#vatican 2

[disgruntledexplainer]

[catholic-saint-tournament]

Submitting a vote for GOOD POPE JOHN, THE SCOURGE OF THE SEDEVACANTISTS

I assume you mean John XXIII, the man who brought us Vatican 2? IF SO YES I AM ON BOARD BECAUSE VATICAN 2 WAS EXTREMELY GOOD FOR THE CHURCH AND I AM NOT APOLOGETIC ABOUT IT

[deus-sabaoth]

The inconceivable thing is that this conspiracy exists within the Church, that there are bishops and even cardinals, and many priests and religious, who play the role of Judas. That such a “fifth column” exists is not merely my unauthoritative private opinion; on the contrary, a number of cardinals, bishops, and prelates have declared in private conversations that no one who is not blind can overlook this incredibly tightly organized “fifth column” within the Church. Of course the number of religious who belong to this “fifth column” may be comparatively small, but they have a clear aim, coupled with the kind of intelligence that one finds in all Soviet and Chinese embassies, which should be more precisely characterized as slyness and cunning, to distinguish it from true intelligence.

It must be emphasized from the outset, however, that the destruction of the Church is being sought from two completely different motives. In one case it is the conspiracy which has existed at all times to undermine the Faith and destroy the Church, with the sole difference that those involved do not want to undermine the Church from without, but rather from within. This is precisely the system of the “fifth column.” People who pretend to be Catholics, who assume offices in the Church, are seeking from within, under the banner of reform and progress, to destroy the Church.

Completely different from these people are those who do not want to destroy the Church as such, i.e., who do not seek the disappearance of the Church, but who rather want to transform the Church into something which completely contradicts her meaning and essence. This includes all those who wish to make the Church of Jesus Christ into a purely humanitarian society, to rob her of her supernatural character, to secularize and desacralize her. They share that camouflage of the enemies of the Church which comes from using the shibboleths of “reform,” “progress,” and “adaptation to modern man.” But they do not want to eliminate the Church. The catchwords “reform” and “progress” are not mere tricks which they use; they really believe them.

The result of the activity of this group is the same as that of the first group; only their motives are different. This latter group would vehemently protest if one were to accuse them of intending the destruction of the Church. But they have lost the true Christian Faith to such an extent that they do not clearly understand that the secularized, humanitarian organization which they want to make out of the holy Church would have nothing left in common with the Church of Jesus Christ. They do not see that if they were to reach their goal, it would amount to the destruction of the Church.

Henri de Lubac, S.J., pointed this out with forceful and penetrating words:

“One becomes conscious that the Church is confronted with a grave crisis. In the name of a “new” Church, a “post-conciliar” Church, some people are attempting to found another Church than that of Jesus Christ: an anthropocentric society, which is threatened by an ‘immanentist apostasy,’ and which can be drawn into a movement of general surrender under the cloak of rejuvenation, ecumenism, or adaptation.”

- Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard, Introduction, p. xii-xiii.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

I’m writing a story about the papacy, and I need help coming up with an adjective to describe the fictional pope’s ideology.

Pope Gregor was “Gregorian,” Pope Sixtus was “Sistine,” Pope Francis is “Franciscan,” so what would Pope Pius be?  For most Latin names ending in -ius, you’d replace it with -ian, but that would just be Pian, which doesn’t look or sound right.  Julius is “Julian,” Claudius is “Claudian,” Fabius is “Fabian,” Vitruvius is “Vitruvian,” but Pius doesn’t seem to fit that pattern.

I’m leaning towards Piusine or Piite.  Lots of famous people have eponymous adjectives, but the only Pius on the list was Antoninus Pius whose adjectives were Antonian and Antonine.

For reference, the fictional Pope Pius is actually an Antipope, an ultra-conservative cardinal who leads a schism in the church when the duly elected Pope holds a Third Ecumenical Council to discuss modernizing and reforming the church.  There hasn’t been an Antipope since 1449, so we’re long overdue (I’m not Catholic, but my grandmother was, and I’ve been doing a lot of research into religious history)

I’m leaning towards the antipope being either Polish, Filipino, or American, as they seem to be the most vehemently conservative Catholics.  The HBO show Young Pope had an American Pope named Pius, and the real John Paul II was Polish, so how do you feel about a Filipino Antipope?

For the record, Antipope doesn’t mean what you probably think it means.  You hear it, and you probably associate it with the term Antichrist, you probably think it means EVIL POPE, but it actually means counter-pope, a pretender Pope serving opposite the true Pope, just a false claimant to the Holy See.  An Antipope is just someone who claims to be the Pope when they disagree with the college of cardinals’ election.  In this story, the antipope is the antagonist, but they’re not necessarily evil, just ideologically opposed to the legitimate Pope.

[converted-catholic]

Effects of the Second Vatican Council on America

--I want to announce at the start that I am a theologian, that is my education by choice and I am in no way questioning the validity or choices of the council only talking about some effects that are attributed to it in America--

If you have any questions or would like material to research for yourself, please message me

The Second Vatican Council, was a gathering of church members (bishops, priests, the pope, etc.) in 1962 to discuss the church and address relations between the church and the modern world, which was more secular at this time.

After the Council the conclusions were made public and each country reacted differently, in Europe the effect was what the council members expected: More masses in the vernacular, inclusion of the congregation in the mass, more common communion, etc.

America however,(as most people would agree) to the teachings in a completely different way, and thats what we are going to talk about:

Effects:

All the differences seemed to make the church more Protestant

The Council confirms and continues the liturgical movement

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant a high honor but did not limit music

This allows more instruments to come into the church, such as pianos, tambourines, and yes the famous guitar

Encouraged people to say mass together

This led to the mass being said in the vernacular, something that was very uncommon up to this point

Participation in mass changed

The mass structure became more organic and led to the communal saying of the responses

Many American religious groups took the clause saying to reform the Habit, Morals and Education as a cue to:

Get rid of the Habit entirely   

Change Morals to the more secular view

The most popular case of this the the Jesuit Seminary being mover from Woodstock

the seminarians were know to be less chastised then called to be

Girls were known to be spending the night in the seminary

Once relocated many of the boys became more secular or just left the seminary all together

The Church had adopted a more thomistic approach, however many people were not well Catechized

Mass attendance started to decline from the record high rated in the 1950′s

We have the beginning split of what is now known as “Liberal” and “conservative” catholics

As you can see many of the effects that took place pretty immediately were a mix of Good and Bad things but as the Church in America continues to function like this it leads to more drastic effects, which will be talked about in part two

[thebeautifulcatholicfaith]

Your new catechisms are so watered down, all they say is 'Love your neighbor.' No. Love God first!

Mother Angelica on Vatican II

[intrinsicallydisordered]

So has anyone seen “Novitiate” yet???

[catholiccom-blog]

What You Need to Know About the Reality of the Church and Ecumenism

According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible church that has the authority to teach and discipline believers, and will never go out of existence (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us that this Church was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20) and would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Paul even instructed one of these bishops, Titus, to appoint priests on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). This visible structure is very clear in the Bible.

Unlike the apostles, who would eventually die, Christ’s Church would remain on earth until his Second Coming. In order to accomplish this, the apostles passed their authority to bind and loose doctrine (Matt. 18:18), forgive sins (John 20:23), and speak on behalf of Christ to their successors (Luke 10:16). Acts 1:20, for example, records how after Judas’s death, Peter proclaimed that Judas’s office (or, as the KJV translates it, his bishopric) would be transferred to a worthy successor. In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul warned Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when Timothy appointed new leaders in the Church.

The visible, historical reality

There are very early accounts of this hierarchy in the texts of early Christian authors. In A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch told his readers:

Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop (Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

At the end of the first century, the fourth pope, Clement I, reminded the Christians in the city of Corinth about apostolic succession, saying:

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1–3).

Both the New Testament and the records of the early Church show that this succession of authority has enabled the Church to preserve the apostles’ original teachings. For example, the book of Acts describes how the members of the Church “held steadfastly to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42). The Didache, a first-century catechism, exhorts Christians to “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one” (Didache, 14).

In the second century, St. Justin Martyr wrote about the Mass and how the assembled “offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place,” and after that, they “salute one another with a kiss.” The presider then takes bread and wine and does the following:

[He] gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen (First Apology, 65).

Justin’s description corresponds to the prayers of the faithful, the kiss of peace, the prayer of thanksgiving, and the great amen that are still said at Mass today.

The invisible, communal reality

There is also a sense in which “the Church” exists as the invisible bond of unity among all baptized Christians, which include Catholics, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox. But that is not the same as saying the Church just is this invisible bond of unity.

According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “the Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection—divided, yet in some way one—of churches and ecclesial communities” (Dominus Iesus, 17). The CDF went on to say that the faithful can’t say the one Church of Christ doesn’t really exist or that it is merely a goal toward which all Christians should strive. They must instead acknowledge that “the elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church” as taught by John Paul II (Ut Unum Sint, 14).

The Second Vatican Council taught that this one Church of Christ:

[C]onstituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church [emphasis added], which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity (Lumen Gentium, 8).

Some may wonder why the Council Fathers used the phrase “subsists in the Catholic Church” rather than “is the Catholic Church” in this paragraph. This was done to affirm that non-Catholic Christian churches can contain true doctrines. They are also capable of bringing about sanctification, or an increase in holiness, among their members. One example of this would be Eastern Orthodox churches, since they have valid holy orders and valid sacraments like the Eucharist. However, since they do not recognize the unique authority of the pope as well as other important doctrines, they are considered separated brethren who are only in partial communion with Christ’s Church. The CDF said in 2007:

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them (To Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects Of The Doctrine On The Church).

The term “ecclesial communities” refers to denominations that came into existence as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Unlike the Eastern Orthodox, or even Anglicans in the seventeenth century, these denominations lack a valid priesthood, and so they cannot confer the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of the Christian life. Even though these Christians do not belong to churches in the proper sense of the word, the CDF acknowledged that “those who are baptized in these [ecclesial] communities are, by baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church” (Dominus Iesus, 17).

The vitality of ecumenism

The Catholic Church acknowledges what is holy and true in other Christian communities, but it does not let these things undercut the necessity of evangelizing our separated brethren. Indeed, it would be unloving to withhold the saving power of the sacraments for fear that the Church’s teaching on these matters may offend those who disagree. As John Paul II said, “ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow toward full communion in truth and charity” (Dominus Iesus, 17).