CathInfo.com

Stupidity is to think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical "Canons" and "Anathemas" of times past. That is even worse than Protestants claiming they know the Word of God through "Sola Scriptura" and that is it.

Ecunemical Councils have the assistance of the Holy Ghost, period.

"Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience).

^^^^^^

What Church are you in, that even though having a Pope, you cannot trust him, having a Magisterium you cannot trust it? Recognizing who the Vicar of Christ is on earth, yet you cannot follow him. You cannot even trust the Ecunemical Councils of the Church.

The Church Herself has turned against you and your moral compass is only yourself.

Cantarella,

Here you are again distorting what has been said which is just another way of lying.  You made a mistake attributing a condemnation of Luther from Leo X from Exsurge Domine as a "Dogmatic definition .... promulgated in the Council of Trent," and rather than acknowledge an error, you reply by claiming that I "think that the only way the Holy Ghost communicates Himself to the Militant Church is by exclusive definitions enclosed in grammatical 'Canons' and 'Anathemas' of times past." You are claiming that I hold that if it is not Dogma it does not bind the Catholic conscience.

Produce a single quotation from any post where I have made such a claim.  You will not be able to do so, but for the record, I can produce many posts where I have told you time and again that Dogma is part of divine revelation.  It is that part of divine revelation that has been formally defined by the Magisterium of the Church. When a doctrine of faith is defined, it moves from being a "formal object of divine faith" to a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  Either way, it is and always was a formal object of faith.  Dogma is distinguished from the rest of divine revelation in that it becomes the proximate rule of faith while the rest of divine revelation is the remote rule of faith.  Note again, the rule of faith is divine revelation.  

I am member of the Catholic Church and I have a pope.  It is true that he is a heretic and I do not trust him.  But Jesus Christ did not "trust" the heretic Caiaphas, the high priest, either.  He still told His disciples that they sit in Chair of Moses, and as St. John said, because Caiaphas was the high priest, although a heretic and deicide, he was used by God to accurately prophecy that Jesus should die for the nation.  Because who hold the pope as your rule of faith, you cannot tolerate a heretic pope. You have to make yourself the lord of the harvest.

I also have a Magisterium but this I can and do trust because I have the promise of Jesus Christ that He would preserve the Magisterium, that is, the teaching authority of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority, from ever binding the Catholic conscience to doctrinal and/or moral error.  Therefore, even when someone like John Paul II engaged the Magisterium through its "ordinary and universal" mode of operation, I can rely upon it to teach the truth which in fact, it did.

Lastly, since I hold Dogma as the rule of faith, I can reliably reject all that is contrary to divinely revealed truth while you have nothing but your own wit to follow. That has led you into manifest heresy.  The church you belong to is NOT the Catholic Church.  It has no pope, no magisterium, no moral compass, no chance of salvation, nothing.  And most importantly, these defects are permanent because the church you belong to has no intention or means to ever correct these defects.

This is where you are right now.  You are already in a state of hopeless despair.  It may take awhile to sink in but you are already there.

Next time try to check our your cut and past quotes more carefully.

Drew

http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html?m=1
It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy:  that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.

So, when you are released from the ideological strangle-hold of the SSPX, and you study ACTUAL CATHOLIC ECCLESIOLOGY, the conclusion that R&R is not Catholic is simply inescapable.

Best to stick with Archbishop Lefebvre's and Pope Pius IX's explanations and reject another ladism. Sedes need to accept Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is, until then, they will remain completely confused and lost in their abstract, shapeless and novus ordo ever changing magisterium.


Magisterium:

"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter

I was simply calling out your stupidity in referring to these priests as "Ladists".  Guess what, bonehead, we all came to the same conclusion independently by studying Catholic theology.

Well first, I never referred to those priests as "Ladists" you bone head, you sure hold yourself in high esteem.

If you all came to the same conclusions, you did so by learning your theology from the same post V1 theologians. It is no wonder you are so confused.

You have a magisteriam that defected but that can't happen, a pope and hierarchy who may not be the pope and hierarchy, you have something called an infallible universal discipline that no one even knows what that is, but whatever that is, like all things NO is also completely corrupted, you have all the bishops in the world in union with the pope whose teachings are supposed to be infallible yet they are all teaching heresy and other errors in unison with the pope.

Goodness! No wonder you are confused.

What is it that upsets you so much about Pope Pius IX's clear explanation of what the magisterium is? Do you doubt he was a pope too?