WHAT A LIE!

[ruso]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 07:22 PM']its debatable

they do not reject vatican II they just see it as bieng hijacked by modernists.
[right][snapback]850434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course;
As soon as the ransom is paid we released it.

Do You want to contribute?.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

sure

anything to free Vatican II from modernists

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 10:22 AM']its debatable

they do not reject vatican II they just see it as bieng hijacked by modernists.
[right][snapback]850434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Oh is that all? ..............

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Rick777' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:48 PM']Oh is that all?  ..............
[right][snapback]850799[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


what are you saying?

[Guest Rick777]

How can anyone accept Vatican II if they think it was "hijacked" by modernists.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the council as of today is hijacked by modernists.

like so:
mass is said in english
vatican II called for the use of the Latin language

the documentsare so ambigously written that they need to be interpreted in the context of tradition.

[Guest Rick777]

So, in other words SSPX doesnt accept Vatican II now, but they will in the future, when of course the texts are written so they can be interpreted in the context of tradition?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

they accept it as a valid council. but ignore it because its ambigiously written.

[Guest Rick777]

How can you accept something but "ignore" it?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

its valid. none of it is dogmatic. Its completley ambigious, and can be interpretted incorrectly, its best just to ignore it.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 02:19 PM']the council as of today is hijacked by modernists.

like so:
mass is said in english
vatican II called for the use of the Latin language

the documentsare  so ambigously written that they need to be interpreted in the context of tradition.
[right][snapback]850838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

how is the mass in english a hijack of the modernists. Vatican II called for the use of latin, but also says that the vernacular (english) can be used...
[quote]63.    Because  the use of the vernacular in the administration  of
      the  sacraments  and sacramentals can often be of very great help
      to  the  people,  this  use  is  to  be extended according to  the
      following norms:

      (a)    In the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals  the
      vernacular may be used according to the norm of Article 36.

      (b) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority designated in
      Article  22:2  of this Constitution shall  forthwith  prepare,  in
      accordance  with  the  new  edition  of  the  Roman Ritual,  local
      rituals  adapted linguistically and otherwise to the needs  of  the
      different  regions.    These  rituals,  on  authentication  by the
      Apostolic  See,  are  to  be followed in the regions in  question.
      But  in  drawing  up  those  rituals or particular collections  of
      rites,    the  instructions prefixed to the individual rites in  the
      Roman  Ritual,  whether  they be pastoral and rubrical or  whether
      they have a special social import, shall not be omitted.[/quote]
[quote]      76.  Both the ceremonies and texts of the Ordination rites are to be
      revised.    The  addresses given by the bishop at the beginning  of
      each ordination or consecration may be in the vernacular.[/quote]
[quote]         
36.  (1)  The  use  of  the  Latin language, with due respect to
          particular  law,  is to be preserved in the Latin rites.  (2) But
          since  the  use  of  the  vernacular,  whether  in  the Mass, the
          administration  of  the  sacraments,  or  in  other  parts of the
          liturgy,  may  frequently  be of great advantage to the people, a
          wider  use  may be made of it, especially in readings, directives
          and  in some prayers and chants.  Regulations governing this will
          be given separately in subsequent chapters.

          (3)  These  norms  being  observed,  it  is  for  the  competent
          territorial  ecclesiastical  authority mentioned in Article 22:2,
          to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is
          to be used.  Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed,
          by  the  Apostolic See.  Where circumstances warrant it, it is to
          consult  with  bishops of neighboring regions which have the same
          language.[/quote]
This from Constitution on Sacred Liturgy at [url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/"]http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/[/url] From this I don't see how you can claim that english in the mass are modernists hijacking vatican II.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

or i could say that the counil is still only infaliibile when confirming prior catholic teaching.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 02:34 PM']its valid. none of it is dogmatic. Its completley ambigious, and can be interpretted incorrectly, its best just to ignore it.
[right][snapback]850854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It wasnt made to be ignored.

[ruso]

The texts estan clear, cannot be to reinterpreted, perhaps when applying them leave part of the tradition to a side, but nobody am mistaken when applying them.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:28 PM']they accept it as a valid council. but ignore it because its ambigiously written.
[right][snapback]850847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

They are against it...big differance between regection and ignoring...