CathInfo.com

Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism ever did. Your metaphysics, especially Aquinas', are contradictory bunk, the Papacy never existed in the first millennium of the Church and you use forgeries to try and prove it, your doctrines on Hell are vile, and you will look for anything to help you avoid the possibility that your beloved and simply awful faith is wrong. I tried to make things make sense, but you just say it doesn't have to. You come up with bullshit exegesis to avoid losing the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray the rosary. You act like you guys hold the truth and get aggressive when someone asks? You're all horrid missionaries for a cult, much less the true faith.
Maybe the reason the world doesn't like you is because you're all so intolerable and nauseating to talk to. I tried. I really did.
Matthew, please ban me from this forum so that I never return. Bye.

I'm afraid that you simply do not have the Catholic faith, jerm.  As per the bolded comment, you do not accept with the certainty of faith the core dogma of all faith, the teaching authority of the Church.  This is precisely why you are constantly floundering around, because you do not have a rule of faith and because you are simply following the lights of your private judgment.  You give clear indication of the fact that you lack supernatural faith.

As for you dogmatists, you really have to stop this crap.  You can argue all you want that a certain position is or is not CONSISTENT with Church teaching.  But stop claiming that your conclusions are in fact dogma themselves and that those who do not accept them are formal heretics.  +Sanborn, MHFM/Dimonds, various R&R dogmatists, XavierSem, all of you need to stop this crap immediately.  You in fact risk becoming schismatics yourselves.  It's OK to argue that a certain proposition is objectively or materially heretical, but that's where you need to stop and stop now.  Until the Church confirms your judgment, no one who doesn't agree with you can be classified as a formal heretic and refused Sacraments, etc.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject any clear dogmatic teaching of the Church?  Not many, that's for sure.  Which of these Catholics would have the audacity to deny, for instance, the dogma of the Real Presence, or the Holy Trinity, etc. etc. etc.  They hold all these with the certainty of faith because they have the formal motive of faith.  You can argue all you want that a certain conclusion LOGICALLY undermines a dogma, but the logic in question is not backed by the authority of the Church.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject the dogma of infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church?  No, of course not.  We all know these to be dogmatic teachings of the Church.  You can ARGUE all you want that a long vacancy is incompatible with indefectibility or that the R&R position is incompatible with infallibility.  And in fact they may be, and they may even be harmful to faith and dangerous to hold, and keep arguing that, in a spirit of charity, to help people pull away from dangerous opinions.  But to raise these conclusions to the level of DOGMA is incredibly dangerous and harmful and leads to a schismatic tendency.

I'm afraid that you simply do not have the Catholic faith, jerm.  As per the bolded comment, you do not accept with the certainty of faith the core dogma of all faith, the teaching authority of the Church.  This is precisely why you are constantly floundering around, because you do not have a rule of faith and because you are simply following the lights of your private judgment.  You give clear indication of the fact that you lack supernatural faith.

As for you dogmatists, you really have to stop this crap.  You can argue all you want that a certain position is or is not CONSISTENT with Church teaching.  But stop claiming that your conclusions are in fact dogma themselves and that those who do not accept them are formal heretics.  +Sanborn, MHFM/Dimonds, various R&R dogmatists, XavierSem, all of you need to stop this crap immediately.  You in fact risk becoming schismatics yourselves.  It's OK to argue that a certain proposition is objectively or materially heretical, but that's where you need to stop and stop now.  Until the Church confirms your judgment, no one who doesn't agree with you can be classified as a formal heretic and refused Sacraments, etc.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject any clear dogmatic teaching of the Church?  Not many, that's for sure.  Which of these Catholics would have the audacity to deny, for instance, the dogma of the Real Presence, or the Holy Trinity, etc. etc. etc.  They hold all these with the certainty of faith because they have the formal motive of faith.  You can argue all you want that a certain conclusion LOGICALLY undermines a dogma, but the logic in question is not backed by the authority of the Church.

Does any Traditional Catholic reject the dogma of infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church?  No, of course not.  We all know these to be dogmatic teachings of the Church.  You can ARGUE all you want that a long vacancy is incompatible with indefectibility or that the R&R position is incompatible with infallibility.  And in fact they may be, and they may even be harmful to faith and dangerous to hold, and keep arguing that, in a spirit of charity, to help people pull away from dangerous opinions.  But to raise these conclusions to the level of DOGMA is incredibly dangerous and harmful and leads to a schismatic tendency.

Lad, you really need to stop bothering.

Going back to the original topic here, since XavierSem doesn't seem to want to answer the questions posed to him just now, I just thought I'd post here that the last bishop appointed by Pius XII has just died.
.
Even though I don't believe he was the last person on earth who was able to elect a true pope, as XavierSem pretended to think I believed, it still seems a little ominous and apocalyptic to lose this last link with the last true pope. And because that by itself wouldn't be creepy enough, he has to have died of the mystery Apocalypse disease too!