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

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
If they formally communicated to the local ordinary of their rejection of the Catholic membership, they can't just simply walk into any confessional. They would need to formally be received by the bishop. Of course, outside of a state of emergency.
They were traditional Catholics, so they had no Ordinary, but if they did, they certainly would not communicate anything to him. And no, your requirement is that they need to be formally received by the bishop, that is not the Church's - as I have posted more than once in this thread already.

And yes, they can simply walk into any confessional the same as they did the previous 50 years. There is no other way for their sin to be certainly forgiven.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Church has always taught my foot.  You made this up out of whole-cloth.  You put a couple of heretofore-unknown conditions on membership by Baptism that was held by Cajetan.
Have you ever heard of the word "Convert?"

What do you suppose it means?


They were traditional Catholics, so they had no Ordinary, but if they did, they certainly would not communicate anything to him. And no, your requirement is that they need to be formally received by the bishop, that is not the Church's - as I have posted more than once in this thread already.

And yes, they can simply walk into any confessional the same as they did the previous 50 years. There is no other way for their sin to be certainly forgiven.

Since when does "traditional Catholic" = no Ordinary. Isn't that one of the "R's" in "Recognize and Resist" position? 

Yes, Confession is necessary for forgiveness of sins. No one was arguing. In a strict sense, they will need to make a profession of Faith, certainly part of their penance. Doesn't necessarily have be public but once their former friends and acquaintances see them receiving communion, they might be scandalized and their conversion will eventually be made self-evident. And when you do make your rejection formal, this gets marked in your Baptismal records. So, I would think it would take another formal communication with your local ordinary to rectify the record. I know .....this a legalistic point of view and does not impact your membership of the Church.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Have you ever heard of the word "Convert?"

What do you suppose it means?

What are you babbling about?  If someone needs to "convert" in addition to having the Baptismal character, that means that the Baptismal character doesn't suffice to retain membership in the Church as a consequence of heresy or schism.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Since when does "traditional Catholic" = no Ordinary. Isn't that one of the "R's" in "Recognize and Resist" position?

Yes, Confession is necessary for forgiveness of sins. No one was arguing. In a strict sense, they will need to make a profession of Faith, certainly part of their penance. Doesn't necessarily have be public but once their former friends and acquaintances see them receiving communion, they might be scandalized and their conversion will eventually be made self-evident. And when you do make your rejection formal, this gets marked in your Baptismal records. So, I would think it would take another formal communication with your local ordinary to rectify the record. I know .....this a legalistic point of view and does not impact your membership of the Church.
As I said: "...but if they did, they certainly would not communicate anything to him."

I am of the opinion that they've lost their minds in order to do what they did after all this time.

"R&R" is label that was coined by Fr. Cekada, so please feel free to make it mean whatever you wish. Not sure who coined "sedevacantist", which is derived from the Latin "sede vacante," which refers to the Chair of St. Peter when it is empty due to the death of a supreme pontiff, maybe it was coined by him as well. 

The problem with this whole subject, is that the most simple, basic and elementary tenets and truths of the faith, which are fundamental the faith, are either not known, forgotten, ignored or scoffed at as tho heretical. That's the main problem in my opinion.

Meanwhile, the sedes attempt to invoke and rely on papal teachings which they read into only what they believe, along with the opinions of some of the Fathers and some of the learned theologians - and some of the modernist opinions of theologians, in their effort to support sedevacantism.

But as it has always been and always will be, all that is taught by the Church can be likened to one doctrine. Not only does it all mean one thing, but it is, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.

Therefore, any opinions, ideas or teachings that in any way teach contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness, the truth of God, tearing the cloth - which is what happens whenever the most basic and fundamental tenets of the faith are scoffed at as tho heretical.