[piusv]

Two brief examples concern the Council’s treatment of the Church’s relationship with the Jews, and its assessment of the heretical communities vis-à-vis salvation. In other words, it simply is not reality to say that such “parts of the conciliar statements” possess “value,” temporary or otherwise. Doctrinal ambiguities (much more doctrinal errors) serve no purpose other than to obscure the truth (read: Christ), ultimately leading souls astray. As such, simply consigning the conciliar text to that which had value in a day-gone-by is not by any means a way forward; rather, the ambiguities and errors must be identified and condemned outright. Furthermore, the Holy See, properly speaking, has not “over-estimated” the Council; rather, the post-conciliar popes (and those in positions of authority in the Church in union with them) have simply accepted the conciliar text for what it says and acted upon it. In other words, it was in allowing the conciliar text to inform their words and deeds almost exclusively for nearly five decades that the popes gave rise to a new church that scarcely resembles the Holy Catholic Church, even as it operates under its name.

Home-run.

[HurriKane]

I really appreciate your posting this article about the conciliar church, I always look forward to reading your posts and replies on this topic, I have been studying this topic for the past year, the damage done by the conciliar church has been great and grave, a “reform of the reform” will only perpetuate the errors, so too a “hybrid form” which I read about elsewhere, only a true restoration of the extraordinary form will save us and our souls... Blessings, HK

[BlatherNaut]

Vatican II Responsible

Assisi Revisited

"...We quote from the Canadian Catholic Register, January 10, 1987, quoting NC News Service, “The unity shown by world religious leaders who prayed for peace in Assisi, Italy, last October (1986) was “visible illustration” of the Second Vatican Council’s call for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, Pope John Paul II said.” This speech was laced with quotations from the documents of Vatican II, which he said showed how “such a great event sprang from the teaching of the council.” Here we have the source of all this – Vatican II – and there can be no question of “misrepresentation” since the Pope himself has interpreted it. Our Lord did not call for “ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.” Our Lord said: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”..."

------------

"Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent." Romans 16: 17-18

--------------

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles." (Decrees of the First Vatican Council Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff)

Ecumenism = new doctrine

[BlatherNaut]

As such, simply consigning the conciliar text to that which had value in a day-gone-by is not by any means a way forward; rather, the ambiguities and errors must be identified and condemned outright.

At some point in the future when sanity returns to the Church, the entire council may well be condemned outright. Ditto Laudato si'.