Social upheaval before V2
#41
(09-08-2011, 12:18 AM)charlesh Wrote: The Shrubber makes a good point:
(09-07-2011, 07:34 PM)Roger the Shrubber Wrote: Many parish churches built in the early 60s were built with the New Order of the Mass in mind.  They were going to change things whether approved by the council or not.

I came across this, from a speech of Fr. Gommar de Pauw made in 1967. He's talking about how the Church in America had just become de facto schismatic:
Quote:When he was told, for instance, that the first attack of the Modernists would be against the traditional Latin liturgy, Pope John XXIII,
who took responsibility when there was need for it, convoked all the Cardinals living in Rome and all those within reasonable traveling
distance, and ordered them to come to Rome on February 22nd of 1962 – eight months before the opening of the Vatican Council. And most
solemnly, personally leaving the Vatican to go and stand on top of the grave of St. Peter in Rome with all the Cardinals standing next to
him and a score of bishops right underneath him, Pope John, in the form of an apostolic constitution, which is the highest form of papal
intervention next to an infallible dogmatic definition, declared that there was nothing – no council or no bishop – that could touch the
traditional Latin liturgy. He came out and on February 22nd, the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair (he selected just for that) with the
constitution “Veterum Sapientia,” made it clear that this wasn’t just a quick talk from the pope.

“In the full awareness of Our office and of Our authority, We decree and order ad Perpetuam Rei memoriam – in perpetuity,” he said. “We
will and command that this Our constitution remain firmly established and ratified notwithstanding anything to the contrary…” And that
constitution said that Latin had to stay in the liturgy and that the bishops had the obligation to see to it that no one under their
authority works for the elimination of the Latin from either the liturgy or the studies for the priesthood in our seminaries. That was 8
months before the Vatican Council opened. And the Pope made it clear that this was ad Perpetuam Rei memoriam “for all perpetuity, this
must remain in the fullness of Our authority We make this decision,” he said. And he made it quite clear why: “A universal religion needs
a universal language.”

And it was in that year, 1962, that a schismatic heretical, Conciliar sect of the Church in the United States of America was born. Why?
Because regardless of the clear, solemn oath of Pope John XXIII, the majority of our American bishops refused to obey. I should know
because I was there on the faculty at the time. And I had instructions from our Bishop in Baltimore NOT to implement the constitution
from Rome. That’s when I resigned.

And it is that day that the majority of our bishops automatically excommunicated themselves from our Roman Catholic Church! Now they try
to threaten me with excommunication. I would consider it a high honor to be illegally excommunicated by men who were excommunicated 5
years ago. Why? Because the instruction they sent out to people such as I was: “Pay no attention to that old…” – I won’t quote what they
called good, old Pope John. “Pay no attention. We will wait until the council convenes and we will get rid of that Latin liturgy fast. So
just wait.”

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we are still living in a Church that believes in its Code of Canon Law. And, if you believe Pope Paul VI, and
we still do, than Canon 2,332 of our Code of Canon Law makes it so clear.

“Each and everyone, of whatsoever position or rank, whether king, bishop or cardinal, who appeals from the laws, decrees or mandates of
the reigning Roman pontiff to an ecumenical council is suspected of heresy and incurs automatic excommunication.” And the following
Canon: “Persons who directly or indirectly prevent the implementation of acts issued by the Apostolic See incur automatic
excommunication.” – Canon 2,333. And you don’t have to be a Doctor of Canon Law to understand that language.

1962 was the first step in the establishment of the schismatic, heretical, Conciliar sect which is now posing as the Catholic Church
establishment in the United States. Because now we are faced with Conciliarism. Pope John XXIII convoked his Vatican Council – and ladies
and gentlemen, let no one tell you that I personally, or the Traditional Catholic movement, are fighting the decisions of the Ecumenical
Council. Oh no, we are not! No Catholic could! What we are fighting today are the false interpretations of the Second Vatican Council and
it is high time for the present Holy Father to declare that the Vatican Council was BIG MISTAKE, and that it is now completely eradicated
from the record. He could do it! He is the pope! And it isn’t just to the credit of Pope John XXIII, because it is much more to the
credit of the Holy Ghost, that John XXIII made it crystal clear from the very beginning when he convoked that council. And I should know;
I heard him say it! Yes, he said it in Latin, but I still understand a little Latin. He made it clear that, unlike all previous
Ecumenical Councils, the Second Vatican Council was to be, not a Doctrinal Council, but a pastoral one, leaving the door open for any
subsequent pope to just say “BASTA!!”

The bishops in Germany, Holland, France, and the United States had been preparing the revolution since the 30's, taking up the banner of the Modernists that Pope Pius X had condemned in the first decades of the 20th century. Pius XII kept condemning them in the 40s and 50s, but they were strong enough in the 60's to hijack the council. And then, of course, finally, Paul VI was their man.

The VATICAN II council was hijacked by the modernists with the full consent and even the complicity of Pope John XXIII. In one night he drastically changed all the schemas drawn for 2 years by the Vatican pundits preparing the council
In addition he knew well that his CERTAIN successor would be Mgr Montini who himself was the worse among the actual modernists. Pius XII hoped to forbid Montini the way to papacy when he dismissed him from the Vatican to be archbishop of Milan due to a string of very serious disobediences.
Not heeding in any way Montini's betrayals of Pius XII's confidence, John XXIII made him a cardinal in the immediate days after he was elected thus opening him the door of the conclave once he died.
Doesn't this look like a plot?
Reply
#42
(09-08-2011, 09:17 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: The kill to your response id your own response....Bush did not say..."I'm a Methodist first....then an American...."


And I'm damn sure Jimmy didn't either....if he did he was an anomaly...

 

The real difference between Bush, Carter, and other presidents who made no bones about being religious, and Kennedy, who was Catholic but certainly didn't seem to practice it consistently, was that only the Catholic had an authority figure, who was known as being the head of the Church, and who required obedience and belief in certain areas (doctrines, dogmas) in order for the president to rightly call himself a Catholic.  If you recall, this was the Big Question:  how can a sitting presdient subjugate his authority to that of a "foreign power" (remember the Vatican is an independent state)?  That's what made Catholicism different from some baptist sect, or evangelicalism, or whatever the other presidents listed are.
Reply
#43
The other things to keep in mind is that the Da Vinci Code was a best selling book and blockbuster movie. And that book was specifically designed to make a mockery of the Catholic faith.  Now you might point out that plenty of movies and books have been made that lambast Protestants, but when was the last time one of them became a blockbuster movie?  I don't recall Saved doing to well at the box office.  A raunchy sex comedy about trads would have undoubtedly done better than one about evangelical Christians.  Hmmm....Supertrad would be a good name for that movie, no? 
Reply
#44
(09-08-2011, 12:03 PM)maso Wrote: The VATICAN II council was hijacked by the modernists with the full consent and even the complicity of Pope John XXIII. In one night he drastically changed all the schemas drawn for 2 years by the Vatican pundits preparing the council
In addition he knew well that his CERTAIN successor would be Mgr Montini who himself was the worse among the actual modernists. Pius XII hoped to forbid Montini the way to papacy when he dismissed him from the Vatican to be archbishop of Milan due to a string of very serious disobediences.
Not heeding in any way Montini's betrayals of Pius XII's confidence, John XXIII made him a cardinal in the immediate days after he was elected thus opening him the door of the conclave once he died.
Doesn't this look like a plot?

Yes, John Vennari wrote an article a couple years ago in which he showed that John XXIII, at the same time as he had Lefebvre et al draw up the preparatory schemas, entrusted a second set of schemas--under the table, so to speak--to the likes of Cardinal Seunans and other apostates. I don't understand why John XXIII would do that, considering how firm he was with the Latin in the Mass. Perhaps he was a liberal, but just not as liberal as Montini and Suenans wished him to be.
Reply
#45
With the Second Vatican Council, man stared into the mirror of humanity, caught a glimpse of God in it, and fell in love with his own reflection.

Study and learn about the Modernist heresy. Once you understand it--how it works and what it does--you'll realize that the Second Vatican Council was not the naive victim of a depraved, modern society. It was the product of Modernism and the Masonic principles that were born out of the French Revolution hundreds of years ago. They were plotting even then how to take over the Church, the highest levels of the Church, all the way to the Chair of Peter itself . . .

The heresy (and it's neo-Modernism counterpart) is very complex, very deceptive, and very subtle. It is not something that is going to be completely understood through a series of posts on a message board. I recommend you read the writings, teachings, and warnings of the saints, popes, and holy fathers of the Church who have been warning us for centuries.

Auctorem fidei is a good place to start. Just to pique your interest, consider the words of Pope Pius VI very carefully to see just how dangerous and deceptive "innovators" can be:
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794 Wrote:"[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must enounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”

[...]

“It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”

What made the Second Vatican Council so dangerous is that it surreptitiously avoids all explicit heresy; instead, the heresy is actuated through the implementation of the council's doctrinal equivocation. Indeed, the devil operates most effectively behind a mask of ambiguity, and the Second Vatican Council has the clawprints of Satan all over it.

EDITED: spelling
Reply
#46
(09-07-2011, 10:25 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Dung beetles do not magically emerge from feces like the Eyptians believed.  The eggs are there, they just aren't detectable to the naked eye.

Modernist heresy existed in the Church prior to the Council.  It had to have, or it wouldn't have been there to reveal itself.  Like the dung beetle eggs, these beliefs and practices lay under the surface, not noticed by the average Joe Sixpack in the pew.  St. Pius X was on to them, of course, like a scientist with a microscope finds the eggs.  To most people, though, it appears as though these practices began with the Council.

This doesn't make the Council great, good, or even redeemable.  It is the point when the infestation became visible, after all.

This
Reply
#47
OP,
Look, you're a catechumen.  This Vatican II thing is one of the single most difficult to understand things in recent history.  What happened to the Church in the 60s and 70s is something of a  mystery.  Tread lightly on this one.  You have to be as gentle as a dove and as wise as a serpent to chart your way all the way through this.  Two beacons you must always keep before you are the Eucharist and Mary.  Holy hours and the Rosary will keep you above water.  After that, know that many are unsure of where the Church is.  Use this TEACHING of the Church: "Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna" -- Where there is Peter there is the Church, where there is the Church there is life eternal! -- St. Ambrose of Milan.  The recent Popes have made imprudent decisions but they have not taught heresy.

When I converted about six years ago I was shocked and deeply angered by what people had done to the Church.  I learned about the faith from solid sources and had no idea what was going on.  This page just about summed up my experience http://fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html
Reply
#48
I may be a catechumen, but I would like to point out that I have been studying on my own for about 3 years now. I have on many occasions surprised the deacon on how much I already knew and understood.  I'm hardly a neophyte. I do appreciate your concern though :) That page is what drew me into fish eaters by the way! I stumbled on the article on veiling, and this one hooked me!
Reply
#49
What Roger the Shrubber said is good advice for us all. That's great that the deacon was surprised at how much you already know.

But never forget the difference between knowledge and wisdom. What Roger offered is the latter.
Reply
#50
Oh absolutely, that's why I ask questions. Not because I don't know something, but because I don't understand something. I want to know what everybody else thinks. When I encounter a dissenting opinion, I'll listen to the reasoning behind it before I make up my mind.
I've read a lot about *what* happened, but not too much on *why*. So I have no firm opinion on this. I had a tentative one, but my fiance had a different one. I listened to him, thought his opinion had merit, and decided to ask a group of people I respected on their opinions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)