Talk is “cheap”

wolfy2Since the Council we have witnessed, for the first time in the Church’s bimillenial history, the emergence of a strain of Catholic “neo-conservatism”—hence neo-Catholicism—characterized by a staunch defense of unprecedented ecclesial novelties the Popes before the Council would have viewed with utter horror. Among other novelties comprising the liberalized ecclesial status quo of the post-conciliar epoch, the neo-Catholic defends the new vernacular liturgy (including the appalling spectacle of altar girls, approved by “John Paul the Great”), the new “ecumenism,” which has all but de-missionized the Church, and the new “dialogue,” which has reduced the perennial preaching of the Gospel with the authority of Christ Himself to a vacuous  “discussion-ism” that avoids any open proclamation of the imperatives of divine revelation, especially the claims of Christ on nations as well as individuals.

Concerning “dialogue,” as Romano Amerio observed in his masterwork Iota Unum, this “is very new in the Catholic Church…” The word “was completely unknown in the Church’s teaching before the Council. It does not occur once in any previous council, or in papal encyclicals, or in sermons or in pastoral practice.” Yet this novelty suddenly appears 28 times in the Vatican II documents that were drafted in haste after the classically written preparatory schema, years in the making, were tossed into the trash following the famous Rhine group uprising on the Council’s third day. (Cfr. Wiltgen’s The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, pp. 15-60). Amerio notes that dialogue, “through its lightning spread and an enormous broadening of meaning, became the master-word determining post-conciliar thinking, and a catch-all category in the newfangled mentality.”  (Iota Unum, p. 347). The newfangled mentality to which Amerio refers is the mentality fairly described as neo-Catholic.

Read more

Editor’s note: A definition of Sacred and Apostolic Tradition: The means by which the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Catholic Church, from age to age.

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. I cannot comment on this “article”. I think I have spoken/written enough about its style and content to show what I think of this sort of literature and those that advance this type of abortion of truth on paper. Enough!.

  2. Besides referring to the “Conciliar” church—to distinguish it from their idea of the One True Church—many in sede vacantist circles refer to the alleged conciliar creation as “Newchurch.”

    Their fundamental error aside, their nomenclature is understandable, due to the confusion sown at V-II “by Man and/or the devil”.

    How blest(?) are they who, whether by ignorance or blindness, are not confused by the second(?) council and its troublesome legacy! But, clearly, sometimes they get annoyed.

  3. 🙂 Vatican one was attended by “some” clerics that could get there and could be bothered. Vatican two was attended at some or most or all of its “sittings” by all the Bishops of Mother Church. Point? well it seems V2 is not only on eof the longest, most viewed/scrutinized and debated Councils in History it is the only one to be as widely accepted by its Pope/s and its Authority.
    No wonder EVERY POPE since and FOREVER WILL ALWAYS accept its fundamental direction as the Will of Gods Holy Spirit AND the most Holy of Councils in Church History! That is all.

  4. “Vatican one was attended by ‘some’ clerics that could get there and could be bothered.”

    I will wager here that none of those “some” clerics were protestants, and that no protestants were invited.

    Unlike at the succeeding council.


Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s