[Catholics Only] One Peter Five - RIP, Vatican II (1962-2018)

[Gnarwhal]

Heh, I enjoyed the sharp title if nothing else.

Excerpt:

Among astute observers of the Vatican scene – okay, forget that; among warm bodies with evidence of consciousness – it has been known for several years now that we cannot expect Pope Francis, who is a major cause of the problems the Church is suffering under, to be a major part of those problems’ solution. This includes anything to do with clerical sex abuse and the death grip of progressive prelates. Each passing month, we see that it’s business as usual for the Peronist pontiff.

But, as many writers have pointed out, this pontificate has been, in spite of all the evils, a tremendous gift of Divine Providence to us. Yes, we can truly say this. For Francis has brought to a clarity past any reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt, one might even say has amplified to fever pitch, the utter bankruptcy of “Vatican II Catholicism,” with its lightweight liturgy; its unserious opposition to the world, the flesh, and the devil; and its continual compromise with the reigning forces of liberalism.
​

RIP, Vatican II Catholicism (1962-2018) - OnePeterFive

 

[LivingWordUnity]

.

 

[Rhamiel]

Look at how evangelism has fallen since the Council, Pope Benedict pointed out that the new tone of ecumenism has killed the spirit of Evangilism

The rapid decline in church attendance, confession

The normalization of divorce and birth control among Catholics

The low numbers of people entering the priesthood and religious life

The council was meant to help the Church engage the Modern World, it has failed

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Let me propose a even more radical idea, it all started with overemphasising the popes role itself. Papal supremacy and primacy has in the light of several popes, but becoming obvious to many people under Fransiscus pontificate shown itself to be very dangerous theology.

Its absence in the early church is a big chapter itself, but if one just looks at Francis today and how hopelessly untouchable he is even when spreading further heresy then it should become apparent to every sincere believer.

Primus inter pares, no more Vicarius Christi !

 

[Gnarwhal]

Let me propose a even more radical idea, it all started with overemphasising the popes role itself. Papal supremacy and primacy has in the light of several popes, but becoming obvious to many people under Fransiscus pontificate shown itself to be very dangerous theology.

Its absence in the early church is a big chapter itself, but if one just looks at Francis today and how hopelessly untouchable he is even when spreading further heresy then it should become apparent to every sincere believer.

Primus inter pares, no more Vicarius Christi !

Sorry, I reject Eastern Orthodox doctrine. They are schismatic at best and heretical at worst. The Pope is still the Supreme Pontiff, Deus Vult.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Sorry, I reject Eastern Orthodox doctrine. They are schismatic at best and heretical at worst. The Pope is still the Supreme Pontiff, Deus Vult.

According to pope John Paul ii the Eastern Orthodox church is the second of the church two lungs and being the pope his word is binding, at least Francis is treated this way. This is papism 1.0.1

Seen in this light would you like to denounce your statement above where you call your brethren heretics and schismatics or do you reject pope John Paul's definition of her?

(Dont mind the fact that Orthodox reject this two long theology as heresy )

 

[chevyontheriver]

Look at how evangelism has fallen since the Council, Pope Benedict pointed out that the new tone of ecumenism has killed the spirit of Evangilism

The rapid decline in church attendance, confession

The normalization of divorce and birth control among Catholics

The low numbers of people entering the priesthood and religious life

The council was meant to help the Church engage the Modern World, it has failed

And yet we could do the thought experiment of imagining no Vatican II and the culture of the sexual revolution hitting us. Granted liturgy would be somewhat better, but would everything else be peachy keen? Probably not. So blaming VII may miss the boat. Lots of things were suboptimal before VII, and were set loose by VII. They would have come loose anyway eventually. IMHO.

 

[Bob Crowley]

As a former Protestant with no experience of the pre-Vatican II Church, I feel somewhat cynical about all the huffing and puffing that Vatican II was the cause of all the problems the church is facing. I'm sick to death of hearing about it, and I think it's garbage. I can tell you this much - if the Catholic Church still had its mass in Latin, I wouldn't have joined - not a hope in hell.

I lifted the following extract from this link -
Worst of Catholic sexual abuse scandal still to come in developing world: report

.... Professor Cahill and Dr Wilkinson do not blame the abuse crisis entirely on celibacy, but their report notes the low levels of abuse in the eastern rite Catholic churches — particularly the Maronite, Ukrainian, Melkite and Chaldean churches — where priests are allowed to marry and become fathers.

Professor Cahill is himself a former Catholic priest who resigned to marry and start a 40-year academic career.

He rejects the claim, often made by church conservatives, that the liberal reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s loosened the morals of priests.

"Much of the abuse happened before Vatican II, during the 1950s and into the 60s," he said.

"And the majority of offending priests were either ordained BEFORE VATICAN II (!!!! - My emphasis)before Vatican II or well progressed in their studies. I think we need to be suspicious of those explanations."

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

As a former Protestant with no experience of the pre-Vatican II Church, I feel somewhat cynical about all the huffing and puffing that Vatican II was the cause of all the problems the church is facing. I'm sick to death of hearing about it, and I think it's garbage. I can tell you this much - if the Catholic Church still had its mass in Latin, I wouldn't have joined - not a hope in hell.

I lifted the following extract from this link -
Worst of Catholic sexual abuse scandal still to come in developing world: report

Then perhaps you joined on the wrong premises?

 

[Gnarwhal]

According to pope John Paul ii the Eastern Orthodox church is the second of the church two lungs and being the pope his word is binding, at least Francis is treated this way. This is papism 1.0.1

The two-lung concept is neither dogma nor doctrine, and furthermore the bi-ritual nature of the Church is fully contained within the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of the sui iuris Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

According to pope John Paul ii the Eastern Orthodox church is the second of the church two lungs and being the pope his word is binding, at least Francis is treated this way. This is papism 1.0.1

The two 'lungs' are the Western Rite Latin Catholic Churches and the Eastern Rite Catholic Church; NOT the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Seen in this light would you like to denounce your statement above where you call your brethren heretics and schismatics or do you reject pope John Paul's definition of her?

One can reject JPII's definition of them; it is theological opinion, not doctrine: He is incorrect if he thought that the Eastern Orthodox were 'apart' of the Catholic Church, they claim they are not calling that they are not 'in communion with the Roman Pontiff' and the Papists are 'heretics' in their words: they reject the Roman Pontiff and His jurisdiction, they reject papal infallibility, reject the indisoluability of marriage, approve of Contraception, many of the modern ones reject Original Sin preferring a Prof. Romanides' version of 'Ancestral Sin', they reject over 10 different Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. Yes, there is some capability and breadth to bear them, but they aren't the same as the Catholic religion. They are of the Orthodox Religion.

(Dont mind the fact that Orthodox reject this two long theology as heresy )

One does MIND; cannot have it both ways. It's just a monologue then. They obviously do not agree, nor does Rome dogmatically or doctrinally. Vatican II's spirit notwithstanding, the Church hasn't changed doctrinally or dogmatically in the last half-century: only obscured by Liberalist and Modernist theological opinion.

 

[Markie Boy]

Let me propose a even more radical idea, it all started with overemphasising the popes role itself. Papal supremacy and primacy has in the light of several popes, but becoming obvious to many people under Fransiscus pontificate shown itself to be very dangerous theology.

Its absence in the early church is a big chapter itself, but if one just looks at Francis today and how hopelessly untouchable he is even when spreading further heresy then it should become apparent to every sincere believer.

Primus inter pares, no more Vicarius Christi !

Agree X10.

Most Catholics I talk to just can't see it. I think you are spot on. I am not overly hopeful they'll actually fix things, as they can't see the problem yet.

Rome may have the Pope as a sign of unity, but in reality the Catholic world is as disjointed as any other, not only in the pews but in the management. Not saying on paper - but in practice. I don't expect much agreement, but it is what it is.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Agree X10.

Most Catholics I talk to just can't see it. I think you are spot on. I am not overly hopeful they'll actually fix things, as they can't see the problem yet.

Rome may have the Pope as a sign of unity, but in reality the Catholic world is as disjointed as any other, not only in the pews but in the management. Not saying on paper - but in practice. I don't expect much agreement, but it is what it is.

I'm slowly doxing so I shouldn't enjoy the greatest level of integrity at OBOB, but I think pointing fingers at Vatican ii is a bit to narrow minded IMHO.

This is not a Vatican ii issue, it's a catholic issue. Pope Francis is a mere symptom...

 

[Markie Boy]

I am looking and leaning East as well. It's hard as I don't really want to. If I can find reason enough to stay I probably will, but the more I read on the early Church it gets harder.

I hear all the negative on Vatican 2, but I think the bigger turning point was Vatican 1. But it goes back further than that.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I am looking and leaning East as well. It's hard as I don't really want to. If I can find reason enough to stay I probably will, but the more I read on the early Church it gets harder.

I hear all the negative on Vatican 2, but I think the bigger turning point was Vatican 1. But it goes back further than that.

Fascinating! I feel exactly the same.
I resist becoming orthodox with every inch of my body, but my conscience forces me to act on my conviction.
Theologically I'm staring to realize that I have to go home where I belong. Liturgically its hard for a westerner though

 

[Markie Boy]

I have wondered if the Fatima Third Secret that they would not reveal was that Vatican I went too far and they needed to repent.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have wondered if the Fatima Third Secret that they would not reveal was that Vatican I went too far and they needed to repent.

I suspect the Fatima third secret is essentially what came out at Akita.

 

[Rhamiel]

I suspect the Fatima third secret is essentially what came out at Akita.

Others have said that

I hope everyone familiarizes themselves with the Akita prophecies

 

[Markie Boy]

Any good links on Akita?

 

[Michie]

I posted this not too long ago.
Our Lady of Akita, Japan, and Today’s Crisis

Any good links on Akita?