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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9

Author Topic: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"  (Read 240608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2025, 10:12:22 PM »
Quote from: IndultCat on September 30, 2025, 08:41:09 AM
I didn't know Fr. Chazal considered Bergoglio a false pope now. Well, I wasn't always a Sede so I understand how people change their views after careful study.

He didn't.  Not sure where CK is getting this.  Father Chazal considered him pope in one respect but not in another, so making a distinction very similar to that of the privationists.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2025, 10:14:08 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 30, 2025, 11:55:48 AM
You have this binary, black-or-white, all-or-nothing, view.

So many errors are being committed by these binaries and false dichotomies, and no greater service has ever been done for theology than when the scholastics applied the Aristotelian notion of the distinction.  Of course, many slippery eels abuse distinctions to pretend they're not denying dogmas when they really are.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2025, 10:15:53 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on September 30, 2025, 08:13:29 PM

Ummm....

This is pure babble.

Let's see what Pope Pius XII said about this:

We're talking about his mischaracterization of Fr. Chazal's position, attempting to paint him as a Bergolgio-vacantist just like himself.  And like the Prots do with Scriptural texts, you cite papal texts out of context and in ignorance.  So in declaring it babble, you agree, then, with him, that Father Chazal became a sedevacantist?  Do tell.  Nor, BTW, does your Pius XII quote have anything on earth to do with the privationist thesis.

Sometime I honestly don't know which are worse, the binary dogmatic SV or the binary dogmatic totalist R&R.
Logged

Offline Seraphina

Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2025, 11:49:47 PM »
When it comes R&R, Dogmatic Sedevacantism, Sededoubtful, or Sedeprivationist, my policy is “Don't ask; don’t tell.”  This question and wrestling over it has lead many away from the Faith into Home Aloneism. The Enemy is laughing all the way to the bank of hell. The issue won’t be settled until the reign of Mary. 
Logged

Offline Catholic Knight

Re: Bishop Sanborn on the "Una Cuм"
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2025, 06:52:26 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 30, 2025, 10:11:32 PM
Father Chazal never "rejected" Bergoglio as pope simpliciter, but secundum quid, where he holds that Bergs remained in office, as the visible principle of unity among Catholics, but remained suspended where he could not formally exercise papal authortiy (or exercise is validly, as he termed it).

Fr. Chazal held that Jorge Bergoglio was not ontologically pope.  Therefore, he rejected Jorge Bergoglio as pope simpliciter.  That he was "elected" by the cardinals is accidental.  It would be up to the Church to formally declare the See vacant, but Fr. Chazal held the private judgment that Jorge Bergoglio was a public manifest formal heretic and therefore not a member of the Church.  He didn't hold some wacko distinction between formally pope and materially pope.  You, like Pax Vobis, take logical parts that are beings of reason and make them into real beings.  Stop with your nonsense. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
« previous next »