Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« UNMITIGATED GEEKY COOLNESS!!! | Main | Pope Warns Aliens Could Attack At Any Time! »

November 13, 2006

Comments

Mary Kay

Jimmy, thanks for your clear and succinct analysis.

Michael

So what you are saying is, we really don't know anymore than when we started.

Ryan C

Thanks Jimmy, for putting that one to bed.

Jordan Potter

Although there is that degree of uncertainty about the Pope's words due to the "precis" or paraphrase sort of approach to the record of his homily, nevertheless if this was the officially published account of his homily and he did not subsequently go on record correcting this account, then we can only conclude that the Pope didn't see any inaccuracy in the way his words were paraphrased.

Dumbfounded

Although there is that degree of uncertainty about the Pope's words due to the "precis" or paraphrase sort of approach to the record of his homily, nevertheless if this was the officially published account of his homily and he did not subsequently go on record correcting this account, then we can only conclude that the Pope didn't see any inaccuracy in the way his words were paraphrased.

Unless of course the Smoke of Satan sought to obscure his meaning...

Realist

Jimmy,

You noted: " If we don't have the pope's exact words, but someone's narrative re-telling of them, or if we can't tell precisely when we have the pope's exact words and when we don't, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what the pope meant."

Paraphrasing the above: If we don't have the Jesus' exact words, but someone's narrative re-telling of them, or if we can't tell precisely when we have the Jesus' exact words and when we don't, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what Jesus meant. "

i.e. Problems of interpretation (translation?) of narratives are not new as evidenced by our four Gospels and subsets of epistles,letters and minor gospels.

In singularity and going to work now on a money project. Later!!!

Christine

Thanks for the great analysis Jimmy!

Christine
TheWorld...IMHO

Tim J.

Realist, you are hobby-horsing AGAIN, turning every post into an excuse to deliver your standard-issue harangue against the authority of scripture, the authority of the Church and, well, the reliability of anything not personally approved by yourself.

"...If we don't have the Jesus' exact words, but someone's narrative re-telling of them, or if we can't tell precisely when we have the Jesus' exact words and when we don't, it makes it that much harder to determine exactly what Jesus meant. "

Nobody said it was easy. What J.D. Crossan does, on the other hand, IS easy.

This is also why we have capital-T Tradition, and this is why it is absolutely indispensable. The Bible was not written in a vacuum. There was a living Church that gave birth to the Scriptures, and it is that same living Church through which they must be interpreted, or one is simply wandering without a compass.

But, to turn to the actual topic of Jimmy's post -

It sounds like Pope Paul VI was worried about the same destructive social trends and heresies that anyone with eyes could see looming in the last half of the twentieth century, INCLUDING exactly the kind of preposterous modernism advocated by J.D. Crossan and his ilk.

How this text could be used to argue that he regretted the actions of the Council, or thought the Novus Ordo a mistake is beyond my comprehension. The text simply can't be stretched that far without breaking.

And as for Satanists in the Church... you mean we should not take Bishop Milingo at his word? He wouldn't have any axe to grind against the hierarchy of the Church, would he?

Brian R

Thanks Jimmy; Awesome as usual.

It seems that Pope Paul VI was lamenting on the trend of the faithful as Saint Paul had written.

2Tm 4:3-4 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. (DRV)

Scott

Jimmy,

How can it be said that he didn't mean the liturgical life of the church had been hurt? I am thinking specifically about the fact that the Council (which has a highest level of protection, thank you Holy Spirit!) and the promulgation of the new Ordo were separate events. The Council called for *something* (but not specifically or necessarily what we got many years later).

pax,
Scott

Ryan C

Scott,

I think one needs to make a distinction between the promulgation of the Ordo, and the way that Ordo was implemented on a parish by parish basis. The two are not the same.

Augustine

As I stated in the previous thread, my reading of the original Italian text left me with the same conclusion: Paul was referring to the "spirit of VII" as the "smoke of satan". Benedict put the same idea in other less dramatic, yet no less accurate, words, referring to it as the "hermeneutics of discontinuity."

But now I'm intrigued by the fact that the original text wasn't offered, only a report on it...

Esau

JIMMY AKIN:

You're AWESOME! When I had commented in the Italian Translation Bleg thread yesterday evening that I couldn't wait 'till you published the follow-up to that post in order to help folks with their misunderstanding on this matter, I didn't know the follow-up would actually arrive the next day! Whoa!!! That was QUICK SERVICE!

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Yes, thank you for this post!

It would be great if something like this would appear in a future copy of This Rock, no? {hint-hint :-)}

In Jesu et Maria,

Esau

Realist, you are hobby-horsing AGAIN, turning every post into an excuse to deliver your standard-issue harangue against the authority of scripture, the authority of the Church and, well, the reliability of anything not personally approved by yourself.

Tim J:

Brutha, if Realist is going to continue in this manner just to sabotage Jimmy's blog in order to further his own ends and promote the Crossan gospel, you might consider posting permanently that Gospel According to Realist Summary of yours as a warning to those who would be unaware of Realist's hidden agenda and this ulterior motive.


JIMMY:

You might want to have the following (nicely done by Tim J) regarding Realist permamently posted if Realist continues to repeat his behavior in sabotaging your posts with the heretical Crossan Gospel all throughout these and other future posts; that it may serve as a warning for unsuspecting blog visitors not acquainted with his distorted liberal views. Just wanted you to know though that Tim J didn't originally call it "The Gospel According to Realist". I was the one who actually added that title in there since, considering Realist's views on the matter, it seemed appropriate. I didn't want you to become upset with him if you disliked the title.


The "Gospel According to Realist":

For the sake of simplicity, and for those new to JA.O, here is a short synopsis of Realist's comments on just about any subject;

1) The Bible is nothing more a collection of "faith stories" with no basis in historical fact. He knows this because the Jesus Seminar says so, and they are infallible in matters of doctrine.

2) The *Official Version* of Church history is a lie made up by the hierarchy so that they can continue scamming all of us.

3) Miracles - that is supernatural events of any kind - are impossible because in reality, nothing exists outside of nature. This means we have to re-think our idea of "God".

3) "Catholic" is, apparently, a word with no fixed meaning... this means that all Catholics are equal, especially dissidents. There is, of course, no absolute Truth, but the *Official Catholic Version* of anything is ESPECIALLY rejected.

None the less, Realist assures us that he REALLY IS a Catholic, which is like me insisting that I am REALLY a committed Communist, even though I think communism gets everything wrong and that Karl Marx never existed, but was an invention of Joseph Stalin.

Stat Man

That doesn't really change the facts.

If someone wishes to dismiss the claim that Pope Paul VI was referring to the negative effects following the Council (let's face it; documents like Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate really aren't bastions of Catholic Tradition and Truth) the crushing statistical evidence remains.

35% decline in priests, from 75% to 25% drop in Mass attendance, over a 90% drop in seminarians (98% in Canada), almost 70% drop in ordinations, 70% disbelief in the Real Presence, huge divorce rates, annulment rates, abortion rates, etc. among Catholics, 92% of Catholics disagreeing with the Church's dogmatic teaching on contraception, over 66% drop in the number of seminaries, about a 55% drop in the number of adult converts, and let's not even get into what's happened to the Holy Mass, devotion to Our Blessed Lady, to the Most Blessed Sacrament, etc.

You can find all of this in Kenneth Jones' book "Leading Catholic Indicators..."

Why anyone would fight so desperately, with such ferocity, to uphold this Council as though it really "let in a new springtime" is beyond me.

Admit that we're in a crisis and set about addressing it. Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx...when else in Church history have people like this been allowed into the conciliar document-making process? St. Cyril? St. Athanasius? St. Charles Borromeo? Were these great saints out to subvert Church teaching, dumb it down for modern man (as Pope Paul VI admitted, in his address of 11/26/1969, was part of the intention for vernacularizing the Mass) and introduce the ambiguity of modernism, which St. Pius X called the "synthesis of all heresies"?

I better stop there. I'm sure I'll soon receive a volley of scathing rebukes, spitting angry tirades, and even death threats lambasting me for being a radical, reactionary, lidless-eye traditionalist from the Middle Ages.

Inocencio

Stat Man,

Just one question:

Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church during Vatican II thereby allowing the gates of Hell to prevail?

I look forward to your answer, John...I mean Stat Man.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

STATMAN (though this was not your 'name' before):

35% decline in priests, from 75% to 25% drop in Mass attendance, over a 90% drop in seminarians (98% in Canada), almost 70% drop in ordinations, 70% disbelief in the Real Presence, huge divorce rates, annulment rates, abortion rates, etc. among Catholics, 92% of Catholics disagreeing with the Church's dogmatic teaching on contraception, over 66% drop in the number of seminaries, about a 55% drop in the number of adult converts, and let's not even get into what's happened to the Holy Mass, devotion to Our Blessed Lady, to the Most Blessed Sacrament, etc.

Gee... and all those statistics actually PROVE that Vatican II was behind them???

HOW???

As I stated before:

That is like finding a correlation between people wearing pink bikinis on the beach on a hot summer's day and the high number of deaths that occured on that particular day.

Does that mean that because there were several folks wearing pink bikinis on that hot summer's day and the high number of deaths that occurred that very day; that the former was a cause of the latter?

Mind you, correlation does not prove causation!

Esau

Darn it! Where did those pink bikinis actually go????

That's right, the smoke of Satan entered them and...!!!

(i)(what I wouldn't give for a good punchline to that!) (/i)

Ryan C

Memo to Stat Man:

Look up "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Stat Man

Inocencio--

Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church during Vatican II thereby allowing the gates of Hell to prevail?

No. But insofar as Pope Paul VI's closing address of January 12, 1966 admitted quite clearly that nothing from the council was proclaimed dogmatically infallible, the Holy Spirit was not invoked to protect these documents from error.

Pope Benedict XIV, for instance, said in 1748: It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime.

The Council's decree on ecumenism, number 8, offers: "In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren."


Of course, I bet you're skilled at reconciling jointly exhaustive, mutually exclusive statements, as most conservative Catholics these days are; whenever a traditionalist is encountered, conservative Catholics become instantly able to offer an impassioned defense of why before the Council, 2 and 2 equalsed 4 and after "possibly, if we consider it in a certain way and dialogue with our separated brethren in the proper spirit of ecumenical fervor, noting that the way of salvation is also open to our separated brethren, that 2 and 2 can at times equal 5."

I would rather say that the Holy Spirit prevented the Council from swallowing up Tradition utterly and completely.

I look forward to your answer, John...I mean Stat Man.

My name is actually Michael, but I don't want to let facts stand in the way of your obscuring the point by adopting the same tactic I predicted would be used.


I could just as easily refer to you as a post-Vatican II neo-con who thinks popular approval is sufficient to append "Magnus" to the name of Pope John Paul II, but I've chosen to address your point as though it contained something of substance.

Presumably, a traditional Catholic (which is to say, a Catholic who does things largely as they were done before 1962 and is hence free from criticism in that respect unless the criticizer wishes to blast any pope before Blessed John XXIII as well) is not extended the same courtesy.

Fr Martin Fox

People, don't feed the trolls! (Realist, John.)

Re: Jimmy's analysis...

I would say this to those who use the "smoke of Satan" line to say his holiness was casting doubt on his own enterprise of Vatican II:

That's not what the official account of his remarks say. What have you got? What's your source?

Now, some folks are just in the grip of an unreasonable level of anxiety -- and it is both counter-productive and ultimately, uncharitable to argue with them as if this were about appealing to reason. It's similar to dealing with those in the grip of scrupulosity. Once you realize what you're up against, the right thing to do is STOP THE ARGUMENT. Just as it is foolish to try to parse morality and culpability with someone who is scrupulous, don't try to disprove "the conspiracy" or "the sky is falling" to someone who is caught up in that frame of mind. It is counter-productive; and, really, it is uncharitable . At some point it is cruel. (Another reason not to feed the trolls.)

But when it's not an emotional-anxiety sort of thing, then I say put the whole burden of proof on the one assaulting Holy Mother Church (which is what these Vatican II- and pope-bashers are doing); don't be tricked into accepting the burden of disproving their claims. The proof of your claim in defense of the Church remains Matthew 16:18.

Ryan C

And now, a whirlwind tour through all these objections, with clear and concise answers:

"35% decline in priests, from 75% to 25% drop in Mass attendance, over a 90% drop in seminarians (98% in Canada), almost 70% drop in ordinations"

Is this just in America? Because ordinations and conversions etc... have been increasing in other parts of the world, one could argue in large part through the changes brought about after Vatican II. Furthermore, there are plenty of parts of our country, in the midwest for example, where ordinations are at good levels. All this suggests that the fault lies not with Vatican II, but with cultural factos based on region and locale.

"70% disbelief in the Real Presence"

This poll has not only been proven false, but a new poll by First Things has demonstrated high belief in the Real Presence. Besides which, we have no numbers from the past to compare current numbers too. Actually, a good history on the Eucharist will show that Eucharistic reception and adoration are at higher levels then they were in other periods, such as the medieval.

"huge divorce rates, annulment rates, abortion rates, etc. among Catholics, 92% of Catholics disagreeing with the Church's dogmatic teaching on contraception, over 66% drop in the number of seminaries, about a 55% drop in the number of adult converts, and let's not even get into what's happened to the Holy Mass, devotion to Our Blessed Lady, to the Most Blessed Sacrament"

I've already answered the point about the Blessed Sacrament and seminarians (look for repetition in the future). Devotion to our Lady has been helped by the Luminous Mysteries (that horrible post-Vatican II invention!) and has actually increased in the past few years among lay Catholics.

As for the other stats, I'd like to see some documentation. Are the "Catholics" really Catholic, or is that what they call themselves? If one looks through history, one can see plenty of examples of the laity and the clergy failing to live up to the call of holiness - that's why evangelization has never gone out of style, and why the saints were often controversial.

To treat this stat-malady, I prescribe a good book on Church History, especially the medieval period, a dose of Canterbury Tales, Gerard Manley Hopkins, and Flannery O'Connor, a read-through of the actual documents of Vatican II and the Pope's encyclicals, and a visit to one of the many parishes with Eucharistic Adoration along with a visit to World Youth Day to talk to the youth of the Church. Perhaps some youthful hope and exuberance will rub off, and bitterness will subside.

Stat Man

Look up "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Ryan C--

Thank you. While you may regard me as an idiot, the logic of the situation compels us to consider that when the one thing which binds Catholics everywhere in the world, no matter their language or country, is the weekly obligation to hear Mass, and when we consider that the 1969 Missae departed so radically from what was done before as to make null and void any attempt to declare it "organic development," we have strong case for a comparative study using those indicators of Catholic life I referenced above.

And hypothetical induction also requires that an opposing hypothesis be advanced which offers a better and clearer explanation of the data, is more complete, consistent with external data, confirmable, and has no undermining counterevidence.

In this case, the "the 60's were a crazy time, society changed, and people lost the Faith" defense won't work for any number of reasons.

But, as I noted before, don't let that be an impediment to unearthing new insults and ad hominems. I know that's a staple tactic for combox respondents here.

Stat Man

People, don't feed the trolls! (Realist, John.)

Thank you, Fr., for proving my point.

It seems I must note again that my name is not John, but Michael, and that there is more than one person who finds elements of the Council objectionable.

Nonetheless, I might propound the idea that gratitude is in order that you evidently need not deal with some of those indicators I mentioned above.

In the dozens of parishes I've attended up and down the East Coast, with modified words of Consecration, homilies denying or diminishing the Real Presence, bongo drum Masses, and various other cute modernist novelties, Jones' conclusions have only been reinforced with startling accuracy.

But as it's obvious most prefer to toss out labels and name call rather than interact substantively with the points, I'll be on my way.

Esau

Ryan C--
Thank you. While you may regard me as an idiot...

JOHN/STATMAN/MICHAEL:
If Ryan C regarded you as an "idiot", I don't believe he would have taken the time to respond to your post and provide you with such a detailed argument as regards the matter you put forth.

If anything, it shows a sign of respect. Otherwise, he wouldn't have dignified your answer with a response!

Inocencio

Stat Man,

No the Holy Spirit did not and has not abandoned the Catholic Church. Excellent answer!

Since a pope confirmed the council it is now part of the Catholic councils even if you don't give it your authority.

And unlike you I can easily admit when I am wrong...Your name is Michael and not John I stand corrected.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

STATMAN/MICHAEL:

In the dozens of parishes I've attended up and down the East Coast, with modified words of Consecration, homilies denying or diminishing the Real Presence, bongo drum Masses, and various other cute modernist novelties, Jones' conclusions have only been reinforced with startling accuracy.

Ohhh... that's right! Those few churches you visited up and down the East Coast is actually representative of the Catholic churches in the ENTIRE WORLD!

You'd need a pretty good sample size of Catholic churches across the ENTIRE WORLD in order to even begin to have something that's representative of the Catholic churches around the world -- yet, I thought someone with such expertise in Statistics would already know that!??!?!?!

Ryan C

Stat Man,

You're argument against ecumenicism is a non sequitur. When a Catholic faithful to the Magisterium of the Church looks at those two statements (from Benedict and VII) they do not see contradiction. Rather they see that the "worship" Benedict speaks of, and the "prayer with seperated Brethren" and "ecumenical services" that Vatican II speaks of, are very different things.

Indeed, Benedict's note that Catholics can't participate in Protestant worship is still in force, as Catholics cannot receive communion at those services or seem to support them, partly for fear of causing scandal.

But praying together, and "ecumenical gatherings" are not the same thing as participating in Protestant or other worship, as I think anyone who doesn't cloud themselves about the matter can see. This is clear if one looks at the liturgies of those services Benedict surely had in mind, which often denigrate Catholicism and the Pope explicity. That's not what happens when a Catholic and a Protestant pray together after one of them has suffered a loss.

But perhaps Benedict would also condemn the Catholics at the Council of Florence from associating and praying with the Orthodox before the schism was healed, or the Fathers of Trent for inviting other Christians (even Protestants!) to the Council!

As always, context is everything.

Ryan C

Stat Man,

I do not think you are an idiot. I do think your use of a pseudonym is flippant. I also think you're use of stats is fallacious (hence my equally flippant response). But I did not call you names.

Furthermore, I live on the East Coast, and have attended a dozen parishes as well. And I have heard all sorts of Orthodox homilies, from topics ranging from the Real Presence to Purgatory. I have never heard the words of consecration changed, nor ever heard bongos in mass. Now who of us sounds like he would be more objective in evaluating the state of a parish? You with your a priori suspicion of everything post Vatican II, or me with my love of both the new mass and the old one? (and the many other different rites).

The fact is, Stat Man, in lambasting the Church for the sins of today you are taking an extremely myopic view of the present and of history. Widen your horizons, look at the Church worldwide. There's Catholics now in countries people in the 18th century would harldy expect there could be. Blaming Vatican II for the admittable problems that exist today is like blaming the first Council Nicea for the rise of the Arians and Julian the Apostate post-Council.


Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>I could just as easily refer to you as a post-Vatican II neo-con who thinks popular approval is sufficient to append "Magnus" to the name of Pope John Paul II,

Actually, the title "Magnus" is given by popular acclaim; it's not officially applied by Church authorities (unlike, say, "Doctor of the Church"). That's why it's often applied in a rather odd, even illogical manner.

For instance, one could argue that Sts. Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Siena deserve the appelation "the Great," yet neither of them has it. In fact, the only female saint called "the Great" is Gertrude of Helfta. Why did she get it and not them? Popular acclaim. The Catholic people gave it to St Gertrude yet failed to give it to Sts. Teresa and Catherine. Fair and logical? Probably not, but that's how it goes. So if JP2 is called "the Great" it will also be by popular acclaim.

>>>Furthermore, I live on the East Coast, and have attended a dozen parishes as well. And I have heard all sorts of Orthodox homilies, from topics ranging from the Real Presence to Purgatory. I have never heard the words of consecration changed, nor ever heard bongos in mass.

This has pretty much been my experience as well - except that I did hear bongos once at an African-American parish. Yet I, too, never remember a priest tinkering with the words of consecration. Even at Masses where the priest rephrased other parts of the liturgy, the consecration itself was unchanged. That's not to say it never, ever happens, but in my experience it hasn't happened.

In Jesu et Maria,

chris K

Funny, but in all the years of hearing about "the smoke of Satan" and reading the various instances people point to as evidence, I've not read such emphasis only on VII until I read the blogs! Frankly, such a history of warnings began with Leo XIII with his "prophecy" (accompanied by the prayer to St. Michael for protection) about the 100 years, which Fatima seemed to sum up, and then in the beginning of this new century we had Pope JPII speaking to a kind of ultimate war between good and evil before this new era of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It will come but not without a showdown! Now, of course just "who" do we expect to be fighting against this "Woman" ... especially as the time gets closer and closer?? It may have begun to be more noticeable than before in the recognition of that "smoke", but it would appear that now the whole world is involved in the battle. So, the following mention by Paul VI appears to sum up this idea:

We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself.

IOW, it's not just some social effect explanation. As far as Satanists in the Church ... shall we just say that such "preternatural" influences are becoming manifest in the cults of the world, loss of faith to New Age, desecration of the Eucharist et al ... with the Church being rather weakened in Herself to confront the problems in their enormity. Yet, we had JPII with his emphasis on Mary's role in all this as well as his generation of youth ... a real sign of the Holy Spirit still acting. And the grassroots new charisms cooperating in hope with the Church and that gift of a pope that have held things together. We shouldn't get stuck in some myopic vision that may have come with that "smoke" alert.

Im in the desert

Jimmy and Ckris K. I am in full obedience to PAPA Benedict and Holy Mother Church. I know that sometimes you Jimmy and you Chris K. and myself have have different views on medjugorje.I would like to ask you what would you do if you went to your Diocese web site and in the search section you type in medjugoje and not only does it support it, but also sells books about Our Holy Father Pope John Paulll and PaPa Benedict being anti Popes also containing a website called worldslastchance.com? Has not the smoke entered?

Esau

I'M IN THE DESERT(?):

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith actually spoke to this point on Madjegoria, not definitively or finally; but the Church has told us that as of that point in time in 1998, the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop when the bishop said that up until that point, there is no evidence of anything supernatural occurring; that’s what the Church said. Now, the Church says (by the way, Cardinal Ratzinger was then prefect who now is Pope Benedict XVI) that this is not a condemnation but, of course, was not an approval as well because the apparitions were still ongoing. So, they’re still under investigation. However, the Church did say – and that’s a pretty strong statement – that there’s no evidence of anything supernatural up to that point.

Now, the Church went on to say that there could be no official pilgrimages to Madjegoria. We cannot officially pray to Our Lady of Madjegoria. Well, what do you mean by ‘officially’? Well, liturgically-speaking (of course, as private Catholic people – be they a bishop, a priest, or a lay person – can go there as a private individual), we cannot make any official sort of proclamation that there is an Our Lady of Madjegoria and, thus, have liturgical prayers to her as such.

Basically speaking, the Church has not affirmed it, has not condemned it; it has put out a bit of a caveat there. So, it’s a problem if or when you have a priest, or let’s say, even a bishop, who would go and make any sort of official statement, like praying to Our Lady of Madjegoria -- that would be a problem.

As for the other concerns you mentioned, I'm not aware of those or even have experienced such dissension in a genuine Catholic website.

Fr Martin Fox

Stat Man:

If you are not John, then I fail to see why you seem to take my comments, about John, as applying to you.

Dan's Dad

Stat man you are sadly correct.The Holy Ghost did not abandon man,man abandoned The Holy Ghost.Just look at the Sacramental state of The Church.
For example,just recently I went to confession to a parish priest at a Novus Ordo church.It was not the normal time for him to hear confessions but I had no other choice.Iwas recieving Our Lord 2 hours later.He wasnt busy at all,but seemed agitated at my request.He,thankfully but,reluctantly agreed to hear it.Firstly he told me to sit in a chair next to him,but I knelt down realizing that I am now about to encounter Christ.He then interrupted my confession to tell me that what I had just confessed was not a sin.Now I know for a fact that it is a mortal sin,grave matter,but the rev. chastised me for thinking so and recommended I get spiritual counseling to make me get hip with the times. I had to beg him repeatedly to absolve me I was shaking and close to tears.He finally did.
The next time I went to confession it was to the other church 20 miles from where I live.This time the priest absolved me incorrectly,or I should say did not absolve me at all.He said "May God fill you with absolution and peace,and I bless you in the name of the Father,and of The Son,and of the Holy Ghost.An anamoly if Ive ever heard one.
These are the only two catholic churches within a 50 mile radius of where I,and thousands others live,and I am quite sure this happens elsewhere.
So you see we have abandoned Christ,as Catholics en masse,in a special way have these last thirty seven years.

Im in the desert

Esau, thank you for your reply, If you are still online Please go to The Diocese of Palm Beach Fl. and search Please reply back this is tearing my heart out.

Ryan C

Dan's Dad,

I have had my confession heard in at least 3 parishes with about 7 priests, and I have never had such things happen to me. I truly regret that you experienced what you did, but you cannot draw the conclusion that this is what most people experience with the Church.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Dan's Dad:

That's terrible. I wish you lived here, where there are many Catholic parishes close by and I have never been refused absolution. A priest in the neighboring diocese once told me that something I confessed wasn't a sin when I knew that it was, but he still absolved me using the proper formula.

In Jesu et Maria,

Eileen R

The words of the Consecration changed: well, The closest I got was a priest who was inappropriately using the children's liturgy with "We praise you, we bless you, we thank you" mixed in with the Eucharistic prayer, but the bishop put a stop to that. I've never heard the Real Presence denied and I've heard some doozeys of sermons over the years.

But bongo drums, yes. In at least two parishes. The sound of bongo drums has entered the Church.

Esau

Corrigendum:

Sorry folks -- I just noticed a typo in my original post that said:
...the Scared Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop...

I meant to say:
...the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Church is in agreement with the local bishop...

John

Father

What do you think, that there is only one "John" out there in the world? There are millions like me and millions of others who see the problem and know the phony Catholicism that is being sold off today, to the harm on 1B souls

Those that are "traditional" continue to grow, except we dont have the huge resources of the church and are barely 20 years old and it takes time to get the money for new church's and priests ordained the way they were before even that sacrament was changed

All I know is that today opens the big NYC pedophila court case that was moved to Pennsylvania, and with Cardinal Egan announcing about 30 church closings and schools, etc and when he was approached by an independent traditional group to purchase one of the church's he said he would rather it become a mosque!

Inocencio

John,

Oh you of little faith...

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

Innocencio, Why do you think that when Cardinal Egan was aproached to sell the church to a group who just wanted to worship the Lord Almighty in a manner that Pope Benedict completely aproves of,His Eminence responded by saying,"I'd rather it be turned into a mosque"Would this perchance have been a great insult to The Holy Fathers who organized great crusades to end desecration of the Holy Land.Or Pope St.Pius V,Who asked all in Christendom to pray the Holy Rosary for the defeat of the infidel,then organized a naval phalanx which defeated the Moslem horde at Lepanto.
I can understand why someone would question a statement like the above in light of our Holy Catholics Church teaching on respect for Gods House.God bless you

Esau

All I know is that today opens the big NYC pedophila court case that was moved to Pennsylvania, and with Cardinal Egan announcing about 30 church closings and schools, etc and when he was approached by an independent traditional group to purchase one of the church's he said he would rather it become a mosque!

JOHN:

Regarding this problem of pedophilia in the Church, from all or most of the accounts, a majority of the offenders were priests who were of very old age and most of which most likely came out from the Pre-Vatican II days and the time of the Tridentine rite!

That's why, in some cases, when the authorities were attempting to snatch the offender, that person either already keeled over or was just about to!

Even Chris Matthews said to Dennis Miller, during the time they were talking about the events surrounding Pope John Paul II, when Dennis was attempting to make a joke out of the pedophilia scandal, Chris had remarked that it wasn't the young priests they should be worried about, it's the old ones!

I don't see how you can place all the pedophilia blame on the Novus Ordo Missae as well as on Vatican II given the circumstances (and I'm not merely referring to the above!).

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

John has very little faith if he thinks Christ is sleeping and the Bark of Peter is sinking.

Why don't you provide the documentation so I can read what Cardinal Egan said. You gave what you think it means and if the documentation proves that is exactly what Cardinal Egan meant I would like to read it for myself.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

Why do you think that when Cardinal Egan was aproached to sell the church to a group who just wanted to worship the Lord Almighty in a manner that Pope Benedict completely aproves of,His Eminence responded by saying,"I'd rather it be turned into a mosque"

Dan's Dad:

You are doing the same thing that John is doing -- taking the personal faults of the individual themselves and putting that on the entire Catholic Church, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae!

The specific actions of the individuals themselves do not necessarily represent that of the entire Church itself!

And, although I apologize for your experience in terms of the attempts at confession, in the first instance, you must understand

(1) We have a crisis in the priesthood right now where some parishes end up with having only one priest in their midst and, therefore, they might not often have the luxury of having time for themselves (as in having a break for the day given the tremendous amount of responsibilities that become piled up on them due to the shortage of resources) and might be preoccupied with other duties that are on his plate!

(2) If you are going to be critical of the absolution a priest gives you, then I would first suggest you refer to Canon Law prior to unfairly criticizing a priest's absolution to you. Mind you, even the priests in the Eastern Church perform absolutions in quite a different manner than the Western Church!

J.R. Stoodley

Esau,

I agree with you except as regards the absolution given by this priest. That absolution sounded totally invalid. The priest has to actually say "I absolve you" to absolve.

I myself never had such a bad experience, though I have had a priest laugh at my sins and say they are nothing. He didn't even say they weren't sins, just that I was being silly to worry about such things. Even were I a scrupulant this would be a bad approach. In his defence he was Brazilian so maybe they have different cultural standards in terms of laughing at people's heartfelt confessions. All right maybe not.

However, the fact that there are bad priests in the Chuch can never justify the kind of disobedience and schism we see from our ultratraditionalist friends.

John

If your interpretation is correct, and no one knows this for sure, what Pope Paul VI is saying is that he is clearly acknowledging that there is a severe problem with what has transpired AFTER the council, with such problems as

"There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church..." and from your interpretation (and if anyone has seen the politically correct translations of the NAB or the mass from the ICEL who knows if this is not slanted or compromised) but the reasons being

"We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself"

So per the Vicar of Christ, there is something very bad within the church, the fruits of the council can not flourish, and it is all because of the devil....or the socio economic problems of the 1960's?? I have heard so many lame excuses for the failure of this council you could stack them up from here to eternity. An ugly duckling will always be ugly no matter how much you try to dress it up. The same for this council and the new mass

Hmmmm....what about Vatican I-Council of Trent....or any of these other 20 or so councils. Was the Devil bent on destroying the fruits of those councils as well, or were those councils truly guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that entered mens souls who had no political agenda and "Aggornimento" was not their ultimate goal, but protecting the church from her enemies instead of trying to bring the church into the Modern world (Modernism anyone??)instead of asking the Modern evil world to conform to true values. Faith and reverence has no timeframe or time period, it is transcendent, something the counci fathers especially John XXIII failed to realize


Esau

The priest has to actually say "I absolve you" to absolve.

J.R.
I think that Canon Law has to be referred to in this case. In fact, if you go into an Eastern Church (one united to Rome), the priest does not actually absolve in the manner: "I absolve you..." and, yet, their absolution is considered valid.

However, the fact that there are bad priests in the Chuch can never justify the kind of disobedience and schism we see from our ultratraditionalist friends.

Thanks, J.R., for actually stating this! It had to be said!

Esau

So per the Vicar of Christ, there is something very bad within the church, the fruits of the council can not flourish, and it is all because of the devil....or the socio economic problems of the 1960's?? I have heard so many lame excuses for the failure of this council you could stack them up from here to eternity. An ugly duckling will always be ugly no matter how much you try to dress it up. The same for this council and the new mass

JOHN:

Did you even carefully read Jimmy's post or even the rest of ours here???

It seems that despite of the evidence that folks have taken the precious time to present to you, you seem to IGNORE whatever anybody else says to you should their views run contrary to your: "JP II is the Devil, Vatican II is Satan's Council, the Catholic Church is now a Pagan Religion" tirade!

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>So per the Vicar of Christ, there is something very bad within the church, the fruits of the council can not flourish,

Where did the Pontiff say that the fruits of the Second Vatican Council cannot flourish at all because of the "smoke of Satan"? He just said that the devil was trying to undermine the good effects of the Council, not that he would fully succeed.

>>>Hmmmm....what about Vatican I-Council of Trent....or any of these other 20 or so councils. Was the Devil bent on destroying the fruits of those councils as well,

Yes, definitely; he's sown confusion and discord following every Ecumenical Council. The Jansenists accused Trent of being a "Humanistic council," much the same way some modern dissenters accuse Vatican II of being a "Modernist council." Vatican I was followed by the Old Catholic schism, much the way Vatican II was followed by the SSPX schism.

>>>or were those councils truly guided by the Holy Spirit

They were ALL truly guided by the Holy Spirit, including Vatican II. Just because an Ecumenical Council is guided by God doesn't mean that the devil won't attack it. That's what he does, attacks the works of God. If Vatican II were somehow "evil" then why would the devil attack it? If Satan casts out Satan then his kingdom is divided against itself and will not stand.

In Jesu et Maria,

Wayne

dear "Im in the desert",
following your instructions, I went to the diocesepb.org and typed medjugoje in their search box.
It found one listing in an acrobat file listing books perhaps available in the church library. Whilst that is a concern for me(I am not familiar with the book) your other references arise from google's 'helpful' other purchased links by which enemies of the people of God destroy souls. A gentle warning note to the webmaster may be in order, providing alternative easy to use, and free search engines that respect the catholic faith. (maybe CatholicAnswers could provide some assistance?!!)
John:I think the bishop has a concern that the schismatic/protestant gospel of sedevacantists would destroy even more souls and lives. perhaps a better choice would have been a parking lot, a strip mall, or a field for gardens or weeds.;)
michael/stats: your words of railing accusation against the church are the equally wrong counterpoint to the railing distortions of the pro-abortion 'catholics'. both paths led to death.

JOHN:

The following definitely is relevant in your case:

Many traditionalists believe he was speaking about the liturgical abuses and disordered conduct of clergy and hierarchy that would unfold in the future, along with the loss of so many vocations that followed the Council. In a sort of self-righteous pride, (Not unlike the prodigal son's brother in the Gospel, and especially with those who are schismatics and sedevacantists, or borderline such.) this faction within ultra-traditionalism has difficulty understanding that they may have contributed to the further polarization extant in the Church.

They may not consider, if they believe this to be a prophetic statement, that Paul VI could have been concerned with the harm schismatics could do.

Oftentimes their virulent criticism of the papacy and hierarchy coupled with mockery of some of the authentic liturgical reforms create an even meaner division and hostility.

If the "remnant" is right, then charity and obedience ought to be the hallmark of their practice - despite the persecution they have endured.

If one visits some of the ultra-traditionalist sites on the web, one is just as scandalized by the content there as they are by the extreme liberal factions who promote an equal dissension on their side.

In this era of Divine Mercy we all must pray and strive for reconciliation and unity.

Pray for us O Holy Father Paul VI in these times of peril.

https://rome-ingcatholics.blogspot.com/2006_08_06_rome-ingcatholics_archive.html

Mary Kay

Those calling themselves "traditionalists" and reject Vatican II are attacking the Catholic Church just as much as the "progressives."

I'm done dealing with their bitterness and inability to be self-critical. The only thing I can do is pray for them.

John

Oh my

Not one person here could respond to my post without using such nasty rhetoric and long cut and paste jobs

I posed a simple question-If the Vicar of Christ is saying, as we seem to all agree, that the church is in such disaray as early as 1972 not even 7 full years after the close of the council, and that the "fruits" can not come forth because of the devil and as someone seemed to pull from all of this "socio economic issues" of the time-then maybe it was the council itself that was the problem? Maybe God did not let the Holy Spirit guide this council as he knew it would do harm to his church? One can ask to invoke the Holy Spirit, but if it is for evil or harmful acts, one would not suspect that the Holy Spirit would enter such souls

Dan's Dad

Esau,I went to confession to a priest who has been given the indult for the Tridentine mass and therefore the Sacrament of confession,this subsequent to the invalid novus ordo priest's absolution.
Father Parkerson,he of the indult,informed me that this Latin rite Catholic priests,"MAY THE LORD FILL YOU WITH ABSOLUTION,AND PEACE,is a complete fabrication on his part.Father Parkerson proceeded to hear those sins again,as well as the new ones,whereupon he gave me the correct absolution.
Father Parkerson is in good standing with His Excellency Bishop Burbidge of Raleigh N.C.and told me he has heard of many such abusive,and invalid absolutions.It is not an isolated case.Also,Esau,how do you define schismatic,and ultratraditional Catholics.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos,the head of Ecclesia Dei has said that the faithful are allowed to assist at SSPX mass's,as long as we do it out a deep reverence for the Tridentine Rite and do not think that the Novus Ordo is invalid,which it obviously is not,and we remain loyal to the Barque of Peter,which many do.
I hope for your sake you are not lumping these people in with the sedevacantists.It would not be providential for you to maintain this shortsighted view of The Mystical Body of Christ

Esau

Not one person here could respond to my post without using such nasty rhetoric and long cut and paste jobs

JOHN:
The responses are all there but you REFUSE to acknowledge them since your narrow-mindedness won't acknowledge anything that is contrary to your INFALLIBLE teaching of Ultra-Traditionalism!

What's interesting to note is that many Anti-Catholic friends of mine do not really have to do all the work themselves in attacking the Church since most of the work is actually done by people such as yourselves. In fact, most of the materials they utilize come off such websites that put down the Church in the manner that you have.

But, at the very least, they have an excuse in that they are not aware of the Fullness of Truth contained in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, you don't have an excuse!

John 15:22 Jesus says: "If I had not spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now I have spoken to them, their sin remains."

Esau

I hope for your sake you are not lumping these people in with the sedevacantists.It would not be providential for you to maintain this shortsighted view of The Mystical Body of Christ


Dan's Dad:

Clearly, you have misunderstood my post. To make the statement as you have without understanding to whom you are speaking to, you attack me with such scurrilous allegations without even knowing anything about me.

By the way, I, too, have attended the Tridentine Rite where I live (up until the time when the priest who celebrated the Tridentine Masses retired).

And talk about lumping people together and a short-sighted view! In your post, you explicitly agreed with STATMAN's view with your Stat man you are sadly correct statement and, thus, like he, gave evidence that you subscribe to the view that all of this was a result of Vatican II.

Dan's Dad

Esau,as Ive mentioned before,give me a call so I can understand to whom I am speaking Oh high and mighty one.I've posted my phone number before.Call it.We will speak,then I will know more about you.
You are all talk,and no action.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>Not one person here could respond to my post without using such nasty rhetoric and long cut and paste jobs

Exactly where is the "nasty rhetoric" in my short post responding to yours that had no cut-and-paste on it at all?

>>>I posed a simple question-If the Vicar of Christ is saying, as we seem to all agree, that the church is in such disaray as early as 1972 not even 7 full years after the close of the council, and that the "fruits" can not come forth because of the devil

Actually, we do not agree that Paul VI said that the fruits *cannot* come forth because of the devil. He meant that the devil was trying to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and impede the Church (as he always does), not that he would fully succeed.

>>>then maybe it was the council itself that was the problem?

He doesn't say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its "fruits"?

I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?

In Jesu et Maria,

Esau

JOHN:

long cut and paste jobs -- simply laughable considering all your past posts -- it almost seemed in those posts that you would have actually gone ahead and pasted the entire web page from your favorite source websites if given the chance!

maybe it was the council itself that was the problem? Maybe God did not let the Holy Spirit guide this council as he knew it would do harm to his church? One can ask to invoke the Holy Spirit, but if it is for evil or harmful acts, one would not suspect that the Holy Spirit would enter such souls

What 'evil' exactly are you referring here specifically???

Who are you to declare such things as far as the Church is concerned? Are you the Anointed One of Christ for you to be able to make such remarks? Where does YOUR Authority come from?

I know that there is only ONE with such authority -- it is He upon whom Christ gave such in Matthew 16:18 and to those who would become his Successors!

Did Christ say: "Peter, upon you I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it UNTIL come the 20th Century when this authority will now reside with JOHN (or whatever your name actually is) and it will be upon him that I will have the Holy Spirit guide into all Truth!"

That's almost the equivalent of some Protestants who argue that the TRUE CHURCH did not exist until their denomination came into existence!

Inocencio

John,

Discussing this topic with you is like talking to a know-it-all teenager. You simply are not discussing so much as listening to yourself.

Many posters have given you very detailed answer to all of your questions. You ignore them.

Many posters have asked you direct questions. You ignore them.

You cut and paste from other websites and act as though they are your words. Please make your comments and just paste a link to whatever website you want.

Why not try to actually have a discussion and not only hear others but answer their questions?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary Kay

Dan's Dad,

Comboxes are group discussions. There is no reason for, and a lot of reasons against, taking the discussion outside of the comboxes.

Esau

Dan's Dad,
Comboxes are group discussions. There is no reason for, and a lot of reasons against, taking the discussion outside of the comboxes.

THANKS MARY KAY! ;^)

chris K

I have heard so many lame excuses for the failure of this council you could stack them up from here to eternity.

John, no offense intended but the conclusions you have come to in your comments can speak only to the fact that you are not familiar with nor have you digested the documents of the council of Vat II. The documents are good and holy - shall we say the seeds intended to sprout into the fruits. But it is to the discredit of those ignorant of the documents' truths or to their just plain disobedience that the intended fruitfulness has been stifled. That so many were coopted by the spirit of the world and its evil lord in these times should not be of such a surprise...esp. when one studies the predicted outcome for the "lesser" disobedience in comparison, mentioned during the times of LaSalette...using the Lord's name in vain, cursing, and not keeping the Day of the Lord holy ..... a great famine!

Esau

JOHN:

Pay particular attention to Chris K's comment:
But it is to the discredit of those ignorant of the documents' truths or to their just plain disobedience that the intended fruitfulness has been stifled. That so many were coopted by the spirit of the world and its evil lord in these times should not be of such a surprise...

And to Rosemarie's:
He doesn't say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its "fruits"?

I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?


The Devil is shrewd and cunning -- as I had mentioned previously, he knows that it takes not only external antagonistic forces to topple down the Work of Christ, which is His Church; but that it would also take internal antagonistic forces as well to try to undo that which Christ established!

Others here as Innocencio, Ryan C, Bill912, Mary Kay and others have attempted to reason with you in order to resolve these matters of faith with you out of particular concern for your Catholic faith and have attempted to work these issues out with you, but instead of looking at these particular posts carefully and their relevant materials and analyzing objectively the reasoning and evidence contained therein, you throw it back into their faces, not even acknowledging that they do this out of care for you versus this hostile notion you keep of us, of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II himself, and our Catholic Church!

Esau

Corrigendum:

JOHN:

Pay particular attention to Chris K's comment:
But it is to the discredit of those ignorant of the documents' truths or to their just plain disobedience that the intended fruitfulness has been stifled. That so many were coopted by the spirit of the world and its evil lord in these times should not be of such a surprise...

And to Rosemarie's:
He doesn't say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its "fruits"?

I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?


The Devil is shrewd and cunning -- as I had mentioned previously, he knows that it takes not only external antagonistic forces to topple down the Work of Christ, which is His Church; but that it would also take internal antagonistic forces as well to try to undo that which Christ established!

Others here as Innocencio, Ryan C, Bill912, Mary Kay and others have attempted to reason with you in order to resolve these matters of faith with you out of particular concern for your Catholic faith and have attempted to work these issues out with you, but instead of looking at these particular posts carefully and their relevant materials and analyzing objectively the reasoning and evidence contained therein, you throw it back into their faces, not even acknowledging that they do this out of care for you versus this hostile notion you keep of us, of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II himself, and our Catholic Church!

Esau

Ackkk!!!

Sorry folks... for some reason, it wouldn't allow all of Rosemarie's quote into bold.

Here it is again (crossing fingers):

He doesn't say that, in fact he says the opposite. Also, if the Second Vatican Council itself were somehow bad then why would the devil try to smother its "fruits"?

I also asked a simple question: Why would Satan try to undermine the Council unless it was a work of God? Would Satan try to cast out Satan? Why would he divide his own kingdom against itself?

Esau

Still didn't happen! Even though I kept doing a "preview" each time and, in there, it showed up correctly!

Never mind then... talk about the smoke of Satan entering... oh well!

J.R. Stoodley

Perhaps we are looking at this issue as too much of an either/or situation. What if the "smoke of Satan" really is this doubt and distrust of the Church etc. coming from the secular culture and it really did pervert and obstruct the fruits of Vatican II, but at the same time Vatican II was a rather overly optimistic council that facilitated rather than suppressed the process of modernist tendencies creaping into the Church from outside.

This at least is my view. It's not that the documents of Vatican II are evil or that it was not a legitimate council, more that it was ill-timed and perhaps ill-advised. At a time when the Church should probably have been hunkering down against an increasingly evil secular culture, we threw our arms open and tried to embrace the modern world. It would have been wonderful if the world had converted as a result, but not surprisingly it was the Church that was changed, made many times more vulnerable to the smoke of Satan by being in such an unstable, uncertain-of-itself state in the late 60's and early 70's of all times.

J.R. Stoodley

Not that I wish to impune the holiness of Bl. John XXIII. He could not have envisioned what would happen to the Church with his "little bit of fresh air" and remember that the secular culture was less obviously poisonous in the 1962 than it would be in 1972.

Esau

What if the "smoke of Satan" really is this doubt and distrust of the Church etc. coming from the secular culture and it really did pervert and obstruct the fruits of Vatican II, but at the same time Vatican II was a rather overly optimistic council that facilitated rather than suppressed the process of modernist tendencies creaping into the Church from outside.

J.R. Stoodley:
You may have a point there -- especially with the former; however, regarding the latter, I would say that if there was any error to be found, it would more likely be with the execution of Vatican II's "policy" than anything else.

You know how, like companies, everything depends on "execution". The same can also be said in this case.

All in all, I find also that it seems more likely that much of the fault lay on some of the liberally-minded clergy already out there during the time (especially those who were the more disobedient hacks) who took advantage of Vatican II and started implementing their own initiatives and advancing their own agenda rather than the Church's.

Mary Kay

JRS, to say that Vatican II was "ill-timed and perhaps ill advised" is to say that the Holy Spirit didn't know what He was doing.

J.R. Stoodley

Mary Kay,

It is not my understanding that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that He is directly responsible for the timing and content of every council.

Esau

Not that I wish to impune the holiness of Bl. John XXIII. He could not have envisioned what would happen to the Church with his "little bit of fresh air" and remember that the secular culture was less obviously poisonous in the 1962 than it would be in 1972.

Still, I cannot help but think that had we continued on the same path, continued to have the Latin Masses, not to actually have the Novus Ordo Missae as we have today; if that, itself, would not have lead to an even greater decline in the Church today.

If you think about it, who's to say it wouldn't have turned out for the worse? Sure, Ultras will try and argue with their statistics (assuming they're even valid) that vocations and Church attendance were high during their time, but wasn't this also a result of the culture at the time, which helped to foster such devotion.

I mean, think about. During those days, the culture was so conducive to the Catholic Faith that even Archbishop Sheen's "Life is Worth Living" won an Emmy! Could you imagine that even happening in our world today?

In other words, Ultras are arguing with statistics that would only be relevant to the days of the past, but to assert those statistics in our world today and to assume that, had the rite of Mass continued in that same manner, that it would have been just as high would be ludicrous!

Think about it -- you have certain variables now that were much different back then; there are even variables now that did not even exist during those days. In other words, those statistics would only apply to us had the external conditions remained constant, had these certain variables which existed then and helped to foster the Catholic Faith remained constant and continued even unto today; and, not to mention, inhibiting the fruits of Science being as they are today. Yet, we find ourselves in a much different situation with a much different culture, a much different environment, with new and ever-changing variables.

Mary Kay

JRS, the accounts of Vatican II clearly indicate that the Holy Spirit prompted that council.

For you, perhaps this is an exercise in historical documents. For me, who grew up during those years, it was learning as they came out. Frequently that meant taking them for granted and not realizing that one day I would need to systematically organize them in order to explain to people unfamiliar with that time.

In a previous post, I suggested that you read a biography of John XXIII. I still think that's a good suggestion for you.

Dan's Dad

The human voice transmits volumnes more than "comboxes",Mary Kay.It would be infinitely more informative not to mention personable,and Christlike to actually speak to a man named Esau,or anyone else willing to throw his hat into the fray.
Black computer script is alien to the fraternity of mankind.
A voice,inflection,tone ,emotion projection and vocal modulation tell much about our fellow men.Why alienate what Jesus created? The Almighty stood toe to toe with Pilate and man to man looked him in the eye.

Esau

A voice,inflection,tone ,emotion projection and vocal modulation tell much about our fellow men.

You mean the very same elements used by 'evil' as well?

How do you think Con-Artists are so successful in their endeavors and all those who prosper out of such heinous social engineering enterprises?

Dan's Dad

You have fun talking to please yourself Esau.Are you a man or a robot.I'd like to meet you and discuss a heinous social engineering enterprise of eating a hot fudge sundae,with or without venison cubes.

Mary Kay

Dan's Dad, I would love if we could all discuss this in person face to face, but given that everyone here is separated by hundreds, if not thousands of miles, I'm glad that the Internet makes this possible.

Besides, long distance phone calls aren't that much more personal than comboxes. And who's going to pay long distance rates?

bill912

Gee, what a charming, mature guy! I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call him up and chat with him!

Dan's Dad

Gee,its fun to produce untoward reactions from people like bill 912 its like following behind a bus full of kids and one is doo doo doodling his countenance at you,knowing full well he is seperated from the geegaw by the union made pane of glass and you are forced to take in fun lovin animation from skeets mcgillicudy.

John

If anyone read the news today, the Vatican condemned the US for not allowing Mexicans into the US, as the Vatican, in pushing forth modernism and the secular agenda, feel that no fences should be raised between nations or faiths, since Vatican II of course. It led me back to one of many speeches by JPII and his desire for his "New World Order " (Masonic influenced anyone"?) The following was from JPII speech as posted on Zenit on January 10, 2000.

"In recent years there has been much talk of a "new world order". The persevering action of far-sighted diplomats, and of multilateral diplomacy in particular, has resulted in a number of praiseworthy initiatives aimed at the building of an authentic "community of nations". At present, for example, the Middle East Peace Process is continuing; the Chinese people are speaking to one another; the two Koreas are in dialogue; certain African countries are attempting to arrange meetings between rival factions; the government and armed groups in Colombia are trying to remain in contact. All this demonstrates a real desire to build a world based on brotherhood, in order to create, defend and spread peace all around us.

Regrettably, however, we must also acknowledge that the errors of the past are all too often being repeated: I am thinking of reactions based on group identity..."


Group identity-Is that what a Pope is supposed to say? Is that not heresy? Catholicism on the same footing as paganism?

John

Esau

How can SSPX be schismatic or even something to be avoided (unless you fear it) when the Vatican admitted and Canon law backs up the fact that SSPX fullfills ones Sunday obligation (and here is a cut and paste job-sorry all)

On September 27, 2002 , the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:

Commissio Pontificia Ecclesia Dei
Romae
September 27, 2002
Dear Mr. :
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 August 2002 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos along with the enclosures.
1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X.
2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.
3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
/s/ Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretarius

Comment:
The Letter is only reasonable considering the fact that the New Code even allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from Non-Catholics:
Canon 844(2): "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically
or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid."

Further more the Vatican also now admits, here and there, that the Society of Saint Pius X is not separated from the Catholic Church. Some one asked Cardinal Cassidy, who was Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Christian Unity, if his office should deal with the Society of Saint Pius X as a separate "church". Cardinal Cassidy commented in a letter of March 25, 1994, that the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity "is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory." Thus the Vatican considers the Society of Saint Pius X to be an internal Church matter and not a group that is "outside of the Church".

Dan's Dad

I got your back on that one John.Semper Fidelis Christus Rex.

Ryan C

"How can SSPX be schismatic or even something to be avoided (unless you fear it) when the Vatican admitted and Canon law backs up the fact that SSPX fullfills ones Sunday obligation"

Hi John,

This is another non sequitur. Whether a group is in schism and whether they have valid sacraments and you can fulfill your Sunday obligation in them are two different things. For example, if one has to one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation at an Orthodox Church, and they have valid sacraments. But that doesn't change the fact that (sadly) they're still in schism.

Look at the way the question is hedged by the things you cited: "IF your intention is SIMPLY to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin" - "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided."

That the Vatican may "admit here and there" - whatever that means - does not change the fact that the bishops of SSPX are excommunicated, and that they rebel against the Church teachings in Nostra Aetea and Lumen Gentium. That by itself is cause for alarm, along with the anti-semitism they espouse on their own website:

"The Gospel teaches us, therefore, that the Jewish race brought upon themselves the curse that followed the crime of deicide...The curse is then the punishment for the hardhearted rebelliousness of a people that has refused the time of its visitation, that has refused to convert and to live a moral, spiritual life, directed towards heaven. This curse is the punishment of blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom. It is this that sets them as a people in entire opposition with the Catholic Church and its supernatural plan for the salvation of souls."

It's not too far a step from this special castigation of the Jews and their "total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom" to crackpot theories of a Jewish conspiracy. And, indeed, one can find such anti-semitism among their adherents. Remember, John, by their fruits you shall know them!

Finally, if one looks around enough on the Internet, or even in real-life, one can see that the schismatic mentality encouraged by the SSPX can eventually lead to such things as sedevacantism, or a virtual form of it, where the Pope and the Magesterium are ignored.

Inocencio

John,

Pope John Paul II clearly stated that the five named clerics are excommunicated:

<>In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

and that anyone who adheres to the schism is in schism:

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.
ECCLESIA DEIOF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

And you might want to check your catechism again but the pope is the visible head of the Church and his decision is above cardinal and even...yours.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

Innocencio, you forgot that horrible prelate from campos brazil his Excellency Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer who brought shame upon his people by fighting modernism and forcing them to embrace marian devotion in the face of the diocesan prelate who hated devotional practices,reverant liturgies Tradition,how dare Bishop De Castro Mayer,bad boy,Anathema Sit.

Esau

Gee,its fun to produce untoward reactions from people like bill912...

Dan's Dad:
Please! Bill912 was acting very charitably in his post considering the way you have behaved in your posts!

Remember all the way back in that previous thread where you actually pretended to be an 8th grader! -- Gee, I wonder what would have made Bill912 say: "Gee, what a charming, mature guy! I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to call him up and chat with him!"

Based on how you've behaved, it's no wonder why anyone would actually say this!

Esau

OKAY, JOHN, RIDDLE ME THIS: How did we get to the following post from you???? You're trying to manipulate the previous discussion into the following for some reason either due to some attention deficit you have (if you have that, that's okay since we can try to deal with that and still try to help you out if need be) or because you're unable to refute our arguments in the previous discussion!

Esau
How can SSPX be schismatic or even something to be avoided (unless you fear it) when the Vatican admitted and Canon law backs up the fact that SSPX fullfills ones Sunday obligation...

I mean, this tactic of yours where you actually jump to another topic as a means of escaping the previous argument because you're unable to deal with the facts that were actually presented before you wreaks of cowardice, if not, an inability to face facts!

However, again, if it is due to some attention deficit or some handicap you might have, that's okay since we can deal with that.

guest

guest

Esau

JOHN:
I mean, this tactic of yours where you actually jump to another topic as a means of escaping the previous argument because you're unable to deal with the facts that were actually presented before you wreaks of cowardice, if not, an inability to face facts!

However, again, if it is due to some attention deficit or some handicap you might have, that's okay since we can deal with that.

Dan's Dad

Esau seem's so willing to insult anyone with a love for Christ. Why e.,why e why good and jovial automaton of love dirigible of helium nandralone decoanate of aphid leavings afraid to acknowledge his fellow man with a real larynx speak oh harbinger of lofty doom I wants words Oh phantom of the cyber ether posthaste to nebulon,or dare one insinuate heaven couldst not be an option fair spartan one of only two hundred maybe Jehovahs witness buddy that he is can take a brave boy pill and say bye bye to wordy insultys and talk to widdle fun guy for a chwange.moo ma say mooma sy moo ma koo sa.

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

You and John deserve each other.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

J.R. Stoodley

And I thought I was immature.

Mary Kay, any recommendations on a good biography of John XIII? Not that I could read it till December/January at the earliest, probably not till this summer actually. It's all stuff like Thoreau and Biology textbooks for me until then.

J.R. Stoodley

p.s., that immaturity comment was directed primarily at Dan's Dad. I hope my dad doesn't write stuff like that online somewhere. Sorry Dan, whoever you are.

Mary Kay

JRS, you've shown much wisdom in these comboxes.

Hmmph, as for the bio, I'll have to look around and ask the help of others. What I have at home is probably out of print. (I inherited my grandmother's books.) Not that any one book will capture a particular time, but it's a start. So let me do some digging and hopefully will have some suggestions for Christmas break.

Esau

Esau seem's so willing to insult anyone with a love for Christ.

Insult? You mean people with attention deficit, with certain handicaps are considered an insult?

I'll have you know that I've worked with such folks in the past and the last thing they are are an insult! They have more integrity and more of God's goodness shining through them then both you and John will ever have! That's not a judgment; that's a fact! For God humbles the Proud and exalts the Humble!

Luke 14:11 Because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Kindly take heed of the good actions of folks here who have tried to help such folks as you and John. They would not even presume to place upon themselves the Authority that was meant solely for Peter's Successor upon whom Christ Himself placed upon him!

Also, how dare you accuse someone of insulting folks who have a love for Christ when you and your cohort in fact insult such good and holy people like Pope John Paul II!

I dare you to accomplish the very feats that he achieved for our Catholic Church -- in spite of his old age, which can only bespeak of the guidance and strength that could only have come from the Christ himself! He did for Christ's Church more than what both you and John put together could ever do either in this lifetime or even in an eternity!

“Forasmuch as, my Lord, this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and His Holy Church, the supreme government of which, or of any part whereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual pre-eminence by the mouth of Our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, only to St. Peter and his successors, bishops of the same See, by special prerogative granted, it is therefore in law amongst Christian men insufficient to charge any Christian man.”

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31