Author Topic: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?  (Read 2710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25256
  • Reputation: +14162/-3741
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2021, 08:03:24 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
    He makes 2 statements in 25 years, never reaffirms them, expels active sedes, institutes oaths against them, but he was allegedly indifferent on the matter.
    Notice how Lad equates this with “openly calling into question their legitimacy!”
    In fact, he does just the opposite when he decides the Society will officially accept the popes and read their names in the Mass, while expelling those who “openly call into question their legitimacy.”

    Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument:  "weak sede sauce with chips".

    You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner.  You come out swinging with the ad hominems.

    There are about a dozen statements above.  Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements?  Were those statements heretical?

    Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.

    1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
    1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
    1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")

    But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9258
    • Reputation: +6495/-2146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #16 on: May 03, 2021, 08:09:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sededoubtism with a deference to resolution by the Church was Archbishop Lefebvre's true position ... a position not unlike that of Father Chazal.

    ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS NOT A DOGMTIC SEDEPLENIST !!!
    Lol...he opens the door a sliver, more or less simply acknowledging that, in the same way that dogmatic facts are not infallible, but “only” theologically certain, Lefebvre acknowledges that the legitimacy of a pope may also be “only” theologically certain.
    Sedes like Loudestmouth want to blow that up into “Lefebvre said it was an open and disputed question!”
    Please.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25256
    • Reputation: +14162/-3741
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #17 on: May 03, 2021, 08:13:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • dogmatic facts are not infallible

    So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.

    So your assertion is that dogmatic facts are not infallible.

    That's absurd.  They are called dogmatic facts precisely because they are DOGMATIC, certain with the certainty of faith.  These are called "facts" to distinguish them from propositions that are of a theological nature, whereas dogmatic facts are of a historical nature.  So you wrote an entire article on dogmatic facts while having no earthly idea about what a dogmatic fact actually is.

    I'll dig up the quotes for you from a Cardinal writing about dogmatic facts during the reign of Pope Pius XII who clearly states that if someone denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, he would be a heretic.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25256
    • Reputation: +14162/-3741
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #18 on: May 03, 2021, 08:17:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From your own citations:

    Quote
    It is evident then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9258
    • Reputation: +6495/-2146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #19 on: May 03, 2021, 08:19:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument:  "weak sede sauce with chips".

    You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner.  You come out swinging with the ad hominems.

    There are about a dozen statements above.  Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements?  Were those statements heretical?

    Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.

    1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
    1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
    1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")

    But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.
    I think you take viagra of the mouth, which never allows your mouth to close.  Your only purpose here seems to be to promote your own asinine homemade theories, and insist upon them with the double stamina only a sede Feeneyite can muster, while bombastically insulting and condemning all who call your bluffs.
    When anyone besides Lefebvre assumes the R&R position, they are heretics.
    Lad just doesn’t have the balls to come out and call Lefebvre one.
    “What would Matthew think?”
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9258
    • Reputation: +6495/-2146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #20 on: May 03, 2021, 08:20:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From your own citations:
    In which case, you call Lefebvre a heretic!
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9258
    • Reputation: +6495/-2146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #21 on: May 03, 2021, 08:28:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So let me distill your first substantive point from the ad hominem bluster.

    So your assertion is that dogmatic facts are not infallible.

    That's absurd.  They are called dogmatic facts precisely because they are DOGMATIC, certain with the certainty of faith.  These are called "facts" to distinguish them from propositions that are of a theological nature, whereas dogmatic facts are of a historical nature.  So you wrote an entire article on dogmatic facts while having no earthly idea about what a dogmatic fact actually is.

    I'll dig up the quotes for you from a Cardinal writing about dogmatic facts during the reign of Pope Pius XII who clearly states that if someone denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, he would be a heretic.
    Therefore, given the Lefebvre citations you have mustered which, according to you, “openly question” the legitimacy of popes, which your further sources say it is heretical to do, you must conclude either:
    1) Lefebvre was a sede! (Get out their smelling salts!)
    Or
    2) Lefebvre is a heretic for questioning dogmatic facts!
    Doesn’t the absurdity of these options imply to you that you are just a windbag who has no idea what he is talking about?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7109
    • Reputation: +3884/-1223
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #22 on: May 03, 2021, 08:34:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The "una cum" debate is simply, uncharitable legalism, like the Pharisees of Christ's time would invent to divide the people and keep power over them.  In particular, Fr Cekada's article on the subject (God rest his soul) is historically, liturgically and logically wrong.  The whole idea is a Sede power play to keep the laity in the pews. 
    .
    The prayer itself mentions "and all orthodox believers".  So...if the pope/bishop you are praying for aren't orthodox, then even if you mention them, the prayer doesn't apply to them specifically, but only to their office.  It's so simple there doesn't even need to be a discussion.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25256
    • Reputation: +14162/-3741
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #23 on: May 03, 2021, 08:41:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The "una cum" debate is simply, uncharitable legalism, like the Pharisees of Christ's time would invent to divide the people and keep power over them.  In particular, Fr Cekada's article on the subject (God rest his soul) is historically, liturgically and logically wrong.  The whole idea is a Sede power play to keep the laity in the pews.  
    .
    The prayer itself mentions "and all orthodox believers".  So...if the pope/bishop you are praying for aren't orthodox, then even if you mention them, the prayer doesn't apply to them specifically, but only to their office.  It's so simple there doesn't even need to be a discussion.

    I agree.  Even the Dimond Brothers are to the left of Fr. Cekada on this issue:
    https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/una-cum-mass/

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25256
    • Reputation: +14162/-3741
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #24 on: May 03, 2021, 08:45:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In which case, you call Lefebvre a heretic!

    Logic 101, Sean.  YOU would call +Lefebvre a heretic.  I on the other hand assert (and back up with citations) that +Lefebvre did NOT consider the legitimacy of the papal claimants to be dogmatic fact, but rather that they were DOUBTFUL.  In your deliberate mischaracterization of +Lefebvre as a dogmatic sedeplenist, it is YOU who logically pain him as a heretic.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11199
    • Reputation: +4357/-663
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #25 on: May 03, 2021, 08:46:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad, you allowed yourself to slide into a state of perpetual and dogmatic doubt as regards the validity of popes. One of the results of this malady is that you see in +ABL that which was never there, then project this non-existent, even false image of him as a means to justify and promote your own "dogmatic doubtism" - as if that's the safest course, which in reality is a very dangerous course since as you must know, God hates "middle of the roaders" i.e dogmatic doubters.

    The good +ABL dealt directly and personally, even face to face, off and on for many years with PVI and JP2 - if he had any doubt about the validity of the popes, you need to understand and accept that he would not have left anyone guessing his position in the matter. He would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

       

     

       
    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 Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25256
    • Reputation: +14162/-3741
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #26 on: May 03, 2021, 08:52:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here are the foundations of sede-doubtism.

    Theological Maxim assented to by many theologians:  papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope]

    Quote
    "They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation...” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol. VII, n. 398.)

    Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his ɛƖɛctıon, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p. 2.)

    Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his ɛƖɛctıon or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.)

    Count me among those who "suspect the person of ... or the validity" of Bergoglio and his predecessors.  But then the dogmatic sedeplenists (of whom +Lefebvre was not one) claim not to suspect their person or validity, claiming that there are NO "solidly founded doubts concerning [their] legitimacy ... or ... power".

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25256
    • Reputation: +14162/-3741
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #27 on: May 03, 2021, 08:59:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ... you see in +ABL that which was never there, then project this non-existent, even false image of him as a means to justify and promote your own "dogmatic doubtism" ...

    [+Lefebvre] would have come right out and told all his flock along with everyone else in the world who already knew why he was in the spotlight, exactly and in no uncertain terms that officially, he doubted the validity of the popes, and also that this is his SSPX's new position. We would expect nothing less of +ABL  if he held to your position.

    Are you incapable of reading the English language?  It's right there in black and white where he says that it's quite possible that the V2 papal claimants have been illegitimate.  Obviously he doesn't use the term "sede-doubtism" ... which is something that I myself coined here a few years ago.  Nevertheless, he articulates his DOUBTS about their legitimacy, which is all sede-doubtism is about.  It's a rejection of BOTH dogmatic sedeplenism AND dogmatic sedevacantism, recognizing that this is all based on private judgment and that only the Church can resolve the matter with the necessary certainty of faith to render ANYTHING "dogmatic".  And that is exactly what +Lefebvre did, defer to the Church while personally entertaining it as a possibility.

    Offline confederate catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 744
    • Reputation: +251/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #28 on: May 03, 2021, 09:01:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    In 1756, Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the encyclical Ex Quo,1which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 of the Eastern uniates had been corrected in conformity with Catholic doctrine.  One of the corrections which had taken place was the insertion of the prayer for the Pope (which quite logically was absent in the schismatic Euchologion).

    Absolutely false equivalency here. This correction was to conform with Latin practice, the insertion of the Pope into the canon is foreign to the tradition and had nothing to do with the schism.
    Greek practice is the priest remembered his own bishop in the canon, the bishop remembers the bishops who he is in communion with. This was only the practice of Greeks the Slavs following Greek tradition did commemorate the bishop/Pope
    قامت مريم، ترتيل وفاء جحا و سلام جحا

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11199
    • Reputation: +4357/-663
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #29 on: May 03, 2021, 09:16:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here are the foundations of sede-doubtism.

    Theological Maxim assented to by many theologians:  papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope]
    So since you dub yourself a sede-doubtist, and since the maxim is papa dubius nullus papa, you are a sedevacantist. Just come out and admit it already.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." - Fr. Hesse


     

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