What if the Second Vatican Council was held 10 years earlier?
#21
(12-06-2010, 01:31 AM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(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. 

I'll definitely leave it.

C.
Reply
#22
(12-05-2010, 11:42 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: 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.

Perfection is an attribute of God, not Satan.

C.
Reply
#23
In 1952 Europe had not been rebuilt, and America was still working poor, neither had been influenced greatly by money and greed.
When people are poor they turn to God instinctively, so Western Society had to be built up more before they would abandon their instincts. By 1962 my father's generation could see vistas opening where the sky was the limit thus loosening the grip of their instincts.
A certain utopian optimism took over and Voila, the Council reflected this new understanding of ourselves. We went from a handful of cars per a hundred families when I was very young, to a car for every family, to suburbia with two cars for every family, to my brother and sister-in-law in a gated community and their two kids, with five in the garage and driveway. He bought an extra in case one has to go into the garage for a day. I told him if he'd  pay as much as my SS and pay for my major medical, I'd come down south and be his fleet manager.
The Vatican II was only one piece of the multi-pronged attack by Satan. That plan has so many moving parts we don't understand it taken in all at once. That's why we can not fix it. That must come from God.
tim
Reply
#24
(12-06-2010, 05:36 AM)Cetil Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:42 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: 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.

Perfection is an attribute of God, not Satan.

C.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.  satan was waiting for the perfect time for the big attack, i.e. VII.  There, is that better?  ::)
Reply
#25
(12-05-2010, 10:39 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 10:18 PM)Cetil Wrote: Ironically enough, it was Pius XII who was promoting Bugnini in the fifties, and John XXIII who went along with or perhaps wholeheartedly approved of his removal from the Liturgical Preparatory Commission.


The Holy Week revisions are particularly painful. Read NLM's excellent synopsis of this unnecessary "reform" that is never given the press and discussion from traditionalists it merits.

I haven't read the entire 9 part series, but just glancing at it, it appears that he says that the current NO Easter vigil is closer to the pre-1955 books than the 1962 Missal?  Did I understand that correctly?
Reply
#26
Cetil Wrote:You know, one question I have is just what was on the unfinished agenda of Vatican I? Had it not been interrupted by the Franco-Prussian war perhaps those in the Vatican would not have considered another council later on?

From what I've read it planned to have a constitution on the Church mostly focused on bishops (the schema of which is cited three times by Lumen Gentium; see below). It was also going to address the relationship between the spiritual and temporal powers, produce a new catechism, declare St. Joseph patron of the Church, and deal with various general disciplinary reforms relating to the missions, the Eastern Churches, religious life, etc. It's remaining goals weren't really much different than those proposed for Vatican II (of course the results would have most likely been different given the Pontiff in charge, even though according to St. Anthony Mary Claret's autobiography, many bishops had less than honorable intentions going in--mostly to get rich).

cites by Lumen Gentium to Vatican I Schema Ecclesia Christi Wrote:This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)
----
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*)
----
The importance of the profession of the evangelical counsels is seen in the fact that it fosters the perfection of love of God and love of neighbor in an outstanding manner and that this profession is strengthened by vows.(6*)

Interesting enough, Pope Pius XI planned to reconvene the First Vatican Council.
Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio Wrote:We scarcely dare to include, in so many words, in the program of Our Pontificate the reassembling of the Ecumenical Council which Pius IX, the Pontiff of Our youth, had called but had failed to see through except to the completion of a part, albeit most important, of its work.

It was probably the political issues in Europe that arose during his pontificate that made it impractical.





Reply
#27
(12-07-2010, 08:18 AM)dymphna17 Wrote:
(12-06-2010, 05:36 AM)Cetil Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 11:42 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: 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.

Perfection is an attribute of God, not Satan.

C.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.  satan was waiting for the perfect time for the big attack, i.e. VII.  There, is that better?  ::)

How do you know? Did he tell you?

I don't wear them, so no problem. But yours are in a bunch.  :laughing:  :laughing:

C.
Reply
#28
I think Pius XII was far to prudent to call a council. I have heard that he had thought of it but decided not too because of all the modernism infecting the Church. Then John XXIII comes along and says that they are just "prophets of doom". Well we see who was right there. As to what would have happened I have no idea my guess is Dignitatis Humanae and Lumen Gentium wouldn't exist I doubt the phrase "Subsists in" regarding the Church would have come up. Liturgicaly I think we would have the Mass of 1965, because remember the Freemason Hannibal Bugnini was Ven. Pius XII's head of liturgy but Pius wrote Mediator Dei in which he condemned going back in time with the liturgy so my guess is we would have the Mass of 1965 at worst.
Reply
#29
(12-05-2010, 09:23 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: One of the things that was pretty clear about Pius XII is that he was trying to avoid a council at all cost because I think he in some ways knew what was coming. However having said that I think that only Paul VI an no other would have been foolish enough to give so much power to Bugnini.

Pius XII allowed that Freemason to completely screw with the Holy Week rites.
Reply
#30
MaterLaeta Wrote:I haven't read the entire 9 part series, but just glancing at it, it appears that he says that the current NO Easter vigil is closer to the pre-1955 books than the 1962 Missal?  Did I understand that correctly?

You're reading Part 9 which deals with 1955 Revised Holy Week vs. the Post-Conciliar Rites. The NO Easter Vigil did undo a number of the 1955 additions/omissions and restored a number of prayers that were in fact suppressed in the 1955 Easter Vigil, but in no way does it come close to resembling the pre-1955 Holy Week. Regardless it should be said that the 1955 Revised Holy Week is an utter hack-job and it's a shame that this fact seems to have alluded traditionalists. I have heard on numerous occasions that the Institute of Christ the King makes use of the pre-1955 Holy Week, but I cannot say for certain. It'd certainly be wonderful to see.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)