🌩️ The great rupture: the conciliar church as the enemy of the church of all times
Doctor Rama Coomaraswamy begins his magisterial exposition by establishing the Second Vatican Council not merely as a historical event, but as the catastrophic turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. Before this nefarious event, the Church understood itself as a "perfect society" (Societas Perfecta), a theological term defining the Church as a self-sufficient entity, possessing in itself all the means and rights necessary to achieve its supernatural end, immutable in its divine essence, existing both in time and in eternity, proudly proclaiming itself as the "Church of all times". However, after the conciliar gale, this divine institution began to describe itself with modernist terms such as "dynamic", "progressive", a "new Church" and a "Church of our times", obsessed with a servile adaptation of Christ's message to the decaying conditions of the modern world.
The author denounces the calculated schizophrenia of this new ecclesiastical entity. While introducing drastic and devastating modernizations, the post-conciliar hierarchy sent a mixed and deceptive message to the faithful, cynically claiming that "nothing essential has been changed" and that the Church was merely "returning to primitive practice". This contradiction generated a confusion of loyalties that has persisted for more than four decades. Human reason, enlightened by faith, tells us that Truth - assuming such a thing exists - is immutable. Catholics hold, by definition, eternal truths: that Jesus Christ is God, that He founded a visible Church promised to last until the end of times, and that this is the Catholic Church. It is a dogma of faith that this Church preserves intact and teaches the truths and practices revealed by Christ, containing the fullness of teaching, Apostolic Succession, and the sacraments as visible means of grace.
🛐 The loss of identity and the new religion
The text raises the fundamental question that every Catholic must face: if we call ourselves "Catholics" and our salvation depends on adherence to the teachings of the Church, we must be absolutely certain that our beliefs and actions are in conformity with what Christ and the Apostles originally taught. In other words, we must be certain that we are in the same Church that Christ founded. If the post-conciliar Church failed to retain the original deposit of faith, it has, by definition, departed from unity with the original body, the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", compromising the note of indefectibility, which guarantees that the Church will remain essentially the same until the end of time.
No one denies that after Vatican II, the Catholic Church became different. The crucial question raised by Coomaraswamy is whether these changes were merely cosmetic or involved fundamental points of doctrine and practice. If the latter is the case - and the author demonstrates that it is - we are forced to the terrible conclusion that the post-conciliar Church is no longer the same as its pre-Vatican II counterpart. The problem extends to all levels: doctrine, liturgy, canon law, apostolic succession, and the very authority of those who occupy the Chair of Peter. Traditional Catholics, faithful to immutable truth, affirm that it is not the same Church; while modernists, who deny the fixity of truth and reduce religion to a "feeling", argue that it is.
🗝️ The nature of the magisterium and the betrayal of the hierarchy
To disentangle this confusion, the author analyzes the nature of the "Magisterium" or "teaching authority" of the Church. This authority flows logically from the establishment of a visible and hierarchical Church by Christ, intended to be the extension of His presence on earth. The primary function and obligation of this Church are to preserve intact and deliver the Message of Christ. Those charged with "feeding His sheep" received no authority whatsoever to teach any other truth "in His name" than that which He Himself established. As Saint Paul solemnly warned the Galatians:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed... For I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:8-12)
To enable His Church to teach, Christ left a "Living Magisterium" (the Pope and the bishops in union with him), endowed with His authority and assistance. This function of transmitting the "deposit of faith" constitutes Tradition. Therefore, the true Church and the true Magisterium are, by their very nature, traditional and conservative in the strict sense of guarding what was given. The teaching of the Magisterium is infallibly true because it depends on God, not on man. However, the author makes a critical distinction: the claim that the Magisterium resides in the Pope and bishops is true only when they, in their function as guardians, have not departed in any way from what was delivered by Christ and the Apostles. To use the authority of the Magisterium to defend changes in doctrine and rites is a classic case of suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood).
⚡ The heretic pope and the loss of office
Coomaraswamy delves into the theology of the Papacy, clarifying that the hierarchy must belong to the "Church believing" before it can belong to the "Church teaching". The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, must be "one hierarchical person" with the Divine Master. He cannot teach something different from what the Master would teach. The Church has always taught that a Pope, as an individual, can deviate from sound doctrine. If he were to openly embrace heresies that contradict the deposit of faith and adhere to them obstinately, he would become a public heretic and, as such, would cease to be Pope. This is logical, for by embracing heresy, he would cease to be a Catholic, let alone the representative of Christ.
The author cites the axiom of Saint Ambrose, "where Peter is, there is the Church", but warns that this is valid only insofar as "Peter" remains rooted in orthodoxy, in "pure faith and sound doctrine". When he does not, as Cardinal Cajetan taught and was subsequently systematized by the Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church". The Jesuit Cornelius a Lapide is quoted forcefully:
"If the Pope fell into public heresy, he would ipso facto cease to be Pope; yes, he would even cease to be a faithful Christian." (Commentary on Scripture)
The authority of the Pope is limited by the very authority that is the basis of his own. He is not an absolute despot. The First Vatican Council taught in a de fide manner that the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter so that they might reveal new doctrines, but so that they might holily guard and faithfully set forth the revelation transmitted. Therefore, if an occupant of the throne of Peter teaches novelties, he loses his authority and legitimacy.
🛡️ True obedience vs. false obedience
In times of crisis, where so many shepherds "speak perverse things" and have become "wandering seducers", the author emphasizes the need to define clarity regarding obedience. The Church has never asked the faithful to give assent to error or to submit to sinful commands in the name of obedience. Obedience is due to Christ above all ("we ought to obey God rather than men"). If anyone, in the name of Jesus, commands or teaches something manifestly against what God commanded and taught, we are obliged to disobey and reject the new doctrine.
Coomaraswamy cites Saint Ignatius of Antioch to reinforce the gravity of the situation: "If a man, through false doctrine, corrupts the faith of God... such a man, becoming impure, will go into unquenchable fire, and so will he who listens to him". Under normal circumstances, the Pope and the bishops merely preserve what has always been taught. However, in the current situation, there is a direct conflict between what is taught "magisterially" today and what has always been taught in the past. It is by the constant teaching of the Church that the current hierarchy must be judged.
The chapter concludes with an appeal to the individual responsibility of the Catholic. A Catholic cannot judge the soul of another person, but he is obliged to judge the teaching of another person. If we could not distinguish between what is Catholic and what is not, we would have no obligation to be Catholics. To judge that what is taught today by the post-conciliar Church contradicts the constant teaching of the two-thousand-year-old Church is not to judge anyone's soul, but it is to fulfill the sacred duty of keeping the Faith.
f1descatholica.blogspot.com