#vatican 2

It must be emphasized from the outset, however, that the destruction of the Church is being sought from two completely different motives. In one case it is the conspiracy which has existed at all times to undermine the Faith and destroy the Church, with the sole difference that those involved do not want to undermine the Church from without, but rather from within. This is precisely the system of the “fifth column.” People who pretend to be Catholics, who assume offices in the Church, are seeking from within, under the banner of reform and progress, to destroy the Church.

Completely different from these people are those who do not want to destroy the Church as such, i.e., who do not seek the disappearance of the Church, but who rather want to transform the Church into something which completely contradicts her meaning and essence. This includes all those who wish to make the Church of Jesus Christ into a purely humanitarian society, to rob her of her supernatural character, to secularize and desacralize her. They share that camouflage of the enemies of the Church which comes from using the shibboleths of “reform,” “progress,” and “adaptation to modern man.” But they do not want to eliminate the Church. The catchwords “reform” and “progress” are not mere tricks which they use; they really believe them.

The result of the activity of this group is the same as that of the first group; only their motives are different. This latter group would vehemently protest if one were to accuse them of intending the destruction of the Church. But they have lost the true Christian Faith to such an extent that they do not clearly understand that the secularized, humanitarian organization which they want to make out of the holy Church would have nothing left in common with the Church of Jesus Christ. They do not see that if they were to reach their goal, it would amount to the destruction of the Church.

Henri de Lubac, S.J., pointed this out with forceful and penetrating words:

“One becomes conscious that the Church is confronted with a grave crisis. In the name of a “new” Church, a “post-conciliar” Church, some people are attempting to found another Church than that of Jesus Christ: an anthropocentric society, which is threatened by an ‘immanentist apostasy,’ and which can be drawn into a movement of general surrender under the cloak of rejuvenation, ecumenism, or adaptation.”

Pope Gregor was “Gregorian,” Pope Sixtus was “Sistine,” Pope Francis is “Franciscan,” so what would Pope Pius be?  For most Latin names ending in -ius, you’d replace it with -ian, but that would just be Pian, which doesn’t look or sound right.  Julius is “Julian,” Claudius is “Claudian,” Fabius is “Fabian,” Vitruvius is “Vitruvian,” but Pius doesn’t seem to fit that pattern.

I’m leaning towards Piusine or Piite.  Lots of famous people have eponymous adjectives, but the only Pius on the list was Antoninus Pius whose adjectives were Antonian and Antonine.

For reference, the fictional Pope Pius is actually an Antipope, an ultra-conservative cardinal who leads a schism in the church when the duly elected Pope holds a Third Ecumenical Council to discuss modernizing and reforming the church.  There hasn’t been an Antipope since 1449, so we’re long overdue (I’m not Catholic, but my grandmother was, and I’ve been doing a lot of research into religious history)

I’m leaning towards the antipope being either Polish, Filipino, or American, as they seem to be the most vehemently conservative Catholics.  The HBO show Young Pope had an American Pope named Pius, and the real John Paul II was Polish, so how do you feel about a Filipino Antipope?

--I want to announce at the start that I am a theologian, that is my education by choice and I am in no way questioning the validity or choices of the council only talking about some effects that are attributed to it in America--

If you have any questions or would like material to research for yourself, please message me

The Second Vatican Council, was a gathering of church members (bishops, priests, the pope, etc.) in 1962 to discuss the church and address relations between the church and the modern world, which was more secular at this time.

After the Council the conclusions were made public and each country reacted differently, in Europe the effect was what the council members expected: More masses in the vernacular, inclusion of the congregation in the mass, more common communion, etc.

America however,(as most people would agree) to the teachings in a completely different way, and thats what we are going to talk about:

Effects:

All the differences seemed to make the church more Protestant

The Council confirms and continues the liturgical movement

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant a high honor but did not limit music

This allows more instruments to come into the church, such as pianos, tambourines, and yes the famous guitar

Encouraged people to say mass together

This led to the mass being said in the vernacular, something that was very uncommon up to this point

Participation in mass changed

The mass structure became more organic and led to the communal saying of the responses

Many American religious groups took the clause saying to reform the Habit, Morals and Education as a cue to:

Get rid of the Habit entirely   

Change Morals to the more secular view

The most popular case of this the the Jesuit Seminary being mover from Woodstock

the seminarians were know to be less chastised then called to be

Girls were known to be spending the night in the seminary

Once relocated many of the boys became more secular or just left the seminary all together

The Church had adopted a more thomistic approach, however many people were not well Catechized

Mass attendance started to decline from the record high rated in the 1950′s

We have the beginning split of what is now known as “Liberal” and “conservative” catholics