Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on April 08, 2021, 11:03:25 AM
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam ("Furthermore, I consider that Carthage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Carthage) must be destroyed"), often abbreviated to Carthāgō dēlenda est ("Carthage must be destroyed") or Ceterum censeo, is a Latin oratorical phrase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases) pronounced by Cato the Censor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder), a politician of the Roman Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic). The phrase originates from debates held in the Roman Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate) prior to the Third Punic War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War) (149–146 BC) between Rome and Carthage, where Cato is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches in order to push for the war.
-
Interestingly (and probably not by accident), when Fr. Rifan “reconciled” Campos with modernist Rome, and was later consecrated Bishop, he was installed in the Titular See of Cedamus.
Today, Cedamus lies within the boundaries of modern day Algeria.
But in ancient times, the lands which later became Algeria (which included Cedamus) were part of the Carthaginian Empire.
It seems modernist Rome is not without a sense of humor (nor does it hide its intentions).
-
Interestingly (and probably not by accident), when Fr. Rifan “reconciled” Campos with modernist Rome, and was later consecrated Bishop, he was installed in the Titular See of Cedamus.
Today, Cedamus lies within the boundaries of modern day Algeria.
But in ancient times, the lands which later became Algeria (which included Cedamus) were part of the Carthaginian Empire.
It seems modernist Rome is not without a sense of humor (nor does it hide its intentions).
Yeah, I remember that tidbit from years ago when I was reading all those Crisis in the Church books...
I'm really fond of the "...and Vatican II must be destroyed" because it directly opposes the current neo-SSPX spirit of reconciliation and compromise with the Conciliar Church. The first step is acceptance of Vatican II -- or most of it. Bishop Fellay's infamous "Vatican II is 95% good" or Catholic or whatever.
NO IT'S NOT. It's cyanide-laced lemonade and it MUST BE THROWN OUT. That was the position of the Archbishop, and that is clear-cut and not open for debate. What were his words? Vatican II must be thrown in the dustbin of history?
VATICAN II MUST BE DESTROYED. Period. Negotiation is irrelevant. Terms are irrelevant.
Vatican II must lower its arms and completely surrender, and prepare for complete deletion. No mercy for the work of satan.
You can't praise, worship, know, or love God too much,
You can't give enough love and honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God,
- and -
you can't have enough hatred and opposition for Vatican II and other works of satan.
-
Xavier again with his confirmation bias. We could plaster the board with 10 pages of quotes from the Archbishop denouncing Vatican II and even suggesting that it’s quite possible that the V2 papal claimants are illegitimate and the See is vacant. But Xavier finds a quote from 1980 at the moment where Archbishop Lefebvre was still hopeful after the election of Wojtyla and ignores everything else.
This guy needs to go the way of poche. If he represents the mentality of the neo-SSPX then it’s basically over for them. He’s to the Left of many FSSP priests.
He’s recently shown how deeply he’s imbibed from Vatican II and how not rejecting it wholesale leads to a poisoning of the mind ... with his latest claim that heretic Protestants are “real” Christians.
-
Even Matthew, IIRC, believes Protestants are Christians. He can confirm if it is otherwise. Matthew even supported Tɾυmρ, and encouraged all other Cathinfo members to do so, as did I, and Sean also finally ended up voting for him; while you did not, Ladislaus, giving "he was not a Christian" as one of your lame excuses.
More slander, Xavier. I never gave Trump's not being a Christian as a reason for not voting for him. I gave the following reasons:
1) his bold promotion of sodomy
2) the fact that Planned Parenthood funding increased to record levels under Trump, wiping out any justification from double effect
3) the fact that he's clearly under extreme Jєωιѕн influence
4) the fact that elections are rigged and our votes don't matter (was I wrong?)
5) his going along with the Plandemic and aggressively pushing and FUNDING the immoral vaccinations
I rejected your ridiculous assertion that Trump was a "good" candidate, saying that he's at best a less defective candidate who could perhaps be voted for by double effect. I did not say that one could not come to that conclusion, but felt personally that I could not. I rejected "lesser evil" reasoning as contrary to Catholic moral theology. Again, I denounced your assertion of Trump as a "good" candidate as signs of your moral relativism.
-
Even Matthew, IIRC, believes Protestants are Christians.
One could use the term "Christian" loosely to apply to them because they have a natural belief in Christ, but your assertion that they are "real" Christians is utterly absurd and borderline heretical. You're nothing but a thinly-veiled Modernist. You're as bad as poche.
-
I stand by what I said: (1) if someone believes explicitly the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (2) has been validly baptized (3) is in good faith or invincible ignorance with respect to other articles of faith (4) such a one is inside the Church and (5) consequently can be saved.
Nope. They lack a supernatural rule of faith, so their beliefs, such as they are, being based on "some other rule" (as St. Thomas teaches), are merely natural beliefs.
-
I believe even the Dimonds admit points (1)-(5) above; they even call such people Catholics)
:laugh1:
You've really lost it now ... with your confirmation bias.
-
Xavier again with his confirmation bias. We could plaster the board with 10 pages of quotes from the Archbishop denouncing Vatican II and even suggesting that it’s quite possible that the V2 papal claimants are illegitimate and the See is vacant. But Xavier finds a quote from 1980 at the moment where Archbishop Lefebvre was still hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla and ignores everything else.
Exactly.
-
Interestingly (and probably not by accident), when Fr. Rifan “reconciled” Campos with modernist Rome, and was later consecrated Bishop, he was installed in the Titular See of Cedamus.
Today, Cedamus lies within the boundaries of modern day Algeria.
But in ancient times, the lands which later became Algeria (which included Cedamus) were part of the Carthaginian Empire.
It seems modernist Rome is not without a sense of humor (nor does it hide its intentions).
Yeah, I remember that tidbit from years ago when I was reading all those Crisis in the Church books...
I remember Bp. Fellay mentioning it, back when he was still [pretending to be?] against making deals with Modernist Rome.
-
Xavier is the perfect example of how attempting to justify and reconcile and “hermeneut” Vatican II gradually poisons the mind. There’s no way around this. Attempting to defend and justify Bergoglio leads to a slow-motion train wreck of faith. +Vigano figured this out, tracing Pachamama worship directly to V2. Xavier is about two logical steps away from kissing Korans. Here we have Xavier, in the spirit of Vatican II, calling Protestant heretics “real Christians”. If this guy represents the thinking of SSPX, then it’s already over.
-
Xavier is the perfect example of how attempting to justify and reconcile and “hermeneut” Vatican II gradually poisons the mind. There’s no way around this. Attempting to defend and justify Bergoglio leads to a slow-motion train wreck of faith. +Vigano figured this out, tracing Pachamama worship directly to V2. Xavier is about two logical steps away from kissing Korans. Here we have Xavier, in the spirit of Vatican II, calling Protestant heretics “real Christians”. If this guy represents the thinking of SSPX, then it’s already over.
Can't argue with your reasoning here.