Sunday, October 21, 2012

Celebrating 50 Years of Vatican II

                                    A GREAT CONTRADICTION

    Pope Benedict called for, beginning with Oct. 11th,  a year (it seems)  of celebration of Vatican II which began Oct. 11th, 1962. A YEAR OF FAITH, this year is called.


    The  many changes brought upon a very Traditional and Unchanging Church, via Vatican II, places upon Traditional Catholics a burden and dilemma of very high degree - making CELEBRATION  - A GREAT CONTRADICTION. The massive and excellent work named - The Old Catholic Encyclopedia - of the turn of the century (19th to 20th), states quite significantly that the FACT that the Catholic Church is an UNCHANGING CHURCH gives testimony that this Church is the One True Church of Divine Institution founded by Jesus Christ.


       Since  the writings of Saint Paul are  Divine Revelation, setting the proper and most profitable to the Church role of women at Mass, then the new role of women and girls (and lay people in general) at Mass, must be a very worldly invasion of the Church. And accepting the GREAT AUTHORITY of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, given to him by the Church herself  (via past councils and the many pontiffs), makes the Vatican II casting aside of his wisdom and authority, an impossible obstacle to acceptance of the Council in any way except strict validity - since validly convoked and executed.


    The many changes upon the Church by Vatican II has forced a denigration of the Traditional Church. [The denigration of the Vatican II Church has been self induced, by the defects which Vatican II caused to be placed into the Church. Pope Paul VI spoke of this denigration as the SMOKE OF SATAN entering the Church, and SELF-DEMOLITION of the Church.] And so the honor, respect and effective authority of the Church, especially as recognized  by the world or unbelievers, has significantly decreased . We might say that the LIGHT OF THE WORLD, has suffered an ECLIPSE.
    As a general rule, change represents a movement from imperfection toward perfection. It is meant to improve. And when significant and many changes are quite suddenly put in place, it naturally is taken to indicate a previously quite defective situation. And this is especially the natural conclusion of those who apply superficial examination to Vatican II and to the Church as affected by it. It seems that 98% of all who in any way know what the term VATICAN II means, have this degree of knowledge.And thus the term Vatican II - and its bringing about the 'NEW AND IMPROVED' Church, is naturally coupled with the idea or opinion of a PREVIOUSLY DEFECTIVE CHURCH = DENIGRATION OF THE TRADITIONAL CHURCH.  
    Vatican II has made it much easier for Satan and teachers of untruth and lies (whether intentionally and knowingly or not), to tell lies about the Catholic Church regarding her Divine Institution and Apostolic Tradition.
   And so just as Protestants, influenced by Martin Luther, conclude that the Church was greatly defective at the time, needing the Protestant return to tradition, so does Vatican II influence similar thinking regarding the Traditional Church.

   Anyway, this writer holds the position that Vatican II does great harm to the Church. By itself alone, the change in focus to action over contemplation , fulfills this negative effect - 10,000 religious abandoning their vocations and returning to the WORLD, immediately after Vatican II , is no small price to pay. Anyone wishing to look more deeply into the arguments and evidence regarding this claim against Vatican II,  please scroll down to the article 'Defense of Vatican II is Impossible',  and also go to the website  VATICANIIDEBATE.COM.

*** Also read the article in Catholic Family News Celebrating a Catastrophe

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Can a General Council Be Condemned

     Perhaps this question has already been answered - in one way or another. If not then surely this question and other questions such as Authority of Church Writings & Councils , could well use a Garrigou-Lagrange or St. Thomas Aquinas type of workmanship. This effort is meant to simply touch on the subject and hopefully prompt discussion.

    The overall principle (to the question posed) seems to be that : 'One who has authority over the matter or entity (here we treat a council), has authority to accept or reject the entity - except when a higher authority (the Holy Spirit) takes precedence or is the actual agent behind the entity, making THE ONE WHO HAS AUTHORTY actually a sub-agent or secondary authority'.

    There seems to be little doubt that should a pastor call a parish council together to decide certain matters within the parish, the pastor is not bound to abide by the decisions of the council. The prudence of doing so or not doing so is not the question - at least in the absolute sense.

    There seems likewise to be  little doubt that should the bishop or archbishop of the diocese call together in council some or all the priests of the diocese, so to decide matters like altar girls or communion in the hand, within this diocese, that the bishop or archbishop is not bound by these decisions.

    A general or universal council can be called only by the one having universal authority, namely the pope. The pope is free to accept or reject the council's decisions - is he not. The reality that a pope is pre-decided in this matter, it seems, does not change the question of his freedom. (admittedly the teaching of Collegiality seems to confuse the issue - however, it can be argued, down the stretch, that this teaching in Vatican II caries no weight).

    Anyway let us simply say :

1. The pope is free to call or not call a council. A wise or prudent pope, especially after the Church became large and complex,  would seek the advise and thinking of the cardinals and bishops, on this question of whether or not to call a council.

2. A  council serves as an advisory body for the pope. When a council shows that it has performed with great prudence, knowledge and much careful pondering and calling upon the full wisdom of the Church historically, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit during the council proceedings, then the pope should be quick to abide by these decisions. Still the pope is free to accept or reject the decisions, of the council.

3. A pastoral council remains as an advisory council to the pope, and to the Church after the pope approves its decisions. The point is that a pastoral council does not formally bring in the higher authority (the Holy Spirit). We well know that 'solemn pronouncements or defintions which bind every Catholic' are irreversible. Obviously a pastoral council does not fit this mold.

4. Thus there exists no reason to put such a council outside the authority of a pope to change or condemn should sufficient evidence exist to prove this radical move advisable for the good of the Church.