Knock it off. It is not the same and you know it. Did Vatican II produce heretical docuмents or even vaguely heretical docuмents? Yes or No. It is only yes or not there is no in-between.
Is the Novus Ordo Mass Catholic? Yes or No, there can be no in-between. It is good or it is evil. Period.
When Paul VI praised the United Nations as the hope of the world, what that correct? Yes or No. There can be no gray areas.
When Benedict and John Paul enter ѕуηαgσgυєs and smile benignly while the Jєωs pray for the coming of their messiah, is that Catholic? Yes or No. There is only Yes or No with God. No gobbledy gook. Yes or No.It is Catholic or it is Evil. There is no middle road with God.
God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
God's religion is the same. It does not Change.
You are blind and arrogant.

Oh, but Dawn, there IS a wide range of possiblities from a perfectly sound orthodox proposition and strict heresy.  THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM -- ITS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

And, why do you not say who you are. Other than someone Rauol should head. Who are you supposed to be?

Dawn I realize that you think you are being a simple faithful catholic by declaring something heretical and deposing popes, but I assure you that the 'simplicity' that you supposedly cling to is deceptive.  It is a blackhole.  

Like I said, in the world of propositions, there is a vast range of possibilities between a proposition that is sound and orthodox and one for some reason that is not.  If you had any experience in examining ecclesiastical censures, you would be amazed at their complex nature and degree.  Just because a statement is not correct, doesn't mean our only choice is to censure it as heretical.    

You don't get to judge these things, period.  You get to judge what is within your duties of state, period.  Going outside of these duties means danger to your soul.  I'm not sure how else I can put this.  You've already made obvious errors, yet you cling to your opinions.  

As far as where I was educated it is of no concern, I couldn't care less where a person is formed, even if it is on his own initiative.  The point is that they ought to be formed in order to even begin to discuss these things.  Raoul is obviously not because he has made serious blunders.  No one here, so far as I can tell, save gladius who at least attempts to make careful, restrained statements, is even remotely formed.  It is more than arrogant to pretend to ursurp judgment without the requisite theological and philosophical formation to back up the usurped judgment which is bad enough.