I always thought the ecuмenism piece was the bigger issue, but perhaps that's wrapped up with religious liberty.

No, religious liberty is the big one.

Part of the problem is that many people confuse ecuмenism with interfaith, and within ecuмenism they confuse "church" with "ecclesial communion". The texts pertaining to ecuмenism are much more nuanced once one understands the proper definitions being used.

Basically, ecuмenism pertains only to dialogue or activity between validly baptized Christians. When non-Christian religions are involved, it is not ecuмenism but interfaith. And the rules for interfaith are much less permissive.

Likewise, a "Church" in Catholic docuмents that pertain to ecuмenism means one of the Eastern non-Catholic Churches that possess the traditional hierarchy of bishop-priest-deacon, as well as all seven sacraments recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. So basically the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Churches of the East.

Protestants, on the other hand, are defined as "Ecclesial Communions".

Thus ecuмenism was not as big an issue to leading sede theologians at the time, as religious liberty was. Especially since the Catholic Church has always practiced ecuмenism with the Orthodox Church, to greater or lesser extent, since the split.

In fact, if Vatican II broke with previous ecuмenical councils in one respect, it was that it was the first ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church to which the Eastern Orthodox bishops were not invited as full participants.

So you confirm your recognition but as to any resistance it would be safe to say then, that you see no crisis in the Church, or conciliar novelties of which you might disapprove?

Most novelties of which I would disapprove have slowly been working their way out of the Church. There have always been novelties and excesses following most ecuмenical councils. Vatican II is no different. It is just a matter of giving history following the Council enough time to sift reform from novelty.

I always thought the ecuмenism piece was the bigger issue, but perhaps that's wrapped up with religious liberty.

You are generally correct. The council was a complete package all serving one agenda. Issues such as religious liberty, ecuмenism, liturgical reform, the changing of definitions such as Tradition, the relativizing and legitimizations of  Islam, Protestantism, and eastern religions, the raising of Judaism and the Jews to an equal level with the Christians, and the re-defining of the very nature of the Church, as well as the suppression of Tradition, were all integral part of the plan.

They were successful beyond their dreams. Carnal men, hirelings of the world wrested the power of the Church from the Catholic shepherds and remade it in their own image and to their own ideals, giving birth to the Church of the New Advent, the Conciliar church.

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Sean Johnson

Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?

Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.

Indeed it would - if the CMRI cared what "Rome" thinks.

What a juvenile comment!

As if a true Catholic could just break off from Eternal Rome.

Yes it is a shame that Vatican II et al broke from Eternal Rome.  

Hello Pete. I'm with you in that it must either be Indult or Sedevacantism for me; either with Rome or against Rome. The SSPX has never made sense to me.

What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them? To me, the only way that these canonizations be viable is if somehow these men really were prisoners to masonic Cardinals, in the way that Malachi Martin used to suggest. Barring that - and to me even that seems a very argument - these men were among the worst in history, and far from being saints they were veritable antichrists, for this reason: they absolutely and utterly failed to take a stand against the modern world, and instead chose to fornicate with the world and yield to many of the principles of masonry, failing totally in their care of souls.

What's your opinion? Is my characterization of them just mistaken? Or are the canonizations not infallible (how can that be)?

What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?

First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.

Second, I cannot really speak to St John XXIII as I know little about him. However, I have heard some sedevacantists who hold he was the last valid pope make the argument that he was in fact more traditional than Pope Pius XII. I am not saying I agree with these claims -- again, I'm more familiar with Pius XII's papacy than that of St John XXIII - but enough to say it is disputed even among sedes.

As far as St John Paul II, when one looks at the total picture of how he put up a fight against the culture of death, sparking the imagination of a whole new generation of young Catholics, how he inspired Catholics behind the iron curtain and in China to keep the faith, how he liberated Eastern Catholics from centuries of forced Latinization and provided them with "top cover" to restore their Eastern Catholic Tradition. And the reform to canon law.

Additionally, unlike Paul VI, St John Paul II never really enforced Mgr Lefebvre's suspension a divinis for illicitly ordaining priests, and tried to work out an agreement through then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

Overall, a pretty good track record.  

Quote from: J.Paul

By your comments I would then conclude, that you do not admit to the existence of a grave crisis in the Church which was put into motion by the conciliar revolution.

Throughout the Church's history ecuмenical councils have always taken place around times of crisis. Vatican II was no different. The crisis that took place in the Church around this time on account of the great upheavals in European society and elsewhere would have taken place no matter what. Remember that about two-thirds of the world was under communism at the time.

I have several friends who were priests behind the iron curtain. Some still are, being Asian. Their description of Vatican II and how it facilitated preserving the faith under harsh persecution makes sense. Additionally, Vatican II also liberated the Eastern Catholic Churches to restore their Apostolic Traditions after centuries of forced Latinization.  

But back to my previous point. The high percentage of abandonment of the Catholic faith among second and third generation traditionalists, once they are grown up and emancipated from mom and dad, tells me this crisis would have come whether or not there was a Vatican II.

Yes, this is so in that at such times the Church would deal directly with the problems of the time by calling a council and doing what the Church as always done, clarify doctrine and condemn error.
Vatican II did no such thing. It was clearly a vehicle to introduce false ideas and overturn the structures of the Church. It came at a time of crisis as an opportunist who would steal a man's cloak while he slept.
The forces behind it had waited for centuries to accomplish the task.

As for communism, Vatican II did nothing but enable it a bit longer by accommodating that which the Church had rightly always stood against.

How logical can it be to say that the faith could be preserved by the corruption and undermining of the same? The Faith is strengthened and purified in the flames of persecution not by bathing it in the waters of error and heresy.

And what do the Eastern Catholic churches have who have imbibed in Vatican II?  They have Conciliarism, the humanist love affair with the world.
They have what their Orthodox brethren have attributed to the western Church for centuries, corrupted doctrines and heresy.

The subtext of your statements are clearly an effort to recast the conciliar debacle as a somewhat normal event in the march of time and the life of the Church, and beyond that, that it was legitimate, timely, and even a good thing.

Almost sixty years have passed, and seven conciliar popes, if they were that, have come and gone.  The Church lies in ruins, the body of Christ is rent asunder and the souls of its members are awash in worldliness, confusion, and error.
The supreme law of Mother Church has been suspended in the favor of social work, political considerations, and carnal concerns.

Some of us who actually remember the old Faith, the "old believers" if you will.  We do still discern that which carries the mark of the Devil, we acknowledge the true nature of the "council" and its instigators, and we are not deceived.