"There are those who wish to turn back the clock...this is called stubbornness."
(04-16-2013, 10:11 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: like God the Church is changeless

This is ridiculous. It is clear that in the 8th century the Church was bigger than in the 1st; that now the East is a smaller component of the Church than it was before the Great Schism; that at one point the predominant religious life ideal was the Benedictine rule and that now we also have the mendicant orders, etc. That is the sort of change HH. Benedict XVI meant.

Below is a relevant article. I don't see how traditionalists could disagree with this vision, barring a miracle.



Ratzinger's forgotten prophesy on the future of the Church
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the...xvi-22434/
Marco Bardazzi | 18 February 2013

[This] prophesy concluded a series of radio preachings which the then professor of theology [Josef Ratzinger] gave in 1969 at what was a decisive moment in his life and the life of the Church. These were the turbulent years of the student revolts and the landing on the moon but also of the disputes over the Second Vatican Council which had only recently come to a close. Ratzinger, who was one of the Council's protagonists, had left the riotous university of Tübingen seeking refuge in the calmer city of Regensburg.

He found himself isolated as a theologian, having split with liberals Küng, Schillebeeckx and Rahner over their interpretations of the Council. . .

Ratzinger said he was convinced the Church was going through an era similar to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. “We are at a huge turning point – he explained – in the evolution of mankind. This moment makes the move from Medieval to modern times seem insignificant.” Professor Ratzinger compared the current era to that of Pope Pius VI who was abducted by troops of the French Republic and died in prison in 1799. The Church was fighting against a force which intended to annihilate it definitively, confiscating its property and dissolving religious orders.

Today's Church could be faced with a similar situation, undermined, according to Ratzinger, by the temptation to reduce priests to “social workers” and it and all its work reduced to a mere political presence. “From today's crisis, will emerge a Church that has lost a great deal,” he affirmed.

“It will become small and will have to start pretty much all over again. It will no longer have use of the structures it built in its years of prosperity. The reduction in the number of faithful will lead to it losing an important part of its social privileges.” It will start off with small groups and movements and a minority that will make faith central to experience again. “It will be a more spiritual Church, and will not claim a political mandate flirting with the Right one minute and the Left the next. It will be poor and will become the Church of the destitute.”

The process outlined by Ratzinger was a “long” one “but when all the suffering is past, a great power will emerge from a more spiritual and simple Church,” at which point humans will realise that they live in a world of “indescribable solitude” and having lost sight of God “they will perceive the horror of their poverty.”

Then and only then, Ratzinger concluded, will they see “that small flock of faithful as something completely new: they will see it as a source of hope for themselves, the answer they had always secretly been searching for.
Reply
@Warrenton, trad Catholics are so marginalized, we have no power to herd heretical Catholics out of the church. We can't even get communion denied to politicians like Pelosi, pro-choicers, gay rights supporters and practicing homosexuals. The government is the one who has the authority to intimidate faithful Catholics out of religion when persecution begins. The lukewarms have already left behind church teachings of their own free will.
Reply
Quote:To publicly repudiate Vatican II and "turn back the clock" would be to call into question the very infallibility of the Church as far as I can see. If an Ecumenical Council with the Pope at its head could so spectacularly fall away from the Faith and debase it then why should anyone trust the claims of the Catholic Church? Rome cannot repudiate VII without pretty much admitting that it is not guided and guarded by the Holy Ghost. Pope Benedict XVI could not have repudiated the Council without spectacular consequences. As Warrenton said, most people know nothing else except the Novus Ordo, Communion in the hand by lay people, no confession, church buildings that look like the flight deck of the starship enterprise etc. The brick by brick approach to rebuilding the Church over an extraordinarliy long period of time is really the only way out of this conundrum for the Church. The only real way the chaos of the last 50 plus years will fade away is if orthodox bishops and popes, priests and laity restore the faith piece by piece for so long into the future that Vatican II and its era are simply bad footnotes in the history books. Make no bones about it this restoration will be a huge uphill battle that will take at least a century if things go  forward correctly.

Benedict XVI was a key player at Vatican II so he did have a personal stake in it but I do not believe that he was as much of a liberal at heart as some might think. Surely people can change. The thing is, he knew that he had to tow the line or risk calling the very claims of Roman Catholicism into question. What I don't think many people realize is that there is no going back from Vatican II. It happened and if it was truly an ecumenical council it has to be dealt with and accepted if we wish to remain Catholic unless of course we hold to the sedevacantist position. It is a fantasy to think that Vatican II will be repudiated or that the Novus Ordo will be abolished. Both are here to stay. The NO will probably change to be more orthodox and reverent over the years. That might not be what a lot of us want but it is what it is. We cannot pretend that the Mass of Paul VI is going to just get abolished. It's a pipe dream. No Pope in recent history has publicly offered anything other than that and judging by Pope Francis' seeming lackluster care about liturgical matters you can bet that at least through his pontificate little will change.

Also, modern Catholicism is so wrapped up in Vatican II that it would be nearly impossible to be free of it. Vatican II is at the heart of everything from scripture scholarship, the liturgy, canon law and ecumenism to how the modern Church sees itself and its relation to the world today. I would say in general that Vatican II basically defines the Roman Catholic Church today, it is the ground and pillar of modern Roman Catholicism and has been for the last 50 some odd years. It is too far down the road to just jettison it now without seriously calling into question the claims of the Church. Like it or not, for good or for ill, Vatican II is here to stay. It is the defining moment in Church history since at least Trent. It guides almost everything the last several Popes have said and done and is the magna carta of the Church in the modern world. The more I have looked at things the more I'm convinced of this. I don't like it but it is what it is. It seems inescapable to me.

True, and beautifully written. I would add that when orthodoxy is beginning to be restored, and the traditions reclaimed, what will persist will be the good elements of Vatican II, those parts which the Popes (especially Benedict XVI) championed and held out hope for the renewal of the Church. For there is much that is beautiful and moving in the Council - the universal call to holiness, the priesthood of all believers (neglected since Trent due to the Protestant Rebellion), the call for full and active participation in the liturgies (e.g. how a layman can 'assist at Mass' in EF parlance; cf. also St. Faustina), to say nothing of the Blessed Mother (Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces), and more. Once the mass apostasy begins to finish (and it will, once the persecution starts heating up in the West), we can really make strides towards rebuilding the Church. The liberals are already leaving - it's no accident why we just have a new (and AWESOME) translation of the Roman Missal, restoring some of the lost Eucharistic theology - it's no accident that a new translation of the LOTH is being planned. The liberal project of watering down the faith has led to a faith not worth dying for, let alone living for. Those of us who are still faithful (and we are many and young! think otherwise. Things are about to change - indeed, they are already changing!
Reply
(04-18-2013, 01:08 PM)Felix E Wrote:
(04-18-2013, 01:04 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote:
(04-18-2013, 12:53 PM)Felix E Wrote: Whacky sedevacantist dreams will get you nowhere. Take Pope Benedict for what he was and is. God bless you.

Believe me, I take him for exactly what he is.

I think rather the opposite, and come judgement day I fear you'll be on the wrong side of Jesus Christ and His Church with your private judgement there.

*Ouch* "God bless you, I mean, damn you."

Felix is good to go: he cares about the true worship of Jesus, just as much as we all do. I love Papa BXVI, but I think he witnessed that little demon Bugnini [and friends we don't/can't know about], who indeed looks as if he walked out of the early part of Kafka's Metamorphosis:

[Image: bugnini.jpg]

That Bug slinked in from Pope Pius XII's pontificate, about the roughest period in recent history (WWII, Holocaust), and Bugnini hit up John XXIII with the V2 documents and some Mass changes (our '62 Missal) that the Satanic slime had been prepping for EONS! (Well, think of Satan, and eons... Really, he's said all it took to make NoMass and change the Mass, which nobody had done since its inception, was 8 months.) So the Pope who was elected wearing a mozetta and stole and rivals only BXVI's:

[Image: pope-john-xxiii.gif]

inherited this so-called "liturgical reform" movement, and called the V2 Council. His pontificate was 1958-1963, so that meant that in 1960, he was supposed to open the Fatima Secret (which, btw, Ratzinger was able to comment on fairly early, long before his "official declaration", and that differed not only from other accounts, but from his own account!) Apparently the secret ("rot in the highest echelons" is one of the accounts; Ratzinger's was to point us the the Apocalypse). Mysteriously, after the V2 opened, John XXIII for some reason FIRED Bugnini. Bugnini was hurt and confused. And then Pope John 23 DIED. Just kicked the bucket. He was looking pretty rough by then:

[img height=280]http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/wp-content/uploads/pre2011/3848.jpg[/img]

That's as bad a downfall as Lincoln in the same period of time, Civil War. #HardTimes. WONDER WHY?
(Or Bugnini wanted his job back; whatever; same difference).

After Jonn XXIII conveniently DIED, Bugnini slithered BACK in to Pope Paul's good graces, and finished the Council, then gave us NO Mass. Apparently, Bug's original work wasn't well-received; the back-stabbing and other intrigues amongst "holy men" started right around this time; Lefebvre said "get behind me SATAN" and dusted his feet off at the whole process. (I wish he would have launched an anti-tank missile in behind him as he left, but that's just me.) However, I'm sure he wasn't the only one who saw the devil in the details (so obvious that, again, Abp. Lefebvre LEFT. You don't leave councils. I somewhat imagine the H.S. left with him, at least in part.)

Others just quietly realized Satan had infiltrated, and then THEIR jobs were to have faith in God, protect where they could ...shoot loopholes in the evil documents, and wait. I think of it as the Holy Spirit giving them enough rope. Yes: the mass was tossed like a salad, and its changes sound quite masonic (worship YOURSELVES, have a God but stick him over there in the corner.) And if it weren't for Papa BXVI, we'd have had Francis since 2005, and have been pushed even further underground, or possibly not getting any valid Sacraments at all. #OnTheSameSideHere

According the PF, V2 hasn't been pushed forward enough (which, btw, IS a judgement of POPE Francis on the murdered Pope John Paul I and the nearly-eternal JP2, as well as BXVI-E). If you're to stand in the Church out in the open, proud and Catholic, you'd better prepare yourself for a heaping helping of ecumenism. A very Masonic idea, btw! (Only problem Francis will run into, unless Bug and his cronies have properly infiltrated even Islam, is that Muslims HATE Masons, far more than a Catholic ever did. #Irony.)

Now, YOU decide what God wants: God's gave us ONE MASS (one crucifixion, one Mass); the new NO god Bugnini gave us humanism. No mass. That's the decision we ALL have to make, in and out of the Church (since, according to V2, you can be saved without the Church!)

Ratzinger said there WILL be a Church; one the gates of Hell can't possibly stand against (though through tribuations it may FEEL that way or we wouldn't have been warned). We don't fit into this world anymore. But the No mass church does.

PS: name the good parts of Vatican 2.
Reply
(04-18-2013, 05:46 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: To publicly repudiate Vatican II and "turn back the clock" would be to call into question the very infallibility of the Church as far as I can see.

Or it would be to accept V2 is the Judgement of God.
Reply
(04-18-2013, 11:00 PM)lauermar Wrote: @Warrenton, trad Catholics are so marginalized, we have no power to herd heretical Catholics out of the church. We can't even get communion denied to politicians like Pelosi, pro-choicers, gay rights supporters and practicing homosexuals. The government is the one who has the authority to intimidate faithful Catholics out of religion when persecution begins. The lukewarms have already left behind church teachings of their own free will.

I'm not disagreeing with that.  Believe me: I know from being marginalized!

But we control our little corner.  And one day, that corner will grow.  Indeed, it is growing, as Raptor wrote.  I grant you, it is not growing evenly, but where it has survived at all,  or been replanted, it is growing.  In Virginia.  In Texas.  In France.  My friend's brother is an SSPX priest in Mexico - it's growing there, in the worker's paradise itself.

I'm speaking to the future, really, with the acknowledgment that the future will be shaped by the attitudes we adopt today.  Look for the post by Allen with the words "larceny of identity."  He put into words the feelings I have had regarding the Church for most of my life.  Even so, when I see people holding hands, raising their arms, singing their non-Catholic songs, interrupting the mass to talk about tangential goings on in the parish, though I vehemently disagree with their worship, I understand that I am in the company of  my brothers.  We must not abandon them.  Christ has not preserved traditionalists for ourselves, I think, but for their sake.

A relatively recent historical incident that instructs our situation is Franco and Republican Spain.  In 1936, it looked as though the Republicans had everything:  the capital, most of  the country, international support, all the money, the navy, and the "tide of history" seemed to  be clearly in their favor.  Franco wasn't even in European Spain when the war broke out.  But he never stopped believing in his ability to rescue Spain and win.  Throughout the civil war, the Germans and the Italians and the Falangists kept pressuring him to  move faster, to assault Madrid with more ferocity.  Franco answered that a civil war is by its nature different than other wars:  you are struggling with your own people, and it is your own land that you destroy.  What good, Franco said, would it do  to win a wasteland devoid of people and property? 

Someone posted a thread of a Dutch church being used as a skate board park.  I want that church back.  Someone else posted a picture of Pope Francis's children's mass, the one with the pregnant chick singing a little song and doing some kind of jig in front of the "altar."  I want those people, pope, dancing chick, and kinder, back.  So for me, "letting them go" just isn't good enough.  I haven't kept this faith in order to worship in some cave.  My idea of success is not the Russian peasant who hid the bible in the haystack.  Those are interim methods for survival only. 

Have faith in the power of traditionalist convictions.  Consider the words of Christ:  the Church is a flock.  Force may be used against one sheep.  Force may be used to scatter sheep.  Force cannot bring a scattered flock back into its fold.         
Reply
(04-18-2013, 11:31 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: I would add that when orthodoxy is beginning to be restored, and the traditions reclaimed, what will persist will be the good elements of Vatican II, those parts which the Popes (especially Benedict XVI) championed and held out hope for the renewal of the Church. For there is much that is beautiful and moving in the Council - the universal call to holiness, the priesthood of all believers (neglected since Trent due to the Protestant Rebellion), the call for full and active participation in the liturgies (e.g. how a layman can 'assist at Mass' in EF parlance; cf. also St. Faustina), to say nothing of the Blessed Mother (Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces), and more. Once the mass apostasy begins to finish (and it will, once the persecution starts heating up in the West), we can really make strides towards rebuilding the Church. The liberals are already leaving - it's no accident why we just have a new (and AWESOME) translation of the Roman Missal, restoring some of the lost Eucharistic theology - it's no accident that a new translation of the LOTH is being planned. The liberal project of watering down the faith has led to a faith not worth dying for, let alone living for. Those of us who are still faithful (and we are many and young! think otherwise. Things are about to change - indeed, they are already changing!

I agree with you in part, but would like to see your approach change somewhat.  I agree with you that for better or worse, Vatican 2 is part of the Church's history.  I don't agree that it can't be changed without making people question the inerrancy of Church over time.  It's already done that, unfortunately. 

I am not at all convinced that there is much in Vatican 2 that was beautiful, although the pageantry of the assembly was impressive, and its sheer size clearly made a powerful  impression on the minds of the participants.  It was, in its way, a Catholic version of the hajj, or the biggest jamboree of all time.  The vast bulk of the documents amount to a kind of restatement of Catholic belief.  A modern "Justinian Code" if you will, but without the pith of earlier times.  "That which was correct was old, and that which was new, was incorrect."  The problems that the council announced it would tackle were not, I believe, really the problems that needed tackling.  For instance, the council seriously failed to appreciate Catholic piety with respect to the sacraments,  in particular the mass.  All this talk of laymen assisting at mass is, unless you are an altar boy or a chanter, claptrap.  We don't assist the mass.  It assists us.  I could go on, but I am confident that you see my point:  I mention it only to illustrate a certain lack of the critical eye that seems to run through your approach. 

That said, I do agree that Vatican 2 is instructive, and that it provides the vocabulary in which the debate for the mind of  the Church will be carried out.  Being reality, I don't have a problem with that.  I also don't have a problem pointing out Vatican 2 errors where they exist, or requiring the adherents of Vatican 2 to grant me the rights they say I have under their own charter.  I take it as a given that a certain pluralism now exists in Catholicism that is, at least in its Latin branch, inconsistent with its history since the end of the Roman empire.  I agree with you that persuasion is a better balm than abuse to heal the rift.  I also agree that things are improving, in many places.  Others, though, continue to deteriorate.  I think the best strategy for traditionalists will be to push for the chance to turn things around in some of these hard areas. 

Cheers!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)