So, for instance, if I'm living during the reign of Pius IX and he declares the dogma of papal infallibility, and I think that infallibility is heretical, all I need to do is to say, "Aha! Pius IX is a heretic." in order to reject the dogma of papal infallibility. And so forth. That is a real problem that cannot be understated.
In the time leading up to the definition of papal infallibility, a LOT of Catholics didn't believe in it. Let's say I didn't believe in it back then. Once the Church defined it, the Catholic response must be, "Ooops. I guess I was wrong. I now believe it with the certainty of faith." Similarly, with V2, there are many in the Conciliar Church who just say, "Well, if there's an appearance of contradiction between the current Magisterium and the past Magisterium, then there just must be something I don't understand, because this can't happen." So they suspend their judgment.
I don't believe this is a valid comparison at all, because papal infallibility was never condemned, nor an error etc. It was undefined. But in fact it was evident all along anyways, because of the very nature of the papacy, and i don't understand how could anyone reject it or not believe in it even before it was defined.
What we're dealing with in V2 is not with undefined allowable opinions, but with things that were explicitly condemned and declared heretical, erroneous etc. all of a sudden turned around and declared orthodox. "Yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy" indeed.
There is no comparison here. None. Additionally, it is a matter of fact that all those diabologians who were silenced, suppressed, suspect, censured etc., were all of a sudden reinstated after Pius XII died and made the "periti" at V2, it's clear as daylight what happened. Congar, Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Ratzinger etc. they were all in the blacklist. The infiltrators got "one of theirs" apparently on the Throne of St. Peter to let it all loose, simple as that.
"The coup of the century," as Scar from the Lion King says in his anthem.
This cannot be emphasised enough. You can even compare things as simple as pre-V2 Catechisms, devotionaries FOR CHILDREN, writings of all the Saints, Popes etc. to see that what was clearly condemned was suddenly made true teaching. There is no contest. There are books that specifically condemn the idea that non-Catholics sects are means of salvation, specifically, with those very same words, but yet V2 says the total opposite.
Besides, these infiltrators have openly declared that they have made Luther's wishes true in regards to the Mass for instance. Ever read what "Cardinal" Willebrands said about this? They have admitted the same for all the rest too. What more can one ask?
Can you point to any such example in the history of the Church? Where things that were explicitly condemned, declared heretical etc., were suddenly overturned and declared orthodox? Where the ramblings of suspect, silenced, censured theologians suddenly were accepted and incorporated into an Ecuмenical Council? Is there but a single case of this happening before? I have always wondered.
Great analysis, Disputaciones. However, I think you have only scratched the surface. The Conciliar Church has a completely new and foreign orientation. JXXIII opened the windows of the Church to the world (as in worldly thinking). Even many of the Ecclesia Dei people are lax and worldly (but not all, maybe not most). There is only a very thin Catholic veneer and most Conciliar Catholics are quite happy with that. They would rather not be burdened with traditional morality. Some appreciate the beauty of traditional ceremonies (Fr. Ratzinger?) but that's about as far as they want to go with tradition. Why fast 3 hours before Mass when one can get away with fasting 1 hour? Why scruple about traditional codes of conduct (modesty, etc) when one can still call oneself Catholic and have a "priest" assure everyone every Sunday that we are all going to Heaven? I guarantee you that if you go to a Conciliar Mass every Sunday it will not be long before you find St. Alphonsus' ascetical works amusing and irrelevant/outdated. Saving our souls is hard enough when we are trying to follow tradition. It is nearly impossible if we follow the teaching of the Conciliar Church. So yes, I agree with you, the analogies to earlier times fall flat in the face of such a momentous shift in orientation. Not even the Arians were as bold as the Modernists. I don't know of any event which can quite compare to the sudden change in direction of such a large group of co-religionists. I don't think we have anything to apologize about with regard to our opinion that this new orientation, new institution and new religion is not at all Catholic. And I agree with Ladislaus that there is not universal acceptance of the Conciliar popes and that therefore Nishant ought to find some other way to preserve the visibility of the Church because attaching it to the Conciliar hierarchy is not credible. If visibility is attached to the Conciliarists it will soon lose all meaning. What good is it to preserve visibility if it causes you to lose your soul? It is never permitted to separate oneself from the Catholic Church but neither is it permitted to attach oneself to heretics. We are in a difficult situation.
Topic: Spanish Original shows Francis admitted his Teaching is perhaps a Heresy, (Read 4510 times)