Vatican II: “Have a little patience, fifty years is nothing”
#1
Interview with Cardinal Brandmuller on Vatican II:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/hom...-ii-17692/

Vatican II: “Have a little patience, fifty years is nothing”

"Vatican Insider" interviews Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a Church historian and scholar of the Second Vatican Council, on the Golden Jubilee of Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council that also provided dogmatic explanations. Had there ever been anything like it previously in the history of the Church?

It does in fact seem as though Vatican II marked the beginning of a new type of Council. The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation.

Shouldn’t a Council be declared a failure if fifty years on it has not been warmly received by the faithful? Benedict XVI warned against a misleading interpretation of the Council, particularly in terms of the hermeneutics of a rift…

This is one of those cliché questions that stem from a new existential sentiment; that feeling of confusion that is typical of our times. But what is fifty years after all?! Cast your mind back to the Council of Nicaea in 325. The disputes surrounding the dogma of this Council - about the nature of the Son, that is, whether he was made of the same substance as the Father or not - continued for more than a hundred years. St. Ambrose was ordained Bishop of Milan on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and had to fight hard against the Arians who refused to accept the Nicene provisions. Briefly afterwards came a new Council: the First Council of Constantinople of 381 which was deemed necessary in order to complete the profession of the faith at Nicaea. During this Council, St. Augustine was given the task of dealing with requests and fighting back heretics until his death in 430. Frankly, even the Council of Trent was not very fruitful until the Golden Jubilee of 1596. It took a new generation of Bishops and prelates to mature in the “spirit of the Council” before its effect could really be felt. We need to allow ourselves a little more breathing space.

Let us talk now about the fruits which the Vatican II produced. Can you comment on this?

First of all of course the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in comparison with the Tridentine Catechism: after the Council of Trent, the Catechismus Romanus was launched in order to provide parish priests, preachers etcetera with guidelines on how to preach and announce the Gospel or evangelize.

Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be considered a consequence of the Council. I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.

With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the Beeldenstorm (the statue/image storm) which occurred in the 18th century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.

Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be decreed per ordre de muft. And we are still paying the cost today.

Response from The Remnant:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...othing.htm
Reply
#2
If the Bugnini Mass is not the Mass of VII then what is? And that is the case when is the CDF going to act to suppress it. Hence if this liturgical obfuscation has not produced what was called by the council then let us abandon it and do as the council you claim says your excellency.
Reply
#3
It is silly to talk about 50 years and patience in the same breath. If our entire life is affected by modernism then it hardly matters if the Church is restored back to health in 1 year or 100 years after our death.

From our perspective the church had defected and the clergy have all lost the faith. The mass has become a protestant service.

I find modern Catholics a joke. It's like hanging around with 60s hippies without the drugs or sex.  Give me a religion with teeth.
Reply
#4
(08-29-2012, 04:02 AM)ggreg Wrote: It is silly to talk about 50 years and patience in the same breath. If our entire life is affected by modernism then it hardly matters if the Church is restored back to health in 1 year or 100 years after our death.

From our perspective the church had defected and the clergy have all lost the faith. The mass has become a protestant service.

I find modern Catholics a joke. It's like hanging around with 60s hippies without the drugs or sex.  Give me a religion with teeth.

Islam has plenty of teeth, non from truth but plenty of teeth, may be you should join them and be satisfied in the eternal damnation of the unbelievers. No Mass not even a NO Mass is a protestant service the Blessed Sacrament makes that impossible. Your anger is of course understandable but your anger must be measured.
Reply
#5
(08-29-2012, 04:29 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: Islam has plenty of teeth, non from truth but plenty of teeth, may be you should join them and be satisfied in the eternal damnation of the unbelievers.

I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. Catholicism has "teeth": it is a religion that takes its God and His eternal truth seriously. It conducts itself accordingly and has for 2000 years. The Novus Ordo doesn't have "teeth"; it conducts itself accordingly and has for 50 years. 
Quote: No Mass not even a NO Mass is a protestant service the Blessed Sacrament makes that impossible.

I don't think that's necessarily true. A priest-turned-Protestant could defect and confect the sacrament in the midst of a charismatic Protestant service. But that wouldn't make it Catholic and we would not be permitted to attend. A valid liturgy does not a Catholic Mass make.
Reply
#6
(08-29-2012, 04:29 AM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(08-29-2012, 04:02 AM)ggreg Wrote: It is silly to talk about 50 years and patience in the same breath. If our entire life is affected by modernism then it hardly matters if the Church is restored back to health in 1 year or 100 years after our death.

From our perspective the church had defected and the clergy have all lost the faith. The mass has become a protestant service.

I find modern Catholics a joke. It's like hanging around with 60s hippies without the drugs or sex.  Give me a religion with teeth.

Islam has plenty of teeth, non from truth but plenty of teeth, may be you should join them and be satisfied in the eternal damnation of the unbelievers. No Mass not even a NO Mass is a protestant service the Blessed Sacrament makes that impossible. Your anger is of course understandable but your anger must be measured.

I know plenty of agnostics and unbelievers who are very decent, moral, upright, honest, chartable people.  They'd put many Trads to shame with their virtuous lives.  It's one reason I find it difficult to believe that their is no salvation outside of the Church, because to these people Jesus was just an historical figure and a kind man, but not meaningfully God and yet they don't seem to deserve eternal damnation. God is their judge, but on what basis he would judge them I cannot fathom.

It's far from obvious that the Catholic Church is true, especially for people who understand that their lives are reasonably good and moral (compared to most) and who wonder why for 30 years the entire hierarchy, Popes included, covered up and assisted the crimes of pederasts.

Besides I don't like hairy women and one wife is enough for me.  Muslims are ignorant assholes in the most part.  I dislike 90% of the ones I've met.  The fruits of their religion are shit.

Reply
#7
He may be representing current thought on an approach to walk back Bugnini's Mass. The Mass of Paul VI isn't that one. His was the TLM, minus the last gospel, which I believe if I remeber right was to be said in the Sacristy. The other change was the Epistle and Gospel were read in the vernacular from the altar. It also had the '55 change of the second altar server's confiteor. It is celebratedalmost nowhere, but maybe the Brompton Oratory, I've heard.. It was in Latin and all of you would recognize it knowing the TLM as you do. It'd skirt all the questions about the Mass per se as it is very close, and that would give them away to address the other problems without the scandal the Mass could bring.

tim
Reply
#8
(08-29-2012, 07:17 AM)ggreg Wrote: I know plenty of agnostics and unbelievers who are very decent, moral, upright, honest, chartable people.  They'd put many Trads to shame with their virtuous lives.  It's one reason I find it difficult to believe that their is no salvation outside of the Church, because to these people Jesus was just an historical figure and a kind man, but not meaningfully God and yet they don't seem to deserve eternal damnation. God is their judge, but on what basis he would judge them I cannot fathom.

Well, a person isn't judged so much for what they do (as it pertains to the substance of the act) but how they do the good (the substance of the act) that they do. There is natural virtue and there is supernatural virtue. Even atheists can perform natural good (for the sake of humanitarianism) because it is within his own power to do it, but supernatural good (good done purely out of love for God) requires a special grace, which raises the act to the supernatural level whereby we merit. I would venture to say that few atheists have true supernatural charity.
Quote:It's far from obvious that the Catholic Church is true, especially for people who understand that their lives are reasonably good and moral (compared to most) and who wonder why for 30 years the entire hierarchy, Popes included, covered up and assisted the crimes of pederasts.

If they're not looking for truth, it is true that it will be "far from obvious." But then again, what is to be said for those who aren't looking for the truth?
Reply
#9
(08-29-2012, 08:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-29-2012, 07:17 AM)ggreg Wrote: I know plenty of agnostics and unbelievers who are very decent, moral, upright, honest, chartable people.  They'd put many Trads to shame with their virtuous lives.  It's one reason I find it difficult to believe that their is no salvation outside of the Church, because to these people Jesus was just an historical figure and a kind man, but not meaningfully God and yet they don't seem to deserve eternal damnation. God is their judge, but on what basis he would judge them I cannot fathom.

Well, a person isn't judged so much for what they do (as it pertains to the substance of the act) but how they do the good (the substance of the act) that they do. There is natural virtue and there is supernatural virtue. Even atheists can perform natural good (for the sake of humanitarianism) because it is within his own power to do it, but supernatural good (good done purely out of love for God) requires a special grace, which raises the act to the supernatural level whereby we merit. I would venture to say that few atheists have true supernatural charity.

Seems a bit unjust to damn them to hell for all eternity.

What evidence is there that the Good Samaritan acted out of anything but natural charity at seeing a fellow man bleeding and dying as the story seems to imply?

In the parable why did Jesus not highlight that the Samaritan acted out of love for God and not purely out of compassion for his fellow man?

The priest and the Levite presumeably had love for God and lacked charity for their fellow man, (though they had their legalistic reasons not to touch an unclean and perhaps dead person).
Reply
#10
(08-29-2012, 08:54 AM)ggreg Wrote: Seems a bit unjust to damn them to hell for all eternity.

For refusing to believe in and serve the God who made them? I am not sure about that. They are serving humanity as an end of itself; they have no intention to serve God. That's a pretty big deal.
Quote:What evidence is there that the Good Samaritan acted out of anything but natural charity at seeing a fellow man bleeding and dying as the story seems to imply?

The commentary on the passages indicates that it was done out of supernatural charity. If you have a Saint Andrew's Missal, see the commentary from this past week.
Quote:In the parable why did Jesus not highlight that the Samaritan acted out of love for God and not purely out of compassion for his fellow man?

Because that wasn't the purpose of the parable. The purpose of the parable was the demonstrate the hypocrisy of the pharisees.
Quote:The priest and the Levite presumeably had love for God and lacked charity for their fellow man, (though they had their legalistic reasons not to touch an unclean and perhaps dead person).

Right, they observed the law as though it were an end of itself. They didn't observe it in reference to love for God. That is why Christ came: not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law with the love of God (Matthew 22:37). That is the whole point of Christianity. Following the substance of the law is one thing; following it for love of God is something entirely different.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)