Today, the French Catholic website, Riposte Catholique, made reference to Tradinews, another French Catholic website, which published an important 1966 confidential letter written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and then sent by him to all the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences in the world.
After our contacting the editors of Tradinews in order to find out more information about this letter, they kindly and promptly sent us a direct reference to the letter on the Vatican website. By means of this letter, Cardinal Ottaviani attempted to forestall the further spreading of erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, only ONE year after its formal ending! This letter is thus significant because it shows that the doctrinal confusion had started to spread right after the formal closing of the council.
Cardinal Ottaviani had every reason to be concerned since he had been fighting during the entirety of the council proceedings for the preservation of the entire Catholic Faith in its integrity. As The Washington Post tendentiously (and progressively) put it in 1979, upon his death:
He [Cardinal Ottaviani] bitterly opposed the efforts of Pope John XXIII in calling the Second Vatican Council to Modernize the church and was the leader and strategist for the most conservative forces in the church once the council got under way. […]
More than once the cardinal clashed with progressive bishops on the floor of the council in his opposition to modernizing trends, such as authorizing mass in the language of the people or breaking down the centuries-old walls of separation between Catholic and other Christian churches.
When most of the decisions went against him, he used his vast influence in the Roman Curia – the church’s central administrative body – to delay as long as possible implementing them.
Sometimes this tactic backfired. In 1967, he issued an order that Catholics were not to join with Protestants in special prayer services for Christian unity – activities that were well within the guidelines laid down by Vatican II. Many bishops already had given their approval for such services.
Pope Paul VI learned about the controversy and countermanded Cardinal Ottaviani’s order.
Cardinal Ottaviani opposed the council decision allowing translation of the mass from Latin into the language of the people, and at one time gave powerful Curia backing to an American priest [not identified] who started a movement to preserve the Latin mass.
Cardinal Ottaviani is the author (along with Cardinal Antonio Bacci) of the 1969 cri de coeur concerning the Novus Ordo Mass known colloquially as the “Ottaviani Intervention” — a commentary which is still very worthwhile to consider. For example, it presents us with these concluding words:
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
It is also of worth to remember that it was already very shortly after the beginning of the Second Vatican Council that Cardinal Ottaviani was himself being silenced, according to a report by Dr. Robert Moynihan (Dr. Moynihan’s full report is currently not available on the Internet. However, he was kind enough to send me the full text from which I now quote here below.). In 2012, Dr. Moynihan had met with the Catholic theologian Monsignor Brunero Gherardini. Moynihan thus reports:
Then I asked [Monsignor Gherardini] about the Council. Whenever I think about the Council, I said, I always have one image in my mind: an aging Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, now blind, about age 80, limping, the head of the Holy Office and so the chief doctrinal officer of the Church, born in Trastevere to parents who had many children, so a Roman from Rome, from the people of Rome, takes the microphone to speak to the 2,000 assembled bishops. And, as he speaks, pleading for the bishops to consider the texts the curia has spent three years preparing, suddenly his microphone was shut off. He kept speaking, but no one could hear a word. Then, puzzled and flustered, he stopped speaking, in confusion. And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer…
“Yes,” Gherardini said. “And it was only the third day.”
“What?” I said.
“Ottaviani’s microphone was turned off on the third day of the Council.”
“On the third day?” I said. “I didn’t know that. I thought it was later, in November, after the progressive group became more organized…”
“No, it was the third day, October 13, 1962. The Council began on October 11.”
“Do you know who turned off the microphone?”
“Yes,” he said. “It was Cardinal Lienart of Lille, France.”
“But then,” I said, “it could almost be argued, perhaps, that such a breech of protocol, making it impossible for Ottaviani to make his arguments, somehow renders what came after, well, in a certain sense, improper…”
“Some people make that argument,” Gherardini replied.
As can be seen from this description of this prelate’s fight, Cardinal Ottaviani did all he could to defend Catholic doctrinal tradition. In the following, we shall therefore present his 1966 letter in its fullness for the thoughtful reflection of our readers concerning the questions that Ottaviani raised as being especially pertinent and also dangerous.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences
regarding some sentences and errors arising
from the interpretation of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council
Since the recent successful conclusion of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, many wise Documents have been promulgated, both in doctrinal and disciplinary matters, in order to efficaciously promote the life of the Church. All of the people of God are bound by the grave duty to strive with all diligence to put into effect all that has been solemnly proposed or decreed, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the universal assembly of the bishops presided over by the Supreme Pontiff.
It is the right and duty of the Hierarchy to monitor, guide, and promote the movement of renewal begun by the Council, so that the conciliar Documents and Decrees are properly interpreted and implemented with the utmost fidelity to their merit and their spirit. This doctrine, in fact, must be defended by the bishops, since they, with Peter as their Head, have the duty to teach with authority. Many Pastors have admirably already begun to explain the relevance of the doctrine of the Council.
Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged with sorrow that unfortunate news has been reported from various areas about abuses regarding the interpretation of the conciliar doctrine that are taking hold, as well as some brazen opinions circulating here and there causing great disturbance among the faithful. The studies and efforts to investigate the truth more profoundly are praiseworthy, especially when distinguishing honestly between that which is central to the faith and that which is open to opinion. But some of the documents examined by this Sacred Congregation contain affirmations which easily go beyond the limits of hypothesis or simple opinion, appearing to raise certain questions regarding the dogmas and fundamentals of the faith.
It is worthwhile to draw attention to some examples of these opinions and errors that have arisen both from the reports of competent persons and in published writings.
1) First of all regarding Sacred Revelation itself: There are some, in fact, who appeal to Sacred Scripture while deliberately leaving aside Tradition. But they then restrict the role and the strength of biblical inspiration and its inerrancy, abandoning a just notion of the true value of the historical texts.
2) In regards to the doctrine of the faith, some affirm that dogmatic formulas are subject to historical evolution even to the point that their objective meaning is susceptible to change.
3) The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, particularly that of the Roman Pontiff, is sometimes neglected and diminished, until it is relegated almost to the sphere of a mere opinion.
4) Some almost refuse to acknowledge truth that is objective, absolute, stable, and immutable, submitting everything to a certain relativism, with the pretext that every truth necessarily follows an evolutionary rhythm according to conscience and history.
5) The venerated Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ is called into question when, in the elaboration of the doctrines of Christology, certain concepts are used to describe his nature and his person though they are difficult to reconcile with that which has been dogmatically defined. A certain Christological humanism is twisted such that Christ is reduced to the condition of an ordinary man who, at a certain point, acquired a consciousness of his divinity as Son of God. The virginal birth, miracles, and the resurrection itself are admitted only as concepts, reduced to a purely natural order.
6) Similarly in sacramental theology, some elements are either ignored or are not taken into account, especially with regard to the Eucharist. There are some who talk about the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine as a kind of exaggerated symbolism, as though, the power of transubstantiation does not change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but simply invests them with a determined significance. There are those who, when considering the Mass, insist too much on the concept of agape love at the expense of the concept of Sacrifice.
7) Some would explain the Sacrament of Penance as a means of reconciliation with the Church, not expressing sufficiently the concept of reconciliation with God who has been offended. They affirm simply that in the celebration of this Sacrament it is not necessary to accuse oneself of sin, striving to express only the social function of reconciliation with the Church.
8) Some consider of little account the doctrine of the Council of Trent regarding original sin, or explain it in a way that at least obfuscates the original fault of Adam and the transmission of his sin.
9) The errors in the field of moral theology are no less trivial. Some, in fact, dare to reject the objective criteria of morality, while others do not acknowledge the natural law, preferring instead to advocate for the legitimacy of so-called situational ethics. Deleterious opinions are spread about morality and responsibility in the areas of sexuality and marriage.
10) In addition, it is necessary to comment about ecumenism. The Apostolic See praises, undoubtedly, those who promote initiatives, in the spirit of the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism, that foster charity toward our separated brothers and to draw them to unity in the Church. However, it is regrettable that some interpret the conciliar Decree in their own terms, proposing an ecumenical action that offends the truth about the unity of the faith and of the Church, fostering a pernicious irenicism [the error of creating a false unity among different Churches] and an indifferentism entirely alien to the mind of the Council.
These pernicious errors, scattered variously throughout the world, are recounted in this letter only in summary form for the local Ordinaries so that each one, according to his function and office, can strive to eradicate or hinder them.
This Sacred Dicastery fervently urges the same Ordinaries, gathered in their Episcopal Conferences, to take up this point of discussion and report back to the Holy See as appropriate, sending their own opinions before Christmas of this year.
The Ordinaries as well as those others who they reasonably choose to consult regarding this letter, are to keep it strictly confidential, since obvious reasons of prudence discourage its publication.
Rome, July 24, 1966.
Cardinal A. Ottaviani
Only one year after the 1966 publication of this Ottaviani letter – in mid-July of 1967 – Pope Paul VI quietly withdrew – and effectively canceled and abolished – the Oath against Modernism, which had been first established by Pope Saint Pius X.
UPDATE, 19 August: Dr. Moynihan told me that Monsignor Gheradini, who is now quite elderly, might have been mistaken about the date of the event of when the microphone was turned off. Let us thus consult Professor Roberto de Mattei’s book The Second Vatican Council (an unwritten story). On page 220, he states: “When Cardinal Ottaviani exceeded his ten minutes, Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding over the session, rang the bell, but the speaker continued to talk. Alfrink then gave the order to shut off the microphone and the floor was taken away from Ottaviani. For the prefect of the “Suprema” [the head of the Holy Office] this was an unexpected humiliation in front of the whole conciliar assembly. Part of the assembly applauded. Bishop Helder Camara saw in that applause the emergence of ‘the spirit of the council.'” [my emphasis] This event took place on 30 October, and Ottaviani had asked to speak because he earnestly wanted to critique, even then, the proposals to modify the rite of the Mass.
Earlier, on 13 October, Cardinal Achille Lienart had taken a lead at the council which was against the rule. As de Mattei writes on p. 178: “At the opening of the session, however, there was an unexpected scene: Cardinal Achille Lienart, archbishop of Lille, one of the nine presidents of the assembly, addressed Cardinal Tisserant, who was presiding over the proceedings, in a low voice in these words: ‘Your Eminence, it is really impossible to vote this way, without knowing anything about the most qualified candidates. If you allow me, I ask to take the floor.’ ‘Impossible,’ Tisserant replied. ‘The order of the day does not provide for any debate. We are meeting simply to vote; I cannot give you the floor.’ […] But the archbishop of Lille, not satisfied, grabbed the microphone and read a text stating that the fathers were not yet acquainted with the possible candidates and that it was necessary to consult the national conferences before being able to vote for the commissions.” [my emphasis]
Thus it remains that 13 October was a crucial day in the history of the Second Vatican Council and that Cardinal Ottaviani was indeed cut off from speaking at the microphone, thus being humiliated. Whereas a professedly progressive prelate was permitted without any rebuke to “grab” the microphone and to take the floor, a more traditional-minded prelate’s microphone was abruptly shut off.
We thank Dr. Moynihan and Professor de Mattei for their clarifications.
I remember well Cardinal Ottaviani being vilified by my priest religion teacher in high school a year after “the” council. Said “educator,” a child of the sixties, long ago defected from the priesthood in order to become a psychologist and is now an advanced geriatric case. Of course, his doctoral studies were done on the dime of the faithful. Degree in hand he was off to his new
career and a wife.
Pull the plug, they did, in order to debase, degrade, demean, distract, and disarm to defeat their “brother in Christ.”
Edifying.
Then they didn’t have to listen. Those council fathers could laugh.
I wonder if those ecclesiastical “wisdom figures,” stuck in protracted adolescence, are laughing in eternity.
Today the episcopate is shouting so loud about mercy, humility and accusing the faithful of being Pharisees and rigorists they don’t have much time for laughing. Although Cardinal Dolan can produce a ho-ho-ho on a dime.
Cardinal Ottaviani has been vindicated. Rest in peace, good father, and pray for us.
There is a beatification I’d like to see pursued. Not as dramatic as being shot by a Latin American goon squad, but being stabbed in the back by your confreres in the episcopate and living the faith faithfully for seventeen years afterward has some gravitas, and does require a degree of heroic virtue.
But who needs virtue? After all, it’s all relative.
After the Ottaviani Intervention how smug my Catholic teachers were…
A
CHILD
OF THE
SIXTIES
(or “fool me once, shame on you”)
Daily Mass
In uniformed plaid
Then suddenly
Adults went mad
Priests danced round
Nuns turned hip
Fathers, mothers
All jumped ship
Michael rowed
His boat ashore
Through the Sanctuary
Door
Simoned-sermons
Garfunked too
Jesus loves you
Coo-ka-choo
Jesus Christ
Superstar
God is dead
So who You are?
Morning pills
Eat the Bread
Grace Slicked-souls
Will feed your head
All were Virgins
Female Ghost
Solitary
Feminist boast
Tell what’s happening
What’s the buzz
Bishops do
What never was
But one Bishop
Stood up straight
Great man-Mitred
Gainst Hell’s gate
Great man-Mitred
Took the Cross
Plugged the hole
To stop Priest loss
And to this day
Green fields, no dream
From Catholic families
Vocations stream
And along the
River banks they line
Rosaries in hand
For both Tiber and Rhine
We believe in God
The Virgin…the Creed
If this flow continues
Your waters will bleed
But not with Christ’s
Most Precious Blood…
A mitred-muck
Of sin-scabbed mud!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87c9727113e50a8c312e38b5b8003020019c8257f18640579db2cbb7cd86c3f2.jpg
You are a treasure.
You “hit every note” perfectly. The internal contradiction, the absurdity of what has transpired, is at once both comic and extraordinarily tragic.
You captured it.
Thank you. Keep supporting the True Catholic priests to help preserve the WHOLE Faith and pray the Rosary daily.
This is my favorite stanza, brilliant, and those of us who know the song you reference know why! 🙂
Simoned-sermons
Garfunked too
Jesus loves you
Coo-ka-choo
1968 I was enrolled in our Parish CCD classes at night as my parents were sending me to the public high school as the Catholic high school I was attending started having guitar Masses in the classroom and giving us some pretty indecent sex ed. classes. The CCD classes were taught by Seminarians who were already being indoctrinated by the modernists, etc. and at my 2nd class the Seminarian played the song “Mrs. Robinson” by Simon & Garfunkel. Then he asked us “Why do you think Simon & Garfunkel wrote this song, that Jesus loved her?” “You gotta be kidding me.” I thought. I wasn’t the best Catholic, then, as I had snuck out with friends to see the movie, against my parents wishes, and knew what they were talking about but, really….what? I thought! C’mon, Mrs. Robinson was an adulteress! The Seminarian called on me to answer as I knew I was frowning and making faces. “Why did they write that Jesus loved Mrs. Robinson?” he asked me personally. All I could answer, honestly, was ….. “to make money.” I was sent out of the room and made to stand in the hallway for the rest of the class. Thank you Jesus!!! Never went back. 😉
I think I was there.
My “religious educator” had us watch “La Dolce Vita” when it was on the “Million Dollar Movie.”
Just as now, they see their “gospel” written on bathroom walls.
But who am I to judge?
I would like to know who put out the order to rip out the altars. Someone had to greenlight it, but I have never heard a name. This was the real beginning of the shredding of the faith of the children still in school, such as myself. I can’t remember a single religion class/catechism class past the second grade and that was even before the council had finished. We were suddenly getting a new church built and the altar that went in never faced the crucifix. This was before 1965. Does anyone know who said to face the people? I’d really like to know. God bless this poor man’s soul. He must surely be in heaven and I also would like to see a cause for beatification begin for him.
I meant Cdl. Ottaviani’s soul. Wasn’t very clear.
I did wonder to begin with….!! Your post mirrors my inability to remember later religious lessons in my teens, which never seemed to be about the Faith. I was ‘lucky’ in junior school. I don’t think Modernism had reached the schools I went to earlier.
Just as in the political order the root of the evil we are seeing playing out around the world has its origins in a progressivism that masqueraded as benign concern from before the time of the French Revolution through to Woodrow Wilson, and beyond, so the roots of the evil we are seeing in the religious order have their origin in years far earlier than VII. There is no way that a Cardinal would be made to be a laughing stock by his peers “overnight” rather, it takes a long time to erode decency sufficient for an entire body of hoped-to-be holy men to mock and degrade as was done to Cardinal O. I do not think we take seriously enough the depths and breadth of the cancer that is unleashed amongst us, whether in the secular or the religious order. Thank you, as always, Maike, for your goodness and your efforts to foster this understanding.
Blessed Pius IX attempted, unsuccessfully, to keep these ‘reformist’ elements at bay when he issued his Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X conceded in ‘Pascendi ….’ that it was too late to ‘bolt the door becaus ethe enemy was, by that time, firmly entrenched within. In1923, within one year of his election, Pope Pius XI sought the advice of his closest curial cardinals re – the desirability of a Council of the Church. The proposal was unanimously rejected on the grounds that it would inevitably be hijacked by the modernists. But it would have been glaringly obvious that merely denying them their opportunity at that time would not forestall them indfinitely. So, it can be reasonably argued that Vatican II was vitally necessary for the ultimate good of the Church. The wreckers, the neo-protestants and the heretics emerged from the shadows into the clear light of day to pursue their nefarious agenda with seeming impunity. It is Bergoglio’s appointed role to preside over the climax of this greatest ever crisis in the history of the Church. And in that regard, he’s the ideal man for the job. This ‘church in their own image and likeness; this whole rotten edifice which they have so energetically constructed, cannot possibly endure for very much longer. Its foundations are a festering swamp, and it must surely come crashing down upon them very soon. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us: St. Athanasius, pray for us: Pope St Pius V, pray for us: Pope St. Pius X, pray for us: Cardinal Ottaviani, pray for us: and …. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us.
Archbishop Lefebvre was the real author of The Ottaviani Intervention. He went around asking various Cardinals if they would support it. However, word leaked out and only two Cardinals – Ottaviani and Bacci – actually signed and supported the intervention. Because of his rank, it was named The Ottaviani Intervention.
An interesting point of history. How widely known is this among those who are familiar with the Ottaviani Intervention?
I really don’t know. If I remember right, it’s in the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bishop de Mallerais. I have to check my books at home (I’m on lunch now at work).
A dozen or so Cardinals were supposed to sign it but chickened out in the end.
Conclave in October? Can it produce a worse Pope than Bergoglio or will we see the triumph of the Immaculata?
Maybe I belong firmly in the ‘terminally naive’ category, but I simply cannot foresee the elevation of Bergoglio 2.0 The crisis is now almost at its zenith, and another conclave resulting in ‘business as usual’ would have to be highly improbable. The divisions are now deeper than the Grand Canyon.
One thing that I had read of this deplorable incident is that after the microphone was switched off, the elderly saintly Cardinal stumbled back to his seat fighting back tears amid the jeers etc. He was also nearly totally blind at the time. So, like James, I call for his beatification but it’s unlikely to happen in this present time. A wonderful and loyal Prince of the Church!
Yes, today’s Church would canonise Cardinal Lienart of Lille.
I apologize for being out of the topic, but you might be interested in the latest estimation of Međugorje done by the deputy of the Holy See, Archbishop Hoser:
“In any event, this movement will not stop and should not be stopped, because of the good fruit that grows out of it,” Hoser said. “It is one of the most alive places of prayer and conversion in Europe – and has a healthy spirituality.”
He said that the first 7 apparitions will be approved, because ‘it’s difficult to believe that six seers would lie for 36 years’. So I see no logic in that statement. Either they are telling the truth and apparitions are right, or indeed they contain boat load of heresies and should be condemned. What are those first 7 messages? Are we to conclude that first 7 are okay and the rest should be condemned? Or are they little by little trying to approve someone who is not Mary with ‘small vicories’?
He stated:”My mission was not to make a judgement on Medjugorje, but to evaluate whether the pastoral ministry was proper and consistent with the doctrine and teaching of the Church” and it is/was not. Just look up satanist Fr. Tomislav Vlasic for whom the ‘apparition’ said was doing a great job in leading the visionaries. And that’s your ‘first impulse’?
Pastoral ministry was indeed proper and consistent with being disobedient all these years to the local bishops.
In good will I have tried to explain that one needs to look at Međugorje with deeper knowledge regardung the state of society, with prudence and with the eyes of the Faith, not with the eyes of the Teachers of the Law and sensation seeker.
I am trully sorry that you still don’t understand a thing about Međugorje, yet you continu to twist the words and thoughts of the Archbishop Hoser so you can continue to judge spititual and religious phenomena with your superficial “black or white” measure and hardened heart, believing that “you got it right”.
I guess some people will never be able to understand Međugorje, not because they can’t but because they don’t want to.
Sorry Kora, I don’t seem to have as “deep knowledge” as you obviously, and my eyes are only following what “teachers of the Law” aka Doctors of the Church stated for the apparitions. Once you realize that apparitions are not judged by how you feel, the sooner you will realize the real fruits of Medjugorje:
True private revelations contain no theological errors, nor any doctrines contrary to the Church Teaching. I hope I don’t have to go into ‘all religions are the same’ nonsense again.
True private revelations have purpose, and they often show knowledge of the future. If those first 7 messages are true, what are they and what is the purpose of them? Can you, and I seriously ask you this refer me to them?
Don’t even get me started on how once they mistakenly sawed satan, and ‘apparition’ apologized about that.
Can you tell me what words did I twist? He stated exactly what I quoted. Read it here: https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/08/19/vatican-delegate-every-indication-medjugorje-will-recognized-perhaps-later-year/
And let’s not forget the famous flinch and explanation for that. Please check the moment at 2 minutes and 2 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPDRbO_qJ7g&t=130s
List is not exhaustive, but there are so many red flags you want me to overlook with the “eyes of the Faith.” As Catholics, we don’t sacrifice the truth at the altar of good feelings!
I would never equal the Teachers of the Law with the Doctors of the Church, but I guess this is some kind of “privat revelation” to you.
Thanks be to God that the final word about both Međugorje and privat revelations have the Doctors of the Church indeed, and not the lay people.
“Thanks be to God that the final word about both Međugorje and private revelations have the Doctors of the Church indeed.”
Discern everything and see if it stands in accordance to Catholic Tradition (and Medjugorje does not). If a lukewarm catholic that does not want to learn about faith follows what the good amount of current ‘doctors’, including the pope say about Eucharist in relation to unrepented adulterers, they will perish if stay in that state if not confessed and converted.
Why do you go there and not to the nearest Traditional Catholic Mass? Why do you have to ‘feel’? Why couldn’t you just believe?
And why can’t you read what I write?
Btw, you have scolded people in Međugorje for not being obediant to the Bishop, and now you are saying that is acceptable not to be obediant to the Doctors of the Church.
What you are saying makes no sense.
Btw, how much do you know about this very Bishop that people in Međugorje didn’t follow? Is it so hard to figure out how much is 2+2?
Kora, what I am saying should make perfect sense to you. You are expected to be obedient in all things, but sin. Since many things after VII are not in according to the Tradition, they are against God. Obedience to God overrules obedience to obedience to bishop, and it is indeed the time of great discernment. Therefore, as Pius IX said: “If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” Or better yet: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Gal 1,8
And brother whether you like it or not, whether the truth is hard or not- AL, along with plenty of VII is contrary to Catholic Tradition, and future formal correction and according steps will rip the Church in two; the army of God in Tradition and army worldly VII enemies of God.
Bishop Peric after careful examination concluded that apparitions are not of Mary, and that is with overwhelming evidence to enough for me. Let’s say he is wrong (and he isn’t) I am not sinning by not accepting the private revelation, although I would be foolish to not accept something as Fatima or Lourdes or La Sallate, etc.
“Moreover, which part of the only authentic message from Međugorje (change yourself and return to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Our Saviour, truly present in the Holy Eucharist) or the real and visible fruits of Međugorje (confession, Adoration, Holy Mass, Bible reading, fast, Holy Rosary, healings, strong faith, peace, conversions) doesn’t stand in accordance to the Catholic Tradition?”
Not the 95% truth that is obvious, but rather 5% of cleverly put poison that kills the soul, that I explained on numerous occasions and therefore I fully reject it as diabolical.
Why do you need Medjugorje for the good 95%? Do you not know that is expected from you? Can you again tell me what are those 7 messages about that I need Medjuogrje for?
And you don’t need to explain the political situation to me, I am a Croat that has been to Medjugorje.
After everything I have said, you still blindly stick to the “7 messages” and visions, defending the Bishop Perić as reliable measure, and claiming that you know enough because you are Croat? Wow!
The more I read what the “perfect 100% Catholic faithful” attending “the perfect 100% Holy Mass in Latin” instead of the “unperfect Novus Ordo Mass” are saying and how they are behaving “in the name of the perfect veneration of God”, the more I believe that it is acctually them who became a real danger for the Catholic Church, attributing to themselves the role of “perfect judge”. However, the Catholicism has nothing to do with “100% perfect” people for they don’t exist. Moreover, those people who truly dicern can easily recognize trouble and avoid it by rejecting what’s wrong, yet keeping what is benefitial. But the “perfect 100% Catholic” can’t do that so he rejects everything that is not according his “perfect 100% approach” to the Faith and the people. There is no dicerment or prudance in what you do for it is pure “black or what” world ruled by the rigidity of words and laws, instead by the true Love, true Faith and true Wisdom.
Međugorje reflects the reality of the Church after the VII, and it is a nonsense to compare it with Lourde or La Salette, trying to put it in the context of other places, historical periods and their reality. No anthropologist would ever do such a thing for there are firm reasons why it is a totally misleading approach. Only “100% perfect Catholic” is doing that. Fine.
Otherwise, though Međugorje just as the Catholic Church needs more time to sort out the problems of the VII misinterpretations and questionable charismatic practice, there is no doubt that it has its Catholic purpose closely related to Our Lord and salvation of the souls. That is why Our Lady will keep protecting Međugorje from the both, the fake messages and visions, and the “100% perfect Catholics”.
I was claiming I know of the enough of the political situation because I am Croat, and enough to discern not because I am 100% perfect Catholic, but because I only follow what the church has always taught as far as apparitions and Faith in general. If I am rigid, ‘doctor of the law’, of hardened heart, neo-palagian, and anything along those lines I wonder where you got those insults from. I think we know well. You are not naïve as you present yourself to be. And you have the need to spread this false devotion like it is the only thing that matters.
What is the dubious thing said at Fatima you have problem with? Can’t you separate the messages and all that you have problem with like you do with Medjugorje if it bothers you?
I do think in worldwide sanctuaries where TLM is offered, people do not stomp on the Lord (Communion in hand) and heresy is not preached surely (if any) to the extent of the Modernists.
It amazes me that you have such zeal for something that is supposedly of Our Lady, but hey it isn’t the messages (because that is your personal criterion) for you know there are words from depths of hell that are spoken in some of them.
“is a nonsense to compare it with Lourdes or La Salette, trying to put it in the context of other places, historical periods, societies and their realities”
Only in the world where hermeutic of continuity exists or in the world where some bishops say the pope cannot err if he preaches contra Tradition. That is the same world that ‘apparition’ claims what it started in Fatima will finish in Medjugorje (August 25th, 1991). Oh, I forgot this one should be overlooked, because it is not in the first 7 messages. I honestly think you would elevate Medjugorje above Sacrifice at the (true) Mass.
In your essay, will you finally after multiple requests if you find room please tell me what I get at Medjugorje that I cannot get at closest TLM, except that fuzzy feeling that sensation seekers nowadays cannot be entertained without?
Sto ja imam of Medjugorja, a da nemam na Misi, hocete li mi konacno reci??
First of all, I do not pretend to be naive nor do I intend to spread false messages of Međugorje. I come here to read, learn and discuss whatever I find as the Catholich phenomenon or problem: be it the the Holy Mass, the Sacraments, the wrong practices, the abducation of the Pope Benedict XVI, the issues of the Pope Francis, etc. In the same way I discuss Međugorje for it is my conviction that the whole that phenomenon is misinterpretated and thus judged as satanic issue. In every of my posts I have clearly said what is my position, underlining that the current visions and messages should not be taken into consideration and that those who are seeking religious sensations find the fake messages and unacceptable practices regarding the seers. However, I think there Međugorje is valuable for other reasons and that those who reject it completely may be wrong for it brings certain pastoral fruits that are important to the Church and need more time to be clarified. That is all I am trying to say and do. No need to input here the “conspiration theory” regarding my “mission” on 1P5.
And when it comes about your question, it is the same answer as for any other shrine: if the Holy Bible and the Holy Mass is enough for the Catholic faithful, why do we need the Marian sanctuaries? Once/if you find the answer, just apply it to Međugorje.
By the socks of Jehosaphat…!
Today’s Church HAS canonized: Padre Pio and Kateri Tekakwitha; and, possibly despite himself, Francis has canonized Mother Teresa as well as Jacinta and Francisco Marto.
I take these as proofs that the Holy Spirit still protects the Church, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of her ministers—and that includes the the canonization of John Paul II.
Are we really going to presume to tell the Church whom She has or has not validly raised to the honors of the altar?
And so is John XXIII and the process of beatification for Paul VI is opened. Your point is? Just you wait with the newest guidelines that will open the sainthood to non-catholics and perhaps Luther. Of course some are real saints, but canonisations without the Devil’s advocate office today lax and subject to manipulation and error.
My point is precisely that canonization indicates that a person is more than the sum total of his sins, mistakes and misstatements.
Name any saint you like and I will find some “heretical” remark that he made somewhere along the way.
Was I happy with his interreligious service at Assisi? No. So it was a misstep. I’m sure you can name a dozen more. It doesn’t detract from his example of holy suffering
Just the fact that he bore his infirmities in his final years with such grace, dignity and humility is sufficient reason for me that John Paul was a great man and a saint.
False, completely false. They may have sinned, but upon conversion tell me one who proffered heresy even remotely with the likes of post VII popes? St. Francis of Assisi, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Pius X, St., St. Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori, St. St Therese of Lisieux, St. Theresa of Avilla, St. Bridget of Sweden, take your pick and tell me their heresies please!
Find me one moment since the Creation of the World, where chosen people of God prayed under the roof with all devil worshipers that exist? The moment is unprecedented, second to none. No comparison is possible.
It is not a misstep, but a scandal of epic proportions that led who knows how many souls to hell, because they thought they needed not conversion to Catholic Faith, including the gatherers there, because none called them to convert.
I am in no position to tell you where John Paul II ended up, but I rather play it safe with thousands of other saints declared throughout the history.
I did not say any of the Saints “taught” heresy. But even Peter had to be rebuked for his bad example—“upon conversion” or, rather, after conversion.
I’ve mentioned it before…I once wrote a defense of “life from the moment of conception” as a letter-to-the-editor of a newspaper.
It turned out, my argument was based on a heresy I had never heard of: traducianism, the belief that “individual human souls originate by derivation from the souls of their parents, in a way analogous to the generation of individual bodies.”
Though I came up with the idea myself, it was heretical. As soon as I learned of it, I dropped that line of argumentation.
Did that make me a heretic while I held it? If so,then I’m probably still a heretic; because I have no doubt that, till the end of my life, I will have ideas which, if taken to their logical conclusion would turn out to be heresy.
I suggest that even you are in the same predicament. But since I didn’t promote traducianism as official Catholic teaching—in defiance of orders to cease and desist—I was not, even in the short time I held that belief, a heretic.
Assisi was not John Paul’s finest moment and it was not a good example. Name one authoritative document, though, in which he promoted heresy?
“…a scandal of epic proportions that led who knows how many souls to hell…”
Are you so sure that you haven’t done the same, without realizing it? I keep thinking of Captain Hazlewood of the Exxon Valdez. One “small” beer too many—and it led to a massive oil spill. That’s the way sin goes. None of us knows how “epic” the consequences of the “small” sins we allow ourselves.
Not sure how defense of “life from the moment of conception” puts you in heresy unless you were specifically claiming that parents were sole creators of soul?
But even if you did as you said “As soon as I learned of it, I dropped that line of argumentation.”
That is my point as well. Do you seriously think there is any excuse for these dissenting prelates, whose life should be dedicated to learn the Catholic Faith to preach contra 1900+ years of known Tradition.
Even pope John XXII who preached that souls sleep until Judgement day said that he might not be right, and that theologians should present their argument.
When did see any of post VII modernists say that anything is open to debate. They are preaching against the doctrine and they know it. They are not worried; they are open enemies of God. They are blood of vipers, wolves in sheep cloathing- modernists.
As pope Pius X said of them: ”They want them to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses but they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can!”
You are not heretic if you upon realization of heresy change just so as Peter did upon Paul’s rebuke.
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” Titus 3,10-11
If cardinal Burke officially warns Pope twice, pope will loose his papacy by judging himself!
To whom much is given, much is asked for. Therefore you are not in the same bout if you think and seek Truth with those who know, but hide it on purpose to fir their abominable lifestyles.
I agree with most of what you say—until you want to include John Paul amongst those who knowingly chose to promote heresy.
Despite Assisi, do you seriously think he believed that a person didn’t need to be Catholic? That he believed any religion is ok? I don’t.
I would that everyone were Catholic—and saintly Catholics. But, knowing that that is not a reasonable possibility overnight, yet trusting that God is not unjust, I do believe, as the Church always has, that anyone who sincerely follows his conscience according to the lights given him by God, and who does his best to do good and avoid evil, as God has given him to understand it—that person is an implicit member of the Catholic Church.
Otherwise, you’re saying that God created people—some of whom have never heard of Christ and His Church—in some remote location, who are destined for damnation. I can’t hold such belief.
I’m assuming John Paul was trying to convey something along those lines when he went to Assisi.
Under the present regime, Martin Luther would be a candidate for ‘sainthood’ long before Cardinal Ottaviani would ever be so much as considered. Cardinal Ottaviani was, after all, a ‘rigorist’, a ‘neo-pelagian’, a ‘rigid’ ‘legalist’ and a ‘pharisee’. he was evidently devoid of ‘mercy’. “mercy’, that is, of the Bergoglian variety.
The quincentenerary of the protestant revolt is not over.
Might the pope of surprises not raise the maniac Luther to the altars? Or make him a Kevorkian-like “doctor of the Church” ?
This fear has been with me for sometime.
Pope Bergoglio does not estimate canonization as an infallible exercise of his office. He said this in the time surrounding the canonization of St. Teresa of Kolkata. That has its ups and downs. And given his recent stretching of the imagination in regard to the qualifications — who knows what trash is being mulled.
Can lay people start the process of beatification? How does it work in terms of request and procedure?
Cardinal Ottaviani was a true Shepherd and Vicar of Christ, fighting for the Holy Church among the wolfs.
I believe that under Canon law the process has to be instituted by a bishop. In theory, a lay person or group could petition their bishop to start the process. Good luck with that, unless you are one of the fortunate few who live in a diocese headed by a truly orthodox ordinary.
Thank you for your answer. I have just asked about it, but would sign a petition if there were the initiative.
I certainly sympathize. However, lets not beat ourselves up too much. None of us, lay or clergy, can hope to assimilate the vast body of the Deposit of the Faith. We can only concentrate on the areas that most interest us, and of course do our best to stay close to Our Lord in prayer and Sacraments. God only expects us to be faithful, as Mother Teresa is quoted as saying. God bless!
Thank you. God bless you too ☺
“[Vatican II is] not without historical precedent. There was a roughly analogous situation much earlier in the Church’s history, of which traditionalists and neo-Catholics alike are possibly unaware: the Second Council of Constantinople, held in 553. In 1934, Msgr. Philip Hughes described it as “the strangest of all the general councils.” This was an ecumenical council, the fifth of the twenty-one the Church has convened from Nicea to Vatican II. Strictly speaking, it taught nothing erroneous. Yet, as Vatican II has proven to be, Constantinople II was an unmitigated disaster, and was recognized as such by a great many contemporary observers. Neo-Catholics who condemn traditionalist critics of Vatican II ought to become familiar with this ill-starred council….” From Christopher Ferrara & Thomas E. Woods, The Great Façade, pp. 327, 332:
“A Catholic has to be free to say of the Second Council of Constantinople what is obvious to anyone who has ever studied it: it did nothing to bring back the Monophysites [heretics] into the bosom of the Church, and in fact alienated many of them still further. Given the confusing nature of what the council was attempting to do, orthodox Catholics, for their part, could not help but be perplexed and demoralized by this council, and indeed for decades afterward whole areas of the West refused to acknowledge it as an ecumenical council at all, convinced that it had in some way repudiated or vitiated the teaching of [the Fourth Ecumenical Council, of] Chalcedon.”
Source: iteadthomam.blog
“And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer…”
“Woe to you that now laugh: for you shall mourn and weep.” (Luke 6:25b)
Many of those ‘fathers’ who mocked Cardinal Ottaviani (all who did not repent) for his fidelity and piety are now experiencing the Truth of Our Blessed Lord’s Words.
That’s frightening indeed! Wish I could have been there to punch them in the face Pius X style.
That would be a gift from God!!
Father forgive me but it felt great to give this an up vote.
Judases!
What I find most confusing is most of these mocking “fathers” must have been chosen by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. How did such a thing come to pass to put such men in authority at that time? I see no indication that either Pope would have agreed with them.
Deception. They were outwardly orthodox until they were in positions of power in the Church. Same thing happened to Pope JPII
Look at Schonborn… gave a great show of orthodoxy until Francis came on in.
Beat me to it. A classic case of a hireling if ever there was one.
This is a deeper issue and points to the diligence of their rectors as seminarians and the responsibility of the bishops in ordaining such men and not discovering and weeding out what they really thought. The Dean of the FSSP seminary gave a conference and told us they consider very carefully in their current seminarians, pondering the prelates of the 1960’s and those who formed them and how they were formed. What they were doing as priests in the 1930’s and 1940’s, for example?
If you think about the timeframes, it is clear that it exceeds a human life. What it points out is that we must focus on personal holiness and prayer and depend on God to help us overcome the evil one. Satan is too smart for any man to battle w/o the protection of the angels, saints and ofcourse our Blessed Mother and the grace of God.
It would be to naive to think that every pope in the past knew exactly and whole the truth about every bishop and cardinal. Only God knows the hearts of every man… Those who were the agents and implants of the enemy with the hidden freemasonry and communistic hat under the mitra, were certainly honest spiking the naked truth…
See this also. It can help a bit for better understanding of that question, how was this possible at that time?…:
http://disq.us/p/1inbhoo & http://disq.us/p/1iohjqb
Yet this is the key reason for the chief duty of the Holy Father: determining who will be a bishop in the Latin Rite. In rebuking those who stray and rewarding those who do. And being called to account for the souls lost. For this reason, St. Robert Bellarmine said there was no one he pitied more than the Pope.
Does the expression, “wolves in sheep’s” clothing” sound familiar?
Lots of wolves. Hard to understand how so many could slip through.
Not too hard when we consider the Satan has had the run of the place for 50 years. It’s a sewer now.
Except it started well before that. Clearly most the prominent prelates in the 1960’s were named bishops under Pius XI (Lienart, Roncalli), and Pius XII (Siri, Lefebvre, Montini), and only a very few of under John XXIII before the Council (Bea, Ottaviani)…
Prelates mocking and laughing? Did pope Paul know about this?
It is one thing to disagree with a brother. You can even be angry with your brother but to mock and laugh at your brother’s misfortune betrays a lack of love that precludes you from leading a flock.
The incident in which Cardinal Ottaviani’s microphone was turned off occurred on Oct 30, 1962 — NOT on the Council’s third day.
How fitting, the eve of the Protestant ‘reformation’.
so the Protestant ‘reformation’ happened on Oct 31? All Hallow’s Eve – the night of great pagan rituals and celebration?
It’s celebrated today as “Reformation Day” by Protestants
Yup
WHY…? AM…? I…? NOT…? SURPRISED…?
Exactly.
Given these info, what would the beatification of Pope John 23rd now mean?
I don’t know about his beatification so much as his fast-tracked elevation to sainthood by Bergoglio. This was a cynical canonisation of the Council, along with the beatification of Paul VI.
Cardinal Ottaviani: Hero in the Church, a saint yet to be canonized. Put the kabosh on “divine mercy” (until JP2), revealed the 3rd secret through the Neues Europa, Spoke the truth about Vatican 2.
Cardinal Ottaviani Ora Pro Nobis.
Are you saying the Divine Mercy is a false devotion? And that JPII should not have lifted the ban?
Yes.
Her diaries were a mess when submitted. There was a long period to massaging them into some sort of coherent message – but even then the purported words of Our Lord did not line up with what we know He has revealed to us.
There are so many good Traditional devotions – like that to The Sacred Heart – which could serve us very well, without adding anything with even a whiff of suspicion.
If we revere Cardinal Ottaviani as a protector of Faith and Tradition why not believe him on the ‘divine mercy’ thing?
I just can’t resist..
765 from Faustina Diary…
On one occasion, I saw the convent of the new congregation. [148] As I walked about,
inspecting everything, I suddenly saw a crowd of children who seemed to be no older than
five to eleven years of age. When they saw me they surrounded me and began to cry out,
“Defend us from evil,” and they led me into the chapel which was in this convent. When I
entered the chapel, I saw the distressful Lord Jesus. Jesus looked at me graciously and said
that He was gravely offended by children: You are to defend them from evil. From that
moment, I have been praying for children, but I feel that prayer alone is not enough.
Our Lord is gravely offended by Children?
How can Catholics believe this tripe?
Nothing wrong with the above diary entry. Children are capable of offending our Lord otherwise why are they taught to go to confession? Also why are they sometimes punished by parents? Today our culture and the example of adults leads children astray to the point that they sometimes offend our Lord.
Yes, because in that statement above where they were supposedly seeking protection from evil is EXACTLY what they were doing “offending our Lord”.
C’mon.
Children sin but not many in this age group commit mortal sin in full knowledge and with full consent of the will. God is far more likely to be offended by those adults leading children into sin of any sort. Even if they had committed mortal sin ‘knowingly’ these children in the ‘vision’ were asking for protection from Satan and would therefore be penitent. Something just not right here.
Gravelly offended means children in mortal sin.
Our Lord we know of course is offended by anyone in mortal sin but that’s not what the paragraph above states. I know, just like with Jorge, it’s a “bad translation” I’m sure 🙂
There is something about the ‘Divine Mercy’ devotion that caused me to ignore it the first time I encountered it and that feeling has persisted to this day. I did not know Cardinal Ottaviani had rejected it. Now I know my instincts were right.
I just learned recently that Cardinal Ottaviani banned it and I thought “this man was a one man modernism destroyer”. But unfortunately one man (or several) were not enough.
But, all things in God’s time.
That ‘something’ for me is the picture. Gives me the creeps.
So many Catholics I know have such a devotion to the Divine Mercy by Sr. Faustina.
The Chaplet is prayed so often by many, and these are truly good and faithful Catholics who do this. It was suggested to me that I read her diary…….so, I bought this very thick book and began……….and felt confused,….something felt weird in her writing. And…..it seemed the chaplet took away from the Rosary, and it seemed as though this Divine Mercy Sunday was taking away from the need to have ongoing penance for our sins.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus seems to have been replaced by this Divine Mercy of Faustina and that is very troubling to me.
I have read from learned scholars that there is nothing wrong with the prayers themselves and I agree: “oh blood and water which gushed forth from the hehart of jesus..” There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just a few other parts that are way off base.
Heresy and tricks from the devil always look about 98% correct in orthodoxy, it’s the other 2% you watch out for.
I understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on certain phrases in the lives of Catholic mystics by taking them overly literally.
Saint Margaret Mary was told that devotion to the Sacred Heart was “a last resort” to draw men to repentance, and she died two and half centuries before the apparitions at Fatima.
But that’s not been proven incorrect has it? Faustina’s diary contains outright heresy.
I guess my point is that there are many things that will remain mysteries to us this side of Heaven, particularly when it comes to mystics or the writings of saints.
Even some of Our Lord’s words are mystifying to us, not to mention things like the resurrection narratives as to who did what, when. If anyone can figure that out, I wish they would share that information.
Then there is Fatima, with two of the seers receiving Holy Communion without having made their first confession, and only by receiving the Precious Blood, outside of Mass, in the middle of a field.
If the Fatima apparitions didn’t contain that incident and we had never heard of such a thing, and if a modern day alleged seer (someone at, say, Medjugorje) had stated that that happened to him/her, we would be very skeptical of it. Very skeptical.
Also, the Fatima narrative contains at least two failed prophecies, and La Salette has numerous failed prophecies, yet both apparitions have been ruled worthy of belief.
Mysteries.
I agree about the diary – the bit which really stood out was where she was supposedly told she would never be judged again or something to that effect.
I pray both the Rosary and the Divine Mercy chaplet, daily. I was first introduced to the chaplet by way of a free audio cassette I received from the McFarlanes’ CatholiCity source—on the flip side of the Rosary. Listening to it being recited, I was immediately impressed by its power; and I find nothing disturbing about the prayers themselves.
On the other hand, the image of the Divine Mercy Christ did put me off, and just as immediately.
My first impression was that the rays coming from Him reminded me of ads for the Rosicrucians in the back of magazines in the 50s and 60s. But I’ve come to dismiss it as a personal lack of aesthetic attraction to the image on my part.
Then there’s the “Diary;” it seems to lack what I can only call a “growth trajectory.” I don’t expect a diary to have a “plot” per se; but I do look for some evidence of moral milestones in her life. Instead it just seems to be one long plateau.
Again, a puzzle: how can the prayers seem so apt while the diary and the picture seem so questionable?
Many of the writings of mystics are somewhat odd, or out of the norm of everyday understanding, and I think this is as it should be- they are mystics. I have just read a little book on Blessed Alexandrina Maria da Costa and her mystical experiences are just that – mystical. The Diary of St. Faustina reveals that she was a simple human being whose love of God and faith blossomed and grew to mystical heights over time through all her trials and illnesses.
I think that the world has been in such an increasingly bad state since the early 1900s that Heaven is making it easier and easier for us to get there, if we would only listen. Think about the penance Our Lady asks for at Fatima, nothing
spectacular but to be faithful to our station in life, and also to say the Rosary daily, make the First 5 Saturdays (only 5!), and wear the Brown Scapular. The Chaplet of Divine Mercy, a short powerful prayer, is one more weapon in a Catholic’s arsenal to defeat the enemy,especially in the case of a dying person. Divine Mercy Sunday is a gift to sinners, a
light to those in darkness, a plenary indulgence, as explained by the Church, and what sinner isn’t interested in that?
Kathy, her work is full of errors and several outright blasphemies. “you won’t be judged”. Now come on, I refuse to believe our Lord Faustina she would not be judged. I think we need to examine what records we have on Faustina’s mental state.
When Our Lord promised St. Margaret Mary that those devoted to His Sacred Heart would “have their names written in My Heart, never to be effaced…they shall not die in My disgrace nor without receiving their sacraments…”
When Our Lady promised St. Dominic that the soul “which recommends itself to me by recitation of the Rosary shall not perish…”
When She promised St. Simon Stock, concerning the scapular that “whosoever dies in this garment shall not suffer eternal fire…”
When She said to Sister Lucy “I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation,” anyone who makes the Five First Saturdays devotion…”
…all of these promises are understood to be predicated on the determination of the individual faithful to “continue in the way of holiness.”
It took 500 years for another saint—originally thought to be nuts—to be canonized: St, Joan of Arc.
St. Faustina is far from being amongst my favorite saints. But I would rather assume a similar tacit corollary on Our Lord’s part, in telling her that she wouldn’t be judged—along with a probable hasty and sloppy translation of her writings—than to suggest that she was a mental deficient whom the Church was wrong in having canonized.
There’s always one……often, there’s only one. One individual who stands up and defends the truth while all around him is going to hell in a hand basket. During the Arian heresy, it was St. Athanasius. During the English Reformation it was St. John Fisher. During Vatican II it was Cardinal Ottaviani. After the Council, it was Archbishop Lefebvre. Lonely voices crying in the wilderness. Signs of contradiction who refused to capitulate to the heretical tide.
Ottaviani’s words were prophetic. They sneered at him during and after the Council but history will smile kindly on him. Church history shows us the heroism and saintliness of those who resisted the faithless tsunamis which swept before them most of the Church’s bishops. From this we know that the herd of worthless ninnies currently populating the American episcopate, will be swallowed and forgotten by the sands of time. These faithless nitwits who are driven like a herd to grovel before the zeitgeist as they seek to outdo each other in their embracing of every popular cultural trend and politically correct issue du jour. Drowning us with a torrent of words about immigration, climate change, gender equality and economics while being out to lunch on the truly life-or-death issues such as abortion, homosexual “marriage”, homosexuals in the priesthood, the re-definition of the family, the Islamic tide and the trashing of Catholic tradition by Rome.
History will have nothing but contempt for these spineless apostates.
Let us fervently hope and pray that the particular chapter of history to which you refer will commence in the very near future. And it is, of course, an open-ended chapter that will carry through to the glorious conclusion of The Book.
Dumb things done by Paul VI:
1) Virtually overnight, creating a completely new order of Mass.
2) Telling St. Michael the Archangel that his services were no longer needed (by deleting the Prayer to St. Michael from the Mass prayers in contravention of the wishes of Leo XIII).
3) Withdrawing the Oath Against Modernism.
And after all that…..well………..I mean, what could possibly go wrong? The Council just had to be an unrestrained success, right?
Feel free to add your own Paul VI screw-up……………….
Capitulating to the demands, (based on a falsified case), of the USCCB on the matter of Communion in the hand
That was from the odious Bernardin.
Dumped the tonsure (because of course he did), and gave the papal tiara to the UN. Oh and who knows how many holy days removed from the calendar. And lets talk about his “friend” Paolo.
“1) Virtually overnight, creating a completely new order of Mass.”
The changes in the Mass, beginning in earnest in Advent 1964 and resulting in the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969, were gradual.
In the parish of my younger days, the Mass had been so altered by the time the New Mass was promulgated that no one noticed the difference between the New Mass and what immediately preceded it.
Not a few people thought the resulting New Mass was just a language translation from the 1962 Mass…probably because of the gradual changes and the gradual translations that you mention. There are some old people who still think that..but most of these stopped going to Mass years ago.
It appears that Pope John XXIII who called Vatican II did not intended to change the Mass because he made some revisions, “cleaning up” the Liturgy just prior to the Council, something which does not make sense if he intended to create an new Mass. The study of Latin by seminarians and the use of Latin in the Mass were controversial topics even among the mainstream Catholics just prior to the Council, but Pope John XXIII wrote about the importance of the study of Latin in the Church. The study of Latin was also given less importance in high schools at the time, even by public high schools which had previously offered or required some Latin courses up until the 1960’s.
1964 to 1969 is a period of five years.
In terms of Church history and the history of the Traditional Rite, that is the blink of an eye.
“1964 to 1969 is a period of five years. In terms of Church history and the history of the Traditional Rite, that is the blink of an eye.”
True, but five years is not “overnight.”
If Pope Francis answers the dubia sent to him by Cardinal Burke, et al., five years from now, no one, particularly in a blog like this, would say that the pope answered the dubia “overnight.”
Of course they were, if you boil a frog slowly he won’t jump out of the pot.
Indeed.
Mass facing the people had been experimented with for many years prior to the council. See the link for a photo of the von Trapp family hearing Mass facing the people. 1930s.
http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2014/jul/7/trapp-family-singers-documentary-3-videos
A parish near where I live was built before the introduction of the New Mass. Altar facing the people, no Communion rail, tabernacle off to the side.
Ditto for when I was young. Next parish had a freestanding altar, no tabernacle, but did have a Communion rail.
See the link and go to the photos. The way the church looked in 1981 is the way it was built in 1964. No tabernacle. Old Mass at that time.
http://www.sjohio.org/history
Communion in the hand began at the older version of the Mass, not the New Mass. However, it didn’t reach the U.S., at least lawfully, until the latter part of the 70s.
Who thought building a Church in the form of a quonset hut was a good idea??
“Who thought building a Church in the form of a quonset hut was a good idea?”
Somebody in the Cleveland diocese.
In any event, Our Lord must not have liked the structure. It got blown away in what became known as “the Palm Sunday Outbreak” of 1965.
My former home was also struck in the next town, but the one at Saint Joe’s was an F-4, so it took a pretty bad hit.
I didn’t know that
This gets to a thesis of mine, that is, that V2 was not the beginning of a revolution, but was, rather, the result of one. I absolutely defy those who say the Church was in great shape before V2. We need only go back to the dire warnings of Pope Leo on socialism, and Pope St Pius X on modernism, and Pope Benedict XV on the suicide of Europe {and resultant impact on the Church} and the Blessed Virgin at Fatima.
No, the “collapse” as it is sometimes called of the Catholic Church happened in the 100 years PRIOR to V2. V2 highlighted, exposed and clarified the brokenness that ALREADY EXISTED.
We are seeing now the “maintenance” of that brokenness. We are not witnessing a “collapse”, we are witnessing merely the stretching of the yellow ribbon around the rubble-filled site.
But if you look very closely, and sometimes you have to look VERY closely to see it, there are yet walls and arches still intact, plenty enough upon which to rebuild.
The reconstruction will demand the clearing of rubble {laicizations, excommunications, condemnations} and the shoring up and adding to the sounds structures that remain {catechesis, evangelization, obedience}.
Quit looking for a miracle.
This is simply hard working in waiting. And we will need leaders to do it, not just ad hoc committees of DIY’ers {laymen}.
May God save the Catholic Church.
Your analysis is correct.
The “revolution,” as you put it, was already there (latent to a degree but open in some aspects). If it were not present prior, then Vatican II could not have taken place the way it did.
Vatican II is a cause, a symptom, and a result, all three.
Very well said Rodh, sometimes an “outside” perspective can help us look at things with much clarity than what we would have if we would otherwise limit our inquiry to our present era.
I agree with you that VII was definitely not the “collapse” of the Church, but it seems to me it was the event where the demolitionists pushed down on the detonator in order to activate the stock of TNT they had been piling up under the Churches pillars for centuries.
What worries me though is that, with PF on the forefront we’re are being distracted from what they are still doing on the background such as the Priestess approval commission and the HV aggiornamento commission.
I don’t know if they’re quite done yet with their “reforming” agenda.
I once watched a video of Padre Pio’s funeral and tho I didn’t know enough to see the details, the commentators marveled at the weird “sung Low Mass”. I don’t remember where it is, but maybe a perusal of youtube would uncover it.
Anyhow, one of the first books I read as a convert was Joseph Jungmann’s 2 volumes on the Mass and pretty much all of the mischief we see today can be seen in embryonic form in his writing.
I have also questioned his scholarship and would like to discuss this with one knowledgeable about it. He wrote from Germany and from what I understand, remote southern Germany including during the immediate post-war years. I am suspicious that he had access to an abundance of legitimate documents from the early Church period and have to wonder if he was a liturgical progressive itching to dump the old Mass. Just my take, but I am curious. I understand that this these volumes have been used in priestly formation since V2.
Comments Fr RP?????
“the doctrinal confusion had started to spread right after the formal closing of the council.”
I’m not sure it’s accurate to continue to refer to the “confusion” created by the Council and the New Mass (and now Amoris Laetitia). This is not confusion. People may be confused by it, but that’s not the same thing. If new, false doctrine (not new in fact, since the Modernists had been scheming a way to inject it into the Church for nearly a hundred years by then) had been spread only one year after the close of the Council this was clearly a pre-planned invasion. Vatican II was the opening of the gates of Troy, but the horse that came through was obviously prepared well in advance. And the doctrines being taught – essentially sophisticated denials of certain Catholic truths – were not “confusion.” The new doctrines are comprehensible, concise and clear. There is no confusion involved.
I wonder why (even) we still call them with the words from their own grammar, which btw. is nothing less confuse than all their own other kind of jibber-jabber language. They are not a modernists. They are the ENEMIES of CHRIST and His HOLY CHURCH. And so they are our ENEMIES too. They are not just ordinary and not even extraordinary people around us, who are just trying to help us and to teach us, the ‘old-fashioned ones’, in the tradition buried retarded people, to think, talk, act and ‘believe’ on the modern way, just like all other ‘modern people’ do.
No! They are not modernists.
They are THE E N E M I E S of God and His Holy Church!
A modernist is an enemy of the Church. Most Catholics before Vatican II were clear on this. As pointed out in article above espousing the oath against modernism was required of all priests before Paul VI.
You said it that way. I say; Satan and his servants (in many different colours, which btw. all are just the ‘shades of gray’, which btw. came out only from the black one) are enemies of the Church. Do you see difference?
If not, I can tell you, that with saying just ‘modernists’ (in the Church) sounds for many people, not that bad at all!
I see your point and have to agree that for many the word “modernist” is not viewed as pejorative but rather in a positive light. However for anyone interested in Church history ie Pius IX and Pius X as well as Pius XII there is no mistaking the term as synonymous with heresy in fact as the sum of all heresies. I would think that for readers of this site “modernism” wouldn’t be considered as a positive good term. Perhaps the need to dis uss this is just more proof of how much the enemy has infiltrated. We should reclaim the true meaning of terms and ideas that our popes have warned us about
Ivan me je ime has a good point because for the vast majority of people the word ‘modernist’ probably just means someone who likes contemporary art and lifestyle – and that includes, I suspect, the understanding of most Catholics.
Agree. Using the word “confusion” is an intentional smoke screen used to cover the deliberate and malicious undermining of the Catholic faith into a mere matter of misunderstanding.
Yes. What’s confusing about black being called white, and white being called black? Confusion is a word that has meaning. Typical of Modernists that they pervert the meaning of words. Where confusion has better meaning is when Catholics (those who don’t know their Faith) don’t know who to believe because they hear one thing from their priest – if they have a good one, and another from Francis.
“Vatican II was the opening of the gates of Troy” – no truer words could be said. I think you’ve captured the essence of the Council – deceit under the guise of good will and charity- isn’t that always how Satan enters?
..And it has continued unabated, if not more pernicious, since then.
Just an info to share: Međugorje will be approved as shrine probably by the end of this year. The Archbishop Hoser just gave that statement. He believes that the first impulse (when the seers were children) was true and real, and that pastoral practice there is Christologic.
cf Ecclesia Dei, 5.b.
How John Paul II can say this with a straight face is beyond me. Clear admission that the doctrines “are new.” Yet, how in the world is a new doctrine in continuity with tradition?
I suppose such a logical non sequitur blunder is what makes JPII the Grrrrreat.
It is. It just IS.
OK???
Now, who is in charge of ironing the felt banners?
I certainly don’t defend everything that Pope John Paul II did, but to be fair, the pope didn’t say that the doctrine was new; he said “points of doctrine” were new.
The word “they” is a plural pronoun and does not refer to the singular word “doctrine”; rather, it refers to the word “points.”
There can be new “points of doctrine,” i.e., development of doctrine. There can never be new doctrine.
The question is whether the documents of Vatican II present new “points of doctrine” or just plain new “doctrine.”
I expected a response something to this effect, but I still think it is lacking. For instance, when the doctrine of the immaculate conception was declared, it wasn’t a new doctrine, or even a new point of doctrine as it had been believed and argued by theologians for a long, long time.
On the other hand, the new doctrines of Vatican II were previously explicitly condemned on various levels of the Magisterium.
The Vatican is always usually very careful in the wording, especially in defense of the new disorientation of V2, in either being intentionally ambiguous or in “going all in.” I would expect the word development to have appeared in this context, given the evolutionary orientation of their new theology and JPII’s Christology, if that is the only context it is to be understood.
Development of doctrine, to them, does not preclude the baptizing of previously rejected and condemned “points” of doctrine. So yeah, I think it is a both/and situation where it is an admission of something new under a false blanket of organic development.
I understand.
The only point I was making was that the pope, in the statement quoted above, did not make a “clear admission that the doctrines are new.”
In that statement, the pope said that the “points of doctrine” are new, not that there are new doctrines, which is a completely different point (pardon the pun).
Thus, it’s not a clear admission on his part that Vatican II contains new doctrine.
Whether it does is a separate subject, but in that statement, he does not say that.
“I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Dt 30: 19-20)
” Make straight the path for thy feet, and all thy ways shall be established. Decline not to the right hand, nor to the left: turn away thy foot from evil. For the Lord knoweth the ways that are on the right hand: but those are perverse which are on the left hand. But he will make thy courses straight, he will bring forward thy ways in peace.” (Proverbs 4: 26-27)
“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matthew 7:13-15)
Confusion’s only goal is to trip people up and to make them loose their way. The reigning confusion is a sign that the Adversary is having a field day in the world.
Unfortunately, though John Paul’s II long cultivating of, or enabling a cult of personality for himself has only made all that much harder for those who are in the New Church to look at PF in any different way. It’s true we’re all humans and capable of messing up, but PF didn’t pop up out of nowhere and the recent VII popes have all slowly but surely built and provided him with different philosophical, theological and social scaffolds on which he stands now.
Some of these things such as the ones you’ve quoted from both JPII and Benedict need to be examined in more objective light.
His support for Vatican II is his Achilles Heel. Pure hypocrisy.
We have been repeatedly told the council was pastoral, not dogmatic and, therefore, we need not conform to or accept the documents. But this was a precise, well-orchestrated attack on the Church by Satsn’s disciples who knew their doctrinal falsehoods and distortions would be accepted and implemented by the docile faithful even if their lies were not made with Magisterial authority. That is why, aming other things, the Lord says this, “…The council was NOT Our work (the Holy Trinity’s) nor was it in any way guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the work of the enemy…”
Vatican II was a catastrophe for the Catholic Church. It was orchestrated by progressive elements including leading theologians especially Jesuits and Dominicans, key Cardinals and Pope John XXIII himself. This was a hi-jacking of the Church leadership, it’s mission, and it’s allegiance to Man rather than God. It was the apotheosis of Modernism. So today we look at the Catholic Church as having a largely Protestant orientation in how it serves the laity and how the laity responds to it’s teaching. May God help us all.
And all because Pope John XXIII heard someone whisper in his ear, “Ecumenical Council.” Too bad he never found out it was the smoke of Satan entering the Church.
Wasn’t October 13th the day of the miracle of the sun at Fatima?
This is old news for many ‘trafitionalist’. The “unnamed’ priest in the article i believe is Fr. Depaw from the diocese of Baltimore seminary. These were indeed the ‘shots heard around the world’ when the current war on the faith (V2) began. I’m thinking the shut-off-the old-mans-microphone type priests are the same cocaine-driven-orgy type. Now if you can grasp the unholy alliance these formed with the international money laundering demons you will have the longed for BIG picture – the engine that drives the enemies within the church. So when are you gonna break the Card Siri story?
It will be new news for many, including myself, so these subjects need to be repeated and repeated so that as many people as possible hear about them and learn the truth.
We have an entirely new generation of Catholics looking for the first time at tradition. We cannot take for granted that they know what we know.
Thank you for speaking up and making clear that bringing these stories back to light is needed.
Don’t mention it!, but it’s also necessary for those of us who started life in the Traditional Church and were then swept into the NO as children too young to know what was going on or to be told anything. By the time I was old enough to start wondering, there was simply only the NO. It’s only the internet which has allowed the truth to start filtering through to many of us.
Exactly!!! I can’t believe how much I have learned in the past few years from the internet, this site being a very good one!
I was born in 1977. Believe me, I get it.
I was born in ’63, and converted 4 years ago.
My Dad was a Methodist minister and I well remember all the whoopla in Protestant circles back in the ’70’s when Protestants were thrilled the Catholics were being freed from the supposed shackles and chains of “superstitious Catholicism”.
All I can say is I am deeply thankful to God I have an awesome FSSP parish in which to worship and be fed.
Right there with you, another child of the 70’s and we got the WORST of it. My eyes weren’t opened completely until listening repeatedly to the videos of the late great Canon Hesse.
You’re right, Stephen. If people are still up to reading long-ish books, they could learn a tremendous amount about the entire fiasco from the brilliant author, Michael Davies (RIP), in his trilogy on the council. I believe it begins with Cranmer’s Godly Order, and is quite eye-opening.
Blessed Pope Paul VI observed in 1966, thus shortly after the Council’s closing: “It would not be the truth for anybody to imagine that the Vatican Council II represented any kind of break, interruption, or ‘liberation’ from the teaching of the Church, or that it authorized or promoted any kind of accommodation or conformism with the mentality of our times, in its negative or ephemeral aspects.” [‘The Second Vatican
Council, a Counterpoint for History of Council’, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto
(2010), ISBN 978-1-58966-196-7, page 665.]
This condemnation was repeated in an address by Blessed Pope Paul VI to the Curia on June 23, 1972, “… an emergency which We cannot and must not keep hidden: in the first place a false and erroneous interpretation of the Council, which would want to break with the tradition, even as regards the doctrine, an interpretation which goes so far that the pre-conciliar Church is rejected and one is allowed to consider a ‘new’ church, as it were reinvented from the inside, as regards the constitution of the Church, her dogma, custom and law.” Die 23 mensis iunii a. 1972: Eminentissimis Sacri Collegii Cardinalium Patribus, Summo Pontifici die Eius nominali felicia ac fausta ominantibus. [http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-64-1972-ocr.pdf]
Notably, in the same week on June 29th 1972 Blessed Pope Paul VI also stated in his homily, “… from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”
Herewith Pope Blessed Paul VI had us given a
clear description of the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture
Yet facilitated it, nay, encouraged it.
Correct. It was Pope Paul VI who gave us the Novus Ordo. The man was a puzzle. I find it mind boggling that he could make a speech at the time that sounds and appears to be a blanket defense of the Latin Mass, then turn around and destroy it. He was confused and it showed.
A puzzle indeed. This same Pope Paul VI who gave us the defective Novus Ordo, and acted to suppress the Latin Mass, also gave us the magnificently prophetic and massively rejected encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” I doubt he’ll be unpuzzled except in Heaven. May God give him eternal rest.
Um, it was written by Cardinal Ottaviani who forced his hand to get it in there. This myth of Paul VI doing this needs to end now. Anything good that happened in that miserable era of the Church seems to flow back to Cdl. Ottaviani.
Is there proof of this? Pope Paul VI took the heat for Humanae V itae and from all sides, and it wasn’t pretty. There is so much animosity shown on this site for the post VII Popes it’s at times astounding. Tradition teaches us to at the very least demonstrate respect for the Papal Office.Many here are just about jumping on the Sedevacantist bandwagon, which last I heard is heresy. Be thankful you live in a time of TLM and a return to Traditionalism, so many would have loved to live to see the day. Yes,the fight goes on as it has in the past, and there are many unsung heroes known only to God , but did Jesus ever say His Church would cakewalk through time?
Proof of his writing the document? Good point and mea culpa, no proof YET but I’m sure it will come out in time. What there is ample proof of is Cardinal Ottaviani’s influence to override the majority vote of the radicals on that commission.
Your point about the office of the papacy is a straw man. It is because of the respect for the office of the papacy that these bad actions by Vatican II popes need to be called out. These men have died, nobody that I know can say where their souls are today but their works, their deeds, and their actions CAN be judged.
“…seems to…”
I was aware that the good Cardinal had significant input; never heard that there was a battle over that input.
Never heard? Radical loon Patty Crowley was on the birth control commission. This woman was in favor of married priests, women priests and gay marriage. The commission was stacked with radicals like this who were not by their actions even Catholic. Cardinal Ottaviani was on the minority and he overcame the majority vote of such loons who included Cardinal Dearden from Detroit (my home diocese which explains a lot about the shape of that diocese today).
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2012/Pat-Crowley-Takes-on-the-Vatican/
Well of course there are always operatives who are going to push for immoral changes, on any committee. I’ve heard of no major contention, though, specifically between Cardinal Ottaviani and Paul VI.
Two months before the promulgation of “Laudato Si” there was a Vatican climate summit, in April of 2015. Francis had, as consultants and advisors: the atheist and pro-abortion, population control extremist Jeffery Sachs; the atheist and pro-abortion population extremist Hans Schellnhuber; and the atheist and extreme anti-capitalist Naomi Klein—moral clodhoppers every one of them.
Sachs was a “co-host” at the summit; Schellnhuber was not only a subsequent presenter of “Laudato Si,” he was named to the Pontifical Academy of Science as an “advisor to the Vatican on scientific matters.”
Like our last President who loved to poke a finger in the eyes of
opponents—even to the point of inviting Black Lives Matter people to the White House AFTER five police officers were murdered by their acolytes in Dallas—Francis seems to love to surround himself with miscreants for the same purpose: to poke his finger in the eyes of Catholics who think their Faith is something worth dying for.
I’ve encountered no evidence, though to suggest that Paul VI had a similar animus and that he personally recruited nincompoops like Ms Crowley in order to “stack the deck”—in the same way that Francis, through Sodano I believe, screened out all but precisely one “climate denier:” Christopher Monckton.
Paul VI was a distant and uninviting personality and I dislike what he did to the Mass; but I cannot see him as an operative the way I do Francis and Marx and Daneels and Leinart and Sodano and Bertone…nor have I ever heard that he, personally, wanted to allow artificial contraception. If I’m wrong, I’m open to correction.
His microphone was shut off on the anniversary of the Fatima miracle.
Wicked, evil men. Most of them are burning in Hell now, most likely. I hope Ottaviani is in Paradise.
Yes, and you’re probably right about their end, but I suppose we should pray for their souls anyway. And ask Crd. Ottaviani to pray for us and the Church. Assuming he has entered Heaven, of course. 🙂
I already prayed for their sorry butts. I mean, souls. 🙂
You’re right, of course, and I certainly prayed for Ottaviani, the poor soul. Such treatment of a good, elderly, blind man! 🙁 They demonstrated their barbarianism, that’s for sure.
“Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for you shall laugh.” (Luke 6:21) “And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night: and will he have patience in their regard?” (Luke 18:7)
Yes, reading about that whole incident made me very sad.
I have read other articles that suggest this incident occurred on October 30, 1962, not October 13, 1962. Which date is correct? October 13th is a very symbolic date and we need to know the truth. Too many articles provide untrue statements, which result in misinformation being accepted by your readers. If the October 13 date is correct, this would be very prophetic indeed. I thought I read elsewhere that October 13 was the date that the Modernist in the Council voted to change the original discussions of the group.
Thank you for your comment. I will write an update to this question tomorrow!
“And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer…”
Proof that the rot was well established before the Council.
In the letter, Cdl. Ottoviani makes a strenuous effort to legitimize the council, particularly claiming its guidance by the Holy Spirit which, given the virtually uncountable errors both direct and suggestive contained in the documents, is highly doubtful. Our Lord told us that by their fruits we will know them. The fruits of the council are purposefully intended to destroy the One True Faith and with it any and all moral inhibitions, not just prohibitions, so that anything goes. Since the 1960s the Church has been virtually the only voice of moral guidance and restraint on the planet and, like Ottovisni, more and more her “microphone” has been turned off. With the election of Francis the hierarchy, as the voice of the Church, now sings a different tune, joining in a chorus with all the others who hope to reign in hell.
Where can I read about Pope Paul VI withdrawing the oath against modernism? I admit to not being intelligent enough to understand what the HELL is going on, but it seems to me that all of this crap from the past 50 years is really starting to stink, bad. How does a person acclimate themselves to being around such rotting, awful people? At some point the toilet needs to be flushed of the rotten sewage that is suffocating Christ Church.
The real sad thing is that Octavianni had a lot more in common with the average protestant he disallowed praying with, than with most of his ‘brethren’ at the council. His point seven about penance shows thatthat he understood the church was now enterin a phase of manmade institutionalized religion. The microphone is a regular issue. When the Vatican abandoned catholic teaching on creation and Benedict organized his congress, only inviting neo darwinists and the only opposition came from a Turkish muslim professor, invited to further the multifaith without Scripture agenda, who, shockingly, professed faith in creation, whiwhisle the catholic professors did not, his microphone was turned off as well.
In the ensuing aftermath to the promulgation and the nearly universal rejection of “Humanae Vitae,” one began to hear of the “primacy of conscience,” as pretty much a pretext for ignoring its teachings.
In response, Cardinal Ottaviani issued a statement that appeared in our diocesan newspaper at the time, in which he said that, yes, one ultimately has a responsibility to his conscience; but in this case a responsibly formed conscience entails being so sure that you’re right and the Church is wrong, that you would believe yourself guilty of committing a mortal sin if you were to follow the Church’s teaching.
That’s a pretty high standard.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it would be a fascinating occurrence to see God’s response to a person who comes before Him for judgement and when asked why they disregarded His commandments says “because of conscientious dictates”. One imagines the Lord won’t be saying “Oh, well, in that case….”.
As for the Anti-Modernist Oath, it was replaced by a Profession of Faith and an Oath of Fidelity on assuming an Office in the Church: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19880701_professio-fidei_en.html
Pope Benedict in the most recent book/interview states that he and others were concerned about the attitudes of many at the Council.
This website certainly is guilty of the third point when it comes to the magisterial documents (e.g., Laudato Si’ and Amoris Laetitia) of the current Roman Pontiff! Or are you “sede vacantists” now?
The Pope cannot change doctrine or scriptural teaching.To wit, he (Pope Francis) has indicated that neither of those documents are Ex Cathredra and are, therefore, opinion, not definitive teachings. Which they couldn’t be anyway because both contradict established doctrine and in some instances even contradict Christ.
When any man says something that contradicts Christ, we have a duty to disagree.
Your “for the record” posts, such as this one, are bookmarked in a dedicated folder to be read and studied until the cows (the point of each) come home.
Cardinal Ottaviani, by means of his letter, did not attempt to forestall the spread of any “erroneous interpretations” of Vatican II, but of the pestilent ideas produced by the Council itself; its fruits. As you rightfully point out, Ottaviani “clashed with progressive bishops on the floor of the council in his opposition to modernizing trends, such as authorizing mass in the language of the people or breaking down the centuries-old walls of separation between Catholic and other Christian churches.” The problem occurred right at the Council.
Also, concerning what is said in the third to the last paragraph concerning Cardinal Tisserant’s attempt to forbid Cardinal Lienart from stopping the vote on October 13, 1962, this was carefully rehearsed and staged in order to conceal their alliance in the coup. Tisserant, a great enemy of the Faith, had already met with Lienart and others before the Council to arrange the stopping of the vote on October 13. As alluded to in the article, this actually rendered the Council invalid from that point. It was for reason that John XXIII cried out: “Stop the Council.”
Also, it wasn’t Pope Paul, but those acting in his name, who created all the opposition to Ottaviani. It was actually Cardinal Montini [Pope Paul] who expressed disapproval over John XXIII’s calling of the council in January 1959.
The only Council where heresy was embraced and adopted . . . .