Please vote on Fr. Z poll
#11
(10-12-2012, 01:02 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: They yes vote briefly cracked 48% before going back down to 47%. Is this poll being posted at the other Trad forums? We need all the help we can get. The no vote is still gaining votes.

At the very least, we can keep it near 50%.  Keep in mind that WDTPRS is really a neo-con site with trad sympathies.  As neo-cons, their focus is authority over truth.  For me that's the definition of neo-con or neo-Catholicism.  As such, they will be loathe to criticize Vatican II.  That is why they need our help.  Wink
Reply
#12
(10-12-2012, 12:18 PM)sw85 Wrote: I'm in a weird position. On the one hand I think the Vatican II documents *properly understood* are not problematic. This is why lefties were always going on about the "Spirit" of Vatican II, i.e., because the letter of Vatican II didn't support any of their abuses.

On the other hand it is clearly written in a style that should have been obviously a problem, so filled with qualifications, misappropriations of modern language, etc. The letter of Vatican II may not be responsible for the mess but one can easily see how the Church's enemies abstracted from it an ephemeral "Spirit" with which to do their wicked works.

So I guess I'm voting yes, though my position is a little more nuanced than some folks'.

Reality is often not cut and dried. I think you have the right of it. As much as I accept the Holy Father's hermeneutic of continuity (as the authentic intention of the council fathers etc.) it doesn't change the fact that the Council ushered in an era of ruin, causing one disaster after another. It has been 50 years and we're only now starting to climb out of the hole they dug.

To me, it's as if the city council rewrote the municipal leash law for no reason.
New Text:
"Beholding the coming dawn of a new era of openness and fellowship, as did the fathers of the city council before us down to the very primitive establishment of this urban community, we apprehend in a new way the infinite horizon of possibility which governs the phenomenological relation of the acting subject to the entire open field of construction, constitution and self-will. In view of this, vis a vis both the phenomena of internal time consciousness and the radical possibility of noetic/noemic activity, we observe that the relationship of master and slave, handler and handled is not the understanding of husbandry which is at all times and all places recognized by every person as identical. Our recognition of this impels us to reformulate in an ever more open way those statutes which previously demanded the most exceptionless application of physical means of control to the material disposition of both guider and guided within a setting present to the entire community of persons and husbanded. Henceforth, in recognition of this, we legislate that the encounter between phenomenologically cognizing and ratiocinating subject and other phenomenologically cognizing but variably experiencing subject within the context of the community as a whole and upon those vistas which constitute the practical domain of public life should be one that is modulated through a relation of mutual respect and encounter while not at the same time overcoming the salutary parameters of those vistas upon which the relation of husbandry within the context of I-WE dynamism is constituted."

Previous Text:
"A fine will be assessed for any dog found on public property without a leash."


Reply
#13
I voted 'Yes' though only because 'yes' is the closest answer to my opinion. For me, the cause of all this something that was in the Church before VII. All of those bishops and cardinals and popes were born and raised and taught in a pre-VII world. All were TLM-bred men. I wish someone could recommend an accurate work about the problems in the Church before VII because I do not lknow what to call it. Modernism? The devil? Something was rotten before, and VII is just the first baby.
Reply
#14
Yes Modernism was alive and well before Vatican II, but it was because of Vatican II that  Modernism triumphed. Before Vatican II, The Church attempted to suppress Modernism. Vatican II was the evil council that allowed Modernism to officially take control over the Church. Vatican II is the reason Modernists have been able to create a new religion and take every office in the curia, hierarchy, and episcopacy.
Reply
#15
Breaking news.  The "no" position is down to 51%.  Vote "yes," guys!
Reply
#16
2:39 cst 51-49 we're behind. I voted yes, as he had the qualifier "mostly".  Vatican II has plenty of problems in those documents, but I saw it as a multi-front attack of the enemy. I hold the biggest problem is banishing the TLM.  There was also plenty going on in the society at that time, twisting morals, and propsing a more morally relaxed approach, and that did not come from Vatican II. The operatives in place of several types seized the opportunity to hammer the Church to fit in those morally lax trends.

I firmly believe the fight is the TLM. The pew sitters are not the heretics, they go with the flow as Christ made His Church to be top down. It's the sleepers that were at Vatican of all stripes which added the weasel words, and subsequently the "useful idiots" full of the spirit spread it all over. As the TLM regains purchase it'll drive those sleepers out. The TLM can not co-exist with these traitors. I don't think they control the entire Church but their influence is pervasive, and the TLM is the greatest Catechism ever. This is why so many Bishops will make up any reason to not allow it in their diocese.

tim
Reply
#17
Remember, Fr. Z's job is to be an apologist for the Popes and Vatican II.  I suspect, he's not going to brook a repudiation of Vatican II even in a poll.  He is a gatherer of intel,  not a broker for trads to get the Holy Father to see things correctly. 

Reply
#18
The only reason to call a Council was to combat two things Communism and the spreading of immorality faster by the new media technology like TV
Reply
#19
(10-12-2012, 04:08 PM)Gerard Wrote: Remember, Fr. Z's job is to be an apologist for the Popes and Vatican II.  I suspect, he's not going to brook a repudiation of Vatican II even in a poll.  He is a gatherer of intel,  not a broker for trads to get the Holy Father to see things correctly. 

On what factual basis do you make this accusation?
Reply
#20
I just voted! Yes...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)