A searing analysis of the errors of Vatican II November 9, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, priests, reading, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
I’ve both praised, and raised some caution over, HJA Sire’s Phoenix from the Ashes. I have found myself disagreeing with some of the author’s reasoning as I’ve read deeper into the book, but that focuses primarily on his lack of understanding of capitalism and some minor asides that I have found rather silly. However, that there is enormous gold in the book is also very clear, and the good so far outweighs the bad. His thorough destruction of the errors of Vatican II – for that is how he terms them, in fact, not just errors, but heresies – is as good and concise a destruction of some of the most glaring problems from that sordid Council as I have ever read. In four pages, from pp. 201-5, he just takes apart the liberal lies regarding the Council, and the shockingly underhanded and devious tactics they used to achieve their aim. I’m going to excerpt heavily from those four pages, in what might take two posts due to length. Rather than waste your time with my prattling, I’ll just jump right in (my emphasis and comments):
The examples of irregularities in the Council [taken] from R.M. Wiltgren’s account……gain force from the fact that the author was a sympathizer with the progressive’s aims, but could not help marveling (if not rebelling) at their tactics. It should be noticed that, with one exception, the bias went all one way, towards the imposition of the liberal program and silencing of its opponents…….There is no counterbalancing action of the other side constraining the modernizers. The first two sessions of the Council were distinguished by the campaign to present the Curia as a tyrannical imposition of the Church’s liberty; yet the Curia were powerless, because both John XXIII and Paul VI left it in the lurch. [Quite an understatement. JXXIII and PVI sided with the progressives at almost every major opportunity in the Council’s first two years, even as they watched their own Curia be treated as a whipping boy, the fantastical object of every leftist’s ire] The only tyranny was the one exercised by the progressives. One hardly needs to point out the gap between the Council’s tactics and its claims of introducing a regime of tolerance and benignity in the Church. Tolerance, to the liberals, meant tolerance only for themselves. [Of course. That has always been the way of the Revolution going back 500 years. Liberty for me, draconian repression for thee once I gain power.]
……..More peculiar to the Second Vatican Council were the undue influences of the periti, of national blocks in the council, of the world press outside it, and of the rage of the time for an “ecumenical” – in practice a protestantizing – policy. In the first two respects, the Council can be compared to that of Florence, with its preponderance of the lower clergy and its organization by national groups; and we may think it no coincidence that the assembly generated the heresy of conciliarism. [Wow. Later, author Sire is to demonstrate conclusively how conciliarism is a heresy. I will surely share that with you, God willing]
Accompanying these faults is the un-Catholic spirit that permeated VII. A striking example of it is in the war waged by the progressives, in the name of ecumenism, against devotion to Our Lady. The trend had set in before the Council opened, when John XXIII visited the Shrine of Loreto in 1962 and was criticized for his tactless offence against the ecumenical movement. In the Council itself the contamination was taken further. One can trace the bitter spirit of the progressives in the remarks of Yves Congar, [the man who worshiped Luther] who spoke contemptuously in private of “Mariano-Christianity” and of “fanatical Mariologists.” In 1964, at the prompting of Karl Rahner, the German bishops urged the rejection of the schema On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, and wished to restrict mention of Our Lady to the schema on the Church. [Sadly they were permitted to succeed, again due to failure of papal intervention] ………When it was proposed to include Our Lady’s title of Mediatrix in the Council’s texts, the progressive cardinals, including Leger (of Montreal), Dopfner, Bea, and Alfrink, led the opposition to it. An unholy bargain produced the compromise that they would accept the use of the title on condition that the Council dropped the proposal to declare Mary Mother of the Church. The spectacle of a council of the Church playing politics with the titles of the Virgin Mary, to win the applause of heretical onlookers, is among the most offensive provided by Vatican II. [Can you imagine? You think they had much love for Our Lady?] Here again, Pope Paul was moved to act against the ascendancy he had himself set up. On November 21, 1964, he proclaimed the title on his own authority, an action that caused Hans Kung to denounce the “promulgation of the misleading title Mater Ecclesiae against the expressed wish of the council majority, [lie, what he means is the majority of modernist periti] which will arouse in non-Catholic Christendom great indignation, and grave doubts as to the genuinely ecumenical sympathies of the pope.” These words, with their assumption that non-Catholic Christendom was to be identified with protestantism, are representative of the progressive outlook; and the indignation attributed to those outside the Church was all on the part of the modernists inside it……… [Is their anyone more hidebound, more insular, more provincial than a progressive ideologue? Do you notice once again how progressives project onto others their own failings and shortcomings?]
…..From the zeal for ecumenism sprang some other distortions…….in the 1960s, the strength of ecumenical considerations was paramount and dictated great deference to the protestant observers. Thus, the Lutheran delegate Professor Oscar Cullmann was to be found remarking early in the first session, “I am more and more amazed every morning at the way we really form a part of the council.” In an article in January 1964, Fr. Schillebeeckx avowed, “One is astonished to find oneself more in sympathy with the thinking of Christian, non-Catholic ‘observers’ than with the views of one’s own brethren on the other side of the dividing line. The accusation of connivance with the Reformation is therefore not without foundation.” [Rare candor from the scheming Schillebeeckx, who generally preferred to work in the dark, as his open embrace of heresy indicates. How HJA Sire could possibly claim Schillebeeckx was not a heretic on the eve of the Council is beyond me – if he wasn’t the day before the first day of session 1, he became one the next day] The astonishment, one must say, was all on Schillebeeckx’s side. Describing the debates of the Council, the Anglican observer Dr. J. Moorman wrote, “If some Father forgot himself and said things which were bound to cause a flutter in the observer’s tribune, he was sometimes rebuked by some later speaker”; and he noted that “although the observers were not allowed to speak in the council, their speeches were sometimes made for them by one or other of the Fathers.” [Foolish bishops, cowed by their “intellectually superior” periti, would frequently make interventions on the council floor they had neither pre-read nor understood. But then again, some were thoroughgoing modernists themselves] In the Council’s documents the effects of this influence were seen concretely in the definition of the sources of Revelation in a protestantizing sense and in the decrees on ecumenism an don the priesthood……..
……….Guadium Et Spes, the programmatic utterance of the Council [and Josef Ratzinger’s “counter-Syllabus”] , officially known as the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” while free from actual heresy, is a deplorable document. [I’m not completely certain it’s quite so free] The first point that invites remark is the eponymous opening phrase, so characteristic of the optimism that the Council made its trademark, and so ironical in light of the age of dissension and decline that it ushered in. As to the content of the document, the first impression left by it ifs of the humanistic tone deliberately given by the repetition of the phrases “human race” and “human person.” [Paul VI was a big humanist, and a huge fan of Jacques Maritain] The social teaching of the constitution discards that of the recent popes; in particular the doctrine of the Kingship of Jesus Christ receives no mention in it and cannot be reconciled with it. The papal condemnations of socialism are dropped, and the refusal to condemn communist tyranny is deliberate. [Of course! All so a handful of KGB agents posing as Orthodox bishops could be present, making a truly “ecumenical council!”] A “basic equality” is proclaimed, by which all forms of social difference, including, apparently, the traditional hierarchy of Christian society, are condemned as “contrary to God’s intent.” [This is a hugely influential point, it is the basis for so much of the modernist-hard left error we see emanating from the Church today] The document is pervaded by modern materialist standards, as shown in the urging that “created goods should be in abundance for all,” and in recommendations, at best out of place in a statement on Christian teaching, advising the abandonment of “antiquated methods of farming” [so the periti were also experts at farming! Who knew?!?] and even the adoption of “scientific advances in regulating the number of children.”…….In its obsequiousness to modern mores, the constitution finds itself unable to teach that the role of parenthood ought to be cherished without adding, “though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account.” A more realistic teaching would have noted that it was precisely the plea of the social progress of women that was undermining traditional family life. As a more general comment, one must feel how incongruous it is to see the Council preaching to the modern world, at great length, principles which are all too obviously taken from the world, and which have figured large in its historical campaign against the Church.
Brilliant denunciation at the end, and quite an excellent summation of Guadium Et Spes, a document written by leftists parroting secular leftist shibboleths back to the world, and hailed as a great breakthrough by leftists in the media. Beginning to think the game was rigged from the start?
There will be more tomorrow. I find it quite humorous, in a dark sort of way, how little progressive tactics change. Find an enemy. Fix him. Destroy him though outrageous calumnies. Move onto another target. Appeal to emotion, not reason. Always lie. Always project your own bad intent onto your opponents. Scheme. Maneuver. Use the media as your best ally at all times. Bullying works.
Oh, such models of virtues were these great “saints” of Vatican Council II, were they not?!?!