Skip to comments.Pope Francis says Catholics still need to enact teachings of Vatican II
Posted on 04/17/2013 1:47:02 PM PDT by NYer
Some want to undo Vatican II, others want to build a monument to it, Ping!
He’s the boss, as the saying goes.
Okay, I’ve read the whole article. I have no idea what he’s talking about.
He’s delusional if he thinks the Holy Spirit told the Catholic Church to hold clown masses.
What in heaven’s name reason is there to think the Holy Spirit suddenly became progressive and modernist?
So the Holy Spirit was wrong for the last 1,000 years?
Give me a break, Francis.
Exactly!!! And he is delusional if he thinks “Traditions” should be dumped—as a good little Marxist would state.
When something ain’t broke-—you don’t “fix” it!
‘He should reread the Pascendi....which hit the nail on the head! Truth will set you free.....Clean out the Marxist homosexuals, please-—those in the Fr. Oko’s report who probably directed Vatican II. If he isn’t fixing it-—he is one of them. I am waiting........
Well, I would apologize for using the word delusional...too strong. ‘Mistaken’ might have been a better choice and certainly more respectful.
But my opinion is steadfast...Judge Vatican II by its fruits, no by its blasé prose or lofty intentions.
“He needs to experience some of the clownishness that has crept into the American Church.”
I’ve had people criticize me for having my children only receive Communion from priests; I respond that when I see my bishop receive from a civilian then maybe I’d let the children do so. It really is two churches; the American Catholics (de facto Protestants) receive from the civilians dressed in their Sunday best, while the Latin-Rite Catholics (mostly foreigners or older Americans) receive from priests...
Have you even read the documents from VCII?! There is nothing in them that supports clown masses .. or polka masses, or mariachi masses. Those evolved out of mis-interpretations of what is in the documents. Read them ... then post your comments.
Vatican II doesn't say to hold "clown masses". Liberals implementing Vatican II incorrectly decided to do that.
Actually ... the Tridentine Mass, as promulgated and frozen in time by Pope Pius V, was broken. There were a number of problems with the form: prayers that began with "Oremus" but were not followed by an actual prayer; Feasts, such as those of the Presentation of Mary, Saint Anne and Saint Anthony of Padua, were abolished but restored in a 1604 missal used by only a select group. In the course of the following centuries new feasts were repeatedly added and the ranks of certain feasts were raised or lowered. Other popes attempted to introduce revisions to feasts, such as Palm Sunday. Calendar revisions needed to be made, as well.
Liturgy should be fluid, not fixed, to accommodate the rhythm of the church, such as the incorporation of the Feast of the Divine Mercy, or the addition of new saints to the calendar. hanges made to the liturgy in 1965 and 1967 in the wake of decisions of the Second Vatican Council were not incorporated in the Roman Missal, but were reflected in the provisional vernacular translations produced when the language of the people began to be used in addition to Latin. This explains the references sometimes seen to "the 1965 Missal". In fact, I have two missals one prior to and another, after VCII, better known as the Paul VI Missal.
Unfortunately, the progressive wing of the church took hold of the documents and revamped the liturgies at the local level.
Those provisions were enacted by U. S. Bishops in disobedience to the Pope.
Look into it.
We never should have had guitars and what I call “yucky” music. (OCP) Archbishop Sample, we are praying for OCP to disappear.)
We neve rshould have had the NAB.
We should still abstain from meat on all Fridays.
Altars should not have been focused on the congregation, but rather on Christ.
Priests need not say the Novus Ordo — it was the Bishops who did that.
In other words, the U. S. bishops wreaked havoc.
Like I said — really look into it.
I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers the real Council but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers was conducted within the faith it was a Council of faith seeking intellectus, seeking to understand itself and seeking to understand the signs of God at that time, seeking to respond to the challenge of God at that time and to find in the word of God a word for today and tomorrow while all the Council, as I said, moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of the journalists, naturally, was not conducted within the faith, but within the categories of today's media, namely apart from faith, with a different hermeneutic. It was a political hermeneutic: for the media, the Council was a political struggle, a power struggle between different trends in the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world. There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the expression "People of God", power for the people, the laity. There was this threefold question: the power of the Pope, which was then transferred to the power of the bishops and the power of all popular sovereignty. Naturally, for them, this was the part to be approved, to be promulgated, to be favoured. So too with the liturgy: there was no interest in liturgy as an act of faith, but as something where comprehensible things are done, a matter of community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a tendency, not without a certain historical basis, to say: sacrality is a pagan thing, perhaps also a thing of the Old Testament. In the New Testament it matters only that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, in the profane world. Sacrality must therefore be abolished, and profanity now spreads to worship: worship is no longer worship, but a community act, with communal participation: participation understood as activity. These translations, trivializations of the idea of the Council, were virulent in the process of putting the liturgical reform into practice; they were born from a vision of the Council detached from its proper key, that of faith. And the same applies to the question of Scripture: Scripture is a book, it is historical, to be treated historically and only historically, and so on.
We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.
So it seems as if they may be saying about the same thing.
Yes. But I am aware of the vast corruption documented in Bella Dodd’s book in the 50’s after her conversion by Bishop Fulton Sheen and I read the Fr. Oko’s report on the homomafia (Marxists) who virtually infiltrated to control policies and blackmail clergy and rape boys to destroy the Church from within. Wikileaks, also, did happen, you know and corruption is inevitable.
I used to write to Notre Dame while my son was there about all the anti-Catholic programs, that they were promoting on their “Catholic” campus-—”freedom” to promote degeneracy (Vagina Monologues) with extreme male hatred and dehumanization of female body parts, and elevating Lesbian rape. Sorry-—the president should have been fired immediately—but funny thing—he was venerated. They also were promoting sodomy and abortions, through, their “guest” speakers-—even the baby born-alive-killer, zero. Pure evil.
I also witnessed-—in my “parish” the abuses (errors) which the SSPX have written about extensively. I have also read the “Pascendi” and other encyclicals and the Catholic Canon and know a little of the politics inside the Catholic Church.
But, most importantly, I understand how to form “worldview” and character in young children, and I see the Catholic Church deliberately BLURRING sex roles-—to emasculate young boys and chase them OUT of the Church (which they did). My three brothers refuse to go to our Church-—it is so creepy. It is the homosexualization/feminization of the clergy and I repeat-—it is super/super creepy. All my brothers went to Catholic grade schools and two went to Catholic High School.
You can judge the “fruit” of Vatican II. Anyone with a brain understands the SSPX point-—that Vatican II put the Catholic Church Theology on the “top of a tall slide”-—and there was only one way for the theology to go. We know it slid all the way to the bottom and there was a pile of bird droppings to boot.
Pope Francis has major cleanup to do-—when we see the Homomafia—as Fr. Oko labeled them-—kicked out—and there are cardinals who are part of the Homomafia-—then, we will “know” that he is “reforming” the “smoke of Satan” that entered the Vatican in 1963.
Like I say, I will not follow a Church of Satan. When they remove the Satanic elements (errors/heresies)-—( I do think pre-Vatican II Catholic Theology is near perfect)——I will be happy, and maybe, I will be able to get my brothers back in the pews.
VII turned into Lucifer's handiest tool (against the Church, anyway). This was by design (Satan's design). He saw the big picture. Not just the words and paragraphs, but the big picture. He saw Protestants and Catholic pretenders in the curia who were only too eager to do his bidding.
Earlier today an objection was made: VII itself is neutral or good (it can be objectively demonstrated that there are good things in Vatican II -- no dispute there). So any deficiency is in the interpretation or execution, not the document. Doesn't matter. Look at the fruits.
It is possible the score can still be reversed, but Team Diabolical in still in the lead on this one.
I don’t know-—if he does NOT clean out the Cardinals and US Bishops, etc.-—(Fr. Oko’s Report) Delusional may be very appropriate.
I am waiting....I will be patient-—but he does not have a lot of time with the NWO clamping down....they are all the same-—the homosexual Marxists and Muslim Brotherhood.
Go to 35 minutes (below) in this Savage interview—they have infiltrated our universities, our Supreme Court-—our Congress and Executive Office-—Europe/etc. Fabians-—the Marxists, the sodomites like John Maynard Keynes.
None of those minor changes were made with consent of the devil, if even noticed. None had deleterious consequences of any import at all. Virtually all were Holy in nature and those actually implemented were minimally controversial. None had the effect of protestantizing the Mass or bowing to modernism. Entirely different situation.
Yes, I’ve read some of them. My statement about the clown masses was rhetorical and I don’t actually believe any pope had a part in those (I hope).
But as I’ve said many times, none of these things could have happened without VII setting the stage for them: disobedience and experimentation became trendy. Judge by the fruits.