What do people have against Vatican II Council?

[palmas85]

Our Lord said we would suffer tribulation, but did he not also say of his Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? We either have faith in Jesus words and in the Holy Spirit to keep the Church through tribulation or we don’t.

I was told in school many years ago of a theory that the Church in perfect imitation of Christ would pass through trials, tribulations, assaults and even PHYSICAL , which I took to be institutional, death, with only a few left as believers in the true faith. Everyone else would have either abandoned the true faith,stopped believing in the true teachings, corrupted the faith with false teachings and dogma, changed faiths, or become so totally self centered and ego centric that there was no place in them for the realities of the Catholic faith. The final Pope would actually be involved in this activity, unknowingly I presume and actually oversee the destruction of the Church as we know it. Satan and the powers of darkness would reign supreme for a time. After all of this the Church would rise again when Christ returns, having been kept alive by the belief of the few that remained.

I was told of this theory when I was in High School in the early 1960’s. The theory made a brief resurgence again after the publication of the 3rd secret of Fatima, which if is the true secret does seem to indicate he destruction of the faith and the realization of the Holy Father that he had in some way participated in it. It does make more sense when viewed in that fashion then with the spin the Vatican put on it.

Intersting times indeed.

 

[minkymurph]

And where do you sense the gates of Hell prevailing?

I don’t, that’s the point I was making in response to another post which I thought was above mine but I can’t find now. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[BobP123]

I don’t, that’s the point I was making in response to another post which I thought was above mine but I can’t find now. Sorry for the confusion.

But why keep bringing it up? The way the term is being used here, it seems to be rather pointless anyway. I’m sure there’ll ALWAYS be some that will be that part of the Church which prevails against the devil, be it you or myself, one member or a million members. Let’s just hope we both are included. Make sense? Or do you have some other agenda?

 

[minkymurph]

But why keep bringing it up? The way the term is being used here, it seems to be rather pointless anyway. I’m sure there’ll ALWAYS be some that will be that part of the Church which prevails against the devil, be it you or myself, one member or a million members. Let’s just hope we both are included. Make sense? Or do you have some other agenda?

Sorry, BobP, you have totally lost me. Without the post I was responding to what I said probably doesn’t make sense. What term is always being used here? Yes, I do hope I and others will be included. What do I keep bringing up and what have I said that suggests I have some unsavoury agenda?

 

[Miserere_Mei]

Here is what i have against vatican II:

I believe it was a break in tradition. I do not say this to attack the church, only to defend her. Look, here is what JP2 said:

"Religious differences reveal themselves as pertaining to another order. If the order of unity is divine, the religious differences are a human doing and must be overcome in the process towards the realization of the grandiose design of unity which presides over creation. It is possible that men not be conscious of their radical unity of origin and of their insertion in the very same divine plan. But despite such divisions, they are included in the grand and single design of God in Jesus Christ, who united himself in a certain way with every man (Gaudium et Spes, 22) even if he is not conscious of it. "

From these words we perceive the errors of John Paul: all men belong to a pantheistic Christ who is united to each man, whether he knows it or not, by virtue of his Incarnation. Listen again to John Paul II:

"To this catholic unity of the people of God all men are called, to this unity belong, those who look with faith towards Christ and finally all men without exception. "

Now listen to the holy words of pius XI: Mortalium Animos.

"A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "

NOw, I make no attack or conclusion, I only point to discrepency, draw your own conclusion.

ONE LAST THING. CHRIST PROMISED THE GATES OF HELL WOULD NOT PREVAIL. In this sense he is speaking ultimately, there are many stages to a battle. He DIDN’T promise the Roman Catholic church wouldn’t be decimated to 1/1000000 of it’s original size. As long as one single Catholic remains, there is the Church.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

One last thing, it should be noted that the apostasy of rome from the faith (not in the sense of the pope himself, but the church at large) is NOT NEW. It is actually a common prophecy from the earliest church fathers to recent times. i.e. Anne catherine Emmerich. observe: Listen TO CARDINAL Manning.

Universal Testimony of the Fathers of the Early Church on The Apostasy:

“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that
Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. …Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”
-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861 A.D.

1861!!! NO SEDEVACANTISTS THEN. It’s not some new conspiracy “Radicals” are making up. That traditionalists are distinguished from “real” catholics is proof that something is wrong already. I thought every Catholic was a traditionalist.

For those who want names and prophecies, here are a few to start:

1. The Monk of Premol, (a fifth century Carthusian):
   Sees the desolation of Rome and the pope fleeing “toward the sea where the sun sets…a man resplendent as an angel ascends over the ruins (of the Church)…”
2. John of Vatiguerro (13th cent.):
   “Spoliation, devastation and pillage of that most famous city, which is the capitol and mistress of the whole kingdom of France,” will take place when the Church and world will be grievously troubled: The Pope will change his residence; the Church will not be defended for the duration of twenty-five months, and more, because during all this time there will be no Pope, no Emperor of Rome and no ruler in France. Afterwards a young captive prince shall recover the crown of the Lilies and shall extend his dominion over all the universe. Once established he shall destroy the Sons of Brutus and their Isle so that their memory shall pass into everlasting forgetfulness.
   "After many tribulations a Pope will be elected out of those who escaped persecution. He, by his sanctity, will reform the clergy and the whole world will venerate them for their virtue and perfection. He will travel barefoot and be devoid of fear. Almost all unbelievers and the Jews will be converted and there will be one faith, one baptism, one life. All people will love one another and peace will last a long time.
3. St. Cyril of Constantinople (d. 1235):
   Foretells the fall of the Church and the papal throne.
4. Fr. Jerome Votin:
   “The shepherd (Pope) will be smitten and the sheep scattered.”
5. Nicholas of Fluh:
   “The Church will seem to be extinguished, and the succession of St. Peter and the Apostles to have expired. After that She will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
6. Blessed Bernardo de Bustis:
   “There will be various antipopes…The Church will suffer great tribulations…Those who follow the true pope, the angelic pope, will be persecuted.”
7. Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser:
   “Antichrist and his army will conquer Rome, kill the Pope and take the throne.”
8. St. Francis of Assisi stated:
   “There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great schism.”

There is plenty more for those who want to know what the spirit has been constantly revealing through the saints from the beginning. Read St. Hippolytus for a comprehensive view on Antichrist especially.

THis is not meant to be divisive, but illuminating.

 

[OLRansom]

Vatican 2 was not about a liberalizing reform,but reform in the sense of retrenchment in the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas and the other great doctors of the Church.

The modernists, who ran the show at V2, hate Aquinas. The above statement is very far from reality.

 

[minkymurph]

In the quotes provided by Miserere Mei, I would have to say you could read lots of things into what was said depending on your view. Also, it is difficult to draw an objective conclusion from certain quotes as opposed to contemplating the entire content of what was being said and comparing them with other views.

 

[BobP123]

In the quotes provided by Miserere Mei, I would have to say you could read lots of things into what was said depending on your view. Also, it is difficult to draw an objective conclusion from certain quotes as opposed to contemplating the entire content of what was being said and comparing them with other views.

But you could say the same thing about Vatican II, can’t you? After all, many conservatives and heretics were allowed to express themselves, with the resultant documents revealing an ambiguous guide for Catholicism and its ecumenical spirit, no?

In response to your other assertions, Vatican II was a valid council, granted, but it certainly doesn’t have the doctrinal weight that some of the other councils, Nicea and Trent for example, still have. Were these councils covered in your RCIA training, by the way?

 

[Pariah]

Short 'n sweet: I dislike Vatican II because it caters to every other religion except Catholicism.

I find it very odd that we should have to open ourselves up to other religions to better understand our own.

If I want to study the theology and practices of other religions, I’ll do that on my own time rather than have protestant sects make decisions on how the Mass should be said and celebrated. I am, quite frankly, baffled by the Jewish and protestant disagreement with the Tridentine Mass; why should it matter to them and why should I care?

 

[Miserere_Mei]

Pariah,

        I agree with you one hundred percent. In fact the actual teaching of the Catholic church by Pius XI and pius XII is AGAINST the principals upon which the second vatican council was built : to update the language of the church and enter into dialogue with non-christians.

Any ecumenism that seeks truth in other religions is in error and heretical. ALL truth is in the person of Jesus Christ who established the church as the sole custodian of truth.

ANY truth we see in other places is merely a terrible reflection of truth WE ALREADY have in our own religion. Let’s save our souls and not go searching for love in all the wrong places.

“Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! … It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. **There is one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from Her.” – Pope Pius XI **

Pope Pius XII says specifically:

"In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents."

BUt this is all opposed to vatican 2. It was convoked upon heretical tenets, the tenets of modernism.

Pius XII: “We believe that the present hour is a dread phase of the events foretold by Christ. It seems that darkness is about to fall on the world. Humanity is in the grip of a supreme crisis.”

1. Old German Prophecy: “…The doctrine will be perverted, and they will try to overthrow the Catholic Church…”
2. Nicolas of Fluh: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

 

[minkymurph]

But you could say the same thing about Vatican II, can’t you? After all, many conservatives and heretics were allowed to express themselves, with the resultant documents revealing an ambiguous guide for Catholicism and its ecumenical spirit, no?

In response to your other assertions, Vatican II was a valid council, granted, but it certainly doesn’t have the doctrinal weight that some of the other councils, Nicea and Trent for example, still have. Were these councils covered in your RCIA training, by the way?

You mentioned in the e-mail I received something about a Tiber which is not said here. I don’t know what a Tiber is. I not saying no one has their won agenda or is innocent of misinterpretation. I just don’t think that has only happened since Vatican II. The Council of Nicea as far as I know, agreed the creed which is still said today and Arias was considered a heretic. The council of Trent, as far as I know, declared the teaching of transubstantiation infallible. Obviously, other councils did not make decisions on issues which were so weighty. RCIA seems to happen in your part of the world in a different way. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to be very structured and formal and has like set classes or something. Nothing of that nature exists here. Probably because I live in Northern Ireland and people are not queing up to be Catholic. People who are Catholic were either raised Catholic or they married a Catholic and converted. I’m kind of unique as my husband was raised Anglican but prides himself on being a heathen. None of my family are Catholic and I don’t know anyone else in my situation personally. To become Catholic here, you would approach the Parish Priest and instruction is on a one-to-one basis. My Parish Priest covered the Creed and the Sacraments and what he told me was if you believe the Creed that is enough to be baptized, the rest ie: understanding, comes later. I went to Mass for almost a year on my own and still do, except when I take my two young children. It took me almost a year to figure out what parts of the Mass were about. I came on this website to deepen my understanding of the Catholic faith and a year ago, I took a distance learning course in Theology run by the Dominicans which is were I first heard of Vatican II. One of our assignments was the impact of Vatican II on Ireland and at a tutorial, it was briefly outlined what Vatican II was all about. I have a friend who is ‘saved’ who has recently married again. Her husband is Catholic and he and his family would be very conservative. I have long and meaningful debates with my friend and she mentioned to me that her husband and his family don’t like Vatican II at all and I wondered why which is what prompted me to post the question as I can’t really discuss something with her I know little about. I don’t know what is being read into my comments but I do not have some kind of sinister agenda. Perhaps this post explains that.

 

[anamchara]

You mentioned in the e-mail I received something about a Tiber which is not said here. I don’t know what a Tiber is.

Hi Minky, I used to call my niece by that name except now I call her minkers. Anyway, I think the reason Tiber is brought up a lot is because of the book by Steve Ray (an evangelical Protestant convert) called “crossing the Tiber” the conservatives use this term a lot. He has a message board that really caters to evangelical Protestant converts. Evangelical converts are a different breed all together

I don’t get the impression you have some sinister hidden agenda at all. You’ve been forthright and appear genuinely interested in getting some answers to your original question. I feel there really isn’t any easy answer. Personally I think these changes would have happened anyway. My suggestion would be to read as much as you can from non bias authors on the subject. I will read what the traditionalists have to say but I also will read the more liberal side as well. Perhaps even post your question in Apologetics as well? Not sure we can duplicate though.

I see you are from Northern Ireland. How lovely I would imagine it’s different for converts over there, in my opinion probably much better. I have never been impressed with the way RCIA is run over here. I think it should be lead by the Priest one on one for those who are converting as Protestants. I was lucky, when I converted this is what our Priest did for me.

It took me almost a year to figure out what parts of the Mass were about

Me too and I agree, deeper learning comes later.

 

[anamchara]

And where do you sense the gates of Hell prevailing?

Just a thought here Bob, maybe she is bringing it up because most of you all seem to act like the gates of Hell is prevailing. I don’t know for sure because I didn’t read far back enough but that just popped in my head.

Frankly, the way traditionalists act/talk at times you would think the devil entered the Church long ago and is no longer lead by the Holy Spirit. :bigyikes: I can understand why she might have said that.

 

[BobP123]

Just a thought here Bob, maybe she is bringing it up because most of you all seem to act like the gates of Hell is prevailing. I don’t know for sure because I didn’t read far back enough but that just popped in my head.

Frankly, the way traditionalists act/talk at times you would think the devil entered the Church long ago and is no longer lead by the Holy Spirit. :bigyikes: I can understand why she might have said that.

Don’t blame me/us. Pope Paul was the one who stated that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the sanctuaries shortly after he promulgated the Novus Ordo. You may draw your own conclusions about Hell prevailing from that.

 

[Walking_Home]

Just a thought here Bob, maybe she is bringing it up because most of you all seem to act like the gates of Hell is prevailing. I don’t know for sure because I didn’t read far back enough but that just popped in my head.

Frankly, the way traditionalists act/talk at times you would think the devil entered the Church long ago and is no longer lead by the Holy Spirit. :bigyikes: I can understand why she might have said that.

---

More than likely----that would have been the general feeling during the Arian heresy. But thru God’s grace–the Arian heresy was beat back.

 

[anamchara]

Don’t blame me/us. Pope Paul was the one who stated that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the sanctuaries shortly after he promulgated the Novus Ordo. You may draw your own conclusions about Hell prevailing from that.

I draw conclusions from what I read from many in this thread and other threads in this traditional forum. The general theme is things are really bad and it’s probably because Satan is already here.

Personally, I don’t feel Satan has entered anything. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and some seem to be struggling with this because they don’t like the way we celebrate the Mass or at least see abuses. I haven’t seen any

 

[BobP123]

Personally, I don’t feel Satan has entered anything.

Then you seem to disagree with Pope. You need to think again.

greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Azmn

One of the comments mentions the phrase is actually on the Vatican website in Italian.

 

[anamchara]

Then you seem to disagree with Pope. You need to think again.

greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Azmn

One of the comments mentions the phrase is actually on the Vatican website in Italian.

greenspun? What kind of authority is that? And…what I read is:

The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary" This quote, attributed to Pope Paul VI, has been circulating for years, but where can we find a reliable reference for it? I have encountered many versions ranging from hysterical to dubious, e.g.,
“The smoke of Satan has entered the very sanctuary of St. Peter’s basilica.” or this version, supposedly said by Paul VI at a homily by Paul VI on June 29 1972, “We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness … And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God.”

First it’s in a homily, so. And second it says “supposedly” and third if people really believe the Church is being run by Satan then why be Catholic I do know those who feel Vatican II is invalid attend SSPX Church…I’d say go there if Vatican II is such a big problem for anyone.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

My posting is not to give the impression that the gates of hell have prevailed. Simply that they have beaten the hell (pun intended) out of the Catholic Church, without it actually succumbing in its entirety. It’s like a fight. Jesus promised The Devil wouldn’t win. He didn’t promise we wouldn’t go seventeen rounds, lay down for a count of 9 and come back with a glorious uppercut.

Think of it like this. The church is the body of christ. The history of the church can be shown to be a parallel of the life of Christ. The descent of the holy spirit corresponds to his baptism, The great missionary movements from the first to the seventh centuries are like his proclamation of the kingdom. His driving out the traitors from the temple is like the time of the inquisitions. His speaking in parables to the multitudes is reflective of the great mysteries of faith that are revealed more fully along the way. His triumphal entry is like the height of church power, glory and influence. The protestant reformation is like his betrayal in the garden. The rise of the masons and secret societies is like his being questioned by the sanhedrin.

His Passion and torment is similar to the sectarianism and schisms of the 16th century til now…and now, we are in the moment of his death on the cross. If the church is the body of christ, then she will not be exempt from the sufferings of christ…even his death…but when all appears lost, she will rise like a phoenix from the ashes and enter into the heart of the trinity, restored and renewed.

That is why we speak of temporary and temporal defeat. It is ultimately settled, but it is a real battle nonetheless. And I abhore ANY who lead others into the mouth of the Lion.