The fall of the Church after Vatican II

[Tselinoyarsk]

This is a perfect example of proof-texting being used to attack the Catholic Church. It is why the Church doesn’t let every individual interpret for themselves the Bible or Church documents. They obviously can be twisted.

I we go to the document…
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

…we find that the introduction to this section (11) is:
.
Then the rest of the chapter describes the revelation that Jesus brought to man while on the Earth.

So when we read, “He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion,” we can understand that “His revelation” is referring to His ministry as Man, as opposed to “all revelation”. This should be a no-brainer, as the Church accepts the New Testament as revelation, which was written after the death of Jesus.

“Revelation” is always understood as meaning all Revelation.

Anyway you look at it, it’s heretical, because, did His revelation end at His death? What about the Sacrament of Baptism? The appointment of St. Paul as an Apostle? That’s part of His revelation as well.

 

[holyrosary11]

Did we not understand ‘dignity of the human person’ before this council? Did they pronounce a new dogma?

A pope can write an encyclical on the dignity of the human person without calling a bazillion bishops from all over the world (not to mention a bunch of protestants to help form the new rites of worship) in order to say something on the subject. This is just ridiculous.

You’re making the claim that VII was a good thing. I have no idea what you’re talking about, and in a couple sentances could you just say why you think this?

I think VII was a bad idea because it was, first of all unnecessary, second of all, it totally obliterated the faith of hundreds of millions (think of all the suffering Christ did on Good Friday for all these souls that were damned anyway because of the travesty that was “VII”). That’s my take. It didn’t clarify anything, it simply muddled all dogmas that previously had been clear to the faithful. 40 years later people still have no idea what the Church teaches on certain subjects…

i agree. It seems most Catholics nowadays don’t know half of the important things they should know about being Catholic, about getting saved. In other words, i meet a lot of people who were NOT catechized and their lives show it. God revealed His ways to us for a reason - He knew we could live a 100 lifetimes and never really figure certain things out (why birth control is wrong, etc.). I have heard priests explain things that aren’t all that important about Catholicism (some historical events, for example) but rarely, these days, do priests speak on such things as, for example: Hell and how awful it is (how permanent it is) and the scriptures that support that kind of truth. Jesus said it is a very narrow road that leads to Heaven but i never hear about that kind of thing. I guess it sounds too negative and maybe the parishioners won’t like the priest (he thinks) if he does that fire-brimstone thing…Priests also don’t explain certain things like: why a popular heresy is so wrong, namely OnceSavedAlwaysSaved.

 

[pnewton]

Anyway you look at it, it’s heretical, because, did His revelation end at His death? What about the Sacrament of Baptism? The appointment of St. Paul as an Apostle? That’s part of His revelation as well.

The context is clearly His Earthly revelation, not all. Anyone can find heresy if they read sentences out of context. Believe what you will. I will stay with the Catholic Church.

“Revelation” is always understood as meaning all Revelation.

Obviously not. It is why our language uses adjectives to modify nouns. They really mean something.

 

[Tselinoyarsk]

The context is clearly His Earthly revelation, not all. Anyone can find heresy if they read sentences out of context. Believe what you will. I will stay with the Catholic Church.

You said that that was the context, but the Council didn’t specify any of that. Show some proof that it did.

I bet you’re type that would defend anything from Vatican ll.

Do you also think that false Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and the heretical ecclesiology given to the Church at Vatican ll, saying that it is “present and fully operative with all Her qualities and elements” in non-Catholic sects; that those who don’t accept the Papacy are still “part of the Church”; that the “Orthodox” and Schismatics from the East are part of the Church; that everytime a valid Eucharist is conferred in any of those schismatic sects the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is fully present with all Her qualities; and that the Catholic Church is in “partial” or “close” “communion” with non-Catholic sects are not in the least way heretical? You would say all that is perfectly fine Catholic doctrine and always taught by the Church?

 

[Tselinoyarsk]

Anyone can find heresy if they read sentences out of context. Believe what you will. I will stay with the Catholic Church.

You’re the one who would prefer to “believe what you will” instead of admitting and recognizing the truth and obeying what the Church really teaches. You live an utter lie and you know it, you just don’t want to accept it.

Vatican ll is overtly and explicitly heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and scandalous on many counts and doctrines, it’s all over the place.

We’ll treat with one subject only here.

You would surely deny that the “new ecclesiology” and the “Constitution of the Church” found and taught in Vatican ll is blatantly heretical and instead you would say that it is perfectly fine and true Catholic doctrine and Tradition.

Well, the heresies of the “new ecclesiology” and the “constitution of the Church” are:

• Schismatic bodies are “particular Churches” united to the Catholic Church by “close bonds.”-Communion (1992), 17.

• The Church of Christ “is present and operative” in churches that reject the papacy.-Dominus Iesus, 17.

• The universal Church is the “body of the [particular] Churches.”-Communion, 8

• There exist “numerous ‘spheres’ of belonging to the Church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it.”-John Paul II, Discourse to the Roman Curia, June 28, 1981.

• Schismatic Churches have a “wounded” existence.-Communion, 17.

• The “universal Church becomes present in them [the particular Churches] with all her essential elements.”-Communion, 7.

• “Elements of this already-given Church exist, found in their fullness in the Catholic Church, and without this fullness, in the other communities.”- Ut unum sint, 14.

This is all found in the Documents of Vatican ll, this is a fact hardly anyone would deny.

Furthermore, to fend off accusations of “proof-texting”, “taken out of context”, and “misunderstood meaning” and prove that the meaning l give here is the one they really intended, all that l quoted is found in works such as “Communion”, “Dominus lesus”, and “Ut Unum Sint” as being explaine to be such.

It goes without saying that all from Paul VI to Benedict XVI have been publicly saying the same thing over and over again. Besides, you just have to go and read the very own “Catechism” of the Catholic Church and the “1983 CIC”, which they all teach:

• One becomes a member of the “People of God” by baptism. (#782)

• This whole People of God participates in the offices of Christ (priest, prophet, king). (783)

• The sole Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church. (816)

• Christ’s body, the Church, is “wounded.” (817)

• Christ’s Spirit uses schismatic and heretical bodies (“these Churches and ecclesial communities”) as “means of salvation.” (819)

• Catholics are “fully” incorporated into the Church; those who believe in Christ and are baptized are in a “certain, although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church,” and this communion with schismatic orthodox Churches is “so profound” that it “lacks little to attain the fullness.” (837-8)

• Each “particular Church” is “Catholic,” but some are “fully Catholic.” (832, 834)

All of this heretical garbage has already been infallibly condemned by the Catholic Church at all times. All of this denies that divine article of faith “I believe in one Church.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum 29 June 1896:
" “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

“The property of the Church by which, in the profession of faith, in governance and in worship, she is undivided in herself and separated from any other.”-J. de Groot, Summa Apologetica de Ecclesia Catholica (Regensberg: Manz 1906) 153. “indivisa in se et divisa a quolibet alio.”

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus, 18 Apr 1862: "Those who leave the Roman See cannot hope to remain within the Church.”

Pius IX, Holy Office Letter, 16 Sep 1864: "The novelty of “branch churches” destroys at one stroke the divine constitution of the Church.”

Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes, 13 Sep 1868: “No non-Catholic sect or all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create.”

Leo XIII, Officio Sanctissimo, 22 Dec 1887: "He who separates from the Pope has no further bond with Christ.”

Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 29 Jun 1896: “Jesus Christ did not …institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.”

Leo XIII, ibid. "The Church regarded as rebels and outside her all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.”

Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, 6 Jan 1928: “No one is in Christ’s Church or remains there unless he acknowledges obeys the Pope.”

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943: "They stray from divine truth who imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which many Christian communities, although separated from one another by faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.”

Such quotes are merely samples, l could quote you hundreds more.

Anyone who denies all that is not even slightly heretical, is completely blind and bad willed to an extreme.

Of course, the conclusion is that it is simply impossible that the authority of the Church, Jesus, God Himself, could possibly authoritative teach all this heretical nonesense. Such assertion is overtly heretical and a complete denial of the Infallibility and lndefectibility of Holy Mother Church.

Consequently, all the last 5 “popes” have in reality been antipopes and complete heretics and apostates, which is also proven by all their Ecumenical apostasy and ad nauseam heretical statements and “teachings”.

Everyone here needs to wake up and condemn this false, heretical Novus Ordo sect which isn’t the Catholic Church.

 

[Aramis]

The underlying theme of the Council was Diginity of the Human Person. And it was a bad thing?

How can a council that was unnecessary be a ‘good thing’? Even without any hindsight whatsoever, a council in this manner is a terrible idea. Have you ever heard the expression “tempting God”?

Actually, the council did attend to a few important doctrinal issues that most Roman Catholics are unaware of; it insured the integrity of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Union, provided for Romans desiring to do so to formally transfer to the Eastern Catholic Churches, instructed the ECC’s to delatinize, and reinforced the dignity of the Eastern Catholic Churches as autonomous bodies within the Catholic Church (instead of Roads to Romanize the Orthodox).

 

[CradleCath]

Do the research. After every council is a period of confusion. EVERY ONE. The confusion in the Chrurch right now is normal****

.
I don’t want to be argumentative, but I’ve seen this statement made many times & no documentation given. Maybe you will share with us where you found this info? I went to a book written my Martha Rasmussen, an expert on Church history, called “Catholicism, the First 2,000 Years”. It’s a good book about the state of the Catholic world right before Martin Luther nailed his bombshell to the Church door & immediately after the Council of Trent( which was convened 30 years later (1545). It addressed the problems that partially led to the “reformation” & clarified Catholic belief. An Excerpt:

"For several hundred years before the Council of Trent ended in 1563, the Church was damaged by scandals among her leaders, pressure from secular rulers and changes in society, and attacks from former Catholics who had become Protestants. Catholics in many countries were so confused by these evils that they had difficulty trusting God to guide the Church. **After the Council of Trent, reforms were gradually **

implemented in most nations. The notorious scandals and abuses stopped. Catholics became more secure in their faith because of the Catechism; improvements in the liturgy; and better education for monks, nuns, priests, and bishops. Life in the Church never became simple, since the Church was never free from problems, but Catholics gradually became more trusting and optimistic.** Between the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965, Catholic life developed a depth of morality and self-confidence that surpassed anything known in the Church since the Middle Ages**.

The most obvious change was the improvement in the hierarchy. Priests and bishops were educated in theological seminaries and learned how to live good lives, to pray, and to manage their parishes and dioceses. Priests were expected to avoid close friendships with women, which might lead to scandals or immoral relationships. Bishops who learned about immorality among priests had the obligation to remove them. It was soon uncommon to find priests committing major sins or living scandalous lives. Bishops, priests, and nuns were often the best-educated people in the community, so they were respected more than they had been for several hundred years. Catholics could be proud of their leaders.

**Before the Council of Trent, bishops had little legal control over Franciscans, Dominicans, and many other religious orders operating in their dioceses/**SIZE].
We slipped back in this area, as we can see by the invitation to Obama given by a Holy Cross priest, without the permission or knowledge of his Bishop

These orders were under the jurisdiction of the Pope and the orders’ own superiors, who might not know what local monks and nuns were doing. Bishops usually had to petition Rome or the religious superiors to remove monks who were not living good lives. The petitions might take many years or be ineffective.

B] After the council, bishops had much more legal control./B] They were able to stop immoral or unorthodox preachers and to prevent scandalous situations in monasteries and convents from becoming serious abuses. Many religious orders reformed themselves, and the rest avoided most of the evil deeds that had sometimes taken place during the Renaissance.

The council of Trent brought order to the faith & it blossomed. The same canNOT be said about Vatican II. I don’t know as much about Vatican I, so I’ll have to do some studying before I comment on your contention that there was “confusion in the Church” afterwards. I do know that the first Vatican Council was never finished due to the political unrest in Europe at that time.I will get back to you about this.

.

 

[diggerdomer]

do i detect a note of sarcasm here?

I hope not. I didn’t intend any. If it came across that way, I apologize, especially to the OP. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

I bet you’re type that would defend anything from Vatican ll.

Well, I am, for sure. I defend anything and everything the Catholic Church teaches. That follows, imho, from being Catholic.

Is there something wrong with Catholics defending Catholic Church teaching?

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re the one who would prefer to “believe what you will” instead of admitting and recognizing the truth and obeying what the Church really teaches. You live an utter lie and you know it, you just don’t want to accept it.

Vatican ll is overtly and explicitly heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and scandalous on many counts and doctrines, it’s all over the place.

Anyone else struck by the utter contradiction and incoherence those statements have when placed together?

How can someone uphold “what the Church really teaches” on one hand and then call an ecumenical council of the same Church (which that same Church teaches is the highest form of teaching authority She has) “heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and scandalous”?

Huh? Did I wake up on the wrong side of reality today? Anyone help?

 

[pnewton]

You’re the one who would prefer to “believe what you will” instead of admitting and recognizing the truth and obeying what the Church really teaches. You live an utter lie and you know it, you just don’t want to accept it.

Vatican ll is overtly and explicitly heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and scandalous on many counts and doctrines, it’s all over the place.

Okay. Since you are new, let me advise you that we are very familiar with the tactic of begging the question. In other words, calling something a lie is not evidence of a lie.

Your first example was blatantly false. I am no surprised you have no answer to it and had to try and switch the subject. The quote you made was out of context it was not a contradiction.

I have faith in the Catholic Church. If you wish to make any presentation or accusation of heresy you must first explain why we should disregard the Church. So I have a couple of questions.

What denomination are you? I guess you are in one of those cults that have broken away from the Catholic Church, deeming it to be a failure after Vaticn II and established your own chuch, electing your own popes and attacking the Catholic Church. You will not sell your lies here, especially when your first post is as dishonest as it was.

 

[pnewton]

You said that that was the context, but the Council didn’t specify any of that. Show some proof that it did.

I did. I linked to the actual document. You posted one line and disregarded the adjectives that were incovenient. The burden of proof on all this antipope slander and accusations of heresy is totally on your shoulders.

I will stand by Jesus and the promise he made. The Catholic Church has not fallen. Nor has it moved to a rural farm house where Pope Michael sits as pontiff over his family and friends.

 

[Lisa44]

Dear faithful friends:…
Oh yes, the “Pauline” Mass. Let’s face it. It is a Catholic Mass. The Church declared it so. Yes, there are tremendous abuses in this Mass. We must ask God for forgiveness for the abuses. We must also pray for the faithful observance and reverence of the Mass. It is not the Mass that is the problem. The Mass itself is fine. It is the unfaithfullness and the lack of respect from the all parties that is the source the problem. The Mass is not observed as an act of worship where God is adored, but rather a forum for self-expression. …

In Christ,

Hi Randolph,
This is precisely the problem. The Mass was protected before Vat II. It was “PRESERVED”. For EXACTLY these reasons.

You don’t need to have an IQ of 160 to know that messing with an ancient tradition of the Church is a bad idea. The Mass was never broken. It never needed to be changed. Period.

Latin, is a perfect example. The reason why Latin was important is because it was a dead language. You can’t re-interpret it. Or change the meaning of the liturgy. When the liturgy was changed to the vernacular you get all sorts of interpretations and abuses within the language. For example…“so that ALL may be saved” from “so that MANY may be saved.”

I won’t go on. I think you must realize that it was Vat II that changed the Mass, and that was the opening of the door to the devil. The Church is supposed to PRESERVE itself, not change itself to suit the times and make a more nifty service that protestants will appreciate.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi Randolph,
This is precisely the problem. The Mass was protected before Vat II. It was “PRESERVED”. For EXACTLY these reasons.

You don’t need to have an IQ of 160 to know that messing with an ancient tradition of the Church is a bad idea. The Mass was never broken. It never needed to be changed. Period.

Latin, is a perfect example. The reason why Latin was important is because it was a dead language. You can’t re-interpret it. Or change the meaning of the liturgy. When the liturgy was changed to the vernacular you get all sorts of interpretations and abuses within the language. For example…“so that ALL may be saved” from “so that MANY may be saved.”

I won’t go on. I think you must realize that it was Vat II that changed the Mass, and that was the opening of the door to the devil. The Church is supposed to PRESERVE itself, not change itself to suit the times and make a more nifty service that protestants will appreciate.

You don’t need to have an IQ of 160 to know that messing with an ancient tradition of the Church is a bad idea. The Mass was never broken. It never needed to be changed. Period.

We don’t need an IQ of 16 to know this is silly. Yes Vatican II changed the Mass. So did Trent. So did any other Council that dealt with liturgical matters. So did any Pope or Bishop through the centuries (and there have been 20 or so, not just 5) who legitimately altered the worship practices of the Church.

The Church never said the Mass was broken (if you disagree, please substantiate your claim).

The reason why Latin was important is because it was a dead language.

That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. Thanks! Great comic relief after a long week, nice thought to head into the weekend with.

Sorry you think that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church was a door opening for the devil. You’re likely better off, then, in your Church, free of the devil no doubt.

 

[Lisa44]

You’re the one who would prefer to “believe what you will” instead of admitting and recognizing the truth and obeying what the Church really teaches. You live an utter lie and you know it, you just don’t want to accept it.

Vatican ll is overtly and explicitly heretical, erroneous, blasphemous and scandalous on many counts and doctrines, it’s all over the place…

Everyone here needs to wake up and condemn this false, heretical Novus Ordo sect which isn’t the Catholic Church.

Hi Tselinoyarsk,
Thank you for taking the time to research and post all these quotes.
Good job.

 

[Lisa44]

We don’t need an IQ of 16 to know this is silly. Yes Vatican II changed the Mass. So did Trent. So did any other Council that dealt with liturgical matters. So did any Pope or Bishop through the centuries (and there have been 20 or so, not just 5) who legitimately altered the worship practices of the Church.

The Church never said the Mass was broken (if you disagree, please substantiate your claim).

That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time. Thanks! Great comic relief after a long week, nice thought to head into the weekend with.

Sorry you think that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church was a door opening for the devil. You’re likely better off, then, in your Church, free of the devil no doubt.

Hi diggerdomer,
I don’t intend to get into an argument with you. Can you show me a time, in the 2,000 plus history of the Catholic Church where the Priest faced the people before Vat II? You imply that the church was always changing the liturgy willy nilly. The onus is on you to demonstrate how for 2,000 years, the liturgy was constantly making major changes. Perhaps you could also show how the Eucharist used to be given in the hand, and only was for a short time, given on the tongue. etc…

And, diggerdomer, please be aware, that you are resorting to personal attacks. There is no need to cast dispersions on my religiosity, or on my church. I go to Catholic Mass every Sunday
just like everyone else.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi diggerdomer,
I don’t intend to get into an argument with you. Can you show me a time, in the 2,000 plus history of the Catholic Church where the Priest faced the people before Vat II?

The Last Supper.

You imply that the church was always changing the liturgy willy nilly.

No. That’s what you infer. I said nothing about “willy nilly” I only acknowledged the historical fact that the way Christians worship has changed over time.

The onus is on you to demonstrate how for 2,000 years, the liturgy was constantly making major changes. Perhaps you could also show how the Eucharist used to be given in the hand, and only was for a short time, given on the tongue. etc…

Common knowledge that the liturgy has ALWAYS been celebrated in many languages. Common knowledge that the practice of receiving communion on the tongue evolved over time. Common knowledge that liturgical vestments arose over time. Common knowledge that the type of music used at liturgy changed over time. Common knowledge that liturgy changed from being celebrated in homes to being celebrated in churches. Common knowledge that parts of the current Mass were added at different periods in history (Creed, Agnus Dei, Gloria, for example)–meaning, they weren’t always there, and now they are.

At least, I’m assuming all that is common knowledge. If not let us know. Can we agree on those facts?

What other example of changes need documentation?

And, diggerdomer, please be aware, that you are resorting to personal attacks. There is no need to cast dispersions on my religiosity, or on my church. I go to Catholic Mass every Sunday
just like everyone else.

I apologize. I did not intend to convey personal attacks. If my posting did that, please accept my sincere apology. I retract anything I might have typed that came across that way.

 

[CradleCath]

If we we are to judge the need or success by this criteria, the Trent was a disaster. The worst splintering of Christianity ever occured in its wake.

Uh…“in it’s wake”?? The council of Trent was opened about 30 yrs. AFTER Martin Luther
defected &, at least, two centuries AFTER the great schism. It’s purpose was to correct the immorality & abuse that had partially caused these defections & to define Catholic doctrine so that both Catholics & those who left the Church would know exactly what was taught & what was introduced as abuses. Even though Catholic teaching had been consistent, there had been some development of doctrine since apostolic times, and, of course, Luther had spread the altered phrase…“We are saved by faith, ALONE” all over Europe. (Amazing how the addition of that one word, “alone” damaged the true faith.) Church teaching on many subjects was not summarized anywhere in a concise and authoritative fashion, until Trent.

The time period following the council of Trent is considered to be the most glorious time that the Church has experienced, topped only by the years when the apostles & their disciples ruled the Church. And, after Trent, we weren’t persecuted & martyred as we were during the days of Pope Clement & Sixtus. The post-Trent Church suffered through 2 major wars in one century & stood erect & strong.

But then there was no causality and the Church had to address the problem that would have happened anyway.

 

[CradleCath]

We don’t need an IQ of 16 to know this is silly. Yes Vatican II changed the Mass. So did Trent.

Please list those “changes” in the Mass made at the Council of Trent. I’d LOVE to see if they compare with the Mass written by Annibale Bugnini. Organic or INorganic…that is the question

So did any other Council that dealt with liturgical matters. So did any Pope or Bishop through the centuries (and there have been 20 or so, not just 5) who legitimately

 

[pnewton]

The results of the council of Trent are NOTHING like Vatican II.

The lack of reunifications with different denominations was listed as evidence that Vatican II was a failure. How many rejoined after Trent? Instead more denomitations were bred. Off hand, the Puritans broke away from the Church of England after that.

I am trying to find baptism statistics and numbers of Catholics after 1560 and failing to do so. If the numbers dropped, then Trent would not be to blamed as it was called to protect the Church and keep it growing in this time of turmoil. I see a parallel. You may not. I find it hard to believe that the sexual revolution, humanism being taught in the school and then the growth of the information age would not have impacted the Church, council or no council.