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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church  (Read 4707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2333
  • Reputation: +881/-146
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
« Reply #90 on: October 25, 2020, 07:15:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Veritatis on October 24, 2020, 06:24:04 PM
    It's not heresy that prevents the Pope and bishops from receiving authority, it is the intention to harm the faith by promulgating false doctrines.  At least that's what the advocates of the Cassiciacuм thesis say. Here is Bishop Sanborn's explanation of the idiotic theory that he promotes:

    Like I said earlier, the reason the promoters of this idiotic novelty focus on the classical distinction between formal and material succession, is because no theologian has ever taught that an intention to teach false doctrine prevents a Pope or bishop from receiving the authority of his office. Yet that is the basis for their entire theory.
    Veritatis,

    I agree with the point you are making. But let me ask you a question that I think related: is there no protection by the Holy Ghost given to the Church, i.e. the living Magisterium of the Church, against promulgating or teaching error to the Catholic faithful, error impinging rather directly upon faith and morals, if not directly concerning faith and morals?

    It would seem to me that, if there were, this protection would be implicated in the choice of a pope, and would prevent a pope with that intention from being elevated, or exercising that intention after election. If the chair could be usurped by one who has such a nefarious intention, and that intention could be expressed and exercised, what's the value of the protection?

    You understand the Conciliar popes to be popes and yet teaching such error to the faithful, no?
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #91 on: October 25, 2020, 11:50:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 24, 2020, 02:10:28 PM
    Pfff.  And +Fellay says HE represents the true +Lefebvre.  +Fellay knows more than you do.  Another garbage pseudo-argument.   Will the real Archbishop Lefebvre please stand up?  After the election of Wojtyla, he became hopeful and anti-sede, but after Assisi he came a hair’s breadth from declaring the See vacant.

    Pretty sure that you believe that YOU are the only qualified person who can determine who the "real" Archbishop Lefebvre was. Everyone who disagrees with you is just wrong, correct?

    How is it that you can know the "real" Archbishop Lefebvre so well, and so much better than EVERYONE else?

    And please, do not deflect (as you often do) by pointing out what Bp. Fellay thinks. This isn't about Bp. Fellay.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Argentino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 177
    • Reputation: +68/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #92 on: October 25, 2020, 12:17:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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!

    It's evil to compromise the truth for the sake of peace.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2526
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #93 on: October 25, 2020, 01:32:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Meg on October 25, 2020, 11:50:35 AM
    Pretty sure that you believe that YOU are the only qualified person who can determine who the "real" Archbishop Lefebvre was. Everyone who disagrees with you is just wrong, correct?

    How is it that you can know the "real" Archbishop Lefebvre so well, and so much better than EVERYONE else?

    And please, do not deflect (as you often do) by pointing out what Bp. Fellay thinks. This isn't about Bp. Fellay.
    Bp. Fellay is very much relevant, seeing as you lot all claim to know +ABL better than him while attacking anyone who claims to know him better than Bp. Tissier. Blatant hypocrisy. 
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #94 on: October 25, 2020, 01:35:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 25, 2020, 01:32:48 PM
    Bp. Fellay is very much relevant, seeing as you lot all claim to know +ABL better than him while attacking anyone who claims to know him better than Bp. Tissier. Blatant hypocrisy.

    Nonsense.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #95 on: October 25, 2020, 01:39:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on October 25, 2020, 11:50:35 AM
    Pretty sure that you believe that YOU are the only qualified person who can determine who the "real" Archbishop Lefebvre was. Everyone who disagrees with you is just wrong, correct?

    How is it that you can know the "real" Archbishop Lefebvre so well, and so much better than EVERYONE else?

    And please, do not deflect (as you often do) by pointing out what Bp. Fellay thinks. This isn't about Bp. Fellay.
    Honestly, I'm not Sede, and I believe Ladislaus is right about this from everything I've seen.  I believe he went back and forth somewhat.  
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #96 on: October 25, 2020, 01:48:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 01:39:52 PM
    Honestly, I'm not Sede, and I believe Ladislaus is right about this from everything I've seen.  I believe he went back and forth somewhat.  

    How do you know that Ladislaus is right? Because he told you so? 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #97 on: October 25, 2020, 01:50:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on October 25, 2020, 01:48:07 PM
    How do you know that Ladislaus is right? Because he told you so?
    Nah because I've seen the quotes.  I mean its possible there's a conspiracy or something I guess, but if anyone was lying it would be Fr. Cekada
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #98 on: October 25, 2020, 01:53:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 01:50:45 PM
    Nah because I've seen the quotes.  I mean its possible there's a conspiracy or something I guess, but if anyone was lying it would be Fr. Cekada

    Why is Ladislaus right about Archbishop Lefebvre, and everyone else who doesn't agree with him is wrong? What makes Ladislaus a supreme authority (and the only valid authority, in his opinion) on Archbishop Lefebvre?
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2526
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #99 on: October 25, 2020, 02:04:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: Meg on October 25, 2020, 01:53:45 PM
    Why is Ladislaus right about Archbishop Lefebvre, and everyone else who doesn't agree with him is wrong? What makes Ladislaus a supreme authority (and the only valid authority, in his opinion) on Archbishop Lefebvre?
    Good thing he's never claimed that. Rather it's Sean who gives Tissier that position, which might be fair if he stuck with the SSPX as the bishop did. But he didn't, because Tissier only gets ABL right when Sean says he does. Which, in for all intents and purposes, makes Sean the supreme authority on the Archbishop. 
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #100 on: October 25, 2020, 02:10:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 25, 2020, 02:04:24 PM
    Good thing he's never claimed that. Rather it's Sean who gives Tissier that position, which might be fair if he stuck with the SSPX as the bishop did. But he didn't, because Tissier only gets ABL right when Sean says he does. Which, in for all intents and purposes, makes Sean the supreme authority on the Archbishop.

    More nonsense.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +241/-106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #101 on: October 25, 2020, 02:12:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 01:50:45 PM
    ... but if anyone was lying it would be Fr. Cekada
    Wow. What a distasteful, rash and injurious comment.
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #102 on: October 25, 2020, 02:22:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 25, 2020, 02:04:24 PM
    Good thing he's never claimed that. Rather it's Sean who gives Tissier that position, which might be fair if he stuck with the SSPX as the bishop did. But he didn't, because Tissier only gets ABL right when Sean says he does. Which, in for all intents and purposes, makes Sean the supreme authority on the Archbishop.
    Yeah I don't mean Ladislaus is the final authority, it just seems clear to me that Archbishop Lefebvre strained closer to flirting with Sedevacantism but just not quite holding it at some times, and was very inclined to want to make a deal with Rome at others. All that said I think even at his "Most Sedevacantist" he still *gave the benefit of the doubt* to the conciliar popes.  He just didn't have dogmatic certainty of faith that they were.

    I don't know which side that's more convenient for, and I don't really care, I just honestly think its the truth.  Its possible thse pontificates are objectively dogmatic facts.  But if that's the case, than Lefebvre was wrong.  
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #103 on: October 25, 2020, 02:43:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 22, 2020, 01:37:12 PM
    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:


    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.
    Quote from: forlorn on October 24, 2020, 05:02:37 AM
    Here's a list of statements and how Sean has reacted to them before.

    The Conciliar Church is a false church. - Agreed.
    The Conciliar Church is therefore in schism with the Catholic Church. - Agreed
    The pope is a member of the Conciliar Church. - Agreed.
    The pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. - Agreed.
    ...
    Therefore the pope is in schism with himself. - "No that's wrong you MORON".

    Clearly there must be some 500 IQ explanation for how being a member of a schismatic church doesn't make you a schismatic, but alas Sean doesn't think we're ready to hear it.
    The above two postings are what I got out of this thread, Ladislaus's clear position and Mr. Sean Johnson's position as articulated by Forlorn and confirmed as correct by Sean Johnson himself. It is as simple as that, and the rest of the thread is pretty much ignorable material. As always, it is up to the reader to decide which makes more sense. As for me, I see the Sean Johnson take as cockeyed, makes no sense whatsoever. It looks like they just do not want to go the distance and just say the pope is schismatic. The Ladislaus take makes sense.  
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #104 on: October 25, 2020, 02:47:12 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 02:22:27 PM
    Yeah I don't mean Ladislaus is the final authority, it just seems clear to me that Archbishop Lefebvre strained closer to flirting with Sedevacantism but just not quite holding it at some times, and was very inclined to want to make a deal with Rome at others. All that said I think even at his "Most Sedevacantist" he still *gave the benefit of the doubt* to the conciliar popes.  He just didn't have dogmatic certainty of faith that they were.

    I don't know which side that's more convenient for, and I don't really care, I just honestly think its the truth.  Its possible thse pontificates are objectively dogmatic facts.  But if that's the case, than Lefebvre was wrong.  

    Total sede baloney.

    ABL made two comments, years apart, in which he acknowledged in theory that sede could be possible.

    But that's two comments in 25 years.

    A far cry from Ladislaus's hallucination of an ABL on the brink!
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
    Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
    « previous next »