Author Topic: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types? (Read 2978 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #30 on:** February 20, 2018, 01:08:48 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 20, 2018, 12:28:02 PM

Last Tradhican wrote: These people you describe all have conviction, which you do not, for if you did you would not give them the importance that you do.

I have no problem with sedevacantes, I have no problem with "flat Earthers, and I do not have a problem with people who limit their belief in baptism of desire to the catechumen.

As for people who believe that baptism of desire means that non-Catholics, Jєωs, Mohamedans, Buddhists, Hindus etc. can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, I look upon them the same as I look upon any Novus Ordite, they are the cause of the success of the Vatican II religion, whether they are Sede, SSPX, or Indult.

PG answers: You are blinded by your heresy. One of the essential beliefs catholics must hold is that God "rewards" good and punishes evil. The reason you and the three types I listed in my OP should be banned is because you are all dogmatic. The very best your types can offer up is silence. And, that is no offering. John 1.1

Oh, so you admit that you believe that non-Catholics, Jєωs, Mohamedans, Buddhists, Hindus etc. can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards. And your "dogma" for that is that "God rewards good and punishes evil". It is no wonder you can't tolerate a talk with strict EENSers, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** February 20, 2018, 01:15:27 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 20, 2018, 12:14:03 PM

A friend should be "like" unto oneself. The keyword is "like", and it is referring to spiritual matters. It is not referring to carnal matters. This is why we cannot get back to basics. We cannot get back to material matters because there is a spiritual impediment. Vacantists who believe that I am in mortal sin for attending an una cuм mass are not "like" unto myself. Feeneyites who deny catholic baptism doctrine and desecrate it with a montfortian bloody mary are not "like" unto myself.
Just listen to the feeneyites who have commented so far. Their idea of communion is likened to cloning and echo chambers. These are entirely carnal ideas, and it shows their perverted idea of communion. It shows how intellectually the universal is subordinated to the tribal. Catholics says "I believe in God", while the damned say "we are legion". Make note of the difference. Feeneyites idea of communion is eerily reminiscent to the cloned echo of legion.

I'll pass over, for now, your mischaracterization and/or oversimplification of the various positions with which you disagree, and will only respond by asking: Who says you have to be "friends" with anyone here on CI? I talk to non-Catholics, Novus Ordo Catholics, agnostics/atheists, Protestants all the time as a matter of living my life ... but I don't call them my friends. Someone being a member of CI doesn't suddenly force you to be their friend.

now, briefly

1) not all vacantists are dogmatic and consider you in mortal sin for attending an "una cuм" Mass (those are just the dogmatic ones, and Matthew does routinely ban these)

2) "Feeneyites" do not have any unique theology regarding communion

3) there's no one-to-one correspondence between "Feeneyites" and the teachings of St. Louis de Montfort ... what, you make this deduction just because the direct follower of Father Feeney call themselves "slaves" our Our Lady (... as if there's anything wrong with that anyway)

... as for the rest your stuff about universal/tribal, cloned echo of legion (with connection to Feeneyism) ... I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 20, 2018, 01:18:38 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 20, 2018, 12:28:02 PM

You are blinded by your heresy. One of the essential beliefs catholics must hold is that God "rewards" good and punishes evil. The reason you and the three types I listed in my OP should be banned is because you are all dogmatic. The very best your types can offer up is silence. And, that is no offering. John 1.1

Talk about dogmatism. You do know, right, that it's a disputed question among Catholic theologians whether belief in the Rewarder/Punisher God suffices for salvation? Even right before Vatican II that was the MINORITY opinion ... which you now promote as dogma. St. Thomas and many Catholic Doctors held the opposite. So I guess that St. Thomas Aquinas was a heretic also.

PG · « **Reply #33 on:** February 20, 2018, 01:36:07 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici on February 20, 2018, 12:34:32 PM

If you think casting out all of the so-called "rejects" is a possible solution to Matthew's lamenting a lack of unity, you've missed his point entirely.
.
You also suggest that no one ever gets banned from this forum which is hardly the case. CathInfo is already a thinned selection of Trad opinions. I have no doubt those who have been banned already believe this to be an echo chamber.
.
What you're suggesting is a group of people who agree with each other on everything which would amount to the number of people you can count on one hand.
.
PS. Dogmatic sedevacantists are not allowed on CathInfo. If someone thinks the moderator is a heretic, they're at minimum not allowed to express that opinion. Anyone who does and is still here is just managing to fly under the radar for a time.

I never said or meant to say that matthews actions are lamenting to me. I stated that matthew in another thread lamented that all of these things are so often discussed.
I will show right now that silence is not the best that I have to offer up. I regret using the word reject. It has obviously caused more harm than good. I formed that post hastily. But, that doesn't change the fact that I will not to be friends with such people. And, it doesn't change what scripture says about who we should and should not keep company with. It was not until the last supper than Christ called the apostles friends. If these types are either not allowed or recommended not to approach holy communion, then they are not friends. Perhaps they are servants. But, servants are inferior, and these types do not portend to be inferior. Just read last tradhicans last post.
I have not missed matthews point. I understand matthew quite well, and I do not attack him. Matthew is quite capable of and does often shut me up. It is admirable. The point of my OP I think has been revealed in peoples responses. And, that is why I posted it. My OP did not so much consist of statements as it did of questions. It has elicited responses that I can then critique. This is cantarellas "helpful perspectives" in action. Answers are easily at hand.
It seems that sedevacantists are the only one who can and do get banned here. But, it is not because of matters of faith or morals. It seems to me because of a usurpation of authority that one gets banned. I have always said that vacantism tends towards conclavism, so usurpation of authority is a trait of vacantism. And, that is a good reason to get one banned. But, if that is the only case, which it seems to me, then lets at least be clear about that. There are many who are dogmatic about these three errors that matthew laments are being so often discussed. But, they get a pass, they get a subforum or ghetto, and they get to go on about their business of marking territory all over CI.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #34 on:** February 20, 2018, 01:42:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 20, 2018, 01:18:38 PM

Talk about dogmatism. You do know, right, that it's a disputed question among Catholic theologians whether belief in the Rewarder/Punisher God suffices for salvation? Even right before Vatican II that was the MINORITY opinion ... which you now promote as dogma. St. Thomas and many Catholic Doctors held the opposite. So I guess that St. Thomas Aquinas was a heretic also.

And what exactly are the heresies in Vatican II for a PG who believes that "belief in the Rewarder/Punisher God suffices for salvation"? All the heresies in Vatican II stem from the "belief in the Rewarder/Punisher God suffices for salvation". That is why many, maybe the majority, of SSPX priests today see nothing wrong with Menzingen's negotiations to join the Vatican II religion.

wallflower · « **Reply #35 on:** February 20, 2018, 01:55:59 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 20, 2018, 12:14:03 PM

A friend should be "like" unto oneself. The keyword is "like", and it is referring to spiritual matters. It is not referring to carnal matters. This is why we cannot get back to basics. We cannot get back to material matters because there is a spiritual impediment. Vacantists who believe that I am in mortal sin for attending an una cuм mass are not "like" unto myself. Feeneyites who deny catholic baptism doctrine and desecrate it with a montfortian bloody mary are not "like" unto myself.
Just listen to the feeneyites who have commented so far. Their idea of communion is likened to cloning and echo chambers. These are entirely carnal ideas, and it shows their perverted idea of communion. It shows how intellectually the universal is subordinated to the tribal. Catholics says "I believe in God", while the damned say "we are legion". Make note of the difference. Feeneyites idea of communion is eerily reminiscent to the cloned echo of legion.

I don't have a set opinion on who should be allowed here or not, I don't pay enough attention to the prolonged arguments to get frustrated anymore. But I do agree with your thought here. I felt the sting of "echo chamber" being thrown out there because it has a very negative connotation that I don't think is based in Catholic thought. Liberals use that phrase constantly to undermine people who believe in objective truth. If you don't believe that everyone's opinion on every topic is valid and you don't want to associate with absolutely everyone, they will accuse you of wanting to live in an echo chamber. In other words you should want and love to associate with anyone no matter what. It's their way of guilting you into opening yourself up to any type of influence. So the goal of this phrase is generally not a good one and doesn't correspond to Catholic thought. We are warned over and over and over again about bad companions vs good companions, about being set apart, about guarding ourselves etc... Catholics are in communion, as you say, and it is very good to seek out the companionship of people who are edifying and encouraging to our Faith. Likewise it is normal to be frustrated if that strengthening doesn't seem to be the case.

I am NOT saying that those in question here are bad companions. I do not think so for the most part. I have respect for many who argue against each other. I just object to the use of that phrase among Catholics. We don't do the "echo chamber" thing. We ought to be in communion on the important things because we acknowledge there is such a thing as objective truth applicable to all, and simply agree to disagree on the lesser things. If we are not in communion on the important things, (thanks in large part to the lack of leadership) it can absolutely make friendship more difficult. In that light it is valid for all who frequent forums to question whether their faith is strengthened and whether they are primarily engaging in good, edifying company or not. The internet is highly voluntary. It isn't the same as getting to know your neighbor, dealing with co-workers, talking to the grocery lady or attending a family reunion. It is a 100% voluntary and mostly unnecessary association. You have to judge that the benefits truly outweigh the risks. That is sometimes difficult to do online.

cindy gibson · « **Reply #36 on:** February 20, 2018, 02:48:24 PM »

Vacantist's should watch Fr Chazal's lectures on the subject. Its very good.

PG · « **Reply #37 on:** February 20, 2018, 03:27:41 PM »

Cindy - yes, that is a must watch talk given by fr. chazal. That talk and teaching was at least half of the reason why I decided to finally and fully close the door on speculation of vacantism and its proximate occasions. The other half of my reason had to do with the end of vacantism, which is conclavism. What Fr. chazal discusses seems to be what concerns the gateway you could say to vacantism. But, the end is conclavism no matter what way it is looked at, and that is death as far as I am concerned.

Nadir · « **Reply #38 on:** February 20, 2018, 04:52:32 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 20, 2018, 11:18:29 AM

I started this topic as an indirect response to matthews reply to his OP about the recent EC. Matthew lamented why we all talk about precisely these things I listed in my OP instead of talking about going back to basics. I usually don't like to take a stab at matthew, so I gave him a pass. But, it begs the question, why does he allow these types on the forum? It is like what scripture says about friends. When you become "friends" with rejects quite frankly, goodness loses.

Now your questions make more sense than they did before you explained your reason for posting them.

Actually what Matthew said, as commentary on a +Williamson's letter, was:

The passing on of Tradition from one generation to the next, the effects of the modern world upon our children, and dozens of related topics is SO much more useful and SO much more worthy of our consideration and study than dead-end topics that really don't matter, such as:

* The status of the Pope
* The shape of the earth
* Feeneyism/BoD, BoB
* How all of Tradition (except "me") got it wrong, and how *I* would fix Tradition if only people would listen to me...

For those who are raising children, of whom Matthew is one, this is so true. This is their primary work. By the way you missed No 4.

PG · « **Reply #39 on:** February 20, 2018, 05:55:32 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on February 20, 2018, 04:52:32 PM

Now your questions make more sense than they did before you explained your reason for posting them.

Actually what Matthew said, as commentary on a +Williamson's letter, was:

The passing on of Tradition from one generation to the next, the effects of the modern world upon our children, and dozens of related topics is SO much more useful and SO much more worthy of our consideration and study than dead-end topics that really don't matter, such as:

* The status of the Pope
* The shape of the earth
* Feeneyism/BoD, BoB
* How all of Tradition (except "me") got it wrong, and how *I* would fix Tradition if only people would listen to me...

For those who are raising children, of whom Matthew is one, this is so true. This is their primary work. By the way you missed No 4.

His use of the word "dead-end" and capital SO signaled what I perceived. I don't think I misrepresented him, unless matthew doesn't lament pursuits resulting in a dead end. I left the 4th one out because it was not so explicit. And, yes, getting back to basics is the family mans objective. But, culture matters. And, if we neglect to cultivate catholic culture, we will find ourselves in a non catholic culture.

PG · « **Reply #40 on:** February 20, 2018, 06:16:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 20, 2018, 01:18:38 PM

Talk about dogmatism. You do know, right, that it's a disputed question among Catholic theologians whether belief in the Rewarder/Punisher God suffices for salvation? Even right before Vatican II that was the MINORITY opinion ... which you now promote as dogma. St. Thomas and many Catholic Doctors held the opposite. So I guess that St. Thomas Aquinas was a heretic also.

It is one of the three things every christian is bound to know! I quote from the penny catechism - "the chief mysteries of faith which every christian is bound to know are the unity and trinity of God, who will render to every man according to his works, and the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our savior.

This is absolutely no minority opinion. It is dogma. The catholic church teaches this. And, the catholic church teaches merit. Only a bloody montfortian who rejects the catholic teaching of merit would reject this.

Matthew · « **Reply #41 on:** February 20, 2018, 09:23:13 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 19, 2018, 10:46:25 PM

And, God didn't tell noah to build a lifeboat.

What are you talking about? Go read the book of Genesis! God specifically designed the Ark for Noah. And it was to be PRECISELY a temporary life boat for all that had "the breath of life" upon the earth.

Matthew · « **Reply #42 on:** February 20, 2018, 09:39:36 PM »

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2018, 11:05:58 AM

How can we "return to basics," and what are those basics? I have to wonder if it's too late to return to basics, but I would like to see that happen. The divisiveness gets old.

The basics I've spoken about many times. I'm talking about the basics, or origins of the Traditional Movement, which began immediately after the New Mass was promulgated in 1969.

There was no question of any Indult, I'll tell you that. So from the beginning, "Traditional Catholics" were not concerned with permission from Rome to stay Catholic and aloof from the Modernist heresy and madness taking over Rome, personified in Vatican II, the Conciliar Church, and the Novus Ordo Mass and everything connected with it.

The first talk of any permission to say the Tridentine Mass was 1984, and it really didn't get going until 1988, AFTER Archbishop Lefebvre made his decisive move to consecrate (4) Traditional bishops for the continuation and survival of Tradition. And even then, when did most cities get their Indult? Probably sometime after that, possibly not until 2006 or after, with "Summorum Pontificuм" of Benedict XVI.

So what are the basics of the Traditional Movement?

1. Complete aloofness and leaving behind of the Conciliar Church structure. No attendance at Novus Ordo Masses, confessionals, or visits with Novus Ordo priests or churches (except for sightseeing). That is REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OR LACK OF TRADITIONAL ALTERNATIVES. Completely "let the dead bury their dead" and shake the dust from your feet, EXCEPT you can pray for their enlightenment and conversion. But no truck/commerce/traffic/intercourse is had with them, with the deluded hope of influencing or converting them.

2. Seeking out lifeboats, which is to say: true Priests and true Masses (Tridentine Mass) wherever they can be found, from any priest willing to offer it. If the priest is valid (certain) and he offers the true Mass, and he was formed Traditional, than you are 100% good to go. This goes for Mass AND all the Sacraments, including Baptism, Penance, Confirmation, and Matrimony. What about permission from Rome? *crickets chirping* Traditional Catholics learn in Lesson 1 that "we don't need permission from any man, not even the Pope, to keep the Faith, save our souls, or remain Catholic!" It's not just a right, it's actually a duty to do these things (keep the Faith, serve God with proper religion, including the true Mass, and save our souls).

Noticeably absent from this list: what specific pre-Vatican II missal the priest must use, the status of the Pope, and many other opinions, distractions, and side-issues.

I tell you that in the 1970's Traditional Catholics of all sorts of opinions and backgrounds used to sit side-by-side in the pews. Every person had his private opinion about a wide variety of topics. There were sedevacantists in every chapel. Some leaned more toward the "Indult" position, but they didn't have a way to express this yet. But everyone kept their eyes on the prize: weekly (or, as frequent as they could get it) Mass and reception of the Sacraments, recitation of the Rosary, catechism lessons for their children, etc.

Everyone did what they could to survive this time of confusion, and hopefully emerge with their Faith intact. The devil didn't succeed in splintering Trads into 15 different groups until much later...

PG · « **Reply #43 on:** February 20, 2018, 09:47:10 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on February 20, 2018, 09:23:13 PM

What are you talking about? Go read the book of Genesis! God specifically designed the Ark for Noah. And it was to be PRECISELY a temporary life boat for all that had "the breath of life" upon the earth.

I should have said life raft. What I meant was that such a boat is small, and the ark was not small. It had to house all the animals. And, well, I won't go into what I might mean by animals and how there is no room, on a small boat.

Matthew · « **Reply #44 on:** February 20, 2018, 10:25:26 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 20, 2018, 09:47:10 PM

I should have said life raft. What I meant was that such a boat is small, and the ark was not small. It had to house all the animals. And, well, I won't go into what I might mean by animals and how there is no room, on a small boat.

Nevertheless, even the Ark was pretty tiny, considering the original "boat" the survivors escaped was the Earth.

Author Topic: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types? (Read 2978 times)

Last Tradhican

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Ladislaus

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Ladislaus

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

PG

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Last Tradhican

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

wallflower

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

cindy gibson

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

PG

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Nadir

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

PG

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

PG

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Matthew

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Matthew

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

PG

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?

Matthew

Re: What if CI members only consisted of sspx and resistance types?