Author Topic: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video (Read 8192 times)

John · « **Reply #45 on:** October 08, 2019, 03:47:40 PM »

DecemRationis--

If I see someone shooting random children in a playground or see groups of teenagers carrying baseball bats and checking random houses and cars in my neighborhood to see if they are unlocked, it is not my own, personal "private judgement" that they should be stopped. Or that they are exhibiting criminal behavior.. the law itself says that these activities are forbidden..

When I see someone with supposed authority in the Church continuously contradict so many Church teachings that they can't be counted, and when they admit to knowing it, i.e., when Ratzinger said he was promoting a "counter syllabus"... when they officially reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a meaningless "supper", complete with clowns and composed of Lutheean and Jєωιѕн prayers, it is not "private judgment " that moves me to exclaim that these are wolves in sheeps clothing, out to destroy the Church... The Church teaches that these are called heretics and since they are not members of the Church, they cannot be head of it..

Have you even read the cuм ex apostolatus officio?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #46 on:** October 08, 2019, 08:29:20 PM »

Quote

Have you even read the cuм ex apostolatus officio?

Is cuм Ex still in force? Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII both updated the conclave elections laws, added to that the 1917 revamping the code of canon law. The burden of proof is on you to prove that cuм Ex is still 100% in force.

trad123 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 09, 2019, 01:03:05 AM »

John, are men saved only in the Catholic religion?

donkath · « **Reply #48 on:** October 09, 2019, 02:06:40 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 08, 2019, 08:29:20 PM

Is cuм Ex still in force? Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII both updated the conclave elections laws, added to that the 1917 revamping the code of canon law. The burden of proof is on you to prove that cuм Ex is still 100% in force.

I found this:
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page_19.html

Bellato · « **Reply #49 on:** October 09, 2019, 03:27:58 AM »

There was a good discussion on cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio the Bellarmine Forums some years ago: http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=529

DecemRationis · « **Reply #50 on:** October 09, 2019, 11:19:05 AM »

Quote from: John on October 08, 2019, 03:47:40 PM

DecemRationis--

If I see someone shooting random children in a playground or see groups of teenagers carrying baseball bats and checking random houses and cars in my neighborhood to see if they are unlocked, it is not my own, personal "private judgement" that they should be stopped. Or that they are exhibiting criminal behavior.. the law itself says that these activities are forbidden..

When I see someone with supposed authority in the Church continuously contradict so many Church teachings that they can't be counted, and when they admit to knowing it, i.e., when Ratzinger said he was promoting a "counter syllabus"... when they officially reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a meaningless "supper", complete with clowns and composed of Lutheean and Jєωιѕн prayers, it is not "private judgment " that moves me to exclaim that these are wolves in sheeps clothing, out to destroy the Church... The Church teaches that these are called heretics and since they are not members of the Church, they cannot be head of it..

Have you even read the cuм ex apostolatus officio?

John,

I think your missing the point: once again, it’s your judgment.

By focusing on the word “private” you’re making a twofold argument: 1) that the evidence for your judgment, the actions, statements etc. are public, and 2) that others share your opinion, therefore it’s not “private” in the sense of individual.

Again, Feeneyites can say the same about their judgment on EENS (also a “law” of the Church). A Feeneyite judges public actions and statements, and there are many who share the view, many of them on this forum.

Quote

The Church teaches that these are called heretics and since they are not members of the Church, they cannot be head of it..

The Church also teaches the “necessity” of baptism and that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

You will likely respond by referring to pre-V2 Magisterial statements and statements of theologians you say are agin Feeneyism - the theologians I put to one side for now. But I repeat to you then: the Magisterium since V2 is against you, and says you’re wrong in your judgment.

We come back to where we were in your circle: on what basis do you reject the post-V2 Magisterium? You cite Catholic law; so do the Feeneyites. And you are likewise (I use that word now since you argue Feeneyites as doing this) rejecting Magisterial teaching.

And that’s my point: you are rejecting Magisterial teaching, while accusing the Feeneyites of doing it. I am trying to engage you in a discussion to see if you can make a distinction of difference - I don’t see it. You - not a living Magisterial authority which you submit to - are the ground for your judgment, your personal application of past Magisterial statements to reject the current regime.

The “obviousness” of your judgment (in your view) is not a distinction in kind, but of degree. You’re using the same mode of judgment but saying the circuмstances justify it. But I don’t see that as making it a different mode of judgment; it’s still personal (since you don’t like private) judgment.

That distinction in only “degree” doesn’t escape the conundrum: a current magisterium that speaks falsehood and/or heresy.

You can’t get away from that “ false" Magisterium without “private” judgment. So, again, why don’t you put aside that false attack against Feeneyism and recognize the legitimacy and necessity of “private judgment” as the last and sometimes (like now) necessary resort of Christ’s sheep in such circuмstances. See Galatians 1.

Then maybe we can start getting somewhere in our discussion about the “Magisterium."

DR

Bellato · « **Reply #51 on:** October 09, 2019, 12:00:47 PM »

So, if a Pope openly professed Islam, and began using Islamic prayers rather than Catholic prayers, and openly denied the divinity of Christ, and began changing all Catholic Church’s into Mosques, then Catholics must keep accepting him as their Pope, and must keep submitting to him. This situation goes on permanently, as no one can make the judgment that he has lost the Faith and is no longer a Catholic. I get it now.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #52 on:** October 09, 2019, 01:14:30 PM »

Quote from: Bellato on October 09, 2019, 12:00:47 PM

So, if a Pope openly professed Islam, and began using Islamic prayers rather than Catholic prayers, and openly denied the divinity of Christ, and began changing all Catholic Church’s into Mosques, then Catholics must keep accepting him as their Pope, and must keep submitting to him. This situation goes on permanently, as no one can make the judgment that he has lost the Faith and is no longer a Catholic. I get it now.

Good grief . . . who said that in this thread?

Stubborn · « **Reply #53 on:** October 09, 2019, 02:10:22 PM »

Quote from: Bellato on October 09, 2019, 12:00:47 PM

So, if a Pope openly professed Islam, and began using Islamic prayers rather than Catholic prayers, and openly denied the divinity of Christ, and began changing all Catholic Church’s into Mosques, then Catholics must keep accepting him as their Pope, and must keep submitting to him. This situation goes on permanently, as no one can make the judgment that he has lost the Faith and is no longer a Catholic. I get it now.

Keep submitting to him? What exactly is it that he commands us to do that we are bound to submit to?

The dogma says it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope, not submit to him.

Bellato · « **Reply #54 on:** October 09, 2019, 06:43:47 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 09, 2019, 02:10:22 PM

Keep submitting to him? What exactly is it that he commands us to do that we are bound to submit to?

The dogma says it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope, not submit to him.

Well, there is a lot. Read the 1983 Code, it has lots of laws that would affect you and would demonstrate your submission to Francis. Also, the 6 precepts of the Church. You would need to donate to and support to your local canonical parish, your canonical pastor, and your local ordinary.
You would need to believe his authoritative teaching, including his teaching that teaches that there are environmental sins, as explained by Francis, etc.

What is the point of the Papacy if the subjects of the Pope judge what conforms to Tradition?

St. Pius X taught how we must love the Pope, which would demonstrate your submission:

Quote

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public docuмents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/11/love-pope-no-ifs-and-no-buts-for.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** October 10, 2019, 06:24:23 AM »

Quote from: Bellato on October 09, 2019, 06:43:47 PM

Well, there is a lot. Read the 1983 Code, it has lots of laws that would affect you and would demonstrate your submission to Francis. Also, the 6 precepts of the Church. You would need to donate to and support to your local canonical parish, your canonical pastor, and your local ordinary.
You would need to believe his authoritative teaching, including his teaching that teaches that there are environmental sins, as explained by Francis, etc.

What is the point of the Papacy if the subjects of the Pope judge what conforms to Tradition?

St. Pius X taught how we must love the Pope, which would demonstrate your submission:

I already know he is a terrible heretic and apostate and etc., but what exactly is it that he commands, or has commanded us to do that we are bound to submit to? I'm just looking for one thing.

The highest principle in the Church is: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." People who think we owe blind obedience to everything and anything the conciliar popes say, do so with blatant disregard to this highest and most fundamental of Catholic principles.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #56 on:** October 10, 2019, 05:49:04 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 09, 2019, 02:10:22 PM

Keep submitting to him? What exactly is it that he commands us to do that we are bound to submit to?

The dogma says it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope, not submit to him.

I think if it were that blatant even the conciliar cardinals would declare that he lost his office anyways.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #57 on:** October 10, 2019, 09:33:52 PM »

Quote from: John on October 07, 2019, 12:18:29 PM

What does it matter if I do believe in what St. Thomas Aquinas says on the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation? I do not deny it. That is what he taught and it is not wrong.

But do you claim it heresy to believe what St. Alphonsus Liguori or Pope St. Pius X taught, not merely "tolerated" about implicit desire in the quotes that I copied above? Or Pope Pius IX? Or XII? Because that is precisely what they say.. or can you prove otherwise?

St. Augustine says that (paraphrase) if I don't understand the paradox of two teachings like that, it is always better to doubt my own mental abilities than to conclude that the Church erred.

John, St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Pius X both believed that an explicit faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are absolutely necessary for salvation. They did not use the word "implicit" in relation to baptism of desire in the same sense that you are using the word. They only meant that it would be possible for someone who just learned of God's goodness and love through faith in the principal mysteries to implicitly desire baptism before they heard of the sacrament.

But for the sake of argument, lets say that you were right and that St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Pius X both believed that those who die as unbelievers can be saved. You seem to admit that St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe what you are alleging St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X taught. You call your idea that these two contradictory propositions could somehow both be true a "paradox," and then justify your violating a fundamental principle of logic by appealing to your own limited mental abilities.

If you hold that the laity must ignore the principal of non-contradiction and instead hold the principle of invincible stupidity, how on earth can you be a sedevacantist? If you think that two contradictory propositions can both be true at the same time, how could you possibly judge that the men thought to be popes by the entire world taught heresy? Where did your intellectual humility go when you made that judgment?

Bellato · « **Reply #58 on:** October 10, 2019, 10:45:50 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on October 10, 2019, 06:24:23 AM

I already know he is a terrible heretic and apostate and etc., but what exactly is it that he commands, or has commanded us to do that we are bound to submit to? I'm just looking for one thing.

The highest principle in the Church is: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." People who think we owe blind obedience to everything and anything the conciliar popes say, do so with blatant disregard to this highest and most fundamental of Catholic principles.

I think the principle you mentioned is being abused to justify positions that some have taken in this crisis. What commentary are you relying on that justifies many of the positions we see in our times, rejecting a rite of mass approved by the Pope, rejecting canons approved by the Pope, etc.

I’ve never seen any, and I think it’s a made up novelty.

I’d like to see a single writing from the time of the Apostles all the way to 1960 that ever states that a rite of mass could be an abomination, or a sacrilege, or an incentive to impiety, and therefore Catholics must reject the papally approved mass.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #59 on:** October 10, 2019, 11:32:31 PM »

There are 2 “approved” rites at the moment, legally speaking. Only one is morally approved, from a theological standpoint. The other is essentially optional because there is no command to attend it or accept it. Because the V2 popes have not commanded the novus ordo to be attended under any penalty of sin, so it's not a “rejection” of papal authority to ignore it. They could have made it obligatory but they didn’t. Same thing for V2.
.
I know this is contrary to your sede narrative, but facts are facts. There are other legitimate reasons which support sede-ism, but this isn’t one.

Author Topic: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video (Read 8192 times)

John

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Pax Vobis

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

trad123

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

donkath

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Bellato

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

DecemRationis

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Bellato

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

DecemRationis

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Stubborn

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Bellato

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Stubborn

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

ByzCat3000

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

MarylandTrad

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Bellato

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video

Pax Vobis

Re: Reverend Crawford , Feeney, Dimond video