Author Topic: Admonishment of CM (Read 35039 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2010, 03:38:46 PM »

Yet again your similtudes are flawed. Arius denied the divinity of Christ, that's why he and his followers were called 'Arians' not Catholics. Who is like unto Arius here? All good willed Catholics desire to follow the magisterium and nothing more. If we can't take this as our rule, then what can we? Is it you, the man who censures a thing as heretical and then runs away in defeat? Something tells me that the defenders of the faith didn't do that.

In all this time you still fail to grasp the gravity of accusing someone of heresy. You throw it around without the slightest qualm. To demand that you stop doing that, and to take people at face value is no mere sentimentalism, it is a basic requirement of charity, justice and truth. It is a basic disposition that you habitually violate. And because it is a habit, you fail to see your fault.

So who is dissenting from the magisterium, which determines where the fault may lie? Is it CM who denies a Catholic doctrine and the whole of the Catholic hierarchy for hundreds of years? Is it you that recklessly deposes popes because you're more enlightened?

What you fail to understand is that it is precisely this attitude which is the rich breeding ground of real and true heretics. It starts with temerity, which you're guilty of hands down. From there proceeds other vices until the will becomes fixated on a denial of revealed truth. So all the while you are casting aspersions and drawing false historical parallels, know this eerie fact, it is people with your mentality that are the ones where heresy is born.

So when we take people at their word and presume good will, a whole host of other duties follow. Read St. Paul for instruction.

roscoe · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2010, 03:40:39 PM »

It should be pointed out that both Matthew and Raoul have fallen for the Rampolla mythology that determines Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Raphael as buffoons.

Raoul has actually accused Pius X as an anti-pope by his allegation that the Pope knew of the 'secret occult mason in the OTO' and did nothoing about it.

Raoul also apparently believes the phony piece of paper that allegedly ex- communicates Fr Feeney.

Now there are some crank opinions.

Caminus · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2010, 03:47:22 PM »

One more thing, there is no requirement to view this crisis in a particular way. On the contrary, many opinions are allowed. What is not allowed is overt transgression of the duties of our state towards one another and the imputation of subjective guilt for the crime of "heresy" for merely following the traditional magisterium of the Church. That is intolerable, schismatic and implicitly heretical. Cf. Auctorum Fidei.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2010, 04:22:37 PM »

Caminus said:

Quote

One more thing, there is no requirement to view this crisis in a particular way. On the contrary, many opinions are allowed. What is not allowed is overt transgression of the duties of our state towards one another and the imputation of subjective guilt for the crime of "heresy" for merely following the traditional magisterium of the Church.

The Magisterium of the Church has been butchered by pirates wearing cassocks. If a pirate ship took over a Navy ship, and the pirates then slipped into the Navy uniforms, in order to sail the seas freely and without being detected, would they really be the Navy?

Your Magisterium is a scurvy sea-dog in a Navy uniform. My Magisterium is the Navy. This is the root of the problem. You are touting your Magisterium, and I am touting mine. Yours has dogmas; and mine has dogmas. But they are not the same.

I do not call those who go against me heretics, because ( 1 ) I'm well aware of how confusing the times are and what the devil has done to addle our minds, ( 2 ) I held many of the same errors they did not very long ago,( 3 ) You attract more flies with honey than vinegar and ( 4 ) I am not as sure as CM about how God judges those who, as you say, are only trying to follow what they think is the Church. But in 2010, if you think this creature of Ratzinger is the Church, your excuses are wearing pretty thin.

Take note -- I don't often call them heretics, despite what you disingenuously say. But that doesn't mean I don't think that they temporarily are, objectively. What this means for their eternal salvation is a mystery that goes way beyond me -- whether or not I will be saved is a mystery that goes well beyond me -- but I cannot pretend they are all objectively Catholics, in the way that being Catholic has always been known, believing a certain way.

We are no longer in the Middle Ages. For centuries, heretics have co-existed with the orthodox in the Church, without incurring censure specifically. Since the Renaissance, very rarely is anyone punished by name. That doesn't mean heresies ceased to exist. Savonarola claimed that unbaptized babies would go to a heavenly paradise, a blatant Pelagian heresy. But was he censured for this? Nope. Just for disobedience.

I'd say the vast majority of American Catholics have always been heretics, believing what they choose to believe, and celebrating the separation of Church and state. They followed Cardinal Gibbons, and ignored Leo XIII. Cardinal Gibbons himself, an open, defiant heretic, was rebuked by Rome, but then ignored the rebuke and STILL was not excommunicated. You see, Rome has been infiltrated for a long time, and without real power to stop heresy. Pius X essentially was all bark and no bite; he told the truth, but did not have means to enforce it.

Today, heresies have almost swallowed the entire planet. Some of them are held innocently, some are not. I was perfectly willing to be charitable and patient as I shared what I have learned, but to mentally accept an untruth, that those who are objectively heretics are definitely and beyond doubt Catholic? It cannot be done without sin.
Therefore, like CM, I have put the ball into Matthew's court.

roscoe · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2010, 05:20:02 PM »

While i agree with Raoul re the v2 anti-popes, he is basically doing what fkp was doing as the Church is apparently corrupt going back to the Rennaissance.
With the exception of Benedict XV(15) I do not see this until v2.

Those of you who are swallowing the Cardinal Rampolla myth that the policies of Della Chiesa originate with the former are just feeding this phoney, shallow and dark theory.