.
Quote from: hollingsworth on Today at 07:00:39 PM
RNW:
But ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once.
I can not buy this statement entirely. Roman churchmen did not abandon "God's true Catholic religion" and adopt "man-made religion" immediately after the Council. The church has been in serious decline for at least 500 years. RNW has himself taught this in several of his own conferences from the past. He outlines on a chalk board or a sheet of butcher paper simple linear graphs, much like a bell curve, the rise and subsequent precipitous decline of the Roman church, from at least the Middle Ages onward to the present. So how can he infer that the Church suddenly fell off the cliff just after the Council?
.
.
The cause of the collapse has been around, working on the Church for 500 years.
But the crisis did not hit the Church until Vatican II, which is the point on the EC.
.
Good answer, SeanJohnson!
.
+W is trying to be brief in this EC with limited space. You know more of what he's talking about, hollingsworth, because you have paid attention to his more lengthy discourses. That's to your credit! But you should not be so hasty so as to presume he's changing his tack in this one page.
.
Actually, he did not say or even imply here that it was only "just after the Council" that things went wrong. H.E. is trying to drive the point home that it was at Vat.II that an ABRUPT change in course took place. You know what he's talking about!
.
What H.E.
IS strongly implying here is that a dark plague of insanity ensued after the Council, and we can infer from his other works that he puts square blame on the Council for this pandemic spiritual and mental illness. The prelude to it was over centuries but it erupted full force as a direct consequence of the Council's dereliction.
.
ABL was among a large group of bishops, about 450 of them, who signed a petition for the Council Fathers to address
the single greatest threat to Holy Mother Church at that time (during Vat.II) namely
COMMUNISM. He is on record saying that because of this one act of dereliction (in which the Council leaders "lost" the petition and failed to address the issue) the credibility and validity of the Council is rightly called into question. The Council never did address this enormous evil attacking the Church, and because it failed to do so, it is arguably null and void. But it will take a Council to pronounce that effectively!
.
All the previous 19 Ecuмenical Councils of the Church were convened for the specific purpose of facing a threat to the Church. But Vat.II was the FIRST ONE (and hopefully the last!) that was convened for no such stated purpose. It was called by John XXIII with a vague "feeling" of "inspiration" he had, to what, make everyone feel better? He was not clear. Later they claimed it was for "pastoral" reasons. Well, that doesn't wash. All the Councils were for the pastoral care of the flock, but not one of them was convened specifically for "pastoral" reasons.
.
The four questions he was asked here exemplify the heavy burden ABL endured all through his latter years, for he knew such accusations would be raised against him and he no doubt prayed many long nights for wisdom and fortitude to know what to do and to do the right thing. It was not a cavalier whim of his, nor was it an agenda he undertook without due reflection and concern. He truly suffered a dry martyrdom.
.
Topic: Eleison Comments - Faith Crucial II (no. 548) (Read 2397 times)