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 45585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter

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.

Well said.

I do not hold much hope for Lad to "see the light", I think he has way too much NO still within him and needs to pray for humility as it seems to me that he has too much pride IMO. But I keep him and all the sedes in my daily prayers, we can all do that much.

Meanwhile I'm wondering, perhaps hoping, that DL will do some genuine searching for the truth, and stay away from sede sites for info that is often adulterated, twisted and used to promote sedeism.

If he does that, God will see to it that he will find that all the quotes he has posted from the popes (and more) are talking about heretics who have never been Catholic - those are the ones outside of the Church that the popes he quotes are talking about. Once he sees it this way and figures this out, then all he has to do is accept this for what it is to start to clear his head and start his journey back from sedeism.

That's my opinion anyway.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
I do not hold much hope for Lad to "see the light", I think he has way too much NO still within him ...

:facepalm: upholding the indefectibility of the Church and holding that she cannot become corrupt in faith, morals, or public worship ... yeah, that's NO.  You've pretty much crossed the line into insanity.


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
:facepalm: upholding the indefectibility of the Church and holding that she cannot become corrupt in faith, morals, or public worship ... yeah, that's NO.  You've pretty much crossed the line into insanity.
You're upholding sedeism, not the Church's indefectibility.

 Faith in God and His holy words promising the gates of hell will not prevail have thankfully taken any and all care of the Church's indefectibility away from us. Only those who have no faith in Christ's promise will make the Church's indefectibility their concern. If this is insanity to you, then just keep worrying about it and I hope you're enjoying your conundrum.

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.
I'm not the one twisting that to mean anything more than it says, unlike you with Pius XII. Even if a heretical cardinal were elected, that election would be null and void because they are heretics. Furthermore, this supposes that the Holy Ghost would ever permit such a thing to occur. Its insane, heretical, and blasphemous.

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?
Again, you're presupposing that Francis et al are legitimate Roman Pontiffs; yet you admit he, and the others, are heretics. I've provided the dogmatic teaching on how the Church views heretics and you keep pointing to some "clause" about heretical cardinals with the insistence that it must mean the Church, somehow, contradicted its previous teachings and now allows for heretics to hold legitimate Catholic office, including the papacy.

The reason you don't see this is because you hold to heretical teachings that have obscured the truth to allow for this contradiction of a heretic holding legitimate office. You've proven your pertinacity, and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
This is a useless discussion because Lad/DL (and others) refuse to define terms, and ignore the various degrees of such words: 'magisterium', 'heresy', 'infallibility'.  Their use of these terms is so general that they can pick out any quote from 500s years ago and say it applies to the present situation.  Such a waste of time and intellect.

For the record, I do probably agree with sedevacantism but...not for the reasons that Lad/DL argue.  They seemed to have halted all examination of their theory and have no interest in redefining it nor improving it.  I appreciate their logic, openness and integrity on many other topics, but on this one, they become emotional and defensive.  They protect a viewpoint instead of being open to being wrong (even to a small degree).