Posted on 10/09/2018 4:09:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
What you suggest is that the Catholic Faith created these heretics. That is heretical.
Truth is never heretical.
No, I seem to be suggesting that "the Catholic Faith" was the environment in which a great many sodomites, heretics, and infidels grew up, developed, and spread their errors ... ultimately producing Vatican II. "The Catholic Faith" educated and formed these men; "The Catholic Faith" ordained them; "The Catholic Faith" raised them to positions of influence, authority and power. Even when "The Catholic Faith" moved against a very few of them, it did so utterly without effect. These facts are undeniable.
Not Truth. Heresy.
Refrain from putting words in my keyboard. It’s fundamentally dishonest.
And yet you do not deny that Traditional Catholicism equals The Catholic Faith. Why?
Why do you deny that they were ordained as priests in "The Catholic Faith"? It's manifestly true that they were.
Why do you deny that they were raised to positions of influence, authority, and power in "The Catholic Faith" by others who already had such positions in "The Catholic Faith". It's manifestly true that they were.
Why do you deny that "The Catholic Faith" failed to move effectively against them? It is manifestly true that NOTHING moved effectively against them.
You can cry "heretic" at me if you like, but I stand with the facts and with the truth.
Vatican II did not happen in a vacuum.
Study history. Learn from it. Or be doomed to repeat it.
>>Every priest, bishop, cardinal at the Second Vatican Council was raised, educated and ordained in “Traditional Catholicism”. Every sister, brother, priest, bishop, cardinal in the first generation of implementing the “Spirit of Vatican II” was raised, educated, and ordained (or took vows) in “Traditional Catholicism”.<<
This statement could be entirely true but it completely obfuscates the reality that those who orchestrated the radical changes of the Council that have damn near destroyed the Church and made it the most prominent institution of ridicule in the modern world WERE and ARE the very people you’re attempting to defend.
Did it ever dawn on you that many of these men were not manifest heretics, but occult heretics? You sure are quick to condemn the Faith they were raised in, ordained in, etc. Do you really think these sneaky Modernists moved about so that their true intentions were manifestly known? Have you ever read how Pius X describes these crafty fellows?
For decades the true Catholics have been sounding the alarms. Instead of joining them in the Crusade against the enemies of the Church others label them schismatics or heretics (and still do). Forgive me if I can’t take your “coulda woulda shouldas” too seriously.
>> Name for me all the priests, bishops, and cardinals who participated in the Second Vatican Council who were NOT raised, educated, and ordained in “Traditional Catholicism”. Think about it before you respond. After you give me that lengthy list of names, we can proceed with our discussion.<<
Once again your argument is irrelevant for the simple reason that it is totally beside the point, which point is that those who controlled the machinations of the Council with the goal of “modernizing” the Church, while at the same time foolishly attempting to conform its ecclesiology to liberal Prostestantism, have reduced the Church to a hideous charicature of its pre-Vatican II self.
Do not slander me. Read what I wrote. Do not read your prejudices into what I wrote.
If "Traditional Catholicism" is to be survive, it must learn from the mistakes of the past. It must do a MUCH better job of identifying and defenestrating those whom you call "occult heretics".
>> Do not slander me. Read what I wrote. Do not read your prejudices into what I wrote.<<
Were you or were you not attempting to mount a defense of the cretins at VC-II whose goal was the destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ Himself? Yes or No? I think you were, and now you’re disgruntled because you got called on it.
Read what I wrote. Read ALL of what I wrote.
No sane person of good will can POSSIBLY infer a "defense of the cretins at VC-II" from what I wrote.
Your next post to me will be an apology.
I suspect that North Mountain is not a Traditional Catholic at all as evidenced by his placing blame on the Catholic Faith ( “Traditional Catholicism”) rather than where it belongs: on Modernism.
>> Your next post to me will be an apology.<<
Okay, if I misconstrued what you meant to say in your initial post, I do apologize. I admittedly tend to skim through posts that run to several lengthy paragraphs. So if you don’t mind, in few sentences, explain for me the main point you were making.
I have explained, already, in great detail, on this thread. Please read it.
>>I have explained, already, in great detail, on this thread. Please read it.<<
Way too much detail. Please summarize in a sentence or two the three or four main points that you rambled on about in you initial post. In other words, stop beating around the bush and tell us succinctly what your main points are. All that verbiage smacks of obfuscation. Spit it out old boy, what are you trying to tell us.
>>I suspect that North Mountain is not a Traditional Catholic at all as evidenced by his placing blame on the Catholic Faith (“Traditional Catholicism”) rather than where it belongs: on Modernism.<<
Well and truly said. I’ve posted to him several times asking him to clarify what he’s attempting to tell us. He refuses to do so. Apparently he’s accusing traditional Catholicism of being responsible for the VC-II debacle to persuade us that a return to pre-Vatican II ecclesiology would accomplish nothing.
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.