Back when Pope John XXIII called the Church's Bishops together for the second Vatican Council, he stated that he intended its purpose to be to enable the Church to deal better with the modern world. That was an obviously good intention, as the world was becoming increasingly secular and the Church was tempted to compromise with the world. It was acknowledged by many that compromisng with the world would be to the detriment of the Church. The Catholic Church cannot be destroyed because Jesus protects it, but it certainly can be harmed. Now, here we are about 60 years later, and what do we see? The majority of the Catholic Church, although still in existence, has compromised with the world and is becoming steadily more and more modern. Admittedly, much of what the fathers of the council intended has not been implemented rightly, but even if it had been--we have to ask--how much better off would we be? Yeah, that is a tough one. For those who believe (erroneously) that what was intended by Vatican II is exactly what is happening in the average Catholic diocese, we have to ask: is that following the intent of the Holy Father (who, please remember, passed away before the council was finished and was replaced by Paul VI!)? Are we today really any better able to deal with the modern world? Someone once mentioned to me a conspiracy theory that Pope John XXIII was killed by modernists because he wanted Vatican II to stay solidly orthodox and they wanted to hijack it (hmmmm???). No matter what your position on what did or did not happen, it is undeniable that the state of things in the majority of the Church is completely unable to deal with modernism and is largely accepting of it. The Church does not need to look like or behave like it did in 1565, but that is not the only way to deal with modernism. Yes, I might seem like I am blowing my own horn but the Ordinariate has retained what is good in the past, and is properly dealing with modernism (and there are a few other groups like the FSSP and others). Simply put, how can anyone (in their right mind) say that they are faithful to Vatican II if they have swallowed modernism, hook, line, and sinker? How can irreverence, liturgical goofiness, doctrinal confusion, and moral corruption count as dealing with modernism, unless one's definition of dealing with is copying and following? We need to deal with modernism in all its forms, and we need to do so completely faithful to the Church's Magisterium. That is truly, the only way that anyone can say that they are faithful to the second Vatican Council!