Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

The signs of decay in the Church were evident well before Vatican II

The Church was just not ready to face the changes the 1960s threw at it

By on Friday, 31 August 2012

The opening of the Second Vatican Council in October 1962 (AP)

The opening of the Second Vatican Council in October 1962 (AP)

In the uplifting homily which Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury gave to the Latin Mass Society pilgrimage to Walsingham on 26th August, he reminded his listeners that “In October this year our Holy Father Pope Benedict invites us to celebrate a “Year of Faith”, fifty years after the solemn opening of the Second Vatican Council. The central aim of the Council was the transmission of the Church’s faith amid the new and rapidly changing conditions of our time. The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council Blessed John XXIII declared on that October day “is this, that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously”.

Bishop Davies continued, “As the Latin Mass Society, as the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, as pilgrims to Walsingham, we accept together with enthusiasm the call of the Second Vatican Council in all its authentic teaching and the invitation to this “Year of Faith” to which the Holy Father calls the whole Church.”

Bishop Davies is right to show his loyalty support for the Council of 1962-1965 – even though he, as well as his listeners, knows full well that an almighty turmoil within the Church actually followed in the wake of the Council. This turmoil, especially in the field of catechetics, has been documented for years in The Flock, the newsletter of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, edited by the redoubtable Mrs Daphne McLeod. The latest edition is on my desk with the ironic headline, “Fifty ‘Glorious’ Years?”

Daphne writes that before the Council “the Catholic Church grew and thrived… Missionary work grew too… Many excellent spiritual books were written [which] show how well the teachings of the Church were known and loved by Catholic before 1970, in sharp contrast to what Pope Benedict calls the ‘widespread religious ignorance’ found among most Catholics today…”

The newsletter continues in the same vein, with all the statistics of a thriving Church before the Council, and with sub-titles such as “How Vatican II was hijacked”, “The fruits of Vatican Two”, “How we got “Modern Catechetics” and so on. I don’t doubt that much of this analysis is correct and I don’t want to challenge her account. But there is just one question that niggles me: if the Church was so strong before the Council, with its “crowded churches for Sunday Mass and for the non-obligatory Rosary, sermon and Benediction, plenty at weekday Masses, packed seminaries and noviciates, as well as a steady stream of converts” etc, how did it collapse so quickly when the Council ended?

I know it is considered very bad form to bring Germany between 1933 and 1945 into an argument, but I’ll do it anyway. I have been reading a fascinating book by the well-known German historian, Joachim Fest, entitled Not Me: Memoirs of a German Childhood. Fest’s father, Johannes, a principled, Catholic headmaster of a Berlin secondary school and a political supporter of the Weimar Republic, loathed the National Socialists, refused to join the Party and thus lost his teaching post in 1933. His son reflected in these memoirs, that although he and his milieu had been brought up with “middle class and civic virtues” in a cultured and Christian European country, nonetheless “inwardly this stratum of society had decayed long before, so that I was brought up in accordance with the principles of an outmoded order.”

His own family might have held onto civilised and Christian values, but as a whole the German middle class – the class that traditionally, in any society, tends to run the institutions of local and national power – had “decayed”. Thus, he writes, it was “hopelessly unprepared” for the dictatorship that followed in 1933.

All right, it is a far-fetched analogy – but a Jesuit priest friend who has recently died aged 95, Fr Hugh Thwaites, answered my niggling question in much the same way that Joachim Fest did when he looked at his father’s generation; Father told me he could see the signs of decay in the Church in the 1950s, well before the Council got going.

Unlike Daphne McLeod, he felt Catholics in general did not really know their faith and were going through the motions of religious practice out of habit and unthinking conformity; it was not a living faith. That saintly man, Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary and given the honour of being a lay observer at the Council, was more damning in his judgment of the complacency of Catholic Ireland in the decades before the Council was called.

On might ask: was the Church prepared for the “new and rapidly changing conditions” of the 1960s and beyond?

We all hope a purified Church will now rise from the ashes of the past. Bishop Davies mentions the coming “Year of Faith”. The CTS, certainly one of the hopeful signs of a renewed Catholic apostolate today, compared with its faded booklets in the porches of parish churches in the past, has produced a “Year of Faith Prayer Book”. It includes prayers to the Trinity, Our Lady, the saints and for the Church and the world. Our country, which has lost its moral compass, needs many prayers as we know. Action has to begin in prayer. Using the “Year of Faith Prayer Book” would be a start.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    The Protestant “churches” that deny the existence of Hell are precisely the ones that are hemorrhaging members. Meanwhile, the worldwide number of Catholics is growing.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    What would Pope Peter think of the RCC today? Are you happy totally with todays RCC?

    He would be extremely please with the modern Popes – venerable Pius XII, blessed John XXIII, servant of God Paul VI, blessed John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI.

    St. Peter would be extremely disappointed with Hans Küng, Leonardo Boff, and other people who lead souls away from salvation.

  • Sweetjae

    The Holy Scripture too is very vague and ambiguous about Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Infusion of Grace, Indulgences etc….so therefore the Bible is under the ‘smoke of satan’ and an evil book?

    Differentiate between a valid Teaching of the Church (VII) with sinful acts and false interpretation of modernist clergy. This will clear things up for you.

  • Sweetjae

    The name you have chosen is rightly describes you, cafeteria! Pick and choose, like politicians calling themselves Catholics yet support abortion, gay marriage, contraception and other abominations.

  • Sweetjae

    Only people who can say such things are called Sedevacantist. Then why do you not elect your pope? Or much better elect yourself since obviously the only one you obey and listen to, is yourself!

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Hear, hear! 

    That a General Council of the Catholic Church should have decided (in advance) to pander to the KGB (google the “Metz Agreement”) is an unbelievable disgrace. That the greatest evil in the world, demonic Marxism, was not condemned at that Council is all one needs to know about Vatican II’s thorough rottenness even before one starts on the several “dodgy dossiers” it produced.  

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Spot on.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    NO priests are mostly exactly that: “a little bit Catholic”.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Council abandoned the concept of the Catholic religious state

    Nonsense — you have it backwards.

    I’ve actually *lived* in a place where Catholicism is the State Religion, and it’s frankly little different to anywhere else.

    The truth is that Western Society, not the Church and certainly not the Council, has abandoned the concept of the Catholic religious state

    abandoned the concept of Christ the King at the center of both spiritual
    and temporal society

    Mark : {12:17} So in response, Jesus said to them, “Then render
    to Caesar, the things that are of Caesar; and to God, the things that
    are of God.” And they wondered over him.

    The 19th century Church’s vision of centralised Catholic Authority both spiritual and temporal was a product of the determinism, paternalism, and colonialism of its day.

    Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is an exemplar of this sort of ideology.

    It is a modernist ideology, not traditional Catholicism

    it abandoned the teaching of the Catholic Church
    regarding the path to salvation

    No, it didn’t — this is an erroneous claim by SSPX supporters, not accurate either doctrinally or pastorally.

    The doctrine extra Ecclesiam nalla salus is VERY frequently misunderstood — it is a doctrine about the *nature* of salvation, which is to say that Salvation and the Celestial Church are coëqual ; there is only ONE place of Salvation, and that place is the Celestial Church. There are not multiple heavens, so that the righteous among the Jews (for starters, Abraham and Moses) do not go to their own special place, apart from the Christians.

    Anyone and everyone who is saved, through God’s Grace, belongs to that Church.

    Meanwhile, SSPX supporters claiming that ONLY Catholics can be saved are denying the infallible doctrine that Salvation is not impossible for individuals who may be outside the Earthly Church, through the Grace and Mercy and Love of God.

    and it tried to abandon the authority
    of the papacy, but failed

    This is just straightforwardly slanderous.

    It is the Council, it is the Council itself, we must repudiate

    This is schismatic advice, and completely uncatholic.

  • Greenmoon

    Are you then wholly Catholic?

  • JabbaPapa

    These figures (conversions, baptisms, vocations, religious orders, Mass
    attendance) are DOWN 75% ON AVERAGE across the world, and dating broadly
    from the same time.

    NOT “across the world”, but in the Western world only.

    And this is not an exclusively Catholic phenomenon as some with their heads tucked down in the sand would have us believe — exactly the same phenomenon is observable in Anglicanism and Protestantism.

    What we are facing is the rampant State-sponsored promotion of atheistic secularist totalitarianism — but you imagine that petty squabbles with fellow Catholics and going off to sulk in your own little corner if you don’t get your way is some kind of appropriate response.

    No ; the appropriate response is to get up and defend the teachings of the Church !!!

    How on EARTH do you expect the Church to be listened to when there are hecklers like yourself, claiming Catholicism, but openly attacking the Church and what she stands for ?

    I can remember when I was an agnostic, before my conversion — and I can assure you that I viewed these public battles between traditionalists and liberals with a VERY GREAT feeling of disgust. Why should anyone want to be a Catholic, when the Church is being presented to the world as a choice between happy-clappy guitar singalongs and stark 19th century paternalism ???

    The one person who changed my attitude towards the Church was the Great John Paul II — in his amazing demonstrations to the World that the life of the Church is in its strong and youthful orthodoxy, not in the opposing claims of the extremists and radicals.

  • JabbaPapa

    You extremist liberals really don’t have the foggiest clue, do you …

    Granted that few RCs are baptized by their full consent and or free will

    Infant baptism is technically a form of emergency baptism, and is based on the fact that infant mortality was, until the 20th century, and still is, in many parts of the world, a serious danger upon the souls of the newborn.

    It is a conditional baptism, and it requires the Sacrament of Confirmation to be completed.

    It *could* be argued that Confirmation is given at too young an age — it *cannot* be argued that it does not engage consent and free will.

    Me ? I was baptised and confirmed in 2005. As an adult baptised, I very simply disagree with your portrayal of infant versus adult baptism.

    Adult baptism is still considered the Ordinary form of the Sacrament, and infant baptism an Extraordinary one.

    Most RCs … received RCC indoctrination with a guilt complex to seek forgiveness through the RCC

    That catechesis is in a parlous state of affairs is undeniable, but your linking this with infant baptism is just a falsehood.

    With better education, the power of the internet and open minds, many RCs question their beliefs

    Rubbish !!!

    What Catholics really need is better *religious* education, instead of contenting themselves with the over-simplifications they have been provided with in their post-1960s infant catechisms.

    If you teach people a candy-coated sugar version of Catholicism in their childhood, these people will almost inevitably reject it when they enter adulthood.

    Good teaching is the solution, not “the power of the internet” (the only True Power is of God), “open minds” (it is sinful to pay heed to heresies), nor “questioning beliefs” (not in the way that you clearly mean — heresies and apostasies do not lead to salvation).

    What ever happened to all the souls of people since the human beings came?

    Why are you treating an imponderable of the Afterlife as if it were a question that could be answered by a mortal ?

    What would Pope Peter think of the RCC today? Are you happy totally with todays RCC?

    He would likely be simultaneously proud, awed, and humbled before the amazing extent of Faith in our Lord the Christ that he would witness.

    And what’s this “totally happy” malarkey ?

    Total happiness is not of this world, but of the next.

  • JabbaPapa

    “Things were being taught such as all non-Catholics go to hell, which have never been part of the official church teaching.”

    ## Not recently – but it used to be. Certainly it was still the
    teaching of the CC in the 18th century, and IIRC well into the 19th.
    Eugenius IV taught it at the Council of Florence, and his teaching has
    for centuries been treated as magisterial.

    Not true, and PARTICULARLY not true of the teachings of the Council of Florence.

    You have it backwards — the doctrine teaches that ALL of the saved will be in the One single Celestial Church of the One God ; irrespective of whether they were in the Earthly Church or not in their lives.

    Your interpretation is a modernist abuse of the 19th century and later.

    It denies the infallible doctrine that individuals outside the Church may be saved in the Love and Grace and Mercy of Almighty God.

  • JabbaPapa

    Obviously not — these extra Ecclesiam nulla salus misinterpretors *always* miss the obvious.

  • JabbaPapa

    It is not forbidden to reject elements of the teaching of VII, is it? As
    it is not dogmatic, as long as one doesn’t reject it in its entirety
    one is free to have issues with it

    This is absolutely correct.

  • JabbaPapa

    Free Will — Infallible Catholic Dogma.

    Look it up in the Catechism …

  • JabbaPapa

     At last !! Something we are agreed on !!

  • JabbaPapa

    Charismatic worship is not fundamentally as you characterise it — though sadly, in actual practice most of the time it is.

    The most deeply reverential form of a charismatic practice is, very simply, Eucharistic Adoration — the deeper charismatic movements try and bring this mystical adoration of our Lord into a broader sphere ; they are however a small minority ; always, it has to be noted, assisted by an orthodox-minded priest, ensuring their proper catholicity. (even so, they’re really not my thing)

    Most charismatic movements are of course quite horrendous, and of quite dubious catholicity — complaints to Bishops about their excesses and abuses are very frequent.

  • JabbaPapa

    But NEVER during the Sacrifice …

  • James H

    “no desire to expose themselves…” – yet.

    The time will come when they will. If they haven’t experienced it in a Catholic context (WYD, Catholic Charismatic Renewal, etc.) you could lose them.

    Adolescent rebellion is stronger and more virulent today than ever.

  • James H

    Indeed – the decay in the pre-Vatican II church was evident, for example, in the total absence of anything like joy. We shouldn’t forget that the apostles were accused of being drunk (at 9 in the morning!) because they were so delirious; and medieval feasts were just that – raucous parties!

    The Church Dreary was also expressed in awfully insipid depictions of Christ, looking like an effeminate artiste yearning for something. Of course, depicting Christ as a cubist construction doesn’t help either, but faced with a choice between ugly and insipid, what do you do?

  • James H

    I’m afraid you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve been in and around the CCR, in South African and this country, for 22 years. Eucharistic adoration has always been a part of any charismatic event, and has been growing in importance for the past 10 years. I had never even heard of the mythical ‘clown Mass’ until reading about it in comments from Rad Trad commenters; I had never heard of, nor seen liturgical dance until reception of cathechumens in the Cathedral 12 years ago; and I’ve never encountered the degree of self-righteousness, preening, and flat-out spiritual pride in the CCR that I’ve seen in Traditionalist comments on this website.

    Referring to charismatic ‘movements’ is also a red herring – the CCR has its offices in Allen Hall, official national chairman (Michelle Moran at present), and is affiliated with the International Catholic Charismatic Services, with its offices on Via del Cancelleria (sp.?) in Rome. Delegates from ICCRS have been invited to Vatican colloquia.

    But then, I suppose that just confirms your suspicions about the modern church?

  • Charles Martel

    Francis Phillips seems to be cleverly building a straw man argument here. I should point out that Archbishop Lefebvre said a long time ago that the problems in the Church did NOT start with Vatican II. There have always been problems in the Church. I would strongly advise her to read Michael Davies’s ‘Pope John’s Council’ for a nuanced account of the way that modernism – never totally suppressed by Pope Pius X and his successors – re-emerged in force with Vatican II and the modernists managed to hijack the interpretation and implementation of the Council. Vatican II as a set of documents are now totally irrelevant. Vatican II as an event served its purpose at that time as an opportunity for the modernists and cranks to impose a revolution on the unsuspecting faithful.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    “Meanwhile, SSPX supporters claiming that ONLY Catholics can be saved ….”.

    They don’t. Another of your gratuitous errors.

  • JabbaPapa

    Vatican II as a set of documents are now totally irrelevant.

    In fact, Catholics are required to give assent to those documents — doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with this or that content of those documents, but it does mean that they are authoritative documents that we must accept.

    The difficulty is in the *interpretation* of the documents, mainly because so many people have taken such a cavalier approach to them when doing so.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    ” … a choice between happy-clappy guitar singalongs and stark 19th century paternalism …”.

    That’s not the choice. The choice is between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    “It is a conditional baptism, and it requires the Sacrament of Confirmation to be completed”.

    Oh my God, you really hold to this?

  • JabbaPapa


    What “suspicions about the modern church” ?

    I do OTOH realise that my post may have made it appear that Eucharistic Adoration was, in my view, limited to a minority of these groups — not so !!! Sorry for any confusion, I actually meant to say that, as far as I know, only a minority of groups, in Europe that is, keep the proper focus on the Eucharistic Adoration, rather than focussing on various other elements of their own devising instead.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    NO. There are severe difficulties with at least four of the documents. 

    One day the blinkers will fall away …. . 

  • JabbaPapa

    Who’s denying the difficulties ?

    The existence of difficulties — which, I remind you, are up to the Magisterium to resolve, not you or I — does not free Catholics from the requirement of assent to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils.

  • JabbaPapa

    “Meanwhile, SSPX supporters claiming that ONLY Catholics can be saved ….”.

    They don’t. Another of your gratuitous errors.

    Oh come off it !!!

    If you’re not aware that many SSPX supporters do in fact claim just such, then you’re being willfully blind.

    I did *not* say the SSPX claims such, nor all SSPX supporters, nor etc …

    Those among the SSPX supporters who claim no salvation at all being possible outside the Catholic Church, and yes there are in fact many of such people, are denying infallible Catholic doctrine.

  • JabbaPapa

    Orthodoxy is not limited to your conceptions of it.

  • JabbaPapa

    “It is a conditional baptism, and it requires the Sacrament of Confirmation to be completed”.

    Oh my God, you really hold to this?

    …. /sigh/ …

    Catechism of the Catholic Church

    1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.

  • Charlemagne

    She makes a good point; the Church had been under siege by the modernists for over a hundred years. Pius X required an oath against modernism. Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson testified before Congress as former communists and stated that plans to infiltrate the Catholic seminaries had succeeded beyond their greatest expectations; this infiltration occurred primarily in the 30s and afterward.

    Nevertheless, Vatican II and its bastard child, the Novus Ordo, are the formal capitulation to the modernists by the hierarchy. At its core, Vatican II was meant to undermine the Church; virtually all previous councils had been called to address heresies, while Vatican II was called to “open the Church to the modern world.” How nice. How obvious can you make it? Among a myriad number of results were 1) no longer requiring seminarians to take to oath against modernism, and 2) no longer mentioning Freemasons by name as a prohibited organization.

    The Council and its ensuing documents are neither doctrinal nor dogmatic, by their own self-proclamation; it was a “pastoral” council. They therefore require no assent, and no obedience. Further, they are so ambiguous they are not capable of being obeyed. So on one level, the question of their validity hardly even needs to be addressed.

    On another level, however, validity must be addressed. The documents stemming from Vatican II are atrocious – verbose, ambiguous, disingenous, self-contradictory and downright silly at BEST. If any of you doubts me, go ahead and read them. The general pattern of each is to begin with a restatement of traditional Catholic teaching at the beginning, and then to follow that restatement with paragraph after paragraph meant to undermine that teaching, and then leaving implementation to the local prelate, many of whom were now communist infiltrators, homosexuals, heretics and other kinds of perverts.

    So! Those are my two cents (or fifty cents) – go ahead and decide for yourselves.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Excellent post.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    But what are these teaching Jabba, if they are so vague even theologians can’t agree what they mean? And if the Magisterium avoids for fifty years the need to clarify the “difficulties”?

    And if they appear to, or actually do, contradict earlier teaching, then the Catholic HAS to stay with the prior teaching.

    Don’t you see the idiocy of you, Sweetjae et al going on about assenting to Vatican II when even the CHURCH HERSELF stays silent on the (grave!) matter of what the documents actually mean?


  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    I have fulfilled my Sunday Obligation for several years at various churches run by the Society. Your assertion is a total falsehood: I have not heard it once, ever. Not once. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Orthodoxy is orthodoxy. Not certainly what the Modernists and neo-protestants would make it. You as a recent convert are perhaps not best placed to know.

  • Cafateria R.C.

    And at what age is this done? They sure are not the proper age to make a life time commitment with full consent and a free will. Children are children until they reach the legal age. The catechism boils down to a man made rule book to control the RC membership.

  • Cafeteria R.C.

    Fides_et_Ratio, you need to learn to read what is stated in the given text instead of putting in things to the text that are not their. Open your mind to the fact that a religion belief to one may not be the same religion belief to another of the same religion. I hope you live to see the changes that will becoming to the RCC. One of many, a cafeteria R.C.. God Bless.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    Then enlighten us. State the specific, unambiguous, objective changes that the Church should have. Justify those changes based on Scripture and the early Fathers. And explain to us why you don’t simply flee to the Episcopal Church, which is already what you want.

    Open your mind to the fact that a religion belief to one may not be the same religion belief to another of the same religion.

    There is a degree of freedom; Catholics can disagree about details as long as they defend the essential Faith.But if you attack the Faith regarding essential aspects such as the sacredness of human life, the family based on lifelong marriage between one man and one woman, the sacredness of the conjugal act, the immorality of unnatural contraception, the sacraments, the divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Purgatory, the loyalty to the Magisterium, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then you are not a Catholic.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Good question. As Charlemagne so rightly points out above, the Church had been under seige by the Modernists for a hundred years before Vatican II.  The liturgical mess that the Church now finds herself in is in no way due to the faulty interpretation of the Council.  Instead it is the consequence of the Council’s adoption of the Modernist ideas of the 20th century Liturgical Movement as manifested in Vatican II’s ‘Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy’. 

    For decades before the Council, the leading lights of the Liturgical Movement – Romano Guardini, Odo Casel, Lambert Beauduin etc – had been calling for a radical revision of the Church’s Liturgy.  Their writings display a deep contempt for the ordinary Catholic in the pews, whom they viewed as the kind of ‘dumb and idle’ specatators that Aromata2003 refers to above, with their silly devotions and ignorant superstitions worthy only of peasants, but not educated Catholics.  Their elitism beggars belief.

    From the 1920s – 1950s there was continuing liturgical experimentation which involved many of the changes which Vatican II eventually brought about.  These were debated and proposed in writings, seminars and conferences, and included innovations such as Mass facing the people, the use of the vernacular, the simplification of the rites, readings by the laity etc.  The monstrosity you refer to was part of this process. 

    There are many sources which describe the history and work of the Liturgical Movement.  The writings of the individuals mentioned above are readily available.  But for a more detailed account of pre-Vatican II liturgical experimentation, you can do no better than Alcuin Reid’s ‘The Organic Development of the Liturgy’ (Ignatius Press, 2005).

  • nytor

    Jews would fall under “interreligious dialogue” not ecumenism, and Protestants have in the main put themselves even further outside the Church than ever before. Until recently, for instance, Anglicans could feasibly have been reunited with the Church, they would have had to accept re-ordination and to formally subscribe to the faith, but in many ways they weren’t far from it, on the Anglo-Catholic wing at least. Now, however, there is no conceivable way that union with them will ever be achieved, now that they have “ordained” women, a position which can never be regularised.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Who’s going to explain to Jabba about Baptism of Desire?

  • nytor

    Latin is the language of the universal Church, through space and time as well as in geography. When we use it we pray with all of the Church, not just that on earth now.

    It is also theologically far more acceptable to use the EF mass as it emphasises the sacrifice in a way the Bugnini replacement does not. The Bugnini version is watered down and protestantised. It may be valid – just – but satisfactory theologically it is not and I am convinced it is responsible in large part through its irreverence and theological shallowness for the collapse of belief in the Real Presence.

  • Andrew

    Francis wrote what many have suspected for years.If the Church had never had problems before V2 they council would never have been called in the first place.They would have been no need.V2 has been a scapegoat in problems that existed at the TIME it was called not AFTER.However,V2 DID bring modern catechist and the NO mass.The Church teachings are infallible and protected by the Holy Spirit however the Mass translations are not infallible due to our human error when the translation were done.

  • Andrew

    Some  folk in the Church (Year 2012 ) are full of vainglory.That might be worse than the awful V2 errors.St.Aquinas said vainglory is a capital vice,reading some comments here you would think some here thinks they are the Pope… 

  • JabbaPapa

    if they are so vague even theologians can’t agree what they mean?

    If in doubt about interpretation, fall back on Tradition.

    That is the interpretative method asked of us by our Pope.

    Actual *problems* exist not so much where there is vagueness or ambiguity, because here Tradition can guide us — but in a small number of doctrines where there appears to be a possible contradiction of Tradition — these need to be clarified by the Magisterium.

  • JabbaPapa

    Who’s going to explain to Jabba about Baptism of Desire?

    The Magisterium has already done so, on the basis of such as Saint Augustine and other ancient Tradition.

  • JabbaPapa

    You as a recent convert are perhaps not best placed to know.

    Not “recent”, not any more — besides :

    Orthodoxy is orthodoxy. Not certainly what the Modernists and neo-protestants would make it.

    This is obviously correct.