Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27357 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #25 on:** May 03, 2021, 08:46:20 AM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** May 03, 2021, 08:52:28 AM »

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 Canonicuм, 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 election, 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 election 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".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** May 03, 2021, 08:59:19 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 08:46:20 AM

... 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.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #28 on:** May 03, 2021, 09:01:18 AM »

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

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2021, 09:16:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 08:52:28 AM

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.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27357 times)

Stubborn

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

confederate catholic

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Stubborn

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?