Author Topic: XavierSem (Read 2547 times)

roscoe · « **on:** March 20, 2021, 02:42:57 AM »

I suspect that XavierSem is really poche(pooch)...

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2021, 03:24:55 AM »

Nope.

Poche wasn't that young, nor a seminarian.

No, there are two (or more!) distinct, different men on earth who lean Conciliar.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2021, 07:27:32 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 20, 2021, 03:58:54 AM

Your suspicion is completely wrong, Roscoe. I'm not Poche.

Well, the mere fact that he suspects you of it speaks volumes. You're defending Bergoglio, the Conciliar Church, and the New Mass at every turn. You're not actually a Traditional Catholic by any accepted definition ... except for your inclination toward the smells and bells of Traditionalism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:24:52 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 20, 2021, 08:15:05 AM

You have said "I would immєdιαtely cease to be a Traditional Catholic if convinced the Popes were really Popes". That's complete nonsense. To say "I would cease to be a traditional Catholic". What you really meant, of course, was that you would cease to be a sede-doubtist. Maybe you would become an FSSP/Indult Traditionalist.

Correct. If I believed that these men were undoubtedly legitimate Popes, I would go Eastern Rite of Indult, but maintain full communion with the Vicar of Christ. That is "nonsense"?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:27:26 AM »

What are our motivations for being here?

Xavier - and I believe he does this with sincerity - seems to have a dual purpose of a) celebrating various truths of the Catholic faith, and b) confronting grave errors he sees among Trad Catholics on this site - denial of BOD and Sedevacantism jump to mind primarily. I do not think error on either of those fronts endanger one's salvation, so I see more error (potentially grave) in being dogmatic on either front than merely believing in either without being dogmatic.

Anyway, I guess both a) and b) above are core reasons for being here and bothering: sharing the faith and confronting error that might harm it.

I am here to mainly to listen and keep abreast of issues in the Trad world, and try not to engage in b) - though I might slip into that when I see contradictions that are a signal (for myself included) that indicate a slipping from away from truth, which, no matter on behalf of whatever agenda is served (Traditionalism, R & R, Sedevacantism, Feeneyism), and cannot end in the good.

Anyway . . . Xavier, who keep slingin' there and carrying on.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:28:10 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 20, 2021, 08:15:05 AM

I'm not Poche, I'm not responsible for what others believe, and I'm a traditional Catholic whether you believe it or not. I agree with all of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson on the New Mass - that it is manifestly inferior to the New Mass, but not that it is like a Black Mass, which Bp. W of late has clearly rejected - and with both Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay on Vatican II - that it is non-infallible, and dogmatic Tradition takes precedence over it. You have said "I would immєdιαtely cease to be a Traditional Catholic if convinced the Popes were really Popes". That's complete nonsense. To say "I would cease to be a traditional Catholic". What you really meant, of course, was that you would cease to be a sede-doubtist. Maybe you would become an FSSP/Indult Traditionalist. I have the conviction, for various doctrinal reasons I've explained, that a 63 year Sede Vacante is not possible, and therefore am already an Indult Traditionalist who supports all the Traditional Groups including the SSPX, the FSSP and the ICK, that have Canonical Mission.

Poche has never said he believes the true Mass to be superior to the New Mass, Vatican II to be non-infallible, 63 year vacancy not possible etc.

See, you reduce the status of the Mass to that of "inferiority". Traditional Catholics hold that it's positively defective, bad, offensive to God, a "bastard Rite," as Archbishop Lefebvre put it (you understate his opposition to it), that SSPX seminarians used to be required to avoid ... even if it meant missing Mass on Sunday. Bishop Williamson never said that it was merely "inferior"; all he said is that people could receive graces from it due to their subjective dispositions, making no allowance for the OBJECTIVE acceptability of the Mass. He's talking about someone whose subjective conscience wasn't formed to reject the New Mass. Even that received a great backlash from Traditional Catholics.

So in order to back your position as that of a Traditional Catholic, you deliberately understate and misrepresent both Archbishop Lefebvre's and Bishop Williamson's opposition to the Mass.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:30:15 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2021, 08:27:26 AM

What are our motivations for being here?

Xavier - and I believe he does this with sincerity - seems to have a dual purpose of a) celebrating various truths of the Catholic faith, and b) confronting grave errors he sees among Trad Catholics on this site - denial of BOD and Sedevacantism jump to mind primarily. I do not think error on either of those fronts endanger one's salvation, so I see more error (potentially grave) in being dogmatic on either front than merely believing in either without being dogmatic.

Anyway, I guess both a) and b) above are core reasons for being here and bothering: sharing the faith and confronting error that might harm it.

I am here to mainly to listen and keep abreast of issues in the Trad world, and try not to engage in b) - though I might slip into that when I see contradictions that are a signal (for myself included) that indicate a slipping from away from truth, which, no matter on behalf of whatever agenda is served (Traditionalism, R & R, Sedevacantism, Feeneyism), and cannot end in the good.

Anyway . . . Xavier, who keep slingin' there and carrying on.

And let me add I see the same potential for grave error in being dogmatically anti-Sedevacantism or anti-BOD.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:33:59 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2021, 08:27:26 AM

What are our motivations for being here?

I have two:

1) I enjoy learning about the faith. I'm constantly learning new things.

AND

2) I feel an obligation to defend the core dogmas that are under attack today, even among Traditional Catholics, namely EENS and Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

If someone were to persuade me that infidels could be within the Church (if they can be saved, they must be capable of being in the Church), then I must drop all opposition to Vatican II, because that's all Vatican II is, in a nutshell.

And, if I believed that these V2 papal claimants have in fact been certainly legitimate, I would in fact hasten back into full Communion with the Vicar of Christ.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:45:02 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2021, 08:30:15 AM

And let me add I see the same potential for grave error in being dogmatically anti-Sedevacantism or anti-BOD.

Right, and I know where the inclination to be dogmatic about these conclusions comes from.

It's because the MAJOR PREMISES are dogmatic. Unfortunately, the line has blurred due to the failure to realize that there are minor premises and also that the logic itself is all of human origin. Father Jenkins points this out.

I am not dogmatically anti-R&R, but I am dogmatic indefectibilist. I defend the dogma that the Church is indefectible. But I have no problem with articulations of R&R such as were made by Archbishop Lefebvre, who explicitly maintained the dogmatic premise that what happened is not possible given the Holy Ghost's protection of the Church and the papacy. He simply refused to dogmatically hold out the EXPLANATION for how this Crisis happened (was Paul VI controlled, or drugged, or is sedevacantism true, I don't know -- per his famous speech). I have ZERO problem with that, since he upholds the dogmatic premise. I have ZERO problem with Father Chazal's explanation of the crisis. He's merely upholding the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas explanation vs. that of St. Robert Bellarmine, and he asserts that the V2 papal claimants have no authority. Whatever he wants to call it, I do not object ... and in fact I find his reasoning quite persuasive.

As for EENS, I'm a dogmatic defender of Tridentine ecclesiology. If someone wants to articulate a notion of BoD that maintains requirement to be joined to the VISIBLE Church AND upholds Trent's dogmatic teaching that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is necessary for salvation, then I'm not dogmatically opposed whatsoever. My problem is with articulations of BoD that are Pelagian and do not uphold the necessity of Baptism for salvation, or consider it optional, or a mere afterthought, "superfluous" as Trent dogmatically anathematized. If someone wants to believe in BoD for Catechumens, for instance, I have better things to argue about. I might disagree, but not dogmatically.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:45:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2021, 08:28:10 AM

See, you reduce the status of the Mass to that of "inferiority". Traditional Catholics hold that it's positively defective, bad, offensive to God, a "bastard Rite," as Archbishop Lefebvre put it (you understate his opposition to it), that SSPX seminarians used to be required to avoid ... even if it meant missing Mass on Sunday. Bishop Williamson never said that it was merely "inferior"; all he said is that people could receive graces from it due to their subjective dispositions, making no allowance for the OBJECTIVE acceptability of the Mass. He's talking about someone whose subjective conscience wasn't formed to reject the New Mass. Even that received a great backlash from Traditional Catholics.

So in order to back your position as that of a Traditional Catholic, you deliberately understate and misrepresent both Archbishop Lefebvre's and Bishop Williamson's opposition to the Mass.

Lad,

Here's my problem with this: doesn't it open up to the same type of subjectivism you see in Father Fahey's quote about a Jєω who denies Christ having "subjectively" a disposition that pleases God, etc.

Either explicit faith in Christ is necessary or it is not; either the New Mass is "positively defective, bad, offensive to God, a 'bastard Rite,' " or it is not.

Can one ever engage in something that is "offensive to God" and please Him? If we do something "offensive" to God, we must repent of it to please Him.

This stance toward the New Mass is akin to a loose stance as to explicit faith: it opens the door to a subjective/implicit behavior/belief that objectively offends God's law and command and yet still pleases Him. They both seem on the same dangerous sliding slope to me.

DR

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:50:46 AM »

Let's look at dogmatic sedevacantism:

MAJOR: Church (i.e. the Pope) cannot teach grave error to the faithful, and following the Magisterium cannot be harmful to souls.
MINOR: Vatican II and the Vatican II popes taught error.
CONCLUSION: Vatican II and the Vatican II popes cannot be Catholic.

They rightly hold the Major to be dogmatically true. But the judgment that Vatican II taught error is based on human reason.

Due to the principle of logic (the "weakest link" principle), unless both premises are dogma, the conclusion can't be dogma.

Now, the dogmatic sedevacantist rebuttal is that the Minor is in fact dogmatic, due to the fact that V2 directly contradicts previous Church teaching. But the Church has not taught this. It is possible that we're missing some distinction that allows V2 to be reconciled with Traditional teaching. So the argument MAY be faulty.

So there's the element of human reason that prevents the conclusion from having dogmatic certainty.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:52:23 AM »

Xavier is somewhat annoying, but "Traditional" is honestly a bit of a spectrum out in the world. I think it would be a bit silly to go out into the world and say somebody who calls themselves a "Traditional Catholic" but is in the FSSP or something that he's lying. They're certainly more traditional than 95+% of the people who run around calling themselves "Catholic."

Furthermore, the "full communion" thing is kinda meh. Rome has said we are allowed to attend SSPX chapels, and at this point, that we can confess there, so I think a lot of times for laypeople (not saying "always" to be clear) its going to come down to which Tridentine mass you actually have available in your area. I don't think most moderately trad laypeople would drive 2 hours to attend a mass of their first preference group if they could get to a different TLM 30 minutes or less away, regardless of whether its the SSPX or the FSSP that's further away. More controversially, I'm not sure there's *per se* anything wrong with this (I think its more like you have to weigh the spiritual benefits of a particular place against the loss of community that inevitably occurs when commuting super far, more so than the group itself.)

I'll also honestly admit I'm more in the "Vatican II is harmfully ambiguous and therefore should be scrapped" camp than in the "Vatican II is straight up heretical" camp myself.

All that said, I think the reason I've done reasonably OK on here while other people who are more "moderate trad" haven't is that I respect the space I'm in. This is to a large extent a Resistance forum. We aren't expected to agree on everything, but you don't go into someone else's house and start readjusting the furniture so to speak.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:53:44 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2021, 08:45:38 AM

Lad,

Here's my problem with this: doesn't it open up to the same type of subjectivism you see in Father Fahey's quote about a Jєω who denies Christ having "subjectively" a disposition that pleases God, etc.

Either explicit faith in Christ is necessary or it is not; either the New Mass is "positively defective, bad, offensive to God, a 'bastard Rite,' " or it is not.

Can one ever engage in something that is "offensive to God" and please Him? If we do something "offensive" to God, we must repent of it to please Him.

This stance toward the New Mass is akin to a loose stance as to explicit faith: it opens the door to a subjective/implicit behavior/belief that objectively offends God's law and command and yet still pleases Him. They both seem on the same dangerous sliding slope to me.

DR

I wasn't defending Bishop Williamson's position. In fact, I disagreed with it. I was simply illustrating that Xavier's attempt to invoke Bishop Williamson in support of his allegation that the New Mass is, objectively speaking, merely INFERIOR, is not valid. I pointed out on earlier threads that this is surprising from Bishop Williamson, since he has been THE greatest champion of having identified the chief problem with Vatican II as having been subjectivism.

Bishop Williamson's position on the New Mass is in fact only a couple steps away from Bergoglio's claim that adultery can be justified subjectively (in the internal forum).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2021, 08:57:25 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on March 20, 2021, 08:52:23 AM

Xavier is somewhat annoying, but "Traditional" is honestly a bit of a spectrum out in the world. I think it would be a bit silly to go out into the world and say somebody who calls themselves a "Traditional Catholic" but is in the FSSP or something that he's lying. They're certainly more traditional than 95+% of the people who run around calling themselves "Catholic."

Those in the FSSP, by their own theology, can be classified as traditional Catholic, but not Traditional Catholic. They hold the New Mass, etc., to be compatible with Tradition, even if un-traditional.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2021, 09:02:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2021, 08:45:02 AM

Right, and I know where the inclination to be dogmatic about these conclusions comes from.

It's because the MAJOR PREMISES are dogmatic. Unfortunately, the line has blurred due to the failure to realize that there are minor premises and also that the logic itself is all of human origin. Father Jenkins points this out.

I am not dogmatically anti-R&R, but I am dogmatic indefectibilist. I defend the dogma that the Church is indefectible. But I have no problem with articulations of R&R such as were made by Archbishop Lefebvre, who explicitly maintained the dogmatic premise that what happened is not possible given the Holy Ghost's protection of the Church and the papacy. He simply refused to dogmatically hold out the EXPLANATION for how this Crisis happened (was Paul VI controlled, or drugged, or is sedevacantism true, I don't know -- per his famous speech). I have ZERO problem with that, since he upholds the dogmatic premise. I have ZERO problem with Father Chazal's explanation of the crisis. He's merely upholding the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas explanation vs. that of St. Robert Bellarmine, and he asserts that the V2 papal claimants have no authority. Whatever he wants to call it, I do not object ... and in fact I find his reasoning quite persuasive.

As for EENS, I'm a dogmatic defender of Tridentine ecclesiology. If someone wants to articulate a notion of BoD that maintains requirement to be joined to the VISIBLE Church AND upholds Trent's dogmatic teaching that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is necessary for salvation, then I'm not dogmatically opposed whatsoever. My problem is with articulations of BoD that are Pelagian and do not uphold the necessity of Baptism for salvation, or consider it optional, or a mere afterthought, "superfluous" as Trent dogmatically anathematized. If someone wants to believe in BoD for Catechumens, for instance, I have better things to argue about. I might disagree, but not dogmatically.

And I see huge problems in being a "dogmatic indefectibilist." The "indefectible" Church has certain teachings about the papacy, ecuмenical councils, the teaching of theologians, etc. that are contradicted if you allow that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.

As with explicit faith, the New Mass, the same "yea or nay" seems to be required: if explicit faith is necessary, one cannot please God without it; if the New Mass is offensive to God, one cannot celebrate it and please Him; if the pope and the bishops (and the theologians teaching in union of faith with them) are indefectible, then the last 50 years of popes and bishops in union with them are indefectible as well.

If you reject Vatican II or the teachings of, say, the Catechism of JPII for example, or the New Mass of the past few popes, how can you not be Sedevacantist?

The only way to me would seem to be to recognize that legitimate popes and bishops in union were wrong (before V2) about indefectibilty: ie, that the traditional teaching of indefectibility is in some way wrong. Then current errors would not delegitimize the recent hierarchies, but merely indicate they made some different errors and had some different fallible teachings of their own.

That men, even those given or decreed to rule by God, can make errors doesn't legitimatize those men as rulers: for me, this is the teaching of the OT and indeed of Christ Himself regarding the authorities of Israel. To this same drift is the prophets contra the Israel of their day. As St. Francis De Sales notes in his book the Catholic Controversy, the prophets who railed against the priests and rulers of Jerusalem for their errors none the less did not "set up another altar."

Anyway . . . I see a problem with holding to "dogmatic indefectibilism" while at the same type not outright being compelled by the law of contradiction to say the Conciliar Church is not the Church (which taught truly regarding the dogmatic indefectiblism of the true Church).

Author Topic: XavierSem (Read 2547 times)

roscoe

XavierSem

Matthew

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

DecemRationis

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

DecemRationis

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

DecemRationis

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

ByzCat3000

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

Ladislaus

Re: XavierSem

DecemRationis

Re: XavierSem