CathInfo.com

.
Is this normal for a Catholic woman to spend her Sunday morning calling someone a "liar" instead of going to Mass?
.

2Vermont is all bent out of shape because she doesn't want to THINK about BoD or BoB -- Well, too bad. 

Now I'm calling you a liar.   ;D
 

.
You said you don't want to get into BoD arguments. That tells me you don't want to THINK about it, unless you normally get into arguments without thinking about what you're saying. That's the alternative. Do you want me to prove I'm not lying? 
.
Nobody is asking you to argue. That's your choice. But don't call me a liar if you know what's good for you.  ;D
.
.
.

And they're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church.  

Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier went to convert the poor souls in pagan lands precisely because they knew that they could not be saved otherwise.  So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?

.
They're promoting the very principle that has practically killed off the entire missionary spirit and zeal of the Church, as you say.
.
While they promote that very principle, they continue to complain that Vatican II also promotes the principle -- ? -- Why would anyone complain about it when they're contributing to it themselves?
.
If it's "the most damning of all statements" in Vatican II, what is it when the CMRI promotes it?
.
From the page,

                    Vatican II “in the Light of Tradition”?
                      Pastoral Letter by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

                              Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul
                              June 29, 1994
.
...Then comes the most preposterous statement of this entire Declaration:
.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”
.
What can be “good and holy” in the worship of false gods and in the practice of false religions?
.
Following this quote in the Declaration, there is a footnote which is the most damning of all statements:
.
“Through the centuries, however, missionaries often concluded that non-Christian religions are simply the work of Satan and that the missionaries’ task is to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach.”
.
Since Vatican Council II, no longer is it the role of the missionaries to convert the people of these religions to Catholicism; their new role is merely to promote the “good” in them?! This doctrine is directly opposed to the mission of the Catholic Church.
.
.
If the CMRI pretends to notice that this is opposed to the mission of the Church -- then why would the CMRI promote it??
.
Perhaps it's the fault of Vatican II that the CMRI pushes hard to promote the very principle that excuses people of false religions because it focuses exclusively on the "good in them." -?- By setting aside the necessity of Baptism and the necessity of the Sacraments, -?- All that is required of them is "invincible ignorance" -?- Which means you can't catechize them because then they'll lose their invincible ignorance. -?- By doing what the Missionaries of the Church have done since Apostolic times, suddenly Missionaries are now disrupting the well-being of non-Catholics??
.
As Ladislaus noted above, "So what's the point of missionary activity anymore, to just give them the "fullness" of the faith, as per Vatican II, even though said fullness is not strictly required for salvation?"
.
Perhaps it's the fault of Vatican II that the CMRI pushes hard with a doctrine that is directly opposed to the mission of the Church.
.
Perhaps it's ultimately someone else's fault, not the CMRI's fault.

Because they're in a state of cognitive dissonance.  They've tried to compartmentalize EENS away from the other modernist errors, but they do not understand that EENS-denial is at the root of the modernist errors.

.
You're too kind. Would that it can be explained away by a psychological aberration.
It seems to be a lot more serious than compartmentalization.
.
My exposure to how they cope with the Church's teaching on Modernism was very helpful for me. I went into the meeting believing that a good priest these days would be eager to help Catholics better understand what Modernism is and what we can do to stay far away from it in our own thinking.
.
If someone told me what I was about to see, I wouldn't have believed it. I could hardly believe my eyes as it was happening. But happen, IT DID.
.
Three other men asked him a question after I took the opportunity to highly recommend the study of Pascendi in order to understand Modernism, but that you can't just read it like a Jack London short story. That got their attention I suppose, because they could all be Jack London fans, I thought. The name evokes images of a poor man who strikes it rich by his unrelenting efforts as a writer. That, and fantastic images of powerful forces, both natural and human.
.
But the response the priest gave them when they asked him, "Father, what is Modernism... what is Pascendi?" took me entirely by surprise. I noticed that they did NOT ask him: Father, who is Jack London? If they had, he could have been equivalently as helpful if he had answered that London was a famous author whose short stories were about the same length as Pius X's encyclicals but not as challenging to read.