Rights and Religious Liberty
#31
'Toilet paper' might be too good for Vatican II.

More than fifty years after the fact, and still we can't have an informed conversation about these documents.

I'm not saying there are no knowledgeable Catholics; I am saying there are too few Catholics that have actually read them, even after an apparent push some years ago by parishes to do just that.

I was at one of these 'discussion' events; when the elderly priest leading the group introduced the topic of changes in the Mass, I asked why Latin and Gregorian chant had not received the 'pride of place' in the new Mass that Council Fathers clearly said it deserved. Father looked embarrassed and confused--could I show him where Vatican II taught this?

Fast forward about ten years--I ask the same question of the former chancellor of the diocese (who had been trained in Latin and Gregorian chant at great expense). He replied by emphasizing the phrase, "other things being equal," as though the value of G.C. was comparable to, say, "On Eagles' Wings."

I know the words don't mean that; he knows it also, and now there is this big lie between us.
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Teresa Agrorum's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#32
(04-12-2020, 04:51 PM)Teresa Agrorum Wrote: I was at one of these 'discussion' events; when the elderly priest leading the group introduced the topic of changes in the Mass, I asked why Latin and Gregorian chant had not received the 'pride of place' in the new Mass that Council Fathers clearly said it deserved. Father looked embarrassed and confused--could I show him where Vatican II taught this?

I have a friend who basically read herself into the Church. Of course, she was still required to go through the RCIA program. One night she said something that was actually Catholic. The 'facilitator' informed her that what she had said was 'heresy according to Vatican II'.

The next week, she brought her copy of the Documents of VII, which she had actually read, and quoted, verbatim, her statement that was
 'heresy according to Vatican II', according to the facilitator.

A few days later, she was informed by the Pastor that, 'maybe she'd be more comfortable finding another Parish in which to be received'.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#33
(04-12-2020, 05:05 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 04:51 PM)Teresa Agrorum Wrote: I was at one of these 'discussion' events; when the elderly priest leading the group introduced the topic of changes in the Mass, I asked why Latin and Gregorian chant had not received the 'pride of place' in the new Mass that Council Fathers clearly said it deserved. Father looked embarrassed and confused--could I show him where Vatican II taught this?

I have a friend who basically read herself into the Church. Of course, she was still required to go through the RCIA program. One night she said something that was actually Catholic. The 'facilitator' informed her that what she had said was 'heresy according to Vatican II'.

The next week, she brought her copy of the Documents of VII, which she had actually read, and quoted, verbatim, her statement that was
 'heresy according to Vatican II', according to the facilitator.

A few days later, she was informed by the Pastor that, 'maybe she'd be more comfortable finding another Parish in which to be received'.

Hopefully, your friend found herself a nice, traditional parish.  I sometimes wonder what is worse, the documents of Vatican II (since they're not all as deeply problematic as Dignitatis Humanae) or the amorphous "Spirit of Vatican II" that's been used to justify everything imaginable, from clown Masses to Pachamama?  Or is there no real difference, since one led to the other?
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#34
(04-12-2020, 05:31 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: Or is there no real difference, since one led to the other?

This, in my opinion. If most of the Council Fathers had had an inkling of what the 'Spirit of Vatican II' would lead to, I doubt any of those ambiguous, bordering on heresy documents would ever have passed.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 3 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, MagisterMusicae, Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#35
(04-12-2020, 06:42 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-12-2020, 05:31 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: Or is there no real difference, since one led to the other?

This, in my opinion. If most of the Council Fathers had had an inkling of what the 'Spirit of Vatican II' would lead to, I doubt any of those ambiguous, bordering on heresy documents would ever have passed.

I'd say that is why the Cœus Internationalis Patrum while disappointed that they were not successful in blocking the liberal documents, saw it as a victory that they were able to get the changes that they thought saved the documents from heresy (such as the Nota Previa to Lumen Gentium to save it from Conciliarism), and many were too comforted that Papal approval meant these ambiguous documents were at least minimally acceptable. Of this group only really two really stood up later when the liberals used the "time bombs" to re-interpret the Faith in their own mold: de Castro Mayer and Lefebvre.

Well-documented evidence can demonstrate that these documents were designed for this ambiguity of being able to read in a quasi-traditional notion (thus escaping condemnation), but also in a liberal way contrary to the Faith (thus allowing later "progress"). It was this that I'd call the "Spirit" of the Council—the clear intention of hijacking things, while carefully avoiding condemnation.

Since the documents were designed with this in mind, I don't think there is a real difference, except just like Pope Francis, you can read a paragraph here or there and get solid Catholic teaching, but then turn the page and it's a disaster. In fact, Francis is perhaps one of the best incarnations of that Spirit (even if Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were also in their own way this). Francis just is so clearly bipolar when it comes to the traditional teachings and the New Theology.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#36
(04-12-2020, 05:05 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: A few days later, she was informed by the Pastor that, 'maybe she'd be more comfortable finding another Parish in which to be received'.[/size][/font][/color]

The pastor may be more comfortable finding another religion, something more akin to his pathetic modernist views like Episcopalianism.



(04-12-2020, 05:31 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: Hopefully, your friend found herself a nice, traditional parish.  I sometimes wonder what is worse, the documents of Vatican II (since they're not all as deeply problematic as Dignitatis Humanae) or the amorphous "Spirit of Vatican II" that's been used to justify everything imaginable, from clown Masses to Pachamama?  Or is there no real difference, since one led to the other?

In all seriousness as much as I despise Vatican II and pray and hope that one day the Church will declare it null and void and all the errors it preaches be cosigned to the fiery depths of Hell and anathematizes anyone who preaches it. The problem truly lies with modernism and not so much Vatican II. Vatican II should be abolished and annulled yes, but the evil spirit of modernism must be exorcised from the Church before rendering Vatican II a non-sequitor. Otherwise you will still have the same problem but no Vatican II.

Modernism is the evil here and Saint Pope Pius X saw that. His successors did not do a good enough job preventing its cancerous growth and it culminated into the travesty we have now.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#37
Ok, so we can tolerate error, so long as it’s not public. But even that doesn’t provide a complete picture. For example, St. Agustine says the following in De libero arbitrio:
 
"For these reasons, while not conceding any right to things that are not true and honorable, it [the Church] does not refuse to let public authority endure these, that is, to avoid some greater evil, or to attain or keep some greater good. The most provident God, though He is infinite in power, and can do all things, yet permits evils in the world, in part, so as not to impede greater good, in part, lest greater evils follow. In ruling states, it is right to imitate the Ruler of the World."


One could argue that at least it didn't use the word right and that it's not technically allowing public manifestations of error, but that would be a silly interpretation as it's talking about public authority and it's duty. Why would it endure what it can't see (private)?

This doesn't sound like it has no place whatsoever.

This isn't an attempt to give error a place, but simply to show that public doesn't mean all public manifestations. It was simply trying to tackle the extremes.

I also brought this up because fellow SSPXers dismiss the Council entirely and because of it's pastoral nature and so therefore can say it is in complete error with no way of wedding the past with V2.
Reply
#38
Quote:Ok, so we can tolerate error, so long as it’s not public. But even that doesn’t provide a complete picture. For example, St. Agustine says the following in De libero arbitrio:
 

It may often be prudent to tolerate public error as well. The Church does not teach that no public error can be tolerated.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Adventus
Reply
#39
(04-13-2020, 12:34 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:Ok, so we can tolerate error, so long as it’s not public. But even that doesn’t provide a complete picture. For example, St. Agustine says the following in De libero arbitrio:
 

It may often be prudent to tolerate public error as well. The Church does not teach that no public error can be tolerated.
Does this include public religious errors? 
Reply
#40
(04-13-2020, 01:31 PM)Adventus Wrote:
(04-13-2020, 12:34 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:Ok, so we can tolerate error, so long as it’s not public. But even that doesn’t provide a complete picture. For example, St. Agustine says the following in De libero arbitrio:
 

It may often be prudent to tolerate public error as well. The Church does not teach that no public error can be tolerated.
Does this include public religious errors? 

As an example, Jews were allowed to do their thing during the Middle Ages, when the Church, arguably, was at a high point. The Jews of the time were constantly appealing to Popes for protection against non-Jews who would periodically get fed up with things like the Jews' practice of usury, which enriched them (Jewish people) at the expense of non-Jews. The Popes always protected them, and made clear that forced Baptism was a no-go. Jews carried on religiously as they always have.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)