the theological commission and the other from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Bea, in presenting his schema, asserted that it was focused on non-Catholics and corresponded to the “aggiornamento” of current living conditions in the Church desired by the pope. Ottaviani vehemently retorted that the secretariat had no right to deal with the question for which the Theological Commission was competent.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre recalls this episode, of which he was a [sic] eyewitness:

"I must relate to you a minor incident that occurred in 1962, when I was a member of the Central Preparatory Commision of the council. We held our meetings in the Vatican, but the last one was dramatic. Among the papers given to the Central Commission there were two on the same subject: One came from Cardinal Bea, president of the Commission for Unity , and the other from Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Theological Commission. When we had read them, when I myself had read the two schemas, I said: “It is very stange that there are two completely different points of view on the same subject, that is religious liberty or the Church’s attitude toward other religions.” Cardinal Bea’s was entitled De libertate religiosa; Cardinal Ottaviani’s – De tolerantia religios. Do you see the difference, the profound difference? What was happening? Why two completely different schemas on the same subject? At that moment, during the meeting, Cardinal Ottaviani stood up and , pointing with his finger, said to Cardinal Bea: “Eminence, you did not have the right to compose this schema, you did not have the right to do it because it is a theological schema and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” And as Cardinal Bea stood up he said: “Excuse me, but I did have the right to compose this schema as president of the commission on Unity; if anything concerns unity, certainly religious liberty does.” He added, turning to Cardinal Ottaviani, “I radically oppose what you say in your schema De tolerantia religiosa”… It was the final session of the central commission, and we could clearly perceive, on the eve of the council, displayed in fron of us, the whole battle that would take place during the council. This means that these things had already been prepared before the council. Cardinal Bea certainly did not compose his schema De libertate religiosa without having reached an agreement with other cardinals."

To get around the doctrinal obstacles, the secretariat proposed a new “para-diplomatic” way of expressing the faith, which consisted of couching dogmatic topics in contemporary terms without addressing them from a dogmatic perspective, but rather leaving them vague in the name of the primacy of the pastoral approach.

The Secretary for Promoting Christian Unity expanded his role, moreover, through the influence that he exerted on the “mixed commissions.” Most of these commissions in fact duplicated the curial dicasteries and were composed of bishops who were faithful to Rome. While the Theological Commission rejected all interference by Bea’s secretariat in the composition of the schemas, other commissions agreed to form “mixed commissions” with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, for instance the Commission for the Discipline of the Sacraments. The best Collaboration Occurred with the Liturgical Commission, whose secretary was Father Annibale Bugnini. Bea’s secretariat asked, in February 1961, for “the widest possible use of the vernacular.” In

April Bea himself intervened: “We must strongly oppose the idea that [liturgical] Latin is a sign of unity. It is more a sign of uniformity than a sign of unity.”

On October 22, eleven days after the opening of the council, John XXIII elevated the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unit to the rank of a commission. This new status gave the organization the right to present schemas to the General Assembly and to correct them. Its role would be decisive.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So for those of you keeping score of what the current Prefect for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kasper, is doing currently with the marriage issue, let not your hearts be troubled, that position is a pile of rubbish and always has been… lol… we are doomed!... no but seriously LOL!

Who encouraged St. Pope John XXIII to call Vatican II? (The answer may surprise!)

 Many of us are familiar with the story that ‘Good’ Pope John was sitting with one of his friends when all of the sudden the word “council” fluttered from his mouth.  From this, some say, proceeded with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost an intention to call the Second Vatican Council.  There is more to this enthusiastic story, but I think it more interesting to let you know about verified instances that played a more profound role in the decision to bring about the council.

So who was it exactly that encouraged St. John XXIII? 

Do the names Cardinal Ruffini and Ottaviani ring a bell?

St. Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Ottaviani in procession

Following the early pause of the First Vatican Council, there were many calls to bring the council to a close by finishing the deliberations that had begun prior to the Italian wars that left the Pontiffs prisoners of the Vatican.  Different Popes showed varying degrees of support to the idea of breathing new life in the First Vatican Council. Pius XI and Pius XII were not exceptions to this rule.  Pius XI had personally thought highly of restarting the council, but was persuaded by his closest advisers that it was not a good time to do so because of the modernist problem.  Pius XII was a little more skeptical about restarting First Vatican but he appointed secret commissions in the late 1940’s to study the possibility.  

During the conclave of 1958 there were many names being circulated including Ruffini, Ottaviani and a young Cardinal Siri of Genoa.  All three of these figures played a key role for the late pontiff and many expected that from this group would come forth the new Pope, which as a fact of history has proven very naïve.  The French delegation of cardinals were put under and exerted great pressure to keep the aforementioned names from ascending to Peter’s throne.  Charles De Gaulle, who was the French leader at the time still supported the Gallican ways of old, shunning montanism.  The French loved Cardinal Roncalli, however, because he had lived with them and they knew his tendencies and could thus manipulate him to an extent. 

In his book, The Second Vatican Council: The Untold Story, noted Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei relates the following information:

“The idea had come from  Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, the archbishop of Palermo, in an earlier audience on February 24, 1948. “At the feet of Pius XII,” he recounted, eleven years after receiving the purple hat, “I, the last of the priests, dared to ask for an ecumenical council. It seemed to me that it was urgently required by the circumstances and that there would be as much material to deal with as the Council of Trent had. The venerable pontiff did not reject the proposal; he did not even take note of it, as he was accustomed to do in important matters… Faced with differing opinions, which foreshadowed a conflict, Pius XII preferred to set aside the project, not unlike what his predecessor Pius XI had done.
The same Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, who had suggested the idea of a council to Pius XII in 1948, stated that in his cell at the conclave, they were the first to suggest to the newly-elevted John XXIII that he convene the twenty-first universal council of the Church.

In an interview published by the weekly Epoca, Cardinal Ottaviani was asked, among other things: “When John XXIII announced the council what was your reaction?” Ottaviani replied: ‘He had spoken about it to me from the moment of his election. Or rather, to be more precise, it was I who visited him in his little room at the conclave on the eve of the election. Among other things I told him “Your Eminence, it is necessary to think about a council.” Cardinal Ruffini, who was present at the conversation, was of the same mind. Cardinal Roncalli adopted this idea and later had this to say: “I have thought of a council from the moment I became Pope.” It’s true, he welcomed our suggestion.”

On Profound Crisis in the Church: Roberto de Mattei (Against Normalist Notions)

The following article can be found in the 4/15 edition of The Remnant.

On Profound Crisis in the Church


(Special Report on a Lecture by

Roberto de Mattei

Roberto de Mattei)
By Vincent Chiarello
COSMOS CLUB, April 9, 2014—The stately Cosmos Club of Washington D.C., located in “Embassy Row” of our nation’s capital was the site of a recent talk by the Italian historian of religion, Roberto de Mattei. The attractive external design of the Cosmos Club is reminiscent of French la belle époque style architecture, and was constructed at the turn of the 20th century.
A crowd of more than 100, including at least four Catholic priests, attended the one-hour lecture in which de Mattei laid out the consequences of Vatican II, the expanded details of which are included in his recently published, The Second Vatican Council, an Unwritten Story.
Roberto de Mattei serves as President of the Lepanto Foundation, which, although American in its origins, maintains an office in Rome and is associated with Italian Christian organizations such as Marcia per la Vita - the March for Life.
He is the editor of the Italian journal,
Radici Cristiane (Christian Roots), and for his work with the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, the Holy See awarded him the insignia of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great.
He is also the author of The Vicar of Christ: Between the Ordinary and the Exceptional, and teaches Church History at the European University of Rome, where he is the head of the Faculty of Historical Sciences. 
De Mattei became a focus of attention when he was recently relieved of his position at Radio Maria, a Vatican radio station, after four years. He was told by Radio Maria’s Director, Fr. 
Livio Fanzaga, the priest who hired him, that the principal reason for his dismissal was that he had not affirmed the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church (my emphasis), something that still puzzles de Mattei and many others. 
In an interview prior to his departure to the U.S., de Mattei stated that he believes that his support in gathering signatures in support of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to offer the Tridentine Mass was “not liked by certain high ecclesiastics, who asked Fr. Livio for my head.” He then added that since Vatican II, while calling for “dialogue” with separated brethren, “...they (the anti-Traditionalists in the Vatican) use a fist of iron toward those within the Church who do not want to stray from the unchangeable Tradition of the Church.” 
Why he would become a troublemaker, subversive, or even a heretic to certain members of the Vatican’s dicastri (departments) was a theme, amongst others, that he would try to explain as part of the lecture at the Cosmos Club. 
In attempting to describe the changes in the Church over the past half century, Professor de Mattei sought to connect, as a historian, not a theologian, the impact of other cataclysmic events such as the French Revolution, “the mother of all revolutions,” to changing attitudes in the Church, something that another contributor to The Remnant, Prof. John Rao, has also described. 
As a historian he could see the early evidence of those consequences as Vatican II unfolded over the arc of a half century, and which are now clearly detectable to any observer. Noticeable changes from the Church’s earlier attitudes, de Mattei emphasized, came about as the Church increasingly adopted, perhaps unwittingly, the philosophical framework of the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, who claimed that Socialism/Communism would “march through the institutions,” but in a nonviolent way. Gramsci’s philosophical victory, de Matttei maintains, is in claiming that “objective truth” would overtake that of “supernatural truth,” and that religious belief would slowly be replaced by a philosophical framework in which in order to survive the Church must modernize. That transformation is described by de Mattei as “principle giving way to praxis,” a situation in which the Church has increasingly “ceased to fight” for its principles. The historical evidence of that reversal, among other accommodations with modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies,” can be found the documents of Vatican II. 
While it is fair to say, as one questioner did, that although few recall the four Constitutions of the French Republic during the Revolution, most recall at least one major historical consequence: the guillotine. De Mattei reiterated that it makes little sense to examine the documents of Vatican II in a vacuum; it is what has historically happened to the Church in the intervening half century that really matters. To de Mattei there could be no question that a “profound crisis within the Church” now engulfs it. 
Many in the audience that night were aware of the paper delivered by Walter Cardinal Kasper in February of this year to a gathering at the Consistory on the topic of the family in preparation for the Synod that will be held in the Vatican this coming October. The German Cardinal’s paper expressed his (emphasis mine) belief that there should be a willingness by the Church to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments of the Church, including communion. As if on cue, major newspapers in the U.S. and Europe seized upon the prelate’s words to theorize that the Church was, indeed, making an effort to accommodate its principles with the modern world, a primary objective – aggiornamento – of Pope John XXIII in convoking of the Second Vatican Council. Those in the audience who wondered if de Mattei would broach that subject were not disappointed, for Kasper’s proposal came under scrutiny almost at the start of the historian’s talk. 
Referring to Cardinal Kasper’s approach as “sociological,” de Mattei described the proposal as being framed in a way that pits “Church doctrine versus real-life convictions of many Christians,” as if one were at odds with the other. Further, the end result of such “situational ethics” changes would, aside from its antithetical nature to Catholic dogma, lead most certainly to “Catholic divorce” and permission of cohabitation. Cardinal Kasper’s overall approach was, then, a plea which de Mattei described as, “...the Church must adapt to the forces of history, not history to the unchanging principles of the Church.” 
Cardinal Kasper’s novel approach to re-thinking the sacrament of marriage is a direct historical result of Vatican II’s emphasis on “pastoral orthodoxy” as being the sine qua non of Church practice, even though it was patently antithetical to accepted Church doctrine for centuries. 
For a Traditional comparison to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, de Mattei pointed to Pope Pius XII, who defined the morality issue in marriage thus: “ Continence within and outside of marriage is a Christian value; sexual union outside the sacrament of marriage of matrimony is a grave sin.” What Kasper was proposing had eliminated those differences, which had been “what the moralists always taught,” and at the same time the German Cardinal was discarding the dogmatic teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church, a major consequence of the Council. It is hard to believe that the participants in that aggiornamento suspected anything like the Kasper proposal would ever be considered, yet alone discussed. 
In attempting to explain the apparent amnesia that now is an integral part of current Church teaching, the lecturer devoted a lengthy review of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes(Joys and Hopes), which was “supposed to be the ‘first proving ground’ of the Church’s capacity to enter into dialogue with the world,” or as described by one of the participants, “the promised land of the Council.” 
Here de Mattei points an accusatory finger at the Leon-Joseph Suenens, then Cardinal Archbishop of Brussels, who during the Council deliberations was relentless in his effort to “connect the Church’s teaching to the modern world,” and “became an icon of the Second Vatican Council.” 
Historically, the primary purpose of Catholic marriage was “to give children to God,” followed by the requirements of “mutual love and respect,” but in July ‘64, Pope Paul VI approved theschema (outline or preliminary text), drafted under the supervision of Cardinal Suenens which omitted that priority and now placed “giving children to God” and “mutual love and respect” on an equal footing. It also inserted that decisions regarding marriage, which of course included the use of birth control, could be left “up to the conscience” of the couple. The dominant role of the human conscience, rather than the application of ethical rules, was a further demonstration that the Council was now being orchestrated by prelates who had an aversion to universal moral laws: individual conscience, not Church doctrine, was to be sovereign in these matters. 
When Cardinal Suenens, in an impassioned plea to the Council Fathers questioned the Church’s previous marital priority and claimed that it had been, “over-emphasized to the detriment of the marital union,” he drew an interesting analogy: “Let us avoid another Galileo trial.” At that point, enraged by the speaker’s tone Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini pounded his fist on the table and later characterized Suenens’ words as, “horrendous,” and sought them stricken from the debate. 
The Belgian’s rhetoric was so inflammatory that even the pontiff upbraided the cardinal for his “lack of judgment.” Still, efforts to defeat the proposed wording of the document failed, and on December 7, 1965 Gaudium et Spes became one of the landmark documents of the Second Vatican Council. Can anyone today point to any aspect of Catholic family life that is in any way better than it was before Gaudium et Spes? 
In his talk, Roberto de Mattei highlighted the history of some, but not all, of the baleful aspects of the Second Vatican Council and the unraveling of Church doctrine and dogma, but he has only scratched the surface. For example, the Church’s current position on ecumenism flies in the face of centuries, if not millennia, of dogma and doctrine; yet, any attempt to call attention the previous Church holdings on this matter is brushed off as medieval in outlook, if not antediluvian. 
For a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis, de Mattei’s book on Vatican II should be read by those who seek an understanding of what happened at the Council meetings – and why. Still, in ways that are incomprehensible to many of the Faithful, the Vatican’s hierarchy has plunged the Church into an abyss that has had disastrous effects; yet, any effort to connect the dots between the baleful effects of Vatican II and the current disastrous decline of the Church in many areas is considered to be almost sacrilegious. De Mattei’s treatment at Radio Maria bears witness to that condition. 
Toward the end of his talk, de Mattei quoted a French novelist who wrote, “It is necessary to live as one thinks, to avoid winding up thinking as one lives.” To Roberto de Mattei, personal knowledge and understanding are necessary in following the moral and ethical guidelines set up by the Church to avoid a chaotic and uncertain morality. That fight has in large part been lost by the withdrawal of the Catholic Church from the lists of moral combat. 
In the end, however, de Mattei believes that the Second Vatican Council was not only a historical event, but an amorphous “Spirit” that has come down over the 50 years, a “Spirit” that has emphasized practice and deemphasized doctrine, but he is firm in his conviction that Christ will see to it that this “profound crisis within the Church” will not be allowed to have its enemies prevail. Of that end de Mattei is certain. ■ 

+JMJ+