Friday, September 09, 2011

Accepting Vatican II.



Is it optional?
.
Has anyone noticed how even some Roman Catholic blogs seem to blithely question 'The Council'?  Claiming: "It was simply a pastoral council" - "nothing was defined" - "nothing was binding" - "it was subverted, infiltrated by Masons and Protestants" - and stuff like that.  What is the source of this invective infection?  Aside from the attempt by some to try and explain numerous abuses perpetrated by those movers and shakers of the "spirit" of Vatican II, I would say the clear source of such defiant propaganda has been... "The Lefebrians"!  I like that label BTW, since the SSPX is actually much too limiting and non-inclusive, therefore, considering how the excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre has many sympathizers amongst Roman Catholics who prefer the EF Mass - I'd say Lefebrians is fairly apt.  Nothing wrong with that of course - but I'm pretty sure that as Roman Catholics, we are obliged to acknowledge that Vatican II was a legitimate council - and that the OF Mass is a valid, licit, true and holy Mass - in fact, that it is the ordinary form of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church.
.
So...
.
What does the SSPX Bishop Fellay really say?
“If their aim is still to force us to accept the second Vatican Council, the discussions have been clear enough in showing that we have no intention of doing any such thing.”
.
He went on to say that “there are those who say that up until now, they (the Vatican, editor’s note) have always tried to shove the Council down our throats. I don’t know. All I am saying is: We are moving on. We have our principles, above all faith… Without faith God can never like you, so our decision is made. Faith comes first, no matter what, it even comes before recognition by the Church. We need to be strong.” - Bishop Fellay - Vatican Insider

So, they are moving on.  "Faith comes first, no matter what, it even comes before recognition by the Church."  See - there it is - if that is indeed an accurate translation that is.  Nevertheless, just remember - we can't be holier than the Church.  

17 comments:

  1. Lefebvristas, if you will.

    Cristeros and Lefebvristas are a homogenous group.

    Both protect the Deposit of faith, the cross, with their blood and with their souls.

    “Your Eminence, even were you to give us everything we wanted, still we would have to refuse, because we are working to christianise society, whereas you are working to de-christianise it. Collaboration between us is not possible.”

    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to then Cardinal Ratzinger.

    "We have to build, while the others are demolishing. The crumbled citadels have to be rebuilt, the bastions of Faith have to be reconstructed; firstly the holy sacrifice of the Mass of all times, which forms saints; then our chapels, our monasteries, our large families, our enterprises faithful to the social politics of the Church, our politicians determined to make the politics of Jesus Christ – this is a whole tissue of Christian social life, Christian customs, Christian reflexes, which we have to restore."

    From the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic, from the United States to Mexico, I have seen the devastation; it was not caused by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    Where I saw the Holy Faith protected and defended, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, was among the Lefebvristas.

    The SSPX has abused many of the graces given to it.

    There are many Elitists in the current regime, but many more righteous, pious Catholics.

    As a Mexican, I pray Nuestra Senora Santa Maria de Guadalupe restore our Faith, and protect us from the wickedness and snares of the Devil.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know we're supposed to be sad about a statement like this, but for me, I find it a relief. And I'd be even more relieved if I knew it was 100% official - that they really are done with talks with Rome.

    Let them move on and let people choose their "side." Too many trads are sympathizers with the SSPX - too many *are* SSPX in their hearts/minds/outlook, but won't admit it because they still want to be in synch with Rome. Now their feet are to the fire; now they have to confront reality.

    Now we can be free of those who want to tell us the Church is one way, when it's not that way at all. Now we can be free of people who dismiss good, holy, orthodox Catholics as neo-Caths or worse.

    Again, I know we're supposed to be sad about fellow Catholics choosing to splinter off into dissent. But I can't feel sad (yet) when they have been so mean and uncharitable about everything Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Righteous and pious like Williamson, the man who pretends to be a Catholic bishop? Like te people at TIA?

    Yes, he is so holy and Christ-like.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If their aim is still to force us to accept the second Vatican Council, the discussions have been clear enough in showing that we have no intention of doing any such thing.”

    So? Neither do the Orthodox and they're being fast tracked into the fold.

    Or look at it this way, it was clearly the Spirit of Vatican II which moved the Pius X society to reject the council.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever..."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Didn't the Jansenists reject Trent? Sure, it was well after the fact, but they claimed that the Church had gone of the rails and compromised the Faith, and that they were going to carry on the true faith.

    I have zero respect for the SSPX. And another one is that while guys like Cardinal Ottaviani may have been unhappy with a lot of it, he sure didn't reject it. Neither do recent saints like Mother Theresa or John Paul II or guys like Jihn Hardon or Bishop Sheen (though some trads doubt te holiness and orthodoxy of all of these - an they HATE Fr. Benedict Groeschel) Do we really want to believe that the
    popes and ALL the bishops of the past 40 years are barely Catholic and only guys like Williamson represent true Catholicism?

    I think if the SSPX were not so pumped up with pride and had stayed in the fold, some of the excesses may not have been so extreme, and the return to orthodoxy we are now seeing may have cone sooner. Instead they jumped out of the Barque and told their flock that the Holy Spirit no longer guides the Church, and they encouraged dissent ad even outright heresy among some of the more extreme corners of the traditionalist world.

    I'm not saying they are directly responsible for that, but if they can hold Paul VI responsible for Hans Kung, why can't we hold Lefevbre responsible for every sedevacantist antipope in Europe and the US?

    And what strikes me about the whole rebellious movement is how Eurocentric it is. Who is guiding the growing Church in Africa and Asia if the Holy Spirit left Rome?

    Also, I anyone wants to make comparisons with te Orthodox, that's fine. But I'd ask who is more likely to reject dialogue with the East and assert that thy are all going to hell for their schism? And wouldn't that be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also - why should Catholics believe that there is not a bishop on earth who can be trusted? And no, Fellay and Williamson et al are not bishops, not any more than my parish priest is. Yes, bishops can be bad, can even be evil, but I cannot fathom the idea that all of the bishops are untrustworthy shepherds who deserve our suspicion because they have accepted a Church Council.

    What ever happened to "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, eta ubi ecclesia, vita eterna"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good points Mercury - thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clark - those who rejected Trent and claimed the Church changed too much (I've heard that Trent wa the most racial council of all) could also use the same quote. No one has a rightto be in open rebellion to the Pope and the Vhurch Universal. This does not mean that one must or even should at all accept what's been done in the NAME of the Council, but rejecting the Council and the pope can result from nothing but private judgement and pride.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mercury writes : "Also, I anyone wants to make comparisons with te Orthodox, that's fine. But I'd ask who is more likely to reject dialogue with the East and assert that thy are all going to hell for their schism? And wouldn't that be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?"

    The point is that if the Faith does not require it for the Orthodox then neither can it be required of the Pius X Society.

    This of course ignores the whole understanding that the teachings in the latter councils are implicit in the former, but logic and reason seem to have a way of being cast aside when in our modern rush to big tent water down the Faith except when it comes to those nasty Trads.

    If I was a Pius X'er I would simply gleefully claim Spirit of Vatican 2 or claim developing doctrine for anything I want to do and leave it at that.

    Lastly, No one hates Fr. Hardon who does his best to square the circle. Or Fr. Groeschel who in his retreats does not play nice as he does on EWTN where he specifically tones it down quite a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh so Groeschel fakes his talk of Gods love and mercy on EWTN? I read his books and listen to his talks, but I have never noticed anything conflicting.

    And the Orthodox are in formal schism and do not even make the pretense of being Catholic. Certain other groups do. At least the Orthodox and Protestants admit they reject Rome completely.

    Fr. Hardon was an enthusiastic supporter of the Council and a great friend of Paul VI. Of course he rejecte the liberalism it was used for, bit let's not pretend he was squaring the circle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Father Malachi Martin

    http://starharbor.com/fr_martin/index1.html

    In 1964, Pope Paul VI released Father Martin from the vows of Poverty and Obedience in the Jesuit Order, but confirmed his vow of Celibacy.

    Pope Paul instructed Father Martin to report directly to the reigning Holy Father whoever he may be, or to some member of the papal Curia the reigning Pope designates.

    Because he is not affiliated with any diocese, Father does not wear clerical clothes in public.

    He celebrates Holy Mass daily.

    As a concerned, compassionate priest and enlightened scholar, Malachi Martin dares hold a candle to the truth, no matter where it shines or how difficult it mat be to accept.

    Father is forthrightly devoted to prayer, the Church and Our Lady of Guadalupe, Saint Michael and the Holy Angels and Saints.

    **********************************************************************

    Father Martin’s books should not be read by the average man.

    Reluctantly, they are recommended to those that persist against Holy Mother Church and Her Truths, Dogmas and Tradition.

    Hostage to the Devil should not be read.

    I do not recommend it; I know it is Truthful, but some people just can’t handle the Truth.

    Father Martin was trained in theology at Louvain. There he received doctorates in the Semitic Languages, Archeology and Oriental History. Subsequently, he studied at Oxford and at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

    From 1958 to 1964 he served the Holy See at the Vatican in Rome.

    He was a close associate of the renowned Jesuit Cardinal, Augustin Bea, and His Holiness, Pope John XXIII.

    He was an Exorcist.

    The Keys of This Blood and Windswept House are my recommended reading.

    His writings should not be taken lightly.

    Holy Mother Church will not succumb to the Fires of Hell; we should listen to Father Martin and even more so the Holy Mother.

    Our Lady of La Salette is a powerful message.

    "Priests, my Son's ministers, priests, by their evil life, by their irreverences and their impiety in celebrating the holy mysteries, love of money, love of honor and pleasures, priests have become sewers of impurity.

    Yes, priests call forth vengeance, and vengeance is suspended over their heads.

    Woe to priests, and to persons consecrated to God, who by their infidelities and their evil life are crucifying my son anew! The sins of persons consecrated to God cry to heaven and call for vengeance, and now here is vengeance at their very doors, for no longer is anyone found to beg mercy and pardon for the people; there are no more generous souls, there is now no one worthy of offering the spotless Victim to the Eternal on the worlds behalf.

    Our Mother made these statements.

    I believe her.

    I attend the Mass, and pray for the Holy Father and all his Priests, Nuns, and Religious.

    I know we are in trouble, and I pray for God’s mercy.

    I do not despair and stop attending Mass.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mercury writes : "Oh so Groeschel fakes his talk of Gods love and mercy on EWTN?"

    No, but I did ask him after his retreat at Good Shepherd here in Denver some 15 years ago about the radical difference and said Mother Angelica asked him to tone it down.

    And speaking of schism, reading Fr. Hardon's catechism where he attempts to explain the council in light of previous understanding of schism is squaring the circle.

    My position is to back off and ignore it all, kissing korans, praying to idols, incomprehensible theology and all.

    But that is not what is happening here where the enlightened willing push men into the grave they so much want to dance on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pablo, why would you not recommend a book that is truthful to the average person? That sounds like Gnosticism.

    Ah yes, what a dangerous heretic that Pope John Paul II was. If only YOUR mistakes and indiscretions were broadcast to the world and got to be dissected by "faithful" Catholics around the world. Yes, he of all people must not be trusted. Perhaps he did some stupid things, but what would be un-Christian about trying to see such things through a lens of charity rather than through a lens of "see what I mean about those modernist jerks?" People do that with members of their own "tribe" all the time.

    I have an idea, let's ignore the Pope and read Malachi Martin instead.

    And please, can you explain what you mean about Fr. Groeschel "toning it down"? I've read his books and listened to his takes going back to the 1980s and I do not really see how it differs from what he says on tv today, except that it contains more detail.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments will no longer be accepted.
Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. Be sure and double check if your comment posted after you do the verification deal - sometimes it doesn't print if you made an error.