The Validity of Vatican II

[@jamesmerone]

July 24th, I turned 27. Two days after, last Sunday, I got baptized. I wake up every morning and can't believe I'm Catholic.

[@thefitzs]

Welcome home!!

[@soneejohn3703]

Welcome home. I’m hoping to be in full communion next Easter

[@RichardCrusader333]

Welcome to Rome sweet Home 💐

[@pippaoneill6574]

Welcome to the one true church. God bless you.

[@NotAFeminist976]

James Merone Welcome home. For me, 2012

[@ldawn1540]

Incredibly thought out and well said, Brian. Since I am a Protestant in the process of conversion to the Catholic Church, I have been delighted by the complexity and depth that I found in God's words. God really is everywhere. While I am not sure I agree with all of your opinions, you really do have a good understanding of the Church,. Thank you!

[@bedar6961]

Welcome to the One True Church! Pls watch Church Militant, Sensus fidelium, Dr Taylor Marshall. God bless you

[@ldawn1540]

@@bedar6961 I do not support Fr. Barron, thank you. But no. I expected more out of a book extolling the windows of God. Amen.

[@qatoliqayaqushta6889]

Welcome home. I would recommend staying away from the likes of Taylor Marshall, unless you are reading his earlier work such as The Crucified Rabbi or Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages. Marshall has devolved into conspiracy as of late. He won't reply to legitimate challenges to his material (e.g. Infiltration) and will block you. He even blocked one of his close friends of many years, Timothy Gordon. Gordon called out some of his behavior. He won't even reply to phone calls. Also, stay far away from Sedevacantism and its ilk.

[@lcringo3498]

Why would you "convert" from one -"ism" to another? Wasn't Jesus enough for you where you were? Does Roman Catholicism have a better Jesus? In what way? I await your reply...😐😐😐

[@ldawn1540]

@@lcringo3498 CatholicISM knows the truth, even if it was hidden. Jesus had to assume human form to bypass the "local" security, knowing full well He would be caught. That was the birth of Christianity. God chose the Catholic faith for me, not the other way around, Ringo.

[@lowenwelle1044]

#The-Latin-Thing: In American occupied Bavaria (May 1945) there was a small catholic village celebrating Holy Mass at Sunday, but they had a problem: All of their former acolytes were wounded or POWs. So the local priest reached out to the GIs and as result several black catholic US-Soldiers helped out as acolytes (with perfect knowledge in Latin) and the other catholics of their unit joined the Holy Mass too. Afterwards the protestant field pastor of the unit said toward the local priest: "You catholics are great! You might not understand each other on a daily basis but as soon as you worship God you speak the same language. I wish we had that." It was a mistake to ignore this uniting force...

[@SpicyHobbit03]

Latin is what makes us Catholic! Universal! God bless you!🙏🏼

[@gareginasatryan6761]

Taken with that argument, English is the most widely used language. Also the universal use of Latin is a bit of a historical inaccuracy. There were many rites in different languages. Latin was simply the literary language of Western Europe. There was no “grand plan” in making all Christians use a universal language. And besides the universal language in late antiquity was Greek, not Latin. Armenian, Slavonic, Syriac. All these are ancient liturgies.

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

@@gareginasatryan6761 Right, but the power of an uniting language cannot be looked over. The Church languages and standard procedures, as long as they are held and understood by the faithful, have the power to do what the story above says

[@gareginasatryan6761]

@@ultimateoriginalgod ok. But the medieval liturgy was adopted to different vernaculars. Why shouldn’t it be English. Are you saying it’s bad that they used Serbian or Armenian?

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

@@gareginasatryan6761 It can be, I'm just advocating for the use of an universal language in each rite to allow a better bridge between people of differing cultures but the same faith, the true One oc.

[@poetmaggie1]

I have to protest the term “modern man”. There is nothing modern about us we just have more toys than our ancestors.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

With Modernity came new philosophy (like Nietzche), new means of processing information (with technology), new arts & culture, and consequentially a "new" brand of theology reflavored for your present desires.

[@leeshaffer9618]

I've been hearing so much about this topic on the internet and you made it short, charitable, and full of common sense. Thanks

[@RJ-bu6es]

Common sense?

[@seriouscat2231]

@@RJ-bu6es, always when an Opus Dei member or collaborator publishes something, there's that kind of canned praise in the comments. Usually the males publish and the females are then told to go praise them. Also, charity used to mean to love God, but now it means being nice and polite to men.

[@errorsofmodernism9715]

@@RJ-bu6es LOL

[@John-jf8lw]

“Moreover, some and even most of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give to the Church itself, can exist outside the the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements too.” - Paul VI, Unitatis Redintegratio, No. 3, Nov. 21, 1964 “With faith urging us, we are forced to believe and to hold the one holy Catholic Church and that apostolic and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin …” - Pope Boniface VIII, ex cathedra bull, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302

[@DebbieKoch]

Thank you for your explanation. I am 64 and was in grade school when VCII was in session. It's taken a long time, but I believe that slowly the barque of Peter is righting itself. When I think of what the Mass became when I was in high school, I shudder. But I believe Our Lord founded this Church and has never left it, nor has His Mother left it. Although some free-thinking liturgists took the ball and ran with it, so to speak, there are signs of a return to reverence at Mass. I am enlightened by this presentation. God bless!

[@ProgressiveConservative]

What do you mean by that? The mass got worse after Vatican II but is getting better now?

[@jwrosenbury]

@@ProgressiveConservative The Mass isn't worse or better. The Mass is a grace from God. That means it is intended to help us, the people of God (and through us, all people). Some generations apparently need deep reverence of God in order to feel complete. But let's face it, the Hippy generation needed the opposite. They saw God all around us. Both are valid viewpoints. It's what works for us. God hardly needs us. Yes, He wants us, but He doesn't need us or our worship. We need Him.

[@aslinndhan]

I am a convert. I have been Catholic for over 20 years. I have never known the church any other way than post Vatican II. But, when I moved from the US to Britain, I was amazed by the difference. Whether you go to the Latin Mass or you go to the NO Mass the atmosphere and attitude is more formal, thoughtful, and respectful. Men wear shirt and tie and jacket and slacks. Women wear dresses and skirts and often wear a scarf or veil on their heads. Children are welcome but they are attentive and quiet. And I think that is the difference here that we see in European churches versus American. And it leads one to feel as if Americans treat Mass and church as a social occasion rather than the worship and prayerful time it is meant to be. I love my Church, and am a frequent attendee to the Latin Mass. But I feel just as content attending the vernacular Mass in English. I wish and pray we would stop bickering over preV II versus V II and Latin vs NO. The first church was a church of the hearth and Mass was at the family supper table performed by the one called to priesthood at that time, however that happened then, and just as at the Last Supper, the prayers were offered up in the language of the people. This arguing among one another goes against the first commandments Jesus gave us: Love the Lord thy God and Love ye one another as I have loved you.

[@truth7294]

So why are you arguing? Our Lord never argued? In England are you? Ask convert martyr St Margaret Clitherow why she didn't go along with the changes. A Liberal Catholic is one who 'wants' to be 'Catholic' but be friends with the world at the same time. 6 protestant 'ministers' helped make up your new 'mass'. They're pictured with Pope Paul VI .There was no argument there but agreement. Ever read the Papal Coronation Oath?

[@rosefincher7631]

The "the Last Supper" isn't what the Mass is about, be it High Mass or Low Mass ~ it's ABOUT the sacrifice that Jesus made on the Cross for our salvation!! ~ many parts, such as the sermon & the homily, were usually delivered "in the vernacular"......Latin being considered "a dead language", therefore, the "meanings of the words" NEVER CHANGE, so ~in theory ~ one should be able to attend Mass anywhere in the world & be able follow along, despite whether they are fluent in Latin or not!! After all, the word "Catholic" comes from the Greek... *"καθολικός" or "katholikós"* ...meaning "concerning the whole" or, universal, worldwide, w/no boundaries, etc. *a n d* THIS IS WHY "WORDS" MATTER!! Lastly, when self-righteous people ~ who insist on cherry-picking from Holy Scripture to make their point ~ ask "WWJD"...I usually like to remind them that *chasing people with whips & flipping over tables is NOT out of the question", No?*

[@tubaceous]

Do you know how st Peter celebrated his first mass? I hear it was in the sepulchre with his back to the entrance and everybody else outside… enough said!

[@John-jf8lw]

“... children and adolescents must be helped to develop their physical, moral and intellectual gifts harmoniously, as they grow older, they should receive sex education of a positive and prudent kind.” - Paul VI, Gravissimum Educationis, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1965 “For here and there, a great many foolishly and dangerously hold and advance the method of education, which is disgustingly called ‘sexual’ …” - Pope Pius XI, Dec. 31, 1929

[@John-jf8lw]

“It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have, by no means been deprived of significance and important in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ had not refrained from using them as means of salvation …” - Paul VI, Unitatis Redintegratio, No. 3, Nov. 21, 1964 “Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation …” - Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne

[@genoves66]

Simply put: We need to look back to Tradition

[@rachelpops9239]

Oh it's coming back and I'm excited!

[@johnny2303]

The question is the tradition of men or of God? You must ask the question. What is Catholic doctrine? How does it reflect the scripture? How does it function it relation to the early church in the book of Acts?

[@johnny2303]

Jóhann Löffler I know that’s the problem. You call it solo scriptura. I should of not even used the word tradition.

[@larryfine4950]

Johnny are you Protestant?

[@MrProsat]

Which Tradition? The language of the Mass is not Tradition (Apostolic).

[@fr.thomasherge3504]

You put this so well! The way you put the meaning of the hermeneutic of continuity was particularly apt. It is what Tim Gordon would describe as the correct understanding of it, rather than the version which tries to twist the tradition to fit the aberrant interpretations of magisterial texts. I also like how you describe the mindsets of all sides from a sympathetic view. It's really helpful toward having this necessary conversation in the Church.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

The hermeneutic of continuity lacks the clarity of the formative theology of the Church. It is to bend what sounds heretical and make it Orthodox. If a document requires decades of interpretation to understand, the document lacks the necessary clarity to be considered good theology.

[@darrelldw713]

See my comment beginning with "The 'via media' is normally a safe guide, but if one really looks at all the evidence (much of it very little known), a different and even startling picture arises. Here is some of the very little known information pertinent to the Vatican II question, all historically verifiable. It gets to the root of the whole Vatican II story: 1. The two 3 min. segments here: kzbin.info/door/mJLcKSyO3CBtxJwddm0Ymg (and then the longer ones when they arouse your interest for more). 2....

[@fr.thomasherge3504]

@@darrelldw713 The only proper application of a hermeneutic of continuity (which is not the majority understanding) is no via media, strictly speaking. It is a tool for interpretation of legislative/magisterial texts. The proper process of this hermeneutic would be able to identify when certain points CANNOT be interpreted in continuity, and it would sideline them for authoritative judgment.

[@darrelldw713]

@@fr.thomasherge3504 I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is all that actually becomes a moot point, in fact irrelevant to the question of V2 if the council itself wasn't validly convoked, as one will see if they save and look at the links I shared which provide a significant amount of evidence that the 1958 papal conclave was actually hijacked, bizarre as it may sound: 1. The two 3 min. segments here: kzbin.info/door/mJLcKSyO3CBtxJwddm0Ymg (and then the longer ones when they arouse your interest for more). 2. What Ratzinger said to a close priest friend about the Third Secret of Fatima foretelling "a bad council and a bad Mass," onepeterfive.com/cardinal-ratzinger-not-published-whole-third-secret-fatima/ 3. Strange as it may seem to many, the replacing of Sr Lucia with an impostor in order to insure the suppression of the Third Secret and also allow for the subsequent serious distortion of the Fatima Message. sisterlucytruth.org. This is the real deal, proven in the last several years with absolute certainty by experts from various disciplines. 4. Strong evidence for a nuclear threat against the Vatican at the 1958 papal conclave: padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Grave_Reasons_of_State.html

[@fr.thomasherge3504]

@@darrelldw713 If the 1958 Conclave was right out, then we have much bigger fish to fry.

[@markellis2675]

I'm a convert too. I agree with you. I've come across quite a few Catholics with an extreme view of VC II. I can say with near certainty that I may not have converted if it wasn't for the practices VC II. Hearing the Mass in English (I don't know Latin) before I was Catholic made a big difference. I wonder if I would've converted if I heard all prayers and scripture in only Latin.

[@markcharron]

As a convert seven years ago, I couldn't agree more with you. It distresses me daily to hear nothing but venom and vitriol from other Catholics about the very Church that accepted me into her embrace.

[@sarahsunshine78]

Yup. Same here. I am disheartened when I hear people tell me I only prefer Novus Ordo because I’m “new” and that in time I’ll move to the Latin Mass. I think the Latin Mass is beautiful and don’t mind visiting, but I don’t think I’d have converted if the Latin Mass was all that was available. Not because I’d dig my heels in, but more that I’d never have even begun the journey to look into it.

[@agnes8679]

That was the true intention of Vatican II. Unfortunately, the problem lies in that many people within the Church have abused and twisted Vatican II. I do not oppose Vatican II or Novus Ordus masses, because there are many different Catholic rites; not just the Tridentine and Novus Ordus. But I oppose those who twist Vatican II to introduce dishonest and disrespectful practices during mass or to try to erradicate the Tridentine Mass and Catholic tradition and the magisterium. As long as Vatican II is applied in the real way it was intended, then it should be an opportunity to welcome more souls into the Church. - I am born Catholic, from a family of only Catholics for as many generations as a I know, but I did not practice my faith until 2 years ago. What brought me back? St. Charbel (a saint from the Marionite rite) and the Blessed Virgin Mary (who I did not know before, other than being aware that she was the Mother of God).

[@kanorcubes329]

maybe if you knew about the lost catholic fervor you'll change your tune

[@jkgonfalon9136]

Saint Patrick converted all of Ireland with the Latin Mass.

[@tridentinecrusader9477]

Here is a short summary of the errors of Vatican II and how they contradict Church teaching.. Vatican II errors Vatican II teaches: Error #1: The "aim" of the liturgical reform is to "promote union" with heretics and schismatics. (SC 1) Catholic Church teaches: St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, ‘It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them.’ Pope Pius XI recalled in the 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, ‘[the] Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.’ Vatican II teaches: Error #2: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be within "the people's powers of comprehension and should not require much explanation." (SC 34) Catholic Church teaches: "If anyone says that the Rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the Canon is pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only..let him be anathema." [Canon 9, Session XXII, Sept. 17, 1562] "THE LANGUAGE PROPER TO THE ROMAN CHURCH IS LATIN. HENCE IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SING ANYTHING WHATEVER IN THE VERNACULAR IN SOLEMN LITURGICAL FUNCTIONS- MUCH MORE TO SING IN THE VERNACULAR THE VARIABLE OR COMMON PARTS OF THE MASS AND OFFICE." (INTER SOLLICITUDINES, 1920 A.D.) -POPE ST. PIUS X Vatican II teaches: Error #3: A "radical adaptation of the liturgy [to the culture and tradition of peoples] is needed." (SC 40) Catholic Church teaches: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches whomsoever to other new ones, let him be anathema." (Session 7, Canon 13 council of Trent) Pope Pius V on the Latin Mass: “Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.” -Pope Pius V Encyclical: Quo Primum: July 14, 1570. Vatican II teaches: Error #4: The Church of Christ merely "subsists" in the Catholic Church. (LG 8) Catholic Church teaches: Following all his predecessors, Pius XII teaches on two occasions, in Mystici corporis and in Humani generis that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are strictly identical. Only the Catholic Church is the Church willed by Christ, because only the Catholic Church is governed by the Vicar of Christ, who causes the social order willed by Christ to reign. Outside of that government the administration of the sacraments is sterile and the reading of Sacred Scripture degenerates into intellectual and moral anarchy. Vatican II teaches: Error #5: Christ uses heretical and schismatic communities as "means of salvation." (UR 3) Catholic Church teaches: “There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church.” - St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) Vatican II teaches: Error #6: The "liturgical actions" of the heretics provide "access to the community of salvation." (UR 3) Catholic Church teaches: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church Vatican II teaches: Error #7: "Catholics must esteem the truly Christian endowments" to be found among the heretics as "a help to our own edification" (UR4) Catholic Church teaches: "It is absurd for a heretic to say that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a person is to give our full consent to his Word & to all he teaches. True Faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ & in all he taught. Hence he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation, has no more the doctrine of Jesus Christ & of His Church than the pagans, Jews, & Turks have." -St Thomas Aquinas Vatican II teaches: Error #8: Christ has made the Jews of our time "one in Himself' with gentiles "by His cross." (NA4) Catholic Church teaches: Matthew 10:33 “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny[or reject] him before My Father in heaven. “Do not add to your sins by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes it is ours, but they (Jews) lost it forever.” -St. Barnabas Vatican II teaches: Error #9: Muslims "along with us adore the one God... the Creator of heaven and earth." (LG 16, NA 4) Catholic Church teaches: Nicene Creed “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” Psalm 96:5 “all the gods of the infidels are demons, the LORD made the heavens.” Vatican II teaches: Error #10: Tradition developes in the Church as she "moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth." (DV 8) Catholic Church teaches: “Progress of dogmas is, in reality, nothing but corruption of dogmas... I absolutely reject the heretical doctrine of the evolution of dogma, as passing from one meaning to another, and different from the sense in which the Church originally held it.” -Pope St. Pius X Vatican II teaches: Error #11: The "right to religious freedom"is based in the "dignity of the human person" and remains for those who neglect-their "obligation to seek the truth." (DH 2) Catholic Church teaches: Freedom of religion sets value to false religions. Countries must promote the Catholic religion. Catholic supremacy overall. Cardinal Ottaviani, set forth the question correctly: "Just as the civil power considers it right to protect its citizens from the seductions of error ... so it may also regulate and moderate the public expression of other forms of worship and defend its citizens against the diffusion of false doctrines which, in the judgment of the Church, endanger their eternal salvation". Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” Vatican II teaches: Error #12: "All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown." (GS 12) Catholic Church teaches: Human beings are incomplete without God “Enough about the rights of man, let the world hear something about the rights of God.” Pope Leo XIII “It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.” -Saint Augustine “You must ask God to give you the power to fight against the sin of pride which is your greatest enemy-the root of all that is evil, and the failure of all that is good. For God resists the proud.” -Saint Vincent de Paul These errors must be resisted because they contradict the divine law of the Church. No authentic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church could possibly teach these errors.

[@iadenicole931]

Tridentine Crusader excellent work. Thank you for your well researched response.

[@tridentinecrusader9477]

@Iade Nicole glad I could help. God bless

[@Ivan-hb3co]

I like how you put the effort to organize all that information. I think laymen are too often scared to speak up Luke 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him DEUS VULT

[@tridentinecrusader9477]

@Stormtrooper_ⰣⰓⰋⰞⰐⰋⰍ DEUS VULT and God bless

[@Joshharrison224]

Good luck not being called a schismatic posting this. Some of these Catholic pseudo-intellectuals seem to think that criticizing Vatican II makes one a schismatic. Still haven’t seen the end of my comment chain.

[@Teamfra]

Brian, you get it and we are blessed to have your voice. It’s never as cut and dry as some will have you believe...all about the hermeneutic👊🏻. Prayer for your and your family!!

[@Quarks-gt2ov]

You put my thoughts into words, agreed!

[@seriouscat2231]

The concept of hermeneutics comes from the god Hermes, who is also known as a trickster and a deceiver.

[@connorestelle5059]

Brian I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your videos and think very highly of you and the way you carry yourself. I currently am a Protestant who wants to become catholic, but I’ve found a lot of confusion regarding the Vatican 2 controversy. It hasn’t in anyway made me want to stop becoming Catholic, but i just find it disorienting. I feel akin to traditional types because that’s exactly what i am seeking, but nothing like SSPX or anything in that ball court, more like FSSP. What would be your advice to someone like me, navigating this path.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Stick with tradition. I go to an FSSP parish. That's a good refuge for the time being. Things do seem to be swinging back as there is generational turnover and the mistakes are set right. Just need to wait that out a bit I think.

[@AMDG_-nk2dp]

Yes, seek out an FSSP TLM or an ICKSP mass apostalate Church. They both celebrate the traditional Latin Mass within the auspices of their respective local Diocese. Awesome Mass with Divine liturgy and prayers and Sacred music. +

[@margaretfrazier181]

I'm also a new catholic and nothing will take me from the faith, but I have trouble accepting some things esp the bishops letting our sacred mass being called non essential. Bars etc open but not mass. I dont want to get political , just saying I'm also confused. But God thank you for bringing me to the Catholic faith.

[@connorestelle5059]

Thank you my brethren in Christ. You have no idea how much these responses mean to me. I have nothing but love and admiration for you pious followers of Christ king. The kindness of you and other Catholics is what set me on this path in the first place. God bless you and I will keep you all in my prayers

[@JohnFromAccounting]

SSPX is not schismatic. You are allowed to attend SSPX mass. If it were schismatic, this would not be allowed.

[@NoogahOogah]

I just want to say that I think many Catholics underestimate the extent to which Vatican II is actually accomplishing its purpose. As a former, lifelong Protestant, I know that I wouldn’t have been able to understand Catholic theology without reading the documents of Vatican II, and listening to Catholic apologists explain the hermeneutic of continuity. I hear a lot of people say that Vatican II “failed” - but it’s been just over 50 years since it was convened. On the scale of Church history, that’s a very short time. Over the next few centuries, I expect the excesses of the 1960s to die off, and that we will see the council bear much fruit in terms of evangelism.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Vatican 2 has caused the largest decline in membership in our 2000 year history. There is no evangelism at work here.

[@ipso-kk3ft]

I can attest to this in Asia, and one African friend said likewise. The reforms really increased evangelization and piety. For our siblings in the West, as Cardinal George would say, the Council was grossly misunderstood and sometimes hijacked

[@NoogahOogah]

@@ipso-kk3ft this is something I thought to add. Asia is likely to be the next cradle of Christianity, but there's a lot of work to be done there both in terms of converting non-believers and unifying the existing groups of Christians. I suspected - and it seems you are agreeing - that Vatican II will be useful in that project.

[@NoogahOogah]

@@JohnFromAccounting did Vatican II do that, or has our culture simply abandoned God, and are we seeing the fruits of secularism all around us? You are welcome to your perspective, but I still don't get how people can write off something as momentous as a Church council when it's barely half a century old. In my opinion, the Church is losing a lot of fat, and that's an excellent thing. You don't necessarily see the quiet new group of devout Catholics from all walks of life who are forming, and will forge the way ahead over the next century. I have seen it across my extended friend group. I never expected to be walking this path, and I never expected so many to join me.

[@Quarks-gt2ov]

@@NoogahOogah True, people forget that people were arguing about the very nature of Christ for centuries even after 3 or 4 ecumenical councils. I think more rigorous data is needed to renew pastoral approaches in the Church and see trends more accurately

[@stephenjohnson9632]

What I have heard is that Vatican 2 was a council convened to provide guidance to a Church that was having difficulty responding to movements like secularism, communism, fascism, national socialism, nuclear proliferation, darwinism, breakdown of the colonial system, and a fracturing Christendom. The days of Christian values being the norm throughout western society were quickly disappearing and the Church needed to understand how to best apply the ancient deposit of faith to the challenges of the current times. Was it successful? Did it come at a cost and was it too steep? Was it inherently flawed or were the principles misunderstood and misapplied? These are difficult questions that must be researched and answered with humility.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

In every respect, Vatican 2 failed to achieve what it originally set out to accomplish. It has been the most destructive council ever, and as a direct result of it, the salvation of millions of souls has been put at serious risk.

[@stephenjohnson9632]

Shane Bradman I disagree. It took the Pope out of his ivory tower and increasingly the shepherds have begun smelling more and more like the sheep they are supposed to be feeding. True the transition has been difficult with much error that has crept in. There have certainly been many overcorrections. However, new life is being breathed into the Church. Many of the reasons certain small-t traditions began no longer exist to a significant degree. For example, why was the language of the liturgy made to be all in Latin in the Latin-rite? Not why it remained, but why from the start? Because it was the common tongue of the people at the time. Well, as beautiful as Latin is, it is certainly not the common tongue anymore and it hasn’t been taught in most schools anymore. Therefore it’s purpose is no longer to unite the faithful but instead to hold onto the past and personal preferences. One must resist the temptation of idolizing the path as well as resisting the allure of idolizing the new. The problem is not Vatican 2 per se, but the not properly checked modernism, the Church’s long history of sexual abuse and corruption no longer being concealed, and a failure to communicate and understand what V2 teaches in light of V1, Trent, and other councils. We need a new evangelization as far too many Catholics do not really know or embrace their faith beyond 50 minutes on a Sunday morning or a Saturday night. Not everything can be blamed on V2 alone.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

@@stephenjohnson9632 The problem was never with a vernacular being used in mass. This has been done before. The problem is the Novus Ordo stripping the liturgy and distorting the format into an abomination which does not resemble the Tridentine mass at all. Vatican 2 has been an evangelization disaster, and has caused hundreds of millions to leave the Church. It is the worst evangelization since the Arians and Nestorians corrupted the Arabs.

[@stephenjohnson9632]

Shane Bradman An abomination? That is a very strong word. I would like to know what distortions to the format rise to the level of it being an abomination.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

@@stephenjohnson9632 Communion in the hand is a Eucharistic abuse. Many particles of the Host are lost, trodden on and swept away like rubbish. The Vatican has been clear that Communion in the hand was to be an exception for extreme circumstances, but it has become the norm with the Novus Ordo. Receiving on the tongue is the preferred way because no particles of the Host are lost, it shows that we are like children before God, and we can act with reverence to Our Lord by receiving in this way. Even Vatican 2 does not allow the abuses going on with the Eucharist in Novus Ordo masses.

[@AMDG_-nk2dp]

Vatican II was forced upon the Catholic faithful, we had no choice. So over time, some of the faithful wanted the original Mass back. So they sought to find a traditional Latin Mass. Yes, sure, the Vatican II NO mass suffices to satisfy your Sunday obligation to attend mass on Sunday. But honestly, there is no comparison between the NO mass and the TLM. There are totally different prayers in each one, different liturgy, sacred music in the TLM and mostly protestant music in the NO mass. It is obvious the differences between the two Masses. One is called the "extraordinary Mass" for a reason. The other is called the "ordinary Mass" for a reason. We hold the TLM as sacred, devout, reverant, respectful to Jesus Christ our Lord, Savior and redeemer. A beautiful mass of the ages that is timeless. And I thank God 🙏 for it. Viva Cristo Rey. +

[@kurtwhiteley481]

the Church ain't a democracy, of course it was forced on you

[@AMDG_-nk2dp]

@@kurtwhiteley481 the Catholic Church means "universal". But I guess only within the confines and restrictions that Vatican II has established. The TLM was never to be abrogated after Vatican II. And this was stated by Pope Benedict in 2007 in his document Summorum Pontificum. It's a shame that most Catholics were never told this. I hope more Catholics are becoming aware of the truth and the beauty in Catholic heritage and tradition. It should have never been tossed out and removed. Just like the beautiful holy statues, the marble high altar, the communion rail, the kneelers, etc that were done away with or discarded. the tabernacle front and center, now you can't seem to find it sometimes. Lord, please restore our Catholic faith and Churches. +

[@rubenmartinez4346]

God Bless Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX!

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@@rubenmartinez4346 may God help them to accept all of Vatican II

[@rubenmartinez4346]

@Angelic Doctor no thanks. Not even Vigano accepts Vatican II.

[@rachelpops9239]

Have you read Dr. Taylor Marshall's Infiltration book? I just got it but haven't read it yet. Would love your thoughts on him and/or his book.

[@NotAFeminist976]

So would I

[@cozycrunchy]

I hope he makes a video on this

[@BrianHoldsworth]

I was once having an online discussion with a well known Catholic commentator who was asking what defined schism. I told him my understanding was that schism was a refusal to submit to the the Sovereign Pontiff. I didn't say it in my reply, but I was recalling the definition I had read in St. Thomas' Summa (second part of the second part, Q39). Taylor Marshall jumped in and started arguing against that definition saying how absurd it was (presumably because it would implicate his similar refusal). I was, at the time, a listener of his podcast and sincerely asked him if I misunderstood St. Thomas and if he had a better explanation since he described himself as a #Thomist. He didn't reply. Then, one of his followers replied for him by changing St. Thomas' definition to suit his preference. At that point, Marshall rejoined the conversation and accused me of not including the full context. When both the other fellow and I replied by pointing out that the reply in question wasn't actually St. Thomas in full context, but a modified version of his definition, Marshall again retreated without any reply. For someone who styles himself as a Thomist and who claims to be an expert and a qualified teacher of St. Thomas' thought, I thought it was more than a little concerning that he was so quick to argue against the great saint himself in a desperate bid to console his conscience. I've since stopped listening to his podcast.

[@joeyd8825]

I would argue to read the book with some skepticism. After researching his video on “Does Vatican II contain errors...” I found many quotes either manipulated or pulled entirely out of context to the point that he changed their meaning. I am strongly skeptical of him being a trustworthy source for anything now. Not to mention the quotes he said were also in his book so I would suspect a number of misquotation there as well. I would definitely read quotes from their original sources, at least the church documents which are online for free.

[@NotAFeminist976]

Brian Holdsworth I greatly appreciate your response

[@MichaelBrooksmsb400]

Sacrosanctum Concilium did not call for what we now see at Mass Daily since the Council.

[@oimss2021]

More people need to realize this. Back in the day people were asking for vernacular and more responses, and Sacrosanctum Concilium delivered that. Instead we got clown masses in the 70s. I imagine how the mass would look like if the document was correctly applied to the 1962 missal, instead of generating a new form altogether.

[@MichaelBrooksmsb400]

@@oimss2021 just remember, Sacrosanctum Concilium did not do away with the Latin, as it was to be retained, same in regards to Gregorian Chants, which tbe Council held in very high regards.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

The Bugnini mass is sacrilegious

[@Ripplenator]

@@JohnFromAccounting It certainly isn't Catholic!

[@JodianWarrior]

@@JohnFromAccounting I don't think anyone would have said this if they'd seen the Novus Ordo celebrated well. I have, and it is beautiful.

[@tonethetallbaldy5039]

I visited a church for Sunday Mass while on vacation a few years ago and that sinking feeling I had when a women got out her guitar 😢

[@theronnyrecordsshow]

I was in my early 20's when V2 came out. It was traumatic for me and I have never recovered from it. You are right, the Council and their conclusions were rather benign. The significance is that they opened the door for change and the radicals ran with it. We traditionalists were left behind. Today's High Latin Mass is a small token for us Traditionalists; the essence of the Church prior to V2 is gone.

[@УрошКалиниченко]

I have this meme, and I think it expresses my view pretty well. With the caption of "when you don't like pope Francis, but momma ain't raise no Sedevacantist" and it shows a person praying over his meal Saying "this tastes terrible, O Lord, but I'll do it for you."

[@christinetuthill8249]

can I steal this phrase? I was a teenager in Vatican II and the changes were tough....but momma ain't etc

[@УрошКалиниченко]

@@christinetuthill8249 - sure, go ahead.

[@УрошКалиниченко]

@@christinetuthill8249 - I was plagued with the heresy of Sedevacantism forna Few years in my early conversion, but luckily, I have come over It, and have a more neuanced view after much more reading

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Sedevacantists are stupid. The Vatican 2 Popes may be all complete failures, but that doesn't make them not Popes.

[@deluge848]

Im just tired of being denied my right to receive our Precious Lord reverently and devoutly on the tongue.

[@blondetapperware8289]

Outside of covid precautions, we've still had the option to receive Him on our tongue

[@deluge848]

@@blondetapperware8289 not from my priest, I'm flat out denied.

[@blondetapperware8289]

@@deluge848 For what reason?

[@deluge848]

@@blondetapperware8289 the virus

[@blondetapperware8289]

@Pat Last This is Catholicism, how?

[@lucaspacitti182]

I find this whole dogmatic vs pastoral councils to be a false dichotomy, because all Ecumenical Councils teach doctrine authentically and also take disciplinary measures, and, depending on how you emphasize, the Council can be considered dogmatic or pastoral or both. I mean, the claim that ALL Ecumenical Councils before Vatican II were aimed at resolving some heresy is not so certain. Constantinople IV (879), Lateran II (1139), Lyon I (1245), Vienne (1311-1312) and Lateran V (1512-1517) could be considered "pastoral" councils. Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz, Prelate of Opus Dei, writes: "The pastoral motivation of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal-since all pastoral activity is necessarily based on doctrine. But, above all, it is important to emphasize that precisely because doctrine is aimed at salvation, the teaching of doctrine is an integral part of all pastoral work. Furthermore, within the Documents of the Council it is obvious that there are many strictly doctrinal teachings: on Divine Revelation, on the Church, etc. As Blessed John Paul II wrote: 'With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable collection of DOCTRINAL statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church' (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum , 11 October 1992, Introduction)."

[@Quarks-gt2ov]

Exactly!!

[@JohnFromAccounting]

All councils proclaim doctrine except for Vatican 2. Vatican 2 is not infallible. This puts it at odds with every other council.

[@Math_oma]

@@JohnFromAccounting Dude, we had a council resolving what we were going to do with the Knights Templar (Council of Vienne). No doctrine was proclaimed there because that's not what was on the agenda. We had a council deciding who the actual pope was (Constance).

[@lucaspacitti182]

@P K The two main documents of the Second Vatican Council are "Lumen Gentium, the DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church" and "Dei Verbum, the DOGMATIC Constitution on the Divine Revelation." This whole "I don't have to accept it, because it's not dogmatic" is just an excuse. Even if a Pope made an ex cathedra statement saying Vatican II is infallible, rad trads would not accept it. They have an unfalsifiable position

[@slovensko7796]

@@JohnFromAccounting www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-infallible/#.Xy-6-cLVKM8 Visit vaticancatholic.com for more info - link above. Each document of Vatican II ends this way: “EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” This is utterly solemn language. This proves that Paul VI. could not have been a valid pope! Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE, MOREOVER, THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.” Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chapter 4 „... the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with the supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.“ ALL the conditions for an ex cathedra pronouncement were fulfilled except that Paul VI. was not the pope, but a heretical apostate antipope.

[@danmccabe8582]

I like Dr.Taylor Marshall's and Arch Bishop Vigano point of view on what we should do with the Second Vatican Council. Its ambiguity and the fact that it is a failure in every direction. Why not trash it. The effects of its fruits have been absolutely devastating.

[@tMatt5M]

I'm with Vigano on this one. Scrap the whole thing and forget it. It's not so much the documents, it's the "spirit of Vatican II" that has caused so much chaos, confusion and apostasy.

[@Julius064]

Vatican II seems like to much spirit and not enough explicit instruction. Its been the backbone of all kinds of garbage in the church the world over and with very little results.

[@NotAFeminist976]

Love Bishop Athanasius Schneider

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Vatican 2 has directly caused the damnation of souls. For that reason alone, we must take action on Vatican 2.

[@VABE81030]

Shane Bradman 100% right.

[@Commandosoap777]

The fact alot of catholics reject Vatican 2 proves the church isn’t infallible and pretty much ends my openness to reversion. Still a great channel and still love my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ

[@whitewolf1298]

Vatican Council II brought about much confusion, and who is the Father of Confusion?

[@joshuag.4873]

satan itself...

[@Joshharrison224]

bingo!

[@AngelusAnimus]

Okay, I can hang with you on most points. Except for the “response to modernity” part at 2:15. I think it’s safe to say that more than Vatican 2 has caused the current decline in the Church. I’m a convert, I was baptized a week before the death of JPII and from the feedback I’ve received before and since, from people outside the Church (be they fallen away, or Protestant, or Agnostic or Atheist), we are still considered a church that protects pedophiles over children. And many of those who came forward were pre-Vatican II victims. So though I can agree with the Hermeneutic of Continuity and the need to have any V2 docs interpreted in the light of a historically consistent Magisterium, I think how we as a Church have handled the Sex Abuse scandals has done more to shake the confidence of the apostolate than the overly liberal interpretations of V2 documents. Both are a problem of course. But if you weigh the importance and immediacy of the Form of Mass vs “Are my children safe in you hands?”, the latter seems like a significantly more jarring concern.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

The sex abuse was a result of Vatican 2 by allowing homosexuals into the seminaries.

[@ipso-kk3ft]

Most of the priests who committed the abuses were ordained and formed prior to Vatican II

[@JohnFromAccounting]

@@ipso-kk3ft They're the ones that pushed for Vatican 2. The crisis would not have lasted into the 90s if it were just the old priests. It was young homosexual priests admitted after Vatican 2.

[@AngelusAnimus]

Okay, let’s try this again. A pedophile does not have to be homosexual. Plenty of victims were violated by clergy of the opposite gender. So how did Vatican 2 cause that?

[@maxtrix1]

I have a possible Answer, My Aunt told me that, at least in our country, It was not seen good to have a kid with some "disorders" so what they do to hid this from the community, they enforced those kids to go to the seminary, in a way to hid them from the public. I think that the problem with the Church also came from the laity, a laity without charity, with a complex to show what was the best family.

[@christophercobb6352]

As someone once said, "I submit to*every* dogma established by VC2." Fortunately, there were none.

[@John-jf8lw]

“With the same principles in mind, sharing in sacred functions and things and places is allowed among Catholics and their separated eastern brothers and sisters.” - Paul VI, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, No. 28, Nov. 21, 1964 “By it, we are taught, and by divine faith, we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.” - Pope Leo XII, May 15, 1824

[@conovan5081]

I can't help myself here. If the Church is destroying the very foundations that made people want to be Catholic, what's the point? How is "freedom of religion" consistent with Catholicism being the one true Church? How is "keeping up with the times" consistent with maintaining tradition? It may be dramatic to phrase things like this but it's what I honestly feel about the subject. I'm very worried about the Church .

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Vatican 2 is inconsistent with Church tradition, the Church tradition wins out in case of a contradiction.

[@nerdanalog1707]

I'm confused, the Church survived the Hundred Year War, the Thirty Year War, the French Revolution and the Terror, it has survived WWI, WWII, communism, persecution on multiple levels, yet it you are worried it can't correct some errors made during VII? Please, rest assured, the Catholic Church shall prevail.

[@nerdanalog1707]

@P K It isn't meant as a "shut up", my comment was more, let's take a step back, a nice big breath, and realize that the Catholic Church has been through a lot more dangerous threats, and has survived, and grown and learned from them. Ask question, yes, of course. Panic and lean in to fear, no. Can people on YT or in our society still do that today? Or does everything has to seem like a looming imminent threat?

[@nerdanalog1707]

@P K Thank you for explaining to me everything that went on in my head. An incredible gift you have, and I am certain demonstrates great social skills on your part. I never told anyone to shut up. You have concluded that is what I meant. Your perception. Not my words. I never told anyone to ignore the present. Your perception. Your words. You are speaking for me, not to me, and actually putting words where I never have. Now, in @Conovan terms, "it may be dramatic to phrase things like this..." Perhaps I actually read the words written by the OP, and sens that the questions asked, are so by someone who is sincerely worried that "the Church is destroying the very foundations that made people want to be Catholic". I try to give perspective, you are trying to stir anger and are instilling lies. In any case, please go troll someone else and let people who want a more calm conversation have one.

[@nerdanalog1707]

@P K In case you wanted to learn sthg today --> definition nerd Cambridge Dictionary : "a person who is extremely interested in one subject, especially computers, and knows a lot of facts about it:" Now, I have a life to get back to. @Conovan , this whole Vatican II thing is a bit blown up in the US (North America?). In other countries of the world, Catholics focus on other things. Perhaps US Catholics are more legalistic than Catholics in other countries? Or perhaps the repercussions of WWI and WWII have been forgotten, or maybe people were not as impacted in the US (which would make sense, since in both cases the US came in the last year(s) of the wars, and the country was not occupied), thus unable to realize that those wars were the real break in their faith for many in the world - not the rite, not the hippie guitars (though those didn't help). And in the more present times, needless to say that the child abuse crisis was a deal breaker for many people. Vatican II for the majority of people you ask, is not the reason they have left the Church. I dunno if this helps, hopefully it does.

[@coldforgedcowboy]

@Brian Holdsworth... how do you take in account that the implementation of Vatican II went well in the Eastern Rites but poorly in West?

[@coldforgedcowboy]

@@claymcdermott6945 ... Actually by the Union of Breast which brought the Ukrainian Catholic back into full communion with Rome fire walled the Eastern Rite from Roman Rite meddling. Cardinal Raztinger/Pope Benedict had to go back and allow the Tridintine Liturgy to be used by any Roman Rite priests who wanted to use it specifaclly to show that their was no rupture of tradition, meaning the Triditine was valid and is still a valid liturgy in the latin Rite.

[@sarahchrist-bride9601]

I used to be very anti V2 and found myself getting angry at Norvus ordo too often. Years passed and only in 2020 have I made my peace with the council. Thank you so much for your humble and non aggressive insight.

[@donatoiacovino6968]

Sarah V2 is totally satanic, just like the Novus Ordo Church

[@maxtrix1]

That is interesting, I'm making the opposite, because the NO mass were the ones that closed because of the virus. I was prohibited the entrance to my church because it was "full capacity" within the virus rules. There was plenty of space even to accomplish the virus rules gave from the archbishop. I don't want to go to a Mass were the virus and the state are more important to God.

[@astrinymris9953]

Contrariwise, if you hold that the Church is incapable of error, then you have to explain why the Holy Spirit allowed Vatican II and the misapplication of its decisions to happen. The RCC is either infallible or fallible-- it can't be both.

[@JesGabBreMar]

BTW Benedict also called Dignitatis Humanae the Counter-Syllabus, so that defeats his whole "Hermeneutic of Continuity" rhetoric.

[@levisando]

Gotta keep saying "hermeneutic of continuity" over and over again so I remember to use that line while defending my beliefs.

[@ipso-kk3ft]

I've seen some of our local bishops change their views over the years. They used to be very "against" the continuity thing, but now they fervently ascribe to the hermeneutic of continuity

[@marcokite]

keep saying it and you might even believe it

[@CB-ou6gc]

Jaime Gabriel Trazo I wouldn’t use the expression “traditionalists “ because we are supposed to keep alive the Tradition like St Paul says in his letters, (the Magesterium, the Fathers, Scripture) we are supposed to use “conservatives “ because they don’t want to accept “continuity” like the liberals.

[@levisando]

@P K All I said is that it's a good line. I didn't say I solved anything.

[@John-jf8lw]

“For several reasons, the Church recognized that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.” - Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, No. 15, Nov. 21, 1964 “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff.” - Pope Pius IX, April 8, 1862

[@PxlMrk]

Thank you. I really needed this. Between the doctor and the bishop, my head was spinning from confusion. You helped me understand, and in less than 10 minutes. 🙏🙏🙏

[@christophercobb6352]

I wish the hermeneutic of continuity was a viable option, because then we could be faithful to both Tradition and VC2. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work this way. You will eventually encounter passages from VC2 that cannot be reconciled with z tradition.

[@donatoiacovino6968]

Exactly; V2 is satanic and filled with heresies

[@ioannamalton5743]

That was a really helpful video.... and it's sort of eerie how I have been discovering and thinking about the same sorts of things (and in the same sorts of ways) at around the same time. I remember you posted your video about your first experience at a Latin EF Mass around the same time I just decided and began to regularly attend EF Mass exclusively. And now I'm readjusting my opinion on Vatican II (after previously greatly disliking it because of its "spirit" of implementation and the loss of Catholic teaching of the faith that resulted). So thank you. This video put into words a lot of what I've been thinking about, myself, recently.

[@Philothea7]

I grew up with the novus ordo mass, fell away from the church and then re-discovered it with the latin mass, it was a game-changer for me -- its Christ-centered worship and so reverent-- which is not present at novus ordo masses. Its not about us (understanding latin or participating during mass) its about worshiping God reverently, period. At this point, it will be hard to get rid of the novus ordo mass but the TLM should never be abolished because its part of the Catholic’s tradition. (Pope Francis, if you see this ( i know its a long shot-- haha) the TLM is about the worship of God, not about the so-called rigid catholics attending the TLM -- remember we are your "sheep" too whom you are discriminating against when you are limiting/banning TLM.

[@turnmeondeadman4221]

You must not have paid attention at NO mass if you think it wasn’t Christ centered 🤡

[@eduardovalentin9416]

Saying that V2 was simply misunderstood, falls flat when we know that many of the documents were made to be purposefully vague, similar to how the existence of female altar servers came to be. Vagueness was present and it could have even been placed there intentionally so that people could exploit that. It's sad, but it's the truth. Saying that the council was simply poorly applied assumes a priori that the council was clear in being in continuity with the catholic church's previous teachings, which is sorta one of my issues with Benedict XVI's statement. Moreover, the council, if it was to make something clear has only introduced very radical camps that say it is magesterially binding or those, similar to the SSPX position (or other "to hell with V2" people), that it was a pastoral council with nothing that was binding on the faithful. An issue at hand is the need to realize that V2 is also directly linked to V1, where ultramontanism became the Catholic church's official dogma, whereas V2 seemed to try and temper that by making the Church more collegial, and we see this with the renunciation of the Papal tiara after Paul VI, the Pope becoming "the people's pope" as we saw under JP2, the renunciation of various papal titles (like patriarch of the west) under benedict, and the renewed emphasis on synodality that we have seen under Francis's papacy over the past decade. The fact is, is that to say for many, V2 is whatever they want it to be. This is how you can have a Church with your normie diocesan NO which has guitar mass, while down the street you have an FSSP parish, with an entirely different ethos and spirituality (and even teaching). It's a shame that a lot of people stop just at the liturgical changes made, and this makes sense since they were the most noticeable changes, but a new direction for the Church was to be marked at V2, and it will be interesting to see where the Catholic church will be in 50 years. I say in 50 years, bc I know many of young catholic trads insist that the trad movement and a return to the glory of the Church pre-V2 is coming, but I don't think there is any indication that this is the case. If anything, most young people are ok with the NO as it stands. I think the view which insists that it's all the boomers and gen x'ers that are the problem forgets that for many young people, they have neither been to an EF, and if they have, prefer the OF. That news startles a lot of these trads bc it unveils to them that young people may be interested to some degree, but there won't be a takeover. The diocesan seminaries may offer the chance to learn how to perform the EF, but only a few seminarians actually decide to learn. The Catholic church is where it is. And I think what we will see is only a deepening divide between the so called traditionalists vs. normal catholics. The new mass isn't going anywhere at all, sappy protestant hymns aren't going anywhere. V2 obsession isn't going anywhere. But these two groups of people are going to have to learn to tolerate each other, bc the next papacy after francis isn't likely to yield a Pius XIII. If anything, all the Papabili are bishops who follow a very similar ethos to francis. While the list of papabili isn't a sure thing as we saw with John XXIII and JP2, they are pretty strong indicators to the direction the conclave will go. All this to say, the Catholic church chose a new direction to go in, and it's highly unlikely that it will change it's course any time soon.

[@MrProsat]

"Purposely vague". What is vague is that the Church was so wonderful and relevant prior to the Council.

[@33-vertebrae]

Can't have the icky womens touching the eucharist.

[@sarahsunshine78]

I’m a convert and I’m pretty sure if EF was all there was, I would have never even entertained the idea of converting. While I do think there needs to be some education and reform of the OF to return a sense of reverence (and I’ve been blessed in that regard as the parishes I’ve attended have been extremely reverent), if EF were all that existed, I think we would see an even greater shrinking of the Church. I think there needs to be room for a both/and not either/or.

[@gcummings88]

I understand the motive of criticizing Vat. 2. I don't understand the motive of defending Vat 2.

[@samuelmayer421]

I started going to Traditional Latin Mass and I love it! TLM is becoming more and more popular!

[@Kanabe_Ryou]

No it's not. You're in your own echo chamber.

[@jameskearney4100]

It took me 40 years to come back to the Church. I still prefer the former.

[@derechoplano]

Father Schillebeecx (one of the modernists in the Council) admitted: "We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards." Compare with the Council of Trento, which was clear and unambiguous. Council Vatican II has produced innumerable disasters in the Church and the sooner we admit it and change course the better. As Shane Bradman said in the answer of the Fr. Thomas Herge: "The hermeneutic of continuity lacks the clarity of the formative theology of the Church. It is to bend what sounds heretical and make it Orthodox. If a document requires decades of interpretation to understand, the document lacks the necessary clarity to be considered good theology." It is easier to go back to the Tradition of the Church that to try to tame a Council which broke with it, at the same time that the modernists use it to justify all kinds of despicable things.

[@jwrosenbury]

During an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Spirit is present. God acts to guide the Church. While one might argue with how the Council is interpreted or implemented, arguing that it is invalid is arguing that God is incapable of defending and guiding His Church. Perhaps Father Schillebeecx was led by the Holy Spirit to use ambiguous language because the clear language of what he sought was heretical? There is no promise that the participants' ideas are correct, just that the results of the Council are. Ambiguous language is what God gave us. Now we need to do the work of interpreting it. BTW, claiming things have gone poorly since Vatican II is not a valid argument against it. Christ was quite clear that the world would reject Him. So rejection could well mean we are doing it right.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

What are your thoughts on the scope of the Synod of Synodality?

[@christinetuthill8249]

I had forgotten "hootenanny" Mass. But that is absolutely true.

[@GoogleUser-wx8mw]

Excellent. When I studied the Second Vatican Council at the Master's level, we had to read older documents, too, in order to understand the writings in context. The same is true for every new encyclical, which is why we will sometimes see in an introduction section the names of the other pertinent documents. Glad you mentioned schismatic positions and explained why they are so. Love how balanced, thoughtful and faithful your answers are. Thanks for doing your homework.

[@dsenti]

Vatican II didn’t attempt to overtly proclaim any new dogmas, but that essentially doesn’t matter. It did teach heresy. Heresy counts as heresy whether or not it’s claimed to be an infallible statement. It buried that under hundreds of pages of pleasantries. But since then there is very little that has been left untouched by the taint of modernism. If Pope St. Pius X were alive today, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas, I have no doubt that they would reject it as a robbers council. It’s not the first time it’s happened. By its fruits alone we can see it was not inspired of the Holy Ghost. I sympathize with the predicament that others find themselves in with Vatican II. As Catholics they do not wish to deviate from what they see as taught by divine authority and wish to maintain the Catholic Faith inviolate on one hand while avoiding contradiction on the other. That’s the noble impulse of the hermeneutic of continuity. The problem is that it simply doesn’t work. Vatican II (and people in very high places since then) have openly taught heresy. These very positions of authority come from their duty to guide, teach, and defend the faith. When the faith itself is trod underfoot, their validity as teachers is lost. I have no doubt that there are many decent Catholics of good will who struggle to reconcile themselves with Vatican II while remaining allied that body. But the truth is plain, as a matter of divine law. One cannot be the head of an organization if one is not a member. A heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Therefore those who have openly and repeatedly professed heresy have lost their positions in the Church. We have a rump hierarchy right now, and things will not improve until the men in the Vatican are devout Catholics once more. The widespread loss of faith is perhaps the most terrible punishment God has allowed to befall mankind, but it won’t be the last. We were told from the earliest days that the faith would fall low in the last days. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that’s what we are now enduring. The supposed hierarchy is far from spared; it pains me to say they are its principal architects.

[@kdmdlo]

Brian: perhaps I missed it, but you stressed that V2 needed to be taking in the context of all previous councils, dogmas, teachings, etc.. Fair enough. But you didn't point out (or, at least, did I missed where you pointed out) that it stands in contrast to previous councils, dogmas, teachings, etc.? I don't know that it is in conflict with prior councils. As for it being a pastoral council, again, I don't see why that's necessarily a problem. Sure, it's something new. But we shouldn't judge new things as necessarily bad ... or good. Newness isn't a great argument against V2; substance is. So make that argument. Lastly, I don't disagree that the changes implemented at the grass roots level was a disaster. In many Churches, there is nothing transcendent, nothing beautiful, nothing other-worldly about the building or about the liturgy that takes place inside that building. It is a shame. We deserve better.

[@fojedaquintana]

Are you deliberately mistaking the interpretations of the council with the council itself?

[@coachprinci]

Intersting commentary. Bishop Barron has said that the issue with Vatican II was in the implementation. What do do about it now?

[@nicksterwixter]

Definitely a lot of nuance to your thoughts in this video--which is appreciated. I appreciate you pointing out the two extremes of thought about this issue and how they're both antithetical to a true Catholic view of the Church. If we can all find commonality over this, I think you could get the overwhelming majority of Catholics to agree that while the documents of Vatican II are legitimate, clearly individuals took things way too far in the "spirit of Vatican II". I believe it was all well intentioned, and don't forget that we have the advantage of hindsight. Don't forget that at the time our world was going through unbelievable social change and it's clear that the plummet in religious attendance was already well on its way before the council even began--the Popes of the early 20th Century saw it and wrote about it. But I think young Catholics are watching that correction actively take place before our eyes. I think there's a good middle ground between "Rigidly stick to exactly the way things were before Vatican II and pretend the council never happened" and "Nothing before the council matters".

[@John-jf8lw]

“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator and among these the Moslems are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us, they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.” - Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, No. 16, Nov. 21, 1964 "O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs." - Qur'an 4:171 “And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son.” - 1 John 5:11 "Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin." - John 8:24 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also." - 1 John 2:23 “There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites, which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the antichrist … From that time to the present, a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and gave it to them as an object of veneration.” - St. John Damascene

[@Lisasuhr47]

Thanks so much for making this topic digestible. My parents, at 88 yrs, go to a Traditional Mass and I tend to lean toward the "regular " Mass since it's what I grew up with. My mother has great disdain for the Second Vatican Council and I've never understood why....and I suppose I never will. She blames Pope John Paul II, whom I happen to love. Personally, there's plenty of "blame " to go around, if you had to blame anyone, really. I think changes needed to happen and the Church wanted to respond. That's ok in my eyes.

[@John-jf8lw]

“The invitation to take part in the Prayer for Peace in Assisi is a great honour for me and it is an honour for all the followers of Avelkete Vodou whose high priest I am.” “As a leader of the traditional Vodou religion, I believe that peace is not possible as long as there are rifts, divisions and antagonisms between people.” - John Paul II, Day of Prayer for Peace in the World, Jan. 24, 2002 “On our first night in Haiti, Abujo had arranged for us to film a voodoo ceremony. … By the time the voodoo ceremony started, the temperature in that room had to be at least 120 degrees. Then I saw the human skulls and the full skeleton. The ceremony began, and it was the most intense experience I’d ever had in my life. The heat, the music, the changing, the stench of decaying flesh - it was otherworldly. People got up and drank some kind of potion, and all of a sudden, their eyes rolled back in their head, they broke into some weird ecstatic dance, and then they fell down in a trance.” - "Magician" David Blaine, Mysterious Stranger "Therefore hearken not to your prophets, and diviners, and dreamers, and soothsayers, and sorcerers, that say to you: You shall not serve the king Babylon." - Jeremiah 27:9 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8

[@pietersmits7485]

That was very courageous of you to handle this topic. I really try to uphold the same viewpoint. Trouble is: what to do with real contradictions? How do you feel about father Hesse (it wasn't a Council) and doctor Taylor Marshall (even the hermeneutic of continuity is not possible)?

[@jwrosenbury]

It was clearly an Ecumenical Council, even more so than the Council of Trent. The pope called it and even invited some non-Catholics making it Ecumenical. (Non-Catholics were prevented from attending the Council of Trent making it less universal.) The validity of an Ecumenical Council is based on the Holy Spirit's guidance, not the holiness of the participants. So arguments against the Council are basically that God took the day off. If the Church can't rely on God, what can we rely on?

[@bengoolie5197]

Thank you for this presentation. A few things have been pointed out to me about Vatican II, one of which I will share here. "The church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth." Dei Verbum #8. Now that is considered to be a rather serious heresy by many. The Church possessed the fullness of divine truth from the instant it was built by the Second Divine Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ. Thank you.

[@Math_oma]

The Church has always had councils which took up non-doctrinal issues. For instance, we had a council for what we're going to do with the Knights Templar (Vienne) That's not a doctrine pertaining to the contents of the Faith. In general, if you look at the medieval councils, their agendas were some combination of doctrine, discipline, and reform, so I don't know why it would be shocking from the historical point of view we have yet another council addressing matters other than doctrine. If we can have a council that addresses the Knights Templar, other secular matters (all throughout the medieval councils), it's not a shock that a council would be called for how the Church is going to respond to modernity. Moreover, because councils are acts of the magisterium and the magisterium includes 'pastoral' and disciplinary things, a council may rightly take up such topics. Also, I don't think the criticism about 'clarity' holds much water. Other councils are difficult to understand unless you're immersed in systematic theology and sometimes difficult to access unless you know Latin or Greek. The typical layman is not immersed in systematic theology and usually knows nothing about Latin. Vatican II cannot be a sufficient explanation for the way modernity hit religion because the Anglicans and other Protestants all got hit by globalism, the sexual revolution, and the post-WW2 milieu. _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ is still defective thinking, and is like blaming the Council of Trent for the fact that we lost a great chunk of Europe to Protestantism after Trent.

[@aldrichemrys]

Can you help us laymen know what to do by elaborating on your second paragraph where it talks about systemic theology and learning latin and all that?

[@Math_oma]

@@aldrichemrys For example, if you check out Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", that's only clear if you have a habit of reading Scholastic philosophy and occasionally requires knowing, or at least being acquainted with, Latin. It's extremely precise, but so is a math textbook. We have a number of excellent catechisms, which is probably what most people should be reading, such as the CCC, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. And, to be frank, I don't know what everyone is so confused about or why there's all this Strurm und Drang about 'being confused'.

[@aldrichemrys]

Mathoma So all this ‘ambiguity’ was caused by the reader’s incompetence or ignorance or lack of prerequisites to read the document? That’s great to hear that Pope Benedict XVI was correct. But what about it’s duty about being “pastoral” council? Seems counterintuitive, doesn’t it?

[@Math_oma]

@@aldrichemrys What 'ambiguity'? What exactly are you confused about? The notion that a council cranks out ultra-clear, ultra-transparent documents, and then all the problems are gone is an utter fantasy, so far as I can tell, without any historical precedent for such. No, what's counter-intuitive about it being 'pastoral'? We've had councils which have taken up disciplinary matters in the past and which were not solely concerned with dogma.

[@sander7989]

Concerning the discussion of the clarity of the council, while it may indeed be a requirement to know theology to really appreciate the meaning of the councils, I should think there is a clear difference in style and conciseness between Vatican II and most of the prior councils - especially Trent and Vatican I. Those councils had canons which summed up their teaching, at the very least, even if it is dangerous to rely on the canons alone without the nuance given elsewhere. Florence might be quite long too, but it wasn't exactly the same beast. Of course, what I imagine most mean by the lack of clarity is the abundance of conflicting interpretations on certain texts anyone familiar with the controversy knows. It would be one thing to say that you don't know enough Latin if you think that the word "subsists" is used to teach heresy, and that you ought to let qualified individuals teach the meaning, but it's another thing to say that when many other authoritative voices in the Church are saying something else. Hence Mr. Holdsworth's point about the failure of the clergy, which I believe was his explanation for the destruction post hoc rather than the council itself, seeing as he defends its binding authority and the possibility of the hermeneutic of continuity.

[@mauricioborborema3002]

Tradition is an on going process. It depends on the Church's docility to the Holy Spirit. An ecumenical council, presided by the pope, is the highest authority in the Catholic Church. We should try to follow the steps of three canonized popes (John XXIII, Paul IV and John Paul II) and open our hearts to the Vatican II council.

[@MrKev1664]

Christ be with you While tradition is ongoing that means things are added to what was done in the past, finer details added, not Changed. It must be in a way that respects the Popes and Faithful that went before. The canonized Popes you speak of took steps that we should not walk in. An example of this is Pope John Paul kissing the Quran and allowing Buddha to be place on the tabernacle. Popes recently seem to have been canonized without addressing their errors because of the removal of the devils advocate role in investigation. Pope Pius X advocate reported that he smoked once a day in the evening and his low Mass was sometimes a bit short. To follow in the steps of these more recent Popes we need to tread carefully, For many of us it is not the council itself that is the main issue but the fruit that has come out of it (Matt 7:15-20) God Bless you

[@Thatsgay123]

Also the term “fullness” of the faith has never been used before. A catholic understands that you are either a Catholic or not. Not so with the non catholic, weasel council of VII. Now, you can kinda be in the Faith, but the “fullness” of the faith is the Catholic (or NO) church. This is new. There is no Hermenudic of continuity to make it consistent. And THAT is the conservative take on VII! Liberals say that the Catholic religion is meaningless, that everyone is going to heaven except white supremisists and racists!

[@wendyfield7708]

Mr.Holdsworth, you put this very well. What went wrong was the interpretation of Vatican II by many parish priests, I am afraid. I am a Discalced Carmelite Secular living in England. I am 86 and became a Catholic in 1958, so just before the Council. I decided to go and live in a Catholic country, so went to Italy. I was living in Rome all during the Council and took a close interest in it, and even was privileged to be invited to the celebration Mass in St.Peter's with about 100 or so other lay people forvthe 4th centenary of the Council of Trent. What many don't think about is that every bishop in the world was present at Vatican II, and concurred with all the documents that resulted from it, as you say, PASTORAL intents. The church certainly needed opening up, as pope John said "open the windows". It was definitely the work of the Holy Spirit. I later went to work in the Vatican as a "scrittore"...scribe/translator. One saw the unity of the church at the Council, proceedings being in Latin, thus dispensing with the need for simultaneous translators. All Popes have said that the Latin must be kept up in the Roman church and continue to be taught in all seminaries. It was not very long that this ceased in English seminaries, not the fault of the Council, but of some bishops not implementing this. I give this just as one example of how the Council was not implemented, basicly out of disobedience to the Magisterium, and I think therein lies the cause of the problem of the disunity today. I think Hermeneutics must be authoritative, or they will always descend into arguments arising out of arrogant entrenched standpoints. For myself, when in doubt, always follow the official Magisterium. I have come across quite a few priests who have never bothered to study the Council documents, and yet blame disunity on the Council. I think they should be very, very careful. Oremus pro invicem.

[@joanmaxime9716]

Nonsense. The bishops adopted the national language with the approval of the Pope. It is perfectly legitimate. It is time to stop putting all the blame on the liberal bishops.

[@apisDei]

There is another word for the hermeneutic of continuity, which is much easier to pronounce: mental gymnastics.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Exactly right. Interpreting what appears to be heretical to be in line with orthodoxy is mental gymnastics and is not welcome in the Church.

[@marcokite]

Amen

[@MrJking1962]

A Council to interpret a Council?

[@powerofk]

Late here, but I figured I'd leave my comments: (1) The Second Vatican Council was very much orthodox in its thinking. For anyone who believes differently, read the documents. They are all still available (translated into many languages) at the Vatican's web site. And Dei Verbum appears as a foreword in many current Catholic Bibles. (2) Many Eastern Christians (most notably the Orthodox) considered the Tridentine Mass to be invalid due to the epiclesis being so subdued to be sometimes unnoticeable (which made them believe it wasn't occurring). The epiclesis is much more profound in the current Ordinary Form. It is true that many of the goals of the Second Vatican Council have not been realized. Yet part of this goes to a world that is, at its core, rejecting the message of Jesus Christ as a whole. It's not just the Catholic Church that is struggling. When "no religion" is the largest growing religion in the country, there's a problem. And many of these people who claim "no religion" still do believe in God, or spirits, or other metaphysical entities - they've just rejected the idea of organized religion in and of itself. Also, in any given city, the places with the largest numbers of baptized Catholics in their communities are non-denominational megachurches. Many Catholics that go there say that they "didn't feel fed" at their local parishes (so they go somewhere metaphorically serving ice cream for breakfast). But I digress. Pope Francis, I think, says it best when he states that we need to see the Church as a field hospital for sinners - not an ivory tower. The Second Vatican Council was prophetic, more than anything. Some may call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it was definitely prophetic. And Popes as early in the 20th Century as Pope Pius X were already clamoring for reform. But it is true that many saw the idea of reform and figured that everything the Church taught for nearly 2000 years was then up for debate. Which is why nuns eschewed their habits and clamors were begun for women to be ordained to the priesthood. But see, the Church's teachings remained consistent, regardless of renegade priests (and sometimes renegade bishops). As an addendum - there is nothing that states that the Ordinary Form must be celebrated versus populum or that it has to be celebrated in the vernacular. Such is permitted, of course (as long as the translation has been approved by the Vatican), and has become the norm, but it is perfectly valid (and IIRC, actually preferred) that it be celebrated ad orientum and in Latin. Obviously, being celebrated in Latin would be rarer, as it is no longer mandatory in seminary (and thus few priests not in the FSSP actually are comfortable enough in Latin to read the Eucharistic Prayers in Latin), but IMO, the best solution would be to celebrate the Ordinary Form ad orientum and using as much Latin as possible. Why? Because as beautiful as the Extraordinary Form is, there are elements of the Ordinary Form that we should definitely celebrate and extol - most notably, the extended use of scripture in the Liturgy of the Word and the increased participation of the congregation in the responses during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (instead of the responses being done by the altar servers on the behalf of the congregation). And so, my solution would really to be to make the Ordinary Form as beautiful and as reverent as possible, because there is nothing inherently irreverent in the Ordinary Form - it's just often become that way due to many parishes throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[@josemiguelmarquescampo4902]

“By their fruits, you will know them,” dixit Dominus.

[@badmoon908]

(not really commenting on the content of the video) The Mass existed 1500 years before the council of Trent which declared the form of the Mass of which you many here in the comments are referring. It is more accurate to call it the Tridentine rite. What bothers me most about this "all" Tridentine movement is that the Mass of the Church fathers (c. Didache) was pretty different from the Tridentine form and many cannot accept that the Mass can and has changed over our Church's 2000 year history. For example, the Mass was said in the vernacular of the people, Communion was received in the hand, etc in the early Church. The form of the Mass falls under the little-t tradition and is a Magisterial matter. So long as the words of consecration are said by an ordained Priest, the Mass is valid which is part of our Tradition. Speaking personally, I prefer hearing Latin at Mass but it is absolutely unnecessary. I don't mind the extraordinary form but it somewhat confuses me at times (there are lots of redundant parts, for example). Novus Ordo can be done just as solemnly.

[@kowens8504]

badmoon908 Thank you so much for this comment. It has been something I’ve been pondering as I read through the mire of tradition vs modern comments. The arguments get pretty heated. Knowing the history of the Eucharist is crucial to understanding where we are today and how we’ve arrived to this point. I was reading one comment practically saying Novus Ordo communicants were going to hell, and I started to wonder how a Christian from the early Church would react to the Tridentine rite. “So long as the words of consecration are said by an ordained priest, the mass is valid...” Times change, culture and traditions evolve but truth remains always the same. When that bread and wine are made into the body and blood of Our Lord, we have the same gift of becoming one with him whether it be a pre or post a Vatican II mass an early church Eucharist. We need to be united. There is no modern Church and no traditional Church. We belong to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We belong to Christ.

[@MrJking1962]

Hermeneutic of Continuity = Using a hammer to fit puzzle pieces in.

[@redimerfortitudo]

Brian, for your next video please do it on the official US Catholic voting guide given to us by the Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. Too many Catholics don’t understand how to vote with their conscience in accord with Church teaching.

[@columna_veritatis]

Dear Mr. Holdsworth, I really appreciate your balanced attempt to make V2 teachings understandable. However I think it's impossible to see a compatibility between catholic dogma and traditions and some of the results of V2. Especially Nostra Aetate and Unitatis redintegratio are more or less in contradition to the faith. Pope Benedict's hermeneutics of continuity is a well-meaning attempt to save V2 as a whole. I recommend the pontifical encyclicals of Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI. and Pius XII. After that please read the encyclicals of post-V2 Popes. You will find a lot of contradictions to his predecessors and the churchs' traditional teachings. Please read Pascendi dominici gregis of Saint Pius X. All those errors mentioned in it are now common in the church. Are called "magisterium". It's unfortunate but it's true. But it's still the Church. She will overcome all those errors and Christ the King will reign in the church and the souls once again.

[@russelbangot8245]

It is certainly invalid for the reason that it teaches doctrine contrary to Sacred imimorial Catholic teaching. The four main HERESY of Vatican II 1. Religious Indefferentism. 2. Ecumenism. 3. Unity of the Church and 4. Collegiality. It was CONDEMNED by previous magesterium. Vatican II is a Modernist Council, modernism condemned by Pope St. Pius X as the "Synthesis of all Heresy". Look at Mr Jorge Bergolio he worship the idol Pachamama because for him all religions are equal in the eyes of God which is blasphemy.

[@ChristianSaintSavior]

Whatever side you choose to believe & support on this whole "Vatican II" Issue, just remember that after we die and face GOD on Judgment Day, He is NOT going to ask us which our favorite, or least favorite Catholic Church Councils are. GOD is going to ask us how we lived our lives, in relationship to (that is, in loving & charitable obedience to, or in sinful opposition to) His Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and The Holy Roman Catholic Church, which He Himself established, during His Public Ministry on earth.

[@seriouscat2231]

"Do not think. Just accept the council."

[@irodjetson]

The hermeneutic of continuity hasn't been done, so to call schismatic the movements that rather stick to tradition while still holding to the pope and the church waiting for clarification and correction of heresies or/and ambiguities within the council is just wrong, anybody that sticks to tradition and do not accept the council for its fruits is not in schism with that 2000 years old church, disagreeing with the very unique "pastoral" council doesn't mean schism, it means we want clarification. For example according to this pastoral council, buddhist can attain perfect detatchment and illumination without any sacramental life, without accepting Jesus and his sacrifice on any level (that contradicts the teachings of the entire church) yet if somebody disagrees with that, they will be considered schismatics? Not buying it

[@latinboyyy305]

This is why I'm Eastern Orthodox.

[@Roman_Leo3]

Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382])

[@BestSales_omodajkt]

i leave my faith for more then 10 years and because of the Traditional Latin Mass i come back home again... Vatican 2 bring so much erorr to our church.. soon after a vatican 2 more then 1000 priest left and then many church wass sell and become restaurant and atheism grow

[@angelamalek]

I think you articulated perfectly what many of us feel. We want to accept the indefectibility of the Church in its magisterial role, including something as important as the Vat 2 constitutional documents, degrees and declarations (14 out of 16) and a new Mass, but something has gone terribly wrong and can’t be ignored. Who’s responsible for such a colossal gutting of our beautiful Church and Mass? Why did Rome and the bishops not discipline these terrible abuses? Why has it gone on for so long? Why punish those who attend the Mass that so clearly retains the majesty worthy of Our Lord?

[@wubdo8409]

Hello Brian I'm really grateful that I stumbled upon your channel and have experienced an informed person eloquently explaining sometimes controversial things to me. I'm just 16 years old and from Austria and have been attending the SSPX for since my childhood. Since about a year I'm on a journey to find God because I've lost faith in him in recent years as I became a teenager. I would appreciate if you could do a video or respond to me in the comments whether the SSPX is valid. Steve

[@BrianHoldsworth]

This seems like a good discussion on the topic: www.catholic.com/audio/caf/the-status-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-part-1

[@wubdo8409]

@@BrianHoldsworth thanks a lot, I appreciate it👍

[@JohnFromAccounting]

@@wubdo8409 The SSPX is valid, but has a confusing position within the Church due to disputes with the Vatican. Do not think too much about it, because it's a problem for the higher-ups, not for us, and continue attending mass.

[@wubdo8409]

@@JohnFromAccounting you're probably right, as long as it's valid I shouldn't worry to much and focus on my search for God.

[@chromebook1794]

What smart watch do you have?

[@sanjibbishoyi3297]

I disagree Vatican II....

[@themdapxe]

Sanjib Bishoyi and that's cool, it is not a dogmatic council Dogmas can never destroyed or else, we are no different than the rising outsiders

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

Thank you for perfectly voicing my viewpoint on this topic. I haven’t yet voiced it with such eloquence.

[@BujangMelaka90]

I tell myself to always avoid modernist discussions. Once and for all, to hell with Vatican II. The modernists in the comments, repent

[@kasilluzions2766]

“To hell with the authority that Jesus gave Peter.” what language do you think Paul preached in to the Church of Corinth, Latin???

[@sargauss34]

@@kasilluzions2766 latin or greek probably yes.

[@kasilluzions2766]

@Billy Cook Greek good sir 👍🏽

[@sargauss34]

@@kasilluzions2766 Catholics today have mostly lost track of which magisterium outranks the other. Ill tell you that without a doubt nobody ever outranks Jesus. So, when Peter defies God, yes, absolutely disobey that authority that has fallen out of line with God.

[@kasilluzions2766]

@@sargauss34 I agree with you completely but I fail to see the point you were trying to make.. because masses are not in Latin anymore we disobey God? Or is that just disobeying a tradition? The “Peter” in your argument.

[@josef.r.5345]

V2 has errors. Muslims do not worship the same GOD as us Catholics do.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

5:45 Those faithful Catholics acknowledging VII departs from the faith are NOT in any way “picking and choosing based on their personal preferences.” They are choosing 2,000 years of teaching versus an intentional, modern heretical council aimed at Protestantizing the One True Church. Your natural personal kindness and wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless of the fruits has made you not be as logical & consistent in your brief analysis as I’ve come to expect from you. I get it - it’s beyond hard to admit our Church is in a civil war. The Faithful remnant on one side and the modernists, the Sankt Galen Mafia of Bergolio the idolator. It is heartbreaking, but we were warned this would happen.

[@seriouscat2231]

Brian is a company man. Nothing to do with kindness, logic or consistency. It's his intention to both fight that war and make his enemy on the side of the Tradition think that either there is no war or that they have already lost or that they're just a bunch of whiners and complainers and that they should get on with the program.

[@carolinpurayidom4570]

I can't focus at mass unless it's in English. So I am glad to have mass not necessarily be in Latin however I would like Latin mass to be available.

[@bachstraightboy1293]

Haha! You went there, Brian, you went there. Great show of courage...

[@josephcasley7979]

It is a shepherding church. This means the shepherds should analyse and even anticipate situations and take them into account. Safety is in obedience and trust in the providence and goodwill of God.

[@345legendofzelda]

Brian, I agree with your general assessment. But I think it's a mistake to compare the best Tridentine Mass to the worst Novus Ordo Mass. I think that's an easy trap to fall into, and it lacks serious discussion of the legitimacy of either form.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

The Novus Ordo was not approved by Vatican 2.

[@professorcomics2736]

You seem to focus on the critics of Vatican II who focus on the doctrine rather than pastoral approach and thus focus on doctrine yourself. Vatican II as you stated towards the beginning wad about the pastoral approach. Now at the end you point out the funky mass where the priest says "this is what Vatican II is all about," with the watered down mass. That priest clearly misunderstood the purpose or the intent of Vatican II. If that is what you are criticizing, then I understand that. However I take issue with the title of the video. Questioning Vatican II's validity because of the results it produced seems illogical to me. The results it produces do not constitute the documents themselves. Now again you do mention in the video that it has consequences and while the title questions the validity, you don't criticize that a whole lot. What I mean to say here is are you concerned about its validity or about those who misunderstand it and how therefore Vatican II led to unintended and heretical and schismatic consequences ?

[@douglascollier7767]

Thank you for this video. I have read the published writings of V2. I find them beautiful. I have read the published writings of Council of Trent. I find them beautiful. I see the same Holy Mother Church in both, and in fact, in all the writings of all Councils.

[@pippaoneill6574]

It is the spirit that is doing the harm.. not the writings... taken me a long time to realise this.. luckily for my children I'm not too late.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

@@pippaoneill6574 where does the spirit of Vatican 2 come from if not from Vatican 2?

[@seriouscat2231]

Vatican II is like a good alcoholic father. Everyone's sure he would be a good father if he were not an alcoholic.

[@seriouscat2231]

I doubt you even know what beauty means, so you end up thinking that power is beautiful.

[@deanphilipsaunders775]

Your thoughts very much mirror my own thoughts. Thank you for explaining it so sensibly and logically.

[@karolinaska6836]

Singing songs no one is familiar with. This is one of the worst things about recent Masses. Neither traditionally uplifting not modernly enjoyable. Just a lack of effort IMHO

[@tomkelly1778]

this video shows the danger of someone without theological training trying to understand something as complex as Vatican II. You are not able to deal with change in doctrine because you begin from an understanding of the Church as something does not ever need reform. This is sadly the push back from younger people and their pursuit of black of what clarity. A hermeneutic of continuity is never sufficient for looking at history because it tells me what I already know. I hermeneutic of discontinuity is also necessary to truly understand how the Spirit continues to work and correct this VERY human institution.

[@lordofthered1257]

I'm a Mormom converting to Catholicism and the greatest problems with my conversion has always been pope Francis and Vatican II. Francis is a horrible pope almost purposely confusing and seemingly self defeating. He appointed a pro abortion aithiest activist to the Papal Academy for Life. How am im to join a church led by that man? Worse than that a bunch of catholic priests support gay marriage and even some arch-bishops. What am I to do? The Mormon church is far more cohesive and far more traditional and reflective of Christian values, DESPITE the fact they are heretical in thier belief of God. What world are we in?

[@countryboyred]

We are living in clown world. 🤡

[@landonweist]

For councils called for non-doctrinal reasons and were mostly focused on reform, the First Council of Lyon, the Council of Vienne, and Fifth Lateran Council were well before Vatican II. First Lyon actually didn't even focus on reform but on excommunicating the emperor and starting a new crusade; it had some other purely disciplinary measures too like approving the Rule of the Grandmontines, having Cardinals wear red hats, and collecting tithes from Cistercians.

[@patrickfahey6722]

VAT 2 = Protestantism.

[@johnnyd2383]

Intention is not to hijack your video but would appreciate your comment on the following excerpt from the book that is closely related to the preparations for the Vatican 2... Precisely for this his merit, the Nuncio of Paris, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, had sustained and approved his appointment to minister of the Order of Malta in Paris. Monsignor Stockalper at that turn had remained dumbfounded, and received the ultimate blow when, protesting that Canon 2335 of the Canon Law calls for the excommunication for the affiliated to Freemasonry, he was told by his interlocutor, between a puff and another at the scented smoke of his big pipe, that “the nunciature of Paris was working in great secret to reconcile the Catholic Church with Freemasonry.” It was 1950! This episode seems to expose the connivance of Roncalli with Freemasonry. The post-conciliar Church will indeed reconcile with the secret sect. I wish to wrap up this subject, reporting a revelation made to me a while ago, by count Paolo Sella of Monteluee. … This figure, an economist, politician, writer and journalist, who was a close friend of Umberto of Savoy, and who boasts a direct descent from the founder of the Italian Historical Right, senator Quintino Sella of Biella, shared with me, in the quiet of his Roman home on the slopes of Monte Mario, the evidence in his possession, of the assault by Freemasonry on the Catholic Church. I had found in his drawing room Vaticanist Gabriella di Montemayor, who had been the go-between for our encounter. Count Sella… raising his face and staring at me, began to speak: In September 1958, about seven or eight days before the Conclave, I was at the Sanctuary of Orope, attending one of the usual dinners at Attilio Botto’s, a Biellese industrialist who fancied gathering around him competent from various branches, to discuss the different issues. That day had been invited a character I knew as a high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican. He told me, driving me home, that “...The next Pope would not be Siri. as it was murmured in some Roman circles, because he was too authoritarian a cardinal. They would elect a Pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on the patriarch of Venice Roncalli. “Chosen by whom?” I rejoined surprised. “By our Masonic representatives in the Conclave,” responded placidly my kind escort. And then it escaped me: "There are freemasons in the Conclave?” “Certainly,” was the reply, “the Church is in our hands.” I rejoined perplexed: “Who, then, is in charge in the Church?” After a brief pause, the voice of my escort uttered precisely: “No one can say where the upper echelons are. The echelons are occult.” The following day. Count Sella transcribed in an official document, now kept in the safe of a notary, the full name of that character and his stunning statement complete with the year, month, day and hour. Which, days later, would turn out absolutely exact.

[@bohemiantheologian6443]

3 good things: 1. "separated brethren." 2. The liturgy in common vernacular. 3. Nostra Aetate (in our time). Openness to other religions but this is an art. We keep an eye on them out of love, acknowledge the good and lead them to the light of the nations (if they are willing), which is Christ Jesus. Finally, It has been 60 years, it's still early, historically speaking. Thanks for your great vid!

[@physiocrat7143]

Well done. You are at your best in this subject area. Having been involved in Catholic music for 40 years, I found the V2 documents as masterpiece of ambiguity, and they cannot be used in a claim to authority. This led to endless, and ultimately exhausting disputes. I eventually walked away from the battlefield.

[@John-jf8lw]

“But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator and among these the Moslems are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us, they worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day.” - Paul VI, Lumen Gentium, No. 16, Nov. 21, 1964 "O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit created by a command from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, 'Trinity.' Stop!-for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs." - Qur'an 4:171 "Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin." - John 8:24

[@physiocrat7143]

@@John-jf8lw Well done for pointing this out. If a Vatican 2 document can be interpreted as pointing towards Islam and the Quaran as a true revelation, then it is not Christian. This confirms that the Catholic Church had lost its way. Since Christians do not accept the Quran as being authoritative or having a divine authority, any quotations from that source have to be argued on their own merits. Christianity does not rest on proof texts and is not a text-based religion. The Messiah Jesus Christ is the Son of God begotten of the Father before all worlds.

[@John-jf8lw]

@@physiocrat7143 In a nutshell, Vatican II denies the existence of hell and thus, preaches universal salvation. As a result, it undermines the Catholic faith and basically claims that it is not terribly important to hold this faith, which we were previously taught to hold whole and inviolate. Such a message is completely contrary to what the Church Fathers taught for nearly 2,000 years. So yes, I believe it was a robber council and it makes sense since we are in or near the end times. Sister Lucia stressed the Rosary and claimed that we are in the "final days." Therefore, it would make sense that the devil, posing as an "angel of light," would high-jack the one true Church to, as Pope Leo XIII said, strike the shepherd and scatter the flock. I would argue that this is the devil's last battle with God to take as many souls as possible before being bound in chains forever. Unfortunately, these teachings tend to be music to many so-called Catholics' ears because it preaches love thy neighbor and that God loves everyone and therefore, we should only let Him judge. But again, it diminishes the true faith by stressing such nonsense. They will argue that Muslims and Jews get a "third" of the equation right since they claim to believe in God the Father, but as Catholics, we need to stress that there is one God, three persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, which Judaism and Islam blatantly reject. Channels such as this one will defend Vatican II because, as I stated earlier, it gives everyone the false hope that they will be saved. However, such a message is very deceptive and deadly. Unlike the Protestants, Catholics hold each other accountable and the Ten Commandments are very much in play. Alas, not only does Vatican II embrace Protestantism (see the 1999 Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which was spearheaded by JP II and Joseph Ratzinger), but it also calls for salvation to those without faith. Such a teaching is heretical since "religions" such as Hinduism and Buddhism worship strange gods, which God forbids throughout the Old Testament. Anyway, I'm glad to shed a little bit of light on you. If you look closely at some Vatican II encyclicals, you will notice that they basically give the OK to parents numbering their children (AKA birth control), sex education, universal tolerance and respect and esteem for all religions, Islam worshiping the same "god" as Catholics, Judaism still being valid (therefore, it's perfectly acceptable for the Jews to wait for their "Messiah)" and on and on. If you look at previous encyclicals that go back many centuries and even more modern-day popes such as Pius XI and XII, you will see that their teachings condemned such things. Seriously, I would check it out. You might be startled. Unfortunately, channels like this and others want to increase their traffic and tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth. That's why these passages in the Bible are so critically important: "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat." - Matthew 7:13 "How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" - Matthew 7:14 "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able." - Luke 13:24

[@physiocrat7143]

@@John-jf8lw It doesn't do to get too hung up on Matthew 16:18 and the specifically Roman interpretations and claims. A study of church history is also helpful in looking for direction. Vatican 2 is the result of a process which can be traced back centuries. I think Brian is of the highest integrity and is not looking for hits but like a lot of Roman Catholics, resists the idea the the Catholic Church is more than the Pope's kingdom.

[@John-jf8lw]

@@physiocrat7143 Are you Catholic?

[@lisaross9335]

The church thrived before VII. There was no reason for it. It's been a disaster ever since.

[@JdAskins99]

Do you have an argument for causality, or is this just a post hoc observation? Fr Casey has a great video explaining the societal changes that causes people to leave the church. Arguably without Vatican 2 removing many of the artificial barriers in Masses around the world, things would be even worse kzbin.info/www/bejne/moepqn19hJVrmtk

[@ronmartinez2766]

I regret just now coming across this. I've been following Brian's videos for a while and am always impressed. I was always confused about the Vatican II debate, but I highly recommend the book "Reclaiming Vatican II" by Fr. Blake Britton. I provides a clarity to the actual intent of the Council and how it's proclamations were misunderstood and often purposely misused. Excellent book, but if you are looking for confirmation of any negative preconceptions or convictions you will be disappointed.

[@lionelmunusamy1332]

God does not operate through deliberate ambiguity. The V2 documents have a plethora of ambiguities. "Let your yay be ya and your nay be be nay. Anything else is from the devil".

[@dinovalente2947]

A consideration of Vatican II using the concepts of genus and species. Without getting into the historical background, inner workings and doctrinal details of the Vatican II documents and rather relying on what most Catholics know about it the following analogy I think is most revealing: Aristotle says that the natural way of learning and coming to know things is from the generic to the more specific. Just as when we see something moving in the distance we first identify it as a body and then as it moves closer an animal and even closer a man and finally as this particular person Socrates. Now it needs to be understood that there is a difference between our knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Our knowledge is always more generic than the thing itself existing in reality which is very specific. If someone were to give the definition of the species of a thing instead of giving the definition of the genus of that thing one would give a more precise and fuller account of the thing. In other words the more specific our knowledge becomes of something the closer our knowledge resembles the thing. The truer our knowledge is, in the sense of having more truth - adeguatio res et intellectus. This is the natural way man comes to know. To try to move in the opposite direction is unatural and against human nature. To try to forget what one already KNOWS about something in order to know it more generically is an act of violence against oneself. It would entail force that goes against one's own nature. Now what is more generic and less specific is more universal. Whereas as what is more specific is more exclusive. In the same way when one says the word animal it can apply to many things. Where when one says man it excludes many things and applies to just one type of animal. Now things that exist in reality ARE NOT generic they are specific. The Church founded by Our Lord is a real existing reality. It is something specific with its own essential elements and properties. Now the Councils, pronouncements and doctrines through the ages became more and more specific. The Church's awareness of itself approached more and more the reality of its own being. It is impossible to move in the other direction. In other words it is impossible to move from a specific knowledge to a more general confused knowledge. A generic knowledge of anything is always more confused than a specific one, just as knowing something only in so far as it is an animal is more confused than knowing it specifically: a man. Instead our knowledge specifies as we gain acquantaince and experience of a thing. This should.not be confused with the knowledge particular persons had of the Church. Ofcourse the apostles and early Christians had a very specific knowledge of the Church. However the Church's formulated doctrine was not as specific. Throughout the centuries this doctrine became better formulated and more specific. This was neccesary especially to rule out heresy and error. A more generic knowledge on the other hand is more open to heresy and error. Now, in order for Vatican II to be less divisive, open to non Catholics and ALSO IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COUNCIL FATHERS, THE COUNCIL HAD TO REVERSE THE NATURAL PROCEDURE AND PROCLAIM SOMETHING MORE GENERIC THAN PREVIOUS COUNCILS. Now one could argue that the council taught no error. Entering into this debate is not easy and not for the most of us. However knowing that the council purposefully decided to be less specific and more generic is known by all of us. Can we say that a generic knowlwdge of a thing is deficient compared to a fuller specific knowlwdge of a thing? Trying to go against oneself and forget what one once knew creates the impression that one must have been wrong once upon a time. Because why else would one try to forget what once knew? Especially if what one once knew one used to think was valuable and true, a treasure to be safeguarded. How many people do we know who have used Vatican II to look back and interpret older Councils? Anything more specific than the Council is frowned upon as superfluous and outdated. But does truth age? Never the less can we blame them for acquiring this habit when this is a natural consequence of artificially regressing and not progressing in knowledge? Of trying to be less specific and more generic. Ask any good attorney or advocate; the truth is in the details. Become less specific and you loose the case. Unless one is hiding something. In conclusion: In any art, science, law, doctrine, description or definition the more specific take precedence over any less specific alternative of it.

[@danmathers5699]

I love an evocative, traditional, Latin mass but that does not mean I think novus ordo is invalid. Your description of kitsch pastel and hootenanny accompaniment isn’t a common aspect of post v2 churches in my experience. Maybe it’s an North American thing.

[@coachprinci]

Not all Novus Ordo masses are hoot nanny masses with beatnicks etc. as you describe. In fact in my 66 years as a lifelong Catholic I have never seen a Novus Ordo mass like that. Some with folk music and some churches are plainer and are architecturally different than some older churches. The Novus Ordo Mass can be and in most cases done with reverence, can be done (and is done in most cases in my experience all over the world)/with traditional music. I have no problem with the traditional mass and in fact served them as an alter boy. If you are irreverent at a Novus Ordo Mass that is on you: so be reverent. “Mad trads” hate vatican 2, consistently deride the canonized saints who oversaw it and look down their nose at Catholics who think differently from them.