Why do so many people say that Vatican II destroyed christianity?

Why do so many people say that Vatican II destroyed christianity?

Attached: image3.jpg (1299x706, 317.49K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/xFzgfCzfSQg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Destroyed Christianity? Impossible.
Weakened Roman Catholicism? Absolutely.

...

...

I dunno. Vatican I did alot more damage.

;)

Did it just unleash things that already existed?

In what way do you mean?

Because they don't know what Vatican II actually was. Things weren't grrrrrreat and sudenlly the Vatican II bomb dropped out of nowhere.
Don't be autistic, many stones make up a building, they don't get built with a gigantic plop.
If you want to pin the biggest stone, the destruction of the latin liturgy was the doom of the papal catholics.

Was VII OK, but the reforms released modernist forces that were pent up? That's my read. Maybe I'm wrong.

you can't destroy it

CVII was not really the problem. Read the four major sacred constitutions produced by the Council to see this.

What was the problem was the impious modernist faction whichtook what they thought (or wanted to think) the Council said and implemented it, especially with regard to the Liturgy. For example read Sacrosanctum Concilium and then go visit your average Sunday parish. See if you can understand just how vast the gulf between what is expected and what is actually happening is.
The Pauline Mass was a kind of damage control to try to streamline a lot of the liturgical chaos (and I mean chaos) that erupted after the close of the Council, since what became "standard" practise varied from Diocese to Diocese and even from Sunday to Sunday in many cases, taking for example the confusion over the form of the Kyrie to be used. It was unclear whether the traditional triple Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison was to be maintained, or if it was only to be said once by everybody, or once by the priests and then responded to by the laity etc. It was a mess. And this is before we get to issues like extraordinary ministers, the vernacular, awful P&W music, lectors, the suppression of the minor liturgical functions and vocations in parishes, the forced suppression of the Tridentine, the abysmal state of catechism in schools and at the home etc.

I believe there were also a lot of social conditions going on outside the church which helped to weaken it (communism, student protests, the "swingin' sixties", increasing wealth etc.), to the point where I wonder if things wouldn't be the same if there hadn't been a Council.

Amazing what has been lost over the years, it should be revived.
youtu.be/xFzgfCzfSQg

amen

It does tho, since catholicism is the powerhouse of chirstianity. Many of non-catholics with apostolic-like flavor (anglicans, epsicopalian, etc) affected with the sentiment that swept after the Council, like in their liturgy etc.

The documents itself is problematic? The fact that it can be intepreted by both Tradition and Modernist is the prove that it is flawed. Compare, let say, Latheran that clearly states :there is no salvation outside of the Church", Vatican 2 have document like Nosta Aestate which mentioned "Muslims worship the one God" what does it mean? Does it mean that Qur'an and Sunnah abiding Muslim pleases God???

Many novelties found it support from the Council's documents, just look at the Pre Amazonian Synod document. They're not done with their doing, they will transform Catholicism into another new religion, and all of these are possible due to the license given by Vatican 2 documents

yes Nostra Aetate is absolute trash, but luckily it is not dogmatic, Cardinal Burke confirmed so, so it is safe to put it in the dumpster where it belongs. It is factually wrong on so many levels. VII was a disaster and actually people who claim that people who critique VII doesn't actually know what VII is they themselves don't really know what VII did. I have empathy with sedes on that part because it really was a disaster but hopefully the faithful can fix it. The issue is we don't have enough people serious about the faith right now to help fix it and the clergy is filled with faggots at the moment, we need a big purge.

VI is the first council with heisendocuments?

Yeah, we do really need a big purge, the current hierarchy is beyond help. Vatican 2 is a failed council and whatever it gave birth to (documents, policies, etc) have to be condemned and burnt away (perhaps literally and figuratively). It will be a stain, perhaps, in the Church's history, a very big one.

VII is second Fifth Council of the Lateran

no

ITT: muh taste and people that have never read the New Testament

Why can't you fags just be Catholic ? Why do you need to act as if you were tip top trained Canon and Church lawyers ? Why do you need to doubt the Church whereas the problems are and mainly were always prevalent in USAmerica ? You're playing big but the truth is, outside of this country, the Mass of the ordinary form is just as conservative and spiritually excellent than is the Mass of the extraordinary form. It is even held in Latin on special occasions or contains Latin prayer and chants, the priest does not face the parish - he faces Christ as there is always a Cross on the altar. It is perfectly fine if you just have an unbiased and not self-indulgent view on things.
Now one might come around the corner "muh liturgical abuse" - but czech maid, liturgical abuse was just as prevalent before the council. Even worse, because now, the parish can intervene and call the priest out. Before, that was not the case so if you had a dubious priest you could never be sure if the most holy Eucharist was consecrated validly. Not yet to speak of the fact that now the people are being forced to participate in the sacrifice whereas in the Tridentine form, there is a chance they drift away, especially nowadays in our particularly moved and noisy world. Despite the fact that people that cannot speak Latin can't understand what is going on anyway - and that is the opener for abuse from the people's side. This whole "muh TLM" flowery is a huge strawman.

Question: Who of the complaining people has even ever read Sacrosamtum Concilium and Nostra Aetate ? I bet no one. You just get your info and """facts""" from dubious internet videos and articles by people that magically happen to have the same radical skepticism as you have that aren't worth the bits they're consisting of. Protip Nostra Aetate is a read for 20 minutes.

All in all: You have no ground and you have no authority. Read what Cardinal Sarah (prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) has to say about the forms of the Mass, for example in his book The Power of Silence. And you wouldn't say Cdl. Sarah is a modernist or some crap, do you ? You don't possess this audacity, right ? Indeed, he speaks of a "reform of the reform", but not like opposing one form of the Mass to the other. He states himself how that will just climax in hatred for each other, because 'people make the holy Mass and the whole of the Liturgy an ideology instead of having their thoughts focused on what is important. And that is Christ and His sacrifice which we celebrate in every single holy Mass, Divine Liturgy, you name it. He means that in some places where the Mass of the ordinary form is celebrated "exclusively", there is a huge lack of silence (and he doesn't just speak of literal silence) in the parishes and even the priests themselves. That is, he is advocating for a new reverence, a new attitude that destroys the one prevalent in said particular parishes (most often located on the North American continent) where the Mass becomes a concert or a show to appease the people where Christ happens to be present, too.

Stop making the form of the Mass or the language it's held in or the form of how the most holy Eucharist is handed out an ideology. That is spitting in Christ's face. Having preferences - and reasonable preferences - is absolutely fine and encouraged. But don't you dare being a pleb and calling the documents of the Church trash and condemning certain practices like extraordinary (female) ministers or female altar servers. Do you even understand why these exist now ? Because there aren't enough boys and men to do the job. And no, that is not the fault of the council. The Church was always declining in the West since the 50s and then the satanic 60s - even before - with all the "cultural revolutions" and whatnot that blinded the people and very sadly even some members of the clergy. That, in fact, is what the second Vaticanum tried to tackle. Blaming the council or its documents which are perfectly orthodox is like saying "it's God's fault that evil exists and children are being murdered". It's not sound, it's unqualified as a comment and it's just utter nonsense.

God love you

Same with everything that isn't Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 only applies to Scripture, everything else is of private interpretation, and also corruptible over time. So, no doctrines from that.

Mark 7:7-9
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Orthodoxy is still here, so no.

Funny way to spell "handful of internet autists"

stay mad cathocuck

This guy got it

Repent and spend less time listening to e-celebs

The vast majority of this section, I know was done from the heart, but it saddens me to say that it reads like copypasta. In particular the opening.