Anyone here reject Vatican II?


#226

The fake “blame it on Vatican II” comments will continue while ignoring what was planned and the organized attacks from inside and outside the Church by radicals, dissidents and Anarchists after Vatican II ended in 1965. I watched it unfold. I heard the strangers as they appeared in our neighborhoods. Their message was clear: abandon the Church, abandon what your parents taught you and live like we do because for a long time, faithful Catholics made them uncomfortable about doing wrong. It made them think twice. They didn’t like that.


#227

That makes you a sede, just saying


#228

Rather than putting labels on people, better to let them express their ideas and feelings on CAF. A lot of people have been stereotyped, as if “traditionalists are all alike”. I would rather let people air their disagreements, and be open to new ideas or explanations here.


#229

There are 2 mistakes we can make about history.

One mistake is to ignore it; to be oblivious of the trends before, during and after the Council, and the effect the Council might have had, and effect it actually did have.

The other mistake is to overemphasize it. Liberals make it the turning point in history, second only to the Nativity. They claim before the Council laity were not permitted to read and write, etc but now it is a totally new dawn. Conservatives blame the Council for causing everything bad since 1960. Certain religious organizations use “secrets” about the Council, and for that matter secrets and coverups about Fatima, to boost donations and website hits.

The problem with the fixation with the Council is that some who should be fighting the Church’s struggles against the evils of 2018 are instead remaining apart, still obsessing about that Council (and Fatima) coverups, censorship, secrets, conspiracies, agendas of the 1960s. Easier than fighting the dragons of 2018.


#230

Yea, but that’s far different than the ‘Every pope since pius xii is invalid’ sede. There’s space to work.


#231

But if someone says “I’m not a sede, but the Chair of Peter is occupied by a usurper,” they really are contradicting themselves.


#232

This quote is interesting, because it tends to refute those who say this problem began as a result of VII. Of course not, it was underway, but under the radar, certainly as far back as 1950 when Pope Pius referred to it. The attack on Humanae Vitae for instance was so well coordinated, it must have taken years to develop. Not from VII.


#234

A very untrue picture. Twice before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict laid blame:


#235

Are they? I honestly dont know… Since sede comes from ‘sede vacantus’ ie the seat is empty in Latin, even if there is a usurper pope , the seat is still filled, right…?


#236

Just because you prefer tradition doesn’t mean you should leave or rebel against the authority Jesus established. Israel asked to have a king like the nations around them, and God, granted them King Saul through Samuel. Can you imagine if Samuel said, “Well, God said to appoint Saul the king over you, but I think it’s better to just keep following God without a king like we have been doing, so I’m going to disobey God, and shame on you all for feeling like you need a king.” God knows what is best for everyone, not me.

Edit: This thread reminds me of the passage where Jesus heals on the sabbath. We can not be so hung up on tradition as to defy God.


#237

Oh i agree, but theres one thing to label someone wrongly, or vaguely, in the example you gave. “Traditional” catholicism is a very broad label, i agree; however, sede vacantist is not as broad. And in the case i was using it because he was saying he wasnt a sede, but in reality, he is.


#238

Oh i agree wholeheartedly


#239

If you do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, that would be expected. Personally, I reject the Book of Mormon.


#240

The poster believes the seat is still occupied, so I do not see that term applying. Suffice it to say it is problematic enough to say one accepts Pope Benedict as pope while rejecting one of his most pivotal statements (his resignation), not to mention the College of Cardinals. That is sure a huge slice of the Catholic Church one has to reject.


#241

That second article is rather challenging. Pope Benedict calls to question the deficiency of the laity second-guessing the Church. The majority of what we get is filtered through someone. We do not meet face to face with the Pope, with the various church leaders and have only the insight we get through the filters. As much as we think of this as the information age, we have to also acknowledge it is the mis-information age.


#242

The poster you have referred to, Casilda, may have intended to say that the living Pope Emeritus was far more effective than Pope Francis, even though Pope Francis was validly elected. Benedict retains the title “Pope” though with “emeritus” qualifier, so I can see why Casilda referred to him as pope. I have read Casilda’s posts on other threads, I don’t think he or she has taken a sede position.

A true sedevacantist might point out a papal election was flawed, based on evidence of ballot tampering, threats or bribery in the conclave, etc. In this case no one has proved that. The fact that Pope Emeritus retired well into his 80s(!) rules out that he was forced from office by other than age.

Personally I was defending Pope Francis for 4 years on the internet, and in personal conversations, telling people who criticized him to “give him a chance, let’s see where he’s going with this…”

I have not joined the critics, but I have stopped defending him.


#243

[quote=“commenter, post:242, topic:469596”]
The poster you have referred to, Casilda, may have intended to say that the living Pope Emeritus was far more effective than Pope Francis, even though Pope Francis was validly elected.[/quote]

She specifically called Pope Francis “a usurper.” I don’t think you call someone validly elected a usurper.


#244

You are right, that is not the correct term. He was validly elected.
I was wondering if her use of “usurper” was perhaps an expression of frustration.


#245

Very true. Good information has to be double-checked. Secondary sources are just that, secondary. The problem is the internet is the perfect outlet for con-men and liars. The veil of secret names and zero identities means the military couldn’t have a better propaganda and counter-intelligence platform. So, I have to rely on print sources with real names, accountability and cheackable information. The higher the perceived “convenience” of the internet by the public results in a higher level of corrupted inputs. Just like the news media in general, which has become more superficial compared to the past. If I want “real” information, and I’ve done research for years, the internet - at best - is 50/50.


#246

welcomed it with open arms


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.