Vatican II was for the Church was 1789 (the French Revolution) was for Europe...the surrender of the Church to the world FORMED BY that revolution -- a world that had completely cast God aside...

So, the Immaculate Spouse of Christ surrendered to the world?  That is like saying she was unfaithful to her heavenly Husband, and laid down with the devil.  I shall never believe such a thing about my holy and spotless mother - NEVER.

Indeed, I often find myself saying to others, "the Church is perfect, the priests and Bishops are not".

Quote from: ChantCd

Vatican II was for the Church was 1789 (the French Revolution) was for Europe

I believe ChantCd meant the much of the human element of the Church. He did not mean to insinuate that the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church.

Of course he would not say such a thing (which is the same as saying Christ is not God), but that is where his statement leads, for Vatican II is part of the teaching of Holy Church, is it not?  Either those docuмents contain Catholic teaching or they do not.  As we all know, the V2 'popes' act as if V2 is the only Council.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Quote from: ChantCd

Vatican II was for the Church was 1789 (the French Revolution) was for Europe

I believe ChantCd meant the much of the human element of the Church. He did not mean to insinuate that the gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church.

Of course he would not say such a thing (which is the same as saying Christ is not God), but that is where his statement leads, for Vatican II is part of the teaching of Holy Church, is it not?  Either those docuмents contain Catholic teaching or they do not.  As we all know, the V2 'popes' act as if V2 is the only Council.

Instead your conclusion leads to something even more asinine, namely, a Church which is not clearly visible that requires an incredible amount of specialized theological knowledge to decipher an opinion by a few theologians which has no connection to the history of the Church.

The most you can present is quotes from theologians who don't believe in the fullness of your conclusion which is a Church which is no longer clearly visible. I can find a similar # of quotes to the contrary which are clear expositions of the fullness of what they believe, not some proof-texted material.  

As I found such conversation as a debate goes nowhere because it's a worm-hole in the mud. But the conclusions you reach are diabolical because of the desire to fractionalize prayer from the Holy Father who needs it the most, and reduces the Church to a bride nowhere to be found at the wedding because the bride is no longer a clear, visible entity that Christ said would be a city set on a hill.

Look up the philology and etymology of the word diabolic.

Never said a whore, you said that.

Even taking your logic you implicitly admit there is no bride. Pretty condemning statement considering you talked about solutions.

Why believe in a Church never envisioned by anyone previous theologian or saint for 1970 years? Your solution is more ludicrous, namely, to turn the Church into a cuмulative theological opinion session by which only the elite who hit that level of knowledge can ever understand.

It's clearly diabolic when you take away prayers from the people who need it the most. Diabolic is the breaking or tearing asunder. By breaking away the prayers needed to those who need it most you spread this tearing asunder.

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

Never said a whore, you said that.

Ah, Michael, I never said you said it - but it is rather implied if you take the NO to be the Catholic Church (or part thereof, or whatever), and you think V2 and the cesspool it has produced is an actual problem.  Is the V2 Church identical with the Spotless Bride of Christ - or not?

Quote

Even taking your logic you implicitly admit there is no bride. Pretty condemning statement considering you talked about solutions.

I offered no solutions, MS, nor do I think puny men need to come up with them - the game is much too far along for that.

Please make explicit what you claim I say implicitly.

Quote

It's clearly diabolic when you take away prayers from the people who need it the most.

And from whom have I taken away anything?  Have I thwarted your ability to pray, MS?  Anyone else's?

Quote

Diabolic is the breaking or tearing asunder. By breaking away the prayers needed to those who need it most you spread this tearing asunder.

I am having a hard time following this train of thought, as I have "broken away" nothing.  Please explain.

Do you realize how insane you are? You say I imply things, that others imply things, and yet I can't hold you to your implications.

You break away the prayers from the hierarchy and sow this seed of chaos.