www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Marylike Crusade

This past Thursday we had the Marylike Crusade come to town and this is the first time that I had heard of them. The thing that I thought was strange was that they didnt get to use a Church for the seminar.Are these guys Schsmatic or just very traditional? They talked alot about how Vat 2 brought in Satin and the antichrist into the church.They also said that the Virgin at Fatima warnned against these changes.What is the deal with this. I ask all the Latin posters to fill me in on this because it was kinda scarey.
poor Sinner Chad

The Theotokos is unlikely to have warned anyone that an ecumentical council called by a Pope (about to be or recently beatified) and consisting of all the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. These people have gone off the deep end and are definitely schismatic. Even if one is displeased with the way the Vatican II reforms were implimented and how many interprete the counciliar documents there is nothing in them that could remotely be considered heretical, let alone Satanic.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

I am sorry to hear of these people.

I think they need our prayers.

Through the last almost 2000 years devotion to Mary has risen and fallen with the times, for every period of disinterest there was another of great interest.

In what I'll call the "Vatican I" period (late 19th century to late 20th century) there was a great deal of hyper-devotion to Mary encouraged in the western church, moreso than had ever happened in the history of the church previously, and I suppose also in the latinized Byzantine churches as well. Millions of young Catholics were inundated with the glories of Mary, an older woman I know had many statues of Mary in her home and garden for years and didn't go to liturgy for anything but weddings and funerals for over fifteen years, maybe twenty.

I asked her why all the statues of Mary when she didn't seem too attached to religion and she said "Mary is my special advocate". The training really stuck.

Vatican II was a watershed in many ways but one thing in particular was it's interest in putting balance into the devotional life of modern Catholics. For this and several other reasons there are those who have rejected Vatican II and the recent bishops of Rome, something they as devout Catholics they would have no right to do.

Those who will accept private revelation (interpreted to their own pleasure) over a general council, reject the hierarchs of the church and attempt to pull others into their maelstrom of bitterness and negativity have apparently separated themselves from us. They need our prayers very badly.

May the Holy Theotokos pray for them! (and us too!)

Michael, that sinner

As a Byzantine Catholic who went to Latin rite schools I have too say that my objections is not with Vatican II. If Vatican II was enforced then there would be Gregorian chant sung during liturgies and the priest would face East.

Now with that said my beef is with the perverted and corrupt hierarchs that arose from the ashes of Vatican II to destroy the Church. Many of these Bishops have resigned in disgrace and some need to resign. Others have caused the crisis we now face in the Church with regards to sex predators. May God Have Mercy on Their Soul!

I digress, but my point is this; I have no problem with groups that want a return of the Traditional Liturgy. Unfortunately, you are going to find many of those groups are also anti-Vatican II. I don't think one should say Vatican II was heretical. After all Vatican II was the best thing that could happen to us Byzantines. I think these groups should be mad about how the council has been implemented. I think they should be speaking out against the heresy, which is the �spirit of Vatican II.� If there are heresies resulting from Vatican II then it is clear to me those heresies are not of the council but the poor implementation of that council.

I suggest stay away from those groups. Rather, find groups like EWTN who are trying to re-educated Catholics from the many corrupt hierarchs who have hijacked the council.

As Bill O. would say, "I think this a fair and balanced approach."

Dear Johan S,

I agree what you you have to say about the incorrect implementatation of Vatican II.

What you have to say about bishops:

"Now with that said my beef is with the perverted and corrupt hierarchs that arose from the ashes of Vatican II to destroy the Church. Many of these Bishops have resigned in disgrace and some need to resign. Others have caused the crisis we now face in the Church with regards to sex predators. May God Have Mercy on Their Soul!"

Yes there are bad bishops. About 10 years ago our Archbishop resigned over sexual involvemant with two women.
However most bishops today were appointed by Pope John Paul II. I don't remeber the number, but John Paul has appointed the overwhelming majority of current bishops.

Maybe I am misreading your post. You sound to be generalizing about the number of bad bishops.

My point is that we give due obedience and respect to our bishops. They are the succesors to the Apostles. When there is a bad one he should resign or be removed by the Vatican.

Best regards in Christ our Lord,

Paul

Dear Paul, I can understand Johan's position on the Bishops. Its not easy having a Latin stand in for a Bishop of some Byzantine Eparchy.

Greetings all,

This thread is diverging somewhat but the bishops have been brought into this so I think a bit more will be said of this before the topic is finished.

We can agree that Vatican II was poorly implemented, it must be remembered that the bishops that would have been responsible for that were formed under the church of Vatican I and appointed mostly by Pius XII and his predecessors.

All this recent scandal is not in any way a result of Vatican II or Vatican I for that matter. It was a growing problem for years, many years before John XXIII. There were rumours of what was going on in some seminaries when I was young. I was specifically discouraged by my own relatives from seeking Holy Orders because of some of these admittedly unsubstantiated claims.

The lay public was already becoming aware of some of the problems many, many years ago. The stories had the feel of urban legends to them, a hopeful naive public would prefer not to believe them, except for the anti-Catholics who were happy to spread the stories!

I think it is anyone's guess whether vocations would have fallen off as rapidly if Vatican II had not occured. All Christian denominations are having problems with vocations so I would suspect that there would have been some falloff anyway, considering the culture we have developed for ourselves.

But I do believe that the falloff in vocations had a lot to do with scale of the scandal. Bishops were attempting to keep parishes staffed and engaged in a lot of wishful thinking on the side of charity for the offenders. Taking psychological evaluations at face value and returning "contrite" priests to public duties. In hindsight it would have been better to close parishes and make them do without a priest than expose the helpless victims to such risk.

Now we have to deal with the aftermath of all of this unfortunate mess. Fingerpointing will not help now. We need to believe in the priests we currently have and the new ones coming up, and believe in our bishops, supporting them with our funds and with our prayers. We need to get on with the task of rebuilding.

Michael

I must say that I thought perhaps there was an error in this spelling "Marylike" so I typed in the words "Marylike Crusade" on google and sure enough, that's the way it's spelled, all right, and there were several listings. I only glanced at the first one brieflly - it's always odd to realize there are many more 'groups' out there than I ever knew existed ... I don't know anyone who'd ever mentioned it to me.
CS

Slava Isusu Christu!

I would like to further clarify my position but unfortunately the grass needs cutting.

On a Sunday?!?

Nevva hoid o' these folks, but I would say that if Vatican II brought in satin, perhaps later reforms brought in velvet and lace.

The fabric of Christianity, ya know.


Just trying to keep to the tread.


Or am I a bit warped?

Please don't needle me........


Sharon

It appears that these guys are a traditional schsmatic group as they are affilated with the Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, also known as CMRI.

This group is actually a sedevacantist group, that is they believe that office of pope is currently vacant.

Hope this helps!


David

Can someone tell me how this word is pronounced?

Thanks!

Dave

Posted by Sharon:

"Nevva hoid o' these folks, but I would say that if Vatican II brought in satin, perhaps later reforms brought in velvet and lace.

The fabric of Christianity, ya know.


Just trying to keep to the tread.


Or am I a bit warped?

Please don't needle me........"


Pin you to the cushion to hold you in your place in the tapestry?

Steve

Posted by Chtec:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic:
sedevacantist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can someone tell me how this word is pronounced?

Thanks!

Dave"

Dear Dave,

I think that this:

"say day vah contest"

is pretty close to the correct pronunciation of the word sedevacantist.

Hope that this helps.

Steve