Troubled by Vatican II - John XXIII & Paul VI

[4life4nfp]

I have left Rock-n-roll in Mass and joined a Schola Gregorian Chant. I consider myself a conservative or traditionalist. My Pastor told me that the 2 extremes are NOT liberal and conservative but faithful and un-faithful. I stumbled across what I though and may well be a faithful website : www.dailycatholic.org

Below are excerpts from the web site. Can anyone validate or second that the direct quotes and comments made are true or extreme opinion? THANKS!!

"Rather than re-open Vatican I, John XXIII shocked the world and launched the slippery slope the Church has been on ever since when he announced on January 25, 1959 at St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls that he would convene the Second Vatican Council. After sending out the original schemas to every diocese in the world and wading through all the feedback that greatly diluted the original content, the Council opened on October 11, 1962. A dying John XXIII closed it on December 8, 1962 and, on his death bed, begged, “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”…

"It was not until he lay on his deathbed, dying from lukemia that he realized how he had been used by the **modernists, progressivists, communists and masons **to undermine the one obstacle in their way: Holy Mother Church. Sadly, his successor did not heed his plea, “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”

"the progressivists completed the hijacking of the largest, and, what will go down in history, as the most damaging Council in Church History. "

“the modernists had already gained a strong foothold after Vatican II in almost every chancery worldwide. With this infiltration in place the cancer began to grow even deeper as the devil recruited more to help him in deconstructing his greatest enemy on earth - Holy Mother Church. Paul VI died on August 6, 1978, admitting that satan was now in the sanctuary.”

 

[puzzleannie]

may I suggest that anyone on these forums who intends to comment or critique the actions of V2 actually read the documents that pertain to their topic of discussion. If they are not willing to read and study the actual documents, and intend instead to rely on various intepretations and applications of those documents and actions which are at variance with them, these discussions will be a waste of time and dangerous. the docs are listed and summarized, and my point iterated, in the Jan or Feb issue of This Rock, available on the homepage. Those dogmatic constitutions and decrees are teaching of the Church and as such must be accepted and adhered to by all loyal Catholics. Those who dissent are at best rebellions and at worse schismatic, and endanger their immortal soul by their dissent and disobedience.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m not 100% sure, but I think that might be a sedevacantist site.

 

[LilyM]

The reporting of the ‘Stop the Council’ deathbed comment as fact is troubling. That comment isn’t substantiated at all, and if it was said was it said while Blessed John XXIII was in his right mind? Who knows.

As for damaging Church councils - I’m certain Trent had more than a few teething problems of its own.

Trent cemented the Catholic-Protestant divide whereas a more conciliatory and less condemnatory and anathematizing approach might have been able to rescue some who became Protestant. I think plenty of souls were lost because of Trent, though comparisons with Vatican 2 are impossible to make.

Certainly the Papal condemnation, in the ‘Spirit of Trent’ if you will, of Elizabeth I - including releasing her subjects from their oaths of allegiance to her and effectively endorsing if not promoting her assassination - led to a lot of persecution of Catholics in England which might have been lessened or avoided.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Certainly the Papal condemnation, in the ‘Spirit of Trent’ if you will, of Elizabeth I - including releasing her subjects from their oaths of allegiance to her and effectively endorsing if not promoting her assassination - led to a lot of persecution of Catholics in England which might have been lessened or avoided.

Maybe it was Lord Cecil’s ‘peerage purge’ (he did get their properties!) of aristocratic Catholic families (and their priests) totaling the tens of hundreds (I have read accounts which hover around 3000 - more than Bloody Mary’s!) which animated the Pope.

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I have left Rock-n-roll in Mass and joined a Schola Gregorian Chant. I consider myself a conservative or traditionalist. My Pastor told me that the 2 extremes are NOT liberal and conservative but faithful and un-faithful. I stumbled across what I though and may well be a faithful website : www.dailycatholic.org

Below are excerpts from the web site. Can anyone validate or second that the direct quotes and comments made are true or extreme opinion? THANKS!!

The most extreme horse hooey I have ever read. It first appeared in print during the 80s. Hhmmmm, a reaction to John Paul II maybe?

Forget this tripe. Read the documents themselves (available on line and through Ignatius and Liturgical Press, for example).

Remember: the Mass was always said in the vernacular UNTIL Trent.

Robert

 

[LilyM]

Maybe it was Lord Cecil’s ‘peerage purge’ (he did get their properties!) of aristocratic Catholic families (and their priests) totaling the tens of hundreds (I have read accounts which hover around 3000 - more than Bloody Mary’s!) which animated the Pope.

Robert

Henry VIII did far more damage to both the Catholic peerage and the Church in England in general, yet the Popes would never have dared to condemn him in the same terms!

Maybe Leo smelled an easier target, Elizabeth being looked down on as an unmarried female???

In any event Elizabeth I seems to have begun her reign in a relatively conciliatory mood towards Catholics, whether she became harsher in reaction to the Pope’s condemnation (and the constant threat from Scotland and France) or not is hard to say.

 

[Crumpy]

I have left Rock-n-roll in Mass and joined a Schola Gregorian Chant. I consider myself a conservative or traditionalist. My Pastor told me that the 2 extremes are NOT liberal and conservative but faithful and un-faithful. I stumbled across what I though and may well be a faithful website : www.dailycatholic.org

Below are excerpts from the web site. Can anyone validate or second that the direct quotes and comments made are true or extreme opinion? THANKS!!

"Rather than re-open Vatican I, John XXIII shocked the world and launched the slippery slope the Church has been on ever since when he announced on January 25, 1959 at St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls that he would convene the Second Vatican Council. After sending out the original schemas to every diocese in the world and wading through all the feedback that greatly diluted the original content, the Council opened on October 11, 1962. A dying John XXIII closed it on December 8, 1962 and, on his death bed, begged, “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”…

"It was not until he lay on his deathbed, dying from lukemia that he realized how he had been used by the **modernists, progressivists, communists and masons **to undermine the one obstacle in their way: Holy Mother Church. Sadly, his successor did not heed his plea, “Stop the Council! Stop the Council!”

"the progressivists completed the hijacking of the largest, and, what will go down in history, as the most damaging Council in Church History. "

“the modernists had already gained a strong foothold after Vatican II in almost every chancery worldwide. With this infiltration in place the cancer began to grow even deeper as the devil recruited more to help him in deconstructing his greatest enemy on earth - Holy Mother Church. Paul VI died on August 6, 1978, admitting that satan was now in the sanctuary.”

I’ve heard it said that there’s always 50 years or so adjustment after the end of a council. Some things from the Council of Trent have never been implemented. (What I understand about that, I am referriing to the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament.)

We johnny- and sally-come-latelies can shudder and shriek, but as puzzleannie says, the OP really needs to start a lot closer to where the Church actually is.

 

[jj2011]

The Institut du Bon Pasteur, approved by Rome last year, is engaging in what it calls a “serious and constructive” criticism of Vatican II…

frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344

 

[patrick457]

Remember: the Mass was always said in the vernacular UNTIL Trent.

 

[jj2011]

The Institut du Bon Pasteur, approved by Rome last year, is engaging in what it calls a “serious and constructive” criticism of Vatican II…

frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344

Just to clarify this post, my understanding is that the IBP priests have pledged strict fidelity to the magisterium and are allowed, either in the statutes or other agreements with PCED, to engage in this constructive critique, but I have not yet found the statutes online to confirm this.

I’d be grateful if anybody familiar with their situation can provide more information.

 

[jj2011]

The “constructive critique” is mentioned again here, but I still have not found the actual statutes, even under the web site button that says “statutes”! Frustrating.

catholique-nanterre.cef.fr/faq/pretres_traditionnels_2.htm#Statut

 

[BeeSweet]

Catholic Culture has a website review section that has proved very helpful to me. They include Daily Catholic in their “Danger List”, here’s part of their site review:

DESCRIPTION
The Daily Catholic is a free on-line newspaper/magazine. The self-described mission of the magazine is “to provide content in all phases of Catholic living so readers can know the Faith in order to keep the Faith.” It vehemently claims that it is in full accordance with Magisterium of the Church and obedient to the Primacy of Peter, and that all the information on the site is solid, trustworthy, and in full accord with Church teaching. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. In fact, the site focuses primarily on material that consistently undermines both Church teaching and Her authority with regards to the Mass.

STRENGTHS
Some good articles (Resources)
Herod’s Heroes - a list of national pro-abort politicians who claim to be Catholic (Resources)

WEAKNESSES·
Example(s)

The underlying premise of the site seems to be the rejection the Novus Ordo and the “Post-Conciliar” Church. (Fidelity)
Promotion of unapproved apparitions (Fidelity)
·
Example(s)
A number of links to questionable sites (Fidelity)

The site is cluttered, unorganized, and uses hard to read fonts, making the site very difficult to navigate. (Useability)

Personally, I’d stay away from the site.

 

[Caesar]

The most extreme horse hooey I have ever read. It first appeared in print during the 80s. Hhmmmm, a reaction to John Paul II maybe?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I think plenty of souls were lost because of Trent, though comparisons with Vatican 2 are impossible to make.

No souls were lost “because” of the Council of Trent, they were lost because of their choosing pernicious heresy instead of truth. Likewise, no souls were lost “because” of Vatican II, only because of a) some folks decided they were too trad for the Church or b) they thought that they could follow the “spirit” instead of the Council.

An extraordinary excercise of the Magisterium (namely with Trent) cannot possibly be said to be at fault for the loss of souls! No matter if one goes hard line or “pastoral”, souls will be lost. Not because of the tactics used, but because of the will of the heretic or apostate. Those who wish to be obstinate will be obstinate in the face of even the most harrowing condemnations but those who still have a flicker of faith in them might be brought to their senses after realizing the grave consequences of their errors. Those who wish to be obstinate will likewise be obstinate in the face of more “pastoral” approaches, only they will take advantage of Holy Church’s perceived weakness or softness and She will be walked all over in their rash presumption. It seems to me that with the “pastoral” approach, heretics may feel that they are still within the Church because no one threw them out.

 

[A_Sinner_1]

“My Pastor told me that the 2 extremes are NOT liberal and conservative but faithful and un-faithful.”

You are blessed with a wise and faithful pastor.

The quote from Pope John XXIII, as far I can tell, cannot be verified. Pope Paul VI did say “the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” Jimmy Akin discussed the “Smoke of Satan” homily on his blog:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/the_smoke_of_sa.html

"the progressivists completed the hijacking of the largest, and, what will go down in history, as the most damaging Council in Church History. "

Clearly the above occurred. Whether Vatican II was the “most damaging council in Church history” is a matter of opinion. That the Church was severely damaged after Vatican II is a fact.

"“the modernists had already gained a strong foothold after Vatican II in almost every chancery worldwide. With this infiltration in place the cancer began to grow even deeper as the devil recruited more to help him in deconstructing his greatest enemy on earth - Holy Mother Church.”

Again, this clearly occurred after Vatican II. It’s hard to argue that the post-Vatican II period wasn’t characterized by forces of evil that came close to destroying the Church from within (and probably would have without direct intervention by the Holy Spirit).

Did Vatican II authorize the unleashing of these evil forces? As a Catholic, one has to answer no, whether one has read the Council documents or not. However, regardless of the Council’s intended purpose, the Church suffered greatly in its aftermath.

Finally, as a poster above notes, Daily Catholic is on the Catholic Culture danger list. Therefore, although the information (with the exception of the John XXIII quote) may be correct, the source is questionable.

 

[LilyM]

No souls were lost “because” of the Council of Trent, they were lost because of their choosing pernicious heresy instead of truth. Likewise, no souls were lost “because” of Vatican II, only because of a) some folks decided they were too trad for the Church or b) they thought that they could follow the “spirit” instead of the Council.

An extraordinary excercise of the Magisterium (namely with Trent) cannot possibly be said to be at fault for the loss of souls! No matter if one goes hard line or “pastoral”, souls will be lost. Not because of the tactics used, but because of the will of the heretic or apostate. Those who wish to be obstinate will be obstinate in the face of even the most harrowing condemnations but those who still have a flicker of faith in them might be brought to their senses after realizing the grave consequences of their errors. Those who wish to be obstinate will likewise be obstinate in the face of more “pastoral” approaches, only they will take advantage of Holy Church’s perceived weakness or softness and She will be walked all over in their rash presumption. It seems to me that with the “pastoral” approach, heretics may feel that they are still within the Church because no one threw them out.

Pastors absolutely have obligations as to how they shepherd their flock, and will certainly account to God for how they discharge their duties and treat and guide the souls under their care.

Just as every worker will have to make account of how they did the work entrusted to them by God. And every worker can do their work well or poorly, and will account for any neglect of it.

Yes, doubtless apostates are lost regardless of what approach is chosen, but it IS true that some can be almost if not actually driven away from the Church due to extremely poor shepherding.

It is also true that a pastor should try to keep as many souls as possible in the Church. Obviously some approaches are worse for this than others, but the blame cannot be all laid at the feet of the apostate in all cases.

 

[Ad_Deum]

I believe those popes about what V2 brought to the church :coffeeread:

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christo
Instaurare omnia in Christo

I think there was a big cover-up during and after this council.