![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Let this be a warning to you all
Those of you who are regular reades know that I am not much for the via media approach to things unless it is in reference to the principle in medio stat virtus.
Nevertheless, I also hold fast to the old phrase of the late Msgr. Richard Schuler, who was wont to say, "You can go into the ditch on either side of the road, right or left, but either way you are still in the ditch."
With that in mind, consider these following videos.
First, I drag back into view, much like a decaying badger than needs closer examination, the closing "liturgy" of the Left Coast Call To Action folks. This is pretty wacky… and tasteless! An unbeatable combination, that. As I mentioned elsewhere, I wouldn’t rule out alien life being involved with this. just think, they got a retired bishop into enneagrams to do this, with big puppets, even.
If you have seen this already, just skip ahead.
Creepy.
In the meantime, let’s play dress up!
Over in the other ditch, we find the liturgical hijinx of anti-pope Gregory XVII.
Yes, friends, we still have anti-Popes.
This video, from 2001, shows the Spaniard, known for taxt purposes as Clemente Domínguez y Gómez aka "Gregory XVII", who proclaimed himself Pope back in 1978. He is head of the Palmarian Catholic Church
He has visions! But without liturgical dancers or puppets… unless you count those dupes who are around him,
Biretta tip to Hallowed Ground for the video… o{]:¬)
You will be pleased to know that His Anti-Holiness was succeeded in 2005 by Manuel Alonso Corral who omniously took the name of Peter II. Ooooo…
We can find groups to fit our every ecclesiological fantasy. And some of them have their own Popes!
For example, you can be a follower of Pius XIII, who probably has to pay state taxes in Montana as Lucian Pulvermacher. He even had some white smoke to signal his election from his cottage’s chimney.
So it isn’t the Sistine Chapel… but hey! Traditions are cool!
It is very important to stay in union with the Vicar of Christ, folks. It is important to follow faithfully the liturgical books and stick to the Church’s teachings and laws.
There is no precise "middle of the road" for Catholics… and the road is fairly wide. And you can go off the road into the ditch. Frankly, I think the right side of the road is the fastest, smoothest and safest lane to get to heaven.
But pay attention there, too!
and at 2:34, the “cardinal” on the left checks his watch!
Comment by Tiny — 14 May 2008 @ 12:11 pmAlthough the video clip calls the visions of the Palmarian anti-Pope to be a hoax, I think it would be better to say that the origins of the Palmarian spiritual phenomena is diabolical rather than fanciful, i.e., the visions and levitations are preternatural in origin rather than natural—and certainly not supernatural!
Comment by Wm. Christopher Hoag — 14 May 2008 @ 12:13 pmThis charade has nothing to do with the “right,” if by that is meant close adherence to orthodoxy. These guys are simply hucksters at best, perhaps diabolically influenced, but really much, much closer to the puppeteers of Call to Action than they are to say, the SSPX.
The only difference between the Puppeteers and the Palmarians is that the Palmarians appear to favor fancy vestmensts and trappings instead of potato head puppets. Other than that, are they really different?
Comment by Tom — 14 May 2008 @ 12:26 pmI especially liked Pulvermacher’s “Coronation” photo. I don’t know if it is still on their site, but the 4×4 chicken wire in the background lent a rustic feel to the whole production.
Comment by Andy Lucy — 14 May 2008 @ 12:31 pmThis clownish stuff is nothing to do with the “right,” if by that term is meant a close adherence to orthodoxy. These dress-up lovers have more in common with the Potato head folks than with say, the SSPX. They just prefer fancy vestments and trappings over Potato heads… other than those incidentals, are the two groups essentially different?
The truth is not a Hegelian synthesis between the Palmarian thesis and the Potato Head antithesis.
Comment by Tom — 14 May 2008 @ 12:31 pmWm.: Well.. it could be that the guy is just crazy and really likes to dress up.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 14 May 2008 @ 12:32 pmSorry for the duplicate… thought the first one didn’t make it.
Comment by Tom — 14 May 2008 @ 12:34 pmAndy: You know, there may come a day when some Bishop of Rome will have to be elected in circumstances such as those.
But not yet!
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 14 May 2008 @ 12:45 pmFr Z: Well.. it could be that the guy is just crazy and really likes to dress up.
Hell, I’m crazy and like to bander about in fancy dress, but I do not claim to be Pope of my own religion nor experience paranormal phenonomena.
No. The late Clemente Domínguez y Gómez was under the influence of fallen angels, perhaps unknowingly but still their human tool.
Comment by Wm. Christopher Hoag — 14 May 2008 @ 12:48 pmAs I write this, I am watching an EWTN televised broadcast of Abundant Life, with johnette Benkovic and Fr. Ed Silvia. The program is on charismatic renewal, and they are going on and on about how wonderful it is to be blessed with the gift of tongues. This is all craziness, isn’t it? I have to confess that I had been absent from the Church for several decades. This charismatic stuff is one of the reasons I was driven away…..too many people claiming gifts of the spirit, and doing their own thing. I saw how it took over a community of monks, and chaos resulted. It’s so antithetical to the idea of a community under an abbot. In my opinion, it’s antithetical to the very idea of the Church. I had heard that Mother A. had spoken positively of this movement in the past. I think JPII did as well. I listen to Benkovic and Silvia on the radio on occasion. They have been strong, speaking against the New Age movement. I’m shocked to see them talking about this. Can someone comment on this? Father? Anyone??
Comment by Michael — 14 May 2008 @ 12:50 pmThat clip with the anti-pope was extraordinary. I’ve never heard of them happily but see that they do have a congregation. Some of the tallest mitres ever seen too and colourful vestments. One question came to mind – how does the anti-pope keep his mitre on his head while he is doing a fair imitation of limbo dancing?
I cannot help wondering whether this sect came into being as a direct result of the simplification of the vestments during the 60s and 70s – almost a protest against the ‘polyester ponchos’ and ‘bedouin birthing tents’ we are so familiar with today. The poor chap does seem to be of a certain age, and not too agile after his strenuous ‘visions.’
What with that and Mr Potatomen I shall look forward to attending a ‘normal’ Mass this Sunday celebrated by a priest who I am sure would never dream of imposing such horrors on his congregation.
Comment by elizabeth mckernan — 14 May 2008 @ 12:54 pmWm: Then you are privy to information I don’t have access to.
I suggest you pray for him.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 14 May 2008 @ 12:58 pmI suppose that the second video demonstrates that there really is a place for blue liturgical vestments after all.
Comment by mbd — 14 May 2008 @ 1:16 pmWhat is kind of amusing is that the Palmarian Church has its own sedevacantists.
When Clemente Dominguez published his personally revised version of the Bible some of his clergy accused him of heresy. But they didn’t proceed to the obvious conclusion that he was just a fake from the get-go, no, they insist that Jesus Christ personally transfered the see of Peter to Palmar de Troya and made Clemente pope, but he later lost the papacy due to his heresy.
As they explain:
Comment by B. — 14 May 2008 @ 1:17 pm36. Is it not true that there are similarities between what is happening now in the Palmarian Church and what happened in Rome in the seventies? Yes! Satan, like at that time, is trying to dissolve the Church from within and destroy the Faith of the Palmarians!
What is kind of amusing is that the Palmarian Church has its own sedevacantists.
When Clemente Dominguez published his personally revised version of the Bible some of his clergy accused him of heresy. But they didn’t proceed to the obvious conclusion that he was just a fake from the get-go, no, they insist that Jesus Christ personally transfered the see of Peter to Palmar de Troya and made Clemente pope, but he later lost the papacy due to his heresy.
As they explain on their website:
Comment by B. — 14 May 2008 @ 1:20 pm36. Is it not true that there are similarities between what is happening now in the Palmarian Church and what happened in Rome in the seventies? Yes! Satan, like at that time, is trying to dissolve the Church from within and destroy the Faith of the Palmarians!
Don’t forget about poor old “Leo XIV”, who has had to remove his Papal Court to the fair burg of Hyder, Alaska (pop. 100 humans, 1000 grizzlies and a handful of creatures of indeterminate origin). His “bush mitre” consists of a Husqvarna Chainsaw ball cap.
He hasn’t been heard from in quite a while, but given the frequency with which certain residents of Hyder regain consciousness, one shouldn’t presume his demise.
Comment by Neil Mulholland — 14 May 2008 @ 1:32 pmI suppose that the second video demonstrates that there really is a place for blue liturgical vestments after all.
Yes, off in the ditch, one side or the other.
Comment by Henry Edwards — 14 May 2008 @ 1:40 pmThis is my very favorite anti-pope, Pope Michael:
http://www.vaticaninexile.com/People/PopeMichael/DavidBawden.html
Comment by Patrick — 14 May 2008 @ 1:41 pmThe wikipedia article on the Palmarians was an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church
Apparently, they have valid orders.
Comment by LCB — 14 May 2008 @ 1:45 pmThere is an indult in certain nations such as Spain for blue vestments on certain Marian feasts. (Certainly not in lieu of violet for advent or lent) But outside of that you are in the ditch.
Good advice… always stay to the right, unless in the UK or Australia!
Anyhow, wiki provides the necessary info: “Blue, a colour associated with the Virgin Mary, is allowed for the feast of the Immaculate Conception in some dioceses in Spain, Portugal, Mexico and South America. In the Philippines it is authorized for all feasts of the Virgin Mary, a practice followed in some other places without official authorization.”
I looked into it since a Miles Christi pamphlet clearly shows Blue Vestments. It obviously would be from one of their locations in South America.
Comment by andrew — 14 May 2008 @ 1:57 pmThat video took five minutes of my life and I want them back! ;-)
Comment by Geoffrey — 14 May 2008 @ 1:58 pmPatrick mentions the anti-pope Michael. I remember reading about him somewhere on the web that he had two followers – himself and his mother! I’m tempted to look up how many others there are.
Comment by elizabeth mckernan — 14 May 2008 @ 2:03 pmI bet other English readers did not know there is a Pope Linus II living in Hertfordshire!
Comment by elizabeth mckernan — 14 May 2008 @ 2:19 pmandrew: There is an indult in certain nations such as Spain for blue vestments on certain Marian feasts.
I doubt it. There certainly was one, but I wonder if it is still in force today. Maybe by custom, but this is still iffy, in my book.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 14 May 2008 @ 2:46 pmAck! I hereby petition the (benevolent) dictator Father Zuhlsdorf for the permanent ban of the Call to Action Mass from further posts.
It hurts to watch, on so many levels….
Comment by Jacob M. — 14 May 2008 @ 3:07 pmI am thinking back to Mons Ronald Knox’s book Enthusiasm, which I haven’t read in 20 years: as I recall, it did not end up being quite the magnum opus he had envisioned but certainly it’s a fascinating glimpse into the heretical mind.
Comment by Marc in Cape Coral — 14 May 2008 @ 3:16 pmI am thinking back to Mons Ronald Knox’s book Enthusiasm, which I haven’t read in 20 years: as I recall, it did not end up being quite the magnum opus he had envisioned but certainly it’s a fascinating glimpse into the heretical mind.
Comment by Marc in Cape Coral — 14 May 2008 @ 3:19 pmTo watch these videos is like driving past a car crash . . . grotesque, but you can’t take your eyes off of them! (Regardless which ditch the crash is in!)
Comment by David Andrew — 14 May 2008 @ 3:36 pmBesides the reaction of humor and horror was curiosity. How many people in this Palmyrian “church” (and a high proportion of the men seemed not only to be ordained, but monsignors, bishops and cardinals!)? And where in the world did they come up with that splendid looking church?
Comment by Fr. Martin Fox — 14 May 2008 @ 3:52 pmThe Spanish liturgical calendar still lists blue as an optional color for the feast of the Immaculate Conception. It has two colors listed: bl/az (blanco/azul), just as on Gaudete and Laetare Sundays it has mo/rs (morado/rosa). None of the other Marian feasts use blue.
http://www.conferenciaepiscopal.es/liturgia/calendarioliturgico.htm
Comment by Emilio III — 14 May 2008 @ 3:55 pmThat potato head video is difficult to watch, but became even more difficult when I saw a child there…involving a child in that drivel has GOT to be a form of child abuse.
Comment by Tim — 14 May 2008 @ 3:59 pmPalmarian Catholic Church:
I genuinely feel queasy after watching that. It’s like watching someone who knows nothing about mental health reinforcing a patient’s delusions and having all the visitors act out roles in the fantasy. A fellow from my own diocese ran off and joined them years ago and became a ‘cardinal’. What on earth is the atmosphere like in their religious houses? What do they talk about? What do individuals aspire to? I don’t know if I want the answers.
Oh, God help them and bring them back to sanity, logic and truth!
Comment by Fr Ó Buaidhe — 14 May 2008 @ 4:35 pmThe big puppets were bizarre.
What were they supposed to be or represent, giving the best possible scenario and from their perspective.
I have never seen giant puppets at a Mass not even on youtube.
Comment by Aaron — 14 May 2008 @ 5:31 pm“You can go into the ditch on either side of the road, right or left, but either way you are still in the ditch”
This sounds reasonable enough, but upon reading it, I am always reminded of this other saying::
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
I do not mean to denigrate Msgr. Schuler here, I just get uncomfortable with those who insist that the “middle of the road” is by definition the correct path to take.
Comment by Michael — 14 May 2008 @ 5:56 pmThe falling into either ditch or off of either side of the boat is different than the hot/cold/lukewarm senario. However, I’m not so sure there is a spectrum-I think it is more of a globe. When one starts sliding away from the top pole, they all ride it to the bottom pole of generalized wackiness.
In all reality, you’d think that these Palmarians could at least get their vestments right. The Pope never wears a biretta, cardinals don’t wear darker red, etc. etc. Oh well, I guess none of that matters if you can make yourself pope and get others to play too.
The Call to Action stuff doesn’t even pretend to look Catholic. At least the Spaniard nuts actually look Catholic. That said, when this cult dies out, some Spanish diocese will have a spiffy church building.
Comment by dominic1962 — 14 May 2008 @ 7:03 pmThat “Pope” Gregorio looks uncanningly like John XXIII.
I believe the fruitcake of Palmer de Troya invented his own rite of mass. To which he also claimed that St. Pius V “appeared” to him and congratulated him, on improving on his own rite of mass.
They also believe that Our Lady is present in the Host, along with Our Lord.
Seriously Weird!
Comment by Ottaviani — 14 May 2008 @ 7:15 pmJudging by the average age of the participants, the attendance at the West Coast CTA Conference is going to be mighty small in a decade or so.
Comment by torontonian — 14 May 2008 @ 7:29 pmAlright, I’m sorry but it’s time to mention the white elephant in the room.
Which ditch did JPII fall into? Right or left? Because he willfully participated in the “extravagances” of archbishop Marini for decades and I’m horrified by what I’ve seen from the last two major deceased Popes. (the real Popes)
I feel horribly sorry for all of these people that had their faith crushed in the aftermath of Vatican II. The case of the Pulvermacher brothers is, I think one of the most tragic stories of a family breakup that I’ve ever seen or heard of.
But as in all organizations responsibility must be held by those in power. Did we have anti-Popes in the same numbers as today during the reign of Pius XII? I only know of one. That’s because the ditch on the left was called heresy and to go into that ditch you had to willfully leave the Church if you wanted to publicly hold to that heresy.
The ditch on the right didn’t exist because there was no being right of the Pope. This was because the Popes clearly and plainly expressed the gospel of He who sits at the right hand of the Father.
The anti-Popes are a symptom of a tragedy of immeasurable proportions that took place and is still going on in the Church itself. “As the Church goes, so goes the world.” It’s my firm conviction that the tumult of the 60’s was not something that provoked chaos in the Church. It was the reverse. The chaos unleashed in the Church provoked the tumult of the 60’s.
What culpability do the recent Popes bear in this sad scenario?
Comment by Gerard — 14 May 2008 @ 8:15 pmGerard, excellent post, although, I disagree with this point:
“As the Church goes, so goes the world.” It’s my firm conviction that the tumult of the 60’s was not something that provoked chaos in the Church. It was the reverse. The chaos unleashed in the Church provoked the tumult of the 60’s.”
I think the Church was well on its way towards modernism before the 60’s. The Second Vatican Council was a catastrophe, but didn’t bring on the evils of the world but, rather, through ambiguous documents, allowed foul tendencies into the Church which weren’t envisioned by the Council Fathers.
The Council Fathers were a mixed lot; some were modernists but many were not. But the whole jubilant spirit of the thing leant an ideal that nothing could go wrong. Everything went wrong. This Council wrought unimaginable damage on the Church, but most of it was unimagined by the Council Fathers themselves.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don’t think the Church created the 60’s mentality; I think the 60’s mentality seeped its way into the Second Vatican Council. This Council was non-dogmatic (although prior dogma finds its way into the documents) any new idea promulgated at VII may be rejected by a Catholic as long as their are sound reasons for such rejection, and it is not done in a spirit of rebellion against our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI.
Comment by Malta — 14 May 2008 @ 8:43 pmPotato Head video: puke
Comment by Katherine Therese — 14 May 2008 @ 8:48 pmAnti-Pope video: yawn. It did however eerily remind me of that Medjugorje seers (the blonde lady who ‘tours’) Gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Malta,
I can see and understand your points. We have a chicken and egg scenario at work. And of course, this is pure conjecture and only my opinion.
Personally it took me 35 years to find the Catholic faith and I’m a cradle Catholic! I credit Our Lady and my Guardian Angel for keeping me safe and keeping my nose clean during that period and I blame Vatican II, the event, for a lot of lost time and opportunity.
Fr. Malachi Martin in his book “Three Popes and the Cardinal” referred to the “rot” that was occurring in the Church even during Pacelli’s reign. It was like Pius XII was sitting on a boiling pot waiting for him to leave so it could blow.
But… I do think that if John XXIII had had the physical strength and the sobriety of temperament of Cardinal Ruffini or Siri (dare I say, archbishop LeFebvre) and forced the original schemata to shape the Council’s documents, I think the outpouring of grace that he’d hoped for would have occurred and the Church would have been the ROCK that would have resisted the wave of modernism that swept the world. It took 20 years for the USSR to be called “the Evil Empire” and it’s just a shame that it didn’t come from the mouth of the Pope.
To quote Fr. Martin again, “When Popes exercise their full power in the world, miracles happen.” We should keep praying that Pope Benedict will find the same spirit that gave Leo the Great the strength to go out and face the Churches enemies.
Comment by Gerard — 14 May 2008 @ 9:20 pmIt’s funny how these things can pop up where you least expect them. My husband and I were once recruited by a relation to spend a day with an elderly friend of hers who “needed help with a move.” Who could refuse a request like that?
It was only after we arrived at the house that the woman (an elderly divorcee with a grown daughter) took me into a bedroom of her new house to show me… a closet full of vestments and robes complete with a bishop’s staff! Why did she have such things? Because, as she explained to me, she was a Catholic bishop! (And our relative then took me aside to explain to me that, while the woman considered herself to be a Catholic, her particular church “was not in communion with Rome.” Uhh… no kidding.)
It turned out that one of the main reasons we were there was because they had thought it might be “interesting” for us to help put together the woman’s “altar” and set up her “chapel.” Obviously it was an extremely awkward situation, but we just had to explain that, while we were happy to unpack her dishes and set up her deck chairs, we really couldn’t have anything at all to do with her “chapel.” So we passed an afternoon doing mundane chores of this sort, though really, I was somewhat more inclined to run for my life. The whole place was more than a little bit creepy. I don’t pretend to know a lot about demon possession and things of that ilk, but let’s just say, I think it’s very dangerous to open yourself up to unknown spiritual influences in a way that this woman had obviously done. At least we managed to escape without the “special blessing” that she kept wanting to give us!
And here this bizarre “church” was meeting at a normal house in a nondescript American suburb. Who would think it?
Comment by Clara — 14 May 2008 @ 9:22 pmGerard,
Great point. The schemata that Bl. John XXIII envisioned was rejected, and, of course, John returned to Our Lord before the Council really took shape, leaving it to the Rhine, so to speak.
Comment by Malta — 14 May 2008 @ 9:35 pmIsnt it amazing how once you stray from rome, it keeps splintering? Look at the protestants…how many of those churches are there? Right..
What is really ludicrous about these so called “restored” churches… is they forget one simple little thing that makes us The Roman Catholic Church..no its not believe in Christ, or in His Holy Divinity being equal to His Holy Humanity. Nor is it the Authoritative teaching of Holy mother Church.
Apostolic Tradition ring a bell? How can you have apostolic tradition when you make yourself pope, and are elected to the said office by cardinals you create… when you are in schism to the church?
Its silliness really. I feel very sorry for these people, the truecatholic crowd, and others. At least the St. Pius X people still recognize the supremacy of Rome , and oh yes, apostolic sucession , though of course their schism is something totally different.
I also dont buy the bit that the council in itself was wrong… If you read the documents…if you REALLY read them, it is pure church teaching. What happened is people basically hijacked the teaching of it. So you end up with people who think it was wrong, or potato heads at a mass, or women trying to ordain themselve “In Persona Christi ” (even though the last crucifix I looked at, Christ was male….. ).
Bottom line is if you are truly catholic, then you trust in the Church, good times and bad. You Trust the Holy Spirit is guiding us, and you trust that through the “turmoil” that some say we are in, God has a greater good in store.
Comment by Patrick — 14 May 2008 @ 10:14 pmAbout the Ottaviani schemata: it seems that a young peritus by the name of Joseph Ratzinger was instrumental in having them changed.
Comment by Elise B — 14 May 2008 @ 10:17 pmPatrick,
I agree that we must trust in the Church, but, not, necessarily and conjenctually in Vatican II—a Pastoral Council, not covered with the protection of the Holy Spirit—even our current Pope implied that VII may be dispensible, theologically speaking, on a grand scale.
Let’s look at Lumen Gentium. Is says:
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Ch. II:16)
Now, that’s really a nice thing to say to the Moslems, but has one Moslem ever converted to Christ because of it? A personal anecdote: One of my best friends in the world, a person who I grew up with, went to Jr. High, and High school, and college together with, etc. Was born a Muslim in Afghanistan, and is sincerely a good guy. We just spent a lot of time with each other, during another friend’s wedding, and are still the best of friends. Now, according to VII I shouldn’t worry about his soul, because his religion is “first place” among God’s salvation plan. That’s how I read VII. And it’s really a slap in the face of all the great missionaries who ever walked the earth. It’s a slap in the face of the Apostles, who Christ told to go out convert the nations, which were largely pagan at that time, and someone such as St. Francis of Assisi, who specifically tried to convert Muslims. My friend is my “conversion project”, as another traditional catholic I know, Charles Coulombe, put it a few years back when speaking of a non-Catholic friend of his. But if I read VII literally, I wouldn’t care a stitch for my friend. That is the beginning of modernism, which also doesn’t care a stitch for the Sacrifice of Christ.
Comment by Malta — 14 May 2008 @ 11:19 pmHere ( http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=es&geocode=&q=palmar+de+troya&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.29802,59.414063&ie=UTF8&ll=37.056157,-5.809144&spn=0.002046,0.003626&t=h&z=18 ) you can see the “territory” of the Palmarian Church. I remember one fact from this “pope” Clemente. He went in 1981 to Alba de Tormes (Salamanca – http://www.villaalbadetormes.com) to visit the tomb of Saint Teresa of Avila (who is buried in Alba, not in Avila). It was some months before the visit of our pope John Paul II. The people there understood that he wanted to steel the body of Saint Teresa and one of the priests there made the bells of the Saint Teresa’s Convent ring… Pope Clemente survived… almost a miracle! because all the village wanted to arrest him. In fact, one of the cars finished in the river near the city.
Comment by Salmanticensis — 15 May 2008 @ 1:14 amI have not more information. If you want to visit the city, you can do it in the link above. They are building a new Basilica to Saint Teresa and they need money too! Here you can have more information: http://www.basilicadesantateresa.blogspot.com
“Malta”,
instead of blindly accepting the “rupturist”, neo-modernist version of what Vatican II supposedly taught or “changed”, you should try to read it with the Magisterium of Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI; John Paul I and II and Benedict XVI. Not to mention that the role of the Holy Spirit in it is hardly yours to evaluate, and that to reject/misread teachings that came after 1965 means to reject the idea of a living Church only to embrace a mental construction about an idealized past (and to misread the techings of that past too!). Who is the Pope? Is the Pope now reigning lying about Vatican II and the binding parts of its documents?
Now, that’s really a nice thing to say to the Moslems, but has one Moslem ever converted to Christ because of it?
Has ANYONE ever converted exclusively thanks to (totally misrepresented) excerpts form a document of ANY Council? Rather, it is the Holy Spirit that converts people to the true faith through the charitable efforts of loyal Catholics not seeking to win the Sour Grapes Award daily. People who will not describe the Church according to themselves and falling in the ditch discussed here no matter what side. Catholics who will rather take the time to actually read the Councils they criticize and see if the Pope hasn’t explained them a million times, instead of lecturing him and his predecessors on how to do their job (legitimate criticism or disagreement on certain practical decisions or wording of documents is another issue).
I could introduce you to former-Muslisms who have converted and now accept ALL of the councils of the Church, with an understanding of what Lumen Gentium says farr deeper than that of many self-appointed Athanasius of XXI century. Where does the Council or the 5 Popes who made/followed it say that non-Catholics do not need to convert? Literally or not? How many times does the Church have to repeat that the modernist-relativist reading of Vatican II is baseless? How many other documents does CDF have to issue to make sure that “traditionalists” do not swallow rupturist distortions as any loyal reader of Commonweal, or NCR or the Tablet would?
Lumen gentium says the exact contrary of what you claim, and documents explaining it (40 years of Papal encyclicals, angeluses, speeches, homilies and disciplinary actions aside) only keep coming.
You might want to read
1) Dominus Iesus:
“certain theological proposals are developed — at times presented as assertions, and at times as hypotheses — in which Christian revelation and the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church lose their character of absolute truth and salvific universality, or at least shadows of doubt and uncertainty are cast upon them.”
“23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.
In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”.99 “
2) Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church
“FIRST QUESTION: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
RESPONSE The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]”
3) Doctrinal note on some aspects of evangelization:
“3. There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one’s own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church.”
“The growth of the Church in history, which results from missionary activity, is at the service of the presence of God through his Kingdom: one cannot in fact “detach the Kingdom from the Church”.[29]
Comment by Fabrizio — 15 May 2008 @ 2:29 am10. However, the Church’s “missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle)”.[30] For a long time, the reason for evangelization has not been clear to many among the Catholic faithful.[31] It is even stated that the claim to have received the gift of the fullness of God’s revelation masks an attitude of intolerance and a danger to peace.
Those who make such claims are overlooking the fact that the fullness of the gift of truth, which God makes by revealing himself to man, respects the freedom which he himself created as an indelible mark of human nature: a freedom which is not indifference, but which is rather directed towards truth. This kind of respect is a requirement of the Catholic faith itself and of the love of Christ; it is a constitutive element of evangelization and, therefore, a good which is to be promoted inseparably with the commitment to making the fullness of salvation, which God offers to the human race in the Church, known and freely embraced.
Respect for religious freedom[32] and its promotion “must not in any way make us indifferent towards truth and goodness. Indeed, love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves”.[33]”
Well, this thread illustrates how easy it is to go off into the right side ditch!
Just because something happened AFTER the council doesn’t mean it is BECAUSE of the council. The problems in the Church experienced in the 60s and since had been building up for decades, just like the cultural problems had been building up for decades.
In the 1940s and 50s, for example, the Church experienced extreme failures in priestly formation. The John Jay report shows that the average ‘problem priest’ was ordained BEFORE Vatican II. Or consider how many good priests left the active priesthood under Paul VI. We experienced a horrible failure in formation during that time period.
Further, the Church authoritatively teaches that the Holy Spirit guides Councils. Some may not like what the Council taught… but it’s more likely that they don’t understand what the Council taught. Let’s be honest: one of the main problems in the Church today is a LACK of adherence to Vatican II. Point-in-case, the Call to Action liturgy is the embodiment of the “Spirit of Vatican II” without any actual connection to the Council documents.
Comment by LCB — 15 May 2008 @ 5:49 amFabrizio: Excellent. Well done.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 15 May 2008 @ 5:53 amYou do have to admit that the Liturgical rubrics of “Greg 17th” are better than the Call to Action group :-) I suspect Greg 17th may have had a vision, but it wasn’t from Jesus. Too bad someone with a flashlight didn’t shine it into his eyes and see the reaction, or give him a pinprick and see what type of ecstasy there was. I wonder about the church’s reaction when the real Pope Benedict XVI declares the Co-redemptrix dogma?
Comment by Fr. Marie-Paul — 15 May 2008 @ 6:32 amFabrizio’s excellent arguments don’t change the fact, that in many places the documents of the Vat2 are formulated vaguely and lend themselves to just about any interpretation, depending on which hermeneutics one uses, if uses any. I can live with such problem within the Bible (aided by the Tradition), but that’s completely different kind of document.
Comment by Marcin — 15 May 2008 @ 7:24 amSo you need a degree to properly understand Vat2, you get the degree, and than realize that a graduate next to you (possibly educated by the same Church) has an opposite understanding. That’s bad writing.
Tough.
After picking my jaw up off the floor, I looked at that first video a little more closely.
Did anyone else notice that the ‘congregation’ in the first video is made up almost entirely of ‘white hairs’?
Unless this was a meeting of the AARP (American Assn of Retired Persons) division of Call to Action, I think that is significant…
The silliness (puppets, liturgical dance, cross bearer in a wheelchair, etc.) had an air of desperation to it, like the final throes of a dying animal. It was almost as if they were saying “Hey look, we are relevant! Don’t ignore us! You must listen to us!” However, I think, for the most part, the Church has moved on and left them behind. The unfortunate thing is that in the midst of all of that foolishness, Jesus was present. But it was sure hard to see him with everyone there trying to draw attention to themselves.
Comment by Joe M — 15 May 2008 @ 7:25 amAfter picking my jaw up off the floor, I looked at that first video a little more closely.
Did anyone else notice that the ‘congregation’ in the first video is made up almost entirely of ‘white hairs’? Unless this was a meeting of the AARP (American Assn of Retired Persons) division of Call to Action, I think that is significant…
The silliness (puppets, liturgical dance, cross bearer in a wheelchair, etc.) had an air of desperation to it, like the final throes of a dying animal. It was almost as if they were saying “Hey look, we are relevant! Don’t ignore us! You must listen to us!” However, I think, for the most part, the Church has moved on and left them behind. The unfortunate thing is that in the midst of all of that foolishness, Jesus was present. But it was sure hard to see him with everyone there trying to draw attention to themselves.
Comment by Joe M. — 15 May 2008 @ 7:27 amFabrizio,
That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Thank you.
Comment by Patrick — 15 May 2008 @ 7:27 amThe Palmarian catholic church does look very beautiful. I wish the real Catholic Church was like that.
—Dont get me wrong I’m not saing the Pope should have fake visions or anything, but… ya know.
Also, If they’re trying to be all traditional, I wonder why Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (the “pope”) isn’t wearing a tiara.
Comment by Nick — 15 May 2008 @ 8:25 amFabrizio, thanks for taking the time to write helpfully. As you point out, sometimes certain expressions need a bit of help, which does come from the Pontiffs involved or from others who understand the hermeneutic of continuity.
Cheers! ?????
Comment by Fr Renzo di Lorenzo (Trilogy) — 15 May 2008 @ 8:41 amslo… uh, rather, saner traffic keep right.
Comment by Cel — 15 May 2008 @ 8:55 amIt appears that the Northern California Call to Action website is still off-line – thanks to the tremendous number of hits it received from viewers of this and other sites.
Comment by mbd — 15 May 2008 @ 9:56 amOne might say that they were driven into the ditch.
Comment by mbd — 15 May 2008 @ 10:01 amFabrizio,
It seems that you are assuming that people don’t read or misread the Council documents.
Romano Amerio knew exactly what the documents said. Atila Sinke Guimareas knows exactly what the documents said and he spent two decades interviewing the people who formulated them.
But the basic problem is this:
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.”—John XXIII opening speech of Vatican II
In this, Vatican II was an utter failure. The documents themselves are verbally sloppy, undefined in many areas and imprudent in the policies that they allow. Sacrosanctum Concilium is appealed to by very well-known Cardinal archbishops as justifications for the worst liturgical aberrations.
“That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.”—John XXIII opening speech of Vatican II
In this second goal of the Council, it is again, an utter failure. The very fact that the Popes and CDF have taught what the documents of the counil taught “millions of times” is evident that the Popes either aren’t sure or are incapable of effectively deciphering the documents and expressing them “without any attenuation or distortion.”
And I’m sorry, Paul VI as quoted in the Response from the CDF is simply evidence of denial. He wouldn’t have had to include the Nota preavia in Lumen Gentium or written an encyclical called “Mysterium Fidei” during the Council if confusion and error weren’t prevalent and a real danger.
You want clarity on ecumenism? Read the speeches of Cardinal Augustin Bea prior to and during the Council. He has more in common with Bishop Williamson of the SSPX than he does the ecumenical policies of Card. Kaspar, JPII and yes, even the current Holy Father.
Iota Unum by Romano Amerio shows the philosophical errors that were a result of the formulations used in the Vatican II documents.
Atila Sinke Guimareas in his multi-volume series on Vatican II builds a virtually unshakeable case that the results of the council were the results planned for by the periti who “hijacked” the council.
Comment by Gerard — 15 May 2008 @ 10:13 amAgain I will say, the Vatican II documents are pure church teaching. There are those however who chose to put their own spin on it. (CTA for instance). You are right, you cant ignore that that exists. But, you also cant blame the Council that that exists.
In reality what we have are just new breeds of Heresies, wrong interpretations of things that have been true for 2000 years, and like the last 2000 years, they have always surfaced. But the Holy Spirit guides the councils. So, we have to trust that at the very letter (so go read the documents), the intent of the council was pure. It was how people interpreted the council, that led to discussions such as these.
Are there people in the church, even bishops, who get it wrong? Sure. They are human. But, what drives the Church is the Holy Spirit. Even though it might not be apparent to us immediately, we should trust in that fact, and eventually, I promise it is all going to be alright.
Comment by patrick — 15 May 2008 @ 10:17 amGerard,
Check your boots. I think you slipped into a ditch.
Comment by Patrick — 15 May 2008 @ 10:32 amHere you can see the anti-pope with the Tiara
http://mundoquelonio.blogspot.com/2007/01/palmar-de-troya-el-vaticano-sevillano.html
Comment by Salmanticensis — 15 May 2008 @ 10:39 am“Not to mention that the role of the Holy Spirit in it is hardly yours to evaluate, and that to reject/misread teachings that came after 1965 means to reject the idea of a living Church only to embrace a mental construction about an idealized past (and to misread the techings of that past too!).”
Re: the Holy Spirit, you’re correct, I misspoke. However, it is my opinion that VII was not infallible. You are incorrect to state that to, say, reject the Church’s current approach to Ecumenism that one is necessarily rejecting the idea of a living Church.
“I could introduce you to former-Muslisms who have converted and now accept ALL of the councils of the Church, with an understanding of what Lumen Gentium says farr deeper than that of many self-appointed Athanasius of XXI century.”
That may be true, but the point I was trying to make is not whether former Muslims accept All councils as valid (which I do, as well) but whether VII has helped to convert souls to the Church. My opinion is that VII led to reforms which has diminished the Church’s missionary role in converting souls.
“Lumen gentium says the exact contrary of what you claim.”
How so?
“Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time.” Pope Benedict XVI writing as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=135210&highlight=&sid=26d8aa08d97b3a34499f1fba0014e2c4
The question is not whether VII was a valid Council—which it most certainly was—but whether, in the final analysis, VII has benefited the Church.
Comment by malta — 15 May 2008 @ 11:16 am“Again I will say, the Vatican II documents are pure church teaching. There are those however who chose to put their own spin on it. (CTA for instance). You are right, you cant ignore that that exists. But, you also cant blame the Council that that exists.”
Patrick,
Normally I would agree with you. If a document is mis-interpreted or badly interpreted is is likely the fault of the person doing the interpretation. Unfortunately, the current state of the Church does no really support this conclusion.
Think about it for a moment. If the Council was faultless, it means that you are among a very select minority who interpret it correctly. Virtually every other Priest, Bishop and Cardinal (with notable exceptions) got it wrong. At what point is it appropriate to blame the teacher for the failure of the students?
Keep in mind also that nobody (here at least) is claiming that the council taught falsehoods; rather I (and I presume others) am claiming that the council taught extremely poorly
Comment by Michael — 15 May 2008 @ 11:22 amFather Z and Company,
I read with interest the Wikipedia article about the Palmarian Catholic Church. As one of you stated above, they may have valid orders, their first bishops having been ordained illicitly by a Catholic bishop. I read on, however, to see that they have changed several doctrines and dogmas—including the idea that Mary, too, is Really Present in the Eucharist(!). I got to wondering, then, at what point to the orders become invalid? Are they invalidated now because the group has attempted to change doctrine and dogma? (The same, of course, would be said for the Anglican Communion—if their orders are now invalid, at what point did the validity “decay,” so to speak?)
Thanks, and God bless.
Comment by Ed — 15 May 2008 @ 11:34 amGerard,
Check your boots. I think you slipped into a ditch.
Comment by Patrick
That’s equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalalalala I can’t hear you!”
In the main, saying the palmarians are off in the ditch to the right is bizarre because apparently they abandoned the traditional Mass some time ago in favor of a liturgy that consists almost exclusively of the words of consecration.
Beyond that, we should (although of course it isn’t going to happen) reject the usage of “right and left” because in the Church we DON’T deal with right and left, we deal with right and wrong, good and evil. The two videos in this blog entry don’t reflect right and left, they depict the commencement exercises of two clown schools.
And then somehow this discussion turned into a symposium on the clarity of the documents of Vatican II. Between this thread and the one on the canonization process of JPII two words occurred to me that I never expected to connect to my religion: “fanboys” (or fanbois, which is the unisex appellation) and “haterz”. Popular culture (if it can still be so called) has finally given me the tools to deal with the internal strife in the life of the Church.
Regardless, There is today, however, a growing confusion… and 23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith… are citations from the applauded post by Fabrizio. If the documents of the Second Vatican Council are so clear why is there “growing confusion” and a never-ending flood of “documents explaining it (40 years of Papal encyclicals, angeluses, speeches, homilies and disciplinary actions…”? It seems to me that the very defense admits to the problem. When I tell my children to clean up the play room I don’t need to issue clarifications. I wonder if the bottom line argument supporting the clari