Author Topic: Passive Infallibility (Read 1156 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** January 19, 2015, 05:57:34 PM »

I cast thee out into the outer darkness. Get thee behind me and begone.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2015, 05:59:51 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
I cast thee out into the outer darkness. Get thee behind me and begone.

There you have it, folks!

Silence, I said. Begone, wicked one.

:heretic:

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:11:08 PM »

Infallibility is meaningless for sedevacantists. They say they follow the Church but whenever they find something they disagree with coming from a Churchman (even the Pope) they do not change their opinion, they just declare the Churchman to be a heretic who lost his office based on their own private judgment. In practice they are all their own Popes.

Similarly, the teaching Church is also meaningless to SSPX supporters, because they say the Church is not always infallible and they sort the teachings of the Churchmen and accept those they like while rejecting those they do not like, also based on their own private judgment. So in practice they are also all their own Popes.

I do not know what position is Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:15:43 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Infallibility is meaningless for sedevacantists. They say they follow the Church but whenever they find something they disagree with coming from a Churchman (even the Pope) they do not change their opinion, they just declare the Churchman to be a heretic who lost his office based on their own private judgment. In practice they are all their own Popes.

Similarly, the teaching Church is also meaningless to SSPX supporters, because they say the Church is not always infallible and they sort the teachings of the Churchmen and accept those they like while rejecting those they do not like, also based on their own private judgment. So in practice they are also all their own Popes.

I do not know what position is Catholic.

You are correct on both counts.

Monsignor Fenton does a very good job of articulating a more balanced approach.

Really the question is whether the appearance of "Universal Acceptance" trumps our sense that Vatican II is not Catholic. I'm still searching here for the answer.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:16:44 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Matto
I do not know what position is Catholic.

Obviously you are confused.

No, unlike you, Matto is honestly and sincerely seeking the truth. That confuses YOU.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:20:35 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matto
Infallibility is meaningless for sedevacantists. They say they follow the Church but whenever they find something they disagree with coming from a Churchman (even the Pope) they do not change their opinion, they just declare the Churchman to be a heretic who lost his office based on their own private judgment. In practice they are all their own Popes.

Similarly, the teaching Church is also meaningless to SSPX supporters, because they say the Church is not always infallible and they sort the teachings of the Churchmen and accept those they like while rejecting those they do not like, also based on their own private judgment. So in practice they are also all their own Popes.

I do not know what position is Catholic.

You are correct on both counts.

Monsignor Fenton does a very good job of articulating a more balanced approach.

Really the question is whether the appearance of "Universal Acceptance" trumps our sense that Vatican II is not Catholic. I'm still searching here for the answer.

Ah yes, Lasislaus admits Fr. Fenton was decieved about Fr. Feeney in 1949 and his excommunication in 1952, and admits his deception to Vatican II, but somehow SOMEWHERE he has a more balanced approach?

:roll-laugh2:

Begone, Satan.

Whenever you're cornered you pull out an ad hominem. You have refused to address the quotes I produced from Father Fenton.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:21:41 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Matto
Infallibility is meaningless for sedevacantists. They say they follow the Church but whenever they find something they disagree with coming from a Churchman (even the Pope) they do not change their opinion, they just declare the Churchman to be a heretic who lost his office based on their own private judgment. In practice they are all their own Popes.

Similarly, the teaching Church is also meaningless to SSPX supporters, because they say the Church is not always infallible and they sort the teachings of the Churchmen and accept those they like while rejecting those they do not like, also based on their own private judgment. So in practice they are also all their own Popes.

I do not know what position is Catholic.

You are correct on both counts.

Monsignor Fenton does a very good job of articulating a more balanced approach.

Really the question is whether the appearance of "Universal Acceptance" trumps our sense that Vatican II is not Catholic. I'm still searching here for the answer.

Ah yes, Lasislaus admits Fr. Fenton was decieved about Fr. Feeney in 1949 and his excommunication in 1952, and admits his deception to Vatican II, but somehow, SOMEWHERE, he had a more balanced approach on infallibility?

:roll-laugh2:

Does your Mommy know that you're posting on the Internets?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:26:36 PM »

Quote from: Nado

The Bible even has ad hominem arguments. Apparently you don't know what that really means in its legitimate sense.

Except the Bible doesn't use them to divert attention from being cornered in an argument.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2015, 06:42:08 PM »