"With regard to the 'revocation' issue, you'll have to consider the Abrahamic Covenant when trying to discern their meaning."
Who are you, anyway, are you a Vatican II 'priest'? They are the only ones who suggest we must try to "discern the meaning" of Vatican II. The last I recall, Christ said "Let your answers be yes, yes, no, no, anything else is from the devil." Not "contradict yourself deliberately, be orthodox one day and heretical the next so people become worn-out and apathetic."
You're so deep in dream mode that you hadn't even considered that possibility. Now you preach simplicity to avoid embarrassment. I see that you too use Jesus' words to distract from the issue, cover over lies and avoid having to answer questions. I see a trend, when it suits you invoke simplicity in the face of cumbersome distinctions that expose your possible erroneous judgment, but when it comes to analyzing their "evil deeds" you wax eloquent about causes. Hypocrite.
Why would I spend my time trying to "discern the meaning" of apostates?
Can you for once stop begging the question? Your knees must be getting tired. I'm beginning to think you are a lost cause seeing how so personally invested you've become in certain opinions. Like Drolesky, your posts are dripping with emotion and anger. But like lust, anger blinds a man. So in the end, you become just as blind as John Paul, though for different reasons.
When I read their writings, I read them in order to study their methods of lying, like a police officer watching a suspect squirm in his seat as he keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper with conflicting accounts of where he was at 7 PM last night.
At least police officers try to be objective.
Anyway, I know their meaning very well.
No, actually, you don't. You know the meaning imposed on the text, sure, but this isn't the same as knowing their meaning.
The Popes before Vatican II and writers like Henri DeLassus put us on our guard against it. And before becoming Catholic I read lots of philosophy, garbage like Emmanuel Levinas and his talk of the "Other" -- meaning the Jew. Ratzinger uses PRECISELY the terminology of this Judaizer to speak of Jews.
For every similiarity, there is dissimilarity. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, that since a cat has four legs, and a dog has four legs, a cat must be a dog?
I know this whole early 20th century strain of nihilistic/New Age/Jewish gobbeldygook like the back of my hand, it's from Adorno and Heidegger and Rahner all jumbled together.
You must be very proud of yourself. Now, how 'bout one proposition that you know beyond any doubt constitutes canonical heresy. Thanks.
Do you want me to write you an essay on Charles Tournemire's "L'Orgue Mystique" and how this reflects the underside of the new liturgy, with its purposeful vagueness, and the way this plays on Jungian dream-states? Would that establish my academic credentials? I know exactly what they are trying to do in Vatican II, my friend. I have traced it to its root.
Sounds to me like you do alot of day dreaming, trying to connect the dots with the haze of conspiracy, and not alot of actual study regardind dogmatic theology. You're mind seems to be very close to mush, logically speaking.
Luckily since my fortuitous reading of Lumen Gentium I don't have to bother with even this anymore. Lumen Gentium is open heresy.
Rule #1 of the rational life: Just because you assert it, doesn't make it true. Apparently, this little section of LG has become that big intellectual life preserver. Now you don't have to do anymore work! Just sit back and spit out condemnations because you've got this thing pinned down.
You may think I am too obvious with my obviouslies -- I will continue to think you are ridiculous with your that's-ridiculouses. What part of this don't you understand? "Together with us Muslims worship the One True God." Boom. Basta. Out of the Church. Heretic. Mikey doesn't need to play anymore.
Apparently you either did not read what I wrote here and elsewhere or you have zero tolerance for making proper distinctions. I think this is more about your laziness than anything else. Its funny how you've made this your bread and butter. But, uh oh, now I come along while you and your buddies are slapping each other on the back and ask a couple of simple questions. Sorry to ruin your party.
Now for the last time, please demonstrate how asserting that Muslims worship the same God, an assertion of concrete fact regarding a particular group of people, directly denies an article of faith
. Don't just say it. Drop the attitude and prove it. What are you so afraid of?
And what part of JPII's "The Old Covenant has never been revoked" don't you understand?
You need to engage my points about this or put a sock in it.