What does /his/ know about the second Vatican council?
>>373192
It made catholicism more user-friendly, whch made a lot of hardcore catholics mad because it catered to casuals.
>>373192
>tfw no more Latin services
>>373192
Pretty much discredits the "Catholicism never changes" argument, especially Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae and Unitatis Redintegratio. There was a lot of blatant displays of corruption such as cutting Cardinal Ottaviani's microphone. Many of the architects of the council were Freemasons, relativists, Jews, and Protestants who wanted to water down Catholicism and suceeded. Of course the crusader fetishists on /pol/ don't realize their church now teaches non-Catholics can be saved and their anti ecumenism is the biggest sin in the church of 2015 (if they even believe in it, it's probably just a meme to most of them considering how most of them masturbate daily).
It's clear that the modern Catholic church differs vastly from the pre-concilliar church. The SSPX, being non-sedevacantist offers no practical solution to the crisis in the church and rejects the pronouncements from the pope they claim to follow. The FSSP is just aesthetic preference for the Latin Mass. Sedevacantism has no solution as to how to get a pope back.
The only real answer to the "crisis" caused by the aberration of VII is to realize that Catholicism is not true.
t. Former Traditionalist Catholic
>>373310
>Many of the architects of the council were Freemasons, relativists, Jews, and Protestants who wanted to water down Catholicism and suceeded.
But how did it get to this point? Do you believe that many people plotted to infiltrate the church and go up the ranks, or that legitimate bishops simply lost faith and adhered to other ideals?
>>373310
>The only real answer to the "crisis" caused by the aberration of VII is to realize that Catholicism is not true.
I don't see how that is the case. Prophecy told of how the church would be corrupted before the end times, this fits perfectly with thee knowledge of that when you look at the way the church has changed. The real question I have is how one comes to Christ in a time like this, as the only way to him is through His body in the form of the church (with denying this fact being the primary heresy of protestantism), but if that body is corrupted, can He still truly be reached? Can one confess and be absolved of their sin through a priest who is in his own faith and in the organization he resides within against God? Attempting to mollify this through creating your own sedevacantist church doesn't work, because it lacks the apostolic succession to make it the legitimate body of Christ on this earth.
>>373192
it fixed a lot of the entirely reasonable criticisms people had with the church
most of the changes were behind the scenes from the laypeople in the doctrines and shit, but hardcore catholics just got mad because they changed some of the words and made shit english
overall it was p. good desu
>>373310
>Pretty much discredits the "Catholicism never changes" argument
But we already knew that. It wasn't until the 12th century that priests were required to be celibate, for example. It's not the only Ecumenical Council in history.
>>373310
So basically it's Orthodox or Fedora?
>>373779
It's not a conspiracy. This is just how culture works. If you want to have a philophical arguement blame it on the Geist. You had Catholics who gained seats of extreme power within the charge with the best intentions, decades later they find themself thinking differently, eventually they got a majority hold. The fact that Vatican actually invited Protestants and Jews to come to the meetings so they could listen to their opinions is proof enough. I'm also told that the wording in a lot of the Vatacin 2 documents was intentionally made vague so that it would look fine to the conservatives but once it was made officially the more relativist groups could have their agenda. Again I don't think there was a coordinated conspiracy, the culture changed from within. Consider that Vatacin 2 happened in the late 60s, at the absolute height of cultural revolution.
Than again I'm a Fedora so take that with a grain of salt.
>>373310
Catholicism started changing pretty much from the schism. By 1500, they had become a modernist religion. Then the Counter-Reformation kicked it into turbo.
>>373888
>it's not the only Ecumenical Council in history
Where the hell do Roman Catholics get the idea that Ecumenical Councils are supposed to change the Church? They are not, they are supposed to do the exact opposite, they're meant to prevent the Church from changing. That is why the Coptic Church agrees with the Orthodox Church on everything (the semantics of Christ's nature being resolved) despite not participating in any of the Ecumenical Councils beyond the Third.
It blows my mind that Roman Catholics think Ecumenical Councils are about modifying anything, they're about preserving things from heresy. Do you think Christians don't believe Christ or the Holy Spirit were God until the First Ecumenical Council?
>>373923
>It's not a conspiracy.
Yeah, that's why so many previous popes warned against such an infiltration then
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanum_genus
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c12inemengl.htm
>>373945
It wasn't an Ecumenical Council, though. It was a pastoral council. No doctrines of the Faith were changed.
>>373958
Neither Humanum Genus nor In Eminenti were warning against infiltration of the Church. They were warning against Catholics being led into errors, be they Freemasonry, socialism, or liberalism, because these were at their core anti-Christian ideologies that sought a deliberate overthrow of civil and divine order. We have examples of what Pius XI, Clement XII, and Leo XIII were warning against: Marc Sangnier's le Sillon was one such example, which Pius XI referred to as a "chimeric" hybridisation of Catholic social teaching with socialist theory.
For myself, I remain unconvinced. There is much speculation about the supposed infiltration of the Church, particularly after Paul VI's remarks, but very little actual evidence. Pointing to seemingly heretical clergymen like Marx, Wuerl, and Kasper isn't enough to convince me, nor is speculation about the Third Secret of Fatima. It's possible, but I want something concrete.
>>373310
>Catholicism never changes
The Church has always maintained a distinction between Dogma and doctrine. You seem to confuse the two. Vatican 2 pronounced on certain matters in a deliberately subversive way, but from this it does not follow that Catholicism is therefore wrong. You miss the third position that there have simply been antipopes since V2.
These subverters can only get away with it by the sheer ignorance of their flock. There are centuries of tradition that aren't so easily done away with it.
>>374029
There's also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Vendita
But you're rather dull to think they couldn't hatch such a plot.
>>373993
I know about that, I know that clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. But I mean that view in general. Like I saw a Roman Catholic criticizing the Orthodox Church before here for being "stagnant" and pointing out the they haven't had an ecumenical council since the split, and have been unable to "grow" and be "organic".
>>374030
Adding the filioque was a changed.
Saying the Pope speaks infallibly on faith and morals is a change.
>>374039
Alta Vendita is not of Masonic origin. The Carbonari were an organisation with revolutionary aims and a quasi-Masonic structure, but they were not Masons.
Aside from this, this is not evidence of infiltration or subversion, but only evidence that there exist many people who are anti-Catholic and - as I already stated - deliberately seek to overthrow the divine order (i.e. the Church). If this is news to you, then you lead a sheltered life. Many Protestants themselves desire such things and will tell you this openly on this board and elsewhere.
Further, wanting to act and acting are two separate things. Acting and acting successfully are also two separate things. Nor had I ever asserted that there is not, nor ever was any plot to do so. I said only that there is little actual evidence that the Church has been subject to successful Freemasonic infiltration, so spare me your petty insults.
>>374046
I'm sure it would not be very difficult to find some Russian gropnik or a Romanian gypsy who has odd beliefs about the Orthodox Church as well. What of it?
>>374070
Well I suppose you are right that there isn't any explicit evidence of specifically masonic influence on the Church, but I guess that's neither here nor there since the Church is undoubtedly in a state of crisis and full of such obvious evildoers to make a plea for such evidence almost meaningless. But I still have no doubt that the Church indeed has undergone such infiltration from what I do know of other similar occurrences such as Theodore Hesburgh and Notre Dame.
And sorry for the dumb insult.
>>374132
>but I guess that's neither here nor there since the Church is undoubtedly in a state of crisis...
On this we can agree.
>Open thread
>Ctrl-F Freemasons
>Check to make sure this is /his/, not /x/
>>374646
>2015
>not knowing who Annibale Bugnini was
>not knowing about Humanum Genus
>not being redpilled about the French Revolution
Fucking casual.
OP read this
>>374682
I agree. Also anything by Abp. Lefebvre tbhfam
>>373932
Elaborate
>>374062
Wrong on both accounts
>>374958
Aniballe Bugnini was literally the architect of the liturgical reform and an admitted Freemason. This is why Paul VI banished him to Iran and forced him to write his autobiography.
>>374973
>and an admitted Freemason
Source?
Ive always found the sedivacantist argument particularly absurd. The Second vatican council didnt even change dotrine let alone dogma, if anything has changed its that the chruch now excepts more interpretations of certain dogma, though the hardliners will still maintain that those people are heretics that the church hasn't formally kicked out.
The church changed bit by bit all the time, the old papal oath to never change anything was absurd on its face. Whats even more absurd is that sedivacanists follow a group of bishops who broke their vows, broke with the bishops as a whole, and have the gull to proclaim that everyone else is in error.
When it comes to Catholicism you cant throw the baby out with the bath water. You either accept that these vernacular praying bishops are the church or you admit the whole thing is absurd.
>>375029
The church body is supposed be the highest spiritual authority on earth. The only thing that can over-rule is is an angel or God himself coming down from heaven and giving an order. The idea that a fucking ecumenical counsel can be "wrong" only fucking makes sense if you are some sort of Protestant.
>>375040
>The idea that a fucking ecumenical counsel can be "wrong" only fucking makes sense if you are some sort of Protestant.
So you agree with 100% of everything they've ever done, with not even a shadow of doubt as to the purity of it all?
>>374974
I was told this by one of the former superiors of the FSSP at an ordination party a few years back. I believe it's documented in some book by Michael Davies or Fr. Kramer whose name escapes me.
>>375029
This is a good video that explains sedevacantism in a logical way. I don't agree with all of it because I'm not a sede, but it's worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsRKKMVbN0M
>>375064
I believe there's a saying about believing everything you hear.
>>375048
I'm not religious. But here is what I gather the working within Catholicism is: there are some documents that are recognized as not officially divine. For instance the writings of Augustine are respected but they are not cannon.
On the other hand Ecumenical counsels are considered divinely guided by the holy spirit. Vatican 2 was such a counsil. It carries about the same weight as the bible. A Catholic would have to actually believe God organized the outcome of Vatican 2 to be correct, although you get some wriggle room in how you interpret it. I don't think they have the ability to just throw out the rules they dislike though, they can only lawyer them. Ecumenical are the counsels were the bible itself was assembled and all the major rules are assembled. A Catholic cannot play pick n choose. It's their slave owner, they are the one's obligated to obey.
>>373253
They still exist. Actually, there are some churches who pretty much write off all the accessible nuances of Vatican II. They still do everything the old way and are still considered legitimate by the Vatican.
They're just hard to find and tend to have stickler parishioners.
>>375074
I've never really looked into it, but this was a credible man who claimed to have been told this by a very high ranking prelate. I don't really care, I'm not the original anon you were responding too anyway, just saying it is a widespread theory.
>>375091
>but this was a credible man
Except he wasn't if he could not, or did not provide proof.
And being a widespread theory isn't a big deal. Ancient alien belief is a widespread theory, after all.
>>375084
>A Catholic would have to actually believe God organized the outcome of Vatican 2 to be correct
That's what I find amusing, since the kinds who maintain infallibility are usually the ones who dislike Vatican 2.
I'm telling you fuckers. It's not a Mason conspiracy. It's the Geist!
>>375084
The only exception to this is that in early and medieval councils often one side would declare the council invalid afterwards on some technical ground, like their faction was absent for a vote or was coerced by political figures. At least once a council was thrown out an another time an earlier one appeared to be reversed.
(of course we know a council wasn't really reversed because the church tells us that's impossible)
>>375117
There's always a way they can lawyer in "reversals" or sweeping changes and having it fit. But this requires an official action by a vote of cardinals or a very rare and powerful order from the Pope. Basically there's a chain of command and you can't really be a Catholic without following it. Personally I think the Orthodox are less corrupt.
>>373310
>Catholicism never changes
Catholicism has changed a lot from its origins, you need to be some kind of fanatic with serious denial powers if you think the church hasn't backpedalled in many occasions trough history.
>>375114
it's the devil
>>374738
>adding new things is not change
>why? because i say so
ok, heretic
