Saturday, February 18, 2012

Episcopal Priest Joins in on Lies About Vatican II

I came across this post purely by accident. I started to hit the "next blog" link at the top of the page a couple of weeks back and this post caught my eye.

The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church has got to be far and away the most misrepresented decision-making body that has ever existed. I have seen all manner of bizarre accounts of religious and secular meetings of the minds from all sorts of historical eras, but none have been twisted as to their founder's intention's, nor had their very purposes for being convened purposely misrepresented more than that which has been done to Vatican II.

The Left does of course have a relatively secure foothold in the US Catholic Church and most of the Mainline Protestant denominations, especially in the Episcopal Church. They have, however never accepted that they have yet been unable to cause these bodies to drop the Christian concepts of sin, redemption. justification, and salvation and thus turn them into kumbaya communities that do nothing but petition for more "social justice".

The Second Vatican Council was and still has been assailed from all sides, most of whom strategically retain the label of Catholic in order to maintain the illusion of actually being Catholics. This is somehow supposed to lend weight to their protests that the Council went too far or did not go far enough. The following is a very brief listing of the general categories involved:

- Radical traditionalists, who claim that the Church should never have allowed anything other than Latin to be used in Masses or that the Laity were now allowed too great a part in the Mass.

- Radical lay persons, who just generally dislike anyone having any authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong but can't bring themselves to abandon the idea of maintaining the image of attending Church. These people hold that the laity were allowed too little a part in the Mass.

- Feminists who claim that the Church failed in her fictional purpose to bring on women priestesses or dismantle all traces of male leadership. (A possible  return of the female Diaconate similar to that of the early Church? Absolutely not, we want the whole thing.)

- Leftists and others, who resent that the Church maintained their positions of morality, marriage, and the rest of the concepts embodied in the Ten Commandments, such as property.

I will not treat all  of these categories as doing so would take me off the subject. Safe to say that the radical traditionalists thankfully have very few followers.

The main problem for the Church has been the bold-faced lies that have been heaped upon her for supposed failures to implement changes that were falsely attributed to the "Spirit of  Vatican II" or other vague references to intentions of the Council founders or attendees that never existed.

Again. this council has been the subject of more outright lies than any governing body/convention/committee in the history of the world.

In today's society, where honesty means little, one can pretend to be of the opinion that a Council decided on positions and practices that were completely contrary to what the actual signatories wrote and signed to document as their decisions. If that course is not chosen, then one can just pretend that the council did in fact decide or desire whatever one in his delusional mind would have wanted and hope that no one checks by reading what the council wrote.

The event that spurred this post was this exact thing, but this time it came from an Episcopalian Priest. One's first question would naturally be why an Episcopalian got himself involved with the chorus of lies about Vatican II in the first place. His post gives that answer. Here is a portion:
"Episcopalians can now convert to the Roman Catholic Church while keeping some Anglican practices in a special new U.S. diocese that was established last week by the Pope.

The Houston-based diocese, called the "Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter," will allow a special Anglican celebration of the Mass that can include selections from the Book of Common Prayer. So, if you love Anglican liturgy (but dislike contemporary Roman Catholic practice), but dislike the stance the Episcopal Church has taken on female clergy (or the role of women in society in general) or homosexual clergy (or the role of homosexual persons in society in general) or any other of a host of possibilities (e.g., contraception, abortion), then you can now "have your cake and eat it to." No longer do you have to choose between bad music or bad theology. Now, you can have both liturgy and doctrine that is to your liking."
OK, now I get it. He is not happy that the Church is providing a means for Episcopalians and their Priests to escape the collapse that is being brought on by their own their Church leadership. The Episcopalian Church lied itself into all sorts of compromises that that has terribly undermined its credibility. Mind you, the same thing has happened in the US Catholic Church, but it has not reached near the level that it has with the Episcopalian. Those who desire some pastoral action and firmness by their pastors (Note that pastoral refers to acting as a Shepherd, which means being in charge as well as being kind) now have a refuge form the insanity that plagues their current Church body.

Reverend Hawkins goes further:
"I, do not, however, feel God's call to this new Ordinariate. And, I am sad to see it established. It is yet another sign that my delight in the Roman Catholic Church post-Vatican II, will not last. I experience this as a loss. And, therefore, it makes me sad.

I am sad because my pews are filled with former faithful Roman Catholics, who have found that for those who believed in Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church can be an inhospitable place. It saddens me, because it didn't have to be that way. But since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has chosen to retreat from Vatican II, rather than advance into Vatican II."

From where I sit, it looks like the best place for Vatican II Catholics is, sadly, the Episcopal Church. Our liturgy can be a little stuffy for your liking, but we are now the closest thing to an emobodiment [sic]of Vatican II in America. For those who take birth control, or believe women can be priests, or that married persons can be priests, or are divorced and do not believe it would be wrong to remarry, and so on and so forth, perhaps your ordinary (i.e. bishop) really is already the local Episcopal bishop."
OK, we all know that many who have given up trying to completely wreck the Catholic Church from within found a home with you guys and that is great. Guys, knock yourselves out over there. We also know that those who have grown weary of Episcopalians successfully wrecking their Church from within have found refuge in the Catholic Church. If Catholics are OK with our guys leaving for your Church, then why can't you be OK with the conversions going the other way?

Just to provide Reverend Hawkins with a heads-up, those who felt that Vatican II went too far or not far enough either Left the Church or constantly agitate from within while remaining Catholics only in name. The Vatican II Catholics are right here, Reverend. I and many others who happily follow the changes or practice and attitudes brought about by the Council are the ones who refuse to either shun the Church for being too liberal or too rigid. We are the Vatican II Catholics, not those who fill your pews to the point of bursting at the seams.

I can't but suspect that there is an underlying motive of jealousy in the post that is treated here. The quality (education, holiness, moral values) of those who move from the Episcopalian Church to the Catholic Church tends to be far better than it is for those who do the reverse. In short, the Catholic Church, whether she deserves it or not, tends to get the cream of the crop when Episcopalians move to her side, while the Catholic Church tends to rid herself of disgruntled individuals who refuse to accept Church teachings on morality. 

Personally,  I cannot drive by a good old Episcopal Church on the East Coast with feeling some sense of envy. They are built to be and look like timeless, rock-solid houses of faith, while Catholic Churches have gone in the opposite direction. Modern Catholic Church buildings are  absolute disasters. The difference is that I don't blame the problems in my Church on other Church bodies.

Tell you what, Reverend, why don't you guys start a Roman or other Latin-rite Episcopalian liturgy for Catholics who come your way? I promise not to complain.

The only thing that I would have to ask of the good Reverend that he refrain from engaging in the worn out, patently false, claims about what Vatican II is, was, or was supposed to be. Please, pretending to be under the impression that the "Spirit of Vatican II" was not followed, realized, or brought to fruition is just ridiculous. It also insults the intelligence of all of us. The Second Vatican Council was never suppressed, cut short, failed to be put into operation, or anything else of that nature. The source of these sort of false claims originated with radical Leftists, feminists, and others who saw that the Church never had any intention to do to itself what the Episcopal would. When their dreams of deconstructing the Church were dashed with the realization that no one involved with the Council wanted any part of such action, they proceeded to Plan B- creating a whole web of lies about the intentions of those who brought about Vatican II. If they could not get Vatican II to be about things that they wanted, then they would pretend that it had been so, but that unseen forces would not let the desired changes occur. 

The claim that the Second Vatican Council was supposed to actually change the doctrines or organisation of the Church may very well be the Hoax of the Century. Practices changed, not doctrines or the priesthood. We have had enough of those who identify themselves as Catholics claiming that the latter were changed or was supposed to have changed also. We don't need people completely outside the Church joining in with them.

Below is just a tiny piece of a good summary on Vatican II:

"In his opening speech to the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II, Pope John said that the first need in calling the council was "to assert once again the Magisterium, which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time." The "magisterium" means the teaching authority of the Church. How unfortunate that, after this council, the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, was so often ignored even by some who said they spoke "in the spirit of Vatican II" or the "spirit of Pope John."

In calling the council, Pope John noted that he looked to the past, to listen to its voice. He declared that it was the principal duty of the council to defend and to advance the truth. The council was to be loyal to the sacred patrimony of truth, as received from the fathers, but to see ever new avenues by which to take the same, true faith of Christ to the world. He insisted that the Catholic Church would continue to oppose errors, but that its opposition must be treated with the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. He sought ever greater unity in sanctity, and great joy in the eventual union of all the Christian churches of the world.

Thus the reform and change that Pope John sought in calling the council was in no way to change the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. His idea was to develop no new doctrine but a new way to make the constant unchangeable faith in Christ — as given the apostles in the sacred deposit of faith — ever more effective in the lives of people and for the evangelization of the entire world."

No comments:

Post a Comment