CathInfo.com

Elizabeth --I have been asking that question for some time:


"Spiritus Sanctus, Emerentiana --

What is or is not extremism is a matter of JUDGMENT.

If your Catholic argumentation is wholly based on appeal to authority, and you do not admit the possibility that some circuмstances require the faithful to use private judgment, then I would think you are not/could not be 'sedevacantists'.

The conclusions CM draws out from the evidence he presents, are also judgments, although he may consider them to be proofs.

What is a rightly intentioned Catholic to do? At each individual's Judgment, will he be able he justify himself on the ground he followed a FALSE authority?

You are all making things too SIMPLE."


*  *  *

"But you have to allow for the possibility that, e.g., Raoul and CM, are well intentioned.

I mean (from my sedevacantist perspective), that no one has answered the question, 'If you believe that the modern hierarchy has lapsed into grave error and probably heresy, and you base your traditionalist movement on the authenticity of Pius XII's Papacy, have you not used "private judgment" to go that far?  And if so, how do you decide how far private judgment, in a degenerate age, should go; when epikeia kicks in; and when you are actually following 'incontrovertible, defined Dogma', as opposed to making a judgment about whether something is incontrovertible, defined Dogma?"

Quote from: innocenza

Elizabeth --I have been asking that question for some time:


"Spiritus Sanctus, Emerentiana --

What is or is not extremism is a matter of JUDGMENT.

If your Catholic argumentation is wholly based on appeal to authority, and you do not admit the possibility that some circuмstances require the faithful to use private judgment, then I would think you are not/could not be 'sedevacantists'.

The conclusions CM draws out from the evidence he presents, are also judgments, although he may consider them to be proofs.

What is a rightly intentioned Catholic to do? At each individual's Judgment, will he be able he justify himself on the ground he followed a FALSE authority?

You are all making things too SIMPLE."


*  *  *

"But you have to allow for the possibility that, e.g., Raoul and CM, are well intentioned.

I mean (from my sedevacantist perspective), that no one has answered the question, 'If you believe that the modern hierarchy has lapsed into grave error and probably heresy, and you base your traditionalist movement on the authenticity of Pius XII's Papacy, have you not used "private judgment" to go that far?  And if so, how do you decide how far private judgment, in a degenerate age, should go; when epikeia kicks in; and when you are actually following 'incontrovertible, defined Dogma', as opposed to making a judgment about whether something is incontrovertible, defined Dogma?"

*  *  *

"How do we know 'what the Church teaches', if we have no Vicar of Christ on earth to guide us?

Myrna's answer, that there has been no further public revelation from God to mankind since the death of the last Apostle, didn't seem to be an answer at all."