Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: What line in whose sand?  (Read 1886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BTNYC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2351
  • Reputation: +2622/-6
  • Gender: Male
What line in whose sand?
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:47:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sedevacantists - What happens on your end after "the line in the sand" is crossed?

    Will Catholics who refuse to accept the Sedevacantist position cease to be Catholics after April 27 of this year?

    After all, if that is a "line in the sand" for R&R, it must be one for the SV's as well: Either Sedevacantism becomes a necessary dogma after April 27, 2014, or the canonizations aren't really much of a "line in the sand" at all beyond the usual blustering SV rhetoric.

    Speaking of rhetoric - I don't really expect a clear "yes" or "no" answer to my question. I expect a righteous rain of downthumbs and a great wind of bloviation and circumlocution which will prove that sedevacantists are every bit the waffling, indecisive fence-sitters they accuse R&R-ers of being.

    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2351
    • Reputation: +2622/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #1 on: April 02, 2014, 02:12:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BTNYC

    I expect a righteous rain of downthumbs and a great wind of bloviation and circumlocution which will prove that sedevacantists are every bit the waffling, indecisive fence-sitters they accuse R&R-ers of being.


    ...or utter silence, which also proves the point.


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3296
    • Reputation: +3956/-199
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #2 on: April 02, 2014, 02:27:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is this really the reply you want to make?

    If believing that the Church can canonize heresiarchs HELPS your faith, by all means, please believe in the "fallibility" of canonizations, or that there's some sort of special formula for infallibly proscribing universal veneration of saint, which if unmet, makes a canonization dubious.

    Just seems to be a very, very odd and potentially dangerous position, taken against the common opinion of theologians.  But I'm of the opinion that a person should adopt whichever position on the crisis that best helps them persevere in that which is most important.  

    Good luck.

    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2351
    • Reputation: +2622/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #3 on: April 02, 2014, 02:44:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Is this really the reply you want to make?

    If believing that the Church can canonize heresiarchs HELPS your faith, by all means, please believe in the "fallibility" of canonizations, or that there's some sort of special formula for infallibly proscribing universal veneration of saint, which if unmet, makes a canonization dubious.

    Just seems to be a very, very odd and potentially dangerous position, taken against the common opinion of theologians.  But I'm of the opinion that a person should adopt whichever position on the crisis that best helps them persevere in that which is most important.  
    Good luck.



    So then it's not really a "line in the sand," is it?

    That's all the point I'm trying to make here. I've never met a sedevacantist who cops to being "dogmatic" about it, yet that's pretty implicit in all this gleeful anticipatory talk I hear about the "line in the sand" that these canonizations represent. It implies that R&R-ers must make a choice at that point: sedevacantism or modernism... That sure makes it seem like sedevacantism is soon to become a Catholic dogma de facto if not de jure.

    So if April 27 is indeed a "line in the sand,"  it's one the sedes will have to cross as well. That's what I'm arguing here. Don't hold the feet of Recognize and Resist to the fire unless you're willing to hold Sedevacantism's feet to it also.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4130
    • Reputation: +1906/-189
    • Gender: Female
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #4 on: April 02, 2014, 03:03:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As a sede, I guess I don't see the canonizations as the "line in the sand", but I have noticed that you love to generalize SV's.

    Go you!
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4385
    • Reputation: +3779/-230
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #5 on: April 02, 2014, 03:08:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I really don't consider April 27th to be the "Line in the Sand".  If the "bad" canonizations was a line in the sand, that line was crossed long ago.

    As silly as the arguments for fallible canonizations are, I truly believe a person can, in good faith, believe them.

    When the pope of the Conciliar sect specifically approves in an official document, sodomitic unions as a true "family" or specifically approves the ordination of women priestesses, the line will be crossed.  At that time, I don't believe that any Catholic can, in good faith, continue to believe that pope to be the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  (By the way, the ordination of permanent deaconesses would not cross the line.  The Conciliar sect has already perverted the deaconate.)

    The line may be crossed in October, but it may not.  The trial balloons they've been sending up certainly seem to indicate that it will be.

    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2351
    • Reputation: +2622/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #6 on: April 02, 2014, 03:08:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    As a sede, I guess I don't see the canonizations as the "line in the sand", but I have noticed that you love to generalize SV's.


    Now that's a bit of a generalization, isn't it?

    Thank you for clarifying that you don't see the canonizations as a "line in the sand."

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4130
    • Reputation: +1906/-189
    • Gender: Female
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #7 on: April 02, 2014, 03:15:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BTNYC
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    As a sede, I guess I don't see the canonizations as the "line in the sand", but I have noticed that you love to generalize SV's.


    Now that's a bit of a generalization, isn't it?

    Thank you for clarifying that you don't see the canonizations as a "line in the sand."


    No, I've read a number of your most recent posts and they are all anti-SV and love to lump us all into what you consider to be what we think/believe.

    So far you've had some of the most SV active posters respond to you and none of them believe this so-called line in the sand.

    Maybe it's time for you to reconsider how you view us.
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent


    Offline Mabel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1893
    • Reputation: +1379/-1
    • Gender: Female
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #8 on: April 02, 2014, 03:22:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: TKGS
    I really don't consider April 27th to be the "Line in the Sand".  If the "bad" canonizations was a line in the sand, that line was crossed long ago.

    As silly as the arguments for fallible canonizations are, I truly believe a person can, in good faith, believe them.

    When the pope of the Conciliar sect specifically approves in an official document, sodomitic unions as a true "family" or specifically approves the ordination of women priestesses, the line will be crossed.  At that time, I don't believe that any Catholic can, in good faith, continue to believe that pope to be the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  (By the way, the ordination of permanent deaconesses would not cross the line.  The Conciliar sect has already perverted the deaconate.)

    The line may be crossed in October, but it may not.  The trial balloons they've been sending up certainly seem to indicate that it will be.


    I was actually at a NO service more than 10 years ago with a female deacon. No one batted an eye.

    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2351
    • Reputation: +2622/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #9 on: April 02, 2014, 03:22:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: BTNYC
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    As a sede, I guess I don't see the canonizations as the "line in the sand", but I have noticed that you love to generalize SV's.


    Now that's a bit of a generalization, isn't it?

    Thank you for clarifying that you don't see the canonizations as a "line in the sand."


    No, I've read a number of your most recent posts and they are all anti-SV and love to lump us all into what you consider to be what we think/believe.

    So far you've had some of the most SV active posters respond to you and none of them believe this so-called line in the sand.

    Maybe it's time for you to reconsider how you view us.


    How do you know what I "love" to do? Do you read hearts?

    Perhaps you should read a certain thread called "The Line in the Sand." This was not my phrase of choice. Obviously some sedevacantists believe this to be a line in the sand. If you don't, then my arguments don't apply to you.


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4130
    • Reputation: +1906/-189
    • Gender: Female
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #10 on: April 02, 2014, 03:28:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: BTNYC
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: BTNYC
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    As a sede, I guess I don't see the canonizations as the "line in the sand", but I have noticed that you love to generalize SV's.


    Now that's a bit of a generalization, isn't it?

    Thank you for clarifying that you don't see the canonizations as a "line in the sand."


    No, I've read a number of your most recent posts and they are all anti-SV and love to lump us all into what you consider to be what we think/believe.

    So far you've had some of the most SV active posters respond to you and none of them believe this so-called line in the sand.

    Maybe it's time for you to reconsider how you view us.


    How do you know what I "love" to do? Do you read hearts?

    Perhaps you should read a certain thread called "The Line in the Sand." This was not my phrase of choice. Obviously some sedevacantists believe this to be a line in the sand. If you don't, then my arguments don't apply to you.



    You're backpedalling.  Your OP was dripping with indignation for sedevacantists and you posted it to sedevacantists as a whole, not just "some".


     

     
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent


    Offline BTNYC

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2351
    • Reputation: +2622/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #11 on: April 02, 2014, 03:35:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: BTNYC
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    Quote from: BTNYC
    Quote from: 2Vermont
    As a sede, I guess I don't see the canonizations as the "line in the sand", but I have noticed that you love to generalize SV's.


    Now that's a bit of a generalization, isn't it?

    Thank you for clarifying that you don't see the canonizations as a "line in the sand."


    No, I've read a number of your most recent posts and they are all anti-SV and love to lump us all into what you consider to be what we think/believe.

    So far you've had some of the most SV active posters respond to you and none of them believe this so-called line in the sand.

    Maybe it's time for you to reconsider how you view us.


    How do you know what I "love" to do? Do you read hearts?

    Perhaps you should read a certain thread called "The Line in the Sand." This was not my phrase of choice. Obviously some sedevacantists believe this to be a line in the sand. If you don't, then my arguments don't apply to you.



    You're backpedalling.  Your OP was dripping with indignation for sedevacantists and you posted it to sedevacantists as a whole, not just "some".

     


    Knock it off with the subjective emotional talk of "indignation" and what I "love" to do.

    I addressed my post to sedevacantists and asked about the implications of the "line in the sand" talk that has been going on around here. Simple deductive reasoning indicates that I am therefore addressing:

    1. Sedevacantists

    2. Who believe April 27 is a "Line in the Sand."

    I didn't just pull this out of thin air. There is a whole thread called "The Line in the Sand" devoted to treating April 27 as an ultimatum for R&R-ers for crying out loud. This thread is an obvious response to that one.

    You don't believe it is a line in the sand. Good for you. Thank you for clarifying. Now take your emotionalism and judgments about my motivations and interior disposition and move along.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 880
    • Reputation: +642/-124
    • Gender: Male
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #12 on: April 02, 2014, 03:39:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Calling it a "line in the sand" might be a bit of hyperbole but the point is that with each new blow that the Conciliar sect delivers to Catholic doctrine, discipline and practice, the R&R position becomes less and less tenable and holding on to it can do damage to your faith.  For example, the sham canonizations are forcing R&R folks into a position of casting doubt on the doctrine of papal infallibility.  If the Pope can lose his infallibility if his process is not up to snuff with the standards of Fr. Scott, what other doctrines might we call into question?  Can we be absolutely certain that the correct process was followed in any of the doctrines taught by the Pope?  Maybe the Syllabus of Pius IX was formed incorrectly?  If so, maybe modernism can be accepted after all?  If we are going to be Catholic we have to accept what the Pope teaches and trust that it will help lead us to Heaven.  But if the Pope publicly departs from the Faith then we must anathematize him. (cf. Galatians 1:8-9)

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4130
    • Reputation: +1906/-189
    • Gender: Female
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #13 on: April 02, 2014, 03:42:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Emotionalism? Judgments?  You mean like this?:

    Speaking of rhetoric - I don't really expect a clear "yes" or "no" answer to my question. I expect a righteous rain of downthumbs and a great wind of bloviation and circumlocution which will prove that sedevacantists are every bit the waffling, indecisive fence-sitters they accuse R&R-ers of being.

    And don't tell me to knock it off.  If it bugs you that much I would argue I've hit a nerve.
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

    Offline Stephanos II

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 331
    • Reputation: +0/-0
      • h
    What line in whose sand?
    « Reply #14 on: April 02, 2014, 04:35:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Is this really the reply you want to make?

    If believing that the Church can canonize heresiarchs HELPS your faith, by all means, please believe in the "fallibility" of canonizations, or that there's some sort of special formula for infallibly proscribing universal veneration of saint, which if unmet, makes a canonization dubious.

    Just seems to be a very, very odd and potentially dangerous position, taken against the common opinion of theologians.  But I'm of the opinion that a person should adopt whichever position on the crisis that best helps them persevere in that which is most important.  

    Good luck.



    JPer's2 V2 sect demoted St. Valentine and a number of other saints, and they even claimed some never even existed. The Church never has done that. The Novus Ordo sect does that very thing - wait until Francis "canonizes" some out and out pagan, a Dalai Lama or Voodoo high priest or some such thing. Its coming - I don't know when, I have watched the V2 sect since its very inception.

    For the record, I am not a Recognize and Resist nor a Sedevacantist. The closest position to what I hold is Archbishop Thuc's declaration of the Apostasy of the Vatican and the occupants of the Papal Chair.

    Simply put, I hold to my pre-V2 Catholic faith in which faith I was raised in under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. That Code, was in the main, authored by a young man in the beginning of the twentieth century just embarking on his ecclesial career by the name of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII. I was Baptized, catechized, received First Communion when he was Pope and I was Catechized for and received Confirmation before the V2 "council" was even opened. Like many my age, I know from the ordinary magisterium from which was taught all Catechesis: including in the Catholic Parochial school I attended and all Catholic Parochial schools then, and every day of the week M-F in religion class taught there, and which especially was the basis for the preaching and exhortations of all Catholic Priests at Mass and in the Confessional at that time - what is true faith and what is false. Everything the V2 sect has thrown out there is Diabolical lies and half lies - remember Satan specializes in half lies - as in the Garden of Eden and the Temptation of Christ.

    What we were taught from the Priest's pulpit at every Mass was the faith based on the Gospels and the Epistles. Amen. That is NOT taught by the V2 sect. Period.

    Further, we had Bibles and Catechisms and every other source, including the fully comprehensive 1950 Catholic Dictionary (all of these with Imprimaturs) to have our faith explained fully from properly attested to sources. These were published in the United States by the Catholic Press Inc. or the Catholic Book Publishing Company, what did you expect? some half sectarian half Jew source - never at all.

    Our Bibles with Imprimaturs from real Catholic Bishops - not only the venerable Haydock, but the later early 1940's translation in the earlier CCD and later 1940s translation in the later CCD Bibles (two different translations, both with invaluable notes and explanations), these were explicit about every doctrine of the Church. These CCD Bibles (published in 1950 and 1962 respectively [NO these are not part of any compromise connected to Roncalli]) included that DOCTRINALLY the Great Apostasy would occur and that it was starting already as of the late 1940's through to the early 1960's. The earlier Challoner Douay Rheims Bible of 1899 states that at that time that the Great Apostasy is still only in the future but that DOCTRINALLY it would occur then. Our Bibles with their approved exegesis and notes told us when it was starting -  we weren't left without a guide.

    What V2 was is clear - it is the beginning of the Great Apostasy prophesied by Our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Peter and St. Paul and the final Canonical Catholic Prophet, St. John the last Apostle and Evangelist and to whom was given the final Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apocalypse. I repeat it is the final Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the Apocalypse. It is NOT some private seer at La Salette or Lourdes or Fatima or whatever.

    We are commanded to HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GREAT APOSTASY OR BE DAMNED. AMEN. AMEN.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16