The following, "Revolutions in Catholic Attitudes," Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, is taken from The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. 145, August, 1961, pages 120-129.
(Note to reader: this amazing article written shortly before Vatican II began displays the oncoming crisis of unorthodox ideas that were pushing their way into mainstream Catholic circles., and the Catholic reaction to it as explained by Msgr. Fenton. Fenton clearly puts his trust in the indefectibility of the Church which he knows cannot give false teaching, and rests on that premise that the Church will remain unchanged and safe as it must.
Unfortunately, for Msgr. Fenton, and all of us, his foundational premise relied on the presence of a Pope who by the nature of his office cannot lead the Church astray, and it is that premise which in fact proved not to happen. It is clear that Fenton and all of his orthodox contemporaries were blindsided by the presence of a heretical antipope, Paul VI. I think even the possibility of the idea of Paul VI being an antipope was so far removed from the realm of possibility for these great Catholic men, that they just could not absorb the concept, never mind react to it).
The following from the article is a beautiful statement of Catholic teaching as applied to the teaching of lawful and Councils of the Church along with the teaching of true Popes. The following assertions by Msgr. Fenton would certainly have been true if Paul VI were a true Pope. The fact is though, that everything that Fenton assures us couldn't happen, did in fact happen.
If Paul VI was a Pope he would have been prevented due to the nature of his office, as St. Peter's Successor, in approving teaching at odds with the teaching of the Church. So, Msgr. Fenton's explanation isn't wrong if that is kept in mind. Clearly, Paul VI did approve of the "revolution in Catholic teaching," an act which would have been impossible for a Pope, but not an antipope. Msgr. Fenton kept his trust in the indefectibility of the Church and clearly believed that Vatican II and what followed could not happen, but his entire premise rested on the legitimacy of Paul VI. Once that premise falls, the entire outcome of Vatican II and its aftermath of teachings that were at odds with the constant teaching of the Church radically changes. (All emphasis added)
They (the modernists and innovators -Ed) leave room for the implication that, in some way or other, we may look forward to a softening of Catholic teaching or directives with reference to religious societies and religious doctrines other than the Catholic, and this implication is definitely not true.
In the first place, there will not be, and there can never be, any modification of a truth which has been proposed and defined by the ecclesiastical magisterium. This is true with reference, not only to Catholic dogmas, but to those statements which fall within what is called the secondary object of the Church's infallible teaching power. And it is true, not only with reference to assertions that have been set forth by the Church in solemn judgment, but with respect to the declarations that have been made by the ordinary and universal ecclesiastical magisterium, including, of course, the propositions made by the Sovereign Pontiffs in their own ordinary and universal magisterium.
Thus, to put the matter clearly, there will never be any abandonment or withdrawal of the doctrine proposed or defined in the dog matic Constitutions of the First Vatican Council. There will be no modification of the teachings set forth in the encyclical letters of Pope Leo XIII. And there will certainly not be any modification whatsoever of the condemnations of Modernism and the descrip tions of Modernistic teaching contained in the Lamentabili sane exitu, the Pascendi Dominici gregis, and the Sacrorum antistitum. Furthermore, the Church definitely is never going to say that the propositions censured in the Lamentabili are erroneous and incompatible with the revealed message only if they are understood in terms of the teachings of some individual philosopher of religion. They were, they are, and they always will be erroneous exactly as they stand. Doctrinally, then, there will be no revolution in Catholic attitudes. There will be no readjustment of Catholic ideas.
Any doctrinal statement, either in the speculative or in the practical order, that will be made by the forthcoming Council, or by the magisterium of the Catholic Church at any future time, will be a more explicit restatement of truth which has already been set forth as Catholic doctrine by the Church's teaching authority. The Church will arrive at a more perfect and more profound under standing of the divine message that has been entrusted to it. It will continue to make clearer statements of that body of supernatural revelation. The statements that will come with the forthcoming Council and in the future documents of the Papal magisterium will be more adequate in the line of clarity. They will more and more effectively avoid ambiguity. But every statement of the magisterium during the years to come will be an assertion of that same body of truth which Jesus Christ preached as God's revealed message, and which was delivered to the Church by the apostles to be taught infallibly and guarded faithfully as such until the end of time.
The statements of this Second Vatican Council and of all future organs of the Catholic magisterium on doctrinal matters will not be assertions which have merely grown out of the declarations already given to the people of God. They will be the more effective and adequate restatements of the divine message which the Catholic Church has taught since the beginning of its existence. They will neither order nor imply any revolution or any readjustment of Catholic attitudes and ideas.
But, we may ask the question: can we expect that in the very near future the Church will command, urge, or even permit its members to look favorably on things and acts which hitherto have been forbidden and represented as opposed to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic Church? Does the intellectual climate expressed by the use of the terms "dialogue" and "pluralism" mean that the Church is inaugrating a new set of attitudes with reference to non- Catholic religious bodies?
Further into the article, Msgr. Fenton again reasserts
Quite clearly, then, there is not going to be any revolution in Catholic attitudes or any readjustment in Catholic ideas along this line. The Church is not going to modify its doctrine, and it is not going to admit at long last that the doctrines it denounced as heretical in times past are now acceptable in any way as Catholic doctrine. It is not going to arrive or to seek to arrive at a compromise between the teachings of St. Pius X and the doctrines of Von Hiigel and Loisy. It is not going to say that, after all, there is some truth in the propositions condemned in the Lamcntabili, the Pascendi, and the Sacrorum antistitum.
One of the strangest phenomena of our time is the spectacle of men who are supposedly well instructed in the science of sacred theology welcoming what they imagine to be a revolution in Catholic attitudes and a readjustment of Catholic ideas. As far as one can see, their mentality stems, in great measure, from a dissatisfaction with Catholic teaching as it actually exists.
And his final conclusions:
In the final analysis, the only Catholics who imagine that there will be or can be any doctrinal revolution in the Church are those who do not know the teaching of the Church. And the only Catholics who would like such a revolution are the individuals who have not grasped the meaning of Catholic doctrine and of Catholic theology. The people who spend their time inveighing against "the theo logians," and who neither love nor appreciate the content of Catholic theology are not going to advance the cause of the Church, or of its learning, or of its holiness. If the world is going to be changed radically or revolutionized by the force of the truth and the love of Jesus Christ, this will be brought about only in and through the teaching of the Church, as it has stood since the beginning, and as it will stand until the end of time.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2021 19:23:42 GMT -5 by Pacelli
Benjamin: But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
Apr 11, 2021 7:31:20 GMT -5
Pacelli: Lawsuits are very unfortunate, I agree. The money should not have been taken in the first place, or paid back once the canons were made clear that it could not have been taken, and it could have easily been avoided.
Apr 11, 2021 7:47:28 GMT -5
EricH: Hi Benjamin, perhaps it would have been better if I didn't file the lawsuit, but the Church doesn't teach that Catholics should avoid using the secular legal system.
Apr 11, 2021 10:48:35 GMT -5
EricH: I would have been happy to submit the matter to the judgment of a wise man who could judge between brethren. That is infinitely better than the secular legal system.
Apr 11, 2021 10:50:31 GMT -5
Benjamin: EricH-> Paul doesn't teach that believers should avoid using the secular legal system. In fact, Paul in Romans 13 makes it very clear that this very system is unavoidable.
Apr 11, 2021 19:50:18 GMT -5
Benjamin: Paul here, is exposing the rotten condition of the hearts of his brethren. By his rebuke, he's not forbidding them to use it (legal system), rather he explains how wicked and ungodly it is to expect justice from an unjust system run by non-believers.
Apr 11, 2021 19:59:56 GMT -5
Clotilde: That’s just so infuriatingly unjust. I know you’ve made peace, Eric. But still! I cannot fathom doing what they did. Thank you for warning others.
Apr 11, 2021 20:04:02 GMT -5
Benjamin: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." (1 Corinthians 6:12)
Apr 11, 2021 20:04:13 GMT -5
Benjamin: EricH-> I'll check out and the read the letter maybe tonight.
Apr 11, 2021 20:06:43 GMT -5
EricH: Thanks Clotilde and Benjamin
Apr 15, 2021 15:12:29 GMT -5
Benjamin: I like you guys. I will probably join this forum. I'm seriously thinking about becoming Catholic. I now know for sure that Protestantism is false. Where do I begin if all the Churches/Priests are corrupt? Am I too late??? I am scared and I fear the LORD...
Apr 16, 2021 17:14:59 GMT -5
Benjamin-01: P.S. EricH: I am sorry for what happened to you. I gather though, that these experiences have made you more resilient. Peace
Apr 16, 2021 18:02:26 GMT -5
Benjamin-01: And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. (Exodus 20:20)
Apr 16, 2021 18:23:56 GMT -5
Pacelli: Benjamin, you are not to late. Clearly God is moving you or you would not be open to this. The state of the Church is complicated right now, but it is still intact and the four marks are present, it's just harder to find right now.
Apr 16, 2021 18:51:54 GMT -5
Benjamin-01: Pacelli -> You got that part right! I've been looking for it (The TRUE Church) for seven (7) years...
Apr 16, 2021 22:33:10 GMT -5
inquirer: Hello Mr.Gadjewski. I am interested in the SSPX but am hesitant to make any steps towards involvement unless a couple of basic points can be clarified and I hope you would be able to help me to understand since you are an authority on the subject. 1) does
May 29, 2021 8:46:35 GMT -5
Pacelli: I think you have the wrong forum. There is no member here named Mr. Gadjewski.
May 29, 2021 10:46:09 GMT -5