Author Topic: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?  (Read 2645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8662
  • Reputation: +6225/-1870
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2021, 09:19:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Logic 101, Lad:
    Your latest flail adds another reason why your illogic must again indict Lefebvre:
    He denies that which all approved theologians declare:
    A universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact.
    Only sedes believe otherwise.
    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: 8662
    • Reputation: +6225/-1870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #31 on: May 03, 2021, 09:22:50 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.

        

      

      
    This^^^
    The dogmatic doubtist 
    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: 8662
    • Reputation: +6225/-1870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #32 on: May 03, 2021, 09:25:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    Interesting post; I’ll look into this.
    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 Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10982
    • Reputation: +4307/-658
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #33 on: May 03, 2021, 09:36:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    You do not consider the times during those days of his very few quotes you want to use to support something +ABL never supported. The heretical things that we have all been conditioned to over the years were relatively new and always shocking  when he made those passing remarks.

    In those days, while you were being raised in the anti-Church like nearly everyone else, nearly all trads questioned the pope's validity, heck, a lot, mabey even most trads - and even other people believed the pope was kidnapped and replaced with a communist double, some believed the pope was purposely somehow kept in the dark about all that was happening. There was so dam much confusion and chaos back then that for +ABL to remark that there is a possibility that the pope might be invalid was nothing more than a few passing thoughts in the sea of scandals, in which the good archbishop was immersed up to his neck fighting the good fight - fighting not only the corrupted church authorities, but also including his own priests from his own seminary.

    You need to either be hot or cold, sede or not sede, you cannot go on with your dogmatic sede-doubtism, because that only leads to further confusion in this matter, and it spreads to other matters of the faith.  

    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 Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6799
    • Reputation: +3770/-1114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #34 on: May 03, 2021, 11:12:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    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.
    A doubt is not really a "position", which is probably why +ABL didn't feel the need to advertise it.
    .

    Quote
    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.

    No, totally disagree.  +ABL was concentrating on creating priests, spreading the Faith, and informing catholics of the dangers of V2.  Exactly what EVERY traditional catholic and cleric should be doing.
    .
    To insert the controversy of the papacy is not only worthless, but it's also a distraction.  I firmly believe that devil started this controversy, this obsession with the papacy, to divide Tradition and to distract people from living the faith and spreading it.  And boy, did he succeed!
    .
    Only the Church can rule on the status of the pope, as history has shown time and again.  At no point in the many papal controversies of times past was the question decided during the crisis, but only afterwards, when things calmed down.  Our times are no different.
    .

    Quote
    You need to either be hot or cold, sede or not sede, you cannot go on with your dogmatic sede-doubtism, because that only leads to further confusion in this matter, and it spreads to other matters of the faith.

    No.  The question of the papacy (outside of the College of Cardinals) is, by definition, a theory.  Outside of the Cardinals, no catholic - however saintly, however knowledgeable of theology - has any status, any authority or any power to answer the question.  Thus, any and all views on the papal question are opinions only...until the Church decides.  Any catholic with any humility must admit he is a "doubtist", for he cannot say with any certainty, this or that, because it's not his decision, nor his Church.


    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1777
    • Reputation: +900/-325
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #35 on: May 03, 2021, 11:46:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Logic 101, Lad:
    Your latest flail adds another reason why your illogic must again indict Lefebvre:
    He denies that which all approved theologians declare:
    A universally accepted pope is a dogmatic fact.
    Only sedes believe otherwise.

    Sean, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the important word “peaceful”. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to an accident, but it is plainly obvious that Bergoglio has had anything but a peaceful “reign”. Also, who are those that have “accepted” him as pope? The guy on the 6:00 news, Bıdɛn, or Cuomo? You need to make and prove the case that non-Catholics can be included in the criteria for universal acceptance. Are the heretics Bıdɛn and Cuomo Catholics in good standing in your book?

    There are a significant number of REAL Catholics who don’t accept him as a true pope, so the percentage is not favorable to your case. If you include all those who are Catholic “in name only”, then half of your case is somewhat satisfied (the universal part), but the peaceful part will never be satisfied unless and until Mr. Bergoglio converts back to the Faith he was baptized in.
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8662
    • Reputation: +6225/-1870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #36 on: May 03, 2021, 12:07:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten the important word “peaceful”. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to an accident, but it is plainly obvious that Bergoglio has had anything but a peaceful “reign”. Also, who are those that have “accepted” him as pope? The guy on the 6:00 news, Bıdɛn, or Cuomo? You need to make and prove the case that non-Catholics can be included in the criteria for universal acceptance. Are the heretics Bıdɛn and Cuomo Catholics in good standing in your book?

    There are a significant number of REAL Catholics who don’t accept him as a true pope, so the percentage is not favorable to your case. If you include all those who are Catholic “in name only”, then half of your case is somewhat satisfied (the universal part), but the peaceful part will never be satisfied unless and until Mr. Bergoglio converts back to the Faith he was baptized in.

    QVD-

    Nope.

    There are today 5,600 bishops exercising jurisdiction in the Church.

    Not a single one of them rejects the legitimacy of Francis’s pontificate.

    That’s pretty damn peaceful AND universal.

    That a few schismatic sede bishops (?) reject that peaceful and universal assent is no more relevant that Lutheran or Old Catholic bishops doing so.

    Peaceful means they accept his legitimacy.

    Universal means a moral unanimity (and in this case, even mathematical unanimity).

    It seems that to get out of the trap, you would seek to redefine “peaceful,” and make it analogous to “no crisis.”  But in that case,  you would also have to depose all the popes during the Arian and Protestant crises.

    This should indicate to you that you have misunderstood (that’s me being charitable😀) the term.
    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 Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10982
    • Reputation: +4307/-658
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #37 on: May 03, 2021, 12:09:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • A doubt is not really a "position", which is probably why +ABL didn't feel the need to advertise it.
    Doubt is the dogmatic position of Lad, who says it was also +ABL's, or almost +ABL's .


    Quote
    No, totally disagree.  +ABL was concentrating on creating priests, spreading the Faith, and informing catholics of the dangers of V2.  Exactly what EVERY traditional catholic and cleric should be doing.
    .
    To insert the controversy of the papacy is not only worthless, but it's also a distraction.  I firmly believe that devil started this controversy, this obsession with the papacy, to divide Tradition and to distract people from living the faith and spreading it.  And boy, did he succeed!
    You are right, sedeism is all about dividing the faithful and always has been, that is the only reason for it as it serves absolutely no other purpose. And I agree that +ABL was "concentrating on creating priests, spreading the Faith, and informing catholics of the dangers of V2.  Exactly what EVERY traditional catholic and cleric should be doing".

    Aside from the few 'off the cuff' remarks Lad keeps quoting as if they reflect the mind of +ABL, the one thing we are certain that +ABL did not do, was opine or decide or promote some type of doubt as regards the popes' status, but if he ever would have done such a thing, we would all know it because he would have made sure that his opinion was well known to all - especially all those within the society he founded, as it is, no one is left to wonder - he believed the pope was the pope.      



    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 Durango77

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +22/-24
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #38 on: May 03, 2021, 12:15:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I stay away from una cum masses and am sede.  I feel like anyone saying they are in union with Francis has issues.  Especially sspx where Francis exactly says he is not in union with them.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8662
    • Reputation: +6225/-1870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #39 on: May 03, 2021, 12:20:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I stay away from una cum masses and am sede.  I feel like anyone saying they are in union with Francis has issues.  Especially sspx where Francis exactly says he is not in union with them.

    Just like in the army, Durango:

    You respect the rank, not the man.

    Making it personal is the first (and most fatal) mistake.
    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 DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 790
    • Reputation: +209/-67
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #40 on: May 03, 2021, 12:27:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • QVD-

    Nope.

    There are today 5,600 bishops exercising jurisdiction in the Church.

    Not a single one of them rejects the legitimacy of Francis’s pontificate.

    That’s pretty damn peaceful AND universal.

    That a few schismatic sede bishops (?) reject that peaceful and universal assent is no more relevant that Lutheran or Old Catholic bishops doing so.

    Peaceful means they accept his legitimacy.

    Universal means a moral unanimity (and in this case, even mathematical unanimity).

    It seems that to get out of the trap, you would seek to redefine “peaceful,” and make it analogous to “no crisis.”  But in that case,  you would also have to depose all the popes during the Arian and Protestant crises.

    This should indicate to you that you have misunderstood (that’s me being charitable😀) the term.

    Yeah, if "crisis" is the determiner of whether a pope was universally and peacefully accepted we might have more "doubtful" popes than "non-doubtful." Not a slippery slope there but more like a butter slide.

    I'd be curious to know the number of Old Catholics, and how they'd compare percentage wise to Sedes and "doubters." I know that's probably impossible, but would be nice to know. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24649
    • Reputation: +13805/-3678
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #41 on: May 03, 2021, 01:41:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nothing but ad hominems and puerile taunts and attempting to change the subject by Johnson.

    Archbishop Lefebvre did not consider the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants to be beyond doubt, i.e. a dogmatic fact, so if Johnson wants to argue about Universal Acceptance, he should have taken it to +Lefebvre.  I'm not going to argue about UA.  I'm simply making the point that +Lefebvre did not consider their legitimacy to be dogmatic fact.

    I asked Xavier this same question, BTW, since he was promoting the same notion, and Xavier responded that Archbishop Lefebvre suffered from an ignorance of fact that absolved him from heresy (or something like that ... so Xavier please correct me if I got your argument wrong).

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6799
    • Reputation: +3770/-1114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #42 on: May 03, 2021, 01:55:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Doubt is the dogmatic position of Lad, who says it was also +ABL's, or almost +ABL's .

    Stubborn, you of all people should know that there is a difference between a theological discussion (i.e. theory) and a belief (i.e. way of life).  +ABL most certainly entertained sedeism (in many forms), as a theological idea.  So did +Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the other theologians who studied this question.
    .
    Ladislaus is no different from 99% of the people on this forum...he has an opinion/theory.  But it's not a BELIEF/fact.
    .

    Quote
    You are right, sedeism is all about dividing the faithful and always has been, that is the only reason for it as it serves absolutely no other purpose.

    No, that's not true.  Sedeism as a THEORY, has been around in the Church for centuries.  It's not new. 
    .
    What is divisive, what satan has used against the Trad movement, is applying a theory as a BELIEF/fact.  Satan has tricked a large # of Trads into 2 errors:  1) That any of the theories on the papal question can be figured out 100%.  2) That this or that opinion is important enough to draw lines in the sand and to stop associating with your fellow Trads.
    .
    The theory is not the problem, for it can teach catholics on the limits of papal authority and show that God will not leave us destitute in this time of crisis, but that many saints in the past have experienced similar problems and yet, the Church survived.  The problem is one of action - taking extreme measures on one theory or another.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8662
    • Reputation: +6225/-1870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #43 on: May 03, 2021, 02:06:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn, you of all people should know that there is a difference between a theological discussion (i.e. theory) and a belief (i.e. way of life).  +ABL most certainly entertained sedeism (in many forms), as a theological idea.  So did +Bellarmine, Cajetan, and all the other theologians who studied this question.
    .
    Ladislaus is no different from 99% of the people on this forum...he has an opinion/theory.  But it's not a BELIEF/fact.
    .

    No, that's not true.  Sedeism as a THEORY, has been around in the Church for centuries.  It's not new.  
    .
    What is divisive, what satan has used against the Trad movement, is applying a theory as a BELIEF/fact.  Satan has tricked a large # of Trads into 2 errors:  1) That any of the theories on the papal question can be figured out 100%.  2) That this or that opinion is important enough to draw lines in the sand and to stop associating with your fellow Trads.
    .
    The theory is not the problem, for it can teach catholics on the limits of papal authority and show that God will not leave us destitute in this time of crisis, but that many saints in the past have experienced similar problems and yet, the Church survived.  The problem is one of action - taking extreme measures on one theory or another.
    Ahem, Bellarmine thought such a thing could never come to pass, but laid out the argument as purely academic.
    Contrast this with Lad/sedes, who take Bellarmine’s theoretical speculation and thrust it into concrete reality.
    Shameful.
    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: 6799
    • Reputation: +3770/-1114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cum people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #44 on: May 03, 2021, 02:19:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Ahem, Bellarmine thought such a thing could never come to pass, but laid out the argument as purely academic.

    The entire discussion should be academic/theory.
    .

    Quote
    Contrast this with Lad/sedes, who take Bellarmine’s theoretical speculation and thrust it into concrete reality.

    Ladislaus has never said that people who disagree with him are in sin.  Sedes have.  So has the sspx (post +ABL).
    .
    The sspx has told its members not to go to sede chapels and sedes say the same thing.  The devil divided Tradition when "the nine" left.  That was the beginning of the 2 fighting clans.  Can't really blame +ABL, but +Fellay's adminstration ramped up the fight, just as +Dolan and +Sanborn did too.
    .
    Shame on the Trad clerics of our day.  They've created a mini-V2 crisis, on top of the one coming from new-rome.


     

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