Mr. Stephen Kim, a reader of our website, challenges Fr. Thomas Rausch, S.J., a columnist of The Tidings, to clearly explain the 'new doctrines' he claims were established by Vatican II

Dear TIA,

In his column in the July 20 issue of the Los Angeles archdiocesan paper, The Tidings, reproduced below, entitled, Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio: Catholics and Jews, Fr. Thomas Rausch, S.J., writes: "One prayer in a missal no longer ordinary or normative does not trump Vatican II's dogmatic teaching that among those related to the People of God..."

I would like to remind Fr. Rausch that Vatican II defined no dogmas. It was a pastoral council, as I am sure he already knows. If he is in disagreement, I challenge him to name ONE dogma that was defined by Vatican II. Needless to say, he won't find any.

As for previously defined dogmas that are referred to in the conciliar documents, the words of the First Vatican Council remain crystal clear to this day:

"Not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles" (Session 4).

Now whether Fr. Rausch cares to conveniently reframe (imaginary) "new doctrine" or so-called "modern interpretations" of previously defined dogmas as "the Church's current attitude," the First Vatican Council warns:

"With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many even among the children of the Catholic Church have strayed from the path of genuine piety, and as the Truth was gradually diluted in them, their Catholic sensibility was weakened. Led away by diverse and strange teachings and confusing nature and grace, human knowledge and Divine Faith, they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy Mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the Faith" (Session 3).

My point is a simple one: No one, no single ecumenical council, not even the Pope himself, has the authority to either contradict or compromise the constant teachings and traditions of the Church, as handed down to us from the Apostles. No degree of "wishful thinking" or even "wishful wording" from the likes of Fr. Rausch can ever change that. To those who are foolish or arrogant enough to try, St. Paul warns:

"But though we or an Angel from Heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal 1:8).

Against those who would resort to the now mundane modernist "back door" approach of verbal trickery in perverting otherwise crystal clear doctrine, St. Paul warns:

"Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8).

If the warnings extend even to an "Angel of light," it would be small matter indeed to hold accountable the words of a single Jesuit priest whose overwhelming concern for "not offending the Jews" (a lovey-dovey, all-embracing, euphoric Vatican II sentiment, of course not extended to traditionalist Catholics) is rivaled only by his utter contempt and disdain for the Mass codified in 1570 by Pope St. Pius V and the insurmountable barrier it presents to those who, like him, wish to change (in the name of "re-interpretation" or, better yet, "a more mature understanding") Catholic Truth, being ashamed of it in the presence of their new master: so-called "modern man."

It's funny how so much attention and energy is angrily exhausted on this "one Missal," which Fr. Rausch attempts to put down as "no longer ordinary or normative" (apparently the best he can dish out in his desperation), if in fact, as he indicates, it is of such little consequence and only begrudgingly dusted off the shelf by the Supreme Pontiff to merely placate "a small percentage" of Catholics.

Going along with his wishful sentiments that "for most Catholics, the Pope's initiative will make little difference in their worship life" and that "most are comfortable with the Vatican II liturgy" (highly condescending, unqualified assumptions at best), I ask again: Then, why all the heat build up and negativity against it, coupled with frantic apologetic overtures left and right to those who remain outside Christ's One True Church?

Fr. Rausch can quote Vatican II until he's blue in the face, dreaming up all sorts of imaginary new doctrines whilst he's at it, but the fact remains that the Catholic Church is the ONLY True Church founded by Christ Himself - outside of which there is no salvation. This has been the truth for 2,000 years, and no "pastoral council" can ever presume to "trump it," however uncomfortable and "embarrassing" it might get to proclaim it in a climate so exponentially imbued with the spirit of arrogance and rebellion against God and His supernatural order.

I invite Fr. Rausch to step down from his position of false humility before his like-minded worldly audience and to actually learn something from the heroic trials of traditionalist Catholics, whom he has played a part in marginalizing, ridiculing, belittling, and persecuting - only to turn around and naively wonder why they remain "the minority." The very same "minority," by the way, of whom St. Anthanasius proudly wrote, "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ."

The Good Friday prayer asking for the conversion of the Jewish people is no "offending prayer," as Fr. Rausch concedes in an appalling act of surrender. The "offending prayer," rather, is the one that seeks to obscure the duty of every man to convert to the True Faith, that he may be saved. That the Jewish people remain the physical seed of Abraham is all the more reason they should convert and receive the heavenly inheritance God intended for them from all eternity. The Good Friday prayer, then, can only be understood as a "loving prayer."

A parting question for Fr. Rausch: Do you honestly believe that Vatican II somehow "trumps" all previous teachings of the Church, as clearly defined and unequivocally worded as they are?

It would be refreshing to get a straight "yes" or "no" answer out of him, rather than the usual smokescreen mental gymnastics so typical of those who choose to obscure the Truth by citing the existence of "complexities" where there really are none. As Our Lord instructs, "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these is of evil" (Matt 5:37).

     Instaurare Omnia in Christo,

     Stephen Kim
     Los Angeles, CA

Follow us

  On the Motu Proprio and the Letter to China

  Has the Pope Forgotten what Communism Is?

  The Motu Proprio after the Emotions

  Benedict Delivers Chinese Underground Catholics to Communism

  Readers Comment on Benedict Letter to China

  Red Light in Red China

  The Disastrous Cost of the Vatican Ostpolitik with China

  Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican Ostpolitik

  What's Old and New in Communism?

  The China Threat - Where Is the Response?