De Mattei Calls For Revising Vatican II
Roberto de Mattei refutes claims that Benedict XVI is the "true pope" and Francis only a “false prophet” (CorrispondenzaRomana.it, July 1). The historian predicts that Benedict XVI's demission will be …More
Roberto de Mattei refutes claims that Benedict XVI is the "true pope" and Francis only a “false prophet” (CorrispondenzaRomana.it, July 1).
The historian predicts that Benedict XVI's demission will be remembered as one of the most catastrophic events of our century, as it opened the door to a destructive pontificate, and to increasing chaos in the Church. After Benedict's death and the end of Francis pontificate, he expects the worst situation in Church history.
For De Mattei, Benedict is guilty of presenting himself as "Pope Emeritus," dressing as a "pope" and imparting "apostolic blessings," but De Mattei refutes that Benedict XVI’s demission is invalid and that Benedict, in his letter of resignation, renounced only his “ministerium” (practical ministry), not his “munus” (office) and thus keeping a sort of mystical papacy.
De Mattei calls this "abstract discourses" based on "canonical loopholes" and insists that the papacy is one and indivisible and that Benedict has confirmed the …More
The historian predicts that Benedict XVI's demission will be remembered as one of the most catastrophic events of our century, as it opened the door to a destructive pontificate, and to increasing chaos in the Church. After Benedict's death and the end of Francis pontificate, he expects the worst situation in Church history.
For De Mattei, Benedict is guilty of presenting himself as "Pope Emeritus," dressing as a "pope" and imparting "apostolic blessings," but De Mattei refutes that Benedict XVI’s demission is invalid and that Benedict, in his letter of resignation, renounced only his “ministerium” (practical ministry), not his “munus” (office) and thus keeping a sort of mystical papacy.
De Mattei calls this "abstract discourses" based on "canonical loopholes" and insists that the papacy is one and indivisible and that Benedict has confirmed the …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
mccallansteve
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Vatican II was inspired by Satan and he played his part well during it.
Wichita Knight
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Well put, Dr. Bobus. I have long maintained that V2 was not conceived in a vacuum. John XXIII didn't wake up one morning and say "Hey! Let's call a council!" V2, as you said, was called to address legitimate problems. If V2 failed to solve those problems we have to ask ourselves if those problems are part of a shift of civilization so large that it cannot be stopped by the Church alone.
Most of the problems had nothing to do with a shift in civilization. Among them were:
1. A utilitarian approach to liturgy. Liturgy was primarily seen as just a tool needed to confect the Sacraments and the obligation of Divine Office (cf Jesuit influence). The Benedictine concept of sanctification through the liturgy had been lost. Early efforts by Dom Gueranger (the real Liturgical Movement) …More
Most of the problems had nothing to do with a shift in civilization. Among them were:
1. A utilitarian approach to liturgy. Liturgy was primarily seen as just a tool needed to confect the Sacraments and the obligation of Divine Office (cf Jesuit influence). The Benedictine concept of sanctification through the liturgy had been lost. Early efforts by Dom Gueranger (the real Liturgical Movement) didn't improve the situation. There are texts in Vat II that attempt to remedy this problem, but they were drowned by other texts that continue a utilitarian approach. The change was toward use the liturgy as a tool for false Ecumenism or social justice. The liturgy was Protestantized.
I recommend a visit to Clear Creek to see what liturgy primarily is supposed to be.
2. Vocations to the religious life were up, vocations to the diocesan priesthood were down. This was likely a consequence of candidates who were educated in or oriented toward professional careers. The preference was for the more intense formation of religious life, including theological formation. Instead of correcting thie problem, Vat II put forth a vision of the priesthood that was a compromise with Protestantism. Pastoralism overwhelmed the essence of the priesthood and religious life
3. Intellectually, Counter Reformation intellectual formation had been based on Neo Scholasticism. With certain exceptions, the philosophy was based on Rationalism. And the theology was too Ecclesiocentric. This was--and still is--confused with the thought of St Thomas. In fact, it is not, except for certain common use of terms. The reaction against Neo Scholastic philosophy went to the contrary extreme--from Rationalism to Empiricism (German Existentialism). The reaction against Ecclesiocentric theology also went to the contrary extreme, a reaction against Church doctrine.
1. A utilitarian approach to liturgy. Liturgy was primarily seen as just a tool needed to confect the Sacraments and the obligation of Divine Office (cf Jesuit influence). The Benedictine concept of sanctification through the liturgy had been lost. Early efforts by Dom Gueranger (the real Liturgical Movement) didn't improve the situation. There are texts in Vat II that attempt to remedy this problem, but they were drowned by other texts that continue a utilitarian approach. The change was toward use the liturgy as a tool for false Ecumenism or social justice. The liturgy was Protestantized.
I recommend a visit to Clear Creek to see what liturgy primarily is supposed to be.
2. Vocations to the religious life were up, vocations to the diocesan priesthood were down. This was likely a consequence of candidates who were educated in or oriented toward professional careers. The preference was for the more intense formation of religious life, including theological formation. Instead of correcting thie problem, Vat II put forth a vision of the priesthood that was a compromise with Protestantism. Pastoralism overwhelmed the essence of the priesthood and religious life
3. Intellectually, Counter Reformation intellectual formation had been based on Neo Scholasticism. With certain exceptions, the philosophy was based on Rationalism. And the theology was too Ecclesiocentric. This was--and still is--confused with the thought of St Thomas. In fact, it is not, except for certain common use of terms. The reaction against Neo Scholastic philosophy went to the contrary extreme--from Rationalism to Empiricism (German Existentialism). The reaction against Ecclesiocentric theology also went to the contrary extreme, a reaction against Church doctrine.