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

Author Topic: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux  (Read 2601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46813
  • Reputation: +27672/-5138
  • Gender: Male
Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2022, 07:44:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'd take it a step further.  Even if a couple who were remarried after a dubious Conciliar annulment came to me for the Sacraments, I would not refuse them.  I would counsel them and advise them that their souls are at risk and would opine on whether their annulment may or may not have been legitimate, but at the end of the day, that's as far as I could take it as a priest or even bishop with zero authority.  If they decided that their annulment was legitimate, that's between them and God at that point ... after I had said what I felt I needed to.

    Here on CI, for instance, I have a lot of (at times) very strong opinions and I express them forcefully, but there's a massive leap between that and imposing it on consciences.

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1513
    • Reputation: +804/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #16 on: February 19, 2022, 07:52:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's the thing though.  These "validly ordained clergy" have no more authority than Heiner does.  NONE of them has any authority.  Both Heiner and these others have a right to their opinion, but NONE of them, whether clergy or not, have the authority to bind consciences with their opinions.

    So, for instance, let's say I'm a priest.  While I could opine as much as I want about various aspects of the Church crisis, I would have absolutely zero authority to withhold the Sacraments from someone who happened to disagree with me.  THAT is where many of them cross the line.

    By way of example, even though I firmly believe that the Conciliar Church is an imposter church that lacks the marks of the true Church, if a Conciliar Catholic showed up at my Mass to receive Holy Communion, I would not withhold it (unless I had moral reasons to believe otherwise, or knew him to be a manifest heretic).  I could not withhold the Sacraments based on MY opinion (rooted in nothing but my private judgment) regarding the Crisis.  As long as the person professed to be a Catholic and did not reject some clear teaching of the Church (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) and wasn't a public sinner, no Trad cleric has the right to impose their position on others' consciences.  Similarly, although I believe that the NO Sacraments are doubtful, I would not force someone to re-confess their sins to me before receiving Holy Communion.  I would express my opinion and would highly recommend it, but I would not IMPOSE that on anyone.
    Yeah, I get the distinction. I didn't say he could get burned at the stake/excommunicated/anything now but hundreds of years ago this would have been an action that could have been taken. I don't think that authority is the issue but rather his disrespect for the dignity of their office. Maybe this isn't the strongest argument but it irks me. Even if someone is just a simplex priest I have respect for that. As you've already stated since the 1800s there has been a serious decline in seminary quality (not sure if you agree with my timeline but we both probably agree that by the ~1920s the poison was completely in) so there are no "theologians" in these debates to be frank.

    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.


    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +759/-1166
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #17 on: February 19, 2022, 07:55:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • By way of example, even though I firmly believe that the Conciliar Church is an imposter church that lacks the marks of the true Church, if a Conciliar Catholic showed up at my Mass to receive Holy Communion, I would not withhold it (unless I had moral reasons to believe otherwise, or knew him to be a manifest heretic).

    But he is a manifest heretic. You call him a "Conciliar Catholic" exactly because he is a disciple of the heretical robber council, showing by his general actions that he is. He may not be a formal heretic, but manifestly he is a heretic.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1513
    • Reputation: +804/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #18 on: February 19, 2022, 08:01:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Offline songbird

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5044
    • Reputation: +1979/-404
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #19 on: February 19, 2022, 08:14:24 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, Good for Fr. Lavery to speak up.  As for Heiner, he could join the ground hog.


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6470/-1191
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #20 on: February 19, 2022, 08:52:46 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • And that is true not only of your opinion and my opinion, but the opinion of Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Dolan and Bishop X and Bishop Y, and Father A and Father B and Father C.  None of these validly ordained clergy have the right to impose their opinions on the faithful.  Period.  End of story.  They can opine all they want, but that's as far as it goes.  It's not enough simply to be a valid priest or valid bishop.  Bishops X, Y, and Z are the equivalent of emergency auxiliary bishops, whose only role is to ensure that the faithful receive the Sacraments that priests cannot provide (e.g. confirmation and Holy Orders).  That is ALL.
    I think you've made your point...more than once in this thread.  Bishop Pivarunas hasn't said anything that would bind consciences.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6470/-1191
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #21 on: February 20, 2022, 05:41:23 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • OK, I've had about enough of this garbage, trad priests who are smarter than your average priest acting like they're theologians.  I knew an elderly priest who complained about this.  He said that the basic training a priest gets does not qualify them to be theologians.  You had to go to school several more years and get advanced degrees before you could even pretend that you knew what you were talking about.

    We have basically these parish-priest-level-trained priests pontificating as if they were Doctors of the Church (and even excommunicating people based on their syllogisms).  I've had enough.  You guys are mere vagantes priests without authority, without jurisdiction, and absolutely without competence to play the part of theologians.  Your sole reason for existence is to be emergency providers of the Sacraments to the faithful in a time of crisis.

    They bring shame upon Traditional Catholicism with this "remote material cooperation" crap.  Yes, it's crap.  They can regurgitate a phrase from page 215 of a theology manual they cursorily studied at seminary, without realizing that they're misunderstanding and misapplying the principle to this present situation.  Just because there's a phrase in a book "remote material cooperation" doesn't make the current situation a case of said remote material cooperation.  Stop pretending that this is a position rooted in Traditional Catholic theology just because you use a catch phrase.

    It's no different than when Fr. Cekada caused scandal around the world against Traditional Catholicism by defending the murder of Terri Schiavo based on his always legalistic and Pharisaical interpretation of principles and law.  Same thing is going on here.

    I'm getting sick of these priests.  They need to shut up, stop excommunicating everyone, stop pretending to be theologians or even Doctors of the Church simply because they secured consecration from a +Thuc bishop.  Even as bishops, they're nothing more than auxiliary bishops, again, to help dispense the Sacraments, and they have no more authority or standing or knowledge than that.

    Most of these Trad "superiors" would be lucky to be appointed pastors of a church in the pre-Vatican II Church after 25 years of ordinary pastoral work.
    And it's okay for mere laymen to pontificate as theologians? Lad, this is what has been happening on this forum ..and other forums....regarding the Covid vaxx for months now.  I'm fairly certain you were the one of the first posters here arguing it's a mortal sin to take the vaxx because it is NOT remote cooperation.  You and "these priests" are merely applying moral theology.


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6470/-1191
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Heiner/True Restoration vs CMRI - Part Deux
    « Reply #22 on: February 20, 2022, 05:56:58 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • OK, I've had about enough of this garbage, trad priests who are smarter than your average priest acting like they're theologians.  I knew an elderly priest who complained about this.  He said that the basic training a priest gets does not qualify them to be theologians.  You had to go to school several more years and get advanced degrees before you could even pretend that you knew what you were talking about.

    We have basically these parish-priest-level-trained priests pontificating as if they were Doctors of the Church (and even excommunicating people based on their syllogisms).  I've had enough.  You guys are mere vagantes priests without authority, without jurisdiction, and absolutely without competence to play the part of theologians.  Your sole reason for existence is to be emergency providers of the Sacraments to the faithful in a time of crisis.

    They bring shame upon Traditional Catholicism with this "remote material cooperation" crap.  Yes, it's crap.  They can regurgitate a phrase from page 215 of a theology manual they cursorily studied at seminary, without realizing that they're misunderstanding and misapplying the principle to this present situation.  Just because there's a phrase in a book "remote material cooperation" doesn't make the current situation a case of said remote material cooperation.  Stop pretending that this is a position rooted in Traditional Catholic theology just because you use a catch phrase.

    It's no different than when Fr. Cekada caused scandal around the world against Traditional Catholicism by defending the murder of Terri Schiavo based on his always legalistic and Pharisaical interpretation of principles and law.  Same thing is going on here.

    I'm getting sick of these priests.  They need to shut up, stop excommunicating everyone, stop pretending to be theologians or even Doctors of the Church simply because they secured consecration from a +Thuc bishop.  Even as bishops, they're nothing more than auxiliary bishops, again, to help dispense the Sacraments, and they have no more authority or standing or knowledge than that.

    Most of these Trad "superiors" would be lucky to be appointed pastors of a church in the pre-Vatican II Church after 25 years of ordinary pastoral work.
    Wow.  But you know more? I know your brother just passed away, but you're attitude towards these priests who are only trying to make sense of this is deplorable.

    FYI, the show that Heiner was referencing was in January 2020 and was therefore discussing vaccines pre-COVID. This same priest who hosted it holds that taking the COVID vaxx is a mortal sin [ie. he agrees with you].