Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
Chapter 1.1 - speaks about how the church is a sacrament or sign of the unity of mankind. I think speaking about the unity of mankind is dangerous. Unless the church is going to say that Jєωs/enemies of God are not members of mankind/humanity, then speaking about the unity of mankind is problematic.
1.8 - The section about how the people of god "subsists" in the catholic church occurs. It is pretty subtle for being a time bomb. It does not come about in a climactic fashion. But, it sets of a chain of modernist sections in the docuмent. Immediately follows in the docuмent it says that the catholic elements found in other religions possess an "inner dynamism" toward catholic unity. I think this is an error, and it rides on the subsists sentence. This is basically saying imo that where catholic substance is found in other religions(God forbid), for one is not a bad thing, and that two there is no negative consequence to such an occurrence. So, schismatic sacraments are as always valid, but not as always are now licit. And, they are licit because their inner dynamism will will tend them towards catholic unity. This is against what the church has always taught. And, this does not solely refer to the schismatics or protestants. This inner dynamism appears to be regarding all religions. So, that is really against what the church teaches. Inner dynamism is a time bomb.
What I have noticed so far is that what is occurring is a cult creation of sorts from what is regarded as substance of catholicism, with cult being a bad thing. Inner dynamism is not just promoted as a definition, but in practice it is progressed with actual catholic substance cult in newchurch. There is a cult of the 3rd person of the trinity at the expense of likely other persons of the trinity. I think this is why so many bishops signed these docuмents, and why people argue there are no errors in the council, but the error is in the interpretation/implementation of the council. We think that there is no negative effect to speaking(in this case excessively) about only one or certain elements of catholicism, but it turns out that we indeed need to more so speak about our faith as a whole, lest we do harm to other elements, which has occurred as seen from v2.
How do we combat this? I think only with simplicity. The faith if spoken of as a whole can only be spoken about simply, utilizing mystery as an explanation/answer for complex matters. When you go into great detail, it is into one aspect or another of our faith. And, I think the council has weaponized going into too great detail(purposely) on certain subjects, so that it can cause harm to other aspects/details of our faith, in turn splitting the church. Intellectual clergy probably did not pick up on this because they regularly indulge in such theological dissection, and see it as harmless, but others(apparently not bishops) know this can be weaponized. And, that is what has occurred. The churchmen of the council were not on guard. They did not stay awake and watch with our Lord. So, now we can see the benefit of approaching our theology and faith in a more simple manner. That is my opinion. The council that can indulge in complex matters is the holy council gathered in a monastery. Monastics contemplate God. And, like the las vegas saying. What happens in the monastery, stays in the monastery. A visible church council does not successfully contemplate this, as we can all see. So much for the university.