"Vatican II Novelties"

[MC Just]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 29 2006, 06:42 AM'][img]http://pictures.abebooks.com/ADVUNDERGROUND/402632134.jpg[/img]
[right][snapback]926601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

unfortunately i havent been reading much, but i'm going to start. I'll have to get that along with his last one..

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Mar 29 2006, 07:44 AM']unfortunately i havent been reading much, but i'm going to start. I'll have to get that along with his last one..
[right][snapback]926604[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Basically, it could be subtitled "What should have happened, a guide for what we should do now." It is very rare and expensive. You'll probably have to get it from the library.

[Desert Walker]

There was only ONE novelty introduced by Vatican II. That is to say, only one [i]significant[/i] novelty.

It was a simple message to Catholics everywhere, especially the laity:

"Arise! Let us be on our way!"

In other words:

"Hey you lay people! Convert some folks for once in your life!"

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 29 2006, 09:15 AM']There was only ONE novelty introduced by Vatican II.  That is to say, only one [i]significant[/i] novelty.

It was a simple message to Catholics everywhere, especially the laity:

"Arise!  Let us be on our way!"

In other words:

"Hey you lay people!  Convert some folks for once in your life!"
[right][snapback]926647[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually, that's not true. The Church has been calling for lay catechists for centuries. Pope Benedict XIV called for them and that was back in the mid-1700's.

[Era Might]

[quote]With the whole Catholic sky exploding above them, the bishops of Vatican II kept their heads most marvelously. Somewhere else, I describe myself standing in front of St. Peter's as one session was concluding, watching the whole twenty-five hundred of them streaming out, and singing to myself the Gilbert and Sullivan lines--

[i]Bishops in their shovel hats
Were plentiful like tabby cats
In point of fact too many.[/i]

But when I heard the same men singing the Nicene Creed together, I knew that something vast was in process. And the documents of the Council prove it.

--Frank Sheed, "Theology and Sanity"[/quote]

Edited March 29, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Mar 29 2006, 08:04 AM']Actually, that's not true.  The Church has been calling for lay catechists for centuries.  Pope Benedict XIV called for them and that was back in the mid-1700's.
[right][snapback]926716[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry. I did not state my actual point in that post. Here is what I intended to say.

This modern world, when it first began to manifest itself as an age of evil to Catholics, had several effects on them. Devout Catholics decided to enter a protective shell. Mediocre Catholics walked the fence as usual or wholeheartedly embraced the ways of this age.

Vatican II shouted a challenge to the WHOLE Church. This challenge is unique to, and specifically FOR, OUR TIMES.

You see, people in this age are forgetting how to truly love. Vatican II called for the creation of a VISIBLE COMMUNITY OF LOVE. Unless you are in some way familiar with the ENTIRE tradition of the Church, the conceptual and actual definition of this "visible community of love" will not be apparent to you; it can easily be confused with a WORLDLY definition of authentic, public love.

The difficulty we have had, as a Church, with the message of Vatican II, is that people in the temporal institution of the Church have INTENTIONALLY contended AGAINST the Council writings themselves, AND/OR contended against Church Tradition and Doctrine.

I am guilty of doing this. I am guilty of an almost intentional misunderstanding and suspicion of the Council. Doing so has brought me no peace whatsoever. But it was part of the Spirit's plan for my life that I SHOULD contend the Council! Had I not done so I would not have discovered that the Council is TRULY a direct PRODUCT of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

Now I see what was the greatest lie of the 20th century:

VATICAN II CHANGED THE ESSENCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Most likely there are many people who would now disagree that the phrase "essence of the church" refers to exactly what it refers. But anyone with sense knows that the TOTAL ESSENCE of the Faith is not contained in the documents of Vatican II, but in the documents and writings of ALL the councils and ALL the popes.

The question of "novelties" is part of the "smoke of Satan." There were no "novelties" sanctioned by the Vatican Council. But there was a re-presentation of Tradition, tradion, doctrine and dogma.

Novelties have been part of the Satanic plot to undermine the Church in these tragic times.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 29 2006, 12:23 PM']This modern world, when it first began to manifest itself as an age of evil to Catholics, had several effects on them.  Devout Catholics decided to enter a protective shell.  Mediocre Catholics walked the fence as usual or wholeheartedly embraced the ways of this age.[right][snapback]926916[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with what you're saying. I would only add that, in fact, this "shell" was more a product of the Reformation than the modern world. After Western Christendom was shattered, the Church developed a defensive, apologetic posture, almost scared to engage progress. "Catholic" was more and more associated with "Latin" and "Scholastic", so that most Catholics lost the sense of unity in diversity. The modern world did exacerbate this tension when the Popes lost any real power after the French revolution. They continued to act as though nothing had changed, which is why Pope Benedict marks "Gaudium et Spes" as the first real "coming-to-terms" with the world as it exists after 1789. I saw an interview with Alice von Hildebrand once where she said that the crisis in the Church, as it exploded after the Council, began decades before, as Priest and people lost the sense of mystery. Mass became a rote ritual. Hence, the reforms of the Council that you're talking about, with the Liturgy, the Priestly life, and especially, the laity.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Oh, and I know EXACTLY what you mean by suspicion of the Council. I went through that phase when I first became Catholic. I think everyone does at one time or another. Eventually, I realized that the Church is my mother and teacher. It is better for me to learn from her, and not go about trying to lecture her.

I like what John Paul wrote in his first Encyclical:

[quote]While it is right that, in accordance with the example of her Master, who is "humble in heart", the Church also should have humility as her foundation, that she should have a critical sense with regard to all that goes to make up her human character and activity, and that she should always be very demanding on herself, nevertheless criticism too should have its just limits. Otherwise it ceases to be constructive and does not reveal truth, love and thankfulness for the grace in which we become sharers principally and fully in and through the Church. Furthermore such criticism does not express an attitude of service but rather a wish to direct the opinion of others in accordance with one's own, which is at times spread abroad in too thoughtless a manner.

--Encyclical Letter "Redemptor Hominis"[/quote]

Edited March 29, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

What the Council said about the Jews was a statement of the Church's "social" and hereditary relationship with people who are, indeed, devout followers of the Mosaic Law. The teaching of the Saints, Fathers and Doctors about the Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion, whether they realized it or not, is a referrence to the fact that there exists a perversion in the religious progeny of Abraham which was incarnated in the Heretical Pharisees.

Yes! The Pharisees, who had jesus executed through political connivance and personal dishonesty, were HERETICS! They denied their OWN tradition and doctrine! The horrible thing is that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing! The Pharisees of the Gospel represent a branch of the Judaic Religion which is ruled by Lucifer. It is yet another Luciferian distortion of God's handiwork.

The Council knew it was absolutely necessary to, once and for all, distinguish the followers of the Mosaic Law and Tradition, and continue to await in honest faith the coming of the Christ, from those who rejected the Messiah when they encountered and RECOGNIZED Him in the Flesh.

[Era Might]

Be careful about demonizing the Pharisees. They were not heretics. St. Paul was a Pharisee. Unlike the Sadducees, they maintained the true doctrine about the ressurrection. But they had their bad apples like everyone else. From the Holy See's "Notes on the correct way to present Jews and Judaism in the Roman Catholic Church":

[quote]Jesus shares, with the majority of Palestinian Jews of that time, some pharisaic doctrines: the resurrection of the body; forms of piety, like alms-giving, prayer, fasting (cf. Mt 6:1-18) and the liturgical practice of addressing God as Father; the priority of the commandment to love God and our neighbour (cf. Mk 12:28-34). This is so also with Paul (cf. Acts 23:8), who always considered his membership of the Pharisees as a title of honour (cf. ibid. 23:6; 26:6; Phil 3:5).

...

It is noteworthy too that the Pharisees are not mentioned in accounts of the Passion. Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-39) defends the apostles in a meeting of the Sanhedrin. An exclusively negative picture of the Pharisees is likely to be inaccurate and unjust (cf. Guidelines, Note 1; cf. AAS, loc. cit. p. 76). If in the Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament there are all sort of unfavourable references to the Pharisees, they should be seen against the background of a complex and diversified movement. [/quote]

Edited March 29, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 29 2006, 10:33 AM']I agree with what you're saying. I would only add that, in fact, this "shell" was more a product of the Reformation than the modern world.
[right][snapback]926922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I totally agree!
[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 29 2006, 10:33 AM']After Western Christendom was shattered, the Church developed a defensive, apologetic posture, almost scared to engage progress. "Catholic" was more and more associated with "Latin" and "Scholastic", so that most Catholics lost the sense of unity in diversity.
[right][snapback]926922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would agree with you but for your use of the words "progress" and "unity in diversity." Those terms are dangerous simply because they are both associated, especially contemporarily, with the parts of Enlightenment Philosophy that spawned the horror of Marxism. I wish I could better explain what I mean by that...

The Church, with Her Scholasticism and Latin culture is what drove what you call "progress" in the first place. Greco-Roman socio-political and metaphysical theory was morphed with Christianity by Churchmen, and that catalyzed the creation of our contemporary experience. It was the ultimate "Philosophy of Order." Without it, Europe would have remained barbarian in nature; which simply means the following: totally given over to uncontrolled, irrational human passion. With the current collapse of Catholic civilization, we are dangerously approaching a time of return to a barbarian world. I would argue that such a world is what we already have, we just mask it with our technology and apparent sophistication.

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 29 2006, 10:33 AM']The modern world did exacerbate this tension when the Popes lost any real power after the French revolution. They continued to act as though nothing had changed, which is why Pope Benedict marks "Gaudium et Spes" as the first real "coming-to-terms" with the world as it exists after 1789. I saw an interview with Alice von Hildebrand once where she said that the crisis in the Church, as it exploded after the Council, began decades before, as Priest and people lost the sense of mystery. Mass became a rote ritual. Hence, the reforms of the Council that you're talking about, with the Liturgy, the Priestly life, and especially, the laity.
[right][snapback]926922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Definitely true. The current crisis of faith has its foundation before the Council in the minds of professors, bishops, cardinals, priests and others who decided that "Teilhardian Modernism" was the "super theology" that would finally "unite the Church with the World." I guess they weren't reading the Bible too much because Christ never promises that His Church would be unified with this world. Christianity is "a sign that is rejected."

I must add also, to what you said, that the reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilum were never really enacted universally. The Liturgy was done brutal violence instead. This is the primary reason so many people followed Marcel Lefebvre.

And the Priesthood! My gosh...! How the Devil has attacked it! I'm not sure what Vatican II intended for the Priesthood, but it wasn't anything like what has happened to it since. The majority of priests do not truly know the things they should know as pastors. The spiritual development of human beings is such a multifaceted thing! The Jesuits of the late 19th to early 20th centuries recieved the proper training. Doesn't the Church realize that pagan spirituality is becoming popular again in the Western world? Priests are only being trained in psychology! God help us! We have become so secular-minded that we've forgot about demonology and everything with which Church exorcists are so familiar. There are so many influences on the human soul about which priests are so unaware, and if they heard about them, would deny they are possible.

[Era Might]

Yah. We can talk about how this or that went wrong, but when it comes down to it, I think we've had a crisis of holiness. Plain and simple. We see this especially when we look at the clergy scandals. If the Seminaries had this different, if the Bishops had done this different. Yah, that's all true, but ultimately it comes down to the personal decision of Priests and laymen to want to be holy or not. I think John Paul really grasped this, and layed the foundation for the youth going forward who WANT to be holy, unlike their parents.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 29 2006, 10:47 AM']Be careful about demonizing the Pharisees. They were not heretics. St. Paul was a Pharisee. Unlike the Sadducees, they maintained the true doctrine about the ressurrection. But they had their bad apples like everyone else. From the Holy See's "Notes on the correct way to present Jews and Judaism in the Roman Catholic Church":
[right][snapback]926943[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course! But that doesn't change the fact that there was a BRANCH that rejected Christ in a VERY Luciferian way. One of the things we've forgotten in our time is that there are humans in this world who have FORMALLY rejected God and everything about Him. They are on the side of evil by knowledgeable choice; "full consent of the will."

Some of the Pharisees WERE heretics because their own scriptures foretold the very Man standing before them saying "You a brood of vipers!"

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 29 2006, 11:23 AM']Yah. We can talk about how this or that went wrong, but when it comes down to it, I think we've had a crisis of holiness. Plain and simple. We see this especially when we look at the clergy scandals. If the Seminaries had this different, if the Bishops had done this different. Yah, that's all true, but ultimately it comes down to the personal decision of Priests and laymen to want to be holy or not. I think John Paul really grasped this, and layed the foundation for the youth going forward who WANT to be holy, unlike their parents.
[right][snapback]927021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is also important to know what works and what doesn't. It's important to know what is pastorally, ecumenically and evangelically inneffective and otherwise. We must study and talk about those things.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Fidei Defensor]

See, look how good discussion can be.

I understand that Catholic v. Catholic debate is against the rules, but I beg the moderators to understand that this should not be a debate, but rather a discussion about the Truth. If we firmly believe in the promises of Christ, then there should be no difference in belief between the radical traditionalist, and ourselves, only misunderstandings,

And the only way to get over these misunderstandings is to discuss.