“There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church.” [1862 Prediction]
Ok Padraig, if this conversation cant take place ,just say so ,thanks. So much fear about it. Again I realise its all a bit doom and gloom , so why dont those more in favour of the council start their own threads? showing their side of positive?
What I'm getting from many on the forum is not fear or a desire to cheerlead for Vatican II, but a weariness with this entire discussion. From the beginning of the Marian age, in every Church-approved apparition, our Blessed Mother has been preparing us for these dark days. Her request is always for prayer and sacrifice. I've never heard her ask for us to perfect our critical spirit or obsess over the errors and sins we see in the Church and in the world. This is spiritual warfare, and our weapons are the rosary, the crucifix and the Sacraments. I'm not afraid to discuss Vatican II and the abuses that followed, I'm just worn out from it. Does anyone ever come away better for the discussion? If you haven't watched this video, I urge you to do so. And that is all I have to say about that.
Kathy, if you are tired and weary of the topic you are not obliged to view and comment on it.It is of interest to some of us. Quite a few views the thread has had in a short space of time actually.
I want to respond in the context of what the Vatican II documents stated themselves. I have had the opportunity to read and study four of them: 1) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy 2) Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 3) Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation 4) Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World I have found them to be beautiful, inspiring, and instructive. There are a couple of reservations I hold from a layman's point of view, but do not hesitate to encourage all of you to go to the source. The teaching on the Sacred Liturgy is a case in point. In paragraph 54, the document introduces the possibility of portions of the Holy Mass in the vernacular. It offers the readings and what we know as general intercessions as examples. But then this paragraph states: Nevertheless steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them. Paragraph 51 urges that the treasures of the Bible be opened up more lavishly: In this way a more representative portion of holy Scripture will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years. Paragraph 116 states: The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as distinctive of the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. None of these norms are indicative of a Council gone amok. I especially rejoice in the much expanded exposure to the Word of God that we presently enjoy. But then, how sad it is that we see no implementation of the other two. That is not the Council's fault. It is the hijacking of the implementation of the Council by modernists that was the problem, initiated by open rebellion against Humane Vitae in 1968. This thread has raised an ugly tendency to spout generalities about Vatican II that greatly annoy me. It is dangerous to allow heartrending disappointments and struggles of the last five decades to color our objectivity. For instance, post #11 above appears to claim Michael Voris sees a link between the Council and our current dilemma. That is not the case! Mr.Voris condemns "the misrepresentation of the Council" and speaks of Pope Benedict clearing the deck so that Pope Francis can now more clearly "assert what the Council actually said." If we have a problem with what the Council actually stated, please quote it. Otherwise we cast a negative image of Mother Church when we vent without specifics! I have offered the following suggestion before in previous threads. If one wants to understand the organized rebellion that followed on the heels of the Council, a great source is: The Signs of the Times, Understanding the Church Since Vatican II by Fr. Richard Gilsdorf (Star of the Bay Press) Safe in the Barque of Peter!
The problem does lie in those documents that relate to disputed matters between 'progressives' and 'traditionalists' and it has been admitted on the 'progressive' side that, when they came to such matters, they actively, and usually successfully, sought to inject ambiguity into the relevant parts of the documents so that they could subsequently 'interpret' them to support their own agenda. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE DOCUMENTS and the results were therefore predictable. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has recently appealed for the Pope to publish a definitive interpretation to finally stop the 'dual interpretation' that is a feature of this output. http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.co.../79-history/370-ambiguity-and-vatican-ii.html What we have below is accusations of ambiguity and vagueness, not from the blog of some Traditionalist representing his own opinion or poorly formed theological vision, but from the Council Fathers themselves, from the men who made the Second Vatican Council. These statements are all taken from the public acts of the Council, during the discussions of the General Congregations in which the drafts (orschemas) that woudl become the Vatican II documents were discussed. The "interventions" of the Council Fathers quoted below are thus part of the public acts of the Council. Nor are these fathers obscure; in these citations we will see the heads of religious orders, like the Irish Dominican Michael Browne; Archbishops of major sees like Cardinal Siri of Genoa; Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office; even the Karol Wojtyla criticizes two documents for ambiguity, and none other than Paul VI himself admits "fundamental contradictions" in the final text of Lumen Gentium, contradictions that will eventually lead him to publishing an explanatory note to the document. The purpose of this collection of citations, then, is to prove two points: (1) That the critique of ambiguity in the documents of Vatican II is not some canard invented and bandied about by traditionalist Catholic bloggers, but was in fact a substantial charge made against many conciliar documents by the Council Fathers themselves. It was, and remains, a legitimate criticism of the documents of the Second Vatican Council that must be taken seriously since the Council Fathers themselves took it so seriously. (2) That to offer this critique does not imply any "denial of the Council", heterodoxy, or poor taste - if it does, then similar accusations must be leveled against Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the hundreds and hundreds of bishops who all voted non placet on many conciliar documents and did not thereby become heretics by doing so. What we are dealing with when looking at the question of ambiguity is a simple acknowledgement of fact - the documents have inherent ambiguities, and as much was admitted by scores of Council Fathers. A few things to keep in mind: First, to be as accurate as possible in this study, the following citations from the Council Fathers are taken solely from sessions three and four of the Council (1964-1965), when the Council schemas were either complete or very near the forms we know them today. The purpose of this is to take away the objection that the Fathers were simply objecting to errors in earlier drafts of the schemata that were subsequently corrected. All of the criticisms you read below are criticisms of the documents in their final or near final incarnations, and most have to do with the overall tone or nature of the documents, not with specific words or phrases. See details on the above website of particularly problematical statements in the documents identified at the time of the Council
I have been praying about this thread to Our Lady and I have been reminded about this. When I was a child I had six brothers and three sisters. My own understanding of the Commandments, as a child was, 'Obey your Father and you Mother'. Not complicated, not confused, no maybe or if's just obey. So I always did. In practical terms this involved always obeying my mother. Because my father was always at work, he was never there. So my mother always asked me to do things, like washing the dishes..we were such a big family this was a big thing. Like going to the shops Like a million things. But I always did it. One time, though I asked my mother, 'Why do you always ask me to do things and not my brothers and sisters?' To which she replied, 'Padraig. I am sorry, it's because you always do it'. And I 'll never forget how sad she was when she said that..... Pope John 23rd had a great motto , 'Obedience and Peace'
Again when I look at he scene of of the time when the Arcangel Gabriel came to Nazareth to ask Mary the question..... Mary's reply was , 'Yes' Just a simple yes. Obedient. My impression of this thread is confusion complication fog mist no simple answer
Padraig, I like that quote Obedience and Peace. I believe V2 knocking is killing peace and is disobedient. Maybe we need to go back to pre V2 sometime and I hope we do but the holy spirit will guide the Church in doing this if that is the right course. The only church I know is post V2 and it is the church I know and love. Was satan not given a lot of power nearly a hundred years ago to bring the church to its knees, but the gates of hell will not prevail against us? This was not V2 this was satan being given a lot of power. A lot of stuff that has caused a loss of faith are things like media, technology, porn, lies concealed in various forms and various other deceptions. But do some people blame V2 and the church for everything bad. My gut tells me attacks on V2 are a bit like attacks on Pope Francis, potentially disobedient. Saying all this I do have big desire\craving for latin mass.
I think these threads can be like the grapevine, which leads to misunderstandings,...did anyone listen to what Bishop Schneider had to say in post # 27 No one is attacking Vll or the Pope. The only thing that disturbed my peace was Indy seeming to mock the latin Mass
Well I will get my two cents into the V2 discussion. Had v2 happened 20 years earlier, say in the 1040's it would have taken hold better and not gotten the blame it has today. The 60's was a time 'springtime' for the new agers. Freedom, free-sex, free-drugs, free-thought, free-religion and on and on. V2 ended when I was in 3rd grade. By the time I was in 5th grade the effects of liberal nuns was well under way. The nun habits were long, their veils covered their whole head except their face. Within two years after V2 the dress was at their knees and the veils barely covered their heads. By my 6th grade year nearly 80,000 nuns had left the religious order. They were FREE at last. Most of the few left had lost the beauty of the religious life, which included the habit. I had no clue then what was going on, but I sure knew something changed. I don't think V2 was the problem, I think V2 happened in the most changing decade in history (well except for the great flood!). I also believe the 60's was the year the greatest number of homosexual priests were planted into the Church. My sister lost her faith in a Catholic college that became obsessed with liberalism. Most all Catholic institutions felt the blow of the 60's and V2 was just a vehicle to interpret its cause within the Church. Yet I do not think so. It was the era, not the council.
I certainly agree, Fatima, that what was going on outside the Church during that time has had a significant effect on the situation in which we find ourselves today. It is true however that almost all religious orders 're-examined' their constitutions immediately following the Council and re-wrote them both in a spirit of the age but also in a spirit that reflected new ideas that appeared to be endorsed by the relaxing of Church disciplines mandated by the Council. I was a teenager at the time and, having been raised in an atmosphere of certainty about the Church, its beliefs and its rules, I found myself listening to, and reading, things from priests and religious that would previously have resulted in their laicisation or expulsion from their order. For instance a priest in the late 60's confidently told us that it was totally unnecessary to be a Catholic in order to be saved and that Christians, including Catholics, should seek a 'church' that 'talked to our own soul'! I was advised by a nun that weekly attendance at Mass was not only not necessary but potentially damaging to my religious life, I should only go when I felt that I wanted to go to Mass! Both these people quoted the 'new spirit' in the Church following the Council as being responsible for their 'freedom' to think in new ways and see the truth from a different perspective. They might have quoted the Council but they were, without doubt, also reacting (as you say) to an external environment in which certainty, restraint and discipline were regarded as irrelevant and indeed damaging.
I blame ambiguous statements on the misinterpreting of v2. In an overview, I always looked at the musical Hair , where performers acted in the nude, main theme song "Let the sunshine in" as stan's victory song about getting in and trying to take down the church. It was the beginning of this major cultural shift we are living through and what has happened to the church as we "opened up the windows to let fresh air in" as one of the popes put it. Unfortunately, it was the wind of stan.
Well Indy, I guess I found your statement to be ambiguous. Ironically this is what Bishop Schneider has said about the Vll documents,..there was nothing wrong with the documents, only they were ambiguous,..so easily misunderstood, and he is suggesting to Pope Francis that they should be clarified. I think because of the ambiguity of the documents, there were those like errant children, who wanted to purposely distort the texts. Bishop Schneider points out the Pope and the Magisterium lead the Church. The way in which the documents were written gave way to Bishops doing their own thing in disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff. I also happen to be one who believes in the Garabandal prophecies and from what I remember, there was a conversation between the seers and the Blessed Mother in which was heard "the Council will be a success,..how wonderful" So the Council being pastoral was to affirm tradition in the Church and whatever else,..I don't know not having read it. So I think the king of confusion has been at work, and this is also indicative of what the girls experienced in Garabandal when the Blessed Mother said they would experience confusion within themselves and the Church would also experience this confusion. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but I hold dear the Latin Mass which I have come to know and understand. I am attaching a sermon I was present at that explains what has happened to the age old Tridentine,...God Bless http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20120916-On-The-5th-Anniversary-of-Summorum-Pontificum.html
One would have thought that in Pope Paul saying and knowing that the 'Smoke of Satan' had entered the Church' that he would have done more to crack down on renegade bishops, priests and nuns. I do however, thank Pope Paul for giving us Humane Vitae document on life and human sexuality in the eye's of God. Maybe he did not know how bad it got out there until it was to late. I will never know why no Pope has formally consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They all surely knew that it had to happen. Thought they would have had a 'Jonah' moment when they knew that they had to do it.
