[Catholic Caucus] Pope Francis: There Are Many ‘Restorers’ in the US Who Do Not Accept Vatican II

National Catholic Register ^ | June 14, 2022 | Hannah Brockhaus

[ebb tide]

[Catholic Caucus] Pope Francis: There Are Many ‘Restorers’ in the US Who Do Not Accept Vatican II

Pope Francis cited opposition to Vatican II when he issued the motu proprio Traditionis custodes in July 2021, limiting celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.

VATICAN CITY — There are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Tuesday. p

Speaking to the editors of Jesuit Magazine journals, he criticized what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecumenical council held from 1962 to 1965.

He said: “Restorationism has come to gag the Council. The number of groups of ‘restorers’ — for example, in the United States there are many — is significant.”

“An Argentine bishop told me that he had been asked to administer a diocese that had fallen into the hands of these ‘restorers.’ They had never accepted the Council. There are ideas, behaviors that arise from a restorationism that basically did not accept the Council.”

“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”

[ebb tide]

Barf Alert Ping

[kearnyirish2]

Isn’t everyone thrilled with the post-VII empty pews, parish and church closures, and empty seminaries?

Maybe the “restorers” have the right idea...

[DoodleBob]

Btw, I believe this article points to the Argentinian "restorers." To wit:

The right [to receive Communion in the mouth] was not abolished, but it was regulated as the political authorities did with the right to free movement in the face of the pandemic crisis. Did they take away our right to free movement? No, it was regulated. The same thing happens with Communion," Taussig said.

During the pandemic and when Communion is available only by mouth, Taussig said, "let's do it like martyrs, with their heroism, ready to give our lives for our King and if we have to go, let it be with that heroism that leads us to charity."

Martyrs die for the faith, they don't buckle under.

[pgyanke]

If you truly read the council, you find that it didn’t produce radical change in the Church. Radical elements in the Church used it to produce radical change.

I don’t reject the council. I reject those who have bastardized it.

[married21]

Well stated.

[irishjuggler]

“Isn’t everyone thrilled with the post-VII empty pews, parish and church closures, and empty seminaries? Maybe the “restorers” have the right idea...”

Well, that’s the sane response. The alternative, insane narrative, subscribed to by Bergoglio and his ilk, is that their program of theological liberalism and political leftism would have worked beautifully if only it hadn’t been thwarted by those dastardly conservatives. In other words, if only their “progressivism” had actually been tried instead of snuffed out by reactionaries, things would have been different. Of course, when one points out to them that everything they want *was* tried by mainline protestant sects in Europe and the U.S., and failed miserably, it’s all fingers-in-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you.

[NewJerseyJoe]

Great reply!

[rmichaelj]

I have truly read the council, and yes while the documents re-affirm much of what the Church has always taught- there are also passages where it flatly contradicts well-established Church teaching. Especially in regards to religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.

Which is what happens when you have documents written by two separate factions, one trying to uphold Church Tradition and the other a set of rebels trying to undermine the Faith. Unfortunately, in this case the rebels currently hold the political power and have pushed the modernist heresy upon the Faithful.

Better to be with Athanasius in the wilderness, than to allow these heretical bishops to undermine the Faith of our families. We have the right to protect our Faith which is ours by right, handed down to us by Our Lord. If they wish to push their new religion instituted in 1965 then as Paul said in Galatians “let him be anathema.”

[nickcarraway]

Pope Francis doesn’t accept Vatican II. Go look at the documents of batting in 2 when what he is spouses is not found anywhere they are. Even the mass we have today is nothing like what Vatican too called for which was much closer to the 1962 Missal.

[ebb tide]

The Day the Mass Changed, How it Happened and Why -- Part I

[kearnyirish2]

You’re right; the leftism they embrace today in a misguided attempt to remain relevant led those large Protestant churches to die on the vine. In my town an “American National Catholic Church” (leftist schismatics staffed by some former Catholic priests who cater to divorced Catholics seeking remarriage and homosexuals who want to “play married”) use a Methodist church building.

The old Protestant churches in my town are huge and beautiful and empty; our Catholic churches are headed the same way.

[kearnyirish2]

Thank you; it is sad to watch this unfold...

[MurphsLaw]

Isn’t everyone thrilled with the post-VII empty pews, parish and church closures, and empty seminaries?

I assume you are referring to the U.S. - or maybe even Europe.
While the need to assign this "emptiness" factor to Vatican 2 as a lessening Catholic impact in theses areas...
What does that say for Brazil, Mexico and the Phillipines? with their growth in Catholicism?
And I would add the amazing growth of the Church in Africa and Asia?
That on its own, refutes the "idea" of a post V2 inability of Growth.

So why isn't the Church growing in Europe and North America- in a similar way? Could it be the rot of the culture it exists in?
And lets look at the decline in Protestant ranks as well.
IF you statistically removed 4 decades of ex-Catholic influx (who left a fuller Truth in the Eucharist and Church, for a more "spiritual" one in "fellowship")
from the ranks of the many Protestant faith beliefs- you see an even greater fall off or decline in Church growth than we see in North American Catholicism- fact. (Europe however is on its last legs).
So these Protestant denominations - even with ex-Catholic influx... are seeing the same response to Christ-
and are right there with Catholic faithful in the decline-
totally untethered to Vatican 2-
The culture is rot. Christianity is not relevant. Look even at these MegaChurches and what they are turning Christianity into.
It's cultural rot- secularism - that is the enemy of the Church.

I admit - having left the Church for 20 years or so, and then came back- my perspective is different than most. But it's real.
But I got to learn something very universal...
That there IS NOTHING - but MYSELF that constrains -
Neither abusive criminal clergy nor bad liturgy nor a flawed Pope - nor Council documents- NOR the gloom of night -
That can keep ME from the Life offered through the Body, Blood, Soul and Dvinity of Jesus Christ- through the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. Nothing, unless I make excuses for...

Nobody's fault but mine. (LZ)

[HamiltonJay]

The allowance of openly gay men into the priesthood is an abomination and the root of much of the problems the church is dealing with today... So criticism of the Vatican II is justified for that alone if nothing else.

[kearnyirish2]

All of the poorer countries mentioned are seeing a rise in non-Catholic populations - so the natural growth of the Catholic population is not as rosy as it seems.

The Protestant denominations saw their numbers decrease as they tried decades ago what the Catholic Church is trying now - bringing itself into line with the larger secular culture. It is clearly not based in anything scriptural, so it becomes a hard sell to prospective new members.

[MurphsLaw]

All of the poorer countries mentioned are seeing a rise in non-Catholic populations - so the natural growth of the Catholic population is not as rosy as it seems.

WHY on earth is it not rosy for the Body of Christ to brought to "poorer" countries? Is there an income requirement to come to Christ in the Eucharist?
My ancestors came from an island of poor, suffering people- and brought their Catholic faith with them... and just maybe America became great because of it?
Maybe what is really going on, is just simply that once a people become affluent, and comfortable... they don't need Christ anymore... ?

Your analogy of Protestants- Catholics with regard to secular infusion is not applicable- as it is apples and oranges.
The asymptomatic look at any contrast of the two, reveals the Protestant fundamental position as one in constant schism. That's the DNA of Protestantism. Its not a dig there- just the reality.
This is easily documented over the last 500 years- and accelerated even more so today- as the constant splitting of these hundreds of Faith beliefs. Their nature will always be to dissolve into secularism at a certain point, with Christ as Secondary. Visit a "MegaChurch" for that confirmation.

My point was that these "ex-Catholics", in feeding this growth that is essentially division- didn't move the needle at all in stemming the tide of the similar recent decline of Protestants faiths either- and the Protestants can't use Vatican 2 as an excuse as well.

To cite Vatican2 as demotivating, although It is clearly not based in anything scriptural, so it becomes a hard sell to prospective new members... ?

Well I can't agree on that at all. And the truth in the Church, The Eucharist - should be what brings in "new members'... though not as members or "belongers" to something- but "Believers" in Something.
And the Holy Spirit has that covered...

Not based in anything Scriptural?
That has ALWAYS been a red-herring falsehood of those who need to find fault in Vat2- and not that's not to say Vat2 docs are perfect without fault- but I can't agree with a lacsk of scriptural concern...

Looking at what the council desired- beyond even the Scripture already in use in the Mass, the Vat2 called for an even greater increase in the use of Scripture!
. One of the first documents to be released from the Council - Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy- specifically note a deeper dive into Scriptural usage:

“Sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy …” (SC 24)
“In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy Scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.” (SC 35)
“The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way, a more representative portion of the holy Scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.” (SC 51)
“Readings from sacred Scripture shall be arranged so that the riches of God's word may be easily accessible in more abundant measure.” (SC 92)

(This is the expanded lectionary cycle form 1 to 3 years that we enjoy today- that I never even knew was a result of the Council.)

My Protestant acquaintances falsely pride themselves on having more "scriptural" basis for their faith then Catholics.
What an urban Myth this is... even after Vat 2 !

In reality - they have far-less Scripture in their worship then does the Catholic Church. The Mass- Sunday or even Daily is basically prayers- with a homily thrown in- but I don't need the homily even- just the Liturgy and the Eucharist.
Below is a breakdown on why Protestants are so wrong about Catholics not being "Scriptural"... as our Mass lecstionary is as follows:

14% of the Old Testament (not counting the Psalms)
55% of the non-Gospel New Testament
90% of the Gospels
71% of the entire New Testament

The Council was about increasing Scripture-
Read the Vat2 documents for yourself ... and you will see they were notfully implemented as was the goal of the Council.

(And the TLM was not banned by the Council either.)

[kearnyirish2]

“WHY on earth is it not rosy for the Body of Christ to brought to “poorer” countries?”

You know I didn’t say that; the Church is losing ground in those “poorer” countries.

The Eucharist is hardly regarded as the Body of Christ when lay people are distributing It so they can have a sense of participation. At each mass the celebrant’s fingers are cleansed at the altar; who cleans their (unordained) fingers? The Church is collapsing because too many of the hierarchy stopped believing Christ was actually present in the Eucharist; chastising Pelosi after decades of publicly endorsing infanticide (while not doing the same for Biden) makes the point.

When VII brought about the concept of “permanent deacons” (claiming it was a revival of something from centuries past), clergy warned it would cripple vocations to the priesthood as men got to “play priest” while having families - and that also played out.

The comparison to Protestants is valid because the Church is trying to embrace the same secular ideas that demolished them.

[MurphsLaw]

The Eucharist is hardly regarded as the Body of Christ when lay people are distributing It so they can have a sense of participation. At each mass the celebrant’s fingers are cleansed at the altar; who cleans their (unordained) fingers? The Church is collapsing because too many of the hierarchy stopped believing Christ was actually present in the Eucharist; chastising Pelosi after decades of publicly endorsing infanticide (while not doing the same for Biden) makes the point.

Totally agree with all you say.
As Ann Barnhardt wrote of these indifferent Cardinals and Bishops sullying God's Word in his Church-
"The Cool kids just don't believe in this sh*t anymore". Crude, but spot on of the ignoring of the Real Presence.
But I would add some context though to what I see missing.
(No- I just really have to rant.)

We need to take care we that we are not reducing -or unintentionally denying the "ex opere operato" aspect of any of the Sacraments - just as a convenient attack on Vat2 and the liturgical abuses that exist.
That Aspect is that God's Graces are given us "Thrugh" the Church fisrt- and then Through the Priest. That Eucharist is still Consecrated by the Body and Bloodof Christ- Validly. Those Uber Catholics who deny Eucharistic presence in the N.O. Mass are flat out wrong... even heretical.
Although personally not fond of the Eucharistic Lay Ministry- I can see fruitful benefits- one being The Eucharist Homebound Ministry comes to mind as an awesome Grace for those souls who love Christ, and are near their end.
In contrat, we all know, and Have, the horrid stories of bad, abusive (YET ORDAINED) Priests who have turned their back on God-
and STILL the Sacraments do Not suffer... we are ALWAYS protected from any of that Sacramental abuse by God's Grace through "ex opere".
We constantly have to remember for ourselves theses Graces operate through Men- and are not affected by any unworthiness on the part of their dispensation- IN ANY WAY- to counter non-Catholics who infer a Christianity "of Man" for us.
And even as this evil threat exists in the Priesthood- always has-It does not diminish the role Of Christ's Priests- as the Pope can never diminish the Chair of Peter.
He can be sinful in it- but can never bind the Will of God to human frailty and desire.
We all know this... yet push it all aside for prideful reasoning when it is convenient to use against another.
But THAT's really NOT the issue here I am triggeredby, or concerned with at all.

(For record- yes- I personally prefer the Communion rail- and also have had many, many occasions where I have had to shake my head "No" at the Usher,
who is trying to motion me out of the Priest's side Communion line- to a Lay Person's line. Nothing against the Lay person and that role - but it is My preference to receive from the Celebrant of that Mass.
Many parishioners don't share that desire- and thats ok too.
I wish more of the laity would choose to receive only from the Priest- but I assume they fear the directive of the "Usher". Don't.

Anyway my beef in all this is the Vat2 put more upon the Laity- and the laity for better or worse- have abused this recent understanding. We give a pass to Catholics in their responsibility to the Church- and then its feel-good pile on time of a skunk like Pelosi.
We as the Laity also don't have to be concerned with deeper meaning.
We get to ignore the more important understanding of sinner and Sacramental efficacy and/or disposition.
I can say with ease that "efficacy" is usually lacking today-
and so it is used incorrectly or not at all.
The real understanding of Efficacy has been reduced to a seldom noted bullet point or minor comment for the sake of the conflict.
A lost opportunity to inform the faithful for sure.

And what is lost - as I see it- is (as you mentioned) the belief in the true nature of the Sacramental gift itself.
Or, actually what is lost is because we tend forget the Sacraments are God's Grace (yes) - but that they build upon our flawed nature. And yes "Merit" is necessary to receive the efficacy of the Sacrament.
That's the Pelosi issue... and it is being improperly handled.
The world should be told, and I know the Church/Clergy are afraid to say or admit it - but the Eucharist has no efficacy in it for an unrepentant sinner like Pelosi.
None, Nada.
Furthermore- The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is NOT DIMINISHED ONE BIT in Pelosi unworthily presenting herself
The lost, true reality or emphasis --- should be that SHE IS WASTING HER TIME- THAT NO GRACE IS BEING CONVEYED TO HER.
The world has set this up as a matter of "Privilege"- patriarchal or bigoted reaction...
BUT THATS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE EYE'S OF GOD. The bigger issue is being hushed here, as it would project a weakness of the Sacraments. And that's wrong, its the Church sitting on the dynamite, not wanting to blow up the culture with Catholicism.
And that lack of mission was presnt way before Vat2.

And also underplayed, and worth more ink - is that AB. Cordileone is protecting Pelosi from compounding her sin with even more grave sin - whether she agrees with that or not.
Its these two elements of the Pelosi saga that are foremost and primary. She's receives nothing from the Eucharist, and that needs to be the headline.

Due to bad Catechesis, which is being overcome everyday- The modern conception of the Sacraments in the Church- for many in and out of the Church - is that the Sacraments, alone, hold some magical power.
Sorry they just don't.
Grace MUST BE cooperated with.
Though, at the same time That Grace in the Sacrament IS NOT diminished one bit either if received, or dispensed licitly. (And God is not bound by human error, say in the instance of the Baptismal vow error by that Priest- unless he did that intentionally. God knows our Hearts better than we.)
That Sacraments convey Graces - no doubt- but not on their own, but through a marriage of a repentant soul- as an extension of the Church as the Bride to Christ.
And that's where Protestants get hung up, on merit, calling it Pelagian. It's not.
. With the Sacraments - Thats's Everything!- Our Cooperation with that Grace we are given... IS necessary. There's no faking it. (Nancy)

What the lives of the Saints have shown us- and what Christ has told us- is that WE need to go deep in prayer and penance with that Grace- and also go "beyond" our mind in faith and hope and charity if we are to expect the any of the sacraments to take any real, fruitful effect in OUR lives.
Christ told us- There is no getting around it.
Short of that, without metanoia, the Sacrament does not work and
"the Flesh counts for nothing". (Again, Pelosi)
There's more to it than just magic.

NOTHING can defile the Body, Blood, Soul "or" Divinity of Christ in the Consecrated Eucharist.
Absolute nothing.
Not even a Lay Minister.
If we allow ourselves to think or feel Vat2 or any sinful flawed Clergyman of the Church- at any level-
Can effect or Bind the Grace of God through His Sacraments instituted by Christ...
Well... we are simply unaware of the most basic element of Christianity.

End rant. Sorry for the length.

[kearnyirish2]

Throughout history people have died protecting the Eucharist because of their belief in the Divine Presence; Pelosi receiving it is a very public desecration (and clergy are complicit).

I still see longer lines at the priests than the civilians distributing the Eucharist; when my children were younger one a couple of occasions they returned to the pew when the priest returned to the altar (leaving non-believing civilians to distribute). In their catechism classes they relayed my firm instructions to their teachers that in class Masses they must go to a priest (rather than be assigned to the line of a non-believing civilian).

Vatican II caved to the SECULAR laity - and I don’t blame the lay faithful for the outcome one bit. The hierarchy abdicated its responsibility - pure and simple - and now the next generation of laity have responded by treating them (and the faith) as meaningless. They were told all Christian denominations (and some non-Christian ones) are all on the same path to God, so they promptly decided they’d rather sleep in on Sundays, end marriages when the feeling struck them, support “same sex marriage” without qualms - because others on the same path to God do so /s. Most importantly from the CEO’s standpoint (Francis), they stopped giving money.