Who is left

[Lynne]

Vatican II is going to be thrown out lock stock and barrel. Leave the explanations for posterity.

There's nothing to throw out. Vatican II doesn't really say anything. Apart from the reiteration of previously defined dogmas, it's a bunch of jargon that can be interpreted how you like. It's the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" – which weaponised those ambiguous documents as a tool for misguided reforms – that's soon to be thrown out.

While the documents remain part of the the official magisterium, they will continue to poison new generations of Catholics.

Exactly, they could be used by future wolves-in-shepherds-clothing to lead future faithful astray.

[John Lamb]

Vatican II is going to be thrown out lock stock and barrel. Leave the explanations for posterity.

There's nothing to throw out. Vatican II doesn't really say anything. Apart from the reiteration of previously defined dogmas, it's a bunch of jargon that can be interpreted how you like. It's the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" – which weaponised those ambiguous documents as a tool for misguided reforms – that's soon to be thrown out.

While the documents remain part of the the official magisterium, they will continue to poison new generations of Catholics.

I don't think so. Few people actually read them, even today. And the professional theologians (et al.) who read them often have plenty of criticism. To put it crudely, they will simply go out of fashion. The Dogmas of Trent are still in place, and Trent's influence is still felt in the Church, but the documents of Trent do not play an active role in the Church today; pastors and theologians are not constantly referring to them as a foundation for preaching or theology. The older councils even less so. Vatican II will fade in importance.

What in the documents of Vatican II is poisonous to the magisterium? An ambiguous description of religious liberty - that could easily be clarified by a later papal or conciliar definition? There's nothing there that dangerous in itself. It's the ambiguity that's been dangerous.

[Miriam_M]

Vatican II is going to be thrown out lock stock and barrel. Leave the explanations for posterity.

There's nothing to throw out. Vatican II doesn't really say anything. Apart from the reiteration of previously defined dogmas, it's a bunch of jargon that can be interpreted how you like. It's the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" – which weaponised those ambiguous documents as a tool for misguided reforms – that's soon to be thrown out.

But the laity doesn't know that the v2 docs say nothing.  And these empty, vacuous, internally contradictory, speculative and flowery documents are used as points of reference by N.O. priests and bishops and cardinals (I've heard all three) from the pulpit.  It's "modernist signaling."  That's the best way to put it.  It's a way of clergy saying, "Don't get too hung up on living the virtuous life; the Church is quite elastic and there's no need for hard conversion.  Just keep living your regular old lives in accord with worldly principles; we won't ask too much of you."

[Prayerful]

Pope Benedict XVI would be ok, but 4 good ones I can think of off the top of my head are Cardinals +Burke, +Sarah, +Ejik and +Ranjith. Some have been friendly to Tradition. Others have been critical of Pope Francis; or are generally anti-modernist in thought. It's a long shot, as there are many bad Cardinals, but with a lot of prayer, a good one can definitely be elected. My hope is Cardinal Burke for next Pope.

Benedict XVI comes across as a man of half measures. McCarrick appears to have been secretly suspended, no one told. If the world had been told we might not have had the loathsome Pope Bergoglio. +André-Joseph Léonard was the first good ordinary for Mechelen-Brussels (Catholic missals here typically carried an imprimatur of that ordinary) in decades yet instead of clearing out the filth, that is, the typical heretical or sodomitical Belgian bishop, +Léonard was left isolated among the Belgian episcopacy, with Bergoglio replacing him with someone who suppressed a thriving order and seminary because of its traditional focus. Benedict did much good, giving the Mass a definite legality which Bergoglio daren't attack directly, and ensuring that youths would enjoy definite protection from perverted Conciliar priests, but that all that was substantially undermined.

The great danger is that with all the new FrancisCardinals and all the terrible existing holders of the office, Catholics could face someone worse. The clumsy and stupid Bergoglian manoeuvres from protecting sodomite priests and bishops to undermining Teaching via rigged Synods and commentary via that atheist journalist who keeps interviewing him without notes (to deny hell and other heresies in a deniable way) or the appalling Austin Ivereigh (who appears not to grasp why McCarricks crimes matter much), are easy to spot from a mile away. Imagine someone more cunning like Cardinal O'Malley (maybe not him given recent revelations). I hope not. The one thing is that quite a lot of Francisbishops and Cardinals are mostly from a slate of names drawn up locally. One French very recent bishop even offers the TLM - even Bergoglio can see the Conciliar Catholicism in France is close to death.

[Xavier]

Agreed, Prayerful. There was a report showing some 20% of Ordinations of Priests in France are Traditional. In Rome, more than anything, we have reason to fear the next Pope may be an even worse disaster than Pope Francis if Tradition is not prepared whenever the next election comes. We should begin our prayers and preparation for the next conclave right away, even if it is 10+ years away. I wish a Pope would make +Fellay or at least +Schneider a Cardinal. If that would happen, Tradition would have a very strong voice in Rome; and we can take the rest from there. I love Bp. +Schneider, He's been a consistent voice favoring the SSPX and Tradition. "Many young families attached to the Society of St. Pius X love the Church and pray for the pope as their ancestors did before them. The Church includes different houses, different spiritualities. Only those hostile to the Society put exaggerated demands to it. John XXIII and Paul VI always insisted upon the pastoral nature of the Council. If the Society has a hard time accepting certain Vatican II documents, we have to keep in mind the context of the Council's pastoral objective. Dogma has not changed. We have the same faith. So there is no problem with a canonical integration of the Society of St. Pius X." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-schneider-restoring-justice-sspx Bp. +Schneider has also been strong against the sodomites and one of the few who spoke out in favor of Abp. Maria Vigano, "Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana Kazakhstan, one of the most outspoken bishops in the world concerning the crisis of faith in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, has written a document responding to the testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano ... Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò testifies, that for five years, Pope Francis had known two facts: that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick committed sex offenses against seminarians and against his subordinates, and that there are sanctions, which Pope Benedict XVI imposed on him. Furthermore, Archbishop Viganò confirmed his statement by a sacred oath invoking the name of God. There is, therefore, no reasonable and plausible cause to doubt the truth content of the document of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò." Link

Unfortunately, imho, some trads also don't see running away from Rome is not the answer, some are waiting for a Muslim invasion (and then, what?), others for a comet of chastisement (and this will help Tradition how?), and others were speaking of the government taking over mainstream Church properties (and therefore, Tradition will magically Triumph in Rome?) just recently. None of this is a long term solution. The solution is for one of our Bishops to become Cardinals, and then to become Pope, or at least, for a Tradition-friendly Cardinal or Bishop to become Pope, and then make at least one of the SSPX Bishops Cardinals. After that, Tradition can move forward.

Vatican II, and the theology that conceptualized it, is the real issue. So until you get someone wearing a red hat who is willing to condemn the council, the result will be more of the same.

That's why I asked you where such a Cardinal is going to come from. It's funny that you think even the 10 or so Cardinals who may be reasonably favorable to Tradition or to orthodox doctrine have no chance at all of getting elected, and yet your hope seems to be someone literally falls from the sky to become a Cardinal and then Pope. That would be like a father of a family saying, I need to earn so much I'm not even going to try, but just hope God miraculously provides for my family. Not at all. The right approach is, if we do our best, God will do all the rest. We don't have even the right to cut ourselves off from our superiors in Rome who are still Catholic and we must work for restoration with and under them.

And while I don't really disagree that the false new theology needs to be overturned, there are many ways to go about it. Here's the thing about what happened. There was no need for any Council in the 60s. It was Bea who suggested it, when the Church was weak and Her enemies were strong, and they were deceived by the Trojan horse of a false peace with the world. The last words of Pope John XXIII were "Stop the Council! Stop the Council!" probably after having a nightmare vision of the future after Vatican II.

Given that there was a Council, this was what should have been done or reiterated, as Archbishop +Lefebvre and other traditional Fathers wanted (1) Canonize the Traditional Latin Mass, without change, as the only Mass of the Latin rite; (2) A dogmatic definition that Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces (3) A dogmatic definition of the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation (like the Athanasian Creed) (4) A dogmatic condemnation of Communism and anathematization of all its sympathizers (Pope Pius XIII had already instituted an excommunication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism but that was later, and wrongly, rescinded) (5) A dogmatic condemnation of the so-called "free love" movement that was beginning, as well as abortion, sodomy, contraception and the like; (6) A declaration of the Kingship of Christ and the Queenship of Mary and the obligation of all Catholic states to recognize it in their constitution (7) A Papal and Episcopal consecration of Russia to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart, as Mary requested, to obtain the defeat of Communism, the return of the Orthodox, and the Triumph of the Church, as She promised.

All this can still be done in a simple way just ignoring Vatican II completely. Reread the history of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The First Four Ecumenical Councils were glorious. At Chalcedon, Monophysitism was condemned. At the 5th Council, the emperor practically made the Pope his prisoner and forced him to sign some ambiguous things that some considered a betrayal of Chalcedon. Later, these things were reversed to some degree, and they were not considered fully binding, because of duress, and other such factors.

You can falsely call me a "reform of the reform" type and I could call you a resistance "type". But I won't. These are meaningless things, Archer.

Let's have a serious prayer and action plan for Tradition to triumph within the Church and especially in Rome in 30 years at least. That's only part one of the struggle. After that, the Church will have to re-evangelize the world within the next few decades after that. 

Once elected, the Vicar of Christ should be beholden to no one but Christ. But serious support of good prelates even from the laity (just look at the faithful who chanted Vigano's name in Rome) definitely both consoles and gives more courage to them to resist further, and strengthens others to do the same. And not doing so will have consequences also. That's why we have the obligation to give prayer and public support to them.

[Archer]

Xavier,
Catholic Tradition is not remotely similar to a political ideology which you have often compared it to.

Like your views on the current prelates of the Church, your history of Vatican II is skewed and not grounded in fact. As are your accusations about "cutting ourselves off from Rome." I never claimed to have all the answers, but, in my opinion, campaigning for a Cardinal, or Bishop in your case, (talk about "falling out of the sky") who says the NO mass and accepts the teachings of Vatican II is just getting in God's way. Yes we should pray; and pray hard. I can't fault you for that. I just don't see the answer coming from this current crop of Cardinals; at least not with their beliefs and actions as they stand today.

Incidentally, I'm not someone that prays for the chastisement; but a chastisement could go back to God's plan, which He obviously already knows. If He wants to destroy the earth with a comet and raise up His Church from the ashes... that will work. He did it with a flood in the time of Noah. Don't be so quick to think that you, and your keyboard, have the key to the problem.

[Xavier]

Peace, Archer, I have no quarrel with you and though I don't entirely agree, I respect your perspective. I just wish more traditional Catholics would read and believe the Great Monarch and Angelic Pastor prophesies. It's astonishing how accurate they are and they also mention our time specifically. Ven. Holzhauser explains chastisement is only a means to the promised restoration. I'm a nobody and don't claim to have the answer to anything, but I do know and believe the Saints have the answer to everything. Hope we agree on that.

I consider our disagreement only a tactical difference on the best approach forward. Glad we agree on the importance of prayer. Hope we can agree someday on the focus of Catholic Action.

Pray for me. I'll be entering seminary next year. Will pray for you. God bless.

[Miriam_M]

I consider our disagreement only a tactical difference on the best approach forward. Glad we agree on the importance of prayer. Hope we can agree someday on the focus of Catholic Action.

Xavier, my friend:
Lay people, regarding ecclesiastical realities, do not have "tactics."  There are no "tactics" to implement; they don't exist.  The word "approach" is similarly meaningless.  In terms of "action," the laity is powerless, and actually for the most part the entire body of priests as well.

You're using a model that is irrelevant to the way Rome works but rather is relevant to American political activism.

Whatever "power" we have, relative to the Church as a structure, is beyond us and is supernatural.  We can witness to Tradition in our lives and spiritual alliances, practices, and prayer.

I respect your enthusiasm, and I'm sure that enthusiasm for orthodoxy will serve you well as you begin seminary, but there will be nothing you can "do" even as a priest in collective mind with the men of your apostolate to exert external effort on Rome in the hope that that eager effort in itself will persuade the members of NewChurch to convert to the TrueChurch.  I'm not denying that indirect influence may now and then enlighten and help convert even the most obstinate man, but deliberate and direct effort will be ignored, ridiculed, or seen as dissent.

I've said this recently on SD:  Think ancient Rome. 

[mikemac]

Maybe Saints Peter and Paul will pick the next Pope.  There's a prophecy that says that, isn't there?  Maybe they will pick Bishop Schneider or Archbishop Vigano.