Thursday, February 5, 2015

The Church flowed from the Second Vatican Council?

Archbishop Romero is portrayed as a martyr of "the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council"

 Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia on Archbishop Oscar Romero:
“He was killed at the altar,” Archbishop Paglia said, instead of when he was an easier target at home or on the street. “Through him, they wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council.”

From another news article:
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the Vatican official who is leading Romero's sainthood cause, put it this way Wednesday: Romero was "a martyr of the church of the Second Vatican Council." The Salvadoran's murder, Paglia said, was part of a "climate of persecution against a pastor that followed the evangelical experience, the documents of the Second Vatican Council, of Medellin [and] had chosen to live with the poor to defend them from oppression."

     This is all very telling.  Archbishop Paglia has perhaps inadvertently exposed and revealed what is at the root of the crisis in the Church today, when he speaks of the "Church of the Second Vatican Council."  What is the difference between a Church that flowed from and was defined by the Second Vatican Council, vs. the Church was born of the blood of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on Calvary?  The Church formed by Jesus is concerned with the glory of God and the salvation of souls.  That of the Council is concerned with man's well-being in the material world - more with the poverty of "things" than with poverty of spirit; more concerned with man being accepted by others than being accepted by God.  One Church seeks the conversion of all men to the true faith, and opposes the worship of false gods.  The other Church teaches that the Triune God of the Christians is the same as that of Islam (who has no Son), and therefore dialog and not conversion is the appropriate approach.

     When I pray to St. Francis of Assisi to intercede for the conversion of the Muslims, it is for conversion to the Church that flowed from the side of Christ, not the one that flowed from the Second Vatican Council! That is, to the Church that flows from the Blood of a Divine Person, rather than one flowing from the documents of men.

     Here is what St. Augustine had to say about the former:

     "When He slept on the Cross, He bore a sign, yea, He fulfilled what had been signified in Adam: for when Adam was asleep, a rib was drawn from him and Eve was created; Genesis 2:21-22 so also while the Lord slept on the Cross, His side was transfixed with a spear, and the Sacraments flowed forth, John 19:34 whence the Church was born. For the Church the Lord's Bride was created from His side, as Eve was created from the side of Adam. But as she was made from his side no otherwise than while sleeping, so the Church was created from His side no otherwise than while dying."   St. Augustine.

Nota Bene: This post is not about the martyrdom or non-martyrdom of Romero.   It concerns Abp. Paglia's statement about the church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council.  It is an admission that the Vatican II Church is not the same as the one that preceded it.


  1. Frank; I agree with you and the author -and I sense a coming schism between the '2nd VaticanII Council' and the Traditional 2,000 yr. old Catholic Church. [and at present I know not where the present Pope stands on this matter: he needs our prayers] Pax, Don

  2. liberation theology - Jesuits by Malachi Martin. He made it very clear.

  3. I doubt the archbishop intended to juxtapose the two images of the Church as this author has done.

  4. The archbishop and his ilk drink at the fountain of -- I'll say distortion -- of the Council, and everything is seen and refigured in the blur of that distortion. No one can read the documents of Vatican II and come up with the mutation these foolish, narcissists have made of The Church.

  5. Of course he did, and it is clearly so.

    The language chosen by the archbishop is very specific and the verbiage has precisely clear meaning as utilized throughout the Church by his other progressive allies. Furthermore, Romero has been the obvious patron saint adopted by progressives in the Church for decades, despite the fact that he was murdered for statements he made opposing the military government which could have been made by an atheist political opponent of that regime and its practices towards the poor.

    I don't disagree with his criticism of the government but he didn't die defending the faith in any clear way that is distinguishable from an atheist being assassinated for the same reasons. Romero did not die for Jesus or the sake of a faith he was ordered to renounce.

    He may have been brave - and murdering him in his cathedral was a simple matter of easy access, however cowardly - but he wasn't called to defend the faith and was not killed for anything resembling that..

  6. Archbishop Paglia is not the Pope. I believe he could have been more articulate in his comment, but going forward, this comment has zero historical significance. Why write an entire article on this? Perhaps you are uncomfortable with Vatican II? Padre Pio celebrated the Vatican II mass and Mother Teresa had no problem receiving communion from a Vatican II mass. That's good enough for me.

  7. My elderly aunt was hit by a car and killed while going to Church, I think I will send a letter to have her made into the patron saint of car accidents. Seriously, she was a holy person and even knew that she was going to die before it happened, but I don't know how far it would go. I think at this point people are being 'sainted' for political reasons in support of 'New Church'. Many in the last couple of years have been known for their progressive ideals rather than their piety. I am not saying that I don't think they are saints but it seems that this is another area where things have changed in the last 60 years.