CathInfo.com

Rash judgment has no place in Catholicism.  Ladislaus you are putting the cart before the horse.  Praying for people inside or outside Catholicism, dead or alive doesn't change EENS.  What you are saying puts limits on God.  God has no limits.

The Popes banned it because they were human.  They thought it solved a problem.  It didn't. 

I find it funny that you try to say that we don't understand the infallibility of the Pope properly and then say that we have to follow this because the Pope said it.  Which is it?

I know you are angry and you have a right to be.  Catholicism looks like a mess right now.  But I don't think spewing all your anger and projecting your frustration solves the problem either.

So, you render a rash judgment in accusing others of rash judgment.

1) Praying for people inside or outside Catholicism, dead or alive doesn't change EENS.

Obviously, nothing anyone does or says or thinks changes EENS.  Yet it can, however, effect and undermine your BELIEF in EENS.  Then you conflate some nonsense, where again nobody has denied any but a single permutation or your random terms.

Praying for people inside "Catholicism" alive:  PERMITTED
Praying for people inside "Catholicism" dead: PERMITTED
Praying for people outside "Catholicism" alive: PERMITTED
Praying for people outside "Catholicism" dead: FORBIDDEN

But, as usual, you conflate everyting, run it together to make it difficult to unravel.  But, while I don't have much of what the world refers to as "emotional intelligence", I am a logician on the level of those "Vulcans" from science ficition, and I can smell fallacy and bad argument a thousand miles away, kindof like those drug-sniffing dogs can smell a gram of weed inside a sealed can of paint.

2) Puts limits on God.

Idiotic.  God puts limits on God, in the sense of God respects free will and will not force anyone to love Him, to believe in Him, nor ultimately to be saved.  So ... as has been pointed out myriad times ... saying that someone can't be saved while living in mortal sin, that's to put "limts on God" also?  Ironically, it's the BoDers who actually try to limit God, by pretending that God's Providence can be so constrained and so defeated by "impossibility" (verbatim contradiction of Sacred Scripture) that He must somehow provide "alternatives", or else He would be unfair and unmerciful.  I can't tell you how many people I have known who lost the faith after someone they loved experienced a tragedy because "How could a loving and merciful God allow this?"

3) Popes banned it because they were human.

Here's you in your genius are declaring the Popes wrong.  We've already mansplained to you that unless you MUST reject a non-infallible papal teaching due to it violating your conscience on account of some other papal teaching of higher authority, you are required to obey and to submit.  Only then are you permitted to publicly contradict and question it.

3) You find it funny that I explain Catholic teaching on infallibility and then say we have to follow this?  Which is it?

Again, this shows your lack of comprehension, and this is probably the 5th time for this mansplaining.  You can't seem to contradict the difference between the absolute intellectual assent required of infallible teaching and the requirement to obey and to submit (aka "internal religious assent") to the teaching unless you cannot in good conscience do so, and then you may only contradict it publicly if it's doing harm to souls.  If you cannot come up with a solid reason to question a teaching, you must assent to it, i.e. agree with the proposition, assuming it to be true unless proven false.  But if you do find a solid reason to believe the non-infallible teaching was mistaken, then you may publicly contradict it only if it harms souls.  HINT:  not "liking" a teaching due to your emotional reasons does not qualify as having sufficient REASON to doubt it.

4) I'm not "angry".  I'm emphatically and vigorously affirming Catholic teaching.  Period.  That's it.  I have zero emotion as I type out these posts.  None.  There's intellectual frustration, since the reasoning, the logic, is so clear.  There's wonder at how few people, even among Traditional Catholics, believes this core dogma of the Church.  But there's little emotion.  If I have any emotion, it's just in beginning to get upset that I have a few more hours of work I need to get done for my job tonight.

So, "Catholicism" is not a mess.  What's a mess is the lack of faith, and the dying of the light of faith.  And I intellectually "rage, rage against the dying of the light".

Women tend to interpret everything as emotional.  I'm actually an almost-zero-emotion individual ... perturbed by nothing, angered by nothing.  So, at one point, my wife and I were watching an episode of a newer Star Trek series (one that isn't half bad).  There's an exchange in there between the new "Ohura", where she starts singing for no reason, and Spock questions her about why she's singing.  She responds that it's a way to relieve tension.  To which Spock responds:  "I find that the best way to diffuse tension is to apply rigorous logic." ... at which point my wife shouts out laughing and pointing at me saying "That's you."  I've been in situations where people were badly injured, once my brother has his skull broken, bleeding, barely hanging on to life, and I was the only one who was calm and cool, and able to take the action necessary to stabilize him, while everyone else came apart.  At one point, in an argument, my wife attacked me for not showing grief at the passing of my father and mother ... a complete slander.  Just because I wasn't constantly crying (though I did she some tears, which she didn't see), for her that's "no emotion".  See, I quickly realized that grieving and emoting did them no good whatsoever, and was selfish indulgence, so I set about immediately praying as much and as often as I could, going to Mass, having Masses offered for them.  This goes back to when I was in 7th grade, and at the time I was always extremely nervous about school, getting good grades, takign tests.  One day I show up and I must have missed the memo about a test, and the teacher starts passing them out.  Normally that would have sent me into a panic.  But the situation was so bad that ... I just threw up my arms and said to myself, "You know what.  At this point, it is what it is, and I can't go back in time and change it.  And getting nervous and in a state of panic will NOT help me do better during this test.  So I completely relaxed, let go, and resigned myself to the worst possible outcome ... getting a 0, an F, and bringing my entire grade down to a C.  In that state of relaxation, I was able to think clearly, remember stuff that I had not deliberately studied, and in a few cases, was able to guess answers in the earlier multiple-choice part of the test because of things I found later on in the test in the form of longer-form questions.  I ended up with a low A on it."  And that was the dramatic natural transformation of someone who had been prone to anxiety to someone who's completely impervious to it and indifferent.  And that of course can easily translate into something better in the spiritual life, resignation to God's will and the recognition that His Providence has everything under control, even if I do not.

Popes can't go against the Bible.

2 Machabees 12:46 " It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins"

And it keeps getting worse.  What are you now, Martin Luther?  He made the same claim, that Popes were going aginast the Bible.  Your mis-interpretation of a single Bible verse taken out of context trumps the Pope's understanding of the Bible?

I notice that you underline one part and then completely ignore the next part, which is what puts the lie to your deliberate misinterpretation.  It's wholesome to pray for the dead THAT THEY MAY BE LOOSED FROM SINS.  This is clearly a reference to those in Purgatory, who alone can be loosed from theirs sins, and this is precisely how the Church has always interpreted this passage, since it's obvious meaning is obvious.  Those in Heaven are already loosed from their sins.  Those in Hell cannot be loosed from their sins.  This can only apply to those in Purgatory, and it's one of the chief citations by apologists to prove the doctrine of Purgatory.

This is more gaslighting where you subjectivize everything because you have good emotions this means it's good and wholesome.

NO POPE HAS EVER GONE AGAINST THE NOTION THAT IT'S GOOD AND WHOLESOME TO PRAY FOR SOULS IN PURGATORY.

But you're begging the question that those who died outside the Church can be in Purgatory, nor did the Popes ban praying for those in Purgatory (but actively encouraged it), but banned only praying for deceased non-Catholics because it leads to an erosion of faith in the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church.  Period.  They weighed the possibility that an occasional one-in-a-million random soul who received a remarkable deathbed grace might spend extra time in Purgatory against ... the mass loss of faith in the Catholic Church and in Baptism and in the necessity of faith, of Baptism, of belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity for salvation.  In other words, they weighed some extra time in Purgatory, which would be just punishment and tremendous mercy for those who had lived their entire lives outside the Church ... against ... precisely what we see here.  Vatican II is the direct consequence and the fruits of that very loss of faith in EENS and the implications of that loss of faith for Catholic ecclesiology.

Now, then, how many millions, nay, even billions of souls will have been lost due to Vatican II.  Where's your "charity" now?  So you'd sacrifice those millions of souls to eternal Hell to get Queen Elizabeth out of Purgatory a few hours sooner?  No, what you're pretending is charity is the worst kind of anti-charity or lack-of-charity, where your "feelings" and "emotions" dull your mind and, alas, your  faith.