Red-pill me on Vatican 2.
What exactly did it change? What should I know about it as a Catholic born well after it, not knowing how things were before the council.
Liberalized the Church for the Sexual Revolution
Allowed Jews to dictate the terms of it.
Basically it is the Americans and Jews ensuring their degenerate new world is not rebelled against by Catholics.
>stop listening to insane people on the internet and read a fucking book you idiot
Read E Michael Jones who is the most knowledgeable person in the world regarding Catholic history of the 20th century.
yeah m8, this guy looks like a pretty legit scholar
does interviews with rabid antisemites, can't stop droning on and on about sexuality and jews...
he's a nut job and you are too. burn in hell.
If his having a PhD nullifies any critique I might levy at him, then surely you realize what this does to your own position?
But that would have the unhappy effect of disallowing any conversation between us about anything and merely positioning us to point to various people with letters after their name. Now you don't want that do you?
The documents from Vatican II are enormous. There are thousands and thousands of pages which cover a huge range of issues ranging from interfaith dialogue to the language of mass to the situation of Liberation Theology in Latin America to the church's positions on labor and poverty etc. etc.
Your takeaway that Vatican II "Liberalized the Church for the Sexual Revolution" and "Allowed Jews to dictate the terms of it" is at best myopic to the point of being kind of funny (like saying that the Constitution was essentially a protocol for voting procedure if someone asks "what's the Constitution?").
The business about allowing Jews to dictate it it is so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt. Do you know who writes the documents of Ecumenical Councils? Exclusively Catholic church officials and dignitaries. A very tiny handful of representatives from other religions were invited for discussion on interfaith, but they did not compose the final documents. Saying that Jews dictated the terms of it is total hogwash.
But my guess is you buy into a much larger overarching vision of Jewish global conspiracy (like a lot of people on the internet), which basically involves pointing to historically and politically important Jewish figures in the past and present and going "OoooHHH! A COHEN! HES A FUCKIN JEW, he has the LEVERS OF POWER! AUUAHHDGGHFHHF it's a bloody Goldsteinovitch, he renamed himself to Gordon to throw us off his scent! but I got the greedy, tricky Jew by looking at his wiki biography!"
So I don't suppose this post will have much effect on your dented brain but so be it. You're a crackpot m8, sorry.
There are selected documents so seeing what it was about through that is good.
Unrelated to the subject, I truly find it hard to trust Francis on almost anything and suspect he was influenced far too much by a lot of heretical ideas like liberation theology.
I have also read, like yesterday that the leftist bishops conspired against Benedict and placed Francis. This came from an interview with a now retired bishop of Belgium.
Vatican 2 is a product of arguments between orthodox Catholics and unorthodox Catholics (see Kasper, unorthodox, who was at the council and says as much). This led to certain statements in the council being ambiguous and able to be read in an unorthodox way. Some would say the problematic statements are prima facie heretical (strong argument imo) and can only be made orthodox with later rationalisations.In any case the council has some very confusing elements. Look for instance to the fact that it was a 'pastoral' council, and made no dogmatic statements (according to Pope Paul VI who ended the council), although its dogmatic or non-dogmatic character is still constantly disputed, and it did lead to at least some dogmatic statements such as Lumen Gentium, so it is hard to know where the dogma really lies.
here is a video of Bishop Athanasius Schneider (orthodox Catholic, traditionalist but loyal to the pope and Vatican 2 with only some issues about clarifying some statements) outlining some of the vagaries of the texts which have led people to confusion:
And here is a popular webpage outlining errors of Vatican 2 (staunchly anti-Vatican 2 - schismatic, possibly sedevacantist bias)
Vatican 2 led to sedevacantism (belief that the popes were in heresy, that the seat of Peter is vacant) and debatably schismatic movements such as SSPX (not sedevacantist but disobedient to the pope in the belief that the faith is in jeopardy from false teachings). It also led to leftist camps who want to move the Church even further away from tradition, allowing contraception, abortion, gay marriage, divorce, denying miracles, historicity of the bible etc etc and moderates who believe the Church is just fine and there are no problems except for people who don't agree that everything is fine.
It can be a pretty confusing subject, lots of angles to look at.
The main problem people actually have is nostra ataete, spelling out relations with other religions
And even so Benedict XVI showed that traditional catholics still have influence, the problemn is interpretation and application of the document
The main problem, I would say, is actually the liturgy and the maintenance of the churches (neither of which are usually anything to do with vatican 2, rather based on a myth of vatican 2. no latin, no chants, no alter rails etc) seeing as how these are the things most readily noticeable to the laity. As for the documents, there are things in many of them which cause problems, not just nostra aetate, as examined in the interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider here >>537870 where he mentions a number of statements and the problems that can be caused by their use of language e.g. gaudium et spes 12 where it outlines all things are orientated towards man as their ultimate aim, rather than the glorification of God. Here we see sloppy wording that subverts the faith and muddles its intention (God created certain things in the service of man, a gift to us. A very different sentiment to a universe that has its finality in man).
>vatican ii did not change a lick about catholic marriage, celibacy etc.
That's why the pope has been saying homosexuality is okay now, right? Nothing changed a bit.
>stop listening to insane people on the internet and read a fucking book you idiot
That's humorous. Unfortunately it's your worldview that isn't in alignment with reality.
>The porn industry isn't majority Jewish.
>The abortion movement didn't have a strong Jewish component.
>Third wave feminism wasn't started almost completely by Jews (i.e., sexual liberation).
>Jews aren't only 2% of the population.
>They just happen to pop up whenever an ideology that is detrimental to social cohesiveness is promulgated.
I could go on, but you are the one lacking an education, not us.
What's wrong with Jews influencing Catholic doctrine? They are people of the book, and beleive in the same God. They even God's chosen people and Vatacin 2 confirms this to be true, so they must know a lot about what God wants.
Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending?
In what way did it liberalize the Church for the Sexual Revolution? Homosexual acts, the use of contraceptives, abortion, and sex outside of marriage are all still grave sins. It's right there in the Catechism.
We all made in God's image. Do not judge others. As long as one is not harming another of God's creation it's alright.
Catholicism isn't about hate, it's about us joining hands in love of God.
Anyone here read the Syllabus of Errors? I love it.
A few of these I could imagine a modern pope saying quite easily. 15 to 18 for instance, easily, and the teachings on democracy. When you read this and think about the Church today, it's almost impossible to see any link between what was and is now.
>Catholics thinking they can leave the Church because they don't agree with its views
What's the point of even claiming Catholicism then? Might as well be a Protestant, picking your own authority to interpret Christianity is literally what Protestantism is about. If you don't believe the Church has a divine claim to authority and will never fall, everything else pretty much falls down. I don't understand schismatics.
The prominence of Jews in positions of consequence and power is certainly remarkable and interesting.
I find the explanation that this is the result of a cohesive, secretive minority pushing a specific agenda completely ridiculous.
On the first point (a secret minority organizing in secret) I point to the plain fact that this is purely conspiratorial. Save a few forgeries here and there, we have yet to see a leaked memo from the Council of Jewish Illuminatis signed by such a figure as Joe Lieberman or a porn industry executive. In lieu of such absence, you're merely shrugging your shoulders.
On the second point (that there is such a thing as a Jewish agenda), one need only look to the extraordinary variety of contending ideas that have existed among Jews. Religious Jews butt heads with Secular Jews, among the religious, the Orthodox and the Reform butt heads, among the Secular, the existentialists, traditionalists and Marxists (for example) butt heads.
In fact, there is not a single political, religious or social idea one can propose that does not have some Jews among its advocates.
Zionist conspiracies are perennial, an unfortunate consequence of Yahwist faith (its tight clinging to orthodoxy and tradition) and the overwhelming success (ie popularity) of the Christian tradition. Its modern forms descend exactly and perfectly from its ancient and medieval ones, but they are expressed in modern language.
If you give it a serious study, I think you will discover that Zionist conspiracies are a kind of pathology of western thinking. We all know something has gone terribly wrong. We all see some lost glory in the past. But only the schizophrenic see the Jew looming behind every lost splendor and broken cause.
The pope has not said that "homosexuality is okay." He has expressed an openness to persons who identify as homosexual. "Who am I to judge?" does not refer to the homosexual act. It refers to the act of identifying as a homosexual.
The modern theory of homosexuality relies on the notion that persons are inherently or essentially one of several types of sexuality. The idea that one can have homosexual desires and then not have them at a later point (which is what the Church would like to say) or that one can identify as homosexual and not pursue homosexual acts (which is what the Church advocates in the case of individuals who cannot escape the modern paradigm of identifying as essentially homosexual) are antithetical to secular views on sexuality.
Papal Infallibility does not mean "we believe everything the Pope says is absolutely true."
It is a doctrine that allows the Pope, when he deems it necessary, to offer a final position on a controversy in Church doctrine. This final position then becomes an official credo of Catholics. Papal infallibility has been used one time in its entire history (which dates to the 19th century if I'm not mistaken). This was to declare that Mary ascended into heaven upon her death (and her body is thus nowhere to be found on earth). It settled a centuries old conflict.
>Zionist conspiracies are a kind of pathology of Jewish thinking
This post is brought to you by Tikkun Olam™: repairing your world without asking for your consent, or whether it was broken to begin with.
Religious Jews such as the Haredi are right about Israel violating the Three Oaths:
As for Tikkun Olam, watch this:
The lecture is about pre-Tikkun Olam social justice ideas in the Tanakh, but from minute 49 (the very last minutes of it) it talks about this more modern idea.
The other side's opinion:
I really like the comment:
>The Mitzvot are just as bad as Tikkun Olam. We had a credo engraved on two tablets of stone, and it served us well for 1500 years.
>Then Rebbe decided that Moses was not clever enough, and turned our credo of Ten Commandments into 666 commandments, and later 613, for fear of Gentile massacre.
>Tikkun Olam is one of our shocking national stupidities that come from the Talmud and the Mitzvot. These two monstrosities will put us back in the gas chambers unless we get rid of them.
>"Who am I to judge?" does not refer to the homosexual act. It refers to the act of identifying as a homosexual.
I'm pretty sure he's referring to homosexuals who want to practice Catholicism and rid themselves of sin i.e. homosexuals. The pope absolutely judges homosexuals, he has to, it's dogma (not to mention his previous comments against homosexuality and modern gender politics/theory).
That said I'm still very against Francis, he's careless with his words in a way that wreaks havoc and I can't believe it is entirely unintentional.
Zionism is not caused by the West, if anything the West is having the Israeli migrate away from the country to a place where people blow up less frequently.
>I'm not clicking any of that shit.
I'm only quoting Jews here. David Solomon is a Rabbi and kabbalist. Algemeiner, despite the scary German name of German scaryness, is a Jewish website, etc.
This is not how you argue, friend. If you read my post and disagreed with certain ideas in it, then you need to form a clear argument about why I am incorrect, preferably one which takes into account my arguments and not simply the central idea.
You don't put a piece of snarky greentext and then dump links on me.
I suppose I meant something more like "anti-Zionist conspiracies" or "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" are a result of a historically antagonistic relationship between Jews and Christians.
I realize now that the term "Zionist conspiracy" is ambiguous, although you certainly could have recovered my intended meaning given the rest of that post.