Is it just me, or have the SSPX bishops been unusually quiet these last few months?
I scoured the three main SSPX websites, and couldn’t find a single recent article, interview, or conference from any of them.
I don’t just mean unbranded content, but even fully branded content is absent.
So I went over to La Porte Latine (main French District website), and all I found there was a little blurb about Bishop Fellay playing a horn in the mountains.
It seems as though there is a deliberate public posture of silence coming from these bishops. If that is true, what is the reason for it?
Is it just me, or have the SSPX bishops been unusually quiet these last few months?Maybe they have been vaxed and are not feeling too well.
.... If that is true, what is the reason for it?
Reticence = no controversy = no problems with the NO church?
I was wondering if it was something along those lines.
In the same vein, I also wondered if the silence of the bishops was a strategy to avoid the appearance of schism, and demonstrate their subordination to the district superiors and SG.
Its all conjecture, of course, but I just don’t recall such a long period of total silence from the bishops.
Maybe there’s stuff out there that I’m missing?
As far as I know, the only reason for these gentlemen to be Bishops is to provide the sacraments to the faithful.
They are only "sacramental Bishops". The hold no office in the Church, so they are not "to teach" like an ordinary diocesan Bishop would in normal times.
Since Bp. Fellay is no longer Superior General, they three Bishops have no reason to be in the news. Their work is to provide the sacraments, which they have been doing as usual.
This is the way I see it.
As far as I know, the only reason for these gentlemen to be Bishops is to provide the sacraments to the faithful.
They are only "sacramental Bishops". The hold no office in the Church, so they are not "to teach" like an ordinary diocesan Bishop would in normal times.
Since Bp. Fellay is no longer Superior General, they three Bishops have no reason to be in the news. Their work is to provide the sacraments, which they have been doing as usual.
This is the way I see it.
Although it is true, as you say, that the SSPX bishops have no office, I’m not sure I would conclude from that that they cannot or should not teach publicly.You raise interesting points.
if that were the case, then it would apply to every bishop (sede and RR) from the time of Lefebvre until today.
Even the uncensured Vigano would be prohibited, as would all emeritus bishops (eg., Castro de Mayer in the 1970’s).
it would also mean that, during St. Athanasius’s various excommunication, during which he held no office, he was prohibited from teaching.
There is a deeper question lurking here regarding the limits of supplied jurisdiction:
If it is true, as +de Mallerais taught, that supplied jurisdiction springs from the request of the faithful, and these faithful may make such a request for “any just cause” (eg., spiritual benefit), and that this supplied jurisdiction pertains not only to sacramental acts, but to the entire priestly ministry (because jurisdiction is for souls, and not souls for jurisdiction), then why should teaching be prohibited?
Does not the example of Athanasius and others show that Tissier and the old SSPX is correct?
What other explanation is there for Athanasius?
This is my main reason for wanting to translate Dom Adrien Grea’s book on extraordinary manifestations of episcopal power, in the hope it will shed light on this disputed subject.
Silence can be loud.Most certainly!
The need to consecrate additional Bishops grows daily.
And consecrations are almost certain to trigger another round of 'excommunications'.
My prayer is that Their Excellencies are fortifying themselves for that event.
The need to consecrate additional Bishops grows daily.I asked an SSPX priest about this and was told that it is planned but will not happen in the current pontificate.
And consecrations are almost certain to trigger another round of 'excommunications'.
My prayer is that Their Excellencies are fortifying themselves for that event.
The need to consecrate additional Bishops grows daily.
And consecrations are almost certain to trigger another round of 'excommunications'.
My prayer is that Their Excellencies are fortifying themselves for that event.
I asked an SSPX priest about this and was told that it is planned but will not happen in the current pontificate.
The need for real leaders grows daily, as the present crop are spineless chumps.
What do greater numbers matter when they are all silent accomplices to our destruction?
None of them deserves the title "Excellency" for they possess neither office nor jurisdiction. Traddieland is full of clerics who seem to inordinately desire and revel in that which is not their due.
They cannot even speak truth-to-power during the most dangerous time for the flock in all history. They are unwittingly preparing to be tossed aside in favor of the real leaders God will raise up by His own means. Sadly, they are basically cancelling themselves, not even making the wack-jobs exert real effort.
I asked an SSPX priest about this and was told that it is planned but will not happen in the current pontificate.
Given that Bishop Tissier is rather ill, and the reports that +Fellay and +Galaretta both got the jab ... I don't know that they have the luxury of time. Imagine if all 3 passed away before they were to consecrate successors. Would they then suddenly go crawling back to Bishop Williamson and the bishops that he consecrated? If that were to happen, I think that Rome would let them wither on the vine and die out ... unless of course they wanted to plan a Modernist in there to further erode Traditional Catholicism. Of course, I'm convinced that many of the current "leadership" are in fact Modernist agents.
Faced with a whithering vine scenario, they might turn to +Huonder. Then again, he’s 80, so the clock is ticking there too.
If so, it would cause/signal a further decline of the SSPX in turning to a Novus Ordo bishop for Orders, and could spark more defections from the pews worldwide. Then again, the Swiss sspxers seem to have accepted him without much protest.
Perhaps the General Council would weigh the damage versus extinction, and decide it’s a necessary and beneficial purging (as Fr. Pfluger said with regard to Resistance losses after 2011/12)?
Then again, +Huonder is Francis’s man, and might refuse a request, if ordered to do so.
Or maybe they’ll say they don’t need their own bishops anymore, since they can turn to the likes of +Huonder for all their needs.
But much more likely, Rome will request dossiers of the most liberal candidates, and approve 1-2. The SSPX will celebrate its ralliement strategy as victorious, declaring the final realization of Lefebvre’s 1988 dream of gaining Rome-approved bishops (but of a much different spirit and formation), and say “I told you so” to +Williamson. But it will be three steps back for Tradition.
Perhaps Rome will even want to use its own bishops for the consecrations, as a test to see how much the society has softened since 1988/2012, and make it a litmus test. Or perhaps they will be happy for the moment to have a conciliar bishop co-consecrate: Getting the SSPX to consent to that much would surely be perceived as a sign of their progress (meanwhile, Menzingen could sell the deal by minimalizing the importance of co-consecrators).
But the smart move (Francis’s strategy) is to simply starve them into extinction, and it’s very questionable whether the SSPX, after 10 years of hand-wringing about its abnormal status, would possess the psychological surety it would be doing the right thing.
Turning to the Resistance bishops would simultaneously be the easiest, but least likely course: The Society leadership as a victim of its own ralliement has been softened into becoming psychologically dependent on modernist Rome’s approval, and the pride of the General Council will rather have tradition fade to black, than turn to the bishops they have been demonizing the last several years: How can they tell their faithful to shun the Resistance, if they themselves turn to them for bishops?
Given that Bishop Tissier is rather ill, and the reports that +Fellay and +Galaretta both got the jab ... I don't know that they have the luxury of time. Imagine if all 3 passed away before they were to consecrate successors. Would they then suddenly go crawling back to Bishop Williamson and the bishops that he consecrated? If that were to happen, I think that Rome would let them wither on the vine and die out ... unless of course they wanted to plan a Modernist in there to further erode Traditional Catholicism. Of course, I'm convinced that many of the current "leadership" are in fact Modernist agents.
The SSPX weren't so silent when it was time to push the abortion tainted kill shots on their followers.
The SSPX weren't so silent when it was time to push the abortion tainted kill shots on their followers.
I would say that they fell short of PUSHING the jabs ... but they certainly went to great lengths to justify taking them, to clear the roadblocks that people's consciences might have overwise placed in the way of accepting them. As a result, I believe that they have deaths on their hands ... not to mention the grave moral evil. I know of a couple Trad Catholics who received the jab while citing the SSPX as the moral justification for it. And, honestly, you can't blame a layman for accepting guidance from SSPX. So the SSPX will be held accountable rather than the individuals who accepted their advice (excepting those who were not in good faith but wanted to use the jab and merely used the SSPX opinion to rationalize their position, but that's a matter for God to judge.)
Poor +Lefebvre must be turning in his grave.
Unfortunately his legacy was a contradictory position of assigning Christ's authority to heretics and the obligation to resist them.
Compromises were inevitable and due to the SSPX's evil choices the whole of southeastern Europe has ZERO priests and naive traditionalists are adoring bread every Sunday.
The R&R position is truly unsustainable, you have to outright reject the heretics or you end up with false sacraments, false annulments and false ecclesiology.
There should be a ghetto for this burnt out debate, which always and infallibly ends with wailing and gnashing of teeth.Except it is validly connected to the question of SSPX silence.
Except it is validly connected to the question of SSPX silence.
I don’t think so:
The SSPX had no problem speaking out against modernism from 1970-2012, so RR cannot be a cause of silence (unless you’re saying that they largely dropped the second R, and that’s the cause of silence...in which case I would agree).
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
One could argue that it's indirectly the cause of the silence. When you hold that a man is the legitimate Vicar of Christ, the sensus Catholicus inexorably draws Catholics to attempt to be in submission to and in communion with the Vicar of Christ.
In other words, the refusal to at least QUESTION and DOUBT the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants led to the negotiations and attempts at reconciliation, which then in turn led to their not publicly criticizing them or making statements that might jeopardize the reunification movement.
If I were certain that Bergoglio is the pope, I would have been back in communion with him somehow ... yesterday, whether it's in the Eastern Rite or FSSP/Motu (and their "legitimacy" would also guarantee for me that their Holy Orders are not doubtful, for the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacramental Rites).
Conversely, given that their legitimacy is highly doubtful, and it's much more possible that these are non- and anti- Catholic Antipopes, I wouldn't feel the least bit inclined toward seeking any kind of reconciliation with them, but would view them as mortal enemies of the faith.
Regardless of your opinion on some of these issues, it can't be denied that the Catholic instinct (sensus) strongly draws Catholics toward submission to the Pope. Those who have no concern whatsoever with being separated from the Vicar of Christ either 1) (at least secretly) harbor doubts about their legitimacy or 2) have had their Catholic sensibilities eroded so badly that they have completely extinguished this eminently-Catholic sensibility. And that latter is precisely why I've been so vocal of this particular articulation of R&R that's been made here on CI.
Archbishop Lefebvre retained that sensibility:
And yet many modern R&R have in fact adopted this stance that the pope question is not particularly important. Believing him to be the pope, the attitude of "Who cares what he teaches?" is completely alien and contrary to a core Catholic sensibility, the one sensibility in fact which distinguishes a Catholic from an Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox schismatic, or even Protestant.
After all posters on this forum are dead ~60 or so years from now we may see the last validly ordained SSPX priests pass on. . . .The world won't sit still for 60 days, much less 60 years. At the rate things are going, neither will the SSPX be able to afford to stand still. In any event, Bergoglio's demise will set off a chain reaction whose results we likely cannot imagine.
One could argue that it's indirectly the cause of the silence. When you hold that a man is the legitimate Vicar of Christ, the sensus Catholicus inexorably draws Catholics to attempt to be in submission to and in communion with the Vicar of Christ.https://twitter.com/Michael_J_Matt/status/1543758187265986561
In other words, the refusal to at least QUESTION and DOUBT the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants led to the negotiations and attempts at reconciliation, which then in turn led to their not publicly criticizing them or making statements that might jeopardize the reunification movement.
If I were certain that Bergoglio is the pope, I would have been back in communion with him somehow ... yesterday, whether it's in the Eastern Rite or FSSP/Motu (and their "legitimacy" would also guarantee for me that their Holy Orders are not doubtful, for the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacramental Rites).
Conversely, given that their legitimacy is highly doubtful, and it's much more possible that these are non- and anti- Catholic Antipopes, I wouldn't feel the least bit inclined toward seeking any kind of reconciliation with them, but would view them as mortal enemies of the faith.
Regardless of your opinion on some of these issues, it can't be denied that the Catholic instinct (sensus) strongly draws Catholics toward submission to the Pope. Those who have no concern whatsoever with being separated from the Vicar of Christ either 1) (at least secretly) harbor doubts about their legitimacy or 2) have had their Catholic sensibilities eroded so badly that they have completely extinguished this eminently-Catholic sensibility. And that latter is precisely why I've been so vocal of this particular articulation of R&R that's been made here on CI.
Archbishop Lefebvre retained that sensibility:
And yet many modern R&R have in fact adopted this stance that the pope question is not particularly important. Believing him to be the pope, the attitude of "Who cares what he teaches?" is completely alien and contrary to a core Catholic sensibility, the one sensibility in fact which distinguishes a Catholic from an Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox schismatic, or even Protestant.
he is right that RnR is a schismatic position,
Except that it’s endorsed by all the greatest theologians in Church history, in addition to Vigano, Lefebvre, Laszlo, de Castro Mayer...The Resistance is sedeprivationism so it is hard to say your position enjoys this endorsement. As much as I agree with Fr. Chazal and I enjoy his genius Cajetan disagrees with him.
The Resistance is sedeprivationism so it is hard to say your position enjoys this endorsement. As much as I agree with Fr. Chazal and I enjoy his genius Cajetan disagrees with him.
We reject sedeprivationism, and the pseudo distinction upon which that invention rests.
Instead, we stick to what the theologians have taught regarding necessity as a cause dispensing from obedience to a superior’s unreasonable will:
Quite #1:
5th Principle: It is the character of the state of necessity to suspend the superior's power of binding, and if, nevertheless, he attempts to bind, what he commands is not bindingFurther applying the example already given regarding natural law, this principle is illustrated by the case of a husband who not only placed his children in necessity or failed to provide for them, but, who, moreover, prevented his wife from providing for them as far as was in her power. It is obvious that in such a case the husband's power to bind would be suspended, and if he attempted to bind, his command would not be binding upon his wife.The fact that in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre the superior is the pope does not nullify this principle. The Vicar of Christ first and foremost has the duty to provide for the needs of souls, and if he does not provide for them (or, worse, if he himself is the cause or part-cause of the grave and general state of spiritual necessity), that does not entitle him to prevent others from providing as far as they can for the needs of souls. This is especially applicable if the duty to supply is rooted in their own sacerdotal or, still more, episcopal state.The authority of the pope is indeed unlimited, but from below, not from above. >From above, papal power is limited by divine law, natural and positive. The authority of the pope is "monarchical...and absolute within the limits, however, of divine law, natural and positive" and for that reason "the Roman Pontiff himself cannot act against divine law or disregard it."3 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#3B) Now, in the state of necessity, divine natural and positive law imposes a duty of charity under pain of mortal sin upon whoever is able to provide help, and in the state of spiritual necessity it imposes this duty above all on bishops and upon priests {as well as on the pope). The pope, as like any other superior, does not have the power to oppose this duty {Suarez: " deest potestas in legislatore ad obligandum" De Legibus, L. VI, cap. VII, n.ll).That is why it is said that "the state of necessity carries its own dispensation with it because necessity is not subject to law" {SI; I-II, Q.96, A.6). This is not to mean that in the state of necessity it is lawful to do whatever one wishes, but that "the action otherwise prohibited is rendered lawful and permitted by the state of necessity ."4 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#4B)This is in order to safeguard higher interests than obedience to the law or to the Superior. In such a case it is not within the power of any superior to demand the observance of the law in the usual way, because to no superior {and still less to the pope) is it granted to exercise authority harmful to anyone else, especially if that harm is spiritual and involves many souls and violates one's duty of state, especially that of a priest or bishop.Not even God, the Supreme Legislator, is bound in the state of necessity ."That is why Christ Himself excuses David, who in grave danger ate the breads of proposition which the laity were forbidden to eat by Divine Law."5 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#5B) According to this principle, not only do human laws cease to oblige in a state of necessity, but even divine-positive and affirmative divine-natural law cease (e.g., "Honor thy father and mother"; "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day"). The only law binding in the state of necessity is negative divine-natural law {e.g., "Thou shalt not kill," etc.) . This is because negative divine-natural law prohibits actions that are intrinsically evil and hence forbidden because they are evil, as opposed to actions which are evil only because they are forbidden, such as the consecration of bishops without pontifical mandate.”
The Lefebvre quote you supplied was directed primarily against sedevacantists, with a Lefebvre lamenting that their spirit had even creeped into some in the Society.Could you please kindly provide proof from this source article? I tried to find this article online but not able to do so. Taking the quote for what is, I do not come to same conclusion as you.
Could you please kindly provide proof from this source article? I tried to find this article online but not able to do so. Taking the quote for what is, I do not come to same conclusion as you.
Many more quotes here defending the RR position from Suarez, Gerson, Aquinas, Alphonsus, Grea, Naz, and others:
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
Isn’t it rather obvious that if he says, “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society)“ that the “some priests” are not in the Society?
Thoroughly misapplied by those R&R here who claim that the Catholic Church can become corrupt in her Magisterium and Public Worship. NONE of these authors hold that opinion, and you mendaciously misapply those quotes to that end.
More wishful thinking and twisting of reality. There's no "sedevacantist" who doesn't think that the pope is important so long as they have the Sacraments. That's a decidedly R&R perspective. Archbishop Lefebvre was speaking at a time when there was still a plethora of Independent priests still out there (1986). In 1986, the independent priests probably outnumbered SSPX priests.
We reject sedeprivationism, and the pseudo distinction upon which that invention rests.You can put up walls of text but +Williamson is on record saying we could reject nu-canonization (there are tons of posts on here about it) and Fr. Chazal's "Impoundism" is the "Material/Formal" distinction, fullstop. We probably actually agree on almost everything but you keep using a ridiculous RnR label that is not your practice or belief in the Resistance.
Instead, we stick to what the theologians have taught regarding necessity as a cause dispensing from obedience to a superior’s unreasonable will:
Quite #1:
5th Principle: It is the character of the state of necessity to suspend the superior's power of binding, and if, nevertheless, he attempts to bind, what he commands is not bindingFurther applying the example already given regarding natural law, this principle is illustrated by the case of a husband who not only placed his children in necessity or failed to provide for them, but, who, moreover, prevented his wife from providing for them as far as was in her power. It is obvious that in such a case the husband's power to bind would be suspended, and if he attempted to bind, his command would not be binding upon his wife.The fact that in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre the superior is the pope does not nullify this principle. The Vicar of Christ first and foremost has the duty to provide for the needs of souls, and if he does not provide for them (or, worse, if he himself is the cause or part-cause of the grave and general state of spiritual necessity), that does not entitle him to prevent others from providing as far as they can for the needs of souls. This is especially applicable if the duty to supply is rooted in their own sacerdotal or, still more, episcopal state.The authority of the pope is indeed unlimited, but from below, not from above. >From above, papal power is limited by divine law, natural and positive. The authority of the pope is "monarchical...and absolute within the limits, however, of divine law, natural and positive" and for that reason "the Roman Pontiff himself cannot act against divine law or disregard it."3 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#3B) Now, in the state of necessity, divine natural and positive law imposes a duty of charity under pain of mortal sin upon whoever is able to provide help, and in the state of spiritual necessity it imposes this duty above all on bishops and upon priests {as well as on the pope). The pope, as like any other superior, does not have the power to oppose this duty {Suarez: " deest potestas in legislatore ad obligandum" De Legibus, L. VI, cap. VII, n.ll).That is why it is said that "the state of necessity carries its own dispensation with it because necessity is not subject to law" {SI; I-II, Q.96, A.6). This is not to mean that in the state of necessity it is lawful to do whatever one wishes, but that "the action otherwise prohibited is rendered lawful and permitted by the state of necessity ."4 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#4B)This is in order to safeguard higher interests than obedience to the law or to the Superior. In such a case it is not within the power of any superior to demand the observance of the law in the usual way, because to no superior {and still less to the pope) is it granted to exercise authority harmful to anyone else, especially if that harm is spiritual and involves many souls and violates one's duty of state, especially that of a priest or bishop.Not even God, the Supreme Legislator, is bound in the state of necessity ."That is why Christ Himself excuses David, who in grave danger ate the breads of proposition which the laity were forbidden to eat by Divine Law."5 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#5B) According to this principle, not only do human laws cease to oblige in a state of necessity, but even divine-positive and affirmative divine-natural law cease (e.g., "Honor thy father and mother"; "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day"). The only law binding in the state of necessity is negative divine-natural law {e.g., "Thou shalt not kill," etc.) . This is because negative divine-natural law prohibits actions that are intrinsically evil and hence forbidden because they are evil, as opposed to actions which are evil only because they are forbidden, such as the consecration of bishops without pontifical mandate.”
I don’t think so:I was trying to say that holding to R&R leads to the dropping of the second R. When faced with an uncompromising Vatican the only means of "progress" is to ingratiate yourself with it.
The SSPX had no problem speaking out against modernism from 1970-2012, so RR cannot be a cause of silence (unless you’re saying that they largely dropped the second R, and that’s the cause of silence...in which case I would agree).
One could argue that it's indirectly the cause of the silence. When you hold that a man is the legitimate Vicar of Christ, the sensus Catholicus inexorably draws Catholics to attempt to be in submission to and in communion with the Vicar of Christ.Ladislaus puts it better than I ever could. :D
In other words, the refusal to at least QUESTION and DOUBT the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants led to the negotiations and attempts at reconciliation, which then in turn led to their not publicly criticizing them or making statements that might jeopardize the reunification movement.
If I were certain that Bergoglio is the pope, I would have been back in communion with him somehow ... yesterday, whether it's in the Eastern Rite or FSSP/Motu (and their "legitimacy" would also guarantee for me that their Holy Orders are not doubtful, for the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacramental Rites).
Conversely, given that their legitimacy is highly doubtful, and it's much more possible that these are non- and anti- Catholic Antipopes, I wouldn't feel the least bit inclined toward seeking any kind of reconciliation with them, but would view them as mortal enemies of the faith.
Regardless of your opinion on some of these issues, it can't be denied that the Catholic instinct (sensus) strongly draws Catholics toward submission to the Pope. Those who have no concern whatsoever with being separated from the Vicar of Christ either 1) (at least secretly) harbor doubts about their legitimacy or 2) have had their Catholic sensibilities eroded so badly that they have completely extinguished this eminently-Catholic sensibility. And that latter is precisely why I've been so vocal of this particular articulation of R&R that's been made here on CI.
Archbishop Lefebvre retained that sensibility:
And yet many modern R&R have in fact adopted this stance that the pope question is not particularly important. Believing him to be the pope, the attitude of "Who cares what he teaches?" is completely alien and contrary to a core Catholic sensibility, the one sensibility in fact which distinguishes a Catholic from an Old Catholic, Eastern Orthodox schismatic, or even Protestant.
You can put up walls of text but +Williamson is on record saying we could reject nu-canonization (there are tons of posts on here about it) and Fr. Chazal's "Impoundism" is the "Material/Formal" distinction, fullstop. We probably actually agree on almost everything but you keep using a ridiculous RnR label that is not your practice or belief in the Resistance.
Got it. Lefebvre was just a poor speaker who didn’t realize he was owing redundant speaking firstly of “some priests,” then immediately thereafter about others within the Society.
:facepalm:
I was trying to say that holding to R&R leads to the dropping of the second R. When faced with an uncompromising Vatican the only means of "progress" is to ingratiate yourself with it.
I understand how someone can hold that heretics are popes in a vacuum, but holding it as a premise so that every fact must be reinterpreted accordingly is really dishonest and has led to the SSPX giving fake annulments and fake sacraments for which they will be judged.
It's easy to say as some do that it doesn't matter if the pope is pope as long as we have the sacraments, but because the SSPX wanted to ingratiate the Vatican II sect by not conditionally ordaining NO "priests" I am now without the sacraments.
What I am trying to say is that we can now see that the R&R position is unsustainable in practice because it is insufficiently rigid, like a rock ;)
No, but you are challenged where it comes to reading comprehension. He says some priests (even some in the Society)
The Lefebvre quote you supplied was directed primarily against sedevacantists, with a Lefebvre lamenting that their spirit had even creeped into some in the Society.Here is the complete quote. And sedevcantists are mentioned once...and not in relation to that part of the quote. It is much more likely that the priests he is referring to are those who are in the various TLM churches within the Novus Ordo structure who try to turn a blind eye, not the sedevacantist priests.
(http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/1986/July/Lefebvre_1986_1.jpg) |
| (http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/1986/July/Lefebvre_1986_2.jpg) |
(http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/1986/July/Lefebvre_1986_3.jpg) |
Could you please kindly provide proof from this source article? I tried to find this article online but not able to do so. Taking the quote for what is, I do not come to same conclusion as you.See my post #60. He wasn't referring to sedevacantists.
On the contrary, it is sustainable indefinitely (ie., that s liberal became superior general is not an inevitability.I am a bit confused, could you please cite an authoritative definition of indefectibility? You seem to say that after a certain amount of time has passed in an interregnum the Church has defected. I would like you to substantiate that claim if you support it.
What is not sustainable indefinitely is an alleged interregnum with no hierarchy to rectify the situation. That position is really saying the Church died 65 years ago, and there’s no way to bring her back.
Ecclesiavacantism (ie., 95% of sedes, since almost none of those describing themselves as such believe there’s a single prelate in the world with jurisdiction) can be rejected for that reason alone, with no need for any other refutations: Rejecting multiple dogmas like formal apostolicity, indefectibility, and the visibility of the Church can only be perceived as solutions in bizarro world.
See my post #60. He wasn't referring to sedevacantists.This is what I love about sedes, and what convinced me to read what they have to say: they always cite the sources, they always back up their claims, no novelty, no made-up definitions of indefectibility.
Here is the complete quote. And sedevcantists are mentioned once...and not in relation to that part of the quote. It is much more likely that the priests he is referring to are those who are in the various TLM churches within the Novus Ordo structure who try to turn a blind eye, not the sedevacantist priests.
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1186
TALKS GIVEN BY ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
ON MARCH 30 AND APRIL 18, 1986
(http://www.angelusonline.org/images/articles/1986/July/Lefebvre_1986_2.jpg) Now all these facts are public, you have seen them in the newspapers and the media. What are we to think? What is the reaction of our Catholic Faith? That is what matters. It is not our personal feelings, a sort of impression or admission of some kind. It is a question of knowing what our Faith tells us, faced with these facts. Let me quote a few words—not my words—from Canon Naz's Dictionary of Canon Law, a wholly official and approved commentary on what has been the Catholic Church's body of law for nineteen centuries. On the subject of sharing in the worship of non-Catholics (after all, this is what we now see Pope and bishops doing), the Church says, in Canon 1258-1: "It is absolutely forbidden for Catholics to attend or take any active part in the worship of non-Catholics in any way whatsoever." On this Canon the quasi-official Naz Commentary says, and I quote, "A Catholic takes active part when he joins in heterodox; i.e., non-Catholic worship with the intention of honouring God by this means in the way non-Catholics do. It is forbidden to pray, to sing or to play the organ in a heretical or schismatic temple, in association with the people worshipping there, even if the words of the hymn or the song or the prayer are orthodox." The reason for this prohibition is that any participation in non-Catholic worship implies profession of a false religion and hence denial of the Catholic Faith. By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non-Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them "suspect of heresy, and if they persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics."Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith—how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatize? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.For twenty years, Msgr. de Castro-Mayer and I preferred to wait; we said it was more prudent and more in conformity with Providence to wait because it is so important, so tragic, when it is not just a bishop, archbishop or cardinal, but the man in the chair of Peter. It is so important, so grave, so sad, that we prefer to wait until Providence gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the Pope is a heretic. So, to say that I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it! Maybe war will break out, and here I take the opportunity to congratulate America and its President on their resolute action in Libya against an enemy of all civilization. In Europe they are all afraid, afraid, afraid of the Communists. Why? Until the Communists occupy all Europe. But President Reagan's action may have delayed war by making the Communists afraid; we don't know, because they are fanatics and could start war any time just to take power.Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an imposter or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true.If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the center of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts. All men read in the newspapers the Pope's words and on television they see his travels. And so, slowly, slowly, many Catholics are losing the Catholic Faith by the scandal of the Pope's partaking in false religions. This ecuмenism is a scandal in the true sense of the word, an encouragement to sin. Catholics are losing faith in the Catholic Church. They think all religions are good because the Pope in this way befriends men of all religions. When the scandal comes from so high in the Church, from the man in the chair of Peter and from almost all the bishops, then poor Catholics who are thrown back on their own resources and who do not know their Faith well enough to keep it despite all, or who do not have priests by their side to help them to keep the Faith, these Catholics are completely at a loss what to do. They are no longer practicing the Faith, or they give up praying, or they are losing the Faith altogether and are joining some sect or other. I ask, what people are keeping the Faith? Where are they? Where are they? And I ask even the Traditionalists!For I think that many Traditional Catholics enjoy the traditions; they like the old Mass, they like the old sacraments, they like the old teaching of the Church, but they do not really believe in Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior, God and Creator. That is the bad influence of all the modern errors coming through television and the media—they are so bad, so pagan, so opposed to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith that few people remain true Catholics wholly faithful to Jesus Christ. That is why we can't be indifferent to these scandalous events in Rome, we must judge them in the light of our Faith and help Catholics, traditional Catholics, to see that this bad example of the Pope is a great scandal, very dangerous for their souls.It is very sad. Never in my life did I think I could be saying, the scandal of the Pope, but it is true. What can I do about it? I think we must pray, and pray, morning, noon and night and study our Catholic doctrine very deeply to stay true Catholics and keep the Faith.
This is what I love about sedes, and what convinced me to read what they have to say: they always cite the sources, they always back up their claims, no novelty, no made-up definitions of indefectibility.
After isolating the claims made by Schneider in his rant against sedevacantism I identified at least 8 pure factual falsehoods. This really made an impression on me and I realized why sedes always get called out for "out-of-context" quotes, because the opposition can't refute them so they have to make stuff up, like that John XXII taught heresy.
See my post #60. He wasn't referring to sedevacantists.Refuted in the previous two posts^^^
Oh?I actually think you might be right on this whole "What did Lefebvre mean question?" I don't really care that much about what he meant, but I was glad to see the full text finally cited and it reminded me of how impressed I was at the citations at Novus Ordo Watch.
I don’t recall Lad providing one.
Moreover, despite providing the citation, 2Vermont’s interpretation is made untenable by it (or am I to believe that the priests Lefebvre had In Mind as believing they had the true faith, sacraments, and doctrine, and who therefore argued they had no need of the Vatican...are diocesan priests who had none of the above, and depended upon the Vatican for permission to say the TLM per the conditions of the 1984 indult???).
Knock it off already.
"Preferred to wait", wait for what exactly? A papacy like Bergoglio? Castro de Mayer already came to that conclusion at least by 1988. This why this "Bergoglio" papacy is actual gift from God. God is making it very obvious to every sincere Catholic that this is not the Church. Lefebvre response was diplomatic. He knew Castro de Meyer's true feelings and did not want to rock the boat. What event or sign was Lefebvre waiting for?
After describing and rejecting sedevacantism, the next paragraph continues the subject, with Lefebvre explaining that he and Castro de Mayer “have preferred to wait,”
Oh?
I don’t recall Lad providing one.
Moreover, despite providing the citation, 2Vermont’s interpretation is made untenable by it (or am I to believe that the priests Lefebvre had In Mind as believing they had the true faith, sacraments, and doctrine, and who therefore argued they had no need of the Vatican...are diocesan priests who had none of the above, and depended upon the Vatican for permission to say the TLM per the conditions of the 1984 indult???).
Knock it off already.
Firstly, what “TLM churches within the Novus Ordo structure” could he be referring to in 1986 who could say “we have the true faith, the true sacraments, true doctrine???”Perhaps I am wrong about the indulters etc but I still don't see evidence that he's speaking of sedevacantist priests specifically.
Since none of them could (or would, as diocesan priests) make such claims, he is obviously not speaking of them.
Nor is he speaking of any indult groups, since the quote predates all of them.
There’s only one other group left, guys.
And as regards the claim that the Lefebvre quote “only mentions sedevacantism once...and not in relation to that part of the quote,” you are clearly mistaken:
After describing and rejecting sedevacantism, the next paragraph continues the subject, with Lefebvre explaining that he and Castro de Mayer “have preferred to wait,” and shortly thereafter goes on to lament that “some priests” (sedes being the only ones left), and “even some in the Society” have taken this position.
He’s clearly speaking of two groups of priests (one outside the Society, and even a few within), but to suggest Lefebvre is talking here about conciliar priests is clearly false:
The quote, syntax, context, and common sense make it obvious he’s speaking of one group outside the Society (which is obviously not diocesan priests), at a time when there was only one other position he could be speaking of (the full quote making clear, along with the process of elimination, that it is the sedes).
The full quote makes that even more obvious.
... I still don't see evidence that he's speaking of sedevacantist priests specifically.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FE7PowrVEAc1DYl?format=jpg&name=small)This is sad to see, but very revealing of what motivates people to continue to cling to false positions.
Saying that he preferred to wait (that maybe if Assisi takes place he'd become a sedevacantist) Johnson spins as "rejecting sedevacantism". :laugh1: Right after the Archbishop said this about himself and Bishop de Castro Mayer, the latter was going around telling everyone present at the consecrations that "We have no pope."
What an absolutely dishonest liar.
It's quite clear that he's NOT talking about the sedevacantists ... since that accusation against them, that they hold the pope to be of no importance as long as they have the Mass and Sacraments, would be absurd. It's precisely because they recognize the importance of the pope that they are sedevacantists in the first place. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time that Sean warps something to mean the opposite of what it actually says to make it conform to his narrative.
Thank you, Sean, for defending Archbishop Lefebvre against the sedevacantists. You are apparently the only one on the forum willing to do so. This forum is now a full-on sede forum, with little tolerance for a non-sede POV.Hey Meg...
Just a reminder!
Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!
God bless!
Prefer to wait, as in, until the Church declares that God has deposed the pope?Where do you get that from this?
This is what I love about sedes, and what convinced me to read what they have to say: they always cite the sources, they always back up their claims, no novelty, no made-up definitions of indefectibility.Thanks. It drives me crazy when people go back and forth about the meaning of a quote without bothering to look up the full quote and provide evidence for their position. Since I was unsure myself about the meaning of the partial quote [although it seemed fairly obvious that ABL couldn't have been speaking of sede priests], I thought I'd check it out. I'm not sure if that's because I am sede or just because that's how I roll.
After isolating the claims made by Schneider in his rant against sedevacantism I identified at least 8 pure factual falsehoods. This really made an impression on me and I realized why sedes always get called out for "out-of-context" quotes, because the opposition can't refute them so they have to make stuff up, like that John XXII taught heresy.
I am praying for you, Sean :pray:
Firstly, what “TLM churches within the Novus Ordo structure” could he be referring to in 1986 who could say “we have the true faith, the true sacraments, true doctrine???”
Since none of them could (or would, as diocesan priests) make such claims, he is obviously not speaking of them.
Nor is he speaking of any indult groups, since the quote predates all of them.
There’s only one other group left, guys.
And as regards the claim that the Lefebvre quote “only mentions sedevacantism once...and not in relation to that part of the quote,” you are clearly mistaken:
After describing and rejecting sedevacantism, the next paragraph continues the subject, with Lefebvre explaining that he and Castro de Mayer “have preferred to wait,” and shortly thereafter goes on to lament that “some priests” (sedes being the only ones left), and “even some in the Society” have taken this position.
He’s clearly speaking of two groups of priests (one outside the Society, and even a few within), but to suggest Lefebvre is talking here about conciliar priests is clearly false:
The quote, syntax, context, and common sense make it obvious he’s speaking of one group outside the Society (which is obviously not diocesan priests), at a time when there was only one other position he could be speaking of (the full quote making clear, along with the process of elimination, that it is the sedes).
The full quote makes that even more obvious.
Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an imposter or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true.
In any event, I do not see ABL's comments above as referring to Sedes.
DR
Not until Loudestmouth retracts and apologizes for his continual accusations of me being a liar.The irony in this is, that even if he were wrong in calling you a liar (which I don't think he was, given your previous blatant dishonesty), you have proven this to be true, by telling a lie in a public forum that he is a sodomite.
One good turn deserves another, and from here on out, every time Loudestmouth gratuitously accuses me of sin, I’ll do the same for him.
I have no doubt that you are even more repulsed by Loudestmouth’s continual slanders, and that all the sedes here are praying for him even more then me, which shows your honesty ;)
Sean, come on, how do you equate accusing someone of lying (which is all too common on forums) with calling someone a fag? Yeah, I wouldn’t accuse you of lying, but I certainly think you stretched the truth quite a bit with what you claimed.
Please don’t get angry with me for pointing this out, I really don’t want to get into it with you again. God bless you.
I demand a retraction of this slander. Whenever you lose an argument, you melt down like this.I was taught that someone knows he has lost the argument when he resorts to name-calling.
So, earlier you slandered me by claiming that i was accusing St. Pius X of simony because he used the term stipend for Mass intentions. Did you ever retract that slander?
Now you're calling me a sodomite? Because you're losing an argument?
Except that the article is talking about sedes, and nowhere in the article is there anything so much as alluding to independents.
Carry on!
Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
Yes I did suggest that he may have meant the indult type priests but later agreed that I was probably wrong on that account.
Sean,
First, here's the main quote from the Archbishop:
While 2Vermont in her words characterized ABL's position as "TLM Churches within the Novus Ordo Structure," ABL didn't say that: he said, "some priests (even some priests in the Society) . . . say we need not worry about the pope" because we have the sacraments, etc. I can think of non-society priests that celebrated the TLM who were not Sede - e.g., Father Wathen and Fr. DePaul come to mind. If there were only two non-Sede "priests" outside the Society who said the TLM, your argument falls apart: I gave you two.
And the characterization of ABL would be accurate about Fr. Wathen and Fr. DePaul in so much as they do in effect say, "we have the true faith and practice it," so the "pope problem" is not a radical problem for the Church since the Catholic faith survives in the Church (us). Obviously ABL's position is different, as he sees that if the pope were in fact a heretic that would be a radical problem for the Church.
I also think of Fr. Hesse, who basically said that the V2 and the Conciliar popes taught heresy, but it did not pose a radical problem for the Church, which remained pure and unstained in its true faith and doctrine handed down from Tradition and adhered to by living, faithful Catholics who attended the TML, etc.
In any event, I do not see ABL's comments above as referring to Sedes.
DR
Yes I did suggest that he may have meant the indult type priests but later agreed that I was probably wrong on that account.
However you bring up clear possible examples of non sede priests who would fit the bill as would the priests of The Nine who were not sede at the time which I later mentioned in my earlier post.
Not until Loudestmouth retracts and apologizes for his continual accusations of me being a liar.
Sean's had these meltdowns before. In fact, the biggest one was over the same issue ... in response to the claim that Archbishop Lefebvre had on-and-off been rather sympathetic with sedevacantism. As here, he desperately twisted and warped the obvious meaning of what the Archbishop had said until presented with a couple of quotes that he couldn't explain away. So he stormed off the forum insisting that he would not return until I was banned. Within a couple days, he was noticed posting in Anonymous, and eventually signed up with a new account called something like "Mr. X" (I can't recall the exact account). But the point is that when Sean is argued into a corner, rather than concede, he'll have an emotional meltdown. And then he has the nerve, the very second that he starts losing an argument, to start accusing people of being "emotional" and acting like a woman ... when it's painfully obvious that he's the one who's beginning to lose his grip on his emotions.What a cross he bears...
I really have found this curious, though, why people get so bent out shape if Archbishop Lefebvre happens to have held an opinion they disagree with. It's perfectly OK to say, "well, I don't agree with the Archbishop on that point". Archbishop Lefebvre was not God. He wasn't infallible. He wasn't a Doctor of the Church. He wasn't even really a theologian. I've disagreed with him on a few things. I've disagreed with Bishop Williamson on a number of issues. That doesn't lessen my respect for either one. That in fact is an eminently manly virtue, that one doesn't make some rational disagreements PERSONAL.
But, unfortunately, many in R&R have undermined the authority of the Magisterium so badly, that they seek these substitutes for doctrinal authority, and they have set up this cult of Archbishop Lefebvre, elevating him almost to divine status (or at least quasi-papal status). They give every idle word of Archbishop Lefebvre more weight than they do the teaching of (what they believe to be) an Ecuмenical Council and 60 years of Papal Encyclicals.
I really have found this curious, though, why people get so bent out shape if Archbishop Lefebvre happens to have held an opinion they disagree with. It's perfectly OK to say, "well, I don't agree with the Archbishop on that point". Archbishop Lefebvre was not God. He wasn't infallible. He wasn't a Doctor of the Church. He wasn't even really a theologian. I've disagreed with him on a few things. I've disagreed with Bishop Williamson on a number of issues. That doesn't lessen my respect for either one. That in fact is an eminently manly virtue, that one doesn't make some rational disagreements PERSONAL.Agreed. Even many saints got some things wrong.
But, unfortunately, many in R&R have undermined the authority of the Magisterium so badly, that they seek these substitutes for doctrinal authority, and they have set up this cult of Archbishop Lefebvre, elevating him almost to divine status (or at least quasi-papal status). They give every idle word of Archbishop Lefebvre more weight than they do the teaching of (what they believe to be) an Ecuмenical Council and 60 years of Papal Encyclicals.
Just keep that in mind, as you fight with each other.
I really have found this curious, though, why people get so bent out shape if Archbishop Lefebvre happens to have held an opinion they disagree with. It's perfectly OK to say, "well, I don't agree with the Archbishop on that point". Archbishop Lefebvre was not God. He wasn't infallible. He wasn't a Doctor of the Church. He wasn't even really a theologian. I've disagreed with him on a few things.
Its not necessary to impute bad disposition to your interlocutor, and usually indicates you have lost the argument..
Typical sodomitic lies.
For the most part, Lad gets away with this behavior, and always has. As if sedevacantists have some sort of access to truth that no one else has. Lad seems to believe (and others believe it too) that he has special abilities and insight, and if he lies about others, there must be a good reason for it. Which is one of the reasons why Sedeism is insidious. IMO.Please don't generalize all sedes like this just because you have met a few who were obnoxious. I have know many sede families whose charity and humility left me in deep awe and gratitude for having met them.
I had the pleasure of meeting both Frs. Barbara and Schoonbroodt. Spent one of the best weeks of my life at Fr. Schoonbroodt's place in Steffeshausen Belgium. Both were men of the most solid character and piety. If you are, as it seems, calling their comments "sodomitic lies" then you are not only wrong, but should be hog-tied and bitch-slapped with all haste and vigor.
Getting inebriated and waxing crude, etc., is one thing. Such unjust, arguably-insane claims are another matter altogether.
Please don't generalize all sedes like this just because you have met a few who were obnoxious. I have know many sede families whose charity and humility left me in deep awe and gratitude for having met them.
I’m accusing Lad, quite gratuitously (for reasons stated earlier), in the hopes that being on the receiving end of unjust accusations will cause him to amend his behavior.
The post was not directed to the priests/bishop.
But with Lad, you could write a post about chocolate chip cookies, and the first words out of his mouth would be “You see, the problem with RR is the schismatic blah blah blah.”
Yes, slandering me as a sodomite was an act of charity. :laugh1: Sometimes I think you need psychological help, in addition to spiritual.
Your sodomy slander was in response to a simple link that I posted to the two priests. What "behavior" are you talking about, posting a link?
You are a liar and you are lying now. You most certainly did NOT make the comment in the hope that I would amend. You got pissed off by the contents of the post from Fathers Barbara and Schoonbroodt. You're not going to change until you can be honest with yourself.
Your R&R position is indeed heretical, and you are in fact a heretic. And I will call you out on it every time, and will continue to do so. And I can back it up. On the other hand, I'm not going to have emotional and psychological breakdowns and call you a sodomite simply because I don't like your posts.
And with this post you layer yet another LIE on top of all the others. I do not bring up your R&R position ... until YOU bring it up first. And every single time you bring it up, I will knock it down. You are spreading heresy, and that is not to be tolerated.
Yes, slandering me as a sodomite was an act of charity. :laugh1: Sometimes I think you need psychological help, in addition to spiritual.
Your sodomy slander was in response to a simple link that I posted to the two priests. What "behavior" are you talking about, posting a link?
You are a liar and you are lying now. You most certainly did NOT make the comment in the hope that I would amend. You got pissed off by the contents of the post from Fathers Barbara and Schoonbroodt. You're not going to change until you can be honest with yourself.
I just can't sit here idly by when you basically characterize Holy Mother Church as a harlot. If you said the same thing about my wife or my mother, I'd bust you in the chops.
You claim that the Catholic Church has become corrupt in its Magisterium, Public Worship, and also in its canonizations. You slander the Church in the very same terms used by the Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants ... who all made the identical smears of the Church. Furthermore, you smear Archbishop Lefebvre by claiming that he thought the same thing, when it's been proven clearly that he did not. He explicitly articulated that this is not possible, that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. He simply prescinded from making the declaration and deferring to the final judgment of the Church. I think that's why the Archbishop Lefebvre issue pushes your bottons, as it were, because you have long hidden behind (your false characterization of) Archbishop Lefebvre to justify yourself.
What touched of this latest round of the battle is your derogatory excoriation of the man you hold to be the Vicar of Christ. At best, as a Catholic, you're entitled to a disrespectful disagreement with the Holy Father (as you believe him to be). WHEN, EVER, in the history of the Church has it been considered acceptable for a lay Catholic (or any Catholic) to dismiss the teaching of the Vicar of Christ is such an obnoxious manner?
At the end of the day, I really don't care what you think, sedevacantist, sedeprivationist, sede-impoundist (Father Chazal), Siri theory, that Montini was blackmailed and not acting freely, or even that Montini was replaced by a double. In fact, I have much less an issue with the conservative Novus Ordites who try to apply the hermeneutic of continuity in an attempt to reconcile Conciliarism with Catholicism. I have no issue with the way Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his position (which is NOT the same as yours). For as much as you deride Bishop Fellay, his attitude toward (what you consider to be) the Holy See is FAR MORE CATHOLIC than yours. I believe that he's wrong in that I don't think that Bergoglio is the pope, but GIVEN his belief that Bergoglio is the pope, the respect with which he speaks of the Vicar of Christ is nothing short of obligatory for Catholics.
...and with a special charism to read the internal forum, while rebuking others for doing same
:facepalm:
Like I said, triggered^^^
Gaslighters — people who try to control others through manipulation — will often accuse you of behaviors that they are engaged in themselves. This is a classic manipulation tactic.
The man I respect most on this forum happens to be a sede (Mithrandylan), whom I know personally. We disagree, and there has never been harsh words between us. Why? Because he never feels the need to toss continual accusations of schism, mortal sin, etc.Yes, Mithrandylan is a good example of that. Thank you. 😇
But with Lad, you could write a post about chocolate chip cookies, and the first words out of his mouth would be “You see, the problem with RR is the schismatic blah blah blah.”
In other words, I agree with your post.
Excellent perspective. Thank you. All the more important when we consider that the few that are here are largely on the same page, so to speak, and our adversarii are incredibly numerous.Indeed. Name calling is just uncalled for.
There's nothing "internal forum" about your lying. It's been clearly demonstrated, time after time. Nor, based on this post, do you even understand what internal forum means. It's perfectly possible to discern things about people's behavior and motivations from the external forum. It's obvious for all to see that your calling me a "sodomite" was not offered with the hopes of my amendment. It's obvious from the context. You got riled up (or "triggered") by the link to Father Barbara. I do find it fascinating that you CONSTANTLY accuse others of the things YOU are notorious for ... calling them "emotional" and "triggered". You clearly get "triggered" every time someone posts a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre where he's favorable or even open to sedevacantism.I have noticed this, too.
So, as I mentioned, discerning your motives based on behavior is not to judge the internal form. What's internal forum is judging the degree of someone's sin or guilt before God.
Hypocrite.
Its not necessary to impute bad disposition to your interlocutor,
At the end of the day, I really don't care what you think, sedevacantist, sedeprivationist, sede-impoundist (Father Chazal), Siri theory, that Montini was blackmailed and not acting freely, or even that Montini was replaced by a double. In fact, I have much less an issue with the conservative Novus Ordites who try to apply the hermeneutic of continuity in an attempt to reconcile Conciliarism with Catholicism. I have no issue with the way Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his position (which is NOT the same as yours). For as much as you deride Bishop Fellay, his attitude toward (what you consider to be) the Holy See is FAR MORE CATHOLIC than yours. I believe that he's wrong in that I don't think that Bergoglio is the pope, but GIVEN his belief that Bergoglio is the pope, the respect with which he speaks of the Vicar of Christ is nothing short of obligatory for Catholics.
You do not have the authority to bind others to your opinion - no matter how much you believe your opinion to be correct.
You do not have the authority to bind others to your opinion - no matter how much you believe your opinion to be correct.
You do not have the authority to bind others to your opinion - no matter how much you believe your opinion to be correct.
Yes, it makes sense. Even if one has a strong opinion on the matter, no Catholic is in a position to bind others' consciences. There's a tremendous amount of confusion out there and we have a vacuum of Church authority to give us direction. I might opine, for instance, that it would be a mortal sin to attend the NOM, but that's all it is, an opinion. I can use this opinion only to form MY OWN conscience, and may lay out arguments to persuade others, but that's as far as it can go without usurping the prerogatives that belong to Church authority alone.
And this is the failure of the dogmatic positions. They construct a neat syllogism that seems logically sound and conclude therefrom that their conclusions are dogmatically certain, but only the Church has the authority to bind consciences with the certainty of faith, and some or many of the premises to our conclusions come from our own personal private judgment and reasoning and therefore cannot have such certaint. Father Jenkins, a moderate sedevacantist, agrees with this reasoning.
So, for instance, the premise for Traditional Catholicisim is [this, that, or the other heresy or error taught by the Conciliar Church]. But the Church hasn't officially declared the Conciliar Church to be non-Catholic, so right now the best we can hope to have is a personal moral certainty regarding the state of the Church.
However, none of us on CathInfo have the authority to bind another's conscience on the matter.
I always marveled at this argument. Doesn't this go without saying? OF COURSE SVs can't bind consciences. That's not even a point of contention. What's at issue is whether and to what extent individual Catholics (vs. the Church as a whole) can decide even for themselves whether or not someone is the Pope. As Bishop Sanborn points out, that has to be known with the certainty of faith. If we cannot know with the certainty of faith that Pius XII was a pope then we cannot know the dogma of the Assumption with the certainty of faith either. And that's true even if I'm living at the time of Pius XII (vs. Father Cekada's nonsensical statement about this applying only to past popes).
Yes, I've called LoT's position heretical. Haven't studied +Sanborn enough on the matter to be able to say the same thing. Believing in BoD does not necessarily involved Pelagianism ... though in most cases it does. Of course, I remember the Fastiggi debate. +Sanborn opened by calling out subsistence ecclesiology as Vatican II's chief heresy (first thing he mentioned) ... and then enunciated some principles that led to nothing other than ... subsistence ecclesiology. Beyond that, I know very little about his thoughts on BoD.
Nevertheless, I would not say that LoT needs to "convert" either ... merely that he needs to reject his heresy. I'm in no position to determine who's a Catholic and who's not. Both +Sanborn and LoT profess the Catholic faith. See, it is merely my OPINION that the position of LoT is heretical, and a demand for conversion implies that my opinion has more authority than it actually does. That's the biggest problem I have with the Dimond brothers.
I just can't sit here idly by when you basically characterize Holy Mother Church as a harlot. If you said the same thing about my wife or my mother, I'd bust you in the chops.
You claim that the Catholic Church has become corrupt in its Magisterium, Public Worship, and also in its canonizations. You slander the Church in the very same terms used by the Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants ... who all made the identical smears of the Church. Furthermore, you smear Archbishop Lefebvre by claiming that he thought the same thing, when it's been proven clearly that he did not. He explicitly articulated that this is not possible, that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. He simply prescinded from making the declaration and deferring to the final judgment of the Church. I think that's why the Archbishop Lefebvre issue pushes your bottons, as it were, because you have long hidden behind (your false characterization of) Archbishop Lefebvre to justify yourself.
What touched of this latest round of the battle is your derogatory excoriation of the man you hold to be the Vicar of Christ. At best, as a Catholic, you're entitled to a disrespectful disagreement with the Holy Father (as you believe him to be). WHEN, EVER, in the history of the Church has it been considered acceptable for a lay Catholic (or any Catholic) to dismiss the teaching of the Vicar of Christ is such an obnoxious manner?
At the end of the day, I really don't care what you think, sedevacantist, sedeprivationist, sede-impoundist (Father Chazal), Siri theory, that Montini was blackmailed and not acting freely, or even that Montini was replaced by a double. In fact, I have much less an issue with the conservative Novus Ordites who try to apply the hermeneutic of continuity in an attempt to reconcile Conciliarism with Catholicism. I have no issue with the way Archbishop Lefebvre articulated his position (which is NOT the same as yours). For as much as you deride Bishop Fellay, his attitude toward (what you consider to be) the Holy See is FAR MORE CATHOLIC than yours. I believe that he's wrong in that I don't think that Bergoglio is the pope, but GIVEN his belief that Bergoglio is the pope, the respect with which he speaks of the Vicar of Christ is nothing short of obligatory for Catholics.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
What a dumbass hypocrite:
RR “makes a whore of the Church,” but evidently Lad’s heretical claim that it has taught error on BOD for 500 years (because it didn’t know how to translate “voto” :facepalm:) leaves it immaculate???
Anyone care to take up his defense on that score?
Pretty much every accusation that blowhard makes is mere projection of his own shortcomings and errors onto his opponents.
Who can take this guy seriously, other than himself?
You're a heretic, a liar, AND an idiot. You've hit the trifecta. This has been explained to you a half dozen times already. We are not impugning Church teaching. We assert that a passing mention of the term votum has been misinterpreted ... maliciously by some ... to undermine Catholic dogma. We disagree with the INTERPRETATION of Church teaching, but would never dare to impugn Church teaching as your blasphemous heretical ass does.Come on, ladislaus, watch the language.
Interesting dashboard I found online.
(https://i.imgur.com/oarlmD7.png)
Yes, I've made a similar observation but laid it out slightly differently. If you look at the crisis as a syllogism, it would look something like this.
MAJOR: Catholic Church cannot teach grave error or promulgate a form of public worship that displeases God.
MINOR: Conciliar Church taught grave error and promulgated a form of public worship that displeases God.
CONCLUSION: Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
Come on, ladislaus, watch the language.
What a sacrilegious, blasphemous, heretical, apostate, sodomite (Hey, a five-dinger!).
Meh, which "language" are you talking about? Strongest term I used there is "idiot", and each terms is factually correct.
Saints, popes, doctors of the Church, and approved traditional theologians (to say nothing of the Roman catechism called for by the Council of Trent and the pope who promulgated it) were all incapable of translating a word a first year Latin student could properly translate?
Maybe they have been vaxed and are not feeling too well.It may be difficult to guess what was in particular instances of the vaccine lottery, if and when folks do go get Jєω jabbed. Maybe they got saline, or something else in the schedule bag, not as bad as what some other poor folks have gotten.
Oops, caught Lad in another lie:
It may be difficult to guess what was in particular instances of the vaccine lottery, if and when folks do go get Jєω jabbed. Maybe they got saline, or something else in the schedule bag, not as bad as what some other poor folks have gotten.
I have friends and relatives who have gotten the Jєω jab, and they're all still alive so far, and not too much weird side effects. There have been reports of tiredness though.
At any rate, endeavor to persevere, "nitimini perseverare", as Scipio used to say. Saline good, graphene oxide or hydravulgaris bad.
Your gratuitous assertion is rejected, except that two Doctors of the Church did hold that opinion. Roman Catechism did not teach it, nor did Popes teach it. None of the rest are Magisterium, which is the issue here. Many points of theology have been contested and even corrected outside the Magisterium. For 700 years, all the saints, Doctors, theologians, and Popes held the erroneous view of St. Augustine regarding the fate of unbaptized infants. This was later corrected by the Magisterium, and the erroneous opinion of St. Augustine was never taught by the Magisterium.
Sorry, Johnson, but you're the liar. Apart from the fact that the Magisterium has never taught BoD, you strawman my position. I've already explained to you the last time you tried this tactic, I do not hold that the Magisterium is absolutely infallible and have disagreed with the SVs who overreach on infallibility. I hold the position articulated by Msgr. Fenton regarding the substantial inerrancy and infallible safety of the Magisterium even if everything is not protected by "infallibility in the strict sense". But I've explained this to you before, and yet you try your nonsense again. Some of the dogmatic SVs, in combatting the heresies of R&R, exaggerate the scope of "infallibility in the strict sense". And earlier on your Bergoglio-bashing thread, I pointed out that you might be entitled to RESPECTFULLY disagree with the teaching of the man you claim to be the Holy Father, but not to arrogantly and disrespectfully excoriate him, ridicule him and mock him. That has never been permitted or considered the least bit compatible with Catholicism. It's one thing for you to hurl insults at me, but quite another to do the same thing to the Vicar of Christ.
When your attribution of error to the Magisterium reaches the point of attributing substantial corruption to the Magisterium and attributing to the Church the promulgation of a Rite of Mass that's displeasing to God and harmful to souls, you cross a line from debating the precise limits of infallibility into impugning the essential Holiness of the Church. Litmus test for when you've crossed that line is when you claim that the "Catholic Church" has become so corrupt that you can no longer in conscience remain in submission to and communion with the Holy See. Attributing that degree of error to the Church is both blasphemy and heresy.
I've articulated this many times before, but you're either too stupid to understand it, or else you're so desperate that you feel the need to lie and to strawman me with a position I do not hold.
So carry on in promoting your blasphemous heresy of deriding the Holy Catholic Church, attributing grave error and even heresy to the Magisterium, declaring that the Rite of Mass used by the Church offends God and harms souls (a proposition, by the way, that was anathematized by Trent, making you guilty of heresy on that count as well).
In the meantime, I will continue condemning your heresy at every turn, which you have the temerity to claim is Traditional Catholic doctrine. What you present is a diabolical perversion that proceeds not from Tradition but from your warped and twisted mind.
You're a heretic, a liar, AND an idiot. You've hit the trifecta. This has been explained to you a half dozen times already. We are not impugning Church teaching. We assert that a passing mention of the term votum has been misinterpreted ... maliciously by some ... to undermine Catholic dogma. We disagree with the INTERPRETATION of Church teaching, but would never dare to impugn Church teaching as your blasphemous heretical ass does.:laugh1: :laugh2:
It is obviously impossible for an institution within which Christ will dwell until the end of time and from which He teaches to do other than set forth His teaching accurately.
Fenton, Joseph Clifford. The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton (p. 33). Cluny Media LLC. Kindle Edition.
According to His sacred human nature, Our Lord remains truly though invisibly resident within the Catholic Church in governing, instructing, and sanctifying this society. He rules the disciples within the Church invisibly and directly. At the same time His divine teaching within the Church makes it perfectly clear that the judgments and the commands of the Church officers who hold their position by reason of the commission which He has given them are to be accepted by the disciples as His judgments and His commands. This presence of Christ in the Church as its supreme though invisible Ruler is the guarantee of and the reason for the Church’s indefectibility. It is manifestly impossible that a society within which Christ governs until the end of time can ever lose its identity or the substantial character which He gave to it.
Now, as during the period of His public life in this world, the Church speaks to the world with the voice of Christ. He it is who teaches within the Church and who, from out of the Church, teaches and calls the men in the world. Furthermore Christ, truly present in the Church, perfects and authenticates the divine message which He preaches through the Church by sealing that doctrine with motives of credibility. St. Mark’s Gospel says of the apostles that “they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.”25 The presence of Christ teaching within the Church is the cause and explanation of the Church’s infallibility. It is obviously impossible for an institution within which Christ will dwell until the end of time and from which He teaches to do other than set forth His teaching accurately.
Fenton, Joseph Clifford. The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton (pp. 32-33). Cluny Media LLC. Kindle Edition.
Baltimore catechism
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
The Feeneyite “sidesteps” that one (so he pretends) by claiming the Baltimore Catechism is the heretical fruit of Carroll’s Americanism."They", who?
They’re still working up an explanation as to how the same universal teaching in all the other catechisms predates America.
So far, the best they can contrive is that Ladislaus is the first person in 500 years to be able to properly translate “voto.”
But for them, the popes and all bishops in union with them teaching error for 500 years in the official organs of the Church presents no particular difficulty regarding indefectibility. You see, things like that only “make a whore of the Church” when they’re argued against Ladislaus by RR “heretical” proponents. But if he does it, uh, what’s the problem?
:facepalm:
The Feeneyite “sidesteps” that one (so he pretends) by claiming the Baltimore Catechism is the heretical fruit of Carroll’s Americanism.Catechism of Trent
I despise mud-slinging. Act like adults and quit the name calling, detraction, slander, extrapolation, etc, or at least take it off-line. Your soul will fare better.You mean like this?
You mean like this?No.
https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/i-have-to-admit/msg834545/#msg834545
Lad,
As I await your quotes from Msgr. Fenton, I'll give you one:
The Feeneyite “sidesteps” that one (so he pretends) ...
Catechism of Trent
But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class of men, the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.
I've posted it many times.
Have you retracted your slanders against me yet, Johnson?
Lad,
So now the issue is "substantial inerrancy" and "substantial corruption" of the Magisterium? As I said before to you, nice try in shifting the goalposts from the traditional doctrine expressed by Pius XII about the Church being "spotless" in her faith and discipline, etc. And I thought, as you always maintained, the issue was about "indefectibility," not "infallibility"? Well, perhaps the shift in your vocabulary when the going gets tough for you is your cognizance of the true meaning of indefectibility.
Two simple questions for you:
1) Would even Msgr. Fenton's doctrine of "substantial inerrancy" or "substantial corruption" allow for erroneous teaching on matters of the faith by the universal ordinary Magisterium - you know, by the local ordinaries (governing diocesan bishops) of the Church in union with the pope?
2) Do you deny that BOD is a teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium?
It'd be nice, also, for the sake of serious and constructive discussion, if you could quote or cite from your authority, Msgr. Fenton, regarding the protection against "substantial inerrancy" or "substantial corruption" the Holy Ghost affords the Magisterium.
Thanks,
DR
Have you apologized yet Loudestmouth?
And furthermore, do you pledge to cease your emotional meltdowns, anathemas, lies, and projecting your own unattractive faults to others?
This thread isn't about Feeneyism, but you're attempting to distract.
I’m sorry, but did Lad respond to this?
:popcorn:
You're as guilty (and moreso) of these other accusations as I am ... every item on your list. But you crossed the line by slandering me as a sodomite, to compound your earlier lie and slander that I accused St. Pius X of simony.
Insults are one thing, but slander is in a completely different category, are grave matter, and they required retraction and reparation.
I will respond to nothing more until you've retracted your vile and filthy slanders against me, Johnson. Croix was banned for much less, for referring to women who disagreed with him as "cows". Imagine if he had called them "whores". You take it to another level by characterizing me as committing perversions against nature.
What you have done are objectively-grave sins of calumny, and you are required to retract.
Homo-
Until it sinks into your thick melon, I’ll continue to follow your lead, and every accusation and slander will be met with same, until you finally learn to knock that crap off.
I've posted it many times.
Seems to me you come up with a similar evasion every time DR corners you on your inconsistency.
But at least your concedo will put an end to your continual mortal sins and filthy slanders.
Since you posted it, you would have a better idea of when and where, and it would be easier for you to find it. You spend a lot of time here, and I think the discussion warrants the additional, minimal effort. I'm not Sean - so no prior "retraction" is necessary - and I'm part of the discussion.
Or is this your convenient way of exit?
In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
You are pertinacious in your grave slanders. I have made no slanders against you, but have backed up every assertion with evidence. You started this whole thing by calling me a sodomite for doing nothing other than posting a link (without my own comment) to statements made by Father Noel Barbara.
Either provide evidence that I am a sodomite and that I accused St. Pius X of simony ... or else retract the slander.
Since you posted it, you would have a better idea of when and where, and it would be easier for you to find it. You spend a lot of time here, and I think the discussion warrants the additional, minimal effort. I'm not Sean - so no prior "retraction" is necessary - and I'm part of the discussion.
Or is this your convenient way of exit?
I argued with this same point with DR on another thread for many pages and provided all the necessary citations. I'm not interested in rehashing the entire thing. I've cited the relevant passages from Monsignor Fenton over a dozen times here on CI, and DR should be well aware of them.
Very simply put. Your assertion that the Catholic Magisterium can become substantially and seriously corrupt and unreliable [like if it could unanimously and universally teach BOD through its official organs, dicasteries, catechisms, and ecuмenical councils?] and that the Catholic Church can promulgate a Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls, this assertion is nothing short of heretical. This is not an argument or a debate, any more than it would be if you denied the Immaculate Conception. Those of you who reject this are not Catholics, but more akin to Old Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Period. End of story.
No.Really now. Please do tell how saying such a thing
Epistle for the fifth Sunday after pentecost (today):You self-righteous hypocrite.
(I Peter 3:8-15) Dearly beloved, Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble: not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this you are called; that you may inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile. Let him decline from evil, and do good: let him seek after peace, and, pursue it: because the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and his ears unto their prayers: but the countenance of the Lord upon them that do evil, things. And, who is he that can, hurt you, if you: be zealous of good? But if also you suffer anything for, justice sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled: but sanctify the Lord Christ, in your hearts.
And the gospel:
(Matt. 5:20-24) At that time, Jesus said to his disciples: Except your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore, thou bring thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother bath anything against thee, leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming, thou shaft offer thy gift.
Really now. Please do tell how saying such a thingIf you think calling an idea "stupid" is the same as committing calumny, slander, or scandal through vulgar name calling, I pity you.
https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/i-have-to-admit/msg834545/#msg834545
to another Catholic isn't doing exactly what your telling others not to do here...?
Or will this just be another question you choose to avoid answering [oh, and down thumb...lol]?
If you think calling an idea "stupid" is the same as committing calumny, slander, or scandal through vulgar name calling, I pity you.:laugh1: You didn't call an "idea" stupid. You called me stupid via your meme by questioning how I "fit all that stupid into one head".
:laugh1: You didn't call an "idea" stupid. You called me stupid via your meme by questioning how I "fit all that stupid into one head".Well, if that is how you interpreted it, I apologize. Was not my intention in the least.
Well, if that is how you interpreted it, I apologize. Was not my intention in the least.OK......
OK......No, I will not answer the question.
In that case, could you answer the question I asked in there: do you have moral certainty that non-Catholics are in Hell? Because your posts don't seem to reflect that. You're focusing on whether the Church has named specific people in Hell. I am not. You also never responded to Lad's clarification to help us get beyond what seems to be a misunderstanding. I would really like to believe it was a misunderstanding. So far, I don't get that impression.
It's usually the sedevacantists (especially Ladislaus) who resort to name calling first. The R&R folks show a lot more restraint - to a point. But, since the sedes far outnumber R&R, they (sedes) will always win in the end.Thanks, Meg for understanding that all sedes are not like Laudislaus. There are more extreme sedes that definitely give the more quiet and peaceful sedes a bad name. :facepalm:
Ladislaus is almost always the first one to level the charge of heresy and schism toward any non-sede who won't back down. He's not the only sede to do so. Thankfully, not all sedes engage in this uncharitable behavior. It's only about 4 or 5 of them - but that's enough to cause trouble. They will generally stick up for each other, even if one of them is in the wrong.
No, I will not answer the question.Well that confirms that you're purposefully avoiding it. However, I don't understand why a Catholic would unless he doesn't have moral certainty that non catholics go to Hell.
No, but we already hashed this out for many pages on another thread, where I already cited these passages, and am just weary of rehashing the same thing for pages, after having already done so.
But here you go:Quote
In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
Report to moderator Logged
It doesn't meet the criteria for an ex cathedra teaching, no. But that doesn't necessarily mean its liable to any kind of error. Soteriological error is just about (if not actually) the worst kind of error imaginable, since it pertains directly to what is necessary for the salvation of souls, and the salvation of souls is THE telos of the Church.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/singulari-quidem-66223/msg806416/#msg806416
(https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/singulari-quidem-66223/msg806416/#msg806416)Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II - page 11 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830604/#msg830604)
Your quote from Fenton doesn't exactly help you. First, nowhere does he distinguish corruption or defect (regarding the Church's indefectibility) with "substantial corruption" or "substantial inerrancy."
"Substantial" is my summary term for his distinction between "relatively minute detail" vs. "body of teaching that's normative for the Church".Isn't this the theological distinction between "accidental" and "substantial"?
Isn't this the theological distinction between "accidental" and "substantial"?
You just don't get it, or perhaps - more likely, since you're generally pretty sharp - just won't face it, i.e. your inconsistency regarding the Magesterium and your "obedience" to it.
Thanks, Meg for understanding that all sedes are not like Laudislaus. There are more extreme sedes that definitely give the more quiet and peaceful sedes a bad name. :facepalm:
I think most of the sedes are groaning watching Laudislaus' language and name-calling. Praying he and Sean can resolve their tensions and realize that they have more in common than many other novus ordo people out there. :pray:
No, there's no inconsistency here. You simply ignore the necessary distinctions that I have repeatedly articulate and yet you keep posting the same nonsense.
1) I have repeatedly distinguished between BoD proper and the heretical EXTENSION of BoD, the former not being harmful to EENS (soteriology) and the latter completely undermining it.
2) At no point has the Magisterium definitively taught BoD, but has merely left the question open as not incompatible with the faith.
I have repeatedly stated, over and over again, that the BoD of the Doctors is tenable and does not undermine Catholic dogma, and have rejected the Dimonds' contention that is' heretical. Yet you keep throwing that quote out there where I said that soteriological error is the worse kind of error imaginable ... but ignore it when I explained to you that I'm talking about the Pelagian form of BoD, its extension by the Modernists.
Do I need to go though and dig up the dozens (if not 100s) of times I've made this distinction in my posting history? I've been consistently making that distinction for going on 10 years now.
QuoteQuote from: Ladislaus on June 18, 2022, 03:07:46 PM
That's only a product of your weak mind, perhaps corrupted by your bad will in blaspheming the Church. What you claim are inconsistencies and contradictions are due to your inability to grasp distinctions, as demonstrated clearly above where you're incapable of understanding the difference between Thomistic/Bellarminite BoD (which I've always held to be a tenable opinion ... with which I simply disagree) and Pelagian BoD, which undermines EENS dogma. As for the Magisterium, I've called out some of the dogmatic SVs for exaggerating the scope of strict infallibility. But there's an enormous chasm between saying that not everything taught by the Magisterium is strictly infallible or irreformable and claiming that the Catholic Church has gone so corrupt that we are required by our Catholic conscience to have nothing to do with it.
I thought you believed that it was necessary to receive the sacrament of baptism - note, receive the water of the sacrament, the actual sacrament itself - to be saved. Don't you? I'd love to her if it's otherwise; please clarify.
The Magisterium doesn't teach that, prominent examples being the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of Pius X. Of course, I'll imagine you'll go down the road of either saying the Catechism of Trent or the Catechism of Pius X don't teach contrary to you about salvation, or attack the genuineness of the Pius X catechism. Which would, again, savor of hypocrisy if you did, since you attack Stubborn for his reading (contrary to most, as would be your reading of Trent and the Pius X catechism) of your papal quotes on indefectibility.
As noted in my quote of Mithrandylan about salvation being the "telos" of the Church, her failure (according to you) to teach accurately about a matter involving salvation - since you can't, per Lad (or please correct me), be saved without receipt of the sacrament - is hardly "harmless," don't you think? In any event, your quotes about "indefectibility" don't say anything about allowing "harmless" error - they say the Church is "spotless" in her teaching, etc. They say, free from error in her ordinary Magisterial teaching, period. So, nice try there. Anyway, this "error" about BOD and justification/salvation is not only a "spot" in her teachings, but quite a whopping error about who can be saved and how - if Lad, and not the Magisterium, is right - more like a bullseye with "defectible" in the center.
So please do enlighten us about your agreement vel non about the "harmless," indefectible error of the Magisterium regarding BOD: is it possible to be saved without actual physical receipt of the sacrament of baptism?
Btw, the Catechism of Pius X even talks about an "implicit BOD," well beyond your Thomistic/Bellarmine distinction. Indeed, I think St. Thomas even mentions the possibility of an implicit BOD. And we know where this "harmless" error has gone in the hands of the likes of even as distinguished a bishop like Archbishop Lefebvre, don't we? Your view of "indefectibility" certainly didn't prevent some of the greatest churchmen we have in this crisis - I can go on to Bishop Sanborn, etc., but we don't need to go down the list - from teaching really harmful stuff regarding baptism . . . I guess we could agree on that at least.
Your distinction between I guess what you would call one wheel off the rails and totally off the rails is not very convincing, since, again, the teaching on indefectibilty is no error in official Magisterial teaching, not no "harmful" error in official Magisterial teaching, on matters of theology, and this one, again (BOD), involves the "telos" of the Church. The predominant teaching, the overwhelming view on indefectibility which you cite and espouse, says no error in the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, not "can teach theological error regarding the Gospel, but it won't hurt you in the long run."
Nice try, though.
Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II - page 11 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830604/#msg830604)
2) At no point has the Magisterium definitively taught BoD, but has merely left the question open as not incompatible with the faith.
DR, I am curious now: do you hold that the Catechism of St. Pius X and Trent Catechism articulate the same ecclesiology with how they formulate BoD?
Not sure I can answer that. In any event, I need you to elaborate.I saw you quote the St. Pius X Catechism and Trent Catechism so it made me curious what BoD you are defending here... As I've generally seen you quoting the Trent Catechism in BoD debates.
I saw you quote the St. Pius X Catechism and Trent Catechism so it made me curious what BoD you are defending here... As I've generally seen you quoting the Trent Catechism in BoD debates.
Catechism of Trent
Baltimore catechism
I have zero problems with the position articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre, and much less with that of Father Chazal. Unfortunately, however, the Archbishop failed to provide the necessary clarity to prevent certain people from morphing his position into what we see articulated by Sean and others. They [falsely] hide behind Archbishop Lefebvre, and I've noticed that the thing that sets Johnson off the most (what in this thread inspired him to call me a sodomite) ... is when you pull that rug out of under him.
Well, if that is how you interpreted it, I apologize. Was not my intention in the least.:laugh1: Riiiiight. You apologize, my foot. I didn't misinterpret a thing.
Yes, where +ABL failed, we have your profound insight. From where do you get your insight? Directly from God? Or maybe from an apparition or private revelation?Hypocrite. You are the one with a penchant for claiming to have insights into the internal forum of others.
Fortunately, +ABL did not think himself to know the mind of God, as you apparently do. He said many times that the Crisis is a mystery. And, moreover, he did not continually call other traditional Catholic heretics and schismatics, as you do here. I'll take +ABL any day, thank you.
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=67899.msg834914#msg834914) 7/11/2022, 12:15:03 PMWell, "if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water" seems clear to me. Then again, I am no theologian or scholar.
1) Catechism of Trent does not teach BoD ... that's reading into it something that isn't there. This has been amply proven in various BoD debates.
2) Baltimore Catechism has error in it (Msgr Fenton called out a couple himself.)
3) Neither one of these sources is infallible. You had Irish Catechisms before Vatican I that taught against papal infallibility (and were revised after Vatican I on account of that error).
:laugh1: Riiiiight. You apologize, my foot. I didn't misinterpret a thing.And yet you already responded "ok" to my comment.
This seems to be your go-to meme to insult other forum members [this time gladius]:
https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/ss-news/msg834610/#msg834610
But you keep wagging your self-righteous finger [oh, and posting Holy Scripture] at others to be good examples! :laugh2:
:fryingpan:
And yet you already responded "ok" to my comment.Yes, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it's clear that you are a phony.
If you think calling an idea "stupid" is the same as committing calumny, slander, or scandal through vulgar name calling, I pity you.
Thank you.
You are now on ignore.
Yes, where +ABL failed, we have your profound insight. From where do you get your insight? Directly from God? Or maybe from an apparition or private revelation?
Bringing the topic back from a broader debate on BoD.
1) I have never denounced classic BoD (as understood and articulated by Sts. Thomas, Bellarine, Alphonsus) as gravely erroneous or harmful to souls. I have in fact defended it against those charges. That quote you brought as evidence was taken out of context, where I'm denouncing the extended Pelagians notion of BoD, a notion which has NEVER been taught by the Magisterium in any way, shape, or form ... not even by these Doctors.
If this is addressed to me, this is totally irrelevant to my argument. You do say BOD is error, yes, and that a person could not be saved by a BOD, right? The argument has nothing to do with whether you think BOD is heresy or harmful or not. It is enough that you believe that the Magisterium has taught error about justification and the grace of God in its universal ordinary Magisterium. The ramifications of that to your "indefectibility" argument and claim that the R & R are heretics because of their ascribing to the Magisterium error that violates a theory of indefectibility that your own beliefs stand on its head - it shows your position up to be inconsistent, self-defeating, and therefore necessarily wrong on at least one of its fronts (your position on indefectibility, or on BOD) . . . this is the argument.
For a man that draws distinctions, you're utterly incapable of recognizing a distinction in your opponent's argument. Is that willful? A defense mechanism activated by the subconscious to blind you to a distinction you can't handle, so that you see an argument that isn't there, which you can handle, and engage that?
2) I have never held the position that every proposition contained in any text produced by the Magisterium is infallible and guaranteed inerrant. I have if fact repeatedly disagreed on this point with the dogmatic SVs who exaggerate the scope of infallibility (in their battle with R&R). They too fail to distinguish between infallibility in the strict sense and the overall substantial inerrancy of the Magisterium.
That you "never held" that position is immaterial to the argument. Again, an utter failure to draw distinctions. Read the above again. And again. And again . . .
With these two distinctions, which I have explained several times already, and have been very firm about for years, the alleged "contradiction" (what Johnson called "hypocrisy") goes away. In your assertion of "contradiction" there's an implicit double straw-manning of my views: 1) attributing to me the denunciation of BoD as heretical or gravely erroneous that the Dimond Brothers make (and with which I have always disagreed) and 2) attributing to me the position of some dogmatic SVs that the Magisterium is absolutely inerrant.
As stated, your distinctions are irrelevant, evade the argument, and the contradiction remains.
What I have called heretical is the attribution of grave error to the Magisterium and also to the Church's Universal Discipline (particularly the Mass), and the litmus test for determining whether you've crossed this line is when you claim that the error is so grave that you can no longer remain in submission to and communion with the hierarchy without endangering your faith. If you claim that "in order to remain Catholic, I must separate from the hierarchy" ... THAT is what's heretical.
Yes, that is your position. It has no warrant in Church teaching regarding indefectibility, etc. It is a novelty that exposes you to inconsistency (since you claim you maintain the traditional teaching of the Magisterium on indefectibility while rejecting its teaching on BOD - which you should, if consistent, recognize as true and inerrant regarding grace and the justification of sinners by GOD), and gravely damages your credibility severely.
Had Vatican II and the NOM never happened, no Catholic would feel the need to start their own parallel church to disagree on the subject of BoD . . .
True. A Sede who does not reject the OUM prior to Vatican II could make your argument, and others have, very capably. Had you not gone off on R & R, accusing them of being heretics, etc., with all of your own ridiculous baggage about the Magisterium and BOD, and not been such a hypocritical Pharisee, I'd not have felt the need to confront you, either.
But, alas . . . here we are.
Not having the time to cut and paste etc. to deal with this, my comments are in red above.
I saw you quote the St. Pius X Catechism and Trent Catechism so it made me curious what BoD you are defending here... As I've generally seen you quoting the Trent Catechism in BoD debates.
The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/members.htm
I am not defending BOD here; that's not what this is about. I am pointing out an inconsistency in Lad's position.
Absolutely and utter garbage in your post. As the last dozen times I've hade to make these same distinctions for you, they go right over your head, and you ignore them, and repost the same crap. I see that I'll have to translate it down to the kindergarten level for you to comprehend. But, then, I don't think you really don't get it. I don't think you want to get it, since you're invested in your heresy.
You keep repeating the same idiotic dichotomy that i rejected based on the distinctions I made (and which you continue to ignore) and gratuitously dismiss as "irrelevant" simply because you either can't or (more likely) won't understand them.
You continue to pertinaciously promote heresy and you'll have to answer to God for it.
True to your MO, you resort to insult to cover your utter failure to get the gist of the argument. That is the distinction of the moment, the Lad distinction only too common.
There is no inconsistency. You cling to your false dichotomy that either there can be or there can't be error in the Magisterium. I've never said and have repeatedly denied the premise of your assertion of inconsistency, that there absolutely cannot be error in the Magisterium. But you keep straw-manning that as my position in order to re-assert the same claim over and over again, while ignoring the distinctions that I articulated.
Absolutely and utter garbage in your post. As the last dozen times I've hade to make these same distinctions for you, they go right over your head, and you ignore them, and repost the same crap. I see that to comprehend. But, then, I don't think you really don't get it. I don't think you want to get it, since you're invested in your heresy.
You keep repeating the same idiotic dichotomy that I rejected based on the distinctions I made (and which you continue to ignore) and gratuitously dismiss as "irrelevant" simply because you either can't or (more likely) won't understand them. All you seem to understand is "either there's error in the Magisterium or there isn't". You completely ignore the fact that I do not deny that there CAN be error in the Magisterium, but not the DEGREE of error that you blasphemously attribute to the Catholic Church.
You continue to pertinaciously promote heresy and you'll have to answer to God for it.
No, I resort to frustration with having to repeat the same thing over and over again. I fully understand your "argument" and it's based on a false dichotomy predicated on your strawmanning my position ... repeatedly. Try expressing your argument succinctly as a syllogism or syllogisms stead of basically re-pasting the same over and over again and then maybe that'll help you see it.
So this sanctimonious dickhead is in action again (apparently under Matthew's protection for no other reason that that his 30,000 posts generate traffic)???
Same bad manners and obnoxious behavior, just a different opponent:
You are in no position to attack the R & R for "rejecting the Magisterium," which your position shows to not be worthy of credence as to the very things it exists for.
Quote from: SeanJohnson (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=67899.msg835008#msg835008) 7/11/2022, 5:06:36 PMHypocrite.
So this sanctimonious ******** is in action again
Same bad manners and obnoxious behavior, just a different opponent:
But return the favor to make the point, and its "outrageous!" He doesn't get it. (He won't allow himself to get it, but instead spends his time fending it off).
Apparently, "'tis for thee, but not for me."
[Of course, Meg gets a quick swipe earlier, but Matthew has determined she is fair game here]
1) "utter garbage"
2) "over your head"
3) "same crap"
4) "I'll have to translate it down to the kindergarten level for you"
5) "invested in your heresy" (Once again, every opponent is a heretic);
6) "idiotic"
7) "you continue to ignore" (uh, really? You mean, continue to refute?)
And here comes the dinger which ends every post to an opponent:
8) "You continue to pertinaciously promote heresy and you'll have to answer to God for it."
You know what comes next (and it comes every time he gets his butt kicked, like DR is doing):
"I demand a retraction!"
I think I'll do as every other RR poster of any talent or merit has done here, and just say goodbye.
I never denied that one could respectfully disagree with a given teaching of the Magisterium.But can a Catholic truly do that? What about religious assent?
I think I'll do as every other RR poster of any talent or merit has done here, and just say goodbye.
ltimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this. There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...
What I said is that you can't attribute a corruption of the Magisterium (and of the Church's Public Worship) to the extent that it justifies and even necessitates severing communion with and subjection to the Holy See in order to "remain faithful to Tradition".
But can a Catholic truly do that? What about religious assent?
Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same.
This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.
Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.
Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.”
Your "no extensive corruption" theory is an utter novelty. It is not the pre-Vatican II teaching of the popes and theologians, like you try to posture yourself as adopting and applying to the R & R. According to that teaching, the Church is free from error, indefectible in her OUM when teaching about the faith and the Gospel, such as in its teaching on BOD. It has the voice of Christ there: could Christ teach erroneously about justification, the sacraments, grace?
What is your malfunction?
Do I have to preface every single comment and post that I make with : "It is my opinion that ..."? It should be taken for granted that every post under "Ladislaus" is the opinion of Ladislaus.
I think I'll do as every other RR poster of any talent or merit has done here, and just say goodbye.
You are one of the last remaining supporters of the Resistance here. I hope you don't leave, but I understand if you do. We (who support the Resistance) are pariahs here - not worth a plug nickel. It would be nice if someone started up another forum where Resistance views would be tolerated.Doesn't Matthew still support +Williamson, et al? Or do you refer to the "other resistance" at the KY compound?
Doesn't Matthew still support +Williamson, et al? Or do you refer to the "other resistance" at the KY compound?
I support the +Williamson et al resistance.
You are one of the last remaining supporters of the Resistance here. I hope you don't leave, but I understand if you do. We (who support the Resistance) are pariahs here - not worth a plug nickel. It would be nice if someone started up another forum where Resistance views would be tolerated.This is 5 year old tier reverse psychology and Matthew is not retarded
So when you refer to other traditional Catholics here as heretics and schismatics, it's just your opinion?
This is 5 year old tier reverse psychology and Matthew is not retarded
This is 5 year old tier reverse psychology and Matthew is not retarded
It's a legitimate observation on my part.
Are you a sedevacantist, by any chance?
Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!
God bless!
Yes and no. Last time I checked, I had no authority in the Church. I cannot bind consciences with my opinion. Yet this is not merely my opinion. It's a restatement of the perennial teaching of the Church.
I like the way that you simply assume that "traditional Catholics" as a group are somehow protected by an inerrancy which R&R don't grant even to the Magisterium of an Ecuмenical Council.
Unfortunately, due to the Crisis in the Church, some have basically adopted the principles of Old Catholicism and have rejected Catholic teaching regarding the authority of the Magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church.
In point of fact, the conservative Novus Ordites who uphold these truths about the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are far more orthodox than these so-called "traditional Catholics" who do not. They err (IMO) in interpreting V2 and the NOM to be compatible with Catholicism, but error is far less grave, since the matter has never been defined by the Church.
It's a legitimate observation on my part.
It's also a blatant lie that Resistance views are "not tolerated". Matthew is Resistance and states that CI supports the Resistance.It's compoundingly stupid because almost all sedes here agree with +Williamson on multiple dimensions of The Crisis. The ones who don't, like Jupiter or "The Mask", are banned pretty fast.
I wasn't aware that you support the Resistance. You're a sedevacanist, right?I respect all traditional catholics who are trying to do the will of God in these really strange times.
I wasn't referring to the KY compound. I meant Bishop Williamson and the SAJM.
No it's not. 1) Your assertion that Resistance views are not tolerated on a Resistance forum (with a Resistance owner) is preposterous and 2) your assertion that there needs to be a "new" forum for this is a subtle (or you think it subtle, but bodeens points out that Matthew is not retarded) jab at Matthew for ... not banning the SVs.
You continually refer to other traditional Catholics (mostly non-sedes) as being heretics and schismatics. You obviously mean why you say.
Why are you so special? It's an honest question. Surely you must have some idea of why you get preferential treatment here. Do you donate a lot? That would be a fair reason. But I think we ought to know.
Most (though not all) of you sedevacantists gang up on the Resistance folks here. You know that. You are one of the main sedes who do this. As you well know. And it appears to be condoned. WHY IS IT CONDONED?
I respect all traditional catholics who are trying to do the will of God in these really strange times.Why must traditional Catholics continually divide and conquer? Aren't we all trying to do the will of God? These are really strange and confusing times for Catholics in particular. God knows it.
Surely you must have some idea of why you get preferential treatment here. Do you donate a lot? That would be a fair reason. But I think we ought to know.What a snide aspersion to cast upon Matthew.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
LATIN: "Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicuмque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
Your "no extensive corruption" theory is an utter novelty. It is not the pre-Vatican II teaching of the popes and theologians, like you try to posture yourself as adopting and applying to the R & R. According to that teaching, the Church is free from error, indefectible in her OUM when teaching about the faith and the Gospel, such as in its teaching on BOD. It has the voice of Christ there: could Christ teach erroneously about justification, the sacraments, grace?
Your distinction between I guess what you would call one wheel off the rails and totally off the rails is not very convincing, since, again, the teaching on indefectibilty is no error in official Magisterial teaching, not no "harmful" error in official Magisterial teaching, on matters of theology, and this one, again (BOD), involves the "telos" of the Church. The predominant teaching, the overwhelming view on indefectibility which you cite and espouse, says no error in the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, not "can teach theological error regarding the Gospel, but it won't hurt you in the long run."
Nice try, though.
Yes, where +ABL failed, we have your profound insight. From where do you get your insight? Directly from God? Or maybe from an apparition or private revelation?Well said Meg - I am out of upthumbs for you but I hit that button anyway!
Fortunately, +ABL did not think himself to know the mind of God, as you apparently do. He said many times that the Crisis is a mystery. And, moreover, he did not continually call other traditional Catholic heretics and schismatics, as you do here. I'll take +ABL any day, thank you.
Utter nonsense and novelty.Yes, it's quite the conundrum.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”So sad, my Lad. You had them in a corner, but they have the Feeneyism trump card. Can't you see this damned heresy is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility? Why was BoD and BoB never explicitly condemned by the Church and all of the other errors ever were?
LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
LATIN: "Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicuмque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
So sad, my Lad. You had them in a corner, but they have the Feeneyism trump card. Can't you see this damned heresy is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility? Why was BoD and BoB never explicitly condemned by the Church and all of the other errors ever were?
Surely one can't be expected to have to arrive at true doctrine by his own interpretation. That is why the Lord gives us such clear guidance as you provide above, so we don't have to reason what is the Church's doctrine, just accept it.
So sad, my Lad. You had them in a corner, but they have the Feeneyism trump card. Can't you see this damned heresy is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility? Why was BoD and BoB never explicitly condemned by the Church and all of the other errors ever were?What is so sad, is that if the quotes are true, and they are, then either 1) Lad's idea of what the Church's Magisterium is is wrong, or 2) being bound to those truths, all trads everywhere are wrong and must abjure our traditional faith to embrace the NO and all things V2.
Surely one can't be expected to have to arrive at true doctrine by his own interpretation. That is why the Lord gives us such clear guidance as you provide above, so we don't have to reason what is the Church's doctrine, just accept it.
What is so sad, is that if the quotes are true, and they are, then either 1) Lad's idea of what the Church's Magisterium is is wrong, or 2) being bound to those truths, all trads everywhere are wrong and must abjure our traditional faith to embrace the NO and all things V2.The obvious alternative is that "popes" who teach error constantly, spitting in the face of the teaching above, are not true popes. As has been stated to be possible time and time again.
There is no other alternative.
Very good. Now read those quotes, and compare them with your: the Church can commit theological errors regarding the faith but it will be "harmless" and won't damn you if you follow it; the Church can't be "substantially corrupt;" the Church can't commit "substantial error." Then compare it with what I said in post #222 of this thread:
Since it's getting exceedingly tiresome reinventing the wheel with you, I'll close with what I said in another thread on this issue:
Why don't you go post something from some other real sources about "indefectibility": it will do more damage to your novel position that the Church could commit such blunders as BOD (justification and salvation being possible without receipt of the sacrament of baptism) about the Gospel of the saving grace of Christ that it was given charge to preach.
Utter nonsense and novelty.
Ridiculous, characterizing the notion that the Church's Magisterium cannot become corrupt as novelty. We have consistent teaching of the Popes and the Church Fathers, Doctors, theologians, that the Magisterium cannot be stained with error. Yet no theologian holds that the Magisterium is ABSOULTELY free from error. So what does it mean for the Magisterium to be free from error and not stained by error? It means that it's substantially or essentially free from error, even if there can be some error there per accidens. That's the distinction, and Msgr. Fenton, in the passages cited, articulately expressed the threshold between fallibility and infallibility, which you continue to ignore.Yes, Feeneyism and R&R have the same root error that the Church can promulgate doctrinal error and be unsafe to follow.
Proposition I: Magisterium is free from error and all stain of error [taught above by the Popes ... which you reject]
Proposition II: Magisterium is not absolutely guaranteed to be free from error [taught by all theologians]
So then this apparent contradiction requires a distinction for both of these to be true. That distinction is substantial vs. accidental, or as Msgr. Fenton characterized it extensive and harmful.
You reject Proposition I above by attributing the doctrinal corruption and the corruption of the Mass to the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church, and that's heresy. You keep throwing the word novelty out there, but I defy you to find any Catholic theologian ever who agrees with you that the Magisterium can go off the rails so badly that it justifies severing submission to and communion with the Holy See.
THAT is novelty, not my (and Msgr. Fenton's) distinction to reconcile the notion that the Magisterium is inerrant and unstained by error, and yet not absolutely free from error. This distinction is absolutely common sense.
Yes, Feeneyism and R&R have the same root error that the Church can promulgate doctrinal error and be unsafe to follow.
The whole point of the Church is to be a safe guide.
No further debate is necessary really, it's just that simple.
Yes, Feeneyism and R&R have the same root error that the Church can promulgate doctrinal error and be unsafe to follow.
The whole point of the Church is to be a safe guide.
No further debate is necessary really, it's just that simple.
Ridiculous, characterizing the notion that the Church's Magisterium cannot become corrupt as novelty. We have consistent teaching of the Popes and the Church Fathers, Doctors, theologians, that the Magisterium cannot be stained with error. Yet no theologian holds that the Magisterium is ABSOULTELY free from error. So what does it mean for the Magisterium to be free from error and not stained by error? It means that it's substantially or essentially free from error, even if there can be some error there per accidens. That's the distinction, and Msgr. Fenton, in the passages cited, articulately expressed the threshold between fallibility and infallibility, which you continue to ignore.
Proposition I: Magisterium is free from error and all stain of error [taught above by the Popes ... which you reject]
Proposition II: Magisterium is not absolutely guaranteed to be free from error [taught by all theologians]
So then this apparent contradiction requires a distinction for both of these to be true. That distinction is substantial vs. accidental, or as Msgr. Fenton characterized it extensive and harmful.
You reject Proposition I above by attributing the doctrinal corruption and the corruption of the Mass to the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church, and that's heresy. You keep throwing the word novelty out there, but I defy you to find any Catholic theologian ever who agrees with you that the Magisterium can go off the rails so badly that it justifies severing submission to and communion with the Holy See.
THAT is novelty, not my (and Msgr. Fenton's) distinction to reconcile the notion that the Magisterium is inerrant and unstained by error, and yet not absolutely free from error. This distinction is absolutely common sense.
The obvious alternative is that "popes" who teach error constantly, spitting in the face of the teaching above, are not true popes. As has been stated to be possible time and time again.The reason that idea is not an alternative is because those truths quoted, would prove to be lies to the Universal Church, i.e. overwhelming majority, who accept the pope as the pope.
Maybe you can get it through to his thick skull.
As I said in this thread, there are Sedes who have taken his position regarding indefectibility, who are consistent, and have made a viable case regarding Sedevacantism. For example, in terms of those whose opinion I respect and who are worthy of much consideration, John Daly, John Lane, Bishop Sanborn, Father Cekada . . . those are the ones that jump out to me at the moment.
His position is totally inconsistent, and one cannot regard him seriously. He hurts the Sede position with his contradictions.
This would be laughable if it isn't so tragic. Here you put your dishonestly on display in glaring fashion.
Those men you cite as "worth of much consideration" would agree with me that your attribution of error to the Church (V2 and the New Mass) is in fact heretical. I know for a fact that Bishop Sanborn would, as Father Cekada woud have (RIP). They would condemn your position as heretical even much more strongly than I do, and Servus here has no use for your heresy either.
But YOU disagree with them about infallibility, and yet you would force me to accept their view of infallibility. This is absurd dishonesty, and you should be embarrassed
I disagree with them regarding the extent and the scope of infallibility. I believe that they've ended up in this exaggerated position precisely as the result of having to combat heresies such as yours.
But you've played a lot of games to distract from the core issue. You lump all "Magisterium" in the same category, whereas in fact there are different degrees of authority within the Magisterium. I've never said that an Ecuмenical Council could teach error in any way shape or form, just lesser expressions of the Magisterium ... a letter by a pope to a bishop, a papal allocation, and to a lesser extent a papal encyclical. Ecuмenical Councils cannot teach error. But I hold that Trent did not teach BoD (as you try to define it, and most certainly didn't teach the heretical Pelagian form of BoD that is prevalent out there). If I believed that Trent actively taught BoD, then I would of course accept it. But the simple fact is that it did no more than mention a term votum, saying that justification cannot take place without it.
So you keep playing dishonest games like this to justify your false dichotomy that either there can be errors in the Magisterium or there can't be, going so far here as upholding as "worthy of consideration" the dogmatic Sedevacantists who would condemn for heresy even more strongly than I have ... and rightly so. But then you try to falsely leverage the notion that there can be errors in the Magisterium to assert that the Magisterium (and the Mass) can become so corrupt that it requires severing communion with the Catholic hierarchy.
You keep trying to play games to re-assert your false dichotomy in order to justify your heresy.
Perhaps you should "consider" these men who you claim to be "worth of consideration" (that's a blatant lie on your part, BTW, just a shameless attempt to use their position as a weapon) who hold that your attribution of corruption to the Church via Vatican II and the NOM is heretical. They are on MY side in asserting that your position is heretical.
I still really can't believe you tried to appeal to them as if they were allies in your heresy. :laugh1:
.
Where Daly and co. and Stubborn differ is in their understanding of the Vincentian canon. Daly and co. hold that the universality just has to be spatial: since the current (or recent) popes and the bishops in union with them contradict prior teaching (an inconsistency incompatible with truth), they are not true popes and bishops of the Church.
Stubborn hold that they are true popes, but where there teaching departs from prior teaching, thus being inconsistent with Tradition (lacks temporal universality), it shows that is it not Magisterial teaching.
Man, when you nail it, you sure nail it!
There is the Sede position of Daly, etc. It is consistent on its own (their own) terms, and it is a viable argument. It says that the Conciliar Church is a false Church and the Conciliar popes are false popes because they and the bishops in union with them teach contra to what the Church has taught in her extraordinary and ordinary universal Magisterium. The Magisterium, to them, consists of whatever the current popes and bishops in union with them say. This is a spatial universality: the pope and all the current bishops united with him throughout the globe (space).
There is Stubborn's position, which is consistent on his own terms: the Magisterium consists of teachings passed on by Scripture and Tradition, and those teachings are exhibited in the Church's teaching which is universal both spatially (the pope and all the current bishops in union with him agree) and temporally (the teachings go back to the apostles and the original revelation of Christ to them, which was, and is, complete) - that is, it is universal not only in space (the current pope and the current bishops) but time (the prior popes and bishops in union with them).
Where Daly and co. and Stubborn differ is in their understanding of the Vincentian canon. Daly and co. hold that the universality just has to be spatial: since the current (or recent) popes and the bishops in union with them contradict prior teaching (an inconsistency incompatible with truth), they are not true popes and bishops of the Church.
Stubborn hold that they are true popes, but where there teaching departs from prior teaching, thus being inconsistent with Tradition (lacks temporal universality), it shows that is it not Magisterial teaching.
To both Daly and Stubborn, the Magisterial teaching is pure, as the quotes from the popes said it is.
You, however, play your game of straddling both camps: you hold the Daly and co view with their definition of indefectibility as only requiring spatial (the current pope and the bishops in union) universality - thus rejecting the Conciliar popes and bishops - but agree with Stubborn on BOD and require a temporal university (a teaching in accord with Scripture and Tradition) on BOD at the same time (you disagree in your private judgment with your "indefectible'" Magisterium as to what is Tradition when it suits you) - thus rejecting the pre-Vatican II Magisterium on BOD.
The Daly and co. view is the pre-2 teaching that you profess to espouse and you use to attack Stubborn, but you yourself violate the pre-V2 teaching on indefectibility when it comes to BOD, where you apparently adopt his view (that you attack).
You're confused, and inconsistent. You're a salesman of both apples and oranges, and I for one wouldn't buy either from you.
I'm not the one who is an embarrassment and confused, Ladislaus.
For all your big talk and pretense of knowledge, you keep showing yourself to be utterly incapable of making necessary distinctions. You may be very educated and knowledgable, but you don't cut through to the issues very well.
You can't have it both ways: you either accept the concept of indefectibility espoused by Daly and co., who accept the OUM on BOD, or you don't. You can't pick and choose depending on the issue (indefectibility, or BOD). You can either define OUM like Stubborn, and be consistent, or define indefectibility like Daly and co. (which would require you to accept BOD as OUM), and stop your nonsense about rejecting the teaching of BOD.
.Not sure which 2nd paragraph you are referring to.
The Catholic teaching is that the papacy is the sure rock of Peter (https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/) on which we must base our faith. This has been taught literally dozens of times by the popes, of which the page I quoted is just a small sample.
The problem with Stubborn's position in the second paragraph quoted (assuming it accurately describes Stubborn's position) is that it means that the pope and all the bishops can lead people astray by teaching what they claim is the Catholic faith, quod absit.
Not sure which 2nd paragraph you are referring to.Sorry, I meant this paragraph in which 10 was stating your position:
Stubborn hold that they are true popes, but where there teaching departs from prior teaching, thus being inconsistent with Tradition (lacks temporal universality), it shows that is it not Magisterial teaching.
Sorry, I meant this paragraph in which 10 was stating your position:Ah, got it.
Stubborn hold that they are true popes, but where there teaching departs from prior teaching, thus being inconsistent with Tradition (lacks temporal universality), it shows that is it not Magisterial teaching.Yes, this is accurate enough. Or you could say "but where their teaching departs from prior teaching, thus being inconsistent with the magisterium
There is the Sede position of Daly, etc. It is consistent on its own (their own) terms, and it is a viable argument. It says that the Conciliar Church is a false Church and the Conciliar popes are false popes because they and the bishops in union with them teach contra to what the Church has taught in her extraordinary and ordinary universal Magisterium. The Magisterium, to them, consists of whatever the current popes and bishops in union with them say. This is a spatial universality: the pope and all the current bishops united with him throughout the globe (space).
BOD is a serious theological notion that concerns the faith. Despite your novel readings - want to go own about private judgment, again? that would further expose your inconsistency - of Trent, both the Council and the Catechsim - it's clear the OUM has taught BOD.
Is it really consistent to posit a spatial universality, and yet reject Vatican II nonetheless?Well, spatial universality is bible, it is the foundation, it's how the faithful know what the truth is, and in knowing what the truth is, we know truth from error no matter the source. We reject V2 because we know it preaches error based on what the Church has always taught, i.e. based on the magisterium of the Church.
Has any other council exceeded Vatican II, in regards to the proportion of prelates that were in attendance? Or the proportion of theological consensus?
Aren't those two sentences a contradiction?
The Magisterium, to them, consists of whatever the current popes and bishops in union with them say.
I can see the point that Stubborn was making in this thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648421/#msg648421
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648436/#msg648436
Nonetheless, Sedes reject V2 and the New Mass. They do so by doing what they accuse Stubborn of, no? They weigh the teaching of V2 and the New Mass against what has been handed down - against Tradition.
That's where I see the contradiction.
No, there's a big difference here. Where private judgment does play a role in faith (as taught clearly by Vatican I) is in ascertaining the credibility and legitimacy of the teaching authority. We determine, with our reason, based on the "motives of credibility", whether the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of God and or Our Lord.
SVs see (with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly and repeatedly stated this in public) that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks or notes of the one true Church.
We're not talking about an isolated error here or there in the Magisterium, but about a new religion, with a new theological system (and Magisterium) that is alien to that of the Traditional Catholic Church, with a new non-Catholic Rite of Mass, with its new saints and new Canon Law. Had there been no New Mass and it was just a question of a couple disputed passages in Vatican II, we would have no Traditional movement. And it doesn't take a theologian to see that the Conciliar Church is something different from and alien to the Catholic Church. This is a judgment that the simple faithful can make. We don't recognize in the teaching of the V2 papal claimants the "Voice of the Shepherd".
I understand the contradiction you are trying to make here DR. However, based upon our recent discussion of the teaching on BOD in the catechisms in the Ghetto, I think we can agree that it isn't clear what the Church really teaches on BOD. In addition, given the recent bastardization of that teaching where everyone could potentially go to Heaven via BOD, it seems to me that all Catholics that question BOD or come to different interpretations of the teachings in the catechisms, should be given the benefit of the doubt [lol...that results in the same acronym...BOD] and not be labeled as "contradictory".
You can't have it both ways: you either accept the concept of indefectibility espoused by Daly and co., who accept the OUM on BOD, or you don't. You can't pick and choose depending on the issue (indefectibility, or BOD). You can either define OUM like Stubborn, and be consistent, or define indefectibility like Daly and co. (which would require you to accept BOD as OUM), and stop your nonsense about rejecting the teaching of BOD.
I understand the contradiction you are trying to make here DR. However, based upon our recent discussion of the teaching on BOD in the catechisms in the Ghetto, I think we can agree that it isn't clear what the Church really teaches on BOD. In addition, given the recent bastardization of that teaching where everyone could potentially go to Heaven via BOD, it seems to me that all Catholics that question BOD or come to different interpretations of the teachings in the catechisms, should be given the benefit of the doubt [lol...that results in the same acronym...BOD] and not be labeled as "contradictory".The Church is clear.
I understand the contradiction you are trying to make here DR. However, based upon our recent discussion of the teaching on BOD in the catechisms in the Ghetto, I think we can agree that it isn't clear what the Church really teaches on BOD. In addition, given the recent bastardization of that teaching where everyone could potentially go to Heaven via BOD, it seems to me that all Catholics that question BOD or come to different interpretations of the teachings in the catechisms, should be given the benefit of the doubt [lol...that results in the same acronym...BOD] and not be labeled as "contradictory".
The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecu)мenism/members.htm
No, there's a big difference here. Where private judgment does play a role in faith (as taught clearly by Vatican I) is in ascertaining the credibility and legitimacy of the teaching authority. We determine, with our reason, based on the "motives of credibility", whether the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of God and or Our Lord.
SVs see (with Archbishop Lefebvre, who clearly and repeatedly stated this in public) that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks or notes of the one true Church.
We're not talking about an isolated error here or there in the Magisterium, but about a new religion, with a new theological system (and Magisterium) that is alien to that of the Traditional Catholic Church, with a new non-Catholic Rite of Mass, with its new saints and new Canon Law. Had there been no New Mass and it was just a question of a couple disputed passages in Vatican II, we would have no Traditional movement. And it doesn't take a theologian to see that the Conciliar Church is something different from and alien to the Catholic Church. This is a judgment that the simple faithful can make. We don't recognize in the teaching of the V2 papal claimants the "Voice of the Shepherd".
1. Catechumens are certainly not part of the faithful:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/
2. Not every theologian after the Council of Trent categorized the "baptism of desire" as de fide. Nor did they all cite the Council has one of the sources of this doctrine, as being taught from the Council. If the doctrine was professed in the Council of Trent, there would be no mistaking it's presence:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/baptism-of-desire-not-defined-dogma-per-theological-consensus/
3. Regarding the Catechism of the Council of Trent, I think the Dimonds make a very good point,
especially located in the sub-heading:
"PROOF THAT NOT EVERYTHING IN THE CATECHISM WAS TO BE PASSED ALONG TO THE FAITHFUL"
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/catechism-of-trent-baptism-of-desire/
4. Per Pius XII, only those who are baptized and profess the true faith are members of the Church, and it is precisely the members who constitute the Church.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/st-augustine-condemns-xaviersem/msg687601/#msg687601
5. Per St. Augustine, writing at the end of his life:
Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-predestined-will-not-end-their-life-without-the-sacrament-of-the-mediator/msg835235/?topicseen#msg835235
6. The Dimonds cite Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
"if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/latin-text-oldest-surviving-papal-decree-rejects-baptism-desire/
I don't know of any theologian, etc that denies BOD, and I'm not saying it isn't a revealed teaching of the Church. I'm questioning exactly what is the revealed teaching and whether it has been taught clearly. I'm saying that since catechisms seem to contradict [sometimes it says you can not get to Heaven without water baptism; other times it seems to say one can, sometimes one can go to Limbo, but not quite Heaven, etc, etc], then it's not the same as someone questioning some other teaching of the Church where there are no apparent contradictions or possibilities to interpret it differently. Take that AND how BOD is now "everyone can get to Heaven", and you have a mess.
While the exact parameters of BOD may not be clear, that the Church teaches that there could be justification and salvation by votum without receipt of the sacrament is clear. I agree with Monsignor Fenton here:
I think the above is part of the OUM; Msg. Fenton says it is "revealed teaching." But what I think doesn't matter: can you name a single pope, bishop, theologian (other than perhaps Father Feeney) who would say it isn't? BOD, the concept above, has been universally taught since Trent by the Magisterium.
I know you didn't. Epiphony loves to down thumb me at every opportunity.
Lad, I didn't down thumb you there. I rarely down thumb anyway (can't recall doing it), and just try to use the up arrow if and when I do utilize the feature.
Same thing to you, Vermont.
Lad, I didn't down thumb you there. I rarely down thumb anyway (can't recall doing it), and just try to use the up arrow if and when I do utilize the feature.
Same thing to you, Vermont.
I'm questioning exactly what is the revealed teaching and whether it has been taught clearly.
So, people claim that Catholics MUST believe in BoD. OK. Well, what must I believe about it? Apart from the fact that the expression "Baptism of Desire" appears absolutely nowhere in the Catholic Magisterium, there appears to be a different understanding or version of "BoD" for each person that believes in it. Is it just for catechumens? Does it "work" for infidels? I've even heard some apply the term to validly-baptized Protestants. It's become codeword for "sincerity saves".
...
BoD is fraught with uncertainty, lack of clarity, and a variety of interpretations. That is prima facie evidence that it's not de fide or even really TAUGHT as such. In order to believe something, you have to know what you're required to believe about it.
In the end, what I'm really saying here for the purpose of this thread [because as you say this isn't a discussion about BOD] is that I don't think you can claim Lad is being contradictory in his thinking on the indefectibility of the Church here because of the fact that Church teaching on BOD is not clear cut.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The question is what does the OUM really teach on BOD, but it seems like that point is not relevant to you.
He asserts the OUM against Stubborn and others on indefectibility while rejecting the OUM on the possibility of salvation by votum or by some faith/desire short of, and without, the receipt of the sacrament of baptism.
OUM yes here, no there.
That's a contradiction.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The question is what does the OUM really teach on BOD, but it seems like that point is not relevant to you.
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
https://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf
Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no ambiguity about what the OUM does teach about BOD:
While one might be justified in this life through a votum, he will not die in that state without the laver of water baptism.
If one dies in a state of justification, one will be saved. And the "core concept" is that it is possible without the actual receipt of the sacrament.
If one dies in a state of justification, one will be saved. And the "core concept" is that it is possible without the actual receipt of the sacrament.
But it seems to me the point of a shared teaching or concept that is universally taught throughout the Church ...
Nonsense. Your gratuitous statement is rejected. Show me where the Magisterium defines what must be believed about this "Baptism of Desire".
Of course, the OUM teaches you Vatican II and that the NOM is a Catholic Mass, but you don't really care about that.
Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Yes, I'm still very new to this but John Daly is amazing, did you read his Theological status of Heliocentricity? Excellent study! Cekada of course is great, the best I've read from him is Absolutely Null and Utterly Void.
Maybe you can get it through to his thick skull.
As I said in this thread, there are Sedes who have taken his position regarding indefectibility, who are consistent, and have made a viable case regarding Sedevacantism. For example, in terms of those whose opinion I respect and who are worthy of much consideration, John Daly, John Lane, Bishop Sanborn, Father Cekada . . . those are the ones that jump out to me at the moment.
His position is totally inconsistent, and one cannot regard him seriously. He hurts the Sede position with his contradictions.
Nope. The OUM does not appear to teach that there is a possibility of saving grace without the sacrament when not all catechisms teach this. In fact, the Baltimore Catechism specifically states that even people, like infants, without actual sin cannot go to Heaven. Limbo, but not Heaven. If BOD is teaching of OUM, then why don't these people got to Heaven?
Vermont,
Well, yes, we disagree, but the OUM teaching on BOD is relevant to me.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. There is no ambiguity about what the OUM does teach about BOD: a man can be justified in votum as well as in re, without receipt of the sacrament. The Church teaches the possibility of saving grace by votum. That's the concept that all variations of BOD agree to. Fenton says it's a "revealed teaching." That core concept is universally taught in the Catechisms. Lad rejects that.
Nope. The OUM does not appear to teach that there is a possibility of saving grace without the sacrament when not all catechisms teach this. In fact, the Baltimore Catechism specifically states that even people, like infants, without actual sin cannot go to Heaven. Limbo, but not Heaven.
Sorry, but what catechism doesn't teach it?It doesn't? Why wouldn't this apply to BOD? This isn't just talking about infants. The section even says that these people have NO SIN, and they still can't go to Heaven. How is that not the opposite/contradictory of what you're saying the OUM teaches on BOD?
That passage from the BC doesn't address it.
Nope. The OUM does not appear to teach that there is a possibility of saving grace without the sacrament when not all catechisms teach this. In fact, the Baltimore Catechism specifically states that even people, like infants, without actual sin cannot go to Heaven. Limbo, but not Heaven. If BOD is teaching of OUM, then why don't these people got to Heaven?Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.
It doesn't? Why wouldn't this apply to BOD? This isn't just talking about infants. The section even says that these people have NO SIN, and they still can't go to Heaven. How is that not the opposite/contradictory of what you're saying the OUM teaches on BOD?
This is my issue. BOD is NOT consistently taught. There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven
Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.
I love it how this SSPX thread became a Feeneyite discussion :laugh2:
This is my issue. BOD is NOT consistently taught. There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.
Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.Except it's not just talking about infants.
I love it how this SSPX thread became a Feeneyite discussion :laugh2:
Except it's not just talking about infants.
So an adult who has both original sin AND actual sins on his/her soul who merely implicitly desires baptism gets to go to Heaven, but another adult who has NO actual sins only gets to go to Limbo.
Is that what you're saying?
Vermont,
Again, BOD is consistently taught in the respect of a possibility of justification and salvation by votum, without the sacrament. Some call it BOD; as I noted, Pius XII called it an "act of love."
Show me a catechism that doesn't recognize that "core concept."
It doesn't? Why wouldn't this apply to BOD? This isn't just talking about infants. The section even says that these people have NO SIN, and they still can't go to Heaven. How is that not the opposite/contradictory of what you're saying the OUM teaches on BOD?"Die without baptism" is the key here. Which form of baptism?
This is my issue. BOD is NOT consistently taught. There are ambiguities...enough to give other Catholics SLACK when you want to accuse them of being contradictory wrt their position on the Crisis.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven
Because they are stained by original sin and are incapable of desiring baptism obviously. Once they mature to the age of reason they could of course desire baptism.I disagree on the first point, agree on the second.
I love it how this SSPX thread became a Feeneyite discussion :laugh2:
I disagree on the first point, agree on the second.
I was taught that miscarriages or deaths of born babies who did not have an opportunity to get baptized with water but whose parents would have if they had the chance, receive baptism of desire.
"Die without baptism" is the key here. Which form of baptism?Which form do you think it's referring to [given that the phrase "die without baptism" is preceded by the phrase "through no fault of theirs"]?
Even if you read Trent the common way, Trent teaches the possibility of "justification" but not the "and salvation" that you throw in there.
Justification - the “Just”, those who are justified before God - means you are in a state of sanctifying grace. Therefore salvation is possible, I’d say. Wouldn’t you?
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cathopedia/vol8/voleight402.shtml
Justification - the “Just”, those who are justified before God - means you are in a state of sanctifying grace. Therefore salvation is possible, I’d say. Wouldn’t you?
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cathopedia/vol8/voleight402.shtml
Matthew, you've got a couple of forum members whose contributions, I argue, hurt rather than help healthy discussion of Catholic issues. Since your warning 7/10/22, only Ladislaus seems undeterred and unrepentant. He keeps bringing up arcane matters in which few, I surmise, take much interest. He remains argumentative, self-righteous and self-absorbed. He constantly accuses others of not enjoying the clarity of perspective that he does.
There is hardly any activity on the popular "Resistance" section since 7/10, and, I suspect, it is because of him. I think you must be aware of this. Ladislaus, speaking plainly, just turns off the rank and file. They simply stay away from him. I know I do.
Matthew, you've got a couple of forum members whose contributions, I argue, hurt rather than help healthy discussion of Catholic issues. Since your warning 7/10/22, only Ladislaus seems undeterred and unrepentant. He keeps bringing up arcane matters in which few, I surmise, take much interest. He remains argumentative, self-righteous and self-absorbed. He constantly accuses others of not enjoying the clarity of perspective that he does.I don't agree with everything Ladislaus writes, but I actually read his posts because he seems to be respectful, calm and patient with most people. At least he doesn't seem to throw temper tantrums, storm off, curse, or badger people, like some others here do.
There is hardly any activity on the popular "Resistance" section since 7/10, and, I suspect, it is because of him. I think you must be aware of this. Ladislaus, speaking plainly, just turns off the rank and file. They simply stay away from him. I know I do.
Matthew, you've got a couple of forum members whose contributions, I argue, hurt rather than help healthy discussion of Catholic issues. Since your warning 7/10/22, only Ladislaus seems undeterred and unrepentant. He keeps bringing up arcane matters in which few, I surmise, take much interest. He remains argumentative, self-righteous and self-absorbed. He constantly accuses others of not enjoying the clarity of perspective that he does.Ladislaus, despite a couple of serious errors (cough* Feeneyism-related, mainly *cough) is always a gentleman and a scholar.
There is hardly any activity on the popular "Resistance" section since 7/10, and, I suspect, it is because of him. I think you must be aware of this. Ladislaus, speaking plainly, just turns off the rank and file. They simply stay away from him. I know I do.
So with regard to both these accusations, you assert that I am the ONLY culprit, whereas in point of fact both were instigated by others ... whom you curiously leave unaccused, leaving me as the ONLY culprit. So, basically, it's a lie ... and I surmise that you single me out because you don't like my positions / opinions on this subject.
and I surmise that you single me out because you don't like my positions / opinions on this subject.
You aren't the only culprit. That's true. But....you are the most manipulative. The others (such as Digital Logos and Mark 79) are merely playing softball in comparison.
You see, most of the other sedevacantists aren't going to call you out on anything. Because ya'll support each other, for the most part. But not all sedevacantists are in line behind you.
I am beginning to think that you may be a trad with some incipient mental health problems ...
…sedevacantists … blah, blah, blah… sedevacantists… blah, blah, blah… …sedevacantists … blah, blah, blah… sedevacantists… blah, blah, blah… …sedevacantists … blah, blah, blah… sedevacantists… blah, blah, blah……sedevacantists … blah, blah, blah…
Except it's not just talking about infants.Yes, no Heaven without baptism. If a person received a baptism of desire and died in a state of grace he goes to Heaven.
So an adult who has both original sin AND actual sins on his/her soul who merely implicitly desires baptism gets to go to Heaven, but another adult who has NO actual sins only gets to go to Limbo.
Is that what you're saying?
Speaking of Daly, do you know where I can find his Catechism on the choice of state of life? It was mentioned in his marvelous talk on sedevacantism (Very much recommended: read here (https://romeward.com/articles/239750343/the-impossible-crisis), or listen here (https://novusordowatch.org/2015/07/sedevacante-conference-2002/)) and I can't seem to find it.You can purchase it here for $15.99:
https://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/1548405907112935424
That's a stupid dig by the dumb Motarian ... look the (schismatic) SSPX will have faculties while ICK won't. You made your bed with Modernist Rome, buddy, now go lie in it. Maybe these (schismatic) Traditionalists were right, you stupid baboon?
You can't make this stuff up. The FSSP and Institute of Christ the King are having their faculties removed after being obedient to the Novus Ordo sect. Yet the disobedient Neo-SSPX can maintain their faculties with no punishment. What a world we live in!Fssp, too?
Fssp, too?
Bergolio has severely hampered the FSSP in recent months. It's only a matter of time before he eliminates them.Severely hampered how?
You can purchase it here for $15.99:Thanks
https://romeward.com/10476356679/catechism-on-the-choice-of-a-state-of-life (https://romeward.com/10476356679/catechism-on-the-choice-of-a-state-of-life)