Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by BrianK, May 26, 2021.
Well said and gently conveyed!
If I remember correctly, Paul VI (a saint, I must accept, but I'm not compelled to ever pray to him), once declared that there were no issues of doctrine in the Second Vatican Council. This doesn't seem to me to be compatible with his statement of 1976.
More importantly, how can he talk of the Novus Ordo being 'conciliar', when all the evidence points to its being constructed after and outside the Council and by a commission devoid of Council Fathers? If this commission was truly conciliar, it would have remained firmly within the guidelines of the Council and restricted itself to the very minor modifications suggested by the Council Fathers. Instead, Pope Paul decided to do his own thing. The same could be said for all the popes who have succeeded him. This is a recipe for chaos...which is exactly what we have.
Just a further thought on this idea of Pope Paul that man's 'mentality' had changed. Firstly, it's a very vague and undefined reason to explain the radical changes of the sixties. Secondly, since when did popes become the unchallenged and unchallengeable authority for such a thing? Is their role not to infallibly defend the Faith that has been handed down, not to indulge in psychological speculation?
The idea is somewhat Teilhardian. If, somehow, our 'mentality' (whatever that is) has changed, does this imply that we have somehow 'evolved'? If the answer is in the affirmative, is it not logical to suggest that the Incarnation is obsolete? After all, that must have been for a different sort of men. We're cooler now, with a new, modern, hip (apologies to John Lee Hooker, whose music remains great) 'mentality'; we can permit ourselves to engage in previously forbidden activities; we can worship other spirits. Some even claim that God's, or more precisely, the Holy Spirit's 'mentality' has changed. To disagree is to be rigid and backwardist.
Can't help myself
I think in the spirit of the liturgy Ratzinger argues that there was only organic growth and development with the liturgy. At times pruning of accretions that obscured the sublime reality conveyed through the signs etc. NEVER was the liturgy a plaything of "experts". A literal CONCOTION made up after the Council and undermining what in fact was mandated
So well said. Last night on EWTN Raymond Arroyo was interviewing a nun from the Daughters of Charity who are ending their order. They are taking no new members--theyve had no new members for 20 years. He asked her why since VII so many orders have dried up and could their decisions to "modernize" have anything to do with it? She flatly rejected that. She stuck to her conviction that God was doing something new. Yet other orders who kept the habit and their original mission are flourishing. She said she wished them well but wondered how many of their new vocations would actually stay.
Teihard spread a poisonous heresy that took hold in the early 20th century and is still afflicting the Church. The series of talks on Our Lady of Revelation makes a good case that he was the wormwood star from Revelation that poisoned the pure water of doctrine. From his own words in his autobiography it appears he may well have been possessed.
Finally, a mainstream American bishop with a spine:
That's my bishop. What a bold statement!
I had not been aware of the following. Obviously, Pope John Paul II didn't believe the TLM was abrogated.