Author Topic: Religious Assent and Vatican II  (Read 697 times)

TKGS

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2018, 05:22:28 PM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.

That's not the R&R position.  It's more that the popes since Vatican II have not exercised their teaching authority in really ANY way, and whatever the case may be, a Catholic's first order of business is to follow the faith (whatever that means from time to time), and to run from false doctrine from wherever it comes.  Fr. Cekada's line of argument (which is basically what's being put forward in this thread) basically says that Catholics have to follow LEADERS regardless of what they do or say, and we all know that's ridiculous.

Yeah.  That's what R&R folks tell me.  So a new code of canon law, a new Mass, all their encyclicals, and ecumenical activities aren't an exercise in teaching authority.  They're either lying about what they believe (as 2Vermont thinks) or they're believing their lies.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

2Vermont

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2018, 05:51:21 PM »
No Catholic has the right to view a Pope with as much disdain and outright disobedience as the typical R&R Trad does. Tradition will continue to fail, IMO, for as long as the R&R position is held by the bulk of Trads.

It seems to me that the R&R position is essentially heretical, not just schismatic, since it positively denies the Church's teachings concerning the indefectibility of the Church.  The relegation of the infallibility of the pope and the Church to such extremely narrow solemn declarations so rare that in 2,000 years of the Church, most people can only really identify two such acts, is merely the extreme opposite reaction against the view that the pope and the Church can develop doctrine in such a way as to completely change it's understanding.

That's not the R&R position.  It's more that the popes since Vatican II have not exercised their teaching authority in really ANY way, and whatever the case may be, a Catholic's first order of business is to follow the faith (whatever that means from time to time), and to run from false doctrine from wherever it comes.  Fr. Cekada's line of argument (which is basically what's being put forward in this thread) basically says that Catholics have to follow LEADERS regardless of what they do or say, and we all know that's ridiculous.

Yeah.  That's what R&R folks tell me.  So a new code of canon law, a new Mass, all their encyclicals, and ecumenical activities aren't an exercise in teaching authority.  They're either lying about what they believe (as 2Vermont thinks) or they're believing their lies.

Eh, I don't think I would go as far as saying that they are lying ...at least not all. I think they think and say they believe they are true popes, but in reality they do not.  Ladislaus on the other forum calls it "certainty of faith".  None of them have the "certainty of faith" that they are popes.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

TKGS

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2018, 06:46:15 PM »
Eh, I don't think I would go as far as saying that they are lying ...at least not all. I think they think and say they believe they are true popes, but in reality they do not.  Ladislaus on the other forum calls it "certainty of faith".  None of them have the "certainty of faith" that they are popes.

I think you're trying to give them the benefit of doubt but I don't think you should.  They manifestly declare their belief in the Conciliar popes and they manifestly deny any duty to be subject to them when they don't agree with them.  You know that is a contradiction because you're a Catholic.  But for those who have fallen into heresy, it makes perfect sense.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

awkwardcustomer

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2018, 05:19:52 AM »
They manifestly declare their belief in the Conciliar popes and they manifestly deny any duty to be subject to them when they don't agree with them.

Yes. This sums up their position.

There seems to be a block in their thinking. The Magisterium is guaranteed by Heaven not to teach error or heresy. Whether infallible or not, Magisterial teachings cannot cause harm to the Faithful.

The R&R error is that it's up to the Faithful to subject Magisterial teachings to scrutiny in case they don't comply with Tradition, as if Heaven's guarantee isn't enough. The Conciliar 'magisterium' teaches error and heresy and so it is up to individual Catholics to discern which Magisterial teachings are Catholic or not.

They have it back to front.  The fact that the Conciliar 'magisterium' teaches heresy is absolute proof of its invalidity. Heretical teachings cannot be guarateed by Heaven, therefore the Conciliar 'magisterium' which promotes such teachings also cannot be guaranteed by Heaven.

And a Magistetium without Heaven's guarantee is no Magisterium at all.


« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 05:22:10 AM by awkwardcustomer »
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, annamack

true catholic

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2018, 02:07:00 PM »
1.  Has anyone ever considered that the second vatican council was the supreme punishment from God because of sins? 

2.  Has anyone ever considered that in fact the second vatican council is the revolt that St. Paul and the bible has prophesied about?

3.  Has anyone ever considered that Paul VI's Missal, that was promulgated on April 3, 1969, on a passover, was the thing that Daniel spoke about?

4.  Has anyone ever considered that Paul VI's Missal was in violation and opposes Pope St. Pius V "Quo Primum Tempore"?

5.  Has anyone ever considered that the new altar is the abomination of desolation "standing where it aught not"?

The evidence is overwhelming and sadly, most cannot see it.  I haven't found but a few who have made clear and conclusive distinctions to this point.  There seems to be, never ending speculation, without coming to the conclusion.  It seems that evidence is ignored in favor of never ending opinions.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 02:12:29 PM by true catholic »
 

awkwardcustomer

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2018, 07:28:31 AM »
1.  Has anyone ever considered that the second vatican council was the supreme punishment from God because of sins? 

2.  Has anyone ever considered that in fact the second vatican council is the revolt that St. Paul and the bible has prophesied about?

3.  Has anyone ever considered that Paul VI's Missal, that was promulgated on April 3, 1969, on a passover, was the thing that Daniel spoke about?

4.  Has anyone ever considered that Paul VI's Missal was in violation and opposes Pope St. Pius V "Quo Primum Tempore"?

5.  Has anyone ever considered that the new altar is the abomination of desolation "standing where it aught not"?

The evidence is overwhelming and sadly, most cannot see it.  I haven't found but a few who have made clear and conclusive distinctions to this point.  There seems to be, never ending speculation, without coming to the conclusion.  It seems that evidence is ignored in favor of never ending opinions.

Yes, definitely yes.

I've been saying for some time that Vatican II is the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2. Also, the one who holds - the Pope - has been taken out of the way, hence Sedevacante.

Your first question is the one I would disagree with however, since a revolt isn't really a punishment. And I'm not sure about question 5. I've always understood that the abomination of desolation - the antichrist- would sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. There are plans to rebuild the temple by the way.

Details aside, I convinced that the next step is the rise of the antichrist.

Now here's a question.

Could Fatima be a deception with the following aims -

 i) to keep Catholics believing that the Vatican II 'popes' are Popes, since there has to be a Pope to do the 'consecration',

ii) to keep Catholics hoping for a restoration which will never happen while the ground is prepared for the antichrist.
 

true catholic

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2018, 08:53:16 AM »
1.  Has anyone ever considered that the second vatican council was the supreme punishment from God because of sins? 

2.  Has anyone ever considered that in fact the second vatican council is the revolt that St. Paul and the bible has prophesied about?

3.  Has anyone ever considered that Paul VI's Missal, that was promulgated on April 3, 1969, on a passover, was the thing that Daniel spoke about?

4.  Has anyone ever considered that Paul VI's Missal was in violation and opposes Pope St. Pius V "Quo Primum Tempore"?

5.  Has anyone ever considered that the new altar is the abomination of desolation "standing where it aught not"?

The evidence is overwhelming and sadly, most cannot see it.  I haven't found but a few who have made clear and conclusive distinctions to this point.  There seems to be, never ending speculation, without coming to the conclusion.  It seems that evidence is ignored in favor of never ending opinions.

Yes, definitely yes.

I've been saying for some time that Vatican II is the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2. Also, the one who holds - the Pope - has been taken out of the way, hence Sedevacante.

Your first question is the one I would disagree with however, since a revolt isn't really a punishment. And I'm not sure about question 5. I've always understood that the abomination of desolation - the antichrist- would sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. There are plans to rebuild the temple by the way.

Details aside, I convinced that the next step is the rise of the antichrist.

Now here's a question.

Could Fatima be a deception with the following aims -

 i) to keep Catholics believing that the Vatican II 'popes' are Popes, since there has to be a Pope to do the 'consecration',

ii) to keep Catholics hoping for a restoration which will never happen while the ground is prepared for the antichrist.

Awkward quote.
"I've been saying for some time that Vatican II is the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess 2. Also, the one who holds - the Pope - has been taken out of the way, hence Sedevacante.

Your first question is the one I would disagree with however, since a revolt isn't really a punishment."


To the first part of your quote regarding the Pope being taken out of the way.  There is another supporting prophesy which is one and the same as 2 Thessalonians 2.  It is found in Isaias.  Isaias not only speaks about the Pope being taken out of the way but also that the perpetual sacrifice will cease.  The Catholic Mass will perish.  But also take notice of the proof for the papacy which is also found in Isaias 22 verse 22 which is identical to Matthew 16:19.

Isaias 22:20-25  [20] And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, [21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. [23] And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. [24] And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. [25] In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Awkward, did you notice the last words of Isaias, its going to happen and it actually did happen because God allowed to happen!  Because the Lord hath spoken it!!  And so, it is the supreme punishment for abuses of the Catholic faith itself, in the same way that the ark was taken during the time of the Philistines and again Jeremias in the time of King Nabuchodonosor, when he either destroyed or took all the sacred vessels from the Judeans because the Judeans turned away from God. 

But this time, the last time, God does not physically destroy [by hand] His church, it is destroyed by deception, by craft, profaned by a false altar, that is brought over against the true altar of God.  Daniel speaks about this.

Daniel 8:25  According to his will, and craft shall be successful in his hand: and his heart shall be puffed up, and in the abundance of all things he shall kill many: and he shall rise up against the prince of princes, and shall be broken without hand.

There is so much more to say. 

Awkward, regarding the antichrist, you missed the boat.  The antichrist came and went, and what remains is the eight beast, the political and religious system of the beast, that goes into destruction.  John Paul II was the antichrist.  You have been living through the vast part of the apocalypse and you don't even know it.

Awkward, what does antichrist mean?

NO, Fatima was not a false apparition!  There is so much that you don't understand.  You need to start to say the Rosary, if you want to get the graces to see what is and has been going on since 1958.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 08:58:29 AM by true catholic »
 

Nctradcath

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2018, 09:43:39 AM »
It sounds like true Catholic may be a Dimond follower.
 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont, annamack, Vinny Zee

true catholic

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2018, 11:03:56 AM »
It sounds like true Catholic may be a Dimond follower.

No, actually I am catholic, period.  I am a member of the catholic church, a faithful remnant, in these end times.  What do you follow??  Also, if you disagree, be specific, as to what you are saying, don't be general.  Point to what you disagree with.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 11:05:57 AM by true catholic »
 

awkwardcustomer

Re: Religious Assent and Vatican II
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2018, 11:12:21 AM »
Awkward, regarding the antichrist, you missed the boat.  The antichrist came and went, and what remains is the eight beast, the political and religious system of the beast, that goes into destruction.  John Paul II was the antichrist.  You have been living through the vast part of the apocalypse and you don't even know it.

Awkward, what does antichrist mean?

NO, Fatima was not a false apparition!  There is so much that you don't understand.  You need to start to say the Rosary, if you want to get the graces to see what is and has been going on since 1958.

John Paul II was not the Antichrist. He may have been AN antichrist but not THE Antichrist, the Son of Perdition who will sit in the temple of God as the Church Fathers maintained.

We agree that Vatican II is the revolt, but your timeline is way out. First comes the revolt with the one who holds being taken out of the way. Then comes the Son of Perdition, THE Antichrist who will sit in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

The reign of THE Antichrist, which will last for three and a half years, re the Book of Daniel, is the New World Order which isn't quite in place but will soon be established, IMO of course.

And after that three and a half year period of intense and unbelievable persecutions, Christ comes again.

If you are a Dimond follower my advice is to ignore them completely for the self appointed lay thelogians that they are, and read the Church Fathers.

Oh... and keep your opinions on my spiritual life to yourself.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack, Francis