How do I prove to an SSPX that Vatican II is valid? A Novus Ordo responds
I was reading a discussion on Quora, you can find it here, it’s called How do I prove to an SSPX that Vatican II is valid? A priest called Francis Marsden has some interesting things to say about convincing the SSPX of the validity of Vatican II. He says, “V2 was a pastoral Council, not a dogmatic one. It didn’t define any binding new dogmas. Official Catholic teaching was re-presented for a modern age, but not actually altered. Therefore traditional teaching remains unchanged. V2 issued no canons, no anathemas, no articles of faith.”
So, what I hear is nothing was changed, yet everything was changed and Catholics should accept the council because it didn’t change anything on paper. It doesn’t matter if things changed anyways, we should just accept these changes instead of holding on to our Faith and continue with our lives because of the spirit of the council.
I want to know what spirit this is because the Catechism says, God cannot change (because He is all perfect). Also, I need some help finding the spirit of the other councils. There have been 20 other councils1 for instance Council of Nicaea, Trent, Lyons I and Lyons II, or even Vatican 1, I couldn’t find any of their spirits, perhaps someone can show me where they are.
Also, was Vatican II the only council to have a special spirit guiding it away from its own documents and bulldozing altars (explained in the book Ugly as Sin 2 by Michael S. Rose)? Was the spirit of Vatican II so important that it overrode the pope himself? So, should we listen to the pope or obey the spirit of the council?
Source: “Gregorian Chant Not In Any Danger, Pope Tells French.” Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut, April 6, 1964, 3
“Pope Paul VI has sought to assuage the fears of those who see the ecumenical council’s Constitution on the Liturgy as possibly spelling a new eclipse for Gregorian chant. Speaking to a pilgrimage of French teachers of plain chant, the Pope said, ‘Are any of you perhaps alarmed at the future applications of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which was adopted by the council Fathers and promulgated by us last Dec. 4? Let them read that admirable text’s passage concerning liturgical chant, and particularly the following: “The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care… ” (Liturgy Constitution, Paragraph 1141).4
Another thing this priest admits is, “A lot did change, but many of the changes were not mandated by the Council Fathers. Some “experts”, liturgists in particular, grabbed the ball and ran away with it in directions never really intended by most of the Council Fathers.
One problem was that there was sufficient ambiguity in certain documents for these experts to half-justify the changes they were set on introducing.”
My question, as a lay Catholic is, If nothing was supposed to change according to the council fathers and yet people changed things, isn’t something wrong here? Why should Catholics not know and knowingly keep silent about these “illegal” change/s? What good is going to come out of doing nothing? The admission that things were changed by others and not the council fathers and then the reluctance to do anything or permit Catholics to even talk about these changes is a strange loyalty to the spirit of the council. Perhaps the loyalty to the spirit of the council is higher than the loyalty to the council even.
Marsden then says, “It never intended that the Latin Mass should be abruptly scrapped and prohibited, and replaced with a shoddy English paraphrase (ICEL 1973) of many of the texts.
It never intended the wholesale “wreckovation” of beautiful old churches.
It never intended the abolition of Benediction, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, veneration of Our Lady and the Saints, the scrapping of many popular devotions, the loss of Gregorian chant and the classical Latin musical repertoire.
Sadly, this happened in some places, according to “the spirit of V2”, but nowhere in “the documents of V2”.
Unfortunately, these changes didn’t happen in just a few places, this widespread wreckovation (to use his words) has destroyed the Faith in much of the world and to a much greater extent than what he mentions. What good comes out of keeping silent and not questioning these damaging changes?
Furthering Marsden’s argument he states, “V2 was the 21st in the series of General Councils of the Church, starting with Nicaea. If we separate ourselves from Rome, and break communion with the See of Peter, we are doing what Luther and so many others have done in history.”
What about the fact that Vatican II itself is a separation from the Church?
He admits, this council was not dogmatic, yet the “council” and its supporters demands the highest allegiance, even over and above dogmatic councils like Nicaea and Trent. 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?
Can the Faith now change? Should Catholics keep changing with the changing councils or stick with the Faith of our Fathers? I don’t know how one can be separated from the Church, if one is standing for the Church and I don’t understand how one is with the Church if he wants to change everything in it. Isn’t this called gaslighting?
Please Note: I quoted from the Quora discussion because I’ve heard the same reasoning given by many Catholics for accepting the changes brought about by the spirit of the council. I don’t know this priest and I have nothing against anyone, this was just my attempt to present my reasons for why I cannot accept things that were never intended for the Church by the Pope and her bishops. The council documents never advocated for the changes that happened, therefore, if I accept the council, then I cannot logically accept these illegitimate changes.
References:
https://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
https://isidore.co/calibre#book_id=8794&library_id=CalibreLibrary&panel=book_details
https://thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=CTR19640409-01.2.179&srpos=6&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN--------
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/12/paul-vi-was-once-in-favor-of.html
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