Did Vatican II really change as much as SSPX or sedevacantists claim?

Did Vatican II really change as much as SSPX or sedevacantists claim?

Other urls found in this thread:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P75.HTM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The question i'd like to know is whether Vatican II increased conversions in the developing world, as the mass went from Latin to local. Arabic holding such a privileged, almost sacred, place above all other languages is why I'd never become a Muslim (along with other reasons). If a religion can't adopt in some unimporatant way to a foreign people, it isn't worthy of adoption by them.

Catholics love turning V2 into their personal whipping boy, blaming it for turning the church into something crude or degenerated. Ill give a free* (you) to the first few people who can say something beneficial emerging from Vatican 2.

Vatican II pretty much gave Catholics permission to be lazy and do whatever the fuck they want. No more rules. It was supposed to increase church attendance. So far it's only succeeded in the opposite.

It's a huge difference. The Catholic church went from an uncompromising traditionalist organization which rightfully viewed other religions as haram to saying Jews don't need to be converted.

Latin mass never prevented people from joining the church.

"I have no idea what to do with the friendship of the whole wide world!"

It's hard to judge the effect of ordinary mass's inclusion over the extraordinary. I know a lot of people say they prefer mass said in the vernacular to Latin, but whether these people joined the church/remained Catholic because of it is a topic of debate.

I'm of the opinion the changes V2 made on paper were theoretically fine even if I don't like them, but the practices and realpolitik of the church afterwards have gone through a marked change. Of course, I didn't live before and after V2, so I can't say for certain this is the case.

I think that priests and laity need to stress the primacy of the Catholic faith again rather than compromising with other religions. That's not to say be an asshole who damns every non-Catholic to hell, but nodding your head and seeing other religions as valid alternatives to the church has got to go (Note this very rarely is actually said, word for word, but by not doing due diligence in proselytizing, it's pretty much the same effect.). We have a faith in Christ and by extension the church he founded, and we need to remember the central role Jesus should play in our lives.

While I'm not entirely familiar with the specific tenants, it coincided with a shift of attitudes in the Church. John Paul II most famously demonstrated this shift, although Francis is now gunning for the top spot. The church has recently tried to become more approachable, in hopes of increased attendance. Look at Francis, and his carefully tailored quotes, made to be easily put in a headline that will get a ton of retweets and upvotes.

The thing is, anyone who is attracted to the most "popular" version of the Church isn't going to attend anyway, and you risk alienating the more devout.

>Arabic holding such a privileged, almost sacred, place above all other languages is why I'd never become a Muslim (along with other reasons).
Very ancedotal. Besides these other reasons potentially being vast to the point where your conversion to islam is such an impossibility is disingenuous for you act as though it's on the table of possibility, obvious a large swath of the world has no problem with Arabic being the sacred language in Islam.

The Catholic Church quite blatantly changed its teachings on ecumenism, religious liberty, and salvation outside the church. Before it was taught in infallible ecumenical councils (Trent, Florence) that all men *must* be submitted to the Roman Pontiff or else they can't be saved, but now it teaches that non Catholics can be saved in their non Catholic religions. Men had no right to religious liberty before, but now they do. Also it is in contradiction to the previous doctrine on the Church's ecclesiology, its view of itself as a church. Vatican II introduced this idea of "partial communion" with schismastic and heretical sects, a concept totally at odds with church teaching prior to Vatican II.

Not that this matters, the Church is always changing its teachings on matters of faith and morals. Slavery sued to be moral, but now it's considered an intrinsic evil. The Church used to actively condemn usury as a mortal sin and yet now this sin has apparently disappeared and no modern bishop, priest, or pope would call it a sin to lend money at interest when the Church has traditionally taught that it is a grave sin.

The rabbit hole goes deep: www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com

In theory: No
In practice: Yes

>The thing is, anyone who is attracted to the most "popular" version of the Church isn't going to attend anyway, and you risk alienating the more devout.
This holds far more than people realize. Liberal denominations like Methodists, ELCA and most famously the Episcopal Churcj are actually losing attendance, while more morally conservative denominations like SBC and mainline conservative Evangelicals are actually growing. Turns out, if you try to water things down to draw in more people, all you end up doing is making people wonder "gee if morality isn't even a big deal then what am I doing at this glorified social club? Why do I even need God if gay is OK?"

I'm hoping that the Orthodox Church (I converted, yeah yeah byzaboo wannabe SLAV I've heard it all before) maintains its stances too, but the news from the Catholic Church and the Pope worries me. I hope it doesn't become a trend.

>The rabbit hole goes deep: www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com
Thanks for the link, reddit.

Thank you kind stranger for the (you)!

Academically, I'd say that the "no salvation outside the church" is difficult to define, and beliefs on that have swung back and forth throughout time. There's always arguments such as "people in this remote part of the world are going to hell despite never having contact with the church" and "this man was completely pious but not a Catholic," which date back to the earliest days.

The church's current teaching on the matter is the it's ultimately up to God to decide the merit of a man to arrive into heaven. If a man piously serves for the good of all, yet is never actively convinced by the devout to join the church, is it the fault of his own or the fault of the one attempting to convert him?

Being made up of such a large dominion, the Catholic church throughout history has swayed back and forth on issues throughout time, which is only natural since the stock of clergy is only as good as the stock of people its drawn from. I can only say that it's survived worse things in history and will probably swing back to a more traditionalist structure as time goes on.

If a cathedral in Rome can survive being turned into a whorehouse for a few decades and centuries of monarchs attempting to get their family in the seat of Rome, I think it can survive a few fools assaulting it with liberal modernity.

The problem isn't so much who gets into heaven or Hell. Christianity as most people understood it emphases Christ saying "No one gets to the Father, except through me" and "Spread my message throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Whether or not this HAD to lead to a religion which was confident in it's superiority over others is debatable. But the fact of the matter is that it did. And if the Church considered itself the proper keys to Heaven, it stands to reason the church is what leads people to salvation. Now other traditionalist, right wing religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism don't suffer from this issue because despite claiming to be correct, their metaphysics by default say it's better for people to just practice the religion they were born with and that all religions can lead to God. Christianity (especially in the secular West which is already hostile to the concepts of God) doesn't have that ability without falling apart.

You could easily reconcile Christianity with perennial traditionalism but only in a metaphysical and spiritual sense. Not by unsure of yourself and worrying more about liberal equality and Political correctness than the the substances of religions than themselves.

was vatican ii windows vista or windows XP?

Probably not, because the Vatican II made the Church into something completely pedestrian. Why waste your time praying at a big fancy church giving donations to the clergy when they've made themselves out to be completely normal and equal with you. A big part of the mystique of religion is that being a part of it makes you a part of something much bigger than yourself, something larger than you can even imagine. The Vatican II completely crushed that, and thus became redundant.

>Turns out, if you try to water things down to draw in more people, all you end up doing is making people wonder "gee if morality isn't even a big deal then what am I doing at this glorified social club?
This is so true. I'm sorry for making a pleb connection, but it is the same thing that happens with video game series, or shows or whatever. The person saying "We're going for a wider audience" is naive, since not only will it not attract that wider audience (since anyone who was actually interested in the product would have tried out the product when it wasn't tailored to the general public), but it will also disillusion the original fans, thus resulting in a net decrease of patrons to that product.

>Why waste your time praying at a big fancy church giving donations to the clergy

thes are both still obligations for catholics or else they go to hell

>they've made themselves out to be completely normal and equal with you.

you're talking out your arse m8. just because they don't wear 30ft long silk capes any more, they still lord their ontological superiority over the laity, demand special privileges for their beliefs in the public square, and demand from their flock money and intellectual submission.

This so much.

>thes are both still obligations for catholics or else they go to hell

But in the words of Pope Commie Francis. "Who am I to judge?"

I've always wondered why Latin. Did Jesus speak Latin? Did Peter? Did Paul or John? How do you justify any kind of ecclesiastical language? Does God only hear prayers in Latin? And why have the service in Latin when 99.5% of people can't even understand it?

Yeah nah m8, Popey francis himself said gays, athiests, Muslims, etc can all still go to Heaven, they just have to be ""good people"".
Being Catholic has lost all its meaning, all its exclusivity and uniqueness.
>they still lord their ontological superiority over the laity, demand special privileges for their beliefs in the public square
Bull fucking shit, you're not Catholic at all. The fucking priest at the church I went to when I was in high school was constantly trying to be "relatable", making a bunch of modern, egalitarian liberal connections to the Scripture. Not to mention the God-awful christian rock bullshit they played during mass. Don't talk shit about shit you don't know about.
>inb4 Hurr just go to a different Church
Catholicism is not a Free Market. Any church perverting the faith is perverting potentially good Catholics.

The ecclesiastical Latin is already translated (and thus already changed) from the original writings in Greek and Hebrew. Thus there must be an official language with which to prevent any further distortion and misinterpretation of the Scripture

The answer is stfu and stop asking questions heretic.

Why not use greek and hebrew? Nobody understands latin anyway, at least some people understand greek and hebrew in 2017.

Then why not only speak in Greek and Hebrew? Why distort it and then claim this is the last time we are distorting it?

You're right, I'm not Catholic anymore but I can't get my name removed from the roll because they use the numbers to put political pressure on politicians in my country.

You don't understand how the Catholic church works, off cuff statements from the pope don't hold the teaching authority of his magisterium. The precepts of the church are still in effect. Catholics still have to pay money and go to mass every sunday a year or else they go to hell.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P75.HTM

The church changed its teaching on who can go to heaven at Vatican II, Francis changed nothing except for now divorced and remarried people can recieve communion when before that was a sin.

I find this ironic considering nobles divorced all the time in the middle ages and no one said anything about them receiving communion.

Yes, the church has always changed its teachings on marriage and allowind dispensation for divorces but conservative Catholics are freaking out right now, they could potentially break off to form their own schismatic sect led by Cardinal Burke.

>So far it's only succeeded in the opposite.
this

There are situations wherein the church will grant a divorce, and the bar is pretty easy to clear.

His Holiness Pious XIII was right about everything. Voiello deserves a bullet.

>I've always wondered why Latin.
First you need to get out of the mindset that Christianity is exclusively a creation of Jews. Western Christianity has a certain Latin spirit and character to it which is expressed through the language it was translated into. Language being one of the most important windows to uunderstanding of the world.

Because Latin was the Bee's Knees back then

That's fair, but what about what I said about the degradation of Church teachings in Mass? I should clarify also that the shitty, "trendy" sermons were not only found in that specific church, but also in basically all the other regular masses I've visited

Is Latin a culture or a language? How can a language impart spirit and character? Latin != Roman.

>How can a language impart spirit and character?
Easily. Take the Romance languages and how the divide the world between masculine and feminine. You'll have a much different outlook than speaking English your whole life.

afaik language does structure your brain and plays a major role in its development

What was thought of then as usury would be more akin to loansharking today, which is indeed illegal.

It's not a divorce, it's an annulment. They may seem like the same thing at first glance, but they're not. An annulment is the dissolution of the Sacrament of Marriage. Only the Church, which performs all valid marriages, can undo a marriage, as per Jesus' proclamation that "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven."

Someone who divorces, enters into a second marriage, and has sex without receiving an annulment is still gravely sinful, and cannot receive the Sacraments.

Lol that's quite a stretch, to extrapolate such power and authority on marriage and nuptials from a broad and mystic utterance of a virgin Judean peasant

No, not as much as they claim. The documents can be interpreted in accord to tradition, even though theyre not binding. What changed was that it gave wiggleroom for modernists in the church.

Yeah I agree. Lutheran churchs did the same thing about 10 years earlier by 'modernising' but look at the disaster that became. One concession led to another and it turns out making concessions to liberals and critics doesn't make them interested in going to church it just makes people who were going to church not go or think they dont have to take it seriously.

Protestant nations are all the secular ones now and modernist leadership is to blame 100%.

I say this as a lutheran btw.

The Sedavacantists if they are wrong about VII atleast made such a reaction the Catholic church wont dare to push even more reforms which is a good thing.

>Is Latin a culture or a language? How can a language impart spirit and character? Latin != Roman.

woops didthat on accident

If you believe the contrary you're either ignorant or dumb

Yes, it changed many things. It managed to get the Church out of its "retard corner" it had been in for centuries; it booster the Catholic Church's popularity (albeit briefly); and made so that it could be ensured against Italy swooping in and assrape it to death in case of vocal disagreement.

>It managed to get the Church out of its "retard corner" it had been in for centuries;
Memes

> it booster the Catholic Church's popularity
Worthless, see above

> made so that it could be ensured against Italy swooping in and assrape it to death in case of vocal disagreement.
That was the Lateran Pacts.

Pre-Vat II Church:
>"Heliocentrism is heresy! Gravity is heresy! Non-aristotelian science is heresy! Feudalism only sacred goverment! No capitalism, no jacobinism, no Enlightment!"
>"Street lamps are bad, they pervert God's will!"
>Pope is suddenly infallible in matters of faith when in cathedra only since the XIXth century.

Menestrello. Sure.

Holy shit, I've never seen so much fedora in one post.

If churches actually followed the ordinary mass to the letter as described in vat II (did you know it recommends Gregorian chant as the preferred form of music during mass) very few people would complain. On paper Vat II is fine.

So your saying it started living up to its own principles after Vactican II?