Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 18, 2022, 08:48:13 AM
-
We fling this term around a bit too loosely, but here’s an actual example of a formal act of apostasy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A
-
Kindof looks like this to me:
(https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-ncregister/swp/hv9hms/media/20200828050848_5f487f13c2bf74d8cce24ef3jpeg.webp)
-
Seriously, however, there is a huge difference between simply being a Novus Ordo Catholic and formal apostasy. Now, many NO Catholics are in apostasy, but simply belonging to the Conciliar Church does not suffice ... because it's very possible to be in material error. I know many NO Catholics who adhere to the Conciliar Church because they THINK it's the Catholic Church, so their formal motive is still Catholic.
Notice also how this is different than "sincerity". Maybe this priest is sincere and has come to believe in Orthodoxy, but that does not render him a merely material schismatic. He's a formal schismatic at this point. Period.
This notion of "sincerity" has been warped (due to the rise of subjectivism) into being the chief factor in "formal" error. That is not the case.
-
It's interesting (if the translation is correct) that they call themselves Orthodox Catholic.
Unfortunately, the phenomenon of the Conciliar Church have caused a lot of people to doubt the claims of Roman Catholicism.
-
We fling this term around a bit too loosely, but here’s an actual example of a formal act of apostasy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A
At my age, I have become one not easily moved by emotion and feeling --- what good does it do? --- but I have to admit, I find this almost too painful to watch. It's the spiritual equivalent of watching a snuff film or a ѕυιcιdє.
-
It's interesting (if the translation is correct) that they call themselves Orthodox Catholic.
They are officially called the “Orthodox Catholic Church”
I assume they had to make their “orthodox” BS fit with the Creed they recite.
-
At my age, I have become one not easily moved by emotion and feeling --- what good does it do? --- but I have to admit, I find this almost too painful to watch. It's the spiritual equivalent of watching a snuff film or a ѕυιcιdє.
I had a similar reaction. That poor man. A damnation in progress.
-
I find it interesting how the Priest makes him renounce that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. It is my understanding that within the EO they dispute amongst themselves whether or not He actually does proceed from the Son. My understanding is that the problem they actually have with Catholics is the Pope's authority to modify the creed of an Ecuмenical Council. But this is the greater problem of EO: inconsistency of doctrine - but that's what you get when nobody's "in charge".
Scripture condemns this Priest:
John 16:7
But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Luke 24:49
And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high.
John 20:22
When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
-
inconsistency of doctrine - but that's what you get when nobody's "in charge".
Just like what us in tradland are suffering without a legitimate Pope.
-
At my age, I have become one not easily moved by emotion and feeling --- what good does it do? --- but I have to admit, I find this almost too painful to watch. It's the spiritual equivalent of watching a snuff film or a ѕυιcιdє.
Yes, that's precisely the sense that any Catholic who has faith should have watching it. It puts my stomach in knots. Of course, most Novus Ordites would say, "whatever suits him best."
Having prospective seminarians watch this video and write down their reaction to it might be a pretty strong test of Catholic orthodoxy. If they aren't upset or disturbed watching this, they can pack their bags.
-
I find it interesting how the Priest makes him renounce that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. It is my understanding that within the EO they dispute amongst themselves whether or not He actually does proceed from the Son. My understanding is that the problem they actually have with Catholics is the Pope's authority to modify the creed of an Ecuмenical Council. But this is the greater problem of EO: inconsistency of doctrine - but that's what you get when nobody's "in charge".
This demonstrates quite clearly that the Orthodox aren't just some nice people who are confused, as the Conciliar ecuмenists make them out to be. They're quite pertinacious.
What's a tragic shame is that they reject intercommunion with Catholics (refuse the Last Sacraments, refuse them Communion, etc.) while the NO is perfectly fine with the Orthodox receiving the Sacraments. I recall some talking head on EWTN radio talking about how Orthodox are welcome to receive Catholic sacraments, but that the Orthodox will not allow Catholics to receive Sacraments from them. So in a sense the Orthodox have much more conviction regarding the necessity of correct faith to belong to the Church and be saved than these NO pseudo-Catholics.
We have the V2 papal claimants asserting that the Procession of the Holy Ghost problem is just a simple misunderstanding and we really believe the same thing about it, and the differences are highly nuanced, to the point that the NO have been removing "and the Son" from the creeds, essentially caving to the Orthodox heresy.
-
Just like what us in tradland are suffering without a legitimate Pope.
To a point. Traditional Catholics all agree on the dogmas taught by the Church and agree that we must assent to them. Problem with Trad Catholics is when they elevate their theological speculation regarding the current Crisis to the level of dogma, when it's nothing of the sort. I've long called for that puerile (and borderline schismatic) behavior to cease. SV vs. R&R vs. whatever ... disagreement is fine, but stop excommunicating people who don't agree with you.
Even while we've had Popes, there have been certain groups at odds (e.g. Thomists vs. Molinists) ... and there's nothing wrong with that regarding matters that have not (at least yet) been defined by the Church. Problem is when they started accusing each other of heresy, and the Church said "knock it off".
-
Just like what us in tradland are suffering without a legitimate Pope.
Spanking round one: V2 and NO, result: Tradland
I would say we’ve got spanking round two incoming based upon what we see in Tradland. This time it probably hinges upon your separation from the world. The Conciliar Church is full-bore for the NWO and most of Tradland is playing footsie with it. The days grow darker, where is the light?
Unless, of course, Jesus and Mary let us off the hook due to the seemingly absent shepherd, the Bishop of Rome.
-
Traditional Catholics all agree on the dogmas taught by the Church and agree that we must assent to them.
Boy, that Pope guy sure was useful for 1900 years! The EO have to be jealous, right?
Problem with Trad Catholics is when they elevate their theological speculation regarding the current Crisis to the level of dogma, when it's nothing of the sort. I've long called for that puerile (and borderline schismatic) behavior to cease. SV vs. R&R vs. whatever ... disagreement is fine, but stop excommunicating people who don't agree with you.
It's basically Modernism. "New Dogma time! Because modern world bad. Because Conciliar Church bad. Me not Pope. But me smart. You dumb."
Even while we've had Popes, there have been certain groups at odds (e.g. Thomists vs. Molinists) ... and there's nothing wrong with that regarding matters that have not (at least yet) been defined by the Church. Problem is when they started accusing each other of heresy, and the Church said "knock it off".
I savor the thought that I may see the day when a Pope annihilates Modernism and ends the cannibalistic pissing matches in Tradland.
-
Just look at Assisi (1986, The Deuce) if you want to see apostasy in action. This is child's play in comparison and, unless I am mistaken, he is not actually abandoning the Christian religion altogether, which is what it means to apostatize. See Mortalium animos.
-
Just like what us in tradland are suffering without a legitimate Pope.
It's Traddieland, DL. I am pretty sure I coined the term and probably should have obtained some sort of trademark :laugh1:
-
We fling this term around a bit too loosely, but here’s an actual example of a formal act of apostasy:
Ironically, you are using the term rather loosely -- that is, incorrectly -- in this instance. Falling into schism -- i.e., joining a schismatic sect -- is not the same thing as apostatizing. Heresy, schism and apostasy are three distinct things, thus three different terms.
https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=930
"Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12148) abandonment (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8) of the Christian (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2927) religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9935) such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9935) itself, a sin (https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10849) which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous..."
-
Maybe this priest is sincere and has come to believe in Orthodoxy, but that does not render him a merely material schismatic. He's a formal schismatic at this point. Period.
Yet, SJ, who clearly considers himself extremely well-informed about such matters, is absolutely and embarrassingly wrong in this instance. I remember when I popped up after a lengthy absence and he told me I wasn't even in his league (Homey said WHA?!?!?!?). He clearly had no idea who I am and what I'd done on CI before his ignorant ass was even here. To be fair, although he irks me from time to time with his arrogance and ignorance, I am morally certain he's a good dude and we'd have a blast hanging out, drinking some top-notch bourbon and smoking a few Cubans.
-
(Blushing)
-
Just look at Assisi (1986, The Deuce) if you want to see apostasy in action. This is child's play in comparison and, unless I am mistaken, he is not actually abandoning the Christian religion altogether, which is what it means to apostatize. See Mortalium animos.
Yes, technically apostasy refers to infidelity, i.e. adopting a false religion that denies the core essential mysteries, the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. I think it's often used loosely (and this causes confusion) as applying to someone who formally or officially abandons the Church ... vs. those who continue to show up at Novus Ordo churches while believing maybe 10% of what the Church teaches and that only because it suits them. I think I saw a number somewhere that nearly half of Novus Ordites question even the existence of God.
That's in fact the S&S position, that one remains a member of the Church unless one either formally renounces the Church or gets kicked out (excommunicated) by name ... and thus their assertion that Joe Biden is actually a Catholic, while SVs are not.
-
It's Traddieland, DL. I am pretty sure I coined the term and probably should have obtained some sort of trademark :laugh1:
He altered it slightly precisely so as not to infringe on your intellectual property.
-
... I am morally certain he's a good dude and we'd have a blast hanging out, drinking some top-notch bourbon and smoking a few Cubans.
Just don't bring any marijuana and you're probably right.
-
There was an indult dude here that I used to butt heads with all the time (Pete Vere), but I actually liked him: Motorcycles, MMA, hunting, cheap beer, etc. What’s not to like?
Actually, it’s the fighters on the forum that appeal to me most (2Vermont, Ladislaus, GV, QVD, Pax):
You have to respect an eloquent fighter, even when disagreeing. At least, I do.
-
Mass formal apostasy
https://youtu.be/9tGucp0Srd4
-
It's Traddieland, DL. I am pretty sure I coined the term and probably should have obtained some sort of trademark :laugh1:
I preferly Tradlandia myself
-
Yes, technically apostasy refers to infidelity, i.e. adopting a false religion that denies the core essential mysteries, the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. I think it's often used loosely (and this causes confusion) as applying to someone who formally or officially abandons the Church ... vs. those who continue to show up at Novus Ordo churches while believing maybe 10% of what the Church teaches and that only because it suits them. I think I saw a number somewhere that nearly half of Novus Ordites question even the existence of God.
That's in fact the S&S position, that one remains a member of the Church unless one either formally renounces the Church or gets kicked out (excommunicated) by name ... and thus their assertion that Joe Biden is actually a Catholic, while SVs are not.
Maybe I’m wrong, but while Assisi would be an act of idolatry it wouldn’t technically be apostasy right? Like I’d assume the SIN of worshipping with Muslims is different than repudiating Christianity in favor of Islam, at least if we’re being technical which clearly we are here
-
It's Traddieland, DL. I am pretty sure I coined the term and probably should have obtained some sort of trademark :laugh1:
You must be Mr. Paul Hernandez, aka Pablo, aka Pablo the Mexican, aka the lay exorcist, aka chief in charge, because I heard him use that phrase near a decade ago.
-
Just don't bring any marijuana and you're probably right.
:laugh1::laugh2:
-
We fling this term around a bit too loosely, but here’s an actual example of a formal act of apostasy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A
Actually, it would be formal heresy, since he entered a church that still professes to be Christian.
-
There was an indult dude here that I used to butt heads with all the time (Pete Vere), but I actually liked him: Motorcycles, MMA, hunting, cheap beer, etc. What’s not to like?
Actually, it’s the fighters on the forum that appeal to me most (2Vermont, Ladislaus, GV, QVD, Pax):
You have to respect an eloquent fighter, even when disagreeing. At least, I do.
Wow. OK, now I'm blushing....lol.
-
You must be Mr. Paul Hernandez, aka Pablo, aka Pablo the Mexican, aka the lay exorcist, aka chief in charge, because I heard him use that phrase near a decade ago.
Never heard of him, no matter how many names he was known by. I have used the term, publicly and in writing, since at least 2009. Whatever, as it isn't important.
Since I am not a sensitive douche-bag, aka loser, aka wimpy wack-job, aka gutless tool-bag -- like my apparently numerous non-fans -- I chose, as I always do, to respond to your comment rather than down-vote it.
-
Never heard of him, no matter how many names he was known by. I have used the term, publicly and in writing, since at least 2009. Whatever, as it isn't important.
Since I am not a sensitive douche-bag, aka loser, aka wimpy wack-job, aka gutless tool-bag -- like my apparently numerous non-fans -- I chose, as I always do, to respond to your comment rather than down-vote it.
Yes, I was here when Gladius used that term all the time. This was before anyone outside of Phoeniz, AZ (and maybe a couple other isolated locales) had even heard of Paul Hernandez. Remember, the latter only became infamous after the Resistance started. He had no national (much less worldwide) pulpit before that. He certainly didn't come on CathInfo before the Resistance.
I like the term myself, because it serves a purpose. There is no other irreverent term for the world of Tradition that fits so well. It sounds like (and rolls off the tongue like) Disneyland, which suggests a certain artificiality and fake-ness. BINGO!
There's the real world outside...and then there's Disneyland. Same for Traddieland. For the Trads inside, there are certain important persons, issues, fights -- but as soon as you leave the grounds of Traddieland, everything changes.
-
There was an indult dude here that I used to butt heads with all the time (Pete Vere), but I actually liked him: Motorcycles, MMA, hunting, cheap beer, etc. What’s not to like?
... cheap beer.
-
Mass formal apostasy
https://youtu.be/9tGucp0Srd4
Technically not, as per Sean. Mass heresy.
But I honestly don't think it was that. I suspect that by the time of V2, nearly half the hierarchy were alread infiltrators and that the whole thing was by design. So they were never really Catholic in the first place, just intentional destroyers. Rest were probably weak of faith and just went along.
-
Maybe I’m wrong, but while Assisi would be an act of idolatry it wouldn’t technically be apostasy right? Like I’d assume the SIN of worshipping with Muslims is different than repudiating Christianity in favor of Islam, at least if we’re being technical which clearly we are here
Correct. Canon Law holds that someone who participates in non-Catholic worship becomes SUSPECT of heresy (or apostasy) and that if the activity continues for 6 months, there's a presumption of heresy (or apostasy).
-
Correct. Canon Law holds that someone who participates in non-Catholic worship becomes SUSPECT of heresy (or apostasy) and that if the activity continues for 6 months, there's a presumption of heresy (or apostasy).
How long did Assisi go on? Also was the canon law changed post V2? I realize to you that wouldn’t matter but to someone who thought JPII was a valid pontiff it might
-
It is my understanding that within the EO they dispute amongst themselves whether or not He actually does proceed from the Son.
There was a series of YT videos put out by this protestant (he had grown up both S. Baptist and non-denominational) who went around and had dinner interviews with all manner of different "christian" religions (Conservative novus ordo guy, novus ordo priest, Orthodox, Episcopalian, pentacostal) to discuss the differences and learn. His goal was to ask questions and learn about the "other side". Very enjoyable talks and good points made on all sides.
But when the protestant had the discussion with the orthodox cleric, this cleric admitted that they didn't really have a problem with the Trinity as explained by Rome. The problem was with authority and how the first ecuмenical councils decided on doctrine vs in the 11th century when the pope "started to take control". It was pretty fascinating to hear the orthodox story.
In a human sense, I get that the Eastern world is more "committee oriented" when it comes to making decisions, while they view the Western world as more "authoritarian". And when you look at the history of Church councils the early doctrines were just agreed to by everyone in attendance, so there was no problem. The committee approach worked (not saying the pope wasn't the head of the Church then, but when you read the docuмents, it says "we affirm" very often and I think the Orthodox view that to mean "committee" vs the pope's use of "we", which means "papal authority for all time".) Anyway, as time went on, heresies got more complex, the world got bigger and the committee approach failed, so the pope had to make a decision. The orthodox answer to error would have endless committees and no results; it's kinda naive in my opinion. But I thought it was an interesting talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX4zpZE-Yqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE9TDX_dqOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMsLntuVcQ
If you want to see the talk between the protestant and the conservative catholic guy, I also recommend it. The catholic guy converted in high school and then studied theology in college. He's not a Trad but he did a far better job than I could on the topics of church history and some of his theological explanations. There are 5 parts to this interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf1kOOE457A