When is the Roman Catholic Church going to triumph over the errors of the Second Vatican Council?

Question

The Second Vatican Council was a meeting of the world’s bishops for four sessions between October 11, 1962, and December 8, 1965. Pope John XXIII, in his opening speech to the Council (November 11, 1962), declared its aims to be the following: (1) that the Catholic Faith should be kept and taught, (2) but taught in the language of modern man by a magisterium “which is predominantly pastoral in character,” (3) and this without resorting to any condemnations, and (4) thus appealing to all peoples (this Council was to be ecumenical, not only in the sense of being a general council of the Church, but also in that of appealing to the religiosity of all people of whatever religion).

Pope Paul VI agreed with his predecessor: "[Vatican II] was the most important [event] because ... above all it sought to meet pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family." (Closing Brief, December 8, 1965)

With such ideals, it is little wonder to find Catholic teaching presented: (1) weakly (no definitions or condemnations), (2) confusedly (no technical, scholastic terminology), and (3) one-sidedly (so as to attract non-Catholics). All such vague and ambiguous teaching, already liberal in its method, would be interpreted in its true liberal sense after the Council.

More gravely, the Council was hijacked by the liberal elements within the Church, who from the very beginning schemed to have rejected the pre-Conciliar preparatory schemas and replaced by progressive ones prepared by their own “experts.” The liberals were also able to get their members onto the Council Commissions. The new schemas, passed as the Council’s decrees, constitutions, and declarations, contain, more or less explicitly, some of the same doctrinal errors for which liberals in the past had been condemned.

The Council itself both encouraged liberal trends (and its encouragement became post-Conciliar Vatican policy) and departed from traditional Catholic teaching, but it has no authority for either.

A Roman Catholic's position must be: "... we refuse ... to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it." (Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre)

And it is neo-Modernist tendencies that the Council is all about ("... Pope John Paull II makes not Holy Scripture, but rather Assisi, the shibboleth for the current understanding of the Council." Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part I, p. 46).

Answer 1

It's the past catching up.  At one time, "heretics" were burned at the steak.  That means you didn't have the religious freedom to disagree - not even in your own head.  You had to have the same take on things that was dictated to you.

Now the situation is revisiting.  The same church Europeans supported for centuries, to force beliefs on others, is now forcing its beliefs on you.

Answer 2

Who cares.

Answer 3

I find it a bit sad that you seem to call yourself a Catholic and yet you argue with the decisions of the Pope, the College of Cardinals, and the rest of the bishops.

As Catholics, we believe these men to be modern day Apostles and infallible when all are in agreement as they were with the publication of the documents of Vatican II.

You have become a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what you want to believe in just as sad (and possibly heretical) as Ms Pelosi, Mr Biden and other pro-choice "Catholics".

With love in Christ.

Answer 4

Not in our lifetime.

Answer 5

the chuch has the power to interprete the holy scriptures.. the council vatican 2.. didn't make bad things.. they opened us the eyes.. we are not the only path to heaven.. as well another religions recieved part of the gospel.. the mass is now in another languages.. because.. the church saw the necessity to speak in the native language of each town.. and many things.. but those reforms were not about faith.. it was about rituals and some beliefs.. but the catholic faith has not changed is in the creed of nicea.. the original..that's all.. we follow.. the other things were added because the church explored more the scriptures and traditions.

Answer 6

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...

Here read these first and then ask your question again

Answer 7

Yeah they're already doing it.  It was a movement that started with conservative and sometimes controversial members from EWTN, namely Mother Angela, who fired up and controlled the new TV station.  Her controversy really got "hot under the collar" when she shook down (verbally) Pope John Paul and had to be admonished for it.

People who teach, broadcast from that channel and it's website are all extremely conservative, and had started back on the path to pre-Vatican II issues long before the recent goings-on.

The whole site and station, especially their "news" is on a controversial bend that allows nothing for free-thinking.  You either agree or you shake your head in wonder.

_()_

Answer 8

No, when the group has no trust in the leader and is divided, it will eventually fall or crumble from within, while it has a veneer of "all is well".

Answer 9

Nothing wrong with Vatican II, it has just been abused by liberals and modernists.

Answer 10

The partisans of hyper-traditionalism are clearly making their move.  How many years before Latin is back as the mandatory language of liturgy, before communion rails, chalice veils and communion patens (gold plated paddles) are back in common use, before the altar is shoved back up against the back wall, and the world outside the nave ceases to matter?  Pope Benedict has expressed satisfaction with a "small Church".  I suspect he may get his wish.

Oh, but how do you resolve the "sede vacante" issue?

Answer 11

Let me see if I get this straight.

Let me see if I get this straight. You're asking me to believe you've come along and, single-handedly mind you, outsmarted more than 2,000 years of accumulated wisdom and discernment from countless clergy and theologians over the centuries?

I think not.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

The twenty-first ecumencial council of the Catholic Church, first announced by Pope John XXIII, on January 25, 1959. He opened the council on October 11, 1962, and the first session ended on December 8 of the same year. After Pope John's death, June 3, 1963, Pope Paul VI reconvened the Council for the next three sessions, which ran from September 29, to December 4, 1963; September 14 to November 21, 1964; and September 14, to December 8, 1965. A combined total of 2,865 bishops and prelates took part in the Council proceedings, although 264 could not attend, mainly from Communist countries. Among the sixteen documents issued by the Council, the four constitutions--on divine revelation, the liturgy, and two on the Church--were the basis for the rest.

You would do well to actually read those Documents BEFORE you pontificate on them. Credibility goes a long way, you know.

Answer 12

So you are saying that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, was wrong?

Isn't that against your Catholic dogma??

.

Answer 13

You really have a good grasp at what is going on in the Church. I don't know when the Catholic Church will depart from the wicked ways of modernism, liberalism, and false ideals and freemasonry. In reality it is God's will, whatever God so ordains. What we have to do is hold on to Our Latin Mass, our Missals and Douay-Rheims Bibles, our Rosaries and our Faith. Yes, in Churches you see truth mixed with error. Satan would allow 99% of the truth to be known just to be able to give us 1% falsity. I don't know when it will end, none of us do, but we need to stand up and become those Great Marian Saints that St. Louis de Montfort described and hold fast to the Fatima Message.