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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8

Author Topic: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church  (Read 4678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6293
  • Reputation: +3330/-1939
  • Gender: Male
Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
« on: October 22, 2020, 01:37:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • A thread about Juan Salsa  the "former" 33rd Degree Mason, was turned into a debate about how the pope can be a heretic and still be the pope. That discussion should have its own thread and proper title , so here it is:


    Quote
    Byzcat posted this question:  I too would like to understand Lad's position better, but he never goes deeper than what he wrote earlier.  I think the topic gets him riled up, so he tries to avoid it.

    and Ladislaus clearly and succinctly answered:


    There isn't any deeper to go, Pax.  You've said that the New Mass is blasphemous.  Everyone knows that the V2 and post-V2 Magisterium is better to be ignored.  V2 have corrupted doctrine, public worship, canon law, general discipline.  It's about focusing on the big picture.

    Is it possible for the Catholic Church to have a blasphemous Mass, corrupt doctrine, corrupt Canon Law, and corrupt discipline?

    Many heretics in the past have been condemned for saying that exact thing, and the universal dogmatic theological consensus has always been that this is impossible due to the notes of the Church, the Holiness of the Church in particular.

    This Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.  Most Traditional Catholics know this, and this is why no one has any qualms about separating from this entity.

    So it's back to the question of how a Catholic Church and a non-Catholic Conciliar Church can co-exist as the same entity.  You made a metaphor with a parasite.  But a parasite is not one with the body but an external invader.  To say otherwise would be analogous to the abortionist claim that the unborn child is simply a part of the mother's body.

    Catholic Church and Conciliar Church cannot co-exist as the same substantial entity.  As I demonstrated from Aristotelean-Thomistic philosophy, the only way this is possible would be by applying a material-formal distinction ... such as the sedeprivationists do and what Fr. Chazal does at least implicitly.

    You're arguing from the limits of strict infallibility but then falsely extrapolating that to what is tantamount to a defection of the Church.  We're not talking about a sentence or two or a paragraph in some papal encyclical that might be problematic.  We're talking about a NEW RELIGION ... with its new public worship, its new saints, its new doctrine, and its new law and discipline.  This goes FAR BEYOND the discussion regarding whether a particular statement meets the notes of infallibility.

    In other words, your argument from fallibility simply doesn't scale to the point of a defection of the Church.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12835
    • Reputation: +8153/-2506
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #1 on: October 22, 2020, 02:06:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • That was my original question, and I already provided a rebuttal, which you should also post.
    Logged

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2428
    • Reputation: +1589/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #2 on: October 22, 2020, 02:09:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Before starting any debate, please make sure you define your terms so that each side has the same understanding of the same term.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #3 on: October 22, 2020, 02:54:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1261
    • Reputation: +841/-135
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #4 on: October 22, 2020, 03:09:41 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mr G on October 22, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
    Before starting any debate, please make sure you define your terms so that each side has the same understanding of the same term.
    .
    Hear, hear!
    .
    I think that is often a big part of the problem.  Someone in an earlier thread referred to "many articulations of R&R."  People have different understandings of the cheezy label of "R&R", and likewise even sedevacantism & sedeprivationism.  To some, sedevacantism means "I personally don't think this or that putative (poope sorry - actual typo :laugh1:)  pope is pope", while to others sedevacantism is the idea that the individual Catholic has the authority and/or duty to determine whether the putative pope is not pope because of heresy.  Ladislaus considers Fr. Chazal's understanding of the pope issue to be "sedeprivationism", while I suspect Bp. Sanborn does not have the same understanding or definition of it, and even Fr. Chazal does not label his position "sedeprivationism."  Fr. Chazal has essentially the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre, while some use the cheezy label "R&R" to refer to +ABL's position.  There are many different "articulations" of positions. 
    .

    Most of these interminable discussions are somewhat useless because people use the cheap labels, rather than defining exactly what position they're talking about.  Maybe someone should start the thread with a glossary of various positions, with all their distinctions.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12835
    • Reputation: +8153/-2506
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #5 on: October 22, 2020, 03:14:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Most of these interminable discussions

    Yes, regrettably and unfortunately they are mostly interminable and fruitless, for the reasons you outline.  The last few months i've tried to unglue myself from such debates, as they suck time and go nowhere.  But, every so often, I find a penny in the parking lot, and I learn something, so I continue.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #6 on: October 22, 2020, 03:19:01 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: B from A on October 22, 2020, 03:09:41 PM
    .
    Hear, hear!
    .
    I think that is often a big part of the problem.  Someone in an earlier thread referred to "many articulations of R&R."  People have different understandings of the cheezy label of "R&R", and likewise even sedevacantism & sedeprivationism.  To some, sedevacantism means "I personally don't think this or that putative (poope sorry - actual typo :laugh1:)  pope is pope", while to others sedevacantism is the idea that the individual Catholic has the authority and/or duty to determine whether the putative pope is not pope because of heresy.  Ladislaus considers Fr. Chazal's understanding of the pope issue to be "sedeprivationism", while I suspect Bp. Sanborn does not have the same understanding or definition of it, and even Fr. Chazal does not label his position "sedeprivationism."  Fr. Chazal has essentially the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre, while some use the cheezy label "R&R" to refer to +ABL's position.  There are many different "articulations" of positions.
    .

    Most of these interminable discussions are somewhat useless because people use the cheap labels, rather than defining exactly what position they're talking about.  Maybe someone should start the thread with a glossary of various positions, with all their distinctions.  

    Of course, the fact that Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam dedicates two chapters to refuting sedeprivationism, coupled with Fr. Chazal’s personal explicit rejection of sedeprivationism, does not even cause Ladislaus to tap the breaks.

    Such is their desperation to find mascots to lend a sense of legitimacy and sanity to their hair brained hallucinations.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12835
    • Reputation: +8153/-2506
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #7 on: October 22, 2020, 03:36:36 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
    • Sean, why don't you offer a solution to broker peace?  I've not read Fr Chazal's book totally, while it appears you have.  You know Ladislaus' views, so instead of finding differences, why can't you use your catholic knowledge to find areas of agreement?  What a wonderful world we'd have if R&R could get along with Sedes.  Why can't you help to find that compromise?  What a great service to the Church!  "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
    .
    We should all, always, be looking at getting along with our neighbor, especially as St Paul says with "those of the household of the Faith".  This whole debate SHOULDN'T BE A COMPETITION.  We should NOT be at war.  We should be WORKING TOGETHER to FIND THE TRUTH.  We shouldn't be acting like the Hatfields vs the McCoys and constantly bickering with our Trad neighbors.
    .
    All of us need to change our tune and grow up!
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #8 on: October 23, 2020, 07:50:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2020, 03:36:36 PM
    Sean, why don't you offer a solution to broker peace?  I've not read Fr Chazal's book totally, while it appears you have.  You know Ladislaus' views, so instead of finding differences, why can't you use your catholic knowledge to find areas of agreement?  What a wonderful world we'd have if R&R could get along with Sedes.  Why can't you help to find that compromise?  What a great service to the Church!  "Blessed are the peacemakers...".

    We should all, always, be looking at getting along with our neighbor, especially as St Paul says with "those of the household of the Faith".  This whole debate SHOULDN'T BE A COMPETITION.  We should NOT be at war.  We should be WORKING TOGETHER to FIND THE TRUTH.  We shouldn't be acting like the Hatfields vs the McCoys and constantly bickering with our Trad neighbors.
    .
    All of us need to change our tune and grow up!

    Quote
    Sean Johnson wrote: Such is their desperation to find mascots to lend a sense of legitimacy and sanity to their hair brained hallucinations.

    Not a good first step there Mr. Johnson 
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #9 on: October 23, 2020, 07:57:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • When a non-Catholic or a Novus Ordo, confronts me with the question of the Vatican II pope's teachings, for example, a partially real question asked of me: "Go worship your pope who says ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions are holy and invites witch doctors to pray with him"


    I answer something like "We are traditionalists, we do not follow the false Vatican II religion, we consider Bergolio a false pope, we do not go to the mass in their churches".

    What do you R&R people say? I'm sure the question has been asked many times of all of you.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #10 on: October 23, 2020, 08:07:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 23, 2020, 07:57:38 AM
    When a non-Catholic or a Novus Ordo, confronts me with the question of the Vatican II pope's teachings, for example, a partially real question asked of me: "Go worship your pope who says ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions are holy and invites witch doctors to pray with him"


    I answer something like "We are traditionalists, we do not follow the false Vatican II religion, we consider Bergolio a false pope, we do not go to the mass in their churches".

    What do you R&R people say? I'm sure the question has been asked many times of all of you.

    I say something like:

    “We stick to the traditional Catholic Faith as it was taught before the Second Vatican Council, which was not infallible, and not binding.”
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12835
    • Reputation: +8153/-2506
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #11 on: October 23, 2020, 08:12:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • My answer would be similar to yours, but I don't see a need to mention the pope, as it distracts from the essential reason that the V2 operation is illegitimate and optional:
    .
    I answer something like "We are traditionalists, we do not follow the false Vatican II religion, we consider Bergolio a false pope, because we aren't obligated to follow it and it is contrary to the True Faith, and we do not go to the mass in their churches".
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #12 on: October 23, 2020, 11:15:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 08:12:06 AM
    My answer would be similar to yours, but I don't see a need to mention the pope, as it distracts from the essential reason that the V2 operation is illegitimate and optional:
    .
    I answer something like "We are traditionalists, we do not follow the false Vatican II religion, we consider Bergolio a false pope, because we aren't obligated to follow it and it is contrary to the True Faith, and we do not go to the mass in their churches".
    Well, there's the compromise.  We all agree there.


    Quote
    "What a wonderful world we'd have if R&R could get along with Sedes.  Why can't you help to find that compromise? 

    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47468
    • Reputation: +28079/-5242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #13 on: October 23, 2020, 11:22:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I'll chime in when I can.  I've been rather busy the last couple of days.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47468
    • Reputation: +28079/-5242
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #14 on: October 23, 2020, 11:41:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So, I was basically making two points:

    1) quibbling about the extent and limits of infallibility "in the strict sense" is the wrong approach

    2) Traditional Catholics all agree that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

    So the question boils down to how the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church can co-exist in the same entity.  Applying Aristotelean-Thomistic philosophy, the answer is that they cannot co-exist ontologically, but only to the extent that one can view it from two different formal aspects, i.e. from the material aspect and the formal aspect.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
    « previous next »