We need to narrow down the scope of each thread

This new thread is for anyone interested in discussing just the following:

Suprema Haec a fraud and precursor to Vatican II ecclesiology

That's not the intention as such - was Suprema Haec a proto-Vatican II docuмent?

Let's just forget the tags and labels and aim for an honest appraisal of Suprema Haec in the context of the Vatican II docuмents.

OK,  Forget the "tags".

This docuмent does not seem to be a precursor of Vatican 2 docuмents.  It is clear and concise.  It does not leave room for interpretation in multiple ways.  It lays down the law and claims to be the final word on the matter.  It commands obedience and leaves no room for doubt as to what it commands.

This is in contradistinction to the Vatican 2 docuмents.  Vatican 2 docuмents are not clear or concise.  They leave room for interpretation in multiple ways.  They make many suggestions and call for many further actions.  They don't really seem to command obedience even though the Conciliar sect acts as if they do; but, even if they did, there would still be grave doubts about what they command.

I think this answers your question.

We had a Suprema Haec thread (started by roscoe) in which a lot of this was discussed.  As with all BoD threads, however, it digressed into entire range of BoD issues.

Yes, and none of you had any proof to show that the Holy Office letter was not legit.  All you have is speculation and vain assumptions, not proof.

Quote from: TKGS

OK,  Forget the "tags".

This docuмent does not seem to be a precursor of Vatican 2 docuмents.  It is clear and concise.  It does not leave room for interpretation in multiple ways.  It lays down the law and claims to be the final word on the matter.  It commands obedience and leaves no room for doubt as to what it commands.

This is in contradistinction to the Vatican 2 docuмents.  Vatican 2 docuмents are not clear or concise.  They leave room for interpretation in multiple ways.  They make many suggestions and call for many further actions.  They don't really seem to command obedience even though the Conciliar sect acts as if they do; but, even if they did, there would still be grave doubts about what they command.

I think this answers your question.

It is good that you see this, because there are many who falsely attribute the teaching of the 1949 letter with Vatican II theology.  

Vatican II itself rightly cited SH in support of its ecclesiology.  Rahner traced the continuity between SH and Vatican II.  You just refuse to see it due to your absurd and schismatic world view.

OK,  Forget the "tags".

This docuмent does not seem to be a precursor of Vatican 2 docuмents.  It is clear and concise.  It does not leave room for interpretation in multiple ways.  It lays down the law and claims to be the final word on the matter.  It commands obedience and leaves no room for doubt as to what it commands.

This is in contradistinction to the Vatican 2 docuмents.  Vatican 2 docuмents are not clear or concise.  They leave room for interpretation in multiple ways.  They make many suggestions and call for many further actions.  They don't really seem to command obedience even though the Conciliar sect acts as if they do; but, even if they did, there would still be grave doubts about what they command.

I think this answers your question.

Aside from SH promoting heresy, I agree that it has been presented as not leaving room for interpretation. But it also certainly helped pave the way for the NO since prior to Cushing and SH, the dogma was understood as it was declared.

For SH to say that "dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it" without then repeating the decree from Vatican 1, is the *deliberate* error.

They replaced the teaching of Vatican 1 with the heretical statement; "For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church." because they absolutely *had* to replace V1's teaching, lest Fr. Feeney would have been proven right while at the same time Cushing and the rest of the crooks would have convicted themselves.

Quote from: Cantarella

The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.

As you know, I for one question whether the Cardinal actually wrote that letter, or whether it was edited.  Certainly the fact that it was released in 1952, after the Cardinal had died, and published only in Cushing's rag raises the suspicion of funny business.

It is possible. Whoever actually wrote the letter, aligned himself with the partisans of error. The enemies of the dogma and the Church are responsible of spreading this letter and carrying the error over Vatican II docuмents as to give the impression to the world that the Roman Catholic Church has changed Her salutary dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and could live in harmony with the world. They were very successful in doing this as it is easily seen nowadays.

What is beyond comprehension though, is that the sedevacantists "traditionalists in name only" share the same very mistake with the liberals Novus Ordo Catholics they abhor and furthermore, they promote and spread this error, as coming from the devil himself.

It is evident that the deceiver of humans, the father of lies, Satan, is behind the negation of EENS, as it gains him billions of souls every single day. It is the same old lie. At the beginning of the century, Satan used the progressive liberal thinking plaguing and infiltrating the Church to this purpose as it was fitting to the age and what was appealing to the world. Nowadays, Satan does the same very thing but hides behind the "traditionalist movement" making Catholics sour and bitter and against each other but still, the same EENS denial prevails! more especially, in the radical minded sedevacantists.  

Hopefully, the good willed soul who reads this is able to perceive the diabolical mastery of the whole thing.

St. Michael, pray for us!