No, it makes no sense to interpret the council "according to what it means" because its meanings are ambiguous. They are not clear. Interpretations are left to the so-called "experts", most of whom are modernists with an agenda.
UR -
Yes, and so do I reject the Council--not for what it says, but for how it's been interpreted.
This is how I read the above and apply it to a hypothetical: "I reject the belief that THE HOLY EUCHARIST is JESUS CHRIST because the Catholic man standing next to me, who has read all that Saint Augustine wrote including:
It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so"
whispered to me "I know we didn't adore the Eucharist properly... that's not Jesus on the altar!"
gbcdoj:
Wouldn't it make more sense to accept the Council according to what it means, and not distortions made by those who never read the documents?
Yes gbcdoj, PERFECT sense.
gbcdoj:
I fail to see how the ravings of heretics affect the meaning of the conciliar texts. LOL at the flair insertion :-)
ur:
No, it makes no sense to interpret the council "according to what it means" because its meanings are ambiguous. They are not clear. Interpretations are left to the so-called "experts", most of whom are modernists with an agenda.I see above gbddoj, that not only are there apparent stumbling blocks with interpretation, but there's a stumbling block on WHO is experiencing the problem. It may be the right time for music.