What point are you trying to make, Rosaium?
That we should try to be a little charitable in our forum activity, at least to the extent that we avoid needlessly gravely offending others.
As for your comment about your Irish descendants being tanned and speaking Spanish, it would mean that they would disappear.
How do you figure that? They would not be "Irish" in the same sense I am, but then again, I am not "Irish" in the same sense James was or in the same sense Niall Noígíallach was. Language and genetics have changed. Admittedly, I probably have similar physical characteristics to most Irish descendants, but that does not mean I am not also a descendant of Native Americans and Danes and other European peoples from which my mother's family is from.
I am not a pagan Irish native like my ancestors, but they are still my ancestors even though my language and religion and geographic location are very different.
As for IQ, I think the Japanese as a group have the highest IQ with Australian aborigines being at the lowest, even lower than subsaharan Africans. Although whites of the Medici European being very high. The αѕнкenαzι Jєωs, as a group, are considerable over represented in the high IQ department. IQ matters, someone's gotta have it, to build things and design things and create things and to provide material benefits to the really low IQ group who probably couldn't even feed themselves if some other group wasn't standing by in the custodial role.
That is statistics. Individuals are not the group.
I am American born and raised, by I am not average in many ways. My IQ is very above average according to their tests. I am very strong and fit and lean, and not just in comparison to the fat and weak average person of the USA. My morals are far superior to the average American. Some things are genetic, such as my my intellectual capabilities, and other things are not genetic, such as my religion. Some things are chance, such as my language, and some things are not chance, such as my fitness.
In a nutshell, what is your view of Vatican II? Where are you on the traddie spectrum?
In a nutshell?
Vatican II was a council of the Church which introduced and spread much confusion in the Church. It was a means (not necessarily in its original purpose, but certainly in its development and final form) an attempt of Satan and his minions to attack the people of Christ and cause many to fall away from the Faith. It is perhaps a singular most devastating and devious attack of Satan on the Church Herself, as it has no clear battle lines, but instead uses confusion and ambiguity. Other such attacks which are comparable in some way would be the series of events we consider to be "Protestant", the Western Schism, and the East-West Schism. All these attacks have caused many to fall away, weakened the authority of the Church, and have been the occasion of fall for many.
I believe Vatican II was an attempt to "fix" a problem which did not exist, until they opened the door for it to occur. If they had refrained from any changes and held tightly to what was given to them, they would have overcome the errors of this world and have lost few Catholics, but instead, Vatican II and the confusion which followed gave occasion for many to embrace the world.
I believe there to be two "layers" to the Vatican II issue. One is the council itself, the docuмents themselves, which contain great ambiguity and needless statements which cause confusion and doubt, and the other is the "spirit" of Vatican II, which often goes against the strict letter of Vatican II, but nonetheless, is clearly a result of Vatican II.
I believe the first offensive to combat the errors of Vatican II is to attack the novelties, errors, and clear denials of Catholic doctrine which have run rampant in many in the Church. Since Vatican II defines no doctrines of the Faith, offers no clarifications on morality, and contains statements which can be used to promote things contrary to Catholic doctrines and morals, I believe it should be negated in some fashion, although, I am not really aware of exactly how that would be done.
I do accept Vatican II as a council of the Church and that the Church is still protected by the Holy Ghost, and that Vatican II is a testament to the power of God in that it does not directly contradict truth, but only gives occasion of it to those who chose to do so. I accept the forms of the Sacraments done in the Novus Ordo (all the sacraments are valid when done with proper intent and matter), and I accept the Pope as being the Pope and deserving of our aid in prayer if not always in our agreement with his words. I exclusively attend the TLM and always have except to meet my obligations when no TLM was accessible but a NO was where the priest affirmed the Creed in his acts as well as his words.
For the Catechism and rites of Vatican II influence, I find the fruits of the Council of Trent to be more useful and more clear, and since Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI affirmed all of Trent, I almost exclusively use those works without fear of contradiction. According to Vatican II, doctrine and morals are the same as they were, so for me, ignoring Vatican II is what I do.
I think Vatican II was allowed to happen as punishment for sin, perhaps related to the events at Fatima. I do not pretend to know the mind of God.
On the "traddie spectrum", I would place myself as a person who looks to examples of the saints, to the writings of the most learned doctors of the Church, and to the Sacraments. It is with Faith in God and Hope of salvation that I am Catholic, and I attempt to purge myself of tendencies which impede salvation. I have seen many fall from the Church both through sins of the flesh and worldly infatuations, and through inordinate attention to the politics of our day and obsession with temporal matters, rather than morality and doctrine. I believe the SSPX was founded and continued in good faith and in accordance with Canon Law. I am not up to date on current events in the SSPX.
But this thread was not about Vatican II, but basic Catholic conduct.
Topic: Caritas (Read 1191 times)