Fri 24th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 16:48pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Archbishop of Canterbury and Orthodox patriarch to join Vatican II celebration

By on Monday, 17 September 2012

Dr Williams and Patriarch Bartholomew (Photo: CNS)

Dr Williams and Patriarch Bartholomew (Photo: CNS)

The Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Archbishop of Canterbury will join Pope Benedict XVI’s celebration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, it was announced today.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Dr Rowan Williams will attend the Mass that Pope Benedict will celebrate at the Vatican to mark the anniversary of the opening of the council on October 11, 1962, Vatican officials said.

Representatives from the Orthodox Church and Anglican Communion were observers at the 1962-65 council, which officially embraced and promoted Catholic involvement in the ecumenical movement.

During the January celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, Pope Benedict said the Second Vatican Council placed the search for Christian unity “at the center of the life and work of the Church,” because it was Christ’s desire that his followers be united.

In addition, the Pope said, “the lack of unity among Christians impedes a more effective proclamation of Christ because it puts our credibility in danger … How can we give a convincing witness if we are divided?”

Ecumenical cooperation in proclaiming the Christian message is expected to be a key topic at the world Synod of Bishops on new evangelisation on October 7-28.

  • Sweetjae

    Nonsense diatribe!

  • Sweetjae

    If you are talking about the traditionist movement after VII, there are many, they have the same preVII tradition yet they oppose and arrived at differing beliefs from the same tradition….private judgment like the protestants!

  • Sweetjae

    Distinguish between the practices from the Dogma and substance of the liturgy, the former can be change but the latter can’t, so you wont be confused as Mr. Davies was, anyways who is he? The Pope? The Magisterium? The Council?

  • Sweetjae

    It is the SSPX and radical traditionalists who threw the baby with the bath water by the attitude of “cherry picking” which Council they consider as orthodox according to their liking.

  • Sweetjae

    The liturgy is the same as always have been described by St. Justin Martyr and Iraneus 1,800 years ao. What you are confused about are some elements of the practices of the Church that can be change but NOT the Substance and Dogma.

    Beside the fact that the true Church of God cant teach error like some Orthodox churches did with artificial contraception and divorce.

  • Sweetjae

    You really dont give due where the credit is obviously due. Shoukd we also blame the past Councils and Popes for the failure of bringing the Eastern and protestant churches into the fold?

  • Sweetjae

    Firstly, the crux of the argument was that the promulgated doctrines of Indulgences and Purgatory had been used by the Reformers (who think they know better than the Church, does it remind you of somebody?) to lunch their protest against those Councils and the Church so, your time gap is irrelevant. In fact the protest and apostasy were already existing during the time of those Councils, forerunners of the Great Apostasy (Reformation) in the person of John Huss and Wycliffe.

    Secondly the message of Fatima on repentance, conversion and prayer is still ongoing until the end of time because the battle is not yet won that is until Christ returns. The “clearer” thing was referring to the the mutual destruction of mankind in Nuclear Holocaus as clearly the world was on the brink at the Cuban Missile crisis.

    Thirdly, i dont subscibed to your assertion of “New Theology” thing. This is the same word that came out of protestant fundamentalists when they refer to the Catholic Church’s teachings.

    Fourthly, How come that the ‘traditionalist movement’ if they are really the holders of true Faith, have the same preVII tradition yet opposed and arrived at differing beliefs from the same tradition? I haven’t seen any SSPX nor other radical traditionalist who can cohesively answer that, can you Mr. Carter?

  • JabbaPapa

    I was answering your claim that “we ask nothing” of the non-Catholic Christians.

    In fact, we ask them to become Catholic.

  • Sweetjae

    See my reply below, anyways while i do agree with you about the abuses and sinful acts of some clergy, I don’t point a finger to a legit Council because they are not related, where does VII say a priest can have experimentation of the Mass? Where does VII say a priest can invite a protestant clergy or non-catholics to con-celebrate the Holy Mass? Nowhere! These are abusive willful acts of men not the teachings of the Council.

    According to Sacred Tradition and Scripture only the Holy Ghost can convened a legitimate Ecumenical Council of the Church and its teachings are binding to all…. So your wholesome condemnation is a grave sin.

  • teigitur

    Totally irrelevant to this debate.

  • Sweetjae

    Yes it’s true, so what is your point? Blaming game again of doom and gloom?

  • Patrick Mulvey

    My seminary and novitiate experience was the same as Jon. There were clerical adolescent abusers pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II. To think otherwisew

  • Sweetjae

    Why is it irrelevant? Luther blamed the past Councils that promulgated doctrines of Indulgences and Purgatory that to them were ‘novelties’ and had caused bad fruits in the form of abuses by the clergy and bishops?

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

    What a nonsensical comment.

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

    Yes, there’s doctrinal development. 

    But what we are facing now is a development that actually means some teachings have been reversed. That’s not “development”, that’s replacement.

    Something cannot develop into its antithesis.

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

    Sorry, your fourth point doesn’t make grammatical sense. I cannot answer the question (whatever it is) therefore. 

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

    Mr Brownridge claimed there was no link between V II and the scandal. There clearly is, indirectly. Once you dismantle discipline and the ramparts of the Faith against the Faith’s great enemies (the devil and the world) then expect any number of scandals. Which we see almost every day, and not just the abuse scandal. Common sense, Sweetjae. 

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

    Sure, but therein lies wisdom ….

  • JabbaPapa

    I’ve yet to be shown a single instance where this claim could be considered as truthful.

    Even the most difficult doctrinal question, at the level that you’re talking about, the doctrine on religious freedom, does not contradict previous teaching.

    Some pre-Vatican II doctrinal *opinions* have certainly been contradicted, but that’s not the same as contradicting any doctrines themselves.

    The true difficulty lies in the difficulties, and sometimes even great difficulties, that have been incurred concerning various interpretations of pre-Vatican II, Vatican II, and post-Vatican II teachings, and the real difficulties that exist in reconciling these various licit understandings — and in determining which of these interpretations might be in any way inaccurate, and why.

    Though I suppose that we will continue to disagree on this rather technical question …

  • JabbaPapa

    The abuses and related cover-up scandal began in the 1950s at the earliest, years before the convening of the Council — if we were to play a silly numbers and statistics game, it could be argued that the post-Vatican II period has seen a massive reduction of these abuses, rather than their having been occasioned by it !!!

    Furthermore, whilst there is quite clearly, and here I’d agree with you, a manifest link between the increase in the numbers of homosexual clergy and the abuses of liturgy, catechism, and of the Faith that the so-called “spirit” of Vatican II has provided (and please don’t claim that this is a false excuse Benedict, even the SSPX theologians claim that the Council has never neen properly implemented and that its teachings were instead distorted and twisted by this so-called “spirit” of the Council), this can potentially be linked to the sexual abusers themselves *only*.

    Concerning the cover-up, the sad fact is that Bishops of both the liberal and traditional factions within the Church engaged in it, for a multiplicity of varying reasons — including, very often, pure and simple bureaucratic incompetence, which can exist in anyone, no matter which political faction they might belong to.

    Among traditionalists, Cardinal Dario Castrillon de Hoyos for example, has been demonstrated to have helped orchestrate the cover-up efforts, may God forgive him and have mercy on his soul.

    It is therefore quite wrongful, sorry, to treat the child abuse scandals as if they had anything to do with the continuing doctrinal difficulties that exist between the traditionals and the liberals.

  • JabbaPapa

    The doctrine of Indulgences is not wrongful — what was extremely wrongful, however, was the extremely gross abuse of the sale of those Indulgences in return for cash !!!

  • Sweetjae

    It’s true, all the objections of SSPX on ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, “fruits” of VII are really based on inferences, assumptions and impressions.

  • Sweetjae

    You beat me and have said it nicely.

  • Sweetjae

    Your acussations are false and unwarranted. Firstly you associate abuses with liturgical practices. Whats wrong with guitars? Whats wrong with altar girls? (you are definitely a male ****) , whats wrong with communion by hand? Were they prohibited by Bible or Tradition? In fact the Pauline Mass has more similarities with the earliest Apostolic Mass than TLM which was conceived gradually in the mid-5th century.

  • Cafeteria R. C.

    Can the RCC prove all that it says? Sciences must, why not religion? When man becomes more educated, why is it for man that all parts of religion of the RCC hard to believe? Since the 1960s, a very large percent of RCs in the western world have left the RCC or are cafeteria RCs account they do not agree with all the teachings and or cover ups of the RCC. The late good honest cardinal’s words will not die of the RCC. Since the dark age to the present day, the pompous leaders of the RCC as well as the better than thou RCs better open their close minds account the winds of change are coming caused by the RCs voting with their feet. Time waits for no one. Would Christ be pleased today of his church today? He would never was or would be or agree to His church in their pompous ways. One of many, a cafeteria RC.

  • whytheworldisending

    As long as people are free to call themselves Christians, regardless of what they actually believe, then if organisational unity is given priority over the commandments of Jesus, then there will be a tendency for some people to be confused as to what christianity is about, particularly if division and bitterness is continually on public display. Jesus said “Many will come using my name. Refuse to join them,” and directed his followers to leave (the dust from their sandals) those who refused to listen, so public distancing from those who oppose Jesus’ teachings helps to clear up the confusion. True disciples of Christ keep his commandments, and are spiritually united, so it is good that the world can recognise that unity, and follow the rright path.

  • nytor

    Ah, an elderly liberal. I knew it.

  • nytor

    Indeed: the Church may have espoused ecumenism since Vatican II, but the most important ecumenical relationship – with the Orthodox – has been damaged by the changes to the liturgy, not improved.

  • nytor

    “I cannot even attend a Catholic Mass without feeling sick to my stomach–the abuses, the altar girls, the Protestant vestments, the guitars, the communion in hand”

    You are right, but these things do not happen everywhere. They are in fact becoming less common as, thank God, the influence of the EF is beginning to be felt in a better celebration of the OF as well.

  • JabbaPapa

    Can the RCC prove all that it says?

    Can you ?

    Start out by proving the following, please :

    Would Christ be pleased today of his church today? He would never was or would be or agree to His church in their pompous ways.

  • nytor

    I don’t imagine the small country parishes enjoyed them.

  • nytor

    Having a heretic as a parish priest must be a trial. It is important to stand up to these people, though, and not let them get away with things.

  • JabbaPapa

    No, not all of them — but the central objection, that it might be somehow “legitimate” to reject the Council in its entirety, certainly is.

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

    The SSPX doesn’t reject the Council in its entirety. Indeed, the SSPX accepts more of Vatican II than do the majority of Bishops and priests of nu-Church, who have long since moved way beyond it.

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

    The truth will out at some point Jabba. 

  • Alan

    If you are thinking of the VII teaching on religious freedom, I would say this is a development of the understanding of the dignity of the human person, whether or not (s)he holds doctrinally correct beliefs.  We cannot return to “error has no rights”.   

  • JabbaPapa

    Of course — but many SSPX supporters do in fact reject the Council entirely, and it is these that I was thinking of. (that does NOT mean yourself)

  • Jon Brownridge

     The cover up issue is far more comprehensive than people think. In 1985 I was Principal of a large Catholic school and I was called to an urgent in-service where it was explained that because of new legislation, administrators were required to refer any knowledge of sexual abuse of our students directly to the police. Before that, there was no legal obligation to do so. We simply referred these matters to our immediate superiors. Hard as it is to believe now, cover up of sexual ‘moral failings’ was thought to be the best policy. This is obviously what Bishops sincerely believed at the time. We should not judge their failings of 40 or 50 years ago by today’s legal and moral obligations.

  • JabbaPapa

    The doctrine of religious freedom is actually centered around one of the most ancient dogmata of our Faith : Free Will.

    This dogma predates the Pentateuch.

    It is utterly infallible and indefectible.

  • JabbaPapa

    I agree.

  • Sweetjae

    Alan i totally agree with you but “error has no rights” is infallibly defined before, however, VCII didn’t contradict this teaching but rather explaining it more deeply that the dignity of human person is inherent in his nature based upon another infallible teaching on FREEWILL and not based on the error he might profess in the process to search for Truth. ONCE his conviction affirmed the truth of the Catholic Church, then he has no rights to error.

  • Sweetjae

    Huh? The 4th question is clear, just dont have the guts to answer it?

  • avatartodiefor

    The young do not remember how it used to be that’s why !

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

    As I have told you before, just ONE of John Paul II’s Encyclicals says THREE times that “error has no rights”.

    If it is correct statement that error has no rights, how can it become correct to say the opposite?

    I wish people would at least try to think logically.

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

    Silly. Your question isn’t even couched in comprehensible English, so how can it be answered?

  • JabbaPapa

    Wow — when somebody is disagreed with by the three of us simultaneously, it’s a pretty sure sign that whatever he’s proposed is fairly generally uncatholic.

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

    Your grasp of Church history is woeful.

  • Sweetjae

    Sorry for my english, it’s not my primary language which is Mathematics, anyways, to rephrase it, all traditionalist movements claim to have one and the same tradition, the preVII tradition that is! Then why do they opposed and arrived at differing beliefs from the same tradition? Is it clearer now?

  • Sweetjae

    That was my point Jabba, VII is not wrongful, what was wrongful is the extremely gross abuse of the modernist clergy in return for prestige and praise.

  • Sweetjae

    Im giving an anology not history, why blame VII for bad priests? Then why not blame Constance and Lateran for bad priests too, like John Huss, Luther, Calvin, all happened during the Tridentine era?