Fri 22nd Aug 2014 | Last updated: Thu 21st Aug 2014 at 16:56pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Debate: Should we be celebrating the Second Vatican Council?

Or should we be urgently seeking to fix the damage it did to the Church?

By on Thursday, 4 October 2012

Bishops gathered in St Peter's for the Second Vatican Council (Photo: CNS)

Bishops gathered in St Peter's for the Second Vatican Council (Photo: CNS)

Next week Pope Benedict XVI will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council with a Mass starting the Year of Faith. Joining him will be the surviving Fathers of the Council and the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences.

For many people, though, the Council is no cause for celebration. Daphne McLeod, of Catholic group Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, sees it as a disaster leading to widespread ignorance about the faith, a decline in vocations and a rise in Catholics leaving the Church.

On the other hand, the Council cannot be blamed for everything bad that has happened to the Church since 1965. And it had, some Catholics would argue, concrete achievements, such as its declaration on religious freedom, and its opening the door to an undreamt of era of ecumenism. It also dramatically improved relations with Judaism.

So, should we be celebrating the Second Vatican Council? Or should we be seeking, instead, to fix the damage it did to the Church?

  • http://twitter.com/tsavogadfly Marcella Carmen C.

    It does seem to me that overall, the lack of supervision by the prelates of the Council of newspaper and TV reports was directly the cause of huge amounts of mis-information which generated the idea that priests could do their own thing – for starters.  Coupling this with the deliberate misdirections of men and women with hidden agendas oh-so-subtly exerting pressure here and there left us with a shameful travesty of what the Pope had in mind. 

  • Nesbyth

    Your comment about Benedict Carter wanting to tear down St Peter’s doesn’t ring at all true from the posts of his that I’ve read….and you’re wildly off the mark to call him a neo-Protestant, in my humble opinion.

  • Nesbyth

    And the Council has encouraged/effected this secularisation.

  • Bob Hayes

    BC knows best Alan. Full stop. Learn to live with the fact.

  • Bob Hayes

    The comment ‘sanctimonious nutter’ removed: looks like Stalinist intolerance is not defunct.

  • theroadmaster

    Vatican 11 took place against a fast changing world of social mores and youthful rebellion which fed into the expectations that some sections of of the Church had of the Great Council.  The ambiguity of some of the statements in the Council documents did not help and it inadvertently allowed some to use that elusive canard, “Spirit of Vatican 11″ as cover for their modernist designs on Church reform. Thus we had the relegation of tabernacles to side altars, the removal of communion rails and the stripping of the art, statuary and furnishings which once gave glory to the interiors of our churches.  The sacrificial nature of the mass was underplayed and the idea of a memorial meal around a table gained more prominence.  The priest became a presider  as distinct from someone who was acting in the name and person of Jesus Christ and through whom the elements of bread and wine were transformed spiritually into the life-giving Body, Blood and Soul of the Saviour.  The ethereal beauty of Gregorian Chant and Latin Mass-settings gave way to secularized, inoffensive ditties with a thin veneer of feel-good religious content.   The vertical dimension of the Mass i.e union of Heaven and Earth gave way to the horizontal emphasis on congregational participation without the necessity of being effected in any profound spiritual sense by their liturgical experience.  I don’t think the aforementioned liturgical changes which came in the wake of the Great Council, were warranted in any of the documents printed in it’s name.  Consequently confusion reigned as one could not be guaranteed a uniform celebration of the Mass from parish as parish as priests extemporized to fill in the liturgical sized gap which formed after Vatican 11.  The present pope has long recognized the spiritual void left by the disappearance of the Mass in the old Latin rite and accordingly gave permission for it to be celebrated in any parish where there was sufficient demand, in his Moto Proprio of 2007.  The damage caused by the trendy liturgists of the late sixties/early seventies may take decades to rectify, but Pope Benedict XV1 has done much to reinvigorate the beauty and spiritual profundity of the traditional Catholic liturgy in his works and sermons.  Hopefully this will translate into a more “Catholic” rendering of even the Novus Ordo.
    The above depressing liturgical realities were symptomatic of a modernist, liberal outlook which was taking hold on seminaries, theological faculties at universities and lay attitudes, which viewed Vatican 11 as the re-foundation of the Church based on their principles, without regard for the preceding 1,500 years of Church history.  The reaction of certain episcopal conferences around the world, clerical and lay opinion, to the prophetic Papal Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, authored by Pope Paul V1 in 1968, was the start of assaults from within over the decades on core Church doctrines and teachings over the decades.  In a sense, deliberate or inadvertent distortions of the intentions of the Fathers of Vatican 11, were used by some parties to justify their various campaigns to change Catholic teachings  on abortion, euthanasia, the priesthood, birth control and other non-negotiable positions.   The last two pontificates have done much to steady the barque of St Peter in relation to these storms, but secularized forces from without and those with modernist,liberal agendas from within, still present considerable obstacles to be overcome

  • Nat_ons

    Not quite.

    The underlying disease was treated by the Holy Ghost – even if we do not like his choice of medicine. Sadly, I suspect the heresy of Modernism is one of those ailments that are not so easily irradicated. One does not surrender to pus when drawing it out, to allow healing to start from within; it is unpleasent, messy and problematic .. yet it can work.

    All the condemnations issued by the popes did not stem – or even tackle – the strength of that infection .. in some ways these simply warned of its dangers, even while its occult influence took hold.

    This was not caused by the Second Vatican Council, it merely exposed the causes to the light .. it showed what modernists would do with their modernising contamination.

    None of the Fathers at the Council taught heresy, least of all ‘being modern’; the Spirit led them to show truth that reason can witness – in Sacred Tradition.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/

    That Aquinas – the Angelic Doctor – could in his day be suspect of a ‘modernising’ heresy should give pause to those who accuse the Holy Ghost of leading the Fathers into error at Vatican II. Even that great Doctor of the Church had followers who did indeed abuse his manner of teaching; that does not mean he is in error. I shall not mock the Spirit of God .. even though I find his prescription appalling.

  • Rizzo the Bear

    You’ve wasted time on yours with a crack like that!

  • Rizzo the Bear

    Well done, paulpriest!

  • Nat_ons

    Only if you accept the Lutheran premiss, that the church catholic has no abiding divinely sourced infallible teaching authority – expressed by the pope and bishops in communion with him (even in a pastoral, not dogmatic, Council).

    Men turned freely from the grace of God; men turned from God – and God hardened their hearts, shut their ears, and darkened their minds.

    Notwithstanding, it is the Holy Ghost – not men – who taught at the Second Vatican Council = with pastoral care.

  • Nat_ons

    The Pope is a Catholic, he is not bound to stay with the prior occupant of his teaching authority .. he must, per force, go beyond his predecessor even while holding fast to their shared faith.

    Sadly, the ‘Traditionalist’ does not hold Sacred Tradition as a living Faith but as a source of division from all he dislikes .. as modern.

    Not all doctrinal innovation is error, the dogmas on Christ, his Mother, the Bible etc were novel – but coherent in Faith.

  • Nat_ons

    It was not Pius XI or XII who saw the crumbling of Communism but John Paul II – Paul VI certainly sowed confusion in the minds of the faithful in seeking dialogue with Soviet Russia .. yet Eugenio Pacelli had done much the same in seeking a Concordat with the Leninist Soviet.

  • Nat_ons

    Again, BC, you make a sweeping – and obviously incorrect – statement .. simply to knock what the Holy Ghost wrought in the Second Vatican Council.

    Nicea did not end heresy, nor did Chalcedon stem the flow of errors, indeed Vatican I unleased a concatenation of schismatic heresies – not only Old Catholicism.

    Explaining how the Spirit of God taught the church catholic at Vatican II is not easy, that I agree – the modernists did much to frame its teaching – but pastoral care is not dogma.

  • JabbaPapa

    Whilst there’s some general truth in what you say, I’d still take it with a pinch of salt …

    Thus we had the relegation of tabernacles to side altars

    This is *obviously* not universally true — and besides, it’s a trend that started in the 19th century. It can, besides, be theoretically justified in the specific case where the church is not oriented East-West, but North-South — ad orientem means eastward, NOT towards the altar.

    the removal of
    communion rails

    OK, but that’s a minor complaint compared to the general dissolution in some modern churches of the sacred space of the altar and tabernacle into the rest of the architecture.

    and the stripping of the art, statuary and furnishings
    which once gave glory to the interiors of our churches

    ??? I’ve not seen anything of the sort in Europe, I’ve only seen some newer churches that are bare of artistic decorations from sheer lack of funding.

    The sacrificial
    nature of the mass was underplayed

    This is to generalise some local abuses of the liturgy to the whole of the Church.

    I have attended Mass in literally **hundreds** of parishes across Southern Europe, and I have *never* seen the Eucharist being presented otherwise than in its properly sacrificial nature. (though I do understand that some very abusive liberal-modernist “masses” fail to do so)

    and the idea of a memorial meal
    around a table gained more prominence

    This suggestion is routinely condemned by ANY orthodox Catholic, from the Holy See downwards.

    It can be legitimate to put a partial emphasis on this during the particular Masses of the Last Supper, the Feast of Cana, the Miracle of the loaves and fishes — because those particular Masses *do* commemorate holy meals given by The Christ. But even in *these* Masses, the Eucharist remains Sacrifice.

    The priest became a presider  as
    distinct from someone who was acting in the name and person of Jesus
    Christ and through whom the elements of bread and wine were transformed
    spiritually into the life-giving Body, Blood and Soul of the Saviour.

    Again, you’re describing something that is foreign to my own experience.

    The ethereal beauty of Gregorian Chant and Latin Mass-settings gave way
    to secularized, inoffensive ditties with a thin veneer of feel-good
    religious content.

    OK, this question actually is more complex, and worthy of more attention.

    First of all though, you’re still generalising — a great many Novus Ordo Masses are said around the world every day that remain very Latinate, and attached to the Gregorian chant and other such Tradition.

    One should nevertheless be a little wary of this “ethereal beauty” — it is, among other things, a by-product of the fact that the words of the Mass are given in Latin, a language that virtually nobody today is fluent, or even conversant in. As a result, these words are artificially imbued with a certain allure that is conducive to a feeling of detachment from the proceedings.

    You can be dead sure that from Antiquity, right through the Middle Ages, when people still directly understood either many or all of the Mass in its Latin vernacular, that they did not feel any such “ethereal beauty” at Mass, but rather that they listened and were evangelised (or not) by the words of the priest.

    I will agree with you up to a point though, as concerns the singing, and the music, and the postures of the congregation — up to a point. One should remember that many Catholics of the Middle Ages and Renaissance found Gregorian chants to be crass and vulgar (their opinions, not mine), found certain ritual postures to be excessive and unspiritual, and were keen to live a more charitable and lively and down-to-earth Catholicity.

    In other words, these arguments have been going on and on and on for centuries … rather than having been produced ex nihilo by Vatican II.

    The vertical dimension of the Mass i.e union of
    Heaven and Earth gave way to the horizontal emphasis on congregational
    participation without the necessity of being effected in any profound
    spiritual sense by their liturgical experience.

    Sorry — I’ve heard this argument multiple times, and I have NEVER found it in the slightest bit convincing.

    The Mass has both horizontal and vertical elements, as does any properly arranged church or Cathedral, and any focus on the one to the detriment of the other is an abuse of the liturgy.

  • Parasum

    No better comment on this article is possible than this interview with a Cardinal:

    http://americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13607

    As he  says:

    “The ecumenical council was among the most significant events of the 20th century. To call it simply “Vatican II” is not sufficient.”

    ## The dropping of the atom bomb may reasonably be numbered “among the most significant events of the 20th century”. That doesn’t make it a cause for celebration. And the Shoah was also surely “among the most significant events of the 20th century”. Bowing down to the Golden Calf  that is Vatican II is not enough, it seems – to be real Catholics we must apparently praise it, bless it, glorify it, magnify it, and thanks unto its Name, seven whole days not one in seven. 

    Vatican II has become an idol, plain and simple. And being deluded about its great glory and majesty is not going to help  a soul.

  • JabbaPapa

    Only those who wish to see it destroyed, and those that worship the false “spirit of the Council” could possibly see it as an “idol”.

    Leave the rest of us out of your dubious claim !!!

  • Gildaswiseman

    Don’t forget the influence of Edward Schillebeeckx, the Rhine Bishops and the plethora of liberal and modernist periti. the “time bombs” of course created that deplorable ambiguity that so lent itself to the “spirit of the council”. The reasons given for the failure to specifically define and clarify traditional Catholic doctrine was because the Council was pastoral and not dogmatic. Only when the Council had finished did they claim the dogmatic value of their liberal interpretations. Wolves in sheep’s clothing!
    There is an old saying, “the fruit of the pudding is in the eating”. It is so tragic that the majority of the Catholic faithful have been fed such a poor fare.

  • greenmoon

    Alan. Nice to hear a “dissenting” voice in this debate. I laughed when saw this Catholic Herald headline to this – Should we be celebrating the Second Vatican Council?” – It was like asking should there be pork and apple sauce at a Bar Mitzvah.

    Keep the Faith, Alan

  • Patrickhowes

    But How can you state that if you did not know the Old Church?

  • Patrickhowes

    Bernadette.There are nearly 6 million Catholics in the UK and yet about 800,000 attend mass and its declining!Instead of trying to heal the people who left and manyy left beacuse of the Vll changes,we have all been made to be catholic hybrides

  • theroadmaster

    I agree to a certain extent that one could over-generalize with regard to the abuses of the liturgy, but my points above are not mere anecdotal evidence but have been reported time and again by concerned Catholics across the globe during the last 40 years.  I think that the Mass has been stripped of a lot of it’s sacred content and transcendence, although it is still a valid liturgical rite and has been recognized as such by the Vatican 11 Fathers and successive popes.  I do not question  it’s validity but offer some observations regarding the laxity and disregard for the liturgical norms which have occurred   This does not happen in every case, but it has happened enough over the years, to give even the present Holy Father serious concern.

  • JabbaPapa

    my points above are not mere anecdotal evidence but have been reported time and again by concerned Catholics across the globe during the last 40 years

    Oh, don’t mistake my intentions — what you’re saying is true.

    I’m pointing out though that no matter how widespread these abuses may be, they are not universal throughout the Church — many areas are quite free of them.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

     The proof please for your astonishing assertion about Pacelli.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    I do not believe that the Holy Ghost wrought anything at Vatican II. 

    Do we believe Our Lord’s own words about good fruit and bad fruit, or not? God is not responsible for bad fruit, certainly not for a Council which shrouded Catholic truth at the least and even denied it, at the most.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    He is bound to hand on only what he has received. 

    Dogmas on Christ etc – straw man argument. These all fulfill the criteria laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins. 

    Traditionalists hold to the faith of ages, the Catholic Faith, integral and inviolate. We certainly do not hold to whatever faith is professed by many modern “Catholics”, who give much more credence and weight to this world than to the invisible world.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Jabba, come on!

    The Church has talked about Vatican II as if it’s school Prize Day, University Graduation Day, Passing Out Parade at Sandhurst, a mother’s birthday, the birthday of a new baby all rolled into one and then some. 

    The previous 1,932 years of the Church’s existence have been forgotten (this “forgetfulness” indeed is one of the marks of the modern Church and has affected the last few Popes as well) and its previous life excoriated and denigrated, so that JP II can apologise the things the Church should never have to apologise for where the Neo-Catechumenate Way foundation documents use the world “dirt” to describe the Church in past centuries. 

    This “Year Zero” mentality is shared only by one other set of people: the Communists, in every country in which they have taken power. 

    The modern Church in this respect is like North Korea or the Bolsheviks, or the Khmer Rouge. And their victims, the objects of all their hatred and scorn is … the faithful Catholic. 

    Thanks be to god that you are now a Catholic, but in all those years that you weren’t, faithful Catholics have been persecuted … by their own Hierarchy and Church! You don’t know a tenth of it. 

    Vatican II HAS indeed become an idol, I think Parasum is completely correct.

  • Charles Martel

    Actually, in 1969 Cardinal Ratzinger criticised the ‘downright Pelagian terminology’ of Gaudium et Spes’. But now he tells us we have to accept all of it…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Jabba, could you try to find Michael Davies’ various booklets in which he charts the history of the various elements you list in your post, shows (conclusively!) why they are abuses, and highlights the theological differences and effects of these elements?

    Once you have read his works (which are very detailed, highly researched, extensively documented and which draw on canonists and theologians where necessary), you will have had your eyes well and truly opened.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    + Williamson was validly, though illicitly, consecrated. He is therefore able to validly ordain priests and confer Confirmation, though illicitly. 

    As a consequence of his Consecration, he automatically incurred excommunication. That was lifted in 2009, so his current position is merely one of canonical irregularity. 

    When (not if) the SSPX and Rome are fully reconciled, he will never be given a diocese: for one thing, he’s at retirement age already, and for another as we all know, he’s a loose cannon (not only for his historical views) and is already effectively outside the Society.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    “Men turned freely from the grace of God; men turned from God – and God hardened their hearts, shut their ears, and darkened their minds”.

    Don’t forget please what Our Lady told Sister Lucia: that in our time the Hierarchy would suffer from a “demonic disorientation”.

    The past fifty years’ history of the Catholic Church is the history of an unprecedented demonic attack on the world and of course particularly on the Church. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Spot on.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Not my judgement at all, Alan. Read my post where I quote Saints, Fathers, Doctors of the Church and Popes.

  • Allan Daniel

    The “concrete achievements” of Vatican II are among the most evil of its effects–ecumenism that has gone no where but to weaken and cast doubt on the Catholic Church’s teachings, leaving us with generations of non-believing secular Catholics.  The document of religious freedom has still not been explained fully as to how it does not repudiate past Catholic teachings–which of course it does. The supposed improved relations with Judaism has been a one-way street with Catholicism changing age old beliefs (and the Mass)  to accommodate their Jewish counterparts difficulty with them. 

    There is not one thing that came out of Vat II that has strengthened the Catholic faith, the one and only true church of Jesus Christ. (if that makes you uncomfortable, welcome to post-Vatican II dumb-down).

    All statistics demonstrably prove that Vatican II was a failure. The only way it can be considered in a positive light is if one wanted the Catholic Church to lose its authentic theological foundations, morality, liturgy and  ultimately the entire Catholic faith–Or if one leans toward the demonic.

    Poor Pope John XXIII comes off looking more than a bit foolish for having lambasted those who suspected serious dangers because of the evil influences of faithless liberals who wanted nothing more than to destroy the Catholic faith.

    The New Catholic Church is now engaged in an absurd cover-up of objective facts, that if known and examined, most lead to a very different conclusion than that the Council was in any way a positive event.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Who can say indeed? But we would have ridden out the tidal wave of heresy and error much, much more successfully. The fight against abortion etc. would have been real instead of well .. virtually nothing. 

  • Patrickhowes

    Solid reasoning as always!The age of enlightenment and the French revolution was perhaps the challenge to which the Church never rose.The trouble today  is that the ranks of clergy are full of examples of priests trying to compromise between the enlightenment and the Faith.A big mistake.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The present Pope has said that this compromise is exactly the point of Vatican II. He accepts the compromise. Traditionalists don’t, certainly not the influence of the “Great Darkening” on the theology, liturgy and doctrine of the Church. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    In 1933 when Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pius XII, was Secretary of State of Pope Pius XI, he was met by his friend Count Enrico Galeazzi, who later became one of his close assistants to discuss the details of the Count’s next visit to America.

    On that occasion, the future Pius XII spoke strong words against the progressivist and Communist infiltration in the Church with regard to the Fatima message. Certainly these words have a great interest in our days, both because they shed light on the Third Secret of Fatima, and because they reveal that the modern Church has succumbed in exactly the way that the future Pope Pius XII feared.  

    “Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.

    I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is A DIVINE WARNING AGAINST THE SUICIDE THAT WOULD BE THE MODIFICATION OF CHURCH IN HER FAITH, LITURGY, THEOLOGY AND SOUL.

    I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.

    I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, actions, or writings, as they try today to deform the History of the Church”. 
    - – -

    Aggorniamento, anyone?

  • andHarry

     Marian Horvat’s revelation that there may have been two Sister Lucy’s casts serious doubt on the veracity of the Fatima messages which have been pitched at the laity.
    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g11htTwoSisterLucys_Horvat.htm

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Yes, several pictures of Lucia tend to suggest that Sister Lucia was replaced by a ‘double’. But until an expert can pronounce on this question, I shy away from thinking too much about it. 

  • Parasum

    Just commenting on the disappointingly imperceptive comments of a man who should know better than to treat the thing as a super-council.

    Idols can be made out of *anything* – however good: money, sex, bodily strength, the nation, religious authority, the Papacy, the Bible, one’s own opinions, Vatican II – you name it. God alone cannot be made an idol.

  • Parasum

    “The Church has talked about Vatican II as if it’s school Prize Day,
    University Graduation Day, Passing Out Parade at Sandhurst, a mother’s
    birthday, the birthday of a new baby all rolled into one and then some.”

    ## ROFL – wish I’d said that.

  • Nat_ons

    ‘All statistics demonstrably prove that Vatican II was a failure.’

    The same must be asserted of Nicea – which needed Constantinople et al to make it like a ‘success’. So too one can say that of Florence and even Trent; neither put an end to the causes of their set problems (disunity and protest). From a particular political point of view, it can even be said of Vatican I .. Pastor aeternus caused more dissent and division in the following century than it promoted renewed adherence to a doctrine that was by and large undisputed (in Roman ecclesiology).    

    ‘The “concrete achievements” of Vatican II are among the most evil of its effects–ecumenism that has gone no where but to weaken and cast doubt on the Catholic Church’s teachings, leaving us with generations of non-believing secular Catholics.’ 

    One cannot blame that on the oecumenical adventure – which began for the Roman communion not with the Second Vatican Council but Pius X (bluntly) and Benedict XV (gently). The vanity of egoism .. and its wholesale acceptance of the satanic smoke entering the sanctuary = clerical disobedience toward magisterial leadership .. has more to do with the evil effects of Vatican II. And that egotisitical sense of ‘enlightened’ rebellion was not the result of the Council – or the Holy Ghost in leading the Fathers there – it had been secreting its malign influence inside the church catholic from before the French Revolution; if anything, disenchantment with the Second Vatican Council has forced to Church finally to take this insidious and poisonous threat seriously (if not rigorously or effectively).

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Excellent post.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The late Cardinal Silvio Oddi worked closely with Archbishop Roncalli (the future John XXIII) when the latter was Nuntio in Paris. Msgr. Oddi was made a Cardinal by Paul VI in 1969, Between 1979 and 1985 he served as Prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy. After his retirement he wrote a book of memoires. Among many interesting things, he affirms that Vatican II was the fulfillment of the Third Secret of Fatima: a Revolution in the Church.

    “The prophecy of Fatima was completely defied! It is a lack of sense, I would say, because according to the interpretation that seems to me most worthy of consideration, the Third Secret – which John XXIII and his successors thought inopportune to reveal – is not about a supposed conversion of Russia, still far from becoming a reality, but regards the ‘revolution’ in the Catholic Church. From a Council convened to throw light on the beauty and profundity of the Christian mystery by presenting the Church as the spouse of Christ, according to the beautiful words of the same Pope John XXIII, so many innovations were born that they appear to constitute a true internal revolution”.

    (Silvio Oddi, Il Tenero Mastino di Dio, Rome: Progetto Museali Editore, 1995, p. 217-218).

  • JabbaPapa

    After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a
    little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing,
    it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but
    they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him
    from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried
    out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we
    saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear
    in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had
    the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and
    women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big
    Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before
    reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half
    trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the
    souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain,
    on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers
    who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after
    another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay
    people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there
    were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they
    gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were
    making their way to God.

    No mention of any Church Council, no mention of a “revolution” in the Church, nor Russia, nor anything else of the sort.

    Benedict, you are reading contents from the second secret into the third ; and contents from other personal revelations into the secrets of Fatima.Your method of reading prophecy is an excellent method for its complete misinterpretation.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well it’s nice to see that *somebody* at least has a grasp of the History !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    a man who should know better than to treat the thing as a super-council

    ??????!!!????

    I have never and will never suggest any such thing !!!!

    Are you so convinced of your own rhetoric that anyone disagreeing with any part of it must be viewed as disagreeing with you 100% absolutely, in every possible way ???

  • JabbaPapa

    Whilst I find Michael Davies to have been a very fine apologist, you are making a couple of false assumptions.

    1) I have no idea why you continually imagine me to be unaware of the nature and the effects of the various abuses of the liturgy that occur here and there

    2) You continue to imagine that simply reading this or that pamphlet will immediately and automatically cause me to come into full agreement with your own position, whereas in fact I have on more than one occasion both :

    2a – examined sources you have recommended to me, and NOT been overcome by a sense of implicit agreement with your ideas

    2b – demonstrated to you the various structural and theological and intellectual reasons why we continue to have some disagreements concerning these matters, that are unlikely to vanish simply by my reading those who agree with your statements

  • JabbaPapa

    The present Pope has said that this compromise is exactly the point of Vatican II

    Of course he hasn’t !!!

    This is just your own personal interpretation of his statements.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Pope is a Catholic, he is not bound to stay with the prior occupant of his teaching authority

    This is completely false.

    Dogmatic statements commanding “all Catholics” to believe or to do or to teach this or that are fully binding on all Popes, including on any Pope himself issuing such a statement.

    People have become so much used to democracy that they do not understand monarchism any more.

    The individual person occupying the throne/cathedra is fully subjected to any commands or decrees issued from the throne/cathedra — including to those commands or decrees issued by his or her own person.

    It is the mark of a dictator, not a monarch, to view himself or herself as being above the Law in the manner that you suggest.

    he must, per force, go beyond his predecessor even while holding fast to their shared faith

    This, also, is untrue — Popes may only teach novelties insofar as any grave and serious reasons may exist requiring them, in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to do so.

    More typically, the Pope’s job will involve providing more contemporary expressions of Ancient doctrines that have come in time to be misunderstood by Catholics than creating any new ones.