A Few Comments on Comments
I configured this blog a few months ago to accept comments posted by users who do not have Blogger accounts. I did this because I want to encourage comments and discussion, and the Blogger-account restriction will probably discourage that kind of activity.
However, I do request one small favor from those who leave comments: please sign your posts. You don't have to leave an email address, and I understand why you wouldn't want to. But at least leave a first name, or some initials.
Thanks for your cooperation.
"Anonymous" commented below:
Would the individual who left this comment please kindly elaborate?
I am not a sedevacantist. I do not believe the Holy Ghost "left the Church after 1958."
In fact, if anything, I would say the otherwise-inexplicable ambiguity of the Vatican II documents is only explicable by the fact that the Holy Ghost used ambiguity in this case precisely to protect the Church.
I know how badly the liberal peritii influenced the council, and I know what sorts of explicit heresies they would have no doubt loved to elucidate in those documents. But they couldn't - they were prevented by, of all things, ambiguity. That is, the documents are not explicitly heretical - they are ambiguous enough that a traditional interpretation can be accommodated.
Given the odds, and given how badly the deck was stacked in favor of the liberals, I see that as no less than miraculous.
The Church cannot dogmatically define heresy. So when the council was overrun by Modernists, what does the Holy Ghost do? Inspire Pope Paul VI to publicly state that the council neither intended nor made any dogmatic statements.
That's the protection of the Holy Ghost.
As for the political mess, people need to understand that I'm not telling anyone how to vote - I'm presenting a defense of why I myself will not vote for either candidate. What I do not understand is the people who question both my patriotism and my Catholic orthodoxy for making that choice.
Folks, vote however you want to.
Kerry will run this country into the ground faster than you can say "cafeteria Catholic." But at least it might slow things down to have a Democratic president to balance out a Republican congress. Of course, if the congress goes Democrat after Kerry's election, then we've got serious problems.
Meanwhile, I strongly believe Bush will put his Bones priorities before anything else, so if a pro-death (but also Boneman) judge/senator/congressman presents himself as a possibility, I think Bush will give him a thumbs up and look out for a fellow Bonesman.
Obviously, Kerry would do the same.
That's precisely my point.
As I see it, my choice is to vote for Bonesman #1 or Bonesman #2 - and I'm having a difficult time feeling obligated to make that choice.
God bless you all.
However, I do request one small favor from those who leave comments: please sign your posts. You don't have to leave an email address, and I understand why you wouldn't want to. But at least leave a first name, or some initials.
Thanks for your cooperation.
"Anonymous" commented below:
Now all you have to do is discover the Holy Spirit could not have possibly left the Church after 1958 and is ever with the present Magisterium and then you're 'good to go'.
Would the individual who left this comment please kindly elaborate?
I am not a sedevacantist. I do not believe the Holy Ghost "left the Church after 1958."
In fact, if anything, I would say the otherwise-inexplicable ambiguity of the Vatican II documents is only explicable by the fact that the Holy Ghost used ambiguity in this case precisely to protect the Church.
I know how badly the liberal peritii influenced the council, and I know what sorts of explicit heresies they would have no doubt loved to elucidate in those documents. But they couldn't - they were prevented by, of all things, ambiguity. That is, the documents are not explicitly heretical - they are ambiguous enough that a traditional interpretation can be accommodated.
Given the odds, and given how badly the deck was stacked in favor of the liberals, I see that as no less than miraculous.
The Church cannot dogmatically define heresy. So when the council was overrun by Modernists, what does the Holy Ghost do? Inspire Pope Paul VI to publicly state that the council neither intended nor made any dogmatic statements.
That's the protection of the Holy Ghost.
As for the political mess, people need to understand that I'm not telling anyone how to vote - I'm presenting a defense of why I myself will not vote for either candidate. What I do not understand is the people who question both my patriotism and my Catholic orthodoxy for making that choice.
Folks, vote however you want to.
Kerry will run this country into the ground faster than you can say "cafeteria Catholic." But at least it might slow things down to have a Democratic president to balance out a Republican congress. Of course, if the congress goes Democrat after Kerry's election, then we've got serious problems.
Meanwhile, I strongly believe Bush will put his Bones priorities before anything else, so if a pro-death (but also Boneman) judge/senator/congressman presents himself as a possibility, I think Bush will give him a thumbs up and look out for a fellow Bonesman.
Obviously, Kerry would do the same.
That's precisely my point.
As I see it, my choice is to vote for Bonesman #1 or Bonesman #2 - and I'm having a difficult time feeling obligated to make that choice.
God bless you all.
<< Home