Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all? (Read 29978 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #95 on:** September 10, 2019, 07:20:58 AM »

Quote

It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous.

Forlorn, I agree that it’s almost impossible to convert novus ordo Catholics today. However our chapel has had 20+ converts in the last few years alone (with 5 taking classes). They are Protestants and atheists. We’ve lost about 30 people in the last 5 years to the indult (all 30 people grew up Trad). It’s a real shame. But the way that these new people found out about Catholicism and our chapel is truly miraculous. God took the graces from those Trads who rejected it and gave it to others who would appreciate it. Deo Gratias!

Stubborn · « **Reply #96 on:** September 10, 2019, 11:44:20 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on September 10, 2019, 07:20:39 AM

Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position? The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic. And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him. But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.

Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position. We accept that the pope has the primacy per Pope Pius X, who said that upon his election, "he is instantly the true pope and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."

R&R are loyal to this Catholic truth as decreed by St. Pius X. R&R continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. Never forget: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man."

This is Catholic.

What is not Catholic is to believe that we cannot know what sin is, or right from wrong, or Catholic from not Catholic without a saint sitting on the throne of St. Peter. If that's EO or not I do not know, but whatever it is, it's certainly not Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #97 on:** September 10, 2019, 01:10:30 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on September 10, 2019, 11:44:20 AM

Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position.

And yet many Catholics completely disagree ... as per the point Matthew's making.

Stubborn · « **Reply #98 on:** September 10, 2019, 02:39:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 10, 2019, 01:10:30 PM

And yet many Catholics completely disagree ... as per the point Matthew's making.

Catholics (R&R) are doing nothing more than simply applying: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." Without this most fundamental of Catholic principles, all Catholics have a supreme problem. But with this principle, aside from praying for the pope, Catholics actually don't do anything in regards to the conciliar popes..

Also, Catholics, by virtue of their free will, may choose to completely disagree, but to what end? Disagreeing with this principle only leaves them with a problem which has no solution by their own choosing.

Praeter · « **Reply #99 on:** September 10, 2019, 05:45:00 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on September 10, 2019, 07:20:39 AM

Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position? The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic. And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him. But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.

It is usually conceded that R&R's disobey the Pope, but when do they actually do so? Before this is conceded, I think we need some examples that demonstrate it.

And let's not forget that most sedevacantists disobey/reject the revise Holy Week liturgies that were promulgated by Pius XII, the last pope they accept. How is that not recognizing and resisting Pius XII? And every sedevacantist bishop is guilty of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII, who forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate. It was already forbidden in the 1917 code. Pius XII just attached the more sever penalty of excommunication to those broke the law. If everything contained in an encyclical "demands assent," as the sedes always say (quoting Pius XII in Humani Generis), why did every single sede bishop, without exception, refuse to give his assent to Pius XII teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all? (Read 29978 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Stubborn

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Ladislaus

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Stubborn

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Praeter

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?