Articles: Vatican Two on the Stand (1)

This is a work of fiction. Names and places are the product of the author’s imagination except for those names which corroborate the truth which is illustrated, such as real people who played a part in Vatican II. As in the two previous writings, “The Straw Man 1” and “The Straw Man 2”, the author, after several years of study and deliberation on the matter, illustrates in an imaginative form, the problems the Catholic Church is facing today particularly since Vatican II (1962-65). The setting is the Rotary Club in Bogotá, Colombia. Five people - a priest, a journalist, an academic, a nun and a businessman - sit on a panel, formed in order to answer questions from the audience of about one hundred people from all walks of life, though not a few are university students.

Part one

Chairwoman: Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to announce that we will continue this afternoon, what has already been discussed yesterday here in this hall, that is the subject of the Second Vatican Council, but as to shorten it we will call it, Vatican II.

Thus as its corollary, the main documents that this panel will be examining will be as follows: Collegiality, Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate, Religious Liberty, and Liberation Theology. Here in front of you there are five boxes labeled according to the appropriate and relevant subjects. Each one of these boxes contains questions that you have submitted to us. Now we will, in turn, answer your questions starting from ‘Collegiality’.”

Collegiality

A man came forward from the audience, went to the first box labeled ‘Collegiality’, opened it, took a folded piece of paper and read:

In practical terms, what is it the meaning of the word, ‘Collegiality’ and why is it so important to have it brought it up at Council (1962-65)?

The chairwoman, with a sign of head, indicated to one of the members of panel to take the floor. The designated person for answering this question is the priest.

Priest: As to what Collegiality is – according to the Roman Catholic Church, of course – the first that comes to mind is the doctrine that bishops collectively share collegiate power. What that means in practical terms, then, ....Collegiality is at the heart of "the ongoing question of the relationship between the local and the universal church, which brings up a host of questions: centralization, the Vatican bureaucracy having too much say in local issues, but there's also the other extreme of isolationism of a local church -- the local bishop, for example, being too autonomous and independent... There are two main aspects of the Collegiality to consider, the effective and affective.

Effective collegiality is what the council describes in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church when it says, "The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the supreme pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal church."

The document says that since early Christianity the collegial character of the body of bishops has been evident in the union of all bishops with one another and with the pope in "unity, charity and peace." It also states it was evident in the ancient church practice of the bishops meeting in council to settle "all questions of major importance".

Affective collegiality refers to the sense of unity with the pope and the world's bishops that ought to pervade the ministry of each bishop individually and the common actions of groups of bishops. Even though they do not act with the full authority held by the entire college of bishops gathered in council under the pope, bishops acting as individuals or in groups always as the document states[2] “are related with and united to one another."

After he had finished speaking, the priest returned to his seat. From the audience, a man in his late sixties raised his hand and asked to speak. Once permission was given to him, he said:

“Ah! Yes ... thank you, Fr. Teillard. Now, first I have to tell you that I am the author of those questions you just answered. You have given me a clear and appropriate answer. However, the reason I asked those questions to this panel was not because I did not have the answers; but rather because of my desire to open a discussion and, within the limit of possibility, to shed some more light on the subject.”

The man paused for awhile, as if to collect his thoughts. The chairwoman indicated to him to please carry on and explain himself further.

“You see, Fr. Teillard, and all you here present,” the man resumed, “My name is Joe, by the way, and I am a carpenter by trade. I never went to university. I am a self-made man. So what I know about the Catholic Church came, firstly from experience as a Catholic, but also from my reading in the last thirty odd years. I read and studied most of the documents that came out of Vatican II. In regard to Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the document on Collegiality, everything seems fine, academically speaking. However, when it comes to practical terms, in everyday life, I see there is a catch.”

Joe stopped talking, as if to let his words take effect. From the audience a woman’s voice spoke: “What do you mean, ‘there is a catch’? ... Explain yourself, man!”

“And explain myself I will.” Joe said. “In my opinion, the catch is in its practicability. While Collegiality is a very good thing, per se, inasmuch as there is unity and not factions among bishops, like Conservatives, Traditionalists, and Liberals, in practice no bishop will ever be able to exercise his authority in his diocese. This is because any decision taken by him, will depend on it, I mean collegiality. In other words, collegiality means emasculation of the bishop’s authority which was given to him by the Holy Spirit, at the imposition of hands at his episcopal consecration.”

Now the chairwoman spoke: “Thank you Joe. You made your point. However we don’t have the time to delve into this topic alone. We must continue to answer the rest of questions in the boxes. And thank you, again, for your contribution.” Joe went back to his seat.

Part two

At a sign from the chairwoman, the assistant took another question from one of the boxes and read:

Ecumenism

“I was bought up a Catholic from my childhood and for several years, till at the age I married my husband, I was not allowed to go to any church that was not Catholic. ‘The Protestants are our rivals,’ they used to tell us. Nowadays, not only are we allowed to go to other non-Catholic churches, but we are encouraged to participate, to ‘worship’ as they call it, together, because we are ‘all brothers and sisters’ in Christ, they say. So my questions are: did the Catholic Church change her own doctrine? If in the positive, is the Catholic Church still Catholic?”

Fr. Teillard: With Vatican II the Catholic Church hasn’t changed her doctrine. Her doctrine is still the same as it was before Vatican II. Now, the document on Ecumenism was drafted because the restoration of unity among all Christians was one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, throughout the Church’s history there were splits and separations within her; consequently, other churches were created - some outright against the Catholic Church, while others enjoy partial union. No one can deny that Christianity was not, or is not, up to now, divided within itself and no unity seemed ever possible. In His prayer to His Father the Lord Jesus said: [3]

‘May they all be one, just as, Father, you are in me and I am in you, so that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.’

And he read: ‘But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical[4]."

He opened the book at another page: “Then as to the question, ‘is the Catholic Church still a Catholic?’ The same document says:

‘All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.’

“Now the word Universal in the document has the same meaning as ‘Catholic.’ Therefore, in this sense, the Catholic Church is still Catholic.”

Then from the audience somebody called: “That is all well said, as in any manifesto ... but we know better.”

“Please,” said the chairwoman, “would you mind coming to the microphone to speak, so that everybody can hear you?”

A well-dressed young woman in a pink skirt and blouse, approached the podium. She went to the microphone and spoke: “My name is Catherine and I am a nurse...”

At this point the chairwoman interrupted her. “Sorry, Catherine to interrupt you ... did you write those questions on Ecumenism..?”

“No, I did not,” she answered and then resumed: “As I said before, Fr. Teillard spoke well. Because, I think, nobody present here would have expected to hear from Fr. Teillard - a Catholic Church representative of the Novus Ordo, after all - anything contrary to what he said. However, we know better, as I said before; because the well spoken words from Fr. Teillard are nothing but the echo of a document written over forty years ago. But what has been the result from that? Was that good for the Church as a whole? Did things improve for the better or get worse since 1965? Today, for the sake of unity and dialogue with our separated brethren, we have a watered-down Catholic doctrine, and our sacred liturgy has been changed to the point where it is almost undistinguishable from any other Christian denomination’s. So in theory it is well to struggle and work for unity and to have more dialogue ... but in practice, really, what is Ecumenism all about? In my opinion, Ecumenism is a decoy, to make the Catholic Church Protestant.”

That said, the young woman Catherine walked back to her place. From the audience, a male voice said: “We have another pre-Vatican Catholic among us.”

“Yah! Another of the old church ... a reactionary and a bigot... What a shame, a beautiful chick like her” called another voice from the back of auditorium.

“Please, ladies and gentlemen,” the chairwoman cut in, “if anybody has anything appropriate to say, please, do come forward ... for everybody to hear ... Thank you, Catherine, all the same, for your intervention. Now, shall we carry on with the next question?”

Then after the voices hushed, the assistant picked another question from the box and read:

“For two thousand years the Christian religion has been the dominant global faith. It seems that today, with Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II declaration, this primary role of the Catholic Church has been subverted. Now I am asking this team of experts two questions.

1- Apart from promoting unity and dialogue with all other religions on this planet earth, what other role has the Catholic Church to play today?

2- I get the impression, in reading the present document Nostra Aetate, that, among other lesser religions, Judaism was the main concern of Vatican II. Currently, is the Catholic Church aware that Judaism is NOT the religion of the Patriarchs, i.e., of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?”

Part three

Nostra Aetate

As the reader left the podium, the members of the panel consulted together, then one of the members of the board took the microphone.

“My name is David, and I am a lecturer at the University of Notre Dame here in Bogotá. In answering these two questions, I will deal first with the latter one. The statement that Judaism is not the religion of Patriarchs is erroneous. And I’ll demonstrate why. Also, it is my belief that the Catholic Church is not only well aware that Judaism is the religion of the ancient children of Israel, but she always acknowledged so through many centuries; contrary to what the opposition might say on the matter.”

Then he stopped and looked round the audience, as if to see if there was any sign of dissent, then he continued.

“As I said, the questioner is mistaken in stating that Judaism is not the religion of children of Israel. It is an unquestionable and an historic fact that - although pivotal events in the history of the Jews and Judaism, the Captivity and subsequent return to the land of Israel, had far-reaching impacts on the development of modern Jewish culture and practice - Judaism is rooted in the Old Testament, that is, on the promise and revelation given by Yahweh to the Patriarch Abram, whose name God changed to Abraham, meaning "father of a multitude".

“To the other question, ‘...what other role has the Catholic Church to play today?’ my answer is, the role the Catholic Church has to play today is the same as before, and that is to be the pivotal sign for peace and brotherhood among all people of the world.”

After he had finished speaking, Professor David consulted briefly with Fr. Teillard and the other members of panel. Meanwhile, from the audience a young man asked permission to speak. Permission was granted and a young man, about 25 years old, approached the microphone.

“My name is Stephan and I am an electrician by trade. I would like to make some comments on what Professor David said about Judaism being ‘the religion of the Old Testament.’ I don’t think Professor David is right, in my view anyway. As I said before, I am an electrician. I did not go to University, so one may say that I do not have the qualifications and expertise for this type of thing which is the province for the ‘experts’ to adjudicate. Let me say this, if modern Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament, why is it that Jesus so often rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees – from whom Judaism originates? And what is the sense of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:20:

“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

“Now according to my understanding of the Gospel, the words, ‘your righteousness,’ mean, ‘your fidelity to God’s law,’ i.e., religion. Because substituting the word ‘righteousness’ for religion, then we would read:

‘For I say unto you, that except your religion shall exceed the religion of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

‘We find a similar expression in Matthew 6:1: ‘Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven?’

“Now going back to what I just said, Judaism has its origin from the Pharisees’ and Scribes’ teaching, which is the Talmud – or tradition, as Jesus used to called it[5] - and not from the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. Therefore, Judaism is Phariseeism and not the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

“Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, one of the leading authorities on Judaism asserted,[6]

"Phariseeism became Babylonian Talmudism, Babylonian Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name...the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered."

As Stephan returned to his seat, there were murmuring voices and not a little disquiet among the audience. After a short consultation with the other members of panel, the chairwoman announced: “Ladies and Gentlemen, we will have now a recess for about half an hour. At the back of this hall, just behind you there are tea and coffee. Please, help yourself.”

Then the chairwoman left the podium. Shortly small groups of two or three people were talking among themselves. A man in his late forties approached Stephan and said: “I am Stuart. Your name is ... Stephan, if I remember correctly... Now, may I ask you a personal question..?”

“I am asking,” Stuart said, “because it surprises me to see a Catholic young man like you use the Bible so dexterously. Catholic people have always been notorious for ignorance of the scriptures.”

“That may be so,” Stephan said, “but I acquired my love for the Scriptures from my Dad, who taught me and my brother and sister to read them since we were children.”

“And ... you just said that you have a sister. So I guess that her name might be ... Catherine? Am I right?” Stuart said it with a twinkle in his eyes.

“So would I be wrong, if I assume that we have here at Rotary, an entire traditionalist Catholic family and ... challenging the Catholic establishment..?”

“Not quite an entire family,” Stephan interrupted him, “only the three of us, my Dad, my sister Catherine and I, are here to attend this debate.”

“Your Mum and your older brother, are not interested?” Stuart pursued his enquiring.

“Mum has something else on. My older brother is a Franciscan monk ... He is not here with us either.”

“Interesting ...” Stuart said tenuously. “So I gather you and your family don’t agree with what Vatican II says in regard to these issues on the agenda, such as Collegiality, Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate etc.?”

“Not all my family, only the four of us are quite critical in that regard. My older brother believes everything that derives from Vatican II.”

“And you really believe what you said, that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament?”

“... And that the Catholic Church today is supporting the belief that Judaism is the religion of the ancient Israel, and that Christianity sprang from it?”

“So, Stefan, are you implying that the conciliar church is deceiving her faithful?”

“Yes, I am...” Stephan replied uneasily, for he did not know where this questioning was leading.

“But if what you’re saying is true, why is the church doing that? What is the game here? And who, ultimately, profits from it?”

“Stuart, listen, please ... I do not have all the answers to your questions. You should talk that to my Dad. Maybe he will be able to answer your questions, better than I can myself. The only thing I can say is ...”

Then, from behind them a voice intercepted their conversation: “Folks, break is over. Please, I invite you all to return to your seats.”

[1] See: Matt.7:16-20.

[2] See: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505799.htm.

[3] See: John 17:21.

[4] See: Decree On Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio - http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html.

[5] See: Matt 15:3,6; Mark 7:9,13.

[6] See: http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Pharisees.htm; or

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/3319

Prelude

Part one

Collegiality

Part two

Ecumenism

Part three

Nostra Aetate