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

It's funny how the tardcaths get super ass hurt when you criticize their sacred cow and point out that their arguments completely undermine any case for the validity of the Catholic church. Oh well, cope more.

Why would I be ass hurt about some heretic that defends the documents of V2 like a rabid dog and says I'm coping? Put away the pride, you will merit more from that than defending heresy. Trust me.

Ignorance is a sin

I'm calling you a heretic because this is literally what you're defending lol

"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right." (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)

https://t.me/GadoligNadzee/1240

Right, because there is absolutely no way that could be squared with previous declarations. I swear it's like you tardcaths have the exact same understanding of V2 as the liberals, but you just think it's bad. Still havent formed a coherent position to argue from, and you apparently don't understand what heresy is.

https://t.me/ModernistsGoToHell/2871

There is absolutely no way that it can be squared with these

"15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Syllabus of Errors)


"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church." (Quanta Cura)

Give me a break man 😂😂

According to Vatican2 Nazi, defending a document that contains heresy doesn't mean that you're guilty of heresy.