Mon 28th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Mon 28th Jul 2014 at 16:55pm

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?

  • Firenza

    Thanks for all your comments.  I can always depend on you to articulate the fears of many of us in the Church.  After your advice not to support CAFOD, I read up a little on the outfit and sure enough there they were, top salary earners, tax troughers and govt lackeys.  I therefore refused to accept an envelope after Mass and the sky fell on my head.  The following week – we were given a lecture by the CAFOD rep in our parish, and a collection was taken. I refused to give, and was glared at by one or two of the parish busybodies.    I think I will now stick with ACN and one or two of the missionary societies I support.  
    Sometimes it’s hard to appreciate we are at Mass, what with the music and the ‘songs’ that no Catholic over 40 knows and the intercessory prayers, which run like a BBC list of approved people and ideas.  

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

    Exactly! No mention! 

    AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ THE 3RD SECRET HAVE ALSO DESCRIBED IT IN WAYS WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS A “SECOD HALF” TO THE SECRET.And that means certain clerics have not been telling the full truth, doesn’t it? 

    Wake up, Jabba!

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

    Well, that’s fair enough. 

    But you do happen to give the impression (often!) of not being aware of the history of these things nor of the theological objections (for instance, the ad orientem question, Communion in the hand, etc.).

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

    Firenza, WELL DONE YOU. 

  • Dn.Mushabe Sylanus

     Dear C, thank you for all your views, and other contributors on this debate page, but is it objectively true that Vat II, is evil, and has made no contribution to the Modern generation of Catholics?
    What is wrong with mass being celebrated in Bantu language? Is God a Latino or he is an English?
    Info. Even in African we celebrate mass in Latin, and any other comprehensible language.
    You have freedom to go where they celebrate Latin mass…

    Let us join hands to polish bad elements, and make Vat.II our pride.
    I love you.Dn.Sylva (Africa-Bantu family)

  • Dn.Mushabe Sylanus

     Charles, a Priest is born in a Family of a father like you.
    If you teach him to obey, he will obey the Bishop and pope later as an adult. The family is very vital in he vocation and life of a priest.
    Priests should be loved, so that they feel the pride of their Identity, which is apparently missing in their ministry in many societies.

    Let us work together to help priests love the cassocks, mass, the Church….

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

    Here is a collection of the testimony. More than a Pope going up a hill, no? Stop being so blind. 

    The Pope going up the hill and being killed (not “wounded” as Cardinal Bertone stated) is the FIRST part of the Third Secret. The second part continues as per the witnesses below. Of course it’s been buried! 

    It has to be about Vatican II and the Great Apostasy. The current Pope’s actions are his response to Our Lady. 

    But it’s not what she asked for. So we have much worse to come, I am convinced of it.
    John Paul II, 1980:   “
    … there
    is a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of
    the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish …
    “.

    Father Joaquin Alonso, who for sixteen years was the official archivist
    of Fatima and met and talked to Sister Lucia many times, wrote a monumental work on the Fatima Message, entitled Fatima
    Texts and Critical Studies. This book, which consists of 24 volumes
    containing 5,396 documents, was withheld from publication by the Bishop of
    Leiria-Fatima, Msgr. Alberto Cosme do Amaral, at its completion in 1975. Since
    then, only two of the 24 volumes have been released for publication, and these
    were heavily edited.

    Before his death in 1981, Father Alonso stated the following important
    conclusions concerning the Third Secret:

    “It is therefore completely probable that the text makes concrete
    references to the crisis of faith within the Church and to the negligence of
    the pastors themselves [and the] internal struggles in the very bosom of the
    Church and of grave pastoral negligence by the upper hierarchy”.

    Eugenio Pacelli (future Pius XII) in the 1930’s speaking
    specifically about the Third Secret:

    “A day will come when the civilized world will deny its
    God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to
    believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in
    vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene weeping before
    the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”

    Father Joseph Schweigl (September 1952)

    In 1952 Father Joseph Schweigl was
    entrusted by Pope Pius XII with a secret mission to interrogate Sister Lucy
    about the Third Secret. He subsequently stated:

    “I cannot reveal anything of what I
    learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two
    parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing)
    would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the
    Faith will always be preserved.”

    Cardinal Oddi again (March 1990)

    On March 17, 1990 Cardinal Oddi, who was a personal friend of Pope John
    XXIII and who had spoken to him regarding the Secret, gave the following
    testimony to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato:

    “It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed
    Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.”

    Cardinal Ciappi

    In a letter to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, Cardinal Mario Luigi
    Ciappi, who was the personal papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI,
    John Paul I and John Paul II, revealed:

    “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great
    apostasy in the Church will begin at the top”.

    Father
    Malachi Martin (Summer 1998)

    In a four-hour interview on the Art Bell radio programme, Father Martin
    stated that in February 1960, while he was secretary to Cardinal Bea (who was
    one of the close advisors to Pope John XXIII), he (Martin) was given the Third
    of Fatima to read. Bound by oath not to reveal the Secret, he commented on
    different versions which callers quoted to him. He stated that Our Lady’s words
    were dry and specific (THE RELEASED TEXT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY WORDS SAID BY OUR
    LADY). In response to a quotation that a Pope would be under the control of Satan,
    he responded, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading the text of the
    Third Secret.” He stated that the release of the Secret would provoke
    strong reactions. He stated that if the Secret were made public, the
    confessionals and churches would be filled with parishioners on their knees. He
    also stated that something very relevant to the U.S. is mentioned in the Secret. He
    stated that the central element of the Secret is awful, and that it concerns
    apostasy.

    Father Jose Valinho (2000 and 2003)

    Sister Lucy’s nephew, Father Jose dos Santos Valinho. Met the seer many
    times. In Reportage su Fatima [Milan 2000] he stated:

    “I believe that (third) part of the secret concerns the Church from
    within, perhaps doctrinal difficulties, a crisis of unity, rebellion. The last
    sentence my aunt wrote, which precedes the part that is still unknown, says,
    ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’ … Therefore,
    people elsewhere in the Church might waver on dogma”.

    Cardinal Ratzinger 1984:

    The Third Secret is “… a radical call for conversion; the absolute
    importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the
    Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the
    ‘novissimi’ (the last events at the end of time)”.

    The Bishop of Fatima (September 10, 1984)On September 10, 1984 the Bishop of
    Fatima, Alberto Cosme do Amaral, spoke of the Third Secret during a question
    and answer session at the Technical University of Vienna, Austria. His
    comments, which were published in the February 1985 issue of Mensagem de
    Fatima, are as follows:“The Secret of Fatima speaks neither of
    atomic bombs, nor nuclear warheads, nor Pershing missiles, nor SS-20’s. Its
    content concerns only our faith. To identify the Secret with catastrophic
    announcements or with a nuclear holocaust is to deform the meaning of the
    message. The loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of
    a nation; and it is true that faith is continually diminishing in Europe”.

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

    Sure it goes back to the French Revolution and before – since Calvin I would say. 

    This doesn’t stop us saying that Vatican II was the victory of this “non serviam”.

    Which is reason enough to bin it. 

  • Allan Daniel

    Actually the pope cannot dissent from the core teachings that have been handed down from Christ; nor can he reject infallible proclamations of prior popes.

    Your statement about traditionalists is misleading at best and abused at worst.

  • JabbaPapa

    Benedict, I’m sorry but you are unversed in the technical difficulties of literary and revelatory interpretation.

    This is not a put-down — your theological interpretation skills are EXCELLENT — but I really REALLY have to insist that the interpretations of the third secret that circulated prior to its publication are entirely consistent with its contents, as taken from those particular hermeneutic standpoints.

    The issue, really, is not that those interpretations are necessarily wrongful, but rather that they might be.

    Not every true prophecy will come true — this is the basic fact of the matter.

    We are provided with Free Will.

    God provides us both implicitly and explicitly with the power to avert His own decisions, whensoever He may permit us to do so.

    Warnings should NEVER be confused with Predictions nor Descriptions.

  • Allan Daniel

    You misunderstand what actually is the benefit of having a liturgical language. Jews have a separate language set aside from the vernacular. It makes perfect sense.

    Latin, an unchanging language, is not easily mangled by pop usage. And more importantly, everyone, no matter what language they speak, can follow the missal. It does not matter that 100 different languages are under one roof, they all can understand and follow the mass in their missal.

    The fact that the music and decorum of the Latin mass is infinitely more appealing to worshipers than the the vernacular mass is not surprising. The text is more substantial in the Latin mass. The dumbed down vernacular is–well–dumbed down.

    In the Latin mass the priest and people face the same way. The priest and people offer the sacrifice of Jesus Christ through the priest to God the Father. Bodily postures match the theological actions taking place on the altar.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Pope going up the hill and being killed (not “wounded” as Cardinal Bertone stated) is the FIRST part of the Third Secret. The second part continues as per the witnesses below. Of course it’s been buried. It has to be about Vatican II and the Great Apostasy and it therefore accuses the very people who are burying it!

    … please …

    No Popes have been killed, John Paul II’s assassination was averted by Saint Mary, and we now have four Popes since John XXIII (God Bless John Paul I).

    I obviously can do nothing to prevent the allegorical interpretations you might prefer, except that if we look at History, the Secret seems to be far more consonant with Hitler’s specific ORDER to murder the entire Curia, averted only because a Christian in the Nazi hierarchy decided to warn the Vatican instead of just following orders. Hitler actually sent a death squad to the Vatican to kill every single Cardinal, plus the Pope if “necessary”.

    The Pope’s actions are therefore his response to Our Lady.

    The issue is that you are understanding “Russia” in political, literalist terms.

    On the 2nd June 1979, Victory Square in Warsaw Poland was a part of “Russia”. Not after that Great Pope had finished his magnificent sermon though …

    Do not be afraid !!!

    John Paul II, 1980:   

    “… there is a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish …“.

    Interpretation by JP2 — consonant with the text of the third secret.

    Before his death in 1981, Father Alonso stated the following important conclusions concerning the Third Secret:

    “It is therefore completely probable that the text makes concrete references to the crisis of faith within the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves [and the] internal struggles in the very bosom of the Church and of grave pastoral negligence by the upper hierarchy”.

    “probable”

    Again — interpretation that is entirely consonant with the text of the secret.

    Eugenio Pacelli (future Pius XII) in the 1930’s speaking specifically about Fatima:

    “A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”

    Second secret.

    Father Joseph Schweigl (September 1952)

    In 1952 Father Joseph Schweigl was entrusted by Pope Pius XII with a secret mission to interrogate Sister Lucy about the Third Secret. He subsequently stated:

    “I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”

    Again, interpretation entirely consonant with the text.

    In March 17, 1990 Cardinal Oddi, :

    “It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.”

    It has nothing to do with Gorbachev. Otherwise, personal interpretation, and again entirely consonant with the text of the secret.

    Cardinal Ciappi

    In a letter to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg, Cardinal Mario
    Luigi Ciappi, who was the personal papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II, revealed:

    “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top”.

    Personal interpretation.

    It’s still consonant with the text, albeit in a very forced manner, but there is a very obnoxious pessimism in this personal view.

    Father Malachi Martin (Summer 1998)

    I outright REFUSE to take this individual seriously.

    Father Jose Valinho (2000 and 2003)

    Sister Lucy’s nephew, Father Jose dos Santos Valinho. Met the seer many times. In Reportage su Fatima [Milan 2000] he stated:

    “I believe that (third) part of the secret concerns the Church from
    within, perhaps doctrinal difficulties, a crisis of unity, rebellion.
    The last sentence my aunt wrote, which precedes the part that is still unknown, says, ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’ … Therefore, people elsewhere in the Church might waver on dogma”.

    OK, personal remark.

    It is EXTREMELY RARE that anyone receiving a personal revelation should have the Grace or Charism of also interpreting that revelation accurately.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Sister Lucia received such Grace or Charism.

    Even Saint Bernadette of Lourdes only received them in a very partial manner, and she is one of the most blessed Saints our Church has ever been graced with.

    Dear Benedict, you have no right to teach interpretations of this secret that are entirely beyond your knowledge.

  • JabbaPapa

    No, it goes back to the “authority” arguments of 14th and 15th centuries, when various Universities attempted to replace the Papal Authority with their own preferences.

    Vatican II — honestly, dear Ben : it’s just another Council.

  • JabbaPapa

    I am aware of the History.

    Those are principally liturgical, not theological objections, sorry.

    Thank you, otherwise, for your natural graciousness, and it’s a real pity we were unable to meet this week !!!

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

    You just won’t accept the evident truth: THERE IS A COVER-UP going on. 

    How you can just parrot “personal interpretation!” when these men have either read the entire Secret or have heard it from Sister Lucia’s own lips and therefore KNOW what it says (whereas you haven’t and don’t) is beyond parody.

    Ask yourself: one reader says the Secret is in two parts. Only the first is to do with the Pope going up a hill. And a Pope says the Secret (the full version!) talks about Oceans invading the lands.

    The text released in 2000 doesn’t, does it?

    Are you wilfully adopting the line you take above because you also want to shroud the truth from people?

    Our Lady wanted the full text released to EVERYONE in 1960. You know better than Our Lady?

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

    No, Jabba, it is NOT “just another Council”.

    If it had been a normal Oecumenical Council, this thread would certainly not exist.

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

    Oh, you separate liturgical and thelogical questions?

    What about lex orandum lex credendum?

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

    “Please, no Popes have been killed!”, you say?

    But we are assured by Cardinals Ratzinger, Bertone, and Sodano that the Third Secret was about JP II being shot. 

    Except that it wasn’t on a hill (as in the vision), there were no other corpses around (as in the vision), he wasn’t shot at by soldiers (as in the vision) and Pope John Paul wasn’t killed (as was the Pope in the vision) but was wounded. 

    Everything else Our Lady told the Fatima children was concrete, direct and simple. The explanation given in 2000 was contrived and complicated. 

    And if the Third Secret was about JP II being shot, why did Our Lady tell Sister Lucia that the Secret must be told to the world in 1960 “because then it will be clearer”?

    THEREFORE the vision had nothing to do with Pope John Paul’s wounding in St. Peter’s Square, did it?

    Which the three Cardinals know very well (and you know too). 

    2000 was ALL about burying Fatima forever. But Heaven won’t be buried, especially not by lies.

  • theroadmaster

    I understand the context in which you are writing and our points of difference are trifling compared to the common ground that we share in relation to our beliefs in the Liturgy and other matters.

  • 2_Armpits_4_Sister_Sarah

    Benedict, forget all that rubbish you read at Cambridge. They are part of a racket and their job is to induct you into the cult. It is your faculty and others like it which is the problem and not the masons.

  • Sweetjae

    Still blame everything to a legitimate Council for the sins and lost of faith in your backyard, eh? Nobody is going to agree with you Benedict because you are just barking at the wrong tree. Why not blame all the past Councils as well for the abuses, disunity, rebellion and the great apostasy culminated in the form of protestantism?

    Your stubborn adherent to your ability to interpret tradition apart from the Magisterium is the true idol you shared with the liberals.

  • Sweetjae

    NO! Every Canon Law of the Church to convene and validate this Council had been fulfilled and followed with the Supreme Pontiff presiding. Yours is NOT, so would any good abiding catholic give you any credence and authority, Benedict?

  • Sweetjae

    Nicely put. Mr. Carter’s logic is to blame Councils that doesn’t agree with his idea of orthodoxy, in other words, he is orthodoxy!

  • Sweetjae

    You people are treating the likes of ad oreintem, communion in the hand, removal of railings etc as if they are Dogmas of the Church!!! These are just practices or disciplines of the Church that she has the power to change from time to time unlike Dogma that can’t be changed. In fact, the Liturgical Mass said by the Apostles and Early martyrs themselves have more similarities with the Pauline Mass than the Tridentine Mass. But is one superior than the other? To us they are the same, to the ultraTrads they are not, so who is playing judges here?

  • Sweetjae

    No, we separate two elements of the Holy Mass, one is pertaining to Dogma the other falls on the practices of the Church, until you understand the basic difference between the two you will always rant indiscriminately.

  • Sweetjae

    Though I disagree with the quoted statement but his second sentence is true that in just 50 years after VII the size of Church membership tripled. it took the Church 2000 years to the tune of 435 million Catholics in 1960 now 1.3 Billion and still growing. There were 10 million Catholics in Africa in the mid-60s, now 400 million!!!, Blame the Council still, Mr. Benedict?

  • Sweetjae

    That the Pope “going up the hill” doesnt prove your speculative point. It can be interpreted in not so literal way, it can be that the way is uphill for the Pope by suffering with majority of his flock persecuted in many of the communist countries.

    That the apostasy has to with the influence of the secular and atheistic ideas borned from the communistic ideology NOT the valid Teachings of the Church at VII.

    That “In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved” does NOT in any way say what you would like to imply. The last time I checked the great majority of Catholic Churches in Portugal are obedient to the Pope, the Catechism and VII. They are known to have great love to Blessed Pope JPII which you and SSPX hated. The quotation’s real intent is that Portugal has always been faithful and obedient to the Teachings and Authority of the Church, that is the reason why she as a country is preserved NOT because of your conspiracy theory.

  • Sweetjae

    Why would you stop in believing a ‘double’ when you just have the habit to listen to anybody apart from the Authority of the Church?

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

    As often happens, you have not actually understood the point being made. 

  • Patrickhowes

    The problem with Vll is that it missed the real opportunity it had to refocus the Church against modernism,science gradually tryig to discover the God gene and to demonstrate that all ideologies other than the one true Faith have lead to disasters,world wars and nothingness

  • Nat_ons

    I like your style, BC, but the content – on this subject – lacks good sense.

    The New Order of the Mass is (in theory) merely a modified form of Low Mass .. that with music, but simplified (in the end almost out of all proportion).

    What the Servant of God Paul VI presented in the NO was, without doubt, far beyond the actual requirements of Council – the 1965 revision was closer to its vision of renewal; the 1969 Rite manufactured a ‘time-bomb’ out of the slenderest of means.

    Defusing any such explosive devices – in the hands of Bugnini or others – cannot ever be a matter of ignoring it, or returning to an imagined status quo ante bellum. For a start, there was no fully stable status quo to return to .. the living liturgy had been the subject of official (and unofficial) change for nearly fifty years prior to the Council. What is required, rather, is a pair of steady and trustworthy hands to disentangle the mechanics of a volatile contrivance: the New Order, not a mad-cap destruction of framework it threatened to destroy; the liturgical order of Paul VI can be reformed, as it has been not least recently in the English-speaking world; what the traditionally minded need to do is to seek once more to draw out the Sacred Tradition (or restore it where it is lacking) instead of running around like headless chickens squawking for 1965, 1962, 1956, 1947 et al.

    http://ctscatholiccompass.org/category/roman-missal/

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

    Apostasy WITHIN the Church, not within the ranks of Communists!!!!!!

    I despair at this level of idiocy. 

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

    You really are a straight-forward stalker, aren’t you?

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

    I just ignore your nonsense and instead ask for the source of your plainly made-up figures. Publication and page numbers please.

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

    Stalker

  • Sweetjae

    Did you read my post? I said that the materialistic, atheistic and relativistic attitude that culminated to what we have now, apostasy has been borned from the Marxist ideology 100 years prior to Vatican II.

    Thus the unbelief that spread and influence the great majority of European peninsula and some clergy DOESN’T necessarily follow that this evil idea has infected the Teachings of a valid Council of the Church. If it does, then the promise of Christ to Peter and His Church is forfeited, IF an exercise of a solemn authoritative act of the Church through her legit Councils can’t protect her from errors then we have no certainty of Truth of any Dogmas.

    If she, meaning the Church could make error at all, then she could make error at any given point in time. Your position is the same fatalistic position of the Protestants which I reject.

  • Sweetjae

    Depending on the response of man, Prophesy can be altered, mitigated or even outright cancelled by God, it’s NOT a doom and gloom forgone destiny as Benedict envisioned.

  • Sweetjae

    Stalker? Maybe in correcting some malignant misrepresentation of Church’s teachings and legitimate acts.

  • Sweetjae

    In reality Vatican II opened the Church’s door and move her teachings closer to the outside world and has nothing to do with the “non serviam” movement. In addition, it have been the ultraTraditionalists and modernists the ones adhering to this principle of “non serviam” by their refusal and rejection of God’s only ordained authority on earth.

    This famous words uttered by Lucifer in his disobedience to GOD’S Authority are the same words uttered by Sedevacantists, Old Catholics, SSPV and SSPX in their disobedience to the same Authority. Sad but true.

    What can you say Benedict Carter?

  • Sweetjae

    Don’t you find it ironic that non serviam is also the motto of SSPX within, including Bishop Williamson and other clergy who formed the SSPV?

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

    My Faculty was the History Faculty. Not as powerful as the Masons!

  • JabbaPapa

    Dear Benedict, I can assure you that receiving a personal revelation is NOT “concrete, direct and simple”.

    In my own experience, I’d say “abstract, confusing, and complex”.

    Only interpretation and reinterpretation in the light of the Holy Spirit, the teachings of the Church, and the insights of our Saints can make sense of such visions.

    And we absolutely MUST remember that Warnings are NOT Prophecies.

  • JabbaPapa

    You just won’t accept the evident truth: THERE IS A COVER-UP going on.

    That’s a *theory*, not an “evident truth”.

    And no, I don’t accept it — not against the word of two Popes.

    How you can just parrot “personal interpretation!” when these men have either read the entire Secret or have heard it from Sister Lucia’s own lips and therefore KNOW what it says (whereas you haven’t and don’t) is beyond parody.

    Don’t be silly Benedict !!!

    I believe that the text of the third secret was indeed released in 2000, and that I have therefore read that secret, just as you have.You would also be VERY mistaken if you thought that I was dismissing any of those personal interpretations — my point instead is that they are all of them consistent with the text of the third secret, as interpretations, except if you decide to be completely literalist about these matters, which is the most utterly wrongful way to interpret a revelation of this or any other kind.

    Ask yourself: one reader says the Secret is in two parts.

    Part 1 the vision of the Angel with the flaming sword

    Part 2 the vision of the murders

    Again — entirely consistent with the content of the text

    And a Pope says the Secret (the full version!) talks about Oceans invading the lands.

    No he bloody well doesn’t !!!

    The Pope said, hypothetically :

    IF there is a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish, truly the publication of such a message is no longer something to be so much desired.

    Never, not at any single point, does he claim this hypothetical “prophecy” as being a part of the third secret.The whole notion is in fact patently absurd — the Pope gives an example of a personal vision that he would NOT desire to reveal to the world as if it were Prophecy, but then you maintain that this is in fact exactly what he’s done ??? It doesn’t make sense.

    Are you wilfully adopting the line you take above because you also want to shroud the truth from people?

    Oh don’t be ridiculous !!!!

    Our Lady wanted the full text released to EVERYONE in 1960. You know better than Our Lady?

    Only God knows better than Our Lady.

    However this was NOT the Virgin’s advice, it was Lucia’s opinion.

  • JabbaPapa

    Did you read my post?

    Dear Benedict has a blind spot concerning the third secret of Fatima, which can only be shown to him by pointing out the fundamental absurdity of his position.

    Unfortunately, this position of his is both complex and detailed, so that this undertaking will be a very lengthy one to achieve … :-(

  • Parasum

    *Not* you, Jabba – the Cardinal :) You don’t have his advantages – no-one on this thread does. But he does. Hence my criticism of him. The euphoria of people who – unlike us, and so, unlike you – were at V2, has gone a long way to get us into the present mess. If mere laity can see the danger of euphoria, all more should a cardinal be able to, especially one giving an interview long after the events were followed by the euphoria.  

    I think takes care of your question.

  • JabbaPapa

    Nonsense, Ben — the Council of Trent was rebelled against just as vehemently by a similar proportion of the Faithful.

    That particular argument about a Council lasted for about 100 years.

  • JabbaPapa

    No, I don’t “separate” them !!!

    Don’t be absurd …

    This doesn’t prevent one from focusing when appropriate on either the one or the other.

    In the Mass itself they are of course as one.

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry sweetjae, you’re wrong.

  • JabbaPapa

    :-)

  • JabbaPapa

    You misunderstand what actually is the benefit of having a liturgical language.

    No, I do NOT.

    Latin, an unchanging language

    Latin is NOT an “unchanging language”. Notwithstanding that it is EXTREMELY moribund, and NEVER learned as a mother tongue, it is nevertheless a living language, used daily, not a dead one.

    The artificial construct known as Mediaeval/Church Latin may be very rigid and taught extremely conservatively, but it is based on the particular dialect of Late Latin that was in use among the Roman clergy at the beginning of the Middle Ages, including their pronunciation mistakes and their very poor sense of proper Latin punctuation and stress.

    Contemporary Latin has certain notable differences with Mediaeval/Church Latin, including better pronunciation, and a very slight tendency to include more Vulgate/Late Latin grammatical structures into the language.

    The fact that the music and decorum of the Latin mass is infinitely more
    appealing to worshipers than the the vernacular mass is not surprising.

    I agree.

    The text is more substantial in the Latin mass. The dumbed down vernacular mass is–well–dumbed down.

    This is only true for some translations into some languages, not all of them.

    The original English translation of the Order of Mass was of course absolutely atrocious — and whilst the new one is certainly an improvement, it’s still far from being perfect.

    The translations into Italian and French are far far better though …

    In the Latin mass the priest and people face the same way.

    There is no requirement whatsoever in Novus Ordo that the priest should do otherwise.

    One of the best NO Masses I’ve ever attended, during my last foot pilgrimage, was given by a brilliant (very gruff, very skeptical of me, but very great-hearted and pragmatically one of the most deeply helpful priests I’ve ever met on pilgrimage) mostly retired 80-year old during his August vacation from his own parish, whereby he simply positioned his chair in front of the altar rather than behind it — so that during all of the points in the NO where he was performing rituals, including the consecration, on the altar — he naturally faced the same way as the people.

    His solution for this particular liturgical problem was just SO simple, and SO easy, and it consequently felt *completely* natural and proper.

    Bodily postures match the theological actions taking place on the altar

    … and it is very sad that this is so often absent from the catechesis that people are given …

    Children are simply taught now you stand, now you kneel, now you sit — without ever being taught *why* nor what these postures signify !!!

    The default posture is standing — not as an expression of pride, but humility : one presents oneself, simply as one is, and conscious of one’s own sins and defects, before the Lord.