Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: PG on April 07, 2018, 11:11:01 AM
-
As a traditional catholic and CI member of about 5 years or so, I am very familiar with the problems in the church, and the problems of vatican 2. I have read commentary(time bombs - great little book) and listened to countless sermons about how bad the council docuмents are. But, I have not yet read the docuмents for myself. And, I feel it is important and useful to do so. So, I have purchased a book containing all of the docuмents, and I started reading the other day. I am taking notes, and I plan to share with CI to a degree the fruits of my labor. Because, I am finding some real time bombs, and I think this will also help inspire me to finish the book, because I suspect it may be laborious. I think that because it is a real labor for me to read modernist psycho babble writings. They are just so painful sometimes. Most of the time it is weaponized length to lull one to sleep and pass over the few deadly sentences. I have noticed that already in the first docuмent. When I notice myself waning the most, I find I need to pay the most attention, because those are the deadly sections. So, it is a labor.
I plan on updating as I read, and I am not planning on being too strict about how I update. It may just be casual and brief to keep it fun and not too serious. So, I hope you enjoy and find it useful.
-
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 - "Those who approach the sacrament of penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for offenses committed against him". So, now all you have to do is approach confession and you are forgiven. v2 presumes that every confessor will be padre pio in the confessional. When, the opposite has been prepared. Confessors are ignorant, poorly trained, and careless. What a perfect storm. Only approach them an you are forgiven. This is a deadly sentence. In normal times it would be a gateway. In crisis times it is a time bomb.
-
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.
-
1.13 - "Those who enter the religious state, and tending toward holiness by a narrow path". This implies to me, when they say the spouses first end of marriage is helping the other spouse attain holiness, that clergy and spouses walk different paths. The clergy enter by the narrow path. And, the spouses therefore tend by a "wide(er)" path. This is probably why they think that spouses replace the priests in their relationship. But, Christ said it is the wide path that leads to destruction. So, surely spouses do not walk that path, or a path separate from the priests. If so, marriage would not be holy. I think that the spouses walk the narrow path. But, they serve a different purpose and fulfill a different function on that narrow path. And, while on that path, the priest/religious ministers to them, not the spouse.
-
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.
-
1.17 adds fire to the flame about the inner dynamism of other religions by saying that this catholic substance found in non catholic/christian religions that is "found latent" "is not only saved from destruction but is also healed, ennobled and perfected unto the glory of god, the confusion of the devil, and the happiness of man". In other words, we will promote all false religions and promote the catholic good within them to remain within them and not to "subsist" in the church. V2 really hates catholic tradition and the catholic church. It wants to do away with it, and it says it in so many ways endlessly throughout this docuмent. This is really a diabolical docuмent.
-
:applause:
-
As a traditional catholic and CI member of about 5 years or so, I am very familiar with the problems in the church, and the problems of vatican 2. I have read commentary(time bombs - great little book) and listened to countless sermons about how bad the council docuмents are. But, I have not yet read the docuмents for myself. And, I feel it is important and useful to do so. So, I have purchased a book containing all of the docuмents, and I started reading the other day. I am taking notes, and I plan to share with CI to a degree the fruits of my labor. Because, I am finding some real time bombs, and I think this will also help inspire me to finish the book, because I suspect it may be laborious. I think that because it is a real labor for me to read modernist psycho babble writings. They are just so painful sometimes. Most of the time it is weaponized length to lull one to sleep and pass over the few deadly sentences. I have noticed that already in the first docuмent. When I notice myself waning the most, I find I need to pay the most attention, because those are the deadly sections. So, it is a labor.
I plan on updating as I read, and I am not planning on being too strict about how I update. It may just be casual and brief to keep it fun and not too serious. So, I hope you enjoy and find it useful.
I think you should take the time to read the docuмents themselves.
-
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.
-
2nd docuмent on revelation. Here is a big one. Here is the direct contradiction of the 1967 oath against modernism.
point 5 - The obedience of faith must be given to god who reveals, an obedience by which man entrusts his whole self freely to god, "offering the full submission of intellect and will to god who reveals, and freely assenting to the truth revealed by him. If this faith is to be shown, the grace of god and the interior help of the holy spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind, and giving joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it."
This is saying that if you are willing to assent(another way of saying that if you have a will trained to morality), the holy spirit MUST precede and move your heart which in turn opens your eyes to that very revelation. It is a denial of the anti modernist oath. It is a direct contradiction. Here is the anti modernist oath related to this passage/idea.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. [/color]
-
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.
-
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 was a Muslim praying the rosary? It seems to me that said Muslim was interested in Catholicism and seeked the truth, and perhaps Mary lent him aid to try and bring him to the Catholic fold.
-
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.
-
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.
Who are you talking to/about here?
-
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."
How can it be that mary is not yet perfected? Mary was assumed into heaven and crowned as queen. She is in heaven, and is therefore perfected. This says she is still with us on earth and to be perfected in the world to come. This seems like clear cut heresy to me.
-
PG, here is a gold mine on LG: https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/158994906/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated (https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/158994906/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated)
-
"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.
Could the "she" here mean the church, rather than Mary? That the church is to be perfected in the world to come? The church is always spoken of in the feminine form "she"; like a ship is always referred to as "she". Either way, it's poorly worded and confusing. If it is meant to speak of Our Lady, then I agree that it smells heretical.
-
"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.
Could the "she" here mean the church, rather than Mary? That the church is to be perfected in the world to come? The church is always spoken of in the feminine form "she"; like a ship is always referred to as "she". Either way, it's poorly worded and confusing. If it is meant to speak of Our Lady, then I agree that it smells heretical.
It's not worth even trying to decipher. All these paragraphs, the one you quoted included, are often utterly meaningless. Full of weasel words and grammatical errors that make discerning the actual meaning impossible, so that they can later revise what they said to have a different meaning if they're ever called up on it.
-
1st mansion tennant and forlorn - It think that 1st mansion points out something important. I think it is under that auspice(the church as she) that this overall statement is made. However, it is worded such as to suggest another view. And, that is problematic. And, that other view happens to be in line with a diabolical theology(feminism) on the rise in our antichristian society. So, I still think there is a correlation. It will be necessary to compare this with the latin, and to proceed from there.
-
PG, here is a gold mine on LG: https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/158994906/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated (https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/158994906/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated)
Lumen Gentium Annotated – In his Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, on December 22, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI said that Vatican II was misinterpreted to be a break with the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. That is, Pope Benedict said that the wrong “hermeneutics” were applied to the council’s teachings. The present study investigates his claim, placing side-by-side the teachings of Lumen Gentium and the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qtIL172DL._SX346_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
Why was a Muslim praying the rosary? It seems to me that said Muslim was interested in Catholicism and seeked the truth, and perhaps Mary lent him aid to try and bring him to the Catholic fold.
It is because the Holy Virgin is the mother of everybody.
-
"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.
Could the "she" here mean the church, rather than Mary? That the church is to be perfected in the world to come? The church is always spoken of in the feminine form "she"; like a ship is always referred to as "she". Either way, it's poorly worded and confusing. If it is meant to speak of Our Lady, then I agree that it smells heretical.
The Holy Virgin is the first daughter of the Church.
-
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.
Explicitness and implicitness have nothing whatsoever to do with externality and internality.
If it is my will to eat this apple here, being cognisant of this as an object of thought, it is an explicit intention, whether or not I announce the fact or ever make it known.
Something implicit is something that is implied - I’m not sure that an “implicit intention” is an intention at all, but more a consequence of an explicit intention - maybe if I intend to get from point A to point B, not knowing that I need to take the bus, taking the bus is an implicit intention - though there is no guarantee I will intend to take it when I find out I need to!
-
Explicitness and implicitness have nothing whatsoever to do with externality and internality.
If it is my will to eat this apple here, being cognizant of this as an object of thought, it is an explicit intention, whether or not I announce the fact or ever make it known.
Something implicit is something that is implied - I’m not sure that an “implicit intention” is an intention at all, but more a consequence of an explicit intention - maybe if I intend to get from point A to point B, not knowing that I need to take the bus, taking the bus is an implicit intention - though there is no guarantee I will intend to take it when I find out I need to!
Well, an online dictionary says that intention is something that is determined mentally. And something determined mentally is obviously something determined internally. Because, matters of the mind are internal matters. And, something explicit is described in the same dictionary as something clearly developed or formulated. Something with a clear developed form is something that in both cases can be observed with at least one of the five senses. And, the five sense deal with exterior or objective matters, not interior or subjective matters.
You provide a useful way of thinking about explicitness and implicitness with your point A to B analogy. But, you err by rejecting the interior nature of intention. Here is how I am thinking about this. Our fate is not in our own hands. Our fate is in Gods hands. As a consequence, none of us can truly manifest and explicit intention. One could say "I intend to receive the sacrament of baptism by water at the end of my catechism formation". However, God could cause an earthquake that results in the death of such person. And, that would determine such intention as only an implicit intention, because such person did not know how to get from A to B. They didn't even know it is entirely in Gods hands. So much for that soul's explicit A to B intention. So, an explicit A to B does not exist for the catholic. Intention is an implied matter. And, something implied as with something intentional, is something that is subject. And that something subject is something subject to us.
God is the author of our lives. We can never exhibit an explicit intention. That is why catholics often say "God willing" when we speak of our intentions.
-
doc. revelation chapter 6.26 - In this way therefore through the reading and study of the sacred books, let the world of the lord "run" and be glorified. This is a perfect example of the ambiguous and novel language embraced by this council. Let the word of the lord run. What exactly does that mean? Only the modernist knows. Because, the modernist is divided. The modernist is ambiguous. And, that's the problem.
-
Doc the church in modern world preface - 2 - "He was crucified and rose again to break the strangle hold on personified evil".
from online dictionary -
to attribute human nature or character to (an inanimate object or an abstraction), as in speech or writing.
This passage of v2 suggests that v2 does not believe in the devil. It treats angels, in this case lucifer, as if they are inanimate or lifeless objects. If this is the case, then what exactly happened to Christ in the desert with his temptations? The devil was just an abstraction huh? Christ must have been hallucinating, if we take this section at its word. The latin this is translated from is "malignus".
-
docuмent on the liturgy
"Proper disposition" replaces sanctifying grace.
Example of contradiction - "The priest can never innovate when it comes to the liturgy, unless the good of the church genuinly requires it".
"Latin can constitute a grave obsticle in the divine office Liturgy. Really, how can that be so. How can latin possibly constitute a grave obstacle?
This docuмent clearly forshadows the changing and revising of all of the sacraments. I do not know how a traditionalist bishop could ever sign this docuмent.
simpler melodies for small churches. Remember this is within the context of having all of the congregation sing and chant. And, it emphasizes simple for small churches. And, that suggests more complex for large churches. However, in practice, this is the worst thing you could do for large congregation singing. In large churches, complex singing by mass amatuer/beginner/awful singers will never work and will sound terrible. In small churches, you could actually potentially sing complex hymns with the whole congregation because the small space will limit the distortion that distance will create with sound waves so on so forth. So, here they have it backwards, and they emphasize it as such.
Flip this on its head, if it is just chant singing done by a choir, simpler hyms would be better for smaller churches because they do not have the resources to accomodate complex hymns for the choir. That usually requires professionals, and only in a big city with big church and big church funds can a professional choir normally be supported. So, it is all backwards here.
This docuмent actually rejects the repugnant art that we see so common in vatican 2! ch 3 124 "Let bishops carefully exclude from the house of god and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by their distortion of forms or by lack of artistic worth, be mediocrity or by pretense."
-
Here is an interesting one from the docuмent on the liturgy. " Ordinaries must be very careful to see that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or allowed to deteriorate, for they are the ornaments of the house of God". What does newchurch do? Newchurch smashes the altars. Maybe turning the altar into a parking stopper(true story) is their way of seeing these works(a marble altar) as "valuable". They sell their churches to become skate parks and other debasing endeavors.
-
I forgot to mention another passage about personified evil. "Man sinned at the urging of personified evil".
"God who probes the heart, awaits him(man) there". There is the modernist god waiting for man in their heart, and welling up from their.
ch 1 15 church today. Here is something. It speaks of the "depths of conscience man detects as a law which he does not impose upon himself". That sounds an awful lot like the "depths of the subconscious" condemned in the anti modernist oath. Lets see what v2 has to say. "Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart more specifically, do this, shun that." If the voice of this so called conscience speaks to the heart, then that is the "subconscience" that the oath condemns.
The "Living and mature faith is one trained to see the difficulties clearly and to master them". This sounds a lot like what the antimodernist oath condemned concerning the will trained to morality.
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. [/color]
-
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 # 58 - "But at the same time, the church, sent to all peoples of every time and place, is not bound exclusively and indissolubly to any race or nation, nor to any particular way of life or any customary pattern of living, ancient or recent.
What this is saying in my opinion is that there is no such thing as a catholic culture. What it is doing here is combining something true(culture-ism) with something false(racism and nationalism) in order to get away with condemning something true(culture-ism) in its blanket condemnation. This way, catholics can never use culture as an instrument of evangelization. And, culture is a very important tool in evangelizing. The pearls belong to the pigs(the enemies of God), and the pig is cast before Christs pearl(the church).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
Could the "she" here mean the church, rather than Mary? That the church is to be perfected in the world to come? The church is always spoken of in the feminine form "she"; like a ship is always referred to as "she". Either way, it's poorly worded and confusing. If it is meant to speak of Our Lady, then I agree that it smells heretical.
Would that not be just as problematic? Is the Church not a "perfect society"?
-
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.
-
Here might be a real time bomb. It is from the docuмent on church missions. point # 21 -
"The church has not been truly established, and is not yet fully alive, nor is it a perfect sign of Christ among men, unless there exists a laity worthy of the name working along with the hierarchy. For the gospel cannot be deeply imprinted on the talents, life, and work of any people without active presence of laymen."
On its face, this seems wrong enough. But, then I thought about how the apostles were in the upper room with our Lady prior to the descent of the holy ghost. Catholic imagery depicts our lady among the apostles during the descent of the holy ghost/fire tongues. That for a brief moment held back my wrath concerning this passage of V2. However, not for long. Because, one, that is historical, our lady has already been assumed into heaven. And, two, with V2 and the new church, we see replacements of the virgin mary developing. A good example is found in the writings of sister faustina, how god elevates her above any creature up until that point. Not only that, but access to God in false religions often relies on the utility of women in the process. Being that v2 is a false religion, we can perhaps safely suspect such ideas developing(abomination of desolation women all over the altar).
If you study louis de montfort, you will find that louis de montfort exalts a woman also above the historical virgin mary by confusing our lady with a murderous godess temporal queen(which can exist, just recall england). Not only that, but elsewhere women in various manifestations are placed on an equal type footing with Jesus(year of mercy logo). A louis de montfort evengelist/promoter here on CI even said that the church always has with it throughout all ages a "half human half divine creature"(bingo, there is our girl again). I think this is who this v2 passage may be referring to and making room for by teaching such. This passage may be a real hell raiser.
You will be surprised to find that modern novus ordo women love the concept of the 5th mediatrix marian dogma. I have personally seen it in their eyes. Womens minds work differently than mens. And, it is not difficult to gather what it means. It means feminism 2.0
-
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".
-
I think you should take the time to read the docuмents themselves.
Oh boy! what an incredibly stupid statement! Did you even read the Opening Post.
-
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.
-
The docuмents on their face contain heresy, error, blashpemies, lies and insults against the the Church.
It is sufficient to know this.
The erroneous idea that they can be read in the light of Tradition is false, for what it does is to read a Traditional meaning into something which from its conception is not Traditional.
This false idea which has been used for decades to keep Catholics decieved as to the true nature of this
Jєωιѕн/Freemasonic attack upon the Faith of Chistians.
Like the New Order service they are not orthodox, and are not Catholic. When Rome approved and accepted these docuмents, She became the font of heterodoxy and doctrinal corruption.
-
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.
-
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.
If you don't read the docuмents then how can you criticize them intelligently?
-
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.
-
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.
The auxiliary NO bishop in my area seems to have nothing better to do than comment on the latest hollywood movie that has come out. It is my guess that these degrees of bishops is a more recent phenomenon(past 1000 years vs preceding). I can see the importance of a nuncio, and even archbishop for major cities. But, outside of that, I think it is a net negative. It seems like a grooming technique. Groom the bishop to be submissive by starting them early.
-
The auxiliary NO bishop in my area seems to have nothing better to do than comment on the latest hollywood movie that has come out. It is my guess that these degrees of bishops is a more recent phenomenon(past 1000 years vs preceding). I can see the importance of a nuncio, and even archbishop for major cities. But, outside of that, I think it is a net negative. It seems like a grooming technique. Groom the bishop to be submissive by starting them early.
Where I live the auxiliary bishops are busy doing confirmations, special masses, etc...
-
Where I live the auxiliary bishops are busy doing confirmations, special masses, etc...
The reason I think it is argued to be occurring is to ease transitions from priest to bishop and so on. But, that is flawed. Because, the sacraments confer sufficient grace. If a diocese is too large for one bishop to shepherd it, then the size needs to be changed. Because, this concept of having multiple assigned bishops to a diocese seems faulty, and inline with collegiality. And we think collegiality came out of nowhere. If it is a problem, and it is, then you not only have to reject it, but you have to reject its near occasions, especially when they are not traditionally traced back to the deposit of the faith/the apostles.