THIS IS AN EYE OPENING ARTICLE WRITTEN BY A REPORTER OF THE CATHOLIC PRESS, AMERICA, IN MARCH OF 1963. IT IS HISTORY WRITTEN AS IT HAPPENED. YOU CAN READ IT BY PRESSING HERE.
In this article, one sees already the seed of disunity that is brewing at the Council that will carry on in the post-Vatican II Church until this very day between the conservatives, who are in disfavor evidently with Pope John XXIII and the progressives who are pushing their agenda through and with some papal support. As this article is written, Pope John XXIII is already weakened by his terminal illness but still able to function. But one wonders if he hasn't lost control but still trying to exert it where he can.
The Council of the Media is emerging and clearly evidently so in this article. The media is extremely happy about the Council and all the world is getting a glimpse into it. But as Pope Benedict said in late February, the Council of the Media, which he uses certainly in a historic sense, he also uses in a metaphorical sense is magnifying the discontinuity and side bar issues of the Council and creating a false council, the Council of the Media. The euphoria of the media is over the political differences between the emerging conservative and progressive bishops, something most Catholics up until that time would never have dreamed existed, nor the media for that matter.
A quote which would have been a bombshell to the media and rank and file Catholics in 1963:
"A recent issue of Osservatore Romano explains the conduct of some curial officials who seemed to be out of sympathy with papal directives calling for the forward march of the Church. If an attempt was made by some to keep the liturgy, and theology generally, tied to the static formulas of the past, Osservatore Romano explains that some had to act as defenders of the faith or devils advocates. The fact is, of course, that the conduct of such prelates needs no defense. As Fathers of the Council, they enjoy the same “holy liberty” as all other bishops and are certainly entitled to their own opinions regarding the manner in which Catholic theology should be expressed and defended."
The beginnings of the Council of the Media (That in the post-conciliar Church replaces the true Council as Pope Benedict illustrated in his final magnificent talk and in this sense, the Council of the Media is pejorative, not literal, but one that is embedded in the minds and hearts of academics and trickles down to parishes thus thwarting the true implementation of Vatican II even 50 years since:
"Time chose Pope John as its “Man of the Year,” stating that “by convening the Ecumenical Council called Vatican II, he set in motion ideas and forces that will affect not merely Roman Catholics, not only Christians, but the whole worlds ever-expanding population.” The Council was covered daily by all the greater newspapers in the larger cities throughout the free world. Even the Russian press agreed that it was an epoch-making event."
Many thanks to Bill deHass for posting this at Praytell!
3 comments:
A clear indication that the 'spirit of V2' cannot be explained away as a false hermeneutic. It predated the Council, and drove both the Council and the post-Conciliar Church. A liturgy magazine in 1962 described how the Mass would look in ten years' time - and it was spot-on.
Possible opposition was quickly identified and effectively neutralized. Half a dozen Lefebvres might have knocked some sense into Paul VI - one could be dealt with, although the underhand and dishonest way the Vatican treated SSPX goes a long way to explain the society's continued distrust of the Curia.
But, ,John, it IS a "false" hermeneutic. It cannot be explained away because unbelief is so prevalent among the Curia. That does not make it less false.
There is already a de facto schism in the Church and it has nothing to do with SSPX. It is the schism that exists between believing Catholics who understand the Liturgy, the Eucharist, Dogma, regalia, and ritual as embodiments of true belief and proper Christology and those Catholics who see these things as merely historical moments subject to re-interpretation, deconstruction, and self-referential manipulation. This schism is weakening the Church far more than anything SSPX can do. For all of the SSPX problems and for all the headaches they may provide Rome, I believe they serve as a severe warning to the faithful and to the establishment Church...REPENT and believe the Gospel (pardon the resurgence of my Calvinism).
One does not need an official and declared "schism" in order to have a crisis. To quote a forgotten book by R.D. Lange,"The Politics of Experience," he says, 'The dreadful has already happened.'
I'm not sure we can't say it's a false hermeneutic. It is a false hermeneutic. Its predating the actual Conciliar event does not lend it any particular credence. It just shows that the same people who had agendas after the Council had them before. That's clear.
Post a Comment