50 priesteri, žurnālisti un zinātnieki pateicas par Vatikāna II koncila pārskatīšanas aktualizēšanu

Piektdiena, 31 Jūlijs 2020 19:53

Vai katoļi drīkst diskutēt par Vatikāna II koncila mācību un pastorālajām nostādnēm? Vai koncils patiešām ir sekmējis Baznīcas atjaunotni, vai varbūt sekmējis Baznīcas mācības dekonstrukciju? Atklājot koncila darbu, pāvests Jānis XXIII to cerīgi sauca par jauniem Vasarsvētkiem, taču pēc piecdesmit gadiem redzam pavisam citu realitāti, ka Baznīca iegāja nevis jaunajā Vasarsvētku laikmetā, bet dziļajā ziemā, turklāt bez Ziemassvētkiem. Kristus arī mums ir iedevis kritēriju, kā izvērtēt garīgu darbu: “Ikkatru koku pazīst no viņa augļiem (Lk 6,44).

Mana pirmā saskarsme ar koncila lēmumiem notika Rīgas Garīgajā seminārā, kad no ārzemēm atbraukušie profesori žēlojās, ka mēs Latvijā esam atpalikuši, ieviešot koncila lēmumus. Savukārt tie, kas universalajā Baznīcā uzdeva pamatotus jautājumus un apšaubīja vajadzību mainīt Liturģiju, tika stigmatizēti par fundamentālistiem un lefebristiem, nemaz neiedziļinoties mons. Lefevra un daudzu citu, Baznīcas Tradīcijai uzticīgu teologu argumentos. Taču, lai izprastu un novērtētu Baznīcas mācību, ir nepieciešama diskusija, tāpēc ir apsveicama katra iniciatīva, kas rosina pārdomāt. Pirms diviem mēnešiem plašudiskusiju interneta vidē izraisīja Astanas bīskapa Atanāzija Šnaidera raksts (šeit), ko turpināja drosmīgā ticības aizstāvēja arhibīskapa Karlo Maria Vigano pārdomas (šeit). Viņu atklātajai un godīgajai diskusijai pievienojās daudzi teologi, priesteri, zinātnieki, teologi un katoļu žurnālisti. Publicējam viņu atklātās vēstules tulkojuma kopsavilkumu par Vatikāna II koncilu, kas ierosina pārskatīt un atdalīt patiesību no maldiem. Pilnu versiju atradīsiet tulkojuma baigās angļu valodā. 

 Pr. Aleksandrs Stepanovs

50 priesteri, žurnālisti un zinātnieki pateicas par  Vatikāna II koncila pārskatīšanas aktualizēšanu

 

Vairāk nekā 50 priesteru, zinātnieku, žurnālistu un citu ievērojamu personu publicēja atklātu vēstuli arhibīskapam Karlo Maria Vigano un bīskapam Atanāzijam Šneideram, lai pateiktos šiem prelātiem par viņu nesenajiem paziņojumiem, kuros tie apspriež dažas Vatikāna Otrā koncila dokumentu problēmas, kurām būtu nepieciešas tālāks vērtējums un labojumi.

Zem šīs vēstules parakstījušies uzskata izklāstu par Koncilu un tā ietekmi par ārkārtīgi svarīgu Baznīcas atveseļošanu. Viņu vidū ir ievērojamais itāļu baznīcas vēsturnieks profesors Roberto de Mattei, ASV Fox Newsvecākais tieslietu analītiķis un tiesību profesors Endrjū P. Napolitano, kā arī viņa kolēģi tiesību profesori Braiens Makkols un Paolo Paskualuči, labi pazīstami katoļu grāmatu autori, kā Pēteris Kvasņevskis, Hosē Antonio Ureta, Henrijs Sire un Dr. Teilors Maršals, atvaļinātais Oksfordas pētnieks tēvs Džons Hunviks, neskaitāmi citi priesteri, kā arī tādi žurnālisti kā Marko Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Žanna Smits un Džons Henijs Vestens.

Vēstule (skat. pilnu tekstu zemāk) vienlaikus ir publicēta angļu, itāļu, spāņu, portugāļu, holandiešu un franču valodā.

Vēstulē tiek izteikta pateicība arhibīskapam Vigano un bīskapam Šneideram par aicinājumu organizēt “atklātas un godīgas debates par to, kas notika Vatikāna II koncilā un vai Koncilā un tā lēmumu īstenošanā ir kļūdas un tādi aspekti, kas rada maldus vai kaitē ticībai”. Viņiem ir zināms, ka arī abiem prelātiem ir savas domstarpības par šī diskursa aspektiem, jo “arhibīskaps Vigano ir iebildis, ka labāk būtu “aizmirst ” koncilu, savukārt bīskaps Šneiders, nepiekrītot viņam šajā konkrētajā jautājumā, ierosina oficiāli labot tikai tās dokumentu daļas, kurās ir kļūdas vai kuras ir neskaidras.”  Taču  šīs domstarpības tiek pasniegtas labdabīgā laipnībā.

Paziņots: “Jūsu pieklājīgajai un cieņpilnajai viedokļu apmaiņai vajadzētu būt par paraugu spēcīgākām debatēm, kuras jūs un mēs vēlamies. Pārāk bieži šīs pēdējo piecdesmit gadu laikā radušās nesaskaņas par Vatikāna II koncilu ir radījušasm tikai uzbrukumus ad hominemtā vietā, lai izraisītos  vienkārši mierīga argumentācija. Mēs aicinām visus, kas pievienosies šīm debatēm, sekot jūsu piemēram.

Atklātajā vēstulē izteikta pateicība abiem prelātiem par “dažu Vatikāna Otrā koncila būtisku aspektu “identificēšanu”, kuri pelnījuši izpēti, piebilstot, ka šāds diskurss varētu sniegt “atklātu, tomēr pieklājīgu debašu modeli, kas neizslēdz domstarpības ”. Parakstītāji norāda, ka viņi paši varētu nepiekrist ikvienam arhibīskapa Vigano un bīskapa Šneidera izvirzītajam punktam.

Pēc tam tiek uzskaitīti galvenie kritikas punkti, ko pēdējās nedēļās izvirzījuši abi prelāti attiecībā uz koncilu, ar šādiem virsrakstiem: Reliģiskā brīvība visām reliģijām kā Dieva gribētas dabiskas tiesības;Kristus Baznīcas identitāte ar katoļu Baznīcu un jauno ekumenismu; Pāvesta prioritāte un jaunā koleģialitāte; un Koncils un tā teksti ir daudzu pašreizējo skandālu un kļūdu cēlonis.

Šajās sadaļās sniegti abu prelātu citāti, tādējādi apkopojot viņu argumentus un iebildumus. Piemēram, pēdējā nodaļā abi prelāti velk paralēles starp dažiem koncila paziņojumiem un pāvesta Franciska izdotajiem dokumentiem, tādējādi norādot uz koncilu un tā jauninājumiem kā uz galveno mūsu pašreizējās baznīcas krīzes cēloni.

Arhibīskaps Vigano nesen rakstījis:

Ja var pielūgt pačamamubaznīcā, tad tad kļuvis iespējams tikai, pateicoties Dignitatis Humanae. Ja liturģija tiek protestantizēta un reizēm pat kļūst pagāniska, tad – pateicoties mosninjora Annibale Bugnini revolucionārajai rīcībai un pēckoncila reformām.  Abū Dabī deklarācija parakstīta, pateicoties Nostra Aetate. Ja mēs esam nonākuši pie tā, ka lēmumus deleģējam Bīskapu konferencēm – pat nopietni pārkāpjot Konkordātu, kā tas notika Itālijā –tas  ir pateicoties koleģialitātei un tās atjauninātajai versijai – sinodalitātei. Pateicoties sinodalitātei, mēs nonākam pie Amoris Laetitia, kas ir acīmredzami paredzēts, lai leģitimizētu Komūniju šķirteņiem un “partneriem”, tāpat kā Querida Amazoniatiks izmantota, lai leģitimizētu priesterus-sievietes (tāpat kā nesenajā gadījumā ar “episkopālo vikāri” Freiburgā) un svētā celibāta atcelšanu.

Līdzīgā veidā bīskaps Šneiders konstatē:

Ikvienam intelektuāli godīgam cilvēkam, kurš necenšas pierādīt neiespējamo, ir skaidrs, ka Dignitatis Humanae teiktais, ka ikvienam cilvēkam ir tiesības, balstoties uz savu dabu (un tādēļ pēc Dieva pozitīvās gribas), praktizēt un izplatīt reliģiju pēc savas sirdsapziņas, būtiski neatšķiras no paziņojuma Abū Dabī deklarācijā, kurā teikts: “Plurālismu un reliģiju daudzveidību, krāsu, dzimumu, rasi un valodu Dievs vēlas savā gudrībā, caur kuru Viņš radījis cilvēkus. Šī dievišķā gudrība ir avots, no kura izriet tiesības uz ticības brīvību un brīvība būt atšķirīgiem.”

Atkārtosim īsumā šeit diskursa  vēsturi par koncilu un tā sekām.

Tas sākās ar diviem bīskapa Šneidera publicētajiem tekstiem, kuros viņš atbildēja uz kardināla Gerharda Millera  garo eseju, kas interpretē pretrunīgi vērtēto 2019. gada 4. februāra Abū Dabī dokumentu ortodoksālā gaismā un tādējādi pozitīvi atsaucas arī uz dažiem koncila dokumentiem.

Šneiders 1. jūnijā teica, ka Abū Dabī dokuments ir maldīgs paziņojumā, ka “reliģiju dažādība” ir “Dieva gribēta”. Savā otrajā rakstā vācu izcelsmes prelāts no Kazahijas arī nepiekrīt Abū Dabī pamatā esošam apgalvojumam, ka katoļi un musulmaņi tic vienam un tam pašam Dievam.

9.jūnija atsauksmē arhibīskaps Vigano atbildēja uz šīm debatēm par Vatikāna Otro koncilu, ar prieku piekrizdams, pievienojot 15. jūnija paziņojumu par dažiem problemātiskiem priekšlikumiem Vatikāna II dokumentos. Turpat viņš arī paziņoja, ka būtu labāk, ja koncils tiktu “aizmirsts”. 26. jūnijā viņš atbildēja uz katoļu komentētāja un grāmatu autora Fila Lolera jautājumiem par vētrainā Vatikāna Otrā koncila vēsturi un fonu un pazīmēm, ka neliela modernistu grupa ar to ir manipulējusi.

AtbildotLifeSitegalvenajam redaktoram Džonam Henrijam Westenam, arhibīskaps Vigano paskaidroja sevis agrāk teikto, ka viņš domā, ka koncils labāk būtu jāaizmirst, un sacīja, ka uzskata, ka koncils ir likumīgs, taču ticis manipulēts.

Visbeidzot, 6. jūlijā itāļu prelāts atbildēja uz itāļu žurnālista Sandro Magistera kritiku, ka viņš atrodoties uz “shizmas robežas”. “Man nav vēlēšanās atdalīties no Mātes Baznīcas”, tā viņš rakstīja.

Atklātās vēstules autori atzinīgi uzņēmuši šo pārspriedumu par Otro Vatikāna koncilu un tā atskaņām. Mēs ticam, ka, ja labas gribas cilvēki kopīgi apsver šīs ārkārtīgi svarīgās lietas Baznīcas dzīvē, pat ja viņi dažreiz nav vienisprātis, patiesība katrā ziņā tiks veicināta labdarībā.

 

***

 

 

Please see here the Open Letter, signed by over 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence:

 

Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider

 

July 9, 2020

 

Your Excellencies:

 

We the undersigned wish to express our sincere gratitude for your fortitude and care for souls during the ongoing crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church. Your public statements calling for an honest and open discussion of the Second Vatican Council and the dramatic changes in Catholic belief and practice that followed it have been a source of hope and consolation to many faithful Catholics. The event of the Second Vatican Council appears now more than fifty years after its completion to be unique in the history of the Church. Never before our time has an ecumenical council been followed by such a prolonged period of confusion, corruption, loss of faith, and humiliation for the Church of Christ.

 

Catholicism has distinguished itself from some false religions by its insistence that Man is a rational creature and that religious belief encourages rather than suppresses critical reflection by Catholics. Many, including the current Holy Father, appear to place the Second Vatican Council—and its texts, acts, and implementation—beyond the reach of critical analysis and debate. To concerns and objections raised by Catholics of good will, the Council has been held up by some as a “super-council,” (1) the invocation of which ends rather than fosters debate. Your call to trace the current crisis in the Church to its roots and to call for action to correct any turn taken at Vatican II that is now seen to have been a mistake exemplify the fulfillment of the episcopal office to hand on the Faith as the Church has received it.

 

We are grateful for your calls for an open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith. Such a debate cannot start from a conclusion that the Second Vatican Council as a whole and in its parts is per se in continuity with Tradition. Such a pre-condition to a debate prevents critical analysis and argument and only permits the presentation of evidence that supports the conclusion already announced. Whether or not Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition is the question to be debated, not a posited premise blindly to be followed even if it turns out to be contrary to reason. The continuity of Vatican II with Tradition is a hypothesis to be tested and debated, not an incontrovertible fact. For too many decades the Church has seen too few shepherds permit, let alone encourage, such a debate.

 

Eleven years ago, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini had already made a filial request to Pope Benedict XVI: “The idea (which I dare now to submit to Your Holiness) has been in my mind for a long time. It is that a grandiose and if possible final clarification of the last council be given concerning each of its aspects and contents. Indeed, it would seem logical, and it seems urgent to me, that these aspects and contents be studied in themselves and in the context of all the others, with a close examination of all the sources, and from the specific viewpoint of continuity with the preceding Church’s Magisterium, both solemn and ordinary. On the basis of a scientific and critical work—as vast and irreproachable as possible—in comparison with the traditional Magisterium of the Church, it will then be possible to draw matter for a sure and objective evaluation of Vatican II.” (2)

 

We also are grateful for your initiative in identifying some of the most important doctrinal topics that must be addressed in such a critical examination and for providing a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement. We have collected from your recent interventions some examples of the topics you have indicated must be addressed and, if found lacking, corrected. This collection we hope will serve as a basis for further detailed discussion and debate. We do not claim this list to be exclusive, perfect, or complete. We also do not all necessarily agree with the precise nature of each of the critiques quoted below nor on the answer to the questions you raise, yet we are united in the belief that your questions deserve honest answers and not mere dismissals with ad hominem claims of disobedience or breaking with communion. If what each of you claims is untrue, let interlocutors prove it; if not, the hierarchy should give credence to your claims.

 

Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God

 

Bishop Schneider: “Examples include certain expressions of the Council on the topic of religious freedom (understood as a natural right, and therefore positively willed by God, to practice and spread a false religion, which may also include idolatry or even worse)....” (3)

Bishop Schneider: “Unfortunately, just a few sentences later, the Council [in Dignitatis Humanae] undermines this truth by setting forth a theory never before taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church, i.e., that man has the right founded in his own nature, ‘not to be prevented from acting in religious matters according to his own conscience, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits’ (ut in re religiosa neque impediatur, quominus iuxta suam conscientiam agat privatim et publice, vel solus vel aliis consociatus, intra debitos limites, n. 2). According to this statement, man would have the right, based on nature itself (and therefore positively willed by God) not to be prevented from choosing, practicing and spreading, also collectively, the worship of an idol, and even the worship of Satan, since there are religions that worship Satan, for instance, the ‘church of Satan.’ Indeed, in some countries, the ‘church of Satan’ is recognized with the same legal value as all other religions.” (4)

The Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism

 

Bishop Schneider: “[I]ts [the Council’s] distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (the problem of “subsistit in” gives the impression that two realities exist: the one side, the Church of Christ, and on the other, the Catholic Church); and its stance towards non-Christian religions and the contemporary world.” (5)

Bishop Schneider: “To state that Muslims adore together with us the one God (“nobiscum Deum adorant”), as the II Vatican Council did in Lumen Gentium n. 16, is theologically a highly ambiguous affirmation. That we Catholics adore with the Muslims the one God is not true. We do not adore with them. In the act of adoration, we always adore the Holy Trinity, we do not simply adore “the one God” but, rather, the Holy Trinity consciously—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Islam rejects the Holy Trinity. When the Muslims adore, they do not adore on the supernatural level of faith. Even our act of adoration is radically different. It is essentially different. Precisely because we turn to God and adore Him as children who are constituted within the ineffable dignity of divine filial adoption, and we do this with supernatural faith. However, the Muslims do not have supernatural faith.” (6)

Archbishop Viganò: “We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that it is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus“Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.” (7)

Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality

 

Bishop Schneider: “For example, the very fact that a ‘nota explicativa praevia’ to the document Lumen Gentium was needed shows that the text of Lumen Gentium, in n. 22, is ambiguous with regard to the topic of the relationship between papal primacy and episcopal collegiality. Documents clarifying the Magisterium in post-conciliar times, such as the encyclicals Mysterium Fidei, Humanae Vitae, and Pope Paul VI’s Creed of the People of God, were of great value and help, but they did not clarify the aforementioned ambiguous statements of the Second Vatican Council.” (8)

The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors

 

Archbishop Viganò: “If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an ‘episcopal vicaress’ in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy.” (9)

Archbishop Viganò: “But if at the time it could be difficult to think that a religious liberty condemned by Pius XI (Mortalium Animos) could be affirmed by Dignitatis Humanae, or that the Roman Pontiff could see his authority usurped by a phantom episcopal college, today we understand that what was cleverly concealed in Vatican II is today affirmed ore rotundo in papal documents precisely in the name of the coherent application of the Council.” (10)

Archbishop Viganò: “We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts, just as it is rightly said that the Novus Ordo is the Mass of the Council, even if in the presence of the Council Fathers the Mass was celebrated that the progressives significantly call pre-conciliar.” (11)

Bishop Schneider: “For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: ‘The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.’” (12)

We have taken note of the differences you have highlighted between the solutions each of you has proposed for responding to the crisis precipitated at and following the Second Vatican Council. For example, Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether “forget” the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous. Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.

 

We pray that Our Blessed Mother, St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, St. Athanasius, and St. Thomas Aquinas protect and preserve your Excellencies. May they reward you for your faithfulness to the Church and confirm you in your defense of the Faith and of the Church.

 

In Christo Rege,  (signed)