Feast of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary
In the first part of this post (cf., “The Honor of the Blessed Virgin… I“), we underscored the grave implications of the so-called ‘misreading of Vatican II’ – which the President of the Mariological Society of America pointed out, at an academic conference held in Rome last September 6, as the cause of what was perceived to be a “collapse of Marian devotion.” The first one, it is falsehood that is prevailing in the official institutional ‘Catholic Church’. Now, the President of the Mariological Society of America was nearly categorical in saying that it was “an overly rationalist historical approach” that was to blame. To put it categorically, it was Modernism (cf., our post “The Partisans of Error“) then that, in the words of Hans Kung, the infamous Swiss apostate of the ‘Catholic’ Theological Faculty of the University of Tubingen in Germany, ‘[had] spread and permeated the entire atmosphere of the Church, due to the [Vatican II] Council” (in Msgr. J. Cirrincione, Fatima’s Message for Our Times, TAN Books, 1990, p.55).
One distinguishing mark of Modernism, nay every falsehood or, to be ‘politically correct’, half-truth, is contradiction. The Mariological Society of America President claimed, on the one hand, that “the Council Fathers upheld Mary’s critical place in the faith” (obviously, an effort to uphold still Vatican II along the Modernist lines of ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ of Pope Benedict XVI, cf., the first part of this post) while, on the other, recognizing the other vent of the Modernist revenge that prevailed in the official institutional ‘Church’ “due to the Council,” “an apparent change in emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary contributed to a full-scale collapse of Mariology that has had very notable effects on the life of the Church.” Originally, the schema “On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church” was a separate text and was to be treated independently of the schema on the Church but the so-called European Alliance, which “regularly” (Msgr. Cirrincione, op. cit.) adopted the position of the German-speaking bishops – who in turn adopted the opinions of the Jesuit Karl Rahner, prevailed and had the Council integrate in the schema on the Church everything pertaining to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why? “According to Father Rahner,” wrote Fr. Wiltgen, S.V.D. in his celebrated history of the Second Vatican Council, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (published by TAN Books), “whose comments were distributed to all participants in the Fulda conference [of the European Alliance], ‘Were the text to be accepted as it stood [which treated also of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Her title Mediatrix], unimaginable harm would result, from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants… It should therefore be urged with all possible insistence that the schema on the Blessed Virgin be made either a chapter or an epilogue of the schema on the Church [the latter, in fact, as an epilogue, was adopted]. This would be the easiest way to delete from the schema statements which, theologically, are [for Modernists, of course, who, preferring the search for truth rather than the possession of it, put everything up for a more ‘rationally-situating’ manner of discussion or ‘deconstruction’] not sufficiently developed and which would only do incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view.’ What he attacked especially,” continues Fr. Wiltgen in his account, “was the schema’s teaching on the mediation of Mary and the title ‘Mediatrix of all graces which it gave the Blessed Virgin.” This belies what the Society President also stated that the final Vatican II text on the Blesssed Virgin Mary [the “Epilogue” of Lumen Gentium mentioning the titles “Mother of God” and “Mediatrix” but only in compromise for schematic integration] is “the most complete and conclusive doctrinal statement about the Blessed Virgin Mary ever written.”
And to “rub salt to the wound”, such Conciliar sacrifice of the honor of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to the Ecumenical agenda of the Modernists was even hailed by Cardinal Angelo Amato who, in that same ‘Mariological’ conference in Rome, was quoted: “a momentous watershed moment for Marian discourse – steering it away from every undeserved doctrinal and devotional exaggeration.” As if the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3.15) were capable of “doctrinal exaggeration”! No, the Cardinal was not ignorant of Theology properly so-called; his mind is another product of pseudo-Theology, that is, the New ‘Catholic Theology’ of Vatican II (cf., our post “The Ultimate Delusion of Vatican II ‘Catholicism’“), except that his is also more pronounced, like Rahner’s, in its callous perversion.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the ‘sacrifice’ was actually pre-Conciliar. It begun with a virtual proposal by Pope John XXIII – the fallen star who unleashed the scourge of the locusts (cf., the first part of this post) and gave them a Council with which to eclipse the Sun and the moon (cf., commentary of St. Augustine in our post “The Great Tribulation“ – when, on August 18, 1959, after reading the Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima which the Blessed Virgin Mary wished to be opened in the 1960’s (Pope John XXIII’s reign, his death was in 1963), told his Secretary Msgr. Loris Capovilla to “Write”: “Finally, he decided to put it back in the envelope, saying, ‘I make no judgment on this.’ He maintained silence in the face of what might be a manifestation of the divine or might not be” (in an interview with Msgr. Capovilla reproduced in CRC of December 1997, in M. Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, p. 163). Pope John XXIII, rather than to repudiate his Ecumenical program of a ‘New Evangelization’, that is, the New ‘Catholic Theology’, chose rather to abandon the logic of the Church’s pronouncement on the visitations and messages at Fatima in Portugal as supernatural in origin!
“Does ecumenism consist in confessing or hiding the truth? Ought the Council to explain Catholic doctrine, or the doctrine of [the] separated brethren? Hiding the truth hurts both us and those separated from us. It hurts us, because we appear as hypocrites. It hurts those who are separated from us because it makes them appear weak and capable of being offended by the truth. Let the schemas be separated. Let us profess our Faith openly. Let us be the teachers we are in the Church by teaching with clarity, and not hiding what is true” (Servite Bishop Giocondo Grotti, of Acre e Purus, Brazil, in a rebuttal to all arguments in favor of an ‘integrated schema’ he circulated at the Council).
Mater Dolorosa, ora pro nobis!