Author Topic: Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"  (Read 801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Disputaciones

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1372
  • Reputation: +383/-160
  • Gender: Male
Just in case you haven't seen my post, which I'm sure you have.

To your assertion I said this:

If this is so common, prove it with direct quotes from sedevacantists and refute it with direct quotes from Catholic teaching.

Should be easy.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8650
  • Reputation: +3393/-714
  • Gender: Male
Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2015, 04:36:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Snip from Who Shall Ascend? on Popolatry



    .....Catholics should take the attitude that the only way that they can be absolutely sure that the heretical Popes of the Twentieth century have not violated the papal prerogative of infallibility is that Christ our Savior has assured us that He would personally prevent this from ever happening. (To read what these Pontiffs have said, and to watch them in action, one is moved to ask the perfectly logical question whether they have believed the Doctrine themselves.) To ask a Protestant to accept this Doctrine is to ask something understandably much more difficult than it was fifty years ago. And it is thus because the papal throne has been seized by committed Revolutionists, who have shown themselves determined with an audacity which surely has made Danton proud.

    A far better approach is to make no reference to the great and holy Doctrines of Infallibility and Indefectibility at all. If they are true, and if we say we believe them to be so, they were given to the Church for its necessary protection by Him Who knew what terrible storms it would have to survive, and Who has all power. He said, ". . And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against [the Church]." (Mt. 16:18). And they were given to us for our assurance: "I am with you all days. . ."(Mt. 28:20). The protection of the pope and the preservation of the Church are strictly Christ's province. He has no need of our substantiating His promises; He knows what He is doing. "Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?" (Mt. 8:26). If these two Doctrines be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.

    And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.

    In this post-Conciliar age, we are discovering what a small area of the Church's life and fabric Christ's aegis was promised to preserve. It is small consolation to us to be reminded that in other ages, the people cried out to God with the same desperation, and were tempted by the same demon of despair.

    "Conservatives," to be sure, may be indignant that we should speak of them as "Popolators," people who give to the pope the worship which belongs to God alone. We are not exaggerating. What else can we call it when, while reporting the absence of any genuine concern with true Catholic spirituality, the disintegration within the Church, the undermining of every doctrine and moral precept, the transmogrification of the sacred liturgy, and all the other Sacramental rites, the progressive disruption of every aspect of Catholic life and discipline, they have adamantly refused to point the finger at the men without whose active instigation and sponsorship all this could never have happened, namely, the Conciliar Popes? Because it is a such sorrowful and distasteful task to do this, we would blame no one for refraining to making these observations. They are made for no other reason than that the whole Catholic world, it seems, is so infected with this virus, that it is impossible to answer their questions about the state of the Church, without first of all having to prove that one is in no way denying either the authority or the infallibility of the pope.

    And they labor under this preoccupation for no other reason than that certain Catholic writers have bound up their minds and wills with their own papalist fixations. The complaint we have is that these individuals have suppressed the full truth of the destruction which has been wrought, in order to deflect blame from these Popes, and treated as blasphemers all who endeavored to present the facts as they were, and draw such conclusions as seemed inescapable. If one is willing to allow the Holy Church of God and all its doctrines to be systematically demolished, rather than tolerate the utterance of the truth about these Popes, who were the chief perpetrators, and if the only doctrine they will not allow to be compromised is that of the Papacy, what other name can be given to such behavior but "Popolatry?"


    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4367
    • Reputation: +3764/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"
    « Reply #2 on: July 31, 2015, 07:03:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Snip from Who Shall Ascend? on Popolatry


    First, the quote from Father Wathen isn't germane to the topic, as Father Wathen is merely saying what the opening posts asks to prove.

    Second, Father Wathen was most definitely a good priest and he was instrumental in bringing me to tradition with his book, The Great Sacrilege.  I don't understand, however, how he could use the term, "heretical pope".  This is a contradiction in terms.  While he was not a declared sedevacantist, I have to say that, in his actions, he was not different from any sedevacantist I know.  

    The sedevacantist is not "better" or "worse" than the the non-sedevacantist, as sedevacantism is not a doctrine.  It is merely the most logical explanation of the Crisis; the only one I know that fits all of the doctrinal attributes of the Church.  

    Father Wathen's attitude towards the Crisis, a Crisis that seems to defy all possibilities, was certainly valid at beginning of the public manifestation of the Crisis in the early 1960s.  I, personally, do not understand how anyone can truly hold these attitudes in 2015--especially in view of the last few "popes".

    Offline Amakusa

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 205
    • Reputation: +57/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"
    « Reply #3 on: July 31, 2015, 07:21:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The sedevacantist is not "better" or "worse" than the the non-sedevacantist, as sedevacantism is not a doctrine.  It is merely the most logical explanation of the Crisis; the only one I know that fits all of the doctrinal attributes of the Church.


    No. One can even say that sedevacantism leads to worse difficulties than Lefebvrism, since it does not save the permanency of the Catholic hierarchy, which is a dogma of faith. Moreover, the sedevacantists claim that the whole Church has defected during the council Vatican II.

    Some people on this forum say that Eastern bishops still have a jurisdiction; but only the Roman clergy can elect the Pope.

    Finally, sedevacantism is absurd, for if there was no pope anymore, an election would have occured for a long time. As Father Goupil explained when he commented Pastor Aeternus, when there is a vacancy, the Church is showing her efforts in the attempts to elect the next Pope.

    The last pope is he who was accepted by the whole Church, that's simple. But men are not very wise since original sin...
    The baptism of desire and the baptism of blood are dogmas of faith and truths of natural reason: see the article of the New Advent Encyclopedia on baptism, and Catholic Essentials. Those who deny the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood,

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4367
    • Reputation: +3764/-230
    • Gender: Male
    Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"
    « Reply #4 on: July 31, 2015, 09:14:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Amakusa
    Quote
    The sedevacantist is not "better" or "worse" than the the non-sedevacantist, as sedevacantism is not a doctrine.  It is merely the most logical explanation of the Crisis; the only one I know that fits all of the doctrinal attributes of the Church.


    No. One can even say that sedevacantism leads to worse difficulties than Lefebvrism, since it does not save the permanency of the Catholic hierarchy, which is a dogma of faith. Moreover, the sedevacantists claim that the whole Church has defected during the council Vatican II.


    No.  Sedevacantism leads no where.  It is merely a description of what is.

    Anti-sedevacantism has led to incorporation in the Conciliar structures and schism.  After the neo-SSPX is fully incorporated, the resistance SSPX will, after a time, also fracture because the pull of the papal claimant is just too darn strong.  



    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8650
    • Reputation: +3393/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"
    « Reply #5 on: July 31, 2015, 09:52:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Snip from Who Shall Ascend? on Popolatry


    First, the quote from Father Wathen isn't germane to the topic, as Father Wathen is merely saying what the opening posts asks to prove.

    Second, Father Wathen was most definitely a good priest and he was instrumental in bringing me to tradition with his book, The Great Sacrilege.  I don't understand, however, how he could use the term, "heretical pope".  This is a contradiction in terms.  While he was not a declared sedevacantist, I have to say that, in his actions, he was not different from any sedevacantist I know.  

    The sedevacantist is not "better" or "worse" than the the non-sedevacantist, as sedevacantism is not a doctrine.  It is merely the most logical explanation of the Crisis; the only one I know that fits all of the doctrinal attributes of the Church.  

    Father Wathen's attitude towards the Crisis, a Crisis that seems to defy all possibilities, was certainly valid at beginning of the public manifestation of the Crisis in the early 1960s.  I, personally, do not understand how anyone can truly hold these attitudes in 2015--especially in view of the last few "popes".


    Fr. Wathen's snip, particularly the 2nd paragraph, is in reference the OP's inquiry re: Ladislaus' "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility" - to which the OP replied;"If this is so common, prove it with direct quotes from sedevacantists and refute it with direct quotes from Catholic teaching."


    Again, from Who Shall Ascend?:
    Quote
    A far better approach is to make no reference to the great and holy Doctrines of Infallibility and Indefectibility at all. If they are true, and if we say we believe them to be so, they were given to the Church for its necessary protection by Him Who knew what terrible storms it would have to survive, and Who has all power.


    Do SVs believe the doctrines to be true or don't they? IOW, do SVs have the faith or don't they?
    If you answer yes, then see quote below.
    If you answer no, then you necessarily agree with Fr. Cekad'a reason for SVism, which his reason has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrines when he said: Francis’ outrageous public statements and madcap antics have led more and more traditionalists to embrace sedevacantism, and many more to consider doing the same.

    Quote
    If these two Doctrines be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.


    Do SVs agree with this quote or do they not?

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Disputaciones

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1372
    • Reputation: +383/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Ladislaus -- "SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility"
    « Reply #6 on: July 31, 2015, 11:50:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually, i will retire for good with this:

     

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16