Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on June 03, 2018, 01:33:17 PM
-
PG has made his vocal opinion very clear, namely: that he doesn't consider St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Louis de Montfort to be saints. This is not an acceptable position or belief for a Catholic in good standing.
As the CathInfo Rule #1 states: "In necessary things, unity."
The saints canonized before Vatican II are NOT open for debate, nor do they fall under Rule #2: "in doubtful things, liberty".
I've made it clear many times that CathInfo is a place for TRADITIONAL Catholics -- those who left their parishes sometime AFTER Vatican II's changes were implemented, with the aim of keeping the Faith, and adhering to pre-Vatican 2 practices, liturgy, morality, customs, etc.
CathInfo is not a place for Old Catholics, protestants, Orthodox or any other general malcontents, schismatics or heretics who HAPPEN to have a problem with the mainstream Conciliar Church but for a completely different reason!
Anyone who thinks the Church Crisis began at Vatican I (like the Old Catholics), 1000 or more years ago (like the Protestant heretics), etc. is not welcome here. To such demonically proud walking tragedies I say: Take your cocky "I'm the last Catholic" home-alone ___ out of here, and I don't really care if the door hits you on the way out!
Just because a person is (for example) involved in a family (internal) dispute with his mother about an inheritance, money, etc. doesn't mean he'd make common ground with people who called his mother a whore. He wouldn't stand for it.
It's simple, really. We Traditional Catholics never left the Church. The various heretics and schismatics, including the Old Catholics, *did leave*. No wonder we Traditional Catholics don't get along with the Church's various enemies, with their multitude of different heresies and refusal to submit to the One True Church.
Let's put it this way, with a sci-fi hypothetical:
If you woke up tomorrow and found yourself in 1950, but you still wouldn't submit to the Church's canonizations of various saints, various acts of the Magisterium, various dogmas, the authority of the Pope, etc. then you really have to leave CathInfo. This is a board for Traditional Catholics. Traditional Catholicism started in the 1960's, not before. (Before then, it was the same Faith of course, but we didn't need the "Traditional" adjective.)
-
P.S.
It should go without saying that it gives me no pleasure, but only much sadness, to have to ban someone for a reason like this.
1. Disdain for the great Apostle of Our Lady is not exactly the best signal of a person's heading for heaven...
2. PG has obviously been contaminated by liberalism and other worldly ideas. He had some strange ideas about veganism, eating "unclean" meat, etc. although he was less extreme than "Truth is Eternal" who I recently banned.
3. And he turned against SAINT Thomas Aquinas because the latter said that the Death Penalty was a worthy punishment for heretics. He is happy to "disagree" with the Angelic Doctor, whose writings were chosen by the Catholic Church to teach its priests, bishops, cardinals and popes their Philosophy and Theology from 1300 until right before Vatican II. So apparently PG has absorbed some of the modern/liberal/PC/Novus Ordo attitude towards the death penalty.
Long story short, it's a sad situation, but I have to enforce the rules on CathInfo.
-
PG has made his vocal opinion very clear, namely: that he doesn't consider St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Louis de Montfort to be saints.
I never bothered with him, I concluded that he was just a person seeking to be identified as a guru who discover something that no one else had. The St. Louis de Montfort "discovery" was typical of that type of person.
-
I never bothered with him, I concluded that he was just a person seeking to be identified as a guru who discover something that no one else had. The St. Louis de Montfort "discovery" was typical of that type of person.
Such wannabe "gurus" are obviously extremely proud, in a way that isn't even very subtle. I have seen others though. These types want to be the only one who discovered this or that. They want to be special.
Their mom didn't give them enough hugs as a boy, or something.
-
I never bothered with him, I concluded that he was just a person seeking to be identified as a guru who discover something that no one else had. The St. Louis de Montfort "discovery" was typical of that type of person.
Yes, I was somewhat confused about PG's "St. Louis de Montfort 'discovery.'" Glad that you, Matthew and Last Tradhican, have clarified this.
Is that thread about PG's discovery still available to be read at CathInfo? If so, it should be deleted lest someone else be tainted with his heresy.
-
Theology not being my strong suit, I haven't read much St. Aquinas, but the fruit of his work was fantastic. Always a good sign. I like that he recommended the Church reduce Jєωry to chattel slavery. He also wrote that masturbation is a graver sin than rape, because you're not using your body in a way which God intended it to be used. It shocked me at the time, being raised in a liberal feminist home, but it makes complete sense.
-
Theology not being my strong suit, I haven't read much St. Aquinas, but the fruit of his work was fantastic.
It's enough for us Catholics that the Church has canonized him and declared him a Doctor of the Church and regularly endorsed and praised him in the Magisterium. Was he infallible? No. Is it permitted for Catholics to respectfully disagree with one or another position of his? Certainly. But to hold him in contempt and refuse to call him a saint? That's diabolical. It's like I was seeing the devil in PG's posts. And his contempt for St. Louis de Montfort almost bled over to the point where it sounded like he was blaspheming Our Lady.
Thank you, Matthew. I was getting very tired of seeing him spew venom against St. Louis de Montfort and St. Thomas Aquinas. I could even tolerate someone respectfully disagreeing with the True Devotion. But it crosses a line when they hold these two great saints in contempt.
As another sign of PG's incredible pride, he just started studying Aristotle and immediately ripped him apart for all his errors ... which in point of fact, from the standpoint of natural philosophy, were relatively few and far between.
-
What about people who prefer St. Bonaventure to St. Thomas on philosophy?😀
-
You can have your personal preference. but that is not the issue here. According to Matthew:
PG has made his vocal opinion very clear, namely: that he doesn't consider St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Louis de Montfort to be saints. This is not an acceptable position or belief for a Catholic in good standing.
-
Is it acceptable to argue with saints' opinions while not doubting that they are saints? For example, taking Scotus' side over Aquinas' in the Immaculate Conception debate prior to the 1854 official dogma?
EDIT: This is a general question; no comment on the ban of a user I never met.
-
Is it acceptable to argue with saints' opinions while not doubting that they are saints? For example, taking Scotus' side over Aquinas' in the Immaculate Conception debate prior to the 1854 official dogma?
EDIT: This is a general question; no comment on the ban of a user I never met.
Welcome, Elliseliz.
Duns Scotus was obviously wrong, since the Immaculate Conception is declared a dogma of the faith. So if you are arguing on the side of Duns Scotus you would not only be wrong but a heretic, as the Church has declared on it, while Duns Scotus was wrong but not a heretic because he accepted the Church's decision.
So if you agreed with Scotus before 1854, you're in the clear, but not after 1854.
Saints are not infallible, but the Church teachings are.
-
Scotus actually had it right on the Immaculate Conception and St. Thomas was a bit off the mark.
Preference is most certainly allowed. That's why the Church has approved so many religious orders. People are different and one size doesn't fit all.
But this isn't about that ... but about contempt for St. Thomas.
-
Traditional Catholicism started in the 1960's, not before.
Is it okay to state that the enemies were burrowing in long before the 1960s?
-
Is it okay to state that the enemies were burrowing in long before the 1960s?
I would hope so. Crisises do not start overnight, usually, but only after years of burrowing and brooding and things done. The alcoholic who dies of alcohol-induced cirrhosis did not start that downward spiral last week, to use an example.
There were things in the works to subvert the liturgy, if I remember, as early as the '20s in some places. St. John's University in rural central Minnesota (a theological cesspool, by the way, and that is being incredibly generous), some places in France and Germany. There are pictures of experimenting American parishes on the internet. I've seen about 2 or 3 somewhere.
-
Only just saw this.
Good for you, Matthew!
PG was rotten. It was fairly clear that the bad ideas he had were ideas that he was committed to. He wasn't floating them out there-- like, "hey, what do you guys think about [whatever saint's] ideas about x... that doesn't sound right to me, how should we understand this?" No, he'd already made up his mind that he knew better than them, and probably quite a long time ago. Sad.