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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 Traditional Catholicism started in the 1960's, not before.

Is it okay to state that the enemies were burrowing in long before the 1960s?

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.