Author Topic: What is preventing me from considering Traditionalism... (Read 9215 times)

JohnGrey · « **Reply #15 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:04:46 PM »

Equally problematic is that you're operating your belief system in service of a secondhand interpretation of a prophecy, which itself falls under the category of private revelation. As such it has absolutely no business forming the basis for the expression or practical exercise of the Catholic faith. Whatever the contention between resisters (SSPX & non-SV independents) and sedevacantists, at the very least their arguments rest on explorations of theology and canon law founded on the infallible dogmas of the Church.

The prophecies of the Saints can be a welcome thing, especially in this time of great apostasy. Many holy saints are recorded to have experienced visions of those things that would come to pass, but they are not infallible. For example, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich describe the chalice of the last supper to be enormous, bearing an engraving of a serpent and grapes. Conversely, the cup in Valencia, which is considered by many to be the best candidate for the true grail and to which is ascribed a provenance to St. Laurence, is a tiny, polished agate cup with no ornamentation at all (the base and handles are a medieval addition). That Emmerich might have gotten the particulars wrong does not discount the beauty of that which she may have received from God. My point is that to hinge one's belief on them is to descend into semi-gnostic mysticism.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #16 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:18:42 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Equally problematic is that you're operating your belief system in service of a secondhand interpretation of a prophecy, which itself falls under the category of private revelation. As such it has absolutely no business forming the basis for the expression or practical exercise of the Catholic faith. Whatever the contention between resisters (SSPX & non-SV independents) and sedevacantists, at the very least their arguments rest on explorations of theology and canon law founded on the infallible dogmas of the Church.

The prophecies of the Saints can be a welcome thing, especially in this time of great apostasy. Many holy saints are recorded to have experienced visions of those things that would come to pass, but they are not infallible. For example, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich describe the chalice of the last supper to be enormous, bearing an engraving of a serpent and grapes. Conversely, the cup in Valencia, which is considered by many to be the best candidate for the true grail and to which is ascribed a provenance to St. Laurence, is a tiny, polished agate cup with no ornamentation at all (the base and handles are a medieval addition). That Emmerich might have gotten the particulars wrong does not discount the beauty of that which she may have received from God. My point is that to hinge one's belief on them is to descend into semi-gnostic mysticism.

I understand your point. I will try not to do that. You can't deny that it is evidence though.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #17 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:27:54 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: JohnGrey
Equally problematic is that you're operating your belief system in service of a secondhand interpretation of a prophecy, which itself falls under the category of private revelation. As such it has absolutely no business forming the basis for the expression or practical exercise of the Catholic faith. Whatever the contention between resisters (SSPX & non-SV independents) and sedevacantists, at the very least their arguments rest on explorations of theology and canon law founded on the infallible dogmas of the Church.

The prophecies of the Saints can be a welcome thing, especially in this time of great apostasy. Many holy saints are recorded to have experienced visions of those things that would come to pass, but they are not infallible. For example, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich describe the chalice of the last supper to be enormous, bearing an engraving of a serpent and grapes. Conversely, the cup in Valencia, which is considered by many to be the best candidate for the true grail and to which is ascribed a provenance to St. Laurence, is a tiny, polished agate cup with no ornamentation at all (the base and handles are a medieval addition). That Emmerich might have gotten the particulars wrong does not discount the beauty of that which she may have received from God. My point is that to hinge one's belief on them is to descend into semi-gnostic mysticism.

I understand your point. I will try not to do that. You can't deny that it is evidence though.

Evidence is something that supports the hypothetical explanation of a demonstrable event. The problem is that the fulfillment of prophecy is unrepeatable, in which case the analysis of the event can only be ex post facto. Worse still, in this case the certainty of the antecedent itself (the Angelic Pope, the Great Monarch) is questionable, as we are given no assurances by infallible authority that the occurrence of the prophecy's events will ever come to pass. Consequently, attempting to fit historical or current events to the mold of prophecy that does not have the charism of infallibility (as opposed to the prophecies contained in Sacred Scripture), can be mistake that is deadly to one's formation of, and perseverance in, the holy faith.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #18 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:31:42 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Quote from: JohnGrey
Equally problematic is that you're operating your belief system in service of a secondhand interpretation of a prophecy, which itself falls under the category of private revelation. As such it has absolutely no business forming the basis for the expression or practical exercise of the Catholic faith. Whatever the contention between resisters (SSPX & non-SV independents) and sedevacantists, at the very least their arguments rest on explorations of theology and canon law founded on the infallible dogmas of the Church.

The prophecies of the Saints can be a welcome thing, especially in this time of great apostasy. Many holy saints are recorded to have experienced visions of those things that would come to pass, but they are not infallible. For example, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich describe the chalice of the last supper to be enormous, bearing an engraving of a serpent and grapes. Conversely, the cup in Valencia, which is considered by many to be the best candidate for the true grail and to which is ascribed a provenance to St. Laurence, is a tiny, polished agate cup with no ornamentation at all (the base and handles are a medieval addition). That Emmerich might have gotten the particulars wrong does not discount the beauty of that which she may have received from God. My point is that to hinge one's belief on them is to descend into semi-gnostic mysticism.

I understand your point. I will try not to do that. You can't deny that it is evidence though.

Evidence is something that supports the hypothetical explanation of a demonstrable event. The problem is that the fulfillment of prophecy is unrepeatable, in which case the analysis of the event can only be ex post facto. Worse still, in this case the certainty of the antecedent itself (the Angelic Pope, the Great Monarch) is questionable, as we are given no assurances by infallible authority that the occurrence of the prophecy's events will ever come to pass. Consequently, attempting to fit historical or current events to the mold of prophecy that does not have the charism of infallibility (as opposed to the prophecies contained in Sacred Scripture), can be mistake that is deadly to one's formation of, and perseverance in, the holy faith.

Thats understandable. I think the Catholic Church allows us to believe/consider these things though. Yet Faith should always be placed #1 at the same time.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:33:44 PM »

InfiniteFaith, no offense, but you are basing your position on illogical reasoning and are neglecting the facts. To address some of your posts:

Quote

If the Novus Ordo was really what you all say it is, then why would someone of the Novus Ordo receive the stamp of approval from God in the form of the Stigmata?

The Stigmata can be faked, you know. Apparitions can also be fake. Because a Novus Ordite received a supposed Stigmata, that means the NO position must be correct? What kind of reasoning is that?

Quote

You are not at all considering that possibility that your belief system is wrong.

That would be because there are no doubts that a Mass that was created by Freemasons to please the Protestants cannot be Catholic. And furthermore, such an act (promulgation of an entirely new liturgy) would have been condemned by the Council of Trent.

Quote

What was wrong with what Mary said in that statement?

Isn't it obvious? That "apparition" has Mary supposedly saying that "all religions are dear to my Son". Oh, so all religions that reject Jesus Christ and His Church are dear to Him? Atheism is dear to Him? Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is dear to Him? Judaism is dear to Him? Protestantism is dear to Him? I don't think so.

Quote

Nadie had a point in one of the threads about when Christ says that there is no way for salvation unless you are born of water and spirit. But if you take that to be the case 100% of the time then you would have to reject the teachings of Baptism of Desire and Baptism by Blood. So which is it?

I don't want to get into an argument with Nadie, but just so you know, Nadie is a Feeneyite, meaning he rejects the notion of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Stubborn is also a Feeneyite. A majority of people on this forum, however, believe in BOD. I just wanted to clear that up for you.