[ebb tide]

The central vice therefore lies in having fraudulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted. Those texts cannot today be changed in their substance to make them orthodox or clearer: they must simply be rejected – according to the forms that the supreme Authority of the Church shall judge appropriate in due course – since they are vitiated by a malicious intention. And it will also have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as Vatican II can still merit the title of Ecumenical Council, once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized— a heterogeneity so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic, something that no other Council has ever needed.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[Unam Sanctam]

I’m not convinced that the sentences he cites could not be interpreted as consistent with Tradition. They do not only admit of the heretical interpretation s he advances. And since the conciliator documents are magisterial, one has a duty to try and interpret them as such.

[Marchmain]

Does this include rejecting the Novus Ordo, or the vernacular mass?

[MurphsLaw]

Ebb - one question we must ponder then as well...... Is the Council Of Trent "untouchable" ??

OR WAS MARTIN LUTHER Correct.... on some things...???

#can-o-worms

[steve86]

I am Catholic and Vatican II and its offshoot masstrocity have no part in my faith or religious practice.