Here's the thing: Vatican II did not change any Catholic teaching. The primary purpose of the Council was to make Catholic teaching more accessible to the public, and initiate a new evangelization age for the Church. Unfortunately, after the Council, many people took it to "Let's throw out everything traditional from the Church and call it the 'Spirit of Vatican II'!" Honestly, the major issue with Vatican II was not what it taught, but what happened after - which had more to do with it happening right as a spirit of rebellion was brewing in the West. So-called "reformers" used the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" to justify liturgical abuses.
I actually was going to call in to Catholic Answers and say that there should be more focus on the Orthodox vs. Sedevacantist vs SSPX vs. Faithful V II supporters debates. It’s a messy field asking what did the Church historically teach? What was fallible and infallible? Is V II in union with tradition? Does it teach things contrary to infallible doctrine? Questions around Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus? Questions about Religious Liberty? Is V II merely pastoral? Are canonizations infallible? It’s very hard to figure out what God wants, and I would like to see CA apologists weigh in, and debunk false opinions.
Thank God for existing Catholic Answer.. i'm a cradle catholic and was feeling so lost since i came across of the non catholic doctrines and assaults out there, and lacking to structure my response until i got to know this channel. I praise the Lord for your ministry. I wich there could be a translation or other language translation of such great video or broadcast in order to strengthen our faith. Thank you guys and keep up with this great job. God bless you abundantly !!
A Catholic has to believe that the Pope and Magistarium of the Church are infallible in matters of the faith and moral teachings. By rejecting any article of faith you are saying that the Pope and Magistarium of the Church are not infallible which in itself is a rejection of that authority. It's like this a person saying that they are Catholic but they don't agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches is that person truly a Catholic or are they really a Non-Catholic Christian? If a person saying that they are a Catholic doesn't believe that the Holy Eucharist is the true presence of our Lord is that person truly a Catholic? I heard the explanation that there are those who are Catholic in body but not in spirit but that itself is an oxymoron thing to say for how can the body live without the spirit? I think the Bishops need to strait out explain what it means to be a Catholic if they don't agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches.
Some con-V2 arguments seem to be very sophisticated to those not well-informed enough (like myself, though I would not reject the council), so it would be interesting to see a follow-up episode of responses to some of the best of these arguments.
I was happy to see this topic discussed. I know from experience in our local Parish that this was a very grave problem. A priest had arrived that in short seemed very much against any teachings of Vatican II. The story is long. In short the parishioners became divided to the point where many of left the Parish. His “followers” were at the point where they referred to anyone who accepted the post Vatican II Mass as “Luke warm Catholics”. I personally on behalf of myself and others made request of this priest to have at least one Mass on the weekend celebrated in the vernacular. This did not happen. In conclusion it is very disheartening to see division in the Church. See the development that some Catholics start looking down on others as being less reverent and less of a Catholic based on which Mass your prefer. There is room for both. And we should recognize the validity of both. Again thank you for brining up this topic and I hope to hear more on this topic in the future.
The rejection of Church Councils is not a new phenomena. The modernists, including many priests and bishops, have been rejecting Trent for 60 years now (not to mention writings like Humanae Vitae). How about we focus on that as a starting point because mark my words, you would not have all this V2 discussion if the clergy followed Trent in the first place. Its funny to me how one fifth (my guess) of clergy are unfaithful to Trent yet CA and many other Catholic Media types spend their energy focusing on the evil "rad trads" who reject or attack V2. Lets get our priorities straight. The entire country of German is in open revolt right now, and many others will follow. Lets not re arrange deck chairs on the Titanic
V2 is in defense right now to bring in the one world government and one world religion. Islam hates Catholics. Just look at most Islamic states. We are beneath them. But their are our Pope's showing respect as though they pray to the same God.
Do you mean Patrick Coffin? I know that he has his own podcast. From the few of his own shows I've watched he likes to interview all kinds of different people, and not necessarily from the religious world. He may touch on a few Catholic points, but it's not always the subject of his show. If I remember correctly (and I don't know what show it was from), he had a sore spot for Pope Francis, and said things to the effect of, "I can't defend this Pope any longer." Maybe that led to him leaving CA or EWTN.
I dunno...but it seems to me that the most dangerous threat to the Catholic Church is Protestantism. That's the whole reason we have all of these liturgical abuses and unorthodoxy.
@@dangelotringali7527 No, Ephesus and Chalcedon are in complete continuity. Ephesus corrected Nestorianism which split Christ into two persons. Chalcedon corrected the error of the monophysites which blended Christ's two natures together.
@@josephmiller3672 No Ephesus established the Dogma of Miaphysitism, while Chalcedon contradicted that dogma and made up the heresy of Diophysitism, which said Christ had two nature's are split, and with different wills. They did this while simultaneously saying the Oriental Orthodox Church's were Monophysite when In fact they had been the original one's to condemn Monophysitism by instituting the Dogma of Myiaphysitism see St. Cyril's 45 letter.
I think more laity wouldn't doubt second Vatican 2 if the Catholic Church wasn't in so many scandals, flying Pride flags, and clearly seeing some Fathers subverting the teachings. To ignore these statements above is to ignore God's children, and poor shepherding.
But V2 has nothing to do with those abuses. Certain perceptions of the council (like that tired, "spirit of Vatican II") have a lot to do with them, but the actual declarations do not.
@@richardgreene6810 V2 most certainly does. And those are just a few examples. Pope John praying with world religious leaders in the prayer day is heresy. Kissing the Koran is heresy. I could go on but have all day for examples. The only thing holding this farce together is fear mongering about going to he'll, dictates, and propaganda from certain members of the church and organizations like Catholic Anwers and Bishop Baron. V2 most certainly has caused division, apostety, and confusion. Not sure God is the author of that.
@@derekbaker4942 I'd believe you if you showed me where in Vatican II documents that it says the Pope is supposed to kiss the Koran or pray to Mohammed. Can you cite for me a declaration of this from V2?
@@richardgreene6810 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964 “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” This is a lie according to the Bible and Muslims DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD! And this lead to the kissing of the Koran. The spirt of V2 is evil. Any Pope prior to the last 120 years would reject this from V2. What you cannot accept is that evil has over taken the leadership and you look to legalism to reduce and ignore most of my concerns. Yes yes. But I doesn't say directly to kiss the Koran. I know the ridiculous legalism. Any teaching that clearly contradicts scripture is not binding to the faithful.
@@derekbaker4942 The Bible says that it is a lie that there is the one merciful Creator who is mankind’s judge on the last day? I don’t think so. I think you are mixing the idea of legalism with the idea of evidence. Your not having evidence does not mean that I am being legalistic. I do accept that there is evil knocking at the door of our beloved Church. I abhor the liturgical abuses like you do. I too get disgusted by the wayward messaging created by so-called representatives of the Catholic faith. I believe we are scarred by a 5-decade-long lack of quality catechesis. And I know that many who actively commit these careless abuses and frivolous unorthodoxy often cite “the spirit of Vatican II” as their charge. But they can keep saying that until the cows come home, because it ain’t there in the council, my friend. If Jesus left us at Vatican II you would know if there was anything decreed which opposes earlier councils. And if you read the documents and declarations you will not find anything in opposition.
There are two Church councils that the apostate Catholic Church used to come up with that created the mythical triune deity. As A Catholic Dictionary says: “The third Person [of the trinity] was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362…and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381.” Some Catholics openly say that the trinity doctrine is unscriptural. For instance, trinitarian theologian, Edmond Fortman, said: "[The Old Testament] tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus."
Here's the thing: Vatican II did not change any Catholic teaching. The primary purpose of the Council was to make Catholic teaching more accessible to the public, and initiate a new evangelization age for the Church. Unfortunately, after the Council, many people took it to "Let's throw out everything traditional from the Church and call it the 'Spirit of Vatican II'!" Honestly, the major issue with Vatican II was not what it taught, but what happened after - which had more to do with it happening right as a spirit of rebellion was brewing in the West. So-called "reformers" used the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" to justify liturgical abuses.
Loved this, thank you!
Once again an amazing episode
Thank you so much for a great explanation!!
I actually was going to call in to Catholic Answers and say that there should be more focus on the Orthodox vs. Sedevacantist vs SSPX vs. Faithful V II supporters debates. It’s a messy field asking what did the Church historically teach? What was fallible and infallible? Is V II in union with tradition? Does it teach things contrary to infallible doctrine? Questions around Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus? Questions about Religious Liberty? Is V II merely pastoral? Are canonizations infallible? It’s very hard to figure out what God wants, and I would like to see CA apologists weigh in, and debunk false opinions.
Thank God for existing Catholic Answer.. i'm a cradle catholic and was feeling so lost since i came across of the non catholic doctrines and assaults out there, and lacking to structure my response until i got to know this channel. I praise the Lord for your ministry. I wich there could be a translation or other language translation of such great video or broadcast in order to strengthen our faith. Thank you guys and keep up with this great job. God bless you abundantly !!
A Catholic has to believe that the Pope and Magistarium of the Church are infallible in matters of the faith and moral teachings. By rejecting any article of faith you are saying that the Pope and Magistarium of the Church are not infallible which in itself is a rejection of that authority. It's like this a person saying that they are Catholic but they don't agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches is that person truly a Catholic or are they really a Non-Catholic Christian? If a person saying that they are a Catholic doesn't believe that the Holy Eucharist is the true presence of our Lord is that person truly a Catholic? I heard the explanation that there are those who are Catholic in body but not in spirit but that itself is an oxymoron thing to say for how can the body live without the spirit? I think the Bishops need to strait out explain what it means to be a Catholic if they don't agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches.
Infallible in matters of faith and morals under certain specific conditions which are laid out in the First Vatican Council.
Vatican II opened the door to the Catholic Church for me.
Catholic Answers where does the SSPX reject that the Vatican II Council is invalid?
Some con-V2 arguments seem to be very sophisticated to those not well-informed enough (like myself, though I would not reject the council), so it would be interesting to see a follow-up episode of responses to some of the best of these arguments.
Great video! Thanks!
Thanks for adding some clarity to an apparently very divisive issue.
Is this the same Tim Staples who was hammered in a debate with James White?
Great info.
I was happy to see this topic discussed. I know from experience in our local Parish that this was a very grave problem. A priest had arrived that in short seemed very much against any teachings of Vatican II. The story is long. In short the parishioners became divided to the point where many of left the Parish. His “followers” were at the point where they referred to anyone who accepted the post Vatican II Mass as “Luke warm Catholics”. I personally on behalf of myself and others made request of this priest to have at least one Mass on the weekend celebrated in the vernacular. This did not happen.
In conclusion it is very disheartening to see division in the Church. See the development that some Catholics start looking down on others as being less reverent and less of a Catholic based on which Mass your prefer. There is room for both. And we should recognize the validity of both.
Again thank you for brining up this topic and I hope to hear more on this topic in the future.
The rejection of Church Councils is not a new phenomena. The modernists, including many priests and bishops, have been rejecting Trent for 60 years now (not to mention writings like Humanae Vitae). How about we focus on that as a starting point because mark my words, you would not have all this V2 discussion if the clergy followed Trent in the first place.
Its funny to me how one fifth (my guess) of clergy are unfaithful to Trent yet CA and many other Catholic Media types spend their energy focusing on the evil "rad trads" who reject or attack V2. Lets get our priorities straight. The entire country of German is in open revolt right now, and many others will follow. Lets not re arrange deck chairs on the Titanic
V2 is in defense right now to bring in the one world government and one world religion. Islam hates Catholics. Just look at most Islamic states. We are beneath them. But their are our Pope's showing respect as though they pray to the same God.
Michael Lofton & Nuances are smelling here !
...... What happened to Frank Coffin? He resigned, or has he been behind the scenes since recently?
Do you mean Patrick Coffin? I know that he has his own podcast. From the few of his own shows I've watched he likes to interview all kinds of different people, and not necessarily from the religious world. He may touch on a few Catholic points, but it's not always the subject of his show. If I remember correctly (and I don't know what show it was from), he had a sore spot for Pope Francis, and said things to the effect of, "I can't defend this Pope any longer." Maybe that led to him leaving CA or EWTN.
Anyone else excited to attend Mass in person again this Sunday? Been over a year, guess religious rights don't matter to some legislators.
Thank God my State wasn't this way. I have been attending every Sunday for a little over a year now.
It is not the first time. Councils have over turned decisions of previous Councils. It is a difficult argument you make in light of this.
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church not talk about the dangers of Islam and it’s strategy to covert Christians.
I dunno...but it seems to me that the most dangerous threat to the Catholic Church is Protestantism. That's the whole reason we have all of these liturgical abuses and unorthodoxy.
Really? Is that really true, because the Catholic Church really avoids Ephesus. I'm an Oriental Orthodox here.
Dude, what do you even mean? The Church does not avoid Ephesus.
@@josephmiller3672 Yes it does because Ephesus contradicts Chalcedon.
@@dangelotringali7527 No, Ephesus and Chalcedon are in complete continuity. Ephesus corrected Nestorianism which split Christ into two persons. Chalcedon corrected the error of the monophysites which blended Christ's two natures together.
@@josephmiller3672 No Ephesus established the Dogma of Miaphysitism, while Chalcedon contradicted that dogma and made up the heresy of Diophysitism, which said Christ had two nature's are split, and with different wills. They did this while simultaneously saying the Oriental Orthodox Church's were Monophysite when In fact they had been the original one's to condemn Monophysitism by instituting the Dogma of Myiaphysitism see St. Cyril's 45 letter.
Okay, so what exactly is the difference between Monophysitism and Miaphysitism?
I think more laity wouldn't doubt second Vatican 2 if the Catholic Church wasn't in so many scandals, flying Pride flags, and clearly seeing some Fathers subverting the teachings. To ignore these statements above is to ignore God's children, and poor shepherding.
But V2 has nothing to do with those abuses. Certain perceptions of the council (like that tired, "spirit of Vatican II") have a lot to do with them, but the actual declarations do not.
@@richardgreene6810 V2 most certainly does. And those are just a few examples. Pope John praying with world religious leaders in the prayer day is heresy. Kissing the Koran is heresy. I could go on but have all day for examples. The only thing holding this farce together is fear mongering about going to he'll, dictates, and propaganda from certain members of the church and organizations like Catholic Anwers and Bishop Baron. V2 most certainly has caused division, apostety, and confusion. Not sure God is the author of that.
@@derekbaker4942 I'd believe you if you showed me where in Vatican II documents that it says the Pope is supposed to kiss the Koran or pray to Mohammed. Can you cite for me a declaration of this from V2?
@@richardgreene6810 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
This is a lie according to the Bible and Muslims DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD! And this lead to the kissing of the Koran. The spirt of V2 is evil. Any Pope prior to the last 120 years would reject this from V2.
What you cannot accept is that evil has over taken the leadership and you look to legalism to reduce and ignore most of my concerns.
Yes yes. But I doesn't say directly to kiss the Koran. I know the ridiculous legalism.
Any teaching that clearly contradicts scripture is not binding to the faithful.
@@derekbaker4942 The Bible says that it is a lie that there is the one merciful Creator who is mankind’s judge on the last day? I don’t think so.
I think you are mixing the idea of legalism with the idea of evidence. Your not having evidence does not mean that I am being legalistic.
I do accept that there is evil knocking at the door of our beloved Church. I abhor the liturgical abuses like you do. I too get disgusted by the wayward messaging created by so-called representatives of the Catholic faith. I believe we are scarred by a 5-decade-long lack of quality catechesis.
And I know that many who actively commit these careless abuses and frivolous unorthodoxy often cite “the spirit of Vatican II” as their charge. But they can keep saying that until the cows come home, because it ain’t there in the council, my friend.
If Jesus left us at Vatican II you would know if there was anything decreed which opposes earlier councils. And if you read the documents and declarations you will not find anything in opposition.
There are two Church councils that the apostate Catholic Church used to come up with that created the mythical triune deity. As A Catholic Dictionary says: “The third Person [of the trinity] was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362…and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381.”
Some Catholics openly say that the trinity doctrine is unscriptural. For instance, trinitarian theologian, Edmond Fortman, said: "[The Old Testament] tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus."
To me at least, it sorta seems that the SSPX have donatist tendencies.
Not true