"An intentionally ambiguous Council is not an 'orthodox' Council."
Point taken. What I was trying to say, but evidently failed to get across, is that what the bishops thought
they were voting on bore an orthodox interpretation that in many cases was miles apart from the radical interpretation it was ultimately given. And I fully agree with you that the time-bombs were cleverly disguised. But if they were disguised, then doesn't that mean that our problem is not with the bishops who voted on them, having no clue in what direction they were gonna go-- but rather with the pope who planned & then promulgated what ultimately happened?
"Do you think John XXIII asked previously condemned theologians to participate in the Council by accident?"
...and 2 Russian Orthodox bishops. And 6 Protestant observers who fully participated in every aspect of the Council except the voting. No-- I totally agree with you. But once again, those decisions were made prior
to the Council by John 23, not by the Council itself. So should we have a problem with the Council, or with the pope?
"The dupes were the orthodox Fathers who got played like a violin during the whole fiasco..."
My whole point in a nutshell. So should we blame the violin, or the violinist?
"Are you sure about that? You'll need to cite a credible source on that one, because it is well known that the Novus Ordo had been in the works for years..."Quotes from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
Enacted by the 2d Vatican Council(numbers in parenthesis refer to the document & page numbers of the 16 Documents of V2) Para 36.1.
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (7, p 27.) Para 54.
"In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and 'the common prayer'...according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution." (7, p. 33.) Para 47.
"At the Last Supper...our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross...until He should come again..." (7, p. 32.) (Note that this passage from the Const. on the Sacred Liturgy twice repeats the key word, "sacrifice".)
Implementing document : "The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Art. 7 of the Gen. Instruction on the Roman Missal, quoted in 6, p. 33-34.) (Note that nowhere in this passage or any other passage does the General Instruction ever use the word, "sacrifice".)
It should be unnecessary to point out that the "Novus Ordo Missae" violates both the letter & the spirit of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.
It should be clear from these few examples that the sweeping changes to the liturgy of the Mass which were made between 1965 & 1969 were in no way enacted, or even foreseen
by the bishops who voted at V2.
Also, it is clear that when Pope Paul VI promulgated his General Instruction on the Roman Missal in 1969, he explicitly violated Paras. 36 & 54 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which the 2d Vatican Council had enacted, & which Pope Paul himself had promulgated in Dec. of 1963.
While the Pope does have the authority to do himself what a Council may do only with the concurrence of the Pope, it certainly presents a strange spectacle for the Pope to concur in 1963 but then to do the opposite in 1969.> * <
...so I too use the shorthand "V2" when referring to the post-Consiliar "reforms", but I do so with the understanding or reservation that what we're really talking about is the deceptive & cynical betrayal of the Church & its bishops by the Pope.
Now I'm not dogmatic about this. I realize that people of good will can examine the same evidence & come to diametrically different conclusions. But in my mind, the only way to reconcile our infallible Church with what was actually done at V2-- the deceptive & cynical betrayal by the Pope of the entire Church, its bishops, & its 2000-year old tradition-- is to conclude that neither John 23 nor Paul 6 was a legitimate pontiff. And I repeat, I'm not dogmatic about this, but it appears to me that the best explanation of how that might have come about is the Siri Thesis.
Let me hasten to add that I'm not comfortable with the Siri Thesis. For a long time I argued strenuously against it. The argument that seemed strongest to me was that, given the rigid secrecy of Conclaves, we knew that Cardinals Ottaviani & Bacci had proved their courage by being the only 2 cardinals who signed the Ottaviani Intervention against the "Novus Ordo Missae".
Would they then stand by silently while an imposter was installed in the Chair of Peter?
Well, evidently they would. Maybe they stood by because to speak of anything that happened in the Conclave incurred automatic excommunication. Maybe their silence had been ensured by the use of the seal of the confessional. But when no other explanation fits the facts...
Also, as I point out in my "End Times Prophecy" thread in the "Crisis in the Church" forum, if the Siri Thesis is true then it's very consistent with a number of End Times prophecies.
So I'm uncomfortable with it. Have any of you got a better explanation of how we got where we are?