Why is Vatican 2 so controversial?

...

I think I forgot a lot of things.

That's like saying allowing pornography is not to be blamed for porn problem in our culture as long as we say it is bad though.
VII purposely brought "innovations" that would reform the church to the shape it is now. If there was no VII there would not be a leeway for modernism. If you repeated V II 6 times you would eventually get the same, or very similar result.

Freedom is no excuse for irresponsibility.

Said who? Still our mission is to make them Catholic
?
Agreed. The new roman rite is a mess.
Meh kinda
Its not the first time. There were councils where the whole laity assisted the council.
? Protestants as well as Orthos were invited to assist the council.
Even in Vatican I that happened but the Orthos harshly refused our kind invitation. And if one of the main points of the council was to discuss how to get the heretics and schismatics back into the church it makes sense we should invite them to assist.

Sauce: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

...

According to 1 Maccabees, wouldn't this include the Spartans too?

If you say the Council preaches error, you say the Holy Spirit preaches error. As far as I can see, while there is nothing wrong with Vatican II, the Church was surrounded by wolves in the bush, waiting to spring.

Aren't we meant to be tested by fire though? We have Christ's assurance.

Well, since it's impossible to do this, you should leave aside such fallacious reasoning.

A council of men aren't the Holy Spirit

And? Doesn't St Paul say that the Jews will be saved before the end?
That always was the Catholic doctrine.
And the document is just pointing out the common background of Christianity and Judaism in an effort to convert them.

Sincerely what did you expect?

Romans 11:1-2

Romans 11:25-29

Than why bother being a Christian if Jews still get a free pass?

Do they? Just because in the end of the world Elijah will warn them doesn't mean Jews living today will be saved.
Those in the last day will the offered the last minute ticket to heaven. Its up to them to accept it.
As for the Jews living today, if they don't become Catholic they will burn in hell like their parents.

But your Catholic Church says Jews will be saved too. So why bother being Catholic when Judaism is still favored by God? Heck, you Catholics don't even blame the Jews for Jesus' death anymore.

The desacralization of the Mass to make it more palatable to apostates is what people hate the most about the events surrounding it.
Though they did literally the same thing by accepting eastern and coptic liturgies, it's nothing new.

I mean, Pope Francis said he followed the jewish feasts, calendar, and attending synagogues in Argentina. He literally admitted to being a jew, and nothing happened.

What part of if you're a jew youre going to hell didn't you understand?

Next protestant fancy is that Pope Francis is actually in contact with the lizard people.
Keep dreaming dude.

No, they didn't. Ethnic Jews who convert to Catholicism can be saved.

What part of
Did you not understand?

VII is fairly clear on this matter, whether or not you want to recognize that.

I don't get your point? The church is saying the same thing Saint Paul says in Romans.
That's why he is sending Elijah in the end times to try to save the remaining Jews that didn't convert because of their stupidity.
Instead of saying shit actually read the rest of the documents in which the clear doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salum is explicit. And read Romans pls.
winnie the pooh Zig Forums ruins everything it touches.

Wrong. This council explicitly denied that protection. The popes after affirmed as such saying it was merely pastoral and affirmed no new dogma.

Hmmmmm

Let us take look at it

masonic. no doubt.
wrong. the church is meant to stand against the world which is ruled by satan.

Attached: the madman himself.jpg (1453x2105, 343.85K)

Thank God the church still believes in that.

Welcome to the weasel word lies of Vatican 2

So they added this precondition now? So they are claiming you can be saved if you don't "know the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ?" Sounds like heresy to me.
israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/204717
Looks like you're the one bearing false witness against that user. Repent and apologize right now.

For jews :

For the discrimination in general :

For the women :
Oh, I'm not sure about that, but it was presented as a new thing. Laity is not the same as women. Also the problem is this comes with feminism (these women being feminist).
Also, orthobros didn't participated in the comission for the liturgy.

Attached: Helmet_Nosy_Face.jpg (739x1024, 213.28K)

For the last quote, it's from gaudium et spes 29.

If that's so then how come the Vatican has no plans or initiatives to evangelize the Jews anymore?
reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews-idUSKBN0TT1BK20151210
How come the Vatican IS LITERALLY SAYING CATHOLICS SHOULD NOT TRY TO CONVERT JEWS.
Stop winnie the pooh lying about what anyone can check with a simple Google search you dumb winnie the pooh shill.

i dont want to be a heretic but i really dont understand vatican ii

Attached: dignitatis humanae.webm (720x480, 6.46M)

Vatican II is heretical, there is no way around that. However, it's not a dogmatic council, so you can and should just reject it in it's entirety.

What's invencible ignorance? Are you rejecting Pius IX too?
Holy shit Jews are human too who would have known?

Second part meant for

Everything is part of the plan of salvation dude. The loss of the Jews was the profit of the gentiles like St. Paul says.
But its fun how the media twist every word they find.
But I was expecting that from (((Israel national news))). Its like trusting this guys for a serious report of the holocaust.

To conclude so yeah we can say the Jews are part of the plan of salvation, just like rocks are it is because of their disbelieve that we are now the chosen people so to say.
But even if your news report was correct then what the pope had said would be an heresy against the same Vatican Council, who never minding the religion and race of a person, says that those who don't believe in the Church are doomed forever and ever.
Polite sage

You can't reject an ecumenical council lad, specially based on you own interpretations.

read my last paragraph, for the church, human dignity and rights flowing from it is total equality.

Invincible ignorance is completely different from simply not knowing the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, but nice try heretic. It is funny how liberal heretics always bring up "invincible ignorance" to claim this or that non-Catholic group is saved. I have even seen people claim that invincible ignorance means all the Orthodox are saved.

Obviously you can, because Vatican II contradicts previous dogmatic councils, so anyone who accepts it is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

This is absolutely false. Demonstrably so. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed no new dogma and new no doctrines. It just didn’t, it never intended to, and so it didn’t. It was pastoral and concerned with promulgating the Faith, the pure and undistorted Faith passed down by the Church through the ages, to a modern world. Pope St. John XXIII said so in his opening address, ‘For this [the discussion of the articles, the dogmas and the doctrines of the Faith proclaimed by the Church since its establishment] a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary,
everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ And Pope St. Paul VI, when promulgating Lumen Gentium, says, ‘There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.’

Attached: 4961F7E2-DA18-4279-9C52-F9FACF96057C.jpeg (513x287, 51.65K)

Yes, it didn't, because the Holy Spirit did not allow it. However, its non-dogmatic statements clearly contradict previous dogmatic statements.

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, and anathematizes all who think opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”

You need to REALLY Talmudize to conclude from this that Vatican II is anything but in plain contradiction to previous ex cathedra statements.

becuz people came to believe the lie that over two thousand years the church had never changed and are now upset at modernisms

That said, as this guy notes, it was more an excuse for certain priests and parishioners to relax the tight belt of actually being Christian and start being something … easier.
Ultimately, it will be a good thing because the chaff will slowly blow out of the church and it can start another real evangelism campaign to re-evangelise the west after the muzzos take over (which is after the riots that dethrone the pink-haired onlyonegender types)

Attached: Pope Pius XIII - 'It's time to stop'.webm (640x360, 368.53K)

I need not even further elaborate.

Attached: 1458696874238-1.jpg (640x480, 62.41K)

where do I imply that?

What you think is the connection between these two statements?

That's not a contradiction, nor can you pass off any reasoning you dislike as Talmudism, much as the Baptists screech "Babylon!" or the Orthodox scream "papists!"

If the Jews were presented as rejected or cursed by God, it is tantamount to saying they are damned. The Church in Her Wisdom and Her Fidelity to Her Groom cannot usurp Christ's judgement.

"anathematize" doesn't mean that the Church has damned them, it means they are de-facto excommunicated from the flock, and the Jews already de-facto deny Christ anyway

Okay, that is a further point I should elaborate on.
I'm feeling foggy right now but let's see if my post is readable:

>it was more an excuse for certain priests and parishioners to relax the tight belt of actually being Christian and start being something… easier
Even if among the group of people who prefer Tridentine Mass or believe that the Pope is a material heretic, there are some who are just in it to have "easier rules", it means nothing for your argument.
It is a logical fallacy to say that everyone in a group is wrong because of some people inside of that group.

(I don't believe that there are people who are looking for a "easier" Christianity in traditionalism out of all places, but I wrote as such for the sake of my argument).

Yes, Jews and any other non-Catholics are damned and rejected by God until and unless they convert. Anyone not in the Church is rejected by God and will burn in hell after death. Here's another:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too many [sic] achieve eternal salvation. [Vatican Council II (Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Co.), Vol. 1, 1984, p. 367.]

"…We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Talmudize this one you cryto-kikes.

Meant to quote not .

They are all guilty of mortal sins worthy of the eternal fire, but only Christ alone has the judgement.

Also true. Yet, the Church does not usurp Christ's judgement.

OK, then why has the Holy Church never proclaimed -anybody- damned?

Hello. He says "absolutely necessary." If you actually believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility, then you must accept that this was an infallible statement guarded from error by the Holy Spirit. It follows that God has explicitly declared to us that no-one not subject to the Roman Pontiff is saved. This CANNOT be squared with Vatican II.

Any ex cathedra statement cannot contradict Scripture or the Tradition.

There are conditions attached to this, for example, not contradicting Scripture or Tradition.

It is a necessary condition for salvation, but the Church cannot proclaim who is not actually saved, being damned by Jesus Christ.

Yes it can. You're in a very precarious position, you seem to accept papal infallibility to a degree you yourself implicitly fail.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Yes, that is the DEFINITION of an ex cathedra statement, it is not in error. If you are claiming that a Pope made an ex cathedra statement which was in error then you are denying the truth of the Catholic Faith.

And my argument is…?
I'm not suggesting that.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you are inserting your own interpretation on what I actually said.

I'm not bagging V2. I'm not saying it was a bad thing. I'm agreeing with this guy who suggests it was hijacked by others, later, who wanted an excuse to "relax the belt" and, seeing this, the true Christians are blaming V2 for that side-effect.

Oooooooh, I get it, no, I'm suggesting amid (and not all) the modernisers are the "relax the belt" folk, not the folks who demand a return to traditionalism. There are certainly going to be some who prefer latin mass, others who prefer localised. I agree, neither is "easier", but I think the CHANGE allows other changes to creep in. I mean, let's face it, I've known people whose faith is suspect but they'll swear by traditions, and there's no shortage of the other. My point was simply that V2 meant change, and change permits other changes to sneak in that allow a "loosening of the belt" and allowed people an excuse or the freedom to abandon attendance and, ultimately, the church.

Clearer? Am I still wrong? It's only a working theory.

"Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept. It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine. Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine. If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken."

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Educate yourself. Going by Vatican II, the Pope cannot officially contradict the Scripture either. Just because the "Pope is speaking ex cathedra", doesn't mean it's "ex cathedra" if it defies Sacred Scripture. If it defies other ex cathedra statements, or Scripture, it is de-facto, not ex cathedra.

This guy and Benedict really help me walk the fine line of wanting to convert to Catholicism, but sticking with the main (non trad) churches here. If anything, because of convenience. I don't want to shut myself out of all of the options of churches available. Maybe that's easier for cradle Catholics who are trad.. maybe they've built up a lifetime network to navigate around. But I'm alone. And I still see much good in the "mainstream" Catholic church. There's good in them.. and what good there isn't there shouldn't affect my overall stance.

It's a confusing time to be in for an outsider like me though.

No no no, it goes: "Yes, that is the DEFINITION of an ex cathedra statement, IF it is not in error."

If the Pope proclaimed Jesus Christ is not God, then that would de-facto, not be an ex cathedra statement, and I would not be in error for rejecting something contrary to the Catholic Faith.

I recommend reading Edward Feser's blog (and books) and thesacredpage.com folks. Fr Ripperger and the blessed Fulton Sheen are also a great resource.

I know perfectly well what an ex cathedra statement is, and you are both spouting complete nonsense. The ONLY requirements for an ex cathedra statement are for the Pope to clearly state that he is defining a matter of doctrine, and doing so for the entirety of the Church. The whole point of the doctrine of papal infallibility is that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to pronounce any statement which is in error when he speaks in this way.

If a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement which contradicts a previously defined dogma or is otherwise in error, then either he was not really a Pope or Catholicism is false.

AGAIN, the WHOLE POINT of papal infallibility is that the Holy Spirit makes it literally impossible for the Pope to speak in error when he speaks ex cathedra.

Thanks. Perusing through some of the sites now.

You are reducing it to a magical statement. In any case, there's nothing in Vatican II that contradicts anything else, Brother.

It's the former.

With conditions.

In any case, sounds like you're ready and willing to completely accept Vatican II, brother.

No, it didn’t. The Ecumenical Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-45) has a context, background that must be take into account.

(1) Nostra Aetate and Bull Cantate Domino: This is no contradiction. The Church has never affirmed that all Jews are damned, nor all unbelievers, nor other such people. This is what I was taught:

The Bull Cantate Domino (1442) is, firstly (and as a sidenote), only called a ‘Bull’ because this session was presided over by Pope Eugene IV, it is not an ex cathedra decree but a dogmatic decree of the Council of Florence; secondly, Lumen Gentium confirms the teachings of Florence, saying, ‘Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.’; thirdly, we can see clearly from the language of the Bull that it speaks of people ‘remaining outside the Catholic Church’, thus follows is a list of ways someone could remain outside the Church, but not a condemnation, rejection and anathematisation of people who do not consciously or willingly rejects the Catholic Church. Implicit in the language is the assumption that to remain outside the Church, you must consciously reject it; fourthly, the Bull Cantate Domino is a reiteration of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe and St. Augustine of Hippo, who do not address invincible ignorance (I am unsure of Augustine, but I am sure of Fulgentius), nor natural law and St. Paul in Romans 2:15 (when these are accounted for, we see, that their works on Salvation are reconcilable to the Faith of the Catholic Church, and there was no doubt to that in the first place). Therefore, Nostra Aetate is not in contradiction with Florence, as Jews who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, their consciences and God’s call, follow the law ‘written unto their hearts’ and natural law are not outside the Church: they cannot be said to be ‘rejected and cursed’ by God.

(2) Nostra Aetate does not say that the Jews are saved from damnation, it doesn’t even comment on the subject, as it was entirely knowledgeable of the teachings of the Church and of the very same Council it is featured in (it references Lumen Gentium). The purpose Nostra Aetate is explicit, ‘In Her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.’ (Nostra Aetate, #1); and Jews in particular, to ‘foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.’ (Nostra Aetate, #4) Do not mistake this for saying that Jews who know of Christ and reject him are saved.

It isn’t ‘Talmudising’ to explain what the Second Vatican Council actually teaches, that, like the Council Fathers intended, the Second Vatican Council was meant to be read in the Hermeneutic of Continuity, in the light, spirit and meaning of the teachings of the Catholic Church taught to us by Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the prophets, the Early Christians, all twenty-one Ecumenical Councils, the Saints and the Church Fathers.

Attached: C3368048-F98A-48E0-8F07-BC0157F90A45.jpeg (538x677, 306.59K)

Nostra Aetate actually reminds me of (the saintly) Pope Innocent III and his constitution on Jews (although it is true he became increasingly harsh with the Jews):

‘Although the Jewish perfidy is in every way worthy of condemnation, nevertheless, because through them the truth of our own faith is proved, they are not to be severely oppressed by the faithful. . . . We, follow- ing in the footsteps of our predecessors . . . grant their petition and offer them the shield of our protection. We decree that no Christian shall use violence to force them to be baptized as long as they are unwilling and refuse, but that if anyone of them seeks refuge among the Christians of his own free will and by reason of his faith, (only then,) after his willingness has become quite clear, shall he be made a Christian without subjecting himself to any calumny. For surely none can be believed to possess the true faith of a Christian who is known to have come to Christian baptism not willingly, and even against his wishes. Moreover, without the judgment of the authority of the land, no Christian shall presume to wound their persons, or kill (them) or rob them of their money, or change the good customs which they have thus far enjoyed in the place where they live. Furthermore, while they celebrate their festivals, no one shall disturb them in any way by means of sticks or stones, nor exact from any of them forced service, except that which they have been accustomed to perform from ancient times. In opposition to the wickedness and avarice of evil men in these mat- ters, we decree that no one shall presume to desecrate or reduce the cemetery of the Jews, or, with the object of extorting money to exhume bodies there buried. If any one, however, after being acquainted with the contents of this decree, should presume to act in defiance of it . . ., he shall suffer loss of honor and office, or he shall be restrained by the penalty of excommunication, unless he shall have made proper amends for his presumption. We wish, however, to place under the protection of this decree only those (Jews) who have not presumed to plot against the Christian Faith.’ (Pope Innocent III, 15 September 1199)

Feeneyism is a heresy, brut.

Anyone whom at the moment of their death is not a member of the Catholic Church goes to hell. No exceptions. This is dogma. Anything that contradicts this is satanic.

Only those who hold the Orthodox Catholic faith can be saved and that faith is a supernatural grace.

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

Feeneyism is a heresy, bruh.

That's not feeneyism, that's No one gets to the father except by me

ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

who the winnie the pooh is this guy and why has he randomly started appearing on every alt-right podcast under the sun, he come out of nowhere and has that annoying oratory sound of a man that takes themselves too seriously but not in a satire way, he's like Alex Jones but not a joke

He's mostly a Catholic economical thinker (but then again, economics is an all encompassing subject) who calls out usury and (((them))) very often.

Paul VI said that he was about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse right before implementing Vatican II.

Can anyone quote me an actual V2 document that is even quasi-heretical? I mean really, let's see the worst of it. Until thrn i will ignore the supposed boogie man in the closet and accept it as a valid council.
Schismatics and (((sedevacantists))) do nothing but play into the hands of the masonic hegelian dialectic, thus making themselves to be part of the problem rather than working toward any solution.
I suggest all you edgelord sedes follow E Michael Jones on this.

Read the document on religious freedom then if you need more convincing read the old anathemas on religious freedom.

But intuition will tell you that V2 contains error. Legalism and corrupt rationalisation will try to justify it under "hermeneutics of continuity" or whatever that means.

I've read thee olde anathemas before. I will look into "the document on religious freedom". Do you know the latin title(s)?

The Athanasian Creed does not mention Extra Ecclesium Nullas. For example, there are surely some Protestant sects which adhere in faith to the entirety of the Athanasian Creed but fail to adhere to other dogmas of the Faith.

You only have to look at the fruits of VII to know it is evil and bad. Religious vocations went off a cliff; people started taking Communion in the hand for absolutely no pressing reason and in opposition to 1900 years of explicit condemnation of this practice from Saints, Popes, and Church Fathers; and the Holy Mass, the highest prayer to Jesus Christ, turned into a Protestantized, irreverent mess.

Dignitatis Humanae states
tl; dr - no one should be coerced into a religion (mohammedism much?)

Again, where is the explicit heresy or even the toying with heresy like i asked for here
inb4 i am left emptyhanded again

People using V2 as an excuse to promote evils like communion in the hand does not necessarily mean that V2 is the promulgator of those evils…

Attached: Screenshot_20181213-210439.png (720x1280, 196.78K)

...

This implies that if someone believes it is OK to murder and does so they cannot be forced to stop. Example: a state cannot stop murderers or law breakers, or sodomites or child sacrificers etc. from acting in a way contrary to their beliefs (not murdering and raping children)

It is the heresy of tolerance, which precipitates societal collapse.

Also public expression of false religion is anathematised and forbidden under the social reign of Christ.

Error cannot be elevated to the same rights and dignity as truth.

Eg. Satanists believe child sacrifice is their religious right and V2 says you cannot force them to stop sacrificing children

Islam believes apostates must be executed and V2 says you cannot force them to stop executing apostates.

It is the insanity of the vice of tolerance and apathy

You're speaking complete nonsense and preaching disobedience.

All the trends were already in place prior to V2.

A strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla sulas to mean anyone who isn’t visibly a member of the Catholic Church, that is, baptised in the Catholic Church, sounds like feeneyism, mate.

The Church has clarified, and believed since Christ instituted it, that people can be invisibly members of the Catholic Faith under certain conditions already stated.

Throwing the Athanasian Creed at me doesn’t contradict the Second Vatican Council.

Yes I'm aware of this and agree entirely. Many moslems are demonstrably preferable to practically all Westerners and even Protestants nowdays. At least they worship God, however flawed their religion might be. It is still not as flawed as the secularists and pagans living next door to me.

I dont need unholy family monastery to tell me how to interpret religious documents, believe me. kek Reread my post. That is the more accurate interpretation. Those guys are often in error tbqhwys.

That's not what it means at all. It means that people shouldn't be coerced into religion, and that governments should respect the dignity big clue!! and free will of the human being.

D&C tactics within the Church, as if Prots weren't bad enough

Honestly guys, there are less cringey and hellbound positions to take. Look into FSSP and Latin mass parishes if your grievances are sincerely held.

An erroneous interpretation not strict. Extra ecclesia nulla salus allows for the grace of final repentance at the moment of death and we know baptism of desire and blood exist. The point is they are incorporated into the Catholic Church at the moment of their death and they believe the Catholic faith.

If anyone is not incorporated into the Church visibly or invisibly at the moment of their death then they go to hell.

Please explain how it is nonsense and disobedience. One is obliged to disobey your superiors when they order you to adopt heresy or to sin.

Yes we can agree that these horrors were in trend before V2, and actually the most impactful and damaging break from tradition was St Pius X's breviery revolution which through out sacred tradition for no good reason.

Muslims do not worship God, they worship a unitarian demon called Allah who is an ancient Arabic moon god.

If you do not have the son you do not have the father. If you profess you worship the same God as the Muslims then you profess to not worship Christ as their God has no Christ.

As for V2 religious freedom, that is what it means because that is what it says. Led Orandi Lex Credendi. You don't get to decide that something means something different to what it says. That is delusion.

Do you think satanists should be coerced into not sacrificing children? If so then you reject V2.

Look at the Church in 1950, now look at it now.