Posted on 10/09/2018 4:09:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
It was you who deflected from VC II to “traditional Catholicism”.
Once again, what are your thoughts on VC II? Is it “catholic”, traditional or otherwise?
Will you fess up and admit that "modernism" is the cause of that rot? And VC II is a result of that "rot"?
Traditional Catholicism goes back twenty centuries. It was you first brought up "traditional catholicism" in your first post, #13.
VC II and the novus ordo are not "traditional catholicism".
I "deflected" nothing. I pointed out the fact that Vatican II, and all its ills, had their genesis in the "Traditional Catholicism" of the XIX and early-mid XX Century.
Bashing Vatican II is easy. I'm challenging folks to look a little deeper. Ask yourself the unspeakable question: "Where did Vatican II come from?"
Do you actually suppose that a bunch of morally straight, orthodox, faithful "Traditional Catholics" showed up in Rome one fine October day in 1962, and proceeded to go stark raving mad? That's absurd!
They arrived with an agenda ... many with an evil agenda. The sodomites, heretics, and infidels who showed up with an evil agenda had all been raised, educated, and ordained in "Traditional Catholicism". What did "Traditional Catholicism" do with these men? It raised them to positions of influence, authority, and power.
Bugnini, whom you execrate, was an ARCHBISHOP. Montini, whom I think you also execrate, was an ARCHBISHOP. You can't just trash Vatican II, as much as it deserves trashing, without also raising some very pointed questions about the "Traditional Catholicism" which preceded it.
Vatican II did not happen in a vacuum.
Will you 'fess up and admit that "Traditional Catholicism" did not effectively deal with the rot? Will you 'fess up and admit that "Traditional Catholicism" elevated sodomites, heretics, and infidels to positions of power, influence, and authority?
Vatican II did not happen in a vacuum.
You're wrong, again.
The phrase "traditional Catholicism" appears very early in the original post. I didn't bring it up. The original post brought it up.
You did read the original post. Right?
I've already answered it: Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies; and its culmination is VC II and Jorge Bergoglio.
You are witnessing it now.
You do realize, I hope, that there were “traditional Catholic” modernists prior to the Council; and those same modernists hijacked said Council.
And do you know who are the opposite of modernists?
It's traditional catholics who renounce modernism.
I’ll be the first of to admit those errors exist:
VCII, Bugnini’s Mess, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.
Care to name any errors prior to the Council?
I believe that you’re not reading what I’m writing.
In what environment did Arianism and Jainism grow?
In those former environments, Catholic popes battled those heresies.
ROFL!
There was "historical criticism" of the Sacred Scriptures, de Chardin's weird evolutionary beliefs, John Courtney Murray's indifferentism ...
Let's not forget the operational errors of covering for sodomites, and elevating sodomites, heretics, and infidels to positions of influence, authority, and power.
"Traditional Catholicism" raised, educated and ordained men like Bugnini and Montini, along with men like Chardin, Murray, Leonardo Boff, de Lubac ...
"Traditional Catholicism" ultimately created Vatican II, and sent sodomites, heretics, and infidels to run it. They arrived with an evil agenda, which they had developed during their many years in "Traditional Catholicism". "Traditional Catholicism" was utterly powerless to stop them; indeed "Traditional Catholicism" had provided men like them with cover for more than 100 years.
VATICAN II DID NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM.
They EXCOMMUNICATED the heretics and infidels.
And there you go again, proving my point. You had to go back 1700 years ... Meanwhile, in the XIX and early to mid XX Centuries, "Traditional Catholicism" provide fertile ground for sodomites, heretics, and infidels to brew up their evil.
No, rather, St Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius.
What’s wrong with going back 2,000 years?
The Old Testament goes back even farther.
Do you, like Francis, think we have a god still full of surprises?
1) That’s a gross oversimplification ...
2) It’s not relevant. We’re talking about Vatican II,
Again, we’re talking about Vatican II ... which did not happen in a vacuum.
No, Vatican II did not have its genesis in Traditional Catholicism. It had genesis in heresy. Traditional Catholics (aka Catholics) are not the cause of Vatican II. You seem to be suggesting that because these men or their parents came from Traditional Catholicism that one can lay the fault of Vatican II at the feet of Traditional Catholicism. Hogwash.
These facts are undeniable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.