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.
There is NOTHING in the documents of Vatican II about clown masses. Those and other silly twists are what the libs trotted out 'in the Spirit of Vatican II', in the years following the Council. MOST of what passes for Vatican II 'changes' in America are simply what liberals wanted to do, and did on their own.
I think, your criticism should be properly addressed to those who are "building a monument" to Vatican II, rather than to the Pope's remarks. Clearly, the movement is with those who are as unhappy with these fruits of the Vatican II as you are. Those who think that Vatican II is the sum total of Catholicism are on the defensive; it is them who want to preserve the clownchurch they built intact.
Many thanks for leading me to Rev. Know it All.
I know much more about how Vatican II was derailed.
I agree with most of your points. I disagree on whose fault it is:
Rome approved the NAB.
Rome lifted the abstinence of flesh meat on Fridays.
Rome, itself and to this day, refuses to publicly offer the Holy Mass ad Orientum.
Rome approved Extarordinarily Ugly Eucharsistic Monsters.
Rome approved Holy Communion in the Paw.
Rome approved altar girls.
Don’t blame it on the US bishops. The fish starts to rot at the head.
“The pope asked if Catholics have opened themselves to “that continuity of the church’s growth” that the council signified.”
The Church has grown since VC II? That’s news to me.
Note the adjustments made for the U. S.
Cleaning out of the U. S. Bishops started happening with Pope John Paul II, continued with Pope Benedict XVI, and is being furthered by Pope Francis.
Also Pope Francis, I believe is dealing with the cardinals.
Don't blame it on the US Bishops. Monkey see, monkey do.
Sure hope so.....Fr. Oko’s report was pretty devastating and it makes sense from all I have seen unfolding. The Truth has to be restored and the blurring of Right and Wrong has to end for the next generation, so they are not corrupted. The Catholic Church can not be Wishy-Washy, ever on sin. The dignity in the clergy and mass has to be restored and the Catholic Church could see greatness, again. I do pray for that.
I was raising four boys and involved in Catholic schools and knew something was really rotten in Denmark (Rome) but didn’t imagine the infiltration—although it really makes sense for Satan to target the Catholic Church (since it is the one, true, Apostolic Church) : )
We had an issue in our parish with a priest who was quietly “retired”. No one really knew anything.
The emasculation of the Church is the most serious issue now-—my three brothers—all raised in the Catholic Church will not set foot in it. Their parish is really feminized-—with mostly women everywhere—and altar girls....it is a sham and no wonder we have “nuns” clamoring for “women” priestesses.
I had to switch parishes-—it was so disturbing to me, because I “feel” the Marxism oozing out from the altar and the blurring of Truth and Natural Law. The ejection—literally, of Thomistic Theology-—and I love St. Thomas Aquinas and won’t abide his ejection.
Maybe I read too much —the Communist Manifesto and the philosophy of Nietzsche and Freud and Wundt-—to not know what these people/clergy are doing to the minds of little kids and the men-—the few that are left. Their ideas even warp the perceptions of women. It is evil.
The best way to destroy the Church is scare off the masculine, good men-—giving homosexuals free range in the seminaries has been devastating and corrupts and warps everything-—especially the policies of the organization-—and by eliminating the true “Protectors of the Faith”-—good, strong, principled men.
Homosexuals are intrinsically disordered which makes it really hard to “look” at human beings/men with dignity. It is really hard to overcome the intense attraction and they can not really be trusted to be in such close quarters with men or boy scouts. History is replete with “orgies” when homosexuals congregate and boys are the preferred objects as Fr. Oko’s report explains.
William Blake was correct: The eye that alters, alters all. With a warped worldview of human nature-—there is no way these people can be a member of the clergy, since it undermines everything in the Catholic Canon, since St. Thomas was adamant about Natural Law aligning with the Bible. Truth is Truth and the Laws of Nature are God’s Laws. It is no sacrifice for a priest to give up the sacrament of matrimony if he is “gay”. It becomes a joke. it warps every single relationship, especially with God.
|VATICAN COMMUNICATION ON FEMALE ALTAR SERVERS|
|Congregation for Divine Worship
|Following is the text of a communication sent from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the presidents of episcopal conferences permitting altar girls.
Rome, 15 March 1994
It is my duty to communicate to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences that an authentic interpretation of Canon 230 #2 of the Code of Canon Law will soon be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
As you know, Canon 230 #2 lays down that:
"Laici ex temporanea deputatione in actionibus liturgicis munus lectoris implere possunt; item omnes laici muneribus commentatoris, cantoris aliisve ad normam iuris fungi possunt."
The Pontifical Council for the interpretation of Legislative Texts was recently asked if the liturgical functions which, according to the above canon, can be entrusted to the lay faithful, may be carried out equally by men and women, and if serving at the altar may be included among those functions, on a par with the others indicated by the canon.
At its meeting of 30 June 1992, the members of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts examined the following <dubium> which had been proposed to them:
Utrum inter munera liturgica quibus laici, sive viri sive mulieres, iuxta C.I. C. Can. 230 #2, fungi possunt, adnumerari etiam possit servitium ad altare.
The following response was given: "Affirmative et iuxta instructiones a Sede Apostolica dandas."
Subsequently, at an Audience granted on 11 July 1992 to the Most Reverend Vincenzo Fagiolo, Archbishop Emeritus of Chieti-Vasto and President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, Pope John Paul II confirmed the decision and ordered its promulgation. This will be done in the near future.
In communicating the above information to your Episcopal Conference, I feel obliged to clarify certain aspects of Canon 230 #2 and of its authentic interpretation:
1) Canon 230 #2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character: "Laici . . . possunt." Hence the permission given in this regard by some Bishops can in no way be considered as binding on other Bishops. In fact, it is the competence of each Bishop, in his diocese, after hearing the opinion of the Episcopal Conference, to make a prudential judgment on what to do, with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in his own diocese.
2) The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.
3) If in some diocese, on the basis of Canon 230 #2, the Bishop permits that, for particular reasons, women may also serve at the altar, this decision must be clearly explained to the faithful, in the light of the above-mentioned norm. It shall also be made clear that the norm is already being widely applied, by the fact that women frequently serve as lectors in the Liturgy and can also be called upon to distribute Holy Communion as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and to carry out other functions, according to the provisions of the same Canon 230 #3.
4) It must also be clearly understood that the liturgical services mentioned above are carried out by lay people ex temporanea deputatione, according to the judgment of the Bishop, without lay people, be they men or women, having any right to exercise them.
In communicating the above, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sought to carry out the mandate received from the Supreme Pontiff to provide directives to illustrate what is laid down in Canon 230 #2 of the Code of Canon Law and its authentic interpretation, which will shortly be published.
In this way the Bishops will be better able to carry out their mission to be moderators and promoters of liturgical life in their own dioceses, within the framework of the norms in force of the Universal Church.
In deep communion with all the members of your Episcopal Conference. I remain
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Cardinal Antonio Maria Javierre Ortas
“Cleaning out of the U. S. Bishops started happening with Pope John Paul II, continued with Pope Benedict XVI, and is being furthered by Pope Francis.”
Sean O’Malley, friend of pro-aborts, was elevated to bishop by Pope John Paul II. He was further elevated to the College of Cardinals by Pope Benedict. Sean O’’Malley is now on Pope Francis’ Gang of Eight.
Sean O’’Malley threw a funeral fit for royalty for Ted Kennedy, the Patron “Saint” of Abortionists.
Are you the acting Bishop’s assistant? Do you know if Kennedy received the Anointing of the Sick? If so, did he go to Confession? If so, did he repent of his past sins?
How can we judge this situation?
I know I can’t, but Kennedy and God know the truth.
In no way do I condone anything at all that Kennedy did!!!
And I also think you know that I am probably one of the most pro-life FReepers on this board.
But I can’t be the judge of his soul, because I wasn’t there at his death.
Wishes are worthless if you don't pursue them.
“But I cant be the judge of his soul, because I wasnt there at his death.”
So if you were there at his death, you would have judged his soul? How “righteous” art thou!
Why are you continuing to calumniate the Pope, as if he scheduled the female servers?
I know at my church a lay person schedules the weekend Masses and I schedule the daily Masses. The priest has nothing to do with who is serving at the Mass.
At the Vatican there is a Master of Ceremonies and other priests assisting the Pope with these minor duties.
I really wish you would stop tarnishing past Popes images with what they probably had no control over.
Good night and may God bless you and open your heart.
“I really wish you would stop tarnishing past Popes images with what they probably had no control over.”
So Popes have no control over Masses they “celebrate”? If they can’t control that, what can they control?
The Council was flawed in its inception, as it did not address the primary errors of its day. It is a mockery to say that what is in those documents is the breathing of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be bridled and forced to promote liberal ideas, nor can it be saddled with equivocal language as the basis for Church teaching. We don’t have to wait another 50 years for this Council to prove itself, the fruits are all around us. Its time to rototill that rotten fruit under, burn the texts and scatter the ashes, prune and water the trees and vines, and pray the Church will recover from this unmitigated disaster known as VC II.