Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: saintbosco13 on April 11, 2018, 11:34:56 AM
-
As most people know, this forum and others like it on the Internet have typically been run by people from the SSPX or Resistance. A common theme across all these forums has been to censor, silence, and ban sedevacantists as being "dogmatic" when they present their arguments. This "dogmatic" accusation is nothing but a complete novelty, not found in Catholic books, and prevents discussions from reaching their conclusion.
The challenge I propose is for those in the SSPX or Resistance who really think their position represents true Catholicism, to go to FaithfulCatholics.com and present your case in a new discussion. FC is run by sedevacantists and does not believe in silencing the other side with the ridiculous "dogmatic" accusation. There you will be able to present your arguments openly and freely, as long as you present proof for what you say.
Matthew, would love to see you on there where you do not have the convenience of the ban button. Let's see what you got.
-
Dogmatic to the non sede means what exactly. That we who hold the sede position and are certain of this brutal truth, or isn’t it that the sede who states non sedes go to hell, that is what makes one dogmatic?
-
Dogmatic to the non sede means what exactly. That we who hold the sede position and are certain of this brutal truth, or isn’t it that the sede who states non sedes go to hell, that is what makes one dogmatic?
B
-
Dogmatic to the non sede means what exactly. That we who hold the sede position and are certain of this brutal truth, or isn’t it that the sede who states non sedes go to hell, that is what makes one dogmatic?
Only Christ can condemn us to the eternal fires of Hell.
Let us pray that through the mercy of God, we will all be saved.
-
I just went to that [misnamed] site, can't read a thing without signing up. Just as well, all you're really after is arguments for the sake of arguing.
-
Only Christ can condemn us to the eternal fires of Hell.
Let us pray that through the mercy of God, we will all be saved.
I am allowed to say the Jєω who dies a Jєω rejecting Christ has condemned himself to hell. Are you saying you can’t make this type of statement?
-
I just went to that [misnamed] site, can't read a thing without signing up. Just as well, all you're really after is arguments for the sake of arguing.
That site is indeed misnamed.
I agree that arguing for the sake of arguing is really what certain sedes are all about, though some of them can be reasonable.
If by some miracle the Crisis were to end, and we would be given a good pope, what would the more extreme sedes do? They would have to find something else to argue about, or find fault even with a good pope.
A revolutionary is always in search of a revolution. Pope Francis is a prime example of this. As are the extreme sedes.
-
That site is indeed misnamed.
I agree that arguing for the sake of arguing is really what certain sedes are all about, though some of them can be reasonable.
If by some miracle the Crisis were to end, and we would be given a good pope, what would the more extreme sedes do? They would have to find something else to argue about, or find fault even with a good pope.
A revolutionary is always in search of a revolution. Pope Francis is a prime example of this. As are the extreme sedes.
You're spot on here.
Most sede's are so sure of themselves that whatever you say can only be more proof that you're wrong. It's a frame of mind they got themselves into and only a miracle can shake them out of it.
So, unless you're a miracle worker, stay away from that site.
PS: I speak from experience.
-
You're spot on here.
Most sede's are so sure of themselves that whatever you say can only be more proof that you're wrong. It's a frame of mind they got themselves into and only a miracle can shake them out of it.
So, unless you're a miracle worker, stay away from that site.
PS: I speak from experience.
Yes, I think you're right - only a miracle can shake them out of it.
Don't worry - I won't be participating on that site. I have about as much interest in doing that as I would be in participating on a Mormon or Scientology site.
-
So what you are saying is, "You sedevacantists shouldn't be so sure of your position, since we can't be so sure of ours". If SSPXers were sure of their position there would be some people responding to this challenge right now, but you will notice that no one is!
Because it is a futile exercise. In order to have a fruitful discussion you need two sides that are objective and willing to consider the other side, as well as respond to the arguments put forward without all the nasty techniques (diversion, quote bombing, ignoring, distorting, etc..). It is my experience that the type of people who are hot headed, emotional, opinionated and overly self sure are exactly the ones that are attracted to sedevacantism. I don't claim that all sedes are like that, but the majority of them are. It is useless to talk to these kind of people, especially in a place where they are in the majority and where a certain mob mentality takes over.
-
Because it is a futile exercise. In order to have a fruitful discussion you need two sides that are objective and willing to consider the other side, as well as respond to the arguments put forward without all the nasty techniques (diversion, quote bombing, ignoring, distorting, etc..). It is my experience that the type of people who are hot headed, emotional, opinionated and overly self sure are exactly the ones that are attracted to sedevacantism. I don't claim that all sedes are like that, but the majority of them are. It is useless to talk to these kind of people, especially in a place where they are in the majority and where a certain mob mentality takes over.
This is really a pathetic response. What you are doing is assuming ALL Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position are hotheaded, emotional, opinionated, overly self sure, and that they use nasty techniques (an absurd assumption), then you are bowing out of all discussion based on that absurd assumption. That's like a little kid refusing to go out and play in the schoolyard because "the other kids are going to be mean to me". Toughen up!
If you held the truth and you knew you did, you wouldn't be worried in the slightest about these things.
-
This is really a pathetic response. What you are doing is assuming ALL Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position are hotheaded, emotional, opinionated, overly self sure, and that they use nasty techniques (an absurd assumption), then you are bowing out of all discussion based on that absurd assumption. That's like a little kid refusing to go out and play in the schoolyard because "the other kids are going to be mean to me". Toughen up!
If you held the truth and you knew you did, you wouldn't be worried in the slightest about these things.
Do you know the definition of an idiot? Here it is anyway: "An idiot is someone who repeats the same action over and over, expecting a different result each time." I'd rather not go down that road.
Also, those who presume they are strong enough to search for and argue with those who are in error, run the risk of becoming infected with the same errors. God often punishes such presumption. So, I will stick to following Providence, rather than trying to lead It. If God puts a sede in my path I will happily discuss his problem with him, but apart from that, I have no desire to jump into a gang of sedes in the schoolyard.
But if you really want to prove your own toughness and recruit a few more members while you're at it, you can "strut your stuff" here, this forum allows it.
-
I am allowed to say the Jєω who dies a Jєω rejecting Christ has condemned himself to hell. Are you saying you can’t make this type of statement?
We will not know for sure if someone has sincerely repented and if the Theotokos has interceded to Christ God that his soul may be saved through someone's heartfelt prayers. In the afterlife, no doubt, we will rejoice with all the saints that someone was able to repent through our simple prayers as there will be much rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner who repents.
Where there is life, there is hope, but the soul who has hardened his heart and has committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be saved neither in this life nor in the afterlife for there is no grace of repentance given to such a soul.
I met a soul who asked for my prayers, but he admitted that I would be wasting my time to pray for him. He said that he was having nightmares every night driving him to despair not only because he had denied Christ, but also because he might have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. I thought he might be scrupulous at first, but he told me that when he tried to go to a priest for confession, he could not even enter the church. It was like a hand prevented him from doing so. He was driven to despair and thoughts of ѕυιcιdє to end the daily nightmares of the screams he heard in hell. I lost contact with him.
Many Jєωs during the time of Christ and even in our times have hardened their hearts and have committed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by saying that Christ is the devil or that He is the son of a devil, and/or that Christ works miracles through the devil. These will not be saved.
-
The true reason they cry "dogmatic" is because we are so confident in our position and can prove it. They can't stand to hear that so they put on a big act on how they are SO offended for being told they are wrong. It's pathetic and is nothing but pride.
You need a dose of humility. "We", "our" "They" "they", "they" "they", "pathetic"
I honestly don't think you care for the truth. Of course you would deny that. In fact, I think you suffer from a childish love of argumentation.
-
You give this advice and then hang out on Cathinfo where error is allowed to run rampant ?? I think you need to practice what you preach.
Again, what kind of reply is this? I can almost guarantee that you are a new convert to either Tradition in general or sedevacantism in particular. I will also bet that you HAVE NOT made any sort of reasonable study of these thorny points of theology.
-
One more thing. I know when I came to Tradition many years ago, in my excessive zeal and without any real and proper knowledge I started lambasting those who weren't Catholic and those who weren't Traditional. It was childish and idiotic. For that I am embarrassed. However, I don't think I have lost any of my zeal and I want ALL to become Catholic but I have been humbled by how much I really don't know. I'd rather listen to those who have studied and who are honest than rattle off on something that is beyond my understanding or knowledge. I immediately noticed that you made several posts which are bombastic. How does that happen? Think...why are you really instigating a fight?
-
Because it is a futile exercise. In order to have a fruitful discussion you need two sides that are objective and willing to consider the other side, as well as respond to the arguments put forward without all the nasty techniques (diversion, quote bombing, ignoring, distorting, etc..). It is my experience that the type of people who are hot headed, emotional, opinionated and overly self sure are exactly the ones that are attracted to sedevacantism. I don't claim that all sedes are like that, but the majority of them are. It is useless to talk to these kind of people, especially in a place where they are in the majority and where a certain mob mentality takes over.
This is spot on.
-
You give this advice and then hang out on Cathinfo where error is allowed to run rampant ?? I think you need to practice what you preach.
I'm sorry you cannot see the difference.
It is true that on CathInfo some erroneous positions are allowed, which is unfortunate. But none of these errors dominate the whole forum. And I can easily choose the few topics I am interested in, and ignore the many others I prefer to avoid. And the few errors that are allowed here are not disproportionately represented by a majority of members.
But to join a forum whose "raison d'être" is sedevacantism, where the whole forum is tainted with sedevacantism, whose members are all there precisely because of sedevacantism and whose moderators are all sedevacantists, in order to go and "argue with them", or to try and "convert them", that imho is presumptupous.. and futile.
-
"saintbosco13" has been banned.
The reason should be obvious. He belongs with all those dogmatic, argumentative sedes. He can go be a sede in that self-referential echo chamber where he belongs, and keep his childish nonsense off CathInfo.
Men like him give sedevacantists a bad name. Unfortunately he's not the only one. I'm sure the sedevacantists on CI will agree.
On CathInfo, his kind usually get banned pretty quick.
-
"saintbosco13" has been banned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deFDXYdF2g4
-
"saintbosco13" has been banned.
The reason should be obvious. He belongs with all those dogmatic, argumentative sedes. He can go be a sede in that self-referential echo chamber where he belongs, and keep his childish nonsense off CathInfo.
Men like him give sedevacantists a bad name. Unfortunately he's not the only one. I'm sure the sedevacantists on CI will agree.
On CathInfo, his kind usually get banned pretty quick.
:applause:
That was the right move on your part Matthew for a couple of reasons. One, banning one dedicated to being a worker of iniquity is the right thing to do and two, there will likely be a temporary reprieve in his sedeism as he focuses on how rotten CI and you are for banning him and not accepting his ridiculous "challenge".
-
"saintbosco13" has been banned.
The reason should be obvious.
I'm sorry. It's not obvious to me, but then again, I'm pretty obtuse.
Unless he's been banned for something he said on that other forum he referenced (which I can't see since I'm not a member), I just didn't see anything on this topic that I would have thought would get someone banned--unless he was just too "loud and proud" about his sedevacantism.
-
I'm sorry you cannot see the difference.
It is true that on CathInfo some erroneous positions are allowed, which is unfortunate. But none of these errors dominate the whole forum. And I can easily choose the few topics I am interested in, and ignore the many others I prefer to avoid. And the few errors that are allowed here are not disproportionately represented by a majority of members.
But to join a forum whose "raison d'être" is sedevacantism, where the whole forum is tainted with sedevacantism, whose members are all there precisely because of sedevacantism and whose moderators are all sedevacantists, in order to go and "argue with them", or to try and "convert them", that imho is presumptupous.. and futile.
I'll remind Samuel his own words, from just a couple months ago, when he was a regular member here.
-
There are definitely "real" dogmatic sedes, i.e., people who think membership in the Catholic Church depends on being "non-una-cuм." And that's just ridiculous. Note that there are dogmatic sedeplenists too, and they're just as bad, and definitely more proliferate.
But what I think is usually the case, and what I think is happening usually when someone is accused of being a "dogmatic" sede is that the person making the accusation finds the argument strong, but if they've already "decided" that it's wrong, they need to explain why they are compelled by it. That's when the old "you can't force your opinion on me" canard gets toted out. In principle it's not all that different from a liberal, atheist, or other secular type being presented with strong arguments against their position just curling up in the intellectual fetal position and covering their ears by accusing their interlocutor of "forcing" or "imposing" their opinion on them. As soon as that card gets played, you know the discussion is over. It's basically a self-destruct button that indicates the end of meaningful discourse about the issue.
It's a poor state of affairs when good arguments-- which our minds are literally designed to accept-- are miscategorized as tyrannical impositions of opinion.
-
It's a poor state of affairs when good arguments-- which our minds are literally designed to accept-- are miscategorized as tyrannical impositions of opinion.
Don't flatter yourself and the arguments pro-sedevacantism.
At best, they are a logical answer when one facet (and one facet only) of the problem is hyper-focused upon. But as soon as you zoom out a bit, sedevacantism looks much less appealing. No pope for 60 years? What about Christ's promise that Peter would have perpetual successors? And so forth.
When I ban people for dogmatic sedevacantism, it's isn't because they were making killer arguments. It's because they were calling their opponents "non-Catholic", "heretic" and other such behavior.
-
There are definitely "real" dogmatic sedes, i.e., people who think membership in the Catholic Church depends on being "non-una-cuм." And that's just ridiculous.
Dogmatic sede = Fr Cekada and the 100s of poor people he unfortunately influences. Maybe Bishop Sanborn too, but I can't say for sure. Though many people who attend Bishop Sanborn's chapels have called me a heretic for simply questioning sedevacantism.
-
At best, they are a logical answer when one facet (and one facet only) of the problem is hyper-focused upon. But as soon as you zoom out a bit, sedevacantism looks much less appealing. No pope for 60 years? What about Christ's promise that Peter would have perpetual successors? And so forth.
I can see your point. But I just don't understand why having a pope who can promulgate heresy and liturgies dangerous to the faith is better than not having a pope for 60+ years.
You say that sedevacantism is a logical answer for (at least part) of the problem, but your rejection sounds like it is based on an emotional appeal.
-
I can see your point. But I just don't understand why having a pope who can promulgate heresy and liturgies dangerous to the faith is better than not having a pope for 60+ years.
You say that sedevacantism is a logical answer for (at least part) of the problem, but your rejection sounds like it is based on an emotional appeal.
It's not an emotional appeal. It's an appeal to reason. Is it reasonable that the Church could lack Popes for 60+ years, when Our Lord promised perpetual successors to Peter? I could accuse you of emotion too, but that wouldn't necessarily make it true.
It's all a matter of which aspect of the problem you focus on, and prioritize solving. This crisis is such a mess, with few answers. That's why we have to give people a wide latitude and a lot of leeway in how they deal with it.
-
Dogmatic sede = Fr Cekada and the 100s of poor people he unfortunately influences. Maybe Bishop Sanborn too, but I can't say for sure. Though many people who attend Bishop Sanborn's chapels have called me a heretic for simply questioning sedevacantism.
From what I've heard, yes, +Sanborn is very dogmatic. Maybe sedeprivationist (?), but dogmatically anti-una cuм. Someone who went to his seminary said: "I have my opinions of course but don't feel as though anyone who disagrees with me should be therefore condemned as a heretic. Unfortunately, I got into that mindset under Father Sanborn... "
I can see your point. But I just don't understand why having a pope who can promulgate heresy and liturgies dangerous to the faith is better than not having a pope for 60+ years.
You say that sedevacantism is a logical answer for (at least part) of the problem, but your rejection sounds like it is based on an emotional appeal.
Matthew also said "And so forth", meaning presumably there are other 'facets' to consider. Like the very big facet of needing a "convalidation feedback loop" as Lad calls it when dealing with a pope. "... the Magisterium then becomes subject to a convalidation feedback loop. Pope teaches dogma. Is dogma Traditional? If yes, then accept. If not, then reject pope. Rinse. Repeat. Ultimate arbiter of dogma then becomes the individual's private judgment. "
-
It's not an emotional appeal. It's an appeal to reason. Is it reasonable that the Church could lack Popes for 60+ years, when Our Lord promised perpetual successors to Peter?
Since "perpetual" does not mean "continuous", yes. It is reasonable that the Church could lack a pope for 60+, 70+ years and even longer.
-
Like the very big facet of needing a "convalidation feedback loop" as Lad calls it when dealing with a pope.
"... the Magisterium then becomes subject to a convalidation feedback loop. Pope teaches dogma. Is dogma Traditional? If yes, then accept. If not, then reject pope. Rinse. Repeat. Ultimate arbiter of dogma then becomes the individual's private judgment. "
I disagree with your and Ladislaus' over-simplification of the magisterium. He might be right in his understanding of it, but his explanations on this site are wrong, in my opinion. Here's why I say that.
When Christ ascended into heaven 40 days after Easter, he left the Apostles with ALL the teachings of the Church. After the Ascension, the 'revelation' of truth by Christ was over. So, we can say that after the Ascension ALL of the truths of our Faith were understood by the Apostles. These were passed on to the future by only 2 means - Scripture (written) or Tradition (oral).
Scripture or Tradition contains ALL Catholic Truth. As of 33 A.D., the Church had the FULL Truth. As of 33 A.D., the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) had the FULL Truth. Ergo, after 33 A.D., the Truths of the Faith are set in stone.
Because of these facts, anytime in the future (i.e. post 33 A.D.) when the Church makes use of Her teaching office (i.e. Magisterium), Her job is to re-teach, or clarify those truths which have existed since 33 A.D. The Magisterium cannot teach something new, or make new doctrines, or dogma, etc. All Truths of our Faith were handed down by Christ to the Apostles and the Church's job after the Apostles is to teach "that which has always been taught". Her job is to clarify and certify the Truth when She faces heretics, schismatics and pagans.
...So, in answer to the above quoted sentences, I say:
1. The Magisterium is not subject to a "feedback loop".
2. If the Pope teaches dogma, then He is certifying, by his Apostolic Authority that such a dogma "always existed" since the time of Christ.
3. The question of "is the dogma traditional?" is nonsensical. All dogma is traditional, by definition, because all dogma is Apostolic in origin, as taught by Christ.
4. The question which is not being asked is this: "Is all papal teaching dogma or doctrine?" The answer is "no". There are different levels of authority to papal teaching, just as there are different levels to the magisterium. Those papal teachings which are infallible are doctrine/dogma, for the pope uses his apostolic authority to tell us that such a teaching is 1) to be believed with certainty of faith, 2) because it is apostolic in origin, and 3) came from Christ.
5. All "teachings" which are fallible, are not "of the faith" and not from Christ because they are:
a. not taught with 'certainty of faith'
b. not taught with apostolic authority
c. not taught as binding under pain of sin
Such fallible teachings by the magisterium are not 'dogma' or 'doctrine' and are not part of the Faith. Ergo, if one compares FALLIBLE teachings with previous INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church, this is not wrong, or prideful, but expected. Just as current theologians have debated with theologians of the past, so magisteriums can challenge previous magisteriums.
How is this so? Because the magisterium is not always infallible. The magisterium is the teaching authority of the church, which is the hierarchy + the pope. There are 2 ways the magisterium can teach infallibly:
1. If the magisterium fulfills the requirements of infallibility as set forth by Vatican 1, then it is solemnly infallible.
2. If the magisterium teaches "that which has always been taught" and proves it is of Apostolic times, then it is non-solemnly infallible.
Yet, if a magisterium of the Church, attempts to teach a truth which a) does not fulfill the requirements of Vatican 1, and b) is not apostolic, then we can be sure it is not from Christ. V2 is an example of a "teaching" which a) did not fulfill the requirements of Vatican 1, and b) has failed to show how its novel ideals are apostolic and Traditional (i.e. from Christ).
So in such a case of contradiction and confusion, how do we know which magisterium is right? By the language used and the 'certainty of faith' with which things are taught, by the 'apostolic authority' expressed and by the 'binding nature' of the teaching. If some "teachings" are missing the 3 above attributes, then they are not part of official Church teaching, and are outweighed by previous magisteriums which taught with all 3 attributes.
V2 did not teach with 'certainty of faith' or 'by apostolic authority' or 'under pain of sin' therefore it did not teach infallibly. Therefore, in any area where V2 contradicts previous dogma, doctrine or infallible statement, then it is overruled, it is superceded, it is anathema.
-
At best, they are a logical answer when one facet (and one facet only) of the problem is hyper-focused upon. But as soon as you zoom out a bit, sedevacantism looks much less appealing. No pope for 60 years? What about Christ's promise that Peter would have perpetual successors? And so forth.
And when you zoom out of R&R, it looks much less appealing too. Sure, we have a Pope sitting in the chair. But we're required to universally ignore him, denounce his Magisterium, denounce and reject the Universal Discipline he has imposed, etc.
So what if there's a Pope in the chair when he's the opposite of the very raison d'etre of the papacy, to be the rock of our faith? You'd be BETTER OFF WITHOUT a pope. It's similar to how some people rejoice in the "government shutdown" because we're better off without such a corrupt government.
So it's pick your poison. Empty or partially-empty chair for 60 years or corrupt Magisterium and Universal Discipline leading souls to hell for 60 years. If for one would rather believe that the chair has been empty than that the chair has been actively corrupting faith and morals for 60 years.
-
I disagree with your and Ladislaus' over-simplification of the magisterium.
...
V2 did not teach with 'certainty of faith' or 'by apostolic authority' or 'under pain of sin' therefore it did not teach infallibly. Therefore, in any area where V2 contradicts previous dogma, doctrine or infallible statement, then it is overruled, it is superceded, it is anathema.
Oh, on the contrary, it is YOU who oversimplify the Magisterium. According to you, it's open season anything outside the .5% of dogmatic teachings in the Magisterium. Since they're not strictly infallible, 99.5% of the Magisterium could be corrupt. Anything short of that is subject to being examined and rejected by any Catholic.
That is totally contrary to everything ever taught by any Catholic theologian before Vatican II. Talk about un-Traditional.
-
And when you zoom out of R&R, it looks much less appealing too. Sure, we have a Pope sitting in the chair. But we're required to universally ignore him, denounce his Magisterium, denounce and reject the Universal Discipline he has imposed, etc.
So what if there's a Pope in the chair when he's the opposite of the very raison d'etre of the papacy, to be the rock of our faith? You'd be BETTER OFF WITHOUT a pope. It's similar to how some people rejoice in the "government shutdown" because we're better off without such a corrupt government.
So it's pick your poison. Empty or partially-empty chair for 60 years or corrupt Magisterium and Universal Discipline leading souls to hell for 60 years. If for one would rather believe that the chair has been empty than that the chair has been actively corrupting faith and morals for 60 years.
We need a Pope because we're Catholic.
The idea of the seat being vacant is appealing to Americans who have an idea that they can decide who is or isn't a true Pope. It's similar to the Puritans who decided to go to the New World 400 years ago - so that they could be free from oppression in England. Well, it seems the same thing now with sedevacantists. They don't want the oppression that goes along with a seriously erring Pope. They want to be "free." Now look at what has happened in the U.S., and what "freedom" has done to it.
The Catholic Church requires a pope. +ABL knew this.
-
According to you, it's open season anything outside the .5% of dogmatic teachings in the Magisterium.
The magisterium's purpose is to teach. Their job is to re-teach and clarify the truths of the Faith which are to be believed "everywhere, always and by all". If the non-dogmatic, non-infallible magisterium errs (and they most certainly can), a catholic can only "reject" or question such error by pointing to a previous dogmatic/infallible statement and asking such authorities for clarification and why there seems to be a contradiction.
You purposely sensationalize my argument to make me appear as some anarchist-catholic or a crazed protestant, instead of factually looking at the limits of the magisterium, examining their duties and then accepting the conclusion that if they act outside of their duties, and if they ignore the teaching formulas which they are supposed to use to teach the faithful and to have the utmost clarity, then such teachings are not dogma, are not certain, and not binding on anyone...ESPECIALLY when such fallible, non-dogmatic teachings CONTRADICT previous infallible, dogmatic magisterial decrees, which are WITHOUT A DOUBT binding and necessary for salvation.
In the past, when the fallible magisterium erred, or appeared to err, there were enough orthodox clergy who recognized such errors and who challenged them. This is the normal course of action - Church officials are supposed to correct other church officials in order to protect the laity. Normally, the laity is not involved, they are not educated enough to weigh in.
In our current situation, we still have some church officials who stepped up to challenge errors by the fallible magisterium, most notably Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc who wrote against the new mass; +ABL and +Castro Meyer and many other priests during the 70s who spoke out against V2 and who helped to start Tradition. What were these 'TLM founding fathers' doing but what I have suggested above, which my suggestion is not from me but simply a reiteration of their mindset? They looked at the facts and realized that infallible magisterial teachings are greater than a fallible magisterial teaching (i.e. V2). So they rejected novelties and stuck with Tradition. This is exactly what St Athanasius did as well.
This mindset is the foundation of the traditional movement. The only difference is that currently, most of the 'founding fathers' are dead and their successors have not lived up to the founder's ideals or integrity. Thus, in this 2nd phase of the fight for tradition, the laity are even more on their own, since most clerics of our day are giving into new-rome and compromise.
If you criticize the idea that a catholic can challenge the fallible magisterium, then you shouldn't be a traditional catholic and should attend the local indult and be part of new-rome. The fight for tradition was founded on the principals that 1) Truth does not change, and 2) the faith is handed down and cannot be "updated for modern man".
-
The magisterium's purpose is to teach.
And ours is to submit to said teaching.
-
You ... make me appear as some anarchist-catholic or a crazed protestant, ...
You make YOURSELF appear that way.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
-
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 12:02:25 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/a-challenge-for-those-in-sspx-or-resistance/msg614152/#msg614152)
The magisterium's purpose is to teach.
Ladislaus said:
And ours is to submit to said teaching.
Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith, to be believed for salvation, under pain of sin. All other "teachings" are not from the official Church, but from individual popes, bishops or cardinals who "teach" fallibly as private theologians, or clerics. No catholic has to follow their local bishop into heresy, nor do they have to follow a pope who proposes novelties outside of his apostolic authority.
If the magisterium proposes a teaching, but does not require it to be believed, then submission is also not required. One cannot submit to an option. V2 is not required for salvation, therefore submission is not required.
The magisterium has limits to their teaching authority, just like the pope does. You have ignored this fact, and continue to ignore it.
-
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 12:02:25 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/a-challenge-for-those-in-sspx-or-resistance/msg614152/#msg614152)
Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith, to be believed for salvation, under pain of sin. All other "teachings" are not from the official Church, but from individual popes, bishops or cardinals who "teach" fallibly as private theologians, or clerics.
Rather believe Vatican I Council than Pax Vobis.
Pastor Aeternus:
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
-
Disciplines of the Church and her governmental laws must all have penalties associated with them, in order for sin to be committed. If there are no penalties for breaking a discipline or law, there is no sin, because in these areas the pope has the power to "bind and loose". For example, the church says it's a sin to receive communion if you have eaten less than 1 hour before. If the Church did not attach the penalty of sin, then if one were to break it, no sin would be committed.
The Church has not attached the penalty of sin to the acceptance of V2 or the NOM. New-rome has repeatedly said that these must be accepted with 'religious CONDITIONAL assent', not the same level as doctrine (which would automatically involve sin).
-
Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith...
I guess it is fortunate for you that you have the authority to determine which Church teachings are proposed as articles of faith and which Church teachings are proposed to lead souls to hell.