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

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 59279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #150 on: January 23, 2023, 01:58:02 PM »

:facepalm: Seriously?!

It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious.

I never thought I'd see the day when I had to argue against "Trads" who assert that the Papal Magisterium and the Church's Public worship could become corrupt and harmful to souls.  It's really unbelievable to me.  PS:  they claim to be followers of +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre held no such thing.  Of the two alternatives I laid out above, he clearly believed #2, but then merely prescinded from coming up with the precise detailed explanation of how it could have happened.  These guys really are thinly-veiled Old Catholics, regurgitating nearly verbatim the talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.

Offline Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #151 on: January 23, 2023, 02:05:48 PM »
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious.

I never thought I'd see the day when I had to argue against "Trads" who assert that the Papal Magisterium and the Church's Public worship could become corrupt and harmful to souls.  It's really unbelievable to me.  PS:  they claim to be followers of +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre held no such thing.  Of the two alternatives I laid out above, he clearly believed #2, but then merely prescinded from coming up with the precise detailed explanation of how it could have happened.  These guys really are thinly-veiled Old Catholics, regurgitating nearly verbatim the talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.

It is not pernicious. +ABL was not a sedevacantist. For a long time now, you've attempted to color Archbishop Lefebvre as a sedevacantist, but he was no such thing. You know that, and yet you persist in trying to make him something that he was not. That's dishonest. 


Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #152 on: January 23, 2023, 02:11:55 PM »
From the article (which I have been trying to explain to Mr. LaRosa since p.2 of this thread):

"If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

Dear Suarez, Lagrange, Billuart (and Avrille)-

Ladislaus says you're wrong, so please consult him and get back to us.


:jester::facepalm::laugh2::laugh1::confused:

Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #153 on: January 23, 2023, 02:21:49 PM »
It would be laughable if it weren't so pernicious.

I never thought I'd see the day when I had to argue against "Trads" who assert that the Papal Magisterium and the Church's Public worship could become corrupt and harmful to souls.  It's really unbelievable to me.
We are not asserting that the papal magisterium can err, heck, you posted the authentic teachings of the Church stating the opposite - unlike you, we are the ones who actually believe it. As such, you have no grounds whatsoever to make such utterly absurd accusations.

The Church's public worship is not corrupt, never has been corrupt and can never be harmful to souls. Apparently you like making absurd accusations by the bucket full.

If you ever realize that the NO is not the Church and that it's public worship truly is a corruption of the Catholic worship, which does indeed make the NO public worship harmful to souls, then you will have accomplished something.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #154 on: January 23, 2023, 02:47:53 PM »

And I'm going to keep writing it until some of you wake up to the fact that you've completely (and pertinaciously) embraced a heretical ecclesiology.

This is not rocket science.  Our Lord promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the See of Peter, an assistance which prevents it from corrupting faith or morals.

You have two choices to avoid heresy, 1) claim that faith and morals haven't been corrupted (that V2 was misinterpreted by Modernists and the NOM is not essentially bad but has been abused) or 2) assert that legitimate Papal authority exercised freely did not produce V2 and the NOM.

Within #2, you have various choices, from sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, sedeimpoundism, Siri thesis, blackmailed pope, drugged pope, pope replaced by a double, etc.

This Chair of Peter cannot fail, and to say otherwise is heretical.  Period.  End of Story.  Address it with #1 or with #2 (and any permutation of #2), but you can't simply run off and pertinaciously embrace some repackaged form of Old Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy / Protestantism.

You have the temerity to refer to this Basic Foundation of Catholicism as "delusion".  Unbelievable.

Neither the Church, nor its indefectibility, is an end unto itself, but serves a purpose. What is that purpose? It was most succinctly and ably expressed in something I've quote before, Vatican I's Draft Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:


Quote
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.



Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

There it is, in that "so that" highlighted in red above: the purpose for the Church and its indefectibility.

Now, either indefectibility doesn't mean what Ladislaus thinks it means - if so, it has betrayed its purpose and no longer has any meaning for its existence - and is actually what Stubborn says it is, the core teachings of Scripture and Tradition which are indeed free from error and conduct men to salvation, or, if it means what you think it means, it has obviously served its purpose and God is no longer working through a visible hierarchy, a "governing body" easily identified by men and a lamp guiding them through the darkness. As Cardinal Manning said, there would come an "hour" when the gates of hell would prevail, and that God would so " permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy."

Take your pick between those two viable alternatives. Your view is in fact delusional, and does not hold up to reality.