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

Poll

Which of the following descriptions best characterizes you?

R&R
22 (50%)
Sedevacantist
10 (22.7%)
Sedeprivationist
3 (6.8%)
Sededoubtist
5 (11.4%)
Other
4 (9.1%)

Total Members Voted: 36

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Describe Your Catholic Identity  (Read 2212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3162
  • Gender: Male
Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2019, 11:18:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 30, 2019, 11:11:13 PM
    My issue is more the perceived attitude of not wanting communion with him, than the disobedience.  Like I see this all the time, I realize the Resistance criticizes the SSPX for other things (and I'm not saying all of those things are wrong), but sometimes it seems to come down to criticizing them for even dialoguing with Rome or trying to get canonical status.  Which I don't get.  Like if he's your head, shouldn't you at least *want* to be in communion with him, and want to dialogue in order to create a way that you *can* be in normal communion without compromising on principles?  That's the part I don't understand.

    Ahh!

    This is correct: If you read my book, I cite 15+ examples from 1988 on, showing Lefebvre affirming both:

    No discussions with Rome, and no canonical solution before Rome converts.

    Ps: Fr. Pagliarani openly says Rome need not convert.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1923
    • Reputation: +511/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #16 on: November 03, 2019, 12:37:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 30, 2019, 11:18:48 PM
    Ahh!

    This is correct: If you read my book, I cite 15+ examples from 1988 on, showing Lefebvre affirming both:

    No discussions with Rome, and no canonical solution before Rome converts.

    Ps: Fr. Pagliarani openly says Rome need not convert.
    That seems inconsistent to me (with affirming that the See is occupied) but I could be missing something, or I could be right but you could still be right.

    Saying Rome doesn't need to convert in *any* capacity seems wrong.  even if for the sake of argument they aren't formally heretical, they're still pretty grievously off doctrinally.
    Logged

    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2740
    • Reputation: +963/-248
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #17 on: November 03, 2019, 01:04:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    "Describe Your Catholic Identity"


    I am a radical.
    Logged
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14637
    • Reputation: +6027/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #18 on: November 03, 2019, 10:06:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 30, 2019, 07:43:57 PM
    But I don't just understand the concept of like, okay, we recognize that you're the Pope, yet we don't want to be in communion with you.  Your Church is completely different from our Church, but somehow you're still Pope.
    It actually goes like this: "We recognize that you're the Pope(s), but we will offend God and lose the faith if we do the things you promote. If you ever want us to do something Catholic, say so and we will be obliged to obey". 
     
    It is really not all that complicated once you accept the fact that all popes have always been able to do what only the conciliar popes have actually done. IOW, simply believe your own eyes. For many, this is easier said than done, and for most of these, apparently it is all but impossible to believe their own eyes.



    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1923
    • Reputation: +511/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #19 on: November 03, 2019, 03:21:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on November 03, 2019, 10:06:50 AM
    It actually goes like this: "We recognize that you're the Pope(s), but we will offend God and lose the faith if we do the things you promote. If you ever want us to do something Catholic, say so and we will be obliged to obey".  
     
    It is really not all that complicated once you accept the fact that all popes have always been able to do what only the conciliar popes have actually done. IOW, simply believe your own eyes. For many, this is easier said than done, and for most of these, apparently it is all but impossible to believe their own eyes.
    My issue is the part where canonical regularity is actually denounced rather than pursued given specific criteria.  It seems like the Resistance doesn't even want to *dialogue* with Rome.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46095
    • Reputation: +27153/-5013
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #20 on: November 03, 2019, 03:27:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on November 03, 2019, 03:21:05 PM
    My issue is the part where canonical regularity is actually denounced rather than pursued given specific criteria.  It seems like the Resistance doesn't even want to *dialogue* with Rome.

    That's because the Resistance does not consider the Vatican to be Catholic in the final analysis.  There can be no agreement unless Rome first converts.  Now, if someone could explain to me how these non-Catholics in need of conversion are still somehow the legitimate Catholic hierarchy ... except in the most rudimentary material way, then you get a prize.  That's why Father Chazal ultimately articulated a position that's a hair's breadth from sedeprivationism.  That's really what this is if they put their minds to it ... these men materially possess the offices but have lost any formal authority due to not being Catholic.  That is what Father Chazal of the Resistance holds.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2486
    • Reputation: +991/-1099
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #21 on: November 03, 2019, 04:00:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 03, 2019, 03:27:39 PM
    That's because the Resistance does not consider the Vatican to be Catholic in the final analysis.  There can be no agreement unless Rome first converts.  Now, if someone could explain to me how these non-Catholics in need of conversion are still somehow the legitimate Catholic hierarchy ... except in the most rudimentary material way, then you get a prize.  That's why Father Chazal ultimately articulated a position that's a hair's breadth from sedeprivationism.  That's really what this is if they put their minds to it ... these men materially possess the offices but have lost any formal authority due to not being Catholic.  That is what Father Chazal of the Resistance holds.
    I mean Bishop Williamson often refers to it as the "New Religion". How can the hierarchy hold two religions at once? Who knows. 

    I respect all of the Trad Bishops but I think despite their vast knowledge on all things Catholic, they're still nearly just as confused and unsure as the rest of us. Even +ABL tended to flip-flop a bit out of uncertainty.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14637
    • Reputation: +6027/-901
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Describe Your Catholic Identity
    « Reply #22 on: November 04, 2019, 05:14:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on November 03, 2019, 03:21:05 PM
    My issue is the part where canonical regularity is actually denounced rather than pursued given specific criteria.  It seems like the Resistance doesn't even want to *dialogue* with Rome.
    It goes back to canonical regularity meaning the compromising of the faith, which the resistance is resolved not to do, but is apparent that the SSPX is willing to do. It boils down to being canonically regular with error, which is what dialoguing leads to, vs remaining canonically irregular unless Rome converts.

    You have to accept the fact that to the Modernists, tradition is a deadly poison that they only tolerate to a point, but ultimately,  the only thing they really want to do with all things tradition, is to purge it out completely, that is Rome's end reason to dialogue at all. That's what Modernists do, Modernists absolutely hate tradition.

    Rome dialogues with Islams, Hindus, Prots, Jews, queers and all manner of pagans, because they all have error in common, so they dialogue (sit around and get along), that's what dialoguing is. This is why the resistance denounces it.

    OTOH, if Rome were to say "SSPX, please help us return the whole Church to the true faith," then the SSPX should and would actually have a very good reason to speak with them. As it is, all Rome says is "Let's talk this thing over, let's dialogue," and they say this in an effort to show the SSPX the error of their ways, so as to suck them into their newchurch.  
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »