I have followed with interest the ongoing debate on Traditionis Custodes and the commentary by Dom Alcuin Reid ( here ) in which he refutes Cavadini, Healy and Weinandy without however reaching a solution to the problems identified. With this contribution I would like to indicate a possible solution to the present crisis.
Vatican II , not being a dogmatic council, did not intend to define any doctrinal truth, limiting itself to indirectly reaffirming – and moreover in an often ambiguous form – doctrines previously defined in a clear and unequivocal way by the infallible authority of the Magisterium. It was unduly and forcibly considered as “the” Council, the “superdogma” of the new “conciliar church”, to the point of defining it in relation to that event. In the conciliar texts there is no explicit mention of what was then done in the liturgical sphere, passing it off as a fulfillment of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. On the other hand, there are many critical aspects of the so-called “reform”, which represents a betrayal of the will of the Council Fathers and of the pre-conciliar liturgical heritage.
We should rather ask ourselves what value to give to an act that is not what it wants to seem: that is, if we can morally consider “Council” an act which, beyond its official premises – that is, in the preparatory schemes formulated at length and in detail by the Holy Office – proved to be subversive in its unmentionable intentions and malicious in the means to be employed by those who, as it later happened, wanted to use it for a purpose totally opposite to that for which the Church instituted the Ecumenical Councils. This premise is indispensable in order to then be able to objectively evaluate the other events and acts of government of the Church which derive from it or which refer to it.
I’ll explain. We know that a law is promulgated on the basis of a mens , i.e. a very specific purpose, which cannot be separated from the entire legal system in which it was born. These at least are the foundations of that Right which the wisdom of the Church has acquired from the Roman Empire. The legislator makes a law with a purpose and formulates it so that it is enforceable only for that specific purpose; he will therefore avoid any element that could make the law equivocal with respect to the addressee, the purpose, the result. The calling of an Ecumenical Council has as its purpose the solemn convocation of the Bishops of the Church, under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, to define particular aspects of doctrine, morals, liturgy or ecclesiastical discipline. But what every Council defines must in any case fall within the framework of Tradition and cannot in any way contradict the immutable Magisterium, because if it did so it would go against the purpose that legitimizes authority in the Church. The same goes for the Pope, who alone has full, immediate and direct power over the entire Churchwithin the limits of his mandate: to confirm the brothers in the Faith, to feed the lambs and sheep of the flock that the Lord has entrusted to him.
In the history of the Church, up to Vatican II, it has never happened that a Council could de facto cancel the Councils that preceded it, nor that a pastoral Council – an ἅπαξof Vatican II – could have more authority than twenty dogmatic councils. Yet it happened, in the silence of the majority of the Episcopate and with the approval of as many as five Roman Pontiffs, from John XXIII to Benedict XVI. In these fifty years of permanent revolution, no Pope has ever questioned the “magisterium” of Vatican II, nor dared to condemn its heretical theses or clarify its equivocal ones. On the contrary, all the Popes from Paul VI onwards have made Vatican II and its implementation the programmatic fulcrum of their Pontificate, subordinating and binding their own apostolic authority to the conciliar diktats .They distinguished themselves for a clear distancing from their Predecessors and for a marked self-referentiality from Roncalli to Bergoglio: their “teaching” begins with Vatican II and ends there, and the Successors proclaim their immediate Predecessors saints for the mere fact of having called, concluded or applied the Council. Even the theological language has adapted to the ambiguity of the conciliar texts, reaching the point of adopting as defined doctrines which before the Council were considered heretical: let us think of the secular state, today taken for granted and commendable; to the irenic ecumenism of Assisi and Astana; to the parliamentarism of the Commissions, of the Synod of Bishops, of the “synodal path” of the German Church.
All of this stems from a postulate that almost everyone takes for granted: that Vatican II can claim the authority of an Ecumenical Council, before which the faithful should suspend all judgment and humbly bow their heads to Christ’s will, expressed infallibly by the Sacred Pastors, even if in a pastoral and non-dogmatic form. But this is not the case, because the Sacred Shepherds can be deceived by a colossal conspiracy whose purpose is the subversive use of a Council.
READ ON BELOW…Il Filo a Cui è Appeso il Concilio. Mons. Viganò. : STILUM CURIAE