FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Card. Billot & Merry del Val argue against a council.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Cardinal Billot said:
Quote:Finally, here is the most serious reason, the one which would seem to me absolutely to militate for a negative reply. Resuming the Council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, the modernists, who are already getting ready—as quite certain indications reveal—to profit from the estates general of the Church in order to make revolution, a new '89, the object of their dreams and hopes. They will not succeed, of course, but we would see again those very sad days of the end of the pontificate of Leo XIII and of the beginning of that of Pius X; we would see things even worse, and it would annihilate the happy fruits of the Encyclical Pascendi which silenced them all.
Billot was also especially fearful that
Quote:the proportion, considerable both in numbers and in means of action, of the Irish-American element in Council, would introduce procedures of discussion and propaganda more in accord with democratic usage than with ecclesiastical traditions.
Cardinal Bonzano was concerned about
Quote:the danger that a certain number of bishops, especially foreigners, would try to emphasize their own rights, in opposition to the prerogatives of the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff, under the pretext that Rome centralizes too much.
Cardinal Merry del Val (Pope St. Pius X's secretary of state) asked:
Quote:Would it really be possible to prevent the world press from disturbing and confusing the work of the Ecumenical Council? In 1870 the Pope was master in his own house and the press did not yet have the ability it now has to penetrate everywhere, to spy, and to set traps. Would it be possible to prevent it from acting more or less openly within the Council itself, stirring up people, creating dissension, inhibiting the work, and compromising the result of the debates in the Council itself?
Also:
St. Gregory Nazienzen Wrote:I never saw a council assembled without danger and inconvenience.... To speak truly, I must say that I avoid, as much as I can, assemblies of priests and bishops; I never saw so much as one concluded in a happy and agreeable manner, and which did not tend rather to increase evils than to remove them.
(source)
Thanks for posting that. Rev. Komonchak pretty much belongs to the Bologna school on Vatican II though he has been creaking into a certain
"conservatism" in his later years. Looks to me like he gathered a lot of interesting background material together.

C.
(08-05-2013, 04:28 AM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for posting that. Rev. Komonchak pretty much belongs to the Bologna school on Vatican II
I know Bologna has a reputation of being sympathetic to Marxism, but what's the "Bologna school on Vatican II"? Who else belongs to it? thanks
(08-05-2013, 06:51 AM)Geremia Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-05-2013, 04:28 AM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for posting that. Rev. Komonchak pretty much belongs to the Bologna school on Vatican II
I know Bologna has a reputation of being sympathetic to Marxism, but what's the "Bologna school on Vatican II"? Who else belongs to it? thanks

The Bologna school is the flip side of Pope Benedict's hermeneutic of continuity, they think Vatican II is the super council whose full meaning hasn't been plumbed yet and well that meaning can just keep on changing too. It has had various promoters such as Giuseppe Alberigo and Komanchak is one too.
Together they produced a massive five volume history of Vatican II which hopefully you will never have to read or worse, drop on your foot. Alberigo is dead now and Komonchak is retired but still blogging at Commonweal. I think he is having some second thoughts though. In recent years he has criticized those wanting a female priesthood and some of the other usual fantasies of the now geriatric NCR crowd. Sorry, don't mean to knock the geriatric they deserve better.

C.