Interesting observations about that Council

24 Comments

1. plemmen says:

   5 May 2012 at 8:30 AM

   He bought into the lie about the UN, that it existed to foster peace instead of international Marxism, of the false doctrine of “fairness”, of collectivism instead of individual responsibility.
2. Supertradmum says:

   5 May 2012 at 10:00 AM

   I think this good Pope was a bit naive about not only the United Nations and the governments’ works on food, but the Marxism, modernism and even Protestantism, which were already in the seminaries and Churches, especially in America. The heresy of Americanism has never been dealt with sufficiently, even to this day, which is one reason why there is a schism in the American Church already. That this good man did not see all the pitfalls and problems may or may not be his fault. A Pope like him relies on advisers. That he allowed others rather than Catholics into the meetings and let those men look and comment on the constitutions is a fact which caused some of the resulting abuses after the council.

   And, this is the biggest question which I have regarding the secretary’s memory. If the Council is pastoral and not doctrinal, can we then either ignore or change the offending four documents; that is the vague ones, which the SSPX has been criticizing since then?
3. mrsmontoya says:

   5 May 2012 at 10:55 AM

   Thank you.
4. Dismas says:

   5 May 2012 at 12:20 PM

   What better way to counter councils of the spirit of the world than with a council of our Church? Few things do I find more amusing and naive than the ‘spirit of VCII’ thesis promulgated for example, by the leadership of the LCWR than it’s radical antithetical mirror image framed in comments like this:

   “I think this good Pope was a bit naive about not only the United Nations and the governments’ works on food, but the Marxism, modernism and even Protestantism, which were already in the seminaries and Churches, especially in America. The heresy of Americanism has never been dealt with sufficiently, even to this day, which is one reason why there is a schism in the American Church already. That this good man did not see all the pitfalls and problems may or may not be his fault. A Pope like him relies on advisers. That he allowed others rather than Catholics into the meetings and let those men look and comment on the constitutions is a fact which caused some of the resulting abuses after the council.

   And, this is the biggest question which I have regarding the secretary’s memory. If the Council is pastoral and not doctrinal, can we then either ignore or change the offending four documents; that is the vague ones, which the SSPX has been criticizing since then?”
5. Father Bartoloma says:

   5 May 2012 at 2:16 PM

   Very Italian – LOL. Reminds me of my classes at the Pontifical Gregorian University, a lot of verbiage and drama but in the end, you realize that the questions really weren’t answered and wonder what the point actually was.

   Looks good for 97!
6. robtbrown says:

   5 May 2012 at 2:50 PM

   Supertradmum,

   There was an interview some years ago with either Bro Roger or Fr Max Thurian of Taize’. He said that at his last meeting with JXXIII, the pope started to cry and said that he had been misunderstood and that the opportune time for his ministry as pope had passed.

   JXXIII realized that a certain era had come to an end. He knew that the Counter Reformation Church had run out of steam, but he didn’t know what should replace it. He thought that VII would provide the answer.

   I don’t buy everything that Malachi Martin wrote, but I did think he was right when he said that JXXIII knew he was gambling when he called the Council and also knew that his gamble had failed. And PVI also knew it.
7. Supertradmum says:

   5 May 2012 at 3:35 PM

   robtbrown. I am astounded. I love this Pope more than ever, as obviously he suffered. It must be very hard to manage all the men who are in the hierarchy, and things happened so fast after WWI in philosophy and theology, with the hardening of modernism, communism and socialism in the universities of Europe, including some seminaries, that even a Pope would have trouble seeing all the difficulties.

   I think Paul VI is saintly because of Humanae Vitae. I think we have been fortunate in our Popes, but we have not been so fortunate in our cardinals, bishops and priests. So, we were warned by Our Lady of Fatima that priests would apostasize. So it happened, and John XXIII could not stop that. The rot had set in during the 1930s and the Church was left vulnerable, as the shepherds left their posts. We need the SSPX more than ever. We must trust in God, but it is painful.
8. Rich says:

   5 May 2012 at 4:25 PM

   I find this video incredibly informative and interesting. I look forward to the future installments. Thanks for posting this, Fr. Z.!
9. albizzi says:

   5 May 2012 at 4:37 PM

   Hereunder is how Franco Bellegrandi spoke about Mgr Loris Capovilla:

   “(The Pope’s) secretary, carefully picked in the pack of those open to Marxism, is a frail, neurotic-looking priest, a certain Don Loris Capovilla, whose scarcely known credential is a brother, a communist cell-head from Mestre, right there, a stone’s throw from Venice (the diocese of Mgr Roncalli). Therefore warmly recommended to Roncalli directly by the PCI (Italian Communist party). This priest, consumed by progressive fanaticism, will be made bishop by Paul VI”.
   His way of running the diocese of Chieti, of which he is put in charge, embitters that clergy to the point that he will soon have to be transferred to Loreto. Here, the former secretary of John XXIII finds this ancient Sanctuary too triumphalist – the Italian Lourdes – to his progressive taste, and thus he orders that the decors be dismantled, starting with the precious glowing lamps that crowned the high altar, which he has sawed up, to make room for the little table-altar of the novel liturgy, leaving not even the window of the House of Mary untouched. But someone files a claim with the Soprintendenza ai Monumenti (Italy’s art works conservation agency), and the hand of the iconoclast is fortunately stopped on time.”

   … Not exactly the man I would recommend our Holy Father in the case he needs a new secretary.
10. David Werling says:

    5 May 2012 at 5:00 PM

    He’s painting a picture of an egomaniac. What other council was called to make the pope feel good about himself?
11. chcrix says:

    5 May 2012 at 6:00 PM

    Well…. if it was pastoral, there can’t be much to argue about, can there?

    OTOH the results seem to be doctrinal but with plausible deniability.

    Many times I will hear something to the effect that it is wrong to criticize JXXIII’s judgment – after all he was the Pope. I always counter with – Yes, JXXIII thought a council would be a good idea. His predecessor PXII thought it was a very bad idea. Of the two men, I think PXII was the more astute observer.

    Even at this remove in time, I can’t really name something that came out of V-II that I thought was of real value to the Church. Certainly, nothing that could not have been done by the Pope on his own initiative. Indeed, while some Church problems of today are the same as those from before the council, many of the problems are the result of “blowback” from the solutions imposed in the name of the Council.

    So, did any good come of it at all?
12. Dismas says:

    5 May 2012 at 6:40 PM

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201848.htm

    In the CNS article, ‘At 96, Blessed John XXIII’s secretary tells tales of his famous boss,’ was the first line in the second to last paragraph necessary to the article’s content or a biased journalistic flourish, especially in contrast to the very next and last paragraph quoting Archbishop Capovilla about Blessed John XXIII’s conservatism?

    …”For all the changes that Blessed John ushered into the church, and notwithstanding arguments that his reign marked a radical break with the past”…

    “Precisely because he was a great conservative,” the archbishop says, “he was able to bring the world a message of love, of hope and of faith.
13. robtbrown says:

    5 May 2012 at 7:00 PM

    chcrix says:

    Many times I will hear something to the effect that it is wrong to criticize JXXIII’s judgment – after all he was the Pope. I always counter with – Yes, JXXIII thought a council would be a good idea. His predecessor PXII thought it was a very bad idea.

    Pius XII didn’t think a council was a bad idea, but the war and its aftermath militated against calling one.
14. Fr. Frank says:

    5 May 2012 at 8:44 PM

    Fr. Bartoloma,

    I very much agree with you. Long on “agita,” short on content.
15. Legisperitus says:

    5 May 2012 at 9:13 PM

    Since this is CNS interviewing him, I assume they won’t ask him anything about Fatima…
16. MPSchneiderLC says:

    6 May 2012 at 8:45 AM

    I think we need to look at what Vatican II really brought and what the “[False] Spirit of Vatican II” brought. Vatican II clarified the sacramental nature of episcopal ordination, gave us a lectionary with 5 to 6 times the percentage of the Bible, clarified the relationship of Scripture and Tradition in Dei Verbum, improved the nature of spiritual direction, etc. The “[false] spirit” obviously wreched havoc but it might have come as “the Spirit of Star Trek” anyways (it is about as related to Vatican II as it is to Star Trek) .
17. ContraMundum says:

    6 May 2012 at 8:55 AM

    I can’t imagine Vulcans using puppets in their liturgies.
18. robtbrown says:

    6 May 2012 at 9:30 AM

    MPSchneiderLC says:

    I think we need to look at what Vatican II really brought and what the “[False] Spirit of Vatican II” brought. Vatican II clarified the sacramental nature of episcopal ordination, gave us a lectionary with 5 to 6 times the percentage of the Bible, clarified the relationship of Scripture and Tradition in Dei Verbum, improved the nature of spiritual direction, etc.

    There are good things in Vat II, but two Cardinals (Koenig and Enrique y Tarancón) in separate inviews in the 90’s said that Sacrosanctum Concilium is not very good. And of course, it is well known that Cardinal Ratzinger warned against using Gaudium et Spes (a Vat II document) as the hermeneutic for reading the documents.
19. robtbrown says:

    6 May 2012 at 9:42 AM

    One other point about Vat II: It is often said that a distinction must be made between what the documents say and what happened afterwards. I don’t deny that is so, but what happened afterwards, at least in liturgy but also in other areas, was usually a consequence of the post Vat II commissions formed to implement the documents. Members of these commissions were appointed by the pope.

    And so in a juridical sense, what happened afterwards can also has to attributed to Vat II.
20. albizzi says:

    6 May 2012 at 2:59 PM

    Robtbrown, you are right.
    That is the very reason why Pope Pius XII who for a while had considered to call a council eventually gave up this idea because he knew well that the modernists who actually were taking a growing control over a lot of things in the Church under his reign would certainly take over a council in a subversive way like this happened during VATII and after.
21. robtbrown says:

    6 May 2012 at 7:09 PM

    Albizzi,

    No, that’s not what I said. My understanding is that it had nothing to do with Modernism. Preparation for a Council takes time, and Papa Pacelli was occupied with WWII and its aftermath (incl Soviet Communism).

    Keep in mind that if VatII had been called in, say, 1950, Fr Garrigou LaGrange was still in his prime. He would have dominated the theology of the Council. And there were others, incl. Fr Santiago Ramirez.
22. Dismas says:

    6 May 2012 at 9:57 PM

    I’d love to know the details surrounding the events of previous councils throughout history. Are we to assume the same kinds of controversies, schisms and intrigue didn’t surround previous councils as well?
23. MPSchneiderLC says:

    9 May 2012 at 11:14 AM

    robtbrown says:
    There are good things in Vat II, but two Cardinals (Koenig and Enrique y Tarancón) in separate inviews in the 90?s said that Sacrosanctum Concilium is not very good. And of course, it is well known that Cardinal Ratzinger warned against using Gaudium et Spes (a Vat II document) as the hermeneutic for reading the documents.

    The magisterium is always the final word on interpretation. The heurmeneutic is always a heurmenuetic of continuity which I think the bishop expressed well. Just like you can’t take one line of Romans “Saved by faith” and use it as the heurmeneutic for the rest of the Bible…

    Many other Cardinals have said that SC was good; I think we will only be able to judge t once we are dead. I focused on something clearly good – more Biblical readings – and not an issue of how you interpret it (is vernacular at every moment in the mind of the Church, unfortunate abuses people claim come from it). I don’t have an axe to grind either way and have read it but would not consider myself sufficiently fluent to compare with other cardinals.
24. wmeyer says:

    9 May 2012 at 11:22 AM

    I think the difficulty in the documents of the Council lies in lack of specificity. SC contains a great deal of good, but in articles 37-40, which in context appear to have been meant for application to mission lands, there is no language to limit the region of their application. These are, to my mind, at least, the critical items in what was done to the liturgy immediately after the Council.

Comments are closed.