I think you’re a little off here. Rejecting Vatican II doesn’t mean I’m not Catholic. If Vatican II itself went against the teachings of the Church then why the heck should I accept it? You can tell me I have to accept it all you want but it does no good since you aren’t the Pope or anything. Although really, the Pope wouldn’t convince me to accept it either.
The reason I say the Holy Ghost was not pleased with Vatican II is primarily because Our Lady Herself warned us about a “diabolical dis-orientation” that would take place. So would you mind telling me how The Holy Ghost can be pleased with a diabolical dis-orientation? I’m not arguing with God on this matter, I’m arguing with the heresy that took place at Vatican II. You may say that it isn’t possible for Vatican II to have been a bad Council because the Holy Ghost guides the Church and Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. But did Christ ever say the gates of Hell wouldn’t reduce the Church to a remnant? We already know this is possible as it has already happened through the Protestant reform.
Attacking your knowledge is attacking your argument. That is not an ad hominum attack. People who know better will continue to “attack” your arguments, if you put forward stuff like there was a second Sister Lucia who was an imposter, etc.
It is a “disorientation” according to you, who has absolutely no authority to say that’s what it is anyway, and Our Lady never once said “Vatican II will BE that diabolical disorientation.” Your making the same mistake Protestant eschatologists make when they read the Prophet Daniel or the The Book of Reveletion. You’ve taken what the Lady said and tried to fit it to the council.
The remnant will always include the teaching authority, because it is only to Peter and the Apostles (and their successors, the Popes and Bishops teaching in union with them) that Christ’s promise of binding and loosening and against the gates of hell apply.
Good think you didn’t live during the time we had three popes at the same time.
I don’t think only God knows that.
Ah, but we only had ONE who was legitimate, so only one to whom the charism belonged.
Please identify your source of information on this point; you are stating it as a fact, so it should be easy to obtain the source from the Church’s statements. A good place to start would be with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Your lack of logic is truly amazing. How you can get from an act by John Paul 2 to go backwards to prove that by that act the council has anything to do with the act and therefore is either heretical or borderliine totally escapes me.
You not only need to stop reading some of the trash you ahve been perusing, but you also need to take a basic course in logic.
And what you don’t get is that your lack of understanding is not proof that Vatican 2 "went against the teachings of the Church. It fonly means that you do not understand the teachings of Vatican 2, or else the teachings of the Church prior to Vatican 2 sufficiently to be able to understand how they do not contradict prior teachings.
Ah, and don’t tell me, YOU would have known who was the legitimate one, right?
Can we say “red herring” in this conversation? What happened centuries ago is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the documents of Vatican 2. We have had only one pope at a time from John 23rd since, which is the period we are discussing.Ah, and don’t tell me, YOU would have known who was the legitimate one, right?
No, I won’t tell you that, because I don’t know that it would be true. I hope my reaction would be along the lines of that of St. Jeanne d’Arc: “If I am in God’s Grace, I pray He will keep me there. If I am not in God’s grace, I pray He place me in it.”Ah, and don’t tell me, YOU would have known who was the legitimate one, right?
You really shouldn’t read into things.
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.
Sure, I have several good links.
There are some pretty big leaps in logic in this post, which begins with an unsupported assumptions. So to focus on only with the two biggest, when did Mary warn us about a “diabolical disorientation”? I think you will find that the answer is that she did not - you are attributing to her a statement made by Sister Lucy. Second, why do you jump to the conclusion that she was referring to VII - Lucy never said that.
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.
Then you need a brush up, as your logic is lacking in many of your posts.
