[Dellery]

Rosarium,
If I remember correctly, you accept the New Mass, quite vigorously defend the indult, and accept that Vat. 2 was a good council who's docuмents have been misinterpreted, these positions belie an implicit Modernism.

Implicit heresy? Are you God, the searcher of hearts?

If there is heresy, show it.

You have a very unreliable memory, which you seem to recognize in part, and if you make sweeping out of context and unsubstantiated statements, I am not going to address them.

Heresy is a grave accusation, and one not to be made lightly.

That you perceive me to be in oppositions to your opinions is not grounds for accusations of denial of any article of Faith.

Rosarium,
My opinions have nothing to do with his, and the fact that you believe the above quoted transgressions against the Faith are a matter of opinion has confirmed your guilt.

[Sigismund]

I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.

Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.

No, this is misrepresenting what took place.

The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".

The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.

I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.

Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.

Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.

FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.

Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.

I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.

I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.

Don't you attend the indult?

That makes him a modernist?

[Dellery]

I was not banned. My account was deleted at my request.

Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.

No, this is misrepresenting what took place.

The issue had multiple facets, but the final issues were the lack of ability to edit posts and the word filter which (without notification) changed certain words to "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".

The licensing my posts example was not a serious attempt to license my posts, but an effort to make a point, a point which was tangential to the topic.

I am not a modernist. That is a grave error and a defined heresy. It is not something to be tossed around lightly. Libel is hardly holy.

Unless you are holding me to actual teachings of the Church, rather than your opinions, you should retract such statements.

Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.

FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.

Or, you can be paranoid and see errors everywhere, without actually being able to show them. It is easy to find errors if they are evident.

I am Catholic and follow the teachings of the Church, which are timeless. If I hold error, I am ready for correction, but those errors must be held by me, not imagined by somebody posting about people they do not know.

I know many object to my personality, and it is not something which is beneficial for my person to stand in the way of what matters, but accusations of heresy must be made with some grounding rather than one's imagination.

Don't you attend the indult?

That makes him a modernist?

Not necessarily, however, the vast majority of those that attend the indult are modernists.

[Rosarium]

Not necessarily, however, the vast majority of those that attend the indult are modernists.

Most people can be said to be material heretics in some way.

However, to the extent that I could be accused of being a Modernist, I can assure you that I am not. Purity of doctrine and moral theology are something I have specifically and long sought. I generally learn from sources which are far older than the issue of Modernism.

Rosarium,
My opinions have nothing to do with his, and the fact that you believe the above quoted transgressions against the Faith are a matter of opinion has confirmed your guilt.

I did not say I believe the above "transgressions". I specifically wrote what I did:

Implicit heresy? Are you God, the searcher of hearts?

If there is heresy, show it.

You have a very unreliable memory, which you seem to recognize in part, and if you make sweeping out of context and unsubstantiated statements, I am not going to address them.

Heresy is a grave accusation, and one not to be made lightly.

That you perceive me to be in oppositions to your opinions is not grounds for accusations of denial of any article of Faith.

You have errors in what you wrote about me, and you yourself are questioning the veracity of what you have written.

For the record, I do not attend the indult, I do not think Vatican II was a council which bore good fruit, and I do think the Novus Ordo has valid sacraments when proper matter and form are used and the minister intends to administer the sacrament. However, this is hardly modernism.

Vatican II is something I generally ignore. It offers no clarifications or new definitions of doctrine and it has no bearing on how I live. Vatican II's docuмents have been evidently ignored and misinterpreted, and I will defend rational thinking. Even if I agree with someone's motives, if there are errors in fact, I think they should be corrected sometimes. This may be interpreted as a defense of the thing, but it is not. Just because I do not want to join the irrational and total condemnation of something, that does not mean I agree with it. It means that I think anything opposed must be defined and understood. One cannot froth at the mouth in railing speech, and forsake all reason, just because one thinks one's position in the right.

However, the biggest thing is how to live a Catholic life, not how to conduct discourse on forums. I am not a bishop, priest, or member of any religious organization. I have no authority and the issues of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the other things which have arisen which are questionable are not my concern. They offer nothing to me, and any judgement of mine on the validity of sacraments and rites is not infallible.

It is not my role to supplant the bishops. If they have failed, that is their judgement, not mine. If they are not valid, then God will judgement them, not me for on occasion seeking to receive the sacraments from them. If they are impostors, then it is their sin, not mine. If they preach error, I have not heard it, for my learning is from more timeless preachers of the Church.

[Dellery]

Dear Rosarium,
You wrote: "I did not say I believe the above "transgressions". I specifically wrote what I did:" to clarify, I said you believed them to be a matter of opinion (mine) not that you "believe in them" generally speaking.

Also I am not questioning my memory, but merely pointing out that I am using it as a reference, and it's certainly not perfect. You're most certainly intelligent enough to know what sophistry is, so I doubt the contextual distortion of my words was accidental.

Furthermore, you're being very vague in your responses, and even resort to using straw-man argumentation. For example, this conversation never once touched on whether or not Vat 2. produced good fruit, or if the NO can be celebrated validly, this is a dishonest way to get your point across.

You also said: "Vatican II is something I generally ignore. It offers no clarifications or new definitions of doctrine and it has no bearing on how I live. Vatican II's docuмents have been evidently ignored and misinterpreted, and I will defend rational thinking. Even if I agree with someone's motives, if there are errors in fact, I think they should be corrected sometimes. This may be interpreted as a defense of the thing, but it is not. Just because I do not want to join the irrational and total condemnation of something, that does not mean I agree with it. It means that I think anything opposed must be defined and understood. One cannot froth at the mouth in railing speech, and forsake all reason, just because one thinks one's position in the right."

The rejection of Vat. 2 is not irrational in any way, the texts of the council were purposely left vague and ambiguous because according to the dialectical nature of the Scholastic method, contradictory/unacceptable opinions must be introduced in a way that prevents them from getting discarded at the schema level.
In order to fully grasp the revolutionary power grab that happened at the council, and why giving the council docuмents any credence whatsoever is in effect supporting this revolution, many recommend reading the book "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber"

Moreover, you also wrote: "I have no authority and the issues of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the other things which have arisen which are questionable are not my concern."

They are most certainly your concern, unless you're totally apathetic to watching our Lord's Church get molested, even then it's still your concern because our Lord has certainly given you talents to be used for the good of your soul and the Church, and we will be judged by the way we use our talents.
Our Lord tells us anything we need he will provide, does this mean not to hunt or farm? Of course not.

If you defend the indult, accept that Vat. 2 was a good council steered by well meaning men, and accept that the NO is a Catholic Mass, you're a modernist.
God never changes, and neither does the Faith.