...he is nevertheless attacked routinely with such easily disputable, illogical, and unreasonable arguments (not to mention childish name-calling).
Well, I appreciate your saying so - but I do my fair share of dishing it out, too. Living through a Church crisis like this tends to make some of us a bit cranky.
Let's take a deep breath. Lumen is a layman and no more authoritative than you or me
Amen to that. But then again, isn't that my whole point? That only the Church (the Pope and Magisterium) has any authority in these matters anyway?
As for backing up what I have said, anyone can scan back over this thread and compare what you have said about obedience with the article I posted.
Somehow I figured that would be the response. I'll take that as an implicit vindication.
Implying that I should be man enough to retract any of it makes me laugh.
Then you have an odd sense of humor.
I did not publicly accuse you of being a heretic. If I did I would have used a word like........heretic, for example and did not.
Ah. So a Modernist is not a heretic? What odd breed of Traditionalist are you?
Now, this is just my Modernist attachment to the popes speaking, but I seem to remember St. Pius X saying that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies; therefore, if I am a Modernist, this means I represent the sum total of all the heresies.
I think that pretty much makes me a heretic.
You have displayed a view of obedience which is in keeping with modernism and I will not retract it.
Ah, yes. So easy to make gratuitous assertions; so difficult to back it up with substance.
Let me do a little tit-for-tat here, and match your gratuitous assertion with one of my own: nuh-uh.
The Catholic Religion certainly is "my religion" and I would hope it was something everyone here would say.
Actually, what I meant is what Ourladyofconsolation clearly understood: you stacked "my religion" up in contrast to the religion of the Pope. Are they not the same religion?
As for what the Church has taught anywhere in history, I would say the details are contained in the article I posted previously and I'll stick with it.
I asked two very specific questions, neither of which are answered by that rather lengthy article you posted. So if you ever come up with answers to those questions, by gum, you let me know.
It is common knowledge that the Arch Bishop signed that document reluctantly.
Spare me. Now you're going to tell me the poor old Archbishop was just too weak and stressed out, and he didn't really mean it when he agreed to work at reconciling Vatican 2 with Tradition?
It is also spreading falsehood about a very pious and saintly gentleman.
On the contrary, I would think that saying he agreed to statements he didn't really accept is a bit more of a smear on his piety and sanctity. But by all means, say what you will - you're making a great case for your cause.
Dominus Tecum is a great example of that. He takes up very little cyber space compared to Lumen yet is able to counter his arguements with consumate ease.
Speaking of taking up too much cyberspace ... maybe next time you could just provide a URL instead of posting all 5 pages of an article?
The same could be said for Matthew.
Matthew's cool. He at least engages the points, supplies relevant quotes, answers specific questions, etc. You might take a few pointers.
At the end of the day they are the ones that are showing obedience to the Faith as it was handed to them.
Assert, assert, assert, and never support a thing. Are you going to answer my two questions or not?
1) Where has the Church handed on the teaching that a layman can reject the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, or condemn them as being in error?
2) Where has the Church handed on the teaching that the Church Herself can give the faithful all over the world a liturgy that is harmful to souls?