Professing the faith in time of Pius X vs. doing so in time of Paul VI and his successors

What a difference a second Vatican council makes . . .

We approach the end of the story of the fiery preacher and flaming traditionalist in Minnesota, Fr. Treco, vs. the solidly contemporary executive/shepherd in Houston, Bishop Lopes. Not breaking news, to be sure, dates in question being late 2019 and half-through 2020, but important as help to our understanding the gap separating the two warring Catholic camps of 2022.

In the last episode, we saw Bishop L. rejecting a signed profession of faith from Fr. T. in the 1910 formula, not in that of 1967, as the bishop had directed, leading us to wonder as to how the two differ.

They don’t, said the bishop. “The faith is one and the same” in each. Nothing in the "prior articulation,” he said, ”is denied by the latter," which “does not diminish or abrogate the truth" of the former.

So what was the problem? Why did Fr. T. swear to the one and not the other? Why did Bishop L. Require the one and not the other?

It’s the Vatican Council, stupid. Which side are you in the 21st Century? Vatican 1 or 2? By their council you shall know them, those who name names and take it to the Satanic enemy or those who’d rather not.

The 1910 oath was “against modernism.” Signers had to reject “the errors of this day,” such as:

* Whether we can know God exists “by the natural light of reason from the created world”

* Whether “miracles and prophecies” signal “the divine origin of the Christian religion” in a manner “well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.”

* Whether the Church was “personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us” and that it was “built upon Peter . . . and his successors for the duration of time.”

* Whether “dogmas evolve . . . developed by human effort" and "will continue to develop indefinitely.”

* Whether faith was ”a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source.”

* Whether historians and theologians should “put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever.”

* Whether they “should . . . interpret the writings of each of the Fathers [of the Church] solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority,” and “with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.”

* Whether they accept the “syllabus of errors” compiled and issued by Pius three years earlier, a cool 65 of these.

All of that preceded the 1967 pledge of allegiance by a light year’s (they say ” tectonic,” don’t they?) shift. Something big happened, of course, the culmination of some (many?) perjured signings off by “clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries” the world over.

Gone from this post-Vatican 2 pledge was the list of heresies and false readings of tradition.

Vatican 2 had handled that neatly, as in papal announcements at council start, by John XXIII, and finish, by Paul VI. John’s at the start with his “Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity,” and Paul’s at the finish telling the bishops they had “insisted” on the “pleasant side of man,” in their conclusions adopting a “deliberately optimistic” approach that led, to a worldwide “wave of affection and admiration.” There had been no “depressing diagnoses” or “direful prognostics,” said Paul, but “encouraging remedies” and “messages of trust.”

Vatican 2 was hailed for its softening effect, blurring of outlines, above all its soothing effect, committing to nothing specific, avoiding the controversial. Fill in the blanks as you see things, and away you go. Nothing to offend.

The 1910 oath, on the contrary, was a declaration of war that named enemies. It was pugnacious like its progenitor Pius X, who had no respect for his opponents, with whom he refused to negotiate.

Like liturgists of a later time, of whom it was said that like terrorists they refused to negotiate — this in the mid-'60s, when rumblings were heard of The Big Change and the big stick was decades later to be in other hands.

So the pledge of faithful obedience required of this 1910-style preacher had to be the newer, kindlier pledge.

===============================

Coming up, what Fr. T’s canon lawyer said in his defense and what finally happened . . .