Author Topic: Silence as non-acceptance (Read 13253 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2026, 11:59:03 AM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on January 07, 2026, 11:27:25 AM

Do you believe Vatican II is heretical (actual heresy in the docuмents) like I asked you earlier?

The reason I ask is because if you think it is heretical then how do you dismiss the Eastern presence a and acceptance of Vatican II in principle;

The Eastern bishops (as a moral whole, if not every individual) signed the docuмents of Vatican II at the behest of Paul VI.
The Eastern bishops never vocally opposed any of the docuмents of Vatican II.
The Eastern bishops continue to support false ecuмenism and work within the "synodal" structure
The Eastern bishops have not vocally opposed doctrinal innovations since Vatican II such as The Joint Declaration of Justification, the Assisi prayer events, Amoris Latitiea, Fiducia Suplicans, etc. etc. etc.

Did I get any of that wrong?

It is not that they don't "denounce it my way". They don't denounce it AT ALL.

That is highly suspicious, especially considering the MASSIVE APOSTASY we are living through...

So what you call "prudence" I call "reckless".

Actually I call it more than reckless, I think it is absurd.

I think it is absurd to follow cowed men that accept the bridle of heresy into their silenced mouths, who would prefer to hide behind error, so that they can keep wafting their incense and chanting ever louder as they blind their eyes to the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

No. I do not hold that Vatican II, as a council, formally defined dogmatic heresy in the way Trent or Vatican I defined dogma. What I hold is that Vatican II introduced novel, ambiguous, and pastorally dangerous formulations which were later exploited, radicalized, and weaponized by post-conciliar authorities. That distinction matters, even if you don’t like it.

Yes, the Eastern bishops signed Vatican II docuмents, and signing a pastoral council’s docuмents under papal pressure is not the same thing as receiving them as dogma, teaching them as binding faith, or integrating them into a Church’s lex orandi. History is full of bishops signing things they later ignored, re-interpreted, or simply never received in practice. Signature does not equal doctrinal assent. The Church has never taught otherwise.

Opposition is not a single mode, and Rome-style public polemics have never been the East’s norm. Eastern Churches historically resist by non-reception, not by issuing Roman-style manifestos. They preserve doctrine primarily through liturgy, ascetical theology, episcopal praxis, and what is not introduced. If Vatican II truly represented a doctrinal rupture, you would expect to see that rupture prayed, taught, and lived in Eastern worship. You do not.

You are collapsing categories again when you claim they support false ecuмenism and synodality. Participation in synods or ecuмenical dialogue does not equal doctrinal endorsement of indifferentism. The East has always engaged councils and synods differently than the Latin juridical model. Where exactly are Eastern Churches denying extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, redefining the sacraments, or altering dogma in their catechesis or liturgy. Show that, not press releases or meetings.

You also accuse them of not opposing Assisi, the Joint Declaration on Justification, Amoris Laetitia, and Fiducia Supplicans, but you are applying a Latin crisis template universally. Most of those controversies are internal Latin theological and disciplinary problems. Eastern Churches did not adopt Luther-centric justification theology, Latin moral casuistry innovations, or Western pastoral experiments as normative doctrine. Non-adoption is not cowardice. It is precisely how Churches survive doctrinal storms.

Your core assumption, and this is the real issue, is that if there is a crisis, the only faithful response is loud denunciation. That is not Catholic theology. It is activism theology. The Church has always distinguished between culpable assent and imposed confusion, silence and non-reception, and duty of office and the duty of every Christian. By your standard, the entire Church during the Arian crisis would have been reckless except for a handful of polemicists, which is historically false.

Language like cowards, bridles of heresy, and abomination of desolation feels prophetic, but it proves nothing. You are substituting apocalyptic imagery for theological precision, and then accusing others of heresy because they refuse to mirror your tone. That is not discernment. That is factionalism.

You keep asking why I trust Eastern Churches more than post-conciliar Latin structures. The answer is simple. Because their worship, theology, and sacramental life remained intact, while the Latin Church detonated itself administratively, catechetically, and liturgically. That is not cowardice. That is survival.

If you want to argue that Vatican II produced heresy, then prove it where doctrine is actually transmitted, in prayer and sacrament, not by counting signatures or measuring outrage levels. Until then, calling entire Churches suspect of heresy says far more about your method than about their faith.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2026, 12:43:40 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on January 07, 2026, 12:07:57 PM

I agree that this distinction matters.

It matters a great deal.

It matters enough for people to put their souls on the line over it...

You went to a CMRI/sede chapel but you NEVER held Vatican II was actually heretical like THIS (or some variation thereof), but rather you just held it "novel, ambiguous, etc."?

Yes, CMRI is sedevacantist. I have never hidden that, and I don’t distance myself from it now.

CMRI holds that Vatican II did not merely introduce “pastorally dangerous ambiguities,” but objectively contradictory teachings on matters like religious liberty and ecuмenism, and that these contradictions cannot come from a true ecuмenical council ratified by a true pope. That is why they conclude the post-conciliar claimants lack papal authority. That has always been their position, and it is publicly stated on their own website.

So to answer your implied question directly: no, I did not attend CMRI chapels while secretly believing Vatican II was harmless but misunderstood. I attended because I agreed that the council represents a rupture with prior magisterial teaching and that the post-conciliar hierarchy lacks authority to bind consciences to those novelties.

Where the East comes into this is not as an escape hatch or a soft alternative, but as a control case. If Vatican II errors are truly intrinsic to Catholic faith as now “received,” then they must appear where Catholic faith is actually transmitted, namely in doctrine taught as dogma and in liturgy as lex orandi. Yet when you look at the Eastern Catholic Churches, their liturgy, sacramental theology, and dogmatic content remain patristic and pre-scholastic, untouched by the specific Vatican II novelties that shattered the Latin Church.

That does not mean Eastern hierarchs are courageous, admirable, or immune from blame. It means something more precise and more dangerous to your argument: formal participation, signatures, and institutional proximity do not equal doctrinal reception. History is full of councils, formulas, and unions that were signed, tolerated, or endured without being truly received into the life of the Church. Non-reception is a real ecclesiological category whether one likes it or not.

CMRI itself implicitly recognizes this distinction, which is why it does not operate on guilt-by-association logic alone. (For example, allowing attendance at SSPX masses). If proximity or silence were sufficient to prove formal heresy, then material heresy would be indistinguishable from formal heresy, and the Church would have collapsed long before Vatican II.

So yes, I accept the CMRI critique of Vatican II. What I reject is the claim that Eastern Catholics must therefore be treated as doctrinally equivalent to the post-conciliar Latin collapse simply because they did not mount a Roman-style polemical resistance. That assumption confuses Latin habits with Catholic principles.

You can argue that Eastern bishops should have spoken more loudly. You cannot argue, without proof, that they received Vatican II as dogma in the same way the Latin Church did. And without that proof, accusations of “alignment” and “suspect of heresy” remain rhetoric, not theology.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2026, 01:52:28 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on January 07, 2026, 01:01:29 PM

So, you were never a "real sede" it seems... This could account for your change of position on the East as well, since you were never a real "SSPX trad" either. Kind of hard to trust a flip flopper who seems cocksure of himself now that he has "finally discovered the answer to the crisis lies in the East".
Tell me about the historical example that predates the Second Vatican Council which was a general council called and ratified by the Pope which promulgated a series of heretical decrees (or if you prefer "novel" changes) that the Easterners ignored and did not receive by their "silent non-acceptance"...
It is a fact of reality. What "proof" could I offer to one who has swallowed such a massive delusion?
They are aligned with the post-Vatican II plan - they always have been.
I am sure there are all kinds of lovely people at that church a mile away.
And I am sure the Eastern Liturgy is splendid and can teach any Catholic many good things.
But, their silence since Vatican II makes their spirituality ring hollow for me.
I don't think it ever mattered to you (from what I can glean from your several posts on this topic)

True bishops know how to speak and act when the Church is in peril - like the Eastern clergy did back during the Nestorian Crisis.
The false Eastern bishops that are aligned with Vatican II do not possess the faith, if they did - they would have said something by now.
He who sees another in error and does not correct him becomes guilty of that error.” - St. Alphonsus Ligouri

Skid Row, you are doing two things at once, you are appealing to a true moral principle and then you are using it as a club to declare whole Churches “false” without doing the harder work of demonstrating formal assent to heresy. Yes, Christians must oppose error, but that duty is not a license for rash judgment, sweeping condemnations, or guilt by proximity. St Alphonsus is not an internet hall monitor, the same moral tradition that says we must correct also warns that correction is conditioned by office, competence, proximity, and prudence, and it condemns detraction and calumny when we impute interior guilt without proof. So when you say, “their silence makes their spirituality ring hollow for me,” that is your reaction, not a theological conclusion, and when you jump from “they have not said what I want” to “therefore they do not possess the faith,” that is exactly the kind of reckless inference you are accusing others of.

Second, you demanded a pre Vatican II example of something “signed, tolerated, or endured” that was not truly received, here is the obvious category the Church herself has always dealt with, unions and formulas that were externally signed and later collapsed because they were not received in the life of the Church. The Byzantine Church signed unions at Lyons and Florence, those agreements had papal ratification and official machinery behind them, and yet they did not take root as the faith of the Byzantine Church, they were rejected in practice over time, not because every bishop wrote a manifesto, but because the life of the Church did not absorb them as binding tradition. That is precisely what “reception” means, it is not a magic trick, it is the difference between an act on paper and the actual assimilation of doctrine into worship, catechesis, and lived ecclesial consciousness. If you want to argue that Vatican II is different in kind, then argue that, but you cannot pretend the category does not exist.

Third, you keep flattening everything into one metric, public denunciations. The Byzantine Church historically guards doctrine primarily through its liturgical, ascetical, and patristic mind, not through a modern Western docuмent culture where every crisis is met by press releases and open letters. You brought up Nestorius, good, now be consistent, the action there was ecclesial and concrete, communion and commemoration, not internet polemics. If your claim is that the Byzantine Church has “always been aligned with the post Vatican II plan,” then stop speaking in vibes and prove the mechanism of doctrinal reception, show where the alleged Vatican II errors are taught as binding dogma in the Byzantine Church, show where they are prayed into the Byzantine liturgy as part of lex orandi, show catechisms, synodal decrees, liturgical texts, required professions of faith, something objective. Otherwise you are asking everyone to accept your interpretation of motives and your reading of “silence” as if it were evidence of heresy.

Finally, the personal shot about me being a flip flopper is not an argument, it is a dodge. People change positions when they realize distinctions they previously missed, you yourself just admitted distinctions matter, “novel, ambiguous, pastorally dangerous” is not the same claim as “formally defined heresy,” and the fact that I am taking those distinctions seriously is not poison, it is basic theology. If you want to keep this honest, answer one simple question, where exactly does the Byzantine Church require its faithful to assent to Vatican II as dogma, in the same way the Latin Church treated it, and where exactly are Vatican II’s disputed novelties embedded as binding content in the Byzantine liturgy. If you cannot show that, then calling Byzantine bishops “false” and saying they “do not possess the faith” is not zeal, it is rhetoric masquerading as discernment.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2026, 02:28:18 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on January 07, 2026, 02:02:34 PM

1. “The East survived by non‑reception, not by being louder than Rome.”
Response:
Non‑reception only has meaning when a Church actually refuses to receive something.Silence is not automatically non‑reception.Historically, non‑reception has visible markers:
refusal to implement
refusal to teach
refusal to commemorate
refusal to incorporate into catechesis
refusal to allow into synodal docuмents
refusal to treat as authoritative
In the case of Nestorius, the East demonstrated non‑reception by:

removing him from the diptychs
refusing communion
publicly rejecting his doctrine
convening a council to condemn him
Non‑reception is an act, not an absence of noise.If the Eastern Churches today:

remain in communion
commemorate the hierarchy

accept the legitimacy of the council
teach its ecclesiology
incorporate its pastoral theology
and do not publicly reject its doctrinal formulations
then they are not “non‑receiving.”They are receiving quietly.Non‑reception is not “we didn’t talk about it much.”Non‑reception is “we refused it.”

2. “Nestorius was condemned because he taught heresy as doctrine. Vatican II didn’t define dogma.”

Response:

This objection misunderstands the nature of doctrinal error.

The Church has never required a heresy to be solemnly defined before it becomes dangerous.

Nestorius was condemned because:

he taught error publicly
he spread it ecclesially
he caused doctrinal confusion
he endangered the faithful

None of this required a solemn definition.

Likewise, if Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that contradict prior teaching, the issue is not:

“Was it defined ex cathedra?”
but:

“Is it objectively contrary to the faith?”

The East did not wait for Nestorius to issue a solemn definition.

They acted because the doctrine was false.

If Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that are false, the same principle applies.

Error is condemned because it is error, not because it is solemn.

3. “The East is not obligated to behave as if a dogmatic definition occurred.”

Response:

True—but irrelevant.

The obligation to resist heresy does not depend on the form of the heresy.

Arianism was not introduced by a solemn definition.

Iconoclasm was not introduced by a solemn definition.

Monothelitism was not introduced by a solemn definition.

Yet the East resisted all of them.

The East’s own history shows:
If Vatican II teaches doctrinal propositions that contradict the faith, the East cannot hide behind the technicality of “no solemn definition.”

The Church has never treated that as a shield.

4. “Not every bishop must publicly denounce every crisis.”

Response:

Correct—but again irrelevant.

The issue is not:

“Did every bishop denounce it loudly?”

The issue is:

“Did the Church as a body refuse the error?”

During Arianism:

many bishops were silent
many were confused
many were pressured

But the orthodox bishops:

refused communion with Arians
refused to sign Arian formulas
refused to commemorate Arian bishops
refused to teach Arian doctrine

Silence is not the standard.

Communion is.

If a bishop remains in communion with a hierarchy teaching doctrinal error, the Church has always treated that as:

at best: weakness
at worst: complicity

This is why the clergy of Constantinople removed Nestorius from the diptychs.

They did not say:
They said:
That is the Eastern standard.

5. “You are collapsing assent, toleration, non‑reception, and resistance.”

Response:

No—you are misapplying those categories.

Here is the real distinction:

Assent = accepting the teaching
Toleration = enduring it without accepting it
Non‑reception = refusing to incorporate it
Resistance = actively opposing it

The Eastern Churches today:

commemorate the hierarchy
accept the legitimacy of the council
do not reject its doctrinal formulations
do not sever communion
do not issue synodal condemnations
do not remove names from the diptychs

This is not non‑reception.

This is quiet assent.

Non‑reception requires an act of refusal.

The East has not refused.

Well if it helps, I only called you "flip flopper" because you said you were raised in the SSPX, then you said you went to the CMRI (flip).

Now you go to Byzantine in communion with the Vatican II sect (flop).

Don't take it as anything other than that.

I think your willingness to change positions when you come to realize distinctions that you previously had is admirable.

But in this case you are just flat out wrong.

The answer your question here is fully articulated above.

Your premise of "Silence as non-acceptance" is as full of holes as a block of swiss cheese and doesn't hold up under even the lightest scrutiny when evaluating historical cases and universal principles of faith in general.

You may be sincerely convinced of your premise but, I don't think it is intellectually honest.

The idea that for 60 years the Eastern bishops have been "silently resisting" by simply saying the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine rite and this is all that the faith requires.

"Heretical docuмents, sign em all day no problem."

"Hobnobbing with heretics, hosting them, praying with them, visiting them. "A" "OK".

I see no "discernment" here - I am sensing more of a mixture of desperation mixed with delusions of grandeur to be honest.

Good. Let’s expose your cult-mentality lies one by one.

1) “Silence is not non-reception; non-reception requires an act of refusal.”
This is a false absolutization of one historical pattern. Non-reception has never been limited to juridical rupture or formal condemnation. In the East especially, doctrinal non-reception often occurs through sustained non-integration, not immediate disciplinary acts. To retroactively impose a Western, post-schism expectation of procedural refusal onto Eastern ecclesiology is anachronistic and ignores how the East has actually lived through crises.

2) “Continued communion proves quiet assent.”
This argument equivocates on the meaning of communion. In Eastern history, communion has frequently been maintained under protest, ambiguity, or unresolved dispute for extended periods without implying doctrinal acceptance. The claim that communion automatically equals assent imports a Latin juridical logic that the Byzantine Church has never consistently shared.

3) “The East accepted the legitimacy of the council, therefore accepted its doctrine.”
This is a non sequitur. The East has repeatedly distinguished between recognition of an event and reception of its theological content. Councils, formulas, and imperial acts have often been “acknowledged” while their interpretations were resisted, re-read, or functionally sidelined for generations. Legitimacy does not equal doctrinal reception.

4) “Because Vatican II was not dogmatic, resistance should look the same as past heresies.”
This reverses the historical logic. Precisely because Vatican II framed itself as pastoral, ambiguous, and non-definitional, the Eastern response would not mirror reactions to overt dogmatic heresies like Arianism or Nestorianism. Different kinds of doctrinal problems provoke different ecclesial responses. Treating all error as if it must generate identical resistance patterns is historically naïve.

5) “Non-reception requires removal from diptychs.”
This is historically false. Removal from diptychs occurred in acute, crystallized heresies with identifiable teachers. Vatican II presents no such clear singular figure, formal anathema, or universally recognized heretical proposition. The East cannot remove “a council” from the diptychs in the same way it removed Nestorius. The analogy is structurally broken.

6) “Preserving the Divine Liturgy is insufficient; communion discipline is the true standard.”
This misunderstands Eastern theology at a foundational level. In the Byzantine Church, lex orandi is not decorative but constitutive. Refusal to alter the liturgy, creed, sacramental theology, and ascetical life is itself a doctrinal act. To dismiss this as passive is to misunderstand how doctrine is transmitted and resisted in the East.

7) “Silence plus communion equals complicity.”
This is a modern polemical assertion, not an Eastern principle. Historically, the East has tolerated long periods of deliberate ambiguity precisely to avoid premature schism while truth clarified over time. To label this as “complicity” is to substitute impatience for discernment and to confuse eschatological trust with cowardice.

8) Appeal to Arianism as the controlling paradigm.
Arianism is not the universal template for every doctrinal crisis. It was a metaphysical, christological heresy that demanded immediate resolution. Vatican II is a pastoral-theological rupture marked by ambiguity, not a single definable dogma. Forcing Vatican II into the Arian model is not historical reasoning, it is just rhetorical convenience.

9) Claim that changing positions indicates dishonesty.
This is not an argument. Revising conclusions after deeper historical and theological study is how intellectual integrity works. Ironically, your own argument relies on distinctions (form vs. content, assent vs. tolerance) that undermine your accusation.

Your position only works if, all doctrinal errors demand identical resistance mechanisms, communion always equals assent, Eastern ecclesiology is judged by Western juridical standards, and

ambiguity is treated as betrayal rather than a historically attested mode of endurance.

None of those premises hold.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2026, 02:57:54 PM »

You’re actively not even arguing logic anymore.

You mention Vatican 3 as if that has any real bearing on reality.

Then you go off topic on the theme of flip flopping. All that was was a waste if words because my position remained the same. The only thing that changed was my view on the State of Necessity.

But your view of Catholic Tradition is so limited, that you don’t even actually understand the SSPX position to defend it well enough. Archbishop Lefebre remains vindicated. How does that tie into uour analysis of my position.

The bottom line is
-you have no real understanding of of the Crisis in the Faith or Church history
-your argument doesn’t go deep enough to penetrate the understanding of Traditionalist culture or the motives for how Tradition got here in the first place.

You can go sit in your pew this Sunday in your best suit top and compete with your neighbors about who yells out the response better in a Low Mass where they shouldn’t be anyway. Then go home to your plastic world and tell yourself how Traditional you are.

Oh and I never needed a computer to say all that. Older forum members understand that.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Silence as non-acceptance (Read 13253 times)

Centroamerica

Re: Silence as non-acceptance

Centroamerica

Re: Silence as non-acceptance

Centroamerica

Re: Silence as non-acceptance

Centroamerica

Re: Silence as non-acceptance

Centroamerica

Re: Silence as non-acceptance