FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A "unique" neo-Catholic approach to Vatican II
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hey everyone,

I don't post here often so I'm not sure if it is against forum policy to post something that I read on another forum. If so, I apologize and please delete this thread.  Anyway, I came across this post on a certain neo-Catholic forum that I still scan to keep tabs on the attitudes of Catholics outside the trad circles.  Some of the stuff I read over there about Vatican II is just mind-boggling (well, actually most of the posts on that forum are loopy), but this one takes the cake:

Quote:I am NOT anti Vatican 2.; I was for a long time, but no more.

I stopped when I realized...everything about Vatican 2 was apocalyptic.

The rapid, unexplained changes from the top down in the Catholic Church in the liturgy, priestly training, view on religious liberty, phrasing, ecumenism, and the new evangelization, and even the charismatic movement, and the Novus Ordo mass all have an save the Roman catholic Church.

There IS an agenda behind it save the Church.

The midevil model of monarchy, complexity, is beautiful, but works when the Church is in charge, not when it is persecuted. In the older early Church under Nero, the Church was more akin to what it is now, liturgically and structurally.

I am saying that Vatican 2 had the one goal of preparing the Church for the Great Tribulation. Everything about the changes were apocalyptic, from standing in the liturgy and a new eschatological view of the Church, to emphasis on local bishops and ability of lay people to evangelize, distribute communion, and the gifts of the holy spirit. Everything is preparing for a Church Underground.

And with religious liberty, it finally changed from the view of "The Church must rule Europe" to "The Church must SURVIVE Europe".

Think of it.

Our Lady of Fatima gave Lucia the Third Secret, of clerics, the pope, and faithful being martyred around a destroyed city and cross.

It was supposed to be released in 1960, no problem.

But John 23 read it in 1960..and did not. Rather he kept it secret..then shortly after called Vatican 2. To prepare for that fateful day. Paul 6 continued that work. Every pope since has helped prepare the world to leave the Church, be persecuted and martyred by it, to be underground.

I think Vatican 2 council was a DIRECT response to reading the Third Secret of Fatima, with the conscious goal of preparing the Church for Church underground.


I am truly baffled that such a conclusion could be reached.  It is literally delusional.  Yet I am sure MANY agree with this assessment.  I no longer even want to read the crazy justifications/hollow word-games of Novus Ordo Catholics who try to explain away the disaster the Church is currently enduring.  But at the same time, I can't ignore them because they make up the bulk of our Church and I feel like I NEED to know what the are thinking so I can gauge how the Church is faring.  How are we to deal with these people?  I find myself more and more discouraged everyday because of posts like this.
If you ever hear a Catholic talking about the "Great Tribulation" you know, without a doubt, that they are either Protestant converts or have been listening to Protestants.
The duty of the popes since 1960 was to obey  ou Lady who wanted the 3rd Secret to be released in 1960.
However, in a serious lack of confidence in Her they chose to disobey and didn't disclose the Secret until the year 2000 and probably only a part of it.
In the meantime we got an avalanche of half truths, half lies, discrepancies, mental reservations, false versions of the secret, silly and contradicting declarations muddling the issue as never.
We know by the late cardinals Ciappi and Oddi that the 3rd Secret is about the apostasy (predicted in the Gospel) in the Church. We know that the Great Apostasy will begin "at the top".
This apostasy is spreading unabated before our eyes since half a century. Who can deny it?
Then all the fantasies and nonsenses we could read until now are pure litterature.
Vatican II was the biggest " about face" in the history of the Church, to say it was a response to the Third Secret of Fatima in order to save the Church is beyond ridiculous.  It was the top down, papally sponsored destruction of our Latin Rite patrimony, not a preparation for a catacomb church.

It's just funny how some of these neo conservatives will say anything to to try to spin the Council in a positive light. It's  becoming farcical.  I think it stems from the ingrained sola scriptura mentality many of them bring from protestantism, so that as Catholics it's now a matter of treating every written or spoken word coming from any prelate  in the Church from the Pope to the lowliest paper pusher in the diocese as infallible guidance.
That's is an incredibly creative respone to Vatican II, worthy of a Dan Brown book!
Yeah, the agenda was actually the opposite.  After World War II, a new order was going to have to be built up.  The Church was also being treated with a lot more goodwill than it had been since the Enlightenment, when its organic relationship with society was severed.  The whole point was to find a way re-engage or re-graft the Church into that organic relationship so that it could help shape that new order (an order which would certainly be different than the pre-Enlightenment Order, but which still might be good and beneficial to the Church's mission).  While of course individual bishops brought a variety of their own agendas, this overall agenda is still reflected in the corpus of documents produced.  Of course, with hindsight, the project failed as the Church instead became overly influenced and shaped by the world and then ultimately cast aside by it.

But to go back to the OP, the point was not to retreat into the catacombs, but to come back out.
Just for a bit of accuracy: Pope John XXIII could not have read the Third Secret of Fatima in 1960 and called V-II in response to it. The Council was declared as an intention of the holy father on January 25, 1959.

Anyway, it's a fascinating post: especially the idea that standing in the Mass in somehow a preparation for the final days, when, apparently, there will be no need to kneel anymore - and heaven - where, apparently, everyone will always be praying to God like an oriental.  LOL
I am not astonished or surprised. I had one guy call the TLM. Liturgical eye candy. Having never seen the TLM prior to my coming back to the church, I thank heaven for the fact that I do have access to it, and long for the day that our church is ONE.
(06-19-2015, 08:41 AM)GrottoAl Wrote: [ -> ]I am not astonished or surprised. I had one guy call the TLM. Liturgical eye candy.

Is that bad? In a culture that values eye candy, you'd think that's be a pro, not a con.