A translation of a posting from the Italian Catholic blog, 'MUNIAT INTRANTES'
MODERNISM AND SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
BLESSED CATHERINE EMMERICH
HAD REASON:
THE modernist INTERPRETATION Of
THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
"I saw a strange church that was built against every rule ... There were no angels to supervise the construction operations. In that church there was nothing that came from above ... [...] This is probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion [...] there was nothing holy in it ": Blessed Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) makes use of few but eloquent words to describe a disastrous and worrying situation for the Church of Peter. A new church, of human origin, is constructed as an alternative to the true Church, represented by the "Holy Father, distressed, distressed and hidden" mentioned by the same Emmerich in another vision.
No doubt they are revelations of a destabilizing of the faith of each of us and being thrown into confusion. What is more, apparently it causes a deep wound to the glorious Catholic Tradition, which has the doctrinal infallibility of the Church as the central hub.
"That the Roman church has never erred, nor, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, can ever err in all eternity": wrote the Holy Pontiff Gregory VII in 1075 preparing his "Dictatus Papae" on the rights of the Pope But for a Catholic "traditional" like me it is certainly nothing new. The voice of Ildebrando Aldobrandeschi of Soana is certainly not the only one: we can not forget that of St. Irenaeus or St Cyprian!
Yet how to reconcile the visions of the Holy German woman with these teachings of the Church Fathers? Or even how they these same would react, in this year of the Faith, in this fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, if they saw the majority of priests celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with pro gay flag stoles (for the uninitiated, I refer to those "nice" ones with the multi-colored flag) or receive of the Blood of Christ in non-precious goblets or give the Holy Eucharist to the people of God in plastic cups? Maybe tacerebbero. Is not this the "false church" mentioned by Emmerich? And who is at fault for such abominations? Is it John XXIII or Paul VI? Or, more generally, the Second Vatican Council?
None of these is the correct answer. So what is the truth?
The then Cardinal Ratzinger, in "The Ratzinger Report," gives us the answer to our doubts: "I am convinced that the damage we have incurred in these twenty years (1965-1985) are not due to the true Second Vatican Council" "but to the unleashing, within the Church, latent polemical and centrifugal forces, and perhaps an irresponsible or simply naivety, easy optimism, an emphasis on modernity that has exchanged technical progress today with genuine integral progress,. And outside the Church, the impact with the ideology of liberal-radical individualistic, rationalistic, hedonistic mold. " Oh yes your emmience, a counter or anti-Vatican II ("The false church") has developed which, thanks to the support of modernist trends, has gone on supplanting the authentic Council.
On the other hand the same John XXIII, in his inaugural speech at the Council, said, "the twenty-first Ecumenical Council wants to convey Catholic doctrine pure and integral without any attenuation or distortion" For the same Pope Bergamo, it was necessary only to "teach more effectively" to usher in a new Pentecost for the Bride of Christ. So much so that almost all of the conciliar documents are pastoral in character. Still, "it is indisputable that the last twenty years (1965-1985) were decidedly unfavorable for the Catholic Church. The results that followed the council seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of all thus the now Pope Emeritus was able to confess, and recommended, for Catholics to return" to the authentic texts of Vatican II. "
It is the same thought of Pope John Paul II, as indicated by the number 11 of "Pastores Dabo Vobis" about the crisis of the priesthood.
What happened then? It is Simple: someone is operating a modern re-reading of Vatican II, building the False Catholic Church.
Do you remain unconvinced? Well, let's look at some examples together.
"Sacrosanctum Concilium," which marks the 50th anniversary, reaffirms the value of the Mass as the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ (No. 47), however in the meantime, no care given to these texts of the session, The attempt has been made to reduce the religious liturgy to a Protestant supper instead. It took John Paul II to restore life to the true conciliar document with his encyclical on the Eucharist. In the constitution, we find also written: "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as her own, so in the liturgical actions, on equal terms, it should be given pride of place" (n. 116). This has not been done: we witness daily to "strimpellature" ignoble music during the celebrations. As regards, however, the language to be used during the Mass the Council wrote: ", in Masses celebrated with a congregation, a fair share of the vernacular may be used, especially in the readings and " the common prayers, "and, according to the conditions of the various places, even in the parts belonging to the people. Care should be taken so that the faithful be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them "(n. 54). And again: "The use of the Latin language, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. [...] It can be granted to a larger use of the vernacular, especially in readings and admonitions, in some prayers and songs "(38). And instead there is no trace of Latin except in the celebrations in the extraordinary form and a celebration of the Roman Pontiff. And what about the nomination of men "defrocked" in the communist and socialist lists, even though the Council had recommended Catholics to follow the Church's social doctrine in the political arena? These are just a few of the many examples of the contradiction between the true Vatican Council and, "pastorally reformist" and categorized perfectly in the wake of Tradition, and as such does not exist, but now that modernist interpretation is so widely practiced by most priests. The Council has blown out its fifty candles, it is true, but no one wants to hear more talk about the implementation, despite the Popes having called the Church to the authentic message of Vatican II.
The modernists are appropriate and if they read it at their leisure: this is the new cunning of Satan to destroy the Holy Church.
In the words of the good old Leo X: Exsurge, Domine, et Judica causam Tuam!
Gianluca Di Pietro
No comments:
Post a Comment