In his 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict strikingly referenced St. Basil’s assessment of the post-Nicene Council period that described the Church as being in a naval battle in the darkness of a storm, where chaos made it impossible to discern the truth. Benedict was quick to say that things post-Vatican II were not quite so stormy, but he acknowledged there have been serious problems.
Last week, in his remarks to the clergy of the Diocese of Rome, Benedict made another pointed statement. There were, he declared, two councils: “There was the Council of the Fathers — the true Council — but there was also the council of the media … and the world perceived the Council through … the media.” For a while, the Pope noted, the media’s virtual council was stronger than the real Council. But now, 50 years after the start of the Council, the real one is prevailing.
These two significant papal speeches highlight that his task and that of his post-Vatican II predecessors (particularly Blessed John Paul II) has been to set the ship right so as to quiet the proverbial storm within which the Church has found herself.
When he addressed the Curia, Benedict identified two contrary hermeneutics, or interpretations, that have shaped the understandings of the Council. One is the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture that, he stated, “has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media.”
An example of this would be the argument for women priests. In a secular context, where women are seen doing all the things men can do, it makes no sense to not have women priests; so proponents leave the context of Catholic teachings and turn instead to the sympathetic secular media that has no understanding of the Church’s rich Tradition. It’s not unlike a child who knows that the parent with all the facts is going to deny her request; so she goes to the parent who doesn’t have all the information, knowing that she’ll probably get what she wants.
Alternatively, there is the hermeneutic of reform and renewal in the continuity of the Church, which Benedict affirmed in his 2005 address by citing the words of Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962: “‘The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another ...’ retaining the same meaning and message.”
Interestingly, people with very different views of the Church fall into the category of those who see the Council as a rupture with the past. On the one hand, there are those — such as the advocates of the ordination of women — who advanced a so-called “spirit” of Vatican II to allow everything and nothing at the same time. As Benedict explains, “[A] vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined, and room was consequently made for every whim.”
And then there are some traditionalist Catholics who hold that almost everything post-conciliar has been deficient and lacking in orthodoxy. Councils have always been an answer to a crisis, but to these traditionalists, apparently, some sort of a golden age existed just before Vatican II, and John XXIII called together the bishops for a Council not to discuss challenges, but to applaud each other for the successes of the Church around the world.
In 2005 and last week, Benedict made clear that the Council was convened to face difficult problems the Church needed to address. Broadly speaking, there was the question of how it should engage in the modern world. Benedict notes the Church at the time was not “robust,” and “it seemed like a reality of the past and not the bearer of the future.” There was also a clear tension in the pre-conciliar liturgy. He describes it as almost two parallel liturgies: the priest with the Missal and the altar servers and the laypeople with their prayer books.
The Council led with liturgical reforms, enhancing the mutual participation at Mass of the celebrant and the congregation, and then delved into specific temporal questions facing the Church. It subsequently delivered several foundational documents required to enable the Church to engage effectively with a world that had changed dramatically. But it would be decades before the dust began to settle. In the meantime, there would be plenty of casualties to conform with St. Basil’s image of a battle.
Many of us were born post-Vatican II, but we all continue to live the Vatican II challenge in one way or another. In no way is the work of the Council complete, and much of the work up to now has been simply clarifying which Council is our source — the Council of the Fathers or the council of the media.
Ironically, the council of the media tends to portray John Paul II and Benedict as reactionary traditionalists. In fact, they have been the modernizing popes, constantly engaging the world in what Benedict calls “true reform,” a “combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels.”
While his 2005 address was eminently clear, it did not get a lot of attention by Catholics or the secular media. The fact that Benedict chose to tackle this same topic in one of his final addresses, when we are all paying attention, indicates the great importance of this issue.
Pia de Solenni is a moral theologian and cultural analyst. She resides in Seattle.
Comments
Post a Comment
One of the most important writings that Cardinal Ratzinger did in his service to the Church was his work on the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
And as Pope, Benedict frequently asked everyone to read and or study it including in his Motu Proprio “Porta Fidei” paragraphs 11.
The CCC is for everyone, and all Catholics are required to adhere to it.
It covers all the things in the article above such as women priests, priestly celebacy, contraception, plus so much more, and gives references in the footnotes as to where the teachings come from.
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved ... and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (CCC pg 5)
We should all be eternally greatful for the CCC.
Reading the Bible and the CCC can change our lives. We will know TRUTH from ERROR.
For more info on the CCC including more quotes from our Popes, on the net please go to: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”.
The problem is that it wasn’t only the media involved in the false interpretation of the council. And until that can be admitted, we still have a problem. We Catholics have a problem with passing the buck, and we’ve got to stop it, man up and reclaim the faith as it’s always been understood, aka without the hermeneutic of rupture.
By your fruits you shall know them. I am 79 years of age and have been Catholic since the time of my Baptism. What I see and experience being involved in the Church for many years ,is in all too many instances disheartening. I see little real zeal for the faith by all too many.
Especially since VII. I greatly admire both the late John Paul II and the current Benedict the XVI . I do not hold them responsible. But there is definitely something wrong somewhere. We need fend for ourselves.
God Bless
Kevin
midwestlady, you are absolutely correct.
There were/are those within the Church with their own agenda who incorrectly directed the Church within the USA.
The Vatican II documents were written in the 1960’s. We do not need anyone to tell us what the docs say and do not say.
Everyone should read the exact and only the exact documents, and I think most will be extremely and pleasantly be suprised what they actually say.
To get the exact documents - go to the VATICAN web site and search: “DOCUMENTS of the II VATICAN COUNCIL”.
Print them all out for ease of reading. Of couse most will want to docs out in English.
Be sure to have enough paper, and double sided copies will be helpful. Put them in a notebook for yourself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
___________
There are 16 Vatican II Documents total:
CONSTITUTIONS: Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Gaudium et Spes;
DECLARATIONS: Gravissimum Educationis, Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae;
DECREES: Ad Gentes, Presbyterorum Ordinis, Apostoicam Actuositatem, Optatam Totius, Prefectae Caritatis, Christus Dominus, Unitatis Regintegratio, Orientalium Ecclesairum, and Inter Mirifica.
__________
We were really snookered by some leaders within the Church, who said they were acting in the “SPIRIT” of Vatican II, when in fact - the things they promote were/are never even implied yet alone stated.
‘Broadly speaking, there was the question of how it should engage in the modern world. Benedict notes the Church at the time was not “robust,” and “it seemed like a reality of the past and not the bearer of the future.”’
Why was the Church not robust? I’ve heard this old saw before but we never hear of the symptoms of why the church was not “robust” This at a time when so many came into the Church as it was. At a time when giants like Chesterton, Fox, Muggeridge, et al entered the Church as it was. The Church was always as it was; it was the world that had to adapt to it.
After VII the Church adapted to the outside world.
It is my opinion that after VII, with all the changes that were made for what appeared to be no good reason, the Church basically told the world that they had not represented Objective Truth the past 2000 years. Therefore things had to change. Now they had another Truth.
Now whether or not that was their intention, I don’t know. I do know of the decimation in Church life that took place after VII. Where the Church was such an integral part of most people’s lives it was pushed to the wayside with all sorts of “innovations”.
None of the things that have happened since VII could have taken place without the consent of Church leaders at the highest levels. So now the Holy Father wants to put the evils back in the Pandora’s box they came from. Good luck.
I always thought it was clowns working in a circus that came up with these VII things. From the pictures I’ve seen around the internet of priests celebrating mass in clowns outfits, I guess I was right.
God Save Us.
Long live Pope Benedict XVI in our hearts and in our world.
“Councils have always been an answer to a crisis, but to these traditionalists, apparently, some sort of a golden age existed just before Vatican II, and John XXIII called together the bishops for a Council not to discuss challenges, but to applaud each other for the successes of the Church around the world.”
This doesn’t reflect the Traditionalist position very well. No one that I am aware of argues that the Church was in a golden age, what they argue is that Her teachings were orthodox and sound, such that there were no specific heresies or disputes for a Council to combat or settle dogmatically—which is the only reason Councils had ever been called in the Church’s history up to that point.
That should be fairly uncontroversial, firstly because it is true, but also because it was Pope John XXIII’s view as well.
As you said that, “councils have always been an answer to a crisis.” What was the crisis precisely and what was VII’s answer to it?
If the church had stayed the same without Vatican II, there would not be the genuine ecumenism with all the orthodox churches and the potential of reunification Eastern (Orthodox) churches and the West (Catholic). Yes, everyone agrees that the same radical group that are now clamoring for the Church to implement a married priesthood, gay marriage and women priests are the ones who purposely misinterpreted changes to the liturgy. However, the ‘dynamic of radical change’ could not have happened without the approval and support of the hierarchy.
The “Huge” problem comes from our parish priests and dioceses Bishops. They are not “Communicating” with the laity. We faithful are in the dark. Yes, the anti-Catholic media has distorted what Vatican II was supposed to be. But this is the fault of the local Bishops and priests for not educating the laity from the pulpit.
It occurs to me that the division and rupture was not the fault of VCII but the misinterpretation and disregard of pre-VCII golden age Catholics, both laity and clergy, this happened on their watch did it not?
Regardless, VCII certainly serves to reveal the hearts and minds of many regarding our Church.
the truth is our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is one of the greatest Popes ever. He said yes to the Chair of Peter at an age when most men of today have ‘retired’ for 20 yrs!!
He faithfully stood by Bl.JPII when he could have ‘retired’.
He knew men had entered the priesthood not to adhere to it but to use it for their own ends.. aka gay-lavender organized group in the Church.
When he spoke at the beginning of his Pontificate of ‘the wolves’..
he was speaking about those within—the betrayers, the men who unbelievably and knowingly would lift the Holy Body and Blood of Christ every day - administer Sacrements - and then live a life which
is the anti=thesis of the holy priesthood. How can they betray the Lord like this.
These men have caused and are causing havoc from within. A polish priest has just written a 30 page dossier on the gay lobby working actively in the Catholic Church - read it and for those who still arent aware of it - I say ‘become aware’. These men who entered for their own agendas must leave and this is what Pope Benedict has battled with before and now in Office. The Church is being cleansed and will be cleansed. Too many for too long have allowed the gay mafia to control.
It is time they were all found out and moved out. The Church is Christ’s Church. Our Saviour came to earth, died so that we would enter Heaven and left His Church, Peter - to guide us.
May God continue to bless our Holy Father - and give him joy and peace in the knowledge he never ‘shirked’ his duty as Pontiff, as Peter.. not for one moment.
Let us pray that the next Pope is as courageous, holy and brilliant as Pope Benedict. And may all those who lurk in our churches/chanceries/ and shouldnt be there have the courage to get out.
They will do as all a great favour.
> to these traditionalists, apparently, some sort of a golden age existed
> just before Vatican II, and John XXIII called together the bishops for
> a Council not to discuss challenges, but to applaud each other for the
> successes of the Church around the world
.
Not to defend Traditionalists, but this isn’t fair to the great majority of them. Traditionalists know very well there was no Golden Age immediately preceding The Blessed Council. They look, for example, to the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis wherein St. Pope Pius X took on philosophical & theological Modernism and Modernists. The cause (poor teaching) is implied by the cure prescribed—but the cause stretches back to the 16th century and even before that.
.
It seems to me the main critique offered by the Traditionalists revolves around the failure of the Church to correct clergy and other faithful who had come to accept various tenets of Modernism—and they are right about this. They are right when they complain that the prescriptions found in Pascendi were not so well implemented. They are right that all of the Faithful are today affected to some extent by Modernism. They are right that the Church has a tradition worth defending. I think they are wrong about nearly everything else they say and especially in their attitudes towards the Second Vatican Council. But they are right about these things, and (emphatically) no, they do not look to some Golden Age of the immediate past.
Bl. John Paul ll and Pope Benedict XVl have both made it very clear, “There is no new Church”, this is the same Church before, during and after Vatican ll. But one cannot ignore the grave errors after the Council caused by overzealous Catholics who hankered after “Change”. Today we have so to speak a “New Church”, which is hardly recognizable as the Church founded by Christ. It is in fact a parrallel Church which many leaders of the Church call the “spirit of Vatican ll”. A new Church which has been forced upon us against our will. We are required to adhere to this new Church in the name of Vatican Council ll. But this new so called renewal actually goes against all that was decreed at the Council. Many, far too many, have created their own Council, and whoever does not submit is considered a reactionary. Thanks to Pope Benedict XVl all of these deviations from the true Council are to be reformed in the new reforms.
Until belief n the Real Presence returns to the almost perfect level during the evangelization era of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, my mentor when I entered the Church in 1049, the storm will continue to rage in spite of the great gift of The Catechism if the Catholic Church that Benedict XVI has a defining role in when he was still a Cardinal. The
“New” translation of the Missal helped return some of the spirituality that was lost with the advent of the considerable Novus Ordo. Allowing corruption of the Eucharist and sacred vessels by non-consecrated hands created considerable disrespect and indifference for the Eucharist. After 50years, this remains the tragedy of VCII. Too bad VCI was obviously ignored. .
Good for Pope Benedict. What gives the secular left or the secular media
the right, in their minds, to interpret catholic doctrine. Their opinions are based on whatever they can cull out of a speech to heighten a story to sell their secular opinions without actually knowing the true doctrine of the church or even caring. It’s also beyond my comprehension
how lukewarm catholics can decide for themselves what is right regardless of what the magesterium of the church tells us. If these lukewarmers will
not stand up for the magisterium of the catholic church there are other religions out there that they can join - at their peril.
It seems to me that the Church needs to set itself with the tasks of correcting all of the abuses which have come out of that Council, the Media’s Council, which many priests bought into. I will take my bitterness to the grave with me perhaps as I continue to see some of the novelties and borderline foolishness rampant in the Church.
Midwest lady: I agree. It was elements in the Church that embraced the false Vatican II. Part of the problem was we didn’t even get to read it until 15 years later. But I am relieved that so high an authority as the pope has admitted that we have suffered under a “false spirit” of Vatican II as interpreted by the media (and in my opinion some bishops) for so many years. It feels like a relief to read this. I have read and love the real Vatican II, so don’t take my comments as criticizing the council. But I remember in one parish when they moved the tabernacle from the center to the side, citing Vatican II and some document from the Conference of Catholic Bishops called “Art and Environment.” They said the tabernacle was “too distracting” during Mass. They replaced it with seats for the choir! So we had overweight middle-aged women with too short skirts shaking everything they had behind the altar where the tabernacle used to quietly sit, and my husband said, “The tabernacle never distracted me during Mass like that!” Pope John Paul II told us the national conferences of bishops had no canonical standing whatsoever. So those pastors who told us they had to move the tabernacle to the side to be “obedient” to “Art and Environment” were very misinformed. Of course, this is only one thing the laity were forced to suffer through during that post Vatican II craziness. I’ll never forget when they told the white Catholics they couldn’t have Marian devotion (because Vatican II didn’t permit it), but the Spanish could because it was in their culture! Or how about confession where they tell you not to confess all your sins! We the laity have been persecuted, and yes I think the Church should acknowledge what took place. It would help with healing. Pope John Paul II apologized and asked forgiveness for the actions of some Catholics during history. How about an apology for what the laity had to suffer under the false spirit of Vatican II. I hope it’s gone now, but I fear it’s not. P.S. I know many truly Catholic priests and nuns had to suffer along with the laity. My heart goes out to them as well. God bless you. Susan Fox http:christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com
I am a product of a Catholic parochial school taught by the wonderful Sisters of Charity, SCN, and was graduated from a Catholic boarding high school operated by Benedictine Monks. I attended a small college operated by Benedictine Monks in Alabama, and received my A.B. Degree from a major Jesuit University. I have been in shock frequently while pondering what Vatican II has done to the Catholic Church. I have remained a loyal Roman Catholic but it hurts me very much to hear from Novus Ordo Priests as to how wrong we were in the pre-Vatican Council Church. Is it wrong for me to lament all of this which was brought upon us? Does it make me a spammer to so indicate my displeasure with what happened to our awesome and sacred liturgy?
It was more than the media.
After the development of doctrine in Vatican II, and the faithful stewardship of Bl John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI. Readers should know that:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, referred to in “Christ Denied” TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).
But before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers “The SIECUS Circle”, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.
The ‘60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.
The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.
Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak—coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism.
How many Catholics know this? The great papal teaching and guidance of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have nurtured the reform of seminaries and the rejuvenation of the apostolate of the laity, with a resurgence of faith and action among the young, in the midst of the secular chaos of today.
Now with another and new scandal in the Church cannot we see the work of the devil brought in with the modern world when we opened that window to let “fresh air” in. We have been mislead with Vatican II.
Yes. If one is not sure where they stand then it would be wise to consult the Catholic Catechism.
The comment is inspired by the last paragraph of this timely article, if you want to look at it. As Roman Catholics and other Christians, many of us find ourselves surrounded by those who stubbornly pick and choose what they want to adopt in faith and morals as presented by Vatican II and in the new edition of the Catholic Catechism. Many decide for themselves sticky issues of ordination of women, clerical sexual abuses, gay marriage, the need to attend Mass, Lenten rules, the termination of one’s own life, abortion under varying circumstances, and on and on. That said, I might be accused of being a fundamentalist ultra conservative Catholic. Balderdash! The truths of our faith and morals are objective truths and as such can never change. Christ’s Church holds and teaches these truths. They exist outside of our personal control. That’s why His church will last until the end of time The Pope speaks to people of all generations whether it is year 1 or 2013. Christ still gives us today the gift of His Church by having appointed Peter His first Vicar on earth with authority to teach empowered by the Holy Spirit. And then He commands us today to spread the Gospel to all nations (mankind) – to evangelize. We are not practicing Catholics unless we subscribe to the Articles of Faith and Morals that define us as Catholics. To pick and choose according to our own desires and to make our own rules are a rejection and an insult to this awesome gift God has given us. Thankfully, in a most pastoral way, the Church reaches out with ministries of instruction. For those of us today, key tools of instruction are Vatican II and the Catholic Catechism. We should be thoughtfully familiar with them. While the Church does not change, it does accommodate itself to the times and needs of the faithful. The Catechism is a reality road map to eternal life. What could be more important?
If you think the devil wasn’t there during the 2nd vatical council, think again.
review the locution of PopeLeoXIII and see the change from that time (1880’s) to now. Never before as we know has man been tempted by the devil like now.
There are 2 parts to us a body and a soul. The body will go in less than 100 yrs., The soul will live forever.
The devil’s workers are everywhere—learn to recognize them and resist them or your soul will suffer.
To Thomas L. Yes, it was the golden age before Vatican II. The convents, seminaries, Catholic schools were full. The churchs had a 90% attendance rate compared to about 25% today. Confessional lines were long, unlike today. A large majority of Catholics believed in the teachings, unlike today. Over 50% of Catholic are pro-choice. You can’t be a Catholic and be pro-choice. You would be considered a heretic before Vatican II.
As far as ecumenism goes, where exactly are we seeing the meeting of the minds here? Is the joining of the Churches immanent? Is there a day in the future where the Eastern Churches will acknowledge the primacy of Rome? They agreed to it at the Council of Florence in the 13th C. When the representatives returned to their countries they were bounced by the churches there!
Why is it whenever we hear of ecumenism we hear of The Church adapting to them and not the other way around? After all, they would have to accept the tenet that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I just don’t see that.
The devastation of the Church is all around us. It not only the big things like the open heresies of bishops and priests. But in little things, like leaving the pew to go to the bathroom during the holiest time of the Mass, to the shabby dress code some people have, to the removal of the sanctuary to the side of the altar.
The Traditionalists know the sickness that the Church is suffering from. They want to return to a time when Saturday Night Live wouldn’t dare make fun of the Pope’s retirement. That was a Church that was not riven with scandal. That was the Church Militant. How much more can she take? Mahony and now O’Brien? Unfortunately the Traditionalists don’t seem to have any pull within the Church hierarchy. Witness how the SSPX is treated while Protestants seem to be treated much more kindly - including offered Communion hosts. That used to be a sacrilege, by the way. A mortal sin.
Gee, what’s a mortal sin? Get it?
John XXIII called the Council for I consider to be not a good reason. The rationale was fuzzy all along and it’s reflected in the fuzzy wording of the documents. VII essentially attempted to redefine Objective Truth. And that’s why the innovations took over the Church after the Council. This redefinition of Objective Truth spread to the world at large which quickly spurred the revolutions of the ‘60’s. And that’s where we are today.
We need to pray that the new Pope will have the courage to face the truth of what’s wrong with the Church and do something about it.
Oremus.
We should not use the words “traditionalist” or “modernist” when it comes to our Faith.
We are all one Church and must strive for unity, not division.
There is room for all of us within the Catholic Church.
However, to gain true unity in our Faith we must drive out heretics and schismatics who are obstinate in their scandalous grave sin. 1 Cor 5:11-13.
All Faithful must ahdere to the CCC.
“ This catechism will thus contain both the new and the old (cf. Mt 13:52), because the faith is always the same yet the source of ever new light. ” - Pope John Paul II (CCC pg 4).
By reading: the Bible, the CCC, Code of Canon Law, GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) for the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and the 1962 Missal for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, we can help stamp out errors and abuses.
* * *
The Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” are weapons of WISDOM - weapons against confusion, ignorance, heresy, schism, and scandal that causes the loss of Souls.
Guy, Pope John Paul II did not call the II Vatican Council. The documents were written by Pope Pope Paul VI in the mid-60’s.
I didn’t know what to believe about II Vatican until I read the 16 Documents. I didn’t even want a commentary with any personal opinion, just the facts.
You can find them all on the Vatican web site using the link above.
The Decree on Ecumenism is called: “Unitatis Redintegratio”. At the end you will find the footnote quotes from the Bible, etc.
When you read it, you should find that many of the things that happened are not necessarily what was in the Decree. This is why we each have an obligation to read if we want the truth.
______
CCC: ” 816 “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.
The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God. “
Thomas L, one is still considered a heretic and schismatic if they support abortion. This is all in the CCC.
The problem is that we must encourage our Bishops to enforce Canon 915 to stop Sacrilege against the “Real Presence”.
And to publically excommunicate according to Canon 1399 those who are publically obstinate in grave Sin to stop the scandal.
1 Cor 5:11-13.
(Code of Canon Law was updated in 1983, and does allow for excommunication. Canon law can be found on the Vatican web site.)
Knowledge is power even within the Church. Always let your Diocese Bishop know what you expect in accord with Church teaching. According to Canon Law - the Laity has an obligation to do so.)
Anne, you’re right, we shouldn’t use the words Traditionalist. But Modernist was coined by Leo XIII who wrote at length about “modernism”. Which is a corrupting influence in the Church. Truly sponsored by the devil himself. A modernist is a Mason at heart. The masons have as their primary goal the destruction of the Catholic faith. So calling someone “modernist” is calling a spade a spade.
I prefer “Catholic”. All these divisions and subdivisions have been created by the media that wants to set one group in the Church against another.
The Church represents Objective Truth. To quote Al Hurley above -
“The truths of our faith… are objective truths and as such can never change. Christ’s Church holds and teaches these truths. They exist outside of our personal control… The Pope speaks to people of all generations whether it is year 1 or 2013. Christ still gives us today the gift of His Church by having appointed Peter His first Vicar on earth with authority to teach empowered by the Holy Spirit.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. The poorly catechized Catholic of today selects what he wants to believe and rejects what he doesn’t like or agree with. Now who is doing this catechizing? It’s poorly trained instructors under the aegis of the local Bishops. There doesn’t seem to be any control exercised by the hierarchy. Our citizens are taught to question everything, including their religion. People make it up as they go along.
What does it mean that The Church subsist in the Catholic Church? Is there more than one church? I thought we were one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Notice the word “one.” This was part of the ecumenism, Vatican II wanted to include Protestant churches.
Hi Joe, there is not more than one true Church instututed by Jesus - the Catholic Church is the true Church. The goal is to acknowledge the limited truth of some other faiths, but bring them into the fullness of our Faith.
There are more pargraphs in the CCC, and more info in the Vatican II docs.
Subsist within the Catholic Church means - exists within the Catholic Church.
- - - -
CCC: ” 2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is “the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.”
By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them “to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.”
The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good.
It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies. “
@Joe Decarlo That is a great question. What effort have you spent seeking an authoritative answer?
To help you, I offer the following:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/OBDOMIHS.HTM
You will see that your fears are unfounded.
Anne,
I know JPII did not write the documents of VII. He was a perito there - an observer. Neither did Paul VI write the documents. Paul VI put into practice what he perceived to be the changes that VII permitted and turned things upside down.
You’re right the Council did not demand these changes. However, the documents were so ambiguously written that they left their interpretation up to individuals in the hierarchy of the Church and egotistical theologians who disagreed with Traditional Church teachings.
There was nothing about eliminating Latin from the Mass. The turning of the priest vs. the people or the elimination of the altar rails. The Bishops did all these things on their own with the tacit approval of the Church leadership at the highest levels. The shame was that they were not corrected by Rome. Just like today wayward Catholic politicians are allowed to voice their errors without harm and continue to lead souls astray.
Do not to argue & cast aspersions my fellow Catholics. Givonni Montini was & is the problem with Vatican II, he should in no way be beatified, he should be denounced ! In the 50’s Padre Pio told Fr. Luigi Villa that our Lord wanted him to dedicate his life to defend the Church against ecclesiastical freemasonry. Fr. Villa accepted this cross & through his Bishop was given permission by Pope Pius XII to proceed. He did so diligently, recorded his findings & when the first attempt to Beatify Montini was started, Fr. Villa presented his evidence & quashed it. Fr. Villa passed away on 18 Nov 2012. The Montini faction, still in positions of authority, immediately re-presented his Beatification process in Dec 2012. If Fr. Villa’s findings were valid enough to stop their first attempt they should remain so on the 2nd or any subsequent attempts. Do diligence requires a thorough investigation, there is no necessity for speed ! To date the Vatican has not refuted the findings of Fr. Villa. None of the accused prelates ever denied his accusations.
Ven. Pope Paul Vl was not the problem! When he died, commentators said, “Pope Paul Vl will go down in history as the Pope who was never listened to”. Paul Vl did all he could to stop the madness after Vatican ll. Just an example of some of the things he said are this, “I detect the smoke of satan has entered the very house of God”, “My crown of thorns has been the way priests are acting today”, “When we spoke of freedom at the Council, it was not the freedom to do what one wishes. The freedom we spoke of at the Council was freedom from sin”, “There are those in the Church today that say the Holy Spirit speaks to them directly. If this spirit of which they speak, says anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. Then I DECLARE it is not the Holy Spirit” (Here he was refering to the Charismtic Movement). The problem today with how we view Ven. Pope Paul Vl is the fact that we know little or nothing about this Great Pontiff. It was the same with Bl. John XXlll, liberals hailed him as their own when in fact Bl. John XXlll has been referred to as more Traditional than his predessors Ven. Pius Xll and Pope Pius Xl. We need to study who Ven. Paul Vl really was and not go by what his detractors say about him.
Guy, I fully agree with your post of Feb 26th, 12:57 PM.
The problem was and still is national “Bishop Conferences” that received INDULTS from Church officials at the Vatican.
If anyone knows of ALL the documented INDULTS granted to the USA in the past 60 years, I certainly would like to read them. It is my understanding that most a limited to a certain number of years.
Look, I don’t want to cast aspersions on Paul VI. It’s beyond my ken. However I lived through that period and the feeling was that the Church was reinventing itself from the inside out. As though what had gone on for 2000 years was wrong. The new Church was going to be the way to go.
After 50 years we can see the results. There is division in the Church. We have conservative, traditionalist, progressive, modern Catholics where we once had just “Catholics”. I don’t see how this is a positive step. Most of the devastation took place during Paul VI pontificate. Add to this some of the background information that has come forward about Pope Montini, I fail to understand how he came to be beatified. Are they going to beatify every Pope since 1960? How is this possible? What’s going on?
See the above post by Great Bear and Anne, check out this link. The mother of the Pope without a cross on it.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3456306.0.html
Hi Tom Leith. thank you for that ewtn interview with the pope. Before I posed the question, I knew what the answer. That is what lawyers do. lol. They know the answer before they asked it. My problem with that is the Catholic church has lost its identity. We placated they Jews by taking certain language out of the bible. We placated Protestants by changing the mass which is similar to a Protestant service. Don’t forget there were 6 Protestant ministers as “observers” at Vatican II. We no longer convert, because we don’t want to annoy other Christians denominations and the Jews.
Priests no longer talk about hell, Satan, mortal sin. They don’t reprimand their flock when they see 2 people at confession and the whole congregation rec. communion. They don’t have a dress code. I was watching EWTN and a caller asked Father Pacwa why the priests don’t talk about sin, the devil, etc. Father said that in the 60’s they were told that they were scaring the people, so they now talk about love. When the priests were so called “scaring” the people, we had a 90% attendance rate at mass, the seminaries and convents were full, long lines at confession, and we didn’t have this division within the church, not that I know I’ve because I was in high school when Vat II began. Now, they talk of the unconditional love of God. No, there is NOT unconditional love of God, because if there was there would not be a hell. There are conditions for his love, e.g. the 10 commandments, and the laws of the church. God will forgive if you are penitent, but if you are not…
And now with Pope Benedict’s retirement, we can only hope and pray that the next Pope will be courageous enough to tackle the need for clarifications re the Council V2; if it was not a dogmatic council and, in fact, a purely pastoral one, it must be recognized that it was blown up to be dogmatic. Everything in the pre-Vatican II era was wrong, incorrect, and shameful, and the SPIRIT of Vatican II, born at the end of V2, should end all of our errant ways. This has been a nightmare to me.
None of us asked for the changes brought about by Vatican II; it literally corrupted the Church. The changes weren’t needed, and the so-called peritii who hijacked the council are not to be found. We have had a bunch of priests who have gone haywire with all kinds of things in the SPIRIT of Vatican II. Just what is this so-called “spirit of Vatican II?”
I have witnessed a whole congregation (order)of priests go wild with it, and they pushed the radical changes which have virtually destroyed thealtar swing his arms church. My parish church (building) is not a temple of God; it is a meeting hall. The tabernacle is way off to the side of the movable table used for an altar. The priest is nothing more than a presider who comes to the altar swinging his arms as he processes to what used to be called a sanctuary, and we are constantly referred to as an assembly. In fact, the Novus Ordo Mass has all the trappings of a high school assembly. Let us hope and pray for an end to what has happened to our church.
Howard you are so right. I’ve been scratching my head for years asking myself what is going on???? Men come into church with their hats on; women with practically nothing on; the lines for communion are long, the lines to confession are non-existent. The priest does not bless the altar when he comes to say mass. Between the altar girls, the eucharistic ministers and the priest there is Mass confusion. Are we not to focus on the real presence of Jesus Christ whom we are about to receive? There is no reverence - not from the priests (thought they really try) and the laity. There used to be a red lamp in front of the tabernacle on the altar to indicate God’s presence. No more. If VII was a pastoral Council then our shepherds have been feeding a bunch of grass for sure. Where’s the meat?
What was VII to supposed to fix? No one has been able to answer that question to me satisfactorily. We are seeing the ugly fruits of what happened sixty years ago. In two generations they have managed to destroy all that was built up in 2000 years. Paul VI could have stopped the madness. He didn’t. He promulgated the Novus Ordo - he approved it and not only that but basically forbade the TLM. Now he is blessed. How come all the popes since VII are being beatified? Bet ya Benedict will be next. There is a lot of blame to go around. Mostly, I lay it at the feet of Satan and his new hordes that entered the Church, as Paul VI said.
I agree with you, Guy, and although I have never gotten involved with the SSPX since the mess of Vatican II aftermath occurred, I may well give it some serious consideration. I pray for the SSPX to be canonically recognized, because they are certainly Catholic. They are us! Their zeal for the Church is tremendous, and they have much to give the whole church as it tries to renew itself. I do think, however, that the SSPX should reconsider what our basic purpose is in ecumenism. I do not think that our past approaches to bringing back/bringing in converts was pragmatic enough in strategy. It created a backlash among many, an automatic turn-off for many non-Catholics. We don’t have to be triumphalistic in our verbiage vis-à-vis those who are not Roman Catholic. Not being so does not in any way warrant the Novus Ordo Liturgy. I do not consider the Novus Ordo Liturgy a viable way to persuade non-Catholics to join us, because it and the various novelties brought about by Vatican II have lost more Catholics than the gain of non-Catholics into our church. I recall the faith healing services which the pastor of my parish in Reston, Virginia had, at which people were falling on the floor and rising from the floor muttering gibberish which the pastor called glossalalia. The priest was putting his hand on people’s foreheads and they would go into some kind of a trancelike state, and fall. There was a man assigned to accompany the priest in the “prayer line,” and he would catch them sufficiently to ward off physical injury in the fall to the floor. That was called being slain in the spirit. I could not believe my eyes in seeing this in what was supposed to be a Catholic Church. This no longer exists in the parish, but the parish is a jumble of iconoclasm and various new attenuations of all kinds. So much for the congregation of priests assigned to this parish who have wrought all of this. And they continue their attitudes even today! In the 70s one of these priests in a homily added an eighth sacrament for us, and he said that it was scripture. (By no means do I wish to imply that it is not the word of God, and that it can be instrumental in bringing God’s grace, but as far as I am concerned it is the Church which should postulate a meaningful interpretation of it.) And all of this has been in the hermineutic of continuity? How can this kind of foolishness be viewed as being a continuation of Tradition or viewed in the light of Tradition? Cardinal Ottaviani was correct in advising Pope John XXIII to not call a Council. He and the “doom sayers” were correct. The new Pope should continue the dialogue with the SSPX, and some great clarifications will have to be rendered about Vatican II. And the SSPX will also have to remember that its primary mission is the same as the primary mission of the Church at large. It should also realize that because of the authority of Peter and his successors, that the Mass of Paul VI is basically a valid Mass. I do, and I want to see it changed more in line with tradition and certain of the parts of the Mass should be in Latin.
@Howard Hines
.
> And all of this has been in the hermineutic of continuity?
.
He said, in his best Don Rickles voice.
.
The trouble with the SSPX is they also have a hermineutic of rupture. If we can believe the recent NYT / CBS poll, the majority of Catholics share this opinion. The difference is the SSPX think the (alleged) rupture is bad, and the majority think it is good. What Pope Emeritus Benedict and Blessed Pope John Paul II have done is to insist the (alleged) rupture is illusory.
.
We have all experienced effects of the mistaken, howsoever widespread, belief that the rupture is real, but it is getting better. If anyone had told me fifteen years ago things would be as good in the Church as they are now, I’d have thought he was nuts. I am fortunate to live in St. Louis, but things are getting better elsewhere too. You just have to seek it out. There is another strategy too: be sought-out. We here have a small lay organization called Credo (google credo & St. Louis). We do adult education—a speakers series really—focused on the culture of Catholicism and the rational basis for faith. Sort of like EWTN. Maybe you could start something like Credo where you live. Shoot—call it Credo Nashville (or wherever). You will find any number of clergy who will be thrilled about it and help you. Priests and Bishops are dying to find people who take the faith seriously enough to want to learn about it and live it.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/05/us/catholics-poll-graphic.html
Howard, I am not a member of the SSPX. However, in seeing the success they seem to be having especially in growing in the US re their new Seminary in Pennsylvania, I decided to take a closer look. Why are they having trouble reconciling with Rome? They are the Church as it was. Why are they being treated so shabbily by Rome? What’s behind this continuous slap-down of the Society? Why is Rome so adamant in keeping to the disastrous policies that have so destroyed the Church? Are they insane?
I don’t think so. At the risk of being a doomsayer, I believe “the smoke of Satan” has entered the Holy Church. The Church of today is not the Church I grew up with 50-60 years ago. And this evil is being supported and propagated by Satan thoughout the highest levels Church levels.
From listening to Bp. Fellay’s hour long sermon on what happened during the recent negotiations to regularize the SSPX one comes away shaking one’s head. I do believe +Fellays version recounting the events and meetings that took place that ultimately resulted in collapse of the talks. It’s truly sad. If interested you can hear his talk here:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/bishop-fellay-look-back-at-2012.html
http://www.sspxaudio.com/20121228-Bishop-Fellay-Conference.mp3
It’ll send shivers up your spine.
I have learned that the SSPX understands the mission of the Church, certainly better than the priests in the example you gave at your Church. If you listen to any one of their sermons (on YouTube) you will come away with a deeper, more relevant message and experience. They are no PC in any way.
The fruits of VII are everywhere as I have seen some wacky things at my Church too. I have also seen some very bizarre masses in pictures from around the Catholic World. Clown costumes, baloons, dancing girls, you name it. No wonder the Church is in crisis.
Let us all pray to the Blessed Mother who warned us of these evils in the past. Let us pray that God will not abandon us, send Satan packing and set His church on the right path to sanity and sanctity.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.