Bp Williamson said something along the lines of the church being at a high point in the 1950s;  he went on to say Vatican II resulted in the great fall into the abyss.  Now all the Bishops were in their 60s and 70s at the time of Vatican II.  Most people form their psyches in their 30s.  That would mean that these Bishops had been corrupted by Modernism in the 1920s and 1930s.  The post WWI society was an orgy of Modernism:  Communism, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, Feminism, et al.  Certainly, Modernism's roots go back to at least the 18th century, but my question to you all is when was the tipping point?  When did these young priest who would later become Bishops at Vatican II lose the faith?  The 1920s?

Some of those Bishops never had the Faith to begin with, as they were ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic infiltrators.

Some of those Bishops never had the Faith to begin with, as they were ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic infiltrators.

This is absolutely and beyond any shadow of the doubt TRUE!  

Which means they were also atheists who lived a life dedicated to the destruction of Our Lord's Church.  

The post-Vatican II bishops are following in the traditions of infiltrators.

Quote from: Cato

Bp Williamson said something along the lines of the church being at a high point in the 1950s;  he went on to say Vatican II resulted in the great fall into the abyss.  Now all the Bishops were in their 60s and 70s at the time of Vatican II.  Most people form their psyches in their 30s.  That would mean that these Bishops had been corrupted by Modernism in the 1920s and 1930s.  The post WWI society was an orgy of Modernism:  Communism, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, Feminism, et al.  Certainly, Modernism's roots go back to at least the 18th century, but my question to you all is when was the tipping point?  When did these young priest who would later become Bishops at Vatican II lose the faith?  The 1920s?

There was a chap called Tyrrell, a fully developed Modernist, writing in the 1880s. Certain of the abuses we think of as being those of Vatican II - Communion standing, the Mass 'toward the people' and so on were to be found in the 'Liturgical Movement' as early as the 1930s and 40s. Obviously, Modernism was rampant after the Great War but there were entirely and thoroughly Modernist writers in Victorian times. I do not think it is impossible, no, I think it is probable, that the Modernist bishops at the Council sat at the feet of older Modernists as young priests.

There's really good source to draw on  that can be found here:

Thank you so much for the link!

Quote from: PatrickG

Quote from: Cato

Bp Williamson said something along the lines of the church being at a high point in the 1950s;  he went on to say Vatican II resulted in the great fall into the abyss.  Now all the Bishops were in their 60s and 70s at the time of Vatican II.  Most people form their psyches in their 30s.  That would mean that these Bishops had been corrupted by Modernism in the 1920s and 1930s.  The post WWI society was an orgy of Modernism:  Communism, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, Feminism, et al.  Certainly, Modernism's roots go back to at least the 18th century, but my question to you all is when was the tipping point?  When did these young priest who would later become Bishops at Vatican II lose the faith?  The 1920s?

There was a chap called Tyrrell, a fully developed Modernist, writing in the 1880s. Certain of the abuses we think of as being those of Vatican II - Communion standing, the Mass 'toward the people' and so on were to be found in the 'Liturgical Movement' as early as the 1930s and 40s.

The perfidy of George Tyrrell was the impetus behind the work of the great
encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis of Pope St. Pius X (namesake of the
Society), which was apparently authored by the saintly secretary of state
to the saint-pope, Cardinal Merry del Val, whose humility and self-abnegation
prevented him from claiming any credit for the scholarship, even though
his work was fully supported and advanced by the saint-pope.  It is also
noteworthy to see that while the errors of Tyrrell (who died less that 5 years
after Pascendi was disseminated and 2 years after the Oath Against
Modernism was required of all priests) were specifically dealt with in the
landmark encyclical, his name is nowhere to be found therein, for the work
was not any mere ad-hominem, but entirely principled endeavor from
start to finish.

Quote

Obviously, Modernism was rampant after the Great War but there were entirely and thoroughly Modernist writers in Victorian times. I do not think it is impossible, no, I think it is probable, that the Modernist bishops at the Council sat at the feet of older Modernists as young priests.

There's really good source to draw on  that can be found here:

Thank you so much for the link!

...

...
Certainly, Modernism's roots go back to at least the 18th century, but my question to you all is when was the tipping point?  When did these young [priests] who would later become Bishops at Vatican II lose the faith?  The 1920s?

It seems to me this is a very complex question.

Pope St. Pius X basically gave the world a life-support extension by his
constancy against the grand sewer of all heresy, and his personal holiness.
But he was clear to warn us that Modernism was only temporarily bowing
its head to his admonitions and would rise again, if not diligently kept
down.  One could see this as a fulfillment (at least as a type thereof) of
the prophesy in St. John's Apocalypse xiii. 3: "And I saw one of its heads
as it were slain to death: and his death's wound was healed.  And all
the earth was in admiration after the beast."

Without the miraculous intervention of Pope St. Pius X the world was in
for a much worse fate than the terrors of the 20th century, IOW. It could
easily have been worse than 100's of millions of casualties, and that is
exactly what we are presently facing, according to the prophesy of Our
Lady of Fatima, with the looming annihilation of nations.

The faith of Catholics is rewarded with the Mass and Sacraments, but
the loss of faith of Catholics is punished with bad priests, bishops and
popes.  That doesn't mean they will all be "invalid" clerics, but perhaps
bad enough to have lost the faith!  However, it might be a bit extreme to
presume that even a majority of the bishops at Vat.II had "lost the faith."

Modernism is so dangerous because one can be affected by its contagion
in small doses, so as to have only a small influence, or, the infection can
be worse, in degrees, increasing to a point where the faith is seriously
in danger.  But it is possible to still be Catholic and to have only a little
bit of Modernism coursing in one's veins.  

This is why +Fellay's statements to CNS a year ago are so disturbing,
because it shows that he defends in principle the possibility of having
a small amount of Modernism running around free in one's mind and
heart, when he said, "We see that, in the discussions, many things which
we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not
from the Council, but the common understanding of it (...). Many people
understand wrongly the Council (...) the Council presents a religious
freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited." (Fr. Hewko's quote
from +F's CNS Interview, May 11th, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23, The Recusant
Issue 2, pg. 26).

Would you then say that Bishop Fellay has "lost the faith?"  Because that
is a direct and reasonable conclusion from all these matters at hand.  It
is not this that the Resistance priests are saying.  They are critical of
the Superior's bad judgment and incompetence and imprudence (even
while he claims the opposite in all these matters:  right judgment due to
his "grace of state," competence as someone we should "trust," and the
bearer of the virtue of "prudence").  But they do not accuse him of having
"lost the Faith."  

They pray for his 'conversion' but at the same time say it would be right
for him to resign.  And it would be proper for the priests of the SSPX to
come together to demand his resignation, or else, to expel him.