As for Trent, Protestantism is protoliberalism, because it denies that all authority on heaven and earth belongs to the church, to which the temporal power must be subordinate in matters of religion and in determining what is good and what is evil. The Enlightenment just takes it one step further, and it's all downhill from there

OK...

liberalism is a great lie which has as one of its goals the eradication of the traditional belief in divine revelation, which has taken many forms: denying the miracles, establishing a historical Jesus separate from the divine Christ, denying the historicity of the books, and, even, and this I hold contentiously (particularly since JPII made use of it) trying to rework the authorship in a way that makes the Bible like any other textual transmission, which is also absolutely destructive for the faith of ordinary people.

If this is analysis is correct - I'm not convinced but I'm by far not enough expert in these matters - then Christianity in my native country has 'lost the battle' not after V-II, not even V-I, but after Trent. Reformation thinking is deeply rooted in 'ordinary' catholics, much more than I was aware before I went living elswhere.
On the positive side: nothing left for possible destruction post-VII

the climate in which Vatican I occurred was [...] about [...] the implications of the loss of secular power for the liberty of the church, which is a non-negotiable doctrinal matter, and we are dealing with these effects today.

I'm not sure who is 'we' in this statement; at least where I live there is a lot of wining about lack of support of christianity by the government and society in general, while the main enemy to our faith and its practicing (occupying at least ranks 1 through 10) is our own lukewarmness.
And there where liberty of the church really is at stake - and that's a large part of the world indeed - it is in political systems where Trent, Vatican I or catholic teaching on temporal power in general matters 0%.

a_f: I'm waiting for the part where you prove that "Church authorities discouraged reading the Bible"

The fact that RC's do not read it--per your cite--is NOT a proof that they were 'discouraged' from reading it, nor that they could not read it. All it proves is that RC's didn't think it was necessary. And it isn't!!

Old Church Slavonic disappeared in the U.S. when the immigrants aged out and went to their eternal rewards. While never really a spoken language, it was understood by the people using it. One of the reasons Latin has disappeared is because there seems to have been a backlash against it. It has also become too identified with extremists who are often more political than religious. They long for a romanticized church that may not have ever existed. Both Latin and Old Church Slavonic are not solutions to contemporary problems and issues.

I can't see how there was any room for dialogue and compromise when the Reformers put themselves outside the fold and then turned princes against the emperor.

I have often held that much of the Reformation revolved around politics more than religion. The German princes at least in North Germany, wanted to be free of the Holy Roman Emperor and were happy to go along with Luther.

In any case, the Byzantine perspective is incoherent

We think it is coherent. The papacy in the first thousand years before popes became secular princes, operated through consultation and consensus with other bishops. I recall reading of an instance, and I don't have time to look it up right now, when to stop certain heretical teachings the pope visited Constantinople to ask the emperor to put a stop to them. The pope didn't have the power to stop it himself. As the empire faded, popes took on powers formerly reserved to the emperor and by the time of Trent were secular monarchs, and no better than the secular monarchs in terms of holiness.

the stakes are not at all the same for someone who is not canonically a Latin Catholic and therefore has an escape pod.

We do not have an escape pod. Granted, Pope Francis has been very kind to easterners, perhaps more kind than to traditional westerners. Francis has a bi-ritual background and is quite knowledgeable about the east. However, we are Catholic. That 900 pound gorilla in the room, the Roman Rite, has influence beyond the other churches so we can't really escape from it as it affects us, too. Some of our folks think we would be better off returning to Orthodoxy, although I don't share that view.

Vatican II was actually closer to an ecumenical council than Vatican I and Trent because it had representation from a wide cross section of churches. Some good things have come from it. The emphasis on actually learning scripture has been good and the readings cycle is a big improvement over what was there before. The restoration of the psalms to participation rather than a concert piece has been positive. More involvement by local bishops in decision making and power sharing has had both good and bad effects. Music, unfortunately, has suffered greatly.

What did your then-Auxiliary Bish say in1989 or whenever?

dad29 - I refer you to my previous answer, (and urge you not to hold your breath).

The emperor had no power to do it himself, and this is in fact something brought up by Thomas Pink with respect to Vatican II.

I don't know Pink be he is quite wrong on this. The emperor had all the power and the popes had none. For example, councils were called and their edicts decreed by the emperor, not the pope. If the emperors were still around and held sway, the pope would have little more power than one of the eastern patriarchs.

Different post but E. Michael Jones? Is he the anti-semitic rabble rouser of "The Remnant" fame. Hardly credible and I have never taken him seriously. Do I have him confused with another rabble rouser?

Matthew,

Indeed, I think that Germany has been poisoned since the Reformation

Your honor, I plead guilty.
I fear that this even includes my wife, who grew up in a Marian pilgrimage place...

Hardly credible and I have never taken him seriously.

IIRC, opinions are like.....and you have one. Good for you that you do not have to purchase his books, eh?

Jones is an original thinker who names names and kicks ass. Snowflakes have problems with that.

Typical conspiracy stuff. The sky is falling, the pope may not be validly elected and the see vacant, the mass is corrupted and ineffective, the church is declining and will soon be extinct, except of course, the remnant who support him and buy his books.

We know the church will endure until the end of time. Christ said so. It has never been perfect and as long as there are people in it, will never be.

As Grammy Eugie said, "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me."

My father told a story of a fellow he knew who said, "If the Saint James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

... or creatively interpret the Word as set forth in the Bible. That would be in American, not English.

Let alone French, German or (horribile dictu!) Dutch... crd. Ratzinger even dropped 'German' Latin long before becoming pope.

Or, as St Paul saith - 'show me your faith and I will show you my works'.

FWIW, Thomas Pink is a philosopher at Kings College London (while he delves in adjacent disciplines, he's neither a theologian nor a historian as such, though he read history in addition to philosophy as an undergraduate).

Emperors don't cotton to anyone who usurps or compromises their powers. Those who do tend to not last long. Popes had little political power as long as the emperors were in control and functioned as patriarchs and universal pastors. That's all they ever should have been in the first place.

Granted, Roman emperors had little and eventually no power in the west after the fall of Old Rome. The Eastern Roman Empire became quite weak after the Muslim incursions. When the popes started assuming imperial powers after the decline of the Roman emperors, they became little more than secular monarchs with all the corruption and political shenanigans that tend to go along with power. Anyone remember the forged and supposed Donation of Constantine the popes used to justify their false claim to power? Sounds like some of our current politicians who will use any means to hold power and privilege.

Interesting that Emperor Franz Joseph in more recent times blocked the election of a papal candidate he didn't approve of leading to the election of Pius X. More than one king or emperor - Charles V for one - invaded and sacked Rome and the papal states proving who actually held the real political power.

There is something about some Trads that desires the glories of a papal court with demi-god popes. Why, I don't know since that has only served as a detriment to Christianity. If you want to make the argument that many popes were not worthy of that status, I wont disagree.

And all this time I thought Pink was a mediocre pop singer. What Liam said.

HG?

Sorry, Chris - I meant HF

Ah, yes, so we should just let governments do what they want, while asking them nicely to not do bad things?

That's what they generally do, anyway. I can't think of any world leaders today who actually care what the church thinks.

The supposed imperial veto was then abolished by Pius X, and the interference was roundly condemned by the participating cardinals, although the only practical way forward was to elect Sarto instead.

That veto in effect disappeared with the fall of the empire after WW I. There were no more emperors and the popes no longer had any temporal power. They really didn't even have legal title to the Vatican until the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini in 1929.

I have suspected that the post-Vatican II popes have squandered and effectively destroyed any power and most of the influence they had before the council.

To me, the idea that the papacy should be free of any worldly glamour or adornment is just a step or two removed from the idea that vestments should be plain, churches shorn of decoration and richness, etc. Why do we use nice, expensive, beautiful things during the Mass? To glorify God and edify his people. Why do the high offices of the Church embrace similar adornment? For the very same reason. Bring back the tiara, full stop.

There seems to be a troubling amount of latent anti-Roman sentiment in this thread...

To me, the idea that the papacy should be free of any worldly glamour or adornment is just a step or two removed from the idea that vestments should be plain,...

There are degrees from minimalism to total excess. The excess has prevailed in the past along with monarchial splendor that is hard to justify.

The President of the United States makes much of his favor with Pope Francis, and is known to carry a rosary with him and attend Mass, and be counted a Catholic in good standing.

Some of the bishops don't seem to think much of his Catholicism.

all arrayed in rich garments trimmed with white fur and ermine, seated on a great throne and wearing a gaudy three=tiered crown, carried about on a litter upheld by right by the noblest and oldest of Roman families, and flanked pretentiously by those imperial Roman ceremonial flabella,

They took their cues from the Royals, you know.

The excess has prevailed in the past along with monarchial splendor that is hard to justify.

In YOUR opinion.

In YOUR opinion.

My opinion says I am not willing to pay for it. If YOU like the finery and splendor, then YOU subsidize it with the substantial dad29 fortune.

Never subsidize the anachronistic. Let them pay for their own reenactments.