FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: First Vatican Council: Why wasn't it finished by BJXXIII?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I was reading the diocesan newspaper ( sometimes they do sneak in tidbits about the lone couple tlm communities) about The Greatness of V2  :confused: I was mostly interested in the beginning where our first bishop attended Vatican I. It stated that B Pius IX never closed the original council because of revolution etc. The kicker was when they said one option for BJXXIII was to finish Vatican I. However, he chose to just declare VI closed and to start V2. What would have happened if VI was continued? Would we have had the same results? It is often said that V2 continued where V1 left off, but BJXXIII declared the original to be finished. Yes, many of you older folks ave heard these rants before, but I'm just finally grasping the bizarre situation of "The council that happened but proclaimed nothing." The more you look at it, the more V2 looks to be some enigma of Church history.
Well John XXIII didn't finish it because he wanted a liberal revolution in the Church. The Very thing V I was trying to fortify against. The reason I think VII never proclaimed anything infallibly is because the Holy ghost will always be present with the Church and would not allow the Vatican II heresies to be foisted on the laity on pain of mortal sin. One day, probably later than sooner a Pope will come along and declare VII invalid and restore the Church. Until that happens just remember what Our Lady of La Salette said about the future.
“Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been.”

TeaGuyTom Wrote:... one option for BJXXIII was to finish Vatican I. However, he chose to just declare VI closed and to start V2.

Is that established fact?  Some internet sources say John XXIII closed VI in 1960 but they don't cite any official document; while others say it was never formally closed.  ???



I remember it said BJXXIII called the Council so he could end the first. The thinking was only a Council can close a Council.

tim
I always wondered if the Holy Spirit's hand in the VATII concil wasn't in preventing it to be declared dogmatic thus allowing everyone to ignore it or even reject it.
Indeed, why didn't Paul VI declare the VATII council infallible and binding on all the faithfuls?
(11-11-2012, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]I remember it said BJXXIII called the Council so he could end the first. The thinking was only a Council can close a Council.

tim

Tim, I enjoy your narratives of auld lang syne. Do you remember things from your parents, aunts, uncles, etc. when word of the impeding council came to be, or even when the conclave took forever to elect the new pope after Pious XII? Did people in your environs know something sinister was afoot?
(11-11-2012, 11:18 AM)Heinrich Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2012, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]I remember it said BJXXIII called the Council so he could end the first. The thinking was only a Council can close a Council.

tim

Tim, I enjoy your narratives of auld lang syne. Do you remember things from your parents, aunts, uncles, etc. when word of the impeding council came to be, or even when the conclave took forever to elect the new pope after Pious XII? Did people in your environs know something sinister was afoot?

Heinrich, I remember the adults saying BJXXIII was calling the council to have all the Bishops there to decide what to do about the third secret. This was the undertow, what the pew sitters thought was going on. From the pulpit some were nearly elated, and others merely happy. It appeared to me everyone knew this wasn't a Council like the others, to straighten heresy or problems, but something new, possibly a prelude to a more peaceful world.

I was fourteen when the council came in 62. I'd like to tell you this, fourteen then was like a freshman in college now. I was as aware as most grown-ups. There were no pre-conceived notions of what was going to happen. There was a definite difference between the Clerics and us. We had our opinions and they had theirs. No one was suspecting a New Mass, maybe more participation but the same TLM. It never struck anyone's imagination to change the Mass.

One of my childhood pal's dad was Knight of Colombus, and he made authoritarians look liberal, but even he suspected nothing. If he had heard something, he'd have been on the next boat back to Italy with his sword. We were blind sided. By that time us Catholics for the first time were climbing the ladder to the middle class, and some had gone up a few rungs, and bought that cheezy house in Suburbia for $18,000.

Now after it stared the world was afire with reporting, and we were not savy enough to realize the papers and radio and tv had their own agendas. I mean we knew the Chgo.Trib. was republican, and the Sun Times was democrat, but deeper than that we knew not. The reporting begat rumors and the wildest speculation was born. The modernists were ready and gave those wild speculations flight the moment they could, and the pew sitters marvelled at the wonder !

Here's a little something about those times. No one Catholic whether Democrat or Republican was for the pill, or abortion. No matter we were all Catholics.
The Mayor got on the localnews for going to the Stations of the Cross or Midnight Christmas Mass, and he was dyed in the wool Irish Democrat Pol. He also told the Chicago Police to "shoot to kill" the 1968 demostrators, and was stopped by the National Democrats, or there would have been mass casualities.

In the wake, the consensus was, this can not be. My extended family and our old neighborhood friends were too close to the religion of the Villages in Italy. This wasn't that anymore. I believe the same was going on in the other ethnic groups, and this was the fall off, not that they went off to become Prots. They stayed home, me included. The danger is without the Church it's a very dangerous place and slowly but surely you become like all the rest of the pagans.

You see we thought Italians in the Church held the rest of Europe in tow, because they were goofy. We could see from Chicago this was no longer so. Italian Holy Cards, precious metal Saint's medals, handmade Italian rosaries, etc. went away.

tim

 

.


(11-11-2012, 03:18 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2012, 11:18 AM)Heinrich Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2012, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]I remember it said BJXXIII called the Council so he could end the first. The thinking was only a Council can close a Council.

tim

Tim, I enjoy your narratives of auld lang syne. Do you remember things from your parents, aunts, uncles, etc. when word of the impeding council came to be, or even when the conclave took forever to elect the new pope after Pious XII? Did people in your environs know something sinister was afoot?

Heinrich, I remember the adults saying BJXXIII was calling the council to have all the Bishops there to decide what to do about the third secret. This was the undertow, what the pew sitters thought was going on. From the pulpit some were nearly elated, and others merely happy. It appeared to me everyone knew this wasn't a Council like the others, to straighten heresy or problems, but something new, possibly a prelude to a more peaceful world.

I was fourteen when the council came in 62. I'd like to tell you this, fourteen then was like a freshman in college now. I was as aware as most grown-ups. There were no pre-conceived notions of what was going to happen. There was a definite difference between the Clerics and us. We had our opinions and they had theirs. No one was suspecting a New Mass, maybe more participation but the same TLM. It never struck anyone's imagination to change the Mass.

One of my childhood pal's dad was Knight of Colombus, and he made authoritarians look liberal, but even he suspected nothing. If he had heard something, he'd have been on the next boat back to Italy with his sword. We were blind sided. By that time us Catholics for the first time were climbing the ladder to the middle class, and some had gone up a few rungs, and bought that cheezy house in Suburbia for $18,000.

Now after it stared the world was afire with reporting, and we were not savy enough to realize the papers and radio and tv had their own agendas. I mean we knew the Chgo.Trib. was republican, and the Sun Times was democrat, but deeper than that we knew not. The reporting begat rumors and the wildest speculation was born. The modernists were ready and gave those wild speculations flight the moment they could, and the pew sitters marvelled at the wonder !

Here's a little something about those times. No one Catholic whether Democrat or Republican was for the pill, or abortion. No matter we were all Catholics.
The Mayor got on the localnews for going to the Stations of the Cross or Midnight Christmas Mass, and he was dyed in the wool Irish Democrat Pol. He also told the Chicago Police to "shoot to kill" the 1968 demostrators, and was stopped by the National Democrats, or there would have been mass casualities.

In the wake, the consensus was, this can not be. My extended family and our old neighborhood friends were too close to the religion of the Villages in Italy. This wasn't that anymore. I believe the same was going on in the other ethnic groups, and this was the fall off, not that they went off to become Prots. They stayed home, me included. The danger is without the Church it's a very dangerous place and slowly but surely you become like all the rest of the pagans.

You see we thought Italians in the Church held the rest of Europe in tow, because they were goofy. We could see from Chicago this was no longer so. Italian Holy Cards, precious metal Saint's medals, handmade Italian rosaries, etc. went away.

tim

 

.

Tim, If you don't mind my asking, what were people you knew reactions when things did change? Especially when the new Mass came in.  (sorry to derail thread)
There were continuations, like collegiality. But really the 1960s were much different that the 1870s. The post WWII presented many problems that were not really on the table before -- contraception, women priests, nuclear war and peace, the United Nations, and the Church present much more in parts of the world known as the third world.
Pages: 1 2