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

Author Topic: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles  (Read 32182 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #175 on: December 20, 2022, 02:06:22 PM »
Nah, sedeism never really tempted me, I mean, I thought about it when I was a lot younger, but if I was going to, I would have gone along with (then) Fr. Sanborn and those who he took with him in the 80s. As it was then it is now - no matter who you are, there is no reason to be the least bit concerned about the status of popes.

I agree that the actual legal status of the V2 papal claimants doesn't matter, but the Papacy and Catholic ecclesiology do matter.  So the real danger with R&R is sliding into a schismatic, Old Catholic, even Orthodox metality about the nature of the Church and the Papacy.  Catholics must be very mcuh "concerned" about that.  If we're wrong and are sliding into Old Catholicism, then we will lose our souls.  Yes, it matters.  Now, whether the V2 papal claimant has been impounded, deposed, formally stripped of authority while retainig material office, blackmailed, drugged, replaced by a double, impeded by the true election of Cardinal Siri, those are details that indeed do not matter and are not for us to solve anyway.  Retaining the Catholic faith on the other hand, yes, that matters.

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #176 on: December 20, 2022, 02:11:29 PM »
I agree that the actual legal status of the V2 papal claimants doesn't matter, but the Papacy and Catholic ecclesiology do matter.  So the real danger with R&R is sliding into a schismatic, Old Catholic, even Orthodox metality about the nature of the Church and the Papacy.  Catholics must be very mcuh "concerned" about that.  If we're wrong and are sliding into Old Catholicism, then we will lose our souls.  Yes, it matters.  Now, whether the V2 papal claimant has been impounded, deposed, formally stripped of authority while retainig material office, blackmailed, drugged, replaced by a double, impeded by the true election of Cardinal Siri, those are details that indeed do not matter and are not for us to solve anyway.  Retaining the Catholic faith on the other hand, yes, that matters.

A textbook schismatic warning about schism?

:popcorn:


Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #177 on: December 20, 2022, 02:21:02 PM »
Does not this CE article on schism perfectly describe Ladislaus?

"Various motives have been brought forward in justification of Schism:

(1) Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves.

...the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals [...] to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church..."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)] [/color]

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #178 on: December 20, 2022, 02:22:27 PM »
A textbook schismatic warning about schism?

:popcorn:

Yes, and you should take it under advisement.  R&R glibly hurl the accusation of schism at SVs, which may be the case, materially speaking, if they happen to be wrong about whether these men are popes.  But recall the Canon Law commentaries that unanimously hold that someone who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff based on well-founded doubts about his legitimacy would not be a schismatic.  But those who refuse submission even while asserting that there's no doubt about their legitimacy?  Well, they're skating on thin ice ... excused only by the incredible confusion of these days.

Offline Meg

Re: Claimed Eucharistic Miracles
« Reply #179 on: December 20, 2022, 02:50:44 PM »
But recall the Canon Law commentaries that unanimously hold that someone who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff based on well-founded doubts about his legitimacy would not be a schismatic. 

Canon law........commentaries? What are those commentaries exactly, and who are bound to them?