Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: jerm on March 06, 2020, 11:22:48 AM
-
To clarify before starting, I'm not using Feeneyite in a derogative way. I'm very sympathetic to the position as a result of rejecting EENS, especially since I have some understanding of the crisis the Church is going through and may or may not have stalked Ladislaus' posts about it.
I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct. I've seen two objections: first, just because a Bishop believes in BoD as most people believe in it doesn't mean they're a formal heretic. Many Eastern Bishops, for example, are likely only material heretics. However, it still doesn't seem intuitive that it would help the Church, and it appears absurd to me that the Church's apostolicity would only be preserved by material heretics. Then again, I can't say it's impossible, and in this strange time, it may be the correct answer.
The other objection is that we don't know whether or not there is a Bishop out there who denies Baptism of Desire, and thus, we can't say the Church has defected. However, the visibility of this potential Bishop appears to be a major problem for this position.
What do you all think? Could there be a way to reconcile this problem (if you believe it to be one)?
-
To clarify before starting, I'm not using Feeneyite in a derogative way. I'm very sympathetic to the position as a result of rejecting EENS, especially since I have some understanding of the crisis the Church is going through and may or may not have stalked Ladislaus' posts about it.
I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct. I've seen two objections: first, just because a Bishop believes in BoD as most people believe in it doesn't mean they're a formal heretic. Many Eastern Bishops, for example, are likely only material heretics. However, it still doesn't seem intuitive that it would help the Church, and it appears absurd to me that the Church's apostolicity would only be preserved by material heretics. Then again, I can't say it's impossible, and in this strange time, it may be the correct answer.
The other objection is that we don't know whether or not there is a Bishop out there who denies Baptism of Desire, and thus, we can't say the Church has defected. However, the visibility of this potential Bishop appears to be a major problem for this position.
What do you all think? Could there be a way to reconcile this problem (if you believe it to be one)?
Honestly, I just can't believe it. Ladislaus will always be smarter than me, but I'm not absolutely convinced that BOD (even for more than Catechumens) contradicts Florence/EENS per se, and I think its kind of ridiculous/almost believing in a paper church once you start saying all the bishops are wrong. It could be true, but I really doubt it.
-
Honestly, I just can't believe it. Ladislaus will always be smarter than me, but I'm not absolutely convinced that BOD (even for more than Catechumens) contradicts Florence/EENS per se, and I think its kind of ridiculous/almost believing in a paper church once you start saying all the bishops are wrong. It could be true, but I really doubt it.
Even if it's extremely incorrect, I don't think anyone will be damned for believing in BOD for or beyond catechumens with the exception of the most obstinate heretics who simply reject EENS.
I guess St. Alphonsus being a Church doctor supports this.
I'm inclined to accept BOD, but if I was shown irrefutable proof to the contrary I would absolutely jump on it.
-
To clarify before starting, I'm not using Feeneyite in a derogative way. I'm very sympathetic to the position as a result of rejecting EENS, especially since I have some understanding of the crisis the Church is going through and may or may not have stalked Ladislaus' posts about it.
I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct. I've seen two objections: first, just because a Bishop believes in BoD as most people believe in it doesn't mean they're a formal heretic. Many Eastern Bishops, for example, are likely only material heretics. However, it still doesn't seem intuitive that it would help the Church, and it appears absurd to me that the Church's apostolicity would only be preserved by material heretics. Then again, I can't say it's impossible, and in this strange time, it may be the correct answer.
The other objection is that we don't know whether or not there is a Bishop out there who denies Baptism of Desire, and thus, we can't say the Church has defected. However, the visibility of this potential Bishop appears to be a major problem for this position.
What do you all think? Could there be a way to reconcile this problem (if you believe it to be one)?
As regards the idea that all the bishops can't be wrong, please watch from about 1:16:21 - 1:17:05 (https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4581)
Beyond that, what I have found is very simple, almost too simple actually, imo it all boils down to these two things;
1) In regards to a BOD, Trent is consistently misquoted, even by the saints, to make Trent to say that which it does not say at all and
2) The speculations of the fathers, doctors, theologians and saints are quoted either as if their speculations are official teachings of the Church, or their speculations are superior to Trent, or that Trent agreed with them - usually all of the above.
-
As regards the idea that all the bishops can't be wrong, please watch from about 1:16:21 - 1:17:05 (https://youtu.be/yFfnTdlrGK4?t=4581)
Beyond that, what I have found is very simple, almost too simple actually, imo it all boils down to these two things;
1) In regards to a BOD, Trent is consistently misquoted, even by the saints, to make Trent to say that which it does not say at all and
2) The speculations of the fathers, doctors, theologians and saints are quoted either as if their speculations are official teachings of the Church, or their speculations are superior to Trent, or that Trent agreed with them - usually all of the above.
May I have some context for the video? Who is Fr. Hesse? Is he reliable?
-
May I have some context for the video? Who is Fr. Hesse? Is he reliable?
He was a solid priest, and brilliant, but I don't think he denied BOD anyways. Also his argument in that segment is off, obviously I don't think numbers makes right, but he's treating Islam as a monolithic thing like Catholicism, where in actuality there are sunni and shia sects who might disagree much like Catholics and EOs or whatnot. (I don't know all the details here.)
-
He was a solid priest, and brilliant, but I don't think he denied BOD anyways. Also his argument in that segment is off, obviously I don't think numbers makes right, but he's treating Islam as a monolithic thing like Catholicism, where in actuality there are sunni and shia sects who might disagree much like Catholics and EOs or whatnot. (I don't know all the details here.)
Yeah. And my issue is more with apostolicity and the possibility of every bishop being a heretic or the Church becoming completely invisible than it is with numbers. If I was concerned about numbers, I wouldn't be Catholic at all.
-
May I have some context for the video? Who is Fr. Hesse? Is he reliable?
Fr. Hesse was ordained NO, but came to tradition a few years after he was ordained. There are a lot of his talks out there on youtubes of which I probably listened to 98% - he is entirely orthodox in his preaching. The context of that part of the video he was talking about excommunications and schism labels that have been handed out to trads by the NO hierarchy.
The point of me posting the video was to demonstrate that all the bishops can indeed be wrong about a BOD was in answer to your saying: "I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct". Per Trent, all the bishops who believe in it are wrong.
Far as I know, none of them has had to make preaching a BOD their life's mission, they all simply go along to get a long, though would certainly defend it if pressed, but as it is, as you said, they are only wrong, not formal heretics over it.
IMO, the ones who have allowed themselves to become formal heretics over a BOD, are the ones who consistently promote it as though it is a dogma they are willing to die for as they condemn all who disagree.
-
I do believe that Baptism of Desire for anyone other than catechumens, or those at least with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, is heretical ... OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING.
This has not, however, been explicitly condemned as such by the Church, and so a person would not be a formal heretic for believing in it.
So, for instance, it's always been dogma that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, and so the position of St. Thomas Aquinas was OBJECTIVELY heretical. Yet it was not an act of formal heresy for him (or others) to embrace it due to lack of ecclesiastical definition.
I am arguing that BoD for anyone other than catechumens is heretical in the material/objective sense, not in the formal sense. I make arguments from defined Church dogma and doctrine to make my case.
But, and this is where the Dimonds are mistaken, I can put together the most solid airtight syllogism anyone has ever seen, but the logic is still based on my private judgment. There can always be some missing distinction, and it's up to the Church to define or condemn things.
So, for instance, if I were a priest, and someone had a loose understanding of BoD, I might try to correct him, but I would not refuse him the Sacraments on that account.
-
Fr. Hesse was ordained NO, but came to tradition a few years after he was ordained. There are a lot of his talks out there on youtubes of which I probably listened to 98% - he is entirely orthodox in his preaching. The context of that part of the video he was talking about excommunications and schism labels that have been handed out to trads by the NO hierarchy.
The point of me posting the video was to demonstrate that all the bishops can indeed be wrong about a BOD was in answer to your saying: "I frequently see the criticism that every known bishop in the world believes in Baptism of Desire, and so, "Feeneyism" cannot be correct". Per Trent, all the bishops who believe in it are wrong.
Far as I know, none of them has had to make preaching a BOD their life's mission, they all simply go along to get a long, though would certainly defend it if pressed, but as it is, as you said, they are only wrong, not formal heretics over it.
IMO, the ones who have allowed themselves to become formal heretics over a BOD, are the ones who consistently promote it as though it is a dogma they are willing to die for as they condemn all who disagree.
The problem is that unless every Bishop can defect, or heretics can have jurisdiction, then BOD must be right unless a materially heretical Bishop- assuming there are some, though it's completely unknown who is or who isn't among the Bishops given no BOD- can have supplied jurisdiction, which I admit to be a possibility, though I can't know for sure about that yet.
But it would seem to contradict cuм Ex as well as the visibility of the Church. It might be correct still, though.
-
The problem is that unless every Bishop can defect, or heretics can have jurisdiction, then BOD must be right unless a materially heretical Bishop- assuming there are some, though it's completely unknown who is or who isn't among the Bishops given no BOD- can have supplied jurisdiction, which I admit to be a possibility, though I can't know for sure about that yet.
But it would seem to contradict cuм Ex as well as the visibility of the Church. It might be correct still, though.
You would do well to listen to Fr. Hesse's whole talk in the above youtube video. He gets into the whole idea of a heretical hierarchy. All bishops who in any way support the NO and permit the new "mass" at all are heretics - in my opinion. Their belief in a BOD is among the least things to worry about imo. If any or all of them ever start preaching it like Lover of Truth used to do - over and over and over consistently ignoring any correction, then I would likely think differently.
Consider also that there is at least one good reason that none of them, or for that matter, no one at all actually preaches a BOD, it is because to do so exposes the error for what it is - obvious error, which is easily repudiated using dogmatic decrees. Pretty much the only time the subject gets brought up at all is to slander Fr. Feeney, deny the dogma EENS, and reward salvation to those outside of the Church, though not necessarily in that order.
-
You would do well to listen to Fr. Hesse's whole talk in the above youtube video. He gets into the whole idea of a heretical hierarchy. All bishops who in any way support the NO and permit the new "mass" at all are heretics - in my opinion. Their belief in a BOD is among the least things to worry about imo. If any or all of them ever start preaching it like Lover of Truth used to do - over and over and over consistently ignoring any correction, then I would likely think differently.
Consider also that there is at least one good reason that none of them, or for that matter, no one at all actually preaches a BOD, it is because to do so exposes the error for what it is - obvious error, which is easily repudiated using dogmatic decrees. Pretty much the only time the subject gets brought up at all is to slander Fr. Feeney, deny the dogma EENS, and reward salvation to those outside of the Church, though not necessarily in that order.
Again, I don't deny that a great, great number of the Bishops can be heretical, and a small group can be right. But, it seems to me that there has to be at least one Bishop, one legitimate successor to the apostles, at all times, who carries on the true faith. The faith has never just been held by laypeople and priests, and if there are no remaining bishops who haven't fallen into heresy, then it seems to me that the apostolic succession started by Christ Himself would have expired. And if only material heretics carry on the succession, which is impossible to prove, then the Church isn't a visible hierarchy anymore...
"[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a [/color]society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm)[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie." -the Catholic Encyclopedia[/color]
-
I am arguing that BoD for anyone other than catechumens is heretical in the material/objective sense, not in the formal sense. I make arguments from defined Church dogma and doctrine to make my case.
But, and this is where the Dimonds are mistaken, I can put together the most solid airtight syllogism anyone has ever seen, but the logic is still based on my private judgment. There can always be some missing distinction, and it's up to the Church to define or condemn things.
So, for instance, if I were a priest, and someone had a loose understanding of BoD, I might try to correct him, but I would not refuse him the Sacraments on that account.
I do not believe in a BOD even for catechumens because first, Trent says more than once that the sacrament itself is necessary for salvation and nowhere does it even suggest otherwise. Second, I firmly believe that whether by miracle or not, God always will as He always has, provide the sacrament to everyone who sincerely desires it whether it be a catechumen or a native on a desert island. Those who die without it did not sincerely desire it. For me, it's just that simple.
At Trent, the Church defined the necessity of the sacrament for salvation. As for justification, She never even guarantees justification via desire, rather, She in fact condemns the idea that without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, that men can obtain the grace of justification, but that is not guaranteeing justification via desire, certainly not guaranteeing salvation via desire.
-
I do believe that Baptism of Desire for anyone other than catechumens, or those at least with explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, is heretical ... OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING.
This has not, however, been explicitly condemned as such by the Church, and so a person would not be a formal heretic for believing in it.
.
This adjective-- "objective"-- is prefixing the word "heresy" a lot these days. And here, as well as other places I see this use, it is never doing the kind of heavy lifting that it should, given its meaning. Objective things are things that really are. Heresy really is a proposition that is in direct denial or doubt of something that is to be held with divine and Catholic faith. A proposition that is not in direct denial or doubt of something that is to be held with divine and Catholic faith is simply not heresy, never mind of the "objective" variety.
.
I think people might be too concerned with the difference between heretical beliefs and orthodox ones. Instead they should focus on correct beliefs versus incorrect ones. That line is much clearer, whereas the various degrees of error are far more debatable. What you are describing is not heresy by your own description, even if it is ultimately wrong.
.
The world would be a better place if people stopped using the expressions like 'objective heresy.'
-
I do not believe in a BOD even for catechumens because first, Trent says more than once that the sacrament itself is necessary for salvation and nowhere does it even suggest otherwise. Second, I firmly believe that whether by miracle or not, God always will as He always has, provide the sacrament to everyone who sincerely desires it whether it be a catechumen or a native on a desert island. Those who die without it did not sincerely desire it. For me, it's just that simple.
At Trent, the Church defined the necessity of the sacrament for salvation. As for justification, She never even guarantees justification via desire, rather, She in fact condemns the idea that without the sacraments or without the desire for the sacraments, that men can obtain the grace of justification, but that is not guaranteeing justification via desire, certainly not guaranteeing salvation via desire.
On the one hand, I can see where this perspective comes from. On the other, I don't see how the entire Church could be wrong about it. The Church is a visible society, but if there is a Bishop rejecting BoD out there, then he isn't preserving the Church's unity whatsoever.
-
I don't see how the entire Church could be wrong about it.
Are you saying the entire Church teaches BOD/BOB?
-
Are you saying the entire Church teaches BOD/BOB?
In terms of the Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles, yes.
-
In terms of the Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles, yes.
Apostolicity remains in tact through Holy Orders, not necessarily just Bishoprics. As long as one person with valid Holy Orders retains the true faith, Apostolicity is preserved.
-
Apostolicity remains in tact through Holy Orders, not necessarily just Bishoprics. As long as one person with valid Holy Orders retains the true faith, Apostolicity is preserved.
But the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. If there are none left and, say, just a priest and some followers, then the faith is lost. A priest cannot ordain other priests or make new Bishops, so the Church as a whole would have defected. The Church would have no government left at all, just a few local churches.
-
Satis Cognitum seems to support that Bishops are necessary for the Church here:
-
Satis Cognitum seems to support that Bishops are necessary for the Church here:
If anything, this quote from Satis Cognitum proves the opposite. The authority of Peter is perpetuated by the Pope in the same way that the authority of the apostles is perpetuated by the Bishops. It logically follows that, if the Church can exist without a Pope, it can exist without Bishops. The authority of both is unaffected by the lack of individuals occupying the office.
-
I'll let other people try responding. I don't agree with your interpretation of the quote at all, but maybe others will change my mind.
Regardless, Lord have mercy, and please pray for me, brothers (and sisters).
-
I'll let other people try responding. I don't agree with your interpretation of the quote at all, but maybe others will change my mind.
Regardless, Lord have mercy, and please pray for me, brothers (and sisters).
The main point is that it doesn't prove there can't be Bishops. While we're on the subject, what is your interpretation? Do you have one or do you just not like mine?
-
If anything, this quote from Satis Cognitum proves the opposite. The authority of Peter is perpetuated by the Pope in the same way that the authority of the apostles is perpetuated by the Bishops. It logically follows that, if the Church can exist without a Pope, it can exist without Bishops. The authority of both is unaffected by the lack of individuals occupying the office.
I'm not even a sede, but the fact that even during normal times the Church can exist without a pope for a short time, whereas the church has NEVER been without bishops... yeah... I don't buy this.
IMO if the Catholic Church really had no bishops at all, there would be no point in believing in it as its ecclesiology would be de facto Protestant.
-
I'm not even a sede, but the fact that even during normal times the Church can exist without a pope for a short time, whereas the church has NEVER been without bishops... yeah... I don't buy this.
IMO if the Catholic Church really had no bishops at all, there would be no point in believing in it as its ecclesiology would be de facto Protestant.
Maybe, Maybe not. All I know is that there is no teaching which states there has to be a Bishop. One thing is for sure though, just because something hasn't happened in the Church before, doesn't mean it can't happen now or in the future.
-
Um this thread is interesting. I have come to be more forgiving of the mainstream Church. For some reason to believe there are no longer Apostolic Bishops seems a bridge too far. For some reason I am not able to believe the Church is now comprised of a few thousand sedevacantists with irregular orders, mostly in the United States. It seems to me that what everyone believes is the Catholic Church really is the Catholic Church, even if most of the Bishops and priests and laity are heretics. Part of the reason is the apostolate of the sedevacantists, which I think is offputting, and does not come across as the faithful remnant to me. Are Cekada and Dolan and Sanborn and their few followers really supposed to be the One True Church? The biggest change in my new liberal trad stance is that I now work under the assumption that Novus Ordo sacraments are valid. So I started going to Novus Ordo Eucharistic Adoration to pray with Jesus who I think is really there. If most of the people there are heretics Jesus might want me to be there with Him. I generally avoid the Novus Ordo Mass (I do not attend my local Novus Ordo Mass on weekdays or holy days) and still attend my SSPX chapel, but I am a liberal now.
-
:popcorn:
-
On the one hand, I can see where this perspective comes from. On the other, I don't see how the entire Church could be wrong about it. The Church is a visible society, but if there is a Bishop rejecting BoD out there, then he isn't preserving the Church's unity whatsoever.
The Entire Chosen People rejected Christ absolutely when he was able to be visibly heard, touched and proved His Divinity. He spoke ‘de fide’ then just as does today in the de fide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fide)countil of Trent. Because He did not measure up to THEIR idea of the only kind of Messiah they would accept so it is today.
The Entire Chosen People rejected Christ absolutely when he was able to be visibly heard, touched and proved His Divinity. He spoke ‘de fide’ then just as does today in the de fide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fide)countil of Trent. Because He did not measure up to THEIR idea of the only kind of Messiah they would accept so it is today.
Christ, in His Church is the same today as He was when he walked the earth. If He does not measure up to what our idea of God should be like great numbers of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests reject His teaching…His very Word -like the Sanhedrin of old. In doing so - they reject him just as he was rejected then. And like the crowd then, we follow the crowd now.
The simple fact is that without the Sacrament of Baptism the stain of original sin remains on the soul. Every true Catholic knows that. Even in today’s crisis when in doubt of a priest’s faculties, what mother or father today believes their babies are baptised without the Sacrament? Does anyone truly believe that their baby is simply baptised by their parents’ desiring it for them? At the very least they would have to conditionally baptise their babies with water and saying, ‘I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’
The choice in the end is having the courage to accept the truth and witness to it as did the little boy when he said that the Emperor has no clothes.
-
The Oath Against Modernism itself assures us the Charism of Truth shall always remain in the Succession of the Episcopacy from the Apostles until the end of time: "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles."
Apostolic Succession involves not only the transmission of Holy Orders but also of Episcopal Authority or Jurisdiction as the CE explains.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Burke etc, are e.g. of Bishops today who believe explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.
-
The Oath Against Modernism itself assures us the Charism of Truth shall always remain in the Succession of the Episcopacy from the Apostles until the end of time...
Yeah, Xavier, but no Traditional Catholic believes that this "Charism of Truth" remains in the Novus Ordo hierarchy. It's obvious that it is not.
I agree with your principle, and it's a principle you hold in common with sedevacantists, but based on this principle we conclude that these men are not the hierarchy.
R&R reject your principle and so claim that these men are legitimate despite not having this Charism.
-
The main point is that it doesn't prove there can't be Bishops. While we're on the subject, what is your interpretation? Do you have one or do you just not like mine?
My take is that we need Bishops as an essential part of the Church's indefectibility. I interpret this docuмent as agreeing with that. I think my perspective is best defended by Etsi Multa, in which Pope Pius IX states,
"[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head."[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Among all of the heresies listed, including rejecting the Church's magisterium, comes "blasphemously" declaring that the visible Head and Bishops have erred. So, I believe that neither of these two things have happened or can happen.[/color]
A friend told me that there's a Bishop who rejects BoD anyways, so the point is moot, really. His first name is Neil or Neal, I think, but I don't remember his last name. He's much less dogmatic about it than the Dimonds, though.
-
On the one hand, I can see where this perspective comes from. On the other, I don't see how the entire Church could be wrong about it. The Church is a visible society, but if there is a Bishop rejecting BoD out there, then he isn't preserving the Church's unity whatsoever.
The entire Church of which Trent is Her representative, is not wrong, but those who believe in a BOD are. IMO, all the bishops do believe in it, even +ABL believed in it and regarding that, he too was wrong. I say they are all wrong and am content to leave it at that because what else can I do, but the Church condemns the idea with anathema.
For me, it is not worth thinking about the gravity of the error they all hold as de fide, because we are certain that God's Kingdom on earth, the Church, will last until the end of the world without regard to the faith or lack of faith of the bishops. What we can say is they are wrong, and we can also say that at their judgement, they will answer for being so wrong - and not just about a BOD.
-
The Church is not just a sacredotal but teaching and governing society. Her ability (which is essential to her mission) to propose items for belief and to govern her members is a function of her spiritual jurisdiction, which is exercised through bishops. So, yes, unless one wishes to submit to the existence of a Church without any actual authority to bind its members to any belief or law, then bishops are quite necessary.
.
-
But the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. If there are none left and, say, just a priest and some followers, then the faith is lost. A priest cannot ordain other priests or make new Bishops, so the Church as a whole would have defected. The Church would have no government left at all, just a few local churches.
This is a common misconception.
Using the reality of today's situation, all the conciliar bishops are anti-Catholic heretics and have been since at least V2 due to their abhorrent denial and dissuading everyone from the true faith so as to accept and spread the anti-Catholic new faith. Yet, the Church remains steadfast as always for all those who seek to enter or to remain in it, and so it shall remain until the end of the world.
What this crisis blatantly demonstrates for us all, we actually see and experience this since V2, is that the Church continues in Her mission in spite of and in the face of evil bishops, popes, priests and etc,. So the misconception is that the Church cannot survive or can defect thanks to the heretical hierarchy. Nope, not even that can destroy the Church. Proof of this is all around us since V2. Indefectible means indefectible, use this as your foundation and don't get caught up with misconceptions.
-
Yeah, Xavier, but no Traditional Catholic believes that this "Charism of Truth" remains in the Novus Ordo hierarchy. It's obvious that it is not.
I agree with your principle, and it's a principle you hold in common with sedevacantists, but based on this principle we conclude that these men are not the hierarchy.
R&R reject your principle and so claim that these men are legitimate despite not having this Charism.
So the Charism of Truth does not remain among Bishop Athanasius, Cardinal Burke etc?
Then where does it remain? That's the question, isn't it? My view is it includes, +A, +B etc.
-
This is a common misconception.
Using the reality of today's situation, all the conciliar bishops are anti-Catholic heretics and have been since at least V2 due to their abhorrent denial and dissuading everyone from the true faith so as to accept and spread the anti-Catholic new faith. Yet, the Church remains steadfast as always for all those who seek to enter or to remain in it, and so it shall remain until the end of the world.
What this crisis blatantly demonstrates for us all, we actually see and experience this since V2, is that the Church continues in Her mission in spite of and in the face of evil bishops, popes, priests and etc,. So the misconception is that the Church cannot survive or can defect thanks to the heretical hierarchy. Nope, not even that can destroy the Church. Proof of this is all around us since V2. Indefectible means indefectible, use this as your foundation and don't get caught up with misconceptions.
I can accept this as an explanation, but I can't say the truth of the crisis can be known entirely. It's all up to our private judgment, and I'll wait for the Church's authority before deciding for sure.
Where do you go to Church? Do you stay at home?
-
I can accept this as an explanation, but I can't say the truth of the crisis can be known entirely. It's all up to our private judgment, and I'll wait for the Church's authority before deciding for sure.
Where do you go to Church? Do you stay at home?
Agreed. Some things we simply do not know, and outside of settling our curiosity, have no need of knowing. For me, I use the SSPX for Mass and the sacraments. Where do you go?
-
This is a common misconception.
Using the reality of today's situation, all the conciliar bishops are anti-Catholic heretics and have been since at least V2 due to their abhorrent denial and dissuading everyone from the true faith so as to accept and spread the anti-Catholic new faith. Yet, the Church remains steadfast as always for all those who seek to enter or to remain in it, and so it shall remain until the end of the world.
What this crisis blatantly demonstrates for us all, we actually see and experience this since V2, is that the Church continues in Her mission in spite of and in the face of evil bishops, popes, priests and etc,. So the misconception is that the Church cannot survive or can defect thanks to the heretical hierarchy. Nope, not even that can destroy the Church. Proof of this is all around us since V2. Indefectible means indefectible, use this as your foundation and don't get caught up with misconceptions.
The Church continues in her mission even when the handful of Trad Bishops are objective heretics(in your view)?
-
Agreed. Some things we simply do not know, and outside of settling our curiosity, have no need of knowing. For me, I use the SSPX for Mass and the sacraments. Where do you go?
I go to an independent church with a SSPX Resistance priest when I'm at home, and an Eastern Catholic Church when I'm at university. Sadly, I was going through a period of uncertainty recently, and didn't go to Mass very much because I was considering becoming Eastern "Orthodox." Now, however, I understand my severe errors. Lord have mercy!
Pretty much, though, I'll go anywhere with valid Catholic priests and Sacraments.
-
Quote from: forlorn (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=55080.msg690503#msg690503) on Sat Mar 07 2020 14:29:44 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
The Church continues in her mission even when the handful of Trad Bishops are objective heretics(in your view)?
Certainly. Her mission is to save souls and at this She will never fail - and will most certainly always succeed in this mission right up until the end of the world for all who sincerely seek the truth and want to be saved. The real tragedy of it all, is that the many (most people) reject the truth of their own free will and think they can get to heaven on their own terms and in their own church, and as a result are forever lost. Although some like to think so, this is in no way the fault of the Church.
Christ is the Church, the Church therefore will be forever invincible and He will receive into His Church all who seek the truth no matter if every pope and bishop for the next 100000 years is a heretic, His Church will be here for them then, just as it is here now for all of us.
-
I go to an independent church with a SSPX Resistance priest when I'm at home, and an Eastern Catholic Church when I'm at university. Sadly, I was going through a period of uncertainty recently, and didn't go to Mass very much because I was considering becoming Eastern "Orthodox." Now, however, I understand my severe errors. Lord have mercy!
Pretty much, though, I'll go anywhere with valid Catholic priests and Sacraments.
Yes, these times can be very, very confusing but glad you are using valid priests now! Note that we must use priests for our needs, all priests, some are good priests and some might be not so good. But that's what we do, we use them, we use them for what only they can do for us and for what we need, namely, the Mass and the sacraments.
-
So the Charism of Truth does not remain among Bishop Athanasius, Cardinal Burke etc?
Then where does it remain? That's the question, isn't it? My view is it includes, +A, +B etc.
You can name two in the NO hierarchy who aren't flaming heretics? That's comforting.
+Burke at one point approved a transgender "nun" and +Schneider is known for his ecuмenism. This is the best the "Charism of Truth" group can produce?
You could probably count the number of prelates who would be recognizable as Catholic to St. Pius X on one hand. You could count the number whom St. Pius X would not immediately defrock with no hands.
-
For some reason to believe there are no longer Apostolic Bishops seems a bridge too far. For some reason I am not able to believe the Church is now comprised of a few thousand sedevacantists with irregular orders, mostly in the United States. It seems to me that what everyone believes is the Catholic Church really is the Catholic Church, even if most of the Bishops and priests and laity are heretics.
This is why the privationist thesis makes more sense to me.
-
You can name two in the NO hierarchy who aren't flaming heretics? That's comforting.
+Burke at one point approved a transgender "nun" and +Schneider is known for his ecuмenism. This is the best the "Charism of Truth" group can produce?
You could probably count the number of prelates who would be recognizable as Catholic to St. Pius X on one hand. You could count the number whom St. Pius X would not immediately defrock with no hands.
This ^^^^^
-
You can name two in the NO hierarchy who aren't flaming heretics? That's comforting.
+Burke at one point approved a transgender "nun" and +Schneider is known for his ecuмenism. This is the best the "Charism of Truth" group can produce?
You could probably count the number of prelates who would be recognizable as Catholic to St. Pius X on one hand. You could count the number whom St. Pius X would not immediately defrock with no hands.
I'm not sure on that last bit. I mean you're right, if +Schneider and +Burke were as liberal as they are right now in 1910, you'd probably be right . But as a friend of mine pointed out to me recently, sometimes the direction one is moving in is more important than the exact position taken. I think you have to somewhat take into account what these guys are dealing with. They aren't resisting pressure from a St Pius X type to be more conservative, but a push from the left.
-
I'm not sure on that last bit. I mean you're right, if +Schneider and +Burke were as liberal as they are right now in 1910, you'd probably be right .
Right. That's what I meant and why I mentioned St. Pius X. He defrocked prelates for much less than what those men have done and said. It shows how far everything has fallen.
-
I'm not sure on that last bit. I mean you're right, if +Schneider and +Burke were as liberal as they are right now in 1910, you'd probably be right . But as a friend of mine pointed out to me recently, sometimes the direction one is moving in is more important than the exact position taken. I think you have to somewhat take into account what these guys are dealing with. They aren't resisting pressure from a St Pius X type to be more conservative, but a push from the left.
To believe that Schneider or Burke are on the "conservative" side is the mistake. Being men of the Council, they are just not as left/liberal as the others. Just because there are men further left than them doesn't mean we give them any sort of pass.
-
To believe that Schneider or Burke are on the "conservative" side is the mistake. Being men of the Council, they are just not as left/liberal as the others. Just because there are men further left than them doesn't mean we give them any sort of pass.
They are, though. In real life. To be clear, I'm not saying they're completely right on everything. But you're falling into exactly the mistake that I point out here.