This post makes certain that you and I are brother and sister in Christ, Lydia. Vatican II was nothing less than the ecclesiastical equivalent of a secular coup to overthrow a government. We can pity the conspirators for their arrogance and ignorance, though. The King of Kings can not be unseated from His throne. And He will not be mocked!
I think those who wanted to change the faith simply saw an opportunity in Vatican II to impose their will upon the faithful. When the faithful fled in droves, it became the faithful who were in the wrong (sorry Pope Francis, but you're one of them).
Have you read recent pieces about how the Vatican II "generation" of clerics is dying out and being replaced by more faithful priests? It is a hopeful sign.
"Have you read recent pieces about how the Vatican II "generation" of clerics is dying out and being replaced by more faithful priests? It is a hopeful sign."
Yes, I have read that article. Yes, it is a sign of hope. Also, I pray for these people everyday, especially since they are aging and they are consecrated souls. It's so sad, I wonder what they achieved with these changes. The changes didn't do anything but harm and destruction (whether intentional or not).
They administered sacraments, absolved sinners and helpfully did much else of great value and holiness. They deserve our prayers and gratitude for their sacrifice (ie not doing God's favorite work, being fruitful and multiplying).
The.priests, bishops, cardinals and, Lord help us and save us, Popes have for centuries failed to destroy the church, despite their best intentioned efforts.
I considered orthodoxy six years ago, my husband was so troubled about it. Then I heard a talk by Fr. Ripperger about sacraments outside the Church and remained Catholic. I think, we need to understand what is being asked of us, we are to accept a council, fine no problem, but also changes that were never part of it. I want to know on whose authority I am to accept these changes, that's all is my question. If the authorities themselves didn't want it then I'm not breaking any rules. Unfortunately, it does not remain so simple when talking to people.
Hi Lydia, I admittedly have lots of thoughts on this so I will try and limit myself. You mention in your piece and in this response changes and authority such as “Is this council a continuation if it changes its Canon Law, changes it Catechism, its Sacraments, its Ritual, its Prayer Books and litanies, its Divine Office and even its Little Office of The Blessed Virgin. How is this the same Church even if you change every single thing in it?”
I think there are two categories here. Canon Law, Catechism, prayer books, litanies, the Divine Office, and little office are all external to the faith (this doesn’t make them unimportant, but changing them in no way changes the bedrock of the faith). The authority, therefore, to make these changes lies in the Bishops United with the Pope in Rome. Accepting these changes, even if they appear misguided or wrong, is done on the authority of those making the changes, the successors to the apostles.
You also mention ritual and Sacraments. If these are changed fundamentally, then we have a serious problem. Is your argument that the Sacraments themselves were changed post V2 or simply their presentation? Are they still outward signs of an inward grace institutes by Christ? If so, nothing of substance has changed.
And changing those parts that did change is well within the authority of the Bishops and Pope. They are, after all, also the ones who gave us Trent in the first place.
Thank you for the reply Lydia! I see three questions/arguments and will try and address them in that order.
First, my apologies for being unclear. Why I meant by “external to the faith” is that one can be Catholic without any contact with those things (think very early Church, Eastern Churches in Union with Rome). As you pointed out, what is in the Catechism is very important. To take one of your points: can the Church learn from false religions. The answer is yes in that another religion may have discovered a truth about the natural law, for instance. There is no reason to disregard this truth *simply* because it was discovered by another Faith. As it regards non-Catholic Christian’s, I think it can even be possible to learn truths from their Biblical scholarship. This learning is never in contradiction to what the Church knows, just in an area She has not yet delved into.
Relating to the confession, even the article admits that individual confession is a must at communal rituals. Granted, some priests abused this and attempted to grant mass absolution for mortal sins. But they didn’t. No more than a child baptizing it’s doll actually performs a Baptism. As to the formula for confession: it changed, yes. But confession has changed many times and was not even fully adopted in its “current” form (individual confession to a priest) until the 900s. But I will point out, the operative sentence at the end did not change at all.
This leads into your last point, and it’s one I sadly agree with too well. The fact that many of these abuses were not dealt with swiftly. Were not corrected. We’re not even addressed in some cases is, to misapply a term, malpractice. It reflects poor shepherding. My only consolation here is that, God save us, the Church has always had some poor shepherds. But in His mercy, God has also given us Saints.
(If you really want to, I can get into the whole Islam thing. But this reply is too long already lol)
Hi Stephen, thank you for stopping by and reading and leaving a comment.
You said, "I think there are two categories here. Canon Law, Catechism, prayer books, litanies, the Divine Office, and little office are all external to the faith (this doesn’t make them unimportant, but changing them in no way changes the bedrock of the faith)"
When you say external to the Faith and not changed the bedrock I don't understand what you mean by that. Earlier Catechisms were every clear, there is no salvation outside the Church, we cannot pray with those outside Church. These things were handled very carefully by the Church over a period of time and with great precaution. The current Catechism - which is supposed to uphold and transmit the Faith of Jesus Christ, tells us that the Church can learn from other false religions. The CCC says that those who deny the Divinity of Christ belong to the Faith of Abraham and worship the same God. If this new teaching opposes the old, then one of the two is wrong. If the earlier teaching was wrong then the Church has failed, if the new teaching, is wrong, then it is an attempt to lead us into error.
You also said, "You also mention ritual and Sacraments. If these are changed fundamentally, then we have a serious problem. Is your argument that the Sacraments themselves were changed post V2 or simply their presentation?"
A quote from the article: "In some cases, especially on college campuses, priests have gone to the extreme of holding communal penitential rituals and granting “general absolution” to all of the assembled worshipers without requiring individual confession."
So, by changing what is apparently not the bedrock of the Faith, they have watered down the Faith, so now people no longer have fear of the Lord. The lack of clarity meant that people felt free to interpret documents according to their own conscience. If this was incorrect then one clear authority should have come out and clarified things because clearly people are now living in sin and expecting that God will understand.
our shepherds are like our parents, they have to stop us from running on the road, it's for our own safety that they need to publish clear documents and if there is ambiguity then they should clarify it. Eternal Life is at stake, specially if people live in sin and are never corrected by their bishops.
This post makes certain that you and I are brother and sister in Christ, Lydia. Vatican II was nothing less than the ecclesiastical equivalent of a secular coup to overthrow a government. We can pity the conspirators for their arrogance and ignorance, though. The King of Kings can not be unseated from His throne. And He will not be mocked!
If it was all clear cut and above board, the answers would come easily, and that they don’t makes me uncomfortable
I think those who wanted to change the faith simply saw an opportunity in Vatican II to impose their will upon the faithful. When the faithful fled in droves, it became the faithful who were in the wrong (sorry Pope Francis, but you're one of them).
Have you read recent pieces about how the Vatican II "generation" of clerics is dying out and being replaced by more faithful priests? It is a hopeful sign.
"Have you read recent pieces about how the Vatican II "generation" of clerics is dying out and being replaced by more faithful priests? It is a hopeful sign."
Yes, I have read that article. Yes, it is a sign of hope. Also, I pray for these people everyday, especially since they are aging and they are consecrated souls. It's so sad, I wonder what they achieved with these changes. The changes didn't do anything but harm and destruction (whether intentional or not).
They administered sacraments, absolved sinners and helpfully did much else of great value and holiness. They deserve our prayers and gratitude for their sacrifice (ie not doing God's favorite work, being fruitful and multiplying).
The.priests, bishops, cardinals and, Lord help us and save us, Popes have for centuries failed to destroy the church, despite their best intentioned efforts.
We'll be fine, maybe, hopefully soon.
This is why I want to convert to orthodoxy
I considered orthodoxy six years ago, my husband was so troubled about it. Then I heard a talk by Fr. Ripperger about sacraments outside the Church and remained Catholic. I think, we need to understand what is being asked of us, we are to accept a council, fine no problem, but also changes that were never part of it. I want to know on whose authority I am to accept these changes, that's all is my question. If the authorities themselves didn't want it then I'm not breaking any rules. Unfortunately, it does not remain so simple when talking to people.
Hi Lydia, I admittedly have lots of thoughts on this so I will try and limit myself. You mention in your piece and in this response changes and authority such as “Is this council a continuation if it changes its Canon Law, changes it Catechism, its Sacraments, its Ritual, its Prayer Books and litanies, its Divine Office and even its Little Office of The Blessed Virgin. How is this the same Church even if you change every single thing in it?”
I think there are two categories here. Canon Law, Catechism, prayer books, litanies, the Divine Office, and little office are all external to the faith (this doesn’t make them unimportant, but changing them in no way changes the bedrock of the faith). The authority, therefore, to make these changes lies in the Bishops United with the Pope in Rome. Accepting these changes, even if they appear misguided or wrong, is done on the authority of those making the changes, the successors to the apostles.
You also mention ritual and Sacraments. If these are changed fundamentally, then we have a serious problem. Is your argument that the Sacraments themselves were changed post V2 or simply their presentation? Are they still outward signs of an inward grace institutes by Christ? If so, nothing of substance has changed.
And changing those parts that did change is well within the authority of the Bishops and Pope. They are, after all, also the ones who gave us Trent in the first place.
Thank you for the reply Lydia! I see three questions/arguments and will try and address them in that order.
First, my apologies for being unclear. Why I meant by “external to the faith” is that one can be Catholic without any contact with those things (think very early Church, Eastern Churches in Union with Rome). As you pointed out, what is in the Catechism is very important. To take one of your points: can the Church learn from false religions. The answer is yes in that another religion may have discovered a truth about the natural law, for instance. There is no reason to disregard this truth *simply* because it was discovered by another Faith. As it regards non-Catholic Christian’s, I think it can even be possible to learn truths from their Biblical scholarship. This learning is never in contradiction to what the Church knows, just in an area She has not yet delved into.
Relating to the confession, even the article admits that individual confession is a must at communal rituals. Granted, some priests abused this and attempted to grant mass absolution for mortal sins. But they didn’t. No more than a child baptizing it’s doll actually performs a Baptism. As to the formula for confession: it changed, yes. But confession has changed many times and was not even fully adopted in its “current” form (individual confession to a priest) until the 900s. But I will point out, the operative sentence at the end did not change at all.
This leads into your last point, and it’s one I sadly agree with too well. The fact that many of these abuses were not dealt with swiftly. Were not corrected. We’re not even addressed in some cases is, to misapply a term, malpractice. It reflects poor shepherding. My only consolation here is that, God save us, the Church has always had some poor shepherds. But in His mercy, God has also given us Saints.
(If you really want to, I can get into the whole Islam thing. But this reply is too long already lol)
I hope you have a wonderful day/great weekend.
Hi Stephen, thank you for stopping by and reading and leaving a comment.
You said, "I think there are two categories here. Canon Law, Catechism, prayer books, litanies, the Divine Office, and little office are all external to the faith (this doesn’t make them unimportant, but changing them in no way changes the bedrock of the faith)"
When you say external to the Faith and not changed the bedrock I don't understand what you mean by that. Earlier Catechisms were every clear, there is no salvation outside the Church, we cannot pray with those outside Church. These things were handled very carefully by the Church over a period of time and with great precaution. The current Catechism - which is supposed to uphold and transmit the Faith of Jesus Christ, tells us that the Church can learn from other false religions. The CCC says that those who deny the Divinity of Christ belong to the Faith of Abraham and worship the same God. If this new teaching opposes the old, then one of the two is wrong. If the earlier teaching was wrong then the Church has failed, if the new teaching, is wrong, then it is an attempt to lead us into error.
You also said, "You also mention ritual and Sacraments. If these are changed fundamentally, then we have a serious problem. Is your argument that the Sacraments themselves were changed post V2 or simply their presentation?"
Here is a link to an article from 1974 about changes to the very formula of the Sacrament of Confession: https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/07/archives/vatican-revises-sacrament-of-penance-vatican-revises-sacrament-of.html
A quote from the article: "In some cases, especially on college campuses, priests have gone to the extreme of holding communal penitential rituals and granting “general absolution” to all of the assembled worshipers without requiring individual confession."
So, by changing what is apparently not the bedrock of the Faith, they have watered down the Faith, so now people no longer have fear of the Lord. The lack of clarity meant that people felt free to interpret documents according to their own conscience. If this was incorrect then one clear authority should have come out and clarified things because clearly people are now living in sin and expecting that God will understand.
our shepherds are like our parents, they have to stop us from running on the road, it's for our own safety that they need to publish clear documents and if there is ambiguity then they should clarify it. Eternal Life is at stake, specially if people live in sin and are never corrected by their bishops.