Video interview of a bishop who attended all the sessions of Vatican II

From CNS:

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Vatican II and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Video interview of a bishop who attended all the sessions of Vatican II

  1. iPadre says:

    Bishop McNaughton is a wonderful man. We were on retreat together in September.

  2. RobertK says:

    Problem Father is that it all went wrong in terms of the Liturgy and theology. And now it is permanent scar that will forever disfigure the Roman Rite. I wish you would do an article on the “Ottaviani Intervention”. The Bishops and Pope were warned, and they didn’t heed the warning. Seminaries were full, Nuns wore their habits, parishes were full. and now look what has happened. Parishes are closing, seminaries, apart form “traditional” seminaries, are depleated, and most nuns still refuse to wear their habits. We still have altar girls, EMHCs, hand holding, no chant, and the LA Liturgical Congress, with their “worship space”, incense bowls and dancing deacons. Check out the circus Mass from Brazil on Gloria TV that happened recently. I have little hope this Synod (Year of Faith) will accomplish anything, except for turning Catholics into Bible preachers. The liberals will hyjack this “Year of Faith”, like they did with Vatican 2. And even if they do read the documents, they already have their own agendas. And will interperate the documents to meet those agendas. I read the Vatican 2 documents on the Liturgy, and I cannot count how many times I read “active participation”. Meaning “physical” and not prayerful participation. The document even mentioned “interior participation”, so clearly active was physical participation. The only good I have seen relates to the Eastern churches going back to their traditons. That’s all!. My analysis!.

  3. pberginjr says:

    What a Bishop; what a video!

  4. Rich says:

    I have wondered myself whether the people who made changes to the liturgy read the Council documents; case in point: “Care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23). I cannot see how going from 100% Latin to 100% vernacular, and always celebrating Mass ad orientam to then always celebrating it versus populum represent organic growth.

  5. acardnal says:

    I would dispute his statement regarding “less” statues in Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium states in #125 that with regard to sacred images “there number should be moderate”.

    Again, the question arises what is “moderate”? This is another example of the many, many statements in the V2 documents that are ambiguous and thus open to interpretation as to their implementation. I honestly believe that this ambiguity was done willfully so as to make the Church more Protestant-like as changes to the sacramental rites and rubrics were made subsequently.

  6. acardnal says:

    sic: above should read “their number”.

  7. Speravi says:

    Great point about footnotes.

  8. servusmariaen says:

    The Bishop seems balanced. I wonder however where does that leave the rush of the “Rhine flowing into the Tiber”? Was it as I was told by a retired Cardinal recently the work of the Holy Ghost? What about the turning off of Cardinal Ottaviani’s microphone and the tossing out of the original Schemas prepared for the Council? The same retired Cardinal assured us recently that too was the work of the Holy Ghost.

  9. Sixupman says:

    Scheelebex is reported as stating: “…. we know where the ambiguities are and we know how we are going to interpret them …… . What more needs to be said?

  10. jbpolhamus says:

    “…The Council did not cause this [rupture], it was all over the world.” This is absolutely true, the student, YOUTH-movement was a Marxist export, specifically arising from Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China, but the priestly and religious agents within the structure of the church who ran with that football were already seeded there by the KGB from the late 1920′s. They have said that they did this, and it’s time to acknowledge this reality. We were SEEDED. Which is easy enough to do, the church is an open door: she invites men to the priesthood, and it is possible for intelligent men who lie to become priests, without concealing their true agenda. This is what has happened, and we are having to weed out those agents of destruction, and live through this infection like a church suffering from a virus. And the antibiotics are working, to the degree that they are being allowed to work. Nevertheless, lets be clear that this relationship of that unfortunate council, whatever its well meaning intentions (and can anyone have too much confidence in those, bearing in mind what happened to Card. Ottoviani on the THIRD DAY of that unfortunate council?), to the International Youth Movement trend, and that trend’s relationship to International Socialism, that relationship is NOT accidental.

  11. Cathy says:

    I think the Bishops assessment is edifying. The proposition to make any changes fell into the hands of opportunists who, as opposed to shoring up the radical truth of the Church, simply used it as an opportunity to mainline, or popularize the Church. So many Catholics, myself included, grew up without knowledge of what exactly made us different than the many protestant faiths surrounding us. In a weird way, we became a melting pot of ecumenism in the worst way, by throwing off the very essential truths that made us identifiable. I do believe that the uprising of dissent regarding Humanae Vitae and the lack of visible and immediate correction was the great sword of confusion on all matters of Church teaching.

  12. TravelerWithChrist says:

    I’m not buying it.
    servusmariaen refers to a book that also mentions that several non-Catholics were invited to help in the writing of the documents, or were perhaps even very influential… why? Why was it written so as to bring in confusion – is it to keep Latin in the Mass or remove it completely for the vernacular, etc??
    And as someone already asked – how can he explain why so much trouble has occurred withIN the Church since VII? – Why have the #s gone down (Catholics and religious), why so much strife from religious, why can’t our Church be an influence in the world rather than blaming the contraception on the world. (and why can’t priests talk about it rather than encourage the use of it either directly (approving it’s use during confession) or indirectly (by complaining about children in the Mass)??)

  13. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    @acardinal

    I don’t know what the specific issue was that was addressed by the statement, but here is my thoughts on “overly statued” churches that I have encountered. I don’t like it when, at any given time, I can see more than one depiction of a sacred person in my visual field. That is, If you have an 8 foot corpus on a crucifix in the center of the church, there isn’t really any need to have another Christ the King statue three feet to the left. Nor is there any need to have OL of Guadalupe on one side of the altar and OL of Lourdes on the other. Its distracting and, quite honestly, spiritually confusing to me. I like the set up of Joseph on one side (or another, usually patron,saint of the parish), Christ in the Center, Mary on the other. I even can deal with one of the members of the Holy Family holding a child Jesus, though that still isn’t great to me. This isn’t to say you can’t have a separate side altar for Mary or Joseph, or Patrick or anybody else, its just that, when I look at a focal point of the Church, things should be in their proper number.

    The only exception has more to do with windows and paintings, when they are set up as a storyboard (i.e. the story of a certain group of mysteries, or the conversion of the Americas, etc). But that is tough to do in statue form.

  14. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    @TravelerWithChrist,

    Protestants were invited to attend (and some did so) and participate in the debate at the Council of Trent. They were similarly invited to the First Vatican Council, though it appears that the invitation to that council was refused.

    So it isn’t all that strange that they would attend VII as well. Same goes for Orthodox observers who have also been invited and attended council

  15. MKR says:

    I like that the bishop gave some concrete examples of liturgical abuses that were plainly not licensed or encouraged by the Council documents. Such specifics tend to be sorely lacking in quarrels over the Council.

  16. Sandy says:

    acardnal, I believe that you are absolutely correct in your statement about purposely ambiguous documents. I also don’t doubt that the quote above really came from Scheelebex. There’s an entire book devoted to what was done after V II using all the ambiguity of the documents. I say all this as one who attends the OF and would never deny its validity. Just wish I could attend the EF every day, as that is the Mass I grew up with and cherish!

  17. Horatius says:

    Amen.
    Set, game, match.
    Who could ask for more?

  18. Matt R says:

    @TravelerWithChrist, Fr Blake had an interesting post on ecumenism, and mentioned something in the combox.
    Protestants and representatives of the EO Churches were invited to Trent as participants, to be treated peacefully by the Catholic bishops, in the hopes of restoring order to the household of the Church. But, his understanding was that their counterparts at V2 were only allowed to observe and in select cases, serve as consultants.

  19. dspecht says:

    Another piece reiterating the mantra: there is no rupture, only continuity — but not proofing or showing it.
    As the great Gherardini said: they say there is no rupture – but they fail to demonstrate that this is the truth.

    Well, it’s because they can not – because there is rupture, at least via willfully induced anbiguities.

    So @ Acardnal: you are right of course.

  20. servusmariaen says:

    My reference to the “Rhine flowing into the Tiber” had to do with the scrapping of the preparatory Schemas to be discussed at the Council by the so called “Rhine Fathers” of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere in favor of a “progressive” set of discussions. Cardinal Ottaviani’s microphone was silenced:

    “…Fifty years ago today the liberal Cardinal Achille Lienart humiliated the good and holy Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani by turning Cardinal Ottaviani’s microphone off during his plea to the bishops to remain faithful to the preparatory documents for the Council. It was on this day, the third day of that Council, that the liberals staged the most devastating Leftist take-over in history.”

    http://arsorandi.blogspot.com/2012/10/year-of-faith-year-of-tradition.html

    A few weeks back a retired Cardinal at an opening address for the academic year at a religious seminary for priests said that this (the Rhine Fathers progressive takeover of the Council) was the work of the Holy Ghost….funny thing that!

    I’m trying to find good reason to celebrate a Council that lacks Clarity. Bishop Athanasius Schneider (and others) some time ago called for a new “Syllabus of Errors” in order to clarify the more difficult points in the Council Documents. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Ambiguity continues to be the rule of the day and decades since the Council. There is always plenty of rhetoric about SSPX accepting “The Council”. Ok…..When will the Church clarify exactly what is binding on all Catholics regarding the “The Council”. I prayed and thought that the discussions between the SSPX and Rome would lead to such a clarification. Sadly, this did not happen and so we are left with the ambiguity we have had for decades.

    In 1988, addressing the Chilean bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed,

    “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of ‘superdogma’ which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

    I have lived all my life in the era of ‘Vatican II as Superdogma” though mercifully never under its’ spell.

  21. Daniel_Nekic says:

    “It is the hidden penances that will bring many back to the faith.”

    Poignant.

  22. dspecht says:

    And also @ acardnal:

    Yes, and look what a saint, the Cure of Ars did:
    Bilding one side-chapel after another, putting in his Church one satue after another, Philomena, Johannes Baptista, several statues of our Lady, etc.etc. – That is what a saint thought about statues.

    And then: “their number should be moderate” — puh leez!

    (Especially given the circumstances in the 60ies: the upcoming ecumenism, protestantization-trends; and the architecture and art of the 50ies and 60ies was very puristic, so again with a protestant-minimalisitic trend — and then the Council has no better idea to say: “the mumber should be moderate”. Phew! — What about the idea to say: “oh, do not become too minimalistic/puritanian and increase the statues and pictures in the Churches! Be proud that you are Catholic. And look at the many icons in the Eastern Church!” That would have been the proper advise! But no, “be carefull to be moderate – not too much”! –Phew, phew…..!!)

  23. RobertK says:

    October 5, 2012 (date of event)
    I guess these pastors in Brazil didn’t re-read the Vatican 2 documents. If they did then they should get a call from the CDF, and have their liturgical faculties removed. This is NOT a valid Mass in my opinion. It’s a carnival which MOCKS are worship of God. And Rome tolerates this, but not the SSPX.
    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/beyond-parody.html

  24. acardnal says:

    Related to this and Fr. Z’s other post regarding VII and my “yes” vote there:

    One of the intentions of the Council was to revise the Mass which is the heart of the Church. Indeed, that is a main theme of the Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC). Norms and principles for revision of the sacramental rites and the Mass are given throughout SC. For example, Chapter 2 is all about the changes they wanted to occur in the missal: #50 saying, “The rite of the Mass is to be revised . . . .” and “the rites are to be simplified”. Well, they most certainly were “dumbed down” to the point that they removed the mystery and the transcendent to making them banal. So, subsequent to SC and as a consequence thereof, the Novus Ordo Missal of 1969-70 was developed and promulgated.

    What I have always found curious is why Blessed Pope John XXIII promulgated the new Missal Romanum of 1962 (TLM/EF) in the same year that he called the Second Vatican Council. Did he know or even desire that the Mass would be radically changed as a result? I’m not sure. After all, Pope John XXIII put Archbishop Lefevbre on the Council’s Preparatory Committee which developed the schemas to be used during the Council. Unfortunately, the schemas were hijacked by the progressives who immediately took control of the Council’s agenda.

    So, yes, I believe that V2 caused many of today’s problems. I was born in 1954 so I’ve been through this entire process and have reverted to the TLM/EF in the last few years. When the liturgy was radically changed to conform more to a Protestant way of worship, the Church was detrimentally affected. No question. Why change a Mass which the Church used for hundreds of years and which created thousands of saints and converts? As Father Z says, “Save the Liturgy, Save the World” and “Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi.”

  25. wmeyer says:

    I have lived all my life in the era of ‘Vatican II as Superdogma” though mercifully never under its’ spell.

    I was in high school while the Council did its work. I saw the Latin Mass removed, very abruptly. I see now the pervasive Modernism which has done so much damage to the Church, at least in North America. I went through RCIA in a parish which appears much more Lutheran than Catholic. The Church here has been damaged, badly. Many have left in despair or disgust. They have been failed by priests, and even by bishops. What happened in the first few years after the Council, I submit, was madness. That, or willful destruction and heresy. I cannot find a rationale under which I can view it more charitably.

  26. Denis says:

    But Vatican II did recommend moving the Tabernacle, “moderate” statuary”, permit communion in the hand, and all sorts of other protestantizing changes. Why was the position of the tabernacle a problem? Why were statues–sacramentals–a problem? Why is communion in the hand permitted? These were radical changes and a rupture with tradition.

    Furthermore, the Bishops who wrote the documents were also the ones implementing them. Why did they permit, encourage, and even require changes if they believed them to be a violation of the letter of the Vatican II documents?

    Something more radical than a return to the alleged “letter” of Vatican II is necessary, because that letter is often ambiguous, and sometimes problematic in its unmbiguous sense. We need a more substantial purging of the system–something like a syllabus of V2 errors, as proposed by Bishop Schneider.

  27. wmeyer says:

    But Vatican II did recommend moving the Tabernacle…

    I challenge you to quote the document and paragraph. See Eucharisticum Mysterium (a post-Conciliar document) 53 & 54:
    53. The Blessed Sacrament Chapel
    The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honor our Lord in this sacrament.114 It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures.

    54. The Tabernacle in the Middle of the Altar or in Some Other Part of the Church
    “The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a secondary altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local Ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped.

    “Mass may be celebrated facing the people even though there is a tabernacle on the altar, provided this is small yet adequate.”115

    I would assert that more false claims are made of what Vatican II required than any actual requirements given by the Council. And most of these claims, moreover, were in the direction of destroying tradition, which the Council did not support nor require.

  28. wmeyer says:

    …further, I would strongly urge that any claim made regarding what the Council “required” should be accompanied by citation(s). It is most tiresome to hear these false claims made again and again.

  29. St. Rafael says:

    John XXIII: “We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand. ” (Opening Address at Second Vatican Council, Oct. 11, 1962)

    The “prophets of doom” were right. Sr. Lucy gave him the warning. John XXIII ignored the Fatima message and the rest is history. [I'm impressed! You are either psychic or you have been shown the rest of the Third Secret! o{];¬) ]

  30. Denis says:

    @wmeyer: “I challenge you to quote the document and paragraph.”

    I’m referring to what Bishop McNaughton says at 1:14-27. He may be wrong (though to say that he is “tiresome” would be too much) but his argument is that V2 did not recommend moving the Tabernacle to the side of the Ssnctuary, but rather recommended moving it to a side Chapel. My point is that,even if we accept this claim as true the question remains: Why was its traditional placement a problem? Besides, EM53 above (“It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church”) was used to justify precisely that move in many post-V2 wreckovrations, so I’m a bit puzzled as to why someone would be surprised that this common change was recommended by V2.

  31. A Sinner 2 says:

    I think one could just as well argue that the “the 60s,” (including the events of 1968 as described by Bishop McNaughton) resulted from the abandonment and/or perversion of prayer and religious life by clergy and religious that began very quickly after Vatican II ended in 1965.

  32. Sissy says:

    A Sinner 2 : Well, it sure didn’t help, did it? I tend to agree with you.

  33. acardnal says:

    Let’s recall that when Mass is said ad Orientum as is traditional, the priest is facing the our Lord in the tabernacle and the crucifix. With most NO/OF priests celebrating versus populum, the priest now has his back to our Lord in the tabernacle. The progressives’ answer is not to offer Mass ad Orientum but rather to move the tabernacle off to the side of the sanctuary or to its own chapel. Wrong answer! Ad Orientum, facing our Lord is the right answer.

  34. StWinefride says:

    An excerpt from Pope John XXIII’s Opening Speech for Council of Vatican ii, 11th October, 1962:

    “As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our heart and lips of the simple words, “Ecumenical Council.” We uttered those words in the presence of the Sacred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25, 1959, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, in the basilica dedicated to him. It was completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light, shedding sweetness in eyes and hearts. And at the same time it gave rise to a great fervor throughout the world in expectation of the holding of the Council”.

    In the 2nd Letter of St Paul to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:14) we read:

    “And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light”.

    I am not drawing any conlusions. I’m just being observant…and wondering.

  35. StWinefride says:

    Oh, I forgot:

    St Michael the Archangel, pray for us!!!

  36. Tina in Ashburn says:

    I’d reiterate the recommendation to read the Vatican II documents yourself – all of them, not in some course that picks and chooses. See for yourself where the liberal phrases now used universally came from such as Pilgrim Church instead of Church Suffering or the People of God instead of Holy Church, and on they pop up, snaking throughout the documents.

    Yes there are many mitigating paragraphs, which re-state traditional teaching along with footnotes that tone down the progressive statements. But you can’t deny the almost schizophrenic nature of the documents, as if two different warring factions wrote them – wildly progressive and purposely ambiguous followed by traditional clear statements.

    I am reading a wonderful book, “American Bishop at the Vatican Council, recollections and projections’ by Bishop Robert E. Tracy of Louisiana. While attending the Council, he sent to his Diocese descriptive letters. I found the book, long out of print, at a parish book sale. The bishop naively describes the skullduggery and odd occurrences with a liberal bent. The progressive manipulations are right there in black and black and white, written without apology or a traditional slant by someone trying to make the best of a horrific situation. I gasp as I flip through the pages. Here, I am finally reading a firsthand description of what is almost ‘urban legend’ – yes there are hard examples of the skullduggery I heard about all my life.

    As far as the lack of documentation of the Council itself? There’s a crime in itself – Bishop Tracy states that this was the most documented Council ever – with three transcripts for all speeches, agendas, etc with notes taken during the speeches and agreements as well as the recordings themselves. Each speaker had to submit beforehand what they were going to say on top of that. Will what has been hidden for so long ever come to light? According to a firsthand report of an attendee [a friend of mine took a course from an attendee years ago], the shouting and fighting during the Council was a constant.

    Yes the original schemas were thrown out before the Council as the Cardinal who tirelessly worked on them, managed the worldwide invitations, the construction, all that – oh. gee. he suddenly died just before the Council started. John XXIII became so ill he did not even attend the Council himself, only showing up to close the sessions, and watching through closed circuit T.V. up until he died too. Or how about the shocking call for a three day recess by the progressives on the first day of the Council, so that they could organize and make war against those ‘backward traditionalists’? Even the seating was unprecedented, unassigned, so that the progressives could sit where they needed to be, while the more experienced and faithful clergy sat in lesser seats.

    Bishop Tracy made friends with the non-Catholics in attendance, as he took many meals with them at his hotel – he firmly states that though they were invited as ‘observers’ they themselves where shocked as they were repeatedly asked for advice, which was followed. Did I mention, they were shocked?

    The seeds were planted long before and the snakes lay in wait for the opportunity to take over the helm of the Church. From the destruction in the Church came the dismantling of society – not the other way around.

    Before you despair, know that Our Lady of Good Success in the 1700s [approved ever since, with imprimaturs and long-lasting devotions to this day in Quito Ecuador] predicted these occurrences for the 20th century Church, along with the control at the highest levels by the Freemasons. Mother Mariana, after these revelations to her by our loving Mother Mary, fainted dead for three days from the shock of what we would face in these days. This battle is ordained for our times. We have the grace to face it.

    What this also means is that we are not to re-make a shadow Church to our own liking for the sake of the Traditional, eschewing obedience to the Pope [along with loss of faculties for confession and marriage, etc], no, we are to participate in the Agony of Christ – not run away. This is the Passion of the Church, a time of unprecedented grace and mercy.

  37. wmeyer says:

    …resulted from the abandonment and/or perversion of prayer and religious life by clergy and religious that began very quickly after Vatican II ended in 1965.

    My reading suggests that things began even before the Council was convoked. In some quarters (Collegeville being among them) experiments with the liturgy had been conducted for some time. Remember, too, what Pope St. Pius said about Modernism… the problems were already present. Yes, in the days following the end of the Council there was acceleration, but I wonder if it wasn’t simply that those whose deviation from the standards has been cloaked then felt justified in openly continuing what they had begun.

  38. Tina: “But you can’t deny the almost schizophrenic nature of the documents, as if two different warring factions wrote them – wildly progressive and purposely ambiguous followed by traditional clear statements.”

    Because these documents were largely written by activist non-voting experts to serve as a basis for what they hoped to accomplish following the council, but required the approval of the bishops voting in the council, a large majority of whom had traditional views and did not share the progressive intentions of the authors of the documents. How else, for instance, to write a liturgy constitution that could later be claimed as basis for the Novus Ordo, but win the approval a bishop like Ab. Lefebvre (on the alleged assurance of his personal expert that it was harmless and would not result in any big changes).

    So the simplified explanation is that the documents of Vatican II were written by one “warring faction” and voted on by another. Our problem today–as Card. Ratzinger pretty much said in one of his Fontgombault conference talks–results from the fact that the latter (hierarchial) faction lost control of events in the years following the Council, and it was implemented by the former (expert) faction.

  39. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Henry: “written by activist non-voting experts” aha. how creepy.
    and interesting interpretation of the losing ‘faction’.

    Will the real story ever be known?

    My 90-plus year-old mother, as she researched many areas for her myriad publications and along with discussions with the Triumph Magazine folks and the Michael Davies and those of that era, says she had been screaming about the lack of real Vatican II documentation over thirty years ago. The obfuscation and hiding was unmistakable.

    She also interviewed Lefebvre, and noted a lot that didn’t hang together there…it is possible that his organization was a method of siphoning off those that could have staunched the flow of dreadful changes. With the more conservative being led away from the Church, and the influx of ‘new’ Catholics, our Church was left defenseless.

  40. GregH says:

    Henry,

    I am not sure how that could be? The experts were theologians who were not implementers. The Bishops who were supposedly traditional were in charge of implementing in their respective dioceses so the blame is with them.

  41. Tina,

    I recall hearing a rumor that, just recently, the extensive documentation of Vatican II, including both documentary and audio records of all the sessions, has been newly stashed in archives in such a way as to be inaccessible to scholars. By orders from “high up” (but not the pope) it was claimed. I would be interested if anyone can provide corroboration (or refutation) of this rumor.

  42. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Our Lady of Good Success predicted “those who should speak up will be silent”. Certainly, the hierarchy is to blame – authority that abdicates leaves a dreadful vacuum. Just as the first bishops, the Apostles fled and hid during the Passion, so it has been in the Church. And, hey, this has worked since The Garden: removing authority, as Adam forsook his authority and lazily allowed Eve her way. Evil keeps doing what works.

    Henry, interesting to know that the records exist – that is a plus! LOL. My mother was a tireless researcher, speaking many languages and a Classics expert – from Greek to Latin. She could not get these records.

    Perhaps when all seems lost and evil thinks it has triumphed, the dark secrets will be revealed as a way to brag. The Truth will come out – how long this will take, who knows. Those with first-hand knowledge are disappearing in death – I hope they write as much down as they can, while they can.

    These factions are not going to stop until Christ is dead and they think they’ve triumphed – hopefully, as with Longinus the Centurion who speared the Heart of Jesus, “indeed this is the Son of God”, people will continue to convert throughout this trial and see the Church, the true Church, as it really is, in spite of all the obfuscation.

    In the end, the good guys win. “My Immaculate Heart will triumph”.

    In the meantime, can we continue to ferret out the truth about Vatican II?

  43. Pingback: Intervju med en biskop som deltok på alle Vatikankonsilets samlinger » EN KATOLSK WEBLOG

  44. St. Epaphras says:

    Alibris (online book seller) has a few copies of An American Bishop at the Vatican Council. Just bought one. Good price.

  45. marytoo says:

    Tina in Ashburn wrote: “She also interviewed Lefebvre, and noted a lot that didn’t hang together there…it is possible that his organization was a method of siphoning off those that could have staunched the flow of dreadful changes. With the more conservative being led away from the Church, and the influx of ‘new’ Catholics, our Church was left defenseless.”

    I want to understand your meaning – when you say “method” are you implying that Lefebvre was himself actually trying to weaken the continuation of the old Mass, or that he was being used as a dupe, or what? Please clarify.

  46. Tina in Ashburn says:

    Marytoo:
    I have no idea what Lefebvre’s true internal intentions were but I have heard the theory that he was manipulated into the situation of giving unhappy faithful Catholics a path away from Rome . It appears that he began as a faithful son of the Church, and was from a devout family full of many vocations. The end result of his love of Tradition turned into creating an organization that had no bishops attached to Rome – creating a loss of access to proper faculties for all these followers. Were those surrounding him actually ‘handlers’? My mother at the time of the interview noted the priest there in attendance carefully monitored their interaction – she also noted that Lefebvre’s superior was a priest, not a prelate, from whom he appeared to take direction. It was mystifying.
    I recently tried to contact the priest who was in the room at the time of this interview to get his view of the interview [yes, it would be an SSPX version, but its only fair to ask...] but I have received no response.
    Certainly at the beginning Lefebvre posed a great threat to the machinations visible at the Second Vatican Council. Maybe this theory is too conspiratorial, but there certainly was the opportunity to take great intentions and vast following and marginalize all of it. That is what happened.
    When Lefebvre chose to ordain those four bishops and get excommunicated, that is when he lost people like Michael Davies and my mother. Many were stricken by this loss, others said ‘so what, I prefer Tradition to the Pope’ and stuck with him. Which, you see, took away many from the Church along with their influence. Imagine what could have happened had his followers instead signed up to teach Catechism in all the local parishes?
    I don’t intend to turn this thread into a Lefebvre rant – no one knows the whole story or whose intentions lay where.

    Going back to a previous comment I made above in blaming the hierarchy, I thought a lot about this, and want to add that we will never know the amount of bullying, threats, fear-mongering, fear of peer pressure, heart-break, white martyrdoms that all of our clergy suffered during those times. Yes the hierarchy is called to courage and they are ultimately responsible, but for the terrible occurrences in our Church to have transpired meant there was a lot of evil pressure on many good men to create what we have today. Many of us old-timers saw that effect in our own parish priests – they were hammered by their bishops and equally hammered by parishioners.

    So we have stories like Lefebvre who led many away from the visible Church and no longer answered to the Pope, and Ottaviani who bravely wrote his letter [the Ottaviani Intervention] describing in detail the problems with the New Mass but ended up without a shred of support, blind and alone.

    We can only judge the resulting symptoms, we can never really know what was in the heart of these men, what the pressures were, and the terrible confusion of those times.

  47. acardnal says:

    I have read that “The Decomposition of Catholicism” is another good book on the aftermath of Vatican 2 by a very respected theologian, Rev. Louis Bouyer. It is out of print and I am still trying to locate a copy.

  48. wmeyer says:

    I have read that “The Decomposition of Catholicism” is another good book…

    I see Amazon finds two sellers who have the book. The less expensive copy is $72.00.

  49. acardnal says:

    wmeyer: I saw that but will wait for a lower price. I checked Alibris already. I will keep up my search and be patient. Thanks to “St. Epaphras ” above comment, I ordered the “American Bishop at the Vatican Council” from Alibris.

  50. wmeyer says:

    Thanks to “St. Epaphras ” above comment, I ordered the “American Bishop at the Vatican Council” from Alibris.

    My copy arrives today. ;) I assume you have read “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber”?

  51. acardnal says:

    wmeyer: “The Rhine . . . .” is on my “to read” pile.

  52. acardnal says:

    Another book on the mess of post-Vatican II Church which I am reading now is called “Is It the Same Church?” by the noted and respected Catholic apologist Frank J. Sheed. This book is out of print but was referenced in something else I was reading, and I was able to obtain a used copy.

    It was published in 1968 and revised in a second edition in March 1969 so he reflects on all the controversies and miseries of the ’60s Church, e.g. contraception, ecumenism, the Mass and Eucharist, the crisis of faith, et al.

  53. robtbrown says:

    NB: It’s ad orientEm. Not orientUm or orientAm.

  54. wmeyer says:

    I am reading a wonderful book, “American Bishop at the Vatican Council, recollections and projections’ by Bishop Robert E. Tracy of Louisiana.

    Tina, I read the book after seeing your comment. I’m not as thrilled as you seem to be; my comments on Bp. Tracy’s commentary:
    – he was a cheerleader for change
    – among those he cites in the book as impressive are Congar, Rahner, and (the infamous Bp. Remi) de Roo.
    – he takes no note of the service Msgr. Wiltgen worked on at the Council
    – he fails to report the shameful incident with Car. Ottaviani’s microphone, even though he discusses at some length the cot-off times for statements
    – takes some cheap shots at (for one) Bp. Sheen

    It was worth reading, for context. I did have to force myself, because after the first few pages, his perspective was pretty obvious. Overall, his observations seem uncritical; the book is a memoir, but hardly an impartial report.