Author Topic: Tradcast Episode 1 (Read 5212 times)

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2015, 07:12:50 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Bp Williamson differs from sedeprivationism. However, logically, privationism and Bp Williamson essentially hold the same positions, at least for the most part.

Wrong. Bp. Michel Guerard first applied Thomistic philosophy to suggest the "pape materialiter" thesis. Bp. Robert McKenna was a prime follower and consecrated bishop by him. Bp. McKenna would say that John Paul II was a "nope". Bp. Williamson would say he was a "yup".

They obviously hold opposite positions in the very essential that matters.

Semantically, they hold somewhat different positions insofar how they explain it, but most of the essence of how they view the Crisis and the men conferred the episcopacy, including the pope, is the same. Both privationists and Bp Williamson view these bishops (and pope) as materially being bishops; and both privationists and Bp Williamson refuse to be obedient to them due to the heresy and unfolding apostasy of these Conciliar bishops (and pope). That it the essence of the matter. Their divergence is in explaining the matter, not how they view and respond to the Crisis. As I said before, privationism is more logical in their explanation. Bp Williamson basically says, but not really views, these bishops (and pope) as fully being bishops, yet he rejects the heresies / apostasy that they promulgate. Actions (view and RESPONSE) speak louder than words (explanation). Therein lies the contradiction. Full (or true - whatever word you want to ascribe) bishops who are acting as the magisterium, and the pope, are infallible in matters of the Faith, morality, declaring sainthood, etc, and they cannot err, so how can another bishop, or any Catholic, refuse to accept what they promulgate? The answer is: they (original SSPX position) know that these bishops (and pope) are not Shepherds of the Church regarding matters of the Faith, rather they're only material bishops. Only conversion to the true Faith and rejection of Vatican II will make their episcopacy whole, hence becoming true leaders, teachers and defenders of the true Faith.

Also, notwithstanding the fact that the term "pape materialiter" was coined at a certain point in time, doesn't mean that the views and concepts that define the term never existed before it. Hence, the whole view of, and reaction to, the Crisis by Archbishop Lefebvre has much of the essence of privationism, despite the contradictory semantics in explaining the Crisis and his position. Moreover, a term doesn't have to exist in order for the truth, which defines it, to exist. The word Holy Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture, but we know the Holy Trinity is the eternal Truth. Also, your injection of "Thomistic philosophy" has no weight whatsoever to your argument, rather it's obvious you use it just to make yourself sound more "credible".

Do you want to keep going in circles? You'll lose every time.

BUMP:

Quote from: ascent

But it (sedeprivationism)says they can still confer Holy Orders and consecrate the Sacraments, as well as render various organizational decisions, while their heresy and unfolding apostasy nullifies them as real Shepherds in the Church, thus no Catholic is obligated to be obedient to the falsehoods that they promulgate. Moreover, their declarations of sainthood are not to be honored, nor believed, except for real saints who, due to their true saintliness and the material effects of Beatification / Canonization, do become genuinely canonized in the Church and in the Eyes of the Lord.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2015, 08:27:30 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Bp Williamson differs from sedeprivationism. However, logically, privationism and Bp Williamson essentially hold the same positions, at least for the most part.

Wrong. Bp. Michel Guerard first applied Thomistic philosophy to suggest the "pape materialiter" thesis. Bp. Robert McKenna was a prime follower and consecrated bishop by him. Bp. McKenna would say that John Paul II was a "nope". Bp. Williamson would say he was a "yup".

They obviously hold opposite positions in the very essential that matters.

Semantically, they hold somewhat different positions insofar how they explain it, but most of the essence of how they view the Crisis and the men conferred the episcopacy, including the pope, is the same. Both privationists and Bp Williamson view these bishops (and pope) as materially being bishops; and both privationists and Bp Williamson refuse to be obedient to them due to the heresy and unfolding apostasy of these Conciliar bishops (and pope). That it the essence of the matter. Their divergence is in explaining the matter, not how they view and respond to the Crisis. As I said before, privationism is more logical in their explanation. Bp Williamson basically says, but not really views, these bishops (and pope) as fully being bishops, yet he rejects the heresies / apostasy that they promulgate. Actions (view and RESPONSE) speak louder than words (explanation). Therein lies the contradiction. Full (or true - whatever word you want to ascribe) bishops who are acting as the magisterium, and the pope, are infallible in matters of the Faith, morality, declaring sainthood, etc, and they cannot err, so how can another bishop, or any Catholic, refuse to accept what they promulgate? The answer is: they (original SSPX position) know that these bishops (and pope) are not Shepherds of the Church regarding matters of the Faith, rather they're only material bishops. Only conversion to the true Faith and rejection of Vatican II will make their episcopacy whole, hence becoming true leaders, teachers and defenders of the true Faith.

Also, notwithstanding the fact that the term "pape materialiter" was coined at a certain point in time, doesn't mean that the views and concepts that define the term never existed before it. Hence, the whole view of, and reaction to, the Crisis by Archbishop Lefebvre has much of the essence of privationism, despite the contradictory semantics in explaining the Crisis and his position. Moreover, a term doesn't have to exist in order for the truth, which defines it, to exist. The word Holy Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture, but we know the Holy Trinity is the eternal Truth. Also, your injection of "Thomistic philosophy" has no weight whatsoever to your argument, rather it's obvious you use it just to make yourself sound more "credible".

Do you want to keep going in circles? You'll lose every time.

BUMP:

Quote from: ascent
But it (sedeprivationism)says they can still confer Holy Orders and consecrate the Sacraments, as well as render various organizational decisions, while their heresy and unfolding apostasy nullifies them as real Shepherds in the Church, thus no Catholic is obligated to be obedient to the falsehoods that they promulgate. Moreover, their declarations of sainthood are not to be honored, nor believed, except for real saints who, due to their true saintliness and the material effects of Beatification / Canonization, do become genuinely canonized in the Church and in the Eyes of the Lord.

Bp. Williamson thinks Vatican II papal claimants are true popes, and so-called sedeprivationists think the opposite. Let's not obscure the most important difference.

"By their fruits, you will know them" ... Actions speak louder than words. Bp. Williamson's actions, or lack thereof, justifiably suggest otherwise (to him thinking Vat II claimants are true [full] popes), despite what he verbally says. I'm not saying he officially declares himself sedeprivationist, rather I'm drawing strong parallels between sedeprivationism and his view of, and certainly his response to, the Crisis in the Church.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2015, 08:35:25 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Bp Williamson differs from sedeprivationism. However, logically, privationism and Bp Williamson essentially hold the same positions, at least for the most part.

Wrong. Bp. Michel Guerard first applied Thomistic philosophy to suggest the "pape materialiter" thesis. Bp. Robert McKenna was a prime follower and consecrated bishop by him. Bp. McKenna would say that John Paul II was a "nope". Bp. Williamson would say he was a "yup".

They obviously hold opposite positions in the very essential that matters.

Semantically, they hold somewhat different positions insofar how they explain it, but most of the essence of how they view the Crisis and the men conferred the episcopacy, including the pope, is the same. Both privationists and Bp Williamson view these bishops (and pope) as materially being bishops; and both privationists and Bp Williamson refuse to be obedient to them due to the heresy and unfolding apostasy of these Conciliar bishops (and pope). That it the essence of the matter. Their divergence is in explaining the matter, not how they view and respond to the Crisis. As I said before, privationism is more logical in their explanation. Bp Williamson basically says, but not really views, these bishops (and pope) as fully being bishops, yet he rejects the heresies / apostasy that they promulgate. Actions (view and RESPONSE) speak louder than words (explanation). Therein lies the contradiction. Full (or true - whatever word you want to ascribe) bishops who are acting as the magisterium, and the pope, are infallible in matters of the Faith, morality, declaring sainthood, etc, and they cannot err, so how can another bishop, or any Catholic, refuse to accept what they promulgate? The answer is: they (original SSPX position) know that these bishops (and pope) are not Shepherds of the Church regarding matters of the Faith, rather they're only material bishops. Only conversion to the true Faith and rejection of Vatican II will make their episcopacy whole, hence becoming true leaders, teachers and defenders of the true Faith.

Also, notwithstanding the fact that the term "pape materialiter" was coined at a certain point in time, doesn't mean that the views and concepts that define the term never existed before it. Hence, the whole view of, and reaction to, the Crisis by Archbishop Lefebvre has much of the essence of privationism, despite the contradictory semantics in explaining the Crisis and his position. Moreover, a term doesn't have to exist in order for the truth, which defines it, to exist. The word Holy Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture, but we know the Holy Trinity is the eternal Truth. Also, your injection of "Thomistic philosophy" has no weight whatsoever to your argument, rather it's obvious you use it just to make yourself sound more "credible".

Do you want to keep going in circles? You'll lose every time.

BUMP:

Quote from: ascent
But it (sedeprivationism)says they can still confer Holy Orders and consecrate the Sacraments, as well as render various organizational decisions, while their heresy and unfolding apostasy nullifies them as real Shepherds in the Church, thus no Catholic is obligated to be obedient to the falsehoods that they promulgate. Moreover, their declarations of sainthood are not to be honored, nor believed, except for real saints who, due to their true saintliness and the material effects of Beatification / Canonization, do become genuinely canonized in the Church and in the Eyes of the Lord.

Bp. Williamson thinks Vatican II papal claimants are true popes, and so-called sedeprivationists think the opposite. Let's not obscure the most important difference.

"By their fruits, you will know them" ... Actions speak louder than words. Bp. Williamson's actions, or lack thereof, (justifiably) suggest otherwise, despite what he verbally says. I'm not saying he officially declares himself sedeprivationist, rather I'm drawing strong parallels between sedeprivationism and his view of, and certainly his response to, the Crisis in the Church.

There is not stronger DIFFERENCE than to say Bp. Williamson is dead set against saying Francis is a false pope, and the so-called sedeprivationists saying Francis is categorically NOT a true pope.

Read what you just wrote. "Say(ing)" has nothing to do with ACTION, which redounds on the point I've been making the whole time.

BUMP:

Quote from: ascent

"By their fruits, you will know them" ... Actions speak louder than words. Bp. Williamson's actions, or lack thereof, justifiably suggest otherwise (to him thinking Vat II claimants are true [full] popes), despite what he verbally says. I'm not saying he officially declares himself sedeprivationist, rather I'm drawing strong parallels between sedeprivationism and his view of, and certainly his response to, the Crisis in the Church

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2015, 08:52:41 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Bp Williamson differs from sedeprivationism. However, logically, privationism and Bp Williamson essentially hold the same positions, at least for the most part.

Wrong. Bp. Michel Guerard first applied Thomistic philosophy to suggest the "pape materialiter" thesis. Bp. Robert McKenna was a prime follower and consecrated bishop by him. Bp. McKenna would say that John Paul II was a "nope". Bp. Williamson would say he was a "yup".

They obviously hold opposite positions in the very essential that matters.

Semantically, they hold somewhat different positions insofar how they explain it, but most of the essence of how they view the Crisis and the men conferred the episcopacy, including the pope, is the same. Both privationists and Bp Williamson view these bishops (and pope) as materially being bishops; and both privationists and Bp Williamson refuse to be obedient to them due to the heresy and unfolding apostasy of these Conciliar bishops (and pope). That it the essence of the matter. Their divergence is in explaining the matter, not how they view and respond to the Crisis. As I said before, privationism is more logical in their explanation. Bp Williamson basically says, but not really views, these bishops (and pope) as fully being bishops, yet he rejects the heresies / apostasy that they promulgate. Actions (view and RESPONSE) speak louder than words (explanation). Therein lies the contradiction. Full (or true - whatever word you want to ascribe) bishops who are acting as the magisterium, and the pope, are infallible in matters of the Faith, morality, declaring sainthood, etc, and they cannot err, so how can another bishop, or any Catholic, refuse to accept what they promulgate? The answer is: they (original SSPX position) know that these bishops (and pope) are not Shepherds of the Church regarding matters of the Faith, rather they're only material bishops. Only conversion to the true Faith and rejection of Vatican II will make their episcopacy whole, hence becoming true leaders, teachers and defenders of the true Faith.

Also, notwithstanding the fact that the term "pape materialiter" was coined at a certain point in time, doesn't mean that the views and concepts that define the term never existed before it. Hence, the whole view of, and reaction to, the Crisis by Archbishop Lefebvre has much of the essence of privationism, despite the contradictory semantics in explaining the Crisis and his position. Moreover, a term doesn't have to exist in order for the truth, which defines it, to exist. The word Holy Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture, but we know the Holy Trinity is the eternal Truth. Also, your injection of "Thomistic philosophy" has no weight whatsoever to your argument, rather it's obvious you use it just to make yourself sound more "credible".

Do you want to keep going in circles? You'll lose every time.

BUMP:

Quote from: ascent
But it (sedeprivationism)says they can still confer Holy Orders and consecrate the Sacraments, as well as render various organizational decisions, while their heresy and unfolding apostasy nullifies them as real Shepherds in the Church, thus no Catholic is obligated to be obedient to the falsehoods that they promulgate. Moreover, their declarations of sainthood are not to be honored, nor believed, except for real saints who, due to their true saintliness and the material effects of Beatification / Canonization, do become genuinely canonized in the Church and in the Eyes of the Lord.

Bp. Williamson thinks Vatican II papal claimants are true popes, and so-called sedeprivationists think the opposite. Let's not obscure the most important difference.

"By their fruits, you will know them" ... Actions speak louder than words. Bp. Williamson's actions, or lack thereof, (justifiably) suggest otherwise, despite what he verbally says. I'm not saying he officially declares himself sedeprivationist, rather I'm drawing strong parallels between sedeprivationism and his view of, and certainly his response to, the Crisis in the Church.

There is not stronger DIFFERENCE than to say Bp. Williamson is dead set against saying Francis is a false pope, and the so-called sedeprivationists saying Francis is categorically NOT a true pope.

Read what you just wrote. "Say(ing)" has nothing to do with ACTION, which redounds on the point I've been making the whole time.

BUMP:

Quote from: ascent
"By their fruits, you will know them" ... Actions speak louder than words. Bp. Williamson's actions, or lack thereof, justifiably suggest otherwise (to him thinking Vat II claimants are true [full] popes), despite what he verbally says. I'm not saying he officially declares himself sedeprivationist, rather I'm drawing strong parallels between sedeprivationism and his view of, and certainly his response to, the Crisis in the Church

The Church teaches that ACTION and TALK/BELIEF both must be in conformity with each other, otherwise it is living a lie.

If Bp. Williamson's actions do not conform to his belief, then his belief is in error. That is why St. Paul publicly corrected St. Peter, and St. Peter immediately changed his way, because it was quite serious.

More conflation by Nado. Such trickery.

Bp. Williamson in NO WAY says to follow Francis or any of the heretical & apostate Conciliar bishops, nor does he say a Catholic is permitted to go to the novus ordo mass. Bp Williamson is just as resistant to Francis and the counterfeit church than any (schizoid) "home alone" dogmatic sede or any logical sedeprivationist.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2015, 03:58:34 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
The Church teaches that ACTION and TALK/BELIEF both must be in conformity with each other, otherwise it is living a lie.

If Bp. Williamson's actions do not conform to his belief, then his belief is in error. That is why St. Paul publicly corrected St. Peter, and St. Peter immediately changed his way, because it was quite serious.

More conflation by Nado. Such trickery.

Bp. Williamson in NO WAY says to follow Francis or any of the heretical & apostate Conciliar bishops, nor does he say a Catholic is permitted to go to the novus ordo mass. Bp Williamson is just as resistant to Francis and the counterfeit church than any (schizoid) "home alone" dogmatic sede or any logical sedeprivationist.

So, no, Bp. Williamson believes these men are true popes and totally ignores them.

Exactly, his actions testify otherwise.

Quote from: Nado

For a so-called sedeprivationist, saying the man is NOT pope, and totally ignoring him, is completely consistent in principle and action.

Yes, but privationists still know that the Conciliar bishops & the pope confer valid Holy Orders, and they consecrate all other valid Sacraments, hence they're material bishops & popes. Bp. Williamson, obviously, also knows these same bishops & pope hold the same material validity. This makes privationists & Bp Williamson (and the premise of SSPX's founding) have far more in common than differences. You ignore this essential fact.

Also, your Scripture quote adds nothing, whatsoever, to your argument, rather it's only FLUFF to make your argument sound more substantive.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:07:50 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Nado
The Church teaches that ACTION and TALK/BELIEF both must be in conformity with each other, otherwise it is living a lie.

If Bp. Williamson's actions do not conform to his belief, then his belief is in error. That is why St. Paul publicly corrected St. Peter, and St. Peter immediately changed his way, because it was quite serious.

More conflation by Nado. Such trickery.

Bp. Williamson in NO WAY says to follow Francis or any of the heretical & apostate Conciliar bishops, nor does he say a Catholic is permitted to go to the novus ordo mass. Bp Williamson is just as resistant to Francis and the counterfeit church than any (schizoid) "home alone" dogmatic sede or any logical sedeprivationist.

So, no, Bp. Williamson believes these men are true popes and totally ignores them.

Exactly, his actions testify otherwise.

Quote from: Nado
For a so-called sedeprivationist, saying the man is NOT pope, and totally ignoring him, is completely consistent in principle and action.

Yes, but privationists still know that the Conciliar bishops & the pope confer valid Holy Orders, and they consecrate all other valid Sacraments, hence they're material bishops & popes. Bp. Williamson, obviously, also knows these same bishops & pope hold the same material validity. This makes privationists & Bp Williamson (and the premise of SSPX's founding) have far more in common than differences. You ignore this essential fact.

Also, your Scripture quote adds nothing, whatsoever, to your argument, rather it's only FLUFF to make your argument sound more substantive.

So-called sedeprivationism relies on Thomistic philosophy's principle of material/formal. If you knew about the principle, you would know that material and formal is a vast distance apart.

Fluff compounded on fluff. "Thomistic, blah blah blah" layered on "St. Peter (verse) blah blah blah".

Quote from: Nado

Actions speak louder than words, so the actions themselves teach something false, and become false beliefs in the minds of those taking the bad example.

Exactly, thanks for reiterating my point, AGAIN. Bp Williamson's actions are most appropriate and they LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Such actions do not see Francis more than a material pope.

Quote from: Nado

Saying IS pope, and saying IS NOT pope are essentially diametrically opposed in position because one is saying IS formally pope and the other is saying IS NOT formally pope. Formal is of the essence.

So what's your point (other than reinforcing MINE]? By that logic I can posit that both privationism's and Bp. Williamson's actions say the Francis is not more than a material pope, for they are not obedient to him, and they instruct the flock to not be obedient to him.

Quote from: Nado

If you have two people both whose action is to steal a penny, then objectively they are both doing something materially the same, which is venial. However, if one of them did it believing it was a mortal sin, then that one commits a grievous sin, even though his action is materially venial.

Utter nonsense and heresy. Stealing is a mortal sin, no matter how small the value, and despite whether one believes the sinful act is grievous or not.

Quote from: Nado

I don't know where you got your misinformation from about sedeprivationism.

That isn't saying much coming from you. What little I've spoken about sedeprivationism (although I'm far from an expert) has been true; and moreover, your criticism about my "misinformation" regarding it makes ZERO sense because this polemic is also about Bp Williamson's view of, and response to, the Crisis, despite how he publicly explains it, and how similar he is to privationism, after having established a proper understanding of privationism. You continued to ignore the fact that privationism recognizes the validity of the novus ordo's Sacraments and ordinations conferred upon of the clerics. You're driven to keep sedeprivationism overshadowed by sedevacantism, in fact, you (fallaciously) subtly make the former synonymous with the latter. You don't want people to know about privationism's real positions. You only want the SV vs plenism paradigm. You've been busted. :judge:

I don't know where you got your misinformation about the Eighth Commandment and the Catechism's teaching about the mortal sin of stealing. Oh, that's right, are you even a Catholic, or are you some half-ass-polished troll on here who suffers a pathology of some sorts, and driven to sow discord among real Catholics?

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2015, 02:27:18 PM »

Quote from: Nado

when you just laugh at the mention of Thomistic philosophy.

I'm not laughing at Thomism, rather I'm laughing at YOU for referencing it to "support" your (fallacious) argument. The fluff really tickles, if it's not annoying. There is no logical reason to even inject Thomism into your chaotic, illogical, deluded argument.

You keep recycling most of the same fallacies as earlier, and repackaging them as if you have something new or "truthful" to say. Another fail.

Quote from: Nado

Looks like you are the troll with some pathology when you don't even know the fundamental about stealing and mortal sin.

No, what I said is sound Catholic teaching. Willful, conscious stealing - no matter the value - violates the Eighth Commandment and is a mortal sin against the Lord. Depending on the priest, penance is commensurate with the value stolen. However, if a person takes an object that doesn't belong to him while not knowing his actions, or his erred thinking leads him to believe he's not stealing in any way, then there is no mortal sin. But if he knows he is committing a sin - even if he thinks it's "just a venial" sin and the value is small - his very act of stealing and willful decision to violate the Lord's Commandment makes his offense a mortal sin.

Quote from: Nado

As well as your other pathology about being obsessed with fear of Jєωs.

Another dilapidated "you're obsessed with Jєωs" card. The only thing missing that's usually attached is, "you're antisemitic". Maybe next time.

Oh, I'm fearful of Jєωs? Another illogical spout from you. It seems to me that those who are fearful of the Jєωs are afraid to even say the "Jєω" word, much less expose their subterfuge against the Church. Conversely, I bring attention to their perfidy and anti-Christ agenda. You lose again, Jєω.

P.S. ... Just because you comment again (thus being last), and I won't respond any further to your ridiculous, vacuous rebuttals that are actually designed to get attention for yourself while sowing discord among others, does NOT mean you win this, or any, polemic. It only proves the fart (you) was last to leave the room.

Matto · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2015, 02:40:54 PM »

Quote from: ascent

No, what I said is sound Catholic teaching. Willful, conscious stealing - no matter the value - violates the Eighth Commandment and is a mortal sin against the Lord.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, stealing something of little value is only a venial sin.

2Vermont · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2015, 03:51:26 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: ascent
No, what I said is sound Catholic teaching. Willful, conscious stealing - no matter the value - violates the Eighth Commandment and is a mortal sin against the Lord.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, stealing something of little value is only a venial sin.

And from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?

A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times. Circuмstances may make the sin greater or less, and they should be explained in confession.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #24 on:** January 29, 2015, 03:19:56 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: ascent
No, what I said is sound Catholic teaching. Willful, conscious stealing - no matter the value - violates the Eighth Commandment and is a mortal sin against the Lord.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, stealing something of little value is only a venial sin.

And from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?

A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times. Circuмstances may make the sin greater or less, and they should be explained in confession.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent trumps the Baltimore Cathechism. The latter is not guaranteed to be free of error, hence it’s not infallible. No pope ever officially approved the BC, which was devised by bishops in the U.S. Moreover, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s reference for the “venial sin” teaching comes from 3 theologian sources, hence mere conjecture, not anything defined infallibly such as the Council or Trent.

Nowhere in Trent’s Catechism (unless I overlooked it) does it categorize violating the 7th Commandment (or “8th” in the Septuigant) into both mortal and venial sins. It only mentions the grievousness of stealing, and it says the following: “Hence these words of the Apostle: Neither thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm07.htm

That is very clear cut.

Again, the categorizing of some types of stealing as venial sins is mere conjecture that was codified in the Baltimore Catechism. It is not taught infallibly, therefore Catholics must err on the safe side and abide what the Commandment says, which is infallibly taught by Trent, “Thou shall not steal”, period, lest you risk losing your soul to perdition. Is willfully and consciously taking a piece of bubble gum that belongs to another person without their approval the act of stealing? Yes. Is it a mortal sin? To answer that question we must identify the conditions that need to be met in order for mortal sin to occur. There are 3 conditions:

1) the matter must be "grave";

2) the sin must be committed with full knowledge;

3) the sin must be committed deliberately.

We can easily agree on the last 2 conditions being met. Now, regarding the 1st condition, some of you are basing your views off of the subjective, which is derived from mere conjecture by American bishops (and, perhaps, theologians), yet not officially approved by any pope nor deemed Ex Cathedra.

Conversely, I base my view off of the objective reality, which is the fact that taking the piece of bubble gum is, indeed, the act of stealing. The 7th (“8th”) Commandment and Trent Catechism clearly forbids the act of stealing. It’s a grave sin against the Lord and His Commandment, thus sending the person to Hell if he dies unrepentant.

Better to err on the safe side and don't steal anything - even the smallest values. If we do commit such sin, then we must confess it as soon as we can make it to the Sacrament of Penance.

2Vermont · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2015, 03:29:37 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: ascent
No, what I said is sound Catholic teaching. Willful, conscious stealing - no matter the value - violates the Eighth Commandment and is a mortal sin against the Lord.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, stealing something of little value is only a venial sin.

And from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?

A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times. Circuмstances may make the sin greater or less, and they should be explained in confession.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent trumps the Baltimore Cathechism. The latter is not guaranteed to be free of error, hence it’s not infallible. No pope ever officially approved the BC, which was devised by bishops in the U.S. Moreover, the Catholic Encyclopedia’s reference for the “venial sin” teaching comes from 3 theologian sources, hence mere conjecture, not anything defined infallibly such as the Council or Trent.

Nowhere in Trent’s Catechism (unless I overlooked it) does it categorize violating the 7th Commandment (or “8th” in the Septuigant) into both mortal and venial sins. It only mentions the grievousness of stealing, and it says the following: “Hence these words of the Apostle: Neither thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.”
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm07.htm

That is very clear cut.

Again, the categorizing of some types of stealing as venial sins is mere conjecture that was codified in the Baltimore Catechism. It is not taught infallibly, therefore Catholics must err on the safe side and abide what the Commandment says, which is infallibly taught by Trent, “Thou shall not steal”, period, lest you risk losing your soul to perdition. Is willfully and consciously taking a piece of bubble gum that belongs to another person without their approval the act of stealing? Yes. Is it a mortal sin? To answer that question we must identify the conditions that need to be met in order for mortal sin to occur. There are 3 conditions:

1) the matter must be "grave";

2) the sin must be committed with full knowledge;

3) the sin must be committed deliberately.

We can easily agree on the last 2 conditions being met. Now, regarding the 1st condition, some of you are basing your views off of the subjective, which is derived from mere conjecture by American bishops (and, perhaps, theologians), yet not officially approved by any pope nor deemed Ex Cathedra.

Conversely, I base my view off of the objective reality, which is the fact that taking the piece of bubble gum is, indeed, the act of stealing. The 7th (“8th”) Commandment and Trent Catechism clearly forbids the act of stealing. It’s a grave sin against the Lord and His Commandment, thus sending the person to Hell if he dies unrepentant.

Better to err on the safe side and don't steal anything - even the smallest values. If we do commit such sin, then we must confess it as soon as we can make it to the Sacrament of Penance.

Firstly, you don't pit Catholic catechisms against Catholic catechisms. (Perhaps that's what the Russian Orthodox do?)

Next, the two catechisms don't contradict each other, the Roman Catechism simply doesn't address mortal and venial sin.

Thirdly, the Baltimore Catechism was approved by the pope.

Lastly, you "fluffed" your response with subjective for #1, not realizing that #2 and #3 are also (even more) subjective.

Exactly. Here's what another catechism says (the 1649 Douay Catechism):

Q. When is theft a mortal sin?
A. When the thing stolen is of a considerable value, or causeth a considerable hurt to our neighbour.

Cantarella · « **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2015, 04:18:28 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Firstly, you don't pit Catholic catechisms against Catholic catechisms. (Perhaps that's what the Russian Orthodox do?)

No, you simply dismiss it when it is not of your liking, right? like you do with the 1983 Catechism; (perhaps being a schismatic gives you the right to do so?)

Sorry Nado, but you cannot play that card. It is a double standard.

Catechisms are not infallible. They are presentation of doctrine and have merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. You simply can't compare the orthodox Catechism of Trent with the Americanist Baltimore Catechism, for example. It does not fit with the reality.

Geremia · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2015, 10:02:34 AM »

the next episode is up:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/KUZ1dgnIrnY[/youtube]

Geremia · « **Reply #28 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:29:00 AM »

Episode #4 on EENS is very good:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/IFl0meAfomE[/youtube]