on a side note; to those who feel unsure on how to articulate where they stand at their local Parish without feeling ostracized or to make an appeal to a reference to avoid local drama may want to look into (assuming individual prudence): Ad beatissimi Apostolorum  "Appealing for Peace"  Encyclical given on November 1, 1914 by Pope Benedict XV.


#24 The Integrity of Faith (from the "The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939")

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations (nicknames, designations--added) which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics.... There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." pg. 148,149

For further Context: online sources

Ad beatissimi Apostolorum (vatican source)/ here

Papal Encyclicals online (here)

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

on a side note; to those who feel unsure on how to articulate where they stand at their local Parish without feeling ostracized or to make an appeal to a reference to avoid local drama may want to look into (assuming individual prudence): Ad beatissimi Apostolorum  "Appealing for Peace"  Encyclical given on November 1, 1914 by Pope Benedict XV.


#24 The Integrity of Faith (from the "The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939")

Quote

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations (nicknames, designations--added) which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics.... There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." pg. 148,149

For further Context: online sources

Ad beatissimi Apostolorum (vatican source)/ here

Papal Encyclicals online (here)

Are you another novus ordoite?

Nope...

Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname!

0

It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.

Go figure.

Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.

Quote from: 2Vermont

It is my understanding that Cantarella is a Novus Ordo Feeneyite.

Go figure.

Is she Novus Ordo? I never noticed that from reading her postings. This is the one of the last places I would expect to find Novus Ordo people frequently responding.

Read the last few pages of this thread where there is discussion of the St Benedict Center in NH:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Depressed

Sneaky keeps attacking me as if I were an R&Rer.  I am not.  I agree that most of the sedevacantist arguments against R&R are quite valid.  I am of the opinion that the Holy See is most likely vacant at this time.

But here's the catch.  It's a very crucial distinction.  You might argue that it's semantics, but it's not.  It makes all the difference in the world.

I adopt a posture of humility.  I concede that I might be wrong about this, admit that I arrived at my conclusions based on my private judgment, and defer to the judgment of the Holy Catholic Church on the subject, because only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not.  This makes all the difference in the world because Catholics CANNOT go around determining papal legitimacy based on private judgment.  Papal legitimacy is something that must be known with the certainty of faith, and that can NEVER happen when it's rooted in private judgment.  In my Pius IX infallibility example, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism proper is to say that it's OK to Pope-Sift, i.e. to reject the teaching of a Pius IX due to allegations of illegitimacy.  No, the legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith a priori to the dogmatic definition.  Based on that certainty of faith, then, I must accept the dogmatic teaching regarding papal infallibility and change my mind on the subject.  There were several catechisms out there before Vatican I that rejected the idea of papal infallibility.  After Vatican I, however, these were all changed and a lot of critics of the idea humbly accepted the teaching of the Church.  Then there were the Old Catholics, who considered papal infallibility to be a heretical novelty.  Sedevacantism would vindicate their stance.

That's where Bishop Sanborn gets it completely wrong in his condemnation of "opinionism".  He doesn't realize that there can be certainty and then there can be certainty, meaning that one can have a certainty that's arrived through the natural intellect and one can have the certainty of faith, and that these are two different certainties.

Quote from: Hermenegild

You would have to say the same thing regarding Vatican II and the New Mass - it would only be a personal opinion that they're not Catholic.

Those conclusions are also arrived at based on private judgment.

But you and other non-sedes make this private judgment.  Why is this private judgment a.o.k?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Hermenegild

You would have to say the same thing regarding Vatican II and the New Mass - it would only be a personal opinion that they're not Catholic.

Those conclusions are also arrived at based on private judgment.

But you and other non-sedes make this private judgment.  Why is this private judgment a.o.k?

I never said that private judgment is not permitted, just that it can never rise to the sufficient level of certainty (certainty of faith) required for making a definitive conclusion about papal legitimacy.  In case case of Vatican II, the private judgment about its content is intertwined with the private judgment about the papal legitimacy.  If St. Pius X had presided over Vatican II then I would have accepted Vatican II without any hesitation whatsoever and worked feverishly to show how it reconciled with Tradition.  But when you have the V2 papacies as tainted as they are with Communist / Masonic / Jєωιѕн connections and dots, and the whole Siri election doubt, etc.  When you put all the dots together, both extrinisic and instrinsic to Vatican II, that's when it rises to the level of positive doubt.