Author Topic: New Interview with Dom Toms. (Read 4389 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2016, 08:17:06 AM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

His answer to the fourth question is plain wrong. If one establishes the existence of a positive doubt vis-à-vid the legitimacy of a particular papal claimant, one would not remain in communion with him.

A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament, practically speaking.

The ability to doubt any papal claimant could exist if it has not been declared a Dogma that such and such named person is a pope. If the mere shred of evidence of a doubt exists then this means that such and such person is not a pope? I am sorry, but your reasoning goes against all common sense ever and smacks of Modernism. Cogito ergo sum. Your religious reality depends on what your mind creates for you. If you have created doubt then the reality comes from you. Is this not a classic case of vital immanence? Sure sounds pretty close to it.

Quote from: St. Pius X

It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment.

I feel that there is doubt...I feel it, therefore...he is not Pope...

Move along, please.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2016, 11:11:13 AM »

Centro:

Quote

I feel that there is doubt...I feel it, therefore...he is not Pope...

Move along, please.

Do we understand this correctly, that folks like Fr. Cekada, and probably most of the other "nine,"
set up shop in 1983 outside the Society because of certain feelings which they had at the time?

Quote

Salza writes for CFN: Nevertheless, as ridiculous as Cekada’s latest video is, it does provide some very revealing information about why he personally embraced Sedevacantism, which helps to explain why he cannot defend his position theologically. Specifically, in the video, Fr. Cekada admits that as a seminarian he embraced Sedevacantism as an emotional, not a theological, response to the crisis in the Church; he even admits that he could not explain his decision in “formal, theological terms” (even though the question of whether a Pope is a true Pope is, first and foremost, a most profound theological question). No, Cekada based his decision on what he calls “the Catholic sense he possessed,” in other words, a feeling or emotion (which, ironically, is just how the Modernists operate).

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/e9bf948e085338a2a48eaaf815d6153c-544.html

Say what? All this SV stuff over the way Fr. Cekada and his other emotional compadres, (gulp!) felt? Seems I remember that Cekada, Dolan and Sanborn tried to hang many of their woes and misgivings around the neck of then Fr. Williamson. It was Williamson, the "spy," the "enforcer," sent over from England, with whom these priests took great umbrage- or so I thought.

Well, since that time, both Frs. Sanborn and Cekada, (or are they both bishops now?) have tried to appear very theological. Wessex, or some other deep thinking forum member, needs to come forward with new arguments that might help us refocus are attentions upon the real culprit, the "ambitious" Fr. Williamson, who was at that time considered to be a major author of unrest. Some of us need to have our earlier notions reinforced. :shocked:

Sbyvl · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2016, 03:30:38 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Sbyvl
His answer to the fourth question is plain wrong. If one establishes the existence of a positive doubt vis-à-vid the legitimacy of a particular papal claimant, one would not remain in communion with him.

A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament, practically speaking.

The ability to doubt any papal claimant could exist if it has not been declared a Dogma that such and such named person is a pope. If the mere shred of evidence of a doubt exists then this means that such and such person is not a pope? I am sorry, but your reasoning goes against all common sense ever and smacks of Modernism. Cogito ergo sum. Your religious reality depends on what your mind creates for you. If you have created doubt then the reality comes from you. Is this not a classic case of vital immanence? Sure sounds pretty close to it.

Quote from: St. Pius X

It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment.

I feel that there is doubt...I feel it, therefore...he is not Pope...

Move along, please.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with what constitutes a positive doubt. I respectfully suggest you look into the concept before proceeding further.

Nevertheless, that is only the bare standard.

There is overwhelming and public evidence that these claimants to the papacy do not profess the Catholic Faith.

There is also overwhelming and publix evidence that Vatican II taught doctrinal error, which no true ecuмenical council can ever do.

Logically, this makes the conclusion inescapable.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2016, 03:42:02 PM »

Quote from: Sbyvl

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Sbyvl
His answer to the fourth question is plain wrong. If one establishes the existence of a positive doubt vis-à-vid the legitimacy of a particular papal claimant, one would not remain in communion with him.

A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament, practically speaking.

The ability to doubt any papal claimant could exist if it has not been declared a Dogma that such and such named person is a pope. If the mere shred of evidence of a doubt exists then this means that such and such person is not a pope? I am sorry, but your reasoning goes against all common sense ever and smacks of Modernism. Cogito ergo sum. Your religious reality depends on what your mind creates for you. If you have created doubt then the reality comes from you. Is this not a classic case of vital immanence? Sure sounds pretty close to it.

Quote from: St. Pius X

It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment.

I feel that there is doubt...I feel it, therefore...he is not Pope...

Move along, please.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with what constitutes a positive doubt. I respectfully suggest you look into the concept before proceeding further.

Nevertheless, that is only the bare standard.

There is overwhelming and public evidence that these claimants to the papacy do not profess the Catholic Faith.

There is also overwhelming and publix evidence that Vatican II taught doctrinal error, which no true ecuмenical council can ever do.

Logically, this makes the conclusion inescapable.

My point was that according to your reasoning, inconclusive doubts, (whether positive or negative, practical or theoretical) is what dethrones a Pontiff. Doubt is exactly that...A state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them. We are not talking about your "inescapable conclusions". Doubt is inconclusive...quite the opposite of a conclusion. If you say that it is your feeling of doubt that undoes the papacy, you remain a Modernist.

Sbyvl · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2016, 05:28:10 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Sbyvl
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Sbyvl
His answer to the fourth question is plain wrong. If one establishes the existence of a positive doubt vis-à-vid the legitimacy of a particular papal claimant, one would not remain in communion with him.

A doubtful pope is no pope, just as a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament, practically speaking.

The ability to doubt any papal claimant could exist if it has not been declared a Dogma that such and such named person is a pope. If the mere shred of evidence of a doubt exists then this means that such and such person is not a pope? I am sorry, but your reasoning goes against all common sense ever and smacks of Modernism. Cogito ergo sum. Your religious reality depends on what your mind creates for you. If you have created doubt then the reality comes from you. Is this not a classic case of vital immanence? Sure sounds pretty close to it.

Quote from: St. Pius X

It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment.

I feel that there is doubt...I feel it, therefore...he is not Pope...

Move along, please.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with what constitutes a positive doubt. I respectfully suggest you look into the concept before proceeding further.

Nevertheless, that is only the bare standard.

There is overwhelming and public evidence that these claimants to the papacy do not profess the Catholic Faith.

There is also overwhelming and publix evidence that Vatican II taught doctrinal error, which no true ecuмenical council can ever do.

Logically, this makes the conclusion inescapable.

My point was that according to your reasoning, inconclusive doubts, (whether positive or negative, practical or theoretical) is what dethrones a Pontiff. Doubt is exactly that...A state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them. We are not talking about your "inescapable conclusions". Doubt is inconclusive...quite the opposite of a conclusion. If you say that it is your feeling of doubt that undoes the papacy, you remain a Modernist.

Well, not exactly.

What prevents the claimant from actually being pope is his status as a Non-Catholic, for the pope must, amongst other requirements, profess the Catholic Faith.

If I establish a positive doubt as to whether or not he is in fact a Catholic, then I am not obligated to submit to his authority, for a doubtful pope is no pope at all, practically speaking.