There are those in the forum that are sick of the debate on Vatican ii . If you are those please ignore this thread. I am not sick of the debate because i am still trying to understand the significance of this event which in my opinion is the most important in the history of the Church in the 20th century. As is the nature of this forum a discussion has taken root where it may not have planned to do so. I have taken a quote from PeterB from that thread. PeterB: Pasted from <http://motheofgod.com/threads/what-...-vatican-with-the-pope.6177/page-2#post-63101> (The Fatima Crusader article referenced is that introduced by Mac. I quote a larger part of it than he does. Dodd gave voluminous testimony on communist infiltration of Church and state before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s. In a lecture at Fordham University during that time, Dodd unveiled what would seem to be an uncanny prophecy of future chaos in the Church. The lecture was attended by a monk whose account of the talk is presented in Christian Order: I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the ‘Church of the past’ as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world,’ and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church. Does any of this sound familiar? Unless you have been comatose since Vatican II, you would be aware that Bella Dodd was describing the state of the Catholic Church today. Today, post-conciliar churchmen wallow in guilt over the Church’s "intolerant" past, make public apologies for the sins of dead Catholics (but not their own sins against the living faithful, including the victims of the homo-priest cover-up), and extol the virtues of other religions, thereby de facto abandoning the defined dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. Pasted from <http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cs/perspective235.asp> )
PeterB: I take issue with your statement : Their mistake (typified by Msgr Lefebrve) was to say that because certain modernists were attempting to force their agenda on the Church - which was certainly true and remains so, then Vatican II was from the outset the work of the Evil One. I quote from an article that defends the position of Lefebrve: I am taking for granted that you know the basic facts about Vatican II: • That it was called by Pope John XXIII in 1959, and a central theme for the Council would be aggiornamento–which means a “bringing up to date” of Catholic teaching; • That the Pope formed a Preparatory Commission that took two years preparing the schemas that would be discussed by the bishops once the Council opened; and that Archbishop Lefebvre was a member of that Preparatory Commission, working with Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office; • That the documents produced by that Preparatory Commission were in conformity with the traditional Catholic magisterium of the centuries. Archbishop Lefebvre wrote, “I was nominated a member of the Central Preparatory Commission by the Pope and I took an assiduous and enthusiastic part in its two years of work….This work was carried out very conscientiously and meticulously. I still possess the seventy-two preparatory schemas; in them the Church’s doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and discretion.”7 I am taking for granted you are also aware that this agenda was never followed because a group of progressivist bishops and theologians hijacked the Council from the first day it opened. These progressivists are well known: Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Dominic Chenu, Hans Küng, Edward Schilebeeckx, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Frings–the list goes on. The progressive theologians mentioned were invited to the Council at the insistence of John XXIII, even though a number of these theologians had been censured by Pius XII’s Vatican, and had not retracted their deviant theological positions. On this point, Archbishop Lefebvre revealed what happened at a meeting of the Preparatory Commission prior to Vatican II. The Archbishop was horrified to see a list of modernist theologians who were scheduled to attend the Council as expert theological advisors. Archbishop Lefebvre made an intervention at a meeting of the Central Commission on June 5, 1961, expressing his dismay that these theologians were to be admitted to the Council. After the meeting, Cardinal Ottaviani said privately to Archbishop Lefebvre, “I know. But what can be done? The Holy Father wants it like that. He wants experts with a reputation.”8 Pasted from <http://www.oltyn.org/page8/page44/Lefebvre-VaticanII.html> PeterB would you care to respond.
Defending the position of Lefebvre? Was he not excommunicated for disobedience to the Holy Father? Read the thread on Padre Pio's obedience. It was a white martyrdom.
I have quoted this before on MOG, but it is worth bringing up again within this thread. I believe the messages from Verne Dagenias http://www.scribd.com/doc/22505473/God-Speaks-Will-You-Listen are sound and this particular message on 06/27/07 speaks on this issue of Vatican II: "Now let me clear up an area of confusion for you. Daniel 12:11. And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days. The continual sacrifice is the mass and the abomination of desolation is when the doctrine of the mass is changed in my church- the Roman Catholic Church. If you study church history, this doctrine of the mass is the one Satan has tried to destroy. From the time of the early church until now. Please read the next comments carefully. In my present church, there is much confusion regarding Vatican II. This is from Satan, not from me. Answer me a question: if the Holy Father calls an ecumenical council with all the bishops of the world and theHoly Spirit is guiding the church, how can that council be of Satan? It was not. My people do not understand the working of my Holy Spirit. Remember, I told you to beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep. Satan has caused schism in my church, by allowing false interpretations to abound concerning Vatican II. My words do not change. I am going to give you a clue to share with my people. Satan hates the doctrine of the mass and the doctrines concerning my Blessed Mother. These are the two areas he has been trying to destroy. The Vatican II Council reaffirmed both of these doctrines. This council was not convened by hell, but by my Holy Spirit. A council or a Pope who destroys and denies my mass and my Blessed Mother’s privileges is from hell. This is how you can recognize the abomination of desolation. A false prophet or anti pope will proclaim the protestant doctrine of the mass to be correct. This is the one teaching that will change. The rest of my churches teachings can stay the same. Satan knows how to deprive my children of everlasting life, deprive my children of my presence. This is how the man of sin, the son of perdition will sit in the temple of God.Reference II Thessalonians 2:4-10. He will attempt to lead my people to deny my presence in the eucharist and to teach the mass is only a symbol. This is antichrist. This will bring the wrath of God on the children of disobedience. This will cause the unleashing of the bowls of divine justice. My sacrifice of the mass daily holds back my Father’s justice. Luke 18:8. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Will I find any of my children, who I recognize with my life in them? Will there be faith left in my holy sacrifice? These are the questions which need to be pondered. My son, a false Christian church will be forced on the people. A gospel of prosperity and a make you feel good gospel will be preached. My churches can be filled with people, but the churches will be dead because I am not there. Without my presence in the churches, God does not dwell in the churches. Then, these sheep who hear my voice will be forced to worship in underground churches where I will be present. This truly is the abomination of desolation and antichrist. Then I will come with the brightness of my coming, destroy this false church, and restore my church according to my will. Then you will see an era of peace. A Eucharistic era of peace where I will reign in the hearts and mind of my people in the holy Eucharist. You must believe all these words I am teaching you and the teachings of my church or you will not enter my era of peace.Ponder these words or I may say to: I NEVER KNEW YOU. The words of the Lord. I bless you Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. AMEN".
There are of course many websites out there which try to argue against Vatican II and in favour of Msgr Lefebvre/the SSPX. These arguments are well-known. The burden of proof however surely has to be with those who argue in favour of open schism against the position of the Magisterium (and the two Popes who presided over the Council, one of whom is now officially a Saint, the other being set for beatification on October 19). When doing some research on the Council and the post-Conciliar period, I did listen to some archival footage of Msgr Lefebvre, and my impression was that he was absolutely sincere in his intentions but that his reading of the post-conciliar Church as 'Masonic' was over-simplistic, with mis-directed idealism tragically leading him into conflict with the Papacy. Over-simplification is also typical of articles such as the one quoted above: to dismiss theologians as diverse as Chenu, Rahner and Ratzinger as 'progressives' without qualification is a polemical broadside, not serious historical theology. They were certainly united in criticizing the neo-scholasticism of the pre-conciliar period, but their constructive theological programs were very different (as the post-conciliar period demonstrated). As for Cardinal Ottaviani, he is an ambiguous figure. His attitude towards contemporary mystics was particularly hard-line: he was for example the one responsible for putting Faustyna Kowalska's diary and Maria Valtorta's Lo Vangelo on the Index, as well as bringing the beatification process for Yvonne-Aimée de Malestroit (sometimes referred to as the French Padre Pio and worthy of a forum thread in her own right) to a definitive halt despite a mass of well-nigh irrefutable documentary evidence in her favour and her status as a French national heroine during World War II. With the benefit of hindsight, this censure doesn't look too clever and smacks of power issues, particularly now that Faustyna Kowalska has not only been canonized but her private revelations even incorporated into the Church's liturgical calendar (ecclesiastical approval doesn't get any more official than than!).
I thank you for your response. What i have quoted of your reply I find particularly interesting because this is completely new to me. If it is easy for you to direct me to sources on the internet that make those points about Cardinal Ottaviani I would be grateful.
There is extensive information (and a full set of external links) about Sister Faustyna Kowalska's case on her Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Faustina_Kowalska Yvonne Beauvais (Yvonne-Aimée de Malestroit) is very little-known in Anglophone circles but something of a cause célèbre in France, not least thanks to the massive biographical/archival work of René Laurentin (stressing not only her heroic virtue but also the multiple testimonies to her stigmatization, bilocations, fulfilment of detailed prophecies etc.) undertaken after Cardinal Seper allowed Y-A's case to be re-opened. An official introduction to her life can be found at http://www.augustines-malestroit.com/a_Yvonne_Beauvais.php Regarding Cardinal Ottaviani's attitude towards Maria Valtorta (and private revelations in general), see http://www.advancedchristianity.com/pages/poslusney/Poslusney_Poem.htm Ottaviani, who authored a warning in the Osservatore Romano in 1951 against credulity on the part of the faithful with regard to supernatural phenomena, attempted to get MV placed on the Index as early as 1949 but was blocked by Pope Pius XII (who had given the 'Poem' an oral Imprimatur in the presence of witnesses); he succeeded in getting both Sr Faustyna and Maria Valtorta censured on John XXIII's accession to the Papacy.
My good friend Garabandal, I remember you now, a great honor to have chose this nickname, may our Lady of Garabandal remember you my Brother. I rarely intervene in many great and interesting thread of this forum but please today let me add few words if I can, I have in my mind the beautiful words of Kathy on my thread about remaining united and she was so right, together we will be stronger especially today in these trouble times and the example given by you Garabandal about Padre Pio's obedience is so true, a Great Saint for all of us. You are right also about Monseigneur Lefebvre who has been excommuniced by Saint Pope John Paul II but we must also remember the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consacrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre from Pope Benedict XVI as well : http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html Then we have the full story and we can avoid any misinterpretation but let me add also few words again, as I said in my thread I try to have good relations with all my Catholic Brothers and I respect all the opinions between us I have not always been like this for sure and unfortunately but my last trip in Garabandal and these months of illness opened my heart as never before, thank you again to your Prayers but I know that our Heavenly Mother is very sad and I am sure especially about the disunity in the Church of his Son, Monseigneur Lefebvre was not obedient maybe but please be sure that he was not our enemy as well, in fact he blessed himself Padre Pio, maybe Saint Pio because of his obedience accepted his blessing but per my information, Lefebvre as you call him asked to be blessed by Saint Pio but the Great Saint did not accepted and asked himself a blessing from Lefebvre, it was in 1967, Pio who was fighting the devil each day would never accepted a blessing from an enemy of our Church. Aviso
Thankyou Aviso. I am sure Lefebvre was sincere but in life we can be sincere but wrong. I leave judgement up to God. He may not have intended to be schismatic but that is what happened. I have often thought what really makes us Catholic? It has to be that we have a visible head appointed by Christ. This is the head that is the source of unity. This is a real blessing. I am not trying to provoke or stir controversy but I back unity under the visible head, the Peter, the rock on which Christ built his Church.
Thank you PeterB for those online sources. I look forward to going thought them in due course. I return to the statement i took issue with and will attempt to point out more exactly what it is i am unhappy about. Perhaps if i paraphrase the statement. So: Lefebrve's mistake is to say that Vatican II was from the outset the work of the Evil One. Perhaps in your wider reading you have come across statements made by ++Lefebrve that supports such a statement. If so i would be grateful to read them for myself. However at this moment i find it false and an unjustified attack on the person.
OK - let me qualify slightly (but only very slightly) what I said with specific regard to Msgr Lefebvre as opposed to the present-day supporters of the SSPX, who regularly make direct statements to the effect that Vatican II was the work of the Enemy. Lefebvre may not have said so in so many words, but his published pronouncements do not stop far short. The preface of Msgr Lefebvre's 1976 'J'accuse le Concile' (which you can find in the original French on the SSPX website http://www.fsspx.org/fr/bibliotheque-mediatheque/jaccuse-le-concile/chapitre-1-automaticaly-imported/ ) contains the following statement (translations and emphasis mine) La conclusion s’impose, surtout après l’immense désastre que subit l’Eglise depuis ce Concile ; cet événement ruineux pour l’Eglise catholique et toute la civilisation chrétienne n’a pas été dirigé et conduit par l’Esprit Saint. The conclusion imposes itself, above all after the immense disaster which the Church underwent after the Council; this ruinous event for the catholic Church and all christian civilisation was not directed and led by the Holy Spirit. After this comes a very pointed insinuation that John XXIII was guilty of complicity in a plot established prior to the Council: Elle provoque nécessairement la question : ceux qui ont réussi cette admirable manœuvre l’avaient-ils préméditée avant le Concile ? Qui sont-ils ? Se sont-ils réunis avant le Concile ? Peu à peu les yeux s’ouvrent sur une conjuration stupéfiante préparée de longue date. Cette découverte oblige à se demander : quel a été en toute cette œuvre le rôle du pape ? Sa responsabilité ? En vérité, elle paraît accablante, malgré le désir de l’innocenter de cette affreuse trahison de l’Eglise. Translation: 'This necessarily begs the question: did those who succeeded admirably in their manoeuvre [i.e. the conspirators] premeditate it before the Council? Who are they? Did they meet before the Council? Gradually one's eyes are opened to a stunning conspiracy prepared long beforehand. This discovery forces one to ask: what was the role of the Pope in all of this? His responsibility? In truth, it seems overwhelming, despite the desire to declare him innocent of this awful betrayal of the Church.' In the same year, Lefebvre gave an interview to Le Figaro in which he called Vatican II 'a schismatic Council' ('un concile schismatique') http://www.la-question.net/archive/...ger-aucun-chretien-veritable-ne-peut-etr.html Perhaps his most extreme statement however came in 1987: “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below… This is what has brought down upon our hearts persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove…” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to the future Bishops, Aug 29, 1987) http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_the_Future_Bishops.htm The tragedy of all this is that by going too far, Msgr Lefebvre actually discredited his own case about Freemasonic infiltration of the Church etc., much of which had a factual basis, as historical investigation has demonstrated. The unfortunate result is that now as soon as anyone tries to talk objectively about the subject, they immediately stand accused of being in league with the ultra-traditionalists and the most reactionary elements of the Church (the same is true of those who take Marian apparitions seriously).
I'm going to jump in at my peril here. If anyone has read the permanent instruction of the Alta Vendita, they would see that the 'undermining' of the implementation of Council's ideals were probably pre-determined, especially by men like Ottaviani. Total agenda. In Fr. Malachi Martin's book-The Jesuits, he very carefully documents and explains the under-pinnings of the Council and the players. Cardinal Ratzinger was not a player. He realized the power plays and stuck very close to Saint Pope JP II. He became the only one he could trust! Undoubtedly, the power plays were HUGE. They literally placated the Pope and went their own way and did their own thing and then shrugged their shoulders when they were questioned. It was horrific for Pope JPII. He suffered internally and externally--always following our Lord's Divine Will by listening to our Lady. How many times did he demand that the head of the Jesuits rein in the priests who had gone rogue in South America! The head of the Jesuits was two faced; saying yes to the Pope and behind his back telling the priests it was great what they were doing. Pope Francis totally agrees with Pope JPII that South America was out of control and the hierarchy did nothing to stop it. That is one reason Pope Francis was so persecuted. Cardinal Ratzinger's book on Liberation Theology and the dangers of that theology was widely read and he minces no words by saying it undermined the faith and rogue priests and nuns were encouraging it.
The tragedy of wholesale apostasy within the Catholic Church begs the questions as to how this crisis developed and what are its primary underpinnings. It's the ache within our hearts that asks this, for to love Christ is to love His Church! Similarly, the hope for Our Lady's Triumph often has us searching for clues as to when it might occur and as to how we may hasten the day. Are not all these urgings and promptings ultimately our expressions of love? To that degree, they are good and holy. But to hold too tightly to signs and/or biblical proofs which uphold our viewpoints or calculations tempts me to de-emphasize the foundational message. The fact that Joey Lomangino has died without receiving his new eyes on the day of the Miracle personally confirms this. So for me, a more fervent return to living the message is demanded! 2Peter 3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless... The Gospel...know it, live it and share it! Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
PeterB , i thank you for your response. I am particularly grateful for your generosity in providing the links which made it easy for me to follow up on your sources. I am content to now let the readers of this thread make their own judgement regarding how accurate the statement you made was. As for myself i remain of the opinion that there is some considerable distance between your statement and what can be read from the sources you provided. I am aware that i have been reading many articles critical of Vatican II. Perhaps it would be a good time to ask you whether you can recommend online works that put forward the positives of Vatican II. I am intrigued by your earlier comment: Over-simplification is also typical of articles such as the one quoted above: to dismiss theologians as diverse as Chenu, Rahner and Ratzinger as 'progressives' without qualification is a polemical broadside, not serious historical theology. They were certainly united in criticizing the neo-scholasticism of the pre-conciliar period, but their constructive theological programs were very different (as the post-conciliar period demonstrated).
I have learnt through a recent Rorate Caeli post that a theological commission has just reported back to the CDF. I quote (my emphasis) the beginning of its concluding paragraph. 127. Vatican II was a new Pentecost,[144] equipping the Church for the new evangelisation that popes since the council have called for. The council gave a renewed emphasis to the traditional idea that all of the baptised have a sensus fidei, and the sensus fidei constitutes a most important resource for the new evangelisation.[145] By means of the sensus fidei, the faithful are able not only to recognise what is in accordance with the Gospel and to reject what is contrary to it, but also to sense what Pope Francis has called ‘new ways for the journey’ in faith of the whole pilgrim people. Pasted from <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ocuments/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html>
Vatican II documents are available online for anyone who wants to read and learn more about the teachings of the Council. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
I didn't read most of the posts because they seem to have different issues. Vatican 2 was reached in accordance with the Holy Spirit. The issue was not the words itself ...but the implementation of its directives. Parishes made immediate changes without praying for discernment. The Churches greatest mistake was to allow a free-fore all approach to changes. (Reminder the Church as well as Saints do make mistakes) That is where the "created one" stepped in. Also, if the "created one" had anything to do with Vatican 2, God must have agreed to specific temptations. Many Saints have had visions of "the created one" asking God to allow certain temptations. God sometimes allows these temptations because of universal justice. Once the world ends, there has to be universal justice ...so man can be judged. But to say Vatican two was not guided by the Holy Spirit is heresy. May Gods Will be Done
Perhaps. Yet i find what i read thought provoking. I shall quote further from the article (my emphasis). During the preparation for the Council, two forces were working against one another. On the one side were the “Romans” with the Theological Commission of Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office, always defending traditional doctrine. On the other was the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity under Cardinal Bea and assisted by Jan Willebrands. There were fierce battles during these two years between the two forces. For example, Cardinal Bea would attack the “scholastic language” of the original schematas written by Cardinal Ottaviani’s group. Archbishop Lefebvre witnessed these clashes first hand. He said: "It was clear to all the members who were present that there was a division inside the Church. It did not come about by chance and neither was it superficial, and deeper still between cardinals than between the archbishops or bishops."10 To give a quick idea of the different approach of the two groups, we will mention the rival schematas concerning religious liberty. The first was from Cardinal Ottaviani and was called “Relations between Church and State and Religious Tolerance.” There were nine pages of text and fourteen pages of endnotes with numerous quotations from the papal teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII. The other, written by Cardinal Bea’s Secretariat for Christian Unity, was entitled, “On Religious Liberty.” It contained fifteen pages of text, only five pages of notes, and no references to the magisterium of the Church.11 Archbishop Lefebvre said of these two schemas: "The first [Ottaviani’s] is Catholic Tradition: but the second? What on earth is that? They want to introduce Liberalism, the French Revolution, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man into the Church. This cannot be."12 You will notice I said Cardinal Bea attacked the scholastic language of the text–and by scholastic language, I mean the precise language of St. Thomas Aquinas that the Church has praised and incorporated over the centuries as the clearest expression of philosophy and theology. Of scholastic philosophy, Leo XIII said:"We think it hazardous that its special honor should not always and everywhere remain, especially when it is established that daily experience, and the judgment of the greatest men, and, to crown all, the voice of the Church, have favored the scholastic philosophy."13 St. Pius X further taught that the modernists have “only ridicule and contempt” for “scholastic philosophy and theology” and that “there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the [scholastic] system.”14 Pasted from <http://www.oltyn.org/page8/page44/Lefebvre-VaticanII.html> Archbishop Lefebvre, who experienced all of this first hand, tells us: "From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces...fifteen days after the opening sessions not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket."9 This scrapping of the original schemas left 3,000 bishops in Rome without an agenda. The bishops then relied on the progressive theologians to draw up new documents that would be discussed by the Council. The liberal bishops and theologians drew up these documents in a new “pastoral” language that was marked by imprecision, ambiguities, deliberate omissions and a spirit of liberalism. The ambiguities, as you know, were planted in the documents so that the progressivists could exploit them afterwards. Archbishop Lefebvre called these “time bombs” in the Council texts. The documents of Vatican II are thus flawed documents because of their deliberate ambiguity, lack of precision, countless omissions, and because of the novel concepts advanced. Pasted from <http://www.oltyn.org/page8/page44/Lefebvre-VaticanII.html>
