Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted  (Read 1798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3298
  • Reputation: +2082/-236
  • Gender: Male
a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
« on: September 25, 2017, 05:26:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Another thread on this subject has turned it into a cause for amusement, joking and predicted comment from resistance people mainly because Bishop Fellay has added his signature to it as representative of the SSPX. This response, while absolutely predictable to keep the resistance position tenable, has shocked me. Next the flat-earthers will probably add their cause to it also. Surely the subject matter is one of the most serious for Catholicism and correction, and should be aired and responded to as such.


    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/23/conservative-catholics-accuse-pope-spreading-heresy.html


    The 62 signers http://www.correctiofilialis.org/signatories/ 


    The Letter: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/
    Logged

    Offline Tradplorable

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 616
    • Reputation: +114/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #1 on: September 25, 2017, 08:48:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on September 25, 2017, 05:26:02 AM
    Bishop Fellay has added his signature to it as representative of the SSPX. 


    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/23/conservative-catholics-accuse-pope-spreading-heresy.html


    The 62 signers http://www.correctiofilialis.org/signatories/


    The Letter: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/
    Fr. Brucciani signed also.
    .
    .
    Why no Resistance bishops?
    .
    .
    Why no dubia Cardinals?
    Logged

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16447
    • Reputation: +4863/-1803
    • Gender: Female
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #2 on: September 25, 2017, 03:24:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Most of the Dubia Cardinals are dead.  And recently.  There have been novus cardinals, bishops clergy persecuted and ostracized. 

    Most novus ordo parishes in state of heresy.  More now than ever.  It is getting worse.  

    I'm glad that Bishop Fellay added his name.  We should be correcting Fox News.  Sspx was created during Vatican II and never officially excommunicated.  







    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16447
    • Reputation: +4863/-1803
    • Gender: Female
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #3 on: September 25, 2017, 03:25:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Resistance and sedes bishops should have been able to sign the letter too.
    Logged
    May God bless you and keep you

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #4 on: September 25, 2017, 03:38:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Truecharity on September 25, 2017, 03:36:03 PM
    Have you read it?  
    Why would a Catholic sign a clarification letter addressed to the head of a protestant sect regarding seven heresies?
    I think Catholic bishops have more important items on their plates than to try to contact the head or "first among equals" of the novus ordo false church.
    Easy...
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #5 on: September 25, 2017, 04:05:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Truecharity on September 25, 2017, 03:57:05 PM
    ?
    I mean, that is what Sede bishops believe to be true.
    That aside, while you make at least one good point, you don't make it well.

    It reads a little rough.

    She's not being a knucklehead, and we can't on the one hand play the "man think, woman feel" card, and then fault them when they're perhaps not thinking as thoroughly as they should and subsequently speaking to them as if they were men, i.e. sand to silk, no?

    Now, if she were being belligerent or the like, then maybe we're warranted to "take it up a notch", right?

    If you "spoke" to one of my women like this... feel me?

    Think about it too, what she said. Too me it is very womanly; she's trying to "include" everybody.

    She's "thinking", (feeling) family.

    I'm kinda touched really; being a Sede, if very frequently is "revealed" that we, Sedes, are ecclesial trailer trash at best.

    I'm sorry miss/ma'am, I'm not trying to talk like you're not "here", (well, you're not, but...)
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3298
    • Reputation: +2082/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #6 on: September 26, 2017, 08:37:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DZ PLEASE on September 25, 2017, 04:05:19 PM
    That aside, while you make at least one good point, you don't make it well.

    It reads a little rough.

    She's not being a knucklehead, and we can't on the one hand play the "man think, woman feel" card, and then fault them when they're perhaps not thinking as thoroughly as they should and subsequently speaking to them as if they were men, i.e. sand to silk, no?

    Now, if she were being belligerent or the like, then maybe we're warranted to "take it up a notch", right?

    If you "spoke" to one of my women like this... feel me?

    Think about it too, what she said. Too me it is very womanly; she's trying to "include" everybody.

    She's "thinking", (feeling) family.

    I'm kinda touched really; being a Sede, if very frequently is "revealed" that we, Sedes, are ecclesial trailer trash at best.

    I'm sorry miss/ma'am, I'm not trying to talk like you're not "here", (well, you're not, but...)

    Dz, could I make a point about sedevacantists? Two of my best colleagues on a particular subject of Catholic history for many years were sedevacvantists. As soon as I understood what a sedevacantist was I pondered on it. I came to the conclusion I could not JUDGE for a few reasons, so remained as I was and continued our wonderful relationship anyway. They RESPECTED my position in return.  Of course I understood why they took that position and I often thought they must be better Catholics than I was to be able to reach that conclusion. If it were a certainty that I, and many other friends, could as Catholics be sedevacantists we would certainly be one. But there are reasons why we came to the conclusion we could not be fully paid up members, while at the same time finding and uttering no fault to those who are.

    On this forum however, I have meet other sedevacantists who are not quite as understanding of OUR position and are not shy in trying to dominate many discussions from their point of view. Nor do they do it as a Christian would, but can become unpleasent in letting us know. Now some of these I would NOT like as a friend, and accordingly they are undermining their own position. I certainly do not consider them better Catholics than the rest of us, rather the opposite when they promote sedevacantism as a certainty in the bullying way they do. 
    Logged

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #7 on: September 26, 2017, 11:27:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on September 26, 2017, 08:37:10 AM
    Dz, could I make a point about sedevacantists? Two of my best colleagues on a particular subject of Catholic history for many years were sedevacvantists. As soon as I understood what a sedevacantist was I pondered on it. I came to the conclusion I could not JUDGE for a few reasons, so remained as I was and continued our wonderful relationship anyway. They RESPECTED my position in return.  Of course I understood why they took that position and I often thought they must be better Catholics than I was to be able to reach that conclusion. If it were a certainty that I, and many other friends, could as Catholics be sedevacantists we would certainly be one. But there are reasons why we came to the conclusion we could not be fully paid up members, while at the same time finding and uttering no fault to those who are.

    On this forum however, I have meet other sedevacantists who are not quite as understanding of OUR position and are not shy in trying to dominate many discussions from their point of view. Nor do they do it as a Christian would, but can become unpleasent in letting us know. Now some of these I would NOT like as a friend, and accordingly they are undermining their own position. I certainly do not consider them better Catholics than the rest of us, rather the opposite when they promote sedevacantism as a certainty in the bullying way they do.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here C, or why you're saying it; perhaps a follow up about the slow ones, such as yours truly, is in order. :-l
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline 1st Mansion Tenant

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1765
    • Reputation: +1446/-127
    • Gender: Female
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #8 on: September 26, 2017, 11:35:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I just noticed this on RC, for those who wish to support the filial correction-

    Update: to add your name (the public list will be moderated, i.e. the authors are looking especially for signatories with academic qualifications etc.) please email info@correctiofilialis.org or go to Change.org to support the petition.
    Logged

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +741/-787
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #9 on: September 26, 2017, 11:39:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on September 26, 2017, 08:37:10 AM
    Dz, could I make a point about sedevacantists? Two of my best colleagues on a particular subject of Catholic history for many years were sedevacvantists. As soon as I understood what a sedevacantist was I pondered on it. I came to the conclusion I could not JUDGE for a few reasons, so remained as I was and continued our wonderful relationship anyway. They RESPECTED my position in return.  Of course I understood why they took that position and I often thought they must be better Catholics than I was to be able to reach that conclusion. If it were a certainty that I, and many other friends, could as Catholics be sedevacantists we would certainly be one. But there are reasons why we came to the conclusion we could not be fully paid up members, while at the same time finding and uttering no fault to those who are.

    On this forum however, I have meet other sedevacantists who are not quite as understanding of OUR position and are not shy in trying to dominate many discussions from their point of view. Nor do they do it as a Christian would, but can become unpleasent in letting us know. Now some of these I would NOT like as a friend, and accordingly they are undermining their own position. I certainly do not consider them better Catholics than the rest of us, rather the opposite when they promote sedevacantism as a certainty in the bullying way they do.

    Disregard my prior to you. I think that I sorta get it.
    Logged
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11666
    • Reputation: +6994/-498
    • Gender: Female
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #10 on: October 03, 2017, 05:26:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The number of signatories is now 216.
    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11666
    • Reputation: +6994/-498
    • Gender: Female
    Re: a "filial correction," last used in 1333 against Pope John XXII who recanted
    « Reply #11 on: October 03, 2017, 11:23:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey on September 25, 2017, 03:25:46 PM
    Resistance and sedes bishops should have been able to sign the letter too.
    Any person who wishes to add their name can register on the correctiofilialis website. 

    Oops just noticed after posting that youseen that.
    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »