Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on July 25, 2016, 07:44:30 AM

Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 25, 2016, 07:44:30 AM
I always thought the SSPX kept a traditional veneer about them but what in the world are they doing here?  Since when do we glorify the Lord with modern "art"?

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/hideous-sspx-church-madrid.htm

Dedication scheduled for July 25

House of Horrors:
Hideous New SSPX Church in Madrid
sspx-church-madrid2.jpg


In Madrid, the capital of Spain, the Society of St. Pius X spent the last few years building a new church. The building has now been completed, and the solemn dedication ceremony is scheduled for this coming Monday, July 25, which coincides with the parish’s titular feast, for the church is dedicated to St. James the Greater, Apostle.

Normally, none of this would be news, for the SSPX builds new parish churches around the globe all the time. The case of St. James the Apostle Church in Madrid, however, is different, because the exterior of the now-completed building is so hideous that it might as well be a Novus Ordo church. One may also easily mistake it for an office building, a library, or worse.

Here are a few sample pictures of this monstrosity (click each photo to enlarge). Make no mistake about it, this church is no longer under construction — it’s done!


sspx-church-madrid3.jpg

The outer facade facing the main road
sspx-church-madrid7.jpg

Another view of the same
sspx-church-madrid8.jpg

The SSPX logo is plastered all over the outer wall
sspx-church-madrid4.jpg

These interesting windows face a side street
sspx-church-madrid9.jpg

A wider view
sspx-church-madrid10.jpg

A view from the corner


You can check this out for yourself. Simply go to Google Maps and use Street View for the following address: Calle de Catalina Suárez, 16, 28007 Madrid, Spain.

By the way, did you notice the odd-looking statue at the top of the building? Here is a close-up:
sspx-church-madrid1.jpg


What is this? The Grim Reaper? Actually, it is supposed to be the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the SSPX claims to be especially devoted. Here is a closer view still:
sspx-church-madrid6.jpg


No eyes, no mouth, and just a hideous overall appearance. How much this must have cost? Or perhaps it was a gift from the local Masonic Lodge?

Lots more photos of the church, both during and after construction, can be found at the following links:

    The Frightening New Church of the SSPX in Spain
    Obras de la Capilla Santiago Apóstol, semana tras semanas
    La Neo-FSSPX invita a la Bendición de la Capilla esperpéntica de Madrid
    Capilla de arquitectura moderna para la FSSPX
    La Horrorosa Neo Iglesia de la Neo FSSPX en España
    Polemica arquitectura modernista de la Capilla de la FSSPX en Madrid España


Bp. Alfonso de Galarreta is the District Superior for Spain and Portugal and will presumably be the celebrant for the dedication on July 25. No doubt we will get plenty more photos in a few days.

Not much commentary is needed here. It seems that in Madrid the Lefebvrians are trying to out-Novus-Ordo the Novus Ordo, at least as far as exterior church architecture goes. No doubt, with this new Capilla de Santiago Apóstol — Chapel of St. James the Apostle — the SSPX will be yet another step closer to being fully accepted by Modernist Rome. At this point, the writing is, even quite literally, on the wall.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: MyrnaM on July 25, 2016, 08:46:36 AM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  

Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 25, 2016, 08:53:44 AM
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Matto on July 25, 2016, 05:46:55 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  

So the Dimonds are tools of satan. And what about R&R? Are you really saying that the SSPX is a tool of satan to deceive? The resistance is R&R also. So the resistance is a tool of satan to deceive? What are you doing here? If you think the R&R traditional groups are tools of satan to deceive what are you doing here? This is officially an R&R forum. Why don't you go and haunt a sedevacantist forum with your slanders of those R&R supporters?
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 25, 2016, 08:38:29 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  


How do the Dimonds do this? Proof?


They teach without formation, authority, or oversight.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 25, 2016, 08:50:23 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
the R & R's.  


Father Shell supported the SSPX, and Bishop Williamson provided the Sacrament of Confirmation for him.  I had the great honor of hearing a Confirmation sermon from Bishop Williamson that I consider one of the most inspiration of my life.  I personally observe a condition of sede vacante that has befallen the Catholic Church, at the same time I support the R&R position that (to my understanding) is associated with Bishop Williamson.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Matto on July 25, 2016, 09:56:51 PM
Quote from: Matto
So the Dimonds are tools of satan. And what about R&R? Are you really saying that the SSPX is a tool of satan to deceive? The resistance is R&R also. So the resistance is a tool of satan to deceive? What are you doing here? If you think the R&R traditional groups are tools of satan to deceive what are you doing here? This is officially an R&R forum. Why don't you go and haunt a sedevacantist forum with your slanders of those R&R supporters?

I am sorry LOT, but I was very upset with you when I made this post. I do not like it when you insult the R&R position and those who hold it. That is why I don't like it when you post Novus Ordo Watch articles that say that only sedevacantists are real Catholics and that is why I got upset just a few minutes ago when you basically said that R&R people are tools of satan deceiving people and keeping them from the true faith. And I am not even R&R (I am not sedevacantist either. I am in between because I don't know which position is right). But I get upset when you or the articles you post say so many people who I love and see as good Catholics trying to do the will of God are not real Catholics. And I get upset when you say that those R&R supporters are not really honest Catholics trying to do the will of God but are really tools of satan deceiving people so they do not come to the truth. If you really believe that all non-sedevacantists are not really Catholics and that they are tools of satan deceiving others to keep them from the truth, you do not belong here.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 25, 2016, 10:05:30 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  


How do the Dimonds do this? Proof?


They teach without formation, authority, or oversight.


They offer easy access to Dogmas by citing them continuously. They show how things are heretical which are contrary to those Dogmas.
The teaching has already been done by the Church. They don't claim to be the Authority or the origination of said Dogmas. Also, the only formation one needs to understand the plain meaning of a Dogma, is to understand words.


They supplement Church teaching with their own misguided conjecture.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 25, 2016, 10:17:10 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  


How do the Dimonds do this? Proof?


They teach without formation, authority, or oversight.


They offer easy access to Dogmas by citing them continuously. They show how things are heretical which are contrary to those Dogmas.
The teaching has already been done by the Church. They don't claim to be the Authority or the origination of said Dogmas. Also, the only formation one needs to understand the plain meaning of a Dogma, is to understand words.


They supplement Church teaching with their own misguided conjecture.

Provide an example dealing with Dogma.


From the article "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation And Refuting Baptism Of Desire"
Quote
Bro. Peter Dimond

SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

OBJECTION– In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its Decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place through the water of baptism or the desire for it.

ANSWER– No, it doesn’t.  It actually teaches that justification cannot take place without water baptism or the desire for it, as it is written: unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot be saved.  That’s quite different.


As I recall, the paperdoll monk teaches with regard to the word "or" in a sense contrary to Canon Law.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Matto on July 25, 2016, 11:01:52 PM
Quote from: An even Seven

In adults, one cannot be justified without desiring Baptism. If you read the Council's declaration on Penance you'll see that when the Desire for the Sacrament is all that is necessary, the Church takes the time to fully explain how. If the desire for Baptism were all that is necessary the Church would have explained it that way. Instead they have Canons stating that this is heretical opinion.

Yes, I think this is a good point. Why didn't the fathers of Trent take the time to say "Sometimes God can provide the grace of justification before the reception of Baptism to those who desire Baptism and have perfect contrition for their sins. This is called Baptism of Desire and it brings justification to those souls who receive it although it does not remove the temporal punishment due to their sins. And sometimes God can provide the grace of Baptism to those who die as martyrs for the faith before they receive Baptism. This is called Baptism of Blood and those souls who receive it are justified and also have all the temporal punishment due to sin forgiven so that when they are martyred they go straight to heaven." If they had only said something like that we wouldn't have to have all these endless arguments and accusations of heresy because everything would be clear. And for the Feeneyites here, why didn't the Trent Fathers just say, after they said that "Baptism is necessary for salvation" that "If anyone believes that souls can receive justification before Baptism by their desire for the sacrament and their contrition for their sins, let him be anathema. And if anyone says that souls can be justified by dying for the faith without receiving the laver of regeneration, let him be anathema." I don't know for the life of me why the Church didn't do either of those things. This argument must have come up before because there were those who believed in BOD and BOB and those who denied them from the beginning of the Church.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 25, 2016, 11:13:36 PM
I was not talking about the specifics of BoD here, but merely providing the requested example of illicit activity.  I would prefer that the poisonous opinions of pretend monks remain quarantined in the appropriate subsection.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 26, 2016, 05:16:59 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  


How do the Dimonds do this? Proof?


The Dimonds take quotes out of context and cut out quotes that do not fit their agenda.  It has been proven that they are intellectually dishonest.  They lied about me once also so I witnessed this first hand but I have seen it proven in a Griff Ruby article.  The proof is in black and white and cannot be denied.  Like many Feeneyites they are not only hateful but they lie. And they really have no idea what they are talking about.  As if Pius V did not understand what Boniface meant or as if Pius XII contradicted himself or all the approved catechisms were wrong on this one point.  But people fall for it.  It is incredible.  And people that know better let them instead of defending the truth.  
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 26, 2016, 05:23:34 AM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  

So the Dimonds are tools of satan. And what about R&R? Are you really saying that the SSPX is a tool of satan to deceive? The resistance is R&R also. So the resistance is a tool of satan to deceive? What are you doing here? If you think the R&R traditional groups are tools of satan to deceive what are you doing here? This is officially an R&R forum. Why don't you go and haunt a sedevacantist forum with your slanders of those R&R supporters?


I'm willing to grant any legitimate point you have.  Please show me from any weighty work, pre-V2 catechism or theologian or better where a public heretic can be Pope.  
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 26, 2016, 05:24:51 AM
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: MyrnaM
I said this before and I will say it again, when I first heard about SSPX shortly after I came to CMRI, I was told by so many that SSPX would eventually take their laity back into Vatican II through the back door, and that is what I see.  



I'm afraid this is true.  Satan tries to get people through various organizations and apostates who are more awake to reality than the NO's.  He does this through SBS, the Dimonds and the R & R's.  I would not be the least surprised if there are plants within the SV to undermine the position as well through their words and actions.  


How do the Dimonds do this? Proof?


They teach without formation, authority, or oversight.


And they deceive and lie.  They quite, frankly do not know what they are talking about when it comes to the BOD aspect of EENS.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 26, 2016, 05:32:07 AM
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: Lover of Truth
the R & R's.  


Father Shell supported the SSPX, and Bishop Williamson provided the Sacrament of Confirmation for him.  I had the great honor of hearing a Confirmation sermon from Bishop Williamson that I consider one of the most inspiration of my life.  I personally observe a condition of sede vacante that has befallen the Catholic Church, at the same time I support the R&R position that (to my understanding) is associated with Bishop Williamson.


There is no doubt that some holy people can be R & R.  Many put SVs to shame in regards to personal sanctify probably, just a guess, I don't know, but I'm willing to grant it as I know it is possible.  Many R & R's will be saved.  SV is not officially bound on anyone.  

All that being said, it if we can stick to the brass tacks here, as the bald truth should be all that interests us.

1.  Is it Catholic to refuse submission to a valid Pope

2.  Is it Catholic to accept a non-Catholic/public heretic as a valid Pope

I can certainly tolerate other people disagreeing, but their disagreement has to be based on Catholic teaching - they have to argue WHY the position that one must submit to the Pope and that a public heretic cannot be Pope wrong, and not simply say, "Oh man, that is so radical, so mean, you narrow-minded!"

Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 26, 2016, 06:20:20 AM
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Matto
So the Dimonds are tools of satan. And what about R&R? Are you really saying that the SSPX is a tool of satan to deceive? The resistance is R&R also. So the resistance is a tool of satan to deceive? What are you doing here? If you think the R&R traditional groups are tools of satan to deceive what are you doing here? This is officially an R&R forum. Why don't you go and haunt a sedevacantist forum with your slanders of those R&R supporters?

I am sorry LOT, but I was very upset with you when I made this post. I do not like it when you insult the R&R position and those who hold it. That is why I don't like it when you post Novus Ordo Watch articles that say that only sedevacantists are real Catholics and that is why I got upset just a few minutes ago when you basically said that R&R people are tools of satan deceiving people and keeping them from the true faith. And I am not even R&R (I am not sedevacantist either. I am in between because I don't know which position is right). But I get upset when you or the articles you post say so many people who I love and see as good Catholics trying to do the will of God are not real Catholics. And I get upset when you say that those R&R supporters are not really honest Catholics trying to do the will of God but are really tools of satan deceiving people so they do not come to the truth. If you really believe that all non-sedevacantists are not really Catholics and that they are tools of satan deceiving others to keep them from the truth, you do not belong here.


Believe it or not I see where you are coming from.  With me, if I can keep from getting personal I'll avoid sin.  When others make personal with me I will show them how they are wrong by imitating them.  My hope is that they can see that they are not making any significant points on the issue but merely hurling insults.  The idea that R & R's are used by Satan for his purposes if properly understood is simply that the more we acknowledge the apostate Mr. Berogolio as the Vicar of Christ the more power and "legitimacy" we give him and the more we undermine the Catholic Church.  

Please don't take it personally, but your above message is based on pure emotion.  You have not shown me anything at all of any weight whatsoever that supports you feelings, and it is feelings rather than a position you manifest.  

Can papal teaching about the Pope and the Church just be disregarded for a few decades when it doesn't "fit"?  Can we believe that the Catholic Church can give us heretical liturgical rites, evil canon law, etc.?

Some people seem to take a position of, "Look, we've agreed that sedevacantism is an option, but you guys don't return the favor but say ONLY sedevacantism is true." Yeah, it's typically like that in the Catholic Church: There is only one truth and all have an obligation to adhere to it. It reminds me of a Lutheran saying, "Look you Catholics, I agree it's OK to be Catholic, but now you need to say it's also OK to be Lutheran." No, it doesn't work that way.

And this is an entirely different matter from the question whether someone who is trying to figure this stuff out and isn't sure about Sedevacantism and, in his confusion, goes with the SSPX instead, can still be saved. That's a different issue. Yes, he can be, under certain circumstances, but that doesn't mean the obligation to be sede goes away.

People can argue Sedevacantism is wrong all day long - that's fine, at least it's a claim that presupposes ONE position is definitely right. But this sort of, "I'm OK, you're OK" makes no sense whatsoever.

But it is quite okay to admit you are not sure, that is a rather humble position.  That is not the willful blindness I have personally encountered with many R & R's.  

Some SV clergy say SV is an "opinion" based upon sound theological principles.  But it is an "opinion" only in the sense that it has not been officially bound upon us and it is possible people can believe the contrary in good conscience.

If the R & R's had a position that was equally compatible with Catholic doctrine, then they would have a point. If both views were opinions, and neither of them clearly followed from Catholic teaching nor was contradicted by it, then they would be correct. But that is not the case.  The apostate is either Pope or he is not.  Both positions cannot be true.

No theology or history supports the idea of a non-Catholic Pope, but rather supports the contrary - a Pope must be Catholic.

The alternative solution is that Jesus Christ was a liar and we die we just stay in our graves.

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.

Just in the objective realm they may be thinking in regards to it being authoritatively bound on the Faithful.  Obviously the truth is the truth even when no one binds it on us.

Claiming that those who insist is right based upon Dogma and Divine Law are wrong because the Church has not officially bond it on us (who would bind it?) shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter. It has NOTHING TO DO with binding it on the faithful.

I have no authority to bind you to say that 2+2=4. But then I don't need any authority to do that. It is binding of itself, because it is a necessary truth and must be accepted by anyone who understands what 2 means, what 4 means, what plus means, and what equal means.  So to that a public heretic cannot be Pope and automatically loses his office (if he ever held it in the first place) without the need of declaration.  This must be accepted by all who know what "public heretic" means, what "Pope" means, what "automatically" means, what "without the need of declaration" means.  

Some clergy see how difficult it is for the laity to handle it.  Others don't want to be looked down upon.  Neither reason justifies lying to the faithful.  (To protect the wounded reed for instance).  Avoiding the topic entirely might be different.  Father Ringrose seemed to think women could not handle it.  It seems many men cannot handle it either.  But many men are feminized so there you go.

A priest is obliged to answer the Faithful's questions even if he says it is only his opinion.  He then must state why it is his opinion and go on to show that it is dogma that one must submit to a legitimate Pope in all he binds on the Church and that it is divine law that a public heretic cannot be Pope.  He must admit and state clearly that the above are not opinion.  The only "opinion" is whether Francis is not a public heretic or not.

Father McMahon used to give us the opportunity to read between the lines in his sermons at Saint Athanasius when Ringrose was still known to be R & R.  But I do not think the people did read between the lines.  They would sit, listen, nod their heads and continue to be R & R.

It's 2016. We have an open blaspheming apostate in the Vatican. It's not 1967 where you could see that people would want to be careful and not jump to conclusions. This is ridiculous.

Things are different than even 1990 when ABL died.  Though he may have been a secret SV after the 1986 Assisi nonsense.  The excuses are running out.  They have ran out.  God wants us to pick a side.  The people sitting on the fence due to willful blindness will get split in half or vomited out of our Lord's mouth.

It really looks like God is doing everything possible to show people that the Novus Ordo Church is false and its head is an impostor.

Some might say, "But I'm waiting for it to get even more obvious, where Francis says he's the Antichrist and a false pope!" To which I would respond with the answer given by Lazarus to the rich man: "If they do not listen to Moses or the prophets, they would also not listen to one who rose from the dead" (or something like that).

I just assumed JP2 was Pope before I became SV and would argue from that perspective.  But I listened to the contrary and weighed the arguments pro and con and then looked at the Church teaching on the issue in context reading the documents in their entirety instead of selected quotes.  

Willful blindness reigns. I think that is all there is to it generally speaking, at least in regards to the people on the internet all day.  Denial, denial, denial.  They do not want to believe.  I try to see where they could be coming from if they are sincere so I can respond to it, but it becomes more and more difficult for me to believe that many of these people are not culpably ignorant.  This is because when you make an undeniable point they refuse to grant it but ignore it.  Not sure what other conclusion one could come to.  
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Stubborn on July 26, 2016, 07:11:34 AM
Quote from: Matto

I am sorry LOT, but I was very upset with you when I made this post. I do not like it when you insult the R&R position and those who hold it.


LoE takes the whole sedevacantist opinion to another level.

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

.....The sedevacantists go a step further, they not only depose the pope in their judgement, but they try to bind *us* to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.  

We say it is not our right as the subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means  that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.

Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head and we have a right to say that the Church has no head - and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect, the *only* consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, violated, or it's destroyed. That is the result of anarchism.....
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 26, 2016, 08:56:29 AM
Lover of Heresy has many axes to grind.

Should he not be banned for declaring that R&R people do the work of Satan?  While I don't agree with R&R myself, it's a major leap to claim that R&R are tools of Satan.

He's a foaming-at-the-mouth dogmatic sedevacantist that simply goes under cover when called out for it.  He posts Novus Ordo Watch articles and Tradcast stuff that promote dogmatic SVism.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Arvinger on July 26, 2016, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.


Hardly. Many of those who reject sedevacantism reject it for theological reasons. You speak as if it was theologically certain that sedevacantim is true, some people just can't figure it out. The reality is that sedevacantist thesis has very serious problems, such as Apostolic Succession (according to SVs there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in posession of Episcopal sees - you have been destroyed recently in a discussion on that topic), inability to prove that V2 Popes were formal heretics (the most you can prove is material heresy), or the fact that there were heavy weight theologians who did not believe that a Pope formally loses office without any declaration immediately after becoming a heretic.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: JohnAnthonyMarie on July 26, 2016, 07:23:07 PM
For many Catholics, their perception of the modern problem determines their reaction.  Each is compelled by their own conscience.  I am confident that God is providing each and everyone the graces they require to endure these trials.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 27, 2016, 05:32:26 AM
Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.


Hardly. Many of those who reject sedevacantism reject it for theological reasons. You speak as if it was theologically certain that sedevacantim is true, some people just can't figure it out. The reality is that sedevacantist thesis has very serious problems, such as Apostolic Succession (according to SVs there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in posession of Episcopal sees - you have been destroyed recently in a discussion on that topic), inability to prove that V2 Popes were formal heretics (the most you can prove is material heresy), or the fact that there were heavy weight theologians who did not believe that a Pope formally loses office without any declaration immediately after becoming a heretic.


The Church teaches that we are to treat one who appears to be a public heretic as one as we only judge exteriors.  We are not called to judge the culpability or inner workings of their minds.  That should be obvious.  The distinction between formal and material does not have to be made as one who claims ecclesiastical office cannot use ignorance as an excuse and the Church teaches simply that a public or manifest offices cannot hold office and Divine Law tells us the same.  Apostolic succession is separate from whether the devil is the Pope or not.  The one is quite easy to see for those who are objective and accept divine law and Church teaching and canon law on the topic.

Perhaps you can start a thread on Apostolic succession.  I believe the hierarchy is where it appears to be, with the traditional Bishops.  With the ones who continued the Church, the ones who provide the Sacraments, Bishops and Priests, seminaries, schools for children, everything the Church has always provided.  History shows that Bishops have been consecrated and had ordinary jurisdiction during interegnums of the past having the tacit approval of the Holy See.  This historical fact cannot be denied.  

Show where we can accept a public heretic as Pope.

Show me where we do not have to submit to what he binds on the Church.

Neither of those are opinions whether you like it or not.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 27, 2016, 09:43:55 AM
Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth

So, I think all this talk about "opinion" is founded either on emotion and a false understanding of humility, or else on a lack of understanding of what constitutes certain knowledge vs. opinion.


Hardly. Many of those who reject sedevacantism reject it for theological reasons. You speak as if it was theologically certain that sedevacantim is true, some people just can't figure it out. The reality is that sedevacantist thesis has very serious problems, such as Apostolic Succession (according to SVs there are no more bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in posession of Episcopal sees - you have been destroyed recently in a discussion on that topic), inability to prove that V2 Popes were formal heretics (the most you can prove is material heresy), or the fact that there were heavy weight theologians who did not believe that a Pope formally loses office without any declaration immediately after becoming a heretic.


SVs tend to elevate the St. Robert Bellarmine opinion to the level of dogma.  Meanwhile, you had many other credible theologians who held to the ab ecclesia deponendus school of thought.  Yes, the SVs argue that it's untenable, but the "deposition" is "ministerial" or "delcarative" rather than "effective", and it's a perfectly tenable opinion.  I in fact hold this position myself.  I believe that these popes remain in office at least materially, are capable of exercising the material aspects of the office, even if they are suspended in the formal exercise of their authority due to doubt and suspicion of heresy.  Kindof along the lines of what Father Chazal has articulated.

SVs try to oversimplify EVERYTHING, from the dogma of infallibility to the syllogism regarding heretics losing office.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 27, 2016, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
The Church teaches that we are to treat one who appears to be a public heretic as one as we only judge exteriors.  We are not called to judge the culpability or inner workings of their minds.  That should be obvious.


False.  The Church teaches no such thing ... not the way that you describe it.  Indeed the Church does not and cannot make judgment with regard to the internal forum, but even then the formality and pertinacity of heresy must be established in the external forum.

Pope teaches something questionable.
Catholics:  "Hey, that's heresy."
Pope:  "No it's not."
Imperfect Council:  "Yes it's heresy."
Pope:  "Sorry, I recant."

never ceased to be pope

But just because some SV in his private judgment keeps asserting that something or another is heresy doesn't make is so.

Now if the Pope were to say:  "I know the Church teaches [such-and-such a dogma], but I don't believe it anyway." -- that there would invoke the St. Robert Bellarmine scenario.  But if a Pope disputes that what he believes is heretical, relying on some distinction or hermeneutic of continuity that would make the position tenable, that actually suggests that he cares about whether or not his teaching contradicts Tradition and is therefore likely not a formal heretic.  He would then need to be rebuked (by proper authority, and not just LoT) and given a chance to recant before pertinacity would be established even in the public forum.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 27, 2016, 09:51:02 AM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Show me where we do not have to submit to what he binds on the Church.


This, on the other hand, is a valid objection against classic R&R.  Father Chazal's position is much better and avoids this problem.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 27, 2016, 10:33:47 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Indeed the Church does not and cannot make judgment with regard to the internal forum, but even then the formality and pertinacity of heresy must be established in the external forum.


The internal forum includes whatever is confessed in the confessional.  So the Church does make judgements in the internal forum. cf. "Parish priests, therefore, are not ordinaries, though they have jurisdiction in the internal forum" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11284b.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11284b.htm)

Quote from: Ladislaus
1. Pope teaches something questionable.
2. Catholics:  "Hey, that's heresy."
3. Pope:  "No it's not."
4. Imperfect Council:  "Yes it's heresy."
5. Pope:  "Sorry, I recant."

never ceased to be pope


4 is improbable and would effectively be a challenge to the Church's doctrine that the Pope alone has full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church.  I could only see an imperfect council forming in the event that there was probable cause to conclude that the pope had lost his office due to heresy.  Any other imperfect council would be a direct challenge to the authority of the pope.  Something which I'm sure the modernists would revel in.  So 4 ought to have one and only one conclusion, either that man in white cassock is the pope or he is not.  Any other statement or conclusion would be a challenge to the pope's authority.

Quote from: Ladislaus
Now if the Pope were to say:  "I know the Church teaches [such-and-such a dogma], but I don't believe it anyway." -- that there would invoke the St. Robert Bellarmine scenario.  But if a Pope disputes that what he believes is heretical, relying on some distinction or hermeneutic of continuity that would make the position tenable, that actually suggests that he cares about whether or not his teaching contradicts Tradition and is therefore likely not a formal heretic.  He would then need to be rebuked (by proper authority, and not just LoT) and given a chance to recant before pertinacity would be established even in the public forum.


So we should let criminals skate if they argue that what they did isn't a crime?  Right.

Oh wait, it sounds like you are taking it one step further, we should not even charge a criminal with a crime if he argues that what he did is not a crime.  Kind of like what happened with Hillary Clinton and the illegal email server.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 27, 2016, 10:37:33 AM
Why do the girls keep coming up here with their personal attacks and emotional tirades.  

Ladislaus decides not by appearance but by looking into souls I suppose and this is how he would have the Church do it:

 6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

    (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

    (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.  
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Ladislaus on July 27, 2016, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Ladislaus decides not by appearance but by looking into souls I suppose and this is how he would have the Church do it:


You're mentally retarded.  Establishing formality and pertinacity in the external forum (not to mention the FACT of heresy, i.e that his statements are actually heretical) is NOT a question of "reading" souls.  So long as it "appears" to LoT or Myrna that Francis is a heretic, then indeed he must objectively be a heretic.  You're intellectually defective and spiritually reprobate.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: Lover of Truth on July 28, 2016, 05:06:32 AM
I just read the first words of the response and consider the source.
Title: What in the Hell are they Doing?
Post by: MyrnaM on July 28, 2016, 09:27:54 AM
Regarding this thread, this quote from Lover of Truth sums everything up for myself.

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Things are different than even 1990 when ABL died.  Though he may have been a secret SV after the 1986 Assisi nonsense.  The excuses are running out.  They have ran out.  God wants us to pick a side.  The people sitting on the fence due to willful blindness will get split in half or vomited out of our Lord's mouth.