"“Religious freedom” or “religious liberty” has been condemned by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X and Pius XI. You are not free to choose your religion. You are bound in conscience to become a Catholic and to join the Catholic Church in order to save your soul. If you choose not to, you go to hell. Nobody can coerce someone into thinking something they do not want to think or believing something they do not want to believe. But the laws of a Catholic state can prevent the followers of a false religion from practising in public, from trying to make converts, from trying to spread their false doctrine and false morals, etc. Look at the catastrophic numbers of millions of souls today leaving the Church to join ‘evangelical’ protestant sects in countries where before the council everyone was Catholic: South America, the Philippines, etc. These formerly Catholic countries were forced to change their constitutions so as to no longer give the Catholic religion pride of place. All this disaster as a result of just two paragraphs in one of the sixteen documents of this robber council. As noted above, just one error is enough. One heresy makes the whole document heretical, and one heretical document makes the whole council heretical." - Fr. Hesse

Imagine saying that V2 (specifically dignitatis humanae) outweighs Mirari Vos, the Syllabus, Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Summo Iugiter Studio, and Libertas, Immortale Dei, Humanum Genus, and Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes. It is impossible to reconcile these documents with Dignitatis Humanae and V2, impossible. They directly contradict each other. An "ecumenical council" cannot teach anything which is contrary to dogma, and Vatican II did exactly that. To get around this, like Lofton and Dr. Lawrence try to do, require a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics, retarded "nuances" and hermeneutic of continuity tropes. Any pre-Vatican II theologian who wrote extensively on the magisterium would simply dismiss these talking points as utter nonsense.

How can something which is not infallible as it contradicts previous infallible magisterial teaching outweigh dogma? This is bizzare.

If Vatican II is infallible, the Church is defectible since the Church can’t definitively teach error and heresy. If Vatican II is fallible (it is), then the Church is indefectible still since Vatican II didn’t make use of the extraordinary magisterium at all and contained many heretical statements. It holds the authoritative weight of a papal encyclical. Vatican II doesn't fare well when it comes to authority 😂

These really aren't difficult concepts. Some people will still support heretical documents no matter what I guess.

This is just rad-trad garbage bro, Michael Lofton is actually right about everything. Archbishop Lefebvre was just a crazy rad-trad schismatic!

Your argument falls under the summary I already gave that "V2 didnt teach anything," meaning you have yet again failed to make a coherent argument, and thus your position is not worth interacting with in any substantive way.

Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.

https://t.me/ModernistsGoToHell/2842

I'm saying it taught heresy. It's almost like you didn't read anything I said at all, or you just don't understand it. And I'm not going to repeat myself again. When I say teach I mean it in the non-definitive and fallible sense. It's just like how when Francis teaches something heretical in an encyclical non-definitively, that makes it non-binding and we dismiss it. The same is to and has to be done with Vatican II, as shown.

That isn't even a response to the argument either. When you're giving a sermon, you're teaching people. And what you teach could either be heretical or not. If it is, then you dismiss it. If it isn't heretical, is in line with dogma, relates to faith and morals, and meets the Vatican I conditions for infallibility, then it (say, an encyclical) would carry the mark of infallibility. In order for something to be infallible, it cannot contradict dogma, as I've stated over and over and over again.

A reminder that if you know a document contains heresy, yet you still defend it, you are also guilty of heresy.

How many times do I have to explain this stuff man? It's ridiculous that it's even a debate as to whether V2 taught heresy or not.

And now the positional shift to the "muh levels of magisterium" argument. You get close to on the right track here, offering opinion is not the same as teaching. Still, your position that the magisterium of the Catholic church, claimed by that same church to be infallible, taught heresy is self defeating if you're claiming to be a Catholic. Why would a Lutheran, or any protestant really, who believes that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith be convinced of a supposedly indefectable and infallible teaching authority that taught heresy? Why would an Orthobro, who believes in apostolic succession but does not believe in the primacy of Rome, want to submit himself to a teaching authority that according to your argument can teach heresy?

Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.

https://t.me/ModernistsGoToHell/2856

If a Pope says something heretical, it's not infallible. The same as a council. Sure, a Pope or a council can non-definitively and fallibly teach heresy, that just means we dismiss it. Plus, I've already answered your dumb indefectibility argument. If you teach something that's heretical, then that makes it fallible (obviously), not infallible like you just admitted.

I never said the Church taught heresy, as it can't. I'm saying Vatican 2 did, which is not a part of the Church.

#books #vaticanii #modernism #SSPX