Fr. Cantalamessa? Help!....

[Contarini]

Contarini,
If the “ecumenism” you speak of does not lead to conversion to the Catholic faith, outside of which is no salvation, then it is a false ecumenism and no true Catholic can support it in good conscience because it leads to religious indifference.

Your disagreements with your Pope are your business, of course, but one would think you’d at least give him a hearing. I know that the Pope’s ecumenical efforts are directed toward the union of all Christians in the fullness of the Catholic Faith. That is certainly what I desire. The Pope has explicitly rejected “ecumenism of return,” which he defines as our renunciation of our own heritage. In other words, he wants to bring Protestants into the fullness of the Catholic Faith together with everything that is good and true in our traditions. You may think this is wrong, but the plain fact is that he is the Pope and you aren’t. You don’t even speak for a sizeable number of Catholics. So there’s no reason I or any Protestant should pay much attention to you. You would rather stew in anger than help us reach the truth. May God help you.

I have read several of Cantalamessa’s sermons and several of his statements (specifically regarding Martin Luther and the charismatic/pentecostal movement) and found them quite problematic and confusing.

But you can’t give a single bit of evidence or a single substantive argument. Your posts are nothing but empty rhetoric–a clanging gong and a crashing cymbal, to quote St. Paul.

It is hardly suprising that one who is a member of a man-made ecclesial community which is constantly changing its doctrines (or rather, getting rid of doctrines), electing homo “bishops”, and shifting its stance on moral issues to keep up with the times would be pleased with someone like Cantalamessa,

Ah, yes. The irrelevant attack–sure weapon of the person with nothing to say. Furthermore, it’s a little rich that someone who rejects everything the authority figures of his own Church say is so quick to identify me with what the (national, not even worldwide) authority figures of my own church say.

who teaches a gospel that is that is so vague and watered-down to the lowest common denominator so that it offends hardly anyone.

Hardly anyone? Well, to you my mother may be “hardly anyone,” but you can’t expect me to share your opinion. And she was horribly offended by Cantalamessa’s book on Mary. When she discovered it in my apartment (more than ten years ago) she left post-it notes all over it telling me how un-Biblical it was. She’s softened in her attitude a lot since then, BTW. But she certainly found Cantalamessa anything but “watered down.” Again, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Cantalamessa isn’t watering anything down as far as I can tell. The one time I heard him preach on EWTN he was railing about the DaVinci Code–I agreed with everything he said but didn’t find it very edifying (since I have no disposition to believe that garbage). Again, hardly “watered down.” The sermon on justification didn’t water anything down–it simply pointed out that an important part of the Gospel often doesn’t get through to Catholics in the pews because of the way Western Christians (on both sides) have become locked into certain polemical attitudes. He didn’t deny or question a single doctrine of Trent, if I recall.

 

[Contarini]

If the current Pope encourages and participates in joint worship services with heretical sects, then I disagree with him and think what he is doing is wrong.

It’s not just the current Pope–it’s Vatican II, the Catechism, etc. Of course you don’t care. You’re a “Traditional Catholic,” which is to say that you follow a form of Catholicism that exists in your own head. I know what that’s like. That’s the kind of Anglican I am. That’s why I’m not comfortable being an Anglican.

Traditional Catholics understand that the Pope is authoritative and we obey him when he is obedient to tradition;

As interpreted by you, of course. Hasn’t it crossed your mind that B16 knows the Catholic tradition at least as well as you do? I know you don’t have to accept his fallible statements as necessarily true, but it passes all reason that you’re unwilling even to pay respectful attention to them. I do that, and I’m not a Catholic!

Why should a Catholic be concerned about the “war” for the Wesleyan tradition?

Because you want to bring us to the Truth?

The “Wesleyan tradition” is steeped in heresy and false teaching.

Whether or not that’s true, I doubt that you can identify correctly a single Wesleyan teaching.

The only war the Catholic should be concerned with is the war for souls to be brought into the Church so that they too might be saved.

You can’t save people as isolated individuals because that’s not what they are. That’s why Christ established a Church. Your individualism leaves the Catholic Church (in which you claim to believe) as a bizarre aberration. If what Christ wanted to do was just to save individuals, why isn’t Protestantism (in its most individualistic form) correct? Why is the unity and visible structure of the Church important at all? Why not just have a bunch of people wandering around with tracts? Your position cuts the ground out from under your own feet.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s not just the current Pope–it’s Vatican II, the Catechism, etc. Of course you don’t care. You’re a “Traditional Catholic,” which is to say that you follow a form of Catholicism that exists in your own head. I know what that’s like. That’s the kind of Anglican I am. That’s why I’m not comfortable being an Anglican.

As interpreted by you, of course. Hasn’t it crossed your mind that B16 knows the Catholic tradition at least as well as you do? I know you don’t have to accept his fallible statements as necessarily true, but it passes all reason that you’re unwilling even to pay respectful attention to them. I do that, and I’m not a Catholic!

Because you want to bring us to the Truth?

Whether or not that’s true, I doubt that you can identify correctly a single Wesleyan teaching.

You can’t save people as isolated individuals because that’s not what they are. That’s why Christ established a Church. Your individualism leaves the Catholic Church (in which you claim to believe) as a bizarre aberration. If what Christ wanted to do was just to save individuals, why isn’t Protestantism (in its most individualistic form) correct? Why is the unity and visible structure of the Church important at all? Why not just have a bunch of people wandering around with tracts? Your position cuts the ground out from under your own feet.

In Christ,

Edwin

Ah, Edwin, you would make a splendid Catholic, a Newman or a Chesterton! You’re three-quarters of the way across the Tiber and, rotten sinner though I may be, I’m rooting for you and holding a towel.

 

[El_Paulo]

Could I suggest that if anyone gets the chance they read “Life in the Lordship of Christ” (ISBN 0-232-52006-2) by Fr Cantalamessa. It’s one of the best Catholic presentations of the kerygma that I have read and is based on St Paul’s Letter to the Romans. I think that print is usually a good way to get an idea about what someone thinks.

I think that what many people object to is his charismatic background and language. I would suggest that this is the reason why he ‘mixes’ with other Christians - those who also share this perspective on the faith.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Vatican II statements were so ambiguous, dubious, confusing, and vague, they have to be interpreted in the light of previous Church teaching in order to be understood.

Isn’t that pretty much the norm for any Church ecumenical council?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

It’s not just the current Pope–it’s Vatican II, the Catechism, etc. Of course you don’t care. You’re a “Traditional Catholic,” which is to say that you follow a form of Catholicism that exists in your own head. I know what that’s like. That’s the kind of Anglican I am. That’s why I’m not comfortable being an Anglican.

Edwin,

All Anglicans follow the Anglicanism inside their own head. It’s what makes Anglicanism… Anglicanism!

I remember when I was driving in Detroit and I saw a billboard advertising the local Episcopal diocese… the tagline was something like “Episcopalianism… not your mother’s church.”

 

[SnorterLuster]

You can’t save people as isolated individuals because that’s not what they are. That’s why Christ established a Church. Your individualism leaves the Catholic Church (in which you claim to believe) as a bizarre aberration. If what Christ wanted to do was just to save individuals, why isn’t Protestantism (in its most individualistic form) correct? Why is the unity and visible structure of the Church important at all? Why not just have a bunch of people wandering around with tracts? Your position cuts the ground out from under your own feet.

In Christ,

Edwin

If you would, expand on this. I don’t think I really understand what you are trying to say.

I am a Catholic, I belong to a parish, I worship at the Mass along with other members of the parish and when I have fulfilled the fast and am free from mortal sin, I participate in Holy Communion. I put money in the collection basket, go to Mass on Holy Days of Obligation, I pray for the Pope and Bishop, the people in purgatory, and the living. In short I consider myself a member of the Catholic Church in good standing–at least usually.

I am also an individual. Only I can repent my sins. Only I can do those positives steps to receive the Grace and strength to follow Christ. When it is all said and done, I, the individual, will be the only one at judgement. None of my fellow parishoners or Catholics will be there for moral support. I will be there alone and I will be judged only on my actions, not the actions of others. If isolated individuals, which I would say includes all of us, cannot be saved as individuals, then there is no hope, is there?

 

[Contarini]

Ah, Edwin, you would make a splendid Catholic, a Newman or a Chesterton!

Don’t tempt me! Flattery is a bad reason to convert, don’t you think? And frankly I’d be tempted to become a Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Primitive Baptist if I thought it would make me just a little bit like Chesterton (of course, the Primitive Baptists haven’t managed to produce anyone like Chesterton, but that’s another issue!). Newman I admire from a far with a reverence tinged with fear, but Chesterton I love almost above any other writer. He’s probably the main reason I started taking Catholicism seriously in the first place (though Dante, Tolkien, the medieval mystics, and Flannery O’Connor all played a role).

You’re three-quarters of the way across the Tiber

Is that why it’s so wet and cold?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If you would, expand on this. I don’t think I really understand what you are trying to say.

I was being rather cryptic, wasn’t I?

I am also an individual. Only I can repent my sins. Only I can do those positives steps to receive the Grace and strength to follow Christ. When it is all said and done, I, the individual, will be the only one at judgement. None of my fellow parishoners or Catholics will be there for moral support. I will be there alone and I will be judged only on my actions, not the actions of others. If isolated individuals, which I would say includes all of us, cannot be saved as individuals, then there is no hope, is there?

Well, that’s not my understanding of Catholicism, but you’re the Catholic. What about the Communion of Saints? What about all those stories of Mary pulling people out of hell by their rosary beads? What about Mass for the dead? What about (though it sounds weird coming from a Protestant) indulgences, for heaven’s sake? Yes, of course I know that if we choose to turn our back on God then the Church can’t do you any good. I’ll grant that we are damned as individuals. But we are saved only as members of the Body, by the grace that flows through the Body from the Head.

The point at issue with CatholicGuy is that he believes that those not in full communion with the Church are outside, period. That is of course not what Vatican II said, and not what JP2 or B16 have said. Quite the reverse–they have made it clear that we share to some degree in the life of the Body. And this is in our experience plainly true. That doesn’t mean that we should rest with what we have–the unity of the Church and the fullness of Tradition are vitally important. But it means a great deal to us that the Catholic Church recognizes us not just as individuals who might be living in invincible ignorance, but as fellow-Christians who share, however imperfectly, in the life of the Mystical Body.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Crusade_Guy]

The point at issue with CatholicGuy is that he believes that those not in full communion with the Church are outside, period. That is of course not what Vatican II said, and not what JP2 or B16 have said. Quite the reverse–they have made it clear that we share to some degree in the life of the Body. And this is in our experience plainly true. That doesn’t mean that we should rest with what we have–the unity of the Church and the fullness of Tradition are vitally important. But it means a great deal to us that the Catholic Church recognizes us not just as individuals who might be living in invincible ignorance, but as fellow-Christians who share, however imperfectly, in the life of the Mystical Body.

In Christ,

Edwin

Contarini, since I am a Catholic I think I would have a much better understanding of papal infallibility and how it is applied than you–since you don’t even accept papal infallibility. Catholics are not bound to accept every single thing a Pope says. Popes CAN teach error, and have…just not on an “ex cathedra” level. For example, a Pope in the past (whose name escapes me at the moment) taught that there is no particular judgment, and even wrote letters expressing the same. Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, it was a pastoral council. Since it defined no dogma, it was not protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error. Whether or not you believe Vatican II does teach any error is a separate matter–the point is that it could teach error, because since the Vatican II fathers did not define or attempt to define dogma, they did not invoke the special protection of the Holy Spirit…

 

[Crusade_Guy]

That said, I don’t think Vatican II even said that the Church or Body of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church; it was worded in such an ambiguous way that one could draw that conclusion. However, if it is to be understood, Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of previous Church teaching. Pius XII, in his encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi”, taught:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church [12] - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

1. That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. “Christ,” says the Apostle, “is the Head of the Body of the Church.”[13] If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: “Though many we are one body in Christ.”[14] But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body.[15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

…

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Pope Piux XI’s encyclical “Moralium Animos” is devoted entirely to condemning errors which today are widespread under the name of “ecumenism.” It is on the Vatican’s website, if you’d like to read it:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
In it, he warns:

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.”[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. ]But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.…
A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but**, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another…**
7**. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one… And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,”[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. **For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. …
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth…

Please read it in its entirety! There is so much of it I would like to post but don’t have enough space. Contarini, JKirkLVNV and everyone else, please read this document.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Some additional excerpts:

1. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God.** Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."**[26]

1. **Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, **set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,”[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[30]

1. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate

 

[Crusade_Guy]

1. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

\Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, it was a pastoral council. Since it defined no dogma, it was not protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error.

can you please back up your allegations? i’ve heard this claimed a number of times from traditionalists who wish to ignore the teachings of vatican ii, but none can ever seem to back it up. it is an ecumenical council period and any faithful catholic must accept its canons or be considered anathema.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

can you please back up your allegations? i’ve heard this claimed a number of times from traditionalists who wish to ignore the teachings of vatican ii, but none can ever seem to back it up. it is an ecumenical council period and any faithful catholic must accept its canons or be considered anathema.

Vatican II doesn’t have any canons, SemperFi. And I never said it wasn’t an ecumenical council, I said it wasn’t a dogmatic council. This article explains why Vatican II was not dogmatic, therefore not infallible. It contains quotes from Paul VI and John XXIII and even Benedict XVI (when he was a cardinal) stating the same.
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No one is claiming that the ecclessial communities are not defective. *Domine Jesus *was issued to clarify that any who are saved are saved due to the Catholic Church. And read clearly what I said: what they have that is salvific is derived from and belongs to the Catholic Church (and as the CCC say, are themselves calls to Catholic unity). You’re not taking the extreme Feenyite position, are you? Even the schismatic SSPX condemns that (unless they’ve embraced even more error that I’m not aware of).

I don’t have the quote on me, but I believe that Pope Benedict said that the constitutions of the Council had to be accepted by Catholics.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

No one is claiming that the ecclessial communities are not defective. *Domine Jesus *was issued to clarify that any who are saved are saved due to the Catholic Church. And read clearly what I said: what they have that is salvific is derived from and belongs to the Catholic Church (and as the CCC say, are themselves calls to Catholic unity). You’re not taking the extreme Feenyite position, are you? Even the schismatic SSPX condemns that (unless they’ve embraced even more error that I’m not aware of).

I don’t have the quote on me, but I believe that Pope Benedict said that the constitutions of the Council had to be accepted by Catholics.

I am not a Feeneyite, JKirkLVNV. The SSPX is not schismatic, and they do not embrace any error. Your attitude towards the SSPX is condescending, pompous and rude, which is strange because that is the thing your type often accuses them of being.
Interestingly, the SSPX in addition to condemning modernist tendencies and postconciliar errors, also condemns the Feeneyite error, which cannot be said of the postconciliar church–Paul VI lifted the excommunicated on Fr. Feeney (which was originally imposed by Pius XII) without forcing him to renounce his errors. So oddly enough, one can still hold to the Feeneyite position and be in full communion with the postconciliar Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am not a Feeneyite, JKirkLVNV. The SSPX is not schismatic, and they do not embrace any error. Your attitude towards the SSPX is condescending, pompous and rude, which is strange because that is the thing your type often accuses them of being.
Interestingly, the SSPX in addition to condemning modernist tendencies and postconciliar errors, also condemns the Feeneyite error, which cannot be said of the postconciliar church–Paul VI lifted the excommunicated on Fr. Feeney (which was originally imposed by Pius XII) without forcing him to renounce his errors. So oddly enough, one can still hold to the Feeneyite position and be in full communion with the postconciliar Church.

I don’t want to hijcack the thread, but you’re living in a fantasy world regarding the SSPX. I’m not being condescending, pompous, or rude, I’m stating a simply fact. The LAITY may or may not be in schism, but the bishops ARE (and are excommunicate) and the priests are suspended ad divinis. I realize the SSPX condemn the idea, I’m the one who pointed it out! And you are the last person who should accuse anyone of rudeness. One has only to look at your postings to see evidence that that is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Balance]

Vatican II doesn’t have any canons, SemperFi. And I never said it wasn’t an ecumenical council, I said it wasn’t a dogmatic council. This article explains why Vatican II was not dogmatic, therefore not infallible. It contains quotes from Paul VI and John XXIII and even Benedict XVI (when he was a cardinal) stating the same.

Please, I’m not sure why, on a Catholic website and on Catholic forums, you’d think a link to a website run by an organisation taking its lead from someone who is a recognised schismatic - who *excommunicated himself * from the catholic Church - carries any weight, how an article from a website like that could explain anything about the Catholic faith. This is a website which puts “Vatican II teaching” in opposition to “Catholic teaching,” as if they are different, suggesting that Vatican II was not a genuine movement of the Spirit, was not ordained by Christ for his Church.

Your crusade here, Crusade Guy, seems like it could be harmful to Catholics browsing these pages who might not be well-formed in faith, or even those who are. I don’t think it’s too strong to say that, in trying to put across what might be valid concerns (or might be mere rabblerousing), you may be confusing people, leading them into error about what Vatican II was and what it means for the Church and the world, and possibly being, in general, less than a true witness for Christ.

There’s a place for you in the Church Crusade Guy, you don’t have to fight her and put yourself on the outer. We need people of conviction in the Church - you seem to be someone like that. Line your conviction up with the mind of the Church and the heart of Christ. There may be a long and painful road in front of you - but that’s simply a part of the narrow road that Christ promised for those who follow him. Stay close to him, return again and again to prayer, and he will stay close to you, will show you his love for you which is beyond comprehension.

God bless you.