Vatican II-Did it Stray from the Dogmas of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BulldogCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The forum poster may not agree with this, but my take is that the Church strayed from the teachings of Vatican II and not the other way around.

All the liturgical abuses, priestly and religious vocation declines, lower Mass attendance, and all the other liberal/modernistic silliness that has happened since the Council in my opinion cannot itself be blamed on it. But on a misimplementation and rush to judgment from what the Vatican II documents actually called for.

As the vast majority of Catholics have not read or even so much as seen one of the documents from Vatican II, how could the average Joe in the pew know what new(or watered down) doctrines they were supposed to adhere to, which were supposedly at odds with the ancient teachings of the Church?

Here is a link to all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM If there are any doctrinal discrepancies in them contrary to Trent or Vatican I, please let me know.😉
 
Catholic

You may be correct-but it was left vague by the Modernists so they can do with what they please with it. It was the first council which did not condemn Modernism, Communism, Socialism (Masonic may you ask?) and the other false faiths.

You even have to hand it to the Anglicans who I read today are about to pull away from the left wing and leave over the ordination of the gay clergy-while we go forth and ordain the homosexuals as fast as they come in-and then pay for their abuses later on by selling off the more valuable beautiful traditional churchs to pay for the lawyers and payouts-if I was a bit paranoid I would almost think it was a plan to do away with all of the older trad looking churches and then build some of those Protestant space ship ecumenical looking ones like in LA and at Fatima, of all places

Catholic29]The forum poster may not agree with this, but my take is that the Church strayed from the teachings of Vatican II and not the other way around.

All the liturgical abuses, priestly and religious vocation declines, lower Mass attendance, and all the other liberal/modernistic silliness that has happened since the Council in my opinion cannot itself be blamed on it. But on a misimplementation and rush to judgment from what the Vatican II documents actually called for.

As the vast majority of Catholics have not read or even so much as seen one of the documents from Vatican II, how could the average Joe in the pew know what new(or watered down) doctrines they were supposed to adhere to, which were supposedly at odds with the ancient teachings of the Church?

Here is a link to all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM If there are any doctrinal discrepancies in them contrary to Trent or Vatican I, please let me know.😉
 
Catholic

You may be correct-but it was left vague by the Modernists so they can do with what they please with it. It was the first council which did not condemn Modernism, Communism, Socialism (Masonic may you ask?) and the other false faiths.

You even have to hand it to the Anglicans who I read today are about to pull away from the left wing and leave over the ordination of the gay clergy-while we go forth and ordain the homosexuals as fast as they come in-and then pay for their abuses later on by selling off the more valuable beautiful traditional churchs to pay for the lawyers and payouts-if I was a bit paranoid I would almost think it was a plan to do away with all of the older trad looking churches and then build some of those Protestant space ship ecumenical looking ones like in LA and at Fatima, of all places
40.png
Catholic29:
The forum poster may not agree with this, but my take is that the Church strayed from the teachings of Vatican II and not the other way around.

All the liturgical abuses, priestly and religious vocation declines, lower Mass attendance, and all the other liberal/modernistic silliness that has happened since the Council in my opinion cannot itself be blamed on it. But on a misimplementation and rush to judgment from what the Vatican II documents actually called for.

As the vast majority of Catholics have not read or even so much as seen one of the documents from Vatican II, how could the average Joe in the pew know what new(or watered down) doctrines they were supposed to adhere to, which were supposedly at odds with the ancient teachings of the Church?

Here is a link to all 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM If there are any doctrinal discrepancies in them contrary to Trent or Vatican I, please let me know.😉
Click to expand...
 
His signing of the document-which he was not obliged to do-was a mistake on his part and he and others from the SSPX admitted later on.

Just like Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, and Sister Lucia, all of whom were dismayed by all of the changes and unorthodox, anti-church teachings that had promulgated during and after Vatican II-Like Good soldiers they stayed with the ship-albeit sinking as it is. Archbisop Lefebve falls into that category-trying to be loyal-but if you have ever taken time to read why he signed-The Pope made all kinds of promises to him-only later to take them back-the same thing that Pope JPII did to him in 1988.

So, just because he signed something means nothing-after all-it was a PASTORAL Council afterall-Was it not???
Dr. Bombay:
Shaking my head and asking myself, “Why do I bother…” :nope:

sigh

"In light of the fact that for over 20 years the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre constantly denounced the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, as irreconcilable with orthodox Catholic doctrine, it is curious, to say the least, to discover that he himself, along with Pope Paul VI and most of the other fathers of Vatican II, was actually one of the signatories to the document."

Ooooooooo wanna read more? Be my guest…

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/dignitatis.htm

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…(some of you rad trads please double check my Latin)…Lefebvre was a modernist and a liberal and anyone who supports his Society is helping to undermine and destroy the traditions of our Catholic faith.

Unless that Lefebvre signature is a Masonic forgery??? :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
 
His signing of the document-which he was not obliged to do-was a mistake on his part and he and others from the SSPX admitted later on.

Just like Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, and Sister Lucia, all of whom were dismayed by all of the changes and unorthodox, anti-church teachings that had promulgated during and after Vatican II-Like Good soldiers they stayed with the ship-albeit sinking as it is. Archbisop Lefebve falls into that category-trying to be loyal-but if you have ever taken time to read why he signed-The Pope made all kinds of promises to him-only later to take them back-the same thing that Pope JPII did to him in 1988.

**So, just because he signed something means nothing-after all-it was a PASTORAL Council afterall-Was it **
Dr. Bombay:
Shaking my head and asking myself, “Why do I bother…” :nope:

sigh

"In light of the fact that for over 20 years the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre constantly denounced the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, as irreconcilable with orthodox Catholic doctrine, it is curious, to say the least, to discover that he himself, along with Pope Paul VI and most of the other fathers of Vatican II, was actually one of the signatories to the document."

Ooooooooo wanna read more? Be my guest…

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/dignitatis.htm

Post hoc ergo propter hoc…(some of you rad trads please double check my Latin)…Lefebvre was a modernist and a liberal and anyone who supports his Society is helping to undermine and destroy the traditions of our Catholic faith.

Unless that Lefebvre signature is a Masonic forgery??? :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
 
Vatican II did not stray from the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, promised to be with His Church until the end of time. Those who claim that Vatican II was not guided by the Holy Spirit or erred from the Catholic Faith make God a liar. They are anathema.

A careful review of the documents produced at Vatican II, while frequently couched in non-traditional Catholic language, shows that the Council Fathers maintained the Faith of the Apostles.

From the inerrancy of Vatican II, however, it does not follow that the implementation of the Council’s decrees was inerrant. Indeed, many bishops, priests, and laity betrayed their Faith and Vatican II in the years that followed.

The decrees of Vatican II themselves, however, to the extent they touch upon dogma, are free from error. To anyone who denies the inerrancy of Vatican II, I throw down the gauntlet – identify where the Council departed from the Faith of the Fathers or cease to snap at the heels of Christ’s Church.
 
The council Fathers at the beginning of Vatican II stated that it was NOT a doctrinal council (i.e., one called to defend, define or clarify non-negotiable Catholic beliefs / behaviors), but one called to give direction to the faithful (lay and ordained) about how to live our Catholic Faith in these modern times, to respond to the Holy Spirit’s constant call to “read the signs of the times” in His light and respond acccording to Christ’s example of His Father’s will for us. They ALSO stated that the Council was in the Tradition of earlier Councils, and expressly referred to the Council of Trent numerous times, and even stated that they were repromulgating all the canons and decrees of Trent and Vatican I.

**To quote this Council’s documents extra-contextually, or in the light of a now dead ‘old-british’ language, is stupid. In reference to the quotations / comments made by “bulldog” regarding V2’s documents, if read in theri entirety, and in Traditional context (for example, read - actually READ, Trent and Vatican I!) it will be seen that they form one coherent dogmatic whole. **
Now, obviously, the tenor of these times is different than the previous two councils (duh!) and therefore calls for a different response to the needs of this age. But it is the same faith that we are to respond with. It may surprize bulldog to know that meatless Fridays WERE NOT Dogma. Nor was the Latin language in the Liturgy. Changing those disciplines DID NOT change / reverse our Catholic beliefs - period!
If bulldog is concerned about the direction some elements of the Catholic community in America have taken, he should take the V2 council’s texts to mind and heart and confront those who - as Pope John Paul II said > 20 years ago - are following what he called a “false spirit” of V2. It’s alway tempting - for ‘liberals’ (aka pseudo-Catholics) and arch-thraditionalists (aka “ain’t Caflic less’n it’s Latin!”) to attack the Church’s Magisterium or Councils as the root of all that’s wrong with us. You know, there are still people who maintain that Trent was too un-Traditional - they formed a new sect (new back then!) called “Old Catholics”. Get a grip, bdog - it’s not the Church who is in error. Period.
 
You may be correct-but it was left vague by the Modernists so they can do with what they please with it. It was the first council which did not condemn Modernism, Communism, Socialism (Masonic may you ask?) and the other false faiths.
Click to expand...
Those who want to find them vague will find them vague. Apparently the teachings before Vatican II were vague also because people were twisting and bending those to their own benefit long before VII.
 
thomist said:
The council Fathers at the beginning of Vatican II stated that it was NOT a doctrinal council (i.e., one called to defend, define or clarify non-negotiable Catholic beliefs / behaviors), but one called to give direction to the faithful (lay and ordained) about how to live our Catholic Faith in these modern times, to respond to the Holy Spirit’s constant call to “read the signs of the times” in His light and respond acccording to Christ’s example of His Father’s will for us. They ALSO stated that the Council was in the Tradition of earlier Councils, and expressly referred to the Council of Trent numerous times, and even stated that they were repromulgating all the canons and decrees of Trent and Vatican I.

**To quote this Council’s documents extra-contextually, or in the light of a now dead ‘old-british’ language, is stupid. In reference to the quotations / comments made by “bulldog” regarding V2’s documents, if read in theri entirety, and in Traditional context (for example, read - actually READ, Trent and Vatican I!) it will be seen that they form one coherent dogmatic whole. **

Now, obviously, the tenor of these times is different than the previous two councils (duh!) and therefore calls for a different response to the needs of this age. But it is the same faith that we are to respond with. It may surprize bulldog to know that meatless Fridays WERE NOT Dogma. Nor was the Latin language in the Liturgy. Changing those disciplines DID NOT change / reverse our Catholic beliefs - period!

If bulldog is concerned about the direction some elements of the Catholic community in America have taken, he should take the V2 council’s texts to mind and heart and confront those who - as Pope John Paul II said > 20 years ago - are following what he called a “false spirit” of V2. It’s alway tempting - for ‘liberals’ (aka pseudo-Catholics) and arch-thraditionalists (aka “ain’t Caflic less’n it’s Latin!”) to attack the Church’s Magisterium or Councils as the root of all that’s wrong with us. You know, there are still people who maintain that Trent was too un-Traditional - they formed a new sect (new back then!) called “Old Catholics”. Get a grip, bdog - it’s not the Church who is in error. Period.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Vatican II didn’t do away with Latin. In fact, the only thing Vatican II specifically mandates with respect to Latin is that it be retained and the people taught their parts IN LATIN.

Nor did Vatican II do away with meatless Fridays. In fact, many countries still observe meatless Fridays. The American bishops did away with meatless Fridays after Vatican II.
 
40.png
TNT:
RE:

If it was, or not…Would you agree or disagree with it ?
Even before you knew the source?
Click to expand...
Let me explain the reasoning for my question and I trust that it will as well answer your question. My concerns are:
  1. Plagiarism - This is not only wrong, it is unlawful. When engaged in on a regular and consistent basis it leads those reading to make certain assumptions about such a poster – a) that they are dishonest in seeking to take credit for the work of another and b) they fear revealing their sources which are markedly not credible and thus seek to manipulate others without their being aware of it.
It is only fair when presenting someone else’s writing and exposition that credit for same be given to the author and website. This provides three things, it compliments the reading audience by allowing them to fully analyze, think on and read even more of the author’s writing. It projects from the writer a sense of honesty that he is presenting the thoughts of others and not his own, and he is thus offering credit where it is due. and it reinforces the integrity of the poster as open and willing for others to come to their own decisions about credibility, scholarship and knowledge without seeking to manipulate them.
  1. SSPX, sedes, and fellow travelers have some high scholarship among them. Even a stopped watch is correct at least twice a day. It is important when challenging the hierarchy, three popes and what most fellow Catholics believe and practice to at least offer a dissenting opinion from someone who has equal weight and who has read the actual documents they disagree with and seek to discuss. Unfortunately at leasta couple i thsi thread hav shown that they do not have much of an understanding of facts but rather of feelings. They are two different things.
Because some of thee authors and excerpts do dissent their work has a POV - it is only fair to state that to the reader. I have observed in this thread numerous statements which could be challenged factually, which are not “full truths” but represent an interpretation and frankly which boil down to an opinion. I have no problem with someone stating that they share the opinion of so and so, and why.

I do have a problem with posting however from sources which purport to be from a make believe pope and from a site which hurls such scurrilous and incendiary insults at three popes, and every priest ordained and Catholic receiving Eucharist and not revealing that to the reader. (I cite instances from another thread,). It has however made me aware that no matter how many names people use the forum under that this kind of behavior, contempt for their fellow Catholics, come right with them. And at least two of them cannot distinguish between I feel vs. I know.
  1. Intelligent Catholics do not carry water from enemies of the church and the pope on a continuing basis; they do not hide their sources from those reading and they are usually able to do more than cut and paste - they can post a selected writing and intelligently discuss it. They understand that it has with it an interpretative quality and a POV.
– The purpose of a forum is not to intimidate everyone it is go back and forth - each learning from the other some things they didn’t know before. I have certain posters here who have high established consistent quality of posts - that doesn’t mean I always agree with them, but they are forthright, sincere and civil - they listen as well as speak.
  1. IMO we do no service to “protecting” the Church we claim to love, we do no kindness to ourselves and we insult the intelligence of those we are posting to, when we seek in an underhanded way to make our points. IF the church needs defending, IF there are legitimate cases to be cited and offered, it must be, (I think a reasonable person will agree), be done with candor, with integrity and above all with credibility. A poster engaging in plagiarism, in half truths and in manipulation immediately loses the full effect of their post. Unfortunately they discredit the content and their own standing.
  2. If we indeed believe that we are in the true Church, if we seek Christ and ask Him to be indeed a lamp unto our feet, giving light and bringing us to truth it is just as important HOW we do, what we do. As one cardinal puts it, not only must it be the right thing, it must appear to be the right thing. St. Paul says that if we don’t “do” with charity, we have not really “done” at all.
I hope that this explains my concerns and my POV.
 
40.png
TNT:
RE:

If it was, or not…Would you agree or disagree with it ?
Even before you knew the source?
Click to expand...
Let me explain the reasoning for my question and I trust that it will as well answer your question. My concerns are:
  1. Plagiarism - This is not only wrong, it is unlawful. When engaged in on a regular and consistent basis it leads those reading to make certain assumptions about such a poster – a) that they are dishonest in seeking to take credit for the work of another and b) they fear revealing their sources which are markedly not credible and thus seek to manipulate others without their being aware of it.
It is only fair when presenting someone else’s writing and exposition that credit for same be given to the author and website. This provides three things, it compliments the reading audience by allowing them to fully analyze, think on and read even more of the author’s writing. It projects from the writer a sense of honesty that he is presenting the thoughts of others and not his own, and he is thus offering credit where it is due. and it reinforces the integrity of the poster as open and willing for others to come to their own decisions about credibility, scholarship and knowledge without seeking to manipulate them.
  1. SSPX, sedes, and fellow travelers have some high scholarship among them. Even a stopped watch is correct at least twice a day. It is important when challenging the hierarchy, three popes and what most fellow Catholics believe and practice to at least offer a dissenting opinion from someone who has equal weight and who has read the actual documents they disagree with and seek to discuss. Unfortunately at leasta couple i thsi thread hav shown that they do not have much of an understanding of facts but rather of feelings. They are two different things.
Because some of thee authors and excerpts do dissent their work has a POV - it is only fair to state that to the reader. I have observed in this thread numerous statements which could be challenged factually, which are not “full truths” but represent an interpretation and frankly which boil down to an opinion. I have no problem with someone stating that they share the opinion of so and so, and why.

I do have a problem with posting however from sources which purport to be from a make believe pope and from a site which hurls such scurrilous and incendiary insults at three popes, and every priest ordained and Catholic receiving Eucharist and not revealing that to the reader. (I cite instances from another thread,). It has however made me aware that no matter how many names people use the forum under that this kind of behavior, contempt for their fellow Catholics, come right with them. And at least two of them cannot distinguish between I feel vs. I know.
  1. Intelligent Catholics do not carry water from enemies of the church and the pope on a continuing basis; they do not hide their sources from those reading and they are usually able to do more than cut and paste - they can post a selected writing and intelligently discuss it. They understand that it has with it an interpretative quality and a POV.
– The purpose of a forum is not to intimidate everyone it is go back and forth - each learning from the other some things they didn’t know before. I have certain posters here who have high established consistent quality of posts - that doesn’t mean I always agree with them, but they are forthright, sincere and civil - they listen as well as speak.
  1. IMO we do no service to “protecting” the Church we claim to love, we do no kindness to ourselves and we insult the intelligence of those we are posting to, when we seek in an underhanded way to make our points. IF the church needs defending, IF there are legitimate cases to be cited and offered, it must be, (I think a reasonable person will agree), be done with candor, with integrity and above all with credibility. A poster engaging in plagiarism, in half truths and in manipulation immediately loses the full effect of their post. Unfortunately they discredit the content and their own standing.
  2. If we indeed believe that we are in the true Church, if we seek Christ and ask Him to be indeed a lamp unto our feet, giving light and bringing us to truth it is just as important HOW we do, what we do. As one cardinal puts it, not only must it be the right thing, it must appear to be the right thing. St. Paul says that if we don’t “do” with charity, we have not really “done” at all.
I hope that this explains my concerns and my POV.
 
40.png
TNT:
RE:

If it was, or not…Would you agree or disagree with it ?
Even before you knew the source?
Click to expand...
Let me explain the reasoning for my question and I trust that it will as well answer your question. My concerns are:
  1. Plagiarism - This is not only self deafeating, it is morally and ethically wrong… When engaged in on a regular and consistent basis it leads those reading to make certain assumptions about such a poster – a) that they are dishonest in seeking to take credit for the work of another and b) they fear revealing their sources which are markedly not credible and thus seek to manipulate others without their being aware of it.
It is only fair when presenting someone else’s writing and exposition that credit for same be given to the author and website. This provides three things, it compliments the reading audience by allowing them to fully analyze, think on and read even more of the author’s writing. It projects from the writer a sense of honesty that he is presenting the thoughts of others and not his own, and he is thus offering credit where it is due. and it reinforces the integrity of the poster as open and willing for others to come to their own decisions about credibility, scholarship and knowledge without seeking to manipulate them.
  1. SSPX, sedes, and fellow travelers have some high scholarship among them. Even a stopped watch is correct at least twice a day. It is important when challenging the hierarchy, three popes and what most fellow Catholics believe and practice to at least offer a dissenting opinion from someone who has equal weight and who has read the actual documents they disagree with and seek to discuss. Unfortunately at leasta couple i thsi thread hav shown that they do not have much of an understanding of facts but rather of feelings. They are two different things.
Because some of thee authors and excerpts do dissent their work has a POV - it is only fair to state that to the reader. I have observed in this thread numerous statements which could be challenged factually, which are not “full truths” but represent an interpretation and frankly which boil down to an opinion. I have no problem with someone stating that they share the opinion of so and so, and why.

I do have a problem with posting however from sources which purport to be from a make believe pope and from a site which hurls such scurrilous and incendiary insults at three popes, and every priest ordained and Catholic receiving Eucharist and not revealing that to the reader. (I cite instances from another thread,). It has however made me aware that no matter how many names people use the forum under that this kind of behavior, contempt for their fellow Catholics, come right with them. And at least two of them cannot distinguish between I feel vs. I know.
  1. Intelligent Catholics do not carry water from enemies of the church and the pope on a continuing basis; they do not hide their sources from those reading and they are usually able to do more than cut and paste - they can post a selected writing and intelligently discuss it. They understand that it has with it an interpretative quality and a POV.
– The purpose of a forum is not to intimidate everyone it is go back and forth - each learning from the other some things they didn’t know before. I have certain posters here who have high established consistent quality of posts - that doesn’t mean I always agree with them, but they are forthright, sincere and civil - they listen as well as speak.
  1. IMO we do no service to “protecting” the Church we claim to love, we do no kindness to ourselves and we insult the intelligence of those we are posting to, when we seek in an underhanded way to make our points. IF the church needs defending, IF there are legitimate cases to be cited and offered, it must be, (I think a reasonable person will agree), be done with candor, with integrity and above all with credibility. A poster engaging in plagiarism, in half truths and in manipulation immediately loses the full effect of their post. Unfortunately they discredit the content and their own standing.
  2. If we indeed believe that we are in the true Church, if we seek Christ and ask Him to be indeed a lamp unto our feet, giving light and bringing us to truth it is just as important HOW we do, what we do. As one cardinal puts it, not only must it be the right thing, it must appear to be the right thing. St. Paul says that if we don’t “do” with charity, we have not really “done” at all.
I hope that this explains my concerns and my POV.
 
40.png
TNT:
RE:

If it was, or not…Would you agree or disagree with it ?
Even before you knew the source?
Click to expand...
Let me explain the reasoning for my question and I trust that it will as well answer your question. My concerns are both credibiiity and interpretation:
  1. Plagiarism - This is not only self deafeating, it is morally and ethically wrong… When engaged in on a regular and consistent basis it leads those reading to make certain assumptions about such a poster – a) that they are dishonest in seeking to take credit for the work of another and b) they fear revealing their sources which are markedly not credible and thus seek to manipulate others without their being aware of it.
It is only fair when presenting someone else’s writing and exposition that credit for same be given to the author and website. This provides three things, it compliments the reading audience by allowing them to fully analyze, think on and read even more of the author’s writing. It projects from the writer a sense of honesty that he is presenting the thoughts of others and not his own, and he is thus offering credit where it is due. and it reinforces the integrity of the poster as open and willing for others to come to their own decisions about credibility, scholarship and knowledge without seeking to manipulate them.
  1. SSPX, sedes, and fellow travelers have some high scholarship among them. Even a stopped watch is correct at least twice a day. It is important when challenging the hierarchy, three popes and what most fellow Catholics believe and practice to at least offer a dissenting opinion from someone who has equal weight and who has read the actual documents they disagree with and seek to discuss. Unfortunately at least a couple in this thread havr shown that they do not have much of an understanding of facts but rather of feelings. They are two different things.
Because some of thee authors and excerpts do dissent, their work has a POV - it is only fair to state that to the reader. I have observed in this thread numerous statements which could be challenged factually, which are not “full truths” but represent an interpretation and frankly which boil down to an opinion. I have no problem with someone stating that they share the opinion of so and so, and why.

I do have a problem with posting however from sources which purport to be from a make believe pope and from a site which hurls such scurrilous and incendiary insults at three popes, and every priest ordained and Catholic receiving Eucharist and not revealing that to the reader. (I cite instances from another thread,). It has however made me aware that no matter how many names people use the forum under that this kind of behavior, contempt for their fellow Catholics, come right with them. And at least two of them cannot distinguish between I feel vs. I know.
  1. Intelligent Catholics do not carry water from enemies of the church and the pope on a continuing basis; they do not hide their sources from those reading and they are usually able to do more than cut and paste - they can post a selected writing and intelligently discuss it. They understand that it has with it an interpretative quality and a POV.
– The purpose of a forum is not to intimidate everyone-- it is to go back and forth - each learning from the other some things they didn’t know before. I have certain posters here who have high established consistent quality of posts - that doesn’t mean I always agree with them, but they are forthright, sincere and civil - they listen as well as speak. They have credibility.
  1. IMO we do no service to “protecting” the Church we claim to love, we do no kindness to ourselves and we insult the intelligence of those we are posting to, when we seek in an underhanded way to make our points. IF the church needs defending, IF there are legitimate cases to be cited and offered, it must be, (I think a reasonable person will agree), be done with candor, with integrity and above all with credibility. A poster engaging in plagiarism, in half truths and in manipulation immediately loses the full effect of their post. Unfortunately they discredit the content and their own standing.
  2. If we indeed believe that we are in the true Church, if we seek Christ and ask Him to be indeed a lamp unto our feet, giving light and bringing us to truth it is just as important HOW we do, what we do. As one cardinal puts it, not only must it be the right thing, it must appear to be the right thing. St. Paul says that if we don’t “do” with charity, we have not really “done” at all.
I hope that this explains my concerns and my POV.
 
To readers of the the thread – due to software malfunctions - while I was editing my post #71 unedited versions were posting - the forum was inaccessible for me to delete them so please note that post #71 is the finished post and I ask your indulgence in ignoring the preceding two versions.
 
Catholic Dude:
Could someone give me info on this Lefebvre being a liberal stuff.

It just doesnt sound right. From what I have read he did whatever he had to trying “save” the TLM and the “trash” that was going to infect the Church. I wrote a letter to sspx about Lefevre, but I didnt get a reply, I might have got them mad. My beef with him was when he blatantly started ordaining people knowing full well that he shouldnt have been, on the site they dance around the issue with leagal junk, but it doesnt work. I dont see Lefebvre as a bad guy, in fact I admired a lot that he did, I just didnt like the ordaining stuff.
Click to expand...
It’s really quite simple, following the rad trads immutable and irrefutable logic:
  1. Vatican II, all conciliar and post-conciliar documents, were the sole provenance of liberals and modernists.
  2. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II.
  3. Therefore, it logically follows, Archbishop Lefebvre was a liberal and a modernist, as is his Society, its supporters and all those who attend a SSPX Mass.
Like I said, simple, immutable and irrefutable. :clapping:
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
His signing of the document-which he was not obliged to do-was a mistake on his part and he and others from the SSPX admitted later on.
Click to expand...
A mistake? Really? Meaning, he didn’t read the documents he signed? Meaning, he read the documents, agreed with them and at some later point decided his initial interpretation of said documents was in error?
40.png
BulldogCath:
Just like Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, and Sister Lucia, all of whom were dismayed by all of the changes and unorthodox, anti-church teachings that had promulgated during and after Vatican II-Like Good soldiers they stayed with the ship-albeit sinking as it is. Archbisop Lefebve falls into that category-trying to be loyal-but if you have ever taken time to read why he signed-The Pope made all kinds of promises to him-only later to take them back-the same thing that Pope JPII did to him in 1988.
Click to expand...
Please don’t try to claim St. Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia as a member of your peculiar brand of fundamentalism. Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia both attended the new Mass. Both were fiercly loyal to the Pope and would certainly never make the same kind of scurrilous attacks that you’ve made on the Holy Father in this forum. As for St. Padre Pio, he had many restrictions placed on him by his superiors. He suffered them with obedience and humility, something Lefebvrists seem incapable of. As Padre Pio, a cannonized saint, said, “*We must respect the decrees of the Church. We must be silent and suffer.” I’m sorry, I must have missed the cannonization of Archbishop Lefebvre.
*

BulldogCath said:
So, just because he signed something means nothing-after all-it was a PASTORAL Council afterall-Was it not???
Click to expand...

Please take a moment to read this article titled The Fall of Michael Davies:

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/daviesfall.htm

Of particular note is this passage, regarding Mr. Davies’ Lefebvrist friends, who…*“are far from theologically objective and sober; they are, rather, propagandists who sift polls for proofs and the Council and Pope’s teachings for proof-texts (by definition always out of context, whether immediate- textual or historical) seeking to frame the Holy Father and maintain their counter-magisterium, based on an absurd new twist on an old (mostly Eastern) heresy, **sola traditio, wherein they demand that doctrinal development, as we have it throughout Church history and in the Council, cease at an arbitrary point in history when they say it must (Trent or Pius X, Pius XII, it depends who of them you ask ), just as, alas, the Nestorians, Orthodox of old, Copts, and others set the mark at other historical points, sundering the universal Church in many areas of the world. And they employ another heresy, **private judgment, to say what is tradition and what is not, to say what is dogmatic development and what is not. Thus they contradict elementary catechetical truths. But while the theological descendents of the ancient schismatics are often theologically more sophisticated today, and far more serious in dialogue, Davies’ integrist friends are theologically naive (or is it just cynical business?) beguiled laymen who now make a living beguiling the widow of her mite under a pretext of piety, holy pictures, and cynically selective quotes.”

*Bulldog, if you aren’t bound to follow Vatican II because it was a “pastoral council” and you aren’t bound to follow the Pope because he’s a liberal and modernist, then just who are you bound to follow? Did our Lord say, “The gates of hell will not prevail against the SSPX?”

Here’s another article that appeared in the Wanderer, hardly a liberal rag. I ask you to read it and consider what its saying:

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/critique_of_extreme_traditionalist_errors.htm

Is it easy to accept all the changes in the Church? No. Should we do so in humble obedience, or leave the Church out of willful pride? I doubt God will reward pride, no matter how well intentioned.
 
He previously used a crystal chalice which I’m not sure is kosher, but it was better than this clay thing.
Click to expand...
He also has been known to drop the word “Father” from the Eucharistic Prayers and instead of “…for us men…” during the Creed he practically shouts over the congregation “…for us HUMANS…” And then there’s the inventing of his own prayers and other ad-libbing nonsense.
Click to expand...
On the plus side, it’s like a whole new Mass everytime I attend. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
SSPX bad insane priest and bishop[who hit him with his crozier] is good?
Dr.Bombay is a liberal. TNT’s definition please.

**Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience. **
 
If Vatican II did not do away with:
  • Kneelers
  • communion on the tongue
  • Never did away with the TLM
  • Never did away with meatless Fridays
  • Never did away with Latin
  • Never did away with the condemnation of Modernism and Ecumenism
  • Never did away with “unconsecrated hands” touching the Body of Christ
  • Never did away with unmerciful lay participation
  • Never did away with not the Ordination of Homosexuals as per Canon Law of 1961
  • Never did away with the ripping apart of 75% of the TLM-As codified by St Pius V and put into a waste basket and termed off limits for 20 years
  • Never did away with veils for woman-as passed down by Jewish law and our Lady
  • Never did away with moving the tabernacle
  • Never did away with genuflection
  • Never did away with the Organ and chant-and replaced it with clown masses and guitars
  • Never did away with vestments (fiddleback) that once resembled something of reverence and replaced it with Protestant garb that does not even have a cross on it-but at times a beautiful white dove, a flower, purple glitter that looks like a cross.
  • Never did away with Holy hour on Thursday (as the Trads still do at their church-every Thursday from 11-12 with all of the sisters-reflection, prayer and the rosary as well as benediction in memory of our Lords suffering in the Garden of Gethsemenie-Each and EVERY Thursday
  • Did not do away with First Friday adoration
  • Did not do away with First Saturday adoration as Our Lady instructed us at Fatima
  • Did not do away with the Prayer for the consecration of Russia to the immaculate heart as prayed at the end of each and every Low Mass
THEN WHO DID!!!
I guess I can go on-So if Vatican II had nothing to do with these changes----Then Who did and Has it been beneficial for our Church. The answer is a BIG NO! Anyone and everyone can see this-only the blindest person in the world will not admit.

The Post Vatican II people are in Love with the changes because it now makes it easier for them to:
  • Not feel like they are in sin
  • Can go in and out of mass and make it a social event
  • Can easily get a divorce and remarry as annulments are given out for the “right price”.
  • Birth control will soon be allowed-just some more time on that one
  • Rules are laxed-fasting a thing of the past
  • Anyone can just about give communion
  • Meatless Fridays gone (except during Lent).
  • Can wear your latest beach attire to Mass and not get thrown out by the Usher
  • Sermons about Love-Nothing about Sin
  • Easier trip to heaven-if you dont know it is a sin-as the church does not teach about sin anymore in its catechism-then you are actually “sinless”.
The Post Vatican II church is essentially a new faith. I told my wife this weekend if we have time after Mass that I want to stop into the Lutheran church around the block and compare it to the Novus Ordo Mass for my own edification
40.png
SFH:
Not to mention that Vatican II didn’t do away with Latin. In fact, the only thing Vatican II specifically mandates with respect to Latin is that it be retained and the people taught their parts IN LATIN.

Nor did Vatican II do away with meatless Fridays. In fact, many countries still observe meatless Fridays. The American bishops did away with meatless Fridays after Vatican II.
Click to expand...
 
They did not attend the new mass-St Lucia was receiving the TLM in her convent. She was kept in seclusion and NEVER allowed to speak-Ratzinger supposedly “reinterpreted” her third secret-because it revealed the deep despair the of the church and the hold the devil has on her Priests and Bishops. Padre Pio hated the changes-the Vatican and the propaganda machine it possesses is good at spin, like they tried to do at Fatima allowing the Hindu ceremony-then blaming the Bishop-and the Bishop said no, I was TOLD By Kasper and the Pope to do this…I call that something that I would rather not say as I am not a man to judge
Dr. Bombay:
A mistake? Really? Meaning, he didn’t read the documents he signed? Meaning, he read the documents, agreed with them and at some later point decided his initial interpretation of said documents was in error?

Please don’t try to claim St. Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia as a member of your peculiar brand of fundamentalism. Mother Teresa and Sr. Lucia both attended the new Mass. Both were fiercly loyal to the Pope and would certainly never make the same kind of scurrilous attacks that you’ve made on the Holy Father in this forum. As for St. Padre Pio, he had many restrictions placed on him by his superiors. He suffered them with obedience and humility, something Lefebvrists seem incapable of. As Padre Pio, a cannonized saint, said, "We must respect the decrees of the Church. We must be silent and suffer." I’m sorry, I must have missed the cannonization of Archbishop Lefebvre.
**

Please take a moment to read this article titled The Fall of Michael Davies:

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/daviesfall.htm

Of particular note is this passage, regarding Mr. Davies’ Lefebvrist friends, who…*"are far from theologically objective and sober; they are, rather, propagandists who sift polls for proofs and the Council and Pope’s teachings for proof-texts (by definition always out of context, whether immediate- textual or historical) seeking to frame the Holy Father and maintain their counter-magisterium, based on an absurd new twist on an old (mostly Eastern) heresy, **sola traditio, wherein they demand that doctrinal development, as we have it throughout Church history and in the Council, cease at an arbitrary point in history when they say it must (Trent or Pius X, Pius XII, it depends who of them you ask ), just as, alas, the Nestorians, Orthodox of old, Copts, and others set the mark at other historical points, sundering the universal Church in many areas of the world. And they employ another heresy, *private judgment, to say what is tradition and what is not, to say what is dogmatic development and what is not. Thus they contradict elementary catechetical truths. But while the theological descendents of the ancient schismatics are often theologically more sophisticated today, and far more serious in dialogue, Davies’ integrist friends are theologically naive (or is it just cynical business?) beguiled laymen who now make a living beguiling the widow of her mite under a pretext of piety, holy pictures, and cynically selective quotes."

Bulldog, if you aren’t bound to follow Vatican II because it was a “pastoral council” and you aren’t bound to follow the Pope because he’s a liberal and modernist, then just who are you bound to follow? Did our Lord say, “The gates of hell will not prevail against the SSPX?”

Here’s another article that appeared in the Wanderer, hardly a liberal rag. I ask you to read it and consider what its saying:

home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/critique_of_extreme_traditionalist_errors.htm

Is it easy to accept all the changes in the Church? No. Should we do so in humble obedience, or leave the Church out of willful pride? I doubt God will reward pride, no matter how well intentioned.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top