Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on January 03, 2024, 07:55:57 AM
-
There are at least NINE active threads as of 1/3/24 arguing about the Pope question. But in my opinion, they ALL miss the point.
There is a Crisis in the Church. I think we can all agree on that point. The exact nature of what God allowed to happen to the Church, and how it will be solved, is to be found ONLY in the mind of God Himself. And if solving the Crisis deserved 100 points, I'd give THE BEST OF YOU 10 points, and that would be only for effort. As far as solving the Crisis, you get 0. No one in the past 53 years has gotten a "passing score" yet on that epic project. +ABL got a 59, the highest score of any man in the past 53 years, but that was still an F.
Furthermore, we all know what we gotta do. We're talking basic common sense: keep the Holy Catholic Faith, raise our kids Catholic, attend the Tridentine Mass with traditionally-formed priests ordained in the pre-Vatican II Rite. Beyond that, we look ONLY to books/doctrine/encyclicals before the Modernism of Vatican II, the smoke of satan, entered the Church. We stick to Traditional or pre-Vatican II books/art/music/devotions.
If we're all in agreement on this, then what is there to argue about?
Oh yeah, we have to figure out WHICH GROUP we should attend that Tridentine Mass & sacraments with, and whose bookstore we'll buy all those pre-Vatican II books/statues/devotionals/music/etc. from. Oh, and of course which Traditional Catholics we'll speak to, and which ones we'll shun.
And while we're at it, let's squabble about which particular version of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missale priests should use.
I still think the best response to all the Sedes with their "He's not the Pope" rhetoric is: "Ok, so What are ya gonna do about that specific point of "truth"?" If your answer is "nothing", then you are in PRECISELY the same boat as any other non-Sede Traditional Catholic. So what's the point? Why make "Sedevacantist" your identity, the way I make "Traditional Catholic" my identity?
If you did random checks during the week on me, my wife, and/or my children, you would find things that JUSTIFY that full "Traditional Catholic" label. "Catholic" wouldn't be enough. "American" certainly wouldn't be enough. Can you say the same thing about you, and the "Sedevacantist" label? What requires you to add that to the list of descriptors before "Catholic"? Is it the dart board in your den, which has a photo of "Bergoglio" (as you call him) on it?
When did this RANDOM MUSING, this FALLIBLE, PROBABLY WRONG OPINION become so many peoples' identity? When did "Traditional Catholic" become not good enough, or not descriptive enough?
Do I need to start calling myself a Ham Radio Trad Catholic, because I'm a Trad Catholic with a Ham license -- or is that unnecessarily specific? Am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to like Ham Radio? I think that's more reasonable. Or should I call myself a "Gregorian Traditional Catholic" because I prefer Chant to any sort of modern Classical music/hymns during Mass? Or, am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to prefer chant to polyphony/classical during Mass?
-
If you're against all the "arguing", then why did you start two threads (which clearly put sedes on the defensive)....and now a third?
-
If you're against all the "arguing", then why did you start two threads (which clearly put sedes on the defensive)....and now a third?
First of all, one of those threads was basically "Who in the Sede world is even remotely as providential, great, or holy as Archbishop Lefebvre?" That was a question, not a fight. Why get defensive over such a thread? The truth shouldn't make anyone uncomfortable. I think I made a good point in that thread.
But I didn't start those 2 threads from a dead stop (a.k.a. "there was zero arguing about sedevacantism, but I just wanted to pick a fight") So let's keep it real, shall we, and not PRETEND that I did.
As Billy Joel once sang, "We didn't start the fire". Nor did I start the great Sede vs. non-Sede strife that started in the 70's and continues to the present day.
I didn't start it, but I'm sure gonna finish it! :cowboy: ;)
(Seriously though, I intend to do my part to TRY to talk some reason into certain people, and calm things down as much as possible.)
And now that I graciously showed you the respect of answering your question -- though it was aimed at my person (an "ad-hominem" as it were) rather than the content of my post --
What can you say against the SUBSTANCE of THIS thread? I suppose it IS pretty rock solid and water tight...
-
Though I have recently begun to doubt Bergoglio's papacy I do not identify as a SV. If he is lawfully deposed then I would.
-
First of all, one of those threads was basically "Who in the Sede world is even remotely as providential, great, or holy as Archbishop Lefebvre?" That was a question, not a fight. Why get defensive over such a thread? The truth shouldn't make anyone uncomfortable. I think I made a good point in that thread.
But I didn't start those 2 threads from a dead stop (a.k.a. "there was zero arguing about sedevacantism, but I just wanted to pick a fight") So let's keep it real, shall we, and not PRETEND that I did.
As Billy Joel once sang, "We didn't start the fire". Nor did I start the great Sede vs. non-Sede strife that started in the 70's and continues to the present day.
I didn't start it, but I'm sure gonna finish it! :cowboy: ;)
(Seriously though, I intend to do my part to TRY to talk some reason into certain people, and calm things down as much as possible.)
And now that I graciously showed you the respect of answering your question -- though it was aimed at my person (an "ad-hominem" as it were) rather than the content of my post --
What can you say against the SUBSTANCE of THIS thread? I suppose it IS pretty rock solid and water tight...
Yeah, because that question was not making the judgment that sedes DON'T have a great leader, right? Not to mention how you "disqualified" the CMRI right upfront. Please.
I never said that you started the threads from a dead stop, so let's stop PRETENDING that I was. Seems to me you wouldn't want to even continue the arguing then. But you did continue the arguing.
I think with this thread, the first part was fair, then you went all anti-sede again. I know, you can't resist it though.
Actually, my first wasn't an ad hominem Matthew. It was a question and an observation. I happen to think it was a valid one. You just didn't like it.
I'm starting to wonder whether Meg was right.
-
Doesn't the fact that there are 17 new SV threads going demonstrate the crisis in the Church has escalated rather than SVs are becoming more unhinged?
-
Thiese arguments are from the Dark One. He seeks to accuse and divide.
For the record, I am a sedeprivationist who attends an SSPX Mass. I believe that the name 'Francis' is best omitted at the una cuм, but I still attend Mass where Bergoglio is included. I find the squabbles between SGG and the RCI just as unconstructive as those between the CMRI and the SSPV, and as those between the SSPX and sedes of various opinions. It is all from the Dark One.
-
Thiese arguments are from the Dark One. He seeks to accuse and divide.
For the record, I am a sedeprivationist who attends an SSPX Mass. I believe that the name 'Francis' is best omitted at the una cuм, but I still attend Mass where Bergoglio is included. I find the squabbles between SGG and the RCI just as unconstructive as those between the CMRI and the SSPV, and as those between the SSPX and sedes of various opinions. It is all from the Dark One.
Dear ElwinRansom1970,
Could this explain why a very hard-working Catholic man appears to be sabotaging his own valuable forum?
-
Dear ElwinRansom1970,
Could this explain why a very hard-working Catholic man appears to be sabotaging his own valuable forum?
Why would you consider a post like this self-sabotage? Did you even read my post?
ElwinRansom is AGREEING WITH ME by the way. That these divisions and arguments are from the devil. That was MY point!
If I'm "attacking" or "criticizing" anything, it's "Sedevacantism, Inc." -- where certain clerics and laymen establish that as part of their core identity -- NOT SEDEVACANTISM ITSELF.
Read my post -- at least the OP, for crying out loud -- before you jump into a thread without looking.
Because it SURE DOESN'T SEEM LIKE you read anything in my post.
There are at least NINE active threads as of 1/3/24 arguing about the Pope question. But in my opinion, they ALL miss the point.
There is a Crisis in the Church. I think we can all agree on that point. The exact nature of what God allowed to happen to the Church, and how it will be solved, is to be found ONLY in the mind of God Himself. And if solving the Crisis deserved 100 points, I'd give THE BEST OF YOU 10 points, and that would be only for effort. As far as solving the Crisis, you get 0. No one in the past 53 years has gotten a "passing score" yet on that epic project. +ABL got a 59, the highest score of any man in the past 53 years, but that was still an F.
Furthermore, we all know what we gotta do. We're talking basic common sense: keep the Holy Catholic Faith, raise our kids Catholic, attend the Tridentine Mass with traditionally-formed priests ordained in the pre-Vatican II Rite. Beyond that, we look ONLY to books/doctrine/encyclicals before the Modernism of Vatican II, the smoke of satan, entered the Church. We stick to Traditional or pre-Vatican II books/art/music/devotions.
If we're all in agreement on this, then what is there to argue about?
Oh yeah, we have to figure out WHICH GROUP we should attend that Tridentine Mass & sacraments with, and whose bookstore we'll buy all those pre-Vatican II books/statues/devotionals/music/etc. from. Oh, and of course which Traditional Catholics we'll speak to, and which ones we'll shun.
And while we're at it, let's squabble about which particular version of the pre-Vatican II Roman Missale priests should use.
I still think the best response to all the Sedes with their "He's not the Pope" rhetoric is: "Ok, so What are ya gonna do about that specific point of "truth"?" If your answer is "nothing", then you are in PRECISELY the same boat as any other non-Sede Traditional Catholic. So what's the point? Why make "Sedevacantist" your identity, the way I make "Traditional Catholic" my identity?
If you did random checks during the week on me, my wife, and/or my children, you would find things that JUSTIFY that full "Traditional Catholic" label. "Catholic" wouldn't be enough. "American" certainly wouldn't be enough. Can you say the same thing about you, and the "Sedevacantist" label? What requires you to add that to the list of descriptors before "Catholic"? Is it the dart board in your den, which has a photo of "Bergoglio" (as you call him) on it?
When did this RANDOM MUSING, this FALLIBLE, PROBABLY WRONG OPINION become so many peoples' identity? When did "Traditional Catholic" become not good enough, or not descriptive enough?
Do I need to start calling myself a Ham Radio Trad Catholic, because I'm a Trad Catholic with a Ham license -- or is that unnecessarily specific? Am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to like Ham Radio? I think that's more reasonable. Or should I call myself a "Gregorian Traditional Catholic" because I prefer Chant to any sort of modern Classical music/hymns during Mass? Or, am I just a "Traditional Catholic" who happens to prefer chant to polyphony/classical during Mass?
-
Traditional Catholics should be close knit buddies, or at least dedicated coworkers of a common cause, and only as much as necessity slaving for the modern world. Charity covers a multitude of sins. Assume the best of intentions. Instantly forgive and forget. Pray for those who you think are in error, and pray that you be preserved in truth and not deceived. We don't know just how difficult things may get for us through the next decade. Let us strive for perfection and humility in all things, and try to do all things thoroughly through according to necessity, prudence, wisdom, and charity. We should be thoroughly united, and thinking about how we can help each other. Imagine how much better off we might be if instead of investing in so much insurances, we put out trust in God, seeking first the kingdom of heaven, and using parish crowd funding of money, labor, and other goods to satisfy each other's needs.
-
Dear Matthew,
No need to yell at me, or anyone else who summons the courage to comment. I was honestly concerned about you. Since you posted the same post on several threads, it appeared to me that you were trying to shut down productive conversations. Sorry, I will retreat to my little churchmouse's niche in the corner of the baseboard of the chapel. God bless.
There are quite a few who don't have the courage the comment apparently. Good for you.
-
Thank you, 2Vermont!
-
Since I've been away from a computer for almost 24 hours, I've fallen behind on a great amount of posts in threads I've posted on myself. It's amazing how fast new info and new responses appear on threads and how fast new threads are created. Has anyone else felt like they can't keep up and, if so, does anyone have any suggestions/tips for when someone comes back to this forum after being away from a computer for 24 hours or more? Much appreciated.
-
Dear Matthew,
No need to yell at me, or anyone else who summons the courage to comment. I was honestly concerned about you. Since you posted the same post on several threads, it appeared to me that you were trying to shut down productive conversations. Sorry, I will retreat to my little churchmouse's niche in the corner of the baseboard of the chapel. God bless.
I wasn't yelling at you.
-
So, Matthew, your response to all sedevacantist threads is "+Lefebvre was a great man."
So? +Lefebvre himself changed his mind over time, and nobody knows how he would have reacted to Jorge Bergoglio (which is what has spawned a renewed interest in sedevacantism, where you see many even going straight from the Conciliar Church to SVism, without any kind of stopover at R&R). If +Lefebvre said he was a hair's breadth away from going publicly sedevacantist in response to Assisi, what would he say about Jorge's heresies, his blessing of sodomites, suppression of the Tridentine Mass, condoning of sinful cohabitation? Bergoglio makes Wojtyla look like St. Pius X by comparison.
+Lefebvre was a great man, but was he infallible? No. So the appeal to "but muh +Lefebvre" does not come close to answering the theological problems involved here. Which +Lefebvre? Early 1980s +Lefebvre (seeking permission to make the "experiment of Tradition" in a practical agreement with Rome ... or the late 1980s +Lefebvre coming close to becoming openly sedevacantist? Yes, yes, the situation was different in the 1980s, but the situation now is different from when he died ... over 30 years ago now.
While he did great things for the remnant faithful, he was hardly infallible and was often conflicted himself about the Crisis and he himself said that "one day the question [of whether these are legitimate popes] must be answered" and, except for in the early 1980s, stating that sedevacante was possible.
It's the same conflict we see in +Lefebvre that has played out during the entire history of the Traditional movement, with priests/faithful leaving the SSPX to the left (FSSP, Motarians, others) and with priests/faithful leaving the SSPX to the right (sedevacantists). +Lefebvre did not definitely resolve this matter, and he himself remained uncertain or open. In other words, to use +Lefebvre as some "rule of faith" against sedevacantism isn't even honest, since he did not leave the matter "settled" by any means, but rather as an "open question". And it is that "open question" we're debating here.
So if +Lefebvre did not settle this controversy even in his own mind, how are you using +Lefebvre to settle it for everyone else who's debating the same things about which he himself was conflicted? That's a dishonest abuse of the reality of Archbishop Lefebvre, attempting to turn him into a "sock puppet" who echoes your own opinions rather than his own.
We have seen this ad nauseam since the Archbishop died. SSPX claim that THEY are the "true heirs" of +Lefebvre, the Resistance that THEY are, and each side cherry-picks quotes from +Lefebvre's different opinions at different times of his life to "prove" their case. Well, the reason for the debate here is precisely because +Lefebvre himself was conflicted and did NOT definitely settle these matters, nor did he settle the controversy regarding sedevacantism other than to say that he felt it was "not YET time" to become openly sedevacantist. How about now? How about 30+ years later with Bergoglio?
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
(https://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/images/jorge-angry-with-fist.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W4Zf8Za0FE
-
Mathew, you are right. All these titles further divide us.
And the word “traditional” divides us too. We are Catholics.
Present day Catholicism of Vatican II is communism.
-
Matthew pointed out that I was responding to the wrong thread. I had conflated the "Who do the SVs have?" thread with this one here, from which all the others link. I apologize for the mistake.
There are honestly just way too many SV vs. R&R threads going on at the same time, including the two that Matthew started, and I confused one for the other.
-
There are at least NINE active threads as of 1/3/24 arguing about the Pope question.
Thus the source of my confusion between the two that you started. I was looking at your link but then had the "Who do the SVs have?" thread in mind.
-
Furthermore, we all know what we gotta do. We're talking basic common sense: keep the Holy Catholic Faith ...
...
When did this RANDOM MUSING, this FALLIBLE, PROBABLY WRONG OPINION become so many peoples' identity? When did "Traditional Catholic" become not good enough, or not descriptive enough?
Well, firstly, in the practical order, I don't think anyone, when asked, labels himself "I'm a sedevacantist Traditional Catholic", but simply "Traditional Catholic". I've never known an SV who used a more extended label.
Here's the thing, Matthew, and I've addressed it already when you've brought this "pragmatic" view up before ... the disagreement is in fact about "the Holy Catholic Faith". Ideas matter. Doctrine matters. You can go to the Tridentine Mass all you want, and use Catholic prayer books, and smell some good incense and listen to melodious bells. This Crisis isn't just about the Mass or spirituality or practical considerations, but it's about the Holy Catholic Faith.
There are many Traditional Catholics of the R&R variety who are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are therefore NOT keeping the "Holy Catholic Faith". That's what this fight is about. It's not about the "5 Opinions" or even about the precise limits of infallibility "in the strict sense" as defined at Vatican I.
Since when is it OK for Catholics to just start up chapels, seminaries, monasteries, convents without the approval of and subjection to the Catholic hierarchy? Since never. This is ALIEN to Catholicism to think this is OK or acceptable. Subjection and submission to the Papacy is what has always set Catholicism apart from the Old Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox. When doing Catholic Apologetics vs. Eastern Orthodoxy or Old Catholicism, the core of the argument has to do with the requirement to remain subject to and in communion with the Pope, the Papacy, the Vicar of Christ, and the successors of St. Peter. There's never been a Pope, a Doctors, a saint, or an actual Catholic theologian who ever taught or believed that the Catholic Magisterium and the Catholic Mass can become corrupt. There is absolutely nothing Traditional about that belief. It's only the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics who have claimed that the Papacy has gone corrupt, strayed from the true path of Christianity, and strayed from Tradition.
If you impute this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of a legitimate Vicar of Christ, you're gutting the very foundations of the Catholic Church, the very "rock" upon which the Church has always stood. You're essentially claiming that Our Lord built his Church on sand or mud, and not on a rock. What kind of "rock" did Our Lord build His Church on if this foundation can shift, can crumble, in short, if the Papacy can lead souls to hell, corrupt Catholic doctrine, corrupt Tradition and Revelation, and where the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, a Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass that displeases God and causes harm to souls?
If you toss this out, as many R&R do, what's left of the Catholic Church and the papacy ... some clown walking around Rome in a white cassock? How do you do apologetics now to Protestants? "Yes, you must be in union with the Church and subject to the Papacy, since the Papacy is the rock upon which Christ founded and the sure source of unity in faith ... well, except that it's turned to shit and you really should be separated from the Papacy to be united to it." At that point, the Prot could simply respond, "See, we told you 500 years ago that the Papacy had gone corrupt and had corrupted Divine Revelation, and we separated from the Papacy just as you have."
Don't you see how many R&R are undermining and destroying the very faith the claim to be upholding by attending a Tridentine Mass and using much incense? Many / most Old Catholics do the same, as a large number of them have retained the Tridentine Mass. What do you say to them with regard to apologetics? "Yeah, you have to be subject to the Papacy, but the Papacy has become corrupt, so you should be a Traditional Catholic." And their response would rightly and logically be, "Welcome to the club. Better late than never. We realized that the Papacy had strayed from Tradition and gone corrupt 100 years before you guys did."
THIS IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT MATTHEW. I have no comprehension why some Traditional Catholics don't get this. People can hold their Tridentine Missals all they like, listen to Gregorian chant, pray the Rosary, be devoted to the saints, etc. ... but then you can find Old Catholic groups that do all these things. That by itself doesn't qualify as Catholicism, and you can't reduce Catholicism to these practices.
So this battle is PRECISELY about the "Holy Catholic Faith" that you say Traditional Catholics are supposed to be preserving and keeping.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
But he never changed his mind, he certainly never recanted his, what you call heresy. Perhaps you can point out exactly what, in this his declaration, you say is heresy:
http://www.sspxthepriesthood.com/society.shtml (http://www.sspxthepriesthood.com/society.shtml)
Declaration
By
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X
Rome, 21 November 1974
We adhere with our whole heart and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernists and neo-protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.
All these reforms have, indeed, contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the Priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and of the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to naturalistic and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries, and catechetics, a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic faith, such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". (Gal. 1,8).
Is this not what the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if a certain contradiction is apparent in his words and actions, as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the church. The "lex orandi" (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed, without changing the "lex credendi" (law of belief). The new Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or Pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age-old Magisterium.
This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, Is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.
It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations.
For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practised by the Church of always, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and her institutions, and codified in the books which appeared before the modernist influence of the late Council. Meanwhile, we wait for the true light of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome. By acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saints Joseph and Saint Pius X, of remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of St. Peter, and of being "fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen" (Faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost. Amen)
-
There are many Traditional Catholics of the R&R variety who are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are therefore NOT keeping the "Holy Catholic Faith". That's what this fight is about. It's not about the "5 Opinions" or even about the precise limits of infallibility "in the strict sense" as defined at Vatican I.
"The strict sense?" Vatican 1 says *that* is the only sense when they said the meaning of dogma once declared must never be abandoned. What you are in fact saying is that there is some other sense that entails meanings not "once declared," contradicting the dogma in the process....while insisting those who maintain the strict sense are heretics.
What you are claiming is that according to this other sense outside of the strict sense, and based on the never retracted declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/msg920797/#msg920797) that he either only slouched inexorably toward Old Catholicism, or he was a full blown Old Catholic. Which is it?
"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - V1
-
I'm still awaiting a rejection and refutation of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said the same thing that we're saying:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
-
But he never changed his mind, he certainly never recanted his, what you call heresy. Perhaps you can point out exactly what, in this his declaration, you say is heresy:
Ah, so you quote something from 1974 as evidence for how he "never changed his mind" after 1986. Logic much? Nevertheless, no, he did not become openly sedevacantist before he died. But the big argument for why +Lefebvre wasn't "wrong" for seeking a practical agreement with Rome (to make the "experiment of Tradition" within the Conciliar pantheon) was that things and circuмstances had changed. Well, things have changed with Bergoglio, and it's been over 30 years since the Archbishop died. If he had been on the verge of becoming "sedevacantist" on account of Assisi, what would he say about Bergoglio ... where even Conciliar priests are going straight to sedevacantism without any kind of stopover at R&R?
What your feeble and disordered mind fails to comprehend is that, except for a period in the early 1980s, +Lefebvre did not oppose SVism in principle, but consistently said that it was possible. As he explains in the quotes above, he held back from sedevacantism due to prudential considerations and for fear of being wrong (deferring to the Church's final judgment).
But, as I said, I'm still awaiting your rejection and refutation of Archbishop Lefebvre, because he agrees with US on this point and not you:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
Now, of course you're entitled to disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre, but I expect you to show the intellectual honesty to address this quotation and then disagree with it. But you ignore it out of intellectual dishonesty, where you want to pretend that he never said this, because then you'd have to concede that we were right about this very point that's under dispute here. You want to have your cake and eat it to, where if WE say A, we're wrong, but if +Lefebvre says A, he's not wrong.
-
Ah, so you quote something from 1974 as evidence for how he "never changed his mind" after 1986. Logic much?
That's right, he never changed his mind, even if he did, then according to you, he is guilty of heresy for not recanting his declaration, you know, what you call heresy, which means he lost his office ipso facto. It's Divine Law according to you that per cuм ex, an office once lost is lost forever. He was doomed to be shunted off to a monastery in the woods somewhere to finish out his days doing penance per cuм ex.
You are not making a very good case using the one you label as preaching heresy, +ABL, in your attempts to justify sedeism.
-
That's right, he never changed his mind, even if he did, then according to you, he is guilty of heresy for not recanting his declaration ...
False. Evidently it's not getting through to you.
+Lefebvre agreed with us:
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
I've never said that not being sedevacantist is heresy per se. What I said was that denying the indefectibility of the Church is heresy, which, as you can see above, +Lefebvre did not do. His reluctance to become openly sedevacantist had to do with the question of lacking complete certainty about how this came about. He agrees with the MAJOR of our position, just wasn't convinced enough about the MINOR to follow through. And that's precisely my point, that none of you have addressed, that +Lefebvre agreed with US on this point.
-
You are not making a very good case using the one you label as preaching heresy, +ABL, in your attempts to justify sedeism.
There really are no words for this. My point has precisely been that +Lefebvre is not heretical, that he's correct ... and that YOU are wrong. +Lefebvre does not agree with your heresy.
-
There really are no words for this. My point has precisely been that +Lefebvre is not heretical, that he's correct ... and that YOU are wrong. +Lefebvre does not agree with your heresy.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/rr-explain-why-the-old-catholics-were-wrong/msg919936/#msg919936
I said:
It is not I who is my own magisterium, I do not teach, I go by what the Magisterium, i.e. the what Church has always taught. You do not understand it because you have a NO understanding of what the Church's Magisterium even is. The fact is, you have the identical understanding of what it is that pope Francis has.
The Old Catholics were wrong in their belief. You are wrong in your belief. How do you keep the faith without ever having had a pope?
+ABL declared:
then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the church.
You declare:
Stubborn, I will pray for your conversion, because, as it stands, you are a pertinacious manifest heretic. You've been corrected repeatedly that you promote heresy, but you obstinately refuse to retract it. Of course you're your own Magisterium. YOU decide what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition, just like the Old Catholics did. St. Thomas taught this clearly that when you reject the Magisterium as your proximate rule of faith, you effectively make your own private judgment your own Magisterium.
So Stubborn is right and the Old Catholics were wrong, because Stubborn says so ... not because Pius IX and the Vatican Council said so ... but because Stubborn said so. Got it. Can you even begin to grasp the absurdity of this?
If I am a pertinacious manifest heretic, then so is +ABL, whose words I essentially repeated. So again, you are not making a very good case using the one you label as preaching heresy, +ABL, in your attempts to justify sedeism.
-
In my defense, my thread "Answering Objections to Sedevacantism" was only a summary of the same from Bishop Pivarunas and accompanied by video. It was more of a library item not warranting any discussion since very little response could attempt to be given anyhow. It was less of a "thread on sedevacantism" than a reference.
-
Just because +ABL never declared to be SV doesn't mean that people today must not declare to be SV if it is obvious that there is no pontiff.
-
I am a pertinacious manifest heretic, then so is +ABL, whose words I essentially repeated.
False. I've pointed out why/how +Lefebvre does not hold your heresies. You falsely appropriate +Lefebvre and try to put your heresies in his mouth. I love it how everyone appropriates +Lefebvre and tries to use him as a sock-puppet mouthpiece for their own errors.
Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre (which is an indication that he does not hold your heresy, since he affirms the main point of contention):
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
This is precisely the point on which I hold you to be heretical, except that +Lefebvre (above) affirms the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.
Do you agree or disagree with +Lefebvre's statement above?
-
Just because +ABL never declared to be SV doesn't mean that people today must not declare to be SV if it is obvious that there is no pontiff.
Correct. +Lefebvre died over 30 years ago now. He did not rule out SVism in principle, felt that he might need to become SV after Assisi, and so we don't know what would have happened after he beheld the wonder that is Jorge Bergoglio. We have a number of Conciliar priests going straight from Conciliarism to SVism in reaction to Jorge.
-
Just because +ABL never declared to be SV doesn't mean that people today must not declare to be SV if it is obvious that there is no pontiff.
Is it possible to agree with the above declaration (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/msg920797/#msg920797) and be sede?
-
False. I've pointed out why/how +Lefebvre does not hold your heresies. You falsely appropriate +Lefebvre and try to put your heresies in his mouth. I love it how everyone appropriates +Lefebvre and tries to use him as a sock-puppet mouthpiece for their own errors.
Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre (which is an indication that he does not hold your heresy, since he affirms the main point of contention):
This is precisely the point on which I hold you to be heretical, except that +Lefebvre (above) affirms the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.
Do you agree or disagree with +Lefebvre's statement above?
Do you agree or disagree with +ABL's declaration? He went to his grave professing that declaration, will you strive to do the same?
Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject +ABL's declaration, which is an indication that he would never be a sede without first retracting it.
-
Is it possible to agree with the above declaration (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/msg920797/#msg920797) and be sede?
What do you mean? Of course it is. It's perfectly consistent with SVism. Question, rather, would be whether it's possible to agree with the above WITHOUT being a sedevacantist. Answer is actually yes, and Archbishop Lefebvre explained why, and I've explained why he did not ultimately come out publicly as a sedevacantist.
This statement above is the MAJOR of the sedevacantist position. +Lefebvre accepted this MAJOR but rejected the MINOR, that the only possible explanation is that these are not legitimate popes.
That is why I don't, as you wrongly alleged, hold that not being an SV is heretical. It's not. What's heretical is rejecting the MAJOR of the sedevacantist position, which +Lefebvre did not do. +Lefebvre instead wasn't sure about the MINOR.
-
Just to illustrate. This is a syllogism that shows the SV conclusion, which Avrille referred to as the a posteriori argument (which really means that it's a modus tollentis logical form). All the a priori ones are just possible explanations for the why.
What's at issue is this here (with Paul VI as a concrete example):
MAJOR: Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in such as way as to preclude what has happened since Vatican II.
MINOR: Paul VI perpetrated what happened since Vatican II.
CONCLUSION: Paul VI was not the Pope.
It's an oversimplification, but it's helpful to oversimplify a bit to get the point across.
+Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR above, and that is the key point that we cannot reject as Catholics. After accepting the MAJOR, +Lefebvre wondered about the various possible explanations for what happened. Was Paul VI drugged, controlled, replaced by a double? He didn't cite the possibility that he was being blackmailed (on account of sodomy), but that's not something that could be definitively ruled out. +Lefebvre dismissed these as "off the wall" theories and very unlikely, and then proceeded to say that it's quite possible that the See was vacant. But between the varying choices and some mystery factor about which we're unaware, as possible alternative explanations tot he SV one, he couldn't rule them out with a sufficient degree of certainty so as to definitively conclude that the See was vacant. And this is why dogmatic SVism is wrong, because we would have to the know the MINOR with the certainty of faith to have the SV conclusion follow with the certainty of faith. We don't have the certainty of faith regarding the explanation for Montini's actions. That is why +Vigano rightly characterizes his conclusion as only "morally certain" and why +Lefebvre hesitate to fully embrace sedevacantism. So I find nothing wrong with +Lefebvre's conclusions. I disagree and I do think there's enough evidence to be morally certain of the conclusion, but not dogmatically certain. But a disagreement on moral certainties is not a disagreement about the faith. Where the disagreement about the faith enters in is with the acceptance or rejection of the MAJOR of the conclusion. Sadly, many R&R have rejected the MAJOR in order to avoid the SV conclusion, but once you break down the argument, there's absolutely no need to do that in order to avoid the SV conclusion.
-
False. I've pointed out why/how +Lefebvre does not hold your heresies. You falsely appropriate +Lefebvre and try to put your heresies in his mouth. I love it how everyone appropriates +Lefebvre and tries to use him as a sock-puppet mouthpiece for their own errors.
Before posting again, why don't you refute or reject this statement from Archbishop Lefebvre (which is an indication that he does not hold your heresy, since he affirms the main point of contention):
Quote
ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
This is precisely the point on which I hold you to be heretical, except that +Lefebvre (above) affirms the Catholic teaching regarding the papacy.
Do you agree or disagree with +Lefebvre's statement above?
I've said before it's entirely possible that the chair is vacant, I've also said outside of praying for the pope, there's not one single, solitary thing anybody can do about it. I've said only a future pope can be the judge. I've said repeatedly, echoing +ABL that we should all go by what the Magisterium, i.e. the what Church has always taught.
I've also said the opinion has morphed into a de fide teaching of the Church to most sedes, I've said splitting from other trad groups and starting their own chapels, seminaries etc. and ordaining their own priests and consecrating their own bishops makes sedeism way, way more than an opinion. I've said sedeism is inherently divisive, Fr. Wathen rightly says it give sedes the mentality of total anarchism - and the Dimonds agreed.
We know that sedeism promotes division and will never promote unity in any way shape or form, that much has been proven - THAT'S only one of the things that's wrong with sedeism. There's a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair. It's this "whole lot more" that keeps non-sedes, non-sede. The very name "sedevacantist" is at least a misnomer.
At any rate, read the rest of what he said, he said enough times; "I don't know" and "don't put words in my mouth," which is what you are doing.
They ask me, what do you think of the Pope?
Not much, it's a mystery, an improbable mystery.
"...This reasoning is worth, this reasoning, I don't know, I don't say that's what's going on and there are several scenarios, maybe this one has some merit, we'll know the truth later maybe, I don't know, I don't know. The way I see it, it's not clear yet, you understand, but one day if it came to light that it was true, and this is something that is far from impossible, here also, there are apparitions that say the same thing and these apparitions have been recognized by the See of Peter, Fatima, La Salette, that say that the devil will climb to the highest places in the Church, I don't know if by the "highest place in the Church" that means Secretary of State, and then stops there, or if it goes even farther, if it goes all the way to the Pope. I don't know maybe even to someone who says he's the Pope, I don't know, but you know this is something that isn't impossible and theologians have studied this problem, the theologians have studied this problem to see if it's something that can happen, if a Pope can perhaps be a heretic and as a result excommunicated from the Church and therefore all his acts become illegitimate and invalid. And if, just as a hypothesis, once again I just don't know, don't put words in my mouth, I don't know, but if at last it comes out that quietly that there are certain connections to Masonry, imagine that the Pope was registered in a Masonic lodge before his election, he would be excommunicated. Excommunicated... His election is invalid, he can't be Pope and we would have had for all this time... A Pope who wasn't Pope. This is possible. Once again I don't say this is what is really happening but what do you want in a situation like this, we're looking for a solution. We find ourselves with a problem that has almost no theological solution, theologically, I say theologically almost impossible to solve, so we search for a solution, fine! A solution that he is a prisoner, drugged, this is possible..."
-
I've said before it's entirely possible that the chair is vacant, I've also said outside of praying for the pope, there's not one single, solitary thing anybody can do about it.
OK, but that's not really the core/central issue. To me, even if someone said they didn't think it possible that the chair was vacant, I wouldn't consider that heresy by any means ... not unless it violates the core principles regarding the nature of the Church and the papacy. At that point, they might be wrong, but their reasoning wouldn't be heretical. It's not so much about WHAT one believes regarding the V2 papal claimants but rather WHY one believes it, the principles behind it. That's what I'm focused on, the principles of Ecclesiology, not so much the particular conclusions.
-
OK, but that's not really the core/central issue. To me, even if someone said they didn't think it possible that the chair was vacant, I wouldn't consider that heresy by any means ... not unless it violates the core principles regarding the nature of the Church and the papacy. At that point, they might be wrong, but their reasoning wouldn't be heretical. It's not so much about WHAT one believes regarding the V2 papal claimants but rather WHY one believes it, the principles behind it. That's what I'm focused on, the principles of Ecclesiology, not so much the particular conclusions.
Well, +ABL said and everyone here knows this is true:
"After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church..."
How and why did liberal ideas get infiltrated into all the manifestations of the Church?
I contend, and it seems obvious imo, that among "these liberal ideas" that were infiltrated into all aspects of the Church, is the idea that the pope cannot teach error, or at least not to the extent of the conciliar popes'. Liberal ideas such as the idea that popes are divinely protected from enacting bad laws, giving bad or even sinful commands. I believe that Fr. Fenton's teaching is one of those liberal ideas +ABL is talking about - because - and this is the core principle - what Fr. Fenton teaches about the infallibility of the pope does not agree with the defined definition at V1. It is Fr. Fenton's as well other theologians' idea of infallibility which is among those liberal ideas +ABL spoke of. The only ways to get around this you've already tried, by quoting everything at V1 you insist agrees with Fr. Fenton (and other theologians) - except the definition itself, because it does not agree with Fr. Fenton.
Nearly all Catholics that I knew when the changes first hit, INITIALLY did not want to go along with the changes. But when the priests are telling everyone that you have to go along because the pope said so - nearly all of those who finally went NO did so for that reason. Because the pope cannot harm the Church, because no one will be spiritually harmed by doing whatever the pope says, because the pope is infallible, because good Catholics do whatever the pope says - *that's* what the people understood about following the pope, *that's* what Fr. Fenton (and other theologians) teaches.....which is contrary to the defined dogma.
-
MAJOR: Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in such as way as to preclude what has happened since Vatican II.
MINOR: Paul VI perpetrated what happened since Vatican II.
CONCLUSION: Paul VI was not the Pope.
We don't have the certainty of faith regarding the explanation for Montini's actions. That is why +Vigano rightly characterizes his conclusion as only "morally certain" and why +Lefebvre hesitate to fully embrace sedevacantism. So I find nothing wrong with +Lefebvre's conclusions. I disagree and I do think there's enough evidence to be morally certain of the conclusion, but not dogmatically certain.
https://www.chiesaviva.com/441%20mensile.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/YRKZZb7.png)
1943
"Mons. Giambattista Montini knew the secret of the MASONIC TRIPLE TRINITY.He made a representation of this and had it engraved on the tombstone of his mother.
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SECRET HAD JUST ONE MEANING:
MONS. MONTINI HAD BEEN PREDESTINED TO REALIZE THE DREAM OF THE ILLUMINATI OF BAVARIA:TO HAVE THEIR OWN POPE TO DESTROY THE SPIRITUAL POWER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Paul VI... almost succeeded in realizing the supreme aim of the Order of the Illuminati of Bavaria:
TO ELIMINATE THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS FROM THE CATHOLIC MASS
On his chest, there is a square jewel representing the Ephod of Caiaphas with which Paul VI was presented to the Jєωιѕн-Masonic world as the Jєωιѕн PONTIFF"
(https://i.imgur.com/F2ltouN.png)
-
https://www.chiesaviva.com/441%20mensile.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/YRKZZb7.png)
1943
"Mons. Giambattista Montini knew the secret of the MASONIC TRIPLE TRINITY.He made a representation of this and had it engraved on the tombstone of his mother.
Don't get me wrong. I'm convinced that Montini was an infiltrator, a conscious destroyer ... I just don't hold that it's a matter of doctrine or faith.
-
Well, firstly, in the practical order, I don't think anyone, when asked, labels himself "I'm a sedevacantist Traditional Catholic", but simply "Traditional Catholic". I've never known an SV who used a more extended label.
Here's the thing, Matthew, and I've addressed it already when you've brought this "pragmatic" view up before ... the disagreement is in fact about "the Holy Catholic Faith". Ideas matter. Doctrine matters. You can go to the Tridentine Mass all you want, and use Catholic prayer books, and smell some good incense and listen to melodious bells. This Crisis isn't just about the Mass or spirituality or practical considerations, but it's about the Holy Catholic Faith.
There are many Traditional Catholics of the R&R variety who are slouching inexorably toward Old Catholicism and are therefore NOT keeping the "Holy Catholic Faith". That's what this fight is about. It's not about the "5 Opinions" or even about the precise limits of infallibility "in the strict sense" as defined at Vatican I.
Since when is it OK for Catholics to just start up chapels, seminaries, monasteries, convents without the approval of and subjection to the Catholic hierarchy? Since never. This is ALIEN to Catholicism to think this is OK or acceptable. Subjection and submission to the Papacy is what has always set Catholicism apart from the Old Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox. When doing Catholic Apologetics vs. Eastern Orthodoxy or Old Catholicism, the core of the argument has to do with the requirement to remain subject to and in communion with the Pope, the Papacy, the Vicar of Christ, and the successors of St. Peter. There's never been a Pope, a Doctors, a saint, or an actual Catholic theologian who ever taught or believed that the Catholic Magisterium and the Catholic Mass can become corrupt. There is absolutely nothing Traditional about that belief. It's only the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Old Catholics who have claimed that the Papacy has gone corrupt, strayed from the true path of Christianity, and strayed from Tradition.
If you impute this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of a legitimate Vicar of Christ, you're gutting the very foundations of the Catholic Church, the very "rock" upon which the Church has always stood. You're essentially claiming that Our Lord built his Church on sand or mud, and not on a rock. What kind of "rock" did Our Lord build His Church on if this foundation can shift, can crumble, in short, if the Papacy can lead souls to hell, corrupt Catholic doctrine, corrupt Tradition and Revelation, and where the Public Worship of the Church can become corrupt, a Protestantized bastard Rite of Mass that displeases God and causes harm to souls?
If you toss this out, as many R&R do, what's left of the Catholic Church and the papacy ... some clown walking around Rome in a white cassock? How do you do apologetics now to Protestants? "Yes, you must be in union with the Church and subject to the Papacy, since the Papacy is the rock upon which Christ founded and the sure source of unity in faith ... well, except that it's turned to shit and you really should be separated from the Papacy to be united to it." At that point, the Prot could simply respond, "See, we told you 500 years ago that the Papacy had gone corrupt and had corrupted Divine Revelation, and we separated from the Papacy just as you have."
Don't you see how many R&R are undermining and destroying the very faith the claim to be upholding by attending a Tridentine Mass and using much incense? Many / most Old Catholics do the same, as a large number of them have retained the Tridentine Mass. What do you say to them with regard to apologetics? "Yeah, you have to be subject to the Papacy, but the Papacy has become corrupt, so you should be a Traditional Catholic." And their response would rightly and logically be, "Welcome to the club. Better late than never. We realized that the Papacy had strayed from Tradition and gone corrupt 100 years before you guys did."
THIS IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT MATTHEW. I have no comprehension why some Traditional Catholics don't get this. People can hold their Tridentine Missals all they like, listen to Gregorian chant, pray the Rosary, be devoted to the saints, etc. ... but then you can find Old Catholic groups that do all these things. That by itself doesn't qualify as Catholicism, and you can't reduce Catholicism to these practices.
So this battle is PRECISELY about the "Holy Catholic Faith" that you say Traditional Catholics are supposed to be preserving and keeping.
Possibly your best post ever, aside from the fact that you used a crude word. This is pretty much it in a nutshell. Two words: cognitive dissonance. The SSPX and SSPX affiliated publications via their writings and dissemination of false ideas and information, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, did a “number” on traditional minded Catholics. Stubborn and Meg are prime examples of the fallout from these highly unorthodox ideas.
Without question I lay very little, if any, blame on good Archbishop Lefebvre for this unfortunate situation and the enormous good he did do, greatly outweighs any fault on his part. No, the blame lies with others and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who some of them are.
-
Possibly your best post ever, aside from the fact that you used a crude word.
I debated whether to use the scatalogical term, but I wanted to use it for emphasis, because that's basically what the "Magisterium" has become under Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio. It's not that it was defective, weak, lacking ... but complete non- and even anti-Catholic garbage, so I opted for the stronger term to get that point across.
-
Possibly your best post ever
It's full of generalities and assumptions. I know what Ladislaus is saying, and the dangers, but much is unprovable, because many of the terms in question have not been adequately defined/explained by the Church. Hardly any of us can point to the "source of truth" and agree on what is/isn't the magisterium. Without this, it's all an opinion. And I'm tired of people ramming their opinions down other's throats.
-
It's full of generalities and assumptions.
Yes, the generalities and assumptions of Catholicism 101. You reduce the Catholic Church to utter meaninglessness, to a clown who walks around Rome in a white cassock protected by the Holy Spirit only once or twice per century, but otherwise capable of issuing an endless stream of utter garbage from the See of Peter and of promulgating a "Mass" that is offensive to God and harmful to souls. While there's walls of papal teaching, including the teaching of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of Holy See cannot ever be blemished by error, you claim that the Magisterium has become a veritable open sewer gushing Modernism, heresy, religious indifferentism, and moral corruption into the Church and into the world.
Your minds are so corrupted by a non-Catholic view and sensus of the Church that probably the first thing that a new Holy Pope would have to condemn, even before Modernism, would be the heresies held by many of the R&R type Traditional Catholics, reaffirming and reasserting the authority and the prerogatives of the Holy See.
-
Yes, the generalities and assumptions of Catholicism 101. You reduce the Catholic Church to utter meaninglessness, to a clown who walks around Rome in a white cassock protected by the Holy Spirit only once or twice per century, but otherwise capable of issuing an endless stream of utter garbage from the See of Peter and of promulgating a "Mass" that is offensive to God and harmful to souls. While there's walls of papal teaching, including the teaching of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of Holy See cannot ever be blemished by error, you claim that the Magisterium has become a veritable open sewer gushing Modernism, heresy, religious indifferentism, and moral corruption into the Church and into the world.
Your minds are so corrupted by a non-Catholic view and sensus of the Church that probably the first thing that a new Holy Pope would have to condemn, even before Modernism, would be the heresies held by many of the R&R type Traditional Catholics, reaffirming and reasserting the authority and the prerogatives of the Holy See.
This ☝️☝️☝️
I’ve been saying this for years, when God sees fit to give us a true pope, the R&R position will be condemned by him into oblivion!
-
It's full of generalities and assumptions. I know what Ladislaus is saying, and the dangers, but much is unprovable, because many of the terms in question have not been adequately defined/explained by the Church. Hardly any of us can point to the "source of truth" and agree on what is/isn't the magisterium. Without this, it's all an opinion. And I'm tired of people ramming their opinions down other's throats.
The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion. If not dogmatic (which I tend to believe) it is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. People with the same mind set as Stubborn have called into doubt this doctrine.
-
The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion. If not dogmatic (which I tend to believe) it is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. People with the same mind set as Stubborn have called into doubt this doctrine.
I should have said: *to deny or doubt it* is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith.
Whether or not it is a dogma, you still unfortunately end up in Hell if you deny it. Think about that!
-
While there's walls of papal teaching, including the teaching of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of Holy See cannot ever be blemished by error
Blah, blah, blah...the word 'Magisterium' has about 50 different definitions, depending on which theologian you read. The Magisterium (proper) can never err. The fallible magisterium can. What's the difference? We don't know exactly, that's why this debate is never-ending.
-
The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion.
What are the limits of this indefectibility? Can anyone point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed? No. So we're left to endlessly debate it, as God allows the Church to go through this crisis, until the future Church explains it all. That's why this debate is never-ending.
-
What are the limits of this indefectibility?
Clearly when the "Magisterium" has become a sewer pipe flushing souls into hell, with corrupt doctrine, religious indifferentism, and corrupt moral standards, the line has been crossed and the Church would have failed in her mission. If that isn't failure, there's no such thing, and so long as the one or two dogmas promulgated are correct and there's a guy walking around in Rome with a white cassock, we're all good, right?
-
Clearly when the "Magisterium" has become a sewer pipe flushing souls into hell, with corrupt doctrine, religious indifferentism, and corrupt moral standards, the line has been crossed and the Church would have failed in her mission. If that isn't failure, there's no such thing, and so long as the one or two dogmas promulgated are correct and there's a guy walking around in Rome with a white cassock, we're all good, right?
It’s impossible for me to understand what goes through their minds. They may as well believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman! :facepalm:
-
What are the limits of this indefectibility? Can anyone point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed? No. So we're left to endlessly debate it, as God allows the Church to go through this crisis, until the future Church explains it all. That's why this debate is never-ending.
Can you point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed regarding the existence of Guardian Angels?
No, but I’m assuming you believe every man has one given that the Church has taught this throughout the centuries even without an “ex cathedra” solemn pronouncement. To deny or doubt this Catholic doctrine would warrant some degree of censure. And if you do believe this, you are admitting that not everything a Catholic must believe is expounded in a dogmatic formula.
-
Can you point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed regarding the existence of Guardian Angels?
Matt 18:10
See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.
-
The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion. If not dogmatic (which I tend to believe) it is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. People with the same mind set as Stubborn have called into doubt this doctrine.
I will be bold here and tell you that although we play an absolutely essential part, you have zero clue, no idea whatsoever and absolutely do not know what our part is, what part we play as regards the Church's indefectibility.
Hint, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the pope.
-
I should have said: *to deny or doubt it* is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith.
Whether or not it is a dogma, you still unfortunately end up in Hell if you deny it. Think about that!
Snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen, please point out what you believe is heretical, or wrong. Or if you are in complete agreement. Note: there is no mention of the pope.
"...Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have his victory, when he emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church.
It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it’s terrible embarrassments, it’s setbacks.
Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.
If it were not so He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place..."
-
Clearly when the "Magisterium" has become a sewer pipe flushing souls into hell, with corrupt doctrine, religious indifferentism, and corrupt moral standards, the line has been crossed and the Church would have failed in her mission. If that isn't failure, there's no such thing, and so long as the one or two dogmas promulgated are correct and there's a guy walking around in Rome with a white cassock, we're all good, right?
How is it that you are able to post this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612), and say ^^ this? I believe there are 2 reasons:
1) You do not believe what you posted before, which begs the question, why did you post it if not to prove the popes you quoted are wrong?
2) Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.
-
How is it that you are able to post this (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/miles-christi-volume-24-discussion-fr-chazal's-newsletter/msg867612/#msg867612), and say ^^ this? I believe there are 2 reasons:
1) You do not believe what you posted before, which begs the question, why did you post it if not to prove the popes you quoted are wrong?
2) Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.
You're back to the old insanity (it's really a mental disorder) where you can't understand that we do not hold the V2 papal claimants to be popes nor their "teachings" to be Magisterium. What part of this do you not understand?
-
You're back to the old insanity (it's really a mental disorder) where you can't understand that we do not hold the V2 papal claimants to be popes nor their "teachings" to be Magisterium. What part of this do you not understand?
You contradict your own papal quotes by saying the Magisterium is corrupt, basing this on your erroneous opinion that the V2 papal claimants are not popes does not change this fact - it is as if your erroneous opinion justifies contradicting the Church teaching that the Magisterium is always immune from error.
FYI, to constantly repeat over and over as you do that the Magisterium is corrupt, is contradicting the Church's clear teaching which you yourself posted. To go essentially word for word contrary to what the Church teaches is heresy regardless of your erroneous opinion on the popes' invalidity.
Which is why I said I believe there are two reasons for this....
1) You do not believe what you posted before, which begs the question, why did you post it if not to prove the popes you quoted are wrong?
2) Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.
Always remember, there's a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair.
-
You contradict your own papal quotes by saying the Magisterium is corrupt, basing this on your erroneous opinion that the V2 papal claimants are not popes does not change this fact - it is as if your erroneous opinion justifies contradicting the Church teaching that the Magisterium is always immune from error.
:facepalm: It just doesn't stop. Sedevacantists hold that the teachings of the V2 Papal claimants are NOT Magisterium, and it is precisely due to the recognition that the Papal Magisterium cannot become corrupt, and that many R&R (including yourself) are the ones who claim that the Magisterium can become corrupt. Of course, you have a bizarre definition of Magisterium where you exclude "false teaching" from being "Magisterium" and therefore the incorruption of the Magisterium becomes reduced to a tautology. But no Catholic theologian has ever defined "Magisterium" as dependent upon subsequent examination by Stubborn et al.
-
:facepalm: It just doesn't stop. Sedevacantists hold that the teachings of the V2 Papal claimants are NOT Magisterium, and it is precisely due to the recognition that the Papal Magisterium cannot become corrupt, and that many R&R (including yourself) are the ones who claim that the Magisterium can become corrupt. Of course, you have a bizarre definition of Magisterium where you exclude "false teaching" from being "Magisterium" and therefore the incorruption of the Magisterium becomes reduced to a tautology. But no Catholic theologian has ever defined "Magisterium" as dependent upon subsequent examination by Stubborn et al.
You place way too high a value on your erroneous opinion.
You can "hold" the V2 papal claimants are NOT magisterium all you want, since popes never were Magisterium you're just proving #2 - but I'm the one with a bizarre definition. :facepalm:
Do whatever ya gotta do for sedeism I guess. But you really should stop saying the Magisterium is corrupt. Once you know what you're talking about, you'll see the absurdity, if not the heresy in constantly saying that.
Repeat until you understand what you quoted: Pope Pius XI Divini Illius Magistri (#18) Dec. 31, 1929: "...God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error..."
-
Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.
A Filial Correction: "Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, is altogether wrong, if not heretical." Please accept this filial correction as a token of my appreciation for your frequent and most entertaining banter. :-)
-
A Filial Correction: "Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, is altogether wrong, if not heretical." Please accept this filial correction as a token of my appreciation for your frequent and most entertaining banter. :-)
Already used one "is", why add another?
-
Filial Correction #2: If you only want to use one "is" then your sentence should read "Your understanding of the Church's Magisterium is altogether wrong, if not heretical." If you wish to keep the sentence the exact same way you initially wrote it, then two "is" words are required (as demonstrated in the first Filial Correction):-)
Thank you for helping to make this forum an enjoyable place.
-
Already used one "is", why add another?
Because the first is operates within the subordinate clause.
Perhaps try diagramming the sentence.
Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.
Replace the phrase "what the Church's Magisterium is" with just "the Church's Magisterium", and what do you have left?
Your understanding of the Church's Magisterium, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.
There's no verb in the main sentence. "what the Church's Magisterium is" as a whole servers as the object of the preposition "of".
-
And so "is" is what it is...
-
And so "is" is what it is...
It depends on what the meaning of is, is. 😜
-
It depends on what the meaning of is, is. 😜
What I meant was, I didn't inhale. lol
(https://i.imgur.com/6rliejy.jpg)
-
What I meant was, I didn't inhale. lol
(https://i.imgur.com/6rliejy.jpg)
Ah, those were the days. :laugh1: