I'd be wary of this if it ultimately involves taking as true the word of a 'Pantheist and Bergsonian'. We would need independent corroboration from a trustworthy source. Otherwise, we do not know whether or not this Guitton intended to sow confusion and distrust. As I recall, John XXIII had the support of Cardinal Ottoviani in calling this Council. The latter was a notable opponent of modernism. To me, the Council itself was not the problem, the fact that it was hijacked by some and largely ignored by other wicked opportunists is the source of our current catastrophe.
The Latest: Pope quips "I am the devil" next to John Paul https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-pope-francis-arrives-lithuanian-capital-094720958.html VILNIUS, Lithuania (AP) — The Latest on Pope Francis' visit to the Baltic countries (all times local): 6:35 p.m. Pope Francis has acknowledged that his reputation pales a bit compared to St. John Paul II — at least as far as Poles are concerned. Greeting journalists Saturday en route to Lithuania, Francis was given a book about the former pope by Polish photographer Grzegorz Galazka. Receiving the large book with a beaming John Paul on the cover, Francis quipped: "(Pope John Paul II) was a saint, I am the devil." Laughing, Galazka immediately corrected him: "No, you are both saints! You are both saints!" Francis' quip appeared to acknowledge that he has his detractors, particularly among conservative Catholics who long for the more doctrinaire papacies of John Paul and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI. The criticism of Francis by conservatives has grown more vocal recently amid the church's sex abuse scandals and the distress over his opening to letting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion.
I am presuming you are aware of Cardinal Ottaviani's objections to the decisions taken after V II - in the 'Ottaviani Intervention'. Are you?
A priest on the run. Reminiscent of a plot from Graham Greene or Malachi Martin. Like you say, masks are slipping. This is good, because we have been living in this Hell on Earth for decades without knowing it. At least now we know. And we have a Pope lecturing the people of the Balkans about totalitarianism. Fact is becoming far stranger than fiction. Father Martin couldn't concoct a story so surreal as we are going through. We are being dragged through the land of Hieronymous Bosch. Every second bishop seems to be a predatory 'bum boy', God help us. Hopefully, the laity will protect this priest. They had to hide priests in 'priest holes' during the Reformation. This will need to be done again. Of course, they're not going to hang, draw or quarter anyone. Instead, if they find this priest, they'll smear him as mentally ill and sedate him with psychotics so much up to his neck he'll forget his name-the strategy of their original Bolshevik sponsors, coincidentally. And our Pope is telling the people of the Balkans he knows more about tyranny and totalitarianism than these people who went through it all under both Stalin and Hitler and found the Soviet version by far the worst. That's their experience of what losing national independence involves.
Yes. His proposed structures for the Council were hijacked and thrown out by the modernists, but this has no bearing on the original intentions of Pope John. All John XXIII can be accused of is of a lack of cunning or naivity. I am trying to contradict the sedevacantist claim by a self-professed pantheist that Pius XII was the last pope, which you seem to be incorporating in your berating of Vatican II. That Vatican II might, through the actions of modernists, have been taken off its intended course is not the same thing as being an invalid Council. It declared no new doctrine, but concluded with a certain unfortunate degree of pastoral ambiguity which has unfortunately been opportunistically abused by the modernist faction. This is not the same as being in error, not that it is in any way my place to make decisions of that kind.
I wasn't incorporating it, but questioning it. I didn't call it invalid, but said that I wish it hadn't happened. I'm not so sure about that. John XXIII was the one who wanted Ostpolitik. He agreed to stop condemning Communism in exchange for the Orthodox Church's representatives attendance at Vatican II. He wanted the Protestant ministers there too. He was said to have been seen at Freemasons gatherings. He insisted upon receiving his cardinal's red hat from the atheist Vincent Auriol, President of the country of France, whom he had described as “an honest socialist.”
We need better than 'said to have been'. Ostpolitik was a political policy. Popes can err in these matters, but it doesn't necessarily prove him good or bad. Only God can be sure of his intentions, but his political actions cannot be described as intrinsically evil. Ecumenism isn't intrinsically wrong. It goes wrong when our side starts to concede too much ground. Inviting Protestants to an event is not sufficient grounds for condemnation. I know nothing of Auriol, but 'honest atheists' do exist. There are atheists in the pro-life and pro-family movements. I have mentioned Nat Hentoff on this site more than once. He was an atheist all his life (there are reports of his receiving visions near the end, which I hope dragged him into salvation) who was also a great advocate against abortion and euthanasia. Associating with an honest atheist is not the same as fraternising with bicycle-pump Bonino. For all we know, Auriol might have converted eventually over this. If not, it was worth a try and that might have been Pope John's intention.[/QUOTE]
I think I've seen pics of this, but will need to search. But this agreement to not condemn Communism surely went against all that many previous popes had decreed. They were allowed to give input for the formulation of the new mass. Why??? True. But why receive the cardinal's red hat from him?
Sadly this is their “modus operandi” for a long time. They threatened the same thing to Fr John OConnor many years ago in the 80’s when he blew the whistle on these terrible things. He got away before they came to take him into a psychiatric hospital. He end d up living with his sister. This is an evil evil thing.i wish the Catholics of Chicago would #walkaway by not giving one more dime to this foul corrupt enterprise. It smacks of the worst Marxist retaliations. They did this in the Soviet Union.
His treatment of communism was misguided, but was prudential and not doctrinal. He wasn't saying that communism wasn't evil, but mistakenly thought he might grab the tiger by the tail and reason with it. I don't think the input by the Protestants into the Mass had John's consent. Was he even alive when it happened? As for receiving the Cardinal's hat, it was only a diplomatic gesture, from a Churchman who had long been in the Vatican's diplomatic service. Not nearly as daft, for example, as kissing a Koran.
Read a hilarious story recently about St John Bosco. He had his troubles with some contemporary bishop who contrived to get him committed to a mental institution. He was taken there by two 'heavy' priests. When their carriage arrived at the asylum, the saint hopped off the quickest and immediately indicated to the warders that their patients were in the carriage! The two heavies were manhandled into the asylum and St John Bosco drove away in the carriage!
LOL LOL LOL - at least you made me smile in the midst of all this misery Cuckoo land has become Vatican land!!
Sg, There are so many good things that have happened in the Church since Vatican II. For starters, we were given two wonderful popes, both Pope John Paul II who is now a saint and Pope Benedict whom you recently hoped was still the pope. In addition, there are clergymen who are fighting for the orthodoxy of the Church like Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Brandmüller to name a few and others priests who are vocal prayer warriors like Father Heilman, please read his recent post on his blog for even more examples. There are several other posts above which highlight other things that are good about the Church which have occurred since Vatican II. The following two posts come to mind, I bolded the text that I am referring to in particular: Well, yes, much good, yes Summorum Pontificum, yes, the permission to use the 1962 breviary, yes, countless souls baptized and confirmed and receiving Holy Communion, countless souls saved, countless ordinations and consecrations. Countless Sacraments of Confessions and marriages. God has never left His Church. Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. HeavenlyHosts, Thursday at 11:01 AM #9157 One can not fight freemasonry within the Church if one is fighting it in a non- or anti- Church. I agree that what we have seen in the Church post-Vatican II has been an attempted Protestantization and a secularization of the Church. But many incredible Saints have also risen up in that era. Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, these two stand out for me in particular. I watched them on TV as a child, and they inspired me to want to be Holy, to want what they had. It is good to see where the enemies of the Church have dragged things using Vatican II as an excuse. But to get overly focused on that council can be difficult, too. EWTN is another miracle that happened post-Vatican II. They have content in both Latin and English, and are super evangelists, bringing souls into contact with the Church who might not have known. gracia, Today at 1:35 AM #9298 I understand what you are stating about your opinion regarding Vatican II but I was not asking you about the fruits of Vatican II. So many members have been trying to help you and I honestly thought that you got past some of these feelings regarding the Church. You began that thread, Pius XII himself said he was the "last Pope", almost a year ago and you are now back on this same topic. My opinion is that you are under attack from dark forces and I think it might be a good idea for you to meet with a priest and discuss these things with him because regardless of how many here have tried to help you for more than a year, you now appear to be back in the same place that you were last year at this time. In addition, I think you stated that you are a recent convert to the Faith and maybe you simply need more formation on your journey. PS - You thanked me for providing a link to that thread the you created last November, please don't thank me because I think that both this new post #9293 and that thread should be deleted from the Mother of God site.
Thanks Terry, I get a more than a lttle confused in all this myself. The New Mass , it is true can be said in so many ways. I take the app, 'Universalis' , to me to Church on my spart phone all the time so that I can actually read what the priest is supposed to be saying and it is quite common for the priest to put his won words in, sometimes I hear a preist actually ad libbing the words, pretty well making it up as he goes along. Another thing is that it becomes less about the Holy Sacrifice of the MAss and more about the personality of the priest himself. So much so that the mass itself becomes eclipsed. I am inclined to think that it is a well that has beomce so poisoned by misuse of thsoe with fixed agendas of all kind since Vat 2 that we start again from scratch. That means going back to the Tridentine Mass. We would not risk drinking water from a well that we suspect might bepoisoned. We should not risk a mass which has become so widely corrupt . If after a period of settling in the Tridentine mass when hetroedoxy has been restored the Church Fathers want to revist this; fine. But this period would take several decades to restore confidence.
So happy to have such an Archbishop....a blessing to all of the priests to have such guidance: Archbishop Chaput publishes strong criticism of Youth Synod document He published analysis by a 'respected North American theologian' raising concerns over the document Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia has published a wide-ranging criticism of the Instrumentum Laboris (a kind of introduction or preamble) for the upcoming Synod on the Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. In an introductory paragraph, Chaput explains that the analysis was “received from a respected North American theologian”. The article, which appears in First Things, warns that the Instrumentum veers dangerously close to heresy – specifically the heresies of naturalism, Lutheranism, and relativism. It begins by criticizing its “naturalist” understanding of modern sexual dysfunction: widespread promiscuity, online pornography, and the like. “The document laments only its ‘disfiguring the beauty and depth of affective and sex life’,” he writes. “No mention is made about the disfigurement of the soul, its consequent spiritual blindness, and impact on the reception of the Gospel by one so wounded.” He also claims the document exhibits an “inadequate grasp of the Church’s spiritual authority”, denying her role as a teaching authority. According to the Instrumentum: “The Church will opt for dialogue as her style and method… No vocation, especially within the Church, can be placed outside this ongoing dynamism of dialogue.” According to the theologian, this amounts to saying: “The Church does not possess the truth but must take its place alongside other voices. Were the Church to abandon her ministry of preaching, that is, were the roles of the teaching Church and the listening Church to be inverted, the hierarchy itself would be inverted, and the ministerial priesthood would collapse into the baptismal priesthood. In short, we would become Lutherans,” he continues. Finally, he accuses the Instrumentum of taking a “relativistic conception of vocation”. He quotes the document’s references to “personal holiness” and one’s “own truth”, adding bluntly: “This is relativism”. Moreover, he warns against the “false humility” of prioritizing “accompaniment” over that of preaching. This, he says, “gives the impression that absolute truth is not found in God.” Back in August, Chaput asked Pope Francis to postpone the Synod itself. Right now, the bishops would have absolutely no credibility in addressing this topic,” the archbishop said at an August 30 conference at Philadelphia’s St Charles Borromeo Seminary, according to a report published on the archdiocese website. In its place, Archbishop Chaput suggested that the Pope “begin making plans for a synod on the life of bishops”. http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/20...es-strong-criticism-of-youth-synod-document1/
Okay , now I recall why I have the idea that John XXIII was suspected to be a freemason. It was in a long letter written by Fr Luigi Villa -https://archive.org/stream/JohnXXIIIBeatifiedTooByFrVilla/John%20XXIII%20Beatified%20too%20by%20Fr%20Villa_djvu.txt You may be right about the Protestants - there is a pic of them with Paul VI, not John XXIII. As for the cardinal's hat thing - ok, maybe what you say is true. Just doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. A Prince of the Church kneeling in front of an atheist to receive his hat.
