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.

1.11 - here is a time bomb, it is quoted in the second paragraph.  But first, please somebody cite me an authority that teaches two ends of marriage before the council of trent.  Please, somebody cite me an authority that teaches two ends of marriage before casti connubii.  After 40 years of wandering in that "two ends" desert we come to 1960s70s with vatican two were the two ends are officially reversed.  Casti connubi is a gateway.  But, Catholics no longer are to wander in the desert.  Look in denzinger.  For well over a thousand years, there was only one end of marriage.  And, it was the procreation/raising of children.  How can there be two ends of marriage anyways?  Are there two ends of the sacrament of orders?  Is not the end that is God, also the same end that is our happiness as st augustine said about our hearts restlessness?  Is "two ends" theology not suspicious?  Not only will our end that is God be satisfying, but also the path to God satisfying.  Why pretend that the path is an end in itself?  It reminds me of the v2 laity "faith journey" end in itself, with the priests end being to "accompany" them.  Christ had a parable about stocking our barn full with our fruits and calling it quits considering that full barn our end.  He said about them you fool, and his life was demanded that night.  

Because, it is in the v2 docuмents that we have the reversed ends of marriage.  Humane vitae was not the first to do it.  Here is the quote from v2 - "The spouses thereby help each other to attain to holiness in their married life and by the rearing and education of children".  Does that not sound like two ends of marriage to you?  The word "and" suggests it.  If there were not two ends being suggested, there would be no use for the word and.  And, if and doesn't exist in latin, why try to describe it in two different ways, as if it is two different things?  And, is the procreation and education of children not mentioned second?  This goes along with the v2 desire for married priests.  Scott hahn is the high priest of the new v2 husband priest religion.  Just think of all the "conservative" authors of the v2 church.  They are all husbands.  Neither the holy spirit female wives, nor the god the father male husbands of v2 can confect the sacraments.  They cannot be in the confessional when you "approach".  It is perverted.  The priest is the one who helps us attain holiness.  It is the priest who sanctifies us in the person of Christ(our way) with the sacraments.  And, that includes spouses.  It is not the other spouse who sanctifies.  The next sentence says " and so in their state and way of life, they have their own special gift among the people of god".  Yep, nothing about children.  You have to wait until a new following section to hear about the family, but children is not a favored word there.   There is no mention that the child is actually to be that particular special gift.  

Here is a time bomb.  "Explicit intention"  1.14 - Catechumens who moved by the holy spirit seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the church are by that very intention join to her".  What exactly is an explicit intention?  Intention is something that occurs in the mind and or heart.  And, these are interior matters, not exterior matters.  And, something that is explicit is something that is exterior.  So, an explicit intention cannot be.  It does not exist.  So, I think this is a diabolical phrase/concept.  

Next, the traditional explicit intention would be manifested in the shedding of ones blood or martyrdom.  The blood is an interior matter.  So, that could be accurately described as an explicit intention.  However, we are not to seek martyrdom.  So, to add to the problem of new ambiguous contradictory language, they are promoting seeking martyrdom.  Which, we are taught by the church scripture and tradition not to do.  But, this "moved to seek" phrase is also not clear.  That does not even imply the shedding of blood.  And, death(martydom of catechumen or death preventing reception of the sacrament) is the traditional barometer signifying when and how the church does allow such cases to be "joined to her".  But, "moved to seek" does not signify that really at all.  So, it is not even close to an adequate example of the three baptisms/true baptism of desire.  

 :applause:

docuмent 1 point 54 on the church.  Mary is the "mother of Christ and mother of all men, particularly of the faithful".  I have never really heard mary regarded as the mother of non catholics/all religions, but this phrase implies that.  

docuмent 1 point 68 -  This could be a big one. "the mother of jesus continues in this present world as the image and first flowering of the church as she is to be perfected in the world to come.  Likewise, mary shines forth on earth, until the day of the lord shall come as a sign of sure hope and solace for the pilgrim people of God."

So, is this passage a suggestion that mary indeed is the woman with a beard in the year of mercy logo promoted by vatican 2, yet to be perfected?  Check my past threads I started to find that one.  It is the cartoon looking logo where jesus carries a person with what looks like a beard over his shoulders like a lamb, and their eyes form one eye.  However, the beard is not a beard but a heart, and the person is really a woman.  Or is this a suggestion that mary continued on earth yet to be perfected is the white witch that the louis de montfort worships under the label of the virgin mary in his true devotion book?  Or is it just the Jєωιѕн shekinah?  I will tell you what I think.  I think it is all three.  

docuмent 1 point 54 on the church.  Mary is the "mother of Christ and mother of all men, particularly of the faithful".  I have never really heard mary regarded as the mother of non catholics/all religions, but this phrase implies that.  

docuмent 1 point 68 -  This could be a big one. "the mother of jesus continues in this present world as the image and first flowering of the church as she is to be perfected in the world to come.  Likewise, mary shines forth on earth, until the day of the lord shall come as a sign of sure hope and solace for the pilgrim people of God."

So, is this passage a suggestion that mary indeed is the woman with a beard in the year of mercy logo promoted by vatican 2, yet to be perfected?  Check my past threads I started to find that one.  It is the cartoon looking logo where jesus carries a person with what looks like a beard over his shoulders like a lamb, and their eyes form one eye.  However, the beard is not a beard but a heart, and the person is really a woman.  Or is this a suggestion that mary continued on earth yet to be perfected is the white witch that the louis de montfort worships under the label of the virgin mary in his true devotion book?  Or is it just the Jєωιѕн shekinah?  I will tell you what I think.  I think it is all three.  

Mary is the mother of all peoples. I know from experience a singular help that she gave to a certain Muslim who prayed the rosary. 

Why do some still persist in defending a subversive and heretical attack upon the Catholic Church? It was an effort by the Church's ancient enemies to ruin the Faith and destroy the Church. It has been largely successfull, so why do you look to give it a benefit of doubt? It should be seen for what it was and thouroughly rejected in toto, by a true Catholic.