Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27392 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #45 on:** May 03, 2021, 02:22:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 01:41:54 PM

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).

More nonsense:
Here is Lefebvre agreeing with Billot:
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
[…]
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope...”

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #46 on:** May 03, 2021, 02:32:52 PM »

Ladislaus the Excommunicate:

If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.
Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #47 on:** May 03, 2021, 02:37:30 PM »

St. Alphonsus:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.

Part 3, Ch.8, §9, emphasis added.

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** May 03, 2021, 02:41:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 01:55:07 PM

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.
.

I know it's a theory (opinion), but you don't know what you're talking about because Lad says right here "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic". He considers those who understand that the pope is the pope to be in schism - yes, he is confused. Dogmatic doubt IS his position, it IS his belief, it IS NOT simply his opinion according to everything he posts. According to everything he posts he is a confused sede.

Today he goes onto say here that the foundation of his dogmatic doubtism is the maxim papa dubius nullus papa. [a doubtful pope is no pope] - which means since he doubts, he believes there is no pope = he is a sedevacantist according to the maxim.

Quote

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.

Yes, it is true that sedeism is a theory, it is also true that many (most?) sedes make this theory into a dogmatically certain fact, which in turn is the cause of division among the faithful. You can blame the whole thing on satan if you like, but that does not make the people who adhere to the error any less culpable.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #49 on:** May 03, 2021, 02:56:09 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 03, 2021, 02:41:30 PM

I know it's a theory (opinion), but you don't know what you're talking about because Lad says right here "if you don't at least have a positive doubt, then you have no business being a Traditional Catholic, for you are a schismatic".

Hey, that was very efficient of Lad:

Not only does he find another way to call Lefebvre a schismatic, but he contradicts Vatican I all in the same sentence!

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27392 times)

SeanJohnson

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

SeanJohnson

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

SeanJohnson

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

Stubborn

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

SeanJohnson

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