Author Topic: Heresies of Vatican II (Read 12903 times)

Daegus · « **Reply #15 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:07:36 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: PartyIsOver221
Thanks for making this thread, Caminus. Only highlights the bad will of you modern oblong-head pseudo-trads and the berserko-theology of the SSPX.

This thread will only bring more souls to Christ because you Caminus are acting as a darkness for error.

That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.

Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?

What was the point of asking the last question? Do you think PIO has some kind of ulterior motives because he was once a Jew?

Condemning someone who has repented of their past for having that past is pharisaical.

You, of all people, should not be talking about anyone being a mole, given your vast history of sophistry and intellectual obfuscation on these forums. Anyone who looks back at old threads can tell that Raoul has especially taken digs at you in the past for that.

I also don't think it's accurate of you to say that you and PIO share the same faith. After all, you believe that people who obstinately reject the Faith can still somehow be Catholic. Do you think PIO believes that? I know I certainly don't.

Gregory I · « **Reply #16 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:12:07 PM »

Caminus, do you have anything to say to my post? I gave you what you wanted. A heretical proposition by Vatican II. Admit, or Deny?

Or are you content with error?

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:29:40 PM »

Caminus, I couldn't help but laugh hearing this accusation that I'm the mole.

Search through my posts and you'll see (if not infer) my sentiments towards the Jews, toward Judaism, and everything that was abolished in the Old Law. As well as my feelings of false-trad contortionism and the mind acrobatics thereof that rival that of Cirque de soleil.

Come. Come meet me in person (PM me and I'll tell you what city in what state I live in) and see if I'm a mole. I'll even invite you into my home so you can see my place, my books, my life. I am proud to be Catholic. But please don't get offended if I watch you like a hawk once you're here... never know if you'll plant a bug in my house or something. On second thought, maybe we can just meet at a restaurant or something neutral.

See me , Cam? I'm such a big bad sede aren't I. Chock full of self-righteousness and indignation towards everything and all that isn't sedevacantist. WRONG. I am , by God's grace alone, seeking Truth in all things. The more I read spiritual works by saints of old, the more I stand back in awe at why God picked me and how deficient I feel to even hold the torch. I am nothing. I am nothing without Jesus.

Gregory I · « **Reply #18 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:45:27 PM »

The Problem with "Sedevacantism,"is that it is a loaded term that makes people think of cults.

We need a new word, but none seems to fit as well.

Perhaps: Negator-pontificiarum-haeresim-ist?

s2srea · « **Reply #19 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:48:06 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.

Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?

Are you going tot answer any of the actual responses to your OP Mr. Caminus?

s2srea · « **Reply #20 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:49:48 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?

I'm not one to demand apologies, but you owe one to PIO, like stat. That was bullshit.

Gregory I · « **Reply #21 on:** September 28, 2011, 07:34:36 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

The SVC doesn't really need to be "accepted", for the most part, by Catholics who know the Faith, in my opinion. Just go on with life as you knew it before the Council. Nothing new has been defined, many things have just been restated. Only those things themselves, which were already known, can compel anyone's assent.

Then you don't understand how the hierarchy YOU consider valid views the council. They have redefined the nature of the Church and SAY so. The Novus Ordo Establishment is not the Catholic Church. The "Pope" is not the Pope of the Catholic Church, he is only the Patriarch of the Novus Ordo Establishment. They admit to this and SAY so.

TKGS · « **Reply #22 on:** September 28, 2011, 07:38:48 PM »

Quote from: Stephen Francis

Quote from: TKGS
I'd like to point out that if it is a valid Catholic Council, then, even if it did not invoke the Extraordinary Magisterium, it is still a part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which is also protected by infallibility.

I'm afraid you're mistaken slightly, my friend. For a Church Council (which V2 was NOT; it was a crowd of heretics shouting down the traditionalists in attendance) to even be part of the Ordinary Magisterium, it must, just like any other infallible pronouncement, be established by ALL OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH IN UNANIMITY. That, of course, did not and could not have happened by any stretch of the imagination.

Remember that the Holy Father must promulgate dogmatic statements as Head of the Church IN CONCORD with ALL of the Bishops. Dissent among our shepherds OBVIOUSLY indicates the lack of the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, Who would otherwise "teach [you] all truth" (St. John 16:13).

You should re-read my comment, please. I said, "IF...

Quote from: LordPhan

Actually you are mistaken, I explained this in another thread, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, when people say that something "PARTICIPATES" in the Ordinary Magisterium, they mean that it can be used to prove that something is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Since to prove that something is part of the Ordinary Magisterium one must prove that it was always believed, thus, they look at everything from the Authentic Magisterium and see if there is a continuity.

But nothing can be added to the Ordinary Magisterium, Dogma's cannot be created, they can be defined if they already exist however.

You really need to learn what the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is. This is the living, teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You are correct that the Church cannot make new doctrines, but the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium need not be identical through time, since doctrine has indeed developed since the beginning of the Church. What the Church teaches, we are bound in conscience to believe. If it was not this way, we could never be sure of anything without searching through all theological manuals through history to determine how every teaching is in conformity of with the Fathers and Doctors. We have to be able to trust the Church. The term, "Authentic Magisterium" is a novelty.

I realize I am not the most eloquent writer. Perhap one should read someone who can make an argument a little better than I. You can find the text (and a link to the audio) at:

http://www.thefourmarks.com/Daly.htm

Quote from: Gregory I

The Problem with "Sedevacantism,"is that it is a loaded term that makes people think of cults.

We need a new word, but none seems to fit as well.

Perhaps: Negator-pontificiarum-haeresim-ist?

I would like to suggest: Catholicism. Others can be called Neo-Traditionalists or Modernists, as appropriate.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #23 on:** September 28, 2011, 08:28:48 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

The Problem with "Sedevacantism,"is that it is a loaded term that makes people think of cults.

We need a new word, but none seems to fit as well.

Perhaps: Negator-pontificiarum-haeresim-ist?

Dunno if that'll catch on! :wink:

Maybe "Interregnumism".

Caminus · « **Reply #24 on:** September 28, 2011, 08:49:01 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Caminus
Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?

I'm not one to demand apologies, but you owe one to PIO, like stat. That was bull####.

Almost as much bullshit as claiming I'm a force for darkness without any reason whatsoever. This is not the first, nor the second, but part of a long series of little gratuitous cheapshots from the virulent sedevacantist peanut gallery; dangerous sectarians that unwittingly destroy the essential nature of the Church no less effectively than Ratzinger's ecclesiology.

As to your first comment, no one has really fulfilled the request in the OP sufficiently, though at least Gregory I attempted, to which I shall reply in due time. I also see that the same fundamental error regarding the nature of the ordinary and universal magisterium has popped up again which, I believe, is at root of much of the problem in analyzing the matter in a correct light, but that has been dealt with elsewhere. Tele fouled out with his first post considering that the note "proximate to heresy" is a perfectly legitimate expression used by theologians and the magisterium. Of course, he takes a foreign term that he does not understand and uses it as imaginary fodder for more shallow and gratuitous cheapshots only discovering his own ignorance and malice in the process. Truly an embarrassment.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #25 on:** September 28, 2011, 08:51:39 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

That's quite an odd statement considering that we supposedly share the same divine faith and reject the same errors. Are you saying that only SV's "walk in the light"? Are you saying that Catholics need something other than the true faith to remain faithful to Christ, for he who is in Christ is not in darkness, but in light.

Ya know, the more you talk, the more it seems like your're really some kind of mole making these absurd comments to sow discord. Did you say you were once a Jew?

Caminus, for some reason you have really changed lately. Just a few months ago you were making contributive posts and blowing neo-Caths out of the water, now here you are defending the Vatican II docuмents and calling PartyIsOver a mole. First of all I've never seen PIO say he was a Jew, and even if he used to be you can't hold people's past sins that they've already repented for against them. You need to do some repenting of your own after that post.

And how about addressing the points we've made on this thread? We've all answered your question and have provided proof that Vatican II was a heretical council, now we're waiting for your response.

Caminus · « **Reply #26 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:31:54 PM »

SS,

I'm not sure if you realize it, but it is precisely because of sloppy thinking, poor philosophy and theology and a thousand distortions of fact and principle that has caused this mess. In assessing the situation, I refuse to tolerate the same kind of sloppy thinking, poor philosophy and a thousand distortions of fact and principle on our side. The emotionally driven neo-catholicism is not less abhorrent than an emotionally driven traditionalism. A physician is bound to correctly diagnose his patient, if he asserts that the heart is sick when it is really the brain, he will wrongly treat the patient. It is the same sick patient that we are dealing with, no one disagrees that he is stricken with an illness, but we must understand the nature of the sickness in order to provide a cure.

Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.

So if we're going to venture into these waters, we must be absolutely certain of our statements and methods; of our premises and conclusions. This is no time for lazy thinking or tired canards that take the place of sound reasoning which takes, time, study and patience. The fact that one concludes that there are no heresies strictly so-called within the texts of Vatican II doesn't equate to defending one iota of the destruction of the Church or the errors it contains in seed. If there are no heresies strictly so-called in the Council, then one must stop asserting it and analyze the matter correctly. Don't you find it a bit odd that if there are so many heresies in Vatican II, no one can agree on what they are? Heresies of old were identifiable and definite, addressed by the Church as such. Additionally, if you'll note the OP, you must correctly apply a censure to any given proposition which is not an easy task to begin with.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #27 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:40:46 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

In assessing the situation, I refuse to tolerate the same kind of sloppy thinking, poor philosophy and a thousand distortions of fact and principle on our side.

"Our side"? I don't think it's a very good idea to split Traditional Catholics into different groups/sides. Perhaps when dealing with people such as David Landry (assuming he's even a Traditional Catholic), but to do so in general is rather immature. I haven't seen anyone else do that much if any here since May when the sedes got into a big fight with stevus that started in January.

Quote

A physician is bound to correctly diagnose his patient, if he asserts that the heart is sick when it is really the brain, he will wrongly treat the patient. It is the same sick patient that we are dealing with, no one disagrees that he is stricken with an illness, but we must understand the nature of the sickness in order to provide a cure.

Who are we trying to diagnose? Sedevacantists? How about diagonising people who actually NEED it like modernists or extremists like David Hobson?

Quote

So if we're going to venture into these waters, we must be absolutely certain of our statements and methods; of our premises and conclusions. This is no time for lazy thinking or tired canards that take the place of sound reasoning which takes, time, study and patience.

I am certain of my statements and methods. But earlier you jumped to conclusions by saying I said John XXIII was a Mason. I never said that! I only said there is evidence. I never said it's a fact that he was one.

Quote

Don't you find it a bit odd that if there are so many heresies in Vatican II, no one can agree on what they are? Heresies of old were identifiable and definite, addressed by the Church as such. Additionally, if you'll note the OP, you must correctly apply a censure to any given proposition which is not an easy task to begin with.

We have all done so. We have provided heretical statments and have stated why they are heretical. You don't think it's heretical for them to say they "regard with high-esteem the Muslims" and that they adore God? They reject Jesus Christ! They cannot worship God. That is just one of numerous heretical statements in the docuмents.

Gregory I · « **Reply #28 on:** September 28, 2011, 11:29:09 PM »

Caminus, do you believe there was ANYTHING heretical taught at Vatican II? Have you READ all the docuмents of Vatican II and taken into account...

Pascendi, Lamentabilis, Quanta Cura, Mirari Vos, Auctorem Fidei, Mediator Dei, Humani Generis, Sacramentum Ordinis, Mystici Corporis Christi, Mortalium Animos, Pastor Aeternus, etc...These ALONE refute ALL of Vatican II.

I think perhaps you are saying Vatican II is WRONG...but you are trying to school us into the proper categories of thought so that we can see which parts are wrong, and how, correct?

But why are you qualified in this way?

I have a fun exercise for everyone. Read Pastor Aeternus. Then Read Lumen Gentium. If you see no contradiction, you are blind. :)

TKGS · « **Reply #29 on:** September 29, 2011, 07:06:25 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Just the other evening I read something from a "traditionalist" Catholic who mocked the Little Flower, St. Therese, calling her the Little Stinkweed. Why? Because he perceived that she undermined Catholic doctrine. It was a grotesque thing to behold.

So...what has this to do with the way you've been acting of late? Because some unidentified "traditionalist" Catholic (as characterized by you) author unjustly mocked St. Therese somewhere, you think it acceptable to make bitter and unjust comments about members of this forum?

No truly traditional Catholic mocks an undoubtedly Catholic saint (she was Canonized in 1925) in such a manner. The fact that you call him a "traditionalist" indicates to me that he is more a pseudo-traditionalist than truly traditional.

Your behaviour of late has been truly shocking.