Caminus, just because you or some Modernist clergy member does not recognize that a violation of the law may have taken place, does not remove the objective guilt, whether or not such guilt exists subjectively.

It appears as though you are about as bright as Bob Dimond.

Bob 'Peter' Dimond is quite intelligent.  But he is evil.  Bad combination.

I assure you he is not intelligent.  He's merely a shallow copycat who doesn't understand the words that come out of his mouth.  It's much like a child who imitates the big words his father uses without comprehending their meaning.  

Every now and then I'll turn on one of their audios and see how long it takes me to turn it off when I hear some kind of error or mischaracterization of something.  I've never gotten past 5 minutes.  

Quote from: Raoul76

CM, don't prove yourself a dyed-in-the-wool Feeneyite by taking writings out of context.  You literally carved the man's sentence in half.  At least quote the full sentence!  

You quoted Pius XII:

Quote

The social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct.

Here is the context.  From Mystici Corporis:

Quote

"But that men should persevere constantly in their good works, that they should advance eagerly in grace and virtue, that they should strive earnestly to reach the heights of Christian perfection and at the same time to the best of their power should stimulate others to attain the same goal, -- all this the heavenly Spirit does not will to effect unless they contribute their daily share of zealous activity. "For divine favors are conferred not on those who sleep, but on those who watch" as St. Ambrose says. [168] For if in our mortal body the members are strengthened and grow through continued exercise, much more truly can this be said of the social Body of Jesus Christ in which each individual member retains his own personal freedom, responsibility, and principles of conduct. For that reason he who said: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me" [169] did not at the same time hesitate to assert: "His (God's) grace in men has not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they: yet not 1, but the grace of God with me." [170] It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in these false doctrines the mystery which we are considering is not directed to the spiritual advancement of the faithful but is turned to their deplorable ruin.

That is not even remotely heretical.  "The personal freedom" he's talking about is not a freedom to go against Catholic dogmas.  The whole section is about social responsibilities, and as far as those go, we have a certain freedom -- can choose to be firefighters or pizza deliverymen, etc. That is why he's talking about the "social body" of Christ in this passage as opposed to the "mystical body."  

The sense of the passage is that we each have the freedom to choose what we want to do in our lives, and that having chosen, we have to observe God's laws and do His will.  Obviously a monk, a lawyer, a schoolkid and a Pope each have different responsibilities and principles of conduct.

Catholic Martyr


It seems you made a mistake. Do you acknowledge that you might be getting over your head from time to time? The problem with always thinking one is right, is that in the end, one will see fault where there is no faults. The devil have cast many down to Hell through pride. This you will learn from reading the life of the holy fathers.

Most saints where unlearned in these kind of theology, but very wise in the theology on Christ crucified. This is the kind of knowledge with humility, which leads to Heaven. To delve in complicated matters as Church doctrine and whom was heretic and whom was not, etc, what is heretical and what is not, is serious danger for ones soul, and especially so when is not so obvious.

No one can be condemned for thinking he is wrong (which is a sign of humility) and by thinking low things of one self. Many there are, however, that are in Hell for thinking high things of themselves and by thinking that they knew better then others, for this, without a doubt, leads to pride. Unless you are chosen by God to delve into these and similar things, you are in danger of loosing your soul.

You can be uncertain and not know many things on Church doctrine and still be Saved. The only thing one really need to know for absolute salvation is the trinity, incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection and the assumption of Christ (if I am not mistaking) and being baptized.
You can be uncertain in many things if you are not obstinate in your own opinions. Some things are clear, like the dogmatic definitions on baptism, other thins are not as clear. Since baptism are clear, word for word, and one still denies the absolute necessity of water baptism even when presented with the clear proof - (if you haven't seen the dogmatic definitions, then you are unknowing), - then that person is obstinate and condemning himself. If he sees the proof and says his uncertain, he neither rejects it nor approves it, out of simplicity and uncertainty, and if he is not obstinate, then my own opinion is that he may still be saved (don't know if the church have a dogma in this saying otherwise, then of course, I will submit the the Church). Of course, I might be completely wrong on everything I've just written, so deal with me lightly.

Peace.

he never admits he was wrong, nor he is fallible.........he will not read the Fathers/saints as he is working on finding heresy in them as well....

Raoul asserts that Pius XII was not objectively heretical in his sentence.  I assert that he was.  The context of the writing doesn't give me any reason to doubt it, and I don't understand why Raoul76 interprets it the way he does.  He adds to and clarifies what he believes Pius XII meant by "principles of conduct".

Raoul76 has interpreted the words of Pius XII favourably, whereas I see a denial of dogma in the objective sense of the words.

Pius XII also taught baptism of desire and natural family planning and recognized Benedict XV as a Catholic pope, all things that are objectively contrary to the Faith, and since we can only judge based on the external forum, and not subjective guilt, intentions or dispositions, I am quite justified for holding that he was a heretical antipope.


Belloc, I'm puzzled to see you beating up on your straw man.  I never said I was infallible.  I know I'm not.  That's why when I am shown to be wrong I change my position.  But just because you or someone else thinks you have made a valid argument doesn't make it so.

I used to change my position every couple weeks (When I was learning the Faith), and I'm sure a bunch of you are going to try to use that against me.  Go ahead, but the point is that humility and an open mind are only useful for one purpose - to take a hold of and never let go of the truth.  I haven't had to do change any positions in a while, though, since I have not been presented with any compelling Catholic arguments to do so.

That being said, Caminus' post about "Heresy in History" prompted much consideration on my part, but ultimately I could see where Daly was drawing conclusions that he had no business making.  For one small example, he claimed that St. Hypathius never withdrew from communion with his ordinary, who reejected Nestorius' heresy, but still considered him a bishop, but he was simply presenting as fact an opinion, for which he had no basis.  In fact, St. Hypathius words strongly indicate that he did withdraw from both obedience and communion with him.  Same with St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen.  The validity of the baptism of heretics was not yet at that time proposed as revealed, yet Daly holds this doctrine out as a demonstration of why we cannot admonish and judge heretics.  Flawed argumentation.

But I certainly did consider the proposition that Caminus was making about "dogmatic sedevacantism" and judging heretics, and whether or not the position I hold is valid.

Yes, Sweden, you're right about some of what you say, but you said nobody is condemned for thinking they are wrong.

If you or anybody thinks they are wrong about something, they better be putting great effort into getting it right!  If a person believes himself to be wrong on a given point, and relaxes into complacency and resignation, without striving to hold the correct position, then he is justly condemned on that alone.

No compelling 'catholic' argument...give me a break.