Our 'modern' Catholic response to the Traditionalist criticism of Vatican II....
#21
(12-31-2011, 01:32 PM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 11:46 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Modern day St Athanasius = Archbishop Lefebvre. Just saying
Well I'm not a member of the SSPX THOUGH I am sympathetic to their cause of the Traditional Latin Mass, and being against ecumenism and religious liberty within the church since the Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I was speaking of a Pope however that could return the WHOLE Church to its traditions.
Fair enough, one day, one day soon God willing.
Reply
#22
(12-31-2011, 03:23 AM)SPB Wrote: [quote='Traditional Guy' pid='940853' dateline='1324688739']

We must not take the position that Vii was not a valid Council. Neither should we completely renounce it, because much of what is in the documents is in fact orthodox and teaches the authentic faith. What we should do, I can hardly say.

This is just all just my speculation and opinion, and if it hardly makes sense that's because I am hardly a theologian or Michael Davies!

We can easily renounce VAT II because either this council only repeated a lot of  teachings already taught by previous councils and by the Magisterium, or it contradicted the Tradition peculiarly in such issues such as religious liberty, EENS and ecumenism (and in these cases we are OBLIGED to disregard it).
Anyways it never issued any dogma or dogmatic teaching, one reason more to disregard it.
Indeed the problem with VAT II mainly lies with the way the modernists used it, not by its content.

John XXIII wanted the Church to "open to the world", thus forgetting that the Church already was in the world in a more obvious way than in the times being, with the much greater number of practising catholics, of priests, of opened churches,of religious congregations, of missions everywhere in the world.
Unfortunately the Pope John opened the Church's wrong windows and the pagan world rushed in.
Reply
#23
(01-01-2012, 05:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [
Fair enough, one day, one day soon God willing.
Let us pray that the Church doesn't have to die completely off before that happens.
Reply
#24
(01-01-2012, 09:42 AM)maso Wrote: John XXIII wanted the Church to "open to the world", thus forgetting that the Church already was in the world in a more obvious way than in the times being, with the much greater number of practising catholics, of priests, of opened churches,of religious congregations, of missions everywhere in the world.
Unfortunately the Pope John opened the Church's wrong windows and the pagan world rushed in.
More like the Devil himself! :O
Reply
#25
(12-23-2011, 09:30 PM)Tim Wrote:
(12-23-2011, 09:05 PM)Traditional Guy Wrote: Our 'modern' Catholic, that is those who have not fallen away and actually believe in Vatican II, makes this argument: "Well it wasn't the Second Vatican Council that caused this crisis in the Church but our sick culture these days ever since the 1960's." The problem with this answer is that it fails to understand that the modern world has always had a 'crisis' that is against God and His Church but the Church was always the one who took the moral high ground. The 1950's was full of sexual immorality even before the sexual revolution. There are many other examples of immorality through history but the Church always had the Truth to fight against the liberalism and modernism of the modern world.

With Vatican II however the Church tried to meet down the middle and tried to make itself relevant in an immoral age. In doing so however many Catholics became disillusioned and left the Church, as the converts had no real reason to convert because of 'ecumenism,' the beauty of the Mass to get us out of our immoral world was gone with the 'new architecture' and high irreverence in the liturgy, nuns were told their earlier sacrifices were unnecessary so they criticized the patriarchal Church.


The priests and bishops meanwhile taught to preach the good word of the Gospel failed to stop or denounce the masturbation and fornication of our teens and young adults, just as the old people go to Mass just for 'looks' and 'keeping with tradition' not actual prayer, and the married couples contracept their way out childbearing and child-rearing. But if the laity was bad the clergy was even worse letting this happen and making irrelevant sermons. Can we not see the fall of faith in Catholics hit a high point at the conclusion of Vatican II?

I high lighted this because it is over the top completely. Certainly there was Adultery, fornication, masturbation, pederasty, and pornography, but really do you think it was as bad as now ? It's simple to look at out of wedlock births, and because there was no pill, to find this wasn't so.  Pornography was girls in swimsuits in Argosy, Soldier of Fortune, and Stag, pretty tame compared to snuff videos. Pederasts were corralled to their places, taverns or bath houses, and not at all in the main stream.  If you mean there was sin, then I agree, if you mean the 50's were any where near the immorality of today, that ain't so.

tim

Well, all he is trying to say is it planted the seeds. And the bad seeds, unforutnately, found "good" ground. Nothing comes from nothing or nowhere. But, there was porn a plenty that was underground. Look at the Marquis De Sade for goodness sakes. Helped spawn the French Revolution.

Reply
#26
The appeasement of God through uncountable(to us anyway) Masses was taken away drastically at the time of VII, or at least soon thereafter.  The false teachings that eminated from it could not come from the Holy Ghost.  Our tremendous source of sanctifying grace was nearly totally taken away from the faithful.  This, I am convinced, was the dam that held back the decadency that was able to grow very quickly.  When those in the Vatican changed what was unchangeable, the faithful were put on a course for greater suffering, the good with the bad.  While there were men who had a Catholic heart and wanted to be good shepherds(some, at least somewhat faithful bishops and priests), most of them, under the guise of obedience, or complicity in desiring these changes, or other cause, were very enthused with the changes.
  Sure, the world can corrupt, but the Catholic Church in her teachings and disciplines cannot aid in the corruption of souls.  False doctrines and false shepherds, including those in the highest places, have the ability  to pull of such corruption. 
  While we know that Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end, we have seen in these times such terrible things happening to souls.  Pray that we(though we are not any better than anyone else) live and die in the state of grace and are able to intercede for our loved ones in this vale of tears.

  Have a happy new year.

  Joe
Reply
#27
(01-01-2012, 11:21 AM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 05:19 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [
Fair enough, one day, one day soon God willing.
Let us pray that the Church doesn't have to die completely off before that happens.
Oh it won't Our Lord was quite clear about that.
Reply
#28
(01-01-2012, 12:30 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Well, all he is trying to say is it planted the seeds. And the bad seeds, unforutnately, found "good" ground. Nothing comes from nothing or nowhere. But, there was porn a plenty that was underground. Look at the Marquis De Sade for goodness sakes. Helped spawn the French Revolution.
*nods* Everyone knows that I don't hate the 1950's since I wear the dress from back then and also enjoy the movies of that decade as well but you are right the sexual revolution did not come out of nowhere. And I can tell you from my grandfather's own eyes that while yes men were expected to dress very modestly behind the scenes there was plenty of fornication going on. The only difference was that if there was it was between the man and his girlfriend and they didn't boast about it to everybody like they do today. I will say this though: back in those days girls definitely dressed with the attractiveness of grown women, and also acted like them too, since they were the 'civilizers' of the young man's outrageous behavior. Yes there were 'sleazy art houses' in the 1950's but if you went into one of those someone thought you were some kind of pervert. Most of the 'porn' was from the Playboy magazines that the Yuppies ordered and even then it would be considered 'girly' nowadays.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)