The fall of the Church after Vatican II

[diggerdomer]

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

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Oh, please. That period may be the most glorious for you, which is fine of course, but that’s not an objective fact. I hope you’re not pretending to present it as such? And if you are claiming that one period was the “most glorious time” what does that say about God? Was God busy with other things during your “non-most-glorious-times?” Bummer for those of us who weren’t around back then, huh?

After Trent no persecutions? Are you kidding? There have been martyrs in every century up to and including the present.

By the way, what Clement and Sixtus are you referring to?

No causality?? See above. As for results, they were awesome…priests who were provided with an education, the first Catechism of the Catholic Church was codified, disciplinary laws that guided the Church for the next four hundred years were written… It was through those disciplinary laws, promulgated by the Council of Trent, that Bishops were forbidden to live outside of their own diocese, collect revenue from their diocese before they were advanced to the Episcopacy. This council also put an effective end to Simony.

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

You make some excellent points, thank you. Trent did indeed accomplish some remarkable things, and, again, I think you highlight some of them extremely well. thanks!

But…let’s be honest…God was still with the Church (at least I assume most of us think that) even during Vatican II, and I really can’t believe that as astute as you are you can’t see any good things resulting from VII. Maybe it didn’t equal Trent, in your opinion (ok, there have been 21 ecumenical councils, no doubt some are more important/effective than others), but are you really saying nothing good came from it? I don’t think so…but I’m wondering.

 

[Tselinoyarsk]

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?

lf you would really “defend” anything and everything the Catholic Church teaches, you would have to condemn Vatican ll and the last 5 antipopes, and what would-be the Catholic Church right now in Rome, which it isn’t, it’s just a poser.

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.

l made no such thing.

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.

The first example was fine, and you were the one who were saying it didn’t say what it said, you’d say anything of course.

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.

Take a look at all that l posted about the “new ecclesiology”.

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.

Hahaha no, l don’t belong to any “denomination”, nor “cult”, l live in my house. Those who elect their own “popes” are conclavists and they are wrong, because a Pope can only be a Bishop of Rome.

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.

Oh so they were the “adjectives” were they?

Let’s get one thing staright: all l say is not “antipope slander”, it’s the truth, as well as the accusations of heresy, they are all true, it’s all over the place.

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.

Will you stand by this that He said as well?

“By their fruits you shall know them”.

What about this?

Galatians 1:8- “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

l never said the Church has fallen, it has been reduced to a small remnant. Benedict XVI is an incredible apostate and a heretic, and l can prove this to you anytime, l have mountains of evidence. You want to debate that he isn’t an apostate heretic?

 

[Tselinoyarsk]

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?

Because said ecumenical “council” of what would-be the Catholic Church officially taught condemned doctrines and errors with what would be the Solemn Magisterium, which is infallible.

The Church can’t do that. She can’t officially teach as part of Catholic teaching or Tradition doctrines that have already been infallibly and irrevocably condemned. lf you believe that, then you would have to be lieve the Church can defect or isn’t lnfallible, but you can’t do any of those.

 

[diggerdomer]

lf you would really “defend” anything and everything the Catholic Church teaches, you would have to condemn Vatican ll and the last 5 antipopes, and what would-be the Catholic Church right now in Rome, which it isn’t, it’s just a poser.

…Benedict XVI is an incredible apostate and a heretic, and l can prove this to you anytime, l have mountains of evidence. You want to debate that he isn’t an apostate heretic?

Thanks. Proved our point, you’re not arguing from a Catholic perspective. Which is fine.

From the Catholic perspective (which you obviously don’t share), I confess I can’t recall the last five anti-popes. I go back to the Great Western Schism in the 15th century…but I’m sorry I’m just not all that familiar with each of those anti-popes individually.

No, I’m not interested in debating whether Benedict XVI is an apostate or heretic. From the Catholic Church perspective he’s not, that’s tautological. I just don’t have time or interest or energy to debate with you about how Benedict stands vis-a-vis other, non-Christian religions (no Christian denomination I know of accuses the Catholic Pope of such things).

Enjoy your “Catholic” Church, whatever it may be, and happy Easter.

 

[diggerdomer]

Because said ecumenical “council” of what would-be the Catholic Church officially taught condemned doctrines and errors with what would be the Solemn Magisterium, which is infallible.

The Church can’t do that. She can’t officially teach as part of Catholic teaching or Tradition doctrines that have already been infallibly and irrevocably condemned. lf you believe that, then you would have to be lieve the Church can defect or isn’t lnfallible, but you can’t do any of those.

That only confirmed and strengthened my previous questions. Try again? Or not, whatever, I really don’t think you’re here to learn. Are you?

 

[Michael96]

What else can I do?

Consider how much more the Church has fallen from grace in previous generations?