Vatican II: The Real Untold Story

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=34283&eng=y"]Vatican II: The Real Untold Story[/url]

As I have said before, I don't necessarily agree with everything that comes from L'Espresso, but this is quite interesting....

Excerpt:

[quote]And the “spirit” of the council is identified in John XXIII’s dream of a “new Pentecost” for the Church and the world. The “letter,” on the other hand, is taken to be the result of the reining of the council sessions accomplished by Paul VI, the pope who promulgated all of the conciliar documents. The gap between John XXIII and Paul VI is taken as being unbridgeable. It is almost as if the “letter” of pope Giovanni Battista Montini had suffocated and betrayed the “spirit” of pope Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli.

One of the other central theses is that Vatican II marked a fundamental rupture between the preceding, preconciliar ecclesial period and the postconciliar period that followed.[/quote]

[Guest Eremite]

Haha. I was just reading this like 5 minutes ago. I posted this at someone's blog:

One thing that strikes me about the Second Vatican Council is its conscious obedience to Catholic tradition:

[quote]"The Council also desires that, where necessary, [b]the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition[/b], and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times. ...Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4, 23)[/quote]

[quote]"Therefore [b][this Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine[/b] on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." (Dignitatis Humanae, #1)[/quote]

[quote]"This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. [b]Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed[/b], and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time." (Unitatis Redintegratio, #24)[/quote]

[Aloysius]

yeah, and didn't it start out reaffirming Trent? That's why I like to quote the documents of Trent and be like "well Vatican II said that "

[jezic]

if that is what it said, what happened when it came across the atlantic as the "spirit of VII"

They ran amok. What was up with that? Where was our iron-fisted pope when the Americans were being stupid?

sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, if faith is such a big deal, what happened?

[Brother Adam]

If anyone says anything about the "Spirit of VII" chances are they can't even name 5 of the documents of the council much less tell you what is in them.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 02:19 PM']if that is what it said, what happened when it came across the atlantic as the "spirit of VII"

They ran amok. What was up with that? Where was our iron-fisted pope when the Americans were being stupid?

sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, if faith is such a big deal, what happened?
[right][snapback]619320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
he was bashin down the communists in Latin America who were infiltrating the Church and in Poland where they were persecuting the Church which were greater threats... and then in his old age it was hard for him to be a good administrator...

[Cam42]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 01:19 PM']if that is what it said, what happened when it came across the atlantic as the "spirit of VII"

They ran amok. What was up with that? Where was our iron-fisted pope when the Americans were being stupid?

sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, if faith is such a big deal, what happened?
[right][snapback]619320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Two words.....Rembert Weakland

[jezic]

who's that?

[Cam42]

The former Archbishop of Milwaukee.....

and "liturgist" extrodinaire.....well, at least he was, until the council.....

[url="http://www.archmil.org/bishops/ArchBishopWeakland.asp"]His biography.....[/url]try not to be too scandalized.

[jezic]

um there was nothing scandalous there, just a bunch of worldly honors.

Did he do something bad?

remember i am just 18 so most of this is way before my time.

Edited June 22, 2005 by jezic

[Cam42]

To make a long story short, he was one of the deconstructuralists of the Sacred Liturgy....if you google him, you can find out.....

His mentor was Archbishop Bugnini.....he is a contemporary of Marini's. Not good.

[jezic]

well i haven't heard of any of them, though i am not so much into the whole idea of "intellectual" thought, as you might be able to tell so i think i will let google attend to the other 4.5 million requests it has right now.

interesting though, very interesting ......

so why didn't ratzinger lay down the hammer or wasn't he there yet?

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Where was our iron-fisted pope when the Americans were being stupid?[/quote]

How many people did St. Pius X, the great enemy of modernism, lay down an iron fist on and excommunicate?

The Popes rarely exercise an "iron fist". They exercise themselves through their witness and their teachings, and expect local Bishops to do their jobs.

[jezic]

that would make sense but sometimes the most charitable way to protect the faithful is with a bit of bullying.

and i don't know much about those popes as well yet, though i am learning.

[Guest Eremite]

No problem. It's just that a lot of people speak of the Popes before Vatican II as though they were excommunicating people left and right. It's never worked like that. When St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he did specifically note a few people, but generally he let his teaching speak for itself. This is what John Paul II did. He condemned many things, through his Encyclicals, his allocutions, through the Roman Congregations, etc. Local disobedience to the faith falls on the lap of the local Bishop. He's a true successor to an Apostle, and needs to do his job.

But like St. Paul, John Paul II certainly noted a few people for punishment (eg, Archbishop Lefebvre, Hans Kung, etc.)

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:01 PM']How many people did St. Pius X, the great enemy of modernism, lay down an iron fist on and excommunicate?

The Popes rarely exercise an "iron fist". They exercise themselves through their witness and their teachings, and expect local Bishops to do their jobs.
[right][snapback]619472[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thats because St. Pius X was a softy Bl. Pius IX excommunicated plenty. I think we need a lot more formal excommunications, the Chuirch should buy air time and do it publicly on National television, the whole ancienct rite and name people by name. That would make people understand how serious we take this evil heretical garbage.

[Guest Eremite]

What is "plenty"? Documentation, please.

Let's say "plenty" is 25.

John Paul II excommunicating 25 people isn't going to do anything, except possibly cause a schism in America.

And latae sentiae excommunication is already layed out in Canon Law.

[Cam42]

I think that when we couple [url="http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=34283&eng=y"]this story[/url] about Vatican IIwith [url="http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=32905&eng=y"]this story[/url] about Archbishop Marini, we are getting an idea as to what Pope Benedict is going to do.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:22 PM']What is "plenty". Documentation, please.

Let's say "plenty" is 25.

John Paul II excommunicating 25 people isn't going to do anything, except possibly cause a schism in America.

And latae sentiae excommunication is already layed out in Canon Law.
[right][snapback]619492[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well JPII is dead so I don't think he is going to be excommunicating anyone, and Pius the IX excommunicated more than 25 people, heck a bishop in Nebraska about 10 years back excommunicated several hundred, published there names in the paper and everything, it helped him stomp out heresy in his diocese quite nicely-- He blanket excommunicated everyone who was aa member of certian organizations published the names of those organizations and the leaders of them by name. It was things like Catholics for a free choice excetera. So I think you are not quite acurate here.


P.S. I'm not sure a schism in america isn't a forgone conclusion it is more a question of when and how many go each way than if.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

Didn't Pius X declare that anyone teaching contrary to the encyclical Pascendi to be excommunicate?