Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

Ugh - cheque, please!

 :judge:  

This supports your point nicely, Mithrandylan.

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

Ugh - cheque, please!

 :judge:  

I'm not making an argument, but an observation.  Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there.  So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.

Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact.  A matter of fact is either true or false.  Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.  

Quote from: Mithrandylan

And Wallflower, you're right about one thing; I probably expected too much from the Resistance*.  My disappointment in them stems from believing that they cared about truth before anything else.  Alas, they're not really any better than +Fellay, who twists the faith to fit into his program.  

There is a marginal practical difference in that the Resistance apparently does not wish to reconcile with the New Church, but that is a small consolation when they are destroying the dogma of infallibility and completely disregarding the traditional ways of understanding the nature of the Church and its teaching authority, expecting the faithful to learn from them rather than the popes, saints and theologians.  If I cannot trust that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, if I cannot trust the warnings of Bendict XIV or St. Thomas Aquinas or any other teacher given me by the Church to learn the Holy Faith, where on earth does Fr. Pfeiffer get off thinking I should trust him?  Anyone who is contradicting the mind of the Church as expressed by the theologians, saints and popes on this issue and choosing to follow Fr. Pfeiffer should be asking the same question.  It has a cultish effect.  Don't trust the Church, don't trust the popes, don't trust the saints, don't trust the theologians... trust me.


*I do realize that the Resistance is world-wide, and that just because Fr. Pfeiffer says it doesn't mean "the Resistance" throughout the world believes it, but it practically does at least in North America.  

dogma of infallibility? Do you believe that the Pope as a person is infallible? Is this a blanket concept for you?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Women need to be affirmed in what they think/believe by hearing it affirmed. A woman could need to hear that she looks nice in a dress and you could tell her that she looks nice in the dress because pink elephants fly on Tuesday and she'd take it to the bank. It's an emotional investment in a position; so long as the position is affirmed, the logic used to arrive at the affirmation is irrelevant.

Really?  Well, honey, I ain't buying the logic in your argument even if pink elephants were to fly on Mondays, too.

How many woman arrived in Tradition without a single affirmation from family or parish?  Many, including yours truly!  They may have received some affirmation upon arrival, but not until then.

I guess on Judgement Day I will be able to transfer the onus of all my sins to the male "leaders" in my life? or, at least, those who affirmed me in my errors.

Ugh - cheque, please!

 :judge:  

I'm not making an argument, but an observation.  Fr Pfeiffer was sent up to Quebec because there are some sedevacantists, or at least some sedevacantist sympathizers up there.  So he went up there and spun a bunch of rhetoric to reinforce those who have been raised to believe that sedevacantism is false in their predetermined position, and to try to lure those who aren't constrained by that sort of cultish brainwashing into the former camp.

Whether or not these men are popes is a matter of fact.  A matter of fact is either true or false.  Fr. Pfeiffer did not address a matter of fact, he tried to quell what he views as a rebellion (ironic, I know) by resorting to the tired polemics of the post-ABL SSPX.  

Father Pfeiffer acknowledged the crisis of the Church. His life has been dedicated to fighting the errors of Modernism.

Also, Father P. distinguished between the Pope and his Papacy. Are you united to Pope Francis - yes. Are you united to his Papacy - no.[/i]

Father P. also refers to the issue of scandal being allowed in order to test our Faith.

Don't you think that our Lady would have warned us if the Chair of Peter was to be vacant for such a long period of time at Fatima, LaSalette . . .[/b]

Quote from: wallflower

Post ABL SSPX? ABL knew for a fact that these were not Popes?

I mean the SSPX no longer under the influence of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was justified in his resistance because of his doubts about these men's papacies.

One who is certain that X is the pope, if guided by the Catholic rule of faith, cannot allow for X to teach all manner of error and use his papal infallibility to declare a falsehood or something harmful to the faith.  This is a radical departure from the traditional understanding of teaching and authority.  

Personally, I do not think that any traditionalist has moral certainty about these papacies.  But when they claim and act as if they do, it is hard to not rebuke them.  If they really are certain, they are certainly schismatic.  I don't like to think they're schismatic, so I say in most cases, their hubris aside, they doubt these papacies.

Black Irish,

I posted what I did on two resistance forums.  You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it.  All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.

The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.  

Quote from: BlackIrish

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Black Irish,

I posted what I did on two resistance forums.  You're the only woman so far that's taken offense to it.  All the other ones understood that I was observing a typical feminine vice in this situation which absolutely does not belong.

The fact that you now want to make this a personal issue only makes you look worse.  

vice/weakness - they are all the same thing! You jumped from one point to the next within your original post, but the logic did not follow. Is that a sede vice?

Is the Resistance movement akin to the feminine in your reasoning and thereby in need of constant affirmation?  From where does this affirmation come en masse?

I have nothing more to say to you on this issue.  If something is unclear, it's because you didn't read what I wrote.  I wrote what I wrote and I mean it, and only it.  

Mithrandylan:

Quote

That the pope is infallible when defining for the whole Church a matter of faith and morals with his authority is a dogma of the faith.  Are you familiar with Vatican I?

Do canonisations count as Faith and Morals? Can the sainthood of this or that person be said to be "Catholic teaching"? Does one fall into heresy for not regarding this or that person as a saint...?

The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; (20) a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.

Proof:

1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? (117-18, emphases added)

Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonisation, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favourer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savouring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.

Outstandingly what? Poor, contradictory, long, divisive?