See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Cardinal Canizares on Vatican II



Alert the Blogosterium!
.
The Cardinal stated recently that Vatican II was not a break with Catholic Tradition - I accept that notion completely - but I doubt many Catholic bloggers do.  Even some bloggers who are priests have made disparaging statements regarding the actual Council; and not just the incorrect interpretation of the documents or the so-called 'spirit' of the Council either.
.- The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Antonio Canizares, recently explained to CNA that Vatican II “was not at all a break” with the tradition of the Church.

The cardinal’s comments came in response to a question about the main obstacle preventing dialogue between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication against four bishops ordained in 1991 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died excommunicated.

The Lefebvrists have held since their founding that Vatican II was a break with the Church’s tradition, and therefore they have rejected the magisterium of every Pope beginning with John XXIII.

The Spanish cardinal said the main obstacle is that the Lefebvrists do not accept “that there has been no break at all with tradition; tradition continues to be alive and open, and Vatican II is (part of the) tradition.” Unity in the Church cannot be achieved by ignoring the council’s place in the Church’s tradition, he said. - CNA

Didn't every one in seminary or religious life have to read the Council documents? I did - I still have my copy.

17 comments:

  1. Well, we yes we did. And often this was followed by the teacher explaining that they really didn't mean what they said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It doesn't matter what the documents say. Our authority figures didn't pay any attention and did their own thing. A person could go to church and say "Hey, VatII didn't say anything about ripping out the 200 year old baptismal font and putting in something like a hot tub and they'd be shouted down.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Father - or something like this, "The document said that but we are free to take it further, and so it follows that one may do this..."

    Dymphna - I know.

    The cardinal's got some splainin' to do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10:58 AM

    The documents become far more interesting when we study the men behind the documents. People like, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edward Schillebeeckx, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and yes, Joseph Ratzinger. These are the men who helped formulate and write the documents. No one ever mentions that.

    When we read their journals and follow their careers, we learn what the intentions actually were, regardless of the noble intent of John XXIII in opening the Council.

    The documents themselves seek to ensure the relevance of Christ's Gospel and Church in a world that, 50 years ago was rapidly changing. A world that is so radically different from our own today in almost every way. Watching clips from TV or news shows from 1960 seem almost other worldly. New problems have arisen that could hardly be imagined by religious leaders of any denomination at that time.

    We've been told that the changes that occurred after the Council were made to bring clarity. Yet, people are more confused about faith and morality than ever before. We're told, right and left, that we don't understand the documents. The Holy Father claims the renewal never took place. Hans Kung claims the intended renewal certainly did take place, but did not go as far as intended. Both men were at the Council.

    I put the documents down about 10 years ago and I realized, one thousand, nine hundred and sixty years had come and gone in the history of the Church, millions of saints were made, doctors of faith rose up and simple folk went to and from their hardships, drawing hope from the Mass and devotions and not one of them had read the documents of Vatican II. Imagine.

    Do we sit around arguing over Vatican II and trying to reconstruct a renewal that never happened? Trying to decipher what the documents and Council Fathers meant for the next 50 years? In 20 years time anyone with invested interest in Vatican II will be dead, or at least very old, but mostly dead. I put my money on Christ and the future of His Church. In essence, I've decided to move beyond the headaches of Vatican II.

    Clark

    ReplyDelete
  5. Satan does not need documents to destroy the Church.

    Vatican II was a lawful Council that was hi-jacked by Jewish Freemasonry.

    Obedience is the Masterstroke Satan has used to demolish Monasteries, Convents, Catholic Schools, souls, and so on.

    His friends in the Church (Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Laity) have helped carry out his work.

    The children of Darkness work much harder and longer that the children of Light.

    We now have a Pope that does not speak like a Pope.

    The SSPX knows not to compromise with Satan.

    The Holy Father needs to martyr himself for the correction of Rome.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love our Holy Father. God bless him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Vatican II was a lawful Council that was hi-jacked by Jewish Freemasonry."

    I speak this with all love and charity: stop being a racist, misogynist prick, mmkay? People might actually listen to what you say if you didn't say it like a nut bag.

    Wow that felt good.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've wondered how this council is supposed to have been hijacked by heretics. None have before, so why on earth are we to believe that this one was?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:49 PM

    The documents become far more interesting when we study the men behind the documents. People like, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edward Schillebeeckx, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and yes, Joseph Ratzinger. These are the men who helped formulate and write the documents. No one ever mentions that.

    When we read their journals and follow their careers, we learn what the intentions actually were, regardless of the noble intent of John XXIII in opening the Council.

    The documents themselves seek to ensure the relevance of Christ's Gospel and Church in a world that, 50 years ago was rapidly changing. A world that is so radically different from our own today in almost every way. Watching clips from TV or news shows from 1960 seem almost other worldly. New problems have arisen that could hardly be imagined by religious leaders of any denomination at that time.

    We've been told that the changes that occurred after the Council were made to bring clarity. Yet, people are more confused about faith and morality than ever before. We're told, right and left, that we don't understand the documents. The Holy Father claims the renewal never took place. Hans Kung claims the intended renewal certainly did take place, but did not go as far as intended. Both men were at the Council.

    I put the documents down about 10 years ago and I realized, one thousand, nine hundred and sixty years had come and gone in the history of the Church, millions of saints were made, doctors of faith rose up and simple folk went to and from their hardships, drawing hope from the Mass and devotions and not one of them had read the documents of Vatican II. Imagine.

    Do we sit around arguing over Vatican II, attempting to reconstruct a renewal that never happened? Trying to decipher what the documents and Council Fathers meant for the next 50 years? In 20 years time anyone with invested interest in Vatican II will be dead, or at least very old, but mostly dead. I put my money on Christ and the future of His Church. In essence, I've decided to move beyond the headaches of Vatican II.

    Clark

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, Clark, that's fantastic for you. Fortunately, some of us in the Church are still interested in more than the ol' "God & Me and the Holy Spirit makes 3!" schtick. :-)

    An informed faith is a vibrant faith.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Satan's lamentation:

    "I speak this with all love and charity:

    No one knows how far I rose,

    Only how far I have fallen."

    For the umpteenth time:

    Satan uses the term 'nut case' for those that are hot on his trail.

    I remember going with concerned parents to our Diocesan Offices to demand justice for abused children.

    We were turned away as 'nut cases'; many souls were demolished due to the 'sane' people standing in the way of the Faithful seeking justice.

    Abraham was considered a 'nut case' for claiming to speak with God.

    Until Melchizedek met with him.

    God uses the meek to confound the strong.

    “…People might actually listen to what you say…”

    Me thinks it crazy to speak softly amidst mad dogs and Englishmen.

    I care not what they might opine about my remarks.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  12. God bless you Pablo. I mean it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous5:55 PM

    "Trying to decipher what the documents and Council Fathers meant for the next 50 years? In 20 years time anyone with invested interest in Vatican II will be dead, or at least very old, but mostly dead. "

    It has been said that it can take a long time for the work of councils to take route. Aryanism gained steam after the Nicene council I believe. None of the Israelites who followed Moses out of Egypt made it the promise land but the Exodus was still important.

    That said, I too have a problem with the language of the Popes before and after the Council.

    Vickie

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mr. Nelson,

    A blessing coming from you is genuine.

    And much appreciated and needed.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous6:35 PM

    Yes, but remember at the Council of Exodus they broke out the Pantone swatches and argued over what gold tones the calf was going to be.

    Clark

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous9:19 PM

    Maybe you're right Pablo...

    The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. Then the servants of the master of the house came and said to him: Master, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps while ye gather up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Let both grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but gather the wheat into my barn."

    -- St. Matthew 13:24-30

    Clark

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous11:33 AM

    "Yes, but remember at the Council of Exodus they broke out the Pantone swatches and argued over what gold tones the calf was going to be."


    It is reported that the dance music selection was also a bone of contention. Some wanted swing and some wanted disco. Moses invented the Hora to break the impasse.

    Vickie

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.