It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:32 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
 What Should Have Happened in 1962? 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post What Should Have Happened in 1962?
Dear Forum, Pax et Bonum!

This is a burning question (with two parts) for which I hope some of you would have wisdom, perhaps having already discerned an answer previously - even years ago.

(1) What should have happened FOR THE GOOD when Vat.II occurred? What I mean is this. What should have the bishops and cardinals DONE at that time to circumvent the crisis? What would a preferred scenario be? The loss of souls is so grave since Vat. II that we must LEARN from this tragedy.

OR, and this is abigee, was there nothing that could have been done because God Willed this Punishment upon the Church?
I am not attributing evil to God, of course. It is within Catholic spirituality to understand from Scripture and from the Saints that God indeed punishes us for our sins by forcing us to face the consequences. Is this what happened? Did He punish the entire Church? If so, could even this have been changed?

Was it a warning from the true Third Secret of Fatima that was to be revealed BY 1960 that would have prevented this disastrous Council?

AND (2)When the Council was shown to be a new Modernist religion, when certain faithful Bishops of the Council era SAW that the Council was not Catholic (false ecumenism, religious freedom, liturgical calendar "destroyed", Novus Ordo Missae foisted upon the Faithful by robber barons(!), etc.), when these horrors became reality, WHAT SHOULD HAVE THESE ORTHODOX BISHOPS DONE? Should they have all left the New Religion and formed a special Council of their own to condemn it? I have absolutely no idea of what they should have done - do you?

What do you think?

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Tue May 30, 2006 10:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:17 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Midwest USA
New post 
I'll take a quick stab at #1 - and I apologize in advance for lack of details; my memory fails .... there was an article I read a while back (Angelus, Remnant????) that said the bishops of the world were requested to send their ideas to the Vatican about what the upcoming council should discuss. This article then reprinted the response of one bishop - I believe he was from South America. Any way, the letter was superb. To sum it up, it was a clear statement of the many problems in the modern world and how the Church should fight them not adopt them!!

Never mind - a quick browse of the SSPX site provides the info:

http://www.sspx.org/MISCELLANEOUS/whatv ... vedone.htm


Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:00 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Philly
New post 1962
First what should have happened was a call by a majority of bishops to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and to revel the secret (only 2 years late), and also make a denunciation of communism as the major enemy of God that it was. This would have put the council under Mary;s protective arms.
Secondly, the conservative bishops should have stood up to the northern liberals and formed a solid block of opposition to any major changes.
The real problem with vatican II was best expressed by the American bishops who said "why are we here?" The recognized early on that this was a totally unneeded council, that the issues being proposed could have been settled by a synod or some other lesser convocation of the bishops. THe initial schema first proposed to John XXIII between 1960 and 1962 got totally trashed because they were too orthodox. John himself expressed the idea that the council would be brief (a few weeks or months at the most) after an "outpouring of the spirit of renewal" Seeing what was happening, it has been said that on his deathbed John urged "Stop the council!!! Stop the Council!!!
But John himself being too imbued with modernism was unable to halt it and it simply spun out of control. And yeah i do believe his failure to do the consecration and revel the secret are the direct causes of this chastisement


Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 32
New post 
Dear Abba:

History seems to provide an answer to your question. Remember that during periods of persecution, the Catholic Church has had to go underground. We see that happening in present-day China, the Middle East, and even in some African nations.

Vatican II (V2), in my opinion, launched another kind of persecution. This one is more nefarious because it was subtle and came from within - from the barbarians within the gates, as it were. Those who recognized it as such (e.g. Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Gommar Depauw certainly spoke out against this Modernist Movement. (See Fr. Depauw's opposition here: http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm). When they were ostracized, stigmatized, and (in some cases) excommunicated they simply went "underground, " taking with them the flocks that were entrusted to them.

My answer to your question, then, is that the truly Catholic Bishops and Cardinals (and priests, religious, and laypeople for that matter) did the only reasonable thing - i.e. they continued to follow the perennial teachings of the Church. Remember it was V2 who left the Church - not the truly Catholic faithful.

I personally don't believe V2 was a punishment willed by God. If V2 was a punishment from God, it was a rather mild punishment. After all, the true Church has not changed and continues to exist, albeit under the shadow of V2.

I believe V2 was just another assault that Satan has launched against the Church. As you know, Satan's attack against the Church (and against man) is also within the understanding of Catholic Spirituality.

But ... these are my (Vatican) two cents. I look forward to reading what others have to say.

_________________
Yours in Christ,

William Anthony


Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Philothea wrote:
I personally don't believe V2 was a punishment willed by God.


If it was a punishment, and it happened, it was a punishment willed by God. Nothing happens that He does not either permit or positively will.

Quote:
If V2 was a punishment from God, it was a rather mild punishment.


I would not like to live through your idea of a rough punishment. The rightful place of the True Church has been rather stealthily usurped by a counterfeit religion, and hundreds of millions have lost their greatest gift - supernatural faith.

Quote:
After all, the true Church has not changed and continues to exist, albeit under the shadow of V2.


We know that, but the vast majority of the once-Catholic world still has no clue what hit them. Is there a degree of culpability involved? Most certainly, as men have ceased, in the main, to love truth. However, this punishment has been staggering, despite the fact that most of us have not actually learned the intended lesson.

In the end, may God alone be eternally praised for stooping to correct His erring children so often, and in such an efficacious way.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 32
New post 
Dear Mr. Shea:

According to Webster's II Dictionary, to will something is to 1.) decide upon or bring about by an act of the will; 2.) order or decide by or as if by decree; and 4.) intend to do (definition #3 is not relevant for our purposes).

God being all Good, True, and Beautiful cannot will evil. It would be contrary to the nature of God to do so.
If we all agree that the fruits of Vatican II are evil (and there is no question that they are), then it is impossible for God to have willed it.

I do agree with your statement: "Nothing happens that He (God) does not either permit or positively will." (Emphasis mine) Yes, I believe God allows (permits) evil to happen but He does not will it to happen. Biiiiiiig difference.

Now, to suggest that the world has no clue as to what hit them, but then go on to say that there is certainly some culpability for its ignorance, is quite baffling. Mr. Shea, if they have no clue, how can they be culpable? :?

Mr, Shea, perhaps you were one of the fortunate ones to have family, friends, and priests who clung to the Traditional teachings of the Church. There are many of us out here who were not so lucky, and were, instead, brought up in the Novus Ordo. And only by the Grace of God have we come to know better. Only by the Grace of God have we come to - in your words - love truth. So, rather than throwing up your hands in frustration, please pray for those who have not found that Truth. That would be the Traditionalist thing to do.

BTW, I don't believe you answered Abba's question (which is the reason for this thread).

_________________
Yours in Christ,

William Anthony


Last edited by Philothea on Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:24 am
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Philothea wrote:
I do agree when your statement: "Nothing happens that He (God) does not either permit or positively will." (Emphasis mine) Yes, I believe God allows (permits) evil to happen but He does not will it to happen. Biiiiiiig difference.


If you punch me in the face, God wills that it be so (He makes it possible for your hand to connect with my face, bringing about the resultant impact/damage). If there is malice in your will, He merely permits your sin. As for your physical action, and the fruit thereof, He does indeed will it - or you could not even do it.

Heliotropium is an excellent treatise on this subject. There is only one evil, and that is sin - all other things we call evil, including that which flows from the sins, are, in fact, willed by God. The distinction is between His permissive will and His positive will - and both are aspects of the same, adorable divine will.

Quote:
Now, to suggest that the world has no clue as to what hit them, but then go on to say that there is certainly some culpability for its ignorance, is quite baffling. Mr. Shea, if they have no clue, how can they be culpable?


It ought to be plain that culpability for a crime, and blindness as to its accomplished punishment, are two different things. The world is culpable for the crime which brought about the punishment, but blind to the fact that the punishment has already occurred (which blindness is part of the punishment).

Quote:
Mr, Shea, perhaps you were one of the fortunate ones to have family, friends, and priests who clung to the Traditional teachings of the Church.


I found it almost entirely on my own (by God's grace), and my family all think I am, in a way, insane. I read a lot, prayed, and gave up some sinful habits along the way.

Quote:
There are many of us out here who were not so lucky, and were, instead, brought up in the Novus Ordo. And only by the Grace of God have we come to know better.


I am 32, and was Novus until 25 - even going to an insane Novus university. I had absolutely no idea about the problems with V2, the changes in the Mass (all accomplished before my birth), etc, until I was 25.

Quote:
Only by the Grace of God have we come to - in your words - love truth. So, rather than throwing up your hands in frustration, please pray for those who have not found that Truth. That would be the Traditionalist thing to do.


That is what I do, mate. Who is throwing up his hands? It is a simple fact that most moderns do not love, or even believe in the possibility of an objective, truth - and I myself was among this sad number for far too long.

As for V2, it simply should have not been held, as the time was not right for a council (which is why Pius XII elected to not hold one). Anyone who saw that it was a modernist council should have blown the whistle immediately.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 32
New post 
Mr. Shea:

Methinks we are going off on a tangent here. If you would like to pursue this line of discussion, perhaps we should open another forum. I don't want to shift the focus of this forum away from Abba's question.

_________________
Yours in Christ,

William Anthony


Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Why bother? If you wish to proceed, I will respond in due course. Maybe you can call it "Baffled by the obvious" or "Groundless Accusations of Traditionalist Silver Spoons", or something to that effect. Cheers, mate.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Dear Mr. Eamon Shea,

Quote:
Maybe you can call it "Baffled by the obvious" or "Groundless Accusations of Traditionalist Silver Spoons", or something to that effect.


Lets please make every effort to be charitable, I do not know if offense was taken by this remark, but it could have been taken. The point made to add a new discussion thread in order to not shift the focus away from abba's question has merit.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:40 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post 
Abba,

I think that if the Consecration of Russia and the release of the Third Secret of Fatima would have ocurred in 1960 or before then what should have been occurring in 1962 would perhaps have been clearer.

It is also good to look at the connection between the timeframe of 1917 and that of the 1960's and the relationship between the two time frames. More was happening in 1917 than just the Communist revolution.

Also the timeframe of La Salette is related as well which of course would lead into the 1917 timeframe.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Dear Mr. Eamom Shea,

Lets please make every effort to be charitable, I do not know if offense was taken by this remark, but it could have been taken. The point made to add a new discussion thread in order to not shift the focus away from abba's question has merit.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


And let's not see a "lack of charity" where there is none present. If I were a thin-skinned modern, I might even take "offense" at your remarks (especially at the mis-spelling of my name). :wink:

My amigo's point about another thread was met with an acceptance of the invitation - what more do you want, Vincent?

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Dear Eamon,

My apologies for misspelling your name, no insult was intended. I have since edited that typo. Regarding the thread, me thinks your aware of the point I made;

Quote:
Maybe you can call it "Baffled by the obvious" or "Groundless Accusations of Traditionalist Silver Spoons


While agreeing, your suggested titles are self explanatory. Charity is the key here.

Thanks in advance,

In Christ our King,
Vincent


Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
My apologies for misspelling your name, no insult was intended. I have since edited that typo. Regarding the thread, me thinks your aware of the point I made;


Vince - I could care less that you mis-spelled my name - such things have happened all my life. The emoticons here are insufficient, it seems, to adequately express that I was joking.

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe you can call it "Baffled by the obvious" or "Groundless Accusations of Traditionalist Silver Spoons"


While agreeing, your suggested titles are self explanatory. Charity is the key here.


They are, and they are not contrary to charity, mate, even though they are certainly sarcastic.

What is likewise self-explanatory is why I used them in the first place. My amigo assumed things about me that were 100% incorrect (as evidenced by several posts I have made here), and failed to understand a rather simple distinction between guilt for a crime and knowledge of its punishment (which distinction he passed over in silence when it was pointed out to him more clearly).

I shall drop the matter for the present, but I ask you to spare me the accusations, implicit though they are, that there is a lack of charity involved here.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Last edited by Eamon Shea on Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:15 pm
Posts: 1
New post What should have happened in 1962?
I agree with Eamon, everyone involved who detected even the slightest modernism, implied heresy and all the long lists of big NO's in the Second Vatican Council, should have blown the whistle immediately. That false council could have been stopped in its tracks and all of the faithful throughout the world would have a clue then and now, as to the evil that was being concocted behind closed doors. That so called council could have been today, another story in the Hisotry of the Church past. Instead, it is still a living nightmare to us True Catholics. It was their God given duty to protect the faithful and the deposit of faith. Can anyone disagree with me when I say that the words of St. Paul,"Should even an angel of light speak anything contrary to what we have taught, let him be anathema" (okay the quote is not on hand but I know you all have heard it) some how missed the ears of each and everyone attending the council? I do not have the least slightest doubt that everyone there detected the spirit of evil. They were all trained in discerning spirits. Why they chose to not stand up and speak out, is anyone's guess. Lets hope they all took the vow against modernism, correct? Considering they were all ordained prior to V2. It isn't as though not one or two of them couldn't detect the spirit of modernism and heresy, in fact we know they did. There was no excuse. Everyone can make accussations and find reasons as to why all or any of them continued to sit on the council, even after the big TaDo and arguing that went on, but the truth of the matter is, they were all obligated to protect the deposit of faith. You cannot tell me that the majority ruled. I know there were quite a majority of Freemasons there in sheeps clothing but where were all the faithful shepherds? What were they thinking, why were they scared? Didn't any of them remember why we have Martyrs in Holy Mother Church? There were several Bishops that died protecting the deposit of faith and the flock. Hello? We will never know. Blind obedience and common courtesy to the so-called "Pope" and big wigs wasn't an excuse. Look at St. Athanasius.

God Bless


Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Eamon,

I will also drop the matter at present, however, pointed sarcasm can step the bounds of Charity. Let’s keep that in mind.

In Christ our King,
Vincent


Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:07 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post 
Dear Responders, Pax et Bonum.

Generally, yes, I too think that those prelates who could SEE that the Council was veering WAY OFF COURSE might have formed a strong phalanx against any of these errors or outright heresies being seeded into the ground of this Council's earth. However, I really believe there was a Trojan Horse in the Vatican because apparently from what I have read and re-read, the liberal German bishops actually were united to bring about their agenda and according to Cardinal Ottaviani, the carefully prepared agenda that was first presented was tossed out in toto for a liberal Modernist version.
(Please, no offense to Germans - I have German ancestors, too! :? )

I have also read there was much dispute with two sides clearly drawn, however, in every case Paul VI sided with the Modernists. My thought is that it is understandable that the Pope would have the "last word" on the agenda and its ensuing Modernist documents and that the prelates who were surprised by this development - except for a few - "went along" after a few attempts to make statements against Modernist leadings.

And, yes, we will know one day - at the Last Judgment when all is revealed - what really happened, how it happened, and why it happened; if we even want to know. . . .

My opening question was put forth in order to learn what should be done in similar situations -- however, we are dealing now with what was left us - a crisis. Some have said that we are the Church and there is no need to even deal with V-2 as they are a New Church. Humbly and respectfully, I don't agree, because my entire family except for my Traditional husband and mother, are Novus Ordo and are devout in their Catholicism, seeking out "orthodox" priests and parishes, which is their way of "remaining Catholic while avoiding Modernists." I do not judge this because I was once there.

I do consider as culpable the prelates who went along with the "program" after the new Rites and rules came forth -- especially the Novus Ordo Missae. I cannot imagine how ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN could go along - and he did, you know! I don't understand how such a one could go along with Modernism after all his years of preaching against Communism/Masonry/etc., yet he did! However, I do remember his praise for Ghandi, and others who were not Catholic, and a seeming pseudo-ecumenism even in his "Life Is Worth Living" program. Who else "went along?" ALL of the American Bishops, as far as I have read. I realize some priests went underground, so to speak, but these were hidden to the rest of us. Archbishops Lefebvre and Mayer seem - in retrospect - to be the only ones who were widely known to be "rebellious" - God Bless them!

I agree with the opinion that the lack of the Consecration of Russia and the apathy and sins of Catholics universally were what allowed Satan (through God's permissive Will - as nothing is done without this) to "get in" - into the heart of the Church.

(As an aside, God uses Satan as his "justiciar." This is solid spiritual teaching. God carries out His perfect justice through the sufferings caused by Satan and his minions - the fallen angels. Padre Pio said (paraphrased) "Yes, saints are formed by sufferings, but God have mercy on those who cause those sufferings." So, again, God's permissive Will, and in some cases positive Will, brings about saints of those who cooperate with the graces that which more abound when sufferings from evil abound.)

I sincerely appreciate all the thoughtful responses to my query. There were affirmations and also new lights for me in this quest for understanding.

I am my "brother's keeper" and my sins affect the entire Church. A Sacramental life, prayers and virtue and sacrifice and penitential living help build up the Body of Christ and strengthen it against the attacks of Hell. But the opposite is also true. I guess it would be good to start praying for all Catholics to take seriously their responsibility in building up the Body of Christ. If Archbishop Sheen accepted the Modernist Council, then we are all fair game!

Again, thank you dear brothers and sisters in Christ for your thoughtful writings. Perhaps some others have more to say on this subject.

God Bless You. Ardith


Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:56 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
And let's not see a "lack of charity" where there is none present.


Dear Mr. Shea,

This side of heaven, there is always a lack of charity. :)

Eamon Shea wrote:
My amigo's point about another thread was met with an acceptance of the invitation - what more do you want, Vincent?


I think Vince would like to see you slow down a little and take time to try and sound less cocky. You've only been a trad for 7 years. You come across like you're in a big hurry to sort everything out. It may be a false impression, but that's text for you. Emoticons can help, but sometimes they don't help very much.

I speak from lengthy experience of being both cocky and, to a great extent, misunderstood. A wise man learns from others' mistakes.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
Thanks for the advice, John.

I know what you are driving at, but there is not always a lack (absence) of charity - there is, however, always room for improvement while we are still in via (whether one is the greatest sinner or saint).

God speed to all, and a blessed Pentecost Sunday.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 32
New post 
Abba, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Lane -

I couldn't agree with you more! :D

May God bless you.

(Exaudi, Deus, orationem meam, et ne despexeris deprecationem meam: intende in me et exaudi me).

_________________
Yours in Christ,

William Anthony


Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:06 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.