Author Topic: CathInfo declaration  (Read 11428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22998
  • Reputation: +20139/-243
  • Gender: Male
CathInfo declaration
« on: May 09, 2010, 07:30:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Every CathInfo member must agree to this declaration:

    1. I hold that sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation.
    2. Catholics who attend Mass at non-Sedevacantist chapels can be saved without any "conversion" before death.
    3. Catholics who attend Mass at Sedevacantist chapels can be saved without any "conversion" before death.
    4. There is no clear manual on how to navigate this unprecedented Crisis in the Church.


    Matthew

    Edit: Apologies to those who already assented to the declaration -- I had to modify it to include a defense of good-willed Sedevacantists as well.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22998
    • Reputation: +20139/-243
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #1 on: May 09, 2010, 07:32:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Everyone on CathInfo happily agrees to the above declaration.

    Silence implies consent.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #2 on: May 09, 2010, 08:00:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :applause:
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline Trinity

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3233
    • Reputation: +184/-0
    • Gender: Female
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #3 on: May 09, 2010, 08:18:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I hold that God chooses who enters heaven and I'm not going to be the fool that argues with Him.   :sign-surrender:
    +RIP
    Please pray for the repose of her soul.

    Offline Matthew D Hardin

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #4 on: May 09, 2010, 09:06:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    Every CathInfo member must agree to this declaration:

    I hold that sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation.
    Catholics who attend Mass at non-Sedevacantist chapels are also eligible for salvation.

    Matthew


    I'm going to pull a Raoul on this one.

    I'll agree with the second statement: Catholics who attend Mass at non-Sedevacantist chapels are eligible for salvation. So are all God's children, actually. All are eligible; not all are saved.

    The first part is nebulous, but I'm not at all sure I agree. Sedevacantism during normal interregnums is a doctrine of the Church. Sedevacantism during these times is the only way to avoid the heresies of B16. Do I think one who accepts B16 and the Una Cum is on the right path? No. Are they a heretic? In most cases, yes. If they manage not to be a heretic, it is through their own ignorance of either the Catholic Faith or B16's errors. It is not because B16 is in any way legitimate or Catholic.

    Ban me if thou wilt. I'm not a Cafeteria Catholic. I don't think every Latin Mass is an option for the faithful. I don't think the SSPX is anything other than an institution of deceit and sin. I do not believe the SSPX is the Catholic Church, nor do I think the Catholic Church subsists in it, or that it has any true affiliation of any type with the Catholic Church. I am not silent and I do not consent.


    Offline Classiccom

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 769
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #5 on: May 09, 2010, 09:35:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •   I think my position is more logical. Ditch the infallible man theory and you may regain your sanity. Each pope gets judged by tradition , scripture and the ruling Church members.  You don't need concepts like sedevacantism , or bizarre ways of thinking  - was the pope in "infallible mode" when he makes a statement.?

      Having continuity with the first 18 centuries of Catholicism is a good thing also. But no, lets make it really easy for the Devil to discredit and and destroy the Catholic Faith with an out of control "infallible" agent of the antichrist. I can't wait to see what Pope Benedict does on his visit to Fatima. I don't expect the Church to have a logical response to such a problem, therefore the need for the two witnesses from heaven.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7083
    • Reputation: +438/-197
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #6 on: May 09, 2010, 09:49:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As a Sirite I do not agree that the only way out of the heresies of Benedict XVI(16) is something called  sedevacantism.

    Classicom still does not get that the Infallible Decree was forced upon the Pope by the Revolution.  :smoke-pot:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #7 on: May 09, 2010, 10:05:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew D. Hardin said:
    Quote
    I'm going to pull a Raoul on this one.


    I am going to pull a you then and be more moderate, just to keep the site on its toes.

    I have no problem agreeing with this declaration.  I believe the sedevacantist thesis will prove correct, but do not think it is necessary for salvation for everyone.  Not until the Pope of the restored Church makes it formal who was or wasn't a Pope.  

    I may explain why later, giving my new picture of the current crisis, but I must eat, I am starving.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #8 on: May 09, 2010, 10:11:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't see the two parts you are seeing in this declaration, Matthew ( D. Hardin ).  

    Quote
    I hold that sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation.
    Catholics who attend Mass at non-Sedevacantist chapels are also eligible for salvation.


    You have said that those who attend Mass at non-sede chapels can be saved, and that is the same as saying that sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation.  

    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22998
    • Reputation: +20139/-243
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #9 on: May 09, 2010, 10:24:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew D. Hardin
    Quote from: Matthew
    Every CathInfo member must agree to this declaration:

    I hold that sedevacantism is not necessary for salvation.
    Catholics who attend Mass at non-Sedevacantist chapels are also eligible for salvation.

    Matthew


    I'm going to pull a Raoul on this one.

    I'll agree with the second statement: Catholics who attend Mass at non-Sedevacantist chapels are eligible for salvation. So are all God's children, actually. All are eligible; not all are saved.

    The first part is nebulous, but I'm not at all sure I agree. Sedevacantism during normal interregnums is a doctrine of the Church. Sedevacantism during these times is the only way to avoid the heresies of B16. Do I think one who accepts B16 and the Una Cum is on the right path? No. Are they a heretic? In most cases, yes. If they manage not to be a heretic, it is through their own ignorance of either the Catholic Faith or B16's errors. It is not because B16 is in any way legitimate or Catholic.

    Ban me if thou wilt. I'm not a Cafeteria Catholic. I don't think every Latin Mass is an option for the faithful. I don't think the SSPX is anything other than an institution of deceit and sin. I do not believe the SSPX is the Catholic Church, nor do I think the Catholic Church subsists in it, or that it has any true affiliation of any type with the Catholic Church. I am not silent and I do not consent.


    Ok, gone.

    You're banned.

    And, as an aside, you seem to be confused about the definition of the term "Cafeteria Catholic".
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5991
    • Reputation: +2134/-48
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #10 on: May 09, 2010, 10:27:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree.
    This imagine this year is 1955.
    Is there a crises in the Church?
    The answer would be NO.
    This argument of sede vs anti sede would be
    irreverent.
    Because such arguments would never come
    to mind.
    I can attend any Catholic Church in the
    world, and the temptation of such thinking
    would never occur.
    If it was 1955 ever again.


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #11 on: May 09, 2010, 10:47:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can you give him a chance to answer my posts?  He agreed with you without knowing it.

    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22998
    • Reputation: +20139/-243
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #12 on: May 09, 2010, 11:13:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're giving him too much, Raoul. No he didn't agree at all.

    How else am I supposed to interpret,

    Quote
    I don't think the SSPX is anything other than an institution of deceit and sin. I do not believe the SSPX is the Catholic Church, nor do I think the Catholic Church subsists in it, or that it has any true affiliation of any type with the Catholic Church. I am not silent and I do not consent.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #13 on: May 10, 2010, 12:43:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You asked everyone to agree that someone can be saved in the SSPX.  He gave his assent to that.  He then added some inflammatory comments about the SSPX, but that doesn't change that he believes that you can be saved within it.  You do not look favorably upon the Vatican II Church but you would not claim everyone there is damned.  

    I think you're aggravated from Nekropol, and Mr. Hardin saying that SSPX is "nothing but deceit and sin" was too much at the wrong time.  But I have said, and still believe, that there is a good chance that the SSPX is controlled opposition.  That article "Is Sedevacantism Catholic?" that they still have up on their websites is a real intellectually dishonest hackjob, not because it slams sedevacantism but because it mangles concepts and plays down to its audience, almost assuming they'll swallow whatever is offered.  I have seen this from SSPX too often, an overconfidence, like they are sure that their followers will never question them.  

    So I do believe there is possibly ( but who can say for sure? ) deliberate deceit involved as well.  As for "sin," he is probably referring to sin against the Magisterium, that the SSPX implicitly is saying that the Church can defect.   When SSPX clergy say that they want the "Popes" to throw out Vatican II, they are putting their foot in it, because they are admitting it is faulty and error-strewn, in a way that no Council approved by a true Pope could be.  If they were like Caminus and argued that Vatican II skirted the edge of heresy and/or error without falling in, they'd be wrong, in my opinion, but more logical.  It's just that I don't see how he -- who often chides others for not properly making distinctions, and who has plenty of mental flexibility -- could really believe that Vatican II only promoted erroneous conclusions through ambiguity rather than being actually erroneous.

    Either way, what is not in question is that the present crisis is messy no matter how you slice it, as you said, Matthew.  There is far too much grey area to expect everyone to be sedevacantist or else condemned to hell.  This is not like the Arian crisis where the Trinity itself is being attacked; it all depends on abstruse notions like infallibility, or whether the Pope can be a heretic, or religious liberty.  Even between themselves, I have seen very few sedes who agree on the precise bounds of infallibility.  And religious liberty had been tolerated for so long before it was "mandated" at Vatican II that it did seem like a natural development, though it was not.  The heresy is that people have the "natural right" to religious liberty but that is such a fine distinction, I can see why some people would not be ready to take the sedevacantist leap over it.  

     My biggest problem with SSPX these days is not theological at this point but practical.  I think you are trying to play it safe, but while you are doing this, you are leading the world into ever greater danger.  
    You say that you are waiting for higher authorities to do the work for you, that you are content to wait and be patient, seemingly oblivious that the higher authorities that we can trust are dying out or selling out every day, that if this keeps up the true faith may be forgotten within one or two generations, and that complete darkness is falling over everything.  

    But I can kind of see where all this is going ( disaster, then new Pope elected by St. Peter and St. Paul ).  I no longer expect any resolution this side of a chastisement, or miniature apocalypse, or Christ's return itself.  Could things have been different if all traditionalists rejected the VII Popes right away?  Who knows -- that is not how it happened.  The New World Order must fill its cup of the wine of wrath to the full.  It seems part of God's design that before the Church can be restored, the world as we know it must be radically reconfigured.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Emerentiana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1420
    • Reputation: +1194/-17
    • Gender: Female
    CathInfo declaration
    « Reply #14 on: May 10, 2010, 12:50:47 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Lets all remember that  ALL those who have been VALIDLY baptized into the church are Caholic.  All of us that care about our faith  are devoted to the mass, and want to attend mass as often as possible whereever we can find a true mass said by a validly ordained priest.
     :incense:

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16