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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71

Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism  (Read 36787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #345 on: October 16, 2019, 07:11:02 AM »

Quote
You wound up basically replying to me arguing that we shouldn’t obey the command which is different than saying the command doesn’t exist, which is what I was arguing against
V2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional.  It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”.  Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written.  What kind of “command” is that?  Practically speaking, it’s not a command. 
Logged

Offline St Ignatius

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #346 on: October 16, 2019, 10:29:18 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 16, 2019, 07:11:02 AM
V2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional.  It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”.  Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written.  What kind of “command” is that?  Practically speaking, it’s not a command.
As my late father used to always say... Ambiguous laws (commands) are NEVER binding.

I believe he was correct. 
Logged

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #347 on: October 16, 2019, 12:21:55 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 16, 2019, 07:11:02 AM
V2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional.  It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”.  Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written.  What kind of “command” is that?  Practically speaking, it’s not a command.
It’s more like this:
Mother: “Please make sure you are in bed by around 10.”
Pax: “alright sure”
Goes to bed at 3AM.
Mother: “why didn’t you listen”
Pax: “around” has some wiggle room
Lol

I just think we should be honest about this.  Trads aren’t doing what the Vatican is telling them to do here.  Why can’t we own it? 
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #348 on: October 16, 2019, 01:02:29 PM »
Sorry, Byzcat, none of the errors in V2 are obliged to be accepted.  "Religious submission" is a novel term and is conditional submission, on the assumption that V2 agrees with Tradition.  If it doesn't agree with Tradition, then we're allowed to question it.  If we're allowed to question it, then it's not obligatory. 
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #349 on: October 16, 2019, 01:21:56 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 16, 2019, 01:02:29 PM
Sorry, Byzcat, none of the errors in V2 are obliged to be accepted.  "Religious submission" is a novel term and is conditional submission, on the assumption that V2 agrees with Tradition.  If it doesn't agree with Tradition, then we're allowed to question it.  If we're allowed to question it, then it's not obligatory.  
I think ByzCat3000 is basically asking how it is possible that we can reject V2 and the "pope's commands", when some here say that it is pretty much an infallible doctrine that all councils are always infallible (although they may teach little, insignificant errors) and that whatever the pope and council teach is always infallibly safe.

I think that's the jist of it.





Logged
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71
« previous next »