Apostolic Exhortation Postrema Sessio…
Paul VI in 1965: Vatican II Contains ‘Numerous Doctrinal Points Proposed by the Extraordinary Magisterium’
There is a little-known document issued by the false pope Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini) during the last few days of the ill-fated Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Dated Nov. 4, 1965, it is considered an ‘apostolic exhortation’ and bears the title Postrema Sessio. On Nov. 7, the official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano released the Latin original text along with an Italian translation.
As no English translation appears to exist online, we have now made one available:
- Antipope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Postrema Sessio (Nov. 4, 1965)
In the exhortation, Paul VI urges prayers for the impending conclusion of the council, which was to take place just over a month later (on Dec. 8), so as “to implore a new Pentecost [sic] that will beneficially renew the face of the Church and human society by the grace of the Holy Spirit” — as if the Catholic Church were in need of a ‘new edition’ of this obviously singular event!
But more on the ‘new Pentecost’ later. The reason we consider this document to be of some significance is on account of the following passage. Paul VI writes:
First, let fitting thanks be offered to Almighty God, who, throughout the celebration of the Council, never ceased to be present with the Ecumenical Synod, assisting it with His divine help and abundant heavenly illumination. Indeed, if we consider the immense amount of work the Council has accomplished thus far, we are truly filled with admiration, whether for the numerous doctrinal points proposed by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church [complura doctrinae capita a Magisterio Ecclesiae extraordinario proposita] or for the wisely imparted norms of discipline, which, while faithfully preserving ecclesiastical tradition, open new paths for the Church’s action and undoubtedly contribute greatly to the good of souls.
[Latin original:]
Ac primum dignae Omnipotenti Deo gratiae referantur, qui toto Concilii celebrationis tempore, superna ope sua caelestiumque luminum copia numquam destitit Oecumenicae Synodo praesens adesse. Revera, si spectamus immensam laboris molem, quam Concilium hucusque absolvit, admiratione sane percellimur, sive ob complura doctrinae capita a Magisterio Ecclesiae extraordinario proposita, sive ob disciplinae normas sapienter impertitas, quae quidem, ecclesiastica traditione fideliter servata, actioni Ecclesiae nova patere iubent itinera, et ad animorum bonum procul dubio summopere conferent.
(Antipope Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Postrema Sessio, Nov. 4, 1965; underlining added.)
Shortly before the conclusion of Vatican II, then, Paul VI officially addressed his bishops and told them how much he admires not only the “wisely imparted norms of discipline” of the council (ugh!) but also the “numerous doctrinal points proposed by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church”.
This assertion is itself extraordinary, considering that in two subsequent addresses, given approximately one and two months later, respectively, Paul VI would go on to say that the council had refrained from employing the extraordinary magisterium:
But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.
(Paul VI, Closing Speech for the Last General Meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Vatican.va, Dec. 7, 1965; underlining added.)
In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.
(Antipope Paul VI, General Audience of Jan. 12, 1966; English translation from The Pope Speaks 11, n. 2 [Spring 1966], pp. 152-154; underlining added. Italian original here.)
The term ‘extraordinary magisterium’ refers to the solemn exercise of the Church’s teaching office, which is always infallible. This includes papal ex cathedra pronouncements as well as dogmatic definitions made by all the bishops gathered in ecumenical council in union with the Roman Pontiff.
We will not attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions; if nothing else, we want simply want it to be known that what Montini wrote in Postrema Sessio regarding Vatican II containing teachings of the extraordinary magisterium is also part of his official [Novus Ordo] magisterial record (officially promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 57 [1965], pp. 865-871).
Either way, the important point to remember is that if Paul VI was a true Pope, then Vatican II is authoritative and therefore binding. This means that a Catholic would then have to assent to what the council affirms as true; hold as false what it denies; consider as being allowed what it declares to be permissible; and condemn what it forbids.
Too many people who consider themselves traditional Catholics still mistakenly think that as long as Church teaching is not proposed infallibly, then it is optional and all conflicts of conscience are avoided in this manner. That is definitely and demonstrably false.
However, even if it were true, it would not really resolve the conundrum, for it would then mean that although a Catholic is not required to adhere to Vatican II’s statements regarding the Church, the sacred liturgy, the effects of baptism, the legitimacy of ecumenism and the doctrinal shift it implies, the Church’s relationship with other religions, religious freedom and human dignity, etc., he nevertheless could safely do so. In other words, there still could be no rupture between Vatican II and the pre-Vatican II magisterium. One would still not be permitted to hold that the council was dangerously erroneous, much less heretical.
The more important question, therefore, is not, “Do we have to accept Vatican II?” but rather, “Is it safe for a Catholic to accept Vatican II?” If the answer is no, then it cannot have been given by a true Pope:
The chair is a seat, somewhat raised and rather solemn, from which a master teaches. Look then upon the chair from which the first Pope spoke to the earliest Christians, just as we speak to you now, admonishing them to be on guard against the devil who goes about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (I Pet. 5, 8), exhorting them to be strong in their faith and not to be led astray by the errors of false prophets (II Pet. 2, 1). This teaching of Peter continues in his successors, and will continue, unchanged, for all time, for this is the mission given by Christ Himself to the head of the Church.
(Pope Pius XII, Address Vi è a Roma, Jan. 17, 1940; underlining added.)
The false pope Paul VI himself said that Vatican II is not optional. We already saw two instances of this, one in late 1965 and the other in early 1966. But there are others, too.
For example, in 1970, he said that the council teachings are “a very rich, authoritative compendium of doctrine and guidance”. In 1976, he lamented the audacity of the Lefebvrists’ rejection of the conciliar revolution:
It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Is it for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15 ff.), and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.
(Antipope Paul VI, Allocution to the Consistory, May 24, 1976. Translation from L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976. Original text at Vatican web site.)
Returning to Montini’s conviction that Vatican II would constitute, or bring about, a ‘new Pentecost’ — a phrase coined by his equally-fake predecessor, ‘Pope’ John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli), and first used on May 17, 1959 –, this surely is blasphemous. As if the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at the original (and only real) Pentecost, extended through time by being continually applied to individual Catholics through the Sacrament of Confirmation, were not sufficient for the Church in the 20th century or third millennium!
But then, perhaps this choice of words was intended to signal the creation of a ‘new church’, certainly de facto if not juridically. After all, though the true Catholic Church “came forth from the side of the second Adam in His sleep on the Cross” on Good Friday, nevertheless she “first showed herself before the eyes of men on the great day of Pentecost” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Divinum Illud, n. 5).
Thus, it would stand to reason that a New Church would also need a New Pentecost of sorts. And indeed, if one were asked to show where and when in Vatican II a New Church was called into being, one might point to Chapter 8 of the ‘dogmatic constitution’ Lumen Gentium, solemnly ratified on Nov. 21, 1964:
This Church [the one founded by Christ], constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
(Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 8; bold print added.)
To speak of Christ’s Church as subsisting in the Catholic Church, rather than as simply being the Catholic Church, as Pope Pius XII had insisted in Humani Generis (n. 27) a mere 14 years prior, was a complete doctrinal novelty.
According to his own testimony, the ‘subsists in’ formulation was originally the idea of the German Lutheran theologian and pastor Wilhelm Schmidt (1914-2011):
That Lumen Gentium n. 8 constitutes a shift in doctrine is undeniable. The Neo-Modernists needed it to make possible the council’s opening to ecumenism, which does not seek the conversion of non-Catholics to Catholicism but seeks to achieve some other kind of religious unity never clearly defined (and which is itself the subject of disagreement among various ecumenical parties).
Shortly after the close of Vatican II, Paul VI himself spoke of the “conciliar church” into whose image Catholic leaders were now to “transform themselves.”
And then there is the shockingly candid admission by the Polish then-‘Cardinal’ Karol Wojtyla, subsequently known as ‘Pope John Paul II’, who wrote in 1977: “The Church … succeeded, during the second Vatican Council, in re-defining her own nature” (Sign of Contradiction [New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1979], p. 17). A scan of the page can be found here. Although the English translation was published in 1979, the original Italian had been released two years prior, before he was elected ‘Pope’ in October of 1978.
Elsewhere in Postrema Sessio exhortation, Paul VI expresses his expectation that his counterfeit council will “bring a new and abundant outpouring of spiritual life to the Church and the world”. Now, over 60 years later, the unmistakable results are in: Montini’s ‘Conciliar Church’ has caused utter doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and liturgical ruin in untold millions of souls.
It’s truly extraordinary.
Image source: Alamy (colaimages)
License: rights-managed
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation