The Validity of Vatican II 

July 24th, I turned 27. Two days after, last Sunday, I got baptized. I wake up every morning and can't believe I'm Catholic.

Incredibly thought out and well said, Brian. Since I am a Protestant in the process of conversion to the Catholic Church, I have been delighted by the complexity and depth that I found in God's words. God really is everywhere. While I am not sure I agree with all of your opinions, you really do have a good understanding of the Church,. Thank you!

#The-Latin-Thing: In American occupied Bavaria (May 1945) there was a small catholic village celebrating Holy Mass at Sunday, but they had a problem: All of their former acolytes were wounded or POWs. So the local priest reached out to the GIs and as result several black catholic US-Soldiers helped out as acolytes (with perfect knowledge in Latin) and the other catholics of their unit joined the Holy Mass too. Afterwards the protestant field pastor of the unit said toward the local priest: "You catholics are great! You might not understand each other on a daily basis but as soon as you worship God you speak the same language. I wish we had that." It was a mistake to ignore this uniting force...

I've been hearing so much about this topic on the internet and you made it short, charitable, and full of common sense. Thanks

You put this so well! The way you put the meaning of the hermeneutic of continuity was particularly apt. It is what Tim Gordon would describe as the correct understanding of it, rather than the version which tries to twist the tradition to fit the aberrant interpretations of magisterial texts. I also like how you describe the mindsets of all sides from a sympathetic view. It's really helpful toward having this necessary conversation in the Church.

I am a convert. I have been Catholic for over 20 years. I have never known the church any other way than post Vatican II. But, when I moved from the US to Britain, I was amazed by the difference. Whether you go to the Latin Mass or you go to the NO Mass the atmosphere and attitude is more formal, thoughtful, and respectful. Men wear shirt and tie and jacket and slacks. Women wear dresses and skirts and often wear a scarf or veil on their heads. Children are welcome but they are attentive and quiet. And I think that is the difference here that we see in European churches versus American. And it leads one to feel as if Americans treat Mass and church as a social occasion rather than the worship and prayerful time it is meant to be. I love my Church, and am a frequent attendee to the Latin Mass. But I feel just as content attending the vernacular Mass in English. I wish and pray we would stop bickering over preV II versus V II and Latin vs NO. The first church was a church of the hearth and Mass was at the family supper table performed by the one called to priesthood at that time, however that happened then, and just as at the Last Supper, the prayers were offered up in the language of the people. This arguing among one another goes against the first commandments Jesus gave us: Love the Lord thy God and Love ye one another as I have loved you.

I have to protest the term “modern man”. There is nothing modern about us we just have more toys than our ancestors.

Thank you for your explanation. I am 64 and was in grade school when VCII was in session. It's taken a long time, but I believe that slowly the barque of Peter is righting itself. When I think of what the Mass became when I was in high school, I shudder. But I believe Our Lord founded this Church and has never left it, nor has His Mother left it. Although some free-thinking liturgists took the ball and ran with it, so to speak, there are signs of a return to reverence at Mass. I am enlightened by this presentation. God bless!

Simply put: We need to look back to Tradition

I'm a convert too. I agree with you. I've come across quite a few Catholics with an extreme view of VC II. I can say with near certainty that I may not have converted if it wasn't for the practices VC II. Hearing the Mass in English (I don't know Latin) before I was Catholic made a big difference. I wonder if I would've converted if I heard all prayers and scripture in only Latin.

Thank you. I really needed this. Between the doctor and the bishop, my head was spinning from confusion. You helped me understand, and in less than 10 minutes. 🙏🙏🙏

Brian, you get it and we are blessed to have your voice. It’s never as cut and dry as some will have you believe...all about the hermeneutic👊🏻. Prayer for your and your family!!

Brian I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your videos and think very highly of you and the way you carry yourself. I currently am a Protestant who wants to become catholic, but I’ve found a lot of confusion regarding the Vatican 2 controversy. It hasn’t in anyway made me want to stop becoming Catholic, but i just find it disorienting. I feel akin to traditional types because that’s exactly what i am seeking, but nothing like SSPX or anything in that ball court, more like FSSP. What would be your advice to someone like me, navigating this path.

That was a really helpful video.... and it's sort of eerie how I have been discovering and thinking about the same sorts of things (and in the same sorts of ways) at around the same time. I remember you posted your video about your first experience at a Latin EF Mass around the same time I just decided and began to regularly attend EF Mass exclusively. And now I'm readjusting my opinion on Vatican II (after previously greatly disliking it because of its "spirit" of implementation and the loss of Catholic teaching of the faith that resulted). So thank you. This video put into words a lot of what I've been thinking about, myself, recently.

Sacrosanctum Concilium did not call for what we now see at Mass Daily since the Council.

What I have heard is that Vatican 2 was a council convened to provide guidance to a Church that was having difficulty responding to movements like secularism, communism, fascism, national socialism, nuclear proliferation, darwinism, breakdown of the colonial system, and a fracturing Christendom. The days of Christian values being the norm throughout western society were quickly disappearing and the Church needed to understand how to best apply the ancient deposit of faith to the challenges of the current times. Was it successful? Did it come at a cost and was it too steep? Was it inherently flawed or were the principles misunderstood and misapplied? These are difficult questions that must be researched and answered with humility.

I like Dr.Taylor Marshall's and Arch Bishop Vigano point of view on what we should do with the Second Vatican Council. Its ambiguity and the fact that it is a failure in every direction. Why not trash it. The effects of its fruits have been absolutely devastating.

BTW Benedict also called Dignitatis Humanae the Counter-Syllabus, so that defeats his whole "Hermeneutic of Continuity" rhetoric.

Thank you for perfectly voicing my viewpoint on this topic. I haven’t yet voiced it with such eloquence.

Excellent. When I studied the Second Vatican Council at the Master's level, we had to read older documents, too, in order to understand the writings in context. The same is true for every new encyclical, which is why we will sometimes see in an introduction section the names of the other pertinent documents. Glad you mentioned schismatic positions and explained why they are so. Love how balanced, thoughtful and faithful your answers are. Thanks for doing your homework.

I visited a church for Sunday Mass while on vacation a few years ago and that sinking feeling I had when a women got out her guitar 😢

I find this whole dogmatic vs pastoral councils to be a false dichotomy, because all Ecumenical Councils teach doctrine authentically and also take disciplinary measures, and, depending on how you emphasize, the Council can be considered dogmatic or pastoral or both. I mean, the claim that ALL Ecumenical Councils before Vatican II were aimed at resolving some heresy is not so certain. Constantinople IV (879), Lateran II (1139), Lyon I (1245), Vienne (1311-1312) and Lateran V (1512-1517) could be considered "pastoral" councils. Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz, Prelate of Opus Dei, writes: "The pastoral motivation of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal-since all pastoral activity is necessarily based on doctrine. But, above all, it is important to emphasize that precisely because doctrine is aimed at salvation, the teaching of doctrine is an integral part of all pastoral work. Furthermore, within the Documents of the Council it is obvious that there are many strictly doctrinal teachings: on Divine Revelation, on the Church, etc. As Blessed John Paul II wrote: 'With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable collection of DOCTRINAL statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church' (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum , 11 October 1992, Introduction)."

Thank you very much for the clarity with which you express yourself. Certainly the last question is difficult to answer.

Excellent overview! I think you did all opinions justice. I’ll probably use this video as an introduction to the subject for friends.

Here is a short summary of the errors of Vatican II and how they contradict Church teaching.. Vatican II errors Vatican II teaches: Error #1: The "aim" of the liturgical reform is to "promote union" with heretics and schismatics. (SC 1) Catholic Church teaches: St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, ‘It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them.’ Pope Pius XI recalled in the 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, ‘[the] Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.’ Vatican II teaches: Error #2: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be within "the people's powers of comprehension and should not require much explanation." (SC 34) Catholic Church teaches: "If anyone says that the Rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the Canon is pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only..let him be anathema." [Canon 9, Session XXII, Sept. 17, 1562] "THE LANGUAGE PROPER TO THE ROMAN CHURCH IS LATIN. HENCE IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SING ANYTHING WHATEVER IN THE VERNACULAR IN SOLEMN LITURGICAL FUNCTIONS- MUCH MORE TO SING IN THE VERNACULAR THE VARIABLE OR COMMON PARTS OF THE MASS AND OFFICE." (INTER SOLLICITUDINES, 1920 A.D.) -POPE ST. PIUS X Vatican II teaches: Error #3: A "radical adaptation of the liturgy [to the culture and tradition of peoples] is needed." (SC 40) Catholic Church teaches: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches whomsoever to other new ones, let him be anathema." (Session 7, Canon 13 council of Trent) Pope Pius V on the Latin Mass: “Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.” -Pope Pius V Encyclical: Quo Primum: July 14, 1570. Vatican II teaches: Error #4: The Church of Christ merely "subsists" in the Catholic Church. (LG 8) Catholic Church teaches: Following all his predecessors, Pius XII teaches on two occasions, in Mystici corporis and in Humani generis that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are strictly identical. Only the Catholic Church is the Church willed by Christ, because only the Catholic Church is governed by the Vicar of Christ, who causes the social order willed by Christ to reign. Outside of that government the administration of the sacraments is sterile and the reading of Sacred Scripture degenerates into intellectual and moral anarchy. Vatican II teaches: Error #5: Christ uses heretical and schismatic communities as "means of salvation." (UR 3) Catholic Church teaches: “There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church.” - St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) Vatican II teaches: Error #6: The "liturgical actions" of the heretics provide "access to the community of salvation." (UR 3) Catholic Church teaches: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church Vatican II teaches: Error #7: "Catholics must esteem the truly Christian endowments" to be found among the heretics as "a help to our own edification" (UR4) Catholic Church teaches: "It is absurd for a heretic to say that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a person is to give our full consent to his Word & to all he teaches. True Faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ & in all he taught. Hence he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation, has no more the doctrine of Jesus Christ & of His Church than the pagans, Jews, & Turks have." -St Thomas Aquinas Vatican II teaches: Error #8: Christ has made the Jews of our time "one in Himself' with gentiles "by His cross." (NA4) Catholic Church teaches: Matthew 10:33 “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny[or reject] him before My Father in heaven. “Do not add to your sins by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes it is ours, but they (Jews) lost it forever.” -St. Barnabas Vatican II teaches: Error #9: Muslims "along with us adore the one God... the Creator of heaven and earth." (LG 16, NA 4) Catholic Church teaches: Nicene Creed “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” Psalm 96:5 “all the gods of the infidels are demons, the LORD made the heavens.” Vatican II teaches: Error #10: Tradition developes in the Church as she "moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth." (DV 8) Catholic Church teaches: “Progress of dogmas is, in reality, nothing but corruption of dogmas... I absolutely reject the heretical doctrine of the evolution of dogma, as passing from one meaning to another, and different from the sense in which the Church originally held it.” -Pope St. Pius X Vatican II teaches: Error #11: The "right to religious freedom"is based in the "dignity of the human person" and remains for those who neglect-their "obligation to seek the truth." (DH 2) Catholic Church teaches: Freedom of religion sets value to false religions. Countries must promote the Catholic religion. Catholic supremacy overall. Cardinal Ottaviani, set forth the question correctly: "Just as the civil power considers it right to protect its citizens from the seductions of error ... so it may also regulate and moderate the public expression of other forms of worship and defend its citizens against the diffusion of false doctrines which, in the judgment of the Church, endanger their eternal salvation". Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” Vatican II teaches: Error #12: "All things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown." (GS 12) Catholic Church teaches: Human beings are incomplete without God “Enough about the rights of man, let the world hear something about the rights of God.” Pope Leo XIII “It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.” -Saint Augustine “You must ask God to give you the power to fight against the sin of pride which is your greatest enemy-the root of all that is evil, and the failure of all that is good. For God resists the proud.” -Saint Vincent de Paul These errors must be resisted because they contradict the divine law of the Church. No authentic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church could possibly teach these errors.

Okay, I can hang with you on most points. Except for the “response to modernity” part at 2:15. I think it’s safe to say that more than Vatican 2 has caused the current decline in the Church. I’m a convert, I was baptized a week before the death of JPII and from the feedback I’ve received before and since, from people outside the Church (be they fallen away, or Protestant, or Agnostic or Atheist), we are still considered a church that protects pedophiles over children. And many of those who came forward were pre-Vatican II victims. So though I can agree with the Hermeneutic of Continuity and the need to have any V2 docs interpreted in the light of a historically consistent Magisterium, I think how we as a Church have handled the Sex Abuse scandals has done more to shake the confidence of the apostolate than the overly liberal interpretations of V2 documents. Both are a problem of course. But if you weigh the importance and immediacy of the Form of Mass vs “Are my children safe in you hands?”, the latter seems like a significantly more jarring concern.

I can't help myself here. If the Church is destroying the very foundations that made people want to be Catholic, what's the point? How is "freedom of religion" consistent with Catholicism being the one true Church? How is "keeping up with the times" consistent with maintaining tradition? It may be dramatic to phrase things like this but it's what I honestly feel about the subject. I'm very worried about the Church .

Your thoughts very much mirror my own thoughts. Thank you for explaining it so sensibly and logically.

I wish the hermeneutic of continuity was a viable option, because then we could be faithful to both Tradition and VC2. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work this way. You will eventually encounter passages from VC2 that cannot be reconciled with z tradition.

I just want to say that I think many Catholics underestimate the extent to which Vatican II is actually accomplishing its purpose. As a former, lifelong Protestant, I know that I wouldn’t have been able to understand Catholic theology without reading the documents of Vatican II, and listening to Catholic apologists explain the hermeneutic of continuity. I hear a lot of people say that Vatican II “failed” - but it’s been just over 50 years since it was convened. On the scale of Church history, that’s a very short time. Over the next few centuries, I expect the excesses of the 1960s to die off, and that we will see the council bear much fruit in terms of evangelism.

Really appreciate your precision of language and obviously well thought out takes.

Gotta keep saying "hermeneutic of continuity" over and over again so I remember to use that line while defending my beliefs.

Im just tired of being denied my right to receive our Precious Lord reverently and devoutly on the tongue.

As someone once said, "I submit to*every* dogma established by VC2." Fortunately, there were none.

You hit the nail on the head. Excellent work Brian

Tha Thank you for making this video! It help so much. I’m new to the Catholic Faith and it seems overwhelming at times but this video helped me understand Vatican 2 !

I used to be very anti V2 and found myself getting angry at Norvus ordo too often. Years passed and only in 2020 have I made my peace with the council. Thank you so much for your humble and non aggressive insight.

I started going to Traditional Latin Mass and I love it! TLM is becoming more and more popular!

Very nice message, but I would like to take a moment to congratulate you, for awesome content and incredible visuals, your editing is so good, some times you look like a video game character. aahha

excellent talk, Brian

Saying that V2 was simply misunderstood, falls flat when we know that many of the documents were made to be purposefully vague, similar to how the existence of female altar servers came to be. Vagueness was present and it could have even been placed there intentionally so that people could exploit that. It's sad, but it's the truth. Saying that the council was simply poorly applied assumes a priori that the council was clear in being in continuity with the catholic church's previous teachings, which is sorta one of my issues with Benedict XVI's statement. Moreover, the council, if it was to make something clear has only introduced very radical camps that say it is magesterially binding or those, similar to the SSPX position (or other "to hell with V2" people), that it was a pastoral council with nothing that was binding on the faithful. An issue at hand is the need to realize that V2 is also directly linked to V1, where ultramontanism became the Catholic church's official dogma, whereas V2 seemed to try and temper that by making the Church more collegial, and we see this with the renunciation of the Papal tiara after Paul VI, the Pope becoming "the people's pope" as we saw under JP2, the renunciation of various papal titles (like patriarch of the west) under benedict, and the renewed emphasis on synodality that we have seen under Francis's papacy over the past decade. The fact is, is that to say for many, V2 is whatever they want it to be. This is how you can have a Church with your normie diocesan NO which has guitar mass, while down the street you have an FSSP parish, with an entirely different ethos and spirituality (and even teaching). It's a shame that a lot of people stop just at the liturgical changes made, and this makes sense since they were the most noticeable changes, but a new direction for the Church was to be marked at V2, and it will be interesting to see where the Catholic church will be in 50 years. I say in 50 years, bc I know many of young catholic trads insist that the trad movement and a return to the glory of the Church pre-V2 is coming, but I don't think there is any indication that this is the case. If anything, most young people are ok with the NO as it stands. I think the view which insists that it's all the boomers and gen x'ers that are the problem forgets that for many young people, they have neither been to an EF, and if they have, prefer the OF. That news startles a lot of these trads bc it unveils to them that young people may be interested to some degree, but there won't be a takeover. The diocesan seminaries may offer the chance to learn how to perform the EF, but only a few seminarians actually decide to learn. The Catholic church is where it is. And I think what we will see is only a deepening divide between the so called traditionalists vs. normal catholics. The new mass isn't going anywhere at all, sappy protestant hymns aren't going anywhere. V2 obsession isn't going anywhere. But these two groups of people are going to have to learn to tolerate each other, bc the next papacy after francis isn't likely to yield a Pius XIII. If anything, all the Papabili are bishops who follow a very similar ethos to francis. While the list of papabili isn't a sure thing as we saw with John XXIII and JP2, they are pretty strong indicators to the direction the conclave will go. All this to say, the Catholic church chose a new direction to go in, and it's highly unlikely that it will change it's course any time soon.

@Brian Holdsworth... how do you take in account that the implementation of Vatican II went well in the Eastern Rites but poorly in West?

Hermeneutic of Continuity = Using a hammer to fit puzzle pieces in.

Brian: perhaps I missed it, but you stressed that V2 needed to be taking in the context of all previous councils, dogmas, teachings, etc.. Fair enough. But you didn't point out (or, at least, did I missed where you pointed out) that it stands in contrast to previous councils, dogmas, teachings, etc.? I don't know that it is in conflict with prior councils. As for it being a pastoral council, again, I don't see why that's necessarily a problem. Sure, it's something new. But we shouldn't judge new things as necessarily bad ... or good. Newness isn't a great argument against V2; substance is. So make that argument. Lastly, I don't disagree that the changes implemented at the grass roots level was a disaster. In many Churches, there is nothing transcendent, nothing beautiful, nothing other-worldly about the building or about the liturgy that takes place inside that building. It is a shame. We deserve better.

Have you read Dr. Taylor Marshall's Infiltration book? I just got it but haven't read it yet. Would love your thoughts on him and/or his book.

That was very courageous of you to handle this topic. I really try to uphold the same viewpoint. Trouble is: what to do with real contradictions? How do you feel about father Hesse (it wasn't a Council) and doctor Taylor Marshall (even the hermeneutic of continuity is not possible)?

Excellent, Brian. Thank you!

You are such great help to Catholics like me. Getting the right direction.

Definitely a lot of nuance to your thoughts in this video--which is appreciated. I appreciate you pointing out the two extremes of thought about this issue and how they're both antithetical to a true Catholic view of the Church. If we can all find commonality over this, I think you could get the overwhelming majority of Catholics to agree that while the documents of Vatican II are legitimate, clearly individuals took things way too far in the "spirit of Vatican II". I believe it was all well intentioned, and don't forget that we have the advantage of hindsight. Don't forget that at the time our world was going through unbelievable social change and it's clear that the plummet in religious attendance was already well on its way before the council even began--the Popes of the early 20th Century saw it and wrote about it. But I think young Catholics are watching that correction actively take place before our eyes. I think there's a good middle ground between "Rigidly stick to exactly the way things were before Vatican II and pretend the council never happened" and "Nothing before the council matters".

Father Schillebeecx (one of the modernists in the Council) admitted: "We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards." Compare with the Council of Trento, which was clear and unambiguous. Council Vatican II has produced innumerable disasters in the Church and the sooner we admit it and change course the better. As Shane Bradman said in the answer of the Fr. Thomas Herge: "The hermeneutic of continuity lacks the clarity of the formative theology of the Church. It is to bend what sounds heretical and make it Orthodox. If a document requires decades of interpretation to understand, the document lacks the necessary clarity to be considered good theology." It is easier to go back to the Tradition of the Church that to try to tame a Council which broke with it, at the same time that the modernists use it to justify all kinds of despicable things.

Well said, Brian. Thank you.

Great ending to a cordial video!

I have this meme, and I think it expresses my view pretty well. With the caption of "when you don't like pope Francis, but momma ain't raise no Sedevacantist" and it shows a person praying over his meal Saying "this tastes terrible, O Lord, but I'll do it for you."

Brian, for your next video please do it on the official US Catholic voting guide given to us by the Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. Too many Catholics don’t understand how to vote with their conscience in accord with Church teaching.

Dear Mr. Holdsworth, I really appreciate your balanced attempt to make V2 teachings understandable. However I think it's impossible to see a compatibility between catholic dogma and traditions and some of the results of V2. Especially Nostra Aetate and Unitatis redintegratio are more or less in contradition to the faith. Pope Benedict's hermeneutics of continuity is a well-meaning attempt to save V2 as a whole. I recommend the pontifical encyclicals of Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI. and Pius XII. After that please read the encyclicals of post-V2 Popes. You will find a lot of contradictions to his predecessors and the churchs' traditional teachings. Please read Pascendi dominici gregis of Saint Pius X. All those errors mentioned in it are now common in the church. Are called "magisterium". It's unfortunate but it's true. But it's still the Church. She will overcome all those errors and Christ the King will reign in the church and the souls once again.

Thank you for this presentation. A few things have been pointed out to me about Vatican II, one of which I will share here. "The church constantly moves forward towards the fullness of divine truth." Dei Verbum #8. Now that is considered to be a rather serious heresy by many. The Church possessed the fullness of divine truth from the instant it was built by the Second Divine Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ. Thank you.

Vatican II didn’t attempt to overtly proclaim any new dogmas, but that essentially doesn’t matter. It did teach heresy. Heresy counts as heresy whether or not it’s claimed to be an infallible statement. It buried that under hundreds of pages of pleasantries. But since then there is very little that has been left untouched by the taint of modernism. If Pope St. Pius X were alive today, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas, I have no doubt that they would reject it as a robbers council. It’s not the first time it’s happened. By its fruits alone we can see it was not inspired of the Holy Ghost. I sympathize with the predicament that others find themselves in with Vatican II. As Catholics they do not wish to deviate from what they see as taught by divine authority and wish to maintain the Catholic Faith inviolate on one hand while avoiding contradiction on the other. That’s the noble impulse of the hermeneutic of continuity. The problem is that it simply doesn’t work. Vatican II (and people in very high places since then) have openly taught heresy. These very positions of authority come from their duty to guide, teach, and defend the faith. When the faith itself is trod underfoot, their validity as teachers is lost. I have no doubt that there are many decent Catholics of good will who struggle to reconcile themselves with Vatican II while remaining allied that body. But the truth is plain, as a matter of divine law. One cannot be the head of an organization if one is not a member. A heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. Therefore those who have openly and repeatedly professed heresy have lost their positions in the Church. We have a rump hierarchy right now, and things will not improve until the men in the Vatican are devout Catholics once more. The widespread loss of faith is perhaps the most terrible punishment God has allowed to befall mankind, but it won’t be the last. We were told from the earliest days that the faith would fall low in the last days. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that’s what we are now enduring. The supposed hierarchy is far from spared; it pains me to say they are its principal architects.

Vatican II was forced upon the Catholic faithful, we had no choice. So over time, some of the faithful wanted the original Mass back. So they sought to find a traditional Latin Mass. Yes, sure, the Vatican II NO mass suffices to satisfy your Sunday obligation to attend mass on Sunday. But honestly, there is no comparison between the NO mass and the TLM. There are totally different prayers in each one, different liturgy, sacred music in the TLM and mostly protestant music in the NO mass. It is obvious the differences between the two Masses. One is called the "extraordinary Mass" for a reason. The other is called the "ordinary Mass" for a reason. We hold the TLM as sacred, devout, reverant, respectful to Jesus Christ our Lord, Savior and redeemer. A beautiful mass of the ages that is timeless. And I thank God 🙏 for it. Viva Cristo Rey. +

I think you did a great job giving a balanced view of a to say the least, a complicated issue! I think you seem to mirror Bishop Baron in some ways in that while he is certainly a fan of the Second Vatican council, he readily concedes that the way it has been implement certainly can be described as problematic. I myself have had a complex range if feelings about the council. Ultimately, I must respect and accept the magisterial mandate of the church. You do an excellent job telling the story from the traditionalist side especially the painful loss of so many of their traditions. Personally I never felt that that needed to be the case and there are many traditions that I would like to see make a come back, some that I practice myself. I am glad, for example, that some parishes have a Latin Mass for those who prefer attending mass under that rite. I never saw why that as being a big deal if there is a demand for that. Peace in Christ, and let us pray for greater unity in the Church!

Intersting commentary. Bishop Barron has said that the issue with Vatican II was in the implementation. What do do about it now?

Vatican Council II brought about much confusion, and who is the Father of Confusion?

Haha! You went there, Brian, you went there. Great show of courage...

What are your thoughts on the scope of the Synod of Synodality?

Thank you Brian!

It took me 40 years to come back to the Church. I still prefer the former.

Are you deliberately mistaking the interpretations of the council with the council itself?

Well done. You are at your best in this subject area. Having been involved in Catholic music for 40 years, I found the V2 documents as masterpiece of ambiguity, and they cannot be used in a claim to authority. This led to endless, and ultimately exhausting disputes. I eventually walked away from the battlefield.

Thanks so much for making this topic digestible. My parents, at 88 yrs, go to a Traditional Mass and I tend to lean toward the "regular " Mass since it's what I grew up with. My mother has great disdain for the Second Vatican Council and I've never understood why....and I suppose I never will. She blames Pope John Paul II, whom I happen to love. Personally, there's plenty of "blame " to go around, if you had to blame anyone, really. I think changes needed to happen and the Church wanted to respond. That's ok in my eyes.

Hello Brian I'm really grateful that I stumbled upon your channel and have experienced an informed person eloquently explaining sometimes controversial things to me. I'm just 16 years old and from Austria and have been attending the SSPX for since my childhood. Since about a year I'm on a journey to find God because I've lost faith in him in recent years as I became a teenager. I would appreciate if you could do a video or respond to me in the comments whether the SSPX is valid. Steve

i leave my faith for more then 10 years and because of the Traditional Latin Mass i come back home again... Vatican 2 bring so much erorr to our church.. soon after a vatican 2 more then 1000 priest left and then many church wass sell and become restaurant and atheism grow

Howdy Brian, love your videos. Out of interest, what camera body and lens are you shooting with? It’s a very clean and crisp shot - I like it a lot

What smart watch do you have?

The hermeneutic of continuity hasn't been done, so to call schismatic the movements that rather stick to tradition while still holding to the pope and the church waiting for clarification and correction of heresies or/and ambiguities within the council is just wrong, anybody that sticks to tradition and do not accept the council for its fruits is not in schism with that 2000 years old church, disagreeing with the very unique "pastoral" council doesn't mean schism, it means we want clarification. For example according to this pastoral council, buddhist can attain perfect detatchment and illumination without any sacramental life, without accepting Jesus and his sacrifice on any level (that contradicts the teachings of the entire church) yet if somebody disagrees with that, they will be considered schismatics? Not buying it

There is another word for the hermeneutic of continuity, which is much easier to pronounce: mental gymnastics.

“By their fruits, you will know them,” dixit Dominus.

You raise some very good points. Many Catholics I know have never read a single document issued by Vatican II or any other Church Council. So it raises the question of what they are basing their opinions upon?

Also the term “fullness” of the faith has never been used before. A catholic understands that you are either a Catholic or not. Not so with the non catholic, weasel council of VII. Now, you can kinda be in the Faith, but the “fullness” of the faith is the Catholic (or NO) church. This is new. There is no Hermenudic of continuity to make it consistent. And THAT is the conservative take on VII! Liberals say that the Catholic religion is meaningless, that everyone is going to heaven except white supremisists and racists!

(not really commenting on the content of the video) The Mass existed 1500 years before the council of Trent which declared the form of the Mass of which you many here in the comments are referring. It is more accurate to call it the Tridentine rite. What bothers me most about this "all" Tridentine movement is that the Mass of the Church fathers (c. Didache) was pretty different from the Tridentine form and many cannot accept that the Mass can and has changed over our Church's 2000 year history. For example, the Mass was said in the vernacular of the people, Communion was received in the hand, etc in the early Church. The form of the Mass falls under the little-t tradition and is a Magisterial matter. So long as the words of consecration are said by an ordained Priest, the Mass is valid which is part of our Tradition. Speaking personally, I prefer hearing Latin at Mass but it is absolutely unnecessary. I don't mind the extraordinary form but it somewhat confuses me at times (there are lots of redundant parts, for example). Novus Ordo can be done just as solemnly.

I regret just now coming across this. I've been following Brian's videos for a while and am always impressed. I was always confused about the Vatican II debate, but I highly recommend the book "Reclaiming Vatican II" by Fr. Blake Britton. I provides a clarity to the actual intent of the Council and how it's proclamations were misunderstood and often purposely misused. Excellent book, but if you are looking for confirmation of any negative preconceptions or convictions you will be disappointed.

I may have heard that there were a few other Ecumenical Councils that did not define dogmas. You can look into it further.

The Church has always had councils which took up non-doctrinal issues. For instance, we had a council for what we're going to do with the Knights Templar (Vienne) That's not a doctrine pertaining to the contents of the Faith. In general, if you look at the medieval councils, their agendas were some combination of doctrine, discipline, and reform, so I don't know why it would be shocking from the historical point of view we have yet another council addressing matters other than doctrine. If we can have a council that addresses the Knights Templar, other secular matters (all throughout the medieval councils), it's not a shock that a council would be called for how the Church is going to respond to modernity. Moreover, because councils are acts of the magisterium and the magisterium includes 'pastoral' and disciplinary things, a council may rightly take up such topics. Also, I don't think the criticism about 'clarity' holds much water. Other councils are difficult to understand unless you're immersed in systematic theology and sometimes difficult to access unless you know Latin or Greek. The typical layman is not immersed in systematic theology and usually knows nothing about Latin. Vatican II cannot be a sufficient explanation for the way modernity hit religion because the Anglicans and other Protestants all got hit by globalism, the sexual revolution, and the post-WW2 milieu. _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ is still defective thinking, and is like blaming the Council of Trent for the fact that we lost a great chunk of Europe to Protestantism after Trent.

I disagree Vatican II....

Intention is not to hijack your video but would appreciate your comment on the following excerpt from the book that is closely related to the preparations for the Vatican 2... Precisely for this his merit, the Nuncio of Paris, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, had sustained and approved his appointment to minister of the Order of Malta in Paris. Monsignor Stockalper at that turn had remained dumbfounded, and received the ultimate blow when, protesting that Canon 2335 of the Canon Law calls for the excommunication for the affiliated to Freemasonry, he was told by his interlocutor, between a puff and another at the scented smoke of his big pipe, that “the nunciature of Paris was working in great secret to reconcile the Catholic Church with Freemasonry.” It was 1950! This episode seems to expose the connivance of Roncalli with Freemasonry. The post-conciliar Church will indeed reconcile with the secret sect. I wish to wrap up this subject, reporting a revelation made to me a while ago, by count Paolo Sella of Monteluee. … This figure, an economist, politician, writer and journalist, who was a close friend of Umberto of Savoy, and who boasts a direct descent from the founder of the Italian Historical Right, senator Quintino Sella of Biella, shared with me, in the quiet of his Roman home on the slopes of Monte Mario, the evidence in his possession, of the assault by Freemasonry on the Catholic Church. I had found in his drawing room Vaticanist Gabriella di Montemayor, who had been the go-between for our encounter. Count Sella… raising his face and staring at me, began to speak: In September 1958, about seven or eight days before the Conclave, I was at the Sanctuary of Orope, attending one of the usual dinners at Attilio Botto’s, a Biellese industrialist who fancied gathering around him competent from various branches, to discuss the different issues. That day had been invited a character I knew as a high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican. He told me, driving me home, that “...The next Pope would not be Siri. as it was murmured in some Roman circles, because he was too authoritarian a cardinal. They would elect a Pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on the patriarch of Venice Roncalli. “Chosen by whom?” I rejoined surprised. “By our Masonic representatives in the Conclave,” responded placidly my kind escort. And then it escaped me: "There are freemasons in the Conclave?” “Certainly,” was the reply, “the Church is in our hands.” I rejoined perplexed: “Who, then, is in charge in the Church?” After a brief pause, the voice of my escort uttered precisely: “No one can say where the upper echelons are. The echelons are occult.” The following day. Count Sella transcribed in an official document, now kept in the safe of a notary, the full name of that character and his stunning statement complete with the year, month, day and hour. Which, days later, would turn out absolutely exact.

I grew up with the novus ordo mass, fell away from the church and then re-discovered it with the latin mass, it was a game-changer for me -- its Christ-centered worship and so reverent-- which is not present at novus ordo masses. Its not about us (understanding latin or participating during mass) its about worshiping God reverently, period. At this point, it will be hard to get rid of the novus ordo mass but the TLM should never be abolished because its part of the Catholic’s tradition. (Pope Francis, if you see this ( i know its a long shot-- haha) the TLM is about the worship of God, not about the so-called rigid catholics attending the TLM -- remember we are your "sheep" too whom you are discriminating against when you are limiting/banning TLM.

It is certainly invalid for the reason that it teaches doctrine contrary to Sacred imimorial Catholic teaching. The four main HERESY of Vatican II 1. Religious Indefferentism. 2. Ecumenism. 3. Unity of the Church and 4. Collegiality. It was CONDEMNED by previous magesterium. Vatican II is a Modernist Council, modernism condemned by Pope St. Pius X as the "Synthesis of all Heresy". Look at Mr Jorge Bergolio he worship the idol Pachamama because for him all religions are equal in the eyes of God which is blasphemy.

I'm with Vigano on this one. Scrap the whole thing and forget it. It's not so much the documents, it's the "spirit of Vatican II" that has caused so much chaos, confusion and apostasy.

What movie is it with the beatnicks singing at the mass?

For councils called for non-doctrinal reasons and were mostly focused on reform, the First Council of Lyon, the Council of Vienne, and Fifth Lateran Council were well before Vatican II. First Lyon actually didn't even focus on reform but on excommunicating the emperor and starting a new crusade; it had some other purely disciplinary measures too like approving the Rule of the Grandmontines, having Cardinals wear red hats, and collecting tithes from Cistercians.

Thank you for this video. I have read the published writings of V2. I find them beautiful. I have read the published writings of Council of Trent. I find them beautiful. I see the same Holy Mother Church in both, and in fact, in all the writings of all Councils.

I tell myself to always avoid modernist discussions. Once and for all, to hell with Vatican II. The modernists in the comments, repent

Hey Brian, First off I wanted to thank you for your charity and your desire to know,seek and teach the truth, as was evident in this video. Something that struck out to me in your video was your mentioning of the Hermenutic of Continuity, as presented by His Holiness Benedict XVI. Wouldn't explicitly stating the need for such a Hermenutic imply that the council is ambiguous, and at least in that regard a bit different than the rest of the ecumenical councils? For example, we never hear of a need of the Hermenutic of Continuity when reading Trent (although obviously we read it in light of tradition). Doesn't this suggest that it is at least easier to misinterpret V2? As a confused Catholic trying to grow closer to our Lord and know more about Him and want to love Him, I find statements like Catholics and Muslims adore the same God, or, (as I heard and not read), Buddists can attain perfect detachment, which is something that not even St. Teresa of Avila was able to do, a bit troubling at best. What would be the best way to address such issues? If many Catholics are confused, would it be fitting for there to be some type of authoritative clarifier, whether it be Scripture, a past Council, or a Future Council? (I say authoritative because, unfortunately, one priest can say one thing and another, another thing, which seems to not solve the issue). Again God Bless and thank you for your video, and can't wait for the ones to come.

Excellent as usual, Brian. When you completely swap form for dynamics, you get the Church of England in its current disposition. It has continually bowed to the world and the number of adherents has continued to leech. Without tradition -"the rock" given to Peter - you are unanchored, being left with nothing to stabilise you. Change needs to be initiated carefully, not carelessly.

Late here, but I figured I'd leave my comments: (1) The Second Vatican Council was very much orthodox in its thinking. For anyone who believes differently, read the documents. They are all still available (translated into many languages) at the Vatican's web site. And Dei Verbum appears as a foreword in many current Catholic Bibles. (2) Many Eastern Christians (most notably the Orthodox) considered the Tridentine Mass to be invalid due to the epiclesis being so subdued to be sometimes unnoticeable (which made them believe it wasn't occurring). The epiclesis is much more profound in the current Ordinary Form. It is true that many of the goals of the Second Vatican Council have not been realized. Yet part of this goes to a world that is, at its core, rejecting the message of Jesus Christ as a whole. It's not just the Catholic Church that is struggling. When "no religion" is the largest growing religion in the country, there's a problem. And many of these people who claim "no religion" still do believe in God, or spirits, or other metaphysical entities - they've just rejected the idea of organized religion in and of itself. Also, in any given city, the places with the largest numbers of baptized Catholics in their communities are non-denominational megachurches. Many Catholics that go there say that they "didn't feel fed" at their local parishes (so they go somewhere metaphorically serving ice cream for breakfast). But I digress. Pope Francis, I think, says it best when he states that we need to see the Church as a field hospital for sinners - not an ivory tower. The Second Vatican Council was prophetic, more than anything. Some may call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it was definitely prophetic. And Popes as early in the 20th Century as Pope Pius X were already clamoring for reform. But it is true that many saw the idea of reform and figured that everything the Church taught for nearly 2000 years was then up for debate. Which is why nuns eschewed their habits and clamors were begun for women to be ordained to the priesthood. But see, the Church's teachings remained consistent, regardless of renegade priests (and sometimes renegade bishops). As an addendum - there is nothing that states that the Ordinary Form must be celebrated versus populum or that it has to be celebrated in the vernacular. Such is permitted, of course (as long as the translation has been approved by the Vatican), and has become the norm, but it is perfectly valid (and IIRC, actually preferred) that it be celebrated ad orientum and in Latin. Obviously, being celebrated in Latin would be rarer, as it is no longer mandatory in seminary (and thus few priests not in the FSSP actually are comfortable enough in Latin to read the Eucharistic Prayers in Latin), but IMO, the best solution would be to celebrate the Ordinary Form ad orientum and using as much Latin as possible. Why? Because as beautiful as the Extraordinary Form is, there are elements of the Ordinary Form that we should definitely celebrate and extol - most notably, the extended use of scripture in the Liturgy of the Word and the increased participation of the congregation in the responses during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (instead of the responses being done by the altar servers on the behalf of the congregation). And so, my solution would really to be to make the Ordinary Form as beautiful and as reverent as possible, because there is nothing inherently irreverent in the Ordinary Form - it's just often become that way due to many parishes throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

SSPX isn't in schism.

I think you are right on your conclusion. After all it was a matter of introducing big changes into a massif tight organised crowd and all you heard and read in the documents is kind of: 《everything will be fine, very fine indeed! 》, whereas when you make big changes, everybody should be made carefully aware of the difficulties that lay ahead in the process... let's say they were disastrous politicians. Now, how could this be? That seems to me to be the question, even if it's purely historical, cause the lesson will have been learned .

Brian. RU-vid always recommends me your uploads though I haven't asked for notifications, some of your subs may be fibbing. I read recently that Pope John Paul II voted against all the "reforms" of the council but that Pope Benedict XVI voted in favour. Make of that what you will !

5:45 Those faithful Catholics acknowledging VII departs from the faith are NOT in any way “picking and choosing based on their personal preferences.” They are choosing 2,000 years of teaching versus an intentional, modern heretical council aimed at Protestantizing the One True Church. Your natural personal kindness and wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless of the fruits has made you not be as logical & consistent in your brief analysis as I’ve come to expect from you. I get it - it’s beyond hard to admit our Church is in a civil war. The Faithful remnant on one side and the modernists, the Sankt Galen Mafia of Bergolio the idolator. It is heartbreaking, but we were warned this would happen.

I'm a Mormom converting to Catholicism and the greatest problems with my conversion has always been pope Francis and Vatican II. Francis is a horrible pope almost purposely confusing and seemingly self defeating. He appointed a pro abortion aithiest activist to the Papal Academy for Life. How am im to join a church led by that man? Worse than that a bunch of catholic priests support gay marriage and even some arch-bishops. What am I to do? The Mormon church is far more cohesive and far more traditional and reflective of Christian values, DESPITE the fact they are heretical in thier belief of God. What world are we in?

I've been very stressed lately because I'm surrounded by cockamamie claims about nearly everything. Listening to this released a lot of that stress. It's beautifully and simply reasoned, not complicated gobbledygook requiring background knowledge beyond the purview of most laity. Yes, I've noticed the dissonance of picking and choosing to justify choices, and it prickles to be prodded toward the emotional response. Thank you for offering an oasis of sanity in these times. As always, 3 Hail Marys for you.

I would like to know your stance on the first 11 chapters of genesis, and especially the Noah story.