Author Topic: Kasper Admits Vat II Docuмents Were Cooked Nonsense!!!! (Read 1410 times)

Anthony Benedict · « **on:** April 15, 2013, 01:57:17 AM »

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2013/04/kasper-admits-intentional-ambiguity.html

THIS IS HUGE!!!!

IT VINDICATES ABL. LEFEBVRE, DISEMBOWELS THE GEORGE WEIGELS AND EWTN GUM FLAPPERS OF THE WORLD AND PUTS THE THEOLOGICAL SCANDAL BALL RIGHT IN JORGE THE HUMBLE'S COURT!

NOW WITH THE EcuмANIA GURU OF THE AGES ADMITTING IT, AND AS ANY MARINE SNIPER CAN TELL 'EM, THE MODERNISTS CAN RUN, BUT THEY'LL JUST DIE TIRED!!!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2013, 02:29:41 AM »

Why do you think it's "huge?" We've been saying this all along.

Quote

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano this past Friday...

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction."
(Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

...Cardinal Kasper affirms the positions of Michael Davies, Lefebvre and the Traditionalists? These are strange times, indeed.

So Cardinal Kasper finally is willing to admit something VAGUELY similar to
what we've been saying all along and that's huge? Maybe he just fell off
the turnip truck. If it was really that huge would it have ever gotten into
the press?

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2013, 06:36:57 AM »

It actually is "huge" in that a Conciliar cardinal is unambiguously admitting to what tradtional Catholics have been saying for years. As Anthony Benedict points out, the admission undermines the claims of many of the Conciliar apologists who have been denying that there is any real problem with the docuмents that came out of the council. It's also important because the Modernists themselves are now beginning to be open about such issues.

On the other hand, the Modernists engage in NewSpeak so often that this really doesn't matter to the Conciliarists. They will ignore what this cardinal has said whenever it suits their purposes and proclaim what he said when it does suit their purposes. Truth is truth only when it advances their evil intentions and they will simply ignore truth or make up their own when that advances their intentions.

It's only "huge" in that such admissions by Conciliar authorities do tend to build up the morale of traditional Catholics and help to supress doubts that many have on occasion as to whether or not they are doing what is right. But it is not "huge" in that it will have any impact how the Modernists will act. As for George Weigle, specifically, I've heard the name on occasion, but I really don't know who he is. But if what I've heard about him is accurate, this admission of the cardinal will mean absolutely nothing.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2013, 06:51:50 AM »

I'm not sure a modernist considers ambiguous compromises a problem.

With Ecclesia Dei priests specially trained to explain away all the problems with conciliarism to Traditionalists, they can say, SEE, CARD. KASPER sees the problem - THINGS ARE IMPROVING!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2013, 06:52:52 AM »

A fellow like Weigel could care less about Catholic doctrine.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2013, 08:33:58 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

It actually is "huge" in that a Conciliar cardinal is unambiguously admitting to what tradtional Catholics have been saying for years. As Anthony Benedict points out, the admission undermines the claims of many of the Conciliar apologists who have been denying that there is any real problem with the docuмents that came out of the council. It's also important because the Modernists themselves are now beginning to be open about such issues.

On the other hand, the Modernists engage in NewSpeak so often that this really doesn't matter to the Conciliarists. They will ignore what this cardinal has said whenever it suits their purposes and proclaim what he said when it does suit their purposes. Truth is truth only when it advances their evil intentions and they will simply ignore truth or make up their own when that advances their intentions.

It's only "huge" in that such admissions by Conciliar authorities do tend to build up the morale of traditional Catholics and help to supress doubts that many have on occasion as to whether or not they are doing what is right. But it is not "huge" in that it will have any impact how the Modernists will act. As for George Weigle, specifically, I've heard the name on occasion, but I really don't know who he is. But if what I've heard about him is accurate, this admission of the cardinal will mean absolutely nothing.

George Weigle is a weasel. There isn't much else to know about him.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2013, 10:01:43 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I'm not sure a modernist considers ambiguous compromises a problem.

With Ecclesia Dei priests specially trained to explain away all the problems with conciliarism to Traditionalists, they can say, SEE, CARD. KASPER sees the problem - THINGS ARE IMPROVING!

That's what I was thinking. It's a bit like B16's hermeneutic stuff. It all depends
on how you look at it.

So there are two ways of looking at it, one being the Modernist's "Oh, well, so
what, he's making an ambiguous compromise, but we don't have to pay any
attention to that, and besides, this will make the Neotrads happy while we
continue to smother them."

The other way, is that we can hang on to this to use as we see fit, either to
remember that the opposition is weakening or to make it BIG NEWS
like Anthony Benedict says in the OP. My hunch is, the former is okay, but if
we take the latter method, we might end up DISCOURAGING this kind of
slip-ups in the future -- see what I mean?

By grabbing their flub-ups and rubbing it in their faces, we effectively make
them shy away from similar things in the future, but if we quietly collect them,
then present the collection judiciously, it has a very powerful effect.

IOW, I am recommending 'prudence' to not be too trigger-happy.

Quote from: Telesphorus

A fellow like Weigel could care less about Catholic doctrine.

I'm frankly surprised, Tele. A guy like you should use proper English:

A fellow like Weigel couldn't care less
about Catholic doctrine.

Because if you say "he could care less," then one may well ask, "Just how
much less could he care, then?"

Some idioms make you sound like an idiot. Don't go with the excuse that it's
just a popular expression, because it is a STUPID popular expression. We
can rise above stupidity. I don't think you'll find +W saying "could" in this way.