Don't non datur me, Ladi. Your whole assertion is a non sequitur. Two non sequiturs, as a matter of fact.

First, you have made the unsupported assumption that BOD is at the very center of the ecuмenical controversy. This has to be false, because BOD never created any such controversy prior to Vatican II. Back in those days everybody understood that BOD posed no threat to EENS, which is precisely why it was never condemned. It was only at Vatican II that the modernists contrived to smuggle in an heretical but quite popular misinterpretation and pass it of as doctrinal (the aforementioned 'subsistit' ambiguity). You are trying to say that some pope should have thrown out BOD long ago so that the modernists never would have had the opportunity to misuse it. But popes don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They don't throw out orthodox formulae just because there is a chance somebody will put an heretical spin on them someday. If that were the case, then every proposition would have to be condemned.

Second, you are also asserting that accepting BOD entails accepting Vatican II ecclesiology lock, stock, and barrel; which itself entails accepting everything that flowed from the Council: all the Vatican II docuмents, the Novus Ordo Missae, the anti-popes, everything. This too is false. Vatican II was not a one-trick pony; it was a modernist tour de force. I have not the time nor the inclination to list systematically all the errors of Vatican II, the NOM, and the post-Conciliar popes; the broad outlines are familiar enough to everybody here anyway. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of reasons for rejecting those distortions. But contrary to your assertions, BOD does not form the keystone of the whole modernist edifice. I really doubt it was anything but a remote afterthought. Communism, existentialism and other modernist ideologies were much more influential on the minds of the Conciliar reformers.

Vatican II was not a one-trick pony; it was a modernist tour de force. I have not the time nor the inclination to list systematically all the errors of Vatican II, the NOM, and the post-Conciliar popes; the broad outlines are familiar enough to everybody here anyway.

Just admit it.  You have absolutely no idea what's in Vatican II, much less can you articulate its purported errors.

Dr. Fastiggi, in his debate with Bishop Sanborn, clearly delineated the logical consistency between pre-Vatican II BoD-based EENS denial and the Vatican II ecclesiology / soteriology.  There was no sudden radical break in 1962 from what came before it ... except that there was an increasing manifestation of heteropraxis.  That's why bowler's citation of Fr. Laux is so valuable.

Quote from: Man of the West

Vatican II was not a one-trick pony; it was a modernist tour de force. I have not the time nor the inclination to list systematically all the errors of Vatican II, the NOM, and the post-Conciliar popes; the broad outlines are familiar enough to everybody here anyway.

Just admit it.  You have absolutely no idea what's in Vatican II, much less can you articulate its purported errors.

Dr. Fastiggi, in his debate with Bishop Sanborn, clearly delineated the logical consistency between pre-Vatican II BoD-based EENS denial and the Vatican II ecclesiology / soteriology.  There was no sudden radical break in 1962 from what came before it ... except that there was an increasing manifestation of heteropraxis.  That's why bowler's citation of Fr. Laux is so valuable.

Actually, all the 20th century quotes that I've posted are from way before Vatican II, and they all teach what is taught in Vatican II and ther CCC on the subject. Like I said many times, there really is no reason for the SSPX not to accept Vatican II, since they both teach the same on this subject.

If the conciliar church had kept the vestments, the bells and smells, marble and such, all these so-called trads on CI would have been right at home with VatII and a reverent Novus Ordo.

It is a way to determine who has good will and who has bad will. Those who have bad will are in the state of sin. Ignorance is a punishment for sin. In rejecting God's revelation, they reveal their true selves: They choose not to be among those of whom Christ spoke when he said: "I know mine, and mine know me." (Jn. 10:14).

If a person has the right disposition, the Truth will find him / her but the inquiry for truth must be made with the right and worthy disposition of humility and courage. "For the lord searches all hearts, and understands all the thougts of minds. If you seek Him, you shall find Him, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever" (Chronicles 28:9).

Think you, if there is possible salvation outside the Church like BODers believe, even when they want to masquerade it with false doctrines such as "invincible ignorance", what difference does it make whether one is in the Church or out of It or if one is a heretic or not? Really, if to deny this solemn salutary dogma of EESN (taken as it is written with zero loopholes as it is mandatory) is not heresy, then there is no such thing as heresy, the blood of martyrs have been shed in vain, and the Church has fought pointlessly for more than 2000 years.

Such an astute Devilish trick this invincible ignorance thing....

If you would please,
(referencing your words that I colored red)

First, you have made the unsupported assumption that BOD is at the very center of the ecuмenical controversy. This has to be false, because BOD never created any such controversy prior to Vatican II. Back in those days everybody understood that BOD posed no threat to EENS, which is precisely why it was never condemned. It was only at Vatican II that the modernists contrived to smuggle in an heretical but quite popular misinterpretation and pass it of as doctrinal (the aforementioned 'subsistit' ambiguity). You are trying to say that some pope should have thrown out BOD long ago so that the modernists never would have had the opportunity to misuse it. But popes don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They don't throw out orthodox formulae just because there is a chance somebody will put an heretical spin on them someday. If that were the case, then every proposition would have to be condemned.

Please demonstrate or prove this statement of yours. What was smuggled in exactly and how is it heresy. Doing this would be a start in accepting the as yet unanswered challenge.

Thank you and God bless,
JoeZ

It is a way to determine who has good will and who has bad will. Those who have bad will are in the state of sin. Ignorance is a punishment for sin. In rejecting God's revelation, they reveal their true selves: They choose not to be among those of whom Christ spoke when he said: "I know mine, and mine know me." (Jn. 10:14).

If a person has the right disposition, the Truth will find him / her but the inquiry for truth must be made with the right and worthy disposition of humility and courage. "For the lord searches all hearts, and understands all the thougts of minds. If you seek Him, you shall find Him, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever" (Chronicles 28:9).

Think you, if there is possible salvation outside the Church like BODers believe, even when they want to masquerade it with false doctrines such as "invincible ignorance", what difference does it make whether one is in the Church or out of It or if one is a heretic or not? Really, if to deny this solemn salutary dogma of EESN (taken as it is written with zero loopholes as it is mandatory) is not heresy, then there is no such thing as heresy, the blood of martyrs have been shed in vain, and the Church has fought pointlessly for more than 2000 years.

Such an astute Devilish trick this invincible ignorance thing....

Cantarella, isn't this what your pope teaches?

Quote from: MyrnaM

You can't have it both ways, either you are with God, or against Him

You can't be with God if you believe souls can be saved without Christ as Lord and God.

I agree, but Francis doesn't agree with you or me, on that point.

To Mr Obstat

I must admit to being a whole lot more ignorant than I ought to be, mostly by my own fault. I was born in 1968 and had a vague idea that V2 was to be resisted, but given no real reasons why. I began going to an SSPX chapel near me 11 years ago and I have been studying things and trying to learn since.

My question here was really an attempt to prompt Mr Man of the West to post some quotes from V2 docuмents and analyze  them for all to see. If he would have accepted bowler's and Ladislaus' challenge, I could have perhaps learned something; all the while being relatively secure with folks like bowler, Ladislaus, and you around to help if I stutter.

Thank you for your concern, good sir.

God bless,
JoeZ