Pope Paul VI makes his way past bishops during a session of the Second Vatican Council in 1964. (CNS file photo)
Folks, these bishops and priests Pope Paul VI condemns in the excerpt of a longer diatribe below were formed in the more authoritarian and rigid pre-Vatican II Church who overnight began to destroy the Mass which is the foundation of the very Church they began to destroy. What they did then, to children and God only knows who else, the Mass, doctrine and morals as well as flippant disrespect for canon law is the foundation of the catastrophe we are experiencing now which I would say is the worst in history for the laity because of instant communication and the new medias.This was Pope Paul’s warning to these first post Vatican II progressive miscreants in His Holiness’ Address to a consistory on loyalty to the Church and the Council, May 24, 1976, three months before I entered a liberal seminary doing what he decried and about two years before his death:
At the other extreme are those who – proposing just the opposite teaching, but giving us equal cause for grief – falsely regard themselves as taking the road opened by the Council. Moved by their own one-sided opinions, which in some cases seem beyond hope of correction, they are fiercely engaged in passing judgment on the Church and its institutions.
With equal firmness, therefore, we must repudiate the course of action taken by:
- Those who decide that they have the right to create a liturgy of their own, at times reducing the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments to a celebration of life or their own struggles and to the status of a symbol of their own spirit of community; or practice outlawed forms of intercommunion. …
- [Those who water down Catholic doctrine; those who show outright scorn for the tradition of the Church including the Fathers and the magisterium]…
- Those who make light of the proper office of the priestly ministry.
- [Those who reduced Christianity to political action] …
Christians of this stripe are surely not very numerous, but they are very noisy, since they foolishly believe that they are the interpreters of the needs of the whole Christian people or
of the irreversible course of history. As they do so they can in no way appeal to the authority of Vatican Council II, since its correct interpretation and application give absolutely no grounds for license. …
AND WHAT POPE PAUL WRONGLY THOUGHT WAS A SMALL CABAL OF MISCREANT CARDINALS, OTHER BISHOPS AND PRIEST ACTUALLY WAS VERY LARGE AND LEADS TO THE PERSECUTION OF OF A MODERN WHISTLE BLOWER ORTHODOX CATHOLIC PRIESTS BY HIS MODERN DAY CARDINAL:
of the irreversible course of history. As they do so they can in no way appeal to the authority of Vatican Council II, since its correct interpretation and application give absolutely no grounds for license. …
AND WHAT POPE PAUL WRONGLY THOUGHT WAS A SMALL CABAL OF MISCREANT CARDINALS, OTHER BISHOPS AND PRIEST ACTUALLY WAS VERY LARGE AND LEADS TO THE PERSECUTION OF OF A MODERN WHISTLE BLOWER ORTHODOX CATHOLIC PRIESTS BY HIS MODERN DAY CARDINAL:
12 comments:
•Those who decide that they have the right to create a liturgy of their own...
Sadly, Paul had a very exalted view of the papacy and firmly believed that he had the right to create a liturgy of his own.
This is of course a very Italian attitude, right out of Pius IX. Paul actually wanted to insert text into Vatican II (Lumen Gentium?) that the pope is uni Domino devinctus--subject only to the Lord. Thankfully, even his handlers realised that was a step too far and quashed it.
It has also been argued that Paul VI was in a hurry to sign off the Novus Ordo, with all its imperfections (some of which he belatedly corrected), and impose it on the whole Church as a way of restoring order to the chaos which had resulted from Vatican II - in France alone the number of unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers was in the hundreds.
However, when you take a Latin liturgy which had developed gradually from at least the fourth century, and replace it with one fabricated in only five years and celebrated in a veritable babel of tongues, you're going to get chaos anyway.
Former head of the Holy Office, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, was correct : the Novus Ordo was an incalculable error
A Future Pope of a very small church will restore the Latin Tridentine Mass...or not. If not, there will remain the various Orthodox liturgies and of course, all manner of protestant liturgies too.
The events following V-2 exposed the existing rot in the fabric of the Church as the army of religious who were disgusted with what was going on in abbeys, monasteries, and parishes caused the God fearing to flee. The Council made certain to say that the consecrated life was nothing special, that the lay state was just as spiritually worthwhile.The ascetic sacrifice of the ordained was effectively devalued. So leaving the ordained state was actually became a no brainer because the priest or sister would leave behind the abusers and gain by entering into the married state gaining independence an hopefully happiness with a mate.
So, the Church was left with a majority religious Bishops, priests, and sisters all, literally hell-bent, to reshape it in their own twisted image. The images became the boss of the infirmary.
The mystery remains why the Good God chose this venue to cleanse the Temple?
Speaking of abuse, curious to know what y'all think on the Ford v Kavanaugh bout on Capitol Hill today. If what she says is true, should Mr. K withdraw? Or should we take the view he has been model citizen by all accounts over the last 30 years and has outgrown his youthful indiscretions?
I wonder why the Democrats were not so concerned in another time about the adult (not high school) behavior of Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton? "It is just about sex"....right?!?!?
I want to hear Judge K next. Ford sounded very convincing but she can provide no corroborating witnesses and she doesn't know where the house was and when it happened. I think something happened to her. She remembers the trauma, but not the way she got there or got home. I would have been thrilled by my escape and whatever creative ways that got me to my parent's house and while I might have blanked out at an attempted rape I don't think I would have blanked out about the other aspects of that fateful day, especially where it happened and why I was there.
I fear she is being used by the democrats and re-victimized by them for political gain. Possibly that is true of her lawyers too whom I don't trust whatsoever.
But let's hear Judge K.
But I do feel that the FBI now should interview those who Ford says she knows were there, in particular her friend and Mark Jones.
This is all about preserving the Dem's chief sacrament: Abortion. They are doing evil to preserve evil. Joseph Stalin would be proud of their tactics that even Richard Nixon would blush at
judge k rocked the hall, and Lindsey Graham holy crap, the epitome of a southern gentleman push too far, he has definitely grown a pair since McStain died, WOW
The Egyptian,
True but the evil abortion droolers, some of whom masquerade as catholic "priests" are working hard to undermine Judge Kavanaugh.
All this testimony does make me wonder: "Where are the parents?" In these high-flootin' areas like Georgetown, Buckhead (in Atlanta), Myers Park (in Charlotte) are the parents always out of town when these parties happen or happened? In Ms. Ford's case, what was a 15-year old doing at a party? How did she get there? Certainly the driving age (unsupervised) was not 15 in those days? Wouldn't her parents have wondered where she was the night this incident happened? How soon did they see her after the party?
TJM is of course right, it is about abortion. And various commentators have noted, when Democrats can't get unpopular legislation through the normal means (the democratic process), they seek judicial activism in the courts (same-sex marriage is a prime example). That is why they don't want judges who view themselves as umpires, not judges with an agenda. Of course it makes me wonder---if the "right to choose" is so overwhelming in this country, what do the liberals have to fear? If Roe were overturned, the issue goes back to the states, and if "choice" is so popular everywhere, what politicians would vote to ban abortion. Er, maybe it is not so popular everywhere (though regretfully it is in some states like California, New York and all the New England states).
Of course there will be those who say, we don't look the other way about sexual abuse in the Church decades ago, so why overlook Ms. Ford's claims? Well, for one, the abusers certainly were adults---they were not high school students. Second, where is the evidence?
Post a Comment