Cdl Zen defends Vatican II
#1
Nothing sadder than a Bolshevik who saw his family either murdered or shipped to the gulags, defending the same revolution that saw his family destroyed..."long live the glorious revolution!"  Pathetic!


Quote:July 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Joseph Zen has waded into the debate, given new impetus recently by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, regarding Vatican II and its relation to current problems in the Catholic Church.

The 88-year-old retired Bishop of Hong Kong ultimately views the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) as a work of God within the Church that still acts as guiding light today.

And it's continuing its work by shutting down seminaries, bowing to Pachamama statues, and selling out the underground Chinese Church to the godless communists who are gleefully blowing up crosses and persecuting Christians.


Quote:“Vatican II happened 50 years ago, but it surely doesn’t belong to the past, its light still leads the Church through the darkness of her journey today,”

"It is in the consciousness of this that I await the verdict. What matters is not the personal feelings of a repentant enemy, but the flourishing progress of the U.S.S.R. and its international importance."  ~ Nicholai Bukharin's final words just before the USSR brutally executed him, after he saw all his friends executed by the same USSR.


Quote:Acknowledging the many criticisms of Vatican II – which he said come from both “extreme conservatives” and “extreme progressives,” – Zen urged against underestimating God’s work through the Council.

Hahaha!  Wasn't that the intention?  Be so flipping vague that you have "extreme conservatives" aka Catholics criticizing it for being too vague and "extreme progressives" aka heretics and apostates criticize it for not going far enough.


Quote:“There is a saying, not far from the truth: an Ecumenical Council starts from human efforts, then comes the devil to make trouble, but at the end the Holy Spirit brings everything to a Happy Ending,” Zen noted. 

What saying is that?  The fortune cookie saying you pulled out of the rear of your cassock!  Name me what evils flowed from the First Vatican Council, or The Council of Trent, or the Council of Nicea, or the Council of Jerusalem.

Well then have no fear Cdl Zen...the selling out of the persecuted underground Chinese Catholic Church you so bemoan starts from human efforts and then the devil comes to make trouble, but in then end everyone has Happy Ending!


Quote:“The polarization between the Conservatives and Progressives did not disappear after the Council,” Zen observed. “Those who had difficulty to understand, or even refused to accept the ‘novelties’ in (the) Council’s decisions: they are the extreme conservatives; but there are also extreme progressives who claim that now on everything can change in the Church.”

Thank you for acknowledging finally that there were novelties in this Council and it's not guided by the Holy Ghost.


Quote:Despite the conflicts and ongoing disputes among the Council Fathers, God’s work emerged. “The fruit of Vatican II are those 16 Documents, especially the 4 Constitutions,” Zen said.

“Through those documents you hear the real voice of the Holy Spirit,” [Zen] declared.

Blasphemy Cardinal.  Please repent.  The Holy Ghost is clear and explicit...God does not confuse.  God clarifies and elucidates.  You admit Vatican II is vague...how can the same God that declares explicitly "THIS IS MY BODY", "THIS IS MY BLOOD" then utters the vagueness of your precious false council.


Quote:“The extreme conservatives say: the Church after the Vatican II is no more the Catholic Church I received baptism in,” Zen said. “But you were baptized in a Church which believes in one apostolic Church, led by the Pope and the Bishops as authentic teachers of faith.”

There's another thread on here where an EO named PorphyriosK criticized the Church being Catholic because of Pope and Bishops, and not the Pope and Bishops being Catholic.  How Cdl Zen perfectly proves this criticism true in the NO.


Quote:“The extreme progressives say: before the Council nothing was allowed to change, now with Vatican II many changes have been made, so, many things should be allowed to change also in the future,” he said. “Yes, but only by a decision of the legitimate authority, not by an arbitrary choice of anybody, and surely not by undoing the past.

SMDH.  So as long as the revolutionary tribunal approves it, we can join in with the Protestants in saying that the Eucharist is just a metaphor.


Quote:“The Holy Spirit of today doesn’t contradict the Holy Spirit of yesterday,” he said.

No, but Vatican II certainly did.


Quote:In a swipe against those who go too far in their desire to modernize the Church, who proclaim that “Latin is invented by the devil!” Cardinal Zen urged, “Come on! The Church saved the Greek-Roman Culture (philosophy literature, art, music) and used it to educate the invading ‘barbarians,’ after the fall of Roman Empire, laying the foundation of the modern European civilization.”

“The Tridentine theology mainly in Latin saved the faith of the Church of the lay, and the Tridentine liturgy in Latin with the Gregorian chant (including the ‘dies irae’) nourished the piety of generations and sustained the courage of innumerable martyrs,” he continued.

“It sounds blasphemous to say that Vatican II had to clean the Church of the Tridentine ‘dirt,’” he added.

...

Cardinal Zen sees Vatican II as an important milestone in the life of the Church.

“Let us admire the divine plan, the one history of salvation. Human freedoms may fail, but God guides the Church securely to the goal. It’s a journey in continuity not through ruptures,” he declared, offering a brief litany to underscore his point:

* The history of Israel was a continuous alternation of fidelity and unfaithfulness. But the true faith of Abraham, through Mary, Jesus and the Apostles, has been transmitted to us.

* The Old Testament belongs to us too, and the Church of the New Testament is open to everybody.

* The psalms are prayers which fit every situation of our life. The voice of the prophets rings still relevant to the Church in modern society.

* We must be grateful to Greek culture just for the word “Homoousios” which helped the Church to express with exactitude the divine nature of Jesus, true God and true man.

* The Latin language was instrumental to keep the many European and missionary Churches united to Rome. The rich heritage of centuries of liturgical music and ceremonials nurtured the piety of believers. Why should we be surprised, if today’s young people, while sincerely accepting the Church’s liturgical reform, still appreciate the Tridentine Mass?

* The Church carries on her journey “admist world’s tribulation and God’s consolation” (St. Augustine “City of God”) “to come to unity in our faith and in our knowledge of the son of God, until we become the perfect Man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself” (Eph. 4:13)

“Vatican II is very aware that errors persist in the world, but the Council doesn’t intend to condemn them, it wants to help man to realize how those errors, especially a willful refusal of God, are not conducive to real human happiness,” Zen said.

Spoken like a true Modernist heretic.  Speak evil, but then speak truth to cover and gloss over the poison.  Cardinal Zen is just another revolutionary Bolshevik who cannot accept that he devoted his entire life to something that was substantively un-Catholic! 

So instead of accepting the Truth that Bishops Vigano and Schnieder are starting to accept late in their lives, Zen joins the ranks of the sad and pathetic ex-Pope who sits alone, still wearing the white cassock.  A Pope without a Church, a conciliar-father who is witnessing the unraveling of the Institution he and his brother dedicated their lives to ---and that fed him and his family spiritually and corporeally for generations--- at the hands of the Frankensteinian monster he and his ilk at Vatican II created when they rejected the wisdom of their fathers and superiors and decided to engage in the allure of the novel and gnostic that lies in the bogus movement of Nouvelle Théologie.
[-] The following 3 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Eric F, Mourning Dove, The Tax Collector
Reply
#2
Quote:“Vatican II is very aware that errors persist in the world, but the Council doesn’t intend to condemn them, it wants to help man to realize how those errors, especially a willful refusal of God, are not conducive to real human happiness,” Zen said.

I run into this a lot. It seems the purpose of the Church nowadays is to help with "real human happiness".

Wouldn't it be more honest today to say "A willful refusal of God leads people to everlasting punishment (hell)"?

That seems to be a HUGE CHANGE with the Vatican II church, a loss of the sense that "If I reject God and follow the world, I am condemning myself to hell. If I accept the Truths of the faith, and do my best to follow them, including frequent Confession, I will hopefully attain heaven".

Archbishop Viganò spoke of the "children of darkness" and how they would be punished eternally. I wish more Catholic prelates did the same. It is not charitable for our priests to obscure that our very souls are on the line :(
Reply
#3
(07-30-2020, 06:49 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Spoken like a true Modernist heretic.  Speak evil, but then speak truth to cover and gloss over the poison.  Cardinal Zen is just another revolutionary Bolshevik who cannot accept that he devoted his entire life to something that was substantively un-Catholic! 

So instead of accepting the Truth that Bishops Vigano and Schnieder are starting to accept late in their lives, Zen joins the ranks of the sad and pathetic ex-Pope who sits alone, still wearing the white cassock.  A Pope without a Church, a conciliar-father who is witnessing the unraveling of the Institution he and his brother dedicated their lives to ---and that fed him and his family spiritually and corporeally for generations--- at the hands of the Frankensteinian monster he and his ilk at Vatican II created when they rejected the wisdom of their fathers and superiors and decided to engage in the allure of the novel and gnostic that lies in the bogus movement of Nouvelle Théologie.

And there it is!!  For the sake of their own sanity, I believe they suffer from a cognitive dissonance; as a body they continue to extol the intentions of the council but ignore the results, what history has shown us 60 years later! Well meaning intentions brutally subjected to the Law of Unintended Consequences (for the perpetrators, it went exactly as planned). J Robert Oppenheimer realized he had become death, a destroyer of worlds; How much greater is the destruction wrought on humanity to admit the catastrophic outcome of Vll by the Shepard’s own hands.
"Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Matthew 9:10-14
Reply
#4
Right now there is a 5-alarm emergency at the USCCB. Bishop Barron is on a Vatican II apology tour via his youtube channel. Just about every day for the past week it's been some fluff piece about it. Apparently Cd. Zen got roped into the shenanigans somehow too.

Funny how when a few months ago after the disastrous survey about belief in the Eucharist, there was barely a peep. I think the USCCB homepage maybe had a brief letter about it, and I remember Bp. Barron making a video about how it made him so angry. Then it quickly faded into oblivion. But once ArchBp. Vigano writes a couple letters and some of the Traditionalist podcasters comment on it, the Vatican II Response Team was dispatched from USCCB headquarters with the urgency of a secret rescue operation, and it's been going nonstop ever since.

The bishops (well, most of them) love this covid crisis. It allows them to deflect all of the other issues away from the actual problems in the Church. Just another stall tactic. And when they start taking heat for the bungling of the covid response, they can easily jump on the bandwagon of racial or social justice. After that, it'll be more VirusStunts.

The best analogy I have for the USCCB is that they're like a fire engine that drives by a burning house to save a cat stuck in a tree.
[-] The following 1 user Likes LionHippo's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#5
(07-31-2020, 08:59 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Right now there is a 5-alarm emergency at the USCCB.  Bishop Barron is on a Vatican II apology tour via his youtube channel.  Just about every day for the past week it's been some fluff piece about it.  Apparently Cd. Zen got roped into the shenanigans somehow too.

Wow Bp Barron has 16 videos back to back on V2...they must be really desperate.

I tuned to Bp Baron on his thoughts of "Catholic Traditionalism" and the I kid you not he a) describes himself as a Catholic Traditionalist and the b) says you cannot be a traditionalist by repudiating Vatican 2.


Ooooh really Bishop Barron...really. So all those SSPX and Sedevacantists are what...just some protestants?
Reply
#6
Hello!

Cardinal Zen’s words express what I thought was “the Catholic” position on Vatican II in 2006 (which is when he became a cardinal).  This view was taught me by Catholic Answer and Jimmy Akin.  This view seemed to be the view held by Pope Benidict XVI and Pope John Paul II.  This was the view of Vatican II and Catholicism that I called the “strongest” view of Catholicism in 2006. 

There were problems I still thought a Cardinal Zen Catholicism possessed in 2006 such as the idea that the Newman development theory was insufficient to explain many CHANGES before Vatican II.  This was an area were my private judgment told me there were problems with Catholicism, but there were solid faithful explanations for most things.  In 2007 “The Hope for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was IMO a “spirit of Vatican II” document that evidenced a willingness to abandon sound theological principles in favor of feel good doctrines.  It was one of the most magisterial abandonment of what I think Zen would call a Hermeneutic of Tradition. .  Jimmy Akin or Cardinal Zen or Thomas Weinandy or even Pope Benidict XVI, I think would point to local things here and there that were abuses done in the “spirit of Vatican II,” and call them “Hermeneutic of Rupture” actions (Zen’s term, but there were many speaking this language).

I remember hearing Jimmy Akin struggle to explain how some prominent Cardinal (or Cardinals) were advocating for different views on divorce, remarriage, mortal sin (of fornication), and receiving the Eucharist (one of the earlier Hermeneutic of Rupture things after Pope Francis became Pope).  It was clear to me that Akin “feared” that this view would “win.”  To me this meant that the common message I heard from him might not win the day.  He paved the way for him being able to consistently continue being Catholic if the decisions went the way he feared, but he made it clear that it was not decided yet and maybe it would just be a prominent view, but one rejected by Tradition as it should be.  It of course was not rejected (really).

To the extent that the 2006 view, the Catholic Answer’s view, the Jimmy Akin view, the Cardinal Zen view, … of Vatican II is “the view” of Vatican II embraced by Catholicism; I have NO PROBLEM with Vatican II. 




But, Pope Francis is the Pope.  He does not evidence what Cardinal Zen invites us to believe about Vatican II.  The CCC changing and the acceptance of this change by all prelates who maintain communion with the Pope is IMO a clear exercise of the “ordinary universal magisterium” and simultaneously teaches that the “ordinary universal magisterium” was wrong in the past (on the Death Penalty). 
Vatican II CAN be integrated into Catholicism without the “hermeneutic of rupture,” but that is not what is happening.  In 2006 Jimmy Akin (and I expect Dave Armstrong) lamented the way some Priests and perhaps Bishops carried out Vatican II’s teachings with a “hermeneutic of rupture,” (Cardinal Zen’s words, not theirs in my recollection), but it was clear that Benidict XVI cared about such things and elevated Cardinal Zen.  Today, the head of the Catholic Church evidences to me that he is happy he can carry out changes that make Catholicism a more loving religion (as he defines “loving religion”).  He points to Vatican II and a “hermeneutic of rupture” to make these changes.

Cardinal Zen may represent the correct and ultimately embraced view of Vatican II, but I do not believe Pope Francis cares what Cardinal Zen might say about a “hermeneutic of rupture.”   If in 2120 Vatican II is viewed by Catholic prelates as Cardinal Zen says it should be, then intelligent Catholics from 2006 or 1006 or 506 would be able to look down from Heaven and say “there were some rough patches, but Vatican II was a wonderful 21st EC of my Church (the Church).”  If the “hermeneutic of rupture” prevails these intelligent Catholics from 1006 and 506 and Pope Clarence Kelly the Fifth (Pope CKV, will succeed Pope CKIV in 2108 and will head the SSPV Catholic Church) will say, Vatican II was not really an EC and it lead to the falling away of 90%+ of 21st Century Catholics.  Many on this board will agree with them and some on this board will be part of the Church headed by Pope Francis V.

I do not think @austenbosten or the SSPX will agree with me, but my position has been that there is nothing that prevents the reading of Vatican II as a council in the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  But if I am wrong and it impossible to embrace Vatican II as a valid council and Vatican II necessarily (of logical necessity) leads to Pope Francis and the “hermeneutic of rupture” then Vatican II created a schism where 90%+ of the “faithful” left the Catholic faith.  Alternatively it might not be logically necessary that Vatican II be read with the “hermeneutic of rupture,” but 90%+ of Catholics and Catholic prelates leave the Catholic faith because they view Vatican II as encouraging/allowing a “hermeneutic of rupture.”  Either way Vatican II will have been a mistake.

I do not KNOW what will happen, but it sure seems Pope Francis is a “hermeneutic of rupture” guy and unless something changes the 2120 folks who embrace Vatican II will be “hermeneutic of rupture” folks.
Charity, TOm
Reply
#7
(07-30-2020, 06:49 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What saying is that?  The fortune cookie saying you pulled out of the rear of your cassock!  Name me what evils flowed from the First Vatican Council, or The Council of Trent, or the Council of Nicea, or the Council of Jerusalem.

@austenbosten
I wanted to offer this thought because you mentioned Vatican I.  If you thought my previous post remotely made sense, please read it again.  After you read this post, I expect you will believe I have no idea what I am talking about.  I rejected pre-Francis Catholicism.  What I am about to share is largely my 2006 view of the SSPX folks.  Pope Francis has only solidified my belief that Catholicism is a fine organization that does not have a correct self-understanding, but in some ways it has heightened my view of the SSPX folks.
 
I will suggest Pope Francis is like Augustine/Aquinas, so this is a recommendation to not read!
 
Vatican II is not quite the anomaly that Ultra-Trad’s suggest it is.  I think it likely that the tumult in the church after Nicea was WORSE.  The Catholic can take solace in this and say “this too shall pass,” but I say that the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium is almost always humans doing the best they can, occasionally a bad pope here or their doing what they want, and perhaps a group of God’s children feeling His spirit as they do the best they can.
Nicea:
I can see Eusebius of Caesarea, not Eusebius of Nicomedia, (like Cardinal Ratsinger/ Bishop Bernard Fellay) saying “homoousian like a human father and son are homoousian” (just a pastoral council the problem is “the spirit of Vatican II”).  I can see Athanasius (like Pope Benidict XVI or Cardinal Levada) saying those who hold these views on homoousian are our brothers, “not arianomaniacs.” (like some words said by Levada during the effort to re-integrate the SSPX).  In a century nobody in the church or the world believed as Eusebius did.  Augustine/Aquinas (like Pope Francis) solidified the neo-modalism Catholics embrace today and modern Catholics call Eusebius of C’s view semi-Arian (In 2120 the view of Pope Benidict XVI will be called semi-UltraTradism.  The view of Pope Francis might be called a neo-Development paradigm.  Pope Francis lacks the clarity and rigor of Augustine / Aquinas, but they were not the Pope and Pope Francis has cogent thinkers defending him.  The “ultra-Trad” is the view that Pope Francis seeks to purge and will purge if he wins and Vatican II will be called an Ecumenical Council not “just a pastoral” council).  And, the faith is changed IMO. 
The big difference between Nicea and Vatican II is that the post Nicea machinations are shrouded in history, purged from the record, and have no defenders anymore. 
 
Vatican I
I could draw a similar parallel for Vatican I and Vatican II.  The modern Catholic would point to Cardinal Newman’s view (from the outside of Vatican I) as a rejecter of Vatican I, I would say Ignaz von Döllinger is the Newman counter argument (Newman like Ratzinger/Benedict would have duel roll of defender of orthodoxy and recognition of strength in the arguments of Dollinger).  Dollinger was acknowledge as maybe the preeminent church historian and Newman was a nobody.  Today few know Dollinger and the Old Catholic Church (I attended a mass with them 15 years ago they are still around, but they do not offer cogent arguments like Dollinger, who never joined them).  If the Old Catholics maintained Dollinger’s intellectual rigor I think we would have much more about the machinations that resulted in Papal Infallibility.  If there were Old Catholic apologists there would be writings about how the doctrine was not properly defined/sealed, Vatican I is the longest council EVER and was only closed in 1960, the Franco-Prussian war is the ONLY reason Catholics believe in the innovation that is “Papal infallibility,” and who knows what Dollinger and a dozen 1870-1920 thinkers would have produced (especially if they didn’t have wars and … to worry about like their post Vatican II thinkers).
 
So, it was my opinion that the Vatican II deniers in 2006 don’t look a lot different than Vatican I or Nicea deniers regardless of how cogent their (your) arguments appear today.  The Vatican II deniers are correct IMO, Vatican II was not a council sealed by the Holy Spirit and guarded from both error and innovation, but neither was Vatican I or Nicea. 
It also seems to me that a number of the folks on the Jimmy Akin / Cardinal Zen side of this debate would claim things Pope Francis has done could NEVER happen and yet they did.  It also seems to me that Sedavacantists and SSPX folks in 1955 would claim they would never reject Vatican II or declare multiple “Popes” over 50 years are not really Popes and yet they have.
Charity, TOm
Reply
#8
(07-31-2020, 09:31 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(07-31-2020, 08:59 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Right now there is a 5-alarm emergency at the USCCB.  Bishop Barron is on a Vatican II apology tour via his youtube channel.  Just about every day for the past week it's been some fluff piece about it.  Apparently Cd. Zen got roped into the shenanigans somehow too.

Wow Bp Barron has 16 videos back to back on V2...they must be really desperate.

I tuned to Bp Baron on his thoughts of "Catholic Traditionalism" and the I kid you not he a) describes himself as a Catholic Traditionalist and the b) says you cannot be a traditionalist by repudiating Vatican 2.


Ooooh really Bishop Barron...really.  So all those SSPX and Sedevacantists are what...just some protestants?

I didn't realize it was up to 16 now ! !  Yes, his position is that he (and others) are the Traditionalists, because nothing is more traditional than completely changing everything that the Church had done and believed. 

It's odd, because he seems like an intelligent man, and I do find him likable for the most part.  But doesn't he ever see the disconnect when he makes his videos that are full of beautiful Church art, architecture and music, and wonder why those things are gone now?  What can be the reason?
Reply
#9
(07-31-2020, 10:04 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(07-30-2020, 06:49 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What saying is that?  The fortune cookie saying you pulled out of the rear of your cassock!  Name me what evils flowed from the First Vatican Council, or The Council of Trent, or the Council of Nicea, or the Council of Jerusalem.

@austenbosten
I wanted to offer this thought because you mentioned Vatican I.  If you thought my previous post remotely made sense, please read it again.  After you read this post, I expect you will believe I have no idea what I am talking about.  I rejected pre-Francis Catholicism.  What I am about to share is largely my 2006 view of the SSPX folks.  Pope Francis has only solidified my belief that Catholicism is a fine organization that does not have a correct self-understanding, but in some ways it has heightened my view of the SSPX folks.
 
I will suggest Pope Francis is like Augustine/Aquinas, so this is a recommendation to not read!
 
Vatican II is not quite the anomaly that Ultra-Trad’s suggest it is.  I think it likely that the tumult in the church after Nicea was WORSE.  The Catholic can take solace in this and say “this too shall pass,” but I say that the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium is almost always humans doing the best they can, occasionally a bad pope here or their doing what they want, and perhaps a group of God’s children feeling His spirit as they do the best they can.

 
So, it was my opinion that the Vatican II deniers in 2006 don’t look a lot different than Vatican I or Nicea deniers regardless of how cogent their (your) arguments appear today.  The Vatican II deniers are correct IMO, Vatican II was not a council sealed by the Holy Spirit and guarded from both error and innovation, but neither was Vatican I or Nicea. 
It also seems to me that a number of the folks on the Jimmy Akin / Cardinal Zen side of this debate would claim things Pope Francis has done could NEVER happen and yet they did.  It also seems to me that Sedavacantists and SSPX folks in 1955 would claim they would never reject Vatican II or declare multiple “Popes” over 50 years are not really Popes and yet they have.
Charity, TOm

Tom, I really don't have a good grasp what you are saying.  I presume English is a second language.  I will do my best to respond. 

I would first say that your analogies don't quite apply well to the situation of Vatican II.  While it is true historically that the Council of Nicea was not successful in defeating Arianism right away and prevent the rise of neo-pagan emperors, it most certainly did clarify Church Teaching and condemned the heresy of Arianism.  It took time for this to take effect, but it is clear that the Council of Nicea was very impactful in a beneficial way.  There was a growing heresy in the Church and Nicea put an end to it.

As for Vatican I it was different because the Council never really tackled what it was called to do.  Vatican I was called to condemn the philosophical and religious errors of the 18th and 19th centuries.  The declaration of Papal Infallibility was really not as controversial as you lead us to believe.  While yes Dollinger could not accept the dogma and there were a few German bishops that broke away, much of the Church remained intact and nothing really changed in the Church.


Getting to Vatican II there is a clear and definitive break.  You cannot reconcile Dignitatus Humanae that declares "the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person" with the corpus of Church Teaching prior to Vatican II which explicitly stated the opposite.  "And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society" was the encyclical of Pope Pius IX.  Now the burden is on you to determine which is right?  Was Vatican 2 right, or was the Pope? If the Pope was wrong, then every Papal encyclical and ergo every so-called infallible statement is then called into question.  Congratulations we now have Protestantism and the gates of Hell hath prevailed.

Also to say Ecumenical Councils are not sealed by the Holy Spirit flies in contradiction of Sacred Scripture (Acts 15:28) in which the Holy Ghost was invoked.  Vatican 2 unlike every council preceding it makes a novel and explicit declaration that it was not binding on the faithful.  So ergo, I, the SSPX, and sedevacantists do not have to accept Vatican 2 and neither do you.  There is nothing in Vatican 2 that declares me anathema if I reject one of the statements, and if I'm not anathema for rejecting one, then I'm not anathema for rejecting all.

I understand you can't grasp the thought of so many Catholics following a false religion, so you cling to CAF and typical-NO Vatican 2 apologetics to console you, but if I could simply state.  Given what has occurred in the last 60 years can you honestly and truly say with a straight face that this (Vatican 2) has been a work of the Holy Ghost?  That this is a true and solemn Teaching of Holy Mother Church?
Reply
#10
(07-31-2020, 10:07 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I didn't realize it was up to 16 now ! !  Yes, his position is that he (and others) are the Traditionalists, because nothing is more traditional than completely changing everything that the Church had done and believed. 

It's odd, because he seems like an intelligent man, and I do find him likable for the most part.  But doesn't he ever see the disconnect when he makes his videos that are full of beautiful Church art, architecture and music, and wonder why those things are gone now?  What can be the reason?

Yeah he's a modernist, and sadly his intelligence is greatly watered down by his devotion to Ba'althasaar and Wojtyla.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)