Sun 26th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

As the Church prepares for the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, I ask: what did Pope John hope for?; also, ‘what unites Hans Küng and Daphne McLeod’?

The answer makes gloomy reading

By on Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Pope John XXIII signs the bull convoking the Second Vatican Council (Photo: CNS)

Pope John XXIII signs the bull convoking the Second Vatican Council (Photo: CNS)

When Pope John XXIII opened the second Vatican Council on October 11 1962 he read the declaration Gaudet Mater Ecclesia before the Council Fathers. This spelled out his intentions for the Council. “In calling this vast assembly of bishops,” he said, he intended “to assert once again the Magisterium [the teaching authority of the Church] which is unfailing and endures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.”

The ecumenical councils of the Church, he declared, were the means of establishing the content of this Magisterium; but this teaching now needed to be restated in terms the modern world would understand: it was expected by the “Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world” that “the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and [the] First Vatican Council”, should take “a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.”

As the Church prepares to celebrate the Council’s 50th anniversary, we have to ask the question: were Pope John’s aspirations fulfilled by what happened in the name of the council itself? As Pope John ended his opening declaration, he did so, it is clear, with huge optimism about its mission and its anticipated achievements: “The Council now beginning,” he said, “rises in the Church like daybreak, a forerunner of most splendid light. It is now only dawn. And already at this first announcement of the rising day, how much sweetness fills our heart.”

Pope John’s aspirations for the council were enunciated clearly enough. How faithful were those who came after him to what should have its spirit? He stressed, it will be noted, the importance of the great councils of the Church, and mentioned as being particularly important the Council of Trent and the first Vatican Council. Unfortunately, as we now know only too well, a considerable number of theologians took it into their heads that Pope John’s call for faithfulness to the Magisterium of the Church (and especially to those two councils) should be sidestepped: theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx declared that they and their own writings constituted a kind of alternative magisterium. The Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner compared Vatican II with the Council of Jerusalem: the implication was that the council established an entirely new Church, which superseded everything that had come before. The Pope’s call for the study of doctrine “through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought” was taken to justify an actual replacement of the Church’s doctrine by modern thought, wherever these clashed: this was done, it was often declared, in the name of the spirit of Vatican II (rather than of the declarations the Council Fathers actually enunciated).

The results of this attitude, which the present Pope has called a “hermeneutic [ie a method of interpretation] of discontinuity and rupture”, can everywhere be seen. They were spelled out in The Flock recently by Daphne McLeod, who takes a gloomy view of what she believes were the results of the Council itself (rather than of prevailing distortions and misinterpretations of it):

Before Vatican II,” she writes, “we had many priests and religious and plenty of priestly and religious vocations, but now we are very short of both. It is difficult for younger Catholics to realise just how strong the Church was pre-Vatican II. For instance we were blessed to have many Religious Houses offering up constant prayer and doing much good in schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Likewise, no Catholic of the forties and fifties could have envisaged the plight of the Church today. It would have seemed to them an unimaginable catastrophe. Before this Council we had, according to Cardinal Spellman of New York, speaking in 1964, ‘the best informed laity the Church has ever had’, but now, as the Holy Father remarked in 2002 when announcing the committee who would compile the Compendium, ‘there is widespread religious ignorance’.

“Before the Council only 10-15% of Catholic school leavers lapsed – often to return later, so we kept their children when they married. Now over 90% of Catholic school leavers lapse never to return. Thus we also, inevitably, lose their children and their grandchildren.

“In pre-Vatican II days we were constantly building new churches and schools to accommodate our ever-growing Catholic population. Now we are closing many of our beautiful Catholic churches, and Catholic schools have to complete their numbers by taking in children of other faiths or none.”

But there are real questions here. They have often been asked, but are still worth asking again: how much of all this was the result of the Council itself? How much was the result of the way in which Pope John’s intentions were so cynically overridden? And how much, faced by the awesome power of modern secular culture, would have happened anyway? I have no easy answers. Some of it, however, was undoubtedly due to the cynical hijacking of the Council by theologians who were intent on reconstructing Christian belief to conform with modern thought. As a means of renewing the Church “if you can’t beat them, join them” was always doomed to failure; and it caused massive damage, damage which, I firmly believe — thanks to the last two popes — is now being undone. But there is a long way to go.

Ah, well. One amusing little fruit of these gloomy animadversions has been my discovery of something at least that firmly unites Daphne McLeod and Hans Küng: neither of them sees much to celebrate in the Council’s 50th anniversary. “Fifty ‘glorious’ years?” asks Mrs McLeod (clearly what Latin Grammars call “a question inviting a negative answer”). As for Fr Küng, who is not amused by the present Pope’s increasingly successful efforts to undo the distortions of theologians of his ilk, and who never thought that Vatican II went far enough anyway, he isn’t joining in the festivities either.

“I was honoured,” he wrote dyspeptically in May, “to receive the invitation [to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council at the German Katholikentag at Mannheim] but is one really in the mood to celebrate at a time when the Church is in such sore distress?”. “In my opinion,” says Fr Küng in his four-page reply, “here is no reason for a festive Council Gala but rather for an honest service of penance or a funeral service”. Penance, well certainly; we can all do with that. But what would Fr Küng confess, with Vatican II especially in mind? If he would like my guidance, I have one or two suggestions…

  • teigitur

    I am with Mrs McLeod!

  • shieldsheafson

    As a 40+ year lapsarian recently returned, I too was initially shocked at how protestant the Church of my baptism at first seemed.  After meeting some remarkable men, I now know that this is untrue.  

    How I long for the Church of my youth.

    Bravo, Mrs McLeod.

  • nytor

    I am going to add to the ranks of those who agree wholeheartedly with Daphne McLeod. Let us bury Vatican II, yes. Let the Popes now and to come quietly forget it, and move on from it, towards the liturgy of Gregory the Great which has never been abrogated…

  • Cestius

    In my local deanery there are several churches built in the 1950s and early 1960s to serve towns that had never had a Catholic church since the Reformation.  After that, post-Vatican II there is nothing, and there is always the threat (so far not realized) that we might have to close a church. Considering this was traditionally an overwhelmingly Protestant area, we have not done badly but it does make me wonder what might have been had the mistakes of the 60s (whatever they were) not happened.

  • andreagregorio

    Absolutely.  The intentions of the Pope and the Council Fathers were wilfully misinterpreted and distorted by the Modernists and Liberals.  A good tgree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit.  The fruits of this exercise are objectively demonstrable by the statistics themselves and it is good to see the ‘bad tree’ being incrementally cut down to be thrown into the fire………  We desperately need a Reform of the Reform and radical changes to the seminarian education if all of this damage – the smoke of Satan as PaulVI himself described it – is to be eradicated from the Bride of Christ…

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    There is so much to say.

    But my first post here will be to tell the readers of something about John XXIII and the Council they may never have heard.

    How many readers here have heard of “Veterum Sapientia”, John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution of 1962?

    It’s entirely forgotten today. Why would this be? Perhaps because he therein wrote:

    “Let no innovator dare to write against the use of Latin in the Sacred Rites … nor let them in their folly attempt to minimise the will of the Apostolic See in this matter”. 

    John XXIII and then Paul VI, hopeless naifs both, unleashed a storm neither foresaw, a storm which led Paul VI to despair and the deepest grief by the time he died. 

    The result is the Great Apostasy foretold by Our Lady and many of the Saints.

  • 2_Armpits_4_Sister_Sarah

    We all make mistakes but what is annoying about Vatican II is that nobody will admit that it’s gone wrong. It’s similar to WWII’s unquestioned status as a moral and necessary war. It’s no coincidence that only 13 years separates the conclusion of one and the decision to launch the other. Indeed the great mistake is not to see the council as anything other than the product of a post-war World trying desperately (and failing) to make sense of a disaster which cost 50 million lives. The Church’s response proved to be an insult to the dead.
    It is my prediction that unless the events of 1939-1945 are reassessed than the disaster of 1962-1965 will continue to infect and destroy everything it touches. My fear, though, is that it will take another grand tragedy before that reassessment of 1939 will take place.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Where there was growth, Vatican II has brought collapse.
    Where there was confidence, Vatican II has brought dismay and uncertainty.
    Where there was clarity, Vatican II has brought doctrinal confusion.
    Where there was order, Vatican II has brought anarchy.
    Where there was beauty, Vatican II has brought willful iconoclasm and ugliness. 
    Where we knew the great river of Catholic history, Vatican II has brought total forgetfulness. 
    Where we stood latest in a great line of generations through centuries, Vatican II has broken the links.
    Where we venerated Our Lady in Her apparitions, Vatican II has brought Medjugorje. 
    Where we cried as children on Good Friday, Vatican II has shunted Our Lord aside. 
    Where we truly believed in the Real Presence, Vatican II has given us protestantism.
    Where we remembered our sins, Vatican II has told us there is no sin, devil or hell.
    Where there was silence, Vatican II has brought noise.
    Where there was learning, Vatican II has brought ignorance. 
    Where there was orthodoxy, Vatican II has brought a tidal wave of heresies. 
    Where there was glory, Vatican II has brought tat.
    Where there was the Kingship of Jesus Christ, Vatican II has told us we are the kings, not Him.
    Where there was prayer and contemplation, Vatican II has brought the eneagram.
    Where there was quiet obedience, Vatican II has brought loud and hate-filled disobedience.
    Where we remembered the Saints as friends and exemplars, Vatican II has forgotten them. 
    Where there was charity, Vatican II has brought hard-heartedness. 
    Where there was true worship, Vatican II has given us a circus spectacle. 
    Where there was God, Vatican II has put Man. 

    Vatican II is rotten to the core. 

    Remember my words: the true story of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century, a story that culminated in Vatican II, is about the enemies of Christ triumphing over His Church. These enemies are Marxism, Masonry and Modernism. 

    This triumph, which is primarily one of false doctrine, is not absolute but one which will take many, many decades to be corrected and then drawn out of men’s hearts like a poison. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    I am around your age and am also a returnee, Shield. I understand your sentiments 100%. They are my own.

  • theroadmaster

    The good pope, John XX111, started out with the best of intentions in the calling of Vatican 11 as the ecumenical and pastoral Council for the modern era, to break down the ideological walls of suspicion and ignorance which separated the Church from the wider world. He did not envision  the recommendations of the Great Council later being used by liberal modernist theologians and priests to justify far-reaching and distorted liturgical and doctrinal innovations which contravened the true aims of the Council Fathers.  In terms of liturgical changes,the shunting of the tabernacles to the side, dismantling of communion rails, and the replacement of glorious Gregorian Chant by secularized ditties, were merely symptoms of a deeper spiritual malaise during the late 60′s/early 70′s.  In effect, there was a call to arms by the dissidents, who flagrantly disregarded the teaching authority invested in the Pope in communion with his fellow bishops, and demonstrated their unfaithfulness by publicly protesting their opposition to the widely-misunderstood and prophetic Encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (1968).  Opposition to Church teaching became current currency across theological faculties in universities and seminaries in Europe and the US from the 60′s onwards, and continues unabated to the present day.  It seemed that the secular world had cast it’s influence over Catholic doctrine without any reciprocal gesture coming from the other direction, and the “Spirit” of Vatican 11 was invoked to justify it all.  It seemed for liberals that the Church of Christ was refounded in 1962-1965, and that a veil could be drawn over the previous 1,800 years or so.  But the Church has been blessed in recent decades with two very perspicacious popes, who realized the damage done to Catholic liturgy and doctrine in the so-called name of Vatican 11 which were never mandated.  They courageously began the onerous but necessary course of steering the barque of St Peter from perilous waters to calmer seas.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    ” ….. distorted liturgical and doctrinal innovations which contravened the true aims of the Council Fathers”.

    There are many observers of the Council – men who who there – and many others subsequently who would disagree. These distortions and innovations were exactly what a good number of Council Fathers (including Joseph Ratzinger) wanted. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Dr Oddie mentions the odious Hans Kung. 

    How many readers are aware of the conversation, on the very eve of Vatican II, overheard by Cardinal Bea (who, terribly shocked, told Fr. Malachi Martin about it. Fr. Martin was at that time an Advisor on Jewish questions to Pope John XXIII).

    The conversation was between Kung and Edward Schillebeekx. Kung said, “This time we will have another Reformation but we will not leave the Church”. 

    Those who think the Second Vatican Council was in the safe hands of the Holy Ghost need to add to their diet more fish.

  • theroadmaster

    The point is arguable, but Joseph Ratzinger while part of the “liberal” school going into the Council debates, was firmly in the “conservative” camp by the end of the sixties  The trajectory of the present pope’s beliefs regarding Vatican 11 stands in sharp contrast with the stance adopted during this and succeeding decades, by his once close collaborator, dissident theologian, Hans Kung.  Kung was looking for nothing less than a radical re-interpretation and overturning of established Catholic liturgical practices and doctrine.  He has become very disenchanted with the lack of progress concerning the implementation of his version of the Great Council and has sees the incumbent pope in less than favourable terms.

  • theroadmaster

    I mean’t “concerning the implementation of his version of the Great Council and  sees the incumbent pope in less than favourable terms”.

  • Sweetjae

    “Vatican II is rotten to the core”… Your interpretation of tradition is rotten to the core…you are NOT a catholic. Be your own pope like Luther! What a baloney!

  • Alexander

    I believe that Peter Hitchens has intimated that he will write just such a book, arguing not just that the war was immoral, but that our entry into it, and subsequent general management of the conflict, by our political masters at the time was egregiously bad too.

    So yes, we may yet get a proper appraisal of WWII in the future.

  • 2_Armpits_4_Sister_Sarah

    I’ve noticed that Hitchens is moving in the right direction. Many books have already been written but the propaganda from the pro-war side is unceasing. They control all TV documentaries on the subject plus Hollywood. It’s narrative was recycled by Bush and Blair in the disgraceful Middle-Eastern wars which may yet still escalate. It was a combination of this narrative plus the ‘denazification’ of Germany which resulted in the wholesale destruction of Germanic theology from 1945 onwards.

  • Parasum

     “Let us bury Vatican II, yes.”

    ## Bury an Ecumenical Council ? That would take no end of explaining. If the CC can renounce what it currently judges to be authentic teaching, why should anyone believe a word the CC says ?

    If one Ecumenical Council were to be buried – why not others ? Why stop with V2 ? Why not bury the definition of infallibility of V1, or the conciliar definitions about the Two Natures of Christ, or the definitions of Transubstantiation, or of universal Papal jurisdiction, or others that are inconvenient ?

    The suggestion raises more difficulties than it would solve. If an Ecumenical Council can be buried, what’s to prevent it being unburied, then re-buried, according as seems needful ? Far from being reliable, Catholic teaching would become utterly unstable, it would be reduced to a “Party line”, in force only until it was superseded by a fresh Party line. The scandal would be immense.

    Much better to keep V2, and make the best of it. Some problems have to be lived through rather than evaded – V2 can’t be evaded. Trying to get rid of it will only compound the damage that has already occurred. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    I had anticipated your answer almost word-for-word. 

    You accuse those who have this opinion (and we are growing in number by the day) in the way you do but NEVER do you remotely attempt to answer the charges. 

    So your view can be wholly discounted. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Yes Parasum, it’s a very difficult question – how to bury Vatican II. One would have to show that it was a false General Council, like the first session of the Council of Constance. 

    There are options. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    I don’t think the point is arguable Roadmaster. The mood for Revolution amongst the Durtch, French, Swiss and German Bishops and their periti, of whom Ratzinger was one, was palpable. 

    Yes, the current Pope by the end of the ’60′s had begun to check his enthusiasm and had split from Kung, whose position for years has been that the Church must be ruled by whatever he and other “theologians” of his ilk come up with after breakfast today. 

    The Pope’s position today is one of conservative Modernism: his tragedy is that he cannot throw off the greatest event of his early middle age, the prime years of his life, despite the fact that in all his works he bemoans its fruit, which are wholly bad. 

    And what did Our Lord say about the vine that no longer bears fruit or bears bad fruit?

    Vatican II must be ditched and we must return to the wellsprings of orthodox faith and liturgical praxis.

  • Charlemagne

    VII was meant to solve existing church problems. It did not solve those problems and actually made them worse. The reason is lack of clarity in its teaching and the subsequent relaxation of important rules: priests and nuns no longer wearing cassocks or habits, ugly unchurch like architecture and music, protestantized and watered down liturgy, communion standing up and in the mouth, etc. The lack of clarity in defining Catholic identity allowed the church to lose its identity; look at the Aztec Pyramid they call Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral. To correct the managerial errors of VII, we must revive the Catholic identity; restore identity, restore the Church.

  • JabbaPapa

    The mood for Revolution amongst the Durtch, French, Swiss and German Bishops and their periti

    … has been a cause of continual disturbances in our Church since at least the 15th Century.

  • JabbaPapa

    I get sooooooooooo tired of people accusing others of being “not-Catholic” just because they happen to disagree with their own opinions…

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Bloody Krauts. 

  • JabbaPapa

    No there aren’t — Vatican II has been provided with Papal Assent.

    The doctrinal commentary on Ad Tuendam from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith very clearly states “the celebration of an ecumenical council” as being an example of historical infallibility in the Church.

    To deny an Ecumenical Council, if one is not the CDF or the Pontiff or the Magisterium, is to put oneself out of full communion with the Church.

    (though it’s of course ridiculous to accuse those who might do so anyway of being “not-catholic”)

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    There are options of course. One of them being Jabba a ruling if you will that the authority of Vatican II’s documents are not such that Catholics are bound to them as a matter of Faith. 

    Given that the Council was avowedly non-dogmatic (even the explanatory notes of some of the final documents themselves say this), the documents would be dumped on this basis alone. 

  • nytor

    It’s not dogmatic. It purported to be merely pastoral. I am merely advocating quietly forgetting it as it clearly serves no pastoral need any longer – indeed, its effects have been quite the reverse, it has driven people from the Church.

    As for your “what of the other councils” point – most of those WERE dogmatic. That’s the difference. Vatican II was not and yet liberals treat it as superdogma. Let them split off and go and form their “Vatican II Catholic Church”, let them ordain women and marry gays, let them do what they like – but let them not purport to do it within the Church.

  • nytor

    No, one wouldn’t. It was pastoral only. If it no longer serves pastoral need, well…

    It’s not like a council which promulgated dogma. Those we cannot and would not wish to bury. But Vatican II was not such. It claims to present merely a reformulation of existing teaching. Well, what was reformulated once can be reformulated again.

  • nytor

    I think you slightly misunderstand. I am not advocating formally revoking it, or anything like that. The controversy would be appalling. Apart from certain points which do require urgent clarification  – see my previous comments on Islam, for instance – the best thing to do is to quietly move on, as after all it was intended to serve a pastoral need at that time and that time is past.

    Most of the things which have happened as a result of it, after all, were not in fact envisaged by the Council itself. The Novus Ordo? No, that was Paul VI and Bugnini. Reorientation of altars and sanctuaries? No, that was largely just overenthusiasm from liberal clergy. Girls at the altar? 1994, without any justification other than that JPII could not stamp the practice out and the position is still that male altar servers are to be preferred. These things can all be reversed without Vatican II being abrogated. There’s no need. It didn’t do any of these things. As the generation of clerics obsessed with “Vatican II” die, these things can be put right.

  • Cafeteria R.C.

    The RCC is in great need of a new honest pope of the likes of Pope John XXIII to bring needed correct change with Vatican III to enhance Vatican II that this current pope is trying to fully void it by his backward changes. This present RCC administration is the root cause of so many RCs to lose faith in their church by the silence of the truth of the children sex abuse crimes to protect the image of the RCC. Just look at Ireland. What fools account the truth always comes out to all. The words of the late cardinal must be  kept in mind for correct needed change from the current RCC administration  pompous views.

  • nytor

    Vatican III? Can one imagine the sheer scale of the horror?

  • Nat_ons

    The bitter spirit of diatribe rather than the sweetness of reason as so often prevails in the responses. Still I liked your wry, Chestertonian, link between two extremes of opinion on the course of events following the Second Vatican Council and some of decisions taken during it. They are not co-equally extreme, of course, but doubtless they are equally gloomy; however their gloom is merely the animadversion so beloved of human flesh; there is nonetheless a divine Spirit at work also, and not just the spirit of man.

    And this Spirit – the Holy Ghost, God, with the Father and the Son – is the abiding difference between Hans Kueng and Daphne McLeod. For one sees only division as the goal, the past from the present, and seeks it eagerly, the other decries dissension, and repents of its woes ceaselessly. The world is enamoured with the spirit of human dissent and the independence of division, whereas heaven rejoices only in the penitent returned and atonement joined .. we must choose carefully the path we now seek to follow: the slippery slope of worldly approval for individualism or the cross of heavenly approbation amid a communion of saints.

    By grace of God we have the awesome Benedict XVI to recall us to the continuity of our living Faith, and is demands: that we take up our cross and follow the pioneer of our faith, or not be worthy of him. This is as true of Kueng and Martini and Boff and Mueller as it is of Fellay or Cekada or McLeod;  Mueller, McLeod and Fellay certainly witness a willingness to take up the cross .. even in their own unique ways. Sadly, as the responses to your (as ever) excellent article show, there are very many who desire to use the cross only as weapon with which to cudgel others or crucify them, not to crucify their own flesh that the Spirit may witness in them; yet this has always been the way of the world ..

  • Guest

    The crown-shaped LMC of Christ the King was designed for the age of television and cinema; Its studio-like interior fits that purpose.

    Another populist legacy of the Council is an affordable edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  • Alan

    We are all entitled to our views.  But if you criticise the Pope for being a “conservative Modernist”, you are clearly deviating from the “official” Catholic Church at the present time.  This is precisely what Hans Kung, or anyone else who does not fully support the Pope, also does.  In truth, we are all entitled to our views, i.e. we all exercise “private judgement”.  Including yourself.  It is inevitable for all thinking people.

  • Alan

    We should all do well to remember that, whereas in earlier generations most people were content to accept things on authority, today they are not.  They require intelligible reasons for accepting a teaching, and simply accepting something on the say-so of the Magisterium, without comprehensible explanation, is no more.  This is the case with or without Vatican II.

  • JabbaPapa

    What a load of >b-word< !!!

    Your opinion is a straightforward photocopy of Soviet propaganda.

  • JabbaPapa

    Can one imagine the sheer scale of the horror?

    Answer : YES — Mister Hans Küng.

  • JabbaPapa

    To be fair, the Church never surrendered to the Barbarians — just the politicians.

  • JabbaPapa

    I am merely advocating quietly forgetting it

    Not good enough — Ecumenical Councils enjoy the charism of infallibility.

    NOT that most people even understand the doctrine of infallibility and its limits in the first place …

  • JabbaPapa

    There are options of course. One of them being Jabba a ruling if you
    will that the authority of Vatican II’s documents are not such that
    Catholics are bound to them as a matter of Faith.

    I’m always astounded by the nature of this sort of suggestion, made usually by some otherwise utterly orthodox Catholics.

    The Council is to be adhered to de fide … NOT every single detail of every single Council document.

    The number of doctrines promulgated by Vatcan II that must be held de fide is minuscule, but given that I am not a professional theologian, I ca

  • AidanCoyle

    Actually, Alan’s ‘opinion’ is thoroughly attested by loads of credible social research. All this vilification of Vatican II misses the point. However you evaluate what has happened within the Catholic Church post-Vatican II, much can be explained in terms of major social shifts in the Western world. The Church has shifted in line with them but the origins of these changes are by no means specific to Vatican II. Any analysis needs to take a very broad view if it is to avoid making fundamental errors about cause and effect.

  • Sweetjae

    What charges? I dealed with people like you, your position on Tradition was based mostly on ASSUMPTION AND INFERENCES….the only thing you got it right is the exposing the abuse done by the liberals.

  • Sweetjae

    Fabrication about the Popes….why dont elect yourself as the pope? Surely the problems will go away.

  • Sweetjae

    This is a modern heresy promulgated by Bishop Lefebvre that an Ecumenical Council’s teaching is to be refused because of its pastoral nature, well beside the fact that this heretical teaching is nowhere found in Tradition and Bible moreso, there had been more than 4 Councils from the past that were also pastoral in nature too, do we all refuse them? What a baloney this pseudo doctrine from the SSPX.

  • Sweetjae

    This is the only thing i agree with you, Kung is disobedient as well as you.

  • Sweetjae

    I stand by my word, Jabba, this guy said VII is to be DUMPED….meaning he rejected a legit Ecumenical Council of the Church, meaning he is an alternate magisterium, meaning he is another Martin Luther in disquise, want more do you want, Pappa?

  • Sweetjae

    Pick and choose according to your idea ehh? Luther did that too, well he believes only up to the 5th Ecumenical Council. You reject one, you reject all. According to Scripture only the Holy Ghost can convened a valid Ecumenical Council, therefore reject VII is to reject the Holy Ghost, you just didnt realize it yet like Luther.

  • Charles

    Message to Hans Kung and his clerical fans:

    If you don’t believe in basic fundamental Catholic teaching, then join another denomination; who is paying you to stay and cause trouble?

    If indeed you do believe in basic fundamental Catholic teaching, then learn obedience as all priests should and stop glory hounding for your heretical books.

  • Sweetjae

    Yes i must admit you grow numbers by the day because there will always be arrogant people since tge first day of the Church, besides we lost the whole nation of England 500 years ago, perhaps a few self appointed magisterium will not hurt.