Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Question for home aloners  (Read 1404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31182
  • Reputation: +27097/-494
  • Gender: Male
Question for home aloners
« on: February 11, 2010, 04:00:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a question for the home aloners out there --

    How come you didn't have any home aloners before Vatican II, even though -- according to many home aloners -- the papacy has been vacant for over a century?

    I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure you had 2 types of Catholics in 1950: A) those who attended Mass, and B) those who had fallen away from the Faith.

    I hold that home aloners are merely the last train stop on the Sedevacantist railway -- when trust is completely lost, this is where you get off. Actually, there's one more stop -- complete loss of the Faith.

    And sedevacantism only got started after Vatican II, AFAIK (as far as I know).

    I'm posting this in General Discussion, so CM can respond to it.

    Matthew
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7610
    • Reputation: +617/-404
    • Gender: Male
    Question for home aloners
    « Reply #1 on: February 11, 2010, 07:23:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I guess I qualify as a home aloner and I do not think the Papacy is vacant.

    I know this sounds like a cop-out to some but be reminded that there have been more than a few instances of history b4 v2 where large segments of people have not known who the Pope is. This does not mean that there is no Pope.

    I am hoping Matthew will find the time to explain how Peter De Luna can be an anti-pope and the v2 'popes' are not.  
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4803
    • Reputation: +2007/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Question for home aloners
    « Reply #2 on: February 11, 2010, 09:12:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    How come you didn't have any home aloners before Vatican II, even though -- according to many home aloners -- the papacy has been vacant for over a century?


    What about St. Hermenegild who refused communion from an Arian before death?  What about those who refused to go to the jureur priests, the French Revolutionary priests?  I'm sure there are more examples -- otherwise there would have been no point for the bulls dealing with the subject of going to the Mass of a heretic -- we just don't hear about them.  

    In normal times, you're not supposed to just stop going to Mass.  There are many options to exhaust before reaching that step.  St. Thomas talks about what to do if you think your priest is a heretic, and he says you should ask him if you can go to another priest.  Also, you should alert the bishop.  There was a system of checks and balances we no longer have.  

    If I lived in America in 1870, and my priest was preaching salvation in false religions, I'd just mosey on over to another chapel, and then another, until I found someone like Father Michael Muller. But today they don't exist.  That is the extent of the apostasy.
    Readers: Please IGNORE all my postings here. I was a recent convert and fell into errors, even heresy for which hopefully my ignorance excuses. These include rejecting the "rhythm method," rejecting the idea of "implicit faith," and being brieflfy quasi-Jansenist. I also posted occasions of sins and links to occasions of sin, not understanding the concept much at the time, so do not follow my links.

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for home aloners
    « Reply #3 on: February 11, 2010, 10:00:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your whole premise here Matthew, is that YOU don't know of any professing Catholics who avoided the commonly accepted and nominally Catholic hierarchy before a certain period of time, and therefore "home-aloner" sedevacantism cannot be correct.

    This poses no problem to "home-aloner" sedevacantism at all, since it is based on false premises from the get go.

    I also find it interesting that you talk of "trust" when you have explicitly admitted that the hierarchy has been infected with Modernists and Masons.  In other words, you are proposing that a person trust Modernists and Masons.

    I know you don't like having me in the Crisis section.

    If you feel I am demonstrably wrong in my argumentation in the Crisis section, then why oh why restrict me from posting therein?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just demonstrate all the fallacies of my arguments?

    And have you not seen my response to you on page 3 of the "Admonishment of CM" thread?

    Offline Clovis

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +13/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Question for home aloners
    « Reply #4 on: February 11, 2010, 10:06:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: CM
    Your whole premise here Matthew, is that YOU don't know of any professing Catholics who avoided the commonly accepted and nominally Catholic hierarchy before a certain period of time, and therefore "home-aloner" sedevacantism cannot be correct.

    This poses no problem to "home-aloner" sedevacantism at all, since it is based on false premises from the get go.

    I also find it interesting that you talk of "trust" when you have explicitly admitted that the hierarchy has been infected with Modernists and Masons.  In other words, you are proposing that a person trust Modernists and Masons.

    I know you don't like having me in the Crisis section.

    If you feel I am demonstrably wrong in my argumentation in the Crisis section, then why oh why restrict me from posting therein?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just demonstrate all the fallacies of my arguments?

    And have you not seen my response to you on page 3 of the "Admonishment of CM" thread?



    "Another thing the blessed man taught and insisted upon with all was never on any occasion whatsoever to associate with heretics and, above all, never to take the Holy Communion with them, 'even if', the blessed man said, 'you remain without communicating all your life, if through stress of circuмstances you cannot find a community of the catholic Church. For if, having legally married a wife in this world of the flesh, we are forbidden by God and by the laws to desert her and be united to another woman, even though we have to spend a long time separated from her in a distant country, and shall incur punishment if we violate our vows, how then shall we, who have been joined to God through the Orthodox faith and the catholic Church -- as the apostle says: "I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2) -- how shall we escape from sharing in that punishment which in the world to come awaits heretics, if we defile the orthodox and holy faith by adulterous communion with heretics?'
    For 'communion', he said, 'has been so called because he who has "communion" has things in common and agrees with those with whom he has "communion". Therefore I implore you earnestly, children, never to go near the oratories of the heretics in order to communicate there.'"
    -St. John the Almsgiver, Patriarch of Alexandria (7th Century AD)
    [ Three Byzantine Saints , "The Life of Saint John the Almsgiver",
    Translators: Elizabeth Dawes & Norman H. Baynes,
    St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood: 1977; p. 251