It seems to me that the "genius" of modern heretics has been to find tiny gaps in the armor of Holy Mother Church, where they can worm their way in and expand the breach by application. Just because something hasn't been identified as a heresy previously doesn't mean it won't be defined as such in the future. But in the meantime, we've got to cope with it.  

Actually, it's always been that way. But from our vantage point, it seems like history is an open book that everyone can read. Time was, when heresies were growing, that they seduced many before God rose up a saint to put a stop to the madness.

We're still waiting for the present-day saint.

If only everyone would put their intelligence to work defending the Faith instead of attacking it! Instead, we've got feel-good group sessions that try to discover the truth presuming from the start that no one has it.

Our Lord IS the truth. And as the song goes, "...And adoring, bend the knee, while we own the mystery!" He is Our Lord, and He is the Truth.

Too many calling themselves Christians don't really want to believe what Our Lord has to say in Holy Scripture. How many "red letter editions" of the Bible are carried around by students who never read the red letter texts? They just study St. Paul, who is easily misunderstood (according to St. Peter himself!) and they proceed to misunderstand him.

It's quite interesting that Rome is now stating openly what Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX has said since the Council.

Excuse me? Could you repeat that. :thinking:

If that is true, then Vat2 will be condemned by Rome? Hmmm....

Here is the relevant portion.

"It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth"

Those who think man has a right to error would pretend that he has no such obligation.

In the interview posted by the OP, Bishop Fellay said something like, "I think they have a very narrow definition of religious liberty ... When we ask them if there is a right to error, they say, No ... In the discussions . . . we see that many things we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council."
 

Excuse me? Could you repeat that. If that is true, then Vat2 will be condemned by Rome?

What I meant was this. Archbishop Lefebvre had often asked the Pope, it was Paul VI at the time, "How can there be a natural right to error?" The answer he got then, was, something like "This is not the time for theology" as he recounted later. I read this in Michael Davies' book.

I'm saying the SSPX's doctrinal stance has been vindicated - there is in fact, contrary to what even some Roman churchmen have maintained in the last 50 years, no right to error.

This "duty to seek the truth" has become the practice of "dialogue," whereby Catholics and non-Catholics get together and attempt to "discover" the truth, presuming from the start that no one has the truth.

Well, I think this obligation only binds those who do not know the truth, since it is said "They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth"

This much is unproblematic and in accord with what the Church always taught about those in error. They are to make efforts to seek out and learn the truth, if at all it be possible, otherwise their ignorance of it cannot be said to be invincible.

Spiritus, if the entire episcopacy defected from the Faith, the gates of hell prevailed.

Telesphorus, don't you think it might sometimes be necessary for the Church to agree to some form of mutual toleration with other sects? The fathers of Trent considered granting a promise of safe conduct to the Protestants to come to the Council for the purpose of theological disputation. When the Church considered this, was she condemning her past conduct? The Church has the authority to use force or have recourse to the secular arm if necessary, but she does not always opt to do so, even when it is in her power.

Also, St.Thomas says this on the question of whether the children of Jєωs and other unbelievers should be forcibly baptized against their parent's will "If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. ..Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will."