Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II  (Read 676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stevusmagnus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Reputation: +824/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • h
Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II
« on: April 04, 2012, 07:58:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Has the Cardinal not read VCII? Or Paul VI? Or John XXIII? Or JPII? Or BXVI? Or anything issued by the Church in the last 50 years? The Church DID and has been teaching repeatedly that we should be chums with the world! Has the Cardinal been under a rock? That was the whole point! To be like everyone else! To be "accepetd" by modernist liberal man.

    A "catechetical challenge", your eminence?? Your own ambiguous and irreverent Mass fails to reinforce any Catholic Faith every Sunday. Error is taught with complete freedom in all "Catholic" schools, CCD classes, RCIA classes, and universities with not only no censure, but with sanction from authority.

    And even IF leftist clerics were disciplined and the kids and adults learned the CCC, what are they learning? At best, a mixture of truth and heterodoxy, sometimes veiled and implied, sometimes explicit.

    The modernist virus has infected all areas of Church life. The people don't need more or better "catechesis." The people have been "catechized" by the new order for 50 years. Every element of Catholic life has been bashed against the rocks. Fixing "catechesis" would be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    What the Hell difference does it make if you know from your CCD class (if you are lucky!) that the Eucharist is truly Jesus, if, every Sunday you go to your parish rock Mass with  banners, focus on the people, tabernacle in the closet, hand shakes, immodest dress, Communion in the hand, social justice sermon, Eucharistic ministers, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

    The entire order was designed to kill Faith! It is infuriating and depressing to see Cardinals of the Church casually try to treat symptoms, while not even having a clue as to the disease. Wake up, your eminence!!! Your Church is on fire!!

    Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II

    From the Wall Street Journal's March 31, 2012 interview with Timothy Cardinal Dolan, When the Archbishop Met the President:

    What about the argument that vast numbers of Catholics ignore the church's teachings about sexuality? Doesn't the church have a problem conveying its moral principles to its own flock? "Do we ever!" the archbishop replies with a hearty laugh. "I'm not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge—a towering one—in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach. That's a biggie."

    For this he faults the church leadership. "We have gotten gun-shy . . . in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality." He dates this diffidence to "the mid- and late '60s, when the whole world seemed to be caving in, and where Catholics in general got the impression that what the Second Vatican Council taught, first and foremost, is that we should be chums with the world, and that the best thing the church can do is become more and more like everybody else."

    Offline Graehame

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +25/-0
    Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II
    « Reply #1 on: April 04, 2012, 09:04:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually, V2 was a fairly orthodox Council. The problems arose when J23 rehabilitated several liberal (read radical) Catholic theologians to participate, invited 6 liberal Protestant theologians to attend as "observers" (although the records of the Council show that they participated fully in everything except voting), & instituted the office of "periti", or expert.

    The "periti" were almost uniformly liberal priests who drew up the Conciliar agenda, advised the bishops on the meanings & import of Conciliar documents, & then-- after the Council had voted & disbanded-- drew up the implementing documents thru which the decrees of V2 would be executed. In the majority of cases the "periti" had framed the Conciliar documents ambiguously, had advised the bishops of an orthodox interpretation, & then after Council had voted & disbanded they drew up the implementing documents with a liberal (read radical) interpretation.

    An example is the doctrine on the liturgy. The Council actually voted to retain the Latin Mass. The "periti" somehow interpreted this to mean that the Latin Mass should be banned, & the vernacular Novus Ordo imposed in its place. This was bad enough, but then Pope Paul VI promulgated it.

    The point is, the Council could have done nothing without full papal approval. This raises an intriguing question-- "How could the Church, with the office of the papacy, go so far astray under the guidance & protection of the Holy Spirit?"

    I have a possible answer to this. In light of the vehemence with which you've posted your views on this topic, I'd like you to review the 1st post on the "End Times Prophecy" thread in the "Crisis in the Church" forum. Let me know what you think.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II
    « Reply #2 on: April 04, 2012, 09:32:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An intentionally ambiguous Council is not an "orthodox" Council.

    Do you think John XXIII asked previously condemned theologians to participate in the Council by accident? That Paul VI approved an ambiguous Protestantized Mass by accident? That they were both clueless dupes? The dupes were the orthodox Fathers who got played like a violin during the whole fiasco.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II
    « Reply #3 on: April 04, 2012, 10:13:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Graehame
    An example is the doctrine on the liturgy. The Council actually voted to retain the Latin Mass. The "periti" somehow interpreted this to mean that the Latin Mass should be banned, & the vernacular Novus Ordo imposed in its place.


    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 under Bugnini and his ilk.

    I agree with stevus. Vatican II was not "orthodox". I don't know where you, Graehame, get the mistaken notion that Vatican II was intended to be orthodox. John XXIII and Paul VI knew what they were doing. They didn't go "oops" after the reforms. A New Mass was their intent all along.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II
    « Reply #4 on: April 04, 2012, 10:45:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An ambiguous mish-mash compromise document on the Mass was created to get the orthodox Fathers to sign off on it. The time-bombs were cleverly disguised. It was completely unthinkable to the orthodox Fathers that the Mass could or would ever change in substance. They envisioned some cosmetic reforms: vernacular readings, etc. They "read in" a Traditional meaning to the ambiguity of the Mass document and assumed that is what would be implemented. At that time there was absolutely no precedent in Church history for scrapping the TLM and concocting one out of thin air. The absurd idea wasn't even on their radar.  

    The periti didn't "somehow interpret" the document to mean banning the TLM and starting over. That had been their intent for a LONG time. Just read "The Liturgical Movement" available at Angelus Press. This was in the works for a long time under the radar, and the movement was getting braver under Pius XII, though he smacked them down. These cretins needed a vehicle, a Trojan Horse, that would look acceptable to the orthodox Fathers on the outside, but held the ambiguous wiggle room they needed, hidden on the inside, to retroactively justify their nefarious "New Mass." The whole thing was a con job. Obama couldn't have done it better.

    1.) Call a Council. Use pastoral ambiguous language. Get the stodgy Trad bishops to agree to the ambiguous documents, trusting the Pope/ Church would interpret these passsages the way the Church had for 2,000 years. Assure the stodgy Trads that this is merely a "pastoral" Council, which is to define no dogma and is not infallible. No big deal!

    2.) After they get their Council passed and signed off, game over. Then "The Council" is used as their omega point. It will be their legal pretext to do whatever the Hell they want. All dissent is silenced by pointing to "The Council". The Council is then played up as the will of the Holy Ghost himself! A law that MUST be followed. If you don't, you are disobedient to the Holy See!

    Then they start saying the Council "demanded" a New Mass! It demanded new theology! New ecumenism! The orthodox Fathers began to say, "What!? We never voted for that!" Tough crap codgers! This is the way I, Pope Paul VI interpret what you signed, and you owe your obedience to me. If not, feel my wrath.

    It was a classic bait and switch. Demonically brilliant tactics. They pulled off a revolution on a sleeping establishment who was completely unprepared for it and then used the conservatives' own reverence for the virtue of obedience against them to neutralize any resistance!

    Demonic brilliance.


    Offline Graehame

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +25/-0
    Cardinal Dolan on the "impression" given by Vatican II
    « Reply #5 on: April 06, 2012, 11:53:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    "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?

    Quote from: stevusmagnus
    "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?

    Quote from: stevusmagnus
    "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?

    Quote from: spiritussanctus
    "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?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16