Doubts about SSPX

As it has already been said, the Filioque "question" is one of those issues that is truly a non-issue in regards to unity between Catholics & Orthodox. Both were in communion even after the Filioque. As i've mentioned a while back, and this might surprise many ortho bros, but "Orthodoxy" in The East has, in its 2,000 year history, not always practiced "orthodox" doctrine. Another shocker is that The Roman Catholic Church, Yes, The Roman Catholic Church, has actually had to correct the errors of Church of The East. I know, this may be surprising, but that has been the case in the past.

Again, I would suggest watching at least the first half hour of this Historical video to learn more about both Churches and how Rome was the actual "Orthodox" at certain times throughout history.


Another fun fact that I read a while back was that all of these "Issues" between The Roman Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodoxy really took steam once the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople. As a way for Orthodox to never be able to unite with Catholics and retake Constantinople, the Ottomans purposefully made the Orthodox to spread anti catholic propaganda, on top of manufacturing hatred between Greeks & Romans (sounds familiar?)Think about that next time you read or hear about these extremely complex "issues" between The East & The Western Church.

Remember, technically The Byzantine Empire accepted communion again with Rome during the twilight years of the empire. Sure, it may have been a last ditch effort to save the Empire, but the point still stands that people much more knowledgeable than us or Jay Dyer on this topic were willing to work it out for the sake of a greater cause.

The Catholic Church is going through a difficult time right now, but not one that is impossible to fix. Many times throughout her history, the Church has faced dilemmas, but God prevailed in the end. No, although we respect Orthodoxy and hope someday for both churches to be back in communion, we will not be converting to Orthodoxy, just I am sure Orthodox would not be converting to Catholicism. The current Modernist Heresy may take time to defeat, maybe even a few generations, but it will be defeated as long as real Catholics like many on this forum, fight the good fight.
 
Another fun fact that I read a while back was that all of these "Issues" between The Roman Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodoxy really took steam once the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople. As a way for Orthodox to never be able to unite with Catholics and retake Constantinople, the Ottomans purposefully made the Orthodox to spread anti catholic propaganda, on top of manufacturing hatred between Greeks & Romans (sounds familiar?)Think about that next time you read or hear about these extremely complex "issues" between The East & The Western Church.

Remember, technically The Byzantine Empire accepted communion again with Rome during the twilight years of the empire. Sure, it may have been a last ditch effort to save the Empire, but the point still stands that people much more knowledgeable than us or Jay Dyer on this topic were willing to work it out for the sake of a greater cause.

The Catholic Church is going through a difficult time right now, but not one that is impossible to fix. Many times throughout her history, the Church has faced dilemmas, but God prevailed in the end. No, although we respect Orthodoxy and hope someday for both churches to be back in communion, we will not be converting to Orthodoxy, just I am sure Orthodox would not be converting to Catholicism. The current Modernist Heresy may take time to defeat, maybe even a few generations, but it will be defeated as long as real Catholics like many on this forum, fight the good fight.
I gotta tell you that for cultural and community reasons I would convert to the Russian Orthodox Church, yet at the same time I feel drawn to the Catholic Church because it feels right. The Orthodox Church never seemed powerful enough to me to stand up against the powers that be. Sure, there are Patriarchs that have conservative views but they don't seem to represent the majority of Orthodox Christian. Eastern Orthodox Christianity was raped by Communism for decades and it feels as if the Eastern Orthodox lost the spirit. It feels as if Orthodoxy is just a cultural accessory. But my opinion come from living in a non-Orthodox country, so it may be different in countries that are actually Orthodox.

Devout Catholics, especially those in the FSSPX seem to be serious in their faith, and not only when going to church. I don't identify with their sobriety and coolness, yet at the same time their elaborate philosophy, law, and rich history of gaining and losing world power, is something I cannot withstand.
 
What do you mean by this?
(Real) Catholics in Germany are cold and stiff, it is hard for them to show emotions and character properly. Orthodox show their emotions without restraint and within reason, meaning they are livelier. The reason is that the Catholic Church is legalistic and intellectual, while the Orthodox Church is focused on virtue and character growth.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
E. Michael Jones teaches that it was the interpretation of Vatican II controlled by Jews that caused that more than the document itself.

Precisely.

When you combine the after-effects of V2 with the disintegration of communities (as EMJ references in The Slaughter of Cities), it's clear to see why the Catholic Church has gotten much "weaker."

EMJ's historical material is certainly excellent to understand what happened in the American Catholic world, but it would be too much of a stretch and too American-centric to apply his explanation to the whole, international Catholic world.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
And my partially-informed view is that no matter what, V2 is not an excuse to abandon the Church. Catholics have overcome much, much worse.
I'm quite curious about examples of what you would classify as "much, much worse" for the church than V2 and its "spirit".

My take is that the council itself wasn't that bad...it was the implementation that was a trainwreck.

The church teachings have stayed the same, but enforcement has changed a ton. The catechism still states that pre-martial sex and contraception are 100% immoral.
What strange things to say. A church teaching (such as "pre-martial sex and contraception are 100% immoral") is not rocket science, it can hardly be "enforced badly" or "implemented badly" : it is either defended, opposed, or subverted - the most common form of subversion today is subversion by omission.

Today's subversives and modernists in Catholicism are wrong about many things, but they are 100% correct when they say that Vatican II was a foot in the door, a first step in the revolution. Claims otherwise are obviously cases of desperate denial.

It is disingenious and futile to insist that Vatican II (or many subversive Catholic preachers and confessors today) does not force anyone to go one way or the other. It's like saying that porn does not force you to have lewd thoughts or imitate what you see.
 
I'm quite curious about examples of what you would classify as "much, much worse" for the church than V2 and its "spirit".



What strange things to say. A church teaching (such as "pre-martial sex and contraception are 100% immoral") is not rocket science, it can hardly be "enforced badly" or "implemented badly" : it is either defended, opposed, or subverted - the most common form of subversion today is subversion by omission.

Today's subversives and modernists in Catholicism are wrong about many things, but they are 100% correct when they say that Vatican II was a foot in the door, a first step in the revolution. Claims otherwise are obviously cases of desperate denial.

It is disingenious and futile to insist that Vatican II (or many subversive Catholic preachers and confessors today) does not force anyone to go one way or the other. It's like saying that porn does not force you to have lewd thoughts or imitate what you see.
Agreed. Vatican II was the cause of this church crisis. Not only it’s teaching of ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality, but more importantly it’s ambiguity is the reason it is so wrong. The period since then is surely a punishment from God to bring us back to the true faith.
 
Remember, technically The Byzantine Empire accepted communion again with Rome during the twilight years of the empire. Sure, it may have been a last ditch effort to save the Empire, but the point still stands that people much more knowledgeable than us or Jay Dyer on this topic were willing to work it out for the sake of a greater cause.
If it was an attempt to save Byzantium, they went about it really poorly.

If you recall, the great western schism happened shortly before all this. The college of cardinals kept electing and deposing popes, but nobody was stepping down, so there ended up being basically three competing organizations all claiming to be the Roman Catholic Church. The bishops got fed up with it, and held the Council of Constance where they resolved the schism by declaring the authority of a general council over the Pope, and firing two of the (anti?)popes. (Oddly enough, the Roman Church consideres the Council of Constance to be an ecumenical council, though that particular canon has fallen out of favor.)

At this point, hardly any bishops had any sympathy for the Papacy, and the King of France was the most powerful man in Western Christendom. When the Orthodox reached out to the West, if they were looking mostly for protection they would have gone to the majority side, the Council of Basel which succeeded Constance, and the King of France.

Instead, they reached out to a nearly-churchless Pope, despite an invitation from the much larger Council of Basil to establish reunion with the conciliarists.

Then, over the course of two years:
- The Byzantines got the Latins to admit that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as a point of origin, showing that their understanding of the filioque was compatible with Orthodoxy.
- Both sides agreed on the importance of prayer for the dead, while agreeing to disagree about purgatory.
- Both sides agreed to tolerate the others' use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

The terms of reunion were shocking given that both sides initially expected to simply convert the other side. And the Byzantines hadn't even heard of purgatory or some of the other things; the only obstacle to reunion they they knew about beforehand was the filioque. And they didn't expect the Latins to have any arguments in favor of it. The whole event was a miracle.

The reunion, short-lived though it was (thanks Islam), boosted the power of the Pope in the West again. Suddenly, he went from being seen as a pesky cause of division to the guy who negotiated a reunion with Byzantium. Which means, very ironically, that Orthodox Church is at least partly responsible for the eventual triumph of the Papacy over conciliarism in the West.

As things stand now, Vatican I and II have introduced new obstacles to reunion (the Papal dogmas and the liturgy), that probably never would have happened if Florence had panned out.

I realize I'm really taking this thread on a tangent now, but I couldn't resist. The council of Florence has an incredibly interesting history, and I have never witnessed a pop apologist, Orthodox or Roman Catholic, who failed to grossly misrepresent it. Fr. Joseph Gill's non-polemical history of the council, though, is excellent.
 
I'm quite curious about examples of what you would classify as "much, much worse" for the church than V2 and its "spirit".



What strange things to say. A church teaching (such as "pre-martial sex and contraception are 100% immoral") is not rocket science, it can hardly be "enforced badly" or "implemented badly" : it is either defended, opposed, or subverted - the most common form of subversion today is subversion by omission.

Today's subversives and modernists in Catholicism are wrong about many things, but they are 100% correct when they say that Vatican II was a foot in the door, a first step in the revolution. Claims otherwise are obviously cases of desperate denial.

It is disingenious and futile to insist that Vatican II (or many subversive Catholic preachers and confessors today) does not force anyone to go one way or the other. It's like saying that porn does not force you to have lewd thoughts or imitate what you see.
To bring it back on topic, here are two quotes by Archbishop Lefebvre:

-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353) - Archbishop Lefebvre

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981) -
Archbishop Lefebvre

This reminded me of a time when a married couple a few months back decided to spark up conversation with me at the bar. I assume it was because I was wearing my cross, on top of not drinking (i was DD and have taken the year off from drinking) Anyhow, the wife(in her 40s) was a "learned" Catholic who's parents were staunch Catholics, on top of sending her to Catholic school her whole life, even sending her to a Catholic University...Long story short, she saw absolutely nothing wrong with VII, told me that Luther, Calvin and crew had "interesting things to say" about Christianity, and that its ok to not believe in all Catholic teachings as long as you're "good". In a nutshell, she was a fallen, cafeteria Catholic that represented the logical conclusion of VII. Confusion, protestant sympathy, ecumenicalism and rationalizing her sins by stating no one goes to Hell, etc.

This meeting made me realize just how screwed Boomers/GenXrs and even older Millennial's are, who still to this day, only know of the NO and eat up this modern heresy. When I told the wife about the TLM, she was completely surprised and didn't know curches still performed it... Of course The Western degenerate culture does not help in saving one's soul, but it does make me wonder if Catholic's in the west would've withstood GloboHomo better had the Church stood firm and not convene this Pastoral get-together that was VII. Before my full return to Catholicism, I used to cringe a little when I would see Trad-caths on twitter go off on those who only attended the NO mass. As time goes on and I am closer to the faith, I completely understand why the TLM is so important.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
To bring it back on topic, here are two quotes by Archbishop Lefebvre:

-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353) - Archbishop Lefebvre

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981) -
Archbishop Lefebvre

This reminded me of a time when a married couple a few months back decided to spark up conversation with me at the bar. I assume it was because I was wearing my cross, on top of not drinking (i was DD and have taken the year off from drinking) Anyhow, the wife(in her 40s) was a "learned" Catholic who's parents were staunch Catholics, on top of sending her to Catholic school her whole life, even sending her to a Catholic University...Long story short, she saw absolutely nothing wrong with VII, told me that Luther, Calvin and crew had "interesting things to say" about Christianity, and that its ok to not believe in all Catholic teachings as long as you're "good". In a nutshell, she was a fallen, cafeteria Catholic that represented the logical conclusion of VII. Confusion, protestant sympathy, ecumenicalism and rationalizing her sins by stating no one goes to Hell, etc.

This meeting made me realize just how screwed Boomers/GenXrs and even older Millennial's are, who still to this day, only know of the NO and eat up this modern heresy. When I told the wife about the TLM, she was completely surprised and didn't know curches still performed it... Of course The Western degenerate culture does not help in saving one's soul, but it does make me wonder if Catholic's in the west would've withstood GloboHomo better had the Church stood firm and not convene this Pastoral get-together that was VII. Before my full return to Catholicism, I used to cringe a little when I would see Trad-caths on twitter go off on those who only attended the NO mass. As time goes on and I am closer to the faith, I completely understand why the TLM is so important.
I have recently been talking to a Novus Ordo priest, who agrees with Vatican II and criticizes SSPX, and he is very based and has a deep understanding of human psychology, sexuality, etc. He is not a liberal at all. He believes in traditional marriage, chastity, virginity, etc.

I don’t believe the new Mass itself is evil per se.

I went to my local Novus Ordo church for the first time last Sunday. I will likely not go back and I will continue attending SSPX. But I saw nothing wrong with the Mass being said in English, etc.

What turned me off was everyone’s attitude. There were exactly zero women wearing veils. Some wore short dresses above the knee. There were no altar boys (due to COVID). Everybody wore a mask and I was reprimanded for not wearing one. I inquired about RCIA and I was told they might do it virtually this year (rather than in person) due to COVID fears.

But if everyone at the new Mass had the same reverent attitude as those at my SSPX church, then I would have no problem with Mass being said in English or the priest facing the people. The Latin is probably better just because it keeps with tradition, but I see it as trivial compared to more important issues such as the ones I described above.
 
I have recently been talking to a Novus Ordo priest, who agrees with Vatican II and criticizes SSPX, and he is very based and has a deep understanding of human psychology, sexuality, etc. He is not a liberal at all. He believes in traditional marriage, chastity, virginity, etc.

I don’t believe the new Mass itself is evil per se.

I went to my local Novus Ordo church for the first time last Sunday. I will likely not go back and I will continue attending SSPX. But I saw nothing wrong with the Mass being said in English, etc.

What turned me off was everyone’s attitude. There were exactly zero women wearing veils. Some wore short dresses above the knee. There were no altar boys (due to COVID). Everybody wore a mask and I was reprimanded for not wearing one. I inquired about RCIA and I was told they might do it virtually this year (rather than in person) due to COVID fears.

But if everyone at the new Mass had the same reverent attitude as those at my SSPX church, then I would have no problem with Mass being said in English or the priest facing the people. The Latin is probably better just because it keeps with tradition, but I see it as trivial compared to more important issues such as the ones I described above.
There is much, much more to the errors of the NO mass than it merely being spoken in English or the priest facing the people. I'm working atm so I cant refer to a good article/video that discusses the matter, but I'm sure someone knowledgeable on the subject can fill in the details. I may come back later with some sources. Now that I think of it, there may even be threads on this already. The differences are not trivial.

The thing is, you wont find someone at the new mass with the same attitude as someone that belongs to a Traditional Catholic parish. Now, this is not to bump up my or any TradCath's pride. Merely from observation in real life and online, it is very, very evident that most Catholics who attend a NO mass just wont take the religion seriously. This is if they attend at all and are regular Sunday attendees, not just on Holy Days of Obligation. The few times I did attend the local NO church, there were empty pews everywhere, women looking like street whores, men looking like slobs etc. Contrast that with the SSPX church I attend where its been a jam packed house for months now, everyone dressing respectfully, zeal, etc.

You mention the priest is Based and that's great. There are many decent priest out there who still perform the N.O mass, but adhere to Catholic doctrine, which is how it should be. Bishop Strickland comes to mind. He recently performed his first TLM and now he is looking to switching completely to TLM instead of the N.O mass. It is inevitable that priest who are Based will eventually switch to the TLM. I already know of Bishop Strickland and Fr. Altman, and im sure there are many, many more. Some have even predicted that in 30-50 years, the N.O will finally be supplanted completely with the TLM. Anyway, back to the Based priest, his flock as you clearly mentioned, is clearly NOT based and bluepilled...

There is a spirit to Vatican II, the N.O mass, coupled with the western degeneracy. Like I said in my previous post about the Wife, they will eventually lose hope in the church. I cant even begin to detail how many times i've met fallen-away catholics who attended the N.O mass their whole childhood life. Unfortunately too many to count.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...Some have even predicted that in 30-50 years, the N.O will finally be supplanted completely with the TLM...
I highly, highly doubt it.

Current modernist situation will not be reversed unless industrialism and technological advancement are stopped (or at least rolled back), and that’s not gonna happen.
...Anyway, back to the Based priest, his flock as you clearly mentioned, is clearly NOT based and bluepilled...
The based priest does not live in my area. The Novus Ordo Mass I attended was just my local Mass. Different priest.

Overall, I agree that there is a modernist “spirit” of Vatican II, and that is what makes it bad. The liturgical reforms in themselves are not necessarily heretical or evil. It is the spirit in which they were passed that makes them bad.
 
I highly, highly doubt it.

Current modernist situation will not be reversed unless industrialism and technological advancement are stopped (or at least rolled back), and that’s not gonna happen.

The based priest does not live in my area. The Novus Ordo Mass I attended was just my local Mass. Different priest.

Overall, I agree that there is a modernist “spirit” of Vatican II, and that is what makes it bad. The liturgical reforms in themselves are not necessarily heretical or evil. It is the spirit in which they were passed that makes them bad.
I still disagree on your last point. The N.O mass was one of the worst things to come out of VII, especially once you realize the actual differences between the two. A NO mass is unfortunately not much different from a protestant mass. Fun fact, 7 protestant pastors helped create the new mass.



As far as things implemented by VII, this website list some, such as "respect" for Mohammedans(we apparently pray to the same God) and Buddhist


Basically, VII and the Modernist who pushed it, were pushing an ecumenical, "we're all equal" agenda. It won in stripping the Catholic Church of its past, and implementing the present of the world.

I would highly reccomend watching Archbishop lefebvre's documentary that goes over a lot of this. 3 bucks to rent:


I have also attached a quote from one of those deeply involved in VII
 

Attachments

Some have even predicted that in 30-50 years, the N.O will finally be supplanted completely with the TLM.
It's possible, but we can't just sit back and expect that it will "just happen." Which is why I'm personally discerning a vocation with the SSPX brothers, if not the priesthood. Similarly, anyone who wants the TLM to make a comeback must labor to make it so, even if it's as simple as making it part of one's daily Rosary intentions.

On a similar note, it's been a struggle trying to explain my reasons to my parents, who are under the impression that if I just listen to Bp. Barron homilies I'll stop being a RadTrad.
 

FactusIRX

Robin
There is much, much more to the errors of the NO mass than it merely being spoken in English or the priest facing the people. I'm working atm so I cant refer to a good article/video that discusses the matter, but I'm sure someone knowledgeable on the subject can fill in the details. I may come back later with some sources. Now that I think of it, there may even be threads on this already. The differences are not trivial.

The thing is, you wont find someone at the new mass with the same attitude as someone that belongs to a Traditional Catholic parish. Now, this is not to bump up my or any TradCath's pride. Merely from observation in real life and online, it is very, very evident that most Catholics who attend a NO mass just wont take the religion seriously. This is if they attend at all and are regular Sunday attendees, not just on Holy Days of Obligation. The few times I did attend the local NO church, there were empty pews everywhere, women looking like street whores, men looking like slobs etc. Contrast that with the SSPX church I attend where its been a jam packed house for months now, everyone dressing respectfully, zeal, etc.

You mention the priest is Based and that's great. There are many decent priest out there who still perform the N.O mass, but adhere to Catholic doctrine, which is how it should be. Bishop Strickland comes to mind. He recently performed his first TLM and now he is looking to switching completely to TLM instead of the N.O mass. It is inevitable that priest who are Based will eventually switch to the TLM. I already know of Bishop Strickland and Fr. Altman, and im sure there are many, many more. Some have even predicted that in 30-50 years, the N.O will finally be supplanted completely with the TLM. Anyway, back to the Based priest, his flock as you clearly mentioned, is clearly NOT based and bluepilled...

There is a spirit to Vatican II, the N.O mass, coupled with the western degeneracy. Like I said in my previous post about the Wife, they will eventually lose hope in the church. I cant even begin to detail how many times i've met fallen-away catholics who attended the N.O mass their whole childhood life. Unfortunately too many to count.
Yes, a TLM was the first time in my life when I saw women wearing a veil. Men wearing suits. Funny story, when I attended my first TLM, I was so used to the N.O. mass, both my wife and I were severally under-dressed. Embarrassing, but fixed that the next time we went.

I understand why the Catholic Church went to a N.O. mass. My wife, who is new to Christianity, preferred the N.O. because it was easier to follow and understand. It's easier to bring in the casual observer to a N.O. mass. My mom also likes the N.O. mass because she can understand it and sing along.

I do believe the TLM brings you closer to God. I'm trying to convince my Mom to attend the TLM, and of course, my wife has to attend the TLM with me.

The TLM also gives me an excuse to learn Latin again. I have always been interested in ancient languages. Studied both Latin and Old English in University.
 

RonaldB

Pigeon
Has anyone watched the debate between Jay Dyer and the Kurgan? Before this debate, I was very motivated and looking forward to attend an orthodox church, but the points that Kurgan raised in the debate and his YT videos made me reconsider taking that step. As a result, I started to read more about Roman Catholic History, theology, and the objections raised by the sedevecantists regarding Vatican II. I think that it would have been a mistake for me to leave the RCC without even knowing the basic history and theology.

Also, does anyone have a good resource on the Absolute Divine Simplicity vs Essence/Energy distinction debate? This point really fascinates me but I find it hard to understand it.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
Has anyone watched the debate between Jay Dyer and the Kurgan?
I just did, and I'll quickly put a few comments here.
Both have points. Dyer won the debate overall (although he was too nervous and kept insisting too much on Kurgan's blunder of not knowing what Denzinger is, probably because he hadn't much else to say). Less noticeable perhaps is the few correct points that Kurgan brought up - Cum Ex Apostolatus and Mystici Corporis, on which JD has absolutely no feedback.

Kurgan makes it sound as though the heresy of Vatican II was "obvious" and that to know who was orthodox and who was heretic at the time, you just need to know who signed the Vatican II documents and who didn't. This is completely wrong, both theologically and historically.

Historically, the reaction to Vatican II was not immediate or clear-cut to say the least ; even whether Mgr Lefebvre did or did not sign the documents of Vatican II is disputed, and afterwards he kept a back and forth movement of agreement and disagreement with Rome anyway (this back and forth movement continues to this day after his death, between the SSPX and the Vatican).

The Vatican II documents would probably have remained a "dead letter" if the modernists and subversives in the RCC hadn't gone on with the plan and forced the "hermeneutics of rupture" on everyone else.

This doesn't mean that the documents were fully orthodox as some would have it, or even that an alleged "hermenutics of continuity" could ever be made to work, but rather that they were like weapons stashed and ready to be used by the subversives.
 

RonaldB

Pigeon
I just did, and I'll quickly put a few comments here.
Both have points. Dyer won the debate overall (although he was too nervous and kept insisting too much on Kurgan's blunder of not knowing what Denzinger is, probably because he hadn't much else to say). Less noticeable perhaps is the few correct points that Kurgan brought up - Cum Ex Apostolatus and Mystici Corporis, on which JD has absolutely no feedback.

Kurgan makes it sound as though the heresy of Vatican II was "obvious" and that to know who was orthodox and who was heretic at the time, you just need to know who signed the Vatican II documents and who didn't. This is completely wrong, both theologically and historically.

Historically, the reaction to Vatican II was not immediate or clear-cut to say the least ; even whether Mgr Lefebvre did or did not sign the documents of Vatican II is disputed, and afterwards he kept a back and forth movement of agreement and disagreement with Rome anyway (this back and forth movement continues to this day after his death, between the SSPX and the Vatican).

The Vatican II documents would probably have remained a "dead letter" if the modernists and subversives in the RCC hadn't gone on with the plan and forced the "hermeneutics of rupture" on everyone else.

This doesn't mean that the documents were fully orthodox as some would have it, or even that an alleged "hermenutics of continuity" could ever be made to work, but rather that they were like weapons stashed and ready to be used by the subversives.
The biggest takeaway for me was that I was so uninformed about the catholic church. When that debate happened, I was rooting for Jay, but as you said, Kurgan made good points even if Jay was more persuasive. All I know about the orthodox church came from Jay, and as much as I like Jay, I can't just convert to orthodoxy based on his research. Also, the catholic church has gone through really difficult periods and survived, which it was a point Kurgan raised, and this made realized that I need to do more reading about the RCC.
The thing that really shocked me about Vatican II was that five or six of the people behind the changes in Vatican II were protestants which is a huge red flag for me.
Thank you for your reply. I will keep reading and share what I find in this thread if anyone is interested.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
The biggest takeaway for me was that I was so uninformed about the catholic church.
(...)
I will keep reading and share what I find in this thread if anyone is interested.
Allow me to recommend two online books by the late sedevacantist author Rama P. Coomaraswamy :

First and foremost, his famous debate with Mother Teresa on the New Mass & New Church at http://web.archive.org/web/20060518...catholic-writings.com/MotherTheresa-PartI.htm

and his book on the New sacrements at http://web.archive.org/web/20060516...araswamy-catholic-writings.com/sacraments.htm

Those texts won't teach you everything, but whatever your position is you'll come out with a clearer understanding of what happened at Vatican II.
 
Top