Quote from: Wessex

Setting aside what is good in V2 is sifting. The obvious liberal motivation behind a comprehensive re-examination of the bequeathed Church with a view to making her suitable for the triumphant new world has to be recognised and condemned or praised in toto. Anything else is collaboration and indicates a willingness to view the Church as an institution going through a painful process of change.  

The Holy Office had a most effective and sound policy, if a book, docuмent, or someone's teaching contained anything faintly pointing towards heresy or error, it went on the index and was forbidden. Using that Holy standard, what might be "good" in such works is irrelevant. The whole must be rejected entirely.
That is the clear case with Vatican II and the New Order ritual.
And yes anything else is collaboration born of modern subjectivism.
Bishop Williamson in past times stressed the perils of just a drop of poison rending the entire cake inedible and dangerous.

So correct even nature proves it, put a rotten apple among the good and they all become rotten.  

 Now Gerard, there is no need to lie. I have answered you ad nauseum many times.

No. I haven't lied.  

You've replied ad nauseum. You haven't answered any questions that I've posed that dismantle your position.  

My answers were not to your liking and did not agree with your opinions, and thus you say that I did not answer you.

You did not address anything about the Eastern rites, you did not defend your position when I asked where the big fight was put up by the blameless pre-vatican II Catholics.  I could sift through the thread and repost the questions you've asked but it would amount to pages of repostings.  

You regularly accuse others of not answering you, for the same reason. I am not alone.

No, it's pretty quantifiable that people with bad catechesis and positions and opinions based on emotion tend not to answer questions that rain on their parade.  

Quote from: Wessex

Setting aside what is good in V2 is sifting. The obvious liberal motivation behind a comprehensive re-examination of the bequeathed Church with a view to making her suitable for the triumphant new world has to be recognised and condemned or praised in toto. Anything else is collaboration and indicates a willingness to view the Church as an institution going through a painful process of change.  

The Holy Office had a most effective and sound policy, if a book, docuмent, or someone's teaching contained anything faintly pointing towards heresy or error, it went on the index and was forbidden. Using that Holy standard, what might be "good" in such works is irrelevant. The whole must be rejected entirely.
That is the clear case with Vatican II and the New Order ritual.
And yes anything else is collaboration born of modern subjectivism.
Bishop Williamson in past times stressed the perils of just a drop of poison rending the entire cake inedible and dangerous.

Williamson has also pointed out the analogy of the apple with both rotten parts and good, healthy parts.  The distinction is to know where the poison actually is.  

And that includes the Pre-Vatican II period of the Church as well.

The Holy Office had its problems.

The standards for the Index was pretty corrupt according to the whims of the Holy Office.  

Visionaries' works approved by the pre VII Holy Office with imprimaturs from bishops and Nihil Obstats have written horrible blasphemies about the Blessed Mother as if they were the words of the Blessed Mother herself.  

I was recently reading "The Life of Mary as seen by the mystics" published in 1950 with ecclesiastical approval.  The visions are compiled from the works of St. Bridgeet of Sweden, St. Elizabeth of Schoenau, Mother Mary Agreda and Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich.

The Blessed Mother is quoted as saying she was "sanctified in the womb" which is a denial of the Immaculate Conception.  

She is constantly cited with horrible assertions about herself.  She is described  as praying that because of the dangers of conversing with others she is so frail she is afraid of losing God and would rather be silent her whole life.  

She is cited as saying she inherited all the infirmities of the body. Basically she had  inherited Original Sin and the natural evils that are its consequences.

God withdraws Himself from her to put her through a 'Dark Night of the Soul" and to make her "increase her merit" And our Lady feared that it was due to her "unworthiness" and "ingratitude" towards God.  

When she is a young girl and calumniated by her peers, she agrees with the calumny and lies about herself by agreeing with the faults attributed to her.  

When the temple priests were told of her bad behavior by jealous girls, they scolded her.  Our Lady begged their forgiveness and described herself as "..the most imperfect and despicable of creatures…"  

It's a scandal as bad as anything to come from Vatican II and it was allowed for centuries before Vatican II.  

It's disgusting to put those words in our Lady's mouth.  

So, no.  I'm not dazzled nor deluded about the state of human failings in the Church both before and after Vatican II.  

Sifting is exactly what you have to do. It's not a compromise nor collaboration any more than an examination of conscience is.  

Gerard,

You've replied ad nauseum. You haven't answered any questions that I've posed that dismantle your position.  

What you mean is that I have not admitted to agreeing with your position.

You did not address anything about the Eastern rites, you did not defend your position when I asked where the big fight was put up by the blameless pre-vatican II Catholics.  I could sift through the thread and repost the questions you've asked but it would amount to pages of repostings.  

All questions which were not based upon the subject of discussion. Question which you inserted to support your narrative and exhonerate the revolution. Your comparisons were mischaracterized as well.
Sift and post if you must.

No, it's pretty quantifiable that people with bad catechesis and positions and opinions based on emotion tend not to answer questions that rain on their parade.  

There it is again, you always accuse anyone who does not buy into your narrative as being deficient in one way or another. We could sift and post a hundred such examples.  A well established technique of Novus Ordo thinkers.

Gerard,

Quote

Williamson has also pointed out the analogy of the apple with both rotten parts and good, healthy parts.  The distinction is to know where the poison actually is.

And that includes the Pre-Vatican II period of the Church as well.

Bishop Williamson's analogy is false and inaccurate. The poison pre, during, and post is one and the same from the same source and all a part of the same subversion which was incarnated at Vatican II.

So the poison pre-existed the incarnation of the poison?  

But Williamson is correct, evil cannot exist without good, even the demons still retain some of the goodness of their angelic nature, where it lacks in its perfections is the extent of the evil.  

You may not like it, but that's the Catholic position.  

I don't think so, the ones who have me on ignore are the dogmatic sedes and BODers, some don't even post any more anyway.

My opinion is Gerard is his own nemesis, he cannot accept historical fact of what happened in the 60s/70s for what it is, as it continues to play out before his very eyes.  

There are many who cannot accept in totality that the new "mass" is one of the scandals that Our Lord said "must needs be" and "woe to the world because of it" and "woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh", but like so many before him, Gerard remains convinced that "the new "mass" is not a scandal because it can't be!" He is convinced that some graces comes through it, not because of what it actually is, but because of what it replaced. He is convinced that there is some inherent goodness in it that remains through it's inherent evil, provided one dissects it's cells under an electron microscope with rose colored lenses - and that it must be this goodness that prompts people to avoid it.  

Same o same o.

 

On the contrary, I've actually faced up to historical facts of the crisis in the Church that was going in the 60s ,50s 40s and prior, going back before Vatican I even.  

The "scandal" of the New Mass isn't the New Mass itself.  The scandal is the people who abused and took for granted the TLM.  The Church prior to Vatican II warranted the Novus Ordo.  It put the faithful down from the Pro-leagues and into the minors.  Whatever the intentions of the architects, God is the one who permitted it and God uses it to cull the herd and find the sheep that are worthy.   He may give us the TLM because He knows we can't handle it.  In other words, not because we are great shakes but because He's shown undue to mercy to us and exempted us from particular purgatories to hopefully get the best out of us and not confirm our own corruption and condemnation.  

 

The argument here hangs on two propositions:

1)  V2 was necessary to clean up corruption and make the mission of the Church clearer to the modern ear, or

2)  V2 was a conspiracy headed by a core of reformers influenced by a growing movement over time which sought to replace the supernatural nature of the Church with a man-centred ideology using the resources of the past where useful.


The second proposition concerns hardline traditionalists more than the first which is really the domain of softliners, now regarding the second as a no-go area. As far as I am concerned there is little point in saying V2 was a noble cause but was abused. V2 was a deliberate attempt to effect fundamental change. And it succeeded.  

The argument here hangs on two propositions:

1)  V2 was necessary to clean up corruption and make the mission of the Church clearer to the modern ear, or

2)  V2 was a conspiracy headed by a core of reformers influenced by a growing movement over time which sought to replace the supernatural nature of the Church with a man-centred ideology using the resources of the past where useful.


The second proposition concerns hardline traditionalists more than the first which is really the domain of softliners, now regarding the second as a no-go area. As far as I am concerned there is little point in saying V2 was a noble cause but was abused. V2 was a deliberate attempt to effect fundamental change. And it succeeded.  

No, the two points you bring up are not mutually exclusive.  

There were multiple factions on a wide spectrum of understanding involved in Vatican II.  

You had conservative politicians in the Church, they were "trad" because being "trad" served them and the status quo was good for them.

You had conservatives that knew the Church needed revitalizing but did not like the way the Council went.  LeFebvre and the others that drew up the original schemata.


You had moderates and moderate liberals,  Paul VI, Ratzinger, Du Lubac, Bea that were excited about the idea of the changes for the betterment of the Church but were disappointed with the results, but not enough to definitively give up and declare it a  mistake.  

And then you had the real villains in the Church that hid themselves under a veneer of Catholicism and then after 1965 went haywire and they had heterodox views, and wanted to change the doctrine of the Church to suit their multiple agendas.  Kung, Schillebeexcks,  Suenens, Brown, McBrian and the whole host of power brokers that have been calling most of the shots for decades. They blew through the loopholes and ambiguities in the docuмents, espoused the "spirit" and marched headlong into heteropraxis and heterodoxy.