Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 9833 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** May 03, 2021, 04:05:41 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 03:42:03 PM

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.

Well, there are many permutations on this. In my position, it's as a bit simpler:

MAJOR: the Church cannot defect in her Mission
MINOR 1: V2 and NOM present a wholesale destruction of faith and worship in the Church (followed by morals under Bergoglio)
MINOR 2: this degree of destruction would constitute the Church's defection from her Mission
CONCLUSION: this degree of destruction could not have emanated from the legitimate authority of the Church.

As far as sede-this, sede-that, or sede-the-other-thing, the legitimacy of the Popes is by far a secondary matter that I'm not concerned about. If someone wants to believe that Montini was replaced by a double, more power to them. If you want to side with Bellarmine or with Cajetan, or come up with your own, it's all within the range of Catholic opinion only. I don't really care.

MINOR 1 is generally what I hold to define whether someone is a Traditional Catholic and why I exclude the likes of XavierSem. If you deny MINOR 1, then you need to make haste back to full communion with the V2 hierarchs.

MINOR 2 is in fact my major point of contention with modern R&R. +Lefebvre agrees with this Minor, but some modern R&R don't.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #61 on:** May 03, 2021, 04:09:26 PM »

Quote

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;

Then you are doubting one aspect of the V2 papacy - the spiritual authority they claim to have (i.e. just as +ABL defined it - unorthodox teachings).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #62 on:** May 03, 2021, 04:10:58 PM »

Quote

In my position, it's as a bit simpler:

It's an over-simplification, which makes it difficult for everyone to accept. Theology is often clearer, once you dive into the details.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #63 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:41:17 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 03, 2021, 12:07:18 PM

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

Let’s trust you implement the same criteria when you throw around the word “schismatic” when you talk about certain bishops who were consecrated without a papal mandate from the man whom they held to be pope.

Struthio · « **Reply #64 on:** May 03, 2021, 07:43:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 03, 2021, 04:56:30 AM

If I were a priest, I would offer Mass “una cuм famulo tuo papa nostro” but then leave out the name, expressing sededoubtism.

Antichrist "Paul VI" loved the home made mass of Bugnini.

Stubborn · « **Reply #65 on:** May 04, 2021, 06:01:21 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 03, 2021, 03:24:48 PM

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.

From the very beginning of this crisis, only a very, very few had doubts/confusion as regards the pope's validity. All those who otherwise kept the faith soon found themselves caring only about maintaining their faith for themselves and their children, without even the slightest regard to the pope's validity. The confusion among the vast majority of the faithful was all but completely limited to: "How does the pope allow all these things to happen."

Quote

2) A traditional catholic, by definition, receives sacraments from "schismatic" (new-rome's perspective) priests.

Since the beginning of this crisis, traditional Catholics receive the sacraments and attend only the True Mass without regard to what new-Rome's corrupt perspective is.

Quote

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.

I would say a traditional catholic implicitly and explicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority to replace the True Mass at all - without any regard at all to the validity of the pope.

Quote

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.

Xavier is an indulter, so what? That makes him one who has yet to learn he is part of the problem. Hopefully he will come to figure it out.

Quote

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.

You are a trad implicit V2 pope doubter, and Lad is a dogmatic pope doubter, and surly there are many trad implicit V2 pope doubters, but all trads are not V2 pope doubters. All anyone needs to do to end all doubt, is, with the faith, simply accept reality - and stop with all the various theological hypotheses and theories. All the theories are, are superfluous at best, but mostly being proven wrong by reality, belong in the garbage as they serve no purpose that is any good.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #66 on:** May 04, 2021, 06:32:18 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 06:01:21 AM

All anyone needs to do to end all doubt, is, with the faith, simply accept reality - and stop with all the various theological hypotheses and theories. All the theories are, are superfluous at best, but mostly being proven wrong by reality, belong in the garbage as they serve no purpose that is any good.

Amen.

Perhaps V2 and the "Conciliar" regime serve that purpose.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #67 on:** May 04, 2021, 08:33:45 AM »

Quote

From the very beginning of this crisis, only a very, very few had doubts/confusion as regards the pope's validity.

If you are talking about the normal laity, then yes, very few. If you are talking about clerics & intellectuals, they didn't have enough knowledge to doubt - in the beginning. Once the facts became more clear, once more info was known about Siri, John 23 & Paul 6's background, etc then people had more doubts. But this is irrelevant to the point I'm making.
.
My point is that simply saying "I have a doubt about the papacy" is too general. It means different things to different people. If one is a real Trad, who rejects V2 and the new mass, then by default, you doubt the V2 machine's assertion that they have the authority to change the mass and doctrine. This would be a doubt of the papal authority.
.
When sedes say they have a doubt, most are meaning they doubt the pope holds office, due to heresy. When others say it, they mean they doubt pope x was validly elected at all. The whole point is that there are many kinds of doubts and this leads to constant bickering, which is unnecessary.
.

Quote

I would say a traditional catholic implicitly and explicitly rejects V2 and new-rome's authority to replace the True Mass at all

Right, this would be a doubt of the limits of papal authority.
.

Quote

You are a trad implicit V2 pope doubter, and Lad is a dogmatic pope doubter, and surly there are many trad implicit V2 pope doubters, but all trads are not V2 pope doubters.

There are various aspects to the papacy, so there are various things to doubt. When debating the topic, people need to be more clear.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** May 04, 2021, 09:06:14 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on May 04, 2021, 06:01:21 AM

All anyone needs to do to end all doubt, is, with the faith, simply accept reality - and stop with all the various theological hypotheses and theories. All the theories are, are superfluous at best, but mostly being proven wrong by reality, belong in the garbage as they serve no purpose that is any good.

This is nonsense and serves to show how bankrupt your sensus fidei has become. It's absolutely imperative that every Catholic come to terms in his own conscience with why they refuse submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff. You of all people should be intimately acquainted with the dogma that there can be no salvation outside of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff. Your lip service of "Yeah, he's a real pope" doesn't suffice.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote

“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

There's a feedback loop between whether you can make peace with the doctrine of Vatican II and whether or not you must remain in subjection to the V2 papal claimants. Some hold, since they believe these men to be legitimate a priori, that it follows that they must remain in full communion with the hierarchy, and so they set about trying to apply the old "hermeneutic" to reconcile V2 with Tradition. Others find that this is an exercise in futility and that they're radically incompatible (as +Vigano has recently determined), but then they must deal with the ramifications of that vis-a-vis remaining in subjection to the Holy Father. This notion perpetuated by modern R&R (and clearly rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre) that it simply doesn't matter, that it's acceptable AS A RULE for Catholics to pick and choose which Catholic teachings they believe are acceptable and which are not, that leads to an erosion of the Church's Magisterium being the rule of faith, whereby individuals replace that rule with their own private judgment. It's very little different from Protestantism. While Protestants acknowledge only one source of Revelation, Sacred Scripture, and set themselves up as the interpreter of that Revelation, modern R&R acknowledge TWO sources, but then do exactly the same thing in setting themselves up as interpreters of that Tradition. In Catholic thinking, it is the Magisterium which is the SOLE legitimate interpreter of Tradition. Period. That's the only thing that differentiates Catholics from the Protestant heretics, and you have crossed the line over into Protestantism. Your constant assertion of believing dogma "as it is written" (derived from a misreading of that passage in Trent) sounds exactly like the Prots who quote lines from Scripture out of context with assumed interpretations. Half the time, you struggle with basic English comprehension, much less being aware even of what is intended by the original Latin of Magisterial texts.

Stubborn · « **Reply #69 on:** May 04, 2021, 09:23:15 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 08:33:45 AM

There are various aspects to the papacy, so there are various things to doubt. When debating the topic, people need to be more clear.

Pax, you are bending over backwards to normalize or naturalize, doubting of the popes validity. FYI, those who claim the position of sedeism admit they have very little to no doubt at all that the guy is not the pope - THIS is the normal or natural, even expected result of having serious doubts as regards the popes validity. It really is not so complicated.

A lot of trads have no idea and couldn't care less if the pope is the pope, their main goal is to strive to maintain the faith in this mess, and for them, deciding the status of the pope or being the least bit concerned or curious as to his validity plays zero part in maintaining the faith.

Then there are trads like myself who have zero doubt that the pope is indeed the legitimate pope, and in striving to maintain the faith, adhere to the Highest Principle in the Church, namely: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." (Fr. Hesse) and using that as the guide that it is, even if we are all completely wrong about the popes validity, so what?

As I explained a while back:
The truth of the matter is that "we are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man".(Fr. Hesse) This means we Catholics remain under obedience to the pope, but only so long as in obedience to the pope we do not offend God. Since the popes have commanded nothing, certainly nothing we can obey without offending God, all we *can* do is remain alert and watch for (albeit do not expect) a command, directive or some other teaching that might bind us - and that we can obey without offending God. This is what faithful Catholics, subjects of the pope do in these times. Again, it is not complicated.

Stubborn · « **Reply #70 on:** May 04, 2021, 09:26:20 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 04, 2021, 09:06:14 AM

This is nonsense and serves to show how bankrupt your sensus fidei has become. It's absolutely imperative that every Catholic come to terms in his own conscience with why they refuse submission and subjection to the Roman Pontiff. You of all people should be intimately acquainted with the dogma that there can be no salvation outside of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff. Your lip service of "Yeah, he's a real pope" doesn't suffice.

This is the typical false perception that nearly all sedes, including yourself, have come to believe, and which I explained the correction in my previous post.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #71 on:** May 04, 2021, 09:46:19 AM »

Quote

Pax, you are bending over backwards to normalize or naturalize, doubting of the popes validity. FYI, those who claim the position of sedeism admit they have very little to no doubt at all that the guy is not the pope - THIS is the normal or natural, even expected result of having serious doubts as regards the popes validity. It really is not so complicated.

It is absolutely complex. For example, give me 50 sedes and i'll give you probably 50 different answers on the papal question.
.
1. Was John23 validly elected? If no, why not? Because of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Because of Siri? Because of the changes to the 62 missal? Because Pius XII wasn't valid? etc, etc
.
2. If John23 was elected validly, when did he commit heresy and lose the papacy? (insert 20 possible heresies here...)

3. Same questions for Paul VI, JPII, Benedict, except some added confusion:
4. Was it due to new-order rites? Or Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? V2? New Mass? etc, etc (insert 5,000 possible heresies here...)
.
Even when sedes say "he's not the pope", they don't agree on why. Thus, the number of doubts is very great. It's not just about a valid ɛƖɛctıon.
.

Quote

A lot of trads have no idea and couldn't care less if the pope is the pope, their main goal is to strive to maintain the faith in this mess, and for them, deciding the status of the pope or being the least bit concerned or curious as to his validity plays zero part in maintaining the faith.

I agree with Fr Wathen that the papal question is not the job of, or the responsibility of laity and simple clerics.
.

Quote

Then there are trads like myself who have zero doubt that the pope is indeed the legitimate pope, and in striving to maintain the faith, adhere to the Highest Principle in the Church, namely: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man." (Fr. Hesse) and using that as the guide that it is, even if we are all completely wrong about the popes validity, so what?

As a layman, I agree you are allowed to take this stance, but...you also can't ignore the theological history and pretend that there are not questions to be answered. You can't debate that "it doesn't matter". If you choose to have a simple view of things, go for it. For those that want to research the issues (i.e. Fr Chazal's book), you should stay out of the debate. You can't enforce your simple view on others, just as they can't force their "doubts" on you. It's an open-ended debate.

Stubborn · « **Reply #72 on:** May 04, 2021, 10:07:41 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 09:46:19 AM

It is absolutely complex. For example, give me 50 sedes and i'll give you probably 50 different answers on the papal question.
.
1. Was John23 validly elected? If no, why not? Because of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Because of Siri? Because of the changes to the 62 missal? Because Pius XII wasn't valid? etc, etc
.
2. If John23 was elected validly, when did he commit heresy and lose the papacy? (insert 20 possible heresies here...)

3. Same questions for Paul VI, JPII, Benedict, except some added confusion:
4. Was it due to new-order rites? Or Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? V2? New Mass? etc, etc (insert 5,000 possible heresies here...)
.
Even when sedes say "he's not the pope", they don't agree on why. Thus, the number of doubts is very great. It's not just about a valid ɛƖɛctıon.

As a layman, I agree you are allowed to take this stance, but...you also can't ignore the theological history and pretend that there are not questions to be answered. You can't debate that "it doesn't matter". If you choose to have a simple view of things, go for it. For those that want to research the issues (i.e. Fr Chazal's book), you should stay out of the debate. You can't enforce your simple view on others, just as they can't force their "doubts" on you. It's an open-ended debate.

For all of this, it is mainly because reality is denied, which in turn fuels their confusion. The rest of the confusion is mainly due to attempting to apply various different hypotheses and theories - while at the same time denying reality.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #73 on:** May 04, 2021, 10:40:48 AM »

Some people are super confused about the papacy and become Sedes due to emotional reaction. Some who delve into the papal question rationally look at the problem (i.e. Fr Chazal). Again, you're just making a generalization about 1,000s of people and expecting everyone else to accept your generalization.

Stubborn · « **Reply #74 on:** May 04, 2021, 11:13:06 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 04, 2021, 10:40:48 AM

Some people are super confused about the papacy and become Sedes due to emotional reaction. Some who delve into the papal question rationally look at the problem (i.e. Fr Chazal). Again, you're just making a generalization about 1,000s of people and expecting everyone else to accept your generalization.

I don't expect people to accept my generalization, I do think however that if they look into it at all, then they need to look into it with faith and reality, if they do this without including so called theories, then they will conclude on their own that the conciliar popes are indeed popes who are heretics. After that is out of the way, the matter is closed, they can then strive to live their lives as good and faithful Catholics.

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 9833 times)

Ladislaus

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Quo vadis Domine

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

Struthio

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

Stubborn

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

DecemRationis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Ladislaus

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

Stubborn

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

Stubborn

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

Pax Vobis

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

Stubborn

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

Pax Vobis

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

Stubborn

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