Author Topic: On SV (Read 13895 times)

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #210 on:** July 10, 2014, 06:01:20 PM »

While I find the papal coronation oath thing interesting, I have never seen anyone actually produce the real oath, and the "oath" that is available is not 100% verifiable that it even is the real one, so I have never used this as an argument for SV.

I THINK this is what I read, a long time ago.

Not that I need to use that argument anyways.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #211 on:** July 10, 2014, 06:31:25 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
I apologize to Ladislaus and Cantarella and everyone else.

Not a problem, Sneakyticks. I'm not easily offended. I just stopped posting because I didn't feel that it was a productive use of my time. It wasn't really going anywhere.

I really do mean it, I'm sorry.

So do I. It's not a problem.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #212 on:** July 10, 2014, 06:38:42 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: LuAnne
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).

And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).

Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?

Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.

Luker · « **Reply #213 on:** July 10, 2014, 06:46:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I am more drawn to the (at least natural) kindness of a Jorge Bergoglio than I am to the dark bitter zeal exhibited by most sedevacantists. If you read the Gospels, Our Lord reserved His harshes words for the Pharisees, who were by all accounts orthodox in their beliefs but lacked charity, and He spoke gently to heretics like the Sadducees.

I actually have the opposite assessment of Jorge Bergoglio than yours Ladislaus. His whole personality strikes me as very contrived, calculating and deceiving, especially his whole humility on display bit. On a natural human level, Ratzinger seems to me much more personable/likable and more genuine, I would actually consider having a [German] beer with him socially, although I think his theology is much worse than Bergoglio's, if that's even possible. But I have met neither guy before or seen them in real life, this is just my impression from watching TV clips, interviews etc. YMMV.

And as to the "dark bitter zeal" thing, I don't think that sedevacantists have a lock on that by any means. It seems to me that that attitude is sadly endemic in many traditionalist of all stripes. We could all work on our charity, especially towards our fellow Catholics.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #214 on:** July 10, 2014, 08:15:32 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: LuAnne
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).

And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).

Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?

Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.

FWIW it seems to me that Francesco is all about being ORIGINAL.

This is a bad thing for a pope. The first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition, and he traditionally wears red slippers for this purpose: that he would be willing to shed his blood for the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.

But Francesco has refused the red slippers from DAY ONE, in lieu of Wal*Mart sandals or whatever.

.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #215 on:** July 10, 2014, 09:56:53 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: LuAnne
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).

And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).

Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?

Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.

FWIW it seems to me that Francesco is all about being ORIGINAL.

This is a bad thing for a pope. The first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition, and he traditionally wears red slippers for this purpose: that he would be willing to shed his blood for the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.

But Francesco has refused the red slippers from DAY ONE, in lieu of Wal*Mart sandals or whatever.

.

Yes.

That's because he's not the Pope.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #216 on:** July 10, 2014, 10:10:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.

But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.

Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.

on Eastern Orthodox interview

"I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response"
He answers .."we must walk united on our differences, there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus."

to you this statement is not heretical?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #217 on:** July 11, 2014, 03:11:55 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: LuAnne
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition", warned Pope Leo XIII in 1896 (Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).

And Pope Benedict XV also made clear: "Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).

Right. I understand that it only takes one heresy. Which heresy does Jorge Bergoglio hold?

Which heresy doesn't he hold would be the question.

FWIW it seems to me that Francesco is all about being ORIGINAL.

This is a bad thing for a pope. The first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition, and he traditionally wears red slippers for this purpose: that he would be willing to shed his blood for the Traditions of Holy Mother Church.

But Francesco has refused the red slippers from DAY ONE, in lieu of Wal*Mart sandals or whatever.

.

Yes.

That's because he's not the Pope.

How big of you to point out that the reason you think he does this is because A) he's not the pope.

Because if you also say he's not pope because A) he does this (or other such things), that would be a circular argument. And you would never do THAT, would you?

Quote from: Hermenegild

If one concludes that these reforms are heretical, evil, and blasphemous then one must also conclude that these men, despite any and all appearances of authority, are not true Catholic popes.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #218 on:** July 11, 2014, 03:21:01 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.

Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?

And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?

And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?

And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?

And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?

.

2Vermont · « **Reply #219 on:** July 11, 2014, 06:29:51 AM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: 2Vermont
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.

But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.

Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.

on Eastern Orthodox interview

"I ask how Pope Francis envisions the future unity of the church in light of this response"
He answers .."we must walk united on our differences, there is no other way to become one. This is the way of Jesus."

to you this statement is not heretical?

This sure sounds heretical to me.

2Vermont · « **Reply #220 on:** July 11, 2014, 06:31:07 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Hermenegild

...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.

Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?

And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?

And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?

And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?

And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?

.

Oh yeah, sure. The Church isn't spotless - she can lead people astray. Your points don't even relate to my post.

Do you understand the difference between sinful men and a spotless Church?

I agree. Those examples were so not spot-on.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #221 on:** July 11, 2014, 03:27:40 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

How big of you to point out that the reason you think he does this is because A) he's not the pope.

Because if you also say he's not pope because A) he does this (or other such things), that would be a circular argument. And you would never do THAT, would you?

You mentioned that the "first duty of the Holy Father is to safeguard Sacred Tradition", and Synagoglio doesn't do this because he is an antipope.

The rest of his aberrations merely flow from the fact that he is a Modernist, which places him outside the Church ipso facto and without any declaration according to Pope St. Pius X.

Even the "bad Popes" from history all safeguarded Tradition, even Alexander VI.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #222 on:** July 11, 2014, 11:24:39 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Sedevacantism doesn't primarily argue these men are heretics.

The question is this: Do the doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms which have proceeded from Vatican II constitute a substantial alteration of the Catholic Faith?

If one concludes that these reforms are heretical, evil, and blasphemous then one must also conclude that these men, despite any and all appearances of authority, are not true Catholic popes. Why?

Because the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold any authority in the Catholic Church. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.

Quote
Novus Ordo “Catholicism” is a sham. In reality it is a whole new religion.

So after 50+ years, how do non-SV's still don't accept this simple and irrefutable truth?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #223 on:** July 11, 2014, 11:55:24 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Hermenegild

...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.

Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?

And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?

And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?

And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?

And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?

.

Oh yeah, sure. The Church isn't spotless - she can lead people astray. Your points don't even relate to my post.

Your post said that the Church cannot go wrong ("is spotless") in her liturgical worship.

Therefore, would you be saying that liturgical accretions before St. Pius V had nothing to do with the Church's liturgical worship?

If so, you would be saying that St. Pius V was all wrong when he said and did what he did, isn't this true?

Quote

Quote
Do you understand the difference between sinful men and a spotless Church?

I agree. Those examples were so not spot-on.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #224 on:** July 12, 2014, 12:53:11 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Hermenegild

...the Roman Catholic Church is spotless in her doctrines, her disciplines, and her liturgical worship. So it logically follows that these reforms were not enacted by men who hold authority in anyway [sic]. They are false shepherds, and ought to be denounced as such.

Therefore, for example, the bishop who condemned St. Joan of Ark to be burned alive at the stake :heretic: as a heretic could not have possibly been a real bishop, correct?

And St. Peter, who denied Christ 3 times, therefore could not have been the real pope, correct?

And the accretions in liturgies that had become rampant before Pope Pius V decreed Quo Primum could not have been under the authority of the Church, correct?

And the French Kings (Louis XIV, XV, XVI) who refused to put the Sacred Heart on the French flag could not have been truly Catholic kings, correct?

And the worldliness that had crept into religious orders such as the Carmelites before St. Teresa of Avila introduced her reforms could not have been introduced under the real Holy Mother Church and her authority, correct?

.

Oh yeah, sure. The Church isn't spotless - she can lead people astray. Your points don't even relate to my post.

Your post said that the Church cannot go wrong ("is spotless") in her liturgical worship.

Therefore, would you be saying that liturgical accretions before St. Pius V had nothing to do with the Church's liturgical worship?

If so, you would be saying that St. Pius V was all wrong when he said and did what he did, isn't this true?

Quote
Quote
Do you understand the difference between sinful men and a spotless Church?

I agree. Those examples were so not spot-on.

Show me more information about what you said of the Mass before St. Pius V.

Other than this, which I'm not familiar with, all your other examples are not comparable at all with Vatican 2 or the New Mess even.