we agree on indifferentism, my point was lets move on past baptism, we get sidetracked nad never ending BOB vs BOD and on and on, we are talking about naturalism, indifferentism in general, we get sidetracked on baptism issues.....we are talking about pagans,etc...lets stick to what is going on...

Then what is the seed of heresy that caused or at least allowed Catholics en masse to accept the "spirit" of Assissi if not the acceptance that EENS really doesn't apply to absolutely everyone outside the Church?  Once the exception is made in the name of some man conceived hypothetical idea of mercy that any specific individual can "make it" without following the literal words of the Dogma, where is the line drawn?  

For some, including the few Church Fathers who even posed the theory, it was for Catechumens only.    Fast forward to the current idea that, "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion."  My what an incredible difference in the original idea vs the current.  

fine and good, lets then harp an the Praise Feeney bandwagon and the never ending baptism debate-it goes on and on and on and on and .....

Then by what standard does the super-majority of Catholics accept what goes on at Assisi? By what method did the ConciLIAR Church foist this acceptance of paganism, naturalism, etc.?  

What is your explaination (s)?

Quote from: Belloc

fine and good, lets then harp an the Praise Feeney bandwagon and the never ending baptism debate-it goes on and on and on and on and .....

Then by what standard does the super-majority of Catholics accept what goes on at Assisi? By what method did the ConciLIAR Church foist this acceptance of paganism, naturalism, etc.?  

What is your explaination (s)?

I remember back in my NO days in the 1980's. I was a
member of the Legion of Mary in my Parish. I remember
bringing up the issue of JP2 having an interreligious at
Assisi. It just does not look proper that a Catholic Pope
should have a meeting with other religions on a equal
basics. It blurs the dogma that there is no salvation
outside the church, Most Catholics are nominal, and
many will be scandalized into the false belief that all
religions are equal, and will lead them to think that
no one needs to convert to the Catholic Religion.      Unthinkable before Vatican 2.
I was told that we cannot be more catholic than the
pope, and if is all right with the pope, we must follow,
or we are no longer catholic.
That was the last time I attended the Legion of Mary
meeting. I left the NO parish soon after.

In other words, we were betrayed by those that called
themselves 'conservatives'. They may say 90% that is
true, but is that remaining 10% that does the damage.
The two Priest in the novus ordo parish in the 1980's
were ordained in 1940, and they knew better.
It seen to be their duty to keep the parishioners
brainwashed in accepting the new ways. Never expect
the return of the old mass. One priest called it a
'pagan ritual'.  This was nearing 20 years after the
introduction of the english mass, and there was
still a lots of resistance.
One thing they were militant about was what the pope
says, and does, we must follow. We do not want to be
accused of being more catholic than the pope.
It is this obedience that keeps Catholics in the NO
church, and accepting everything that comes along.

The priests you speak of are partially right and mostly wrong.  When they say we must follow the pope, meaning obey the pope and his laws, they are right.  The Pope is the head of the Church, and the laws he promulgates are the laws not of him personally as a man, but are given through his office as Pope and are the laws of the Church which are spotless and holy.  The Church cannot give evil.

But, while these priests understood their duty to the pope, they failed to recognize the evil apparently coming from the pope.  It is impossible for a pope to give the Church evil doctrine or laws.  

Hear the words of  Pope St. Pius X on how Catholics must love the Pope:

"How must one love the Pope? Not only with words but with actions, as well, and with sincerity . . . When one loves the Pope, one must not discuss on what He advises or demands, as to find out which are the duties of obedience, and to limit there one's obligations. When one loves the Pope, one does not object that He has not spoken clearly enough, as if He was to tell each and everyone His will clearly expressed many times, not only in speech, but in His letters and public docuмents; one may not doubt His orders under the pretext that they do no emanate from Him directly, but from His entourage; one may not limit where He may and must exercise His will; one may not oppose the authority of the Pope against that of others, no matter how well educated, who differ from the Pope's mind. Besides, whatever their knowledge, sanctity is lacking in them, for there could not be sanctity where this is disagreement with the Pope." (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

see Latin original from AAS at bottom of post:

So, how does a Catholic reconcile this teaching of Pope St. Pius X with Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI?  It is clearly impossible that these men could have been popes, as they have done things which popes' cannot do.  It is impossible to consistently maintain your Catholic Faith and faithfully follow Pope St. Pius X's clear Catholic teaching on how to love the pope in regard to following and obeying these men.  

These men teach ecuмenism, praying with false religions, encouraging prayer from false religions, teaching that salvation can be achieved through false religions.  Popes do not teach such things or act in ways to encourage false belief.

If you cannot treat the pope in the manner that St. Pius X teaches us that we must, due to the "pope's" teaching, laws, and actions against the Faith, then you must sincerely and seriously ask yourself if this is truly the pope.

"Perciò quando si ama il Papa, non si fanno discussioni intorno a quello che Egli dispone od esige, o fin dove debba giungere l'obbedienza, ed in quali cose si debba obbedire; quando si ama il Papa, non si dice che non ha parlato abbastanza chiaro, quasi che Egli fosse obbligato di ripetere all'orecchio d'ognuno quella volontà chiaramente espressa tante volte non solo a voce, ma con lettere ed altri pubblici docuмenti; non si mettono in dubbio i suoi ordini, adducendo il facile pretesto di chi non vuole ubbidire, che non è il Papa che comanda, ma quelli che lo circondano; non si limita il campo in cui Egli possa e debba esercitare la sua autorità; non si antepone alla autorità del Papa quella di altre persone per quanto dotte che dissentano dal Papa, le quali se sono, dotte non sono sante, perchè chi è santo non può dissentire dal Papa."  (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

... The two Priest in the novus ordo parish in the 1980's were ordained in 1940, and they knew better....
 

I think we forget that it was not those Priests that were ordained in 1940 that are the start of the problem.  The Priests of that era simply continued to expand and push the errors through the 50's, 60's slowly until Vatican II hit and the Novus Ordo service was imposed.   Comparing this situation to the old analogy of slow cooking the frog, the Priests of 1940 were already very far along in this slow cooking process.   Theologians and Seminary professors were already pushing kernals of modernism for decades before those two Priests were ordained,  but like the way that evolution took hold in the minds of the public through the use of lies in the text books, the errors have become so uncontestable in the minds of most Catholics, adherence to infallible dogmatic statements have been tossed in favor of the "interpretations" of those same theologians who put the frog in the pot and started the fire.