 |
"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!" |
Posted on 10/12/2016 4:10:10 PM PDT by ebb tide
Today, October 11, 2016, marks the 54th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council.
While regular readers of this space are well-versed in matters concerning Vatican II, the Council it remains a source of confusion for many if not most in the Church, and that includes any number of those in Catholic media.
With this in mind, I’d like to take the opportunity to provide some basic but critically important information, in an easy-to-read Q&A format, for the benefit of those who are struggling to come to grips with the reality of the Council’s place in the life of the Catholic Church.
Please consider forwarding this to those who might profit.
(Excerpt) Read more at akacatholic.com ...
I wa a sophomore in college at that time.
I still don’t understand why the Council took place
|
"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!" |
Dominus tecum.
|
"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!" |
I went to a screening of a documentary on a second cousin of mine, Bishop Vincent McCauley of Fort Portal, Uganda. Part of it talked about his role in V II but to be honest, I would be lying even after reading the article to understand the impact.
Met the man several times and he’s listed as a Servant of God, the first step toward sainthood, although it’s not likely he’ll get there due to the costs associated with it.
“I still don’t understand why the Council took place”
Because the devil saw a once-in-a-lifetime (his) opportunity to damage and corrupt Catholicism.
Why do you say that? What was so bad about V II?
On October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the above prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere.
When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:
The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: “I can destroy your Church.”
The gentle voice of Our Lord: “You can? Then go ahead and do so.”
Satan: “To do so, I need more time and more power.”
Our Lord: “How much time? How much power?
Satan: “75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service.”
Our Lord: “You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will.”
In 1886, Pope Leo XIII decreed that this prayer to St. Michael be said at the end of “low” Mass (not “high”, or sung Masses) throughout the universal Church, along with the Salve Regina (Hail, Holy Queen); and the practice of the congregation praying these prayers at the end of Mass continued until about 1970, with the introduction of the new rite of the Mass.
Pope Leo XIII’s vision was in 1884. Paul VI abolished the prayer to St. Michael at low Masses in 1968; eighty-four years later.
Refrain:
Satan: “75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service.”
Our Lord: “You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will.”
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, princeps militiæ cælestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen
The instrument, which the Code is, fully corresponds to the nature of the Church, especially as it is proposed by the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general, and in a particular way by its ecclesiological teaching. Indeed, in a certain sense, this new Code could be understood as a great effort to translate this same doctrine, that is, the conciliar ecclesiology, into canonical language. If, however, it is impossible to translate perfectly into canonical language the conciliar image of the Church, nevertheless, in this image there should always be found as far as possible its essential point of reference.
If the US and European Bishops hadn't already been slowly roasting in heresy well before Vatican II, all the things blamed on it would have never happened and any ambiguities in the documents from the Council would have either never come into existence or would have been cleared up in short order with those those deliberate ambiguities amounting to nothing more than a few cleaver heretics, um, passing gas, in a hurricane.
So say those whose interpretation of RC teaching find certain aspects of V2 to be aberrant, but under the Roman model for doctrine, it is the judgment of pope and the current magisterium as to what RC means that you are to go to, and your one basic duty is to simply follow the pastors as docile sheep. And thus you have the schismatic SSPV, which rejects modern popes from being popes.
And as said to the schismatic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in a papal private letter:
You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (Paul VI, Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)
Yet whether pre or post V2, the church of Rome represents a progressive revolution, being the most manifest example of the deformation of the NT church. Sadly.
Moreover, before Vatican 2 was Vatican 1, which itself was seen as as even more innovative. Before this council, faced with charges of teaching ensured papal infallibility RCs could deny it, even invoking 'Keenan's Catechism,' which was published with the proper imprimatur and recommended also by Irish priests, which contained the following question and answer:—
'Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
'A. This is a Protestant intention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.'
Reflecting this position, the proceedings of the Vatican 1 Council were frequently stormy, and the opponents of the dogma of infallibility complained that they were interrupted, and that endeavours were made to put them down by clamour. (cf. Encyclopædia Britannica. 8 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 390–392).
From WP:
...before 1870, belief in papal infallibility was not a defined requirement of Catholic faith. The Church therefore accepted the oath required of Catholics in Ireland from 1793 for admittance to certain positions and stated that, "It is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible."[82] The Irish bishops repeated their acceptance in a 25 January 1826 pastoral address to the Catholic clergy and laity in Ireland, stating: "The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath ... that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible, and that they do not hold themselves 'bound to obey any order in its own nature immoral', though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an order; but, on the contrary, that it would be sinful in them to pay any respect or obedience thereto."[84][85]
In the Declaration and Protestation signed by the English Catholic Dissenters in 1789, the year of the French Revolution,[86] the signatories state:[87]
We have also been accused of holding, as a Principle of our Religion, That implicit Obedience is due from us to the Orders and Decrees of Popes and General Councils; and that therefore if the Pope, or any General Council, should, for the Good of the Church, command us to take up Arms against the Government, or by any means to subvert the Laws and Liberties of this Country, or to exterminate Persons of a different Persuasion from us, we (it is asserted by our Accusers) hold ourselves bound to obey such Orders or Decrees, on pain of eternal Fire:
Whereas we positively deny, That we owe any such Obedience to the Pope and General Council, or to either of them; and we believe that no Act that is in itself immoral or dishonest can ever be justified by or under Colour that it is done either for the Good of the Church, or in Obedience to any ecclesiastical Power whatever. We acknowledge no Infallibility in the Pope, and we neither apprehend nor believe, that our Disobedience to any such Orders or Decrees (should any such be given or made) could subject us to any Punishment whatever.
Sparrow-Simpson remarked that, "All works reprinted since 1870 have been altered into conformity with Vatican ideas. In some cases the process of reducing to conformity was begun at an earlier date. It is therefore with works printed before 1870 that we are now concerned." He therefore cites editions prior to that date.[88]
In his theological works published in 1829, Professor Delahogue asserted that the doctrine that the Roman Pontiff, even when he speaks ex cathedra, is possessed of the gift of inerrancy or is superior to General Councils may be denied without loss of faith or risk of heresy or schism.[89]
In his 1829 study On the Church, Delahogue stated: "Ultramontane theologians attribute infallibility to the Bishop of Rome considered in this aspect and when he speaks, as the saying is, ex cathedra. This is denied by others, in particular by Gallicans."[90]
The 1830 edition of Berrington and Kirk's Faith of Catholics stated: "Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council or acceptance of the Church, oblige no one under pain of heresy to an interior assent."[88]
The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:
Sparrow-Simpson quotes also from the 1895 revision:
In 1861, Professor Murray of the major Irish Catholic seminary of Maynooth wrote that those who genuinely deny the infallibility of the pope "are by no means or only in the least degree (unless indeed some other ground be shown) to be considered alien from the Catholic Faith."[92]
Critical works such as Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909) by W. J. Sparrow-Simpson have thus documented opposition to the definition of the dogma during the First Vatican Council even by those who believed in its teaching but felt that defining it was not opportune.[93]
Following the 1869–1870 First Vatican Council, dissent arose among a few Catholics, almost exclusively German, Austrian, and Swiss, over the definition of papal infallibility. The dissenters, while holding the General Councils of the Church infallible, were unwilling to accept the dogma of papal infallibility, and thus a schism arose between them and the Church, resulting in the formation of communities in schism with Rome, which became known as the Old Catholic Churches. The vast majority of Catholics accepted the definition.[94]
Before the First Vatican Council, John Henry Newman, while personally convinced, as a matter of theological opinion, of papal infallibility, opposed its definition as dogma, fearing that the definition might be expressed in over-broad terms open to misunderstanding. He was pleased with the moderate tone of the actual definition, which "affirmed the pope's infallibility only within a strictly limited province: the doctrine of faith and morals initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition."[94]
Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler (d. 3 July 1980) wrote a detailed analysis of the First Vatican Council, presenting the passage of the infallibility definition as orchestrated.[58] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Denial_by_Catholics
But...
no doctrine was changed; was there?
HMMMmmm...
I’d better get a LARGE tub of popcorn this time!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.