Rorate Caeli

"There cannot be a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church"

Yours will probably be the first generation that will correctly interpret the Second Vatican Council, not according to the "spirit" of the Council, which has brought so much disorientation to the Church, but according to what the Conciliar Event really said, in its texts to the Church and to the world.

There is no Vatican II different from the one that produced the texts we have in our possession today! It is in those texts that we find that will of God for his Church and it is to them that we must refer, accompanied by two thousand years of Tradition and Christian life.

Renewal is always necessary for the Church, because the conversion of her members, poor sinners, is always necessary! But there cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate!

There is only one Church of Christ, of which you are part, that goes from Our Lord to the Apostles, from the Blessed Virgin Mary to the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, from Romanesque to Gothic to Baroque, and thus until our days, uninterruptedly, without any solution of continuity, ever!

And all that because the Church is the Body of Christ, it is the unity of His Person that is given unto us, her members!

You, most dear Seminarians, will be priests in the same Church of Saint Augustine, of Saint Ambrose, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, of Saint Charles Borromeo, of Saint John Mary Vianney, of Saint John Bosco, of Saint Pius X, up to Saint Padre Pio, Saint Josemaría Escrivá and Blessed John Paul II. You will be priests of the same Church that has been made up of so many holy Priests who, throughout the centuries, have rendered the face of Christ, Lord of the world, luminous, beautiful, radiant, and, therefore, easily recognizable.

These were the main words of the powerful address delivered by Cardinal Piacenza, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, to seminarians in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles on October 4 - the address is available in Italian and in Spanish in the Congregation's website (if there is a link to an English version, please add it to the comments)

50 comments:

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Which hospital is Card. Roger Mahony in? I just know this caused a massive stroke.

In ICXC
John

beng said...

John (Ad Orientem, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!!



So.... if hypothetically there're indeed two Churches (pre and post V2), then the post V2 Church is historically and theologically illegitimate?

Wow.... that's deep :).

Sixupman said...

But clergy denigrate the ethos embodied within the pre-Vatican II Church. What of them?

Anonymous said...

It took the 50 years Cardinal Ottaviani predicted to undo the mess created by the Council.

Liturgical Cow said...

It simply said, the church after and before Vatican II is the same church after all.
And I agree.
Otherwise, the logical conclusion is that there never was a Catholic Church in the first place. Either the Protestants were correct or the Othodox was correct, but the Catholic Church is simply delusional at best or diabolical at worst.

Anonymous said...

I believe it was Cdl. Siri who said after the Council: It is well the Church is Divine, as otherwise this Council would have destroyed Her.

Anonymous said...

True, there are not two Churches; but infortunately, almost everyone who accepts Vatican II has departed from what the One True Church teaches by embracing such heresies as religious liberty and the false ecumenism promoted by John Paul II.

The tricky part is that the post-Vatican II Popes themslves have embraced, and now promote, these very errors. Who will be left standing when this spiritual chastisement ends?

Anonymous said...

With a powerful, magnificent speech to seminarians like this, I would not be surprised if this Cardinal has just (perhaps unwittingly), made himself attractive as a papabile in the next (hopefully not for awhile yet), papal conclave to elect a new Pope.
With words such as these, I think that Cardinal Piacenza is probably the best canidate...along with Cardinal Burke (but the chances of an American Pope are almost 0).

This speech was a total repudiation of everything the horde of radical liberal priests, friars, and femminist layclothes nuns running parishes forced down everyone's throats for 50 years.

The "church" of the "Spirit of Vatican II" is dead.

Let's celebrate big time!!

Anonymous said...

No, there is no pre-Conciliar Church and no post-Conciliar Church; there is only the Church and a Conciliar Conventicle. The two co-exist but they are incompatible, like fire and water, like the ancien régime and the French Revolution. Either the fire must evaporate the water or the water must douse the fire. Justice and Mercy will indeed meet and kiss, but Truth and Error can never come together and embrace.


P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

There is no Vatican II different from the one that produced the texts we have in our possession today! It is in those texts that we find that will of God for his Church and it is to them that we must refer

You, most dear Seminarians, will be priests in the same Church of Saint Augustine, of Saint Ambrose, of Saint Thomas Aquinas, of Saint Charles Borromeo, of Saint John Mary Vianney, of Saint John Bosco, of Saint Pius X, up to Saint Padre Pio, Saint Josemaría Escrivá and Blessed John Paul II.

It seems that the argument being made is that the problem is with post-Vatican II liberal theologians and not at all with ambiguity of the documents of Vatican II, nor the teaching and practices of Pope John Paul II.

I am not so sure that that is true.

Anonymous said...

So, according to this good Cardinal, if St. John Fisher or even St. Pio of Pietrelcina were to wander into a Sunday Novus Ordo 'happening', they would recognise it instantly as a Catholic Mass?

It's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

Mgr Andrew Wadsworth said...

The best thing I've read in a long time!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Cardinal Piacenza needs to refer to then-Cardinal Wojtyla's remarks in 1976 during a Pope Paul VI papal Lenten retreat when he said that at Second Vatican Council, the Church changed its very nature.

If so, then it does sound like we have a pre-Conciliar vs. post-Concilliar something going on.

New Catholic said...

Monsignor Wadsworth,

It is quite an honor to receive you here! Please, pray for us.

NC

profidebookstore said...

It is indisputable that those who “reject” Vatican II, but haven’t studied its documents as they stand, and have made up “their” minds on the basis of second-hand information, are talking nonsense.

Tradical said...

Greetings All,

Re the speech: Would be good if he went one step further and stated that the 'that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing".

Re Profide: Your comment "it is indisputable that those who “reject” Vatican II, but haven’t studied its documents as they stand, and have made up “their” minds on the basis of second-hand information, ..."

This is fallacious on a few points.
1. The documents were acknowledged as ambiguous by numerous members of the hierarchy - including the ones who put in the ambiguities. ergo. This in itself makes it difficult for the 'average' person to read and understand the documents of the council in the continuous teaching of the Church.

2. More importantly, because a person reads (or references) someone else's arguments pointing out clear issues with prior Church teaching compared with those of V2 does not invalidate either the arguments presented nor their concerns. If a more learned person has reviewed the documents (for example Bishops, Monseigneur's, Priests)do you discount their 'expert opinion' because it is second hand?

Anonymous said...

Well with all due respect it certainly seems like there are two different churches because of the following:
+Differences in the canon and words of consecration at Mass in the two "Forms" of the same rite.
+Communion-in-the-hand delivered by unconsecrated hands.
+Belief in Purgatory and the necessity to pray for the dead.
+The Requiem Mass(traditional) and the Mass of Resurrection(NO).
+The absolute bonds of a licit marriage as opposed to the annulment fiasco in the NO.
+The clear traditional teaching that cremation is wrong vs the NO concept that it is optional.
+The clear teaching by the perennial magisterium that salvation is only through the Catholic Faith.
+The dubious and seeming heretical notion that false religions can lead towards salvation.
+The concept that the Mass is a meal overriding the notion of sacrifice.
+Differences in the administration of the sacraments, especially Penance and Extreme Unction.
+The concept that Holy Mother Church must bow to the Protestants to win conversions.
+The necessity of clerics and those in the consecrated life to wear their habits.
+The concept that a Church is the House of God vs a meeting hall or party room.
+The education of children via the Baltimore Catechism vs modern-day equivalents in the NO.
+The concept that praying with representatives of false religions is not an affront to God.
+The concept that holy communion can be given to professed non-Catholics.
+The list continues….ad infinitum.

So, it appears as two but is really one yet the question is what can be done about it? My suggestion is an Apostolic Administration without boundaries established to include all traditional orders of the Church, including the FSSPX and their bishops, to conserve, protect and guard Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief. IMO Vatican II was hijacked by those with a modernist agenda and until it is placed back on the rails of Tradition, chaos will reign.

PEH

Anonymous said...

profidebookstore:

It is indisputable that those who “reject” Vatican II, but haven’t studied its documents as they stand, and have made up “their” minds on the basis of second-hand information, are talking nonsense.

Glad you have a crystal ball. I have studied the documents rather thoroughly, and clearly see a break with the prior magisterium. My opinion is quite reasonable as there are millions who have taken the same notion. All you need to do is look at the devastation in the Vineyard to confirm this. Also consider it took place under the auspices of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and continues under the auspices of Benedict XVI (albeit in a more reserved manner). Ecumenism today, tomorrow, and forever!

Joe B said...

BUT, if we completely strip the spirit of VII out of it, we have nothing of value left that hasn't been previously stated!

We can officially ignore it!

We win!

Let's eat.

Anonymous said...

Memento Mons. Benelli: Chiesa Conciliare

Father Anthony Cekada said...

" Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate!"

Please! Don't get me started!

HSE said...

One - Holy - Catholic - Apostolic

These are the signposts that mark the true Church for what it is. Each of the marks are based in God. If a church does not have all of these marks, then the a fundamental part of God's plan is missing from that church. Only one church has all four marks: the Catholic Church.

How does the post-Conciliar Church fair?

Cruise the Groove. said...

Of course it is impossible that the Catholic Church founded by Christ as the only Church and the only means of salvation split into 2 churches in 1965, but it looks like that in many ways.

Anonymous said...

But they are different, ask any child?
Nice words but not much proof.

Jerry

Gratias said...

The fruits of the St. John seminary in Camarillo under Cardinal Mahony have been a long list of post- conciliar liturgical abuses in this five million Catholic archdiocese. If you do not kneel for consecration or have eliminated all Gregorian chant and any reverence to the Virgin Mary you become a post conciliar church cut off tradition. Archbishop Jose Gomez, Mahony's successor, has not instituted a single new regular Traditional Mass since his accession in February. The Cardinal offered nice words indeed, but I would prefer seminarians be taught Latin so they can get a feeling for what the Catholic Church is.

Vatican II was a disaster for Los Angeles.

Jordanes551 said...

So, according to this good Cardinal, if St. John Fisher or even St. Pio of Pietrelcina were to wander into a Sunday Novus Ordo 'happening', they would recognise it instantly as a Catholic Mass?

That's a good question. But we might also ask if St. Justin Martyr were to wander into a Mass celebrated by St. John Fisher, would he recognise it instantly as the Eucharist with which he was familiar? After a thousand years or more, there is bound to be plenty of change in liturgical forms.

Not meaning to overlook the liturgical weaknesses of the reformed Mass, of course. One of the most serious problems of the post-conciliar liturgical reform is that it attempted to accomplish what might be the equivalent of some thousand years of liturgical development all at once, and we see how well that has gone over.

bernadette said...

"But there cannot be, nor could there be, a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church! Were it thus, the second one - ours - would be historically and theologically illegitimate!"

This appears to be the modernists new twist on the problem of their precious council...there cannot exist a pre-Conciliar and a post-Conciliar church! If so...theirs would be illegitimate! So, presto!, change-O!, problem solved! Now move on! And remember...Vatican II was simply misinterpreted!

Someone needs to set up MA meetings (Modernists Anonymous) for these liberals that are in denial that Vatican II is the cause of nearly fifty years of Church destruction and loss of souls.

M. A. said...

But there ARE two religions waging war within the Church. Obviously, one is the true Foundation over which the gates of hell will not prevail, and the other is the leech, the parasite to which Paul VI referred - and which he proudly embraced - in his closing address at VII:

"The attention of this Synod was taken up with the discovery of human needs – which become greater as the son of the earth (sic) makes himself greater.

"At least grant it this merit, you modern humanists who renounce the transcendence of supreme things, and come to know our new humanism: we also, we more than anyone else, we have the cult of man."

The diabolical disorientation which we are living through, I am convinced, is a direct result of the anthropological orientation of the texts of VII as they are written.

It seems silly to make to make such a statment as, "you will probably be the first generation that will CORRECTLY INTERPRET the Second Vatican Council..."

Quite simply, why can't the Holy Father, once and for all, make solemn pronouncements on what is to be definitively held as an article of faith? So, the Church is to wait on some people to someday "probably" correctly "interpret" doctrine on which the salvation or damnations of souls rests?

Dan said...

Is it any wonder why the state of the Church is so chaoctic, when we read words like the Cardinal's? That they can still be clinging to this Vatican II fantasy, after all these years, in the face of a Church that resembles a landscape after a volcanic eruption - burnt, splintered and covered with molten rock - is beyond comprehension. They simply wont let go of this notion that the "real" interpretation of Vat 2 is just around the corner...just be patient...there has been no rupture...etc., etc., etc. Just what more will it take to convince them that the modernists in the Church have successfully demolished the faith of millions of Catholics? Will it take Abe Foxman being appointed as Vatican Secretary of State?

Words fail me.

Anonymous said...

The fruits of the St. John seminary in Camarillo under Cardinal Mahony have been a long list of post- conciliar liturgical abuses in this five million Catholic archdiocese. If you do not kneel for consecration or have eliminated all Gregorian chant and any reverence to the Virgin Mary you become a post conciliar church cut off tradition. Archbishop Jose Gomez, Mahony's successor, has not instituted a single new regular Traditional Mass since his accession in February. The Cardinal offered nice words indeed, but I would prefer seminarians be taught Latin so they can get a feeling for what the Catholic Church is.

Vatican II was a disaster for Los Angeles.


Have you ever lived in a place that truly needed reforming? Cdl. Burke attempted to do so at a glacial pace here in St. Louis, and is still being pilloried for his work by laypeople and clergy of the diocese! Can you imagine what would happen in LA to Gomez? Patience, my friend...

I am not Spartacus said...

There are two Catholic Churches at war with each other and it does nobody any good to pretend it is otherwise.

There is the Spotless Bride of Christ which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth and which is guided by The Holy Ghost and can not teach error and can, and does, at times, Teach, Rule, and, generally speaking, Sanctifies.

And there is also the Catholic Church in her praxis. Sometimes it is Orthopraxis and sometimes it is Heteropraxis -like it has been for the past one-half century - in its politics and approach to its ancient and permanent enemies - the world, the flesh, the devil

And we all know it will be restored in all of its glorious orthopraxis at some future point before it, once again, falls into novelties or is captured by the spiritus mundi.

But there certainly are two different Catholic Churches- in not only appearance but in practice.

I will cite one instance from personal knowledge.

I was born into a large Catholic family and we were all learnt that it was a mortal sin to miss Mass if we could have made Mass but didn't and you could not find one Priest in the 1950s who would say differently.

Now, jump ahead one-half century.

I have a family member who was told, three different times by different priests, that missing Mass is not a sin just as long as they went to some protestant service that day.

Indifferentism (the worst example of it in modern times will soon celebrate its 25th Anniversary) has a firm lock on many priests.

How could it be otherwise given Ecumenism?

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Piacenza = Pius XIII ?

Deo Gratias for this man,
Mr. Tony

Joshua said...

Someone mentioned Los Angeles and Mahony and liturgical abuses. Under Cardinal Manning the NO was celebrated as traditionally as possible (this is a Cardinal who attributed the untimely death of a friend to the new liturgy). When Mahony came in so did the EHMCs and all that. However, I will say this

1. I have NEVER been to a Mass in LA archdiocese that didn't kneel through the canon. NEVER. And I lived there all but 3 years of my life

2. Most of the Churches still have tabernacles front and center, many still have rails

3. It isn't up to +Gomez to "institute" any more old rite Masses. Such a statement implies that such is up to him alone. Well sorry, it is up to priests and laity who ask for it. Even under Mahony several places were order pre-2007 by the chancery to have a regular TLM, and then after 2007 several places added one every Sunday and one place every day. That growth was not institute by Mahony, but by priests and faithful. No reason the same should not continue under Gomez

Gratias said...

Dear Joshua, you were lucky. I have attended many masses in which not a single person (except us) kneeled during the Canon. This came from Mahony. Under Gomez it is true that people kneel again.

Kairos said...

Let's get down to brass tacks folks, as it will only hinder the cause of Tradition if we continue to delude ourselves.

The root cause of this crisis: it is not post-1965 dissent, nor abuses, nor the council not being 'implemented' properly, nor even ambiguities in council decrees.

Plain and simple, it is neo-modernist ideas that have seeped into our teaching and, by extension, our worship and discipline, a process that started at the council that dare not speak its name. Done at the behest of our Church leadership, including our several most recent popes. Only once this is recognized and somehow addressed will we start to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Kyrie Eleison

Anonymous said...

Many Catholics object to the appellation "post conciliar" church. However, it is the hierarchy of the Church which has itself coined this designation. It was used by Pope Paul's representatives to remonstrate with Archbishop Lefebvre at Econe. Paul VI had also used the phrase "Church of the Council" and John XXIII called it a "new Pentecost." Not to be outdone John Paul II called it "the new Advent".
It would be more accurate to say that traditional Catholics believe the Catholic Church cannot change, while modernists, who deny the fixity of truth and hold that a religion is a matter of feeling, believe it can. The majority of post-conciliar Catholics have been unconcerned with these principle and have gone along with the changes because they find them easy to accept. The new church makes far fewer demands on its members.

I am not Spartacus said...

One of these Churches -

http://tinyurl.com/3esvog3

is not like the other -

Altar Girls: Indeed, on 5 November 1995 a small historical-liturgical revolution took place around the Pope. For the first time in a Roman parish, 4 girls served the Mass celebrated by Karol Wojtyla. Never before had the Pope - in an Italian church, much less in Rome - been accompanied by girls during the Eucharist, despite the fact that the Vatican had approved altar girls in March 1994. Before ’94, the presence of girls at the altar was individually decided by parish priests, with the tacit approval of some of the more courageous bishops. During his trips abroad, the Polish Pope was sometimes “assisted” at the altar by groups of girls. The ice was broken on the morning of 5 November 1995 in the Parish of Santi Mario e Famiglia Martiri in Romanina, a suburb on the outskirts of Rome, where Karol Wojtyla celebrated Mass alongside Michela, Eleonora, Giovanna, and Serena.

http://tinyurl.com/3bv99k4

Anonymous said...

In my diocese? These words? Incredible!

kgbman said...

Ontologically speaking, his Eminence is correct. There are not, and cannot, be two different Churches. Our Blessed Lord founded a Church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

But...

Anyone with eyes in his head can see that in practice there are two different Churches. Another commenter asked if St. John Fisher would recognize the Mass today. Jordanes made a good response. We don't have to go so far back in time: would Pope St. Pius X recognize one of Pope Bl. John Paul II's liturgies as the Mass? Would a Catholic layman from the 1930's, transported through time to 2011, recognize what goes on in a typical suburban parish as the Mass? I know plenty of Catholic laymen and clergy who experienced all of the changes as they happened, and even they can't believe how much the Church has changed (for the worse or for the better depending on whom you ask.)

I was received into Holy Mother Church through baptism and confirmation in 2005. The first Novus Ordo Catholic Mass I ever attended was such a profound shock to me that I still don't think I've fully come to terms with it almost seven years later. Even to my freshly converted eyes, something struck me as being wrong with so much of what I saw going on. I asked myself, "Is this the same Church I've been reading about?" The Mass is the most obvious difference of course. I've spent the last year attending an FSSP parish exclusively. You begin to notice the differences extend to theology, spirituality, and culture as well.

Again, his Eminence is correct that in principle there are not two different Churches. Even so, I expect that when the dust finally settles and Holy Mother Church rises from the ashes, historians will label our era as that of the Second Western Schism. During the first schism, there was one Church with several popes. During the second, there was one pope trying to rule many Churches.

John McFarland said...

Since the doctrine of Vatican II taken as a whole represents a different gospel from that handed down until then, the unity of the Church is not grounds for treating the teaching of St. Pius X and (for example) Pope John Paul II as somehow of a piece, but rather for flatly refusing to treat the conciliar doctrine as having anything to do with the Church and the Faith, except where it repeats the traditional doctrine.

Furthermore, since any sound elements of conciliar doctrine are subject to adulteration by or confusion with the great mass of unsound doctrine, simple prudence requires not looking at all to conciliar doctrine when seeking the know the Faith.

As Bishop Williamson has often said, truth and authority are separated. I will leave to wiser (or perhaps rasher) heads the characterization of the relation between the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Faith necessary for membership in that body, and the teaching and practice of the last 40-odd years. I am content to go where the truth is taught, and the sacraments administered in accordance with the truth. Those who do so can be confident that they are part of the Mystical Body, whatever is to be said about anything else in the current ecclesiological, doctrinal and governmental madhouse, where (for example) the Roman authorities give the supposed doctrine of the Church to the SSPX -- with the injunction to keep it confidential.

I am not Spartacus said...

I must have erred in posting the first tiny url link.

This one works

http://tinyurl.com/4xkozz3

As for Pope Blessed John Paul II and his use of Altar Girls - that was a radical break with 2000 years of Tradition and he was the First Pope who dared undertake such a dramatic step outside of Tradition.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm


#29 Women Assisting at Mass

Pope Gelasiusin his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: "Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry." We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.

Pope Gelasius; 492 - 496 A.D.

There has been a truly radical break with Traditional Orthopraxis and the proof that The Holy Ghost has not abandoned His defense and teaching of Holy Mother Church is that V2 was a Pastoral not a Doctrinal Council and once the last of the Bishops and Periti of that Council have experienced the reformed Funeral , maybe we can, again, restore Tradition in all of its Triumphal Splendor.

Anonymous said...

Then whatever smacks of that must be rooted out and tossed aside. Enough already of the division. Few Souls can stand it much more.

LeonG said...

Play on words as much as one would like, objectively speaking there are now pre-conciliar and post-conciliar paradigms. Liturgical praxis, pastoral processes and eclesiastical administration are three outstanding examples of the rupture hermeneutic. In addition, ecumenical and interreligious models are in total contrast and contradiction. To contest there is continuity is a denial of the empirical reality. The chief indicators themselves strongly demonstrate that the once robust expanding church observed by Pope John XXIII has become the undisiciplined, chaotic (Fr Paul Marx OSB) and destructuralised phenomenon we observe today.

Anonymous said...

I agree with so many of the comments that question Cardinal Piacenza's words about the 2 Churches, but Bernadette's comment captured the essence of all of the "dissidents" and made me LOL!

"Someone needs to set up MA meetings (Modernists Anonymous) for these liberals that are in denial that Vatican II is the cause of nearly fifty years of Church destruction and loss of souls."

Brava Bernadette!

Barbara

Anonymous said...

Of course, the destruction and loss of souls is NOT something to laugh about, but cause for prayer, penance and weeping. Sometimes I lose sight of the gravity of that amidst all these blog discussions.

Queen of the Holy Rosary, pray for us and have mercy on us.

Prayers for everyone at 3pm!

Barbara

Gratias said...

The Evil surges forth from the written words. Like the Koran, which was dictated by Satan.

profidebookstore said...

Anonymous said on 06 Oct.:
“I have studied the documents rather thoroughly, and clearly see a break with the prior magisterium.”
I have too, and clearly see the continuity with the prior magisterium.

“My opinion is quite reasonable as there are millions who have taken the same notion.”
Mine is not merely reasonable but certain, although I am ashamed for having not managed to consult the “millions”.

”All you need to do is look at the devastation in the Vineyard to confirm this.”
I don’t think so. The current devastation is in continuity with the pre-conciliar devastation that was boiling under the lid, and the best evidence is the encyclical Humani Generis. “Post hoc” does not ipso facto mean “propter hoc”. To claim that it does is not “reasonable” but – unreasonable.

“Ecumenism today, tomorrow, and forever!”
Yes, if understood as the V2 teaches it, and rightly so.

However, I am glad to have met one who qualifies for a discussion, as different from those who haven’t studied the documents. Another one has ventured to insist that the study is not necessary, and has even provided “evidence”. What do you think of him?

Anonymous said...

“Ecumenism today, tomorrow, and forever!”
"Yes, if understood as the V2 teaches it, and rightly so."
Well, you are not the only one who has "studied" the VII documents. Many of us have, and what traspires is grand style eclessiastical talk, full of self complementary statements, and "pastoral" pronouncements that can be interpreted either way. No "anatema sit" doctrine and to add to the basket, statements completely opposed to VI, that was a dogmatic Council.
The phrase "Yes, if understood as the V2 teaches it, and rightly so." is the trap to try to bridge Pre-VII and Post VII Church, but evidently it is a catch phrase with no real meaning. What Post Conciliar Church clergy interpreted of VII documents was a break, and these has been affirmed by many attendants to that event. Even JPII affirmed that the Pre-VII Church was forever left behind..., and Benedict XVI has claimed that Lumen Gentium corrected the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, and that it is a "kind of Counter-Syllabus"...
If this is not a break, please make clear to me what the meaning of this word is.
C.M.

Louis E. said...

Cardinal Piacenza is of course a protege of Cardinal Siri,ordained a priest by him and named by him as a canon of the Cathedral in Genoa.

profidebolokstore said...

“I have studied the documents rather thoroughly, and clearly see a break with the prior magisterium”, claims Anonymous on Oct 6, and I welcomed it as true. However, the comment of Oct 8 is a disappointing cliché known to all parrots, and doesn’t demonstrate a knowledge of the Vatican II ecumenical doctrine. Surely, one cannot criticize what he hasn’t grasped in the sense meant by the authors.

Could we have a brief summary of the latter as it is, without DIY decorations? Because that only will demonstrate that the study was done “rather thoroughly”.