Whenever I read anybody, and I mean anybody, use Vatican II to defend a theological point, I immediately stop reading or listening and move on to something else, because it is a waste of time to do otherwise. I have seen people on both sides of the SAME ISSUE use block quotes to make their case like it's open and shut. So funny your first two points about whether Vatican II is a break with tradition or isn't a break with tradition.
I've come around to the point that eventually, since VII didn't say turn the altars around or take communion on the hand, etc. etc. that there will be explicit clarifications undoing the worst aspects of VII, but there will never be a full rejection of VII like the traditionalists want; the implications of that are to hard to swallow for institutionalists.
i was consoled by this (i think you are the only one!) but then saw u r orthodox? i guess everyone who comes eye to eye with this picture is already outside? were you catholic before?
I was a lifelong Catholic until a few months ago. (My most recent essay was on this.) I guess I fit into the trad camp. But the categorizations you make in this piece are word for word things my husband and I have said about the various camps in the Church.
Please don’t be discouraged. There’s a sense in which it isn’t my problem anymore but I do want good things for the Catholic Church and my Catholic friends and family. I agree with you about the situation the Church finds herself in. My conversion both did and didn’t have to do with that. I think it is not ignoble—and maybe very noble!—to remain a traditional Catholic. That’s just a question for every man’s conscience.
thanks for the encouragement! i am pleased im not the only one to think these things i guess. one encounters a lot of spiritual abuse for simply trying to think critically about the contradictions of this time. and this discourages me some but i am thankful to live in this time where the truth is more clearly seen and i hope some good will come from it. im also thankful for hte graces of conversion to the catholic faith! i do love the latin church and latin saints, im not sure where it is right now exactly or what is going on, but it would be hard for me to make the sort of verbal renounciations i think one has to make to become orthodox, which in some ways i can see how it might be a more spiritually healthy option.
Please forgive me for interrupting. There are some differences between the Catholic faitth and the Orthodox faith.
Dogmatic (more precisely: specifically regarding the stated dogmas) differences that the Orthodox Church asserts against the Catholic Church:
– Mary was not conceived immaculately, that is, Mary was born in original sin. (Mariology);
– There is no purgatory. (Eschatology);
– There is no special judgment. (Eschatology);
– The Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father, that is, not from the Father and the Son (Filioque). (Pneumatology, Trinitarianism);
– The Church has no visible head, only an invisible one: Jesus Christ. (Ecclesiology);
– There is no papal infallibility (not even regarding “ex cathedra” declarations). (Ecclesiology);
– The Pope has no primacy of jurisdiction derived from Christ, neither over the individual faithful, nor over the individual bishops, nor over the body of bishops (at most an honorary primacy on the basis of “primus inter pares”). (Ecclesiology);
– The ecumenical council is superior to the Pope. (Ecclesiology);
– The words essentially necessary for conversion are not the founding verbs (“This is my body.” / “This is my blood or the chalice of my blood.”), but the invocation of the soul, the so-called epiclesis, or both together. (Sacramentology);
– Priestly ordination does not imprint an indelible stamp on the soul (character indelebilis), so a priest deprived of his office also ceases to be a priest. (Sacramentology);
– For the validity of confession, it is not necessary for the priest to have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction. (Sacramentology);
– The ordinary minister of confirmation is the priest of communion, that is, the confirmation of the priest of communion cannot be tied to the permission of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, because the priest holds both the “munus” and the “potestas” for the valid and lawful administration of the sacrament. (Sacramentology);
– MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVABLE, and not only in the case of adultery. (This is especially funny when we consider that even the successive polygamy permitted by the Apostle was once rejected, branded as “indecent fornication.”) (Sacramentology);
– The sacrament of marriage is administered by the priest, and not by the spouses to each other, and the essential part of marriage is not consent (consensus), but by the priestly blessing. (Sacramentology);
– The permitted means of birth control is direct contraception.
And in addition to this, there are numerous other minor and major differences, but these do not directly affect de fide propositions.
Well, for the record, I didn’t have to renounce anything, but you do have to affirm earnestly the belief that the Orthodox Church has kept the faith in a way no other church has, and I wouldn’t encourage anyone to affirm that without believing it.
Your analysis of the situation is perfect. However: Jesus tells his disciples about the Pharisees that follow their teachings (=orthos doxa), but don't follow their actions (hetero praxis). The pastoral council smuggled heterodoxy in as heteropraxis. Jesus warned against this very thing, that in heteropraxis we cannot follow authority, because it leads to heterodoxy. It happened, and so we have few valid priests and holy sacrifices, a rare sacramental life and a lot of prayer. The struggling church is a small flock, but it belongs to Jesus. The church of Davos belongs to the antichrist. The valid holy sacrifice of the mass can only hinder it, so that it can deceive even more souls and push them into damnation. As St. Athanasius said, theirs are the temples, but ours is the true faith. We are all in the cenakulum now...
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit of the true faith are with you, brother
Interesting analysis. I encountered liberal Catholicism and could not handle it. I have trad sympathies but identify as a conservative. The key figure seems to be St. John Henry Newman and his understanding of genuine development. Liberals use gymnastics to justify their positions; Trads seem to have to deny any doctrinal development. Conservatives can embrace Trads into a communio understanding of the church. Trads can understand themselves like a new religious movement within the harmony of one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. That seems to have both intellectual and political integrity for the witness of the church as liberal society aims its polemic at historically orthodox faithful. JPII saved Vatican II for me by insisting on a Christological reading of the Council.
Yes and no. I do hear your point. Pope Francis attacked “conservatives,” dismissed “trads” in direct opposition to Benedict XVI, and spoke ambiguously about those other points — including within an encyclical. Yet he never officially enshrined his personal positions within church teachings — and some would always come afterwards to clear up his ambiguities — and he never formally interpreted Vatican II as did St. JPII and BXVI. He never spoke ex cathedra. A priest I know called him a “slow liberal” — wanting to institute liberal reforms through increments. So if Francis read Vatican II according to its “spirit” (sigh), he never overturned its teachings — except in his anti-trad and Latin attack on the Latin Mass. Then again, I have not read Francis on Vatican II as I did St JP II and Benedict XVI.
If Catholicity really matters, and can happen only in Jesus Christ, then conservatives and trads really need to embrace each other as legitimate “communions in communion” under the chair of St. Peter. I think that this was the genius of Benedict XVI and St. JPII. I have never found evidence that Pope Francis ever read anything carefully and closely — but reacted impulsively out of his personal history.
Again, right now Leo XIV has incorporated emphases of Francis very well while removing the ambiguities. He has adopted, ironically, a hermeneutic of continuity. His installment of the head of the JP II Institute on Family and Marriage in Rome shows that he plans to play by the rules, rather than make them up as Francis was prone to do.
What will the church do with the papacy of Francis over time? I’m not sure but I know that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and church-type fellowships, need the bishop of Rome to display an unapologetic hermeneutic of continuity. If the next generations cannot do that, then indeed the jig is up.
I hope deeper commitments can overcome the sociological realities that you so finely analyze in your post.
yes he did he ordinary magesterium is official teaching. the abu Dhabi statement, catechism change, blessing of sodomite couples, its all apart of ordinary magesterium that is binding on tbe faithful.
and I am still a sede. I don't want much - just a Catholic Pope. There is no other kind of Pope.
Whenever I read anybody, and I mean anybody, use Vatican II to defend a theological point, I immediately stop reading or listening and move on to something else, because it is a waste of time to do otherwise. I have seen people on both sides of the SAME ISSUE use block quotes to make their case like it's open and shut. So funny your first two points about whether Vatican II is a break with tradition or isn't a break with tradition.
yes you can def quote both sides. thats the point. its intentional ambiguity.
I've come around to the point that eventually, since VII didn't say turn the altars around or take communion on the hand, etc. etc. that there will be explicit clarifications undoing the worst aspects of VII, but there will never be a full rejection of VII like the traditionalists want; the implications of that are to hard to swallow for institutionalists.
Topical https://www.ordo-militaris.net/2023/09/09/the-real-rene-lefebvre-the-untold-story/
In my humble opinion, this is spot-on.
thanks!
i was consoled by this (i think you are the only one!) but then saw u r orthodox? i guess everyone who comes eye to eye with this picture is already outside? were you catholic before?
I was a lifelong Catholic until a few months ago. (My most recent essay was on this.) I guess I fit into the trad camp. But the categorizations you make in this piece are word for word things my husband and I have said about the various camps in the Church.
Please don’t be discouraged. There’s a sense in which it isn’t my problem anymore but I do want good things for the Catholic Church and my Catholic friends and family. I agree with you about the situation the Church finds herself in. My conversion both did and didn’t have to do with that. I think it is not ignoble—and maybe very noble!—to remain a traditional Catholic. That’s just a question for every man’s conscience.
thanks for the encouragement! i am pleased im not the only one to think these things i guess. one encounters a lot of spiritual abuse for simply trying to think critically about the contradictions of this time. and this discourages me some but i am thankful to live in this time where the truth is more clearly seen and i hope some good will come from it. im also thankful for hte graces of conversion to the catholic faith! i do love the latin church and latin saints, im not sure where it is right now exactly or what is going on, but it would be hard for me to make the sort of verbal renounciations i think one has to make to become orthodox, which in some ways i can see how it might be a more spiritually healthy option.
Please forgive me for interrupting. There are some differences between the Catholic faitth and the Orthodox faith.
Dogmatic (more precisely: specifically regarding the stated dogmas) differences that the Orthodox Church asserts against the Catholic Church:
– Mary was not conceived immaculately, that is, Mary was born in original sin. (Mariology);
– There is no purgatory. (Eschatology);
– There is no special judgment. (Eschatology);
– The Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father, that is, not from the Father and the Son (Filioque). (Pneumatology, Trinitarianism);
– The Church has no visible head, only an invisible one: Jesus Christ. (Ecclesiology);
– There is no papal infallibility (not even regarding “ex cathedra” declarations). (Ecclesiology);
– The Pope has no primacy of jurisdiction derived from Christ, neither over the individual faithful, nor over the individual bishops, nor over the body of bishops (at most an honorary primacy on the basis of “primus inter pares”). (Ecclesiology);
– The ecumenical council is superior to the Pope. (Ecclesiology);
– The words essentially necessary for conversion are not the founding verbs (“This is my body.” / “This is my blood or the chalice of my blood.”), but the invocation of the soul, the so-called epiclesis, or both together. (Sacramentology);
– Priestly ordination does not imprint an indelible stamp on the soul (character indelebilis), so a priest deprived of his office also ceases to be a priest. (Sacramentology);
– For the validity of confession, it is not necessary for the priest to have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction. (Sacramentology);
– The ordinary minister of confirmation is the priest of communion, that is, the confirmation of the priest of communion cannot be tied to the permission of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, because the priest holds both the “munus” and the “potestas” for the valid and lawful administration of the sacrament. (Sacramentology);
– MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVABLE, and not only in the case of adultery. (This is especially funny when we consider that even the successive polygamy permitted by the Apostle was once rejected, branded as “indecent fornication.”) (Sacramentology);
– The sacrament of marriage is administered by the priest, and not by the spouses to each other, and the essential part of marriage is not consent (consensus), but by the priestly blessing. (Sacramentology);
– The permitted means of birth control is direct contraception.
And in addition to this, there are numerous other minor and major differences, but these do not directly affect de fide propositions.
right! thanks for reading and this helpful comment. i agree with the rcc on all these. excellent work.
Well, for the record, I didn’t have to renounce anything, but you do have to affirm earnestly the belief that the Orthodox Church has kept the faith in a way no other church has, and I wouldn’t encourage anyone to affirm that without believing it.
Your analysis of the situation is perfect. However: Jesus tells his disciples about the Pharisees that follow their teachings (=orthos doxa), but don't follow their actions (hetero praxis). The pastoral council smuggled heterodoxy in as heteropraxis. Jesus warned against this very thing, that in heteropraxis we cannot follow authority, because it leads to heterodoxy. It happened, and so we have few valid priests and holy sacrifices, a rare sacramental life and a lot of prayer. The struggling church is a small flock, but it belongs to Jesus. The church of Davos belongs to the antichrist. The valid holy sacrifice of the mass can only hinder it, so that it can deceive even more souls and push them into damnation. As St. Athanasius said, theirs are the temples, but ours is the true faith. We are all in the cenakulum now...
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit of the true faith are with you, brother
thanks!
Interesting analysis. I encountered liberal Catholicism and could not handle it. I have trad sympathies but identify as a conservative. The key figure seems to be St. John Henry Newman and his understanding of genuine development. Liberals use gymnastics to justify their positions; Trads seem to have to deny any doctrinal development. Conservatives can embrace Trads into a communio understanding of the church. Trads can understand themselves like a new religious movement within the harmony of one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church. That seems to have both intellectual and political integrity for the witness of the church as liberal society aims its polemic at historically orthodox faithful. JPII saved Vatican II for me by insisting on a Christological reading of the Council.
but my point is that on other religions, sodomy, death penalty with pope francis its obviously not continuity. so the jig is up.
Yes and no. I do hear your point. Pope Francis attacked “conservatives,” dismissed “trads” in direct opposition to Benedict XVI, and spoke ambiguously about those other points — including within an encyclical. Yet he never officially enshrined his personal positions within church teachings — and some would always come afterwards to clear up his ambiguities — and he never formally interpreted Vatican II as did St. JPII and BXVI. He never spoke ex cathedra. A priest I know called him a “slow liberal” — wanting to institute liberal reforms through increments. So if Francis read Vatican II according to its “spirit” (sigh), he never overturned its teachings — except in his anti-trad and Latin attack on the Latin Mass. Then again, I have not read Francis on Vatican II as I did St JP II and Benedict XVI.
If Catholicity really matters, and can happen only in Jesus Christ, then conservatives and trads really need to embrace each other as legitimate “communions in communion” under the chair of St. Peter. I think that this was the genius of Benedict XVI and St. JPII. I have never found evidence that Pope Francis ever read anything carefully and closely — but reacted impulsively out of his personal history.
Again, right now Leo XIV has incorporated emphases of Francis very well while removing the ambiguities. He has adopted, ironically, a hermeneutic of continuity. His installment of the head of the JP II Institute on Family and Marriage in Rome shows that he plans to play by the rules, rather than make them up as Francis was prone to do.
What will the church do with the papacy of Francis over time? I’m not sure but I know that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and church-type fellowships, need the bishop of Rome to display an unapologetic hermeneutic of continuity. If the next generations cannot do that, then indeed the jig is up.
I hope deeper commitments can overcome the sociological realities that you so finely analyze in your post.
Too many buzzwords, just smell the coffee.
Regular old thugs and drug traffickers and blackmail rings etc.
https://www.ordo-militaris.net/2025/01/29/pope-john-paul-ii-accused-of-victimizing-emanuela-orlandi-news-and-analysis/
yes he did he ordinary magesterium is official teaching. the abu Dhabi statement, catechism change, blessing of sodomite couples, its all apart of ordinary magesterium that is binding on tbe faithful.