This question has been buried in other threads.  I want to ask the Sedevacantists what they consider to be the chief heresy or heresies of Vatican II?

Quote from: Ladislaus

But, Bellator Dei, 95% of all Sedevacantists think that Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved.  They are saved by virtue of willing to do and to believe whatever God would want them to do, and this disposition would have been fostered in them by their false religion.  So how would it be false to these Sedevacantists to say that God has used these religions as a means of salvation?

I think that 95% is a high number, nevertheless it's unfortunate that so many people who espouse the sedevacantist position believe in salvation for non-Catholics.

To answer your question, I don't know how ANYONE can agree with the new church's teaching on this.      

Neither does Ladislaus.  He creates straw men and says that they represent 95% of all sedevacantists.  He has lost all power of reason in order to protect his ultimate dogma of anti-sedevacantism.

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus

But, Bellator Dei, 95% of all Sedevacantists think that Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved.  They are saved by virtue of willing to do and to believe whatever God would want them to do, and this disposition would have been fostered in them by their false religion.  So how would it be false to these Sedevacantists to say that God has used these religions as a means of salvation?

I think that 95% is a high number, nevertheless it's unfortunate that so many people who espouse the sedevacantist position believe in salvation for non-Catholics.

To answer your question, I don't know how ANYONE can agree with the new church's teaching on this.      

Neither does Ladislaus.  He creates straw men and says that they represent 95% of all sedevacantists.  He has lost all power of reason in order to protect his ultimate dogma of anti-sedevacantism.

But Ladislaus has admittedly come very close to the SV position, correct?  He is critical but empathetic to a degree.

I accidently upthumbed your comment TKGS, when I meant to downthumb it, due to the straw man reference.  I don't see that tactic in L's comments.

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus

But, Bellator Dei, 95% of all Sedevacantists think that Protestants, Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved.  They are saved by virtue of willing to do and to believe whatever God would want them to do, and this disposition would have been fostered in them by their false religion.  So how would it be false to these Sedevacantists to say that God has used these religions as a means of salvation?

I think that 95% is a high number, nevertheless it's unfortunate that so many people who espouse the sedevacantist position believe in salvation for non-Catholics.

To answer your question, I don't know how ANYONE can agree with the new church's teaching on this.      

Neither does Ladislaus.  He creates straw men and says that they represent 95% of all sedevacantists.  He has lost all power of reason in order to protect his ultimate dogma of anti-sedevacantism.

But Ladislaus has admittedly come very close to the SV position, correct?  He is critical but empathetic to a degree.

I accidently upthumbed your comment TKGS, when I meant to downthumb it, due to the straw man reference.  I don't see that tactic in L's comments.

My only goal is to find the truth.  As I just wrote on another thread, given the vacuum of authority in the Church, I constantly question EVERY conclusion that I have made by my own private judgment, and I am constantly praying for God to lead me closer to where He wants me to be and not where I want to be.  I'm always trying to explore every angle of every question.  I listen to every argument.  I have found some points convincing from the SVs and some from R&R, but I also have been unconvinced by many arguments on both sides.

Indeed, PerEvangelicaDicta, I think it quite possible and even very likely that the See is vacant.  Where I backed away from SVism was in realizing that I am not competent to make that judgment, that there's a missing ingredient, the authority of the Church, required to resolve this matter.

That’s a very respectable approach, Ladislaus. And wise. Ask humbly and with faith AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE. You will find the truth.

The problem with identifying the chief heresy is that is it deliberately hidden under a huge cloud of smoke - i.e., ambiguity.

They deliberately use craft in the wording of official pronouncements like the VII docuмents. It is after all the great deception, and only the elect will be able to see through it by the grace of God.

For me, the heresy is ecuмenism and violation of the Creedal statement that the Church is one and Catholic.

You can catch them when their guards are somewhat down in interviews, speeches, and when they aren’t being consciously ambiguous because speaking in an official docuмent or capacity.

Take the “subsists” language of Lumen Gentium. You do not explicitly see the violation in clear terms. But it appears when they talk “off the cuff.” You then see the mind of the “legislators,” brazen and crafty revolutionaries who have taken over the Church.

Here’s some traditional formulations which we all know but to make the point:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

13. If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church [12] - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.

Now look at Lumen Gentium:

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium

8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Lots of wiggle room there, but then hear what a major “legislator,” Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, of this “legislation” says about it:

Among the ecclesial communities there are many disagreements, and what disagreements! The three “persons” constitute one God in an authentic and supreme unity. When the Council Fathers replaced the word “is” with the word “subsistit”, they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by “is” (to be) is far broader than that expressed by “to subsist”. “To subsist” is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject.

https://ecuмenism.net/2000/09/cardinal-ratzinger-answers-objections-to-dominus-iesus.htm

That comes about as close as you’ll get, and it’s close enough, just enough of a whiff of the contradiction of the divinely revealed (Pius XII above). You will hunt in vain for “clear” heresies. It’s almost an oxymoron. They want to be anything but clear.

This is why all of us who say “no” to this nonsense will fight among ourselves and differ as to much except the necessity to say “no” to the Revolution and the usurpers.

By refusing to say “yes,” our actions show what we “know" even if we can’t nail down the rain drop on the tin roof and agree with each other as to how to it. They are public and manifest heretics who deceive and swaddle their ugly heresies and sow confusion, but we can see through the smoke with the light of grace.  

Quote

Where I backed away from SVism was in realizing that I am not competent to make that judgment, that there's a missing ingredient, the authority of the Church, required to resolve this matter.

Of course you can’t make the “judgment.” But when the Church makes the “judgment” it will show that those who saw it and reacted to it while incapable of making the judgment were right.

Before a past event is judged by the competent authority the reality that will subsequently be judged obviously exists, or rather existed.

If one is not "competent" to make such judgments, then one is not competent to know the Catechism, the Ten Commandments, or any moral doctrine.

What neither you nor I am "competent" in doing is binding the conscience of others under pain of mortal sin.  When we have used our intellect we must make a judgment and act upon it.

We’re using competent in somewhat different senses.

You know what a ball and a strike is but you’re not competent to umpire a Major League Baseball game.

St. Paul teaches us to drive the evil doer from amongst us.  The Church tells us to avoid the heretic.  If you are not competent to know heresy or who is a heretic, then you unable to do either.

I agree with your example to a point, but you seem to misunderstand what I am saying.

I know what is a ball and and a strike.  That actually does NOT mean I'm not competent to umpire a Major League Baseball game.  The fact that I am not an MLB umpire is the only reason I cannot enforce my judgment on the teams at the ball park.  But I still know whether the umpire made a bad call or not.

What I am saying is that I know what heresy is.  I also know that a heretic is not a Catholic, by definition.  If a person publicly declares heresy and clearly knows that the belief is contrary to the Catholic Faith, I am absolutely competent to judge him a heretic.  It is merely my status as a layman (i.e., a baseball fan in the baseball analogy) that I cannot enforce my judgment upon others.

What you seem to be saying is that you refuse to judge heresy because you feel yourself incompetent to judge heresy or you simply refuse to acknowledge the danger heretics pose to Catholics of good faith.  This, I think, is a most dangerous position for your soul, the souls of anyone for whom you have responsibility, and the souls of those who willingly accept heresies because they actually believe that the Church is commanding such belief.

How many souls are lost because people succuмb to the heresies of the Modernists or reject the Faith itself because they see these Modernists running the store?

What I am saying is that I know what heresy is.  I also know that a heretic is not a Catholic, by definition.

Well, you did not respond the OP question, what heresy is it that you object in Vatican II Council?

Quote from: TKGS

If a person publicly declares heresy and clearly knows that the belief is contrary to the Catholic Faith, I am absolutely competent to judge him a heretic.

And just how would you do that? Do you have access to people's internal forum?  

First, please note that I have been and am responding to subsequent posts.  I am not answering the opening post, which is, quite frankly, just about the dumbest opening post I've seen on this forum.  One can find the heresies of Vatican II from many, many sources--even from the old SSPX.  One doesn't have to be sedevacantist to find the heresies.  Sedevacantists have merely taken the fact that heresies exists in the docuмents of an "ecuмenical council" to the logical conclusion.

But what I'm replying to is your question above.  Did you not read what I wrote?  A person's internal forum, i.e., what he thinks and believes secretly and does not publicly proclaim, does not separate one from the Church in the way publicly declared heresy does.  I don't need nor want access to a person's internal forum.  

The Church does not say that a person is separated from the visible bonds of unity because of occult heresy.  The Church does say that a person is separated from the visible bonds of unity because of public heresy.  

How do I "do that"?  I listen and see what a person publicly teaches.  I don't read his mind.

Frankly, I am beginning to wonder why I bother with some of the people on this forum.  You constantly bring up the same objections as if they had not already been answered and defeated time and time again.  You ask the same questions that are so often irrelevant to the issue being discussed as in this case:  Occult heresy, i.e. the internal forum, is not germane to publicly declared heresy.  You act as if the pope and so many bishops and priests are just too stupid to know what the Church has taught for over two millennia.  Give it a rest.