Vatican II, Pre- and Post-

Status
Not open for further replies.

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria
Apr 12, 2002
8,338
624
Visit site
✟13,555.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
The Commission was to go forth and preach the Gospel and baptize; it wasn't to engage in "dialogue."

To me, these are not mutually exclusive.

...(in fact, it is the traditional Catholics who are MOST clear on this. Catholics who don't understand this concept are either sedevacantist or those who think the Pope can do no wrong because every little thing he does must be infallible and must be defended or else the Petrine ministry is a lie and the Gates of Hell have prevailed, and so forth).

You will not see me involved in papalatria, nor do I believe that it is the Traditionalists who understand heresy the best. As far as I am concerned, Traditionalists are no more educated about the Catholic Faith than the Liberal Catholics are. Prayerful education is the only tool that we can use to win this attack we are under. The Traditionalists have responded in a knee-jerk fashion instead of practically assessing the situation and working from there. Do I think that Assissi could have been worked better? Yes, because it has created a bit of a scandal, which is not good. Do I believe that it, in and of itself, was wrong? No. John Paul, like The Apostle, realized that the inherent desire that all men have to find God is what leads them to pray, whether they are Hindu, Islamic, etc. That desire for God is an excellent point to begin the Great Commission. As for Protestants:

Mark 9:38-41

John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward."

God Bless,

Neal


 
Upvote 0
isshinwhat said:
To me, these are not mutually exclusive.

They're not. But go see the "Ecumenical Encounter" thread. All we get is "dialogue" -- which is only good for mutual understanding, nothing else.

You will not see me involved in papalatria, nor do I believe that it is the Traditionalists who understand heresy the best. As far as I am concerned, Traditionalists are no more educated about the Catholic Faith than the Liberal Catholics are. Prayerful education is the only tool that we can use to win this attack we are under. The Traditionalists have responded in a knee-jerk fashion instead of practically assessing the situation and working from there. Do I think that Assissi could have been worked better? Yes, because it has created a bit of a scandal, which is not good. Do I believe that it, in and of itself, was wrong? No. John Paul, like The Apostle, realized that the inherent desire that all men have to find God is what leads them to pray, whether they are Hindu, Islamic, etc. That desire for God is an excellent point to begin the Great Commission.

"A bit of a scandal"? It was outrageous -- every time it's been done, and will be outrageous the next time it will be done. The desire for God IS an excellent point to begin the Great Commission, but that Commission is only given lip service. We get scandal, heresy, ambiguity, contradictions to 1,960 years of Catholic ways, all with an orthodox footnote, and that's where it ends. The way it plays out in real life is that souls are lost.

The assertion that Traditional Catholics are no more educated about the Faith than Liberal Catholics are is completely incorrect. Have you read any traditional Catholic writings? See http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/books2.html Visit a few websites linked to from the index page of that site.

As for Protestants:
It is not up to us to judge whom He deems to be with Him or against Him; it is our job to evangelize, and pretending there are no "real" differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrines, let alone between Islam, Judaism, paganism, et. al., and Catholicism, is to slap Jesus Christ in His Face and to let Protestants go without the Sacraments. There is no reason to assume that evangelizing is the equivalent of treating someone with a lack of charity. I know you know this, but it's apparent that some neo-Catholics don't believe traditional Catholics are aware of this.

God Bless,

Neal
God bless you, too. Please read some of those books. I'd like to know what you think.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,073
5,543
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Looking back at the Council, it is obvious that the new pastoral orientation was unwise and has produced nothing but bad fruit:

Since Vatican II:

Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70

Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%

Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450

Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)

Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200

Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68

Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)

Jesuits:
1965: 3,559
2000: 389

Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7

Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84

Catholic High Schools: - 50%

Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000

Catholic marriages: - 33%

Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000

Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4

Lay religious teachers who OK:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%

Catholics aged 18-44 who don't believe in Real Presence: 70%

The United States is not the world. North America is not the world.

Before the Great Crash of 2003, I posted an article from OSV about how the geographic and demographic center of Christianity has shifted; Christinity is dying in Europe, and severely wounded in North America---but is doing very well in South America and Africa.

Fortunately, I had the same post on another board, which I now cheerfully reproduce for your reading pleasure:

Based on an article in the June 8 Our Sunday Vistor ("Church's 'golden age' to come from South, East").

The author (Dwight Longnecker) starts out by relating how many people in Europe feel that Christianity is dead; the Anglican Church is in a rapid state of meltdown, Catholic religious Orders are shutting down right and left and literally auctioning everything off, and church attendance everywhere in Europe is down 30% and falling fast.

In Europe, Christianity is written off as a lost cause, and the claim is the we are now in a "post-Christian" era; in America, however, two different factions clamor for attention, claiming that their way is the only way to "save" the Church. First are the Traditionalists, who long for a return to the 1950's, of stability and familiarity, who claim that if the Church jettisons all the reforms instituted by the 2nd Vatican Council, all will be well. Then there are the ultra-liberals, who insist that if the Church would relax its stance on female priests, married clergy, hierarchical authority, abortion, and homosexuality, the Church would gain converts, and all would be well.

Much to the discomfiture of both the Europeans and the Americans, however, the latest facts and figures indicate something totally different, totally radical, and totally unexpected. The population center of world Christianity has shifted, and nobody in Europe or America seems to have noticed.

In 1900, Christians in Africa numbered about 10 million; 9% of the continent's population. Today that figure is 46%, or about 360 million (an increase of nearly 51 million since 1991)----or in other words, there are 87 million more Christians in Africa than there are total people in the United States.

During the next 25 years, Christianity is expected to grow to 2.6 billion adherents, and 50% of the world's Christians will be in Latin America and Africa, with another 17% in Asia. That means 8% less than 3/4 of the world's Christian population will be in the Third World. By 2053, only one-fifth of the Christians in the world will be white Europeans or white Americans. This is in line with world demographics as a whole, since African and Latino countries have exploding birthrates, while America has a sluggish birthrate at best, and in many European countries, the birthrate is moribund.

The total number of baptisms in the Philippines is higher than the number of baptisms in Italy, France, Spain, and Poland combined. Filipino Catholics could number 90 million by 2025, and perhaps 130 million by 2050.

Another interesting aspect is that these "new Christians" are quite orthodox in their theology, and those who long for a golden age of liberal ideas are going to end up sadly disillusioned. The Africans, Asians, and Latinos believe in sin and salvation sermons, the power of the sacraments, and the authority of the Church. They prefer old, visually-based devotions, and are far, far more respectful towards the clergy than their First World counterparts. Topics like homosexual marriage, women's ordination, and lay leadership in the Church leave them utterly cold.

The author, who lives in London, points to a forerunner of what's going to happen by reviewing the 1998 Lambeth Conference, where all of the world's Anglican bishops got together for their usual 10-year meeting to discuss issues. The English and American bishops wanted a more permissive stance on homosexuality, but the Asian and African bishops absolutely refused to budge, insisting on a more conservative stance on the issue. This infuriated the American and English bishops, but the African bishops pointed out that there happen to be more Anglicans in Nigeria alone---let alone the remainder of Africa---than there are in both the United States and the United Kingdom combined. Americans and Europeans, used to getting their way, are startled when they discover that they are no longer the voice of the majority.

In the Catholic Church, eleven of the new cardinals created in 2001 were Latinos, two were Asians, and three Africans. In the next Papal election, nearly half the cardinals eligible to vote will be from nations in the Southern Hemisphere; and within 15 to 20 years, due to the deaths of elderly American and European cardinals currently in the College, the majority of cardinal-electors will be from Third World countries. One of the possible candidiates for the next Pope may be Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria---favored by the "new Christians" because he is rigidly conservative, even repressive, in his theology and his social views.

It remains clear that the Catholic Church---and Christianity in general---in the 21st century is going to be totally different from what we have imagined. It will be much more traditional, conservative, and not from Europe or America. Africans and South Americans are going to dominate, and Europe and North America will be considered "mission territories".

It's going to be very, very interesting. So, don't be too quick to write off the Novus Ordo Church; it's doing very well in most of the world, and is growing exponentially without any of the cultural problems attatched to it and blamed on it in the United States and Europe.

"The Lord doth move in mysterious ways His wonders to perform." ;)
 
Upvote 0

Woodsy

Returned From Afar.
Supporter
Jun 24, 2003
3,698
271
Pacific NW
✟35,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Certainly it must be possible to be a good faithful Catholic even while disagreeing with some of the Church's recent changes?
And we can work for changes we may think are necessary from within, as a faithful member? I would definitely be a more conservative voice within my parish.
 
Upvote 0

isshinwhat

Pro Deo et Patria
Apr 12, 2002
8,338
624
Visit site
✟13,555.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
All we get is "dialogue" -- which is only good for mutual understanding, nothing else.

I agree that dialouge must be the beginning and not the end.

The desire for God IS an excellent point to begin the Great Commission, but that Commission is only given lip service. We get scandal, heresy, ambiguity, contradictions to 1,960 years of Catholic ways, all with an orthodox footnote, and that's where it ends. The way it plays out in real life is that souls are lost.

Your last two sentences are the heart of the problem. It isn't the teachings of the Post Vatican II Church that are in error, it is the increase in Liberalism and the twisting of those teachings in certain parts of the world. Our job isn't to move back 500 years, it is to move forward in an orthodox fashion.

The assertion that Traditional Catholics are no more educated about the Faith than Liberal Catholics are is completely incorrect. Have you read any traditional Catholic writings?

To compare the writings of an educated scholar to your average traditional Catholic is hardly fair, is it? You are Traditional, Conservative, yet not Schismatic. You admit in your website that going to confession in an SSPX parish is not advisible as it isn't licitly offered. You are intellectually honest. You see the problems as well as I do, probably moreso, but you aren't blinded by your emotions like several people I have met.

It is not up to us to judge whom He deems to be with Him or against Him; it is our job to evangelize, and pretending there are no "real" differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrines, let alone between Islam, Judaism, paganism, et. al., and Catholicism, is to slap Jesus Christ in His Face and to let Protestants go without the Sacraments.

Religious indifferentism is a sad product of our modern society. I do not believe that any Catholic who regularly posts on this board, nor our Pope are religious indifferentists. The problem isn't with Vatican II, it is the liberal bent our society confuses with intellectual ability.

I will try to read those books you recommend, as soon as I can.

God Bless,

Neal
 
Upvote 0

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
Wolseley said:
The United States is not the world. North America is not the world.

Before the Great Crash of 2003, I posted an article from OSV about how the geographic and demographic center of Christianity has shifted; Christinity is dying in Europe, and severely wounded in North America---but is doing very well in South America and Africa.

Its a fact that the Church's problems are not limited to Europe and North America. I don't know a lot about whats going on in Africa, so i won't say, but I do know that people are leaving the Catholic Church in South America to join protestant sects in droves, and this is due in large part to Vatican II. Prior to the council countries like Colombia laws, with Vatican approval prohibiting protestants from raiding Christ's flock. After the council the Vatican insisted that these countries change their laws so as to permit protestant missionary activity. So yes, "Christianity" is growing in South America, just not real Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
SSPX said:
I do know that people are leaving the Catholic Church in South America to join protestant sects in droves, and this is due in large part to Vatican II.

Then why did the schismatic Catholic sect in Campos Brazil, return to the bosom of the Catholic Church then? If things are so dire in South America, as you claim, why did they capitulate?
 
Upvote 0

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
Their reasons for signing an agreement with Rome have nothing to do with the state of the Church in South America. What, because they signed some paper work everything is rosey in Brasil? You mean millions haven't converted to protestantism over the last 40 years? Marxist priests have really not lead revolutions? Its all an illusion. The Church in South America is experiencing a new springtime.
 
Upvote 0

nyj

Goodbye, my puppy
Feb 5, 2002
20,966
1,303
USA
Visit site
✟39,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
SSPX said:
Their reasons for signing an agreement with Rome have nothing to do with the state of the Church in South America.

Really? If things are as dire (and I do not deny that certain evangelical protestant sects like to steal sheep and do so on an anti-Catholic platform) as you claim they are, I would imagine that would have validated all of the concerns the traditionalist schismatic Catholics of Campos had, rendering any such agreement unable to occur.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
Yes, really. The Campos priests have softened up towards the Conciliar revolution, and that is why they have accepted a compromise. Besides, the fact that the Campos priests have surrendered does not somehow prove that the situation in South America, or the Church as a whole, is really not so bad.

Its a matter of fact that the Vatican pressured Catholic countries to change their constitutions so as to permit protestant sects to operate freely, in conformity with Vatican II. The end result is that millions have left the Church who would otherwise have been protected from the deception of protestantism. By their fruits you shall know them.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,073
5,543
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Tribe said:
Why such a big push for ecumenicism on the part of Pope John Paul II?
Actually, it was John XXIII, Paul VI, and the assembled bishops at Vatican II (I direct your attention to The Decree on Ecumenism). John Paul II is merely continuing the work the Holy Spirit stipulated at the Council.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,073
5,543
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
SSPX said:
Its a fact that the Church's problems are not limited to Europe and North America. I don't know a lot about whats going on in Africa, so i won't say, but I do know that people are leaving the Catholic Church in South America to join protestant sects in droves, and this is due in large part to Vatican II. Prior to the council countries like Colombia laws, with Vatican approval prohibiting protestants from raiding Christ's flock. After the council the Vatican insisted that these countries change their laws so as to permit protestant missionary activity. So yes, "Christianity" is growing in South America, just not real Christianity.

Its a matter of fact that the Vatican pressured Catholic countries to change their constitutions so as to permit protestant sects to operate freely, in conformity with Vatican II. The end result is that millions have left the Church who would otherwise have been protected from the deception of protestantism. By their fruits you shall know them.
I provided you with the publication name, author's name, and title of the article for my claims, SSPX. What are you giving me to back up yours, other than your own say-so?

Standard bibliographic reference will be fine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Woodsy

Returned From Afar.
Supporter
Jun 24, 2003
3,698
271
Pacific NW
✟35,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wolseley said:
Actually, it was John XXIII, Paul VI, and the assembled bishops at Vatican II (I direct your attention to The Decree on Ecumenism). John Paul II is merely continuing the work the Holy Spirit stipulated at the Council.

Got it. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

SSPX

Active Member
Mar 8, 2002
135
0
44
Florida
✟294.00
Wolseley said:
I provided you with the publication name, author's name, and title of the article for my claims, SSPX. What are you giving me to back up yours, other than your own say-so?

Standard bibliographic reference will be fine.


To be fair, this article you are referring to gave a lot of irrelavent statistics, such as the growth rate of Anglicans in Nigeria. Your post, also, more often than not just speaks of "christianity", and so rarely offers any indication of the growth of the Catholic Church, which is the only Church that matters.

The fact that the Church is rapidly losing members to evangelical protestants sects is well known. Do you need proof?

Its a matter of fact that the Vatican pressured Catholic countries to change their constitutions so as to permit protestant sects to operate freely, in conformity with Vatican II.

Its easiest to show this to be the case with Spain, since the change in Spanish law began with a preamble which explicitly stated that the reason for the change was the Vatican II decree on religious liberty. Spain that the Vatican signed a concordat which said that the Catholic religion is the official religion of the state and that "there is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic religion." (Article 6, Spaniard's Charter)

Article 6 was changed by a law in June 28, 1967 which said:

"Now, as is known, the Second Vatican Council approved the Declaration on Religious Freedom on 7 December 1965, stating in article 2: 'The right to religious freedom has its foundation the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God, and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.'
After this declaration of the Council, the necessity arose of modifying article 6 of the Spaniard's Charter..."

The end result is that millions have left the Church who would otherwise have been protected from the deception of protestantism.

Okay, I don't know the exact number of people who would have been saved from Protestantism if Vatican II had not approved of Religious Liberty, but you can be sure that there would have been fewer non-Catholics in Spain, Bolivia, Colombia, and other countries which accepted greater religious liberty in the wake of the council.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.