Skip to main content

Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous..contradictory..so cannot be infallible: "[VII] imposes..'Papal Stalinism,'..servile obedience to even the fallible opinions of any pope"

Vatican II was (deliberately) made ambiguous and contradictory and so cannot be infallible. Vatican II is full of doctrinal novelties and it is impossible for any novelties to be infallible. Even the council fathers and popes during and after Vatican II knew that Vatican II is not infallible.
John Zmirak

What Will Be Left for Catholics After Francis?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Can you explain something to me? In his syllabus on invincible ignorance, Pius IX wrote:

1) That it is possible for men of good will and invincible ignorance to be saved.

2) That no one outside the Church can be saved.

What exactly is he saying and how different is it from the subsist-in “heresy”?

Is he a manifest heretic for knowing the traditional teaching and denying it?
11:53 AM
Fred Martinez said…
SpirituTuo
I am talking about the general rule. Yes, those in invincible ignorance can be saved, but they are not saved BY their invincible ignorance. Pius IX is not contradicting Eugene IV. He is not speaking of the general rule (which is one must be Catholic to be saved).
The point of this thread (and the reason why I brought Pope Eugene's teaching into it) is that, according to Francis (and quite frankly MANY Catholics on this board), anyone who is Christian (Catholic or not) are the same: all Christians will be saved even if they are not Catholic...regardless of whether they are invincibly ignorant or not.

To believe that all Christians are saved (barring true invincible ignorance) is not Catholic teaching and never was.
6:54 PM
Anonymous said…
Yes, but is he saying that invincible ignorant note Catholics of goodwill are somehow part of the Church? If not, how can they be saved? And if so how did VII err?
11:16 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more