Communiqué of the Holy See Press Office (1962 Missal

Vatican II brought an explosion. I lived through it and I saw nothing but sudden divorces, people abruptly deciding they were gay, priests running off with young girls in their high school classes or sitting on the steps of the church smoking dope with young boys (with whom they clearly had an improper relationship, to put it mildly), and laypeople who complained about this being treated as pariahs by the bishops.

Yes, I realize that all of these things happened. Satan got the foothold that he wanted and did it in the chaos of the aftermath of the council. Many were greatly scandalized, and probably rightly so. I wasn't there when this started to happen; it was the world I was born into.

I think the only thing it can possibly be traced to is Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. That was when things really got bad, and unless you were in one of these parishes, lived through some of the horrors of that time, you probably can’t understand how radical the change was for Catholics.

This also happened to correspond with the culmination of post-war nihilism, rising secularism and materialism, and the free-love movement, among other things. None of the people that I know who lived though the time describe the horrors to the degree that you are. It's as though it may not have been as bad everywhere, but again, I wasn't there.

I think there is going to be blood on the hands of many a pink-palmed, fat and sassy bishop or Vatican “advisor” when he goes to meet Our Lord in person.

I don't disagree, and would not be surprised if you are right.

The sedevacantists and others would be much better won over by charity and understanding than by telling them they’re going to Hell.

I did not tell them that they "were going to Hell." I told them that by knowingly separating from Holy Mother Church that they are in danger of Hell. And I stand by that, because it is the same thing that was taught at both Trent AND Vatican II.

But I have always felt that there was something wrong before that, perhaps that modernism had not been sufficiently defeated but had just gone into hiding,...

Of course something was wrong before the Council. There were influences that left the documents written in a manner that was correct doctirinally, but easily misconstrued and easily twisted. Also, it was those who were priests and bishops before the Council who eventually hijacked it, and in its aftermath brought destruction to the Church. Our greatest allies in routing out this modernism however happen to have put themselves outside of the Church. This makes them far less effective in routing out the Modernism, and gives the majority of the Church a reason (just or not) to continue to marginalize the legitimate traditionalist movement.

Perhaps I'm not the best person to discuss this, because I will admit that I have an axe to grind. About the same time that I became serious about my Faith in college, I came across more than a few resources by schismatic and sedevacantist groups, and I found their arguments appealing, not in the least BECAUSE of the many faces of evil that crept into the Church in the last forty years (and to an extent, longer than that). It took a great deal of time before I was able to make heads or tails enough to convince myself of their errors.

Whenever someone begins to speak of the "false Church of Vatican II" and the "anti-council Vatican II," it is already beyond discussing here on the forums, because the schismatics aren't working on the same set of presuppositions that I am. The issues to iron out truly are legion. I cannot in good conscience and will not allow lurkers and FReepers who are not as strong in their Faith to fall into the errors that I nearly did, and so I have no choice but to denounce them.

There are always going to be some crackpots, that is, people who probably would have developed their own “special” religion anyway. There have always been rigorists, and there have always been Father Feeneys to lead them.

In this case it’s different, though, because I think many of these people (the Vatican II opponents) were practically thrown out the door long before they became sedevacantists or extremists, but simply because they dared to complain about some of the things that were happening. I lived in San Francisco during the worst of the 1970s, and it was as though mass insanity had broken out. Suddenly the insane were the ones calling the shots, and they were vindictive and cruel to anyone who opposed them.

I think one of the biggest problems that many people who went to schismatic groups had in returning to the Church is that they were afraid to trust the promises of those in authority anymore. And after seeing the dramatic and previously unthinkable changes and reverses in the Church, how could they feel any confidence in anyone in power? So they preferred to be with their own little splinter group, which was at least controllable.

I think the collapse of confidence in the good will of the heirarchy was one of the most devastating of the effects of the changes. That is, once upon a time, you may not have agreed with them, but you knew that they were going to take the defined position of hte Church (whether because they believed it or because they knew that it was their job to do so and they’d be in big trouble if they didn’t). But I think that trust was broken, and even when attempts were made by the Pope or others to reconcile some of these groups later, there was such a profound lack of confidence that it was virtually impossible for them to move out of that fear and suspicion. Naturally, there were some people who didn’t want to move out of it and probably preferred running their own show. But I think mistrust and fear was a great part of it, and perhaps the MP (if it really says what we all hope it does) will serve as a kind of pledge of good faith.

And then it’s up to these groups to go their distance, too, although I think it’s going to be a slow process.

Amen again.

I would ping the others but I simply stand in agreement with your post so I see no need.

All I can add is that agreement, especially when you admit you have an “axe to grind”. I have a similar axe as well, because soon after reverting to the Faith, I found the message of SSPX appealing, for its love of the traditional side of Catholicism.

It’s only in respecting the very nature of the Church (that there MUST be only ONE faith), that I realized no matter how appealing (intellectually or otherwise) SSPX and other groups were, I MUST at LEAST concede that Vatican II was a lawful and valid council in the Church! (Surely I have some issues with how it was implemented but that’s not the issue here) If not, then I or any “Catholic” is free to pick and choose what council to accept or reject.

The slippery slope there should be obvious to any faithful Catholic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.