Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 45493 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #300 on:** June 22, 2022, 10:58:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 22, 2022, 07:47:40 AM

Garbage. Excommunication puts one outside the body of the Church, per St. Robert Bellarmine and pretty much everyone else. Being barred from the Sacraments IS in fact to be outside the Church. You make stuff up as it suits your half-deranged fantasy (and heretical ecclesiology). Try to read St. Robert Bellarmine and some other Catholic theologians from time to time instead of just making this stuff up out of thin air.

Sede garbage.

Look it up in the Summa before flapping your lips.

Stubborn · « **Reply #301 on:** June 22, 2022, 11:01:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 22, 2022, 07:51:04 AM

Yeah, I've said this before and I say it again. Stubborn's beliefs bear no resemblance to Roman Catholicism. Again, to salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio, they're willing to butcher and effectively throw out all of Traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

Ahh, the anemic spirit of a sede.

"To salvage and rescue Jorge Bergoglio" is imprinted on your brain. Very Catholic. You need to purge the NO of your youth professor.

Stubborn · « **Reply #302 on:** June 22, 2022, 11:05:59 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on June 22, 2022, 08:11:48 AM

I see this is going nowhere.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." [Matthew 10:14]

Ah, but you see Lad, it is us who don't have the truth here

No, you have the truth, but you reject it in order to "To salvage and rescue" a vacant chair.

Here is more truth I like from:

Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.

A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;

If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;

If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #303 on:** June 22, 2022, 11:13:21 AM »

This is why the straight-sedevacantism of DL (and others) is theoretically nice-sounding but practically a dead-end. It offers no hope for the Church to resurrect Herself, using normal canonical means. It requires a miraculous event, which can't even be practically explained.

The quasi-sedevacantist theory (where the loss of temporal office does not occur when the infiltration is so bad that the canonical investigation of heresy is impossible) is the key to the Church fixing Herself. Call it sede-privationism, Fr Chazal's "spiritual impoundism", or a "more strict R&R than the new-sspx's indult version". Here's how it could work:

1. A valid priest with questionable episcopal orders, who is part of the mainstream "new-rome", but who recognizes the the errors of V2 is elected (let's say +Vigano).
2. This would be a valid, temporal election, as the conclave laws are both human and divine. The human/temporal laws would be fulfilled.
3. +Vigano openly abjures his prior heresies and declares a return to orthodoxy, condeming V2.
4. +Vigano askes to be conditionally consecrated under the old rite.
5. +Vigano is spiritually and temporally a valid pope.
6. The "clean up" process begins, with mass excommunications for all those who refuse the "oath against modernism". Some modernists would openly rebel while others would stay quiet and keep their "neo con" game going.
7. Step 2, find and exterminate the infiltrators who take "the oath". (I have no idea how this would happen but it's possible).

Straight-sedevantism offers no hope. The above is a realistic possibility, even in our dark times.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #304 on:** June 22, 2022, 11:18:06 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 22, 2022, 10:20:52 AM

Ok, then using your stupidly short-sighted definition, then Pius XII lost his office for a number of reasons:

You call it "stupid", but then you yourself never provide definitions either. You keep asking for them and playing the semantics game. Sounds like an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.

1. condoning NFP<---fallible statement made in a speech rather than a universal address, not heresy, but error.
2. evolution<---the universal teaching in Humani Generis is not pro-evolution; statements made outside of his universal capacity, such as the address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences where he refers to "billions of years", are, again, not heresy, but error.
3. 1955 liberalization of the missal<---well within his power to do, he did not touch the Canon. This is the same fallacious argument some use against St. Pius X for his changes.
4. Appointing a known mason (Bugnini) to change the liturgy.<---again, error. Poor judgment in his appointments does not constitue heresy. We all know Pius XII was a weak Pope. But still the Pope.
5. Etc, etc

None of these things were a "good willed error". He's out. That means the dogma of the Assumption was never defined. It needs to be again.

Also, Pope Pius IX was a liberal in his first few years, before he woke up, so everything he did in 25+ years (including Vatican I and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) is null.

You're conflating the issue here to one of impeccability. The sedevacantist argument was never that Popes and prelates cannot make error, but that Popes cannot teach error in their universal capacity. Yet, we have examples of this in the encyclicals of John XXIII, the pronouncements of Vatican 2 ratified by Paul VI, and the legion of errors taught in universal capacity by subsequent Antipopes which prove these men are not Popes.

As for before they became Antipopes, we have examples of manifest heresy in their teachings, as I've been saying, which, by the principle cited of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to be taken as malicious heresy until proven otherwise. Yet, no evidence to the contrary has been shown. Rather, you keep arguing semantics.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II (Read 45493 times)

Stubborn

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Stubborn

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Stubborn

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

Pax Vobis

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II

DigitalLogos

Re: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II