Traditionalist Issues
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dialogue Mass - CXLV
Ratzinger’s Role in the
Rejection
of Vatican II Original Documents
Fr. Joseph Ratinger was the personal assistant of Card. Frings of Cologne who was not only a member of the Central Preparatory Committee of the Council, but also President of the West German Episcopal Conference (which, as we have seen in a
previous article, was the most militant of all the European groups pressing for radical revolution in the Church from the 1950s).
This piece of background information will be useful to keep in mind when we consider that Card. Frings gave Prof. Ratzinger the task of assessing the original drafts for their suitability to be forwarded to the Council, and of preparing written material that the Cardinal could present orally during the voting sessions.
There is enough evidence from various sources to show that whatever statements the Cardinal made during the Council sessions, he was mostly following (from memory because of his failing eyesight) a script written by the Prof. Ratzinger. Examples are provided by biographers, Peter Seewald and Norbert Trippen.1 The latter identified numerous instances from documentary evidence of Card. Frings’s interventions at the Council as having been written by Ratzinger.
But the clinching piece of evidence comes from Ratzinger himself who described in some detail, without showing any awareness of the comic nature of the situation, the procedure that took place at the German-speaking Anima College in Rome to prepare Frings for his role at the Council. According to his own account, the elderly Cardinal was subjected to several sessions in front of the young Ratzinger, in which he had to memorize a text drawn up and read out to him by Ratzinger, and rehearse it well before delivering it at the Council.2
So, in the interests of transparency, it would be more accurate to attribute Frings’s statements in the aula to the influence of Fr. Ratzinger, even if not everything he said was memorized exactly word for word, and allowing for perhaps some additional twists inserted by the Cardinal himself. To give some examples:
1. Schema on the Sources of Revelation
Fr. Ratzinger rejected the original draft of the schema on the Sources of Revelation in 1962, after it had been approved by the Central Preparatory Commission and Pope John XXIII. To replace it, at least in part, he recommended the schema De Verbo Dei presented by his fellow-progressivist, Card. Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.
No sound reason for the substitution was given, only the arbitrary judgement by Ratzinger that the new text “deals with the same subject, but in a better way.”3 It is now clear that what he meant by “better” was “more Protestant,” for his own work on the subject of Revelation was an attempt to achieve a reconciliation between Catholic and Lutheran positions.
The original schema had followed the de Fide teaching of the Church, clearly set out in the Manuals that there are two distinct fonts of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition, by which is meant that the content of the Church’s doctrine is derived from those two sources. But Ratzinger contended that there is only one source of Revelation, the Word of God continually speaking throughout the ages in a never-ending dialogue between God and man.
The new formulation appealed strongly to the neo-modernists who readily accepted Ratzinger’s arguments that the Council of Trent had an “incomplete” conception of Revelation and that its decree was the result of a “compromise” between opposing forces in the debating sessions.4
He concluded that while Revelation, in its “historical and material content,” may be closed, it is nonetheless still open to further interpretation by “theological work today, with its new insight.” In other words, Revelation is both closed and open, and is subject to change. This is a typical example of the use of sophistry to allow two contradictory statements to be true at the same time, and leeway for a reinterpretation of Revelation by an elite cadre of academic theologians (including himself) to be imposed on the rest of the Church.
Where does that leave the content of the Church’s doctrine otherwise known as the Deposit of the Faith? Evidently out in the cold, for it is hardly ever alluded to today. It is not difficult to see how this happened. Neo-modernists have no interest in the actual content of Revelation which consists of supernatural truths proposed to the intellect, and which must be accepted on the authority of God revealing.
Ratzinger saw Revelation as a “speech act” of God that requires a “dialogue partner” (man) before it can be considered “real.” Revelation, it seems, can only attain the status of reality if it comes with “active participation.” This implies that man himself is a constituent part of Revelation, with a determining role in its interpretation and application to changing circumstances of life.
His hypothesis that Revelation receives its validity from man’s response is a superficially plausible but fallacious argument drawn from his own “Personalist” philosophy. St Thomas Aquinas taught that supernatural truth (of which Revelation is composed) exists independently of the person seeking to know it, and that it has an objective, intrinsic value completely outside of human consciousness.
It is not the response of man that gives Revelation its value; it is the truth of Revelation that gives value to man; but it can only do so if it is independent of man. There is, therefore, no “personal” approach to the divinely revealed message available in this life other than to accept those truths that the Church locates either in Scripture or Tradition and that she presents to us as infallibly true in her Ordinary or Universal Magisterium.
In rejecting the original schema on the Sources of Revelation, Ratzinger tried to justify his departure from Catholic orthodoxy on the following grounds:
“The text was … utterly the product of the ‘anti-modernist’ mentality that had taken shape about the turn of the century. The text was written in a spirit of condemnation and negation ... [it] had a frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers … the content of the text was new to no one. It was exactly like dozens of text-books familiar to the Bishops from their seminary days: and in some cases, their former professors were actually responsible for the texts now presented to them.”5
This tells us all we need to know about the anti-traditional basis of Vatican II’s “New Theology” which is represented in all the revised schemata. Ratzinger, as we can see from the above quote, was adamant that the anti-modernist crusade of Pope St. Pius X should be overturned and defeated. His objection to the “spirit of condemnation and negation” (which Pope John XXIII later attributed to the “prophets of doom”) is ironic, considering that he himself employs the same spirit in his own rejection and condemnation of the pre-Conciliar Manuals.
It is obvious from his reference to a “frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers” that he was concerned only with defending the opinions of the progressivists Bishops at the Council who, by definition, discounted the teaching of the approved Manuals insofar as they reflected the orthodoxy and discipline of the reigning Magisterium. Let us not forget that defending the interests of the progressivists entails trouncing the position of the traditionalist Fathers who had produced the first schemata (and who were greatly shocked by the reformed versions).
Adding insult to injury, he then proceeded to make disparaging remarks about the “Manualist” seminary formation of the traditional Bishops, suggesting that they had been indoctrinated with rigid and antiquated theories.
It seems that this was an oblique way of accusing the teaching of the Magisterium (reflected in the approved theological Manuals) of having taught faulty theology about Revelation in seminaries for centuries.
This impression is strengthened by the fact that Ratzinger was a follower of 20th-century ressourcement theologians led by Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ. Their methodology was to bypass the Manuals and go directly to the Bible and the early Fathers, interpreting them in Protestant style according to their own lights. No wonder the results of their academic research were often opposed to Catholic teaching.
To be continued
This piece of background information will be useful to keep in mind when we consider that Card. Frings gave Prof. Ratzinger the task of assessing the original drafts for their suitability to be forwarded to the Council, and of preparing written material that the Cardinal could present orally during the voting sessions.
Card. Frings took Ratzinger under his wings
But the clinching piece of evidence comes from Ratzinger himself who described in some detail, without showing any awareness of the comic nature of the situation, the procedure that took place at the German-speaking Anima College in Rome to prepare Frings for his role at the Council. According to his own account, the elderly Cardinal was subjected to several sessions in front of the young Ratzinger, in which he had to memorize a text drawn up and read out to him by Ratzinger, and rehearse it well before delivering it at the Council.2
So, in the interests of transparency, it would be more accurate to attribute Frings’s statements in the aula to the influence of Fr. Ratzinger, even if not everything he said was memorized exactly word for word, and allowing for perhaps some additional twists inserted by the Cardinal himself. To give some examples:
1. Schema on the Sources of Revelation
Fr. Ratzinger rejected the original draft of the schema on the Sources of Revelation in 1962, after it had been approved by the Central Preparatory Commission and Pope John XXIII. To replace it, at least in part, he recommended the schema De Verbo Dei presented by his fellow-progressivist, Card. Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.
No sound reason for the substitution was given, only the arbitrary judgement by Ratzinger that the new text “deals with the same subject, but in a better way.”3 It is now clear that what he meant by “better” was “more Protestant,” for his own work on the subject of Revelation was an attempt to achieve a reconciliation between Catholic and Lutheran positions.
Card. Augustin Bea, S.J.
The new formulation appealed strongly to the neo-modernists who readily accepted Ratzinger’s arguments that the Council of Trent had an “incomplete” conception of Revelation and that its decree was the result of a “compromise” between opposing forces in the debating sessions.4
He concluded that while Revelation, in its “historical and material content,” may be closed, it is nonetheless still open to further interpretation by “theological work today, with its new insight.” In other words, Revelation is both closed and open, and is subject to change. This is a typical example of the use of sophistry to allow two contradictory statements to be true at the same time, and leeway for a reinterpretation of Revelation by an elite cadre of academic theologians (including himself) to be imposed on the rest of the Church.
Where does that leave the content of the Church’s doctrine otherwise known as the Deposit of the Faith? Evidently out in the cold, for it is hardly ever alluded to today. It is not difficult to see how this happened. Neo-modernists have no interest in the actual content of Revelation which consists of supernatural truths proposed to the intellect, and which must be accepted on the authority of God revealing.
Ratzinger saw Revelation as a “speech act” of God that requires a “dialogue partner” (man) before it can be considered “real.” Revelation, it seems, can only attain the status of reality if it comes with “active participation.” This implies that man himself is a constituent part of Revelation, with a determining role in its interpretation and application to changing circumstances of life.
Fr. Ratzinger’s expression reveals both insolence & a strong determination to destroy Tradition
It is not the response of man that gives Revelation its value; it is the truth of Revelation that gives value to man; but it can only do so if it is independent of man. There is, therefore, no “personal” approach to the divinely revealed message available in this life other than to accept those truths that the Church locates either in Scripture or Tradition and that she presents to us as infallibly true in her Ordinary or Universal Magisterium.
In rejecting the original schema on the Sources of Revelation, Ratzinger tried to justify his departure from Catholic orthodoxy on the following grounds:
“The text was … utterly the product of the ‘anti-modernist’ mentality that had taken shape about the turn of the century. The text was written in a spirit of condemnation and negation ... [it] had a frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers … the content of the text was new to no one. It was exactly like dozens of text-books familiar to the Bishops from their seminary days: and in some cases, their former professors were actually responsible for the texts now presented to them.”5
This tells us all we need to know about the anti-traditional basis of Vatican II’s “New Theology” which is represented in all the revised schemata. Ratzinger, as we can see from the above quote, was adamant that the anti-modernist crusade of Pope St. Pius X should be overturned and defeated. His objection to the “spirit of condemnation and negation” (which Pope John XXIII later attributed to the “prophets of doom”) is ironic, considering that he himself employs the same spirit in his own rejection and condemnation of the pre-Conciliar Manuals.
Fr. Henri de Lubac was the main leader of the New Theoloy & ressourcement, the return to the sources
Adding insult to injury, he then proceeded to make disparaging remarks about the “Manualist” seminary formation of the traditional Bishops, suggesting that they had been indoctrinated with rigid and antiquated theories.
It seems that this was an oblique way of accusing the teaching of the Magisterium (reflected in the approved theological Manuals) of having taught faulty theology about Revelation in seminaries for centuries.
This impression is strengthened by the fact that Ratzinger was a follower of 20th-century ressourcement theologians led by Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ. Their methodology was to bypass the Manuals and go directly to the Bible and the early Fathers, interpreting them in Protestant style according to their own lights. No wonder the results of their academic research were often opposed to Catholic teaching.
To be continued
- Peter Seewald, Last Testament, p. 132; Norbert Trippen, Kardinal Frings, vol. 2.
- J. Ratzinger, ‘Kardinal Frings und das II Vatikanische Konzil’, in Dieter Froitzheim (ed.), Kardinal Frings: Leben und Werk, Cologne: Wienand, 1979, p. 203.
- Josef Frings/Joseph Ratzinger, Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Appendix prima, September 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1983, p. 76: “maior pars schematis De Verbo Dei quondam a Cardinali Bea propositi supponendum videtur, quod eandam materiam meliore tamen modo, tradit.”
- Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, Revelation and Tradition, trans. W.J. O’Hara, New York: Herder and Herder, 1966, pp 65-66.
- Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press,
Posted December 9, 2024
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |