Please vote on Fr. Z poll
(10-12-2012, 11:24 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:17 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:02 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:40 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:32 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I voted yes...but in retrospect it's probably not the correct vote. Yes, Vatican 2 has been very bad and the cause of many of the problems. But the spirit of modernism was in the Church long before V2 happened. Let's face it, the modernists that gave us V2 were in positions of power during the "good ol' days."

Weren't a number of them under suspicion by the Holy Office, and weren't some of them also forbidden to teach (with a few of them having their books placed on the Index)?  I don't think all or even most them were in positions of power under Pope Pius XII (Pope John XXIII is another story, however...).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I recall, Pius XI and XII wanted to call the Second Vatican Council but were discouraged to by whoever advises popes because there were fears that modernists would hijack the council.

I'd like to see that for myself.  Do you remember where you read it?  What their intentions were?

I'm looking for the primary source, I have secondary ones.

In the meantime, what are the secondary ones?

Find anything?
Reply
Mith: when I attend the NO I do so for completely pre-Vatican II reasons. Authority, the obligation to fulfil the Sunday Obligation.

Problems with V2 imply you shouldn't go to the NO as much as problems with V2 imply you should be a sedevacantist. In my view neither is actually implied, though they are two responses to the problem one could take.
Reply
(10-13-2012, 07:07 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 11:24 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:17 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:02 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:40 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:32 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I voted yes...but in retrospect it's probably not the correct vote. Yes, Vatican 2 has been very bad and the cause of many of the problems. But the spirit of modernism was in the Church long before V2 happened. Let's face it, the modernists that gave us V2 were in positions of power during the "good ol' days."

Weren't a number of them under suspicion by the Holy Office, and weren't some of them also forbidden to teach (with a few of them having their books placed on the Index)?  I don't think all or even most them were in positions of power under Pope Pius XII (Pope John XXIII is another story, however...).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I recall, Pius XI and XII wanted to call the Second Vatican Council but were discouraged to by whoever advises popes because there were fears that modernists would hijack the council.

I'd like to see that for myself.  Do you remember where you read it?  What their intentions were?

I'm looking for the primary source, I have secondary ones.

In the meantime, what are the secondary ones?

Find anything?

Yes.  I didn't post it before because the site was down.  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...enew2.html

Quote:No-one disputes that the Catholic Church had been flourishing before Vatican II. Pope John XXIII commented on "the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality." (Humanæ Salutis, Dec. 25,1961.) It was probably because the Church was doing so well that the Cardinals were shocked when Pope John first announced on Jan. 25, 1959, his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council.

An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of bishops whose decisions are approved and promulgated by the Pope. Before Vatican II, there were twenty such Councils in the history of the Church. The Cardinals well knew that the Church convokes a Council only in cases of absolute necessity. Cardinal Pellavicini stated:

    "To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Cardinals had plenty to fear about having a Council in the 1960?s.

As early as May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI had wanted to convoke an Ecumenical Council to condemn the modern errors of Communism and Modernism. The Cardinals at that time voiced strong opposition to the idea, stating that so many bishops had been imbued with Modernist and liberal ideas that such a Council would do more harm to the Church than good. Cardinal Billot said:

    "The worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists...are already getting ready...to bring forth a revolution in the Church, like that of 1789 [in France]." (Fr. R. Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality of The Second Vatican Council, (French publ.), pp. 9-10).

Due to the dangers involved, Pope Pius XI gave up on the idea of an ecumenical council. He had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Quas Primas (Dec. 11, 1925) restating the rights of Christ the King, Mortalium Animos (Jan. 6, 1928) condemning false ecumenism, Casti Connubii (Dec. 31, 1930) condemning the errors of divorce, artificial birth control and abortion, Mit Brennender Sorge (Mar. 14, 1937) condemning certain errors of Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris (Mar. 19, 1937) condemning Communism.

Pope Pius XII decided to resume the project of an Ecumenical Council in 1948, (Fr. R. Dulac, p. 10) because new errors had spread in the Church. But he too had to abandon the idea because by his time ideas of revolution and rebellion had spread to even more bishops and the apparent necessity of such a Council was outweighed by the dangers. Pope Pius XII had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Humani Generis (Aug. 12, 1950) where he condemned several modern errors, including the evolutionary errors of Teilhard de Chardin, and Ad Sinarem Gentem (Oct. 7, 1954) where he condemned certain errors of the Communists.

In 1959, when Pope John XXIII talked about holding Vatican II, the spread of Modernism and revolution among the bishops had grown worse still, and it even affected many Cardinals. It had only been due to the strong-armed rule of Pope Pius XII that the "rebel" clergy had been kept under control. Under the good-hearted Pope John XXIII, the rebels were able to get out of control and let loose their revolution in the Church. Nonetheless, there were several Cardinals who advised Pope John XXIII against having an Ecumenical Council. Buoyed up by his boundless enthusiasm, Pope John XXIII ignored the Cardinals, decided to tempt God and held an Ecumenical Council anyway.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
(10-13-2012, 07:19 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 07:07 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 11:24 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:17 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:02 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:40 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:32 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I voted yes...but in retrospect it's probably not the correct vote. Yes, Vatican 2 has been very bad and the cause of many of the problems. But the spirit of modernism was in the Church long before V2 happened. Let's face it, the modernists that gave us V2 were in positions of power during the "good ol' days."

Weren't a number of them under suspicion by the Holy Office, and weren't some of them also forbidden to teach (with a few of them having their books placed on the Index)?  I don't think all or even most them were in positions of power under Pope Pius XII (Pope John XXIII is another story, however...).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I recall, Pius XI and XII wanted to call the Second Vatican Council but were discouraged to by whoever advises popes because there were fears that modernists would hijack the council.

I'd like to see that for myself.  Do you remember where you read it?  What their intentions were?

I'm looking for the primary source, I have secondary ones.

In the meantime, what are the secondary ones?

Find anything?

Yes.  I didn't post it before because the site was down.  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...enew2.html

Quote:No-one disputes that the Catholic Church had been flourishing before Vatican II. Pope John XXIII commented on "the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality." (Humanæ Salutis, Dec. 25,1961.) It was probably because the Church was doing so well that the Cardinals were shocked when Pope John first announced on Jan. 25, 1959, his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council.

An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of bishops whose decisions are approved and promulgated by the Pope. Before Vatican II, there were twenty such Councils in the history of the Church. The Cardinals well knew that the Church convokes a Council only in cases of absolute necessity. Cardinal Pellavicini stated:

    "To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Cardinals had plenty to fear about having a Council in the 1960?s.

As early as May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI had wanted to convoke an Ecumenical Council to condemn the modern errors of Communism and Modernism. The Cardinals at that time voiced strong opposition to the idea, stating that so many bishops had been imbued with Modernist and liberal ideas that such a Council would do more harm to the Church than good. Cardinal Billot said:

    "The worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists...are already getting ready...to bring forth a revolution in the Church, like that of 1789 [in France]." (Fr. R. Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality of The Second Vatican Council, (French publ.), pp. 9-10).

Due to the dangers involved, Pope Pius XI gave up on the idea of an ecumenical council. He had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Quas Primas (Dec. 11, 1925) restating the rights of Christ the King, Mortalium Animos (Jan. 6, 1928) condemning false ecumenism, Casti Connubii (Dec. 31, 1930) condemning the errors of divorce, artificial birth control and abortion, Mit Brennender Sorge (Mar. 14, 1937) condemning certain errors of Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris (Mar. 19, 1937) condemning Communism.

Pope Pius XII decided to resume the project of an Ecumenical Council in 1948, (Fr. R. Dulac, p. 10) because new errors had spread in the Church. But he too had to abandon the idea because by his time ideas of revolution and rebellion had spread to even more bishops and the apparent necessity of such a Council was outweighed by the dangers. Pope Pius XII had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Humani Generis (Aug. 12, 1950) where he condemned several modern errors, including the evolutionary errors of Teilhard de Chardin, and Ad Sinarem Gentem (Oct. 7, 1954) where he condemned certain errors of the Communists.

In 1959, when Pope John XXIII talked about holding Vatican II, the spread of Modernism and revolution among the bishops had grown worse still, and it even affected many Cardinals. It had only been due to the strong-armed rule of Pope Pius XII that the "rebel" clergy had been kept under control. Under the good-hearted Pope John XXIII, the rebels were able to get out of control and let loose their revolution in the Church. Nonetheless, there were several Cardinals who advised Pope John XXIII against having an Ecumenical Council. Buoyed up by his boundless enthusiasm, Pope John XXIII ignored the Cardinals, decided to tempt God and held an Ecumenical Council anyway.

Thats definitely interesting.  Two good anti-modernist, anti-communist Popes want to call a council to condemn modernism and communism but don't because modernism has infected the bishops.

Then a not-so-anti-modernist pope decides to hold a council when even more bishops are infected, and he doesnt even intend to use the council to condemn those same errors, but rather to "let some fresh air in". 

I bet the devil had a smirk on his face: Sneaky  "hook, line, and sinker"

Thanks for the link
Reply
(10-13-2012, 07:19 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 07:07 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 11:24 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:17 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 07:02 PM)Romish Papist Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:48 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:40 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-12-2012, 06:32 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I voted yes...but in retrospect it's probably not the correct vote. Yes, Vatican 2 has been very bad and the cause of many of the problems. But the spirit of modernism was in the Church long before V2 happened. Let's face it, the modernists that gave us V2 were in positions of power during the "good ol' days."

Weren't a number of them under suspicion by the Holy Office, and weren't some of them also forbidden to teach (with a few of them having their books placed on the Index)?  I don't think all or even most them were in positions of power under Pope Pius XII (Pope John XXIII is another story, however...).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I recall, Pius XI and XII wanted to call the Second Vatican Council but were discouraged to by whoever advises popes because there were fears that modernists would hijack the council.

I'd like to see that for myself.  Do you remember where you read it?  What their intentions were?

I'm looking for the primary source, I have secondary ones.

In the meantime, what are the secondary ones?

Find anything?

Yes.  I didn't post it before because the site was down.  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...enew2.html

Quote:No-one disputes that the Catholic Church had been flourishing before Vatican II. Pope John XXIII commented on "the Church of Christ, which is still so vibrant with vitality." (Humanæ Salutis, Dec. 25,1961.) It was probably because the Church was doing so well that the Cardinals were shocked when Pope John first announced on Jan. 25, 1959, his intention to convoke an Ecumenical Council.

An Ecumenical Council is a meeting of bishops whose decisions are approved and promulgated by the Pope. Before Vatican II, there were twenty such Councils in the history of the Church. The Cardinals well knew that the Church convokes a Council only in cases of absolute necessity. Cardinal Pellavicini stated:

    "To convoke a General Council except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." (New Jersey Catholic News, Summer 1984, p.1).

The Cardinals had plenty to fear about having a Council in the 1960?s.

As early as May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI had wanted to convoke an Ecumenical Council to condemn the modern errors of Communism and Modernism. The Cardinals at that time voiced strong opposition to the idea, stating that so many bishops had been imbued with Modernist and liberal ideas that such a Council would do more harm to the Church than good. Cardinal Billot said:

    "The worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists...are already getting ready...to bring forth a revolution in the Church, like that of 1789 [in France]." (Fr. R. Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality of The Second Vatican Council, (French publ.), pp. 9-10).

Due to the dangers involved, Pope Pius XI gave up on the idea of an ecumenical council. He had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Quas Primas (Dec. 11, 1925) restating the rights of Christ the King, Mortalium Animos (Jan. 6, 1928) condemning false ecumenism, Casti Connubii (Dec. 31, 1930) condemning the errors of divorce, artificial birth control and abortion, Mit Brennender Sorge (Mar. 14, 1937) condemning certain errors of Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris (Mar. 19, 1937) condemning Communism.

Pope Pius XII decided to resume the project of an Ecumenical Council in 1948, (Fr. R. Dulac, p. 10) because new errors had spread in the Church. But he too had to abandon the idea because by his time ideas of revolution and rebellion had spread to even more bishops and the apparent necessity of such a Council was outweighed by the dangers. Pope Pius XII had to be content with condemning the errors of his time in his encyclicals, like Humani Generis (Aug. 12, 1950) where he condemned several modern errors, including the evolutionary errors of Teilhard de Chardin, and Ad Sinarem Gentem (Oct. 7, 1954) where he condemned certain errors of the Communists.

In 1959, when Pope John XXIII talked about holding Vatican II, the spread of Modernism and revolution among the bishops had grown worse still, and it even affected many Cardinals. It had only been due to the strong-armed rule of Pope Pius XII that the "rebel" clergy had been kept under control. Under the good-hearted Pope John XXIII, the rebels were able to get out of control and let loose their revolution in the Church. Nonetheless, there were several Cardinals who advised Pope John XXIII against having an Ecumenical Council. Buoyed up by his boundless enthusiasm, Pope John XXIII ignored the Cardinals, decided to tempt God and held an Ecumenical Council anyway.

Wow, very interesting.
Reply


No, Vatican II itself is not to blame for our problems. (51%, 1,350 Votes)
Yes, Vatican II is mostly to blame for problems in the Church today. (49%, 1,290 Votes)
Huh? There are no problems in the Church today! (0%, 13 Votes)
Total Voters: 2,653

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)