Vatican II Happened for a reason

[brigid12]

Aw, but the Freemason issue is not a conspiracy theory. The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita is an document deemed authentic by H.H. Pius IX. H.H. Pope Leo XIII also took this very seriously and penned his encyclical Humanum Genus.

Some notable Freemasons boasted of VII as a victory. I won’t post their disgusting words here.

I’m not suggesting they have won or succeeded, but make no mistake, this matter is not a theory. It’s a fact. There is a reason the Oath Against Modernism was once required of priests, and a reason as well, of why it was discarded.

There was a time when there were issues and ideas that simply were not discussed by priests and Bishops. There were things a Catholic just didn’t do.

Do excuse my inadvertant mistake of calling the freemason problem a “theory”. I didn’t mean by that that it was only a theory, just that it is part of history that we really won’t know the full validity about until we meet Jesus (and it may very well be going on now - it wouldn’t surprise me in the least!). I do know that He “writes straight with crooked lines” and will make something even better out of what happened (then and now) than we would have known before. Our duty, as I see it, is to follow Him as closely as the Graces He allows us and to be obedient to His Church on earth, as much as those Graces allow.

 

[Mike_Searson]

Thank you, Agent Snake-eyes, for imposing this dangerous plot. Rosthchilds, Romanovs, holocaust denial, and a promise to die on your feet not on your knees…this is a unique conspiracy theory, especially the part that involves the Jews “sewing confusion”. I’d sure like that quilt.

That was good!

Seriously, that’s insane.

The types that quote that usually are.

 

[I_Believe]

Do excuse my inadvertant mistake of calling the freemason problem a “theory”. I didn’t mean by that that it was only a theory, just that it is part of history that we really won’t know the full validity about until we meet Jesus (and it may very well be going on now - it wouldn’t surprise me in the least!). I do know that He “writes straight with crooked lines” and will make something even better out of what happened (then and now) than we would have known before. Our duty, as I see it, is to follow Him as closely as the Graces He allows us and to be obedient to His Church on earth, as much as those Graces allow.

Oh absolutely. We can’t give up on the Church or our Faith. We have Christ’s promise HMC will endure.

The finger pointing and many suspicions of so and so being a mason are where the conspiracy theories crop up. But the masonic motive of subversion is undeniable, as the PIOTAV reveals.

A lot of Catholics simply are not aware of the masonic document. One of the things that a certain mason bragged about after VII was how there was now division on certain issues within the Church. Ecumenism, birth control, abortion, priestly celebacy, and so forth. Churchmen, for the first time, questioning long held Dogmas and Doctrine. He boasted that these Churchmen who questioned Dogma and Doctrine were “already masons, without an apron”.

And this was before H.H. BXVI became Pope. Now, with the reaction we’ve seen in lieu of the Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the SSPX Bishop’s excommunications, by certain prominent Churchmen, it’s alarming. Really, we are seeing the birth of a new “schismatic” mindset. For all of the ranting and huffing and puffing directed towards the SSPX, and claims of disobedience, many of these Churchmen are adopting the very mindset they claim to despise.

I’m not directing all this towards you Brigid, or trying to correct you. Not at all. It’s just that I feel these discussions here lately get sidetracked, and the harsh reality of obvious things get buried and dismissed because the discussions stray towards unprovable assertions. For instance the claim Archbishop Bugnini was a freemason. It’s pointless to even discuss the possibility now. He’s gone, God rest his soul.

I dunno, I guess my point is that all is not well. And the greatest hurdle in solving the crisis and division we now endure is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the laity don’t even realize all is not well. The problem of VII is not the Council itself, but what it has enabled. And the problem with the laity, is that by unknowingly funding, and thus enabling the continuation of, the dissidence and liberalism we see today.

It’s a mess. Two forms of the Liturgy, two mindsets/catholic worldviews = one ugly division.
A total contradiction of the term Catholic. (speaking of the Latin Church here)

I’m to the point where I don’t know where I will turn. I can’t be a sede. I can’t bring myself to join the local SSPX parish until jurisdiction is granted. And I don’t feel I can continue to use my church envelopes that will direct my contribution to the Archdiocese or the USCCB to do as they please with it as long as liturgical abuse continues, even though my home parish is run by good Dominican Friars. Sure, I can continue to offer stewardship of treasure to the parish collection and maintenance fund, but when that second collection is taken for requests from the Bishop, I just can’t do it anymore. I don’t like it because I feel that way, but seeing the Cardinal Mahony comment on the TLM and the photos of the priest using a super soaker to spray his flock with Holy Water on the same day has just about done it for me.

These days, my love for Papa BXVI and a very holy priest that prays the Gregorian Rite at a diocesan parish is the only thing that keeps me from despair. One is in his 80’s and one is in his 90’s. Even though I’m comfortable at my Dominican parish, I’m not sure what I’ll do when H.H. BXVI and Fr S are gone. I can only hope my Faith grows between now and then enough to rely on prayer.

Perhaps that is the answer. Stay off these forums, and spend the time I’d spend here in prayer, starting now.

 

[Timothysis]

actually i have been doing a lot of research on the subject world war I, world war II, and the vatican II council. a lot of websites and books are pointing the finger at zionist freemasons.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the causes of the two World Wars if you seriously think that “zionist freemasons” were pulling the strings.

Can you possibly give us a short summation of the causes of the first World War?

 

[brigid12]

Oh absolutely. We can’t give up on the Church or our Faith. We have Christ’s promise HMC will endure.

yup.

The finger pointing and many suspicions of so and so being a mason are where the conspiracy theories crop up. But the masonic motive of subversion is undeniable, as the PIOTAV reveals.

:sad_yes:

A lot of Catholics simply are not aware of the masonic document. One of the things that a certain mason bragged about after VII was how there was now division on certain issues within the Church. Ecumenism, birth control, abortion, priestly celebacy, and so forth. Churchmen, for the first time, questioning long held Dogmas and Doctrine. He boasted that these Churchmen who questioned Dogma and Doctrine were “already masons, without an apron”.

And this was before H.H. BXVI became Pope. Now, with the reaction we’ve seen in lieu of the Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the SSPX Bishop’s excommunications, by certain prominent Churchmen, it’s alarming. Really, we are seeing the birth of a new “schismatic” mindset. For all of the ranting and huffing and puffing directed towards the SSPX, and claims of disobedience, many of these Churchmen are adopting the very mindset they claim to despise.

:sad_yes:

I’m not directing all this towards you Brigid, or trying to correct you. Not at all. It’s just that I feel these discussions here lately get sidetracked, and the harsh reality of obvious things get buried and dismissed because the discussions stray towards unprovable assertions. For instance the claim Archbishop Bugnini was a freemason. It’s pointless to even discuss the possibility now. He’s gone, God rest his soul.

When I’m mistaken, please correct me! God have mercy on Archbishop Bugnini.

I dunno, I guess my point is that all is not well. And the greatest hurdle in solving the crisis and division we now endure is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the laity don’t even realize all is not well. The problem of VII is not the Council itself, but what it has enabled. And the problem with the laity, is that by unknowingly funding, and thus enabling the continuation of, the dissidence and liberalism we see today.

Totally agree! My thought is that it’s not important if the majority of the laity realize that all is not well probably - as long as there is a real conversion, humility and penitence of heart by them.

It’s a mess. Two forms of the Liturgy, two mindsets/catholic worldviews = one ugly division.
A total contradiction of the term Catholic. (speaking of the Latin Church here)

The different rites within the church just allow for a less homogenous and possibly more heart-felt worship of our Lord - He created us very different and I praise Him for that. What bothers me are the different mindsets. That, IMHO, is where the true division lies (and it can be found within any one rite, also).

I’m to the point where I don’t know where I will turn. I can’t be a sede. I can’t bring myself to join the local SSPX parish until jurisdiction is granted. And I don’t feel I can continue to use my church envelopes that will direct my contribution to the Archdiocese or the USCCB to do as they please with it as long as liturgical abuse continues, even though my home parish is run by good Dominican Friars. Sure, I can continue to offer stewardship of treasure to the parish collection and maintenance fund, but when that second collection is taken for requests from the Bishop, I just can’t do it anymore. I don’t like it because I feel that way, but seeing the Cardinal Mahony comment on the TLM and the photos of the priest using a super soaker to spray his flock with Holy Water on the same day has just about done it for me.

I usually feel the same way and do a lot of ‘offering it up’. It seems that Original Sin (and concupiscence) is alive and well.

These days, my love for Papa BXVI and a very holy priest that prays the Gregorian Rite at a diocesan parish is the only thing that keeps me from despair. One is in his 80’s and one is in his 90’s. Even though I’m comfortable at my Dominican parish, I’m not sure what I’ll do when H.H. BXVI and Fr S are gone. I can only hope my Faith grows between now and then enough to rely on prayer.

Our Holy Father helps me (the Gregorian Rite isn’t available near me). He may be elderly, but he is putting some people that seem to also have a need for real worship, closer to him.

Perhaps that is the answer. Stay off these forums, and spend the time I’d spend here in prayer, starting now.

I hope that while allowing yourself the prayer time, you can also help support those here.

 

[I_Believe]

I hope that while allowing yourself the prayer time, you can also help support those here.

Hi Brigid, thanks for the thoughtful reply

I agree with most all you said, and you are right, the division isn’t always a EF vs OF thing. Good point.

heh, I’m probably kidding myself. I’ll never leave here lol. I just need to avoid the threads that turn ugly.

 

[pnewton]

I’m to the point where I don’t know where I will turn. I can’t be a sede. I can’t bring myself to join the local SSPX parish until jurisdiction is granted. And I don’t feel I can continue to use my church envelopes that will direct my contribution to the Archdiocese or the USCCB to do as they please with it as long as liturgical abuse continues, even though my home parish is run by good Dominican Friars.

Thank you for a wonderful and enlightening post. I regret that so many bishops miss the opportunity to minister to some of the most faithful Catholics in their parish for whatever reason. What a great benefit the SSPX could provide to people like you if they are allowed to begin licit celebration of the Eucharist. May God grant your heart’s desire for its sincerity and desire to worship.

 

[Extempore]

What a great benefit the SSPX could provide to people like you if they are allowed to begin licit celebration of the Eucharist. May God grant your heart’s desire for its sincerity and desire to worship.

I understand the concern, certainly, but if I might offer a personal anecdote: I was out of town last weekend and attended a local parish near where I was staying. Typical diocesan parish, big congregation (about 500 people in attendance). Not sure if the priest was visiting or parish but he was definitely of a liberal persuasion.

After giving a lovely homily in which we were informed that all we needed to get to Heaven was to the eternal realization that we are the “daughters and sons of God”, he proceeded to ad lib the words of the consecration beyond recognition. There was no “This is my body” etc. I’m not an expert on Canon law or theology by any means, but I think a very good argument could be made for the invalidity of that Mass. Either way, it was highly uncomfortable.

I give this example because, in light of these very serious things that happen at what appears to be a typical city diocesan parish, I think that the SSPX jurisdiction issue is quite minimal by comparison. As an average parishioner in that diocese, I’d be much more comfortable attending an SSPX parish where I have greater assurance of the validity of the Mass the mass rather than at a Church where the illicit behavior piles up and the validity of the Mass itself becomes a grey area.

Yes, it ultimately might be just personal opinion, yet I still don’t feel comfortable making that gamble with my soul.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, it ultimately might be just personal opinion, yet I still don’t feel comfortable making that gamble with my soul.

No one does, including I Believe. That is why we prefer not to avoid the temptation to schism. You mention the validity being a gray area and I admit that might be the one situation I would consider another Mass. But I believe such situations rare. Abuses can not pile up to invalidate the Mass. It takes specific types of abuses, like improper matter being consecrated.

 

[Extempore]

No one does, including I Believe. That is why we prefer not to avoid the temptation to schism.

By the same token though, one can argue that repeated attendance at abuse-ridden, liberal Masses can incline a distressed Catholic to schism. The pendulum swings both ways.

You mention the validity being a gray area and I admit that might be the one situation I would consider another Mass. But I believe such situations rare. Abuses can not pile up to invalidate the Mass. It takes specific types of abuses, like improper matter being consecrated.

Or, in this case, improper form. I don’t wish to nitpick, but when the priest chooses to ad lib the actual words of consecration, I think we might have crossed that line from illicit abuses to an outright invalid Mass. This is particularly distressing because, apart from abuses which are the result of decisions by an individual priest (outside of the knowledge of the bishop, in many cases), a Catholic should never have to attend a Mass where the validity of the Mass itself is in question.

In a situation where one doesn’t know the area, one must admit that you are reduced to having to take some level of a risk as to the validity of the Mass at that unknown Church.
Might it be fair to say that, for the traveling Catholic, the the “risk” (whatever one might perceive it to be) associated with attending a SSPX parish might be decreased by comparison?

 

[pnewton]

Or, in this case, improper form. I don’t wish to nitpick, but when the priest chooses to ad lib the actual words of consecration, I think we might have crossed that line from illicit abuses to an outright invalid Mass. This is particularly distressing because, apart from abuses which are the result of decisions by an individual priest (outside of the knowledge of the bishop, in many cases), a Catholic should never have to attend a Mass where the validity of the Mass itself is in question.

Indeed.

 

[Alethiaphile]

What were the abuses going on before this council in the Church that they were trying to correct?

Excessive clericalism, a liturgy largely incomprehenisble to the laity, a lack of knowledge of scripture, an almost complete ignorance of Patristic theology.

For starters.

 

[mja2]

The primary cause of Vatican 2 was pressure by the Rothschilds and their agents to let the smoke of Satan enter the sanctuary so a New World Odor could usher in syncretism and the disolution of the special place Christ’s Church occupies. The conspiracy can’t stand being told they are wrong. It has cause untold wreckage and the Bishops in the United States are still causing mayhem from the spirit of change for changes sake that came from it. I can hardly stomach another day of the sheiss I witness daily.

 

[Seamus_L]

Ever want the Church would look like today if Vatican II had never happened ?

 

[pnewton]

The primary cause of Vatican 2 was pressure by the Rothschilds and their agents to let the smoke of Satan enter the sanctuary so a New World Odor could usher in syncretism and the disolution of the special place Christ’s Church occupies.

:whacky:

At least you didn’t work aliens in there.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That must have been stinky smoke to let in a “New World ODOR” as the poster put it. . .

 

[Seamus_L]

Too many distractions, I meant, Ever wonder what the Catholic Church would look like today if Vatican II had never happened ?

 

[Yours_Truly]

No one does, including I Believe. That is why we prefer not to avoid the temptation to schism.

I know you don’t like hearing this, but the SSPX is no more schismatic than was St. Athanasius and his followers. The Arian crisis is a parallel of our day, and as such provides many usefull lessons for us.

St Basil, who lived during that time, tells us that those of the laity who were strong in faith avoided their local Churches because *“they would have no part of the wicked Arian leaven”. *Were did they go? They “assembled in the desert” with Athanasius, who was condemned as a heretic by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocese 5 times, spent 17 years in exile, and suffered an unjust excommunication from Pope Liberius. The saying was Athanasius contra mundum - Athanasius against the world. He was one of the very few Bishops to keep the faith in those days.

St. Basil tell us that, just like in our day, “only one offense was punished: An accurate observance of our Fathers traditions”. We are living through the same thing. The heretical Bishops are left alone while the SSPX who are holding to our Father’s traditions are persecuted and HATED by these same heretical Bishops. The Protestants are not hated, niether are the heretical Orthodox or the unbelieving Jews, or the Muslims for that matter. The only group that is hated by the Liberals is the SSPX and like-minded Catholics. Just as in the days of the Arians, holding to the faith of our Fathers is the one offense that is not tolerated.

I know you have heard this argument numerous times and don’t like it; but if you actually considered it for a moment (along with all of the quotes I provided in the link you started on this subject a few weeks ago), I think you would realize that it should not be simply ignored. The situation today is almost identical to that which took place during the Arian crisis. To ignore what we can learn from those days is to put our own faith, and salvation, at risk.

Ask yourself this question: If you lived during the Arian crisis do you think you would have followed St. Athanasius who was condemned by a council of 300 Bishops - all of whome were in “union” with Rome, under an unjust excommunication by the Pope himself, banned from his diocese, and in apparent schism? Do you think you would have followed him, or would you have condemned both he and followers as you do the SSPX today?

 

[invocation]

Too many distractions, I meant, Ever wonder what the Catholic Church would look like today if Vatican II had never happened ?

Obviously anything we say to that is fiction, but I think most of us who have converted in the post-Vatican2 era would never have considered it. I have no interest in the in the Church of the late-19th century. Popes struggling to hold on to political power, resentful when they lost it. Completely turned in on itself. The American Church would arguably be in worse shape than it currently is. The pre-Vatican2 Church in America was largely ethnic, with each group gathering together, often speaking their own language. Why would that appeal to anyone outside the group in question. Then on top of that you have the whole liturgy in a language that neither the congregation nor most outsiders speak. In all likelihood I would never have given Catholicism a second look if it had remained what it was before V2.

Vatican II and the (mostly Jesuit) theologians of the mid-20th century made it possible for me to be interested in and ultimately become Catholic.

 

[maurin]