Saint Thomas Aquinas

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Yves Congar: Quotes and Thoughts From ‘My Journal of the Council’ Part I

 Yves Congar: Quotes and Thoughts From ‘My Journal of the Council’ Part I



I received my copy of the newly printed ‘My Journal of the Council’ by Yves Congar. Many people know that he eventually became a heavy hitter during the Second Vatican Council, while not knowing that all the many years before the Council he was not allowed to teach any of his modernist theology. In fact, under the reign of Blessed Pius XII he was rightfully kept silent from teaching his “new theology.” It is sad really that he was not kept out of circulation. Like a bad penny he would turn up again and again influencing many in the Church from the beginning of the Council to his death in 1995. Thankfully however, he did keep a diary or journal of his experience of the Second Vatican Council which I think, seems to shed some light on how many of these “new theologians” thought about it at the time. I will be running a series of posts on it over the next several weeks, since the book is almost 1000 pages! I will include the page numbers as always for easy reference. I will start the series with just a couple of quotes to wet your appetite. It seems that Congar thought quite ill of Pope Pius XII and those he surrounded himself with, no? Even more disconcerting is his conversation with Roger Schutz concerning the views of Pope John XXIII. This is going to be an interesting read for sure!


“The announcement of the Council aroused great interest and great hope. It seemed that, after the stifling regime of Pius XII, the windows were at last being opened; one could breathe. The Church was being given its chance. One was becoming open to dialogue...Personally, I very quickly and repeatedly felt deceived because, although Pope John XXIII spoke and acted extremely sympathetically, his decisions, his government, belied much of what had aroused hope. His human style was warm and friendly, Christian. Everything connected with him personally had rescued us from the horrible satrapism of Pius XII. However, he had retained almost all of his predecessors personnel:.. not all of the prelates. But all the others: Cardinals Tardini and Ottaviani were his close advisors. The Pope had recalled Mgr Parente to Rome and had given him an important job at the Holy Office. Parente, the man who condemned P Chenu, the fascist, the monophysite... I never hoped for great things from that quarter. But one had a clear impression that in Rome, the ‘old guard’ in the Curia felt that is was in danger and was doing all in its power to avoid it, while at the same time playing along with the new pontificate since a NEW pontificate was what they were faced with. The danger was that some of the reins of government were slipping away from them. (Pages 5-7)

Concerning Pope John XXIII

“This had been my very clear impression since Easter 1959, and was confirmed by a conversation I had with Pastor Roger Schutz on 20 June 1960. Schutz told me, though with the greatest discretion, about the audience, arranged for him by Cardianl Gerlier, that he had had with John XXIII on the evening of, or the morning after, his consecration. According to Schutz, the Pope has said some very incredible, even downright heretical things to him, such as: the Catholic Church does not possess the whole truth; we should search together...I think that the leading members of the Curia very quickly realized that, with John XXIII and his plan for a Council, they might be in for a very strange adventure, that they needed to erect fences, regain control as far as possible, and limit any possible damage. (Page 7)

6 comments:

Alan Aversa said...

Wow, so were it not for the Council limiting the pope's power, things would've been much worse?

Jae said...

The man is far from being my hero though still a successor of the apostles of the Church and i do respect him. There is always tension between the 3 blocks of the church, traditionalists, center-orthodox, and the modernists (progressives, liberals). Anyways most belong to the center as i'am and have a great love of TLM. We always have these competing ideas which I think giving the benefit of the doubt were conceptualized out of good faith which I think is healthy for dialogue and debates, as long as one doesn't go beyond the boundaries of the church's teachings. No man would like to harm his own family, right?

Anyways, I would strongly argue that without the reforms of VII 50 years ago, the Church would see much decrease in her members today. The Church took almost 2,000 years to evangelize and preach the Gospel to the tune of 435 million catholics in 1960.... After VII there are over 1.2 Billion Catholics all over the world, triple the size prior to VII, IN JUST 50 years! There are over 10 million new Catholics coming in the church and over 1 million converts from Protestantism every single easter year including some very brilliant scholars.

I don't know what's happening but one thing is for sure the Spirit of God is on the move!

Matthew Bellisario said...

Actually, the figures show that the decline came after the VCII changes. We lost more priests and laity than ever before that time. The numbers that you quote are not the number of practicing Catholics in good standing with the Church. Only about 30% of Catholics regularly attend Mass on Sunday. You are abusing those figures to make them say what you want them to say. Also, a large part of the growth is not from conversion, but from new births. Sure the Church is growing, but not it is not having the same faithfulness or conversions that it had before the Council. Those are the facts.

Jae said...

So you are arguing on quality vs. quantity? The only point I'm making is that only for 50 years after VII catholic members quadtripled primarily because of the efforts of the Blessed Pope JPII reaching (ecumenism) out to the ends of the earth spreading the Gospel like no other pope in history until his last breath with pain and suffering.


I'm not trying to abuse the figures because numbers don't LIE!You just can't give credit where credit is due that you would probably consider calling anybody orthodox as long as they bring back Latin even the Bolsheviks.


So how sure are you that the faithfulness during the reformation era is greater than before VII you so adored? Can you give an answer, Mr. Bellisario? Can you lay the FACTS? Even if you exponentially multiply the catholic numbers of 10 children per family in 1950 you won't arrived at the 1.2 Billion numbers today!!! You are just in denial of the good fruits of VII. Face it!


You're so enamored with your traditional prowess and in reality you blamed everything from "bad fruits" to "inferior mass" to a valid Council. "Traditionalists" have this habit of blaming the wrong tree. Why not blame the Council of Florence since it brought forth the "baddest fruit" and most liberal and apostate of all time, Martin Luther and protestantism? Blaming the "liberal" doctrines of purgatory and indulgences. Why not also blame the Council of Trent, the "traditionalists" of its time protested against the liberal and novel doctrine of "Baptism by Desire" that "contradicted" their strict interpretation of Extra Nulla (Outside the Church there is no Salvation) Doctrine?

Why not blame the Council of Vatican I as well, the "Old Catholics" protested against the modernist idea of "Papal Infalibility"?

WHY not blame ALL the Councils for your satifaction? What does it stop anyone anyways?


You see Matthew if you are wrong, about the valid Council unless you are infallibly right then you are just offending the Holy Ghost. May God have mercy on your soul.


Dare you not delete this post and be a man enough not hiding behind the cloak of self-righteousness.


Peace.

Jae said...

When I asked you this question, "So how sure are you that the faithfulness during the reformation era is greater than before VII you so adored? Can you give an answer, Mr. Bellisario? Can you lay the FACTS?"

The point I'm driving at is, putting it one level up, meaning why not going back some point in time during what "traditionalist" considered the greatest of all the Councils, Trent, 500 years old not modern VII!

You Always stress with bravado the word, THOSE ARE FACTS!...now dare you to show us some FACTS!

Matthew Bellisario said...

Jae writes, "So you are arguing on quality vs. quantity? The only point I'm making is that only for 50 years after VII catholic members quadtripled primarily because of the efforts of the Blessed Pope JPII reaching (ecumenism) out to the ends of the earth spreading the Gospel like no other pope in history until his last breath with pain and suffering."

What the statistics show is that a higher percentage of Catholics of today do not fulfill the basic precepts of the Catholic faith. Its not an issue of "quality" vs "quantity" per se, but an issue of what percentage of baptized Catholics are actually practicing the faith.

Jae writes, "I'm not trying to abuse the figures because numbers don't LIE!You just can't give credit where credit is due that you would probably consider calling anybody orthodox as long as they bring back Latin even the Bolsheviks."

The figures simply do not say what you are trying to make them say.

Jae writes, "So how sure are you that the faithfulness during the reformation era is greater than before VII you so adored? Can you give an answer, Mr. Bellisario? Can you lay the FACTS? Even if you exponentially multiply the catholic numbers of 10 children per family in 1950 you won't arrived at the 1.2 Billion numbers today!!! You are just in denial of the good fruits of VII. Face it!"

Yes I can given an answer. It is fact that in the US, in 1963 71% of Catholics fulfilled their Sunday obligation, today that figure is about 25%. So where are the fruits that you speak of? Yes, we have more baptisms, but that does not equal more people that have a relationship with God who actually practice the Catholic faith. In other words if we look at the increase of the world's population with the increase of practicing Catholics, the increase of Catholics practicing their faith is not keeping up since the Council.

Jae writes, "You're so enamored with your traditional prowess and in reality you blamed everything from "bad fruits" to "inferior mass" to a valid Council. "Traditionalists" have this habit of blaming the wrong tree. Why not blame the Council of Florence since it brought forth the "baddest fruit" and most liberal and apostate of all time, Martin Luther and protestantism? Blaming the "liberal" doctrines of purgatory and indulgences. Why not also blame the Council of Trent, the "traditionalists" of its time protested against the liberal and novel doctrine of "Baptism by Desire" that "contradicted" their strict interpretation of Extra Nulla (Outside the Church there is no Salvation) Doctrine?

Why not blame the Council of Vatican I as well, the "Old Catholics" protested against the modernist idea of "Papal Infalibility"?

WHY not blame ALL the Councils for your satifaction? What does it stop anyone anyways?


You see Matthew if you are wrong, about the valid Council unless you are infallibly right then you are just offending the Holy Ghost. May God have mercy on your soul.


Dare you not delete this post and be a man enough not hiding behind the cloak of self-righteousness."

Jae, you have apparently lost it here. You accusations of me offending the Holy Ghost are not claims for you to make against anyone. I have never said that there were no problems in the Church before VCII, I am merely pointing out that what you are saying concerning the Church figures after VCII do not bear out what you are saying. Also when have I deleted any posts of yours before? In fact unless I get spam or a complete vulgar post from someone, I never delete posts. So I have no idea what are talking about concerning the act "self righteousness." So I have given you the facts here, its not my problem if you choose to look at them with rose colored lenses rather than through the light of reality.