CathInfo.com

Stop pretending that this is about simple "obedience".  We're talking about submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.

Ladislaus,

S&S necessarily corrupt the Magisterium as you have repeatedly done, and they corrupt the meaning of the word "universal" to exclude the attribute of time without which the definition is destroyed.  But you like destroying definitions wherever they get in your way just like you destroyed the definition of supernatural faith and the definition of the papal office by dividing essential attributes that make a thing what it is.

Ultimately, this is about "simple 'obedience'" but you have corrupted this as a virtue, destroying its necessary relationship and dependency upon the virtue of Religion.  This in the end destroys all Catholic morality because the virtue of Justice is overthrown.  It is not surprising that the gift of Piety is associated with the virtue of Justice and necessary to proper acts of Obedience as a virtue.

You have no Magisterium, no pope, no rule of faith, and no salvation is offered in the church you have created.

Why don't you campaign among the S&S folks to make you their pope and then all your problems can find a good reason.

Drew

I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.

That passage from Vatican I is simply the definition of Magisterium vs. Revelation.

Revelation -- "make known new doctrine"
Magisterium -- "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation"

[Take notes here, Drew.]

R&R ALWAYS distort this passage to mean:  "If the pope teaches some new doctrine, then we don't have to accept it."

But that would completely undermine infallibility itself.  Infallibility is the a priori GUARANTEE that the Pope CANNOT teach such new doctrine inconsistent with Revelation under the conditions stipulated by VI.

So, Stubborn, if Jorge Bergoglio came out tomorrow and made a solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility, using the exact language of Vatican I, and even said "I infallibly define that ..."

and it turned out to be erroneous, how would you react?

Would you 1) just reject this teaching or 2) would change your mind and say that it must be right or 3) would you go sedevacantist?  [those are the three possible responses]

What a flippin Moron. You deserve to be pummeled.


If the pope came out tomorrow and solemnly defined a dogma, then it would be dogma whether you believe it or not. I swear, you get more ignorant with each post.

And no, I will NEVER go sedewhatever because according to the Catholic Church it is wrong, has always been wrong and always will be wrong. Wrong is wrong yesterday, today and forever.

Unlike you, I must be subject to the pope or I won't get to heaven.

Ladisalus,

The canons of Trent and the Tridentine Profession of Faith refer to the "received and approved" rites of which the Novus Ordo is not. It is not so by definition.  You keep corrupting definitions which is your stock-in-trade.  It also happens to be a sign of Modernism.  The corruption of definitions is the Modernists principle weapon used to destroy Dogma.  

And how can anyone who claims that Dogma is NOT the rule of faith appeal to Dogma as the rule of faith?  Since your magisterium is "dormant," and really with no signs of life whatsoever, where else are you going to go?  But aren't you just employing "private interpretation" of dogma making yourself a "Protestant"?  Or is that argument just another of your mindless Ladialausisms?  There seems to be an unlimited supply.

Drew

How exactly is Novus Ordo not received and approved?