Joachim di Fiore and Vatican II
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- In looking at the modern membership of Holy Church over the last few decades, we have seen sort of a revival of the ideas of Joachim di Fiore. Many modern Catholics have suggested that the Church is on the very edge of a third and final age, a new age of the Spirit, brought on by the most recent council. In fact, many have spoken of the Spirit of the Council or the Spirit of Vatican II. Many have spoken of the council as being a new beginning…a new start…a New Pentecost…with new orientations that differ from what they would call the pre-Vatican II era…that is the era of the Father with all its focus on rules, commandments, and moral theology…or the pre-Vatican II Church with its focus on Christ and the Church as the one and only way to salvation…or with the pre-Vatican II Church and its insistence that Church and State collaborate and form a Christian order for society, that is Christendom, begun in the Constantinian period. But with the New Pentecost, a New Age of the Spirit, the spirit of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue reign with Assisi like prayer days. In this new age, the spirit of Amoris Laetitia calls us to end rigidity and to go beyond the commandments and objective morality. And yes, a New Mass is brought in that casts aside and transcends all previous liturgical tradition to form a liturgy of the Spirit for a New Pentecost People. And yet this supposed New Pentecost has seemingly not borne fruit with a near minor apostasy present along with a hemorrhaging of membership from the Mystical Body of Christ.
For more please visit reginapropheta... & remember to say 3 Hail Marys for the priest
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
Support Catholic Businesses here - sensusfidelium...
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
**Donations to Sensus Fidelium is 501(c)3 tax deductible**
🙏🏻PLEASE HELP OUR CHANNEL GROW 🙏🏻
▶️ 1. Become a Channel Patron: / sensusfidelium
▶️ 2. Visit the website www.sensusfide... for Gueranger, Saint of the Day, Apologetics, Meditation by the Saints, Scripture Study and more.
▶️ 3. Subscribe to Other Video Platforms
🔴 BitChute --- www.bitchute.c...
🔴 Rumble --- rumble.com/c/c...
🔴 My Catholic Tube - mycatholictube...
🔴 LBRY.tv --- lbry.tv/@Sensu...
🔴 ODYSEE - odysee.com/@Se...
🔴 UGETube - videos.utahgun...
🔴 BrandNewTube - brandnewtube.c...
🔴 GabTV - tv.gab.com/cha...
🔴 GloriaTV - gloria.tv/Sens...
🔴 Brighteon - www.brighteon....
▶️ 4. Paypal, Bitcoin, Anedot, Stripe, Square & PO Box donations - sensusfidelium...
▶️ 5. UA-cam: Click Subscribe, then Click "Notification Bell" = 🔔
Please "Like" our videos so that UA-cam shares it to others by clicking the "Like" thumbs-up under the video = 👍🏻
▶️ 6. Please share this video 📲, and help others find Christ inside the Catholic Church! Please share this video on Facebook and Twitter using the share button.
▶️ 7. Follow on Social Media:
🔴 Facebook: / sensusfidelium
🔴 Twitter: / sensus_fidelium
🔴 UA-cam: Click Subscribe, then Click "Notification Bell" = 🔔
🔴 Parler: parler.com/pro...
🔴 SP3RN: www.sp3rn.com/...
🔴 GAB: gab.com/Sensus...
🔴 Bastyon: bastyon.com/se...
🔴 GETTR: gettr.com/user...
🔴 INSTAGRAM: / sensusfidelium
🔴 Telegram: https//t.me/RealSensusFidelium
▶️ 8. Follow on iTunes:
🔴 podcasts.apple...
There's no second pentecost. It makes perfect sense to me. How can anything replace the Latin mass. The whole world depends on the Latin mass. By the Latin mass we live in peace and avoid tribulation. Thanks father for your courage and efforts to give us such truth. May God lead us to heaven. May God bless you father forever
You do realize that the catholic church has 27 rites in different parts of the world, and the Latin mass is only one of them? Not everything depends on the Latin mass, don't be ignorant of the work of the Holy Spirit!
Francis said recently that Councils take 100 years to take root, and that V2 has another 40 to go. He's basically admitting that V2 has not met the expectations they had hoped for.
This homily confirms we are living now in end of days. If any suspicion I had before. I recall the verse in gospel saying foxes have dens and yet the son of man has no place to lay his head. I see now how difficult for those devoted to Christ have little places left to find fullness and true rest in truth
Something that strikes me is the idea the 2nd council will bring the Holy Host. As we, human creatures can order our God when and how to give us the source of wisdom. The more I read about this event in the Church, the more I recognize the pride around it. May the Lord have mercy on us and the whole world.
During the consecration, as the priest says the words of institution, those words are a command. In that moment, the priest tells God to come and take on the accidental appearance of Bread and Wine. So that idea of the pope calling on God is nothing new.
Jesus said He is the Vine, we are the branches. Which without, we can do nothing. I prefer Him so as not to be a lost sheep again. Praise and love to the Lord.
This make a lot of sense 50 years after. Wow. Thank you for this information. 💒🙏🕊
WE MUST PRAY THE ROSARY DEO GRATIAS AMEN AMEN AMEN
The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, commonly known as the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II, was the 21st ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church.
The council met in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome for four periods (or sessions), each lasting between 8 and 12 weeks, in the autumn of each of the four years 1962 to 1965.
Preparation for the council took three years, from the summer of 1959 to the autumn of 1962.
The council was opened on 11 October 1962 by John XXIII (pope during the preparation and the first session), and was closed on 8 December 1965 by Paul VI (pope during the last three sessions, after the death of John XXIII on 3 June 1963).
Yes, so why are we expected to ignore all the other councils?
The Modernists are throwing out anything that resembles the tradition even in the Novus Ordo, forbidding seminarians and priests to wear cassocks, and restricting those who preach traditional morality, and altering church architecture so that the tabernacle is no longer in the center.
It's as if they can decide what God likes or doesn't like, if He somehow "changed his mind" and didn't like these old rituals anymore, He surely would've told us, but He never said such thing, it was men who told us that the traditional sacraments are not to be allowed anymore.
Amen! Exactly!! Pretty obvious to me... Once and only once the event of Pentecost was the beginning of the Church of Jesus Christ with the body and the Trinity. Mother was present as well. What more would any one want from this day on?? No new new Pentecost needed. or desired. We want the one and only message of the incarnate Word!
"Every age is the age of Christ"
The early picture of the giant church with more than nine tiers of Papal fathers gathered is amazing.
Vatican II did bear fruit, rotten, poisonous fruit.
No one dumps all their traditions like they were poison and our ancestors were wrong. I see their big fail, But I don't care what they do, they won't make me sin. Thank you Father.
Excellent
I am a fiore and i link back to him
Was he asking for a new Pentecost (as in a different one) or was he asking for a renewed expression of Pentecost in us, a replica of the day of Pentecost?
Vatican II - A normal council?
The mind of the early Church was specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Did Vatican II leave out or ignore some essential Catholic Doctrine?
A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species.
Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it, the following analogy I think is most revealing:
Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person; Socrates.
Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Furthermore if someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words, the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing, the truer our knowledge is. (Truer, in the sense of having more truth. Adeguatio res et intellectus)
This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unnatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Using an analogy this would be like a seasoned cavalier who has known horses his whole life attempting to not consider a horse anymore as a horse but rather as an unspecified animal.
Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive, in the sense that an essential difference is added to the genus in order to define the species. This sets it apart from other species. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Whereas, when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now, things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific.
The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. A specific account of the Church includes more essential elements than a generic one.
The Councils, pronouncements and doctrines throughout the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically. Instead, our knowledge specifies as we gain acquaintance and experience of a thing.
One may object that the Apostles or early Christians had a very clear and specific knowledge of the Church. This is true. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was necessary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand leaves out essential elements since it can never define as well and as close to reality as a specific account can. Take for instance the treasure of Dogmas the Church has and considering for instance the doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. These are very well defined truths of our faith. To try and forget about them and return to a more generic explanation would, at this point in time, leave out essential elements. One may ask, why say "at this point in time" would entail leaving out essential elements? Its necessary to say "at this point in time" since one could object and say that the early Church's catechising was not as formulated as it was post Council of Trent, yet we cannot say that the Church left out essential elements in its teaching at that time. This is true and that is the point. When heresies attacked the faith of the Church, as what happened with Luther's idea of the Real Presence during mass, the older formulation of what happens during the consecration was no longer specific enough. Therefore the Church better and more specifically defined this miracle using the concept of transubstantiation. Any teaching now on the Real Presence which left out the concept of transubstantiation would at this point in time leave out what has become essential elements. Unless we would pretend that the threat of heretical interpretations no longer persists and a generic account would immediately render a correct understanding. However we know this is not the case.
Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
Now, one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowledge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowledge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew or defined creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget or forget to mention what one once knew or defined?
How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic? Furthermore, there is a prevalent assumption amongst "post conciliar" Catholics that Vatican II attempted to strip Catholicism of whatever is non essential. But, this leads to a contradiction since to hold this view would be to believe that a specific account is less essential than a generic account. This is the same as saying that the definition of man as rational animal is less essential than defining him as an animal.
I would therefore like to ask:
Why do we think Vatican II is supposed to be a type of update of Catholicism or a type of refocusing of the Church on what is really essential? Did the Council Fathers intentionally want to be less specific for the sake of truth or was this a consequence of trying to find consensus both internally and with the outside world? Was the Church's self awareness and identity diminished on account of this? Following the proverb Lex orandi lex credendi and its just as true corollary lex credendi lex orandi is it fair to say that an analogy can be drawn: as the new council (specific to generic) compares to the organic evolution of doctrine (generic to specific) so does the new mass compare to the organic evolution of the ancient mass? This leads to the next question: in trying to reverse the natural progression from generic to specific and trying to return to the more generic with the excuse of returning to the mode of expression of the early Church does the real danger exists of actually becoming more generic than the early Church itself? There is an essential difference here: the mind of the early Church was very specific although her formulated doctrine was less specific. For that reason the formulated doctrine needed to be constantly specified to better articulate WHAT WAS ALREADY BELIEVED. Whereas the post-conciliar trend is to modify the mind of the Church to conform to a more generically formulated doctrine.
Very well said! It really does seem that since Vatican 11 we have seen a specific movement towards a “generic” Church! In 60 years of time we have moved back to states of heresies that have long been defined and condemned by our Church Fathers only to reappear in so called “ modern times” and in so called “liberation theology”! Luther’s heresy of “consubstantiation” is more prevalent now more than ever, especially in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I have heard Novus Ordo priests say that Adam and Eve and the flood are “analogies” and not real, among other heretical notions spewed at mass. Knowing that the Immaculate Heart of Mother Mary will triumph in the end gives me spiritual strength and comfort! In the interim we must resist all modernism, pray, repent, do penance, and make reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary!
In Christo Rege!
Sancta Maria ora pro nobis!
@@debrasaints3809 Thanks for the comment as well as for taking the time and effort to read what I wrote.
I really think these two notions of generic and specific make it much simpler to dialogue with our Catholic friends who feel they need to defend Vatican II at all costs.
Joachim Di Fiore would have a lot to say about today's RCC. To this day, an institute perpetuating Di Fiore's legacy exists today in Italy.
great video!.
What is the name of this priest?
HOLY PRIEST DEO GRATIAS AMEN
The church is always so resistant to giving up its power & control. Seems like there was a lot of interpretation & conflation of what Joaquim of Fiore was saying, especially when you inject Calvinists & humanists into the discussion as they came hundreds of years later.
Direct communing with Jesus through the Holy Spirit by transcending in Transcendental Meditation is how it is presented in Ronald Ringsrud’s book “Medellin Colombia and the Prophesies of Joaquim of Fiore.”
🇻🇦🇻🇦
🇻🇦
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦
So true
Amen. We cannot surpass in grace and blessings the Apostles and early Christians. This is wishful thinking and a sign of pathetic pride.
If scripture and Church tradition teaches us that Adam and Eve “fell” what did they “fall” from to where human nature is now ? Does Father not think that our Creator would not want us restored to the Original state of Man? The Original State that our creator created us?
That is why God sent us His Son. In his passion, death, and resurrection, Jesus recovered for us eternal life with the Holy Trinity.
His opening prayer was a call for heresy
V2 must be thrown into the trash from whence it came