Author Topic: On SV (Read 13980 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #135 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:31:58 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

It is a FOUL thing for a woman to speak in the Church. -1 Corinthians 14:35

Let the woman learn in SILENCE, with all subjection. But I suffer NOT a woman to teach, NOR to use authority over the man: but to be in SILENCE. -1 Timothy 2:11

Cantarella: Shut up already.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. This first quote from St. Paul refers to female participation in the liturgy and the second to exercising any official teaching capacity in the Church ... which, on a side note, is why designating women (or laymen) as Doctors of the Church is completely wrong. Who are these women supposed to "learn" from, the likes of YOU?

Nevertheless, this is an internet FORUM, for crying out loud. Women have souls and intellects as well and are not to be excluded from the same kinds of discussions that you and I engage in. Neither YOU nor I are in any way part of the Ecclesia Docens (Church teaching) so if you require her to shut up, then you need to shut up also. As for me, I am quite happy that St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. Catherine of Siena, among others, did not shut up. Would you dare tell Our Blessed Mother to "shut up" when she comes to teach us at Fatima? In the order of grace there is no male or female, as St. Paul teaches elsewhere. When we die and, God willing, enter the Kingdom of Heaven, we shall find many women exalted above us and in a greater degree of glory and more pleasing to God.

Not to mention that your tone and attitude are degrading to women and also makes Traditional Catholics look bad. I often think that Francis has some valid criticisms of what passes for Traditional Catholicism these days.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #136 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:34:01 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm

By your own post are you condemned. You have made it quite clear that you understand not the things you say.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #137 on:** July 09, 2014, 08:45:58 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.

Yes, selective application of principle.

2Vermont, the point I'm making is not about not judging or not having private judgment at all. That's what has been lost on the Sneak as well. It's simply an acknowledgement, in deference to the authority of the Church, that it is in fact a private judgment and lacks the certainty of faith requisite to establish papal legitimacy. As I've pointed out, I have come to the conclusion that the Holy See is most likely vacant, just as you have. Difference is that I acknowledge that I could be wrong and defer to the ultimate judgment of the Church. But it's a very crucial distinction, and it's the refusal of some SVs to acknowledge this (Father Jenkins for instance does acknowledge it) that leads to the bad fruits and, to be quite frank, schismatic attitudes (and accompanying dark, bitter zeal) prevalent among sedevacantists.

And it's the same mindset that haunts the Dimonds. I have criticized them for it, and they in turn ripped me. Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do). I could be mistaken in my opinion. My issue vis-a-vis BoD more involves the implications for EENS when BoD is extended beyond the application made by the Doctors of the Church. Dimonds, however, consider themselves to be absolutely infallible and they lack humility, and it's destroying them by causing a dark infection of bitter zeal in their souls. [I'll probably get another e-mail from them attacking me for writing this.]

Luker · « **Reply #138 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:03:39 AM »

I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position. There is nothing unreasonable or un-Catholic about the 'sede-doubtist' position, I say this as someone who holds the sedevacantist position. Let's not loose sight of the bigger picture. Whether you are 'R&R', 'doubtist' or full sede, the whole point of this exercise is to stay out of the grasp of the false, soul-killing conciliar religion. How you get there is far less important than that you simply get there and stay there out of the clutches of the modernist usurpers.

In fact I hope Ladislaus and others promote their position of doubt, I think traditionalists as a whole would be in a much better and safer position with a healthy dose of doubts regarding the conciliar popes. The apparent legitimacy of the conciliar popes/sect is the single source of power the modernists have had to spread their faith-killing mischief. Once a Catholic doubts their legitimacy, their power evaporates and it is very unlikely that Catholics will obey the modernists at the expense of their faith. With a healthy dose of doubt, another benefit that comes to mind, would be that we wouldn't have to endure a repeat of the 2011/2012 debacle in the SSPX/Rome reconciliation saga.

Fortunately for us, Francis seems to be going out of his way to make all the remaining Catholics doubt his legitimacy and drive the remaining Catholics out of the false conciliar sect, every time he opens his mouth. I will take that as a silver lining to this cloud that is this terrible and mysterious crisis befallen the Mystical Body of Christ, that IS (not subsist in

) the Catholic Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #139 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:06:18 AM »

Quote from: Luker

I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.

It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.

Luker · « **Reply #140 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:08:57 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Luker
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.

It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.

I've heard the name but I'm not really familiar with Fr Jenkins, is he SSPV ?

2Vermont · « **Reply #141 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:23:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
And Sneaky, although I disagree with Cantarella, I am also a woman. I'm pretty sure you don't mind my posts.

Yes, selective application of principle.

2Vermont, the point I'm making is not about not judging or not having private judgment at all. That's what has been lost on the Sneak as well. It's simply an acknowledgement, in deference to the authority of the Church, that it is in fact a private judgment and lacks the certainty of faith requisite to establish papal legitimacy. As I've pointed out, I have come to the conclusion that the Holy See is most likely vacant, just as you have. Difference is that I acknowledge that I could be wrong and defer to the ultimate judgment of the Church. But it's a very crucial distinction, and it's the refusal of some SVs to acknowledge this (Father Jenkins for instance does acknowledge it) that leads to the bad fruits and, to be quite frank, schismatic attitudes (and accompanying dark, bitter zeal) prevalent among sedevacantists.

And it's the same mindset that haunts the Dimonds. I have criticized them for it, and they in turn ripped me. Unlike the Dimonds, I recognize that my opinion regarding BoD/BoB is based on my private judgment and I cannot go around declaring anyone who believes in BoD to be heretics (like they themselves do). I could be mistaken in my opinion. My issue vis-a-vis BoD more involves the implications for EENS when BoD is extended beyond the application made by the Doctors of the Church. Dimonds, however, consider themselves to be absolutely infallible and they lack humility, and it's destroying them by causing a dark infection of bitter zeal in their souls. [I'll probably get another e-mail from them attacking me for writing this.]

I do understand your distinction and I think I'm closer to where you are than you think. The difference is I act more like a sede than a so-called sededoubtist. Because I can't live my life in limbo. I can't live my life in doubt. I have to be as certain as I humanly can when it comes to this issue. It's too important to waver incessantly.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #142 on:** July 09, 2014, 10:43:54 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Luker
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.

It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.

I've heard the name but I'm not really familiar with Fr Jenkins, is he SSPV ?

Yes, although I heard that he and Bishop Kelly have had a bit of a falling out lately.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #143 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:04:25 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I do understand your distinction and I think I'm closer to where you are than you think. The difference is I act more like a sede than a so-called sededoubtist. Because I can't live my life in limbo. I can't live my life in doubt. I have to be as certain as I humanly can when it comes to this issue. It's too important to waver incessantly.

Well, I think that unless you are of the opinion that one cannot go to an "una cuм" Mass, then the practical implications are very few. Either I'm 100% sure or I'm not 100% sure, and wanting to be 100% sure doesn't change that fact.

2Vermont · « **Reply #144 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:29:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Luker
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Luker
I'm not sure why Ladislaus is getting hammered in this thread for his position.

It's coming from the so-called "dogmatic" sedevacantists. Father Jenkins articulates the position I hold much better than I do, and Father Jenkins is no lightweight; he's a brilliant man.

I've heard the name but I'm not really familiar with Fr Jenkins, is he SSPV ?

Yes, although I heard that he and Bishop Kelly have had a bit of a falling out lately.

But I thought SSPV was sdevacantist.

Cantarella · « **Reply #145 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:32:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
[Reality is, that the only one in position to declare a Council invalid is another Roman Pontiff.

Constance actually teaches us that the infallibility of an Ecuмenical Council derives from the papacy.

It has long been recognized that not everything that emanates from the highest authority in the Church (Pope, or Council) is of the same doctrinal certitude.

Quote from: 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility:

But before being bound to give such an ["absolute and irrevocable"] assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences – unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

Not all teachings emanating from a pope or an ecuмenical council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II (except where it is citing previous infallible definitions, which is in itself infallible). Paul VI himself said that the Council was of the ordinary magisterium. Officially, "Infallibility" is given to a "Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church[/i]". But Vatican II was not even a dogmatic Council, but pastoral. (the Holy Ghost was very much present in Vatican II when the Church had been infiltrated by Modernists: There was no dogma defined and no heresy condemned).

Cantarella · « **Reply #146 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:43:03 AM »

If the specific novel teachings of Vatican II (Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty) are not infallible, that means that they are subject to error, and more importantly, open to revision, reform, and a later clarification by the Church.

Besides, nothing new was actually said in Vatican II. The Religious Liberty / Ecuмenism decrees were based on the denial of EENS and Invincible Ignorance which were already rampant in the Church and came before Vatican II. All the liberal and Modernist ideas had already been infiltrated.

Cantarella · « **Reply #147 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:45:37 AM »

Here is the authority of the Council itself about it:

Quote from: Theological Commission during Vatican II Council, 1964

Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation. [/i

obertray imondday · « **Reply #148 on:** July 09, 2014, 11:45:42 AM »

if the Catholic Church is in eclipse how is it visible like some of yous say?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #149 on:** July 09, 2014, 01:00:01 PM »

When we speak about certain things in Conciliar docuмents not being infallible, we're usually talking about what theologians refer to as obiter dicta ... things said offhand. But when teaching a point of doctrine, an Ecuмenical Council cannot err. When a Council ASSERTS a point of doctrine, such as when declaring that human beings have a right to religious liberty, it cannot err. This wasn't just an offhand explanatory remark in a long narrative. Vatican II asserted various points of doctrine which are in error.

Regardless, I think that you're missing the forest for the trees. It isn't just one isolated statement here or there. It's a completely novel re-orientation of the entire Magisterium based on an underlying denial of EENS. It's also about the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church vis-a-vis the Novus Ordo Mass. At the end of the day, the Magisterium cannot have defected like this on so great a scale. Vatican II crosses a line where the very indefectibility of the Church would have to be called into question.