I’ve already written about this in another post. But now the National Chismatic Reporter even reports it although with a skewed example, which is a stupid example, but at least they report what the pope actually said (WTPAS).
Francis: 'No concession' to those who deny Vatican II teachings
Francis told the catechists that the church is living through a problem of "selectivity" with regard to the Council's teachings, and said it was a similar problem to one experienced after earlier church councils.
The pope mentioned a group of Catholic bishops who decided to create their own church because of disagreements after the First Vatican Council, held in Rome from 1869-70, in an apparent reference to what is now known as the Old Catholic Church.
"I think often about a group of bishops who, after Vatican I, left … to continue the 'true doctrine' that wasn't that of Vatican I," said the pontiff.
"Today, they ordain women," the pope continued, adding: "The severest attitude, to guard the faith without the magisterium of the church, brings you to ruin."
My comments: Please note the example the pope uses from Vatican I. The Old Catholics break away because they disagree with Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility apart from an ecumenical council. Thus, kind of like Archbishop Lefebrev, bishops and laity breakaway to form a “pure” “Church.” Today, they ordain women as priests, meaning they would not have lost apostolic succession if they had remained in the true Church. They went out on their own and democratically swayed with the wind and collectively decided to ordain women, a kind of synodality gone wild, no?
The SSPX are not in complete schism today, but they reject most of Vatican II. I think they might remain as the Eastern Orthodox, highly orthodox as it concerns the Church frozen in a time right before Vatican II. The Eastern Orthodox are frozen in time since the last Ecumenical Council prior to the Great Schism.
The Old Catholics, though, moved forward and now ordain women. What forces affected them that did not and do not affect the Eastern Orthodox and the SSPX? Of course, the SSPX do have a group or subset that states there hasn’t be a true pope since Pope Pius XII. They say the See of Peter is vacant, an absurd, out of control extreme.
So, was the pope referring to the SSPX? Or was he referring to liberal bishops in Germany and elsewhere who are promoting women’s ordination, gender ideology, same sex marriage, contraception and abortion linked to women’s health and euthanasia while their pro-life position is truncated to ending the death penalty for criminals but not for innocent, unborn children.
Aren’t they the ones that are spiraling out of control and will one day ordain women? In fact that has occurred on a smaller basis but no high powered bishop, like Lefebrev, has done so incurring excommunication and the forming of a new church, similar to how the Old Catholics came about.
The National Chismatic Reporter teaches the very things these German bishops want and none of these absurd desires whatsoever (teachings) can be found in the documents of Vatican II and how the Council has been interpreted since that time by the popes, Paul VI; John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I!
They are the schismatics that threaten the Church, the heterodox liberals.
Unfortunately, Joshua McElwee uses this example of his own rather than my examples, which are far more apropos:
The Council's effect has been hotly debated by Catholics in the decades since the event, with some movements now even choosing to go back to a Latin-language celebration of the Mass.
8 comments:
It's hilarious to see so many people worked up into a frenzy over a council that has no anathemas and is merely "Pastoral" in its approach.
It's disheartening to see so many people who are more invested in the "spirit" of such a council than what it actually called for.
It's comforting to see a younger (albeit smaller) generation of Catholics who have no umbilical cord tied to this council.
So let them take their little pledge for no concessions and I'll take the Oath Against Modernism. My version of the Church will still be enduring while theirs sits in the "used novelties" bin with pet rocks, roller disco and love beads.
I can't help but wonder how these "I'm a Vatican II Catholic!" types would actually react if their parish actually implemented Sacrosanctum Concilium and gave Latin the "Pride of Place" and restored Gregorian Chant, as the document called for?
What a wonderful display of open-minded tolerance we would witness!
Tom Marcus: "It's hilarious to see so many people worked up into a frenzy over a council that has no anathemas ..."
That the Council had no anathemas is precisely the problem with this Council. Its long winded texts can be interpreted to easily manipulate its meanings. With nothing clearly condemned everything else goes. Worse still some documents lack legalistic rigour which is amazing for an official document. The one I am most familiar with, Sacrosanctum Concilium, is full of "tensions" as Ratzinger called them, but which most less sympathetic people would call outright "contradictions" and it would never stand up in a (government) court as a legally binding document. Of course "O tempus or mores", it was the typical product of the post-War times that was already heading towards the global moral revolution.
The SPPX, by the way, has only 3 determinant issues with the doctrines of the Council, and these are by no means indisputable except for those who wish to preserve the integrity of the Council.
Victor, the choir agrees with your homily.
You say the Eastern Orthodox are "frozen in time" back to the last Ecumenical Council prior to the Great Schism---and they might argue, given the liberal trends of Western Christianity since the 1960s, they are quite glad to be frozen in time.
Tom Marcus,
I thought you might enjoy this story, a Catholic bishop actually saying Catholic things:
"Naumann, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, made his comments on Thursday during an interview on EWTN.
Asked what he would say to Biden, Naumann replied: “I would say, ‘Wake up. Think about what you’re really doing here.’ I mean, his soul is in jeopardy, I believe.
“You know, when they use euphemisms, when you’re violating fundamental human rights you use euphemisms, and so you say ‘this is healthcare for the poor.’
“What other healthcare procedure does two people go in, one comes out dead and the other one scarred emotionally, spiritually, and sometimes even physically?”
And he added: “It’s really tragic that anyone would do this, but particularly one who professes to be Catholic. I think it’s very contrary to what he campaigned on as being a unifying president. I mean, he’s obviously in debt to pro-abortion forces within his party and he’s just conforming to them.
“I wish he was as orthodox in his Catholic faith as he is in doing what Planned Parenthood instructs him to do.”
'... some movements now even choosing to go back to a Latin-language celebration of the Mass.'
Shock! Horror! I belong to no movement but have been attending Latin-language celebrations of the Mass for fifty years. It is a living tradition, not a retrograde step. I am in the fortunate position of not having to attend vernacular Masses - the last one was three years ago and that was a funeral - and I don't miss the experience in the least.
In fact, if the only option were to attend the average parish Mass, I would opt to stay at home and avoid the occasion of sin, in this case anger.
What doctrinal content is there in the work of Vatican II that was not already affirmed in the Magisterium that existed the day before the Council was convened?
That is a serious question, I want an answer.
And if you think it is a trap, it isn't one that *I* laid.
Post a Comment