It is interesting.  I have pages and pages of notes I have taken of parts that are problematic.  However, they are almost all simply due to ambiguity.  And, ambiguity partly uses as a vehicle catholicism, so it is difficult raising my objection to the level of having to blow of the steam in a post about it.  yes, it is problematic, but not always enough to get me to rage about it.  However, the ambiguity like I mentioned is pages and pages worth.  If ambiguity is a problem, and it is, then 95% of the council is not acceptable.  I would say that only 5% of the council(so far at least, I am only 3-5 docuмents into it) is acceptable.  The ambiguity is that bad as we can see, and it floods the docuмents.  I think that is why we see such small books(time bombs) covering this massive council, and why you have me mentioning that I have pages and pages worth, but have only posted about 5% of my notes in this forum.  It is an interesting phenomenon.  I would like to post about so much, but am really not inclined.  Because, it could be interpreted that I am criticizing catholicism.  It is interesting to me. 

You really have to read it for yourself.  Which, I don't really recommend.  It is a labor.  And, there is the time bombs book and surely a couple others by sspx to read that are a good read.  

Ambiguity in catechesis("pastoral" council remember), which is a novel idea and why we say novelty, with strategically placed time bombs, is really the main problem with the council.  

However, I am not sure that you can have ambiguity without the time bombs.  They are really a product of what the ambiguity implies.  This is why you see +Fellay saying such favorable things about the Jєωs(older brothers, 6 million h0Ɩ0cαųst true and real crap).  Fellay thinks 95% of the council is acceptable, and voila, fellay no longer is wary of the Jєωs, and parades in front of them in interviews like a fool.  They are twin sisters.  Reading these docuмents really lowers my opinion of Fellay.  Because, 95% of the council is not acceptable.  Unless you have an ambiguous interpretation of what the word acceptable is.  Do you see where it leads?  "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is"?  Catholics are traditionalists, we are not revolutionaries, as st. Pius X said.  

The church today # 69 - "If a person is in extreme necessity, he has the right to take from the riches of others what he himself needs".  And, v2 cites thomas aquinas in this.  Apparently aquinas says "in extreme necessity all goods are common, that is all goods are to be shared".  

Is this not theft?  As far as I know there is such a thing as "river law", suggesting to me that all water is accessible and free.  But, I have never heard of "bread law" for the hungry, or "clothing law" for the naked, or shelter law for the homeless, or any other law of corporal necessity.  Oh wait, in our society we have cell phone law(free cell phones for the homeless).  Other than that, we cannot walk up into a store and pluck some clothing because of perceived extreme necessity.  Christ was crucified with only a towel around the waist as clothing, so perhaps adam an eves plant leaf is done away with, but outside of that, I don't know where Christ approves of such theft as this.  

We can all use a good laugh(or cry).  Church today # 38 - "He cals some to give clear witness to the desire for a heavenly home and to keep that desire green among the human family".  

Green is not always a sign of life.  Gangrene is a sign of death.  This is how flawed this ambiguious v2 linguistic philosophy is.  There was another one, where it said "let the gospel ferment".  Fermentation is not always a good thing.  I think the swamp is at times a product of fermentation, and those are not waters of life.  Can you even baptize with swamp water?

The church today # 42 - "christ gave his church no proper mission in the political, economic, or social order".  Does I even need to comment?  This seems outrageous to say the least.  

That is true in the sense that the Church is not here to serve a particular political party. 

It is interesting to note the lamentable trend over the past 700 years to centralize education and seminary training.  Vatican 2 in this sense did not disappoint.  The apprentice seminary system was fully canned with the council of trent.   And with v2, you now have the endorsement of "seminaries serving several dioceses, a whole national section, or a nation itself should be set up and fostered".   

The church today # 69 - "If a person is in extreme necessity, he has the right to take from the riches of others what he himself needs".  And, v2 cites thomas aquinas in this.  Apparently aquinas says "in extreme necessity all goods are common, that is all goods are to be shared". 

I would not even read those docuмents if I were you, the danger here is they are designed to confuse and confound whoever reads the evil things. There are many places within those lying V2 docuмents where they falsely reference St. Thomas, Trent, V1, saints, Doctors and Fathers, etc,.

It is only a matter of time, you will be defeated by the immense amount of nonsensical ambiguity offering multiple, meaningless meanings to nearly everything - but clarity usually surfaces, however  briefly, whenever there is a particular truth that they want to twist into a particular error.


 

   

There was a section regarding auxiliary bishops.  And, I couldn't help but think about how it seems detrimental to have all of these degrees of bishops.  Has there within the church ever been criticism of having bishops like auxiliary for example probably functioning as nothing more than monsignors?  It seems like an injustice.  "Today I consecrate thee a bishop, and I sentence thee to a lifetime of idleness in a distant corner of my diocese".  

I mean, I don't think auxiliary of coadjutor bishops are ever mentioned in the una cuм.   Instead of all orthodox bishops in good health having their own flock to shepherd, they have coadjutor bishops who basically share their right to a diocese with another full bishop who pretends to just barely have more authority than he.  It almost seems like collegiality to me by proxy.  Because, the end is the same.  Collegiality is to infringe on the rights of another/other bishop, and to influence the happenings and infringe on the authority of a bishop in his own diocese.  Only the pope is to have that authority/ability.

There was a section regarding auxiliary bishops.  And, I couldn't help but think about how it seems detrimental to have all of these degrees of bishops.  Has there within the church ever been criticism of having bishops like auxiliary for example probably functioning as nothing more than monsignors?  It seems like an injustice.  "Today I consecrate thee a bishop, and I sentence thee to a lifetime of idleness in a distant corner of my diocese".  

I mean, I don't think auxiliary of coadjutor bishops are ever mentioned in the una cuм.   Instead of all orthodox bishops in good health having their own flock to shepherd, they have coadjutor bishops who basically share their right to a diocese with another full bishop who pretends to just barely have more authority than he.  It almost seems like collegiality to me by proxy.  Because, the end is the same.  Collegiality is to infringe on the rights of another/other bishop, and to influence the happenings and infringe on the authority of a bishop in his own diocese.  Only the pope is to have that authority/ability.

The purpose of the auxiliary bishops is to assist the bishop in the running of his diocese. If the diocese is large and there is a large number of people, more than what one bishop can handle then the auxiliary bishop is there to help him, not sit in a corner with nothing to do. Canon law assigns them specific functions to perform in assistance to the bishop in question.