Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Centroamerica on January 07, 2026, 09:23:36 AM
-
In the Latin imagination, “if you don’t protest, you consent.” In the Byzantine imagination, especially under hostile regimes and long memories of persecution, the calculus is different: silence can be survival,and survival can be fidelity.
Historically, Christians learned that there are moments when:
-speaking openly invites confiscation, imprisonment, or death;-doctrinal traps are laid by authorities to force explicit assent;-the safest way to preserve the faith is to continue praying it, living it, and transmitting it—without giving an enemy a signature.
This formed a kind of ecclesial instinct:
-Not every truth must be shouted to be held.-Not every novelty must be argued with to be rejected.-Sometimes the Church’s most decisive “no” is simply continuing unchanged worship.
So “silence” here is not apathy. It’s a strategic refusal to grant legitimacy to an innovation by treating it as the new normal worthy of negotiation. Silence is non-acceptance.
In the Latin imagination, “if you don’t protest, you consent.” In the Byzantine imagination, especially under hostile regimes and long memories of persecution, the calculus is different: silence can be survival—and survival can be fidelity.
Historically, Christians learned that there are moments when:
- speaking openly invites confiscation, imprisonment, or death;
- doctrinal traps are laid by authorities to force explicit assent;
- the safest way to preserve the faith is to continue praying it, living it, and transmitting it—without giving an enemy a signature.
This formed a kind of ecclesial instinct:
- Not every truth must be shouted to be held.
- Not every novelty must be argued with to be rejected.
- Sometimes the Church’s most decisive “no” is simply continuing unchanged worship.
So “silence” here is not apathy. It’s a strategic refusal to grant legitimacy to an innovation by treating it as the new normal worthy of negotiation. Silence is non-acceptance.
In the Byzantine world, the liturgy is a living catechism. The Church doesn’t merely talk about God; she sings God, invokes God, names God, confesses God, over and over, until the faithful are formed.
That’s why the Byzantine reaction to modern controversies often looks like this:
-“We will not sign on to a new spiritual atmosphere.”-“We will keep praying what we have always prayed.”-“If an idea cannot live inside the prayers without distorting them, it is not the faith.”
-
"...The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied..."
https://youtu.be/XLIuN6-FMRw
-
“To fight against the errors of the age is a duty; to unmask the plots of the wicked is a holy work.” - St. Pius X
“If the faith is in danger, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.” - (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 33, a. 4)
“Pastors who fear to rebuke sinners earn for themselves the guilt of those sinners.” - St. Gregory the Great
“I have never spared heretics, and I have always striven to make the enemies of the Church my own enemies.” - St. Jerome
“The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals; therefore she must condemn error.” - Pope Benedict XIV
“It is no less a duty to refute error than to defend truth.” - Pope Leo XIII
“Those who support error are its [the Church's] worst enemies.” - Pope Pius XI
“The Church is intolerant of error because she is the guardian of truth.” - Pope Pius XII
“Not to oppose error is to approve it.” - St. Basil the Great
“He who sees another in error and does not correct him becomes guilty of that error.” - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
“The Church must refute those who bring in destructive heresies.” - Origen
"He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error. " - Pope Leo I
The principle is:
Truth is a sacred trust, and therefore every Christian — from the highest pastor to the simplest believer — bears a grave duty to oppose falsehood, correct those who stray, and defend the faith with courage, for silence in the face of error is itself a participation in that error.
The post-Vatican II Eastern Catholics have ignored the above principle and for such reason, they are not to be considered anything but aligned with Vatican II.
Fleeing to the Liturgy of the Eastern Church because one can recognize orthodoxy in those places does NOT negate the above principle.
To align yourself with those who support heretics makes one at the very least, suspect of heresy themselves.
Of course, the crisis causes diverse reactions and different approaches - so any manner of running around and liturgical "shopping" or "looking for answers" is to be expected especially following such a massive collapse of a sense of the sacred and the spiritual free-for-all that ensued after the Vatican II revolution kicked-off.
The crisis continues and so do the various reactions.
-
“To fight against the errors of the age is a duty; to unmask the plots of the wicked is a holy work.” - St. Pius X
“If the faith is in danger, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.” - (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 33, a. 4)
“Pastors who fear to rebuke sinners earn for themselves the guilt of those sinners.” - St. Gregory the Great
“I have never spared heretics, and I have always striven to make the enemies of the Church my own enemies.” - St. Jerome
“The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals; therefore she must condemn error.” - Pope Benedict XIV
“It is no less a duty to refute error than to defend truth.” - Pope Leo XIII
“Those who support error are its [the Church's] worst enemies.” - Pope Pius XI
“The Church is intolerant of error because she is the guardian of truth.” - Pope Pius XII
“Not to oppose error is to approve it.” - St. Basil the Great
“He who sees another in error and does not correct him becomes guilty of that error.” - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
“The Church must refute those who bring in destructive heresies.” - Origen
"He who does not call others back from error when he can, demonstrates that he himself is in error. " - Pope Leo I
The principle is:
Truth is a sacred trust, and therefore every Christian — from the highest pastor to the simplest believer — bears a grave duty to oppose falsehood, correct those who stray, and defend the faith with courage, for silence in the face of error is itself a participation in that error.
“The post-Vatican II Eastern Catholics have ignored the above principle and for such reason, they are not to be considered anything but aligned with Vatican II.”- Pope Skid Row
Fleeing to the Liturgy of the Eastern Church because one can recognize orthodoxy in those places does NOT negate the above principle.
To align yourself with those who support heretics makes one at the very least suspect of heresy themselves.
You’re quoting a general moral principle (“don’t be silent in the face of error”) and then smuggling in a huge conclusion (“therefore Eastern Catholics are aligned with Vatican II / suspect of heresy”) that doesn’t follow. It’s a Non Sequitor.
Let’s look at this closer.
1) “Truth is a sacred trust… every Christian bears a grave duty to oppose falsehood… silence in the face of error is participation in that error.”
Agreed as a principle, but you’re treating it like a blank check to declare guilt by association. In Catholic moral theology, duties are conditioned by competence, office, proximity, and prudence.
By your logic, any layman who isn’t publicly denouncing every doctrinal error on earth is “participating” in it—which is absurd and has never been the Church’s rule.
Also: “silence” is not one thing. There is a difference between:
- silence-as-indifference, and
- non-reception / refusal to internalize an innovation, and
- refusing to join an activist polemics culture.
Those aren’t the same morally or ecclesiologically.
2) “The post-Vatican II Eastern Catholics have ignored the above principle… aligned with Vatican II.”
That’s a claim, not an argument.
Show me where the “V2 errors” you’re alleging were received as the faith in the Eastern Catholic Churches—i.e., taught as binding dogma or prayed into the liturgy as part of their lex orandi.
Because if your criterion is “they didn’t issue the kind of public denunciations I prefer,” that is not Catholic theology—it’s an internet standard.
Eastern ecclesial life historically receives doctrine through worship, ascetical life, and episcopal praxis, not by adopting Roman “docuмent culture” as the primary mode of reception. That’s not an excuse. That’s literally how East and West have always differed.
3) “Fleeing to the Liturgy… does NOT negate the above principle.”
Right—and nobody claimed it does.
The point is: your “principle” does not prove what you think it proves.
You’re using a true statement to demand a very specific activist posture (“denounce Vatican II in my language, on my terms, in my rhetorical register”), then labeling anyone who doesn’t comply as suspect.
That’s not fidelity; that’s a purity test.
4) “To align yourself with those who support heretics makes one at the very least suspect of heresy.”
This is where your argument collapses.
First, “support heretics” is undefined and you’re using it as a weapon.
Second, Catholic theology does not work on contagion logic (“you stood in the same room, therefore suspect”). That is Donatism-style reasoning.
If “being in communion with someone accused of error” automatically makes you suspect, then:
- Everyone under Arian emperors was “suspect.”
- Everyone in a diocese with a bad bishop was “suspect.”
- The entire Church would collapse into guilt-by-proximity every time a crisis hit.
That is not how the Church has ever handled crises. The Church distinguishes between:
- material vs formal error,
- culpable assent vs non-assent,
- imposed heresy vs tolerated confusion, and
- public dogma vs disputed interpretation.
You are collapsing all distinctions because it lets you throw labels.
5) Your hidden premise: “If Easterners didn’t loudly denounce Vatican II, they must accept it.”
That premise is historically false.
The Church has always known the category of non-reception: councils, formulas, or unions can be formally promulgated and yet fail to be received in the life of the Church. That’s not Protestant “private judgment”—it’s an ecclesial fact observed across history.
So your leap—“no denunciation = acceptance = heresy”—is not Catholic reasoning. It’s rhetoric.
6) And practically: the “only SSPX for sacraments in America” claim is simply false.
There are Eastern Catholic Churches across the U.S. (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite, Maronite, etc.) with valid sacraments and ancient liturgy.
You can argue about the post-conciliar situation all day, but you cannot pretend the Latin crisis equals “the Church disappeared here unless SSPX exists.” That’s a narrative, not a fact.
7) Final question you need to answer plainly:
Where, specifically, are the Eastern Catholic Churches praying “Vatican II errors” as part of their received worship and dogma?
If you can’t show that, then calling them “aligned” and calling others “suspect of heresy” is just posturing—and it’s reckless.
If you want to argue, argue. But stop using slogans to justify labeling whole Churches “heretical” because they don’t perform your preferred outrage ritual. That’s not Catholicism; it’s a faction.
-
1) “Truth is a sacred trust… every Christian bears a grave duty to oppose falsehood… silence in the face of error is participation in that error.”
Agreed as a principle
Do you believe Vatican II is heretical (actual heresy in the docuмents) like I asked you earlier?
The reason I ask is because if you think it is heretical then how do you dismiss the Eastern presence a and acceptance of Vatican II in principle;
- The Eastern bishops (as a moral whole, if not every individual) signed the docuмents of Vatican II at the behest of Paul VI.
- The Eastern bishops never vocally opposed any of the docuмents of Vatican II.
- The Eastern bishops continue to support false ecuмenism and work within the "synodal" structure
- The Eastern bishops have not vocally opposed doctrinal innovations since Vatican II such as The Joint Declaration of Justification, the Assisi prayer events, Amoris Latitiea, Fiducia Suplicans, etc. etc. etc.
Did I get any of that wrong?
It is not that they don't "denounce it my way". They don't denounce it AT ALL.
That is highly suspicious, especially considering the MASSIVE APOSTASY we are living through...
So what you call "prudence" I call "reckless".
Actually I call it more than reckless, I think it is absurd.
I think it is absurd to follow cowed men that accept the bridle of heresy into their silenced mouths, who would prefer to hide behind error, so that they can keep wafting their incense and chanting ever louder as they blind their eyes to the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
-
Centroamerica, if you have actual contact with the Byzantine Rite hierarchy, is this really how they think? Do they quietly disagree with Vatican II? What about the faithful? Are they good Catholics? Are they aware of the problems with Vatican II?
-
Centroamerica, if you have actual contact with the Byzantine Rite hierarchy, is this really how they think? Do they quietly disagree with Vatican II? What about the faithful? Are they good Catholics? Are they aware of the problems with Vatican II?
I live a mile from a Byzantine church. I’m learning. But you learn through the Liturgy and icons pretty much exclusively. It’s how the Faith is taught there.
For example, yesterday was the Feast of Theophany. You learn about the Trinity but mostly a lot of emphasis on Salvation as a cosmic experience, by that I mean affecting matter. Baptism of the Lord is the theme. The waters are blessed. And here is where silence and acceptance is taught. At the end of the Liturgy you receive a drop of oil and kiss a cross replying “in the Jordan” when the priest says “Christ was baptized…”.
If one were to not say “in the Jordan” the cultural implications are that you denied the baptism.
If someone were to affirm all religions lead to God in a so-called docuмent, the Byzantine world would not respond until it entered into the Faith through the Liturgy because of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
I’m sure no Sui Juris Church is without its problematic people. But the heritage of the Byzantine Rite holds a protection from heresy.
And understanding that the people don’t make the Rite. That’s why I pointed out so much about the Latin Rite. A lot of the people in the Byzantine rite churches in America came from the Latin rite both Novus Ordo and Tradition.
Maybe it should be judged in the US on a case by case basis because of that. But the protection against heresy is built into the Rite and that is when the Church would react, as it did when the Nicene Creed was altered.
-
Do you believe Vatican II is heretical (actual heresy in the docuмents) like I asked you earlier?
The reason I ask is because if you think it is heretical then how do you dismiss the Eastern presence a and acceptance of Vatican II in principle;
- The Eastern bishops (as a moral whole, if not every individual) signed the docuмents of Vatican II at the behest of Paul VI.
- The Eastern bishops never vocally opposed any of the docuмents of Vatican II.
- The Eastern bishops continue to support false ecuмenism and work within the "synodal" structure
- The Eastern bishops have not vocally opposed doctrinal innovations since Vatican II such as The Joint Declaration of Justification, the Assisi prayer events, Amoris Latitiea, Fiducia Suplicans, etc. etc. etc.
Did I get any of that wrong?
It is not that they don't "denounce it my way". They don't denounce it AT ALL.
That is highly suspicious, especially considering the MASSIVE APOSTASY we are living through...
So what you call "prudence" I call "reckless".
Actually I call it more than reckless, I think it is absurd.
I think it is absurd to follow cowed men that accept the bridle of heresy into their silenced mouths, who would prefer to hide behind error, so that they can keep wafting their incense and chanting ever louder as they blind their eyes to the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
No. I do not hold that Vatican II, as a council, formally defined dogmatic heresy in the way Trent or Vatican I defined dogma. What I hold is that Vatican II introduced novel, ambiguous, and pastorally dangerous formulations which were later exploited, radicalized, and weaponized by post-conciliar authorities. That distinction matters, even if you don’t like it.
Yes, the Eastern bishops signed Vatican II docuмents, and signing a pastoral council’s docuмents under papal pressure is not the same thing as receiving them as dogma, teaching them as binding faith, or integrating them into a Church’s lex orandi. History is full of bishops signing things they later ignored, re-interpreted, or simply never received in practice. Signature does not equal doctrinal assent. The Church has never taught otherwise.
Opposition is not a single mode, and Rome-style public polemics have never been the East’s norm. Eastern Churches historically resist by non-reception, not by issuing Roman-style manifestos. They preserve doctrine primarily through liturgy, ascetical theology, episcopal praxis, and what is not introduced. If Vatican II truly represented a doctrinal rupture, you would expect to see that rupture prayed, taught, and lived in Eastern worship. You do not.
You are collapsing categories again when you claim they support false ecuмenism and synodality. Participation in synods or ecuмenical dialogue does not equal doctrinal endorsement of indifferentism. The East has always engaged councils and synods differently than the Latin juridical model. Where exactly are Eastern Churches denying extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, redefining the sacraments, or altering dogma in their catechesis or liturgy. Show that, not press releases or meetings.
You also accuse them of not opposing Assisi, the Joint Declaration on Justification, Amoris Laetitia, and Fiducia Supplicans, but you are applying a Latin crisis template universally. Most of those controversies are internal Latin theological and disciplinary problems. Eastern Churches did not adopt Luther-centric justification theology, Latin moral casuistry innovations, or Western pastoral experiments as normative doctrine. Non-adoption is not cowardice. It is precisely how Churches survive doctrinal storms.
Your core assumption, and this is the real issue, is that if there is a crisis, the only faithful response is loud denunciation. That is not Catholic theology. It is activism theology. The Church has always distinguished between culpable assent and imposed confusion, silence and non-reception, and duty of office and the duty of every Christian. By your standard, the entire Church during the Arian crisis would have been reckless except for a handful of polemicists, which is historically false.
Language like cowards, bridles of heresy, and abomination of desolation feels prophetic, but it proves nothing. You are substituting apocalyptic imagery for theological precision, and then accusing others of heresy because they refuse to mirror your tone. That is not discernment. That is factionalism.
You keep asking why I trust Eastern Churches more than post-conciliar Latin structures. The answer is simple. Because their worship, theology, and sacramental life remained intact, while the Latin Church detonated itself administratively, catechetically, and liturgically. That is not cowardice. That is survival.
If you want to argue that Vatican II produced heresy, then prove it where doctrine is actually transmitted, in prayer and sacrament, not by counting signatures or measuring outrage levels. Until then, calling entire Churches suspect of heresy says far more about your method than about their faith.
-
No. I do not hold that Vatican II, as a council, formally defined dogmatic heresy in the way Trent or Vatican I defined dogma. What I hold is that Vatican II introduced novel, ambiguous, and pastorally dangerous formulations which were later exploited, radicalized, and weaponized by post-conciliar authorities. That distinction matters, even if you don’t like it.
I agree that this distinction matters.
It matters a great deal.
It matters enough for people to put their souls on the line over it...
You went to a CMRI/sede chapel but you NEVER held Vatican II was actually heretical like THIS (https://ia600508.us.archive.org/24/items/ThePrincipalHeresiesAndOthDalyJohnS.3335/The Principal Heresies and Oth - Daly%2C John S._3335.pdf) (or some variation thereof), but rather you just held it "novel, ambiguous, etc."?
-
Centro,
If you were once convinced that Vatican II was actual heresy and then you changed your mind, why?
Also,
The Eastern Claim: “The Liturgy Protects Us From Heresy”
Eastern Catholics often argue:
- The Liturgy is the “guardian of the faith.”
- As long as the Liturgy remains orthodox, doctrinal corruption cannot take root.
- Therefore, Vatican II cannot corrupt the East unless its errors enter the liturgy.
On the contrary,
Nestorius is the perfect case study.
Fact 1 — Nestorius’s heresy was doctrinal, not liturgical.
He preached heretical Christology, but he did not insert it into the Divine Liturgy.
Fact 2 — The Eastern bishops condemned him anyway.
The Council of Ephesus (431) deposed him for his teaching alone, not for liturgical innovation.
Fact 3 — The clergy of Constantinople severed communion with him.
They removed his name from the diptychs before any liturgical corruption occurred.
Conclusion from history:
The East has never required liturgical heresy before acting against doctrinal heresy.
This undermines the modern Eastern argument that “as long as the liturgy is intact, we are safe.”
In Eastern ecclesiology:
- Commemoration in the diptychs = communion in faith.
- Removal from the diptychs = doctrinal rupture.
Nestorius was removed because of his teaching, not because of liturgical change.
Communion is broken over doctrine, not only over liturgy.
If the East once condemned Nestorius for doctrinal error alone, then the East cannot now claim that doctrinal error is harmless unless it enters the liturgy.
-
I agree that this distinction matters.
It matters a great deal.
It matters enough for people to put their souls on the line over it...
You went to a CMRI/sede chapel but you NEVER held Vatican II was actually heretical like THIS (https://ia600508.us.archive.org/24/items/ThePrincipalHeresiesAndOthDalyJohnS.3335/The Principal Heresies and Oth - Daly%2C John S._3335.pdf) (or some variation thereof), but rather you just held it "novel, ambiguous, etc."?
Yes, CMRI is sedevacantist. I have never hidden that, and I don’t distance myself from it now.
CMRI holds that Vatican II did not merely introduce “pastorally dangerous ambiguities,” but objectively contradictory teachings on matters like religious liberty and ecuмenism, and that these contradictions cannot come from a true ecuмenical council ratified by a true pope. That is why they conclude the post-conciliar claimants lack papal authority. That has always been their position, and it is publicly stated on their own website.
So to answer your implied question directly: no, I did not attend CMRI chapels while secretly believing Vatican II was harmless but misunderstood. I attended because I agreed that the council represents a rupture with prior magisterial teaching and that the post-conciliar hierarchy lacks authority to bind consciences to those novelties.
Where the East comes into this is not as an escape hatch or a soft alternative, but as a control case. If Vatican II errors are truly intrinsic to Catholic faith as now “received,” then they must appear where Catholic faith is actually transmitted, namely in doctrine taught as dogma and in liturgy as lex orandi. Yet when you look at the Eastern Catholic Churches, their liturgy, sacramental theology, and dogmatic content remain patristic and pre-scholastic, untouched by the specific Vatican II novelties that shattered the Latin Church.
That does not mean Eastern hierarchs are courageous, admirable, or immune from blame. It means something more precise and more dangerous to your argument: formal participation, signatures, and institutional proximity do not equal doctrinal reception. History is full of councils, formulas, and unions that were signed, tolerated, or endured without being truly received into the life of the Church. Non-reception is a real ecclesiological category whether one likes it or not.
CMRI itself implicitly recognizes this distinction, which is why it does not operate on guilt-by-association logic alone. (For example, allowing attendance at SSPX masses). If proximity or silence were sufficient to prove formal heresy, then material heresy would be indistinguishable from formal heresy, and the Church would have collapsed long before Vatican II.
So yes, I accept the CMRI critique of Vatican II. What I reject is the claim that Eastern Catholics must therefore be treated as doctrinally equivalent to the post-conciliar Latin collapse simply because they did not mount a Roman-style polemical resistance. That assumption confuses Latin habits with Catholic principles.
You can argue that Eastern bishops should have spoken more loudly. You cannot argue, without proof, that they received Vatican II as dogma in the same way the Latin Church did. And without that proof, accusations of “alignment” and “suspect of heresy” remain rhetoric, not theology.
-
CMRI holds that Vatican II did not merely introduce “pastorally dangerous ambiguities,” but objectively contradictory teachings on matters like religious liberty and ecuмenism, and that these contradictions cannot come from a true ecuмenical council ratified by a true pope. That is why they conclude the post-conciliar claimants lack papal authority. That has always been their position, and it is publicly stated on their own website.
So to answer your implied question directly: no, I did not attend CMRI chapels while secretly believing Vatican II was harmless but misunderstood. I attended because I agreed that the council represents a rupture with prior magisterial teaching and that the post-conciliar hierarchy lacks authority to bind consciences to those novelties.
So, you were never a "real sede" it seems... This could account for your change of position on the East as well, since you were never a real "SSPX trad" either. Kind of hard to trust a flip flopper who seems cocksure of himself now that he has "finally discovered the answer to the crisis lies in the East".
History is full of councils, formulas, and unions that were signed, tolerated, or endured without being truly received into the life of the Church. Non-reception is a real ecclesiological category whether one likes it or not.
Tell me about the historical example that predates the Second Vatican Council which was a general council called and ratified by the Pope which promulgated a series of heretical decrees (or if you prefer "novel" changes) that the Easterners ignored and did not receive by their "silent non-acceptance"...
You cannot argue, without proof, that they received Vatican II as dogma in the same way the Latin Church did.
It is a fact of reality. What "proof" could I offer to one who has swallowed such a massive delusion?
They are aligned with the post-Vatican II plan - they always have been.
I am sure there are all kinds of lovely people at that church a mile away.
And I am sure the Eastern Liturgy is splendid and can teach any Catholic many good things.
But, their silence since Vatican II makes their spirituality ring hollow for me.
I don't think it ever mattered to you (from what I can glean from your several posts on this topic)
True bishops know how to speak and act when the Church is in peril - like the Eastern clergy did back during the Nestorian Crisis.
The false Eastern bishops that are aligned with Vatican II do not possess the faith, if they did - they would have said something by now.
He who sees another in error and does not correct him becomes guilty of that error.” - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
-
So, you were never a "real sede" it seems... This could account for your change of position on the East as well, since you were never a real "SSPX trad" either. Kind of hard to trust a flip flopper who seems cocksure of himself now that he has "finally discovered the answer to the crisis lies in the East".
Tell me about the historical example that predates the Second Vatican Council which was a general council called and ratified by the Pope which promulgated a series of heretical decrees (or if you prefer "novel" changes) that the Easterners ignored and did not receive by their "silent non-acceptance"...
It is a fact of reality. What "proof" could I offer to one who has swallowed such a massive delusion?
They are aligned with the post-Vatican II plan - they always have been.
I am sure there are all kinds of lovely people at that church a mile away.
And I am sure the Eastern Liturgy is splendid and can teach any Catholic many good things.
But, their silence since Vatican II makes their spirituality ring hollow for me.
I don't think it ever mattered to you (from what I can glean from your several posts on this topic)
True bishops know how to speak and act when the Church is in peril - like the Eastern clergy did back during the Nestorian Crisis.
The false Eastern bishops that are aligned with Vatican II do not possess the faith, if they did - they would have said something by now.
He who sees another in error and does not correct him becomes guilty of that error.” - St. Alphonsus Ligouri
Skid Row, you are doing two things at once, you are appealing to a true moral principle and then you are using it as a club to declare whole Churches “false” without doing the harder work of demonstrating formal assent to heresy. Yes, Christians must oppose error, but that duty is not a license for rash judgment, sweeping condemnations, or guilt by proximity. St Alphonsus is not an internet hall monitor, the same moral tradition that says we must correct also warns that correction is conditioned by office, competence, proximity, and prudence, and it condemns detraction and calumny when we impute interior guilt without proof. So when you say, “their silence makes their spirituality ring hollow for me,” that is your reaction, not a theological conclusion, and when you jump from “they have not said what I want” to “therefore they do not possess the faith,” that is exactly the kind of reckless inference you are accusing others of.
Second, you demanded a pre Vatican II example of something “signed, tolerated, or endured” that was not truly received, here is the obvious category the Church herself has always dealt with, unions and formulas that were externally signed and later collapsed because they were not received in the life of the Church. The Byzantine Church signed unions at Lyons and Florence, those agreements had papal ratification and official machinery behind them, and yet they did not take root as the faith of the Byzantine Church, they were rejected in practice over time, not because every bishop wrote a manifesto, but because the life of the Church did not absorb them as binding tradition. That is precisely what “reception” means, it is not a magic trick, it is the difference between an act on paper and the actual assimilation of doctrine into worship, catechesis, and lived ecclesial consciousness. If you want to argue that Vatican II is different in kind, then argue that, but you cannot pretend the category does not exist.
Third, you keep flattening everything into one metric, public denunciations. The Byzantine Church historically guards doctrine primarily through its liturgical, ascetical, and patristic mind, not through a modern Western docuмent culture where every crisis is met by press releases and open letters. You brought up Nestorius, good, now be consistent, the action there was ecclesial and concrete, communion and commemoration, not internet polemics. If your claim is that the Byzantine Church has “always been aligned with the post Vatican II plan,” then stop speaking in vibes and prove the mechanism of doctrinal reception, show where the alleged Vatican II errors are taught as binding dogma in the Byzantine Church, show where they are prayed into the Byzantine liturgy as part of lex orandi, show catechisms, synodal decrees, liturgical texts, required professions of faith, something objective. Otherwise you are asking everyone to accept your interpretation of motives and your reading of “silence” as if it were evidence of heresy.
Finally, the personal shot about me being a flip flopper is not an argument, it is a dodge. People change positions when they realize distinctions they previously missed, you yourself just admitted distinctions matter, “novel, ambiguous, pastorally dangerous” is not the same claim as “formally defined heresy,” and the fact that I am taking those distinctions seriously is not poison, it is basic theology. If you want to keep this honest, answer one simple question, where exactly does the Byzantine Church require its faithful to assent to Vatican II as dogma, in the same way the Latin Church treated it, and where exactly are Vatican II’s disputed novelties embedded as binding content in the Byzantine liturgy. If you cannot show that, then calling Byzantine bishops “false” and saying they “do not possess the faith” is not zeal, it is rhetoric masquerading as discernment.
-
1. “The East survived by non‑reception, not by being louder than Rome.”
Response:
Non‑reception only has meaning when a Church actually refuses to receive something.Silence is not automatically non‑reception.Historically, non‑reception has visible markers:
- refusal to implement
- refusal to teach
- refusal to commemorate
- refusal to incorporate into catechesis
- refusal to allow into synodal docuмents
- refusal to treat as authoritative
In the case of Nestorius, the East demonstrated non‑reception by:
- removing him from the diptychs
- refusing communion
- publicly rejecting his doctrine
- convening a council to condemn him
Non‑reception is an act, not an absence of noise.If the Eastern Churches today:
- remain in communion
- commemorate the hierarchy
accept the legitimacy of the council- teach its ecclesiology
- incorporate its pastoral theology
- and do not publicly reject its doctrinal formulations
then they are not “non‑receiving.”They are receiving quietly.Non‑reception is not “we didn’t talk about it much.”Non‑reception is “we refused it.”
(https://i.imgur.com/BqPFN4i.gif)2. “Nestorius was condemned because he taught heresy as doctrine. Vatican II didn’t define dogma.”
Response:
This objection misunderstands the nature of doctrinal error.
The Church has never required a heresy to be solemnly defined before it becomes dangerous.
Nestorius was condemned because:
- he taught error publicly
- he spread it ecclesially
- he caused doctrinal confusion
- he endangered the faithful
None of this required a solemn definition.
Likewise, if Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that contradict prior teaching, the issue is not:
“Was it defined ex cathedra?”
but:
“Is it objectively contrary to the faith?”
The East did not wait for Nestorius to issue a solemn definition.
They acted because the doctrine was false.
If Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that are false, the same principle applies.
Error is condemned because it is error, not because it is solemn.
3. “The East is not obligated to behave as if a dogmatic definition occurred.”
Response:
True—but irrelevant.
The obligation to resist heresy does not depend on the form of the heresy.
Arianism was not introduced by a solemn definition.
Iconoclasm was not introduced by a solemn definition.
Monothelitism was not introduced by a solemn definition.
Yet the East resisted all of them.
The East’s own history shows:
When doctrine contradicts the faith, resistance is required—definition or no definition.
If Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that contradict the faith, the East cannot hide behind the technicality of “no solemn definition.”
The Church has never treated that as a shield.
4. “Not every bishop must publicly denounce every crisis.”
Response:
Correct—but again irrelevant.
The issue is not:
- “Did every bishop denounce it loudly?”
The issue is:
- “Did the Church as a body refuse the error?”
During Arianism:
- many bishops were silent
- many were confused
- many were pressured
But the orthodox bishops:
- refused communion with Arians
- refused to sign Arian formulas
- refused to commemorate Arian bishops
- refused to teach Arian doctrine
Silence is not the standard.
Communion is.
If a bishop remains in communion with a hierarchy teaching doctrinal error, the Church has always treated that as:
- at best: weakness
- at worst: complicity
This is why the clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius from the diptychs.
They did not say:
“We don’t need to denounce him; our liturgy is still orthodox.”
They said:
“We cannot remain in communion with a teacher of error.”
That is the Eastern standard.
5. “You are collapsing assent, toleration, non‑reception, and resistance.”
Response:
No—you are misapplying those categories.
Here is the real distinction:
- Assent = accepting the teaching
- Toleration = enduring it without accepting it
- Non‑reception = refusing to incorporate it
- Resistance = actively opposing it
The Eastern Churches today:
- commemorate the hierarchy
- accept the legitimacy of the council
- do not reject its doctrinal formulations
- do not sever communion
- do not issue synodal condemnations
- do not remove names from the diptychs
This is not non‑reception.
This is quiet assent.
Non‑reception requires an act of refusal.
The East has not refused.
Finally, the personal shot about me being a flip flopper is not an argument, it is a dodge. People change positions when they realize distinctions they previously missed, you yourself just admitted distinctions matter, “novel, ambiguous, pastorally dangerous” is not the same claim as “formally defined heresy,” and the fact that I am taking those distinctions seriously is not poison, it is basic theology. If you want to keep this honest, answer one simple question, where exactly does the Byzantine Church require its faithful to assent to Vatican II as dogma, in the same way the Latin Church treated it, and where exactly are Vatican II’s disputed novelties embedded as binding content in the Byzantine liturgy. If you cannot show that, then calling Byzantine bishops “false” and saying they “do not possess the faith” is not zeal, it is rhetoric masquerading as discernment.
Well if it helps, I only called you "flip flopper" because you said you were raised in the SSPX, then you said you went to the CMRI (flip).
Now you go to Byzantine in communion with the Vatican II sect (flop).
Don't take it as anything other than that.
I think your willingness to change positions when you come to realize distinctions that you previously had is admirable.
But in this case you are just flat out wrong.
The answer your question here is fully articulated above.
Your premise of "Silence as non-acceptance" is as full of holes as a block of swiss cheese and doesn't hold up under even the lightest scrutiny when evaluating historical cases and universal principles of faith in general.
You may be sincerely convinced of your premise but, I don't think it is intellectually honest.
The idea that for 60 years the Eastern bishops have been "silently resisting" by simply saying the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite and this is all that the faith requires.
"Heretical docuмents, sign em all day no problem."
"Hobnobbing with heretics, hosting them, praying with them, visiting them. "A" "OK".
I see no "discernment" here - I am sensing more of a mixture of desperation mixed with delusions of grandeur to be honest.
-
1. “The East survived by non‑reception, not by being louder than Rome.”
Response:
Non‑reception only has meaning when a Church actually refuses to receive something.Silence is not automatically non‑reception.Historically, non‑reception has visible markers:
- refusal to implement
- refusal to teach
- refusal to commemorate
- refusal to incorporate into catechesis
- refusal to allow into synodal docuмents
- refusal to treat as authoritative
In the case of Nestorius, the East demonstrated non‑reception by:
- removing him from the diptychs
- refusing communion
- publicly rejecting his doctrine
- convening a council to condemn him
Non‑reception is an act, not an absence of noise.If the Eastern Churches today:
- remain in communion
- commemorate the hierarchy
accept the legitimacy of the council- teach its ecclesiology
- incorporate its pastoral theology
- and do not publicly reject its doctrinal formulations
then they are not “non‑receiving.”They are receiving quietly.Non‑reception is not “we didn’t talk about it much.”Non‑reception is “we refused it.”
(https://i.imgur.com/BqPFN4i.gif)2. “Nestorius was condemned because he taught heresy as doctrine. Vatican II didn’t define dogma.”
Response:
This objection misunderstands the nature of doctrinal error.
The Church has never required a heresy to be solemnly defined before it becomes dangerous.
Nestorius was condemned because:
- he taught error publicly
- he spread it ecclesially
- he caused doctrinal confusion
- he endangered the faithful
None of this required a solemn definition.
Likewise, if Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that contradict prior teaching, the issue is not:
“Was it defined ex cathedra?”
but:
“Is it objectively contrary to the faith?”
The East did not wait for Nestorius to issue a solemn definition.
They acted because the doctrine was false.
If Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that are false, the same principle applies.
Error is condemned because it is error, not because it is solemn.
3. “The East is not obligated to behave as if a dogmatic definition occurred.”
Response:
True—but irrelevant.
The obligation to resist heresy does not depend on the form of the heresy.
Arianism was not introduced by a solemn definition.
Iconoclasm was not introduced by a solemn definition.
Monothelitism was not introduced by a solemn definition.
Yet the East resisted all of them.
The East’s own history shows:
If Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that contradict the faith, the East cannot hide behind the technicality of “no solemn definition.”
The Church has never treated that as a shield.
4. “Not every bishop must publicly denounce every crisis.”
Response:
Correct—but again irrelevant.
The issue is not:
- “Did every bishop denounce it loudly?”
The issue is:
- “Did the Church as a body refuse the error?”
During Arianism:
- many bishops were silent
- many were confused
- many were pressured
But the orthodox bishops:
- refused communion with Arians
- refused to sign Arian formulas
- refused to commemorate Arian bishops
- refused to teach Arian doctrine
Silence is not the standard.
Communion is.
If a bishop remains in communion with a hierarchy teaching doctrinal error, the Church has always treated that as:
- at best: weakness
- at worst: complicity
This is why the clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius from the diptychs.
They did not say:
They said:
That is the Eastern standard.
5. “You are collapsing assent, toleration, non‑reception, and resistance.”
Response:
No—you are misapplying those categories.
Here is the real distinction:
- Assent = accepting the teaching
- Toleration = enduring it without accepting it
- Non‑reception = refusing to incorporate it
- Resistance = actively opposing it
The Eastern Churches today:
- commemorate the hierarchy
- accept the legitimacy of the council
- do not reject its doctrinal formulations
- do not sever communion
- do not issue synodal condemnations
- do not remove names from the diptychs
This is not non‑reception.
This is quiet assent.
Non‑reception requires an act of refusal.
The East has not refused.
Well if it helps, I only called you "flip flopper" because you said you were raised in the SSPX, then you said you went to the CMRI (flip).
Now you go to Byzantine in communion with the Vatican II sect (flop).
Don't take it as anything other than that.
I think your willingness to change positions when you come to realize distinctions that you previously had is admirable.
But in this case you are just flat out wrong.
The answer your question here is fully articulated above.
Your premise of "Silence as non-acceptance" is as full of holes as a block of swiss cheese and doesn't hold up under even the lightest scrutiny when evaluating historical cases and universal principles of faith in general.
You may be sincerely convinced of your premise but, I don't think it is intellectually honest.
The idea that for 60 years the Eastern bishops have been "silently resisting" by simply saying the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite and this is all that the faith requires.
"Heretical docuмents, sign em all day no problem."
"Hobnobbing with heretics, hosting them, praying with them, visiting them. "A" "OK".
I see no "discernment" here - I am sensing more of a mixture of desperation mixed with delusions of grandeur to be honest.
Good. Let’s expose your cult-mentality lies one by one.
1) “Silence is not non-reception; non-reception requires an act of refusal.”
This is a false absolutization of one historical pattern. Non-reception has never been limited to juridical rupture or formal condemnation. In the East especially, doctrinal non-reception often occurs through sustained non-integration, not immediate disciplinary acts. To retroactively impose a Western, post-schism expectation of procedural refusal onto Eastern ecclesiology is anachronistic and ignores how the East has actually lived through crises.
2) “Continued communion proves quiet assent.”
This argument equivocates on the meaning of communion. In Eastern history, communion has frequently been maintained under protest, ambiguity, or unresolved dispute for extended periods without implying doctrinal acceptance. The claim that communion automatically equals assent imports a Latin juridical logic that the Byzantine Church has never consistently shared.
3) “The East accepted the legitimacy of the council, therefore accepted its doctrine.”
This is a non sequitur. The East has repeatedly distinguished between recognition of an event and reception of its theological content. Councils, formulas, and imperial acts have often been “acknowledged” while their interpretations were resisted, re-read, or functionally sidelined for generations. Legitimacy does not equal doctrinal reception.
4) “Because Vatican II was not dogmatic, resistance should look the same as past heresies.”
This reverses the historical logic. Precisely because Vatican II framed itself as pastoral, ambiguous, and non-definitional, the Eastern response would not mirror reactions to overt dogmatic heresies like Arianism or Nestorianism. Different kinds of doctrinal problems provoke different ecclesial responses. Treating all error as if it must generate identical resistance patterns is historically naïve.
5) “Non-reception requires removal from diptychs.”
This is historically false. Removal from diptychs occurred in acute, crystallized heresies with identifiable teachers. Vatican II presents no such clear singular figure, formal anathema, or universally recognized heretical proposition. The East cannot remove “a council” from the diptychs in the same way it removed Nestorius. The analogy is structurally broken.
6) “Preserving the Divine Liturgy is insufficient; communion discipline is the true standard.”
This misunderstands Eastern theology at a foundational level. In the Byzantine Church, lex orandi is not decorative but constitutive. Refusal to alter the liturgy, creed, sacramental theology, and ascetical life is itself a doctrinal act. To dismiss this as passive is to misunderstand how doctrine is transmitted and resisted in the East.
7) “Silence plus communion equals complicity.”
This is a modern polemical assertion, not an Eastern principle. Historically, the East has tolerated long periods of deliberate ambiguity precisely to avoid premature schism while truth clarified over time. To label this as “complicity” is to substitute impatience for discernment and to confuse eschatological trust with cowardice.
8) Appeal to Arianism as the controlling paradigm.
Arianism is not the universal template for every doctrinal crisis. It was a metaphysical, christological heresy that demanded immediate resolution. Vatican II is a pastoral-theological rupture marked by ambiguity, not a single definable dogma. Forcing Vatican II into the Arian model is not historical reasoning, it is just rhetorical convenience.
9) Claim that changing positions indicates dishonesty.
This is not an argument. Revising conclusions after deeper historical and theological study is how intellectual integrity works. Ironically, your own argument relies on distinctions (form vs. content, assent vs. tolerance) that undermine your accusation.
Your position only works if, all doctrinal errors demand identical resistance mechanisms, communion always equals assent, Eastern ecclesiology is judged by Western juridical standards, and
ambiguity is treated as betrayal rather than a historically attested mode of endurance.
None of those premises hold.
-
Good.
None of those premises hold.
1. “Silence is not non-reception; non-reception requires an act of refusal.” You’re redefining non-reception into something so vague it becomes unfalsifiable. Historically, non-reception is not mere “non-integration,” it is recognizable refusal: not teaching, not implementing, not commemorating, not building on a doctrine. In the East, that has taken concrete forms—synodal statements, refusal to sign, refusal to commune, removal from diptychs, or simply never allowing a teaching to function as a norm. If a council’s ideas are taught in seminaries, used in pastoral practice, cited as authoritative, and never explicitly rejected, that is not “sustained non-integration”—it is quiet reception. You can’t call ongoing use “non-reception” just because there was no dramatic rupture.
2. “Continued communion proves quiet assent.” Communion doesn’t always mean full interior agreement, but it does set a public baseline: you recognize the other as a legitimate teacher of the faith. The East has known “communion under protest,” but even then, protest was real—letters, synods, refusals, conditional acceptance. If there is no visible protest, no doctrinal clarification, no line drawn, then “communion under protest” becomes a story told after the fact, not a lived stance. You can’t appeal to a rare, exceptional mode of strained communion to normalize indefinite, peaceful coexistence with doctrines you claim are gravely harmful.
Communion doesn’t always mean full interior agreement, but it does set a public baseline: you recognize the other as a legitimate teacher of the faith. The East has known “communion under protest,” but even then, protest was real—letters, synods, refusals, conditional acceptance. If there is no visible protest, no doctrinal clarification, no line drawn, then “communion under protest” becomes a story told after the fact, not a lived stance. You can’t appeal to a rare, exceptional mode of strained communion to normalize indefinite, peaceful coexistence with doctrines you claim are gravely harmful.
3. “The East accepted the legitimacy of the council, therefore accepted its doctrine.” Legitimacy and doctrinal reception are distinct, but not unrelated. If a council is recognized as legitimate, its teaching is at least presumptively binding unless and until it is explicitly corrected, delimited, or non-received in practice. Historically, when the East “acknowledged” but did not receive certain formulas, that non-reception showed up in how they prayed, taught, and legislated. If Vatican II (or III in your scenario) is cited as a positive reference point, used to justify reforms, and never formally bracketed or corrected, then appealing to a theoretical distinction between “event” and “content” becomes a way to avoid admitting that, functionally, the content has been received.
4. “Because Vatican II was not dogmatic, resistance should look the same as past heresies.” No one is saying the mode of resistance must be identical; the point is that some recognizable resistance is required if the doctrine is truly harmful. The Church has always distinguished between levels of error, but she has never treated “pastoral” or “ambiguous” error as harmless. Ambiguity can be more dangerous precisely because it spreads under cover of plausible deniability. If you admit there is real doctrinal rupture, then “it was pastoral” doesn’t justify near-total passivity. Different crises can have different responses—but “we did almost nothing” is not a historically serious pattern of resistance.
5. “Non-reception requires removal from diptychs.” Removal from diptychs is one form of non-reception, not the only one—but it is a clear Eastern benchmark for when communion and doctrine are no longer compatible. You’re right that you can’t “remove a council” from the diptychs, but you can refuse to build on it, refuse to cite it as normative, refuse to let it shape catechesis and law. If, instead, the council is treated as a positive reference point and its categories are absorbed into ecclesial life, then the analogy to Nestorius fails in the opposite direction: not because the East can’t remove a council, but because it hasn’t even tried to limit its doctrinal reach.
6. “Preserving the Divine Liturgy is insufficient; communion discipline is the true standard.” Lex orandi is constitutive in the East, yes—but it is not the only locus of doctrine. The Fathers preached, wrote, and defined outside the liturgy, and those teachings mattered. Nestorius proves that liturgy can remain formally intact while preaching corrupts faith. Preserving the anaphora while allowing catechesis, episcopal statements, and pastoral practice to absorb problematic theology is not fidelity; it is partial resistance at best. To say “we kept the liturgy, therefore we resisted” is like saying “we kept the Creed, therefore our sermons don’t matter.” The East has never believed that.No one is denying that there can be periods of ambiguity and patience. The issue is duration and content. Temporary ambiguity while a crisis clarifies is one thing; decades of peaceful coexistence with doctrines you claim are gravely harmful is another. At some point, “waiting” becomes endorsement by default. The East has indeed endured tension without immediate schism—but when the line was finally crossed, it was crossed clearly. If that line is never drawn, and the supposed “error” continues to shape formation and practice, then calling that stance “eschatological trust” is pious language for functional complicity.
7.“Silence plus communion equals complicity.” No one is denying that there can be periods of ambiguity and patience. The issue is duration and content. Temporary ambiguity while a crisis clarifies is one thing; decades of peaceful coexistence with doctrines you claim are gravely harmful is another. At some point, “waiting” becomes endorsement by default. The East has indeed endured tension without immediate schism—but when the line was finally crossed, it was crossed clearly. If that line is never drawn, and the supposed “error” continues to shape formation and practice, then calling that stance “eschatological trust” is pious language for functional complicity.
8. “Appeal to Arianism as the controlling paradigm.” Arianism isn’t a template for everything, but it is a test case for how the Church treats doctrinal rupture. The point is not that Vatican II/III must look exactly like Arianism; the point is that the Church has never said, “Because this error is subtle or pastoral, we may indefinitely coexist with it in communion and practice.” Whether the error is metaphysical, christological, or ecclesiological, the pattern is the same: once recognized as incompatible with the faith, it must be resisted in some concrete way. Saying “this is different, therefore we can do almost nothing” is not historical nuance; it’s an excuse.
9. “Changing positions indicates dishonesty.” You’re right that revising conclusions can be a sign of integrity. But that cuts both ways. If someone once insisted that Vatican II was harmless, then later admits it contains serious doctrinal problems, that admission logically demands a corresponding shift in practice—especially regarding communion and reception. You can’t invoke “deeper study” to justify recognizing a deeper problem while leaving your ecclesial posture unchanged. The charge is not “you changed your mind, therefore you’re dishonest,” but “you changed your diagnosis without changing your treatment, therefore your new diagnosis looks rhetorical rather than operative.”
Bottom line:
Your objections only work if:
- non-reception can be invisible,
- communion can be indefinitely maintained without real consequence,
- “pastoral” error is exempt from serious resistance,
- preserving liturgy excuses doctrinal drift elsewhere, and
- decades of silence can still count as meaningful opposition.
None of that matches how the East—or the Church as a whole—has actually handled serious doctrinal rupture in the past.
-
You’re actively not even arguing logic anymore.
You mention Vatican 3 as if that has any real bearing on reality.
Then you go off topic on the theme of flip flopping. All that was was a waste if words because my position remained the same. The only thing that changed was my view on the State of Necessity.
But your view of Catholic Tradition is so limited, that you don’t even actually understand the SSPX position to defend it well enough. Archbishop Lefebre remains vindicated. How does that tie into uour analysis of my position.
The bottom line is
-you have no real understanding of of the Crisis in the Faith or Church history
-your argument doesn’t go deep enough to penetrate the understanding of Traditionalist culture or the motives for how Tradition got here in the first place.
You can go sit in your pew this Sunday in your best suit top and compete with your neighbors about who yells out the response better in a Low Mass where they shouldn’t be anyway. Then go home to your plastic world and tell yourself how Traditional you are.
Oh and I never needed a computer to say all that. Older forum members understand that.
-
You can go sit in your pew this Sunday in your best suit top and compete with your neighbors about who yells out the response better in a Low Mass where they shouldn’t be anyway. Then go home to your plastic world and tell yourself how Traditional you are.
Sounds like bitter zeal and contempt to me.
All your objections were refuted.
You couldn't even respond to a single point above with any cogency at all.
In this here "coming out party" about how Eastern Catholicism is so grand and has the answer better than SSPX, Sedes, etc. What is it that you are really trying to accomplish?
You want us to all agree that the long-term state of necessity due to the crisis doesn't work? I already believe that.
You want us to agree that the Vatican II Easterners never compromised their faith (though they fully submit to Rome amidst all the confusion, error, heresy, apostasy, and they never speak, but only hold the door for Leo when he comes to visit)? - I respectfully disagree, as do all the true Eastern bishops, Popes, saints, and theologians of the past.
You want us to believe that as long as the Byzantine rite doesn't inject heresy into its Liturgy then they are all good-2-go?
No, sorry you don't get to reinvent history, or what orthodoxy and communion mean just because you have found what you think "works" for you in making sense of the Church crisis during your life.
But, you can pretend, you can convince yourself and then you can come on here and share your imaginings with everyone else while we demean each other and spout off wordy rants about the superiority of rites, our ideas, our judgments, our...etc.
I for one won't be giving you the "silent treatment" - so that you may have no doubt about your errors.
The whole "silence as non-acceptance" schtick is an intellectual tap out.
I image that many Catholics during the Arian crisis did what I perceive you are doing now. Some of those Catholics followed St. Athanasius out into the desert, Others chose exile rather than hold communion with heretics. Concerning the rampant heresy, I am sure a great majority of the laity just "went along with it." The Church does not remember those who acquiesced through silence, She remembers those who resisted the heresy openly disassociating themselves from the heretical communion. So, you may think your actions are "safe" and "prudent", "discerning" and "wise" and come on here to tell us all so, but I see the same spirit there as expressed by those who just went along with it by their silence.
-
NYou keep repeating a straw man that no one has actually argued: that “as long as the Byzantine Church doesn’t inject heresy into its liturgy, everything is fine.” That is not my claim. My claim is that the Byzantine Church preserved doctrinal continuity, liturgical immutability, and ascetical discipline through the crisis, while the Latin Church did not. That is an empirical historical comparison, not a personal coping strategy.
You accuse me of “reinventing history,” yet you have not identified a single doctrinal innovation introduced into the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, a single ecuмenical council of the Byzantine Church embracing Vatican II novelty, or a single instance where the Byzantine Church dismantled its inherited theological grammar to accommodate modernity. The Latin Church, by contrast, did all three. That contrast is the point you keep avoiding.
You object that the Byzantine Church “remained in communion,” as if communion without doctrinal mutation is somehow equivalent to communion with doctrinal rupture. Historically, the Church has always judged fidelity not merely by juridical alignment, but by what is taught, prayed, and handed down. Communion did not excuse Arian bishops, Iconoclast emperors, or Monothelite patriarchs when doctrine was corrupted. The standard has never been “Did you stay polite?” but “Did you preserve the faith?”
You dismiss “silence as non-acceptance” as an intellectual tap-out, yet the Byzantine Church’s resistance was not silence—it was refusal to translate novelty into prayer, catechesis, or spiritual formation. The Latin Church did the opposite: it embedded ambiguity into its missal, catechisms, seminaries, and moral theology. One Church absorbed the poison into its bloodstream. The other did not. That difference matters.
You keep insisting that I must be proposing a superiority of rites based on personal preference. Again, wrong. This is not about aesthetics or temperament. It is about structural resilience. The Byzantine Church’s theology is liturgical, ascetical, and patristic by necessity. The Latin Church made itself bureaucratic, academic, and managerial—and when novelty entered, it had no immune system. That is not triumphalism; it is diagnosis.
You accuse me of inconsistency for having moved through SSPX, CMRI, and now the Byzantine Church. That is not flip-flopping; it is following the same principle to its conclusion: where is the faith preserved whole, without mental gymnastics, emergency theories, or perpetual exception clauses? The Latin traditionalist world has produced endless internal contradictions precisely because its crisis is structural, not accidental.
You ask what I am trying to accomplish. The answer is simple: to point out that the Latin Church’s crisis has produced fragmentation, clerical collapse, doctrinal minimalism, and an inability to discipline itself—while the Byzantine Church retained coherence without reinventing itself every decade. If that observation unsettles you, the discomfort is not coming from arrogance on my part, but from facts you would rather not account for.
Finally, your repeated attempts to psychologize my argument—calling it bitterness, zealotry, or imagination—only confirm that you are no longer engaging the substance. When history, theology, and lived ecclesial reality all point in the same direction, dismissing them as personal narrative is not refutation. It is avoidance.
-
And we haven’t even touched (pun intended) on the crisis of predatory priests in the Traditional Latin Rite. So far, I’ve been fair to keep this to the crisis of Faith. There’s a whole lot more darker issues with the Traditionalist Catholic circles. I don’t have to report on that. Those that have been around long enough know. But ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who choose to infiltrate the Catholic Church choose one rite and one rite for a reason.
So remember, I am arguing the beautiful points and hiding the ugly.
Attack me all you want as a flip flop. But it’s much safer over here.
-
NYou keep repeating a straw man that no one has actually argued: that “as long as the Byzantine Church doesn’t inject heresy into its liturgy, everything is fine.” That is not my claim. My claim is that the Byzantine Church preserved doctrinal continuity, liturgical immutability, and ascetical discipline through the crisis, while the Latin Church did not. That is an empirical historical comparison, not a personal coping strategy.
You accuse me of “reinventing history,” yet you have not identified a single doctrinal innovation introduced into the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, a single ecuмenical council of the Byzantine Church embracing Vatican II novelty, or a single instance where the Byzantine Church dismantled its inherited theological grammar to accommodate modernity. The Latin Church, by contrast, did all three. That contrast is the point you keep avoiding.
You object that the Byzantine Church “remained in communion,” as if communion without doctrinal mutation is somehow equivalent to communion with doctrinal rupture. Historically, the Church has always judged fidelity not merely by juridical alignment, but by what is taught, prayed, and handed down. Communion did not excuse Arian bishops, Iconoclast emperors, or Monothelite patriarchs when doctrine was corrupted. The standard has never been “Did you stay polite?” but “Did you preserve the faith?”
You dismiss “silence as non-acceptance” as an intellectual tap-out, yet the Byzantine Church’s resistance was not silence—it was refusal to translate novelty into prayer, catechesis, or spiritual formation. The Latin Church did the opposite: it embedded ambiguity into its missal, catechisms, seminaries, and moral theology. One Church absorbed the poison into its bloodstream. The other did not. That difference matters.
You keep insisting that I must be proposing a superiority of rites based on personal preference. Again, wrong. This is not about aesthetics or temperament. It is about structural resilience. The Byzantine Church’s theology is liturgical, ascetical, and patristic by necessity. The Latin Church made itself bureaucratic, academic, and managerial—and when novelty entered, it had no immune system. That is not triumphalism; it is diagnosis.
You accuse me of inconsistency for having moved through SSPX, CMRI, and now the Byzantine Church. That is not flip-flopping; it is following the same principle to its conclusion: where is the faith preserved whole, without mental gymnastics, emergency theories, or perpetual exception clauses? The Latin traditionalist world has produced endless internal contradictions precisely because its crisis is structural, not accidental.
You ask what I am trying to accomplish. The answer is simple: to point out that the Latin Church’s crisis has produced fragmentation, clerical collapse, doctrinal minimalism, and an inability to discipline itself—while the Byzantine Church retained coherence without reinventing itself every decade. If that observation unsettles you, the discomfort is not coming from arrogance on my part, but from facts you would rather not account for.
Finally, your repeated attempts to psychologize my argument—calling it bitterness, zealotry, or imagination—only confirm that you are no longer engaging the substance. When history, theology, and lived ecclesial reality all point in the same direction, dismissing them as personal narrative is not refutation. It is avoidance.
You keep saying I’m attacking a straw man, but your argument still hinges on the assumption that preserving liturgical and ascetical forms is equivalent to preserving doctrinal integrity. You frame the Byzantine Church’s external continuity as proof of internal fidelity, yet history shows that doctrinal rupture can occur even when liturgy remains unchanged. Nestorius kept the liturgy intact. So did the Monothelites. So did the Iconoclasts. The East condemned them not because they altered worship, but because they taught error. Continuity of form is not continuity of faith.
You demand that I identify doctrinal innovations in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, but that is not the standard the Byzantine Church itself has ever used to judge heresy. The East has always condemned doctrinal error at the level of teaching, not merely at the level of liturgical text. The fact that the Byzantine Churches did not rewrite their anaphoras proves nothing about whether they accepted doctrinal rupture at the episcopal level. The question is not “Did the liturgy change?” but “Did the bishops accept and transmit error?” Liturgy is not a shield against doctrinal compromise.
You argue that communion without doctrinal mutation is harmless, but communion is itself a doctrinal act. The clergy of Constantinople did not remain in communion with Nestorius simply because the liturgy was unchanged. They broke communion because he taught error. Communion is not judged by politeness or external calm; it is judged by whether one remains united to those who teach false doctrine. If the hierarchy teaches rupture and the bishops remain in communion, that is not fidelity—it is acquiescence.
You claim the Byzantine Church resisted by refusing to translate novelty into prayer or catechesis, but resistance requires more than passive insulation. Real resistance leaves marks: synodal clarifications, doctrinal boundaries, explicit rejections. None of that occurred. If novelty is accepted at the level of episcopal teaching and ecclesial communion, then preserving the liturgy is not resistance—it is compartmentalization. Nestorius preserved the liturgy too. The East still condemned him.
You say this is about structural resilience, not superiority of rites, but structural resilience is measured by doctrinal response, not by aesthetic stability. A Church can keep its liturgy, asceticism, and patristic vocabulary while quietly accepting doctrinal rupture at the episcopal level. That is not resilience; it is institutional quietism. The Latin Church’s bureaucratic failures do not automatically make the Byzantine Churches doctrinally intact.
You defend your movement between groups as principled, but each shift required redefining the principle itself. If the principle is “Where is the faith preserved whole?”, then communion with a hierarchy teaching rupture cannot be the answer—no matter how ancient the liturgy is. Changing ecclesial homes without changing the underlying ecclesiology simply relocates the same unresolved contradictions.
You say the Latin Church collapsed while the Byzantine Church retained coherence, but coherence is not the same as fidelity. A Church can remain coherent while doctrinally compromised. A Church can remain ascetical while ecclesiologically inconsistent. A Church can retain its liturgy while accepting rupture at the level of teaching. The question is not which Church looks healthier, but which Church resisted doctrinal error. External stability is not proof of internal integrity.
You accuse me of psychologizing your argument, but the issue is not your motives—it is your method. You treat external continuity as proof of doctrinal purity, silence as resistance, communion as neutrality, and liturgical preservation as theological immunity. None of these claims align with how the Church—East or West—has historically judged fidelity. When history, theology, and ecclesiology contradict your framework, dismissing the critique as avoidance does not resolve the inconsistency.
-
The claim that the Latin Church’s crisis produced fragmentation, clerical collapse, doctrinal minimalism, and disciplinary paralysis, while the Byzantine Churches retained coherence without reinventing themselves, is presented as a simple empirical contrast. Yet the theological assumptions underlying this contrast do not align with the Church’s own pre‑Vatican II doctrinal standards. The argument treats liturgical immutability and ascetical continuity as proof of doctrinal integrity, but the Church has never taught that external stability is a sufficient criterion of orthodoxy. Nestorius preserved the liturgy; the Monothelites preserved the liturgy; the Iconoclasts preserved the liturgy. In each case, the rupture occurred at the level of teaching, not ritual form. St. Cyril of Alexandria writes, “We are bound to avoid those who think or teach otherwise, even if they pretend to confess the same faith” (PG 77:105). Pope St. Leo the Great likewise insists, “The rule of faith is not established by the form of prayers but by the confession of truth” (Ep. 124). Thus, liturgical continuity cannot be treated as doctrinal immunity.
The argument also assumes that the Latin Church’s turmoil proves doctrinal rupture while the Byzantine Churches’ stability proves doctrinal purity. But ecclesial health is not measured by sociological outcomes. A Church can be fragmented yet doctrinally faithful, or coherent yet doctrinally compromised. St. Athanasius observed during the Arian crisis, “They have the churches, but you have the faith” (Against the Arians I.7). The Arians were externally unified and institutionally dominant; the orthodox were scattered and persecuted. External order is not a sign of doctrinal fidelity. The argument further treats communion as if it were a neutral administrative fact, irrelevant so long as liturgy and asceticism remain intact. But pre‑Vatican II ecclesiology is explicit: communion is confessional. Pius XII teaches, “The bonds which unite the faithful are profession of the same faith and communion of the same sacraments under legitimate pastors” (Mystici Corporis). St. John Chrysostom warns, “To communicate with the wolf is to scatter the sheep” (Hom. on Matthew 82). Communion is not neutral; it is doctrinal.
The argument claims that the Byzantine Churches resisted novelty by refusing to translate it into prayer or catechesis, but authentic resistance in the Church has always involved explicit doctrinal acts. St. Gregory the Great writes, “Silence in the face of error is itself error” (Ep. 9.30). Pope Felix III states, “Not to oppose error is to approve it; not to defend truth is to suppress it” (PL 58:895). Passive insulation is not doctrinal resistance. A Church that preserves its liturgy while accepting doctrinal rupture at the episcopal level has preserved the appearance of continuity, not its substance. The argument then appeals to structural differences, suggesting that the Byzantine Churches’ liturgical‑ascetical culture made them resilient while the Latin Church’s bureaucratic structure made it vulnerable. But ecclesial structure does not determine doctrinal fidelity. St. Maximus the Confessor resisted Monothelitism in a Church that was fully Eastern, ascetical, and patristic, yet he warned, “Even if the whole world should fall into deception, the truth is not changed” (PG 91:144). Structure does not guarantee fidelity; confession does.
The argument defends movement between ecclesial positions as principled development, but pre‑Vatican II theology insists that doctrinal judgment must be consistent with ecclesial posture. Pope Leo XIII teaches, “It is absurd to say one holds the faith while rejecting the authority that teaches it” (Satis Cognitum). If one judges a hierarchy to teach rupture yet remains in communion with it, the contradiction is not resolved by personal sincerity. Finally, the argument attempts to pre‑empt critique by framing objections as emotional discomfort rather than substantive disagreement. But theological critique is not a matter of psychology; it is a matter of doctrinal coherence. St. Augustine writes, “Let us not accuse persons, but examine the doctrine” (Contra Cresconium III.33). The issue is not motive but method. The claim that liturgical continuity equals doctrinal fidelity, that silence equals resistance, that communion equals neutrality, and that external coherence equals internal integrity does not align with the standards by which the Church has historically judged truth.
In conclusion, pre‑Vatican II sources overwhelmingly affirm that liturgical continuity does not guarantee doctrinal fidelity, external coherence is not a sign of orthodoxy, communion is a doctrinal act, silence is not resistance, heresy spreads through teaching rather than ritual, ecclesial structure does not confer immunity to error, doctrinal judgment must align with ecclesial posture, and theological critique cannot be dismissed as psychological discomfort. The preservation of external form cannot be treated as proof of the preservation of internal faith, and the absence of visible rupture cannot be treated as evidence of fidelity. The Church has always judged doctrine by what is taught, professed, and confessed—not merely by what is prayed or preserved.
-
There’s a time for both silence and to speak. Pray to the Holy Ghost for the wisdom when to do either.
-
There’s a time for both silence and to speak. Pray to the Holy Ghost for the wisdom when to do either.
Exactly. Even this argument and thread speaks of controversy when it shouldn’t.
-
I didn't take it that way.
I thought she was calling out the Easterners for being silent when they should have spoken up.
Centro, your central claim for this OP is literally, "to point out that the Latin Church’s crisis has produced fragmentation, clerical collapse, doctrinal minimalism, and an inability to discipline itself—while the Byzantine Church retained coherence without reinventing itself every decade."
The first part - everyone here knows.
The second part of the claim fails to realize, that the Byzantine Church is still wedded to the principles of Vatican II by their silent acceptance of Modern Rome and all that comes in it's wake - they hold communion with the heretics. If you are more R&R (which it seems that you always have been) then this is no problem for you to profess communion with heretics, it is all just meaningless words to many...
-
You don’t even understand my position well enough for me to waste my time. Stick around a little longer and read some of our threads from ten years back or so.
I never flipped. I always held the East in esteem for holding to Catholic doctrine, liturgy and having valid sacraments. I still support the sedevacantists groups that I have in the past. I still hold the CMRI position on the Council. I still will frequent a Latin Rite Mass, and only really one outside the Latin rite diocesan structure of which I have never known.
My position regarding the Byzantine Church is supported by hearing their clergy personally trash Lumen Gentium and transmitting the True Faith in ways not understood from a Latin mind. It takes time. Like assimilating to a new country, something I have done a time or two.