Vatican II - the reasons for VII.
#1
I am old enough to remember the Mass pre-VII.
I am old enough to remember a few of the questions from the Baltimore Catechism.
.
But I am not old enough to know the reasons for Vatican II.
I know, it was to "bring spring" into the Church.
.
But what needed to be changed?  Updated?
Yes, my parents generation tended to go thru the motions of faith, never read the Bible, and didn't ask questions, but was that sufficient to have a Council?  Was that just an American problem?
.
Was VII a result of the worldwide destruction from WWII?
Reply
#2
I've been told, though I don't believe it, that Vatican II was necessary to meet the challenges of the modern world.
Reply
#3
(06-12-2018, 04:25 PM)Eric F Wrote: I've been told, though I don't believe it, that Vatican II was necessary to meet the challenges of the modern world.

I think Pope John actually believed that. Of course, what happened was the modernist Bishops and their periti hijacked it and basically just acquiesced to the world rather than meeting its challenges in an authentically Christian, Catholic way, as all previous Councils had.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#4
(06-12-2018, 04:36 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I think Pope John actually believed that. Of course, what happened was the modernist Bishops and their periti hijacked it and basically just acquiesced to the world rather than meeting its challenges in an authentically Christian, Catholic way, as all previous Councils had.

I've heard that they had a whole set of things to discuss at the Council, and at least outlines of what the documents would include, but the whole thing was scrapped by the modernists once they got control of things.
Reply
#5
Very true. In fact many of the 'lost' schemata have recently been published. I've not read them, but my understanding is that they were solidly orthodox, basically just tying up the loose ends of Vatican I, since it was unable to finish its business due to the Freemasonic takeover of Rome.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#6
(06-12-2018, 04:01 PM)MaryTN Wrote: I am old enough to remember the Mass pre-VII.
I am old enough to remember a few of the questions from the Baltimore Catechism.
.
But I am not old enough to know the reasons for Vatican II.
I know, it was to "bring spring" into the Church.
.
But what needed to be changed?  Updated?
Yes, my parents generation tended to go thru the motions of faith, never read the Bible, and didn't ask questions, but was that sufficient to have a Council?  Was that just an American problem?
.
Was VII a result of the worldwide destruction from WWII?
 
Looking at Scripture and past Church teaching, the Church has always been VERY specific that the faith remain intact and that we hold to tradition at all costs. Some quotes below. Vatican II threw all of this in the trash, forming a completely new religion. And people wonder why the local dioceses today are teaching that all religions are good, that we all go to heaven, and that there is no need to convert anyone? Why go to the trouble of being Catholic at all if this is the case?

2 THESSALONIANS 2:14
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thes 2:14

PROCLAIMING A UNIVERSAL JUBILEE , Cum Summi , Encyclical of Pope Clement XIV promulgated on December 12, 1769
By His own laws and institutions He founded and reenforced this holy city which is His Church. To it he entrusted, as it were, the deposit of faith in Him to be preserved piously and without contamination. He wished it to be the bulwark of His teaching and truth against which the gates of hell would never prevail. We, therefore, the overseers and guardians of this holy city, must preserve the magnificent heritage of Our laws and faith which has been passed down intact to Us; We must transmit it pure and sound to our successors. If We direct all our actions to this norm found in sacred scripture and moreover cling to the footsteps of our ancestors, We will be best equipped to avoid whatever could weaken and destroy the faith of the Christian people and loosen in any way the unity of the Church.

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS , ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS , ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907
But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church.."
[-] The following 1 user Likes pabbie's post:
  • Paradosiakos
Reply
#7
(06-12-2018, 05:52 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Very true. In fact many of the 'lost' schemata have recently been published. I've not read them, but my understanding is that they were solidly orthodox, basically just tying up the loose ends of Vatican I, since it was unable to finish its business due to the Freemasonic takeover of Rome.

Compare even the titles and you see what happened.

Cardinal Ottaviani had prepared (with the Central Theological Commission) the schemata on relations with non-Catholics which was called the de Tolerentia. Cardinal Bea's substitute was Schemata de libertate religiosa.

Completely orthodox schema were replaced by nefarious political dealings with liberally-warped ones.

The only one that survived was that on the liturgy, which was already known to be a thoroughly liberally-influenced document from the excesses of the Liturgical Movement. Everything else was scrapped.
Reply
#8
There was NO need Liturgically or Dogmatically for Vatican 2 , the only reason would have been to confront Communism. Of course there were Communists within the Church ready to undermine her. It was not meant to proclaim DOGMAS (which are infallible) but was PASTORAL ( which the liberal progressive modernists used to undermine those dogmas in the the mind of the average parishoner) Today we see the result.
Reply
#9
Vatican II was supposed to open up the windows of the Church and let in some fresh air. Unfortunately they did this by knocking down entire walls forgetting that the air outside the Church is noxious and deadly.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#10
(06-12-2018, 04:01 PM)MaryTN Wrote: I am old enough to remember the Mass pre-VII.
I am old enough to remember a few of the questions from the Baltimore Catechism.
.
But I am not old enough to know the reasons for Vatican II.
I know, it was to "bring spring" into the Church.
.
But what needed to be changed?  Updated?
Yes, my parents generation tended to go thru the motions of faith, never read the Bible, and didn't ask questions, but was that sufficient to have a Council?  Was that just an American problem?
.
Was VII a result of the worldwide destruction from WWII?

Immediately prior to the Council there was a question as to what it would be called. Vatican I ended with soldiers marching into the city and forcibly closing down the council and making the Pope a prisoner of the Vatican.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)