Traditional Orthodox and traditional Catholics

[Bluegoat]

I don’t know. Not that it should matter anyway, since practically all the OC parishes are all in communion now with the NC’s.

That is true of parishes that use the old and new calendars, but as far as I know it is not true of “new calenderists”.

Even so, the views may well be legitimate examples of EO belief, but I like to take schismatics with a grain of salt.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Canons are reformable, Dogma isnt. Dogmatic canons are as a result irreformable but disciplinary canons are.

Its not that simple. But thats for another thread. The gist of it is that it cannot be done just like that.

I am not going to say whether I agree or not with what some groups did merely show that the obedience owed to the pope is not without limits and disobedience can albeit rarely be legitimate

Second off here is the opinion of several theologians quoted by Blessed Cardinal Henry Newman who in his letter to the duke of Norfolk refers to several weighty authorities that explain when it is legitmate to disobey the pope '…In support of what I have been saying, I refer to one or two weighty authorities:—

If the Pope had been heretical, then it would be alright to disobey him. But he clearly wasn’t. If the canons were heretical, it should have been challenged way before. But since the canons were there, it should be obeyed.

Cardinal Turrecremata says, “Although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘One ought to obey God rather than man:’ therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over (despiciendus).”—Summ. de Eccl., pp. 47, 48.

Bellarmine, speaking of resisting the Pope, says, {243} “In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required … Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state (turbanti rempublicam), and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will.”—De Rom. Pont., ii. 29.

Archbishop Kenrick says, “His power was given for edification, not for destruction. If he uses it from the love of domination (quod absit) scarcely will he meet with obedient populations.”—Theolog. Moral., t. i. p. 158…’

Less explicitly but clearly based on the same principle is the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas on the issue 'Are Subjects bound to obey their superiors in all things? He says "On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, “They that resist [Vulgate: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” (from the Summa)

Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

 

[TrentCath]

Its not that simple. But thats for another thread. The gist of it is that it cannot be done just like that.
I disagree

If the Pope had been heretical, then it would be alright to disobey him. But he clearly wasn’t. If the canons were heretical, it should have been challenged way before. But since the canons were there, it should be obeyed. As I said before I am making no comment on whether or not specific actions taken by Traditionalists were or were not legitmate simply pointing out that the obedience due to the pope is qualified despite what some may have us believe

Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Perhaps you should look into the meaning of** true obedience** mmm? All the theologians above make the point that true obedience does NOT consist in submission to an authority that is abusing its authority or doing something contrary to the will of God.

And again what the above authorities say is supported by the First Vatican Council **For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter

not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was

embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,

for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] . ** I place particular emphasis on ‘… not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith…’ Therefore if the Pope were to stop doing that disobedience would be legitmate, and the council makes no comment whatsoever on whether this is or isnt possible (though of course the pope cannot do so when speaking ex-cathedra).

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Monasticism, I think, is the first answer.

Monasticism is the backbone of the Church.

It is the rock to strengthen Holy Tradition.

The Second answer is…

The Western Roman emperor fell on 4 September 476, when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. The deposal of the emperor allowed the Pope to fill the voice left by his disappearence, to almost take his place. In the East, Constantinople did not have its last emperor fall until 29 May 1453 when Constantine XI Dragaš Palaiologos was killed in battle. This left about 1000 extra years for a different ecclesiastical and imperial political culture to develop.

Monasticism developed earlier and stronger in the East than in the West.

The nature of monasticism in the east being more singular and united and having 99% of Eastern bishops/metropolitans/Patriarches being taken from it had an effect. This happened in the west in instances. (70% of english bishops were benedictins between 850-1050 AD) but did not prevail as extensively or by canon law, as it was enshrined in canon law for constantinople by the 10th century that bishops should be monks.

Monasticism was never as strong in the West and while it was strong for a few centuries, it permanently declined by the time the Cluniacs and Franciscans and all the other orders took over circa 1200. (though cluniacs took over in the 1070s.)

When Bobbio monastery in italy switched over from the Rule of St Columba to the Rule of St Benedict in the 9th century the end was near.

Yes I do not think that in the west mysticism and tradition have prevailed in the same manner.

The sense which things have become distorted today is basically that the tradition which is strongest is this:

The one who when the Pope says to jump off a cliff runs the fastest is the likely to be viewed by some as most traditional.

We know this would never happen, but…distantly similar situations of importance have arisen.

Authority and Tradition are partners, not separate.

Neither “Orthodoxy” or Catholicism can exist forever without harmoney between Authority in a Pope/Patriarch and Tradition, both playing equal role.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all. Nice to see the various posts on this thread this week. However, my purpose at the moment isn’t to respond to any of them (later hopefully), but to share something that just came to my attention:

All topics surrounding Orthodox issues are banned until further notice.

This includes old as well as new threads.

 

[TrentCath]

Hi all. Nice to see the various posts on this thread this week. However, my purpose at the moment isn’t to respond to any of them (later hopefully), but to share something that just came to my attention:

Where did that quote come from if I may ask? (Nevermind just saw it), I suspect that may just apply to threads in the Non-Catholic religions section of the forum as thats where it was posted but I’ve asked to be sure.

 

[Bluegoat]

Where did that quote come from if I may ask? (Nevermind just saw it), I suspect that may just apply to threads in the Non-Catholic religions section of the forum as thats where it was posted but I’ve asked to be sure.

That was my understanding.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps you should look into the meaning of** true obedience** mmm? All the theologians above make the point that true obedience does NOT consist in submission to an authority that is abusing its authority or doing something contrary to the will of God.

And again what the above authorities say is supported by the First Vatican Council **For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter

not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. **

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was

embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,

for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] . I place particular emphasis on ‘… not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith…’ Therefore if the Pope were to stop doing that disobedience would be legitmate, and the council makes no comment whatsoever on whether this is or isnt possible (though of course the pope cannot do so when speaking ex-cathedra).

You’re going off track here. What does changing the Mass and disobeying the canons that forbid an Episcopal ordination without permission from the Pope has to do with changing doctrine or defining new ones? The discussion is simple. The pope has authority, he set the rules, the rules were broken. If they had problems with the Pope having such authority clearly defined, they should have protested at Vatican I or followed the Old Catholics out. The Roman Catholic dogma is clear, and it should be followed by all those bound by it.

 

[TrentCath]

You’re going off track here. What does changing the Mass and disobeying the canons that forbid an Episcopal ordination without permission from the Pope has to do with changing doctrine or defining new ones? The discussion is simple. The pope has authority, he set the rules, the rules were broken. If they had problems with the Pope having such authority clearly defined, they should have protested at Vatican I or followed the Old Catholics out. The Roman Catholic dogma is clear, and it should be followed by all those bound by it.

I’m not going into specifics but if you honestly believe that is the sole difference between the doctrine professed before the council and not you are mistaken there is also:

1. 
   *]The rejection or undermining of ‘No Salvation outside the church’
   *]A false understanding of ecumencism
   *]The novelty of Religious Freedom as opposed to Religious Toleration
   *]The potential undermining of Papal Supremacy
   1. 
      *]The destruction of the Partnership between Church and State
      
      1. 
         *]The suggestion that the church of Christ needed ‘restoration and rejuvenation’
         *]The suggestion that the church of christ was not truly ‘Catholic’
         *]The use of the word ‘subsists in’ rather than is
         
         As for your other statements, All I will say is that you have a rather simplistic and false understanding of ‘true obedience’ as the previous Theologians clearly demonstrated. Now I believe proseletysing for specific groups is banned and theres a rather wide definition of prosletysing so I’d rather not continue this discussion on here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As for your other statements, All I will say is that you have a rather simplistic and false understanding of ‘true obedience’ as the previous Theologians clearly demonstrated. Now I believe proseletysing for specific groups is banned and theres a rather wide definition of prosletysing so I’d rather not continue this discussion on here.

The problem with those who wants to justify their disobedience is they overcomplicate something so simple and straightforward and engage in verbal and mental gymnastics to achieve self-justification and also attempt to convince others through confusion of simple facts that they perhaps could be right.

 

[TrentCath]

The problem with those who wants to justify their disobedience is they overcomplicate something so simple and straightforward and engage in verbal and mental gymnastics to achieve self-justification and also attempt to convince others through confusion of simple facts that they perhaps could be right.

**And the problem with those that think otherwise is that they have a false understanding of ‘True Obedience’, ‘Papal Supremacy’, ‘Papal infallibility’ and in short the magisterium.

Frankly I can’t see any ‘verbal or mental gymnastics’, what I said is easy to follow and perfectly logical. No gymnastics are required, which is good because I’m not good at gymnastics

Nor do I see a confusion of ‘simple facts’, I don’t see either a)confusion or b)simple facts, nothing about the churches changing of Missals or doctrines is ‘simple’ and anyone who says otherwise should look at the last 50 years of church history again.
**

 

[ConstantineTG]

**And the problem with those that think otherwise is that they have a false understanding of ‘True Obedience’, ‘Papal Supremacy’, ‘Papal infallibility’ and in short the magisterium.

Frankly I can’t see any ‘verbal or mental gymnastics’, what I said is easy to follow and perfectly logical. No gymnastics are required, which is good because I’m not good at gymnastics

Nor do I see a confusion of ‘simple facts’, I don’t see either a)confusion or b)simple facts, nothing about the churches changing of Missals or doctrines is ‘simple’ and anyone who says otherwise should look at the last 50 years of church history again.
**

You just proved my point. Thanks!

 

[TrentCath]

You just proved my point. Thanks!

and you just proved mine…

 

[Warrenton]

The problem with those who wants to justify their disobedience is they overcomplicate something so simple and straightforward and engage in verbal and mental gymnastics to achieve self-justification and also attempt to convince others through confusion of simple facts that they perhaps could be right.

East to say if one doesn’t even attend a N.O. mass.

If all Latin Catholics flooded the eastern rite services, how long, one wonders, would it take the Vatican to shut such a clam bake down?

The reason that Orthodox appear traditional is that many of them are isolated from the currents of the larger, western world. For 700 years or more, the Greeks and others have been surrounded and often subjugated by Muslims of varying stripes, be they Turks, Mameluks, Arabs or janissary Slavs. The only “devlopment” they could make is to do what lots of them did - ditch the dimmitude and convert to Islam. That’s their version of “protestant.” I would argue that a similar situation arose in Russia, with the communists taking the place of Muslim overlords. Yes, those still in the churches worship traditionally, but the tens of millions who stay home on Sunday don’t worship at all.

Is that better or worse than the state of Catholicism, where millions worship in what the Orthodox patriarch gently termed a “heterodox” way?

I am stumped for the answer, but believe that east and west need each other if either are going to enjoy a healthy future.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I agree fully with both TrentCatholic and Warrenton.

The only issue with watering down the faith vs none at all is this…

eventually the faith may be watered down so much that it leads to people staying at home as well.

I do think more catholics stay at home since vatican II frankly…
so it’s a great question. These questions are really tremendously interesting and useful to be asked from time to time.

 

[ConstantineTG]

East to say if one doesn’t even attend a N.O. mass.

FYI, I attended an OF Mass exclusively for 34 years. Also today if I cannot go to a Divine Liturgy, I would attend an OF Mass. I still have one personal Latin devotion that I follow, and that is First Friday Mass. Although I would attend Divine Liturgy if I can, since this is not a devotion in the East there are not special schedules for it, thus not really convenient to go to. So more often than not I will be at an RC OF Mass.

If all Latin Catholics flooded the eastern rite services, how long, one wonders, would it take the Vatican to shut such a clam bake down?

Assuming that these Latin Catholics are not hostile to the Eastern traditions in any way, this would thrill the Eastern Churches and I believe the Vatican would like to grow the number of Eastern Catholics to bring more balance to the membership in the rites. More people bearing the Eastern traditions means they will be better preserved.

The reason that Orthodox appear traditional is that many of them are isolated from the currents of the larger, western world. For 700 years or more, the Greeks and others have been surrounded and often subjugated by Muslims of varying stripes, be they Turks, Mameluks, Arabs or janissary Slavs. The only “devlopment” they could make is to do what lots of them did - ditch the dimmitude and convert to Islam. That’s their version of “protestant.” I would argue that a similar situation arose in Russia, with the communists taking the place of Muslim overlords. Yes, those still in the churches worship traditionally, but the tens of millions who stay home on Sunday don’t worship at all.

That is not true. Perhaps the issues with the Western Church have made the Eastern faith cling more to what has already been taught rather than accept new definitions of beliefs. Like how the West started defining dogmas which were not consistent with earlier Tradition. I’m guessing here but it could have made the East focus more on what has been taught early on.

The spirituality of the East doesn’t need the clear and precise definition that Roman beliefs require. For example, purgatory. For us it is enough we know that we should pray for the souls of the departed and ask for forgiveness for their sins. Is there a fiery purification process they go through? It was never taught by the Church Fathers therefore we’re fine that it remains a mystery. If you think about it, how much does it add value to our faith really to know what this process is? We know we can and we have to pray for the souls of the dead, we know their sins can be forgiven, and we know they can eventually go to heaven. Isn’t that enough?

Is that better or worse than the state of Catholicism, where millions worship in what the Orthodox patriarch gently termed a “heterodox” way?

From what I have found is that there are things that are better and there are things that are worse. It depends how one’s mind works. Learning about Western faith is intellectually appealing. Learning about Eastern faith is more like reading poetry. Its deep, but a lot of people may not get it.

I am stumped for the answer, but believe that east and west need each other if either are going to enjoy a healthy future.

I am beginning to understand how different the theology of East and West is. It not merely how the culture and the philosophy of each side of the Roman Empire influenced the development of understanding of the faith. The emphasis itself is different. Take original sin for example. In the West its something you are born with that needs to be washed away. In the East the view is that we are born lacking the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which Adam and Eve had and by God’s intention we all should have by our nature, but because of Adam’s sin we lack. So from there it cascades to other beliefs, like Immaculate Conception. Even the emphasis on the Trinity. The West always seems to address each one separately while maintaining that they are one. God always refers to The Father. In the East, God always refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are always seen together, unless explicitly addressed separately.

Now the issue with these is it takes a lot of charity to sit down and understand that the core of each belief is essentially the same. It all came from the same source, Christ and his Apostles. The understanding may have developed, but the essence is just the same.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree fully with both TrentCatholic and Warrenton.

The only issue with watering down the faith vs none at all is this…

eventually the faith may be watered down so much that it leads to people staying at home as well.

I do think more catholics stay at home since vatican II frankly…
so it’s a great question. These questions are really tremendously interesting and useful to be asked from time to time.

I think many are just making Vatican II a scapegoat. We have to see that the world is changing rapidly before our eyes. That changes of Vatican II and the years to follow cannot be blamed by the rapid decline in morality and secularism of society. The boundaries of our morality has been continually been pushed. I mean, even in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy, numbers have been declining, and we didn’t change our Liturgies. So to blame the change of the expression of the Mass really has no solid ground to stand on. I think the more we focus on Vatican II, the more we turn our eyes on the real culprit, which is the growing influence of secularism. And this happened mainly because of the Reformation. Many Protestant groups are very open to moving the moral boundaries to appease their congregation or to win a few disgruntled Catholics and Orthodox. Now that these people have someone to affirm their wrong choice, its just a matter of time that they grow in numbers and influence.

 

[TrentCath]

I think many are just making Vatican II a scapegoat. We have to see that the world is changing rapidly before our eyes. That changes of Vatican II and the years to follow cannot be blamed by the rapid decline in morality and secularism of society. The boundaries of our morality has been continually been pushed. I mean, even in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy, numbers have been declining, and we didn’t change our Liturgies. So to blame the change of the expression of the Mass really has no solid ground to stand on. I think the more we focus on Vatican II, the more we turn our eyes on the real culprit, which is the growing influence of secularism. And this happened mainly because of the Reformation. Many Protestant groups are very open to moving the moral boundaries to appease their congregation or to win a few disgruntled Catholics and Orthodox. Now that these people have someone to affirm their wrong choice, its just a matter of time that they grow in numbers and influence.

I have had this argument time and time again with people, no one denies that secularism is a grave problem for the faith BUT what allowed it to flourish? Why did it come about? There is no point putting it down solely to the reformation because that happened close to 500 years ago and yet no one espoused anything near secularism (at least not in large numbers) for at least 200 or so years.

Just as you say it is wrong to ‘scapegoat’ Vatican II, I say it is wrong to believe that the widespread indeed almost universal of what was is widely accepted to be a problematic council is not likely to be the root cause of many of the problems in the church today and likewise society. If the ‘immaculate, Bride of Christ’ is in crisis then so will society and it is somewhat self-evident that Bride of Christ is indeed in a Crisis, the likes of which have not been seen since the Reformation.

 

[Marybeloved]

I have to agree and disagree with both TrentCath and Constantine TG.

That there has been increasing secularism in the world (not just the western world) since the reformation is plain, I think. I’m not quite certain that it was all bad, though. Was Vatican II problematic, even influential in it’s acceleration? In many ways, yes, amongst Catholics- but the problems came from heretical theologians/priests/laity who wanted to impose secularist views on the church, confusing many Catholics who then, themselves in the throngs of the sexual revolution and other secularist movements of the 60’s to 80’s rebelled against the church when she sought to correct the erroneous ideas through encyclicals.

But the idea that vatican II is to bear much of the blame, because a church in crisis translates to a society in crisis? No way. The q is why was the church in crisis to begin with? When the church sits and teaches/guides us in some way as in the councils, the response from faithful believers has always been obedience. That’s the point of having leaders in the first place, otherwise we’re all protestants. Disobedience to the magisterium has always lead to schism/heresy and the like, which is crisis- The church will still live on with her groom, ‘even to the end of the age’ and I believe, by a miracle of God we will all one day be one as the lord and his father are one. I think people who complain so much about Vatican II forget that the church has her keeper and her guide, God the Holy Spirit, and that our lord has guaranteed victory for us in the end. Where is trust in all of this?

Besides, the same thing is starting to happen, not just amongst the EO and EC (who, as pointed out earlier, don’t really have Trent and Vatican I & II and others to deal with) but in the islamic world as well, especially, Iran and also in many ways Iraq. Secularism is beginning to make it’s invasion there and one day very soon, it will blow up the cultural foundations of those societies as well, and take much of the religious practice with it. Is that also Vatican II’s fault? The world is rebelling against any type of perceived oppression, and blaming religion for it, at the core of it, it’s just Adam choosing to know good and evil for himself yet again, to be his own God - that in a nutshell is secularism. Why are we surprised? It was foretold-many years ago, countless times, by the scriptures and the saints, they also tell us we will WIN, so lets just do our best, pray for unity amongst ourselves and the salvation of the world. Besides, aren’t you still faithful? has vatican II turned you secular, made you rebel against God? When you’re searching for truth, a vatican II can’t keep you from Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have had this argument time and time again with people, no one denies that secularism is a grave problem for the faith BUT what allowed it to flourish? Why did it come about? There is no point putting it down solely to the reformation because that happened close to 500 years ago and yet no one espoused anything near secularism (at least not in large numbers) for at least 200 or so years.

Just as you say it is wrong to ‘scapegoat’ Vatican II, I say it is wrong to believe that the widespread indeed almost universal of what was is widely accepted to be a problematic council is not likely to be the root cause of many of the problems in the church today and likewise society. If the ‘immaculate, Bride of Christ’ is in crisis then so will society and it is somewhat self-evident that Bride of Christ is indeed in a Crisis, the likes of which have not been seen since the Reformation.

What made it flourish? How about the fact that England has colonized or influenced a great part of the world from the time of the Age of Exploration until the last century? And that they weren’t Catholics? America was never a Catholic-majority country to begin with, many liberal ideas came from Protestants who were the majority. In the Philippines where I grew up which is predominantly Catholic, even there the mark of Protestantism is felt very much. We’ve had TV evangelists since the 70s buying a lot of TV time influencing the catechisis of many people. In fact today, there are more non-Catholic religious programs in the Philippines than Catholic ones.

I would point the problem to the Reformation more because that is when ideas were “liberated” from the influence of the Church. When people began to think that doctrine is in their hands through their own interpretation of the Bible, then they can make the doctrine fit to what they want rather than what God wants. Yes, its 500 years in the making, its a slow but steady process. How many today make interpretations of scripture to accept gay marriage, divorce, abortion, etc? You have to think this all started somewhere, and definitely its not from the Church. So you have to p(name removed by moderator)oint where is it that people started making up their own rules based on their interpretation of the Bible. In fact, the heresy of modernism points to the Reformation as its beginning, even though it clearly states that the Reformation in itself isn’t modernism. But the seeds were planted then, as little as they were, and now stands as a huge tree.

I have to agree and disagree with both TrentCath and Constantine TG.

That there has been increasing secularism in the world (not just the western world) since the reformation is plain, I think. I’m not quite certain that it was all bad, though. Was Vatican II problematic, even influential in it’s acceleration? In many ways, yes, amongst Catholics- but the problems came from heretical theologians/priests/laity who wanted to impose secularist views on the church, confusing many Catholics who then, themselves in the throngs of the sexual revolution and other secularist movements of the 60’s to 80’s rebelled against the church when she sought to correct the erroneous ideas through encyclicals.

But the idea that vatican II is to bear much of the blame, because a church in crisis translates to a society in crisis? No way. The q is why was the church in crisis to begin with? When the church sits and teaches/guides us in some way as in the councils, the response from faithful believers has always been obedience. That’s the point of having leaders in the first place, otherwise we’re all protestants. Disobedience to the magisterium has always lead to schism/heresy and the like, which is crisis- The church will still live on with her groom, ‘even to the end of the age’ and I believe, by a miracle of God we will all one day be one as the lord and his father are one. I think people who complain so much about Vatican II forget that the church has her keeper and her guide, God the Holy Spirit, and that our lord has guaranteed victory for us in the end. Where is trust in all of this?

Besides, the same thing is starting to happen, not just amongst the EO and EC (who, as pointed out earlier, don’t really have Trent and Vatican I & II and others to deal with) but in the islamic world as well, especially, Iran and also in many ways Iraq. Secularism is beginning to make it’s invasion there and one day very soon, it will blow up the cultural foundations of those societies as well, and take much of the religious practice with it. Is that also Vatican II’s fault? The world is rebelling against any type of perceived oppression, and blaming religion for it, at the core of it, it’s just Adam choosing to know good and evil for himself yet again, to be his own God - that in a nutshell is secularism. Why are we surprised? It was foretold-many years ago, countless times, by the scriptures and the saints, they also tell us we will WIN, so lets just do our best, pray for unity amongst ourselves and the salvation of the world. Besides, aren’t you still faithful? has vatican II turned you secular, made you rebel against God? When you’re searching for truth, a vatican II can’t keep you from Christ.

Actually Vatican II was even good for the Eastern Catholics because it allowed the bearers of the Eastern Rites to go back to what their traditional practices are, rather than being forced “Latinizations” to make the Liturgies resemble the Mass more. But still that hasn’t changed the trend. Even in the homelands of the Eastern Churches, secularism and Protestantization is on the rise.