Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?  (Read 3961 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11241
  • Reputation: +7582/-2346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
« Reply #45 on: May 03, 2021, 02:22:43 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).
    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...”
    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: 11241
    • Reputation: +7582/-2346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #46 on: May 03, 2021, 02:32:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 
    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: 11241
    • Reputation: +7582/-2346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #47 on: May 03, 2021, 02:37:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    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: 11855
    • Reputation: +4615/-737
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #48 on: May 03, 2021, 02:41:30 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.
    .
    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. 
    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 SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11241
    • Reputation: +7582/-2346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #49 on: May 03, 2021, 02:56:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!
    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 Durango77

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 130
    • Reputation: +55/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #50 on: May 03, 2021, 03:02:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just like in the army, Durango:

    You respect the rank, not the man.

    Making it personal is the first (and most fatal) mistake.
    How can a man be part of a body, let alone the head of that body, when that man doesn't profess the basic tenants of the faith?  In my opinion saying that I am in union with that person is not right, because I'm not in union with him, he is not a Catholic, and I'm not in union with non Catholics.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8313
    • Reputation: +4913/-1510
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #51 on: May 03, 2021, 03:24:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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".
    Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
    .
    1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
    2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
    3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
    4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
    .
    All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
    .

    Quote
    He considers those who understand that the pope is the pope to be in schism - yes, he is confused.

    That's an over-simplification.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30099
    • Reputation: +17665/-4435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #52 on: May 03, 2021, 03:25:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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!

    For the 18th time, Johnson, +Lefebvre did hold a positive doubt ... as has been clearly docuмented.  It is YOU who are schismatic, not +Lefebvre ... not to mention being heretical vis-a-vis the indefectibility of the Church.  You just keep repeating this assertion hoping that if you say it enough it'll become true.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30099
    • Reputation: +17665/-4435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #53 on: May 03, 2021, 03:27:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's an over-simplification.  

    It's either deliberate oversimplification or else he can't think straight.  Actually, I think it's a blend of the two.  Due to confirmation bias, he filters out distinctions that don't fit in with his preconceived conclusions.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8313
    • Reputation: +4913/-1510
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #54 on: May 03, 2021, 03:42:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's also different kinds of papal doubts that Trads can have.  When one says "papal doubt" that does not mean only 1 thing.
    1.  Spiritual Authority - All Trads implicitly doubt the spiritual authority claimed by V2 popes to do and say the unorthodox.
    2.  Material Office - Being a Trad does not necessarily mean one doubts that a pope holds the material office.
    3.  Spiritual Office - Being a Trad does not necessarily mean one doubts that a pope still has (in potential) spiritual authority.  Some say (i.e. Sedes) that his spiritual office is lost completely, once he utters heresy or abuses his spiritual authority (#1).  Others (i.e. Fr Chazal) say that his spiritual office is impounded due to material error, but could be regained by conversion.
    .
    The loss of spiritual authority seems to be agreed upon by all Trads.  #2 and #3 are debated.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30099
    • Reputation: +17665/-4435
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #55 on: May 03, 2021, 03:46:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
    .
    1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
    2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
    3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
    4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
    .
    All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
    .

    Yes, that's pretty close.  Xavier actually takes it a step further.  Not only does he assert that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact, but he also does not believe that the New Mass is substantially harmful (just less perfect) nor that there is any substantial error in Vatican II.  HOW on earth does that justify being in anything other than full submission to what he believes to be the Catholic hierarchy?

    When I first questioned him about that, his response was two-fold ...

    1) look at the fruits of the SSPX

    AND

    2) some devil/demon said "Econe was on the right path" during an Exorcism in the 1970s.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11241
    • Reputation: +7582/-2346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #56 on: May 03, 2021, 03:47:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For the 18th time, Johnson, +Lefebvre did hold a positive doubt ... as has been clearly docuмented.  It is YOU who are schismatic, not +Lefebvre ... not to mention being heretical vis-a-vis the indefectibility of the Church.  You just keep repeating this assertion hoping that if you say it enough it'll become true.
    Au contraire:
    You have not even come close to showing Lefebvre evince go a positive doubt.  
    And of course, I continue to place you in an inextricable trap every time I quote Lefebvre acknowledging that we acknowledge the conciliar popes, but resist their harmful teachings (a position which you never cease to declare schismatic....until you are shown it is Lefebvre saying it).
    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: 8313
    • Reputation: +4913/-1510
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #57 on: May 03, 2021, 03:51:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Yes, that's pretty close.  Xavier actually takes it a step further.
    Yes, I think Xavier just argues for attention.  We could have a 100+ page thread dissecting the errors of his mindset, of which many people are similar.  It all boils down to relativism, subjectivism and the rejection of objective truth.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8313
    • Reputation: +4913/-1510
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #58 on: May 03, 2021, 03:52:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    every time I quote Lefebvre acknowledging that we acknowledge the conciliar popes, but resist their harmful teachings

    1.  Spiritual Authority - All Trads implicitly doubt the spiritual authority claimed by V2 popes to do and say the unorthodox.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11241
    • Reputation: +7582/-2346
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?
    « Reply #59 on: May 03, 2021, 03:56:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad can correct me, but after reading hundreds of his posts (as you have done too), I interpret his theory as saying that:
    .
    1) a Traditional catholic, by definition, does have some doubt/confusion about the V2 popes, because they attend a non-rome sanctioned mass.
    2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.
    3) A traditional catholic implicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority (in favor of Quo Primum's authority) by attendance at non-rome sanctioned Trad masses, just as anyone who attends an indult implicitly accepts V2 and the new mass.
    4) Xavier is an example of Ladislaus' hypocritical schismatic fake-trad, because he fully believes that the V2 popes are popes, and yet he attends Trad masses.  He ignores canon law and goes wherever he wants.
    .
    All Trads are implicit V2 pope doubters.  Sedes are just explicit about the doubt and take it to the extreme.  ...Even most conservative novus ordo-ites are papal doubters.  It's a sign of the times - confusion.
    .

    That's an over-simplification.  
    1) You are projecting.  I have no doubts regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar popes;
    2) Hyperbole: Lefebvre explained that when he called conciliar Rome schismatic, he didn’t mean it in a strictly theological/canonical way, but only insofar as their teachings often represent a break from the past.  He specifically-in the same article- requested people like you stop twisting his thoughts;
    3) Nonsense: The essence of Lefebvre’s R&R (quoted by Stubborn, which traps Loudestmouth into silence to this very moment), is that we respect their authority, but reject their harmful teachings.  Loudestmouth says that’s heretical...until he is shown Lefebvre saying it.
    PS: Your gratuitous conclusion about all trads being sede doubters was refuted at #1
    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-