The evangelicals may have some peculiar eschatology, but some, though sadly by no means all, seem to be holding the line regarding morality. Better than many of the mainliners, at any rate. The evangelicals might have this strange belief in a 'Rapture', but it is not so deadly a heresy as a disbelief in Hell. Many of them still seem to remain enthusiastic Fire and Brimstoners, which is very much to their credit.
Listening to Bishop Athanasius speak in the video above, it strikes me that there is some parallel between Vatican II and Amoris Laetitia. In that 1. there is a whole lot of good contents/ teachings issued from V II, 2. some ambiguous statements that the good Bishop says should be clarified (like the 'ecumenical' statement that Muslims worship the same God that we do) and 3. the bizarre/ confused implementation of changes afterwards like removing altar rails, vs populum instead of ad orientem, shift of the tabernacle from centre to the side or back, de-emphasising sacred music, hardly any Latin used in the liturgy etc, etc, which were in contradiction to the actual teachings of V II. All 3 points of good contents, ambiguous statement, and confused implementation are there in AL. This brings to mind what Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Special Secretary for the synods on marriage and family, claims publicly that Pope Francis said, “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” Makes me wonder if there was the same (malicious) intent behind Vatican II.
I do not believe Pope John XXIII had any malicious intent in opening Vatican II, rather that the Council was hijacked by people mostly on the outside of it. Pope John may have been mistaken, but that is a different charge entirely.
Clearly there were malicious intent by many coming out of Vatican II to redo the Church. That is what Pope Paul saw and said, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church". But there is a new confusion today, often delivered by our pope. A double talk. For instance, I see headlines today that Pope Francis is denouncing abortion, yet he opens the doors of the Vatican to some of the biggest advocates of abortion and population control on the planet. There is a different kind of evil present today in the Church. One that double talks. Very dangerous times for those not steeped in prayer who cannot see this.
Even Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II at the time. We must remember we see what came after the council today with perfect hindsight. At the time I don't think anyone really saw what was going on or the effects it would have. It was the first major assault on the Church by Modernists. The entire council was hijacked and the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" was introduced.
More upset with the exposure than the sin? Catholic officials warn ex-seminarians over sex claims VATICAN CITY (AP) — Catholic officials in Italy have threatened former altar boys of the pope with criminal defamation charges for having publicly accused an older seminarian of sexual misconduct when they lived together at the youth seminary inside the Vatican gardens. Church lawyers in the diocese of Como have also warned an Italian investigative news program against broadcasting the boys' claims and have purportedly pressed a church official to recant his suggestion of a cover-up. The response is indicative of how the allegations of gay sex among altar boys inside the Vatican walls have touched a raw nerve in the Vatican and the Italian church. The reaction has been particularly acute within a small Catholic association, the Opera Don Folci, which runs the St. Pius X preseminary in a palazzo just steps away from where Pope Francis lives. About a dozen boys, some as young as 13, live in the residence and serve as altar boys for papal Masses in St. Peter's Basilica. The accusations concern a former seminarian who is now a young priest for the Como dioceses and member of the Don Folci association. Reporter Gaetano Pecoraro interviewed an ex-student who said the seminarian would come into his dorm at night demanding oral sex, starting when he was 13 and continuing until he was 18. The seminarian was a year older and held a position of authority over the other students, reported the ex-student who was identified only as "Marco." The student's roommate, Kamil Jarzembowski, said he witnessed dozens of incidents, first denouncing them to seminary officials, and then in writing to cardinals and finally the pope in 2014. Church officials say internal church investigations were conducted, though initially not interviewing the boys in question, and the claims were determined to be false. The accused seminarian, meanwhile, was ordained a priest earlier this year. None of the accusers continued on to the priesthood. The former students, including another one who reported a groping incident when the seminarian was 20 and he was 15, have gone public with their allegations in a book and series of investigative television reports on the program "Le Iene" (The Hyenas). Their testimony prompted the Vatican to announce Nov. 18 that it was reopening an investigation into the case because "new elements" had emerged. The Vatican said it wanted to "shine full light on what really happened." Before the Vatican acted, the Opera Don Folci lashed out at the ex-students' allegations in a statement on its website, calling them "mud," a "violent attack on the church" and nothing more than "calumny and falsifications." A lawyer representing the Don Folci association, Riccardo Rolando Riccardi, wrote to at least one former student that he was preparing a criminal defamation case in Rome's tribunal "for the alleged crime committed by the divulgation of news to the press about alleged acts of sexual assault that allegedly occurred" in the seminary. According to the letter dated Nov. 17, which was seen by The Associated Press, Riccardi instructed the ex-student to come in for questioning or face interrogation by Rome prosecutors. ....... Separately, Le Iene revealed during its broadcast last week that it had received a letter from the diocese of Como warning it against proceeding with its story. The letter, which was shown during the broadcast, cited the outcome of church investigations into the matter that found "everything that was alleged turned out to be unfounded." However, Pecoraro interviewed the Como vicar who handled the investigation, the Rev. Andrea Stabellini, who confessed when he thought the camera wasn't filming that he had recommended the investigation continue because he believed there was sufficient evidence offered by the boys. He was overruled. In an interview with AP, Pecoraro said he had since come to learn that diocesan and other church officials were pressuring Stabellini to recant. More: https://www.yahoo.com/news/catholic-officials-threaten-ex-seminarians-over-sex-claims-095954118.html
For all believers in Garabandal, they should be aware of this information: Our Lady and the Council What the Blessed Virgin said about the Council at Garabandal accords with the position of Bishop Nickless (and many others), since in her appearances she both reinforced all the Church’s beliefs and time-honored practices and spoke well of Vatican II. 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). There is, however, another possibility not mentioned by Father Pesquera which also makes sense of Conchita’s “How good…!”. At the close of the third Council session on November 21, 1964, Pope Paul VI proclaimed Mary “Mother of the Church.” So the Blessed Virgin was not absent from the Council, which incidentally opened on the feast of the Maternity of Mary (October 11, 1962) and closed on the east of her Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1965). But what Our Lady told Conchita on September 26, 1962, may not have had to do with either the chapter in the Constitution or her being proclaimed Mother of the Church. At four o’clock in the morning of November 18, 1962, five weeks after the opening of the Council, another recording was made of Conchita speaking in ecstasy. Here are significant excerpts: “…shall I tell…Oh?…Good! That with the Council and the Miracle the world is going to be converted?…and afterwards the world will be forgiven? Oh, that is good…What?… and I can say that with the Council and the Miracle there will be conversion…. I’ll tell it after the Council and…eh? Then I want the Council to end now…. I won’t say anymore, nothing more, eh?….When the Council ends I won’t say a word…oh, goodbye.” https://whatisgarabandal.wordpress....ive-and-comforting-garabandal-and-vatican-ii/
If “Mary” approved of VII at Garabandal, then, regretfully, I can no longer believe in Garabandal. http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/421-original-vatican-ii-schemas.html Original Vatican II Schemas In the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII entrusted the preparation of the documents that would be discussed by the Council to a Preparatory Commission, headed by the venerable Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. The Preparatory Commission ended up drafting a total of nine schemas on a variety of topics. It was these schemas that would be rejected by the Council Fathers are excessively rigid, condemnatory in tone, and too "Scholastic" in their style. The majority of the documents were rejected in favor of what have gone on to become the sixteen documents of Vatican II. Until recently, we in the English speaking world had no way to assess the alleged inferiority of Ottaviani's original schemas; we had to simply take the word of the Council Fathers and periti. Thankfully, however, in 2012 a priest of Marquette University, Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, laboriously translated five of the nine schemas into English. We are happy to link Fr. Komonchak's excellent translations below. Five of the nine schemas are available, with expansive footnotes and helpful commentary by Fr. Komonochak. The original Vatican II schemas available in English are: On the Sources of Revelation (De fontibus revelationis) Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith On the Christian Moral Order On Chastity, Marriage, the Family and Virginity Dogmatic Constitution on the Church In reading these original schemas, one is struck by their clarity, their directness, and relative to the subsequent conciliar documents, their brevity. It is also interesting to see in what ways the content of these documents are notably different from the documents that were eventually promulgated. For example, "On the Sources of Revelation" states very plainly that there are two sources of revelation which constitute a single deposit of faith; Dei Verbum, on the other, is emphatic that there is but one source of revelation which is passed on in two modes of transmission. The source material is interesting as well. An examination of the footnotes of the discarded schemas reveals an abundant number of citations from Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, the Syllabus and even the anti-Modernist oath, none of which are cited in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example. The tone is markedly different; instead of the humble "searching for truth" [1] that we note in the conciliar documents, the original schemas lucidly and authoritatively proclaim the truth, as well as about the errors which pervert it. De fontibus revelationis, subject to so much scorn by the Council Fathers, issues several formal condemnations. In order to see the difference in tone between the two sets of documents, consider the first as passage from the schema "On the Christian Moral Order", paragraph 6: "[The Church] grieves, however, that many people are transgressing the divine law, more from weakness than from wickedness, though rarely without grave guilt. It notes with great horror that errors are being spread everywhere, errors that open the way to perdition and close the gate of salvation. There are those who deny a personal God and so deprive the natural law of its foundation; there are those who, repudiating the mission of Christ, reject the law of the Gospel; there are those who rely only on human principles in explaining the moral order and therefore rob it of its genuine and ultimate obligation and sanction...Their impiety and impudence reach such a point that they attempt to assault heaven and to remove God himself from the midst. With notorious wickedness and equal foolishness they are not afraid to state that there is no supreme, most wise and most provident God distinct from the universe; there are those who maintain that the moral law is subject to changes and to evolution even in fundamental matters..." Now compare this with a parallel passage from Gaudium et Spes chapter 21, also dealing with atheism: "The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God's temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind." When the Council got underway, the progressive Council Fathers saw the schemas of Ottaviani as an obstacle to their program of reform. Cardinal Bea, one of the more influential Cardinals and a favorite of Pope John XXIII, explained to his progressive colleagues: "We must help the Holy Father achieve his goals for the Council, the ones he expresses in his radio messages and in his exhortations. These are not the same as those of the schemas, either because the Theological Commission, which directs them, is closed to the world and to ideas of peace, justice, and unity, or because of the division of the work and a lack of co-ordination. They've made room for everything except the Holy Spirit." [2] Thus, these schemas, which were 'closed to the world', were replaced with what we currently have, and the defects of which we are all well aware. As they were never adopted, these schemas have no authority; but in reading them, one cannot help but contemplating the council that might have been. We do not know when and if the other four schemas will be translated by Fr. Komonochak, but we will post them here if they become available. NOTES [1] This phrase comes from Amerio, Romano (1996). Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century. [2] Fouilloux, Vatican II commence (Catholic Univ. of Louvain, 1993), pg. 72, note 56
My Good Friend Brian, in no Way the Lady of the Carmel Approved VII, on the contrary, if it's the case I challenge anyone here to prove it to me, the Garabandal Archives sent to Rome during the investigation do not have any information about VII, for your information I checked it myself, thank you.
I have read the first "snippet" before and it doesn't really say anything worthwhile regarding Vatican II. It is too fragmentary. Only hearing one side of a conversation can be very misleading. The conversation could be this for example: Conchita: “The Council, is it the greatest of all? Will it be a success?" Apparition: "No it will not, but in the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph and all evil will be undone." Conchita: "How good! That way they will know you better and you will be very happy…” My point here is not to put any words into Our Lady's mouth (If she did appear at Garabandal), but simply to point out that any "conclusions" that might be drawn from partial conversations are purely speculation from which we can draw little. As far as the second group of "snippets" if they do indeed refer to Vatican II then we can see they do not ring true. Vatican II certainly did convert a lot of Catholics. To atheism, the occult, other religions, etc. However the second "snippets" may also be in reference to another council. Or possibly to Vatican II and a future council that will correct the abuses of it. It does not specifically mention the name "Vatican II" and from prophecy we do know there is another council coming which will be the greatest of all councils and that is prophetically supposed to set right all of the wrongs and abuses that have preceded it. This would make more sense because Conchita in these sentences links "the council" with "the miracle" and a forgiveness of the world. Since the miracle and forgiveness haven't happened yet it makes perfect sense that what she is talking about is a council still to come. This could very well be in reference to three future events.
I think people are confusing heaven's intentions for the Council....in order to bring the Church into a greater communication with the world....as also stated or approved by Our Lady of All Nations.....with the manipulation that was permitted by the liberal agenda. Even Pope JPII was in favor of the intentions of the original documents which were spun away by those who hijacked things. People ought not reply to such mis-statements with such immediate knee jerk reactions.
Thank you Aviso. I am still on the fence regarding Garabandal, but I have great respect for Conchita and I think she is very humble and faith filled. I think we must all be very careful about reading our own interpretations into partial conversations. Anyone with any sense at all can see something went horribly wrong after Vatican II. I do not believe any authentic apparition would agree that it the greatest of all councils. It is good to know Garabandal did not make such a declaration.
I just had an interesting thought...maybe the Great Pope to come will declare another council, but simply say it a continuation, rewriting and “clarification” of VII based on the original schema. In the hindsight of history the Church would not have to negate, refute or declare invalid VII, just clarify it, and the errors of its current documents could simply be forgotten.
Good, thank you for this clarification. In that case the article posted above is worse than just wishful thinking. Indeed, it’s nefarious.
The how good from Conchita was a prophecy from the Lady of the Carmel about being proclaimed "Mother of the Church", Nothing according the archives sent to Rome which I read myself about Vatican II , the rest are Rumors from VII supporters, with all due respect and in my opinion you have Nothing to do with Garabandal as your mentor Vassula Ryden, thank you.
Here are some of Father Richard Heilman's ideas about Vatican II... https://www.romancatholicman.com/3-things-vatican-ii-not-teach/ 3 Things Vatican II Did Not Teach Father Richard Heilman August 24, 2017 Pope Francis gave a talk yesterday that is making it’s way around the internet at lightning speed. The common title used by bloggers is “Pope invokes ‘magisterial authority’ to declare liturgy changes ‘irreversible.’” I’m going to let this play out, and see what those who are greater experts than me (e.g., my friend, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf) has to say about this. But, my first reaction is, “Bring it!” If the Pope wants to solidify Sacrosanctum Concilium, than let’s – FINALLY – get at what this document said, EXACTLY. And, what it DID NOT SAY. It’s interesting that, in today’s Gospel, the only criteria Jesus points to when choosing Barnabas is “no duplicity.” The dictionary defines duplicity as “deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as byspeaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing.” Hasn’t this “double-speak” or “ambiguity” to please everyone been the hallmark of the modern era? Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe a pope can invoke “magisterial authority” over poor interpretations of a council document. But, possibly, he can with the document itself. That being said, let’s look at 3 things Sacrosanctum Concilium DID NOT say … From an article by Matt Fradd: In my experience, when someone ends a sentence with, “which is, after all, the spirit of Vatican II” or, “the spirit of Pope John XXIII”, they almost never know what they mean. In fact the “spirit” they speak of is usually in direct conflict with with both Vatican II and John XXIII. Sacrosanctum Concilium is the Vatican II document that dealt specifically with the reform of the liturgy. In this post I thought I would (ridiculously briefly) look at three things the constitution did not say. Ready? Let’s go! 1. Abolish Latin in the liturgy In paragraph 54, it states: “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people.” Yet it goes on to say, “Nevertheless, steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass” (that is, the unchanging parts that we say every Sunday, such as the creed, the Gloria and the Lord’s Prayer) “which pertain to them.” 2. Give contemporary music pride of place in the liturgy In paragraph 116, the document states: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” 3. Have the priest face the people during the liturgy Nowhere in the document does it say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. Check for yourself. Founder and President of Ignatius Press, Fr. Joseph Fessio, says “Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.” A Caveat In pointing to these facts, I am not insinuating that a Mass celebrated entirely in the vernacular with contemporary music and a priest facing the congregation is inappropriate or not permitted. These things are permitted. They’re just not mandated by Vatican II—or any subsequent council for that matter. So the next time someone tells you their Mass has really “embraced the spirit of Vatican II,” you should ask them, “oh terrific, so you have gregorian chant? The parishioners know how to say the order of the Mass in Latin? . . . ” If they look at you strange and say ‘no,’ then you might (with a look of confusion) respond with, “then what is it you mean in saying that your liturgy has embraced the spirit of Vatican II?” https://www.romancatholicman.com/truth-communion-hand-standing/ Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing Father Richard Heilman December 28, 2016 This was a homily I gave on March 16, 2014 … In my efforts to restore a sense of the sacred in the liturgy, I have often been accused of being “pre-Vatican II.” I usually correct them by saying I am *precisely* Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council called for few changes in the liturgy, understanding that there had been a great many changes to the Roman liturgy over the centuries, to be sure, but they had been gradual and organic, and typically imperceptible. However, in all of church history, there was never anything like what has happened in the years following this Council, in respect to the liturgy. This weekend we had our first Masses with the new Communion rail. After one of these Masses I was talking with one of the old guard parishioners (great guy), and he loved the rails. He told me that “years ago” (I love that expression), they had a Parish Council meeting, and Fr. X wanted to remove the side altars (along with many other alterations), in this beautiful church. The old guard parishioner said, “It was a hard fought battle that night, but we wore him down and he did only minor alterations.” I said, “My … how times have changed … that priest got criticized for trying to remove sacredness … now I’m getting criticized for trying to bring it back.” Since we were celebrating our new Communion rails, and the Gospel saw Peter, James and John fall prostrate before the presence of God – I deemed it a perfect time to shed some light on one of those post-Vatican II innovations – Communion in the hand while standing. We began with a little history lesson … An Indult Born Out of Disobedience The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world’s bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: “From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.” After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church. Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence. ... continue reading here Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing In my opinion, Garabandal taught us everything we need to know but Our Lady's instructions weren't followed and Vatican II is/was not the problem. http://www.ourlady.ca/info/book1/sixbworksofMother.htm , Modesty/Humility, Obedience, Piety, Charity, Penance, Purity of Soul & Patience.
Please be in Peace with the Lady of the Carmel, I can challenge anyone here who will prove to me these rumors about VII, please be sure that none of them will be able to prove anything, in no way our Lady of the Carmel could deny what she said in Fatima, the rest are rumors from VII supporters, I spent myself enought time in the village to be very confident about this topic.
