Author Topic: Official CathInfo position on the Crisis in the Church (Read 6005 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 05, 2013, 10:58:55 AM »

By virtue of continued use of one's CathInfo account, all members agree to the following propositions:

The "Crisis in the Church", as it is commonly defined, objectively began around Vatican II. It is not a subjective decision of Matthew or anyone else to say that the Crisis proper began in the 1960's.

I agree that the Catholic Church immediately before Vatican II was unequivocally the Catholic Church and worthy of all the privileges of that position (respect, deference, obedience, membership).

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2013, 11:09:22 AM »

Those who claim the Catholic Church has been in eclipse since BEFORE the 1960's must cease posting and leave CathInfo.

The Catholic Church might have had problems with her human members throughout Her long history -- prelates and Popes making imprudent decisions here and there, etc. -- but the Catholic Church wasn't dysfunctional like She is today.

And no revolution happens overnight. Of course there were problems and much build-up leading to the full-blown eruption of Vatican II. But we must not confuse ourselves as to when the Crisis began.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2013, 11:11:17 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
In other words, we must ALL agree that the Catholic Church before Vatican II was unequivocally the Catholic Church

And now it is not?

Now it is open for debate. Sedevacantism is at least very tempting now. Let's face it -- a case could be made.

Many of us don't believe that is a prudent position -- but a case could be made. That is where some of us disagree.

I will allow sede and non-sede on here, but I won't allow those who think the Crisis began with Vatican I, for example.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2013, 11:14:00 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

You probably need to give a definition of "Crisis" that is clear-cut.

Because traditionalists speak of how the problems didn't start with Vatican II, how there was a very long period building up to Vatican II, etc.

That's why I said "as it is commonly defined"

I didn't want to be here all day.

You know: defective liturgy, Pope defending heresy, rampant error among the priests and bishops, when Vatican II changed the Mass, the Sacraments, many tenets of the Faith, Canon Law, attitude toward the modern world, etc.

But there is a WORLD of difference between "things weren't perfect" and the Crisis we have today.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2013, 11:16:32 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Also, you in the other thread, you said "they were valid" about the pre-conciliar Popes. Do you recognize the implications of such a remark?

There might be something of a problem of consistency with those who say all these conciliar Popes are valid but then take everything pre-Vatican II off the table.

This quote doesn't make sense, Tele. Did you make a typo?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2013, 11:20:37 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

This quote doesn't make sense, Tele. Did you make a typo?

No, I didn't.

If the conciliar Popes are valid, why say the pre-conciliar Popes are valid as though that were the reason a distinction is made?

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2013, 11:27:15 AM »

You're still not making sense.

For one thing, I didn't say (here or in the other thread) that the Conciliar Popes were valid. I didn't say they were invalid either...

I was only speaking about PRE-conciliar.

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2013, 12:02:38 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Matthew
This quote doesn't make sense, Tele. Did you make a typo?

No, I didn't.

If the conciliar Popes are valid, why say the pre-conciliar Popes are valid as though that were the reason a distinction is made?

I, as one sedevacantist, have no problem with this new implicit agreement. Actually, I thought this was already part of the implicit agreement to be a member of CathInfo, at least implicitly.

While I realize that Pius XII died in 1958 and John 23 was elected in 1958 and many of the "changes in the Church" were brewing before that date while most did not become really apparent until after that date, I use 1960 as a general rule as the line of demarcation--only for convenience. I do not necessarily declare that John 23 was an anti-pope; I simply haven't the requisite knowledge to make such a declaration. He did, however, start the ball rolling; and so, I think his pontificate is probably a good time to identify with the beginning of the Crisis.

But the one reason to make a distinction, Telephorus, is that the pre-Conciliar popes were true popes without doubt which cannot be said for any of the Conciliar claimants (even though this was clearly not Matthew's intention).

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2013, 12:11:04 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

There might be something of a problem of consistency with those who say all these conciliar Popes are valid but then take everything pre-Vatican II off the table.

I understand what you're saying here, Tele. All Matthew is saying is that the crisis in the Church didn't start until the 1960s. Diego was arguing that pre-Vatican II Saints are open to criticism, and that they should be put on the same level of Vatican II "saints" such as JPII, which is absurd.

Whether one of sedevacantist or sedeplenist, I think it's illogical to compare the pre-Vatican II Saints and Popes to those afterwards. There is simply no comparison.

I accept CatholicInfo's position that while things weren't perfect in the Church prior to Vatican II, things then were nothing compared to what they are now.

Nishant · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2013, 12:25:04 PM »

Having read the other thread, I think it's a reasonable and well thought out position, because the alternative is to "re-examine" all of history in a purely rationalistic manner without the lens of faith, pretending it is possible for the Church to have erred on one matter or the other, and therefore surely to err oneself. I know this was the case in the earlier thread that discussed Mr.Hoffman's view of Church teaching on usury and mentioned it there.

There are good, solid answers by excellent traditional Catholic writers to the things Diego and Mr.Hoffman has bought up in the past (they are hardly the only ones to write on the subject) like the alleged self-contradiction of the Church on the matter of usury, which stems from a misunderstanding, or the Holy Inquisition's treatment of dissidents and heretics and the Church's teaching relating to it. And the Catholic historian who treats these matters is in no way permitted to embrace an opinion of them that contradicts the certain truths known from the faith and accuse the Church's solemn judgment and Magisterial teaching (as for example at Lateran V in the case of usury and Exsurge Domine on the matter of repression of heresy) of being erroneous and sinful, anymore than the Catholic historian who writes of the Gospels is permitted to cast doubt on their inerrancy and factual accuracy based on a presumably superior historical knowledge.

Quote from: Matthew on the other thread

As a corollary, the first questionable Pope is Paul VI; I suppose John XXIII could be argued as well.

Van Noort would provide some theological support for this. He says it is a "dogmatic fact", a truth that follows from two premises the one of which is divine revealed and the other of which is historically certain or verified by reason, that a Pope universally accepted by the Church - and specifically mentions Pope Pius XII - is for that very reason shown to indubitably be a Pope, as long as he remains so accepted at least, and that was true of Pope Pius XII until his death and of Popes before him, while it could at least be argued this is not true for the Popes after the Council.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2013, 08:25:13 PM »

Dear Matthew,

I am a bit confused.

At the beginning of the thread it says:

Quote

…around Vatican II…

but then it also says:

Quote

…immediately before Vatican II…

Then it says:

Quote

Those who claim the Catholic Church has been in eclipse since BEFORE the 1960's…

Vatican II was announced in A.D 1959 (possibly), and started in A.D. 1962.
But many traditional Catholics would say the eclipse of the Church dates from A.D. 1958.
Or after the death of Pope Pius XII, or however it would be phrased.
I would say that it dates from shortly after the death of Pope Pius XII.
Almost all sedevacantists would say that the loss of authority, and consequent obedience started after the death of Pope Pius XII.
Is that acceptable for members of CathInfo?

I think it is important, because it might put many excellent Catholics off of joining CathInfo, if they think they have to accept the “papacy” of John XXIII.
Some people read the criteria for joining a forum before they join, and you probably do not want to lose good potential CathInfo members.

In the time of John XXIII many things were overtly evil:
they banned various good prayers, they announced Vatican II, they refused to release the Third Secret of Fatima, they acquiesced to evil in many other ways.
And he did many other evil things.
Many traditional Catholics knew that things were very bad then.

So can a member of CathInfo hold that the eclipse of the Church began after the death of Pope Pius XII in A.D 1958, instead of A.D 1959 or A.D.1962 (date of Vatican II)?

I agree that the Catholic Church before the death of Pope Pius XII was unequivocally the Catholic Church and worthy of all the privileges of that position (respect, deference, obedience, membership). But I am not sure of the exact date, or something like that, when it stopped being all of those things. And I am not sure exactly where the Catholic Church actually genuinely was after that time. Or something like that. I am not sure if I have accurately put my position here. But it is something along these lines, more or less. I accept that it was the true Church until sometime in A.D 1958, and that the Catholic Church still is the true Church, but it is not the same thing as the conciliar church or the heretical group started by John XIII after the death of Pope Pius XII in A.D 1958.

If you do not post anything on this thread to the contrary, I will assume that it is alright for me (and others) to continue posting on CathInfo and being a member and everything, even though I believe that the Church has been in eclipse, etc. (possibly, although it is depending on what is meant by the eclipse of the Church) since sometime in A.D 1958, instead of A.D. 1962.

It bothered me, because I felt that I might be going against my conscience or something similar to that.

So I thought that I had better tell you what I believe.

Thank you for CathInfo.
Thank you for providing a Forum where real Catholics are allowed.

God Bless you, Matthew.
Yours,
Sede Catholic

Thursday · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2013, 09:07:03 PM »

Ground zero of the Novus Ordo Church was October 26th, 1958, 5.55pm when the white smoke indicated that new pope was elected and yet he failed to appear on the balcony. There are various reports of who was elected that evening but I think it's a pretty safe to say that's where it all started.

John XXIII never fired Bugnini by the way.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2013, 09:22:47 PM »

SedeCatholic,

My use of "ambiguous" language was done on purpose.

My point is that I'm not going to split hairs about what HOUR or DATE the Crisis began.

My point IS that the Crisis began with Vatican II, NOT Vatican I, the Council of Trent, or any other date in history.

Unfortunately, some Catholics use this very real Crisis in the Church -- and the Traditional Catholic movement -- as a chance to have their very strange, unpopular, and WRONG ideas accepted by associating closely with the very CORRECT "Traditional movement".

But I reply that it's NOT a free-for-all, and those weirdos who claim that the Church has been in eclipse for centuries are on their own.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2013, 09:47:05 PM »

Dear Matthew,
Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify that.
Also, I made a mistake.
I wrote:

Quote

…is not the same thing as the conciliar church or the heretical group started by John XIII after the death of Pope Pius XII in A.D 1958….

I meant John XXIII.

Pope John XIII was a holy Pope from several centuries ago, and was definitely a valid Pope.

I agree with you, Matthew, that anyone who thinks that the Church has been in eclipse for centuries, is a weirdo.

Also, they are non-Catholics, because Pope Pius XII dogmatically defined the Assumption.
So anyone who thinks he was not Pope is a heretic, and is therefore excommunicated.
And anyone who is so anti-Catholic as to reject Vatican I is a heretic, because Vatican I was also dogmatic.

Thank you, Matthew, for taking the time to reply, which has helped to put my conscience more at ease.
Hopefully, you have also helped others by this clarification.

God Bless you, Matthew.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.

brotherfrancis75 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2013, 10:54:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

SedeCatholic,

My use of "ambiguous" language was done on purpose.

My point is that I'm not going to split hairs about what HOUR or DATE the Crisis began.

My point IS that the Crisis began with Vatican II, NOT Vatican I, the Council of Trent, or any other date in history.

Unfortunately, some Catholics use this very real Crisis in the Church -- and the Traditional Catholic movement -- as a chance to have their very strange, unpopular, and WRONG ideas accepted by associating closely with the very CORRECT "Traditional movement".

But I reply that it's NOT a free-for-all, and those weirdos who claim that the Church has been in eclipse for centuries are on their own.

This unworthy writer supports the above position most whole-heartedly.

It is very beneficial for us to recognize that John XXIII was, for good and ill, quite a unique character. In my opinion he was a private heretic of some Pelagian variety, but there was no serious proof of this until after his death. Hence in my view John XXIII was actually a rather ordinary Anti-Pope who, like most Anti-Popes, did little or nothing himself to disrupt the Catholic Church and religion. He may have been a legitimate Pope and some future Churchmen will have to decide for certain. The institutions of the Church continued to function quite well until the Pontificate of Paul VI, but that ill-starred reign only began in August 1963, not before then. Therefore in my view the Crisis of the Church did not begin until August 1963.

By October 1962 John XXIII was already dying. Hence Vatican II can be rejected in its entirety as something essentially separate from the Pontificate of John XXIII, however we may choose to characterize that somewhat odd Pontificate. In my view the future Paul VI controlled Vatican II from October 1962 onwards so that V2 from October of that year should be rejected as an aspect of Paul VI's devastating general apostasy. The opening of V2 was therefore the beginning of a coup d'etat in the Vatican that was quite violently promoted at that time by the Soviet K.G.B. and that effectively seized power from John XXIII while the latter was increasingly helpless on his deathbed.

But the preparatory docuмents of V2 are Catholic and in fact quite valuable and worthy of serious study by Catholics. In a similar way the institutions of the Church did much excellent work right up to August 1963. (A few of them even functioned to the end of the reign of that ghastly apostate Polish Jєω JP2 the Horrible.) In particular, the liturgical achievements during the reign of John XXIII genuinely reflect the will of Pope Pius XII and deserve only the highest praise from all pious Roman Catholics. To act otherwise is to gravely disrespect Pope Pius XII and play a Modernist game of using Jansenist attitudes to undermine the Papacy and Church in the interests of the present-day apostate Novus Ordo. At least such is the considered view of this writer.

If we allow a Jansenist attitude towards our Holy Church before the opening of V2 in October 1962, then were does it end? How far back through time do we continue on with tolerance for Jansenist errors? For example, many like to play the Holy Week liturgy of 1955 against the Holy Week liturgy from about 1945. But there is nothing within Roman Catholicism to justify such trouble-making. Pope Pius XII was perfectly Roman Catholic and in tune with the traditions of our Church. Those who claim otherwise are usually themselves more than a little in tune with the Jansenist High Church wing of Anglicanism and would belong much better in that false Church than in our own one true Catholic Church of Rome.

Those who hanker after false Anglican (Jansenist) views on liturgy and the Papacy should act accordingly and get themselves hence. The heretic Church of England awaits them.