Think again. Before VII, changes such as we have in the Liturgy were being put into effect in the Churches in Europe. It wasn’t just Buginni himself, there was collusion with other Bishops. How else could they have dumped or revised all the schemas prepared by years of work prior to the Council and replace them with what we have. “Rhine Flows into the Tiber” get it and read it.Please.
It was expected from the beginning that there would be study to evaluate what level of vernacular would be included, though it may indeed have ended up being more than the Fathers might have thought would be desired.
Sacrosanctum Concilium said:
The commission approved by the Pope. Since reform of the liturgy was the goal of the document, the commssion would by definition contain reforrmers of the liturgy. Again, you may not like the makeup or the final result, but it was at the Pope’s prerogative and direction, and with its results approved by the Pope within his authority. Any statement that the Fathers would not have approved what ultimately resulted, aside from being irrelevant, is speculation at best given that they did almost unanimously approve the document with its proviso that the territorial authorities would determine the extent of the vernacular.
Ah yes, when all else fails resort to personal attacks on the intelligence of the opponent. Whatever else might be in question, my intelligence and research is not. And no, it is not even close to “everyone’s opinion” that the book is objective in any way whatsoever.
The reformers wrote the Constitution and they were clever. The Fathers believed that the competent authority would decide **whether or not **the vernacular would be used and if it was to what extent.They never envisioned the entire Mass in the vernacular.
You seem quite uninformed.
The truth is that you don’t have to speculate. Many Church Fathers did not approve of what ultimately resulted.
Ain’t no such thing as a validly ordained woman priest. There ARE women who are deluded into thinking they have been ordained a priest, and Bishops who should have their latae sentincae excommunications formalized for going through the motions.
And when it was all said and done, with all of these things in place when the document came to a vote, it was still nearly unanimous. The documents do in fact place the “active participation” above all else. It would seem abundantly clear that it would have been considered that for that to happen greater use of the vernacular would be required. And the document previously quoted made it quite clear that that was the case since the expliitly gave the territorial authorities the ability to extend it to where they found necessary.
I’m wellllllllllllllll aware of TIA. But thanks for the link. I’m sure there are some that are not.Bear, have you seen this site ref. “The Tradition in Action”
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=116608
Seems their as wacky as those recommending them.
bear06.I’m wellllllllllllllll aware of TIA. But thanks for the link. I’m sure there are some that are not.
9 women priests can’t be validly ordained. They are improper matter.
That means nothing pertinent to the discussion. What has been admitted is that many Fathers did not see or catch all of the “time bombs” that liberals had endeavoured to put into the documents.
Unfortunately they don’t define “active participation” a modernist heretic views it one way a orthodox Catholic another.
That’s the legal justification for liturgical abuse. The abolishment of Latin is contrary to the documents being discussed. The fact that the documents don’t define the limits is an unanticipated problem with the documents.
It seems you don’t understand what a conspiracy actually is. You seem to have a caricatured idea of them probably due to watching too much television. Many conspiracies are often very open yet subtle. As I quoted St. Pius X earlier, he blatantly stated that there were subtle conspiracies undermining the Church. He further describes people who were publicly orthodox yet much more malevolent among their own groups and in their publications. Why don’t you acknowedge this claim of the Pope or include him in your list of ad-hominems against people who believe in certain enemies of the Church conspiring to undermine Her?
This is akin to saying that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf years before taking power in Germany. If everyone knew what was going to happen, why did they allow it? It’s obvious from your train of thought that the Germans and the rest of Europe knew the consequences of Hitler’s rise to power.
That’s a complete non-sequitur. You seem to completely deny the a priori the possibility that liberals could outmaneuver conservatives and traditionalists when it came to the wording of the documents of Vatican II. Strategies involved distraction and deception. I’m sure more than one wolf was in sheep’s clothing at Vatican II. Funny how many theologians after Vatican II ramped up the extremism of their positions citing Vatican II as giving them authority for heterodoxy.
One can never be convinced of the possibility of a conspiracy theory to someone who refuses to be open-minded about something.
One could also say “Where does Tradition in Action” (or the other above listed) get their authority from? Catholic Culture is hardly liberal or even moderate. If you want to give them the title of conservative, they’d probably take that one.
Our Lord promised that this ship would never sink. So the argument that we need to engage in “mutiny” to keep the Chruch afloat is false. This ship is different from any earthly examples you use because it has infallibility, indefectibility, and a “captain” who has supreme power over it.
This is probably because none of us were there, it happened over 1000 year ago, and as far as I know, few details about the situation are available today. We can’t really know what each of the participants was thinking or what they should have done or who was guilty of sin because we don’t have all the facts. Jumping to conclusions and believing you have all the facts and know what was in people’s minds is how you get into trouble.
I guess proof is not accurate. It would have been better to say that he demonstrated the weakness of comspiracy arguements. Nothing that was said to be proven really was. At no point no causal link was established. When one attempts to prove a conspiracy and uses such poor evidence, it is demonstrative of the weakness of the theory.
You misquoted and misrepresented what I said in many ways. It leads me to believe, and I am sure others, why such tactics are needed in the promulgation of truth. To clarify:
Do you not see the irony in calling someone a fool for making personal attacks? Do you know what Jesus said about the danger for one who says “You fool?”
So your claim is that all but the handful were stupid and misled?
Yes, actually they do define it quite thoroughly.
So it’s pure speculation if what happens flows from the circumstances and facts but it’s fact if someone wants to claim that the entire hierarchy of the Church was misled. Ok, got it. I just didn’t understand before.
No, the fact that the documents don’t define limits and expressly say that territorial authorities will make the decision makes clear that SC was not considered the final word on the final form.
And again, if we can’t make logical arguments we attack the intelligence of the opponent. I sense an ongoing theme here.
A total strawman that in no way compares to the hierarchy of the Church being called together to closely study what they want to do and nearly unanimously coming to the same conclusion. This isn’t something that was snuck past the unsuspecting in some obscure document only seen after the fact.
You can’t “outmaneuver” the entire hierarchy. If it wasn’t at least essentially what they wanted it wouldn’t have been a mere handful voting against it.
There have indeed been many conspiracies against the Church, including some subtle ones in the time of Pius X. That there have been others does not lead to a conclusion that there was one here, especially when the facts go so totally against it.
I believe “conspiracy arguments” is a labeling you are using without defining. Conspiracy simply means that a strategy was developed by liberals to gain influence in the Church. It may have been a loose strategy or a multi-faceted one.
What do you consider enough causal evidence? I’ve seen so-called conservatives dismiss admissions by liberals of their stated intentions as untrustworthy because they are liberals.
What specific poor evidence are you talking about? Or are you just characterizing the evidence as poor because you dislike the conclusion?
How is sarcasm exclusive to the SSPX? Are you saying that this is indicative of personalities that are in the SSPX and not involved in the “conservative/liberal” wing of the Church?
Actually, I clarified what you said. The inference drawn is that you refuse to even admit the possibility of any conspiracies and when presented with the writing of the last Sainted Pope, you utterly ignore it.
Is this verfiable? What do odds have to do with it? They are known, they have names, they had positions on theological issues.
So again, you disagree with Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi where he consistently refers to the modernists as having an agenda that they work on in secret. Just a look at the modernist as reformer section tells you what happened at the council.
Who said it was? A person would reasonably be lead to ascertain that you have a “fantastical” view of the Church since you don’t believe there are enemies within in direct contradiction to the warning of the pre-conciliar Popes, the numerous scandals and the mass apostasy evidence by leading Catholic indicators.
Many SSPXers attend as a matter of doctrine based on magisterial teaching and for sure norms in obtaining the sacraments.
What do you mean by “full communion?” You are either Catholic or you’re not. This degrees of communion is liberal capitulation to modernism. It’s situational ethics and contradictory in nature.
And you assume that you are on the side of truth? How do you know that the SSPX isn’t correct?
I don’t doubt that there are some parishes that don’t understand the Real Presence. That said, I know plenty of people who attend the local parishes that know what the Real Presence is. I’ve even managed to hear homilies on the topic when I’ve gone there. Not to mention that Eucharistic Adoration is pretty big around here and I live in a diocese, that up until a few years ago, had an extremely liberal bishop. To say that the “best of them are thoroughly marinated in modernism” is quite wrong. Maybe this is all just a generalization of your local but it is certainly not universal.
Yes. Only 6000 refused to bend the knee to Baal in Elias’ day.So your claim is that all but the handful were stupid and misled?
Not really. They make tautological references to it and contradictory statements about making responses while observing a reverent silence.
That’s the *Post hoc ergo propter hoc *fallacy.
You assume a prejudice that it is impossible. And to clarify, factions of the heirarchy were warring with one another and the liberals won. It’s that simple.but it’s fact if someone wants to claim that the entire hierarchy of the Church was misled. Ok, got it. I just didn’t understand before.
And the logical conclusion to this? “The Spirit of Vatican II” is the direct result of the documents of Vatican II. So, the Holy Father’s appeal to the texts is useless. He needs to correct them.
How can I make a logical argument when you won’t define the terms you use. Prove me wrong and define “conspiracy” so we know what both of us is referring to.
You assume too much. They signed documents but they obviously didn’t agree on what those documents meant. We can assume that Archbishop Burke would not be assigned to Los Angeles and suddenly become a massive liturgical innovator.
Then why did the Council fathers laugh when the Sicilian bishop described by Cardinal Stickler said without caution we would see “all vernacular masses?”
On what do you base this? The pleasant after effects of Vatican II?
You don’t think there was brokering for votes in Vatican II?
What facts go totally against the idea that Vatican II was highjacked by liberal periti and used to cause a revolution towards modernism in the Church?
Just why did you enter this discussion? It seems you jumped in just to ridicule people with whom you disagree and expected not to be challenged.
I have seen SSPX posters come and go since this forum opened in '04. There is a tendancy for them to be zealous to the point of meanness on the part of them. The only parallel I have ever seen is when I was a Baptist, a sect of hyper-Calvinist seemed to have the same attitude. To wit, you characterized the posters here as unintellectual. Do you not realize how arrogant and elitist that appears? I do not attempt the logically impossible task of disproving a negative here. Rather I support my Church and her leader in Rome. I can know more “prove” that the SSPX is wrong than I can prove that an angel did not appear to Joseph Smith or David Koresh was not really Jesus. What I can do is attach my faith to Rock upon which the Church was founded. If the SSPX is a right, how many decades should it take to become evident? How much time does it take to prove that one is only “kicking against the pricks?”