Traditional Catholics believe in all the declared dogmas of Holy Mother Church. We reject the Protetstantized liturgy as a legitimate Catholic form of worship, and we reject the errors of the Second Vatican Council: false ecuмenism, collegiality, and religious liberty.
Modernism as explained in Pascendi is understood by many. We reject vital immanence and the naturalism of the Modernists. The Syllabus of errors is not a forgotten docuмent on this forum.
Thanks for your response. That part is clear. I am more than a little familiar with
Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which is the basis of my statements.
The person of the Pope (his identity) is not a dogma. When you die you are not going to be asked by Our Lord "did you believe Beegoglio was a true pope". So, to condemn someone as non-Catholic for believing the pope is one whom the entire world sees as the pope is really off base.
That part is totally mixed up.
1. You are not a theologian, so re the person of the pope, that is simply lay opinion. Same as the Protestants forming their personal opinions about Scripture, or holding one article up, in isolation from the whole.
2. I am quite sanguine with the Vatican I Decrees/Session 8/Four Chapters re the person and position of the pope. To me it is not an arguable point (or, you can argue, I will not participate, I am Catholic and I don't have an opinion on doctrinal or dogmatic matters).
3. I do not have the power to condemn anyone. Posting an opinion is not a condemnation.
4. A post that I may make in response to one person's post, does not make it a blanket statement about all "Traditional Catholics" or about all Catholics. You (not I) would have to extend my statement past its actual boundary, which was a safe space for discussion, to a boundary which is completely outside the context of the post. It is a typical Jєωιѕн, pharisaic, Modernist device, which I certainly did not expect here (I am not saying you did that purposely, I grant it was unconscious ... but then that means you are imbibed in it, sorry).
(Or, does the site operate that way ? )
If I posted (eg. very, very eg.) "anyone who accepts Feeneyism is an heretic", then sure, that includes the whole world, it is a blanket statement, and it is reasonable to get banned on a site that consists of Feeneyites.
If I posted that Feeneyism is heretical according to our [pre-Vatican II] popes, notably without my opinion, but with links to the decrees, then I would expect to be agreed with if the site were Catholic, and banned if the site were Feeneyite. Each position of which is a mutually exclusive one.
In any case, open discussion re either Feeneyism or sedevacantism or natural birth control, etc, is not possible. Which is why I am trying to find out what is and is not, the required positions for discussion, and what positions will get banned.