What if the Second Vatican Council was held 10 years earlier?
#11
(12-05-2010, 11:27 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 

That needs to be sourced if in fact it happened.

C.

Agreed.    I must say, there is so much secrecy surrounding Bugini it is quite extraordinary.  My goodness if I was a fly on the wall during his tenure at the Vatican...
Reply
#12
The world wasn't ready to explode in the 1950s.  It was still being primed.  The outcome may have been different, but only slightly.  satan knew he had to be patient for perfection.
Reply
#13
(12-05-2010, 11:30 PM)HammerOfHeretics Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:27 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 

That needs to be sourced if in fact it happened.

C.

Agreed.    I must say, there is so much secrecy surrounding Bugini it is quite extraordinary.  My goodness if I was a fly on the wall during his tenure at the Vatican...

F. Antonelli (later Cardinal) is "the fly on the wall". Long thought to be a Bugnini supporter he was in fact quite the opposite and kept a diary of the work of the liturgical consilium. It's now been published at least in part in "The Development of the Liturgical Reform: As Seen by Cardinal Ferdinando Antonelli from 1948 to 1970" by Nicolo Giampietro:
"In Antonelli’s analysis, what began as true, organic, and necessary development quickly turned into decline once this committee was formed. His notes provide a clear understanding of the actual process by which we have the newly revised Rites, Breviary, and Calendar. While expert periti worked on the various commissions studying particular questions, non-expert members who sat on the Consilium voted on their proposals. Further, the Consilium was responsible for drawing up new texts. He ultimately concludes that the Consilium had basically turned into a “continuation of the Council” and notes that many of its members were both theologically incapable as well as progressive in their outlook. In some instances he alludes to their tendencies to “de-sacralize” the Liturgy"

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.c...nelli.html

C.
Reply
#14
(12-05-2010, 11:27 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 

That needs to be sourced if in fact it happened.

C.

This isn't college. I can't even begin to remember where I read or heard it. I just remember that line like the hundreds of other things and info you read over the years.  There is so much one reads and hears over time, that there is no way you can source every single thing. You can do your own research.
Reply
#15
(12-06-2010, 12:01 AM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:27 PM)Cetil Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 

That needs to be sourced if in fact it happened.

C.

This isn't college. I can't even begin to remember where I read or heard it. I just remember that line like the hundreds of other things and info you read over the years.  There is so much one reads and hears over time, that there is no way you can source every single thing. You can do your own research.

So what this isn't college?? If you're going to make assertions you can't back up then the assertions must be considered to lack any credibility. Otherwise, people could make up anything and post anything up here and we would have no idea where the story came from or if it is reliable. No, other people are not responsible for researching points YOU are trying to make! That was made clear to me in high school.

C.
Reply
#16
(12-06-2010, 12:11 AM)Cetil Wrote: So what this isn't college?? If you're going to make assertions you can't back up then the assertions must be considered to lack any credibility. Otherwise, people could make up anything and post anything up here and we would have no idea where the story came from or if it is reliable. No, other people are not responsible for researching points YOU are trying to make! That was made clear to me in high school.

C.

I don't make things up. I remember many sayings or quotes over the years, but it's impossible to remember the sources of many of them. It's just my word and memory. Take it or leave it. 
Reply
#17
My guess is that the same destruction would have happened had the council come about in the 50's or 60's.
The problem with the council is that it let loose already existing modernist forces within the Church.
These modernists were waiting from the end of the 19th Century. Just read Pope St. Pius X and you will see that this has been long in coming and 10 years would have signified nothing if the documents the council produced were the same ambiguous celebratory clap-trap bunk that we are now stuck in dealing with.

What I find more interesting to contemplate, and which is actually based on fact, is that less than 10 years before V2 the Pope had condemned all the modernist errors that reared their head during and after the council, yet no one seems to think this is at all strange or abnormal in the life of the Church.

This is a terrible scandal and now of course BXVI is finally trying to address it by smoothing over the radical edges.  This is a terrible scandal that exposes the Church to huge internal and external ridicule, let alone confusion of the faithful....

Tradition needs to be respected, especially by the Popes, and this I am sure will be the lesson of history learned after this sad epoch is written centuries from now.
Reply
#18
(12-06-2010, 01:41 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: My guess is that the same destruction would have happened had the council come about in the 50's or 60's.
The problem with the council is that it let loose already existing modernist forces within the Church.
These modernists were waiting from the end of the 19th Century. Just read Pope St. Pius X and you will see that this has been long in coming and 10 years would have signified nothing if the documents the council produced were the same ambiguous celebratory clap-trap bunk that we are now stuck in dealing with.

St. Pius X tried to destroy the Modernists, but he couldn't. He just forced them underground. They resurfaced with a vengeance in the '40s and '50s.

(12-06-2010, 01:41 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: This is a terrible scandal and now of course BXVI is finally trying to address it by smoothing over the radical edges.  This is a terrible scandal that exposes the Church to huge internal and external ridicule, let alone confusion of the faithful....

Pope Benedict won't be able to fix it. He is a Modernist himself. He has conservative leanings and a traditional side is some matters, but in the end, Benedict wants Modernism accommodated with tradition.
Reply
#19
(12-05-2010, 11:14 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: I actually remember reading somewhere that some of the cardinals had suggested a council in the 50's, but Pope Pius XII told them that it was a bad idea because the Modernists had taken over the Church, and he couldn't risk them taking control. 

I remember reading something similar a long time ago. Either way, Pope Pius XII "saw it coming" and condemned - or at least warned about what would hurt the church with his encyclical:  Mediator Dei - unfortunately, the crooks used it as a road map and did what Pope Pius XII said not to do.

But back to the thread, if V2 was held in the 50's it's hard for me personally to think that it would have been as bad, mainly because like dymphna17 said, the timing was off, it simply was not time yet.

 



Reply
#20
If V2 had happended 10 years earlier, then the Rosay crusade would have been in 1999 to 2000.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)