No, I’m paying attention.


You said: “*ALL* validly baptized infants and those validly baptized before they reach the age of reason are Catholics, baptism made them so.”

You said: “Once a Catholic always a Catholic”.

It is a fact that some Protestants, Old Catholics, and the Orthodox baptize validly.

Now, it is only logical to deduce that you believe that all validly baptized non Catholics are, in fact, really and truly Catholics.


Do you see your error?

"Baptism without the faith is of no value." Remember I quoted that from St. Thomas? What, you don't believe it or you just cannot accept it?

In case it's just that you do not comprehend it, then I suggest you study the matter till you do, as it applies to all those with the use of reason who've been baptized but who never had the Catholic faith. 

 In my post to you, I explained why a non-Catholic baptized infant is Catholic only until reaching the age of reason. Re-read it till you understand it.

Why not just cut to the chase already QV and admit that your questions all revolve around a heretical pope still being  Catholic in virtue of him being able to walk into the confessional and be absolved from all his sins including his public sins of heresy, apostasy and schism - should he choose to repent. This truth kills the false idea that's been spread that says "one who is not Catholic cannot be pope."

 Do you see your error?

In my post to you, I explained why a non-Catholic baptized infant is Catholic only until reaching the age of reason. Re-read it till you understand it.

So then you admit that “once a Catholic always a Catholic” is not absolute. Do you agree?

If you don’t, then you are in a state of contradiction.

Hello everyone, I've been a member of Cathinfo for closer to a year but this is my first time starting a thread, please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong! I'm a young Traditional Catholic, and I haven't found ample time to do serious research into this specific topic, so forgive me for any possible ignorance.

I was simply wondering what the SSPX Resistance and other non-Sedevacantist Catholics on Cathinfo would believe if Pope Francis were to infallibly declare and define a dogma that wasn't contrary to pre-Vatican II, Church teaching. Such as a Marian dogma. I am not personally a Sedevacantist, however, I am in no way against the position, and the only other Traditional Catholics I know are Sedevacantists. Of course, for Sedevacantists, this specific issue can be brushed off because Francis isn't the Pope and so even if the statement was true it wouldn't be defined dogma. But if Francis is the Pope, does he still possess the power to infallibly define teachings of the Church, or would these dogmas need to later be redefined by a a good Catholic Pope? Thank you for your patience and God bless you all.

OP, I am sede, but it seems to me that any dogma that was true that would be defined by any true pope would already be part of the Magisterium. 

For example, when Pius XII defined the Assumption of Our Lady in 1950, it was already held and believed by Catholics.  It didn't suddenly become a true doctrine of the Church when he defined it 1,950 years later. 

So, I suspect that all Catholics would already hold whatever true dogma that Francis would "define".  I don't think that would ever be an issue.

Back to the topic. When did canonisations by the Church stop being infallible? Is it possible that Saint Joan of Arc is not a Saint for example? 

Canonizations are under the realm of secondary infallibility. Here is Father Faber’s “An essay on beatification, canonization and the processes of the Congregation of rites”.


https://archive.org/details/anessayonbeatif00fabegoog/page/n30/mode/2up

Thank you for this link. Here is an extract from the concluding pages 133 and 134:


"All we can do is to conclude practically with St. Bonaventure, that it would be a most incredible and most horrible thing to doubt of the true beatitude of any one whom the Church has canonized ; with Melchior Canus, that a man who did so would be temerarious, impudent, and irreligious ; with Benedict XIV. that he would be rash, give scandal to the Church, dishonour the Saints, favour the heretics who deny the authority of the church in canonization, and would himself savour of heresy, as preparing the way for infidels to deride the faithful ; that that man would be an asserter of an erroneous opinion, and obnoxious to the heaviest penalties, who should dare to affirm that the sovereign pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, or that this or that Saint canonized by him was not to be reverenced with the cultus dulis ; and, finally, with the Dominican Billuart, that whosoever should deny that any one canonized bj the Church was a Saint and in glory would not certainly be a formal heretic, but would be, first, temerarious, because he would contradict the common opinion of the Church in a matter excellently well founded, and whose opposite has no adequate foundation ; it is the most insolent madness, says St. Augustine, to dispute whether that ought to be done which the whole Church does ; secondly, scandalous, as drawing the faithful away from the cultus of the Saints ; thirdly, impious, as insulting and dishonouring the Church and her Saints "

The bold type is mine.

Why should anyone therefore deny the saintliness of John Paul II ? 

Is that a serious question or just probing the Lefebvrite position?

In the unlikely case you were living under a rock:

I'm probing the Lefrebvrist position. I can't get a clear answer from either the FSSPX, the Résistance or Avrillé on this. I do however recall asking an SPPX priest 10 years ago, and he assured me that canonisations were infallible as the Church could not err in matters of faith nor morals. He reminded me of the Act of Faith where we reaffirm that the Catholic Church can neither deceive nor be deceived.  However since JP 2 was canonised, we no longer have this clear anwser

Because he was an ecuмenical modernist who is primarily responsible for the loss of faith of millions upon millions of Catholics at a critical moment in the history of the Church. If had turned from his evil ways he could have helped save countless souls who are now lost.

Yes I entirely agree, but by what authority are you questioning this canonisation ?

I'm probing the Lefrebvrist position. I can't get a clear answer from either the FSSPX, the Résistance or Avrillé on this. I do however recall asking an SPPX priest 10 years ago, and he assured me that canonisations were infallible as the Church could not err in matters of faith nor morals. He reminded me of the Act of Faith where we reaffirm that the Catholic Church can neither deceive nor be deceived.  However since JP 2 was canonised, we no longer have this clear answer

Yes, the SSPX/R&R goalposts changed when JPII was "canonized".

But, I guess I'm confused where you stand on canonizations and whether JPII is a Saint and on the crisis in general.  With your most recent posts here, you seem to question both the sede and non-sede position at the same time.