Archives > Catholic News Archive IV

Benedict XVI quote

<< < (2/4) > >>

lumengentleman:

--- Quote from: Ourladyofconsolation06 ---
He said Many councils have been a waste of time which means more than V2. And I highly doubt he would mean Vatican II was a waste of time since he spent so much time at it destroying the Church.

--- End quote ---
  Actually, you might be surprised, but Vatican II was precisely what he was referring to.   Here's the fuller quote in context:  
--- Quote from: Cardinal Ratzinger ---Whether or not the Council becomes a positive force in the history of the Church depends only indirectly on the texts and organizations; the crucial question is whether there are individuals - saints - who, by their personal willingness, which cannot be forced, are ready to effect something new and living.  The ultimate decision about the historical significance of Vatican Council II depends on whether or not there are individuals prepared to experience in themselves the drama of the separation of the wheat from the cockle and thus to give the whole a singleness of meaning that it cannot gain from words alone.  What we are thus far able to say is that the Council has, on the one hand, opened ways that lead from all kinds of byways and one-way streets to the real center of Christianity.  On the other hand, however, we must be self-critical enough to acknowledge that the naive optimism of the Council and the self-esteem of many of its supporters justify, in a disturbing way, the gloomy diagnoses of early churchmen about the danger of councils.  Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been just a waste of time [footnote: In this connection, reference is repeatedly made, and with justification, to the Fifth Lateran Council, which met from 1512 to 1517 without doing anything effective to prevent the crisis that was developing].  Despite all the good to be found in the texts it produced, the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken.  If, in the end, it will be numbered among the highlights of Church history depends on those who will transform its words into the life of the Church. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987], pp. 377-78)
--- End quote ---
 

winoblue1:
What he is saying, seems to me, to be a moot point:   "if Vatican two is going to be significantly featured in the history books depends on the extent to which its teaching have penetrated the Church, and this of course, is done by people, they impliment it's policies and teachings into everyday life, ie. Saints."   I think it is clear that BXVI is waiting to see where the wind blows and is hoping to still see the promised 'fruit' the council was supposed to deliver, by fine-tuning (some say scaling back) it's ongoing implementation. As long as he is optimistic, in the face of the overwhelming evidence against it, he will continue to push the V2 agenda.  It's when he finally realizes it's a dead letter and leading the Church to destruction, that is when he will return to tradition.   Our job, at this time, is to constantly show him that the crisis is real and that it's not going away. One thing that the NO Church is good at, is putting a positive spin on anything. It never ceases to amaze me how they can see the church crumbling before their eyes and they say only positive things. "It's the New Evangelization" which is no evangelization at all. "New Springtime" which is a cold dark winter, the lack of vocations is "a renewed opportunity for the involvement of the laity," decline in mass attendance is "qualitative not quantitative renewal," lack of respect for Christ in the Eucharist is "renewed appreciation for Christ within the community" etc. etc.   It's about time people faced reality, particularly BXVI, and unfortunately he has nothing but "Yes Men" around him....."Yes Men" with a modernist agenda.... The bottom line will be of course the traditional ways the church has monitored success or failure: -number of vocations -number of mass attendees -numbers participating in the sacraments -donations   On all fronts it seems the NO is not delivering on these, and the traditional movement is, so I believe it's just a matter of time until BXVI wakes up....   Let's thank God that the SSPX is in fact working hard at doing this exact thing - informing the pope and cardinals of the devastated vineyard. Let's also pray that the pope will wake up to reality soon!

HMiS:
He probably meant the Robber Council of Ephesus (Latrocinium) or the Fifth Council of the Lateran, both of which either did nothing fór the Catholic Church or merely never defined anything clearly. Joseph Ratzinger may as a theologian have deplored some "caricatural" depictions of Lutherans by the Council of Trent, but he also affirmed in his more recent writings, that the Council of Trent's definition of the Holy Eucharist is the only correct one.   And may I remind you thereof, that the Council of Siena (1423-1424), called by Pope Martin V, was later delisted as an Ecumenical Council, because its contents were branded by later Pontiffs and Councils as Heretical (Conciliarism).   That was even worse than a waste of time, yet it was called by a Supreme Pontiff, like Vatican II was, even if the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) caused a practically heretical movement after it, instigated major apostasy among the clergy with its "spirit" and a destruction of the Latin Rite liturgy unparallelled since Arianism of the 4th Century AD, by all these examples follows, that the Councils of the Church have been problematic in the past and that precedents to Vatican II indeed existed.

lumengentleman:

--- Quote from: HMiS ---  And may I remind you thereof, that the Council of Siena (1423-1424), called by Pope Martin V, was later delisted as an Ecumenical Council, because its contents were branded by later Pontiffs and Councils as Heretical (Conciliarism).
--- End quote ---
  You should think twice before getting your information from Wiki.   Most of that article was lifted straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia, except for one very important part: the claim that the council was "delisted" or branded as "heretical."  That remains an unproven assertion on the part of Wiki.   Msgr. Hughes says, in his History of the General Councils:  
--- Quote ---Martin V, before he closed the Council of Constance, duly announced that the General Council would meet five years thence, April 23, 1423, at Pavia. And at the appointed time he sent legates to preside at the council there in his name. They found awaiting them two abbots only. Gradually, as the months went by, a handful of bishops and lesser dignitaries straggled in-- the number never exceeded twenty-five. Then the plague came to Pavia, and the council moved to Siena. Its members never got any further than a long drawn-out discussion about the relation, in law, between the General Council and the papacy. Gradually the bishops began to leave, and just eleven months after its inauguration the council was dissolved. But, once again, the provisions of the decree Frequens were carried out. Before the last members of the council had departed it was announced to them that seven years hence, in 1431, the General Council of the Church would come together again, this time at Basel in Switzerland.
--- End quote ---
  The Catholic Encyclopedia concurs:  
--- Quote ---The general session had not yet begun when the pestilence broke out at Pavia, for which reason the transfer of the Council to Siena was decreed. The procedure of the Council was almost identical with that at Constance. Certain formalities of safe conduct issued by the city for the members of the Council were the cause of friction with the pope. On the eighth of November four decrees were published: against the Hussites and the Wyclifites; against those who continued the schism of Benedict XIII; on the postponement of the negotiation with the Greek schismatics, and on greater vigilance against heresy. Gallican proposals of reform were productive of discord with the French. On 19 February, 1424, Basle was selected as the place of the next Council. On 20 February the dissolution of the Council was decreed, but the Decree was not published until 7 March. The French would have preferred to continue the Council until the "reform" of the church "in capite et in membris" (in its head and its members) had been accomplished, but whether to avoid a new schism, or on account of fear of the pope (since Siena was too near the Papal States), they departed.
--- End quote ---
  Nothing in there about any heretical decrees.   Perhaps you are thinking of one of the sessions of the council of Basel-Florence, in which it was declared that a council is superior to the pope; this decree was obviously never accepted, and life moves on.   I would like to see some proof of what Wiki claims.

gladius_veritatis:
He is talking about the legitimate councils in this place, Sander.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version