And thus Father Eusebio Garcia de Pesquera wonderful and extensive account of the events of Garabandal is dismissed by Aviso as 'rumour'!
Please offer links to exact quotes from Fr. Pesquera that refute Aviso’s position, or retract or delete your assertion. If as usual you refuse to provide this proof, your post will simply be deleted.
September 26, 1962, was, according to all available information, the first time the Virgin mentioned the Council at Garabandal, and the following words of Conchita in ecstasy on that occasion were transcribed by lawyer, Luis Navas Corillo, from a tape recording made by a Basque priest: “The Council, is it the greatest of all? Will it be a success? How good! That way they will know you better and you will be very happy…” Commenting on this in his book SHE WENT IN HASTE TO THE MOUNTAIN, Father Eusebio Garcia de Pesquera states that it would be good to know exactly what Our Lady said in those gaps between Conchita’s questions, since we can’t draw any firm conclusions. But when Conchita says: “How good!…” there can be little doubt that something positive from Our Lady elicited that response. Father Pesquera suggests that it might have been because a chapter in the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution would be devoted to her. And while this was less than the full document called for in the original schema, it was substantial (although probably not enough for devotees of Our Lady). https://whatisgarabandal.wordpress....ive-and-comforting-garabandal-and-vatican-ii/
This is NOT a refutation of Aviso’s position. It’s just one individual’s inference from a one-sided conversation. Given the events of the half century since, Praetorian’s conjecture above is much more credible in hindsight. Try again.
Why on earth should anyone prefer Aviso's view to that of Father Pesquera! That's a rhetorical question. I actually know the answer to it!
No one needs to "prefer" Aviso's view. Aviso simply stated that there were no statements sent to Rome that supported Vatican II. All Fr. Pesquera guessed is that maybe the apparition was speaking about how Our Lady was mentioned in a specific portion of the texts of Vatican II. That's it. No big support for the council or anything of the sort. Just some pure speculation from one person. He may very well be a good priest, but even in his statement he makes sure to point out it is just a guess. His statement: Father Eusebio Garcia de Pesquera states that it would be good to know exactly what Our Lady said in those gaps between Conchita’s questions, since we can’t draw any firm conclusions.
Thank you Praetorian, this is exactly what I wanted to tell but as my English is limited you have done it much better than me, I am not challenging the work of Father Pesquera in no way, I suggest his book for years now and as the Bible of Garabandal to all my readers, now Let me add few words and I want to avoid any controversy, I have myself a document from Father Laffineur the Garabandal Pioneer, we own to this Great Priest the Garabandal Cause, he is also the Priest behind the archives, in this french document Father Laffineur is quite clear about VII and the New Mass, his words are, in no way the Garabandal Pioneer close to the 4 seers much more than anyone else, could talk this way if the Lady did Praised the Council in Garabandal, the words of Laffineur are so strong about the Council that I am myself ashame to send them online, I will not add anything else about this topic but below we have also some détails about the Council and Garabandal : Father Turner’s personal investigations lead him to the great Father Materne Laffineur, author of Star on the Mountain, whose work uncovered the true importance of Garabandal for many. He allied with the Abbe Alfred Combe, father of the promotion in France. It is to these three men, Laffineur, Combe and Turner that the global Garabandal community owes many thanks. These priests of France faithfully collected the first impress and worked out the intellectual framework that sustained the cause through the very long night of doubt. Father Francois Turner was the indispensable man of the Garabandal movement. A mentor to the international promotion, he moved easily between the American and European centers coordinating efforts, collaborating with other authors, and translating ideas everywhere he went. In a time of skepticism he wrote in favor of the apparitions and lectured insightfully on Garabandal around the world. When his friend, Juan Antonio del Val Gallo of holy memory, was ordained Bishop of Santander, Father Turner worked in a spirit of fraternity to lift the lingering suspicion in the chancery and closed the breach which had opened with the global promotion. He was known to the Vatican and served as an informal liaison with Rome. Since his death in 1995, no one of such stature has risen to replace him. Our Lady Teaches at Garabandal remains the only complete treatment of the apparitions by Father Turner in English, a compendium of anecdotes which he uses to illustrate the catechism of personal piety and virtue taught by the Most Blessed Virgin Mary during her five year visitation to the mountain village. He anchors these lessons soundly in sacred scripture emphasizing the continuity of the instruction of the Virgin and the acts of the visionaries with the counsel of the Old and New Testament. Father Turner agreed with the American priest Joseph Pelletier A.A. who saw the apparitions as a preemptive inoculation against the crisis advancing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. A speculative theology which came forward in those days directly challenged areas of settled Church teaching; the centrality of the Eucharist and the doctrine of the Real Presence, the efficacy of Marian Intercession and the assistance of the Holy Angels, the spirit of mortification and of sacrifices offered in reparation for sin, traditional devotional prayer – the Rosary – as a powerful aid to growth in the spiritual life. All of this is reaffirmed at Garabandal in a most astonishing way – not as dead concepts but as the living yet invisible reality. The Fathers agreed that the crisis aimed at disrupting the priesthood, causing divisions among priests, casting doubt on the sublime dignity of their sacrificial vocation and ambiguity about their venerable place among Christians. Of vital concern to Father Turner was the sanctification of his brother priests. Our Lady at Garabandal requested the faithful fast and pray for priests, set apart by their distinction to be leaders of the Church. Our Lady told the visionaries that saintly priests save many souls as their actions are studied and imitated by many. https://www.garabandal.us/champion-of-g
Aviso, Hello. Are you saying that Our Lady of Fatima said something about Vatican II and if so can you tell me what it was? Thank you!
Thank you Carol, most people are unaware that what came out of Vatican II isn't what the Cardinals and Bishops who signed the council documents envisioned at all. I think they thought they would get a slightly modified Mass with the Gospel in the vernacular and a couple of other small parts changed and that's it. The Modernists went wild in the 60's and 70's making sweeping advances in their agenda. Fortunately they were frustrated for over 30 years by the pontificates of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. They had hoped for a Modernist Pope right after Pope Paul VI to keep the ball rolling, but that didn't happen. It appears to me that in the intervening years they did a "Long march through the institutions" of the Church similarly to what was done in the secular institutions after the 60's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions Cementing themselves in the positions of power within the Church behind the scenes. Preparing and waiting until they got a man in the Chair of St. Peter that would forward their agenda. If we are all wondering why everything is happening with such lightening speed right now it is because the machinery was mostly put in place before Pope Francis even arrived and his agenda is their agenda. This is also why the last two Popes had such trouble getting anything done. The machinery behind the scenes was actively working against them.
@Aviso , are you familiar with Father Philip Bebie, C.P. the author of The Warning (https://healwithgrace.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction-warning-by-father-philip.html?m=1)? He was a Passionist and promoter of Garabandal who lived with my spiritual director’s community in Bedford PA, 45 minutes south of me, after he returned to the USA in the late 1970s.
Most definitely. Can anyone deny the facts that speak for themselves? http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/07/12/judge-the-tree-good-or-bad-by-its-fruits/ The rotten fruits of Vatican II are: Hardly any vocations to the priesthood or religious life vs before when they could not build seminaries or convents fast enough. Massive leaving of the priesthood and religious life after. No more missionaries because most Catholics believe all religions have the same God and are equal. Everything is relative. Silence on communism after 125 million people were murdered for it. 40% of Catholics have joined another religion. Almost all Catholics no longer believe in or obey many on the Church’s 2000 year old teachings that condemn birthcontrol, sex before marriage, homosexual sex and divorce. Before you had large families and hardly any divorce. People sinned, but they knew it was sin. Closing of Catholic schools. Poor children could go. Before there was waiting list to get in the Catholic Schools and they were being built as fast as they could be. Religious ran them with no salary. Now almost all are rich children who go. ‘Catholic’ universities teach against Church teachings. Theologians, popes, bishops, religious and priests question everything that was held dogma before. They justify it by calling it ‘disssenting’. Before they were called heretics and were silenced. Catholic Hospitals helped the poor and obeyed Church teaching on abortion, tubal ligation and birthcontrol. Now they are again for the upper middle class. Feminist religious want to be priests. Many cardinals, bishops, priests and laity support these women in their desire to change Jesus’ decision to have a male only priesthood. Most of us, (from the United States and Europe), no longer have any family members who are Catholics because they have become atheists, protestant or nothing. Before, I can say for my family, it was Catholic since they were converted from the Roman pagan religion almost 2000 years ago. After all those years, my family is now no longer Catholic. Churches are empty in Europe. People are old who do go to church. Priests are old. Churches are beings sold off. Before the churches were full. People went to mass on Sundays. Land was being purchased and new Churches were being built. Every Sunday mass is divided between different languages and likes. Before all over the world the Latin Mass was the same, (except for those who were Byzantine). Today the pope is just one among many of the bishops. It is called ‘collegiality’. Each bishop is his own king over his diocese. Before the Vatican ruled and the pope was the visible head of the church. Studies show that most Catholics no longer believe that the Holy Eucharist is truly Jesus’ Body and Blood. Long lines for Holy Communion, hardly any confessions. Before there were so many Eucharistic processions and Benedictions. A Catholic would not dare receive Jesus in mortal sin. Catholics no longer consider sin sin, so they have no need for confession. People went to confession every week. Everyone is confused.
Funny, you are the only other person I have ever heard say this about the battle between old and new money and their power. I have long held this belief and as well the same conclusion as you; that whoever the victor they both worship the same things. Control, wealth and most decidedly NOT God. Climate change is like all the other lies science has brought us in that it is primarily a way to generate money in taxes and laws to control and enslave a population for it's own good according to the top families of this world. The rather large glaring difference with it though is that it is the first truly global effort to do so.
Hijacked by whom? And why did the Pope allow it without so much as a whisper against it? Isn't it likely that he himself wanted those changes? Why was ostpolitik agreed upon, in direct contradiction to the warnings of our Lady of Fatima? How could they have invited protestants to have a say in the order of the new mass? https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...-about-those-six-protestants-and-the-new-mass
I believe VII was a good Council but it was hijacked as indicated above by Father Richard Heilman . I also believe that Our Dearest Lord Jesus knows, how Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI must feel about how VII and Sacrosanctum Concilium was distortedly reported, incorrectly enacted and erroneously adopted and approved. Mark 14: 55-64 55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus in order to have him executed. But they could not find any. 56 Several, indeed, brought false witness against him, but their evidence was conflicting. 57 Some stood up and submitted this false evidence against him, 58 'We heard him say, "I am going to destroy this Temple made by human hands, and in three days build another, not made by human hands." ' 59 But even on this point their evidence was conflicting. 60 The high priest then rose before the whole assembly and put this question to Jesus, 'Have you no answer to that? What is this evidence these men are bringing against you?' 61 But he was silent and made no answer at all. The high priest put a second question to him saying, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 62 'I am,' said Jesus, 'and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven. 63 The high priest tore his robes and said, 'What need of witnesses have we now? 64 You heard the blasphemy. What is your finding?' Their verdict was unanimous: he deserved to die.
I won't guess at the inner motivations of the Popes who oversaw these changes, but the council was hijacked by Modernist clergy. There was a lot of political maneuvering during and after the council to steer the Church in the direction it has taken since then. I will admit that I have not done as extensive an investigation into the actual council goings on as some may have, but I have done enough research to know the basics. Apparently the council started off well enough, but the Modernists out maneuvered the traditional faction. There was one famous speech given at one point that basically was the point of derailment. The final documents were purposely written in an ambiguous manner so they could be taken advantage of later by the Modernists. This is a staple of Modernist tactics. Pope St. Pius X wrote extensively about this. They use vague, confusing language. Does that sound familiar? Look at the writings that came from Popes and councils up until 1960. You will have no trouble understanding them. They are clear and concise. They are clear for a very good reason. They are to inform the faithful in a simple manner what is expected of them so they can save their soul. Now look at the writings that have been produced since Vatican II. They are often confusing, vague, use flowery language that can be taken in several different ways, etc.
Some reflections on the Council by Cardinal Muller from a 2012 interview: The 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council also takes place Oct. 11. Some would argue that the Church has been hampered in its mission to evangelize by the confusion that followed the Council. Will there be initiatives during this Year of Faith to help remove some of that confusion? The problems that we had after the Council were not caused by the Council. The development of the secularist mentality, for instance, had nothing to do with the Council. It came about before the Council, in the 19th century, when we had secularism promoted by liberals who denied the supernatural and saw the Church only in terms of a charitable institution. But the role of the Church is not only to help in the social field; its secondary mission is to help the bonum commune [the common good]. But the first reason for its existence is to preach the Gospel and thus give hope to the world. Therefore, we have an interlinking between the event of the Council and assault of secularism. The waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council, but they accumulated into a tsunami at the same time as the great event of the Council. Partly because of this coincidence, a certain type of secularism then found its way into the inner circles of the Church. The result is that we now not only have secularism coming from outside the Church, but we have a type of liberalism within the Church which has caused us to lose our direction a little. We must look to our own resources — the Scriptures, the Fathers, the dogmatic teachings of the Church — and, like a good captain, steer the way ahead. As there continues to be a lack of clarity over the Council, particularly in its interpretation, could an encyclical from the Pope clarify matters? Yes, we need an authentic interpretation of the magisterium of the Council. The Pope offered a good and faithful interpretation of the Council when he said it did not create a new Church. Like every other ecumenical council, Vatican II must be interpreted according to the Tradition, based on Revelation and on Scripture. The great achievement of Vatican II was that it brought the doctrine of the Church into a whole; it provided an overview. In other words, it didn’t underline only some aspects of doctrine like in other councils, but, rather, summarized the main contents of our belief. What it says in Dei Verbum about divine Revelation, for example, is a summary of all that is said in the magisterium about personal revelation. And in Lumen Gentium we have a comprehensive vision of all the dimensions belonging to ecclesiology, the sacraments founded by Jesus Christ, the hierarchy, the laity, the people of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit. We have a unified ecclesiology. Also in Gaudium et Spes and in other documents, we can say that the Second Vatican Council collected together the basic elements of our doctrine in one place. But if it does present such a comprehensive view of ecclesiology, why are there groups such as the Society of St. Pius X who want to stick to “frozen tradition,” as it were, rather than come into full communion? Does this suggest errors in this comprehensive vision? We have breakaway groups, not only on the traditionalist wing, but also on the liberal wing. I think that some have developed sets of ideas, which they have formed into an ideology, and then they judge all things in the context of this one set of ideas. The traditionalists, for instance, focus heavily on the liturgy. But we cannot say that there is only one form in which the liturgy can be celebrated, that the extraordinary form is the only form of the Mass. We also cannot change the content of the holy Mass — it’s the same content — but some elements of the liturgy have developed. We have had a lot of rites, Roman, Byzantine, etc., and all are valid, and all have had a certain growth. The SSPX and some traditionalists in communion with the Church have trouble reconciling the fact that we’ve had popes in the past who have categorically stated teachings that appeared to be refuted by the Council, religious freedom being one example. What do you say in response to this concern? That is not true — it’s a false interpretation of history. In the 19th century, the freemasons or liberals interpreted religious freedom as the freedom to reject the truth given by God. It was this false notion of religious freedom that the popes of the 19th century rejected, and the Second Vatican Council repeats that we are not free to reject the truth. It is on another level, on the level of human rights, that everyone has to be true to himself or herself and act according to his or her own conscience. Furthermore, the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself — that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by false interpretation. We cannot say today, “Jesus is the Son of God, he has a divine nature,” and then tomorrow accept what the Arians said [that Christ was distinctly separate from God the Father]. That would be a real contradiction. What they [SSPX] are proposing is, in essence, a tension arising from the use of terminology, but the Church never contradicted herself. If you study the texts of different centuries, of different contexts, of different languages, you must do so on the basis of established Catholic doctrine. Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent. That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him. But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today, “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church that person is in danger of losing salvation. Therefore, we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts — and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress
Those questions are most relevant. My initial post was in defense of John XXIII. Things seemed to go really off the rails during the pontificate of Paul VI. It appears the latter had modernist tendencies, which he later seemed to abandon, but the damage had been done. It was probably the catastrophe you outlined above so well that prompted this change of mind.
