Catholics in this country are dreading this nation's further race to Hell, while sedevacantists are probably glad about it because they hate the capital of Christianity anyway.
I don't agree with sedevacantism but I don't call them bad names.
Quote from: LaramieHirschCatholics in this country are dreading this nation's further race to Hell, while sedevacantists are probably glad about it because they hate the capital of Christianity anyway.
Matthew, I've done in the past what you've asked all of us to do when garbage like the above is posted
"You need not agree with everyone (or even most people) here, and you are free to disagree with the moderator. However, you have to consider CathInfo members your 'fellow Catholics' -- you may strongly disagree with some of them, but you have to have enough humility to 'live and let live' and 'agree to disagree.'
I don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.
Quote from: pocheI don't agree with sedevacantism but I don't call them bad names.
I haven't called any sedevacantists names. I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic. Over and over. I have not--to my immediate knowledge--pointed anyone out in particular. Or, at least, I have not focused on a single person from one thread to another.
LH, a much stronger case can be made that you yourself are a schismatic.
I don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.
Quote from: LadislausLH, a much stronger case can be made that you yourself are a schismatic.
Why? For belonging to a Mystical Body that claims primacy above all cults of the people of Earth? A Mystical Body that possesses the authority to drive demons out of possessed people?
- - - -
Anyway, I smell a pile-on coming. :rolleyes:
LH, a much stronger case can be made that you yourself are a schismatic.
Because you're in chronic disobedience to the man you believe without question to be the Pope. That's the very definition of schism. Paying lip service and putting up a picture of the pope doesn't put you in submission to him.
A Mystical Body [conciliar church] that possesses the authority to drive demons out of possessed people?
Their head exorcist (Father Amorth - 86 years old) said their new Rite of Exorcism in ineffective.
Quote from: Lover of TruthTheir head exorcist (Father Amorth - 86 years old) said their new Rite of Exorcism in ineffective.
They changed that rite too? Did they leave anything alone?
There does appear to be a double standard here in banning "dogmatic" SVs and not banning dogmatic sedeplenists, but Matthew makes no pretension on where he stands and he is the moderator. That ought count for something. I for one am glad he allows us here, while at the same time not liking the double standard.
Quote from: Lover of TruthTheir head exorcist (Father Amorth - 86 years old) said their new Rite of Exorcism in ineffective.
They changed that rite too? Did they leave anything alone?
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: Lover of TruthTheir head exorcist (Father Amorth - 86 years old) said their new Rite of Exorcism in ineffective.
They changed that rite too? Did they leave anything alone?
No. Even the Book of Blessings was greatly changed. The blessing of water for the holy water founts in the churches was changed to remove the exorcism.
Off hand, I can't think of anything the Conciliarists haven't changed in some way.
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: Lover of TruthTheir head exorcist (Father Amorth - 86 years old) said their new Rite of Exorcism in ineffective.
They changed that rite too? Did they leave anything alone?
The only things "left alone" were the most obvious truths of the Faith that even the simplest people know of and grasp such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Assumption and the other Marian dogmas; the number of the Sacraments etc.
Had they changed these most obvious of things, i believe the whole world would have seen the jig from the start and we probably wouldn't be were we are.
Quote from: LadislausBecause you're in chronic disobedience to the man you believe without question to be the Pope. That's the very definition of schism. Paying lip service and putting up a picture of the pope doesn't put you in submission to him.
Hmm...isn't that the precise position of the SSPX, of all non-sedevacantist "traditionalists", of the moderator here himself, and yours?
Quote from: pocheI don't agree with sedevacantism but I don't call them bad names.
I haven't called any sedevacantists names. I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic. Over and over. I have not--to my immediate knowledge--pointed anyone out in particular. Or, at least, I have not focused on a single person from one thread to another.
I am actually not out to make enemies. But I will voice my opinion. Because this is a forum, consisting of voices. Besides, I don't post as often as I used to on here. It's not like I have over 11,000 posts of this same stuff.
Furthermore, when discussing the nature of sedevacantism, I've used the Crisis subforum. This is per the rules. I don't post as much about my opinion on sedevacantism because I don't have the time, and I've said about as much as I'm going to say on it for the time being.Quote from: CharlemagneQuote from: LaramieHirschCatholics in this country are dreading this nation's further race to Hell, while sedevacantists are probably glad about it because they hate the capital of Christianity anyway.
Matthew, I've done in the past what you've asked all of us to do when garbage like the above is posted
I did not post about sedevacantism here. We were all asked what we think about how the Obama administration is closing the Vatican embassy. I've stated what I think the reaction of Catholics and sedevacantists will be. I stated this because people on Cathinfo are either Catholics in full communion with the Church, or they are sedevacantists.Quote from: Charlemagne"You need not agree with everyone (or even most people) here, and you are free to disagree with the moderator. However, you have to consider CathInfo members your 'fellow Catholics' -- you may strongly disagree with some of them, but you have to have enough humility to 'live and let live' and 'agree to disagree.'
I am able to live and let live. But are sedevacantists here able to live and let me live?
Nope. They do not wish to tolerate me. They do not wish to tolerate my conclusion that sedevacantism is schismatic. Instead, they wish to eradicate me from the forum.
I naievely thought that I could come to this recent conclusion about sedevacantists, state it, then people would know where I stood and my participation on this forum would be as usual.
Before now, my likers were actually double my haters. Now, it's quite the reverse.
But oh well. This is my opinion for now. And the reactions to it are very demonstrative of people's character. I think that it is these reactions that are the biggest lesson I've taken away from all of this.
I can accept participating on a forum full of sedevacantists. But the forum full of sedevacantists cannot accept my participation.Quote from: MatthewI don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.
All sedevacantists being non-Catholic? You're right, I'm not sure I consider all of them as such.
But most often, if I am talking about sedevacantism, I'm talking about sedevacantism--the idea. The movement. The concept. I am not out to get anybody on this.
Occassionally, I try to be friendly again. But then I'm met with some pretty nasty language anyway. Why reach out a hand when you'll just cut it off?
And yes, I get frustrated with sedevacantists. Mith, for example. When fellows like him call the Church a whore, I take great offense. Any Catholic should, because the Church is the Bride of Christ, and it was started by Jesus Christ. To hate the Church is to hate Jesus. To be an enemy of the Church is to be an enemy of Jesus.
- - - - -
What do I hope to gain from telling people here my opinion on sedevacantism?
I hope that it will spur/facilitate strong and technical dialogue between sedevacantists and those opposed to it. Because whichever side is the strongest ought to win. I want to see these conversations take place. Sedevacantism is a strong temptation to many of us Traditional Catholics. But if it is right, let it prove itself right.
The big rush to push critics away demonstrates an unwillingness towards confrontation.
For years, I've enjoyed reading people's thoughts on Catholic matters here. But lately it's "I hate the pope because of this" or "I hate the pope because of that." This place is distilling itself into a complete sedevacantist clubhouse.
I'm sorry that some of us cannot agree to disagree. It actually pains me that Mith is so nasty towards me, because we were actually posting on Fisheaters at the same time four years ago.
I think that sedevacantism being confronted can spur interesting conversation. Is that not what an internet forum is for? Is that not why we all share this hobby...of logging onto the internet and speaking to one another?
Laramie, instead of constantly spouting slogans, why not tell us how sedevacantists are schismatics when it's the post-Vatican II popes who made the changes to the church - some are big changes.
Quote from: Capt McQuiggLaramie, instead of constantly spouting slogans, why not tell us how sedevacantists are schismatics when it's the post-Vatican II popes who made the changes to the church - some are big changes.
With all due respect Captain? I'd rather he did not.
Almost all of the theological inquiry on this forum is done by SV's.
Does LH think that sedevacantists should be denied communion or absolution?
I think that is a very telling question from either side but I don't know his views on it. Maybe he said it, but I've largely stopped reading his posts because I find him difficult to converse with. His inflated self image keeps me from taking him seriously.
Quote from: soulguard
Almost all of the theological inquiry on this forum is done by SV's.
Really? So, is that the reason you have not answered any of the theological inquiries posted to you on this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28590&min=5#p0) page?
Maybe what you mean to say is that sedevacantists will only respond to theological inquiry posted by other sedevacantists, and that if they expand their horizons a little beyond that, it comes with a tone of ___ fill in the blank ___.
In my continuing experience, sedes are wont to exile themselves into a dark corner where they will only associate with others who share their opinion, and it's not limited to their opinion as to the validity of the pope.
.
I'm not a sedevacantist but how any orthodox Catholic can't understand why a sedevacantist comes to the conclusion the seat is empty is beyond my understanding.
The conciliar hierarchy for the most part is an absolute joke.
Quote from: soulguard
Almost all of the theological inquiry on this forum is done by SV's.
Really? So, is that the reason you have not answered any of the theological inquiries posted to you on this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28590&min=5#p0) page?
Maybe what you mean to say is that sedevacantists will only respond to theological inquiry posted by other sedevacantists, and that if they expand their horizons a little beyond that, it comes with a tone of ___ fill in the blank ___.
In my continuing experience, sedes are wont to exile themselves into a dark corner where they will only associate with others who share their opinion, and it's not limited to their opinion as to the validity of the pope.
.
Does LH think that sedevacantists should be denied communion or absolution?
Quote from: MabelDoes LH think that sedevacantists should be denied communion or absolution?
I think that is a very telling question from either side but I don't know his views on it. Maybe he said it, but I've largely stopped reading his posts because I find him difficult to converse with. His inflated self image keeps me from taking him seriously.
There seems to be a growing incidence of sedes being refused the sacraments.
And likewise, there seems to be a growing incidence of sede priests refusing the sacraments to those who are not also sedevacantist, like they are.
.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: soulguard
Almost all of the theological inquiry on this forum is done by SV's.
Really? So, is that the reason you have not answered any of the theological inquiries posted to you on this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28590&min=5#p0) page?
Maybe what you mean to say is that sedevacantists will only respond to theological inquiry posted by other sedevacantists, and that if they expand their horizons a little beyond that, it comes with a tone of ___ fill in the blank ___.
In my continuing experience, sedes are wont to exile themselves into a dark corner where they will only associate with others who share their opinion, and it's not limited to their opinion as to the validity of the pope.
.
You are an indomitable fool neil obstat. I told you a while ago that you were now on ignore so I would not be able to see your posts...
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: MabelDoes LH think that sedevacantists should be denied communion or absolution?
I think that is a very telling question from either side but I don't know his views on it. Maybe he said it, but I've largely stopped reading his posts because I find him difficult to converse with. His inflated self image keeps me from taking him seriously.
There seems to be a growing incidence of sedes being refused the sacraments.
And likewise, there seems to be a growing incidence of sede priests refusing the sacraments to those who are not also sedevacantist, like they are.
.
I know who they are and avoid them and any encouragement to attend or support them.
Quote from: MabelQuote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: MabelDoes LH think that sedevacantists should be denied communion or absolution?
I think that is a very telling question from either side but I don't know his views on it. Maybe he said it, but I've largely stopped reading his posts because I find him difficult to converse with. His inflated self image keeps me from taking him seriously.
There seems to be a growing incidence of sedes being refused the sacraments.
And likewise, there seems to be a growing incidence of sede priests refusing the sacraments to those who are not also sedevacantist, like they are.
.
I know who they are and avoid them and any encouragement to attend or support them.
It's too bad we have to seek them out. If they could only be a little more up-front with their attitude it wouldn't be so challenging to see who's who, but I suppose we should be thankful for the opportunity to suffer for the truth (cf. Matt. v. 11-12).
.
In light of Francis's recent statements, it is amazing to me that anyone could accuse those who reject his claim to the Papacy of schism.
For all of you that say that we can't judge prior to the Church, let me ask you something: do you hold this as a matter of principle that you can never judge, or do you just think there is not yet enough evidence to make that judgment?
If you hold to the former, then no matter what comes, women cardinals, women deacons, all sorts of new heresies, canonizations of public heretics, etc., are all not proofs of anything. No matter what happens, by matter of principle, you are staying with the Conciliar church and its leadership.
Meanwhile, many of you will keep judging acts of the "Pope" on a regular basis, including his universal teachings on Faith and morals, the universal catechism of the "Catholic Church," the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the liturgy, sacramental rites, official prayers of the conciliar church, the validity of annulments, etc.
These judgments are all judgments that Catholics would never be able to lawfully make against a true Pope's magisterium and laws.
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: Lover of TruthTheir head exorcist (Father Amorth - 86 years old) said their new Rite of Exorcism in ineffective.
They changed that rite too? Did they leave anything alone?
The only things "left alone" were the most obvious truths of the Faith that even the simplest people know of and grasp such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Assumption and the other Marian dogmas; the number of the Sacraments etc.
Had they changed these most obvious of things, i believe the whole world would have seen the jig from the start and we probably wouldn't be were we are.
The whole thing happened because of ignorance.
Aside from the most basic things everything else has been either changed, "modified", tampered with, watered-down, "more fully explained"=denied, corrupted and ad
ulterated.
Even the advent wreath and the advent colors were tampered with.
You can judge all you want, Ambrose, but you make it hard on yourself, because when you judge the Pope you have to keep it to yourself, lest you sin by detraction. There is no human authority on earth higher than the pope. That's why the office is such a dangerous one. Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto didn't want to be elected. He was not campaigning for it. That's a pretty good sign that a new pope is going to be a good one.
60 years ago, nobody would have dreamed of becoming sedevacantist. Nor would you have found many Catholics willing to think about what they would do when the Pope says or does any one of the many 'things' they have recently. How can we anticipate the future or what we'll be facing? What we do have is the martyrs who gave their life gladly for the Faith, like St. Andrew, who ran up to his 'X' cross and hugged it. They had a hard time prying him loose to attach him 'properly'.
So today, we are called to a higher level of discernment. Do we know our cross when it arrives, or do we fight against it, as if we think we know better than God?
Not too long ago, there were RIOTS in Rome when the Faithful saw and heard the Pope or other officials saying or doing things the Faithful didn't think were Catholic.
The Arian heresy was first openly opposed by a layman who stood up during a sermon and accused the priest, saying: That is heresy!
If Laramie actually developed his argument instead of relying on mockery, then I would see a reason for him to remain here. However, most of the time he's engaging in mockery but then linking posts to his own blog.
Have you admitted that the only reason to stick with the Vatican 2 church, or by extension the SSPX who tolerate the "pope" ... is because they got all the churches and schools and the Vatican and the relics?
So what I have to say along with the others is that you should not come on here presuming you have a right to insult my faith.
You have no clue what I suffered for the faith. I am SV and proud of it. I would give my life for this faith. The true faith, not your Vatican 2 apostate REPLACEMENT.
Maybe you should stop what you do, and if you have so little time on your hands, maybe go elsewhere to catholic answers or something.
Quote from: Capt McQuiggLaramie, instead of constantly spouting slogans, why not tell us how sedevacantists are schismatics when it's the post-Vatican II popes who made the changes to the church - some are big changes.
With all due respect Captain? I'd rather he did not.
Neil Obstat wrote:QuoteYou can judge all you want, Ambrose, but you make it hard on yourself, because when you judge the Pope you have to keep it to yourself, lest you sin by detraction. There is no human authority on earth higher than the pope. That's why the office is such a dangerous one. Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto didn't want to be elected. He was not campaigning for it. That's a pretty good sign that a new pope is going to be a good one.
Neil,
To detract is to reveal a secret sin of another. These men are public criminals, there is nothing secret here.
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.
An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently [sic] happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.
The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circuмstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.
I reject their claim to the Papacy, so I am not rejecting a pope.
If you believe in their claim, that is your choice, but I reject their claims, so I am not judging a pope, rather a man who puts a claim on the office.
Quote60 years ago, nobody would have dreamed of becoming sedevacantist. Nor would you have found many Catholics willing to think about what they would do when the Pope says or does any one of the many 'things' they have recently. How can we anticipate the future or what we'll be facing? What we do have is the martyrs who gave their life gladly for the Faith, like St. Andrew, who ran up to his 'X' cross and hugged it. They had a hard time prying him loose to attach him 'properly'.
So today, we are called to a higher level of discernment. Do we know our cross when it arrives, or do we fight against it, as if we think we know better than God?
There is a reason for this: 60 years ago, we had a Pope who publicly professed the Catholic Faith. We are not talking about a bad pope verse a good pope, or a weak pope against a strong pope, rather we are talking about men who have publicly defected from the Catholic Faith.
If the Vatican II Popes were actually popes, then the only logical end is either to redefine the Papacy to make it meaningless, or to believe that the Papacy is the same as it was since St. Peter to Pius XII, but that the Church has changed, and is no longer holy or indefectible.
QuoteNot too long ago, there were RIOTS in Rome when the Faithful saw and heard the Pope or other officials saying or doing things the Faithful didn't think were Catholic.
There has never been a Pope in the entire history of the Church that has ever taught heresy to the universal Church or bound the Church to evil universal laws. The reason for this is because it is impossible. The Pope cannot bind the universal Church into heresy, grave errors, or evil laws.
QuoteThe Arian heresy was first openly opposed by a layman who stood up during a sermon and accused the priest, saying: That is heresy!
I believe you are referring to Nestorius who was rebuked by Eusebius during his heretical sermon. In this case along with all cases of heresy, the Pope never embraced the heresy. It is impossible for a Pope to bind the universal Church to a heresy or grave errors against the Faith.
You are refusing to recognize them as popes, and therefore the truthfulness of their papacy is absent only subjectively in your own mind, and in the mind of anyone else who agrees with you on it, and you are therefore falling into the trap of Modernism which is built on the false principle that reality is in the mind of man regardless of what is in the mind of God. Alternatively, you would dare to presume to know what is in the mind of God by some means other than the normal means which God has provided for us, which is BTW papal definition.
They're not alone in 'putting a claim on the office', and the 'claims' are not only theirs.
Not much time this evening. So I have to keep it brief.
Once again, I see yet another thread transforming into an argument about sedevacantism. Seems common these days.
I've asked Matthew to please move this conversation to the Crisis subforum, so that if people wish to argue for or against the SV movement, it may continue without breaking any rules.
. . . I stated this because people on Cathinfo are either Catholics in full communion with the Church, or they are sedevacantists.
Quote from: LaramieHirschNot much time this evening. So I have to keep it brief.
Once again, I see yet another thread transforming into an argument about sedevacantism. Seems common these days.
I've asked Matthew to please move this conversation to the Crisis subforum, so that if people wish to argue for or against the SV movement, it may continue without breaking any rules.
It is common because people are reaching the end of their tether and SVIsm looks like a credible explanation. Not one I go for personally, but one can certainly see their arguments and I have never had a beef with SVs precisely because their position is well argued and appears to be supported by the last 25 years of conciliar church happenings. Those making excuses for the pope seem absolutely nuts and grasping and straws, compared to the SV position.
Should the canonisations happen next spring, then I predict that SV debates will dominate the forum for months regardless of what sub-forum they are buried in.
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
. . . I stated this because people on Cathinfo are either Catholics in full communion with the Church, or they are sedevacantists.
You're too busy blogging & educating the rest of the world to even stop and consider how ignorant you really are about that which you're pretending to be an authority, aren't you?
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: LaramieHirsch
. . . I stated this because people on Cathinfo are either Catholics in full communion with the Church, or they are sedevacantists.
You're too busy blogging & educating the rest of the world to even stop and consider how ignorant you really are about that which you're pretending to be an authority, aren't you?
:reading: I'm sorry, what?
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: LaramieHirsch
. . . I stated this because people on Cathinfo are either Catholics in full communion with the Church, or they are sedevacantists.
You're too busy blogging & educating the rest of the world to even stop and consider how ignorant you really are about that which you're pretending to be an authority, aren't you?
:reading: I'm sorry, what?
I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St. Athanasius had done so.
...why is is that we are so much more proud and angry and bitter and self-righteous than so many in the Novus Ordo?
We are nothing without the Mercy of God.
In fact, it seems to be one that deserves its own thread, because this thread is about asking Matthew to do something about LaramieHirsch, which basically serves to give LaramieHirsch what he's looking for most of all: more attention!
Quote from: Neil ObstatIn fact, it seems to be one that deserves its own thread, because this thread is about asking Matthew to do something about LaramieHirsch, which basically serves to give LaramieHirsch what he's looking for most of all: more attention!
Click the red HIDE button.
If you want to ignore me, click the red HIDE button.
For everyone on this thread who hates my guts, click the red HIDE button.
.And.....HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/HAPPY-THANKSGIVING-DAY--to-all-the-members-of-CathInfo) !
............................... THAT ^ is a link to the HTD thread ................................
.
I didn't say I "hate your guts" or don't want to read your posts, LaramieHirsch.
Quote from: Neil Obstat.And.....HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/HAPPY-THANKSGIVING-DAY--to-all-the-members-of-CathInfo) !
............................... THAT ^ is a link to the HTD thread ................................
.
"Thanksgiving" is a Protetsant "holiday"; even if you were to argue that Catholics did something similar first, still the date and the whole thing as it is know today IS PROTESTANT.
So you go ahead attacking sedevacantism, you're the one celebrating Protestant holidays.
A) You're off-topic. I provided a link to the thread, but maybe you don't know how to use a link. Maybe you don't know what a "link" is? Just point your mouse at the words, above, "Happy Thanksgiving Day!" and click on it (left click if you have an IBM or clone thereof). You'll be taken to the appropriate thread.
B) Regarding the Protestant origins and connotation of this day, you're missing several key elements. Let me inform you, if you will. The principle of the FAMILY UNIT is not Protestant, but Catholic. And this Day accomplishes a kind of bond, a cohesion, and even an adhesion (if you don't know the difference, look it up) that is nothing short of ESSENTIAL in the preservation of society. And this is actually a STEP TOWARD the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in America and in the whole world. If you want to build a castle, you have to work with the materials at hand, be it stones or logs or bamboo sticks or mud with straw mixed in, or even SAND -- but then you'll have a sand castle when you're finished. What we have is a predominantly Protestant culture, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
Are you aware that from the very beginning of the practice in America of this Feast Day, the Pope agreed with the American bishops that the Friday following the last Thursday in November would be a day when the Friday Abstinence would be dispensed? Maybe you're 'up-in-arms' about that too, :dwarf: Pelele? No, you don't have to worry :scared2: about eating meat on Friday the day after Thanksgiving, in America. You can go ahead and pick away at that turkey and giblets all you want because the 18th century Church of Rome and the Catholic bishops gave a dispensation that endures to this day for that. The sedes shouldn't even have a problem with it. Nay, the PURITANS shouldn't even have a problem with it.
Speaking of which, did you know that the name "Puritan" came from a strange sect of Protestants who thought that the Church of England was TOO CATHOLIC, and so they broke away and risked their lives to sail in the Mayflower across the ocean and start a new culture in the "land of the free" where they wouldn't be persecuted for "going off the deep end" like they would have been, and they were, in erstwhile "Merry Old England?" (That monicker hearkens back to the age when England was Catholic and it was QUITE "merry" all the way!)
Speaking of Jingle All the Way, the "feast day" of Thanksgiving for the Puritans was a conspicuous fly in the ointment, because one of their founding principles was a curious ABHORRENCE for any kind of 'FEAST DAY', a penchant that endures today in Pres-byterians and Seventh-Day-Adventists and others, alike. Yet here it is, the one day in the year when they "let their hair down" and have a Catholic Feast Day. So it isn't Protestant at all, Pelele.
It is rather a curious moment when Protestants behave like Catholics!!
We should encourage them to do so, for it could eventually effect their conversion such that they might be SAVED from HELL.
Furthermore, the Puritans, in setting up and commemorating Thanksgiving Day were actually trying to TAKE THE PLACE OF CHRISTMAS with their one-month-ahead-of-time ceremony, when families would get together for this anti-Catholic ritual, and day following, that would attempt to usurp Christmas, to take place roughly when Hanukkah does, and to pile ignominy on the Friday abstinence Law of the Church for which they had nothing but CONTEMPT ---------- but it all backfired on them! The Church saw the good in a movement that takes society closer to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and issued a virtually PERMANENT dispensation for the Friday abstinence the day after this wonderful FEAST day that was being eagerly celebrated by people who SAY they don't like Feast Days (because they're too Catholic!!) and so for one day they really become more Catholic! God works in mysterious ways!
Quote from: Neil ObstatA) You're off-topic. I provided a link to the thread, but maybe you don't know how to use a link. Maybe you don't know what a "link" is? Just point your mouse at the words, above, "Happy Thanksgiving Day!" and click on it (left click if you have an IBM or clone thereof). You'll be taken to the appropriate thread.
I didn't know it was a link because i didn't even hover the mouse over it.
Quote from: Neil ObstatB) Regarding the Protestant origins and connotation of this day, you're missing several key elements. Let me inform you, if you will. The principle of the FAMILY UNIT is not Protestant, but Catholic. And this Day accomplishes a kind of bond, a cohesion, and even an adhesion (if you don't know the difference, look it up) that is nothing short of ESSENTIAL in the preservation of society. And this is actually a STEP TOWARD the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in America and in the whole world. If you want to build a castle, you have to work with the materials at hand, be it stones or logs or bamboo sticks or mud with straw mixed in, or even SAND -- but then you'll have a sand castle when you're finished. What we have is a predominantly Protestant culture, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
So we needed these Protestants to come along with their Thanksgiving feast to help the Church in America?
Quote from: Neil ObstatAre you aware that from the very beginning of the practice in America of this Feast Day, the Pope agreed with the American bishops that the Friday following the last Thursday in November would be a day when the Friday Abstinence would be dispensed? Maybe you're 'up-in-arms' about that too, :dwarf: Pelele? No, you don't have to worry :scared2: about eating meat on Friday the day after Thanksgiving, in America. You can go ahead and pick away at that turkey and giblets all you want because the 18th century Church of Rome and the Catholic bishops gave a dispensation that endures to this day for that. The sedes shouldn't even have a problem with it. Nay, the PURITANS shouldn't even have a problem with it.
I didn't know about that, and perhaps you could post some evidence of this just to see it.
I have no problem with it. I know these kind of dispensations are concessions for the weakness of us humans.Quote from: Neil ObstatSpeaking of which, did you know that the name "Puritan" came from a strange sect of Protestants who thought that the Church of England was TOO CATHOLIC, and so they broke away and risked their lives to sail in the Mayflower across the ocean and start a new culture in the "land of the free" where they wouldn't be persecuted for "going off the deep end" like they would have been, and they were, in erstwhile "Merry Old England?" (That monicker hearkens back to the age when England was Catholic and it was QUITE "merry" all the way!)
Yes i did know about this.Quote from: Neil ObstatSpeaking of Jingle All the Way, the "feast day" of Thanksgiving for the Puritans was a conspicuous fly in the ointment, because one of their founding principles was a curious ABHORRENCE for any kind of 'FEAST DAY', a penchant that endures today in Pres-byterians and Seventh-Day-Adventists and others, alike. Yet here it is, the one day in the year when they "let their hair down" and have a Catholic Feast Day. So it isn't Protestant at all, Pelele.
It was instituted by them, of course it is Protestant, even if the nature of it isn't.
Are you saying that you will consider any sort of feast from any false religion, Catholic, just because it may express or contain Catholic values? Surely you jest.
Quote from: Neil ObstatIt is rather a curious moment when Protestants behave like Catholics!!
Gee whiz. [ :facepalm: ]Quote from: Neil ObstatWe should encourage them to do so, for it could eventually effect their conversion such that they might be SAVED from HELL.
Well, we can see how effective that has not been so far.
If anything it just strengthens them in their false beliefs.
Quote from: Neil ObstatFurthermore, the Puritans, in setting up and commemorating Thanksgiving Day were actually trying to TAKE THE PLACE OF CHRISTMAS with their one-month-ahead-of-time ceremony, when families would get together for this anti-Catholic ritual, and day following, that would attempt to usurp Christmas, to take place roughly when Hanukkah does, and to pile ignominy on the Friday abstinence Law of the Church for which they had nothing but CONTEMPT ---------- but it all backfired on them! The Church saw the good in a movement that takes society closer to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and issued a virtually PERMANENT dispensation for the Friday abstinence the day after this wonderful FEAST day that was being eagerly celebrated by people who SAY they don't like Feast Days (because they're too Catholic!!) and so for one day they really become more Catholic! God works in mysterious ways!
It amazes me how you can deduce they "become Catholic" for one day because of this.
I suppose you would believe the Muslims "become Catholic for a day too" if they had a Muslim-style Thanksgiving?
Too funny.
Quote from: PeleleQuote from: Neil ObstatA) You're off-topic. I provided a link to the thread, but maybe you don't know how to use a link. Maybe you don't know what a "link" is? Just point your mouse at the words, above, "Happy Thanksgiving Day!" and click on it (left click if you have an IBM or clone thereof). You'll be taken to the appropriate thread.
I didn't know it was a link because i didn't even hover the mouse over it.
I put a note below the link saying that it is a link. Also, FYI, when a colored text is underlined by a BLACK line, that always means it's a link on CathInfo.
QuoteQuote from: Neil ObstatB) Regarding the Protestant origins and connotation of this day, you're missing several key elements. Let me inform you, if you will. The principle of the FAMILY UNIT is not Protestant, but Catholic. And this Day accomplishes a kind of bond, a cohesion, and even an adhesion (if you don't know the difference, look it up) that is nothing short of ESSENTIAL in the preservation of society. And this is actually a STEP TOWARD the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in America and in the whole world. If you want to build a castle, you have to work with the materials at hand, be it stones or logs or bamboo sticks or mud with straw mixed in, or even SAND -- but then you'll have a sand castle when you're finished. What we have is a predominantly Protestant culture, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
So we needed these Protestants to come along with their Thanksgiving feast to help the Church in America?
I didn't say that. You did. Read what I said. Do I have to repeat it?QuoteQuote from: Neil ObstatAre you aware that from the very beginning of the practice in America of this Feast Day, the Pope agreed with the American bishops that the Friday following the last Thursday in November would be a day when the Friday Abstinence would be dispensed? Maybe you're 'up-in-arms' about that too, :dwarf: Pelele? No, you don't have to worry :scared2: about eating meat on Friday the day after Thanksgiving, in America. You can go ahead and pick away at that turkey and giblets all you want because the 18th century Church of Rome and the Catholic bishops gave a dispensation that endures to this day for that. The sedes shouldn't even have a problem with it. Nay, the PURITANS shouldn't even have a problem with it.
I didn't know about that, and perhaps you could post some evidence of this just to see it.
Do you know how to use a search engine? Type the words: "friday after thanksgiving dispensation united states," and in less than half a second, get over 6 thousand websites to read. Rorate Caeli and WDTPRS head the list. Even Wikipedia covers this.
While such dispensations are, yes, for our weakness, it is also for common sense to avoid the appearance of abusive laws, because before refrigeration, the food that was left over would not remain fresh for two days, until Saturday.QuoteI have no problem with it. I know these kind of dispensations are concessions for the weakness of us humans.Quote from: Neil ObstatSpeaking of which, did you know that the name "Puritan" came from a strange sect of Protestants who thought that the Church of England was TOO CATHOLIC, and so they broke away and risked their lives to sail in the Mayflower across the ocean and start a new culture in the "land of the free" where they wouldn't be persecuted for "going off the deep end" like they would have been, and they were, in erstwhile "Merry Old England?" (That monicker hearkens back to the age when England was Catholic and it was QUITE "merry" all the way!)
Yes i did know about this.Quote from: Neil ObstatSpeaking of Jingle All the Way, the "feast day" of Thanksgiving for the Puritans was a conspicuous fly in the ointment, because one of their founding principles was a curious ABHORRENCE for any kind of 'FEAST DAY', a penchant that endures today in Pres-byterians and Seventh-Day-Adventists and others, alike. Yet here it is, the one day in the year when they "let their hair down" and have a Catholic Feast Day. So it isn't Protestant at all, Pelele.
It was instituted by them, of course it is Protestant, even if the nature of it isn't.
Are you saying that you will consider any sort of feast from any false religion, Catholic, just because it may express or contain Catholic values? Surely you jest.
If Protestantism is such a difficulty for you why don't you start your own Catholic nation somewhere? As Catholics in a Protestant (at best) nation, we should take the graces God gives us and pick up our cross and follow Him, instead of whining and complaining about how the Protestants are taking a day to give thanks for their blessings. We don't have to pray WITH THEM (which I'm a bit surprised you haven't mentioned!) but we should not hurl epithets of derision at them on the one day in the year they do something that is remotely Catholic.
Is this a difficult concept for you?QuoteQuote from: Neil ObstatIt is rather a curious moment when Protestants behave like Catholics!!
Gee whiz. [ :facepalm: ]Quote from: Neil ObstatWe should encourage them to do so, for it could eventually effect their conversion such that they might be SAVED from HELL.
Well, we can see how effective that has not been so far.
If anything it just strengthens them in their false beliefs.
Okay, so the defection away from God in America doesn't meet with your approval -- have you stopped to think what America may have become if there had NOT been one day a year when Protestants ACT (not "become") as Catholics?
So they might not carry the principle any further: that's their own lot.
If they're going to take it that way, that's their problem and they will be answerable to God for it, but WE will likewise be answerable to God if we go around criticizing Protestants for giving thanks for their blessings and having family come together for one special day in the year. It just makes us look bad.
Is that your objective, to look bad to Protestants whenever possible?
WE SHOULD THANK GOD FOR HIS GRACES, NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM.QuoteQuote from: Neil ObstatFurthermore, the Puritans, in setting up and commemorating Thanksgiving Day were actually trying to TAKE THE PLACE OF CHRISTMAS with their one-month-ahead-of-time ceremony, when families would get together for this anti-Catholic ritual, and day following, that would attempt to usurp Christmas, to take place roughly when Hanukkah does, and to pile ignominy on the Friday abstinence Law of the Church for which they had nothing but CONTEMPT ---------- but it all backfired on them! The Church saw the good in a movement that takes society closer to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and issued a virtually PERMANENT dispensation for the Friday abstinence the day after this wonderful FEAST day that was being eagerly celebrated by people who SAY they don't like Feast Days (because they're too Catholic!!) and so for one day they really become more Catholic! God works in mysterious ways!
It amazes me how you can deduce they "become Catholic" for one day because of this.
You're pretty dense, aren't you, Pelele. I did not say they "become Catholic," you did.
I said for one day a year they become MORE Catholic -- they take a break from their 24/7 anti-Catholicism and behave a little bit MORE like Catholics than they do like Protestants.
You just are not going to get it, are you?QuoteI suppose you would believe the Muslims "become Catholic for a day too" if they had a Muslim-style Thanksgiving?
Too funny.
You're putting quotes around words I didn't say. Do you like to misquote people all the time or is this a special occasion?
If anyone from any false religion adopts a custom that is Catholic, the Church has always looked with favor upon that. Did you know that?
Wherever the Church goes in the world she encourages pagans and heathen to do things that are Catholic, and to recognize God's truth in their existing culture wherever it may be found. Are you familiar with Church history at all?
St. Paul is the pre-eminent example of this, and it's one of the principal reasons that St. Thomas Aquinas called him "THE APOSTLE," whereas he is otherwise commonly known as "the Apostle to the Gentiles."
It would seem, Pelele, that your real problem is with St. Paul, the Church, and evangelization in general.
.
In the time it took me to post that, above, I now see the two obligatory down-thumbs from lurking sedevacantists who don't like to admit what they're doing (secrecy seems to be a big principle with them -- witness Ambrose and his tencacious grip on it, almost as with sede-ism itself) have chimed in giving inspiritu20 two mysterious UNlikes without explanation.
It's not reasonable to do this, because it's a most reasonable question that inspiritu20 has asked, but since sedes are prone to knee-jerk reactions toward anything that might come CLOSE to discovering inconsistencies and weaknesses in their curious diversion from Apostolic Tradition, they "just don't like it" when they see anything that "even goes there."
They'll no doubt not disappoint me and down-thumb this post.
Not to worry, though, for they're up against a 78% approval rating with a significant reservoir of archive, and not one-word or one-sentence or repetitive or multiple posts, either.
So a few or a dozen or whatever down-thumbs isn't going to change that one iota.
So go ahead, superficial, dogmatic sedes -- downthumb away to your heart's content! Maybe you'll feel better (but it will only be an illusion of feeling better).
And.....HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/HAPPY-THANKSGIVING-DAY--to-all-the-members-of-CathInfo) !
............................... THAT ^ is a link to the HTD thread ................................
.
.
Troll. :gandalf:
.
I am a Catholic who attends CMRI. I dont give your posts a thumbs up or a thumbs down and I really do not care if you subscribe to sedevacantism or if you do not. But to assume an us against them mentality against Catholics who may not agree with you and to assume it has to be reciprocated - you are in for a disappointment.
I hope you practice faith hope and charity - pray the Rosary and frequent the Sacraments and live your faith.
My hope is that everyone reading this does. Whether you agree with sedevacantism or not is unimportant to me.
So dont assume every SEDE as you call them is dogmatic , superficial and or Schismatic ,etc etc etc. Because if you do you will prove those traits relate to your own actions.
Pax Vobis
I don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.
I haven't called any sedevacantists names. I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic. Over and over.
I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St Athanasius had done so.
Quote from: MatthewI don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.Quote from: LaramieHirschI haven't called any sedevacantists names. I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic. Over and over.
Yes, Mtthew, LaramieHirsch considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic. He considers them, at best, on par with the Orthodox with valid sacraments but in schism or, at worst, on par with the Anglicans with invalid sacraments and in schism. I just don't know, off hand, which one.
He does not hide the fact that he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
My biggest beef with Laramie isn't his one-note conclusion that sedevantists are schismatic, it's the way he refuses to acknowledge the damage done by the conciliarists in the last 50 years. Well, no, that's my second biggest beef. My biggest beef is that he won't elaborate on how he arrived at his principal conclusion.
Quote from: Capt McQuigg
My biggest beef with Laramie isn't his one-note conclusion that sedevantists are schismatic, it's the way he refuses to acknowledge the damage done by the conciliarists in the last 50 years. Well, no, that's my second biggest beef. My biggest beef is that he won't elaborate on how he arrived at his principal conclusion.
Not much time, as usual.
I can quickly answer your second beef, however.
Yes, I acknowledge--as to many Catholics--that many priests, bishops, and even cardinals have damaged the Church's effectiveness in the last half century. Popes have been rather unhelful too. I acknowledge this all the time.
Got to go.
-LH
UPDATE: Oh, and I can't forget Ann Barnhardt. She also recognizes that modernism is plaguing the Church. She says that Pope Francis is a punishment from God. She is not SSPX or sedevacantist.
Popular opinion has nothing to do with the truth. Giving a thumbs up or thumbs down is essentially meaningless. Attempting a Canon law defense and or explanation of an unprecedented Heresy which has sociopolitical roots in global one world governance not merely Religion - makes a strictly religious solution somewhat shortsighted.
All that being said - if the powers that installed non Catholic usurpers at the head of the Catholic Church not so much to worry about a Catholic response to the situation but rather so they control the morality and or divide weaken and conquer us as but one step in the plan for One World Governance the response of finger pointing , argumentation , detraction of one group to another aids in their goal.
The real enemies are the modernists and those pulling their strings. Instead of fighting them we fight ourselves.
I am a Catholic who attends CMRI. I dont give your posts a thumbs up or a thumbs down and I really do not care if you subscribe to sedevacantism or if you do not. But to assume an us against them mentality against Catholics who may not agree with you and to assume it has to be reciprocated - you are in for a disappointment.
I hope you practice faith hope and charity - pray the Rosary and frequent the Sacraments and live your faith.
My hope is that everyone reading this does. Whether you agree with sedevacantism or not is unimportant to me.
So dont assume every SEDE as you call them is dogmatic , superficial and or Schismatic ,etc etc etc. Because if you do you will prove those traits relate to your own actions.
Pax Vobis
Popular opinion has nothing to do with the truth. Giving a thumbs up or thumbs down is essentially meaningless. Attempting a Canon law defense and or explanation of an unprecedented Heresy which has sociopolitical roots in global one world governance not merely Religion - makes a strictly religious solution somewhat shortsighted.
All that being said - if the powers that installed non Catholic usurpers at the head of the Catholic Church not so much to worry about a Catholic response to the situation but rather so they control the morality and or divide weaken and conquer us as but one step in the plan for One World Governance the response of finger pointing , argumentation , detraction of one group to another aids in their goal.
The real enemies are the modernists and those pulling their strings. Instead of fighting them we fight ourselves.
I am a Catholic who attends CMRI. I dont give your posts a thumbs up or a thumbs down and I really do not care if you subscribe to sedevacantism or if you do not. But to assume an us against them mentality against Catholics who may not agree with you and to assume it has to be reciprocated - you are in for a disappointment.
I hope you practice faith hope and charity - pray the Rosary and frequent the Sacraments and live your faith.
My hope is that everyone reading this does. Whether you agree with sedevacantism or not is unimportant to me.
So dont assume every SEDE as you call them is dogmatic , superficial and or Schismatic ,etc etc etc. Because if you do you will prove those traits relate to your own actions.
Pax Vobis
I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St Athanasius had done so.
Quote from: MatthewI don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.Quote from: LaramieHirschI haven't called any sedevacantists names. I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic. Over and over.
Yes, Mtthew, LaramieHirsch considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic. He considers them, at best, on par with the Orthodox with valid sacraments but in schism or, at worst, on par with the Anglicans with invalid sacraments and in schism. I just don't know, off hand, which one.
He does not hide the fact that he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
Quote from: inspiritu20I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St Athanasius had done so.
Maybe because Arias was never Pope
Shouldnt your question be rather , Would St Athanasius have embraced a theological retreat into Sedevacantism had Arius claimed to be a legitimate Roman Pontiff.
Quote from: Malleus 01
Popular opinion has nothing to do with the truth. Giving a thumbs up or thumbs down is essentially meaningless. Attempting a Canon law defense and or explanation of an unprecedented Heresy which has sociopolitical roots in global one world governance not merely Religion - makes a strictly religious solution somewhat shortsighted.
All that being said - if the powers that installed non Catholic usurpers at the head of the Catholic Church not so much to worry about a Catholic response to the situation but rather so they control the morality and or divide weaken and conquer us as but one step in the plan for One World Governance the response of finger pointing , argumentation , detraction of one group to another aids in their goal.
The real enemies are the modernists and those pulling their strings. Instead of fighting them we fight ourselves.
I am a Catholic who attends CMRI. I dont give your posts a thumbs up or a thumbs down and I really do not care if you subscribe to sedevacantism or if you do not. But to assume an us against them mentality against Catholics who may not agree with you and to assume it has to be reciprocated - you are in for a disappointment.
I hope you practice faith hope and charity - pray the Rosary and frequent the Sacraments and live your faith.
My hope is that everyone reading this does. Whether you agree with sedevacantism or not is unimportant to me.
So dont assume every SEDE as you call them is dogmatic , superficial and or Schismatic ,etc etc etc. Because if you do you will prove those traits relate to your own actions.
Pax Vobis
I find your posts very wise. I think it would behoove all of us to try to listen to them.
I am certain most Catholics who hold to the theological position of sedevacantism due to manifest heresy in the hierarchy of the Church care very little about what self appointed lay theologians think. Therefore - the false and or ignorant rantings and namecalling are much like water off a ducks back.
What is important is putting GOD first in all things and in loving ones neighbor. Receiving the Sacraments keeping oneself unstained in this life - praying the Holy Rosary every day and living ones faith. Against these things no Law is broken.
If a Catholic is a member of SSPX and lives like that -Should I ignore all he does and who he is in favor of some convoluted interpretation (or misinterpretation as the case may be) of what the office of the Papacy means or instead should I appreciate him for standing up for the faith as traditionally held?
My course of action is clear. I tire of these counterproductive - "he's a schismatic and here's why" arguments by people who have no ecclesiastic authority from Holy mother the church to declare as such.
Suffice to say - a Catholic is secure in his faith so long as he lives his faith inGrace charity and truth. We are judged by GOD and GOD alone - not by Lay theologians.
I am happy with that arrangement
Peace to all my fellow Catholics who post on here
Pax
We are judged by GOD and GOD alone - not by Lay theologians.
A Catholic by definition is someone who submits to the Roman Pontiff (subject), and also one who stays in communion with those who are in communion with the Apostolic see. In the case of a dubious Pope, then the first condition would be crossed out and the second would be the most important principle.
Quote from: TKGSQuote from: MatthewI don't think he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
He probably just gets frustrated with them, and their position, from time to time.Quote from: LaramieHirschI haven't called any sedevacantists names. I have said that sedevacantists are schismatic. Over and over.
Yes, Mtthew, LaramieHirsch considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic. He considers them, at best, on par with the Orthodox with valid sacraments but in schism or, at worst, on par with the Anglicans with invalid sacraments and in schism. I just don't know, off hand, which one.
He does not hide the fact that he considers all sedevacantists to be non-Catholic.
Malleus: Laramiehirch and his inflamatory rhetoric - meaningless diatribe , and incessant Pontifications regarding the Catholocity of anyone here should be met with
the same measure of indifference that it has earned on its merits (or lack thereof) Therefore , to even address such a ludicrous position gives it some semblance of credibility which is not due it. Therefore , my suggestion is to not give him the attention he is seeking , and thus deprive him of the only fruit of his labor , IE attention. A weed dies when it gets no sunlight and water.
Pax Vobis
Quote from: inspiritu20I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St Athanasius had done so.
That is because everybody recognized who is the real pope. They may have disagreed with him but that didn't stop him from being the pope. Protestants, Moslems, and Hindus are the same way. They all disagree with Francis, but they recognize that he is the pope.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: Malleus 01Quote from: inspiritu20I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St Athanasius had done so.
That is because everybody recognized who is the real pope. They may have disagreed with him but that didn't stop him from being the pope. Protestants, Moslems, and Hindus are the same way. They all disagree with Francis, but they recognize that he is the pope.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Even if heretics and infidels recognize him, it still isn't enough to make him pope.
Does that mean you're going to click on the red HIDE button in order to properly ignore my posts?
Because I've been suggesting that all along to the haters.
Quote from: pocheQuote from: Malleus 01Quote from: inspiritu20I wonder why no-one came up with sedevacantism as an answer to the Arian heresy. And what would have happened if St Athanasius had done so.
That is because everybody recognized who is the real pope. They may have disagreed with him but that didn't stop him from being the pope. Protestants, Moslems, and Hindus are the same way. They all disagree with Francis, but they recognize that he is the pope.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Even if heretics and infidels recognize him, it still isn't enough to make him pope.
Right. I don't think Arian claimed to be Pope. Nor was accepted as such by anyone. Do people think at all before they post.
You see, when it comes to heresy we do not need to "come up" with anything. We merely need to show them Catholic truth.
Sedevacantism is not something anyone has "come up with" it is a sound theological conclusion based upon Divine Law and supported by Dogma and canon law and by the Great Doctors, Saints and theologians of the Church. If that is "coming up" with something I have some milk and cookies you can set out for Santa on Christmas Eve.
Quote from: LaramieDoes that mean you're going to click on the red HIDE button in order to properly ignore my posts?
Because I've been suggesting that all along to the haters.
If your posts were truly valuable, you'd not suggest people hide them even if you consider them "haters."
Quote from: SJBQuote from: LaramieDoes that mean you're going to click on the red HIDE button in order to properly ignore my posts?
Because I've been suggesting that all along to the haters.
If your posts were truly valuable, you'd not suggest people hide them even if you consider them "haters."
My posts are great. I love them. My voice in this forum is important. Individuals have value.
Quote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: SJBQuote from: LaramieDoes that mean you're going to click on the red HIDE button in order to properly ignore my posts?
Because I've been suggesting that all along to the haters.
If your posts were truly valuable, you'd not suggest people hide them even if you consider them "haters."
My posts are great. I love them. My voice in this forum is important. Individuals have value.
The idea that all individuals' theological ideas have value is a non-Catholic idea.
Besides--how about the value of the sedes you sought to have Vox gag?
Your posts are obviously the product of a light-headed shallow-thinking youthful inexperienced untrained chump with the arrogance of an s.o.b. Your posts are junk; they fall far short of even rising to the mark of mediocrity; they are not witty, informative, persuasive, entertaining, nor amusing--certainly not "great." Your voice on this forum is hardly bearable and utterly devoid of importance beyond beckoning faithful Catholics to your aid in setting you straight.
How ever did this forum survive before the grand one from hirschiefiles started frequenting it?
It is sad but the reality is that he stands self condemned by his own judgement, and that is the reality of schism. Bad will certainly will lead you to Hell, one of its many symptoms is intellectual dishonesty.
I am a man who has stated at some point in the Fall that sedevacantism is schismatic. That is my position.
17. "On account of the distinction as explained [between sedes and sedens], in so far as the Apostolic See can never fail in its permanence by divine right and law, but the individual occupants [sedentes], being mortal, fail at intervals, the APOSTOLIC SEE ITSELF, as the necessary foundation and center of unity of the Church can never be called in doubt without heresy; but it can happen sometimes, in great disturbances, and it is evident from history that it has happened, that many men, while holily keeping the Faith and veneration towards the Apostolic See as true Catholics, without their own fault are not able to acknowledge the one seated in the Apostolic See, and therefore while in no way falling into heresy, slip into schism, which however is not formal but only material. Thus in the lamentable disturbance throughout forty years, from Urban VI until Gregory XII [the Great Western Schism], Catholics were split into two and then three obediences, as they were then called, while all acknowledged and revered the divine rights of the Apostolic See; nevertheless, not acknowledging the right of the one seated in the Apostolic See, from invincible ignorance of the lawful succession [i.e. as to which claimant was the lawful successor] and thus adhering either to no one, or to a pseudo-pontiff. Among these, even saints such as St. Vincent Ferrer for a time, and his brother Boniface, a Carthusian Prior, were implicated in material schism." (Ibid. p. 223-4)
Quote from: SJBQuote from: LaramieDoes that mean you're going to click on the red HIDE button in order to properly ignore my posts?
Because I've been suggesting that all along to the haters.
If your posts were truly valuable, you'd not suggest people hide them even if you consider them "haters."
My posts are great. I love them. My voice in this forum is important. Individuals have value.
But if I were a hater, and I kept telling people to ignore someone, I would first truly ignore them, as I've suggested you try. Then I'd tell the others how to ignore people.
Let me demonstrate.
your pope in action...
“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
It is his office and authority that demands respect.
Quote from: gooch
your pope in action...
My pope? You must not be a Catholic. I suggest you join! The only way to salvation and eternal life is through Jesus Christ.
As for the pope, he is a Marxist-educated Jesuit, milk-fed by South American Freemasons.
He currently has the freedom to broadcast whatever whim or thought is on his mind. I have not witnessed him speaking infallibly on anything in all this time.
It is his office and authority that demands respect.Quote
“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
-Boniface VIII, an infallible statement
Quote from: gooch
your pope in action...
My pope? You must not be a Catholic. I suggest you join! TQuote
“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
-Boniface VIII, an infallible statement
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
Quote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
Quote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
This is your response? Further evidence that you're a self-grandiosed intellectual lightweight. Another strong clue as to this fact was when you ducked out on our discussion regarding whether the bishopry could endure and continue to be passed on through a period of sedevacantism. You mused that it could not with nothing backing up your point and I provided the example of the Greek Orthodox to indicate that it could. Then one esteemed Laramie Hirsch suddenly got too busy for us at CI and only became un-busy and resumed his frequent annoying posting after the lapse of a period of time, thus leading at least myself to believe that LH's hiatus was to allow ample time for CI to forget that he didn't have an answer to that crumbling of that particular angle he maintained against sedevacantism.
How ever many times that you emptily say that sedevacantism is schismatic does not make it so nor prove that it is.
Quote from: gooch
your pope in action...
My pope? You must not be a Catholic. I suggest you join! T
Quote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
Quote from: Lover of TruthThere does appear to be a double standard here in banning "dogmatic" SVs and not banning dogmatic sedeplenists, but Matthew makes no pretension on where he stands and he is the moderator. That ought count for something. I for one am glad he allows us here, while at the same time not liking the double standard.
But being a sedeplenist doesn't automatically mean that one approves of dogmatic sedeplenism. Just like most (if not all) of the SVs here do not approve of dogmatic sedevacantism.
Quote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
so if that's not your argument then you simply believe this pope has not met the requirements of manifest heresy, can you give me 1 pope who according to you has met this stipulation? no rush,
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: Lover of TruthThere does appear to be a double standard here in banning "dogmatic" SVs and not banning dogmatic sedeplenists, but Matthew makes no pretension on where he stands and he is the moderator. That ought count for something. I for one am glad he allows us here, while at the same time not liking the double standard.
But being a sedeplenist doesn't automatically mean that one approves of dogmatic sedeplenism. Just like most (if not all) of the SVs here do not approve of dogmatic sedevacantism.
"Dogmatic sedevacantist"
Depends on what you mean by the phrase.
We do not deny that it is Divine Law and a Dogma of the Church that a Public Heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and those holds especially true for the Office of the Papacy.
If insisting on that fact makes me a "Dogmatic sedevacantist" then I am guilty as charged.
If by Dogmatic sedevacantist we mean one who condemns all non-SVs as not being Catholic merely because they are not SVs then I am not guilty.
What is the precise definition of the phrase appertaining to its use on this forum? Perhaps something is meant other than the above two guessed at definitions.
To my knowledge, this pope has not attempted to officially and in his full capacity teach anything in regards to morals and dogma.
Quote from: goochQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
so if that's not your argument then you simply believe this pope has not met the requirements of manifest heresy, can you give me 1 pope who according to you has met this stipulation? no rush,
To my knowledge, this pope has not attempted to officially and in his full capacity teach anything in regards to morals and dogma.
Quote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: goochQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
so if that's not your argument then you simply believe this pope has not met the requirements of manifest heresy, can you give me 1 pope who according to you has met this stipulation? no rush,
To my knowledge, this pope has not attempted to officially and in his full capacity teach anything in regards to morals and dogma.
have any of the post vatican 2 popes taught anything in regards to morals and dogma. has there ever been a pope in the history of the church who has been a manifest heretic, if so who?
Quote from: goochQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: goochQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: gooch
so is your arguement that no pope can ever be explicity a heretic, a manifest heretic?
You are not the first to put words in my mouth. Nor the last.
so if that's not your argument then you simply believe this pope has not met the requirements of manifest heresy, can you give me 1 pope who according to you has met this stipulation? no rush,
To my knowledge, this pope has not attempted to officially and in his full capacity teach anything in regards to morals and dogma.
have any of the post vatican 2 popes taught anything in regards to morals and dogma. has there ever been a pope in the history of the church who has been a manifest heretic, if so who?
1st question. I don't think so. That's why the modernists are so slippery. They get away with so much without being official about it.
2nd question, no one comes to mind at the moment.
Quote from: Lover of TruthQuote from: 2VermontQuote from: Lover of TruthThere does appear to be a double standard here in banning "dogmatic" SVs and not banning dogmatic sedeplenists, but Matthew makes no pretension on where he stands and he is the moderator. That ought count for something. I for one am glad he allows us here, while at the same time not liking the double standard.
But being a sedeplenist doesn't automatically mean that one approves of dogmatic sedeplenism. Just like most (if not all) of the SVs here do not approve of dogmatic sedevacantism.
"Dogmatic sedevacantist"
Depends on what you mean by the phrase.
We do not deny that it is Divine Law and a Dogma of the Church that a Public Heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and those holds especially true for the Office of the Papacy.
If insisting on that fact makes me a "Dogmatic sedevacantist" then I am guilty as charged.
If by Dogmatic sedevacantist we mean one who condemns all non-SVs as not being Catholic merely because they are not SVs then I am not guilty.
What is the precise definition of the phrase appertaining to its use on this forum? Perhaps something is meant other than the above two guessed at definitions.
It's my understanding that it is the latter. OTOH, it's way cool to go around calling sedevacantism schismatic (ie. non-Catholic).
The Second Vatican Council doesn't teach any new requirements in regards to morals and dogma.
There have been no infallible statements since the 1950s.
Quote from: LaramieHirschThe Second Vatican Council doesn't teach any new requirements in regards to morals and dogma.
Then how can anyone be required to sign an oath to the council as discussed in another topic?
Your statement is pure fantasy. The Vatican most certainly considers the docuмents of the Vatican Council 2 to contain new teachings in regards to the faith.
Hirschie,
If you believe that the papacy is only about infallible statements and speaking ex cathedra, then I don't understand why you scream so loud that the Church could not survive a long period sedevacante.
Quote from: OHCAHirschie,
If you believe that the papacy is only about infallible statements and speaking ex cathedra, then I don't understand why you scream so loud that the Church could not survive a long period sedevacante.
Scream? I am merely typing. EVEN IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M NOT SCREAMING...only typing.
I've never argued that the Church could not survive a long period of pope-lessness.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: 2Vermont
I don't think I was ever nasty towards sedevacantism.
I wouldn't say I've been nasty about sedevacantism. Only stridently, objectively, and vocally opposed to it.
Do you believe that it would be possible for the Church to survive a period of sedevacantism? If not, why not?
Okay, the answer is no.
Your conception of sedevacantism would mean the death of the Church. If the Church goes without a pope for as long as the sedevacantists would claim, then eventually all legitimate bishops and priests would die out, and the Church would be dead. 50+ years without a pope is over a generation of people. A few more decades, and the Church is dead, and it will have been proven that Christ's Church is a lie.
To have confirmed laymen, you need priests.
To have priests, you need a bishop.
To have bishops, you need a pope.
Cardinals are there for giggles.
Cut off the head, the body dies.
Quote from: OHCAHirschie,
If you believe that the papacy is only about infallible statements and speaking ex cathedra, then I don't understand why you scream so loud that the Church could not survive a long period sedevacante.
Scream? I am merely typing. EVEN IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M NOT SCREAMING...only typing.
I've never argued that the Church could not survive a long period of pope-lessness.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: OHCAQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: OHCAQuote from: LaramieHirsch
I wouldn't say I've been nasty about sedevacantism. Only stridently, objectively, and vocally opposed to it.
Do you believe that it would be possible for the Church to survive a period of sedevacantism? If not, why not?
Okay, the answer is no.
Your conception of sedevacantism would mean the death of the Church. If the Church goes without a pope for as long as the sedevacantists would claim, then eventually all legitimate bishops and priests would die out, and the Church would be dead. 50+ years without a pope is over a generation of people. A few more decades, and the Church is dead, and it will have been proven that Christ's Church is a lie.
To have confirmed laymen, you need priests.
To have priests, you need a bishop.
To have bishops, you need a pope.
Cardinals are there for giggles.
Cut off the head, the body dies.
You seem eager to move on past this point which you raised as your first reason for believing that the Church could not survive a period of sedevacantism. But before we do, do you understand that a pope is not necessary for perpetuity of valid lines of bishops, as deomstrated by the Greek Orthodox since about 1069 A.D.?
This is not about an "exception" as you mention below--it is the point that bishops can consecrate new bishops capable of ordaining priests capable of delivering the sacraments in perpetuity without a pope. If the schismatic (a word you enjoy) Greek Orthodox can survive nearly a millennium without papal blessing or authority, then certainly you would agree that Christ's true Church would be all the more able to survive a period of sedevacantism, continuing the episcopacy, priesthood, and sacraments without the gates of hell prevailing.Quote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: OHCAWhy do you insist that a pope is necessary to have bishops? I was taught in NO grade school catechism that in case of imminent death emergency, a Catholic could even avail himself to a Greek Orthodox priest for the sacraments if such was the only priest accessible. Thus, it must be recognized and accepted that Greek Orthodox bishops can ordain priests and consecrate new bishops even though they have no authority from the pope to do so. So why do you believe that a pope is necessary for a valid line of bishops to continue?
I suppose there's exceptions, but they are not the rule. I don't think the Almighty would allow us to function with a Church in such a "rigged" manner. It just does not seem His intention.
How is this a "rigged" manner? If all you think the evil forces would have to do to end Catholicism would be to rig or prevent conclaves for a century, that doesn't say much about the power of God in your eyes. In such a scenario, I submit that God could be with and protect His Church via this "rigged" manner until He chose to otherwise provide.
"It just does not seem His intention." --Hirsch
Romans 11:33-34
[33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
Since Hirsch has remained silent in this thread for about 3 days, I am going to go ahead and say that my counter to his first big objection to sedevacantism is indisputable and score big point 1 for the plausibility of sedevacantism.
I glean from the esteemed Hirsch Files, and perhaps I have seen him comment on the forum in this vein, that another major objection that he has is that none of the post-Vat II popes have spoke error infallibly. If infallible pronouncements are all that is important from the papacy, then that significantly diminishes the importance of the papacy. I submit that there is much more to the papacy than infallible pronouncements; that as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is generally responsible for shepherding souls to Heaven, and that infallible pronouncements, though very important, are not the only means that the Holy Father is responsible for using in shepherding souls to Heaven under his watch.
So what have the Popes since 1958 done in leading souls to, or detouring souls from, Heaven. The calling of the Council and, as articulated, opening the doors & windows of the Church to change, knowing that modernism, communism, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ were in the air; inflicting a new "mass" severely breaking from liturgical tradition upon the faithful which was written by a likely (arguably KNOWN to the Pontiff) freemason and several protestant ministers and a rabbi which disguised the sacred truths of the true Mass and made it more palpable to protestants--in fact more protestant-like; globe-trotting like a rock-star, praying with idolotors, accepting pagan blessings, kissing the filthy koran, saying there is no Cathilic God, muddling the concept of the Trinity for the faithful by espousing heresy in public interviews, touting the modern heresy of relativism slyly by saying we should simply follow our individual consciences and concepts of a Being.
Why do you say that all of this should be ignored and that all that is relevant is whether error has been spoken "infallibly?" You try to save the pope by explaining double-meanings and ambiguities. Isn't double-talk and ambiguity deceitful and tantamount to lies, and isn't satan the father of lies? How could such be attributable to the the Vicar of Christ?
BUMPPPPPP
I guess you thought being silent for a few weeks would allow time for everybody to forget that you never finished this discussion when you resumed criticizing sedevacantism...
As the proprietor of hirschiefiles though, I expect you've been booked solid with coast to coast engagements. Can your readership be rounded up to ten yet?
"I've never argued that the Church could not survive a long period of pope-lessness."
"...50+ years without a pope is over a generation of people. A few more decades, and the Church is dead, and it will have been proven that Christ's Church is a lie."
As the proprietor of hirschiefiles though, I expect you've been booked solid with coast to coast engagements.
Quote from: TKGSQuote from: LaramieHirschThe Second Vatican Council doesn't teach any new requirements in regards to morals and dogma.
Then how can anyone be required to sign an oath to the council as discussed in another topic?
Your statement is pure fantasy. The Vatican most certainly considers the docuмents of the Vatican Council 2 to contain new teachings in regards to the faith.
I am not interested in what the Vatican "considers."
What matters is what is true.
None of this crap has been any kind of new ex cathedra infallible teaching. It's just been the same old hippy-dippy language that blinds everyone to a slow subtle movement. All without being "official." The modernist movement is like Communism in politics--it's all under the radar. It's all unannounced and unofficial.
Most people recognize our president as a Marxist. He's just not announcing it.
That's why all of this is so insidious.
The tempter, called serpent in the history of the fall (Gen. iii.), was not that reptile itself, but the devil tempter. speaking through its mouth, although the narrative does not expressly say so. The devil is so often spoken of as the tempter of our first parents, that it might almost be doubted whether the serpent was not an assumed form, rather than the real animal (VVisd. ii. 24 ; John viii. 44).
The temptation was directed to Eve as the weaker party, and against the law of probation, as the most momentous. The tempter begins with a question of double meaning: Is there such a commandment, and why should it be given? (Gen. iii. 1), and goes on denying the punishment threatened by God, and promising likeness to gods as a reward for the evil deed. Almost every word of the devil's speech is ambiguous, admitting of a true and of a false interpretation, a circuмstance entirely in keeping with the character of the tempter.
Quote from: Scheeben, The Fall of ManThe tempter, called serpent in the history of the fall (Gen. iii.), was not that reptile itself, but the devil tempter. speaking through its mouth, although the narrative does not expressly say so. The devil is so often spoken of as the tempter of our first parents, that it might almost be doubted whether the serpent was not an assumed form, rather than the real animal (VVisd. ii. 24 ; John viii. 44).
The temptation was directed to Eve as the weaker party, and against the law of probation, as the most momentous. The tempter begins with a question of double meaning: Is there such a commandment, and why should it be given? (Gen. iii. 1), and goes on denying the punishment threatened by God, and promising likeness to gods as a reward for the evil deed. Almost every word of the devil's speech is ambiguous, admitting of a true and of a false interpretation, a circuмstance entirely in keeping with the character of the tempter.
Quote from: SJBQuote from: Scheeben, The Fall of ManThe tempter, called serpent in the history of the fall (Gen. iii.), was not that reptile itself, but the devil tempter. speaking through its mouth, although the narrative does not expressly say so. The devil is so often spoken of as the tempter of our first parents, that it might almost be doubted whether the serpent was not an assumed form, rather than the real animal (VVisd. ii. 24 ; John viii. 44).
The temptation was directed to Eve as the weaker party, and against the law of probation, as the most momentous. The tempter begins with a question of double meaning: Is there such a commandment, and why should it be given? (Gen. iii. 1), and goes on denying the punishment threatened by God, and promising likeness to gods as a reward for the evil deed. Almost every word of the devil's speech is ambiguous, admitting of a true and of a false interpretation, a circuмstance entirely in keeping with the character of the tempter.
Yes. And we all admit that the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican. No one is denying this.