Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Response to Neil Obstat  (Read 1482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15656
  • Reputation: +8260/-2595
  • Gender: Male
Re: Response to Neil Obstat
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2018, 03:23:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cardinal Cushing quoted by his own (favorable) biographer:  "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense.  Nobody's [not even the Church?] is going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."

    Cushing:
    CUSHING PRAISES GRAHAM CRUSADE; Cardinal Urges Catholics to Hear the Evangelist
    https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/08/archives/cushing-praises-graham-crusade-cardinal-urges-catholics-to-hear-the.html

    Cushing praising Religious Liberty at Vatican II:
    https://vaticaniiat50.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/text-of-cardinal-cushings-address-on-religious-liberty/

    Cushing at a Methodist Church (well before JP2), trailblazer for Ecumenism:
    [see the black and white picture] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/13/cardinal-malley-joins-service-sudbury-methodist-church/aWehNqZMfzGahpdCD0DReN/story.html

    Cushing's sister was married to a Jew.  Jews had him in their back pocket.  Here he is (per Wikipedia) at Vatican II:

    "At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra aetate, the document that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version:

    We must cast the Declaration on the Jews in a much more positive form, one not so timid, but much more loving ... For the sake of our common heritage we, the children of Abraham according to the spirit, must foster a special reverence and love for the children of Abraham according to the flesh. As children of Adam, they are our kin, as children of Abraham they are Christ's blood relatives."


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #16 on: September 05, 2018, 03:29:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Practically speaking, the Church was OK before Vatican II and was not OK after it.

    Well, Bishop Williamson would disagree; he traces the rot back to the Renaissance.  I know you qualified it with "practically speaking" ... as in you had the Tridentine Mass, but we surely must know by now that the Crisis is about the faith and not just the Mass.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21835
    • Reputation: +19176/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #17 on: September 05, 2018, 03:33:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Well, Bishop Williamson would disagree; he traces the rot back to the Renaissance.

    It depends on what the agreement/disagreement is about.

    I agree that the rot traces all the way back to the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. The peak of Christendom was St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's. It was all downhill after that.

    However, if I woke up tomorrow and found myself in 1961 on a Sunday, and I chose NOT to attend my local parish (or any other parish) for Mass, I would be committing a MORTAL SIN worthy of sending me to Hell for eternity if I didn't repent and confess my sin to a priest before death.

    That is what I mean by "The Church was OK before Vatican II".

    Heck, the Protestants think the rot goes back before the Council of Trent, and they jumped ship (the ship being the Catholic Church) back in the early 1500's. Were they just forward thinking avant-garde, or were they a bunch of heretics?
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21835
    • Reputation: +19176/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #18 on: September 05, 2018, 03:37:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I know you qualified it with "practically speaking" ... as in you had the Tridentine Mass, but we surely must know by now that the Crisis is about the faith and not just the Mass.
    Actually, there was no coherent, competing "new religion" or "newfaith" before Vatican II either. The Faith was intact. Perhaps some bad ideas here and there were brewing, but overall Catholic priests and bishops had the Faith before Vatican II. Ergo, the Crisis didn't start until Vatican II.

    You're talking about universal purity of doctrine, but I say: you will have a hard time finding purity of anything where human beings are involved. There are always rebels, idiots, poor students, heretics, and bad ideas even in the best of organizations and the best of times.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #19 on: September 05, 2018, 03:41:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right, of course we could and would be bound to attend Mass in, say, 1961 and that the OFFICIAL teaching and liturgy of the Church were untainted.  So I get what you mean.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21835
    • Reputation: +19176/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #20 on: September 05, 2018, 04:02:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • We've always had bad priests, even priests so bad they taught heresy, whether formal or material.

    However, it wasn't until Vatican II that heresy was institutionalized -- to the point that you were more likely than not to encounter heresy in its priests. The actual organization, the actual fundamentals of the post-Conciliar Church actually favored heresy. See my recent post about "isolated" problems vs. fundamental ones:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/a-real-problem-vs-no-specific-problem/

    My post in the above link basically lays out the difference between an occasional sodomite in the Trad movement, vs. a sodomite who came out of a modern Catholic seminary. One of them happened DESPITE the milieu and practices of the group, while the other happened BECAUSE OF it.

    The modern seminaries are all about accord with the Modern World, they hold up Freud (the pervert) as a respectable teacher of psychology, the New Age and other errors are brought in, and the whole Faith is cloaked in a feminine, sentimental, emotional wrapper.

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3223
    • Reputation: +1957/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #21 on: September 05, 2018, 04:29:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Actually, there was no coherent, competing "new religion" or "newfaith" before Vatican II either. The Faith was intact. Perhaps some bad ideas here and there were brewing, but overall Catholic priests and bishops had the Faith before Vatican II. Ergo, the Crisis didn't start until Vatican II.
    I get what you're saying, but in reality, the crisis in the Church started in the 1800s, reached a peak when Pope Pius IX was imprisoned by the masons, then orthodoxy returned with Pope St Pius X.  After St Pius X, liberalism resurfaced gradually, gradually, gradually, until V2 systematically opened the floodgates for practical change.

    So, yes, you can argue that until V2, the Faith taught to the laity was "orthodox" strictly speaking.  But there were rumblings of modernism beginning to form like black clouds even in the 30s.  Ideas always come before action.  The change in ideas happened LONG before V2.

    These black clouds were the modernist theologians, bishops and cardinals who had been teaching in the seminaries and in charge of the dioceses, since the 30s.  They corrupted the priests/bishops/seminarians first, in anticipation of V2, since they knew that they would need the clergy to "sell" the laity on the changes.  There's plenty of pictures i've seen from the 40s and 50s of liturgical "experimentation" going on (a lot in Germany and France) but these were not isolated events.  Just as the freemasons "test the waters" for political reasons, so they did so with the changes in the Church.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 556
    • Reputation: +233/-274
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #22 on: September 05, 2018, 04:46:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I get what you're saying, but in reality, the crisis in the Church started in the 1800s, reached a peak when Pope Pius IX was imprisoned by the masons, then orthodoxy returned with Pope St Pius X.  After St Pius X, liberalism resurfaced gradually, gradually, gradually, until V2 systematically opened the floodgates for practical change.

    So, yes, you can argue that until V2, the Faith taught to the laity was "orthodox" strictly speaking.  But there were rumblings of modernism beginning to form like black clouds even in the 30s.  Ideas always come before action.  The change in ideas happened LONG before V2.

    These black clouds were the modernist theologians, bishops and cardinals who had been teaching in the seminaries and in charge of the dioceses, since the 30s.  They corrupted the priests/bishops/seminarians first, in anticipation of V2, since they knew that they would need the clergy to "sell" the laity on the changes.  There's plenty of pictures i've seen from the 40s and 50s of liturgical "experimentation" going on (a lot in Germany and France) but these were not isolated events.  Just as the freemasons "test the waters" for political reasons, so they did so with the changes in the Church.
    However the Church has had to grapple with heretics "both foreign and domestic" so to speak for all of its history. In the 30s things were certainly starting to get bad, like a small virus had infected the Church and was slowly infecting it - but we were still far better off than at many points before in Church history where the Church was facing heresies, schisms, anti-Popes, etc. It was only with Vatican II that the modernist virus brewing for a long time finally took over its "host cell"(the Catholic Church) so to speak. Before Vatican 2 we were dealing with a brewing crisis, but still a very much precedented one and a lot better off than at other times in Church history - it was only with John XXIII and Vatican 2 that the modernists took over and caused this unprecedented crisis that we've been grappling with these last 60 odd years. 


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3223
    • Reputation: +1957/-976
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #23 on: September 05, 2018, 06:47:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Before Vatican 2 we were dealing with a brewing crisis, but still a very much precedented one and a lot better off than at other times in Church history - it was only with John XXIII and Vatican 2 that the modernists took over and caused this unprecedented crisis that we've been grappling with these last 60 odd years. 
    Yes good points.  V2 was the practical application of errors which started at the 1789 French Revolution.  Pre-V2, the "brewing crisis" was caused by the modernists/freemasons and they are the same ones who trashed the Church at V2, when the crisis went from "brewed" to "boiling over".  My point is that from the early 1800s til now, the common enemy is the same - freemason/modernists.  You won't understand the problem completely, nor be able to solve it, until you recognize the enemy.

    This is why the great majority of trads who compromise their Faith and join rome, (whether it is through the indult, or FSSP, or SSPX) do so because they don't understand history, and they don't want to recognize the Conspiracy (for fear of human respect and being "different"), therefore they view V2 as some "experimental accident" or a "liberal agenda" by some "bad Cardinals".  This naive and simplistic view of the Church's problems COMPLETELY IGNORES the centuries long battle that great popes such as Bl Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII and Pope St Pius X fought against said modernists/freemasons.  (It also ignores Fatima's message of "russia's errors").  I mean, there's a REASON that these 3 popes wrote TONS of encyclicals on 1) anti-freemasonry, 2) Praying the Rosary.  Do you think these 2 topics connect with Fatima much?  Did freemasonry just go away after Pope St Pius X's death?

    "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it."  You could also say:  Those that do not know history can't explain the present, so they have no future.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17898
    • Reputation: +8168/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #24 on: September 06, 2018, 05:36:22 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    There are a lot of good points here by everyone. It's nice to see so much agreement for a change!   :farmer:
    .
    Nobody has mentioned the liberalizers by name, though. What about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?
    He circulated his one-page screeds of liberalism bilgewater-theology among seminarians and got away with it.
    He was like a termite chewing or a cancer growing and nobody was the wiser.
    He even faked archaeological discoveries to support evolution with his lies! He got away with that too!
    His offense against the Faith had become so great and recognized as such before he died he was refused Christian burial.
    But his worldly buddies found a way of getting that "rectified" before long -- maybe now Francis can canonize him.
    .
    Or Annibale Bugnini?  Remember, he was the guy that Freemasons convinced Pope Pius XII to put into an office of power.
    He survived the Pope, even though he started his dirty work during Pius XII's lifetime.
    But after 1958, Bugnini really went into high gear.
    Perhaps if Siri had been elected in 1962 he could have sent Bugnini packing but John XXIII wouldn't hear of it.
    No, Bugnini went full bore after Fr. Feeney was marginalized, making great strides toward Vat.II.
    Bugnini was buried behind a Freemason's grave stone.
    .
    And don't forget:
    Ives Congar, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, John Courtney Murray, and the infamous J. Ratzinger!
    Fr. Feeney was 100% aware of their rotten ideology and did whatever he could to fight it, but he had been neutralized.
    Thanks to Archbishop Cushing who was awarded the Red Hat for his accomplishment! Big happy times were ahead.
    For the Liberals that is.
    Every single one of these creeps were enemies of the thrice-defined dogma of the Faith.
    And I'm not talking about BoD or BoB. THE dogma is EENS
    Fr. Feeney had been trained as a Jesuit, and had personally known these creeps.
    They were his contemporaries. 
    Knowing them is why he left the Jesuits behind and founded the MICM -- Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
    (So often when told what MICM means, Newchurch nuns spout instinctively, "Oh, we don't like that!")
    (Could that be what irritates the busybodies who sneer their lips when they say "Feeneyism" and "Feeneyites?")
    (Or, is it the tried-and-true, knee-jerk erroneous presumption that BoD and BoB is what defines it/them?)
    .
    We need to keep reminding ourselves of that fact, that BoB and BoD were never issues of contention for Fr. Feeney.
    He was all about EENS and the missionary spirit in America.
    Bad teaching and irrational misinterpretation of BoD and BoB were destroying both THE dogma and the spirit.
    So they became something like an also-ran issue that got rare mention.
    But rare mention is all enemies like Fr. Martin Stepanich or mealy-mouthed Michael Matt needed to get their dukes up.
    (Let's all gang up on a great priest who defends the TLM like we PRETEND to do, and get some free publicity out of it!)
    .
    It took a special genius in Fr. Feeney to point out the key problem with Liberals/Modernists.
    He recognized that EENS was THE ISSUE that was being attacked, and because he did so he was virtually crucified.
    By foes and would-be friends alike.
    And what you see today is part of that. It's still happening.
    Every time you denounce "Feeneyism" and "Feeneyites" as if those are foul words, you're contributing to the problem!
    You make yourself part of the problem.
    You make yourself into a dimwit like SeanJohnson -- the inane screw-loose twit, accomplishing nothing and proud of it.
    .
    Fr. Feeney's genius will endure for all time, and perhaps some day it will be recognized.
    If it is, the blindness, willful and/or otherwise, of the majority of the mainstream Church will be recognized too.
    Their failure to see that he was right from the start is what is keeping the CRISIS IN THE CHURCH chugging along.
    He was right from the start, seeing that the attack on EENS was the cornerstone of the Modernist agenda.
    .
    In 1985 I picked up an old paperback of Walter M. Abbott's Vatican II documents and paged through it.
    There were a few pencil notes written in the margins on a few pages here and there.
    Most of them were one word or some cryptic combination of letters.
    But there was one page with one note that really made a lot of sense.
    It said, "salvation outside the church!" Including the exclamation point.
    It was written in the margin, next to the underlined word, "subsists," found in LG 8 (Lumen Gentium 8 ).
    The complete quote says,

    "The Church of Christ...this Church, constituted and organized as a society
    in this present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church,
    governed by the Successor of  Peter and by the Bishops in communion
    with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth
    can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly
    belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity."
    .
    At the risk of redundancy, let me repeat myself.
    .
    I found a 20-year old copy of Vat.II Documents (paperback book) in the St. Charles Boromeo Catholic Church Book Store for 50 cents (Roger Cardinal Mahony is currently in retirement on the premises), in which some previous owner, perhaps taking notes at a lecture or sermon or class on Vat.II, had written, "Salvation Outside the Church" (in open denial of EENS, THE dogma of the Faith: NO Salvation Outside the Church), where the book's text had these words:

    "The Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church... although...
    sanctification and truth can be found outside... the Church of Christ."
    .
    When I saw that in that book, I got woke.
    .
    I started looking for answers, and found Catholic Treasures in Monrovia, where Phyllis Shabow introduced me to their wonderful stock of otherwise forgotten publications. Among which was Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Fr. Lemius' A Catechism on Moderism.
    .
    You actually need both books or you won't know which end is up.
    .
    It was thorough CT that I also discovered many other things, including the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, NH.
    .
    I had heard of Fr. Feeney but I had never met people who knew him personally and worked with him.
    So this has been a 33-year journey for me.
    .
    I had known there were tremendous problems in the Church but I had to STUDY Modernism (not just read about it).
    And I finally found in Fr. Feeney someone who had seen the storm brewing before the thunder cracked open Vat.II.
    .
    Pope St. Pius X and his saintly Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry Del Val were highly helpful as well.
    .
    Just as Adolf Hitler had been building up his war chest since 1932, so too Modernists prepared for Vat.II 20 years ahead of it.
    Sure, war didn't "break out" until Hitler invaded Poland, but without 8 years of preparation, it would have flopped.
    So too the Crisis in the Church "broke out" with Vat.II, but the groundwork had been meticulously prepared.
    They didn't even purchase the bleachers inside St. Peters, but rented them instead.
    That way it would appear clear that Vat.II would not take very long. Or so they would lead you to believe.
    (It was going to take just as long as it had to take to get Dignitatis Humanae passed --- errr, rammed through.)
    It ended up taking 5 years, and they paid in rent enough to buy the stupid bleachers 3 times over.
    .
    Whatever it takes -- no expense was spared!  The auto-demolition of the Church had to happen at all costs!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17898
    • Reputation: +8168/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #25 on: September 06, 2018, 06:11:15 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Notice, that Vat.II does not literally say "outside the Church there is salvation," but it comes extremely close to that.
    It comes close enough that "according to the (unclean) spirit of Vat.II" there is ambiguous wiggle room enough to mean it.
    The documents were one thing, and what was done with them was something else.
    But in the end what happened is all that counts. 
    Newchurch priests infected with Modernism told Catholics that according to the (unclean) spirit of Vat.II, there is salvation outside the Church.
    .
    And therefore the floodgates opened and the deluge began.
    .
    All the aftermath of Vat.II was a consequence of what Fr. Feeney had been warning us against.
    .
    Changing Holy Week (1956) in preparation, a project of Bugnini,
    Vernacularization of the Mass,
    Introduction of Judaized prayers into the Mass,
    The abandonment of the Oath Against Modernism,
    The unorthodox spread of the Newmass, a wholesale concoction of 6 Protestant ministers,
    Turning the altars around,
    Stripping statues, tabernacles, Communion rails, confessionals from churches,
    Twisted, gross replacements for holy Crucifixes,
    Homosexual tendencies and tolerance among clerics including priests,
    Idolatry and abandonment of the fundamentals of our holy religion,
    These and more, all began with the assault on EENS, plain and simple.
    .
    So while it might be somehow self-satisfying to sit back and say you're not a theologian so it makes no difference to you;
    That you couldn't care less about the salvation of pagans or the nuances of invincible ignorance;
    You ought not forget that when the pagans are living next door, down the street and taking office at City Hall, it matters.
    .
    What good does it do to worry about the salvation of an ignorant noble native in a land far away --- 
    --- when you can't manage to share the Faith of Catholics with the pagan or atheist who lives right over the back fence?
    .
    Conversion of America -------------- how to share the Faith that matters ------------- who is doing it? 
    .
    Answer:  The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That's who. 
    .
    Oh, in case you don't know who they are, perhaps you're habituated to say "Feeneyites," probably with your teeth showing.
    Remember, that's how the Pharisees ridiculed Our Lord in His Passion, baring their teeth and sneering at Him.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8781
    • Reputation: +3462/-720
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #26 on: September 06, 2018, 07:40:39 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are a lot of good points here by everyone. It's nice to see so much agreement for a change!   :farmer:
    This, and thanks Neil and the others. It is refreshing.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17898
    • Reputation: +8168/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #27 on: September 07, 2018, 03:56:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I agree that the rot traces all the way back to the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. The peak of Christendom was St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200's. It was all downhill after that.

    However, if I woke up tomorrow and found myself in 1961 on a Sunday, and I chose NOT to attend my local parish (or any other parish) for Mass, I would be committing a MORTAL SIN worthy of sending me to Hell for eternity if I didn't repent and confess my sin to a priest before death.

    That is what I mean by "The Church was OK before Vatican II".

    Heck, the Protestants think the rot goes back before the Council of Trent, and they jumped ship (the ship being the Catholic Church) back in the early 1500's. Were they just forward thinking avant-garde, or were they a bunch of heretics?

    .
    I've known Protestants who think that Constantine the Great was the worst thing that could have happened to Christianity, and that's when the Church went dormant only to be re-discovered by Luther, effectively disregarding the entire time from the 4th century to the 15th century as totally unreliable "traditions of men."
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Nick

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 126
    • Reputation: +106/-209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #28 on: September 07, 2018, 04:31:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Excellent thread gentlemen ! At times I despair that we can give our thoughts on differing matters without descending into polemics and personal pontificating. This post, as well as the Matthew Interview, has refreshed me. Thank you to the contributors so far.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Response to Neil Obstat
    « Reply #29 on: September 07, 2018, 08:43:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We've always had bad priests, even priests so bad they taught heresy, whether formal or material.

    However, it wasn't until Vatican II that heresy was institutionalized -- to the point that you were more likely than not to encounter heresy in its priests. The actual organization, the actual fundamentals of the post-Conciliar Church actually favored heresy. See my recent post about "isolated" problems vs. fundamental ones:

    Right.  That's exactly what I meant about it having become "official".

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16