The Holy Spirit is not the author of the confusion in the Catholic Church – so who is?

bishconf

In his magnificent book The Devastated Vineyard (1973), Dietrich von Hildebrand warned against a false loyalty to the Church hierarchy in which Catholics uncritically accept every word and action of their bishop, while failing to acknowledge the harm that may be done to the Church by those words and actions:

A third false response, and perhaps the most dangerous one, would be to imagine that there is no destruction of the vineyard of the Lord, that it only seems so to us — our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says….

At the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy. When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. This is not to deny that the magisterium of the Church extends much farther than the dogmas. If an encyclical deals with a question of faith or morals and is based on the tradition of the holy Church — that is, expresses something which the Church has always taught — then we should humbly accept its teaching. This is the case with the encyclical Humanae Vitae: although we do not have here the strict infallibility of a defined dogma, the content of the encyclical nevertheless belongs to that sphere of the Church’s magisterium which we must accept as true.

But there are many encyclicals which deal with very different (e.g., sociological) questions and which express a response of the Church to certain new conditions. Thus the encyclical of the great Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, with its idea of a corporate state, differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI. But when it is a question of practical ordinances such as concordats, or the suppression of the Jesuit order by Pope Clement XIV, or the introduction of the new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares), but by no means our agreement, is required….

Read more

“His guideline was truth and not the spirit of the time.”

Speaking of the current age of philosophy which cuts out the supernatural and is “a time of concentrated nonsense which sits well because it has the appearance of truth” she referred to the characteristic unity of her late-husband’s thoughts which, in contrast to the “blunder” of Aristotle, kept God as the reference point.

If you examine his thought in different philosophical areas, she explained, “there is a perfect line of continuity, you can predict, so to speak, what he’s going to do … he becomes a Catholic and he understands this is ‘the truth,’ not (just) ‘a truth’ because Christ is the only person, neither Mohamed nor Moses, nor anybody, ever dared say ‘I am the truth!’

Dr. Hildebrand explained that, according to her husband, “if you truly understand the meaning of truth, it leads you to the truth and then you fall on your knees and you adore.”

His philosophy, she explained, “did not dictate what he had to think, it was simply an approach to life: let the object reveal itself and purify your mind, eliminate prejudices.”

This, she said, is why he was able to take a new approach to the classical philosophies, purified and with fresh eyes.

“His guideline was truth and not the spirit of the time.”

And in his final days, he called her to his side. Noting the weakness of his body but the “soul of a lion” that remained, he told her that if ever in his writings there was even a hint of incongruency, “if you find a line which does not agree with the Church, burnt it all!

“And that,” she exclaimed, “was my husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand!”

Link

Fruits of the obtuse “Spirit of Vatican II”


When St. Bonaventure writes in Itinerium Mentis ad Deum that only a man of desire (such as Daniel) can understand God, he means that a certain attitude of soul must be achieved in order to understand the world of God, into which He wants to lead us.

This counsel is especially applicable to the Church’s liturgy. The sursum corda the lifting up of our hearts is the first requirement for real participation in the mass. Nothing could better obstruct the confrontation of man with God than the notion that we “go unto the altar of God” as we would go to a pleasant, relaxing social gathering. This is why the Latin Mass with Gregorian chant, which raises us up to a sacred atmosphere, is vastly superior to a vernacular mass with popular songs, which leaves us in a profane, merely natural atmosphere.

The basic error of most of the innovations is to imagine that the new liturgy brings the holy sacrifice of the mass nearer to the faithful, that shorn of its old rituals the mass now enters into the substance of our lives. For the question is whether we better meet Christ in the mass by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our own pedestrian, workaday world. The innovators would replace holy intimacy with Christ by an unbecoming familiarity. The new liturgy actually threatens to frustrate the confrontation with Christ, for it discourages reverence in the face of mystery, precludes awe, and all but extinguishes a sense of sacredness. What really matters, surely, is not whether the faithful feel at home at mass, but whether they are drawn out of their ordinary lives into the world of Christ-whether their attitude is the response of ultimate reverence: whether they are imbued with the reality of Christ.

THOSE WHO RHAPSODIZE on the new liturgy make much of the point that over the years the mass had lost its communal character and had become an occasion for individualistic worship. The new vernacular mass, they insist, restores the sense of community by replacing private devotions with community participation. Yet they forget that there are different levels and kinds of communion with other persons. The level and nature of a community experience is determined by the theme of the communion, the name or cause in which men are gathered. The higher the good which the theme represents, and which binds men together, the more sublime and deeper is the communion. The ethos and nature of a community experience in the case of a great national emergency is obviously radically different from the community experience of a cocktail party. And of course the most striking differences in communities will be found between the community whose theme is supernatural and the one whose theme is merely natural. The actualization of men’s souls who are truly touched by Christ is the basis of a unique community, a sacred communion, one whose quality is incomparably more sublime than that of any natural community. The authentic we communion of the faithful, which the liturgy of Holy Thursday expresses so well in the words “congregavit nos in unum Christi amor”, is only possible as a fruit of the I-Thou communion with Christ Himself. Only a direct relation to the God- Man can actualize this sacred union among the faithful.

Read more by Dietrich von Hildebrand

Laziness of the soul is damaging the Church at some of the highest levels


Michael Voris at RealCatholicTV explains it in a short video presentation:

In the words of the renowned Catholic theologian,
Dietrich von Hildebrand, here’s the essential point:

….. One of the most horrifying and widespread diseases in the Church today is the lethargy of the guardians of the Faith of the Church. …

I am thinking [here] of the … numerous bishops … who make no use whatever of their authority when it comes to intervening against heretical theologians or priests, or against blasphemous performances of public worship. …

But it is most especially infuriating when certain bishops who themselves show this lethargy toward heretics, assume a rigorously authoritarian attitude towards those believers who are fighting for orthodoxy, and who are thus doing what the bishops ought to be doing themselves! …

The drivel of the heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated; the bishops tacitly acquiesce to the poisoning of the faithful.

But they want to silence the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy, the very people who should by all rights be the joy of the bishops’ hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy.

Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace.

The insult to God which is embodied in heresy is often not as tangible and irritating for them as a public act of rebellion against their authority.

Submitted by Doria2