Recanted Vatican II

[tobinatorstark]

Can anybody give me a list of people who were a part of Vatican II and afterwords felt that Vatican II was a mistake??

 

[rpp]

In all my study, these are the names that I can find.

The above list of names was not hard to alphabetize.

The real problem with Vatican II was not the Council or the documents. It was the fact that afterwards, the text of council was hijacked by vocal group of, well, heretics and apostates who distorted what it said, hid what it said, or just made stuff up (that is to say they lied.).

No one who participated regrets it. The regret they have is not anticipating the pent up apostasy that burst forth using it as an excuse. The real problem with the council was the unchecked, underground and widespread apostasy within the Church before the council was ever called.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left the Church over changes resulting from Vatican II. Pope Paul VI said something about the smoke of Satan entering the Church.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left the Church over changes resulting from Vatican II. Pope Paul VI said something about the smoke of Satan entering the Church.

could you give me a site on Pope Paul VI saying something about the smoke of Satin entering the Church?? I knew about Marcel Lefbvre leaving the church. If I am correct, he was excommunicated from the Church???

 

[KennethD]

Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops without the Pope’s permission and not because what he believed was heretical.

 

[tobinatorstark]

that’s what I thought. I knew there was a few that were excommunicated on those grounds

 

[Just_Lurking]

Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops without the Pope’s permission and not because what he believed was heretical.

But the reason that Lefebvre ordained those bishops is because he wanted to ensure that there would be future bishops who believed as he did. And the reason that those successor bishops do not rejoin the Church is that they will not accept Vatican II.

 

[Just_Lurking]

could you give me a site on Pope Paul VI saying something about the smoke of Satin entering the Church??

Here and here are two threads on the topic.

 

[ProVobis]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre left the Church over changes resulting from Vatican II.

The Archbishop nevertheless had put his signature to all of the documents. I wouldn’t say he left the Church; he was allegedly excommunicated 23 years after the council.

 

[ProVobis]

Can anybody give me a list of people who were a part of Vatican II and afterwords felt that Vatican II was a mistake??

Depends on what you mean by “part of.” There were many Communists and heretics in attendance. What influence they had is debatable.

 

[patrick457]

could you give me a site on Pope Paul VI saying something about the smoke of Satin entering the Church?? I knew about Marcel Lefbvre leaving the church. If I am correct, he was excommunicated from the Church???

Jimmy Akin has addressed that (oft-quoted and oft-misinterpreted) statement (here’s the original Italian for those who can read in it).

Pope Paul VI said that ‘from some fissure,’ the smoke of Satan had entered the Temple of God.

That refers to the (social) crisis between the 1960’s-1970’s which was then breaking out in the developed world. These sociological currents (the “Smoke of Satan”) have infected (“entered”) the Catholic community (the “Temple of God”) and caused many to doubt and trust the Church:

Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” (Italian: “Da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio.”) There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life.

And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. But they end up teaching us: “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.”

The school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.

This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. (Italian: “Anche nella Chiesa regna questo stato di incertezza. Si credeva che dopo il Concilio sarebbe venuta una giornata di sole per la storia della Chiesa. È venuta invece una giornata di nuvole, di tempesta, di buio, di ricerca, di incertezza.”) We preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.

How has this come about? The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an adverse power. Its name is the Devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to.

So many times, furthermore, in the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of men returns. The Holy Father observes, “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. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this Earth.”…

 

[belgianwaffles9]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
"Stop the Council; stop the Council."
– The Last words of Pope John XXIII,
who called the Second Vatican Council

(I suppose we shall never know if this is true, but it is a very popular rumor, and it **is **true that as soon as the council started, the bishops completely rejected everything the Pope and the Curia had set before them for discussion…)

 

[Dempsey1919]

(I suppose we shall never know if this is true, but it is a very popular rumor, and it is true that as soon as the council started, the bishops completely rejected everything the Pope and the Curia had set before them for discussion…)

Everyone automatically thinks that this was caused by some sort of conspiracy. This is not the case. Take the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which is perhaps the most beautiful document of Vatican II. The original document was entitled “On the Sources of Divine Revelation.” That document was rejected because it’s focus was too narrow; whereas On Divine Revelation covers this topic and many more. Rather than focus on the “Sources of Revelation,” the Council Fathers chose to focus on Divine Revelation himself, Jesus Christ.

The re-writing of the documents was not a bad thing. Our current Holy Father was involved in this process.

 

[Just_Lurking]

it **is **true that as soon as the council started, the bishops completely rejected everything the Pope and the Curia had set before them for discussion…)

You have the Pope on the wrong side of this statement. – The bishops and the Pope rejected what the Curia had set before them. Probably due to a confusing ballot, the bishops vote was not sufficient to reject the draft schema, but Pope John XXIII intervened to do so anyway.

Pope Benedict XVI, back when he was a mere peritus at the council, wrote the following about the Curia’s first draft:

The result of all this work was a Schema Constitutionis dogmaticae de fontibus Revelationis in five chapters, which was sent to the fathers in a large volume together with six other schemata in the course of the summer of 1962. Much has been written about this text, which amounted to a canonization of Roman school theology; we do not need to discuss it again here in detail. All the relevant questions were decided in a purely defensive spirit: the greater extent of tradition in comparison with Scripture, a largely verbalistic conception of the idea of inspiration, the narrowest interpretation of inerrancy (“in qualibet re religiose vel profana”), a conception of the historicity of the Gospels that suggested that there were no problems etc. In the struggle about all these questions in which Catholic theology had been involved, this would have meant that the attempt to understand the idea of tradition in a new way, as well as a large part of the modern work on exegesis, would have been condemned; the burden that this would have meant for the future course of Catholic theology was not easy to estimate: it would probably have been still more serious than the difficulties that resulted from the one-sided condemnation of modernism.

 

[SnorterLuster]

The following is not exactly what the OP was probably looking for, but I found this in the comments of a blog post (Link after the quote).

As a priest in my 83rd year I have to make a confession. I implemented the Pauline reforms without understanding or sensitivity. I did it relying on the advice and coercion of my bishop and diocesan authorities. As I did it I witnessed the hurt and pain of many of the devout, so many of the ardent became lukewarm, many lapsed. I thought I acted rightly but in my 59 years of priesthood I recognise that that which we hoped for has not come to pass.
I do welcome a careful reappraisal and assessment of what has been done since my ordination, especially by the younger clergy. In order to do that they must learn something of the spirituality that brought men of my generation in vast numbers to the seminary.
In short I welcome this Merton initiative.
Incidently, in the solitude of my retirement, since last September, I have relearnt the Mass of my youth, it brings me great consolation. It is the Mass I have not celebrated out of obedience since 1970.
Fr P O’Rourke
8/8/08 12:34 AM

marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2008/08/oxford-7-response-to-criticism.html

 

[cam100]

"Stop the Council; stop the Council."
– The Last words of Pope John XXIII,
who called the Second Vatican Council

(I suppose we shall never know if this is true, but it is a very popular rumor, and it **is **true that as soon as the council started, the bishops completely rejected everything the Pope and the Curia had set before them for discussion…)

Even if he actually said that just before he died, what did he mean? Did he actually mean that he wanted to end the council because he was unhappy with it? The fact is, a council is supposed to stop temporarily when pope dies. So maybe that was simply his way to say that he knew he was at the point of death.