I have been reading the documents of Vatican 2 again and I still do not find a great deal of knowledge in them. There is certainly not much intelligence in the way they were applied nor in the way they are applied now. When one reads other Church documents that apply to Vatican 2 one should also make inquiries on the status of many of the periti who were among the leading theological advisers to the Bishops present. One should also look at the voting patterns for each of the documents after the discussions. If one considers these documents in the right sense, one will readily admit they are documents for which there was no true consensus just a last ditch attempt to get some kind of agreement. This is the reason for the ambiguity and the double talk that has confused the faithful. The only times that the language was completely undeniable was when the Hierarchical Authority was defined and when cake was tossed to the Laity. Do not forget the Pope was never present at the voting. The document on Revelations passed quickly and unanimously, reasonable as it did not really change and it was never a force in the Church and it can be proved the Hierarchy never paid much attention to it. The rest passed by similar votes 55% to 45% and with few exceptions. How did this effect the promulgation of the documents, well it meant that in the necessity for union in the College of Bishops maybe 50 or so swallowed the truth and voted along with the Liberals who never have voted except by feelings. Theological Facts are mind numbing to them. It is also a fact that liberals never donate they always use other's cash to furnish their flights of fancy.
There are other insults to both Christ in the Eucharist, Christ in the Laity and to Christ the Evangelist. I ask how did a Lutheran Theologian who had never received the Eucharist come to comment on the Eucharist? How did the wife of a evangelical pastor come to speak on the catholic laity and how did ecumenism come to replace evangelization. Now if I am wrong examine honestly and not liberally the state of all three of the above in the Church today.
I still cannot believe the mess they made of consensus and sensus fidei. They quote Cardinal Newman upon the subject and whether they like it or not he certainly at the time did not have the sensum fidei of the English Catholic Church. We remembered two of his efforts. His dreadful treatise on Catholicism written while on a boat in the Mediterranean, written at the same time as Lead Kindly Light. A hymn I never heard sung in the Parish I was brought up in I believe it was no 4 in the Westminster Hymnal. The second was the skulduggery in his essay on Miracles. The other book I remember but not so well was his effort on the faithful and theology.
Newman, claimed first by an Indian Bishop to be the father of the Council, and then by Paul VIth. I think it was one of the first speeches at the opening. The Indian Bishop said Newman was probably spinning in his grave with joy in his grave. In fact he could not have since his body had already corrupted into dust or very near to this state. When I think that Teresa Higginson's body is not corrupted, neither is Rose of the Carrier Nation. Yet these two Holy Women are not sainted. A lack of the application of Divine Revelation if ever there was one. Newman wrote of the Arians as a reason for sensum fidei. It really could not be as the majority of catholics were very supportive of this heresy and the application of sensum fidei at this time was dreadful. It was modern music at the time, a little sung ditty convinced the fallen faithful of the veracity of the devilish Dogma. I cannot believe too much in the veracity of Sensum Fidei in this present period in time. Does the Holy Spirit work through so many not in a State of Grace due to lack of observance of the Sacrament of Confession? I did write and ask this of the Cardinal in charge of the Holy Inquisition defense of the Faith. Yet He can, the real truth of this statement can be seen in Lourdes who the Bishops were chasing the Peoples Beliefs. The laity knew and the bishops did not. Thousands went there before the Local Ordinary woke up. Fatima close to 100,000 witnesses, locally and with in large radius as the secular newspapers of the time pointed out believed and acted long before the bishops put down their port and cigars to consider Fatima and then it took the Sun to dance to impress their egos. Does God always have to poke these hierarchs with a sharp stick to get them to comprehend? Medjugorie is the same crass idiocy and a dreadful lacking in pastoral work by the Croatian Hierarchy has rendered this shrine all but useless in the eyes of the Bishops and their collegiality. As an Irish Bishop said, "Why do they go there, they bypass Irish churches, where the Holy Eucharist is on display, to go to Medjugorie. Why can they not find God here?" Not only did they go there but they found solace in their hundreds at confession there. As a priest said when he returned, "I heard confessions for 4 days all day and longer and I felt fulfilled in my priesthood'. So the Irish Bishop should have asked, "What am I doing wrong? Where is my problem?"
Medjugorie was scuppered by the absolute ignoring of the true sensum fidei.
The other unfortunates in the Church the Priests were never fostered or fathered by their spiritual fathers the Bishops and seem to be in some kind of Limbo even now.
Labels: Sensum Fidei Lourdes Fatima Medjugorie Eucharist Newman