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

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: Eric Dubay on Jesus Christ
« Last post by Matthew on Today at 11:40:10 AM »
I also know some Trads who are worse at the 6th Commandment -- in various ways -- than some non-Catholics and protestants.

The longer you've lived, the more such cases you've encountered. There are conservative Protestant (fundamentalist) women, for example, who are feminine, submit to their husbands completely, find their fulfillment in having large families, being a mother, and would never dream of cheating on their husbands. They wear dresses/skirts 24/7 and dress their daughters in feminine clothing as well.
All they are missing is the Faith!

Meanwhile, there are some Trad women who make their husbands "sleep on the couch" (source: my wife used to hear Mass from the Cry Room... it's a small room, the women talk, and you can't help but overhear things.)
OR, the many LIBERAL Trad women who wear the pants in their families (literally and figuratively), are extremely worldly, have worldly attitudes, etc.
All these women HAVE is the Faith. They're missing everything else!
2
Catholic Living in the Modern World / Re: Eric Dubay on Jesus Christ
« Last post by Mat183 on Today at 11:34:13 AM »
Quote from: Matthew on Today at 08:54:36 AM
I could hang out with Eric Dubay and get along *famously* with him, as long as Religion never came up. If we could avoid that topic, agree to disagree, he could be a very good friend.


Hey Matthew, the fact that I have not been kicked off of CI by now is giving me some hope to trudge on in spite of being labeled a troll, by some.

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist a bit of humor: "I could hang out with Matthew -- don't know if the feeling would ever be mutual -- and get along *famously* with him, as long as Flat Earth and Lad, the Mega 47 thousand plus Poster Boy never came up. If we could avoid that, agree to disagree, he could be a very good friend."  
3
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by SkidRowCatholic on Today at 11:27:11 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 10:28:46 AM
The sedes use the idea to dethrone the pope while entirely ignoring or condemning the other side of the argument. All I've been doing in turn is essentially the same to them. I actually have no dog in this fight, they do.
So, you consider yourself a defender of the truth out to "turn the tables" on the "belligerent sedes" - eh? More sectarianism - oh goody...

This really does explain your whole mindset and why you would dredge up Suarez's opinion (thanks for that BTW). Did anyone past him really hold it, especially from say 1800 onward? So, it is not the consensus of the theologians if even one theologian held a contrary opinion from 500 years ago! The consensus of the theologians is of little to no value to you? It must feel good and look wonderous to you that you tower above them all in this :facepalm:

I will add that major excommunication for public formal heretics serves a bigger purpose than just reconciling the sinner. It is meant to prevent the spread of the heresy to the simple. It was Suarez himself that was reiterating scripture when he stated, "heresy spreads like cancer." Declaring the public offending heretic as outside the Church is primarily a safety mechanism to preserve the body of the faithful from the spread of the spiritual disease.

While the syllogism of the SVs contains a weakness as Ladislaw pointed out, it doesn't follow that their understanding on the loss of Church membership is flawed. Even if they are DEAD WRONG Your argument just looks really purile.

Thank you for confirming what you are really doing with this whole nonsensical argument - you are not after the truth, but want to "fight" the sedes with their own arguments. Is that what this thread has devolved into, I thought it was about What resistance members believe about heretics being members or not. But, if you "give them an inch" in this, then all your thousands of lines of arguing are really just a total waste of potentially weeks/months of time. It is akin to a gambler who keeps driving himself into more debt, thinking that just walking away would be to much to bear after he has already lost so much, so he creates a fiction in his mind to feed his own delusion.
4
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Today at 10:55:57 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 10:51:50 AM
Its as complicated as you want to make it, and you needlessly make it very complex.

From the above book I attached earlier....
"Excommunication is a medicinal punishment; its primary and immediate purpose is to bring the delinquent back to a sense of duty."

Too many people here believe it's "primary and immediate purpose" is to kick the sinner completely out of the Church.
Ok, so again, you're saying +Bellarmine was stupid and he made things overly complex.  :facepalm:  
5
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 10:51:50 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 10:31:46 AM
:facepalm:  I'm not the one with an agenda.  If it's a debated issue among theologians, then it's debated.

The point is, the idea that "loss of membership" due to excommunication/heresy/schism is NOT an error.
The secondary point is that your mind-numbing repetition of "it's quite simple" is proven wrong.  It's not simple.  If it was simple, then highly intellectual theologians like Suarez and St Bellarmine would agree.  But they don't.  So it's not simple.

Thank you for FINALLY admitting that there's merit to both sides.  :facepalm:
Its as complicated as you want to make it, and you needlessly make it very complex. 

From the above book I attached earlier....
"Excommunication is a medicinal punishment; its primary and immediate purpose is to bring the delinquent back to a sense of duty."

Too many people here believe it's "primary and immediate purpose" is to kick the sinner completely out of the Church.
6
Crisis in the Church / Re: Transalpine Redemptorists, valid?
« Last post by TomGubbinsKimmage on Today at 10:40:56 AM »
The ones ordained before they left for the Conciliar Church would be done by the SSPX, and therefore valid.
The ones after... is another question.
It is possible that Arbp Vigano did it as he himself was ordained conditionally by Bishop Williamson.
But we can't be sure until the relevant priests come out and say that they were. 
7
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Today at 10:34:31 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 10:28:46 AM
The sedes use the idea to dethrone the pope while entirely ignoring or condemning the other side of the argument. All I've been doing in turn is essentially the same to them. I actually have no dog in this fight, they do. They have got to promote and defend the idea lest the cornerstone gives way.   
Yeah, and i've repeatedly said that their "conclusion" from the idea is wrong.  You've been jumping ahead this whole time, anticipating argument #2 (sedeism), instead of just focusing on argument #1 (loss of membership).  #2 does not follow from #1.

But the idea of #1 is still important.  
8
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by Pax Vobis on Today at 10:31:46 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 10:20:48 AM
Pax, I don't think you're going to like this book too much, maybe a little, but that's all.
:facepalm:  I'm not the one with an agenda.  If it's a debated issue among theologians, then it's debated.

The point is, the idea that "loss of membership" due to excommunication/heresy/schism is NOT an error.
The secondary point is that your mind-numbing repetition of "it's quite simple" is proven wrong.  It's not simple.  If it was simple, then highly intellectual theologians like Suarez and St Bellarmine would agree.  But they don't.  So it's not simple.

Thank you for FINALLY admitting that there's merit to both sides.  :facepalm:
9
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 10:30:36 AM »
Quote from: Everlast22 on Today at 10:18:26 AM
No you wouldn't. lol
Sure I would. If he was an actual enemy I probably would just walk away. 
10
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Last post by Stubborn on Today at 10:28:46 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 10:20:28 AM
Ok, so you finally admit that the idea of losing membership is not new, nor is it a creation of some wacko-sedes.  :facepalm:  Good grief, man.  This is the first time in probably 5 years that's you've FINALLY ADMITTED that the idea of lost membership isn't made up. 
The sedes use the idea to dethrone the pope while entirely ignoring or condemning the other side of the argument. All I've been doing in turn is essentially the same to them. I actually have no dog in this fight, they do. They have got to promote and defend the idea lest the cornerstone gives way.     
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20