Dear Mr. Vennari,
How is it that you and all other traditionalist leaders and editors, persist in your failure to see...or is it a willing blindness? - that the Second Vatican Council's "Original Sin" is that of believing that the Church, like all other institutions on "planet" earth, must evolve - that is change or die and go extinct! This is made clear in Paragraph 26 of Pascendi. Archbishop Lefebvre not only lacked Catholic vision - but was unable - or refused to learn from the truly Catholic vision of Pope St. Pius X, who is the one who has warned the Church of the evolutionary, modernist threat. It is an evolutionary ideology that permeates the documents of Vatican II, and those who refuse to see it, and point it out, will surely have much to answer for. The "pastoral language", of the council, while real, was but another of the modernist, rhetorical, sophisticated strategies of deception, "to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Finally, let me call to your attention what I think is really going on, especially with the theological need for, and respect for, the natural sciences. In the March issue of The Creationist monthly magazine, Acts and Facts, science writer Brian Thomas gives four reasons why most scientists seem to trust the seriously flawed methods of radioisotope dating methods of fossils and the rocks. They are #1. The long ages fit the evolutionary ideology, which depends upon the illusion that given enough time….
#2. Many scientists accept the evolutionary and atheistic worldview because it seems to allow for an immoral lifestyle with no account to be given. #3. To abandon evolution and espouse Creation as Truth requires – would jeopardize the standing of credentialed scientists in the secular world of academia. The reality of this danger was documented in the movie - Expelled, and in the book Slaughter of the Innocents by Jerry Bergman. #4. Many scientists seem genuinely ignorant of the unwarranted assumptions on which the dating methods are based. I do not think any of these reasons apply to our Catholic Churchmen and scientists. And so, in their case I add a #5. It is a form of human respect, based on a weak faith, especially in the dogma concerning the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. When the truth is finally revealed, as it surely will be one day, it is assumed or feared that it will appear the Church has erred or been mistaken for centuries in her apparent acceptance of a science falsely so-called. (Tim: 6:20.)
Or it is feared that for certain – very conservative prelates, such as Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, to be seen as having been deceived – for he certainly was about the long ages – is too severe a blow for the Church to sustain. Not so!
The Church is “without stain or wrinkle”. It is only her weak and sinful members who are stains, and they flake off like the scabs of disease, without touching the spotless Deposit of Faith or tarnishing it in the least. But that weakness of faith remains for all to see in the failure of Churchmen to uphold the truth that was defended in the Galileo Case. See Sungenis and Redmond O’Hanlon.