If Vatican II never happened

[otjm]

Fatima is a private revelation. (not a prophecy) and I’m sorry but, it’s not for you to determine what is and is not relevant to the discussion.

John XXIII was the Pope that read the secret and decided not to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart.

John XXIII was the Pope that called the Council.

Pope John’s wishes for the Council came into direct conflict with the wishes of Our Lady.

There is no reason why Our Lord would give good fruit to a Council called by someone that decided they knew better than the Queen of Heaven.

Hogwash.

 

[Sure]

otjm,

Don’t you know that it’s up to GerardP to determine what is relevant to this thread, and what is not!

The cause of our problems today is certainly not Vatican II. It is the modernism that crept into the Church and the seminaries in the 40’s and 50’s and perhaps earlier. Remember all the liturgical abuses in the 70’s and 80’s? Who perpetrated those abuses? Mostly men who were educated, formed and ordained BEFORE Vatican II. If you look at the statistics of the sexual abuse scandal, most of the priests who perpetrated the abuse were ordained before Vatican II. Is it reasonable to think that once the Vatican II documents were published good priests just suddenly went bad? I don’t think so. It makes far more sense that the priests were poorly formed to begin with and, as a result, were led astray with liturgical experimentation and worse.

 

[Dempsey1919]

We’ll never know. I don’t believe that Vatican II actually caused any problems…the problems were/are caused by those who disobey Church teaching and disregard the things that they don’t like.

You can’t say that Vatican 2 was responsible for all of the bad things that have happened. Personally, I believe it has more to do with the way society changed during the 60’s. I think it was the fact that morals relaxed and people became more secular. It is these secular attitudes that have caused the problems…not a Council guided by the Holy Spirit. With this in mind, I think it would be foolish to think that the problems would have been avoided if Vatican II never happened.

I think there is much to be thankful for within the Church. At least the Latin Mass is coming back. At least the Church hasn’t changed any of the doctrines relating to contraception and holy orders. The Church can’t change the faith…but the expression of the faith can change, whether for good or bad.

Hopefully, this renewal of the Latin Mass will bring about a change within the Church. I like the tradition and history of this rite and I hope other young people will feel the same way. I just hope that liturgical abuse does not affect the TLM the way it has with the Mass of Paul VI.

However, I will say this: Those ultra-traditionalists whose love of the traditional liturgy has caused them to enter schism need to remember that very ‘catholic’ virtue of obedience. There’s nothing wrong with liking the old liturgy but it becomes a problem if it causes you to reject the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.

These schismatics won’t last; remember the ‘traditionalists’ who broke away from Rome after the First Vatican Council because they disagreed with the doctine of Papal Infallability. To be Catholic means to be united with the Pope and his magesterium.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

otjm,

Don’t you know that it’s up to GerardP to determine what is relevant to this thread, and what is not!

The cause of our problems today is certainly not Vatican II. It is the modernism that crept into the Church and the seminaries in the 40’s and 50’s and perhaps earlier. Remember all the liturgical abuses in the 70’s and 80’s? Who perpetrated those abuses? Mostly men who were educated, formed and ordained BEFORE Vatican II. If you look at the statistics of the sexual abuse scandal, most of the priests who perpetrated the abuse were ordained before Vatican II. Is it reasonable to think that once the Vatican II documents were published good priests just suddenly went bad? I don’t think so. It makes far more sense that the priests were poorly formed to begin with and, as a result, were led astray with liturgical experimentation and worse.

The generation that fell away were those educated in the 1950s. We never had the post Vatican II children, except, in Britain, in a very nominal way at Catholic schools.
I don’t think we can say “what if”. Things would have been different. We still haven’t worked through the implications of the Protestant Reformation, which has meant a 400 year long process of privatisation and marginalisation of religion. However Vatican II maybe marked the beginning of the end of that crisis.

 

[GerardP]

What about the promise that “that which you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.” No one is obliged to believe a private revelation, Our Lady knows that and so does Our Lord who decreed it. Likewise, Our Lord gave the authority to govern the Church on earth to Peter alone and His successors.

No one disputes that. But the Pope also can resist the promptings of Heaven. If Our Lady took the time to make a revelation to people that involved the Pope, it could have been a warning that he was going to send the Church onto a bumpy ride that could be avoided.

Notice in all private recelations, Mary or Jesus or whoever is appearing always tells the seer to obey their superior, even if the superior rejects the revelation as authentic or chooses not to follow its directives.

That’s true.

This is because the superior’s authority is founded on public revelation, something we all are bound to, while the directives in private revelations are not binding on the consciences of the Church.

That doesn’t mean that directives from private revelations aren’t the wiser course of action.

If anything, the lack of fruit is from our own sins as are any chasitsements the Church receives, not the decision of one man to not follow a private revelation.

I would argue that it’s all of the above.

 

[GerardP]

I kinda see the reasoning…here…
Perhaps this is better as another thread, but do you think that the council was called out of fear?
Somewhat like in the way Moses acted and why he wasn’t allowed to enter the Primised Land?
Pope John XIII and Moses were both good leaders and men, and not to put a judgement on their character, but perhaps they just made some bad choices out of human weakness?

Well the thread allows speculation on what would’ve happened had Vatican II not been called.

John’s main focus was the Council, not Fatima.

Fr. Malachi Martin described Pope John very sympathetically, “He was a liberal. He was very loving. He was great at Children’s Communions, No one could dislike this man…”
But he had a misplaced zeal thinking the Council would be a new Pentecost. He said, “His piety didn’t give him insight.”

 

[GerardP]

Who makes you bigger than the pope?

Nobody. I have nothing to do with it.

 

[GerardP]

Hogwash.

pointless

 

[GerardP]

otjm,

Don’t you know that it’s up to GerardP to determine what is relevant to this thread, and what is not!

Ridicule, how noble.

The cause of our problems today is certainly not Vatican II. It is the modernism that crept into the Church and the seminaries in the 40’s and 50’s and perhaps earlier.

Vatican II gave that modernism an opportunity to explode.

Remember all the liturgical abuses in the 70’s and 80’s? Who perpetrated those abuses? Mostly men who were educated, formed and ordained BEFORE Vatican II.

And many were present AT Vatican II.

If you look at the statistics of the sexual abuse scandal, most of the priests who perpetrated the abuse were ordained before Vatican II. Is it reasonable to think that once the Vatican II documents were published good priests just suddenly went bad? I don’t think so. It makes far more sense that the priests were poorly formed to begin with and, as a result, were led astray with liturgical experimentation and worse.

You’ll notice that Vatican II did nothing but inspire them to this day. Vatican II did nothing to corral them or correct them. Yet, the lack of binding statements and disciplines have lead to them trumpeting and quoting Vatican II as their Magna Carta

 

[GerardP]

The generation that fell away were those educated in the 1950s. We never had the post Vatican II children, except, in Britain, in a very nominal way at Catholic schools.
I don’t think we can say “what if”. Things would have been different. We still haven’t worked through the implications of the Protestant Reformation, which has meant a 400 year long process of privatisation and marginalisation of religion. However Vatican II maybe marked the beginning of the end of that crisis.

I agree with you on this. Vatican II was basically the vessel that made a fever that was festering come to it’s full state. The Church can only get through this Crisis and recover gradually rebuild in hopefully a purer form like the Pope has said, “smaller but purer”.

 

[GerardP]

You can’t say that Vatican 2 was responsible for all of the bad things that have happened. Personally, I believe it has more to do with the way society changed during the 60’s. I think it was the fact that morals relaxed and people became more secular. It is these secular attitudes that have caused the problems…not a Council guided by the Holy Spirit. With this in mind, I think it would be foolish to think that the problems would have been avoided if Vatican II never happened.

Councils aren’t guided by the Holy Ghost. Though the Fathers can pray for that guidance. It’s not a guarantee. They are protected from error by the Holy Ghost when defining things. I’ve noticed this idea creeping up in a lot of places. Probably due to EWTN and some of the imprudent and incorrect statements from personalities on that channel.

The Holy Ghost has negative guarantees. He doesn’t pick the Pope either, He only prevents the Church from contradicting itself.

I think there is much to be thankful for within the Church. At least the Latin Mass is coming back. At least the Church hasn’t changed any of the doctrines relating to contraception and holy orders. The Church can’t change the faith…but the expression of the faith can change, whether for good or bad.

Agreed.

Hopefully, this renewal of the Latin Mass will bring about a change within the Church. I like the tradition and history of this rite and I hope other young people will feel the same way. I just hope that liturgical abuse does not affect the TLM the way it has with the Mass of Paul VI.

Agreed.

However, I will say this: Those ultra-traditionalists whose love of the traditional liturgy has caused them to enter schism need to remember that very ‘catholic’ virtue of obedience. There’s nothing wrong with liking the old liturgy but it becomes a problem if it causes you to reject the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.

There’s a lot of misunderstanding on this on your part. The virtue of obedience is subordinate to the virtue of justice. Vatican I insists on “true” obedience in the Thomistic sense.

Schism is the denial of the right of the Pope to his authority. Groups like the SSPX do not do this. They are arguably engaged in justifiable disobedience. The fact that they have appealed to the Pope relentlessly to declare the excommunications null, declare the TLM to be free from suppression and clarify the disputes over Vatican II is evidence that they believe in the supremacy of the papacy. They just want him to use it more as a matter of justice and prudence.

These schismatics won’t last; remember the ‘traditionalists’ who broke away from Rome after the First Vatican Council because they disagreed with the doctine of Papal Infallability. To be Catholic means to be united with the Pope and his magesterium

The difference is the Old Catholics were Schismatics in that they denied the right of the Pope to govern and they denied the Dogma of Infallibility. They are schismatice and heretics. The same is true of the Orthodox but they have managed to stick around for a thousand years.

The Magisterium doesn’t belong to the Pope. His is the office that exercises it. He submits to the Magisterium just as everyone else does. It’s not “his.” It belongs to the Church.

 

[SnorterLuster]

However, it also shows that people who were supposedly well catechized via the Baltimore Catechism had the equivalent of a teenager’s knowledge of the Church - that is, they were well catechized about doctrine, but were given the impression that discipline, rubrics, etc were unchangeable too.

OTJM
And today’s average Catholic is better off than us poor, misguided souls that actually believed (and believe today) that the Eucharist is the actual Body & Blood of Christ, that artificial birth control is a mortal sin, that abortion is an unspeakable evil rampant in our society, and that the Mass is to worship God, not man? Yes, we believed that the disciplines and rubrics were carved in stone, mistakenly as Vatican II clearly taught us. Our knowledge may have been limited in your estimation, but our faith was strong.

Today’s Catholic, not cathechized via the Baltimore Catechism, has a clear understanding that discipline, rubics, etc. are changeable, and give the clear indication that they believe doctrine is determined by their individual conscience, not the Church.

So just who do you suppose has the best handle on what it is to be Catholic?

 

[Dempsey1919]

GerardP:

There’s a lot of misunderstanding on this on your part. The virtue of obedience is subordinate to the virtue of justice. Vatican I insists on “true” obedience in the Thomistic sense.

Schism is the denial of the right of the Pope to his authority. Groups like the SSPX do not do this. They are arguably engaged in justifiable disobedience. The fact that they have appealed to the Pope relentlessly to declare the excommunications null, declare the TLM to be free from suppression and clarify the disputes over Vatican II is evidence that they believe in the supremacy of the papacy. They just want him to use it more as a matter of justice and prudence.

The SSPX did deny “the right of the Pope to his authority” the day they consecrated the illicit Bishops; they blatantly ignored the Pope’s wishes and proceeded with the matter. From what I understand, this meant that they were automatically excommunicated.

Some of the ultra-traditionalists even claim that the See of Peter is vacant and has been since the Second Vatican Council. If this is not schism then I don’t know what is.

They have also uttered some horrible things about the Mass of Paul VI; they claim that it is not valid and some have said that it was sacrilige. They have claimed that the consecration is no longer true because of the change in the pro multis clause. This is blasphemy.

I have no problem with Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass and sacraments. This is a matter of personal preference. The problem lies with the fact that some deny the validity of the new mass. This is wrong.

As many on this forum know, I am just returning to the faith and I am learning as much as I can at the moment so I’m far from an expert on these things. It seems to me that many people have allowed their dislike of the new Mass drive them into schism and heresy. I have talked to many Catholics who claim that Vatican II changed the religion. A little research proves this to be totally false as the Council was not dogmatic; it didn’t change anything. In fact, as far as I know, it didn’t even change the liturgy. It seems that many people blame the Council for the many reforms implemented by liberals and dissenters afterwards.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic. This is not a thread about the SSPX or any other side issue. I will have to close the thread if it stays off topic.

 

[CrypticWritings]

I was thinking more of this Vatican II issue while out and about today.
I don’t think the council itself was the problem.
The real problem was that people rebelled against the Traditions and Truth of the Catholic Church. We must remember that the bishops who attended knew the teachings of the Church. The problem was disobedience and a spirit of rebellion and probably would have been the same no matter how the council ended.
Satan, due to pride was disobedient and rebellious. Not only did *he himself *commit this grave injustice to God Almighty, but he even convinced 1/3 of the angels in heaven to turn away from God. These were beings that knew Truth and had SEEN the Blessed Trinity, yet they still denied God.
That ought to give us a frightening reminder of how cunning Satan is…He must be taken seriously, even though we must despise his sin.
That is the same tactic Satan used within the Holy Church upon the humans within her walls.
But, as Christ said, Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL against His Church.
The Traditions of the Church are still the same, but we are on the defensive and “loosing ground” so to say (but may be on a rebound soon)…still, we (within Christ) will fight back, become offensive again because the Church WILL Triumph, that is Christ’s promise. We must be vigilant and remain faithful to the Traditions and fight with Christ that Truth and Tradition triumph again while praying for the Church including those who rebelled.
Even if tomorrow Vatican II and the new liturgy were declared obsolete, we still must fight on and never settle for less than absolute perfection. That indeed, is possible only in Christ our Saviour and King.
We must be thankful to God Almighty for the blessings we do have such as Pope Benedict XVI and Summarum Pontificum. Keep praying for our beloved Church, the Pope and all her leaders and every time keep asking “Who’s next!”
No army wins a war by “relaxing” and being disobedient to their leaders.
I know I won’t be satisfied until the new liturgy is gone, the Traditional Mass takes over the Latin rite and Vatican II is put in it’s proper place.
If for whatever reason the pope asked me “Young man, do you have a problem with the “ordinary form” and Vatican II?” I’d tell him: "I absolutely do Your Holiness, I don’t care for the new Mass, it isn’t good enough and it’s less second rate; and Vatican II was a mess…but you know what my dear Pope? I can’t change your mind and sometimes I don’t know what to think, honestly I’m disgusted, still, if you need millions perhaps billions of soldiers to get your back and push for a return of the beauty of Truth and tradition, We’ll be here for you even if it cost our life…don’t let Satan and the weak minded leadership behind the apostacy fool you!..What do you say Your Holiness?..How about we fix these problems so we can all get back to carrying out the Gospel mission!’
Oh, if only the Pope had more real men behind him how great that would be! Good followers often make good leaders…We have Christ, but Christ wants us to be there for the leader He gave us…

Okay well, I’ll get off mysoapbox now, I feel better.

 

[Rabbititus]

I think cultural factors would have led to a decline in church attendance and faith, but I also think maybe the council helped the trend a little bit. It seems a lot of people thought the entire church would change and become modern - it gave more liberal types a sort of false hope for drastic change which was dashed after things like the Pope’s condemnation of birth control. IMO, it’s much more frustrating thinking you’re going to get something and then not get it than it is to have no expectation of getting it in the first place.

Had the council not happened, it’s probable that many would have still fallen away, but maybe we wouldn’t have groups like the SSPX (who think we changed in ways we didn’t have the authority to) and Womenpriests (who think we haven’t lived up to the spirit of the council).

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Church needed a way to reconnect with Her flock on Earth after World War II. Vatican II was the way. It still is not fully implemented and Pope Benedict is doing his best to implement the true nature of Vatican II.

 

[tvdxer]

How do you think the Church would be different today?
(Please, no uncharitable comments)

I wonder.

Surely, faulty implementations and interpretations of Vatican II had a negative effect on the church. Yet I don’t think the post-V2 decline was completely the result of it.

There was the sexual revolution, the spread of moral relativism, the introduction of easy contraceptives, among other events that occurred around the time of V2 that had a liberalizing and demoralizing effect on society as a whole. And with Catholics living increasingly outside of dominantly Catholic enclaves and in suburban communities on an equal footing with Protestants and others, they weren’t exempt from it.

Perhaps there would be a larger group of orthodox Catholics still faithful to bishops demanding strict obedience, a liberal Catholic segment calling for a council, and numerous ex-Catholics who left the church due to strict enforcement of socially unpopular teachings. Who knows?

 

[Dempsey1919]

SemperFi:

The Church needed a way to reconnect with Her flock on Earth after World War II. Vatican II was the way. It still is not fully implemented and Pope Benedict is doing his best to implement the true nature of Vatican II.

Vatican II has not been implemented. The things we see that people attribute to Vatican II are not part of what Vatican II taught, especially with regard to liturgy and churches.

From my reading, I am increasingly led to believe that the Church since the end of Vatican II has changed in its worship and traditions dramatically. I don’t blame the Second Vatican Council for this.

Sadly, the more I research the more I come to the conclusion that modern day Catholicism is a protestantised, watered down version. Many of the things in the New Mass where suggested and implemented by Luther and other Protestants (the free standing table, mass facing the people, mass in the vernacular etc).

I’m not starting an argument and I don’t want to annoy people; I’m just sharing my beliefs on the matter. The things that led me back to Catholicism seem to be gone. The things that I thought of as ‘Catholic’ no longer exist but I don’t think Vatican II is the reason for this.

 

[James_Miller]

Oh, what a Blessed thought!!!
I was baptised an adult convert in 1962. Civil society feared the Church then and many doubtful films were remade to get the approval of the Legency of Decency. Now the Church is the punching bag of civil society.