Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on October 22, 2014, 01:48:36 AM
-
MHFM:
"Regarding women, they should generally wear dresses, not pants. There could be exceptions to this, but they would be rare. In our opinion, exceptions which would allow women to wear pants would be: 1) if they are forced to work and their job requires them to wear modest pants; 2) if they, for some rare reason, can’t afford the appropriate dresses but have very modest pants; 3) if, for some reason, wearing a certain kind of modest pants is more modest than a dress."
http://www.SchismError.com/e_archive1.php
The Dimonds reject the Catholic teaching on Modesty, Accept Cross-dressing, are hypocrites if their logic is applied to their teaching of BoD.
They believe it is okay for a woman to dress immodestly if their job forces them to. If a job forced you to sin, you object and say no! There is no compromise! Compromise is modernism! If a job forced you to have sex with your boss you object! You quit immediately!
If women can wear pants if forced to at work, then by the same principle if a man is forced to wear a skirt at work it is okay! Cross dressing is always a sin!
The Dimonds are hypocrites in their use of logic and reason. The teachings on modesty of the Holy Roman Catholic Church are set in stone, they are immovable.
Pope Pius XI didn't say, "A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper. But sometimes it is okay just to wear pants"
The last sentence was added by me, obviously.
If the Dimonds use that same logic and apply it to Baptism of Desire, lets look at it: Pope Eugene IV didn't say, “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives....But sometimes heretics and schematics can go to heaven"
Again, The last sentence was added by me.
The Dimonds Accept Modernism on the Virtue of Modesty. They need to re-examine their stance on the issue and retract their beliefs on Pants.
Compromise is Modernism! Being forced to wear pants and not quitting is the same as being a bikini model! You are giving up your modesty for Money! Mammon can tempt you, and you strike him down! Don't give in, EVER!
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
-
I find it difficult to reconcile two known facts.
1. There are a sizeable number of Trads, who seem concerned to the point of obsession with the women in Pants issue. Often these are young unmarried men.
2. The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
If I were convinced that the two groups were more or less mutually exclusive and that the "pants liberals" were the prolific habitual masturbators, while the Pants Taliban were for the most part avoiding these occasions of sin, then I would join the pants Taliban since I would be persuaded that their zeal for this issue was god and wholesome and caused them to be more virtuous.
I'm not convinced. 46 years on this earth observing people suggests to me that these sorts of over-reactions and over-compensations are, more often than not, a sort of psychological reflex action.
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
LOL
-
I find it difficult to reconcile two known facts.
1. There are a sizeable number of Trads, who seem concerned to the point of obsession with the women in Pants issue. Often these are young unmarried men.
2. The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
If I were convinced that the two groups were more or less mutually exclusive and that the "pants liberals" were the prolific habitual masturbators, while the Pants Taliban were for the most part avoiding these occasions of sin, then I would join the pants Taliban since I would be persuaded that their zeal for this issue was good and wholesome and caused them to be more virtuous.
I'm not convinced. 46 years on this earth observing people suggests to me that these sorts of over-reactions and over-compensations are, more often than not, a sort of psychological reflex action.
Amen
-
As unpopular as the Dimonds are here, why take a swipe at them as an anonymous "guest" cowardly poster?
And then the "schismatic" swipe against sedevacantists by another anonymous guest coward. If that gratuity is from who I expect it's from, I suppose another admonition about women being so vocal would be more in order than asserting "cowardly" behavior.
-
Yes, who is calling SV schismatic? Most of the ones here are a loving bunch and like the Dimonds, they're all full of prayers and have only charitable comments for the conversion of the current reigning man in the seat ever since they became devoted Dimond practitioners.
-
I also find it difficult to worry about SVs being 'schismatic' when the main body of the Church is debating the "unique gifts and qualities" of sodomites.
Perhaps by some canonical legalistic quirk the SVs are incorrect. But I certainly don't detect an attitude of schism on their part. If anything, they are simply fed up to the back teeth with the last 5 Papal claimants.
Who can blame them for thinking that? Aren't most of us thinking that today?
-
If this is the one item that led you to your determination that the Diamond Brothers are not to be listened to, then you have a lot of learning to do.
-
If women can wear pants if forced to at work, then by the same principle if a man is forced to wear a skirt at work it is okay! Cross dressing is always a sin!
Thanks for spelling this out so clearly. Now I know that I'm not going to ask you to join me the next time I'm invited to the annual Burns supper that my Scots friends hold!
BTW, two thumbs up for ggreg's comments. The OP and the other flakes, kooks, and Internet layabouts have made 40 percent of the threads unreadable.
-
I think that sedevacants are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings we've ever known. Except for the Dimonds, they are the only exception.
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
Nor me :smirk:,
although I agree with the statement.
~ Cantarella
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
Nor me :smirk:,
although I agree with the statement.
~ Cantarella
That's jolly coming from a heretic.
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
Nor me :smirk:,
although I agree with the statement.
~ Cantarella
That's jolly coming from a heretic.
A meaningless charge when lobbed by an anonymous coward.
At least she - a woman - had the intestinal fortitude to put her name on that post.
-
I find it difficult to reconcile two known facts.
1. There are a sizeable number of Trads, who seem concerned to the point of obsession with the women in Pants issue. Often these are young unmarried men.
2. The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
If I were convinced that the two groups were more or less mutually exclusive and that the "pants liberals" were the prolific habitual masturbators, while the Pants Taliban were for the most part avoiding these occasions of sin, then I would join the pants Taliban since I would be persuaded that their zeal for this issue was god and wholesome and caused them to be more virtuous.
I'm not convinced. 46 years on this earth observing people suggests to me that these sorts of over-reactions and over-compensations are, more often than not, a sort of psychological reflex action.
That some are overly zealous in advocating a particular point has no bearing whatever on the point itself.
Women ought not to dress like men, and vice versa.
-
Perhaps by some canonical legalistic quirk the SVs are incorrect.
The dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors is hardly a "canonical legalistic quirk." It is the elephant in the room that grows increasingly potentially fatal to the theory with each passing year. To many non-SVs - myself included - it has never been satisfactorily addressed.
But I certainly don't detect an attitude of schism on their part. If anything, they are simply fed up to the back teeth with the last 5 Papal claimants.
I agree. Nobody becomes a sedevacantist because it's an "easy way out." It's anything but. I always presume - until proven otherwise - that a Sedevacantist is a Catholic of good will seeking an explanation for the worst, most unprecedented crisis in Church history.
-
Thanks for spelling this out so clearly. Now I know that I'm not going to ask you to join me the next time I'm invited to the annual Burns supper that my Scots friends hold!
What asininity.
A kilt is a masculine article of clothing that is no more a "skirt" than a man's toga is a woman's gown.
Or did you honestly believe that Scotland is a nation of cross-dressers?
-
I find it difficult to reconcile two known facts.
1. There are a sizeable number of Trads, who seem concerned to the point of obsession with the women in Pants issue. Often these are young unmarried men.
2. The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
If I were convinced that the two groups were more or less mutually exclusive and that the "pants liberals" were the prolific habitual masturbators, while the Pants Taliban were for the most part avoiding these occasions of sin, then I would join the pants Taliban since I would be persuaded that their zeal for this issue was god and wholesome and caused them to be more virtuous.
I'm not convinced. 46 years on this earth observing people suggests to me that these sorts of over-reactions and over-compensations are, more often than not, a sort of psychological reflex action.
Have you ever thought that why this is? Why should women not wear pants? Because modesty of course, but why do we have modesty? Because we are a fallen race, humans, mainly men, lust. And what causes masturbation? Lust.
The main reason why we have modesty standards is so men (usually young and unmarried) don't lust.
You have your logic somewhat wrong, you should be listening to the unmarried men who sin by masturbation, because they are the one being tormented by the immodesty.
In my experience the most anti-pants people I know are married women...
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
Nor me :smirk:,
although I agree with the statement.
~ Cantarella
That's jolly coming from a heretic.
A meaningless charge when lobbed by an anonymous coward.
At least she - a woman - had the intestinal fortitude to put her name on that post.
I didn't write the anon. post, but you must be kidding if you as a long time member of this forum are not aware of Cantarella's public denial of Catholic teaching.
Read the Feeneyite subforum, she publicly professes her denial of Catholic teaching over and over again.
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
Nor me :smirk:,
although I agree with the statement.
~ Cantarella
That's jolly coming from a heretic.
A meaningless charge when lobbed by an anonymous coward.
At least she - a woman - had the intestinal fortitude to put her name on that post.
I didn't write the anon. post, but you must be kidding if you as a long time member of this forum are not aware of Cantarella's public denial of Catholic teaching.
Read the Feeneyite subforum, she publicly professes her denial of Catholic teaching over and over again.
You couldn't help yourself, you had to bring the topic of Baptism of Desire into this thread. Take it to the Feeneyite forum where it belongs.
You obsessively repeat nothing but: "to deny BOD is heresy", like a parrot.
-
Thanks for spelling this out so clearly. Now I know that I'm not going to ask you to join me the next time I'm invited to the annual Burns supper that my Scots friends hold!
What asininity.
A kilt is a masculine article of clothing that is no more a "skirt" than a man's toga is a woman's gown.
Or did you honestly believe that Scotland is a nation of cross-dressers?
Did you really fail to see that this was a joke? Do you really require an explanatory smilie for such a plainly satiric remark?
The remainder of the comment was in earnest, however. The OP is a ranting fool and anything but a harmless eccentric.
-
The Dimonds are schismatics because they are sedevacantis, not hypocrites because they say it's ok for women to occasionally wear pants.
For the record, this wasn't me.
:read-paper:
Nor me :smirk:,
although I agree with the statement.
~ Cantarella
That's jolly coming from a heretic.
A meaningless charge when lobbed by an anonymous coward.
At least she - a woman - had the intestinal fortitude to put her name on that post.
I didn't write the anon. post, but you must be kidding if you as a long time member of this forum are not aware of Cantarella's public denial of Catholic teaching.
Read the Feeneyite subforum, she publicly professes her denial of Catholic teaching over and over again.
You couldn't help yourself, you had to bring the topic of Baptism of Desire into this thread. Take it to the Feeneyite forum where it belongs.
You obsessively repeat nothing but: "to deny BOD is heresy", like a parrot.
I did not mention the heresy name, but I referrerd the person where to find her own public statements.
Unlike you, who mentioned the subject by name, I will not break the rules of this forum.
Besides the person(s) in question are proud of their denial of Catholic Teaching, it is not something they are ashamed of. They all admit it and love their heresy.
-Ambrose
-
I think that sedevacantists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings we've ever known. Except for the Dimonds; they are the only exception.
Channeling the Manchurian Candidate, are we? If so, full marks for cleverness.
-
Did you really fail to see that this was a joke? Do you really require an explanatory smilie for such a plainly satiric remark?
Well, it wasn't funny. And humor is sort of the sine qua non of a "joke." If that vital element is going to be lacking, maybe an explanatory emoticon wouldn't be out of place at that.
And propping the unfunny joke up on stilts with the gilded name of "satire" doesn't improve things either. As Chesterton said, "'Satire may be mad and anarchic, but it presupposes an admitted superiority in certain things over others; it presupposes a standard." By mocking an overzealous expounder of particular truth with "satire" that fails to acknowledge the truth as a truth, distinct from the targeted overzealousness, you implicitly "presuppose a standard" that would view cross-dressing with an indifferent - or worse, approving - eye.
Crypto-feminism is a vice in no short supply among anglophone Trads, so the distinction to which I refer is a particularly important one to make.
-
I didn't write the anon. post, but you must be kidding if you as a long time member of this forum are not aware of Cantarella's public denial of Catholic teaching.
Read the Feeneyite subforum, she publicly professes her denial of Catholic teaching over and over again.
I wouldn't touch the BoD/ Feenyism subforum with a ten foot pole. Thank God Matthew quarantined it.
I stand by my statement that an accusation of "heresy" from an anonymous coward is not worth the (virtual) paper it's printed on. If he'd owned up to it by putting his name on it, I would not have protested, regardless of my own views on the matter.
-
I didn't write the anon. post, but you must be kidding if you as a long time member of this forum are not aware of Cantarella's public denial of Catholic teaching.
Read the Feeneyite subforum, she publicly professes her denial of Catholic teaching over and over again.
I wouldn't touch the BoD/ Feenyism subforum with a ten foot pole. Thank God Matthew quarantined it.
I stand by my statement that an accusation of "heresy" from an anonymous coward is not worth the (virtual) paper it's printed on. If he'd owned up to it by putting his name on it, I would not have protested, regardless of my own views on the matter.
Your right, the subject should be banned from all Catholic forums, and many have asked that these promoters of heresy not be allowed to do so on here.
But in the meantime, since heresy is being allowed on here, some of us care enough about the purity of Sacred Doctrine to stand up against the Dimond/Feeneyite machine.
Apparently, this is not important to you, but it should be. Catholics detest heresy.
-
Apparently, this is not important to you, but it should be. Catholics detest heresy.
Then the poster should be convinced enough of that detestation to put his name on it.
That's all the point I'm making here, so hang up the six shooter, Wyatt Earp.
-
I think that sedevacantists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings we've ever known. Except for the Dimonds; they are the only exception.
Channeling the Manchurian Candidate, are we? If so, full marks for cleverness.
Care to play a little solitaire?
-
I think that sedevacantists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings we've ever known. Except for the Dimonds; they are the only exception.
Channeling the Manchurian Candidate, are we? If so, full marks for cleverness.
Care to play a little solitaire?
Not now, thanks. All the self-righteous huffing and puffing on this thread would interfere with my concentration. Maybe if I put on a kilt or a toga virilis or a codpiece or something else really masculine, I'll feel better.
-
Apparently, this is not important to you, but it should be. Catholics detest heresy.
Then the poster should be convinced enough of that detestation to put his name on it.
That's all the point I'm making here, so hang up the six shooter, Wyatt Earp.
Bwhahahahahahahhahahah
I know it's immature but I had to thumb this up. LMAO
JoeZ
-
You realize that in normal times, including when that quote was written, heretics were ONLY declared to be such by our Holy Mother the Church and no one else. Catholics in 1910 could never have envisioned a "Dimond Brothers" or any other pseudo-magisterium excommunicating Catholics left and right for disagreeing with them.
Ambrose should look up the slander and gossip thread
-
Maybe if I put on a kilt or a toga virilis or a codpiece or something else really masculine, I'll feel better.
I married into a family of Greeks. I'm sure we can scare up a foustanella or two for you.
-
The dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors is hardly a "canonical legalistic quirk." It is the elephant in the room that grows increasingly potentially fatal to the theory with each passing year. To many non-SVs - myself included - it has never been satisfactorily addressed.
What does "primacy over the whole Church" mean to you? Are R&Rers not reading over that "canonical quirk?"
-
The dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors is hardly a "canonical legalistic quirk." It is the elephant in the room that grows increasingly potentially fatal to the theory with each passing year. To many non-SVs - myself included - it has never been satisfactorily addressed.
What does "primacy over the whole Church" mean to you? Are R&Rers not reading over that "canonical quirk?"
Well, it certainly isn't some kind of qualifier on the dogma that St. Peter would have perpetual successors, if that's what you're driving at. Either he has perpetual successors or he does not. To him who says he does not, anathema sit. That's Vatican I talking, not BTNYC.
Primacy means "The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church." The pope is not infallible in matters of discipline or government and the very precise definition and strict demarcations of the matters in which he is infallible can also be found in the same 4th Session of the First Vatican Council, of 18 July, 1870 that unambiguously defines that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
And, as usual, the SV vs. R&R debate can be summed up in the following image (with R&R represented by the figure on the right, in my opinion):
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mIn0jBZTDns/hqdefault.jpg)
-
The dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors is hardly a "canonical legalistic quirk." It is the elephant in the room that grows increasingly potentially fatal to the theory with each passing year. To many non-SVs - myself included - it has never been satisfactorily addressed.
What does "primacy over the whole Church" mean to you? Are R&Rers not reading over that "canonical quirk?"
Well, it certainly isn't some kind of qualifier on the dogma that St. Peter would have perpetual successors, if that's what you're driving at. Either he has perpetual successors or he does not. To him who says he does not, anathema sit. That's Vatican I talking, not BTNYC.
Primacy means "The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church." The pope is not infallible in matters of discipline or government and the very precise definition and strict demarcations of the matters in which he is infallible can also be found in the same 4th Session of the First Vatican Council, of 18 July, 1870 that unambiguously defines that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
And, as usual, the SV vs. R&R debate can be summed up in the following image (with R&R represented by the figure on the right, in my opinion):
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mIn0jBZTDns/hqdefault.jpg)
Your logic is so flawed...
So St Peter has successors in perpetuity, when this was stated in 1870 there were over 40 officially declared antipopes...Explain That! St. Peter will always have successors and some of them are heretics! That is a fact. There is always a successor of St. Peter, but there hasn't been one in 56 years, there have been times where there weren't any popes for a matter of years, and time is relative.
-
There is always a successor of St. Peter, but there hasn't been one in 56 years, there have been times where there weren't any popes for a matter of years, and time is relative.
Precisely - relative to man - the Church militant is composed of men; the dogmas of the Church - including the one defining the perpetuity of papal successors - are defined for the benefit of the Church militant - comprised of men. "Perpetual," then, is to be understood in its ordinary sense - as man understands it, else we make of God Almighty a shyster lawyer Who uses words to obfuscate rather than to clarify.
A sede vacante that is within the lifespan of man - two days, two years, twenty years - does not violate the ordinary meaning of "perpetual." Granted, neither does 56 years - but it's getting dangerously close; virtually all 56 year old people on earth today are closer to their deaths than they are to their births. So perhaps Sedevacantism is not - at this very moment - a contradiction of Vatican I. I grant that. But if things remain unchanged, it will become so within the lifetime of many already born.
Sedevacantism cannot explain the Crisis indefinitely. That is my point. If you believe it can, and you have no problem with the idea of even a 1000 year long Vacancy, then you now have the problem of an intellectually dishonest Holy Ghost to deal with - one Who inspires dogmatic definitions that obfuscate, and Who demands that the faithful read "between the lines" rather than the plain ordinary meaning which is the very purpose of a dogmatic definition in the first place.
-
The dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors is hardly a "canonical legalistic quirk." It is the elephant in the room that grows increasingly potentially fatal to the theory with each passing year. To many non-SVs - myself included - it has never been satisfactorily addressed.
What does "primacy over the whole Church" mean to you? Are R&Rers not reading over that "canonical quirk?"
Well, it certainly isn't some kind of qualifier on the dogma that St. Peter would have perpetual successors, if that's what you're driving at. Either he has perpetual successors or he does not. To him who says he does not, anathema sit. That's Vatican I talking, not BTNYC.
Wasn't that Vatican I quote, IN FULL, "perpetual successors who shall have primacy over the whole Church..."
I am not ignoring the first clause of that any more than you are ignoring the second clause. And I'm not buying any sort of argument that "primacy" only means infallible pronouncements without solid clear authority.
Primacy means "The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church." The pope is not infallible in matters of discipline or government and the very precise definition and strict demarcations of the matters in which he is infallible can also be found in the same 4th Session of the First Vatican Council, of 18 July, 1870 that unambiguously defines that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
Ok--shut up and be happy with the NO "mass" and new rite sacraments, and applaud Assissi. Infallible or not, who are you to question his jurisdiction as pastor & governor? Do you really think the Holy Ghost has provided a succession of popes for half a century who have taken away the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and who lead their sheep to hell by their words and examples? There is more to being pope than making infallible pronouncements.
-
Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecuмe3.htm
-
Inallible or not, who are you to question his jurisdiction as pastor & governor? Do you really think the Holy Ghost has provided a succession of popes for half a century who have taken away the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and who lead their sheep to hell by their words and examples? There is more to being pope than making infallible pronouncements.
Pastors and governors are men, not gods. As men, they can be corrupt or saintly.
The Holy Ghost has not provided these popes, they were elected by men. Corrupt men took away the Mass and Sacraments because they were taken for granted by the people - and still are taken for granted, even by those who are trads in name only.
There is more to being pope than making infallible pronouncements, the problem with sedevacants is they swear that popes cannot do what the popes have done because they cannot accept that popes can be the false prophets spoken of in Scripture - as if popes are guaranteed heaven by their election.
-
Ok--shut up and be happy with the NO "mass" and new rite sacraments, and applaud Assissi. Infallible or not, who are you to question his jurisdiction as pastor & governor?
Because I am bound by what Popes and Councils make unambiguously and lastingly binding - over and against any action or decree by later popes or councils which seem to contradict what came before, but make either no claim on being binding, or claims of insufficient force to break what I am already certainly bound by.
Paul VI published rather than promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae and "expressed" his "wish" that it become the normative form of the Mass for the Latin Rite... That's all well and good, but Pope St. Pius V issued Quo Primum - a papal bull that unequivocally, unambiguously and forcefully defines the TLM as the only form of Mass for the Latin Rite in perpetuity. Not a single "promulgating" decree of the NOM equals with clarity or force what Quo Primum decrees - which it must do if it is to be accepted as having overturned those decrees. I must submit to what is certain over what is ambiguous.
Likewise, Pope Pius XI's condemnation of ecuмenism in Mortalium Animos remains in force, regardless of John Paul II's actions to the contrary. I am not culpable for his actions, and while I can call Assisi what it is - objectively scandalous and blasphemous - I am unable and unauthorized to pronounce formal judgment on his intentions. Does Vatican II seem to contradict Mortalium Animos? Yes, it does, but as Vatican II lacks the force of the Extraodinary Magisterium - the only kind of authority an Ecuмenical Council can be said to have - then I am bound to accept what has already been defined and to reject the contradictory novelty that - thanks to the protection of the Holy Ghost - makes no such claim on the submission of my will and intellect.
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium likewise exercises infallibility when it expounds upon what has been believed "everywhere, always and by all." It cannot contradict what was already made binding before. If it seems to be doing so, then I can be sure what I'm hearing is not the Ordinary Universal Magisterium - which is not mere consensus - but simply a loud clamor of errors and heresies - just as Catholics heard when 90% of the world's bishops were proclaiming Arianism.
Have you ever heard the Neocath motto about "interpreting Vatcan II in light of Tradition?" Well, that's what I've described above - the consistent, logical application of that motto, and not the mealy-mouthed Hegelian "synthesis" which the Neocath wrongly takes it to mean, or hopes it should mean.
-
The dogmatic definition of Vatican I that St. Peter would have perpetual successors is hardly a "canonical legalistic quirk." It is the elephant in the room that grows increasingly potentially fatal to the theory with each passing year. To many non-SVs - myself included - it has never been satisfactorily addressed.
What does "primacy over the whole Church" mean to you? Are R&Rers not reading over that "canonical quirk?"
Well, it certainly isn't some kind of qualifier on the dogma that St. Peter would have perpetual successors, if that's what you're driving at. Either he has perpetual successors or he does not. To him who says he does not, anathema sit. That's Vatican I talking, not BTNYC.
Primacy means "The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church." The pope is not infallible in matters of discipline or government and the very precise definition and strict demarcations of the matters in which he is infallible can also be found in the same 4th Session of the First Vatican Council, of 18 July, 1870 that unambiguously defines that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
And, as usual, the SV vs. R&R debate can be summed up in the following image (with R&R represented by the figure on the right, in my opinion):
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mIn0jBZTDns/hqdefault.jpg)
Your logic is so flawed...
So St Peter has successors in perpetuity, when this was stated in 1870 there were over 40 officially declared antipopes...Explain That! St. Peter will always have successors and some of them are heretics! That is a fact. There is always a successor of St. Peter, but there hasn't been one in 56 years, there have been times where there weren't any popes for a matter of years, and time is relative.
As a sedevacantist, I would say that in your zeal mr. anonymous you are indeed wrong. Vatican I Father's studied the issue and said that there was no historical cases of Popes that were heretical, and this also even includes the anti-Popes. Some erred, and usually when accusations like that were thrown at the Holy See it was by a bunch of damned heretics such as John Hus, Wycliffe, Jansenists, conciliarists, protestants. In the case of Pachal II, it was actually backed by non-Catholic heretical forces and this is interesting to note because he is used as the "best case." For the example in Church history of someone who is recognized to be a legitimate Pope, and a "heretic" at the same time. Even in the case of Liberius and Honorius, they were not heretics. Some erred in this particular fact, because some people had spread some false rumours. However, their orthodoxy has always been defended by the Church and the Doctor's of the Church were always indeed aware of these cases.
Yes the whole "perpetuos" argument many use is dishonest, because that canon of Vatican I is clearly talking about the successors of St. Peter in the primacy. That is the Orthodox accept that St. Peter have the primacy over the whole Church, but they deny that their successors have the very same primacy of Peter. So Vatican I, simply was anathematizing against the position of heretics dealing with that. Any cursory commentary from Vatican I, can see that this is what they defined. The difference historically is that we now have modern non-Catholic anti-Popes as opposed to before, when we had catholic anti-Popes. Their only crime was schism, and not heresy. For even the most notorious case of all the anti-Popes, such as Novatian. Even he was not an anathematized heretic, and merely a schismatic. His ideas, in fact are something that is very much what the Dimond's have absorbed. I have written about this else where.
The Dimond's are not heretics, they are schismatics, because they are the only true Catholics left in the planet along with a few other people. They are false teacher's because they make certain claims about this being the end times, when no one knows the time nor the hour. You can also be able to see many other issues that they lead.
The whole woman pants issue, they are indeed correct.
Their line of reasoning is solid: If you have an immodest dress to choose from and a more modest option of looser pants. What do you think is going to cause a man to lust more? Loose pants, or some mini skirt? Its pretty straightforward, anyone that fails to see this is probably a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
It would not be sinful for a woman to wear pants in work so long as they are not tight, if that is what is required for the job. What if they are working in some dangerous place like inside of a Petroleum rig, or other places where dresses can be an actual danger to the job. Use some common sense people, this issue is a question of modesty, not preference. The papal comments on this issue, deal with this properly. Just because you are wearing a dress, it can still be immodest. Anyone who claims that they are to be condemned because of the damning evidence that MHFM wrote on the topic of pants, is an idiot. For it is clear, that they are indeed right on this topic. Wearing pants does not excommunicate you from the Church, its not even sinful if its not immodest. It is only scandalous to scrupulous souls, it is not the most perfect course of action. If a woman is inside her home and she is cleaning and no one is around, it is okay for her to wear pants. Common sense, is the mother of prudence which certainly many lack.
This is ThomisticPhilosopher, not sure why it is not including my username... So I edited.
-
Modest? Maybe. But definitely uncharitable.
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa143/tilbis/pink2.jpg)
-
2. The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
This is the same for the Conciliar church, and I would surmise that men (and some women), who have an internet connection, of every religion and demographic struggle with this vice. The perfidious jews really bestowed a major control mechanism and conduit for mortal sin when they made porn freely accessible to anyone with internet connection around the world. Jews disproportionately pioneered, and today, own and control, the porn industry. They release it onto the internet for free access, and they have their free sites available for anyone to upload the filth.
I'm not convinced. 46 years on this earth observing people suggests to me that these sorts of over-reactions and over-compensations are, more often than not, a sort of psychological reflex action.
You're right, but that still doesn't excuse women wearing pants (not that I'm saying you excuse it). The Dimonds make a good defense of Catholic teaching on this issue. I think it's obvious the OP here lamely attempts to scandalize the Dimond brothers, when, although I thoroughly enjoy them bending conciliarists and protestants into human pretzels with Catholic Truth during a polemic, they scandalize themselves with some of the misleading postulations they make about other (trad) Catholics and condemning same Catholics to hell for not agreeing with them 100%. This has made me wonder if they're crypto-jews posing as dogmatic "sedes", whose main impetus for producing the videos and analyses is to cause division among trads and scandalize them, while making money off of this very process by selling their material. However, they seem to do their share of exposing the evils of jewry and the apostasy of Frank celebrating forbidden - ex cathdra - religious services with jews. Therefore, I don't think they're crypto-jews, but it's obvious they delight in scandalizing other traditional Catholics and causing division. The sectarian dynamics among trad Catholics only serves the agenda of the jews and their father - Satan.
-
I find it difficult to reconcile two known facts.
1. There are a sizeable number of Trads, who seem concerned to the point of obsession with the women in Pants issue. Often these are young unmarried men.
2. The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
If I were convinced that the two groups were more or less mutually exclusive and that the "pants liberals" were the prolific habitual masturbators, while the Pants Taliban were for the most part avoiding these occasions of sin, then I would join the pants Taliban since I would be persuaded that their zeal for this issue was god and wholesome and caused them to be more virtuous.
I'm not convinced. 46 years on this earth observing people suggests to me that these sorts of over-reactions and over-compensations are, more often than not, a sort of psychological reflex action.
Isn't that breaking the seal of confession?
-
The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, and the testimonies of other Trads is that of habitual masturbation to Internet pornography.
I do not believe it. People who watch porno and practice impure touching do not go to mass at all.
Moreover, I find it most striking that you say priest friends as if there were more than one telling you this. If I were a priest I would not discuss the matter at all, it is a filthy business, like a septic tank cleaner describing the details of the cesspool contents. Be careful with those priests. Watching pornography and impure touching is practiced by sodomites, maybe those priests are sodomites trying to get you.
-
No,
It is permissible (though by no means necessary) for a priest to talk indirectly about some information he has or has not heard in confessions over the years as part of a homily or teaching lecture as long as he gives no information connecting this information to any specific person. For example, he could choose to mention "I've heard the confession of a murderer," or "I've almost never heard anyone explicitly confess a failure to help to poor."
What he must not do is reveal particular confessions, such that someone could identify the penitent or the penitent could know the priest was talking about him, but he can talk in generalities or discuss the number of times something is confessed.
Otherwise how could he discuss with other priests or his bishop the best way to deal with penitents who confessed sins A or B? He has to, at the very least, set out that such sins have been confessed to him.
-
People who watch porno and practice impure touching do not go to mass at all.
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
How naive you are.
-
I do not believe it. People who watch porno and practice impure touching do not go to mass at all.
Moreover, I find it most striking that you say priest friends as if there were more than one telling you this. If I were a priest I would not discuss the matter at all, it is a filthy business, like a septic tank cleaner describing the details of the cesspool contents. Be careful with those priests. Watching pornography and impure touching is practiced by sodomites, maybe those priests are sodomites trying to get you.
This subject of impure touching in an anonymous forum smells of sodomites. I will suggest to the moderator to close it.
-
This subject of impure touching in an anonymous forum smells of sodomites. I will suggest to the moderator to close it.
That was me, Last Tradhican
-
The most frequently confessed sin in Trad confessionals, according to my priest friends, [...] is"
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Priests shouldn't tell ANYONE about sins confessed. That should be obvious.