In his 11/25/2018 sermon Fr. Treco found the 2nd Vatican Council nothing to crow about, rather something to weep over.
He began furiously:
TODAY . . . I wish to set before you a deeper understanding of the crisis that now engulfs Holy Mother Church. . . . . IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND the current crisis [we must] KNOW and APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF [genuine] CATHOLICISM . . . And know and appreciate what some have called the “SPIRIT” of the SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL.
This was not the usual weekly message but a waving the flag of something big, meant to rally people to a cause. Which made it a cause for alarm for the man in Houston, the bishop.
His thesis was clear enough.
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ETHOS and CULTURE of the Catholic Church is the fact it is set in opposition to the world!
Then, calling on the apostle John:
If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [John 15:18-20,23]
On the other hand:
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ETHOS and CULTURE of the Second Vatican Council is an embrace of the world!
The Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came . . . . The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity.
Today, however, [the Church] prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that present needs are best served by explaining more fully . . . her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations. [America magazine, 50 years later]
. . . the truth of the Lord remains forever. We see, in fact, in the succession of one age to another, that the uncertain opinions of men contrast each other and often the errors vanish as soon as they arise, like a mist dissipated by the sun.
There is no time when the Church has not opposed these errors; she has also often condemned them, and sometimes with the utmost severity.
As for the present time, [the Church] prefers to use the medicine of mercy instead of taking up the weapons of rigor; she thinks that today's needs must be met, by exposing more clearly the value of her teaching than by condemning.
Some few differences, but in either case, hello, Mr. Nice Guy.
Paul VI unsurprisingly concurred, in 1965 at council’s end telling the bishops they had “insisted” on the “pleasant side of man,” in their conclusions, adopting a “deliberately optimistic” and achieved a worldwide “wave of affection and admiration.”
Paul was delighted. There had been no “depressing diagnoses” or “direful prognostics,” but “encouraging remedies” and “messages of trust.”
So much was this the case, he said, that “the modern world's values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.”
Fr. T. continued, sharply criticizing “conciliar popes” Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, condemning each for betraying his calling in various ways, such as worshiping in a synagogue in the course of inter-faith activities and wreaking havoc in abandoning their duties to protect and promote faith and morals.
It was a wild and woolly display by the preacher, deserving at least a caution from the enforcement body, maybe a ticket for speeding. In any case, he needed an editor, but apparently he did not think so.
Fr. T. was looking for an apt response to the evils of our time. He found it in the work of Pope St. Pius X, launcher of an all-out attack on theological modernism a hundred-plus years ago. Indeed, when Bishop Lopes required a profession of faith from him, he came up with Pius’ hard-hitting Oath Against Modernism of 1910.
Bishop L. balked at this. Not that the 1910 oath had anything wrong with it or that the more recent version worked to “diminish” or “abrogate the truth” of the other, he explained. But while “the faith is one and the same” in each, the more recent version of 1967 “both receives and interprets the prior articulation, not vice versa.”
Not clear what he’s talking about, but let’s give it a rest for now, preparing ourselves, at least myself, for a more detailed comparison of the competing oaths/professions. Look into its striking differences, that is. Later.
Share this post
Sifting through the evidence in the Fr. Treco excommunication case: What did he say and why did his bishop call it heretical/schismatical?
Share this post
In his 11/25/2018 sermon Fr. Treco found the 2nd Vatican Council nothing to crow about, rather something to weep over.
He began furiously:
This was not the usual weekly message but a waving the flag of something big, meant to rally people to a cause. Which made it a cause for alarm for the man in Houston, the bishop.
His thesis was clear enough.
Then, calling on the apostle John:
On the other hand:
Pope John XXIII set the tone, opening the council, October 11, 1962, with this to the assembled bishops:
Or, another translation, by Google of the Vatican’s Latin:
Some few differences, but in either case, hello, Mr. Nice Guy.
Paul was delighted. There had been no “depressing diagnoses” or “direful prognostics,” but “encouraging remedies” and “messages of trust.”
So much was this the case, he said, that “the modern world's values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.”
Fr. T. continued, sharply criticizing “conciliar popes” Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, condemning each for betraying his calling in various ways, such as worshiping in a synagogue in the course of inter-faith activities and wreaking havoc in abandoning their duties to protect and promote faith and morals.
It was a wild and woolly display by the preacher, deserving at least a caution from the enforcement body, maybe a ticket for speeding. In any case, he needed an editor, but apparently he did not think so.
Fr. T. was looking for an apt response to the evils of our time. He found it in the work of Pope St. Pius X, launcher of an all-out attack on theological modernism a hundred-plus years ago. Indeed, when Bishop Lopes required a profession of faith from him, he came up with Pius’ hard-hitting Oath Against Modernism of 1910.
Bishop L. balked at this. Not that the 1910 oath had anything wrong with it or that the more recent version worked to “diminish” or “abrogate the truth” of the other, he explained. But while “the faith is one and the same” in each, the more recent version of 1967 “both receives and interprets the prior articulation, not vice versa.”
Not clear what he’s talking about, but let’s give it a rest for now, preparing ourselves, at least myself, for a more detailed comparison of the competing oaths/professions. Look into its striking differences, that is. Later.