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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 68

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #200 on: June 20, 2022, 08:04:52 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 20, 2022, 07:58:17 AM
According to the position being advanced by Stubborn and now also Decem, barring a solemn definition, in theory, the works of Father Wathen and Papal Magisterium are of equal authority, since both only have authority in so far as they're in conformity with Tradition (as determined by Stubborn) ... which of course makes Stubborn the final authority.  That's in theory.  In point of fact, Father Wathen's works have greater authority than the post-v2 Magisterium because they're more in conformity with Tradition.

This is a joke, where teaching "authority" is not a priori but is a posteriori ... after it's approved by the discernment of Stubborn and Decem.
Wind bag.

Fr. Wathen preaches the traditional Catholic faith, always using Scripture and Church teachings - unlike you.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #201 on: June 20, 2022, 08:11:00 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on June 20, 2022, 08:01:18 AM

That the chair is vacant is a dogma now? Another dogmatic sede?


Sacred dogma:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII 1302
Twisting words once more. Sedevacantism comes from the acceptance of the reality of the situation based upon Catholic teachings. A heretic cannot be the Pope, nor can an apostate; you've already admitted that these "Popes" are heretics, and since there is no known claimant to the Chair, then the Chair must be empty or the Church has defected and the gates of hell have prevailed. Since the latter is absolutely impossible, then the See is vacant.

What does Pope Boniface's declaration have to do with this? All baptized are automatically subject to the Roman Pontiff. That doesn't prove that Francis and his predecessors are legitimate Pontiffs at all. And my position doesn't reject that dogma anyway because I would absolutely be subject to him if there were a Pope.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #202 on: June 20, 2022, 08:34:05 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on June 20, 2022, 07:50:40 AM


Case in point your above post is like all your posts - you're a professional side tracker.

Yes. Lad avoids the consequences of his position and its inconsistencies.

He says you reject the indefectible Magisterium by saying it could produce error in its ordinary Magisterium, but he says it produces error in its ordinary Magisterium. Yet when he does it, it's presumably not denying the indefectible, ordinary Magisterium:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830604/#msg830604

He accuses you of tautology, yet avoids the tautology of his own position, which presents the similar circular argument he accuses you of:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830825/#msg830825

He avoided the the first post (as is his wont when cornered), and avoided the tautology in the second by not addressing the point head on, but by simple claiming, in essence, "heresy."

We believe that Holy Mother Church is truth, and when she is speaking with the authority given to her to proclaim the Gospel, she is inerrant and to be trusted completely. Sometimes her teachers stray and teach contrary to Revelation, like the teachers under the Old Covenant before her (the Pharisees, who sat in "Moses seat" with legitimate authority, Mt. 23:2)), who, despite that legitimate authority, could teach things against the true Revelation of God by their erroneous teachings (Mt 15; Mk 7).

So Lad's view encompasses an indefectible Church that teaches erroneously where he says it can't, and his personal views abound in contradictions - claims of rejecting an inerrant ordinary Magisterium when he rejects it, claims of tautology when his views are tautological, etc.

Contradiction abounding, where it can't: where the Truth is.

We reject his contradictions, and believe that the Church is the true Church of Christ, and seek her as she truly is, and where asserts her true authority and invokes the charism of the Holy Ghost: when she defines and proclaims the Gospel of Christ.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #203 on: June 20, 2022, 09:21:30 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 20, 2022, 07:58:17 AM
According to the position being advanced by Stubborn and now also Decem, barring a solemn definition, in theory, the works of Father Wathen and Papal Magisterium are of equal authority, since both only have authority in so far as they're in conformity with Tradition (as determined by Stubborn) ... which of course makes Stubborn the final authority.  That's in theory.  In point of fact, Father Wathen's works have greater authority than the post-v2 Magisterium because they're more in conformity with Tradition.

This is a joke, where teaching "authority" is not a priori but is a posteriori ... after it's approved by the discernment of Stubborn and Decem.
Yes. The traditions of men cannot save, only the teachings of God in His Church (quoted from the translations on PapalEncyclicals.net in case some believe NOW and MHFM's motives are suspect):

Quote
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: "It goes without saying that 'if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as something investigated with an excess of subtlety, or taught without sufficient consideration; anything which is not in keeping with the certain results of later times; anything, in short, which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations.'"

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."

Logged

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II
« Reply #204 on: June 20, 2022, 09:45:30 AM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on June 20, 2022, 08:11:00 AM
Twisting words once more. Sedevacantism comes from the acceptance of the reality of the situation based upon Catholic teachings. A heretic cannot be the Pope, nor can an apostate; you've already admitted that these "Popes" are heretics, and since there is no known claimant to the Chair, then the Chair must be empty or the Church has defected and the gates of hell have prevailed. Since the latter is absolutely impossible, then the See is vacant.
You were already shown that the popes since at least Pius X made it a law that heretic cardinals were to partake in papal elections and on that account could be elected pope. This means you only base this assertion on only your opinion, not Catholic teaching. This truth will remain no matter how often you repeat the same error.


Quote
What does Pope Boniface's declaration have to do with this? All baptized are automatically subject to the Roman Pontiff. That doesn't prove that Francis and his predecessors are legitimate Pontiffs at all. And my position doesn't reject that dogma anyway because I would absolutely be subject to him if there were a Pope.

It is rather remarkable imo, how there is some over-riding mental block in sedes that make them fail to acknowledge the obvious fact that the bolded opinion / statement they all make, changes the meaning of sacred dogma to this:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff unless you do not believe he is the pope."

You honestly do not see this as changing the meaning into something that means absolutely nothing at all?

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 68
« previous next »