Author Topic: What do FEers, BOD deniers, and dogmatic anti-sedevacantists have in common?  (Read 1858 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline happenby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • Reputation: +986/-1587
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Except that theologians hold that the entire Church cannot defect by accepting a false pope.  Just because one or two did not attend and a couple didn't sign does not mean that the body of the Church's bishops as a whole did not fail.  In any case, this can happen, according to you, but it's not possible that theologians could embrace a false opinion.  Well, this did happen.  For over 700 years every theologian held to St. Augustine's erroneous view regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism ... until this was overturned by the Church.  This effective infallibility of theologians nonsense (I call it Cekadism) has led to a lot of errors among sedevacantists ... and has led to the contradiction of condemning V2 ecclesiology while at the same time promoting the same ecclesiology.  As a result, sedevacantists don't even come close to understanding the true theological problem of Vatican II.
    Oh sedes, you do indeed say that the majority of the Church defected from itself at VII, while you simultaneously claim theologians cannot embrace a false opinion. Your contradiction has every effect in promoting ridiculous notion that the Church is no longer the Church, that your interpretations of theologians hold supremacy over scripture, canons, even Christ's teachings, and that you unbridled and dis unified self proclaimed 'popes' are the total sum of the true Church today. Wrong. The Council of Constantinople already declared a sentence of excommunication on you for refusing to submit to your authorities. You have as much to say about the Church as a Protestant. Zip.   

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +986/-1587
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 1. No He doesn't and Saint Basil and Saint Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that.
    2. No there isn't. You cannot prove that our faith is dependent upon the knowledge of every specific aspect of the ins and outs of God's Creation; we must only believe that He created it and orders everything well.
    3. To say this is to be ignorant of the use of allegory in Scripture.
    4. This is just flat out not true. There is no proof that the Globe view of creation is at odds with anything necessary to our faith.
    1Where do St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that? What are the quotes?
    2 Faith is dependent on acceptance of revealed truth, whether you like it or not.
    3 Scripture is to be interpreted in the literal sense, a teaching already defined.
    Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8):  the Council infallibly teaches that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”  The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures as supporting a geocentric cosmology. 
    4 “Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith...It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”    Robert Bellarmine; Galileo Trial


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +986/-1587
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • You are right about this, Seven.
    No, he's not right.  Geocentrism has already been determined as truth in the great body of work of the Saints.  They are in agreement in their teachings, based on scripture, if not in their personal opinions.  Also, in the Galileo Affair, Copernicanism (heliocentrism accepted today) was condemned by Pope Alexander VIII, as well as by the great St. Robert Bellarmine, and subsequently put in the Index of books by two other Popes. As such, Catholics are not free to believe the Copernican Doctrine or Heliocentrism which is defined in part by spherical earth.    
    Spherical earth is debunked by the Church regarding the antipodes and by the fact that Jerusalem is the center of the earth,
    both historical facts as well as Catholic teaching. 

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +986/-1587
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 1. Already gave those quotes in the last two pages
    2. Yes it is, what's your point. The shape of the Earth is not part of revealed truth.
    3. I agree. The problem is that the "literal sense" means the "sense" in which the Author intended it. It does not necessarily mean what the reader understands the translation of the original text to be. If this were the case, there would be no point of a Church to teach us what it means and Scripture would appear to contradict itself in many areas. Also, this has nothing to do with Geocentrism. Geocentrism could work with a spherical Earth as well a flat one because God is omnipotent.
    4. And...?I know your beliefs in regards to BOD so don't go there. You know as well as I do that a Saint's opinion as to what's de fide is not infallible, so this argument doesn't work. This is especially true since we have a later Pope saying that the Earth may not be the center of the Universe and that it shouldn't diminish our amazement at God's Creation.
    Your quotes do not prove any saint taught heliocentrism or globe earth, nor that they condemned flat earth.
    The shape of the earth is absolutely part of revealed truth--in scripture.
    The author intended to reveal truth, not deny it.  The saints, fathers and doctors have expounded on this and the Church condemned the Copernican doctrine which is heliocentrism and spherical earth belongs to heliocentrism as a model. 
    One saints opinion, two saints opinions, do not constitute infallible teaching or doctrine, especially when it is contrary to Church teaching or the consensus of saints.  So, don't suggest that I am saying that a couple of guys, against the mind of the Church, say earth is flat.  That is erroneous.  All the saints who taught the subject of geocentrism are in unison: The earth is flat and geocentric.  And that, is a consensus for discerning the mind of the Church, especially since it agrees with scripture.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who claims that the entire Church can defect?? Not I. For your information, it wasn’t just one or two who did not attend or sign the documents, it was many. As a matter of fact, My bishop and the neighboring diocesan bishop attended only one session! Even if some bishops did in fact sign the documents, it seems evident to me, that that is not enough proof to proclaim that they were manifest heretics. So are you willing to retract the false statement you just made about me?

    99% of the bishops bought into it.  There were more bishops who rejected Vatican I.  Yet theologians are infallible.  Cekadism.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who claims that the entire Church can defect?? Not I. For your information, it wasn’t just one or two who did not attend or sign the documents, it was many. As a matter of fact, My bishop and the neighboring diocesan bishop attended only one session! Even if some bishops did in fact sign the documents, it seems evident to me, that that is not enough proof to proclaim that they were manifest heretics. So are you willing to retract the false statement you just made about me?

    So, where are these non-manifest-heretic bishops who have jurisidiction TODAY?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bottom line is your hypocrisy in accusing others of pride when the "manifest heretic" sedevacantists are the summit of pride in the Traditional Catholic world, claiming that their assessment of the heresy of the V2 Popes effectively has the certainty of faith.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I like how you erroneously attribute to me things that I’ve never claimed. You have a very bad habit of this. Just to make it perfectly clear, I certainly don’t agree with Father Cekada on all things. Also, I’ve never heard him claim that theologians are infallible. Do you have any quotes to support this?

    So why is it "PRIDE" to disagree with said theologians on a particular theological point?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You stated this on other threads, now I’m calling you on it. Please spell out EXACTLY what was the “erroneous view” concerning the state of unbaptised infants held by St. Augustine that “every theologian held” for over 700 years. You claim that there was no other opinions, correct?

    We've done this on several other threads.  You just said they're not infallible, right, so then what's the big deal?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are still three alive that were appointed under Pope Pius XII and there are still many that were appointed under John XXIII. I do not concede that those appointed under doubtful popes can’t be lawful successors of the Apostles. This is due to common error. As a matter of fact, I think it possible that even some appointed under Paul VI may be eligible.

    Oh, that's right, the three.  Whether they were appointed under doubtful popes, they're all manifest heretics now, aren't they?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14516
    • Reputation: +7602/-2360
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not interested in turning this lame thread into a full-blown discussion of sedevacantism or of any other topic.

    My point is to call you out for hypocrisy and irony claiming that anyone who disagrees with your theological positions is for that reason proud.  Now THAT is proud.  So go run along now.


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3264
    • Reputation: +3946/-192
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach.
    In a word...PRIDE.
    .
    Everyone's prideful.
    .
    You're closer with the first half of the comment.  They do not learn from the ordinary magisterium.  Out of all Catholic history, this generation is at the greatest disadvantage because there hasn't been an ordinary (or extraordinary) magisterium from which to learn during their lifetime.  So it is understandable that this error would be rampant among traditionalist Catholics.  I say this without implying that a person is always innocent of the error, or that it is excusable.  It should and must be corrected.  But the environment in which we live most certainly makes this an error to which people are easily susceptible.
    .
    Catholic learning is the greatest casualty of our times.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 267
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sedevacantists like Recusant refuse to see the contradiction of claiming, on the one hand, that the consensus of theologians is effectively infallible and a proximate rule of faith while, on the other hand, asserting that the consensus of all the Church's bishops teaching the Universal Church in Ecumenical Council failed.  So theologians can't be wrong while the entire Ecclesia Docens, the world's bishops, can teach heresy and defect en masse.  Anti-BoD sedevacantists also claim that heretical ecclesiology is the chief of Vatican II's errors while at the same time holding the same ecclesiology themselves in their obsessive neurotic attack against Father Feeney, the only man who REALLY saw what was happening in the Church.  Sedevacantists champion the cause of the Heresiarch Cushing over the faithful Traditional Father Feeney.
    Sedevacantists seem to have an Ecclesia Docens by Desire!

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +986/-1587
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Either you are having a hard time following our conversation or you are deliberately being deceitful. This is what was said: You-"The reason I care about the shape of the earth is because God tells us everything about it in scripture." Me: "No He doesn't and Saint Basil and Saint Augustine explicitly say that Scripture does not do that."
    This turned into you falsely stating above, that I claim Saints condemned flat Earth. This is not true at all. Since you are incapable of following along or intentionally lying, here are the parts of the quotes I was talking about.



    •Severian, Bishop of Gabala – Depended upon Scriptures for view of the earth.  “The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall” 1.
    •  [15]  He shared John Chrysostom’s fundamentalism and opposition to pagan learning. SEVERIAN OF GABALA ON THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
         
    He made the upper heavens about which David sang: "The heaven of the heavens is the Lord's."6 This heaven forms in a certain way the upper stage of the firmament. As in any two-story house, there is an intermediate stage; well in this building which is the world, the Creator has prepared the sky as an intermediate level, and he has put it over the waters; from where this passage of David: "It is you who covered with water its upper part.“7 

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2533
    • Reputation: +986/-1587
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • There are other quotes, but you don't seem to read them, so I  won't spend a lot of time posting them.  Obviously, neither if the saints you quoted knew what Moses had said or that scripture talks about the form of the earth extensively because it wasn't their forte.  

     

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