Protestantizing heresies of Vatican II

[JKirkLVNV]

Some ministers from the Swedish Lutheran church who are “high-church” use the Roman Missal of 1969 for their Mass (yes they call it Mass) in the vernacular. Since they are not validly ordained, there is no Eucharist. This would never have happened with the Mass of Pius V because it’s too “Catholic”. they even “celebrate it ad orientem” as most of the “high masses” are done in that sect.
Could you imagine the Protestants who are doing this?

Besides, a lot of “catholic” immigrants mostly from Latin America, cannot see the difference between the Lutheran services and the Catholic Mass so they end up joining the Protestants.

Protestants are copying us right and left, starting with the Oxford movement in the 1800’s and continuing down today to Methodist ministers who wear chasubles.

 

[RobedWithLight]

So I guess these Six (good number) Protestant Members, just stood around, mingled and came for the free lunch.
What was there function, since they must have had some (name removed by moderator)ut?

Well, in that case you might just as well condemn the Council of Trent, which likewise “invited” Protestant observers in its sessions as is clear from its Decree on Reformation:

SAFE-CONDUCT GRANTED TO PROTESTANTS

The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios of the holy Apostolic See presiding therein,-grants, as far as regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or Seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this oecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct, with all and each of the necessary and suitable clauses and decrees, even though they ought to be expressed specifically and not in general terms, and which it is Its wish shall be considered as expressed, so as that they may and shall have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and safely to the said oecumenical Council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit. It hath furthermore seemed good to the holy Synod, that if, for their greater liberty and security, they desire that certain judges be deputed on their behalf, in regard of crimes whether committed, or that may be committed, by them, they shall themselves nominate those who are favourable towards them, even though the said crimes should be ever so enormous and should savour of heresy.

Council of Trent Session XIII: “Decree on Reformation” §8 (October 11, 1551)

Were the fathers at Trent wrong as well for inviting Protestants (who were to be treated as more than just observers) in its sessions?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, in that case you might just as well condemn the Council of Trent, which likewise “invited” Protestant observers in its sessions as is clear from its Decree on Reformation:

Were the fathers at Trent wrong as well for inviting Protestants (who were to be treated as more than just observers) in its sessions?

Quite right, they were to enter into the debates/discussions.

 

[BobP123]

Some ministers from the Swedish Lutheran church who are “high-church” use the Roman Missal of 1969 for their Mass (yes they call it Mass) in the vernacular. Since they are not validly ordained, there is no Eucharist. This would never have happened with the Mass of Pius V because it’s too “Catholic”. they even “celebrate it ad orientem” as most of the “high masses” are done in that sect.
Could you imagine the Protestants who are doing this?

Besides, a lot of “catholic” immigrants mostly from Latin America, cannot see the difference between the Lutheran services and the Catholic Mass so they end up joining the Protestants.

Actually, to be fair, we lost a lot of Catholics to Protestantism because of factors other than the Mass, such as divorced and remarried people, birth control, living together, etc. But that is not to say the New Order mindset didn’t lead many Catholics to that new socially accepted state either. Or was it just coincidence?

An interesting law is the one on adultery. It’s still on the books as illegal, yet how many are arrested because they violated it? Things have changed, haven’t they.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Some ministers from the Swedish Lutheran church who are “high-church” use the Roman Missal of 1969 for their Mass (yes they call it Mass) in the vernacular. Since they are not validly ordained, there is no Eucharist. This would never have happened with the Mass of Pius V because it’s too “Catholic”. they even “celebrate it ad orientem” as most of the “high masses” are done in that sect.
Could you imagine the Protestants who are doing this?

Besides, a lot of “catholic” immigrants mostly from Latin America, cannot see the difference between the Lutheran services and the Catholic Mass so they end up joining the Protestants.

The Mass said under any rite, stands or falls on the basis of the validity of its Consecration. If there is no valid consecration, then it isn’t a valid mass, so what’s the point of this comparison? Protestants “copying” us does not mean we are becoming Protestants. The contrary might be more true: It is Protestants who are becoming more like us.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Actually, to be fair, we lost a lot of Catholics to Protestantism because of factors other than the Mass, such as divorced and remarried people, birth control, living together, etc. But that is not to say the New Order mindset didn’t lead many Catholics to that new socially accepted state either. Or was it just coincidence?

An interesting law is the one on adultery. It’s still on the books as illegal, yet how many are arrested because they violated it? Things have changed, haven’t they.

And poor instruction on the faith or catechesis I might add.

 

[palmas85]

Well, in that case you might just as well condemn the Council of Trent, which likewise “invited” Protestant observers in its sessions as is clear from its Decree on Reformation:

Were the fathers at Trent wrong as well for inviting Protestants (who were to be treated as more than just observers) in its sessions?

I think that the difference is obvious. Trent sought to define, verify and establish Catholicism as the true Church. It was thought that the Protestants in seeing this would return to the Church. They were not there to offer opinions nor participate in discussions. Nor was there any thought of modifying or re-interpreting Catholic doctrine in order to reflect the validity of other heretical sects, ie: protestants.

At Vatican II they were there in order to help Catholicism enter the modern age and be more acceptable to other faiths. In doing so it was tacitly implied that the other faiths in fact did have value and were worthy of respect. There was no effort considered or made to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith.

 

[BobP123]

I think that the difference is obvious. Trent sought to define, verify and establish Catholicism as the true Church. It was thought that the Protestants in seeing this would return to the Church. They were not there to offer opinions nor participate in discussions. Nor was there any thought of modifying or re-interpreting Catholic doctrine in order to reflect the validity of other heretical sects, ie: protestants.

At Vatican II they were there in order to help Catholicism enter the modern age and be more acceptable to other faiths. In doing so it was tacitly implied that the other faiths in fact did have value and were worthy of respect. There was no effort considered or made to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith.

The motives leading up to Trent seemed to be the exact opposite to those that lead up to Vatican II.

But look at it this way: we can thank the Protestants for the TLM. We can blame them for giving us the Novus Ordo.

 

[bear06]

They were not there to offer opinions nor participate in discussions

.

Anyone who thinks this is true might want to read the documents of Trent.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT15.HTM

Safe-Conduct Given To The Protestants

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legate and nuncios of the Apostolic See presiding, adhering to the safe-conduct given in the session before the last and amplifying it in the manner following, certifies to all men that by the tenor of these presents, it grants and fully concedes the public faith and the fullest and truest security, which they call a safe-conduct, to each and all priests, electors, princes, dukes, marquises, counts, barons, soldiers, the common people, and to all other persons of whatever state, condition or character they may be, of the German province and nation, to the cities and other places thereof, and to all other ecclesiastical and secular persons, especially those of the Confession of Augsburg, who shall come or be sent with them to this general Council of Trent, and to those who are going to come or have already come, by whatever name they are or may be designated, to come freely to this city of Trent, to remain, abide and sojourn here and to propose, speak and consider, examine and discuss any matters whatever with the council, and to present freely whatever they may think suitable, to set forth any articles whatever either in writing or orally, and to explain, establish and prove them by the Sacred Scriptures and by the words, decisions and arguments of the blessed Fathers, and also to reply, if need be, to the objections of the general council, and to dispute and confer charitably and respectfully and without hindrance with those who have been selected by the council, reproachful, vexatious and offensive language being absolutely put aside;

 

[RobedWithLight]

I think that the difference is obvious. Trent sought to define, verify and establish Catholicism as the true Church. It was thought that the Protestants in seeing this would return to the Church. They were not there to offer opinions nor participate in discussions. Nor was there any thought of modifying or re-interpreting Catholic doctrine in order to reflect the validity of other heretical sects, ie: protestants.

At Vatican II they were there in order to help Catholicism enter the modern age and be more acceptable to other faiths. In doing so it was tacitly implied that the other faiths in fact did have value and were worthy of respect. There was no effort considered or made to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith.

I already quoted Trent’s Decree on Reformation in one of my previous posts in this thread. It is clear from that decree that the Protestant observers on Trent were there not just as passive spectators, but were given the option to actually argue and even make proposals to the Council in its deliberations. Therefore, just as we cannot therefore accuse Trent as being “Protestantized”, by the same token we likewise cannot accuse Vatican II of being “Protestantized” as well.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think that the difference is obvious. Trent sought to define, verify and establish Catholicism as the true Church. It was thought that the Protestants in seeing this would return to the Church. They were not there to offer opinions nor participate in discussions. Nor was there any thought of modifying or re-interpreting Catholic doctrine in order to reflect the validity of other heretical sects, ie: protestants.

At Vatican II they were there in order to help Catholicism enter the modern age and be more acceptable to other faiths. In doing so it was tacitly implied that the other faiths in fact did have value and were worthy of respect. There was no effort considered or made to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith.

“More acceptable” or “more understandable?”

 

[RobedWithLight]

The motives leading up to Trent seemed to be the exact opposite to those that lead up to Vatican II.

But look at it this way: we can thank the Protestants for the TLM. We can blame them for giving us the Novus Ordo.

Not quite. The motives are essentially the same, which is to bring back those that have strayed into the fold. This is why Trent invited the reformers to its sessions, even granting them a safe conduct pass and generous privileges for the purpose, which eloquently manifests the Church’s loving solicitude towards them.

 

[Uxor]

Which particular Methodist branch did they come from that uses the NO exactly? Or were they just referring generally? Could you please ask them and tell how exactly it resembles the NO? Wording wise, etc.

United Methodist…Apostles Creed, Our Father (as said at the N.O. Mass), gospel reading and homily about the same, they used altar girls and boys. They said that basically when they first started attending the N.O. Mass it felt like they never left the Methodist Church. Just show up for one hour, hurry in and out and never got anything out of it. They say the Tridentine Mass is night and day compared to a Methodist Service and that it is the “true worship” of God.

 

[Uxor]

Not quite. The motives are essentially the same, which is to bring back those that have strayed into the fold. This is why Trent invited the reformers to its sessions, even granting them a safe conduct pass and generous privileges for the purpose, which eloquently manifests the Church’s loving solicitude towards them.

What good was that when now we have only 32% praciticing Catholics left. And who are these 32% that are left in the Church are they converts or cradle catholics. I know at my traditional parish it is mainly converts, but I don’t think they are included in that percentage.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What good was that when now we have only 32% praciticing Catholics left. And who are these 32% that are left in the Church are they converts or cradle catholics. I know at my traditional parish it is mainly converts, but I don’t think they are included in that percentage.

Your question makes no sense. “What good was that” (THAT was back during Trent) “when now we have only 32% practicing Catholics left (sic)” (presumeably now, currently, today).

What are you asking?

 

[BobP123]

What good was that when now we have only 32% praciticing Catholics left. And who are these 32% that are left in the Church are they converts or cradle catholics. I know at my traditional parish it is mainly converts, but I don’t think they are included in that percentage.

In the Archdiocese of Chicago it was reported that only 22% of baptized (“nominal”?) Catholics attend Church on a regular basis. And a great number of these are Polish and Hispanic immigrants.

(And I found out that “regular” wasn’t “every Sunday” either.)

 

[RobedWithLight]

What good was that when now we have only 32% praciticing Catholics left. And who are these 32% that are left in the Church are they converts or cradle catholics. I know at my traditional parish it is mainly converts, but I don’t think they are included in that percentage.

There is far more to this apparent decline in Church attendance than the alleged “Protestantizing” of V2, although according to Gallup, it has in fact been declining since 1958 (seven years BEFORE the close of V2), after peaking at 74 % in 1957. A lot of factors may and in fact encourage this trend, some of which can be traced to extraneous factors.

Well, after the Council of Nicaea, almost HALF the Church became Arian.

 

[Uxor]

There is far more to this apparent decline in Church attendance than the alleged “Protestantizing” of V2, although according to Gallup, it has in fact been declining since 1958 (seven years BEFORE the close of V2), after peaking at 74 % in 1957. A lot of factors may and in fact encourage this trend, some of which can be traced to extraneous factors.

Well, after the Council of Nicaea, almost HALF the Church became Arian.

No I disagree with that…I’ve seen the numbers prior to V2. You can do search on the net, if you’re interested.

 

[Uxor]

Your question makes no sense. “What good was that” (THAT was back during Trent) “when now we have only 32% practicing Catholics left (sic)” (presumeably now, currently, today).

What are you asking?

The motives are essentially the same, which is to bring back those that have strayed into the fold.

My question was in reference to V2. Huge difference in the fruits from Trent and the fruits of V2.

 

[Uxor]

In the Archdiocese of Chicago it was reported that only 22% of baptized (“nominal”?) Catholics attend Church on a regular basis. And a great number of these are Polish and Hispanic immigrants.

(And I found out that “regular” wasn’t “every Sunday” either.)

What a shame.