tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7305949359517613295..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Two popes and idolatryEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77796182496747512652021-02-15T08:49:29.725-08:002021-02-15T08:49:29.725-08:00Catholic must know Dogma > Ripped from your sou...Catholic must know Dogma > Ripped from your soul<br /><br />If you're at all interested in knowing ... the Catholic Dogma ... that we *must believe* to<br />get to Heaven, and which you have *never* seen ...<br /><br />I list it on my website > > www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com<br /><br />And no ... the anti-Christ vatican-2 heretic cult (founded in 1965) is not the Catholic Church (founded in 33 A.D.).<br /><br />Currently ... you are outside the Catholic Church and so ... have no chance of getting to Heaven.<br /><br />Physical participation in a heretic cult (vatican-2, lutheran, evangelical, etc) ... automatically excommunicates you from the Catholic Church (that is, Christianity) > <br />www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_13.2.2.html<br /><br />Mandatory ... Abjuration of heresy to enter the Catholic Church > <br />www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_40.html<br /><br />Dogma that one must Abjure to leave the vatican-2 heretic cult and enter the Catholic Church ><br />www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_40.1.html<br /><br />The BIBLE says ... 15 TIMES ... it is not the authority on Faith,<br />the BIBLE says the Church in it's Dogma and Doctrine ... is the authority on Faith and the definition of the Catholic Faith ... www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_6.html<br /><br />The Catholic God knows ... what we think and believe ...<br /><br />Catholic writing of Romans 1:21 ><br />"They ... became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened."<br /><br />Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Deuteronomy 31:21 ><br />"For I know their thoughts, and what they are about to do this day."<br /><br />Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Job 21:27 ><br />"Surely I know your thoughts, and your unjust judgments against Me."<br /><br />Regards - Victoria Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13353872767408425068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12681512916542802192020-01-23T21:34:00.538-08:002020-01-23T21:34:00.538-08:00But Dr. Feser, in all seriousness, we are in unpre...But Dr. Feser, in all seriousness, we are in unprecedented territory. We have now a pope who has, by virtue of his magisterial authority, placed in the deposit of faith erroneous teachings regarding capital punishment, which he has further clarified in public speeches and referred to as intrinsically wrong.<br /><br />Honorious did not do that. Honorious privately confirmed Sergius in his heresy. Vigilius did not do that- Vigilius erred as to the prudence of posthumous condemnations in relation to upholding the authority of Chalcedon, though it could be argued he weakens the claim of inerrancy of dogmatic facts. Liberius did not do that, he acted under coercion, moreover no one knows really WHICH creed of Sirmium he signed, the innocuous one or the heretical one. John XXII did not do that, he did not act in a way to settle for all time the question of the status of beatitude for the faithful departed, but taught an opinion.<br /><br />But NOW, we have something altogether different. A pope who makes Vatican II's actual text look like a resplendent beacon of orthodoxy!!! Remember, he formally placed his interpretation of Amoris Laetitia (His note to the Argentine Bishops) in the Acts of the Apostolic See. His interpretation is the formal understanding of the Roman Church. This coupled with the issue of the death penalty...I just don't see the indefectability of the pope here playing out. UNLESS there is some way in which he is NOT Pope, either by faulty election or failure to properly accept the papacy, or Benedict's failure to effect a proper resignation (which is questionable when you see Benedict doesn't ACCEPT that resignation is POSSIBLE for him...so in what sense did he resign, and what kind of error does it create?).<br /><br />I would rather be in a Church where I could fight this stuff instead of in a church that demands my submission,without which I cannot be saved. I would LIKE to submit, but how can one submit to what one knows is false, and how can one fight when one knows that he is not SUPPOSED to have to fight the pope?<br /><br />Eastern Orthodoxy seems to glitter brightly on the horizon. Unless...Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355587888748967262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4892151861371923452019-11-23T21:01:36.670-08:002019-11-23T21:01:36.670-08:00Miguel Cervantes,
Religious liberty as taught by...Miguel Cervantes, <br /><br />Religious liberty as taught by the church has nothing to do with granting rights to error. Read the catechism entry. <br /><br />As far as Latin America goes, if it wasn't for some movements like Cathilic Charimastic Renewal, the Church would have lost far more people to protestant sects. Since Vatican II the Church has been growing considerably in Asia, Africa, and Latin america, in great part thanks to ecumenism, a renewed focus on the third world, some liturgical reforms, etc.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23881981849706682732019-11-15T16:33:11.164-08:002019-11-15T16:33:11.164-08:00Catholic convert, firebrand, Ann Barnhardt is havi...Catholic convert, firebrand, Ann Barnhardt is having conniption fits over the papacy of Pope Francis, calling him must Bergolio! Her recent post:<br />https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/11/15/wherein-cardinal-burke-unwittingly-demonstrates-the-mathematical-concept-of-reductio-ab-absurdum/<br /><br />Where she points out that <br /><br /><i>In this case, the absurdity, the obvious violation of the Law of Non-contradiction, is the notion that Jorge Bergoglio could simultaneously be both the Standard of Unity – that is, the Roman Pontiff, AND its ontological opposite, the Vector of Schism; that all men must BOTH be in union with and submission to Bergoglio in order to NOT be in schism from the One True Church, while simultaneously Bergoglio demands apostasy from the One True Church in order to be in union with him. A clear Catch-22 ontological impossibility. You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. Only satan plays such irrational games.</i><br /><br />Ms Barnhardt is at her wits end. Sure enough, Pope Francis is causing a Schism in The Church. But the Papacy is not the "unifying factor" of The Church, the Faith is! <br /><br />Trad Catholics are having spaz attacks because they are being forced, forced to go into schism. <br /><br />What do you think the Orthodox did? Leave an over-bearing Bishop that didn't respect them. They are NOT schismatics. The law of non-contradiction doesn't apply here because modern dogma of Papal supremacy is the fallacy. The Pope of Rome is not a "Universal" patriarch. He is just first among equals, an apostolic see that has pull. But now, Pope Francis is not even a Catholic. <br /><br />Heads are bursting over at the Trad Catholic sites but they can save themselves if they just jettison Vatican I. Vatican I has now proven false. The Magisterium of Rome is completely heretical and apostate. And when that is the case---there is only one road to take, Archbishop Lebevre's position.If anything it is the Bishopric of Rome that is in Schism!<br /><br />My head is not exploding but Ann's is. Someone needs to put a suicide watch on Ann and the rest of the rad Trads. Pope Francis is driving them crazy!!!! W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51335414900360395672019-11-15T15:40:23.277-08:002019-11-15T15:40:23.277-08:00So, you're arguing that Vat II was illegitimat...<i>So, you're arguing that Vat II was illegitimate because you don't think they addressed the correct issues?</i> <br /><br />@ T N: No. I never said, nor support, the idea that Vat-II was illegitimate. <br /><br />Only that they did many things poorly. Part of what they did poorly is they poorly decided what questions needed to be asked. They poorly distinguished. They poorly directed the reform of the Mass. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28591893216204525492019-11-15T13:24:24.440-08:002019-11-15T13:24:24.440-08:00Wheeler is a literal white supremacist and conspir...Wheeler is a literal white supremacist and conspiracy theorist. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75277044441084093442019-11-15T13:22:57.985-08:002019-11-15T13:22:57.985-08:00Ficino, is this a dig at Feser? Perhaps you should...Ficino, is this a dig at Feser? Perhaps you should explain what he has argued that is wrong, instead of leaving drive-by links.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41580122773784430662019-11-15T11:55:05.010-08:002019-11-15T11:55:05.010-08:00T.N., the text used the term coercion to mean both...T.N., the text used the term coercion to mean both forcing adherence to religion and rejection of rights for religion, true or false:<br />"Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society..."<br />The text may have claimed it was not changing prior teaching on individual or social moral obligations towards the true religion, but this is not how it the question had been viewed before the Council. The very first words of the text give it away.<br /><br />The text bases its new slant on human nature claiming that free will and an unforced conscience are among the oldest Church teachings, which is true. Where things snap is at its lumping together of the freedom of conscience not to be forced to hold to a truth it does not believe, and a controversial freedom to positively uphold error. The text bases the latter on human nature. <br /><br /><br />However, error, like sin, has no rights, no matter what state one's conscience is in. Of course, nobody is advocating persecuting heresy. Nobody was doing in 1965 either. The urgency for the new slant appears at the start of the text. Like the Council of Constance, Vatican II allowed worldly ideas a bit of space. <br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35888327957669725022019-11-15T09:09:29.339-08:002019-11-15T09:09:29.339-08:00All right then, my bad. Thanks for acknowledging ...All right then, my bad. Thanks for acknowledging that discussion of other forms of papal error is relevant to the discussion.The Lonely Professornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2045436656325760592019-11-15T08:41:50.411-08:002019-11-15T08:41:50.411-08:00There is NO such thing as a "RadTrad heresy&q...There is NO such thing as a "RadTrad heresy". <br /><br />There is NO such thing of Jansenism in the criticism of Pope Francis. Pope Francis is first of all, a Liberation Theology prelate; he is Marxist influenced. He is dropping the Discipline of the Church in regards to homosexuality and communion to the divorced. His Pachamama love-affair is downright sickening and his love of immigration. <br /><br />All of this is a sign that Pope Francis, true Pope of Rome, is IN Heresy, is IN Apostasy, and is committing Treason against the Italian people he lives amongst. <br /><br />It is not just Pope Francis---our whole Cardinalate and Hieararchy are immersed in Cultural Marxism, i.e. Political Correctness, are therefore apostate. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16536367764946105662019-11-15T08:35:36.205-08:002019-11-15T08:35:36.205-08:00George R writes: The reason why we deny ourselves ...George R writes: <i>The reason why we deny ourselves private judgments with respect to papal teachings is not because private judgments are inherently worthless and unreliable, but because the pope has received the authority from God to teach all men in matters, and we are bound as Catholics to receive all such teachings with docility and to assent to them.</i><br /><br />THAT has NEVER been the Holy Tradition of The Church. Still, to this day, the Orthodox have a greater hold on Church Tradition. <br /><br />Are we not told that every believer is a priest in Christ Jesus? Are we not ALL RESPONSIBLE for The Faith?<br /><br />In the Orthodox Church, NO council is accepted UNTIL its fruits are seen. NO Council is accepted immediately. The Faithful have to accept the Council's teachings. <br /><br />There are several Patriarchs of Constantinople at the bottom of the Black Sea with a millstone tied around their necks. The Orthodox Laity still have the right to remove bad bishops and laity and even Patriarchs!<br /><br />The Roman Catholic Church INNOVATED and changed the Tradition of The Church---and it is THIS Innovation that created Pope Francis! <br /><br />Would it not be right if the Catholics of Rome kicked out Pope Francis when he engaged in that Pachamama ceremony and placed those things in a Catholic Church?<br /><br />Yes, the people DOCILILY, accepted the turning around of the priest to face the people. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH---yet it was done---against many of the faithful!<br /><br />I'm with Prof. Feser, here, that he is correct, that what Sedevacantists do with one hand---they give away in other! Private judgement is not allowed---but I do have Private judgement to say a Pope is an anti-pope. <br /><br />This whole argument is moot, if we return to the premise that the Laity may remove bishops, priests and patriarchs. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70510976651110388132019-11-15T08:22:01.309-08:002019-11-15T08:22:01.309-08:00Ed writes:
"This is the central absurdity of ...Ed writes:<br />"This is the central absurdity of sedevacantism. It wants to say both 'No one may criticize the doctrinal statements of a pope! That would be private judgement!' and at the same time 'But I get to decide whether so-and-so is really a pope! That's not private judgment!' It gives back in a massive way with the one hand what it claims to take away with the other."<br /><br />End quote.<br /><br />The argument is specious. <br /><br />The reason why we deny ourselves private judgments with respect to papal teachings is not because private judgments are inherently worthless and unreliable, but because the pope has received the authority from God to teach all men in matters, and we are bound as Catholics to receive all such teachings with docility and to assent to them. On the other hand, assuming we are correct in our judgment that Francis is not a Catholic at all, and, therefore, not the pope, there would be no question of our putting our private judgment before that of the pope. We would merely be using our private judgment to affirm something that is becoming more and more painfully obvious just about every time the (ahem) "Holy Father" opens his mouth. George R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7583597775544016012019-11-15T07:35:55.410-08:002019-11-15T07:35:55.410-08:00I hate this "anti-pope" or "Empty-s...I hate this "anti-pope" or "Empty-seat" use in The Church. There is no such thing. <br /><br />Donatism is the demand that a priest or bishop be morally pure for a sacrament to be valid. <br /><br />That was denounced by a council. <br /><br />Because there have been "robber councils", for me Vatican I is in error saying that the Magisterium can not err or there is such a thing as Papal Infallibility. Recent events are proving that the Magisterium of The Church IS Failing----Big Time. Real events of today are pointing to false doctrines. <br /><br />Today, we are NOT facing so much as Heresy, which we are, but Apostasy. The whole of the Hierarchy of The Church, Popes, Cardinalate and lesser bishops, are ALL Infected with Cultural Marxism. Starting with Pope Pius XII onwards, all these popes are Infected with Apostasy. This has been going on now for 80 years. Cultural Marxism is the dictates of another religion, so it is Apostasy. We are dealing with a greater crime. <br /><br />I'm sorry but the Magisterium is gone. Pope Francis, even though in Heresy and in Apostasy, is still Bishop of Rome and is still Pope. He is NOT some sort of "anti-pope". Pope Benedict is not some real pope and Pope Francis some "anti-pope". <br /><br />The problem lies that in the 9th or 10th centuries, canon law was changed saying that the laity can not remove a priest or a bishop. I believe this damaged The Faith. <br />W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21871898490513192142019-11-15T07:13:45.119-08:002019-11-15T07:13:45.119-08:00I find it awful hard on a Catholic Website, a Phil...I find it awful hard on a Catholic Website, a Philosophy blog, no less, to listen or read that people engage in discussion using "Anonymous". <br /><br />That is Unethical. How can I check one's background for legitimacy, training, research ability, or bias???<br />How can I judge an argument without the Man's Character on display? Scripture and Philosophy says, "Only go to the wise". Aristotle said, "we only listen to opinions of the wise". <br /><br />How can one tell who is wise---when hidding behind the veil of "anonymous". <br /><br />"Anonymous" comments should not be allowed. Are we all not called to Virtue---II Peter 1:5 "Supplement The Faith with Arete". Virtue. Is it Virtue to engage in argumentation about The Faith or even on Philosophy while being "anonymous".<br /><br />If the Bible says, Psalm 1 "I have NOT listened to the counsel of the ungodly"---How can I check that person who hides behind the facade of "anonymous"? Can not do that. <br /><br />I believe that should be forbidden. Philosophy means to be Upfront. Philosophy is tied to Virtue. No Virtue, No philosophy, No character. <br /><br />I, and others here, should do well by no longer reading or commenting on "anonymous" comments. Our duty is to Scripture and the rules of true Philosophy. "anonymous" commentators should be ignored. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17225058773577107382019-11-15T06:23:18.655-08:002019-11-15T06:23:18.655-08:00@ T N
Either it is being claimed that Vat II is b...@ T N<br /><br /><i>Either it is being claimed that Vat II is bad because of human failings (which is a non-sequitur), or it is being claimed that Vat II somehow dismantled the prior orthodoxy while saying nothing that can be pointed to as evidence (which is nonsense).</i><br /><br />It seems to me that you are being unfair to some of your interlocutors. 'When you speak, tell the truth' is <i>one</i> principle governing how we should conduct the truth. There are others. There are times when I should keep quiet, there are times when I will be tempted to keep quiet but ought to speak up, I can express myself more or less clearly, I can decline to call attention to some aspect of my beliefs that my interlocutor would want to query, etc. There's nothing ridiculous in the idea that Vatican II did not teach error but also did not merely <i>happen</i> to engender human error. It may be that people wanting to revolutionize (or Protestantize) the Catholic Church are misuing the Council, because it is in continuity with tradition, but that does not mean that no one involved in the Council was responsible for the misunderstandings, in the sense that they were a result of irresponsibility, cowardice, or whatever.<br /><br />Vatican II was followed in the Church by a period of open dissent. I don't think that is entirely an accident. The tone led people to believe that the Church was on the cusp of liberalizing. Then when <i>Humanae vitae</i> upheld the traditional teaching on contraception, a lot of priests openly rebelled against it, taught their parishioners to disobey it, contrived moral theories to justify dissenting, etc.<br /><br />All I'll say about the religious liberty question is that it's a question. Is it reconcilable with the Church's tradition? Some say yes, some say no, and the latter treat the case as a pretext for departing from tradition on <i>other</i> matters.<br /><br />I don't think that the Council Fathers were intentionally ambiguous, but (as has been noted before) the documents contain a lot of hedging, where they seem to say one thing (radical-sounding) and then refer to the traditional teaching and insist on the consistency of the two, without much explanation. I think this way of writing is not very helpful and is perhaps responsible, in some degree, for the current affairs in the Church, whereby there are very distinct conceptions of how much continuity we need with tradition.<br /><br />I'm not arguing that Vatican II was "illegitimate" or "bad", nor am I arguing that it should be rolled back because of its consequences. But I do think it was something of a public relations disaster, and it is necessary to be clear about this as the Church goes forward.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56085724788057695532019-11-15T04:58:12.791-08:002019-11-15T04:58:12.791-08:00Msgr. Eric Barr on Jansenistic tendencies of many ...Msgr. Eric Barr on Jansenistic tendencies of many who deny Pope Francis' orthodoxy:<br /><br />https://www.patheos.com/blogs/ericbarr/2019/11/francis-pope-we-need/ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17988270129166751102019-11-15T04:37:05.508-08:002019-11-15T04:37:05.508-08:00Have you forgotten what he told you? Silence is g...Have you forgotten what he told you? Silence is golden.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19484513690227371272019-11-15T04:06:24.735-08:002019-11-15T04:06:24.735-08:00Beware that Cervantes is a troll who Feser explici...Beware that Cervantes is a troll who Feser explicitly told to get lost. Probably best not to feed him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72596848346684195672019-11-15T03:21:22.105-08:002019-11-15T03:21:22.105-08:00Vat II could not have dismantled orthodoxy and not...Vat II could not have dismantled orthodoxy and not said one single word that can be pointed to as evidence. Yet it took all this time for someone to come up with some claim about Vat II itself and not the failings of humans, which are always present in the Church.<br /><br />Dignitatis Humanae (which I mentioned in my very first post on this thread), did not say there is "a right to hold and express religious error based on human nature". It said human beings should be free from coercion. Do you contend otherwise? Do you claim we should shore up the the popes armored divisions and go around shooting people who won't convert? <br /><br />Coercion is mentioned 11 times in the short document. Here is one relevant instance: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."<br /><br />Is this a claim that all religions are equal? That civil society should refrain from coercing people so they are free to discharge their duty toward the "one Church of Christ", is a dog whistle to all the "modernist" Freemasons out there? T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39662884755098925062019-11-14T23:54:53.965-08:002019-11-14T23:54:53.965-08:00T.N., Vatican II did involve some explicit ideas w...T.N., Vatican II did involve some explicit ideas which are still causing problems. As for intent on the part of individual bishops, it's doubtful that many make this the main point at issue. <br />For example, its innovation concerning a right to hold and express religious error based on human nature. Far from being a homogeneous development of doctrine, it was the aping of false philosophical fads from the world around the Church. It's just one of many things which make Vatican II like another Council of Constance - a chaos which will be fixed by another corrective shift on the part of the Church.<br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11326832120844552272019-11-14T23:25:09.999-08:002019-11-14T23:25:09.999-08:00Atno, Africans were converting in a tidal wave bef...Atno, Africans were converting in a tidal wave before V2. Vatican II slowed the rate considerably.<br /><br />Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34502267059797883782019-11-14T19:53:59.259-08:002019-11-14T19:53:59.259-08:00whether such a parallel is indeed or to what degre...<i>whether such a parallel is indeed or to what degree appropriate should be fair game for debate</i><br /><br />Who said otherwise? Not me.<br /><br /><i>Instead, you peremptorily rule out any debate as to whether or not the parallel is appropriate...</i><br /><br />Who ruled it out? Not me.<br /><br />All I said is that the original post wasn't trying to address every issue that arises where the question of papal error is concerned, such as doctrinal issues. I was focusing on idolatry, specifically. If you want to discuss that other stuff, fine. But don't blame me for not addressing that other stuff in a blog post that was not about that other stuff.<br /><br />Really, LP, it's not a hard point to grasp. But if you'd rather keep huffing and puffing and being an all-around jerk rather than just admitting that you overreacted, that's your call.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63475406945075166262019-11-14T18:40:05.154-08:002019-11-14T18:40:05.154-08:00Either it is being claimed that Vat II is bad beca...Either it is being claimed that Vat II is bad because of human failings (which is a non-sequitur), or it is being claimed that Vat II somehow dismantled the prior orthodoxy while saying nothing that can be pointed to as evidence (which is nonsense). T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42599725071422501272019-11-14T17:39:01.602-08:002019-11-14T17:39:01.602-08:00@ David T:
From the O.P.: "That's what...@ David T: <br /><br />From the O.P.: "That's what Vatican II was and is -- the doctrines of Freemasonry forcibly inserted into official Catholic documents by non-Catholic Luciferians."<br /><br />Whatever that means.<br /><br />Then there was the claim that the Church should make no attempt to address the modern world because the modern world is not worthy of taking note of (or whatever was intended), and I don't remember what else.<br /><br />You do not think Vat II is heterodox, but you seem to be saying that the fathers of Vat II were intentionally ambiguous (which is, at least, a moral fault).<br /><br />If you want to criticize cowardly bishops, have at it. If you want to say that Vat II is "ambiguous", it depends on what you mean. All forms of Church teaching are "ambiguous" to some degree: scripture is "ambiguous"; catechisms are "ambiguous"; all councils are "ambiguous"; etc. That's why we have an ongoing authority to define the deposit of faith: it is not possible to write some document that will clarify all questions, all the time, forever. <br /><br />But if you mean that Vat II was a tool to intentionally dismantle the faith, give me some argument to demonstrate the claim that cannot be attributed to mere human failing. Give me some explicit teaching from the council that shows willful intent to destroy the faith.<br /><br />I can give you a positive argument for why I think the explicit teaching of the council is just what the doctor prescribed for the modern world, but what is in question is all the people on this thread who keep trying to make human failing into some reason to reject (in some way) an ecumenical council.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29610152688212917132019-11-14T17:11:50.465-08:002019-11-14T17:11:50.465-08:00But what about Judeo-masonic-bolshevism?But what about Judeo-masonic-bolshevism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com