CathInfo.com

I agree with you, Stubborn.  Vatican I is it!  Cardinal Henry Edward Manning wrote many very good books leading up to this Council!  I was very excited to read, The True Story of the Council, Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost, The Present Crisis in the Church.  Cardinal Manning was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

So then you too are a pertinacious Old Catholic heretic, just like Stubborn.

Shame on you too, you wicked blasphemer.  You'd be burned at the stake next to Stubborn and the other heretics in Church history at a time when that was the practice.

You, a low-grade moron, sit there and "read cardinal Manning", declaring him to be "inspired by the Holy ghost" ... as if your interpretation of him is even remotely correct ... as a pathetic attempt to justify your wicked herersy.

God has given you a chance to recant.

Cardinal Mannning explained what Vatican I taught, but you low-grade drooling morons, brought to the ruin of heresy by some depraved will combined with non-functioning intellect apply the same Modernist redunctionist thinking that led to the entire Conciliar Revolution.  So, because Vatican I only declared that certain teaching that meet a specific set of notes is to be considered infallible, that means that Vatican I taught that everything else, the remaining 99.9% can be complete garbage, totally up for grabs.

That's a reflection of the logical faculties of morons.  Teaching A is not the same as teaching NOT A.  Despite the fact that Vatican I only defined those things (and of course it was interrupted by the Masonic revolutions and never completed), that does not mean that Vatican I defined the OPPOSITE of those things in every other regard.  Catholic Theologians still nevertheless continued to hold as certain that the Universal Discpline of the Church is also infallble, and that the canonizations of saints are infallible.  But for you brain-dead morons, because Vatican I did NOT define those things, that's tantamount to defining that canonizations are FALLIBLE.



Snap out of this .. we have precious little time left, and you never know when you'll be snatched from this life, and until you recover your faith, you cannot be saved.

What's at issue is that if you have decided that things are so bad in the Conciliar Church that you are required in conscience, to avoid offending God, and to save your soul ... to severe communion with the "Church", that you can't join them in their official public worship of God, or accept their Canon Law (where non-Catholics can receive the Sacraments), or accept their bogus cultus (i.e the bogus canonizations), since it's the very mission of the Church to guide souls in the truth and toward the sanctification of their souls, you're positing the defection of the Church in her mission to save souls.  Period.  End of story.

If you believe that the conditions in the Conciliar Church are accidental to the Conciliar Church, rather than being a substantial break, then you'd best get your rear end back over to one of the "Ecclesia Dei" groups or to join the Eastern Rites, or whatever.  But if they're substantial, where the Conciliar Religion represents a substantial rupture from the Catholic Church of all times, then considering that to be the Catholic Church would be both heretical and blasphemous.  You have to pick.

Seems ironclad to me.  I've heard Bishop Sanborn say as much.