What a shockingly blasphemous claim! The first (that is, the real) Pentecost was when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles. So, if Vatican II was a new Pentecost, the Spirit of Vatican II is a new Holy Spirit. In fact, the Spirit of Vatican II is superior to the Holy Spirit, because trading the third person of the Trinity for this new spirit is supposed to have been a good thing. Shocking as it is, this is what the phrase “new Pentecost” implies. If the Spirit of Vatican II were the same Holy Spirit Who has guided the Church for the previous two millennia, Vatican II would not be on a level with Pentecost, but only with, say, Chalcedon or Lateran IV. What’s more, if it were the same Spirit before and after, we wouldn’t expect Him to contradict Himself so blatantly.
And since it was Jesus who sent the Paraclete to the Apostles, so it was Pope John who sent the Spirit of Vatican II to the bishops, meaning Pope John is a new, improved Christ! And indeed this seems to be what the conciliar church thinks. The original Christ freed us from the Mosaic Law, which was pretty nice, but the new Christ, by unleashing his spirit upon us, does better by releasing us from the natural law as well. True, Pope John didn’t get around to doing this before ascending into Heaven, but ditching the Mosaic Law also didn’t really get settled until Saint Paul, and many have been the theologians who have wanted to play the role of Paul for their new Savior.
We should be grateful that the Fathers of Nicea, Trent, and the rest never imagined that they were instituting a second Pentecost or thought they needed to concoct a new “spirit” to guide the Church.
Filed under: The Dark and Terrible Springtime of Vatican II |
Throne and Altar 
[…] By Bonald […]
[…] Source: Throne and Altar […]
This confirms my view that Vatican II was unitarianism for Roman Catholics. The first Unitarians taught that Catholicism was an improvement on Judaism, Protestantism was an improvement on Catholicism, and they, the Unitarians, were an improvement on Protestantism. They kept the old Protestant symbols and phrases for about fifty years, and then began to wonder, what’s the point?
As an Orthodox Christian,I believe that Vatican 2 was the ,,whore of Babylon” and ,,the mother of all abominations” described by the last book of the New Testament.I think that the few traditionalist Catholics that still exist should embrace their pre-schismatic(pre-1054) roots,faith and customs and return to the Church of Christ,for their mission is almost impossible in the actual Catholic Church,brainwashed by liberal modernist thought and willing to embrace sodomy as normal,according to Pope Francisc.
Unfortunately,the West is almost dead spiritually(and I mean both the Catholic and the Protestant West) and our only chance is the Orthodox East,which is keeping the flame of Faith alive for more than 2000 years.I’m not saying that the Orthodox Church is liberal-free and perfect,but it is in a much better condition than both the Catholic ad the Protestant Church.God Bless Us and Salvation!
If you were to be its representative, Simion Radu, it appears you are requesting us to join the church of calumnies. At best, you are no more careful with your words than Pope Francis himself.
Bonald, “spirit” can mean “attitude.”
The Orthodox Church embraces hetero-sodomy (having contracepted sex with your wife or the mistresses that they call your 2nd/3rd “wife”).
No?
Bruce, your point about hetero-sodomy reminds me of what Catholic integralists have long thought: Natural family planning is morally questionable because couples can substitute it for artificial conception or use it when they’re no grave need for it. If pregnancy would seriously injure or kill a woman, she should be celibate.
,I believe that Vatican 2 was the ,,whore of Babylon”
That’s funny because at VII the Churchmen including the future Pope Paul VI fell over themselves kowtowing to the so-called “Orthodox.”
ISE, who can forget the Vatican Moscow agreement where Vatican II’s Fathers refused to condemn communism because John XXIII wanted Russian Orthodox priests who were KGB agents to attend the council? How about the Balamand Statement where Catholics and the Greek Orthodox agree not urge each other to convert?
I think you severely underestimate how ‘disruptive’ the spirit of the Council of Trent was. The storm of that period is far greater than anything post-Vatican II that you can dream of.
The semantics of the Vatican Fathers were words of shell shocked men, some who were educated amidst the initial optimism of the turn of the century (all that ‘new man’ and ‘new everything’ talk went far beyond the communists) and then experienced depression and two world wars. They were witnesses to the end of the Modern Age and the language of the council reflects all of this.
Bill,
Exactly. A lot of other terrible ideas grafted into the Church in 60s can also be attributed to the East, like collegiality, non-Latin liturgy, debate regarding the celibate priesthood, a rejection of scholasticism and a mangled reading of certain Eastern Fathers. Of course we have the Synod of the family and all the buzz about “Orthodox” praxis on the matter. Pope Francis does little to help Catholics in Ukraine at a time the Orthodox are actively persecuting them. Its shameful.
ISE, you write, “Pope Francis does little to help Catholics in Ukraine at a time the Orthodox are actively persecuting them. Its shameful. Although I’m not judging his motives, he’s allowing a tragic “policy” that we’ve seen since Vatican II: Pander to the Church’s objective enemies, and persecute some Catholics who resist novelty. Vatican II and religiously indifferent ecumenism deserve some blame for what happened to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Years ago, a cardinal went to China to visit the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, that country’s state-approved schismatic “Catholic Church” and ignored Catholics who needed to go underground to practice the Faith.
Catholics, please watch this video that I’ve posted here before. I would love to hear your thought about it.
[…] of Bonald, over a his home blog he tackles the question of Vatican II as a “new Pentecost”. He says, […]
While the canons of our Church do condemn divorce,it’s true that our canons are more ,,liberal” than the Catholic ones,on divorce.We believe that regardless of how many wives a man has,he will be judged along with his first wife.Orthodoxy also harshly condemns divorce,hetero-sodomy and all the other deviant sexual practices.I am certainly not trying to impose things on others or try to convert you to Orthodoxy,for a spiritual change can only happen by the free-wish of the individual.In my last comment,I was just trying to give my opinion on the current events,presenting you the opinion of an Orthodox Christian,nothing more.God Bless Us And Salvation!
“I think you severely underestimate how ‘disruptive’ the spirit of the Council of Trent was. The storm of that period is far greater than anything post-Vatican II that you can dream of.”
Can you speak more to this, “hmmmm”? Of course Trent was called in the teeth of an ongoing schism when a substantial portion of the hierarchy had schismatic tendencies, but if you mean to attribute a storm to Trent itself, I’d be interested in hearing about it.
Whatever Trent may have disrupted, the Protestant revolt did much more harm than that council may have done. Trent needed to meet to condemn 16th-century heresies. Vatican II shouldn’t have happened. In fact, I’ve read that on his deathbed, John XXIII warned some prelates to “stop the council.”
I put “revolt” for “Reformation,” because reform implies improvement. From my Catholic perspective, the “Reformation” didn’t reform anything. Neither did the committee that invented the new vernacular rite of Mass. Catholics need to think hard about Trent’s 13th canon from Trent’s seventh session if they think the new rite is good.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
Simon,
Are you denying that the Orthodox allow married couples to use contraception?
This article tells me that the Greek Orthodox Church allows some artificial contraception.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/controversialissues
Though the idea sounds unintuitive, artificial contraception can increase the abortion rate when it fails, since the couple may still not want the child.
Another problem with artificial contraception is the false sense of security it can promote. Some adulterous may think that, since his condom will prevent conception, many woman will be his potential sex partners.
Yes,even if many couples use contraception both in the Orthodox East and the Catholic West,Orthodoxy condemns contraception as a deviation from the traditional family,condemning it.
http://ortodoxiatinerilor.ro/contraceptia-sexuala/19161-familia-ortodoxa-nu-exista-contraceptie(This is a campaign created by the romanian ,,Orthodoxy of the Youth” in order to fight against contraception.The main slogan is translated as:,,There is no contraception in the orthodox family”!).
God Bless Us and Salvation!
Proph,
I apologize for getting back to you so late. I have been incredibly ill and finding it focus on anything. So if this is a bit disjointed; I apologize, please bear with me. The “spirit of Trent” caused great irritations almost directly proportional to the morass of the council itself. No party left that council anymore satisfied than when they went in. The council was accused of being hijacked by the Italian prelates; to the horror of many, the council got bogged down dithering upon the same sort of power games between the Vatican and general episcopacy that marred the previous councils. My understanding is that no one, except the council fathers, saw that coming and it for all practical purposes it sunk the interest of most in the purpose of the council. It’s silences were more frustrating than its speech to its contemporaries. It was unenthusiastically and lightly attended through most of it. Meanwhile, on the small everyday scale: screen roods were ripped out, the Tridentine Mass made its appearance; old patrimonies, customs, and minor rites, in some cases, were flattened and suppressed. Older devotions and orders gave way to new devotions and new orders. Some of them just as dodgy as the peculiar groups running around with answers. Implementing the council was a herculean task when all major Catholic lands rejected it for one reason or another- the French were particularly derisive and wouldn’t fully implement it until Napoleon. It did not go unnoticed when bishops of the Church were ignoring the council with little in the way repercussions. From a man-on-the-street view, I cannot see how any of this wouldn’t leave supremely confused beyond the very pragmatic rationalization to follow whatever religion your king was into at the moment. And all of this happening after the disasters of The Western Schism and black death still so close to living memory.
The further out we go, it is accused of breaking with tradition by some parties (the Orthodox and Bohemians, for example) and being too conservative or unbiblical (the evangelicals.) The world brought about by the Modern era- and little discussed in the council, to the chagrin of many- brought a whole new order of its own, and most consequently, one that Trent had little impact from the outset. The Church entered the council having all but lost the “German World” of the Northern Europe; Poland was gone; Spain and France were happily in the Church as long as they controlled it or she didn’t interefere too much with their national ambitions and the area of present-day Italy was riven and set aflame but the too often overlooked Spirituali movement- whose party swung wildly from mild reformers to out right schismatics to even barely concealed neo-pagans. When the council concluded, none of this had changed and it would be almost two centuries before this storm started clearing and the fruits of the council were apparent in any intelligible sense. Of course by then, the inability of the Christian religion to reconcile itself, coupled with the wars of religion with no clear winner, led many to question the whole enterprise. They didn’t care by then. It is only in hindsight that we (western europeans in general) valorize Trent; because it succeeded in way nothing else from the era has. What other institutions are left from the Latin West of that time?
Comparatively speaking, the problems of our time make us look like lukewarm whiners.
Thanks for your reply, “Hmmmmm”; I hope you’re feeling better!
The discarding of rood screens after Trent has always baffled me. It’s usually attributed to the Council but I cannot recall reading a directive against it in the documents, and it seems like such a commonsensical way of delineating sacred space, and altogether consistent with the Eastern rites, many of which still make use of them. I suppose, if the Pauline reforms followed the trajectory laid out by the Tridentine ones, it must’ve been the case that Pius V loosed an army of episcopal harpies to hound hapless parish priests throughout Rome into destroying what their ancestors had built.
The Tridentine Mass wasn’t so different from the local usages that preceded it, though, no? And didn’t Quo Primum only suppress more recent Missals that were suspected of infection with error? The long-standing rites of the various religious orders were not just allowed but required to continue in use unless the congregations voted unanimously to adopt the Roman Missal and the ordinary approved.