Vatican II Review

[Lormar]

If you; want to have a private discussion, there is a method. If you post here, it is public; so one should expect comments from others. Secret intent? LOL. It was pretty public.

Have you ever heard of rash judgment? How dare you! How could you know anything about what my intent was or wasn’t?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Your comment would be true… if Vatican II was even Catholic, that is. Which it wasn’t. You can’t tell me it was, either. Protestants, Buddhists, paganists, and even free masons were there. Not to mention the suggestions given by the Protestants. And some of the people who celebrated the first Novus Ordo were Protestant.
**I’ll let the statment re: VII not being Catholic stand on it’s own. Who were the free-masons that were there? Can you please provide documentation on your allegation regarding free-masons, Buddhists and pagans at the council? There were Protestants there, certainly, but Pius IX invited them to the 1st Vatican Council and they were also invited to the Council of Trent. **
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/905662/posts

The Protestants made no suggestions. Both they and the Holy See said that all they did was OBSERVE. That’s it. Full stop. Both deny that the Protestants had any hand in the liturgical refrom. The charge that Protestants celebrated the OF? Absurd. They didn’t celebrate with Catholic priests.

As for Our Lady, since you seem to think I’m ignorant on this subject, perhaps you could explain why Our Lady said not to reveal the secret any sooner or later than 1960. She said it would make more sense then. What does that tell you? But again, explain in your own words why Our Lady was not talking about Vatican II.

First, though I do believe in Fatima, you realize that this is a private revelation and that no Catholic in conscience may be required to give the assent of faith to this? Public revelation ended with the death of the last of the Apostles… Second, as to what our Lady may have meant by the timing, frankly, it could have been anything. It was a time of great social upheaval, of a questioning of authority, etc. You have again made the assertion that correlation (the timing of the revelation and Vatican II) means causation. It means nothing of the kind.

 

[otjm]

Have you ever heard of rash judgment? How dare you! How could you know anything about what my intent was or wasn’t?

You made a remark about there being 3 popes at one time, and I responded that such an issue was a red herring as it has nothing really to do with Vatican 2 documents. You seemed to take umbrage with that I should not read into things, there was no secret intent by posting such comment to Kirk, and you were speaking to him, not me.

My response was primarily to your comment that you were talking to him and not me. This is a public forum; if you don’t want anyone else making comments about your comments you can post privately so the rest of us won’t be in on your conversation. Some people have been in these forae for longer than you without realizing they could use a back channel for a conversation in private. My pointing it out was not meant to insult you or make a rash judgement.

I made no rash judgement, so there was no dare on my part. Calm down and get the knot out of your knickers. I really don’t care what your intent was, and with 300+ posts, perhaps you have not seen how fast some of these threads get off into unrelated areas. Whatever happened centuries ago and whatever anyone could do to discern which Pope was the rightful leader of the Church has nothing to do with the validity of the Vatican 2 documents, which at least one individual - not you - seems to be declaring heretical. With one can of worms open already, it seemed that your comment was opening another. Tone of voice does not come through very well in a forum; don’t look for insult where none was intended. You could have had the best of intentions in the world - or the worst. I didn’t comment on your intentions. My comment would be the same either way.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

As Kirk has recently done, I ask EVERYONE to do the same: CITE YOUR SOURCES. I think this all could more along a lot more friendly and civily if people sited their sources. Don’t just give the name of the person who said it, but where we can find it that it says they said it.

Also, here is my logic on heresy and sedevacantism:

If you believe Vatican II was heretical, (the actual documents) listen to this:

Canon law clearly states that if a Pope was guilty of heresy, he was no longer Pope since he has excommunicated himself. Well the current Pope says Vatican II was not heretical. If it was as some here are saying, then the Pope is guilty of heresy and we are in a period of sede vacanti. Therefore, if you say that Vatican II is heretical, you are sedevacante!

Now, if you say that the way some of the documents were implemented were heretical, I will gladly and patiently hear you out.

Also, please explain to me how being unloving to non-Catholics and not being ecumenical is in line with Sacred Tradition??? I see it as a practice, a safeguard as you will. Remember that the definition of Sacred Tradition that I am using, which is what the Church uses, is anything from Jesus or his Apostles. After the death of the last Apostle, no one can create new Sacred Tradition.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Also, here is what the Church says on Fatima:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

 

[MarkThompson]

Canon law clearly states that if a Pope was guilty of heresy, he was no longer Pope since he has excommunicated himself. Well the current Pope says Vatican II was not heretical. If it was as some here are saying, then the Pope is guilty of heresy and we are in a period of sede vacanti. Therefore, if you say that Vatican II is heretical, you are sedevacante!

Could you cite your source in canon law for that, please?