[Rosarium]

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.

By opinion I meant that you could not hold others to them, as you are not infallible.

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.

Well, you made an error and you are not meeting the standard I presented. I asked you to demonstrate heresy if it exists.

So far, you have not met any such standard, but just repeat accusations and present vague topics.

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 were vague in your "evidence" of heresy.

Retract your statement, prove it to be true, or stand by it. It does not matter to me. But it matters to you...eventually.

The rejection of Vat. 2 is not irrational in any way,

Sophistry?

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was saying any defense could be seen if I were addressing an irrational attack.

Any criticism of Vatican II and its fruits must be rational.

 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"

Like I wrote before, Vatican II does not present any new doctrines for us to hold, and it has limited use.

If you still think I am a Modernist, you should specifically and clearly demonstrate it.

Present the error, and present the article of Faith being opposed in a clear manner.

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.

You are holding me to a highly specific course of action.

What is your basis for claiming that a lay person, a simple Catholic man, is somehow supposed to get involved with Church councils and the domain of bishops?

You are twisting my words. I never said I was apathetic.

If you cannot conduct discourse with reason and prudence, refrain from it. Just retract your statement and let the idea of the person called "Rosarium" fade into recesses of the Internet.

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.

You have failed to meet any reasonable standard of defense of the charge of heresy.

I suggest you just forget about me. If you wish to offer correction, please review what I have written on my blog, or if you happen to know me in person, offer correction for any errors you see in my conduct. I have little regard for the person, including myself, and do not seek approval of anyone, especially people I do not know.

[Dellery]

Rosarium,
I have my suspicions, but I should not have publicly labeled you a Modernist.
You have my apologies.

[Rosarium]

Rosarium,
I have my suspicions, but I should not have publicly labeled you a Modernist.
You have my apologies.

Thank you.

It is natural to have suspicions, given how widespread errors are. However, one may find it better to give people a very high standard to meet for individual judgement of any kind.

I would not be surprised if ANY person who was publicly and fully a traditional Catholic turned out to have a pornography habit for instance, but I would never think to suspect an individual of it, and much less make such an accusation.

[Caviezel Fan]

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is nothing more than perverted sin, plain and simple.  Regardless of how much it is accepted these days, I will not accept that lifestyle.  I don't glorify gαys because they are all over the news every day; they need to keep their lifestyles quiet, and out of the media, because not everyone agrees with it.  ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a total abomination to society, plain and simple.