Author Topic: Why can't trads get along?  (Read 56379 times)

Offline Sbyvl36

  • Reichsführer of the SD Grammar Gestapo. Holy Roman Emperor in exile.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1681
  • Thanked: 28 times
  • Reichsführer of the Friendly Forum Fascists.
    • Sbyvl's Blog
  • Religion: Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagian
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #135 on: August 22, 2014, 06:28:28 AM »
Couldnt be clearer than that. There is no rebuttle possible;;  Assisi was exactly what was condemned

And John Paul the Great did it anyway.
My blog: sbyvl.wordpress.com

"Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
--St. Thomas Aquinas

"Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church."
--Pope Pius IX

“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive."
--Archbishop Lefebvre

Heliocentricism is idiocy.
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #136 on: August 22, 2014, 09:48:13 AM »
Couldnt be clearer than that. There is no rebuttle possible;;  Assisi was exactly what was condemned

And John Paul the Great did it anyway.
More than once.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 04:57:18 PM by voxxpopulisuxx »
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #137 on: August 22, 2014, 12:31:50 PM »
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.

This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.

Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?

Which?

Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.

If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.

If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.

P^3

If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.

Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.

You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.

If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.

Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.

P^3

Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.

I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:

"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "

Around and around we go.

Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.

Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.

Mortalium Animos: See above.  Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included? 

Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.

For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.

The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.

Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.

Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.

P^3

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline RobertJS

  • It prays to poofread!
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #138 on: August 22, 2014, 01:31:07 PM »
Around and around we go.

Stop swinging your errors in a circle, and I won't chase you with them.

Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.

His own see has nothing to do with this. I am talking about his famous letter to his flock, and treating the Arian clergy as no longer representatives of Catholicism because of their one heresy, or even association with that one.

Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.

Nor was Arius' heresy a de fide teaching of the Church, yet St. Athanasius immediately reacted, treating them as non-Catholic even before the Church condemned them. Go read the penultimate chapter of "Liberalism is a sin" to see what error you fall into....a species of satanic jansenism which insists Catholics wait only for the top authority to declare something condemned before we react.


Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.

Again, you fall right into the logical fallacy of begging the question. Circular reasoning. The bishops who do the recognizing must themselves not be heretics. If you don't recognize this, you will say that the Antichrist could be the true pope if the majority of bishops recognize him as such despite the Antichrist and those bishops being heretics. Insane.
ideo mittit illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio
 

Offline Sbyvl36

  • Reichsführer of the SD Grammar Gestapo. Holy Roman Emperor in exile.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1681
  • Thanked: 28 times
  • Reichsführer of the Friendly Forum Fascists.
    • Sbyvl's Blog
  • Religion: Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagian
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #139 on: August 22, 2014, 01:32:33 PM »
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.

This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.

Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?

Which?

Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.

If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.

If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.

P^3

If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.

Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.

You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.

If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.

Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.

P^3

Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.

I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:

"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "

Around and around we go.

Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.

Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.

Mortalium Animos: See above.  Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included? 

Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.

For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.

The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.

Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.

Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.

P^3

 :lol: :lol:

And by the way, Pius IX condemned religious liberty in the Syllabus of errors.  And it is impossible for the Church to promulgate error.  Do the math.  The NO sect is not Catholic.
My blog: sbyvl.wordpress.com

"Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
--St. Thomas Aquinas

"Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church."
--Pope Pius IX

“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive."
--Archbishop Lefebvre

Heliocentricism is idiocy.
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #140 on: August 22, 2014, 01:43:42 PM »
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.

This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.

Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?

Which?

Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.

If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.

If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.

P^3

If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.

Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.

You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.

If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.

Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.

P^3

Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.

I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:

"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "

Around and around we go.

Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.

Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.

Mortalium Animos: See above.  Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included? 

Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.

For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.

The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.

Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.

Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.

P^3

 :lol: :lol:

And by the way, Pius IX condemned religious liberty in the Syllabus of errors.  And it is impossible for the Church to promulgate error.  Do the math.  The NO sect is not Catholic.
[/quote

Wow - there is so much wrong with this statement ... but if you don't believe that the Church under Pope Francis is the Catholic Church.  You better start looking for the Four Marks.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline Sbyvl36

  • Reichsführer of the SD Grammar Gestapo. Holy Roman Emperor in exile.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1681
  • Thanked: 28 times
  • Reichsführer of the Friendly Forum Fascists.
    • Sbyvl's Blog
  • Religion: Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagian
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #141 on: August 22, 2014, 03:10:20 PM »
Since 1870 when all the bishops gathered to discuss infallibility in Rome, it has been categorically taught as a truth to the general clergy and laity that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Any tolerated differing opinion on that fact, existing before then, has been dropped.

This is the second time I have brought up the Antichrist, and the second time you are dodging the point. I said nothing about applying it to Francis. I am talking theoretically about the final Antichrist. This is a matter of principle.

Now, according to St. Bernard, if all the bishops recognize the Antichrist as the pope, does that make him pope as a dogmatic fact? Or does it make those bishops fall into apostasy?

Which?

Robert,
You have neglected (yet again) to provide a reference. I am completely aware of any magisterial document that supports your affirmation.

If that is your case about the antichrist - then it is a red-herring and your point was unclear.

If the antichrist were to be elected Pope in a 'lawful' fashion, then following the theology, the Church would be protected from provided a universal acceptance by the bishops.

P^3

If #4 is what you need more information for, then obviously it will need to be provided to you.

Your response to the Antichrist question seems to be saying that the majority of bishops will not recognize him as a true pope. But that is flatly against what is predicted in Scripture to happen - the majority of bishops falling into apostasy. You are trying to maintain that the majority of bishops cannot go into apostasy, which is plainly false.

You are off base. What I am maintaining is that for the past 6 elections the Bishops in union have all agreed who was Pope.

If you want to segue into the assertion that there has been a complete apostasy of Bishops - well you go ahead and prove that for each individual bishop from the successive conclaves were in a state of apostasy.

Also please keep in mind that it has to be explicit because if you think it was only in the 'internal forum' then your theory is pooched because you can't prove it.

P^3

Apostasy or heresy, it doesn't matter.

I have already presented to you the example of St. Athanasius & followers and how they completely separated from the Arian clergy because of their association with that one, subtle, philosophical error against the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, this was before Rome condemned Arianism. The state of the bishops since the late 1960's has far exceeded that historical example. Now it is the heresy of religious liberty to the clear activity at Assisi. Mortalium Animos of 1928 condemns the bishops for apostasy, and those who support them:

"For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. "

Around and around we go.

Athanasius: Incorrect. Go and reread the history. He continually went back to his See when allowed to do so.

Religious Liberty: Sorry, this is not a de fide teaching of the Church. We're dealing with lower levels of authority, please try again.

Mortalium Animos: See above.  Also you misunderstand what is an condemnation of an action and a condemnation of a person. Were there any anathema's included? 

Robert at this point I have concluded that your misconceptions of what constitutes formal heresy and how to recognize when a person incurs a censure are legion.

For that reason, I will not follow you down every rabbit hole that, in your attempts to justify your decisions, you happen across.

The dogmatic fact remains for your to accept or reject.

Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ.

Once you've accepted Catholic Doctrine on that point, we can then deal with the consequences of that fact.

P^3

 :lol: :lol:

And by the way, Pius IX condemned religious liberty in the Syllabus of errors.  And it is impossible for the Church to promulgate error.  Do the math.  The NO sect is not Catholic.
[/quote

Wow - there is so much wrong with this statement ... but if you don't believe that the Church under Pope Francis is the Catholic Church.  You better start looking for the Four Marks.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3

What specifically is wrong with the statement?
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 03:33:13 PM by Sbyvl36 »
My blog: sbyvl.wordpress.com

"Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
--St. Thomas Aquinas

"Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church."
--Pope Pius IX

“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive."
--Archbishop Lefebvre

Heliocentricism is idiocy.
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #142 on: August 22, 2014, 04:02:38 PM »
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.

Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target.  I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now.  But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #143 on: August 22, 2014, 04:19:33 PM »
The problem is that the 'objections' go on ad-infinitem. 

Logically, if that were true, I would always have been a sedevacantist.  In reality, I became one shortly after April 27.  So did voxx.  He has gone so as to agree that if you deal with that one objection, he will return to the sedeplenist view.  At this point, I will probably be a bit more demanding than that, but nonetheless, you have my major objection before you.  If you want to make progress with me, I can guarantee you're going to have to remove that roadblock.

Quote
The root issue is the uncertainty of who is Pope.  Once it is ascertained who is the Pope (Francis for better or worse ... mostly worse) - it becomes a question of reconciling the person's beliefs with the rest of the doctrine. Point by point.

No, it really isn't.  The root issue is why the modern popes teach differently, and often opposite, to what popes did prior to Vatican II.  If you can explain that, then I agree that who the pope is falls into place, point by point.  Otherwise, I see no solution that allows me to keep the Catholic faith in an intellectually honest way.

Quote
For example: Is Pope John Paul II a Saint? Well, following the general opinion of theologians (which is the same authority for the other dogmatic fact) the answer is yes. 

Does this create a problem for the indefectibility of the Church?  The answer is no.

All that is infallible with regards to canonization is that Pope John Paul II is in Heaven. By the mercy of God he was in a state of grace when he died.

Does the extension of his 'cult' (in the proper sense when discussing Saints) to the Universal Church impact the Church's indefectibility? The answer is no.  As long as it does not explicitly require an immoral act (eg Have you kissed a Koran today?)  no - not every act of discipline is guaranteed to be perfect. 

OK, I'm going to need more than a pair of ipse dixits to convince me that a) the canonization of Wojtyla does not impact the Church's indefectibility or b) that no disciplinary act impacts the Church's indefectibility unless it explicitly requires an immoral act.

The reason is this.  Although canonizing Wojtyla does not explicitly state that kissing the Koran, leading Assisi prayer meetings, etc., are good things, that is the clear implication-- unless we elsewhere make clear that those are bad things.  That's even more the case in this day and age, when most bishops appear to think all of those were good things, when Wojtyla never apologized for any of them (despite being the apologizer-in-chief), and when few Catholics even seem to realize there might be a problem.  Under those circumstances, how can one claim that by canonizing such a man, the Church is not leading people into error?  Is't possible?  Is't probable?  I don't see how.

There you have my objection.  Deal with it if you can.  It seems to me-- as an issue of the First Commandment-- to be more important than theological hair-splitting about dogmatic facts, especially when the reality seems to be that the current papal claimant doesn't believe I'm doing anything wrong anyway.  As far as I can tell, he would rather I was an evangelical-- as are other members of my family.

I tell you again, that IF you manage to convince me of the question of dogmatic facts without convincing me that Wojtyla's canonization was not harmful-- both parts of which seem to me pretty difficult, but the second definitely more-- you will be convincing me that the Catholic faith is intellectually and logically untenable, because it can be historically demonstrated to have betrayed its own doctrine.
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #144 on: August 22, 2014, 10:30:33 PM »
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.

Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target.  I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now.  But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.

The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #145 on: August 22, 2014, 10:35:42 PM »
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.

Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target.  I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now.  But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.

The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #146 on: August 22, 2014, 10:41:37 PM »
The problem is that the 'objections' go on ad-infinitem. 

Logically, if that were true, I would always have been a sedevacantist.  In reality, I became one shortly after April 27.  So did voxx.  He has gone so as to agree that if you deal with that one objection, he will return to the sedeplenist view.  At this point, I will probably be a bit more demanding than that, but nonetheless, you have my major objection before you.  If you want to make progress with me, I can guarantee you're going to have to remove that roadblock.

Quote
The root issue is the uncertainty of who is Pope.  Once it is ascertained who is the Pope (Francis for better or worse ... mostly worse) - it becomes a question of reconciling the person's beliefs with the rest of the doctrine. Point by point.

No, it really isn't.  The root issue is why the modern popes teach differently, and often opposite, to what popes did prior to Vatican II.  If you can explain that, then I agree that who the pope is falls into place, point by point.  Otherwise, I see no solution that allows me to keep the Catholic faith in an intellectually honest way.

Quote
For example: Is Pope John Paul II a Saint? Well, following the general opinion of theologians (which is the same authority for the other dogmatic fact) the answer is yes. 

Does this create a problem for the indefectibility of the Church?  The answer is no.

All that is infallible with regards to canonization is that Pope John Paul II is in Heaven. By the mercy of God he was in a state of grace when he died.

Does the extension of his 'cult' (in the proper sense when discussing Saints) to the Universal Church impact the Church's indefectibility? The answer is no.  As long as it does not explicitly require an immoral act (eg Have you kissed a Koran today?)  no - not every act of discipline is guaranteed to be perfect. 

OK, I'm going to need more than a pair of ipse dixits to convince me that a) the canonization of Wojtyla does not impact the Church's indefectibility or b) that no disciplinary act impacts the Church's indefectibility unless it explicitly requires an immoral act.

The reason is this.  Although canonizing Wojtyla does not explicitly state that kissing the Koran, leading Assisi prayer meetings, etc., are good things, that is the clear implication-- unless we elsewhere make clear that those are bad things.  That's even more the case in this day and age, when most bishops appear to think all of those were good things, when Wojtyla never apologized for any of them (despite being the apologizer-in-chief), and when few Catholics even seem to realize there might be a problem.  Under those circumstances, how can one claim that by canonizing such a man, the Church is not leading people into error?  Is't possible?  Is't probable?  I don't see how.

There you have my objection.  Deal with it if you can.  It seems to me-- as an issue of the First Commandment-- to be more important than theological hair-splitting about dogmatic facts, especially when the reality seems to be that the current papal claimant doesn't believe I'm doing anything wrong anyway.  As far as I can tell, he would rather I was an evangelical-- as are other members of my family.

I tell you again, that IF you manage to convince me of the question of dogmatic facts without convincing me that Wojtyla's canonization was not harmful-- both parts of which seem to me pretty difficult, but the second definitely more-- you will be convincing me that the Catholic faith is intellectually and logically untenable, because it can be historically demonstrated to have betrayed its own doctrine.

Sorry JuniorC.

The point about dogmatic facts is you either accept them or you don't as the Church understands them.  That is the key to this whole conundrum, understanding the doctrines etc as the Church does.

I don't have time to go through it all hear as the 'bandwidth' is to constrained.

I suggest you review the Catechism of the Council of Trent - particularly the section on the 'One Holy Catholic Church' and obtain a copy of Ott. - I have a link on my blog to an e-copy.

These two resources have been invaluable to me in developing a good perspective on this crisis and how to maintain a firm footing.

P^3

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline tradical

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1022
  • Thanked: 189 times
    • Tradicat
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #147 on: August 22, 2014, 10:43:11 PM »
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.

Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target.  I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now.  But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.

The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.

Did you even read the post?

If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.


P^3
P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience
 

Offline voxxpopulisuxx

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5410
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
  • Religion: duhhhhh
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #148 on: August 22, 2014, 10:50:56 PM »
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.

Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target.  I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now.  But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.

The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.

Did you even read the post?

If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.


P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).
Lord Jesus Christ Most High Son of God have Mercy On Me a Sinner (Jesus Prayer)

“You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.” – Christopher Columbus
911!
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won. "— Louisa May Alcott

“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.”St. Arnold (580-640)

Geocentrism holds no possible atheistic downside.
 

Offline Sbyvl36

  • Reichsführer of the SD Grammar Gestapo. Holy Roman Emperor in exile.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1681
  • Thanked: 28 times
  • Reichsführer of the Friendly Forum Fascists.
    • Sbyvl's Blog
  • Religion: Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagian
Re: Why can't trads get along?
« Reply #149 on: August 22, 2014, 10:52:59 PM »
Further, the NO sect does not possess any of the four marks.
1. It's no longer One.  All unity has been shattered by the Second Vatican Council.  For the first time in history, there are "Conservative" and "Liberal" Catholics.

2. It's no longer Holy.  I don't think anyone here on this forum would say that the changes, ambiguities, and heresies of Vatican II are holy by any sense.  And a sect that clings to an evil council, with a perverted liturgy, is not holy.

3. It's no longer Catholic.  The New Mass is not universal.  Prior to VII, the Mass was more or less the same no matter where you were in the world.  Today, each parish differs violently from every other parish.

4. It's no longer Apostolic.  Leo XIII condemned the Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void".  Further, Pius XII stated the criteria that determined whether a sacrament is valid or not.  The NO "Holy Orders" do not fit the criteria.  Therefore, amongst the NO clerics, apostolic succession has died out.  It is only preserved amongst Traditionalists who possess valid orders.

Therefore, the NO Sect is not Catholic.

Painful as it is to say, the above is mostly dead on target.  I might quibble a little about point 3, and I haven't studied point 4 in any detail, but I've never believed it up to now.  But points 1 and 2 are pretty dead on.

The understanding of the four marks is ... well wrong.

http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-four-marks-of-church-of-christ.html

P^3
your using your own blog post as an authoritative source? I think your acting a little full of yourself friend.

Did you even read the post?

If you had you would have noticed what authorities I quoted.


P^3
Yeah I read the Posts...but you just asserted flatly he was wrong...you didnt bother to highlight HERE in the thread where he was in error...you just linked your blog as if that was all that was needed. Look its cool you started a blog...and its got great goals...but blogs are a dime a dozen. Do the work and explain where he has the four marks wrong..other wise I would advise sybvl to simply link his blog (which is much snazzier and more entertaining I have to add).

Thanks Voxx. :)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 10:54:44 PM by Sbyvl36 »
My blog: sbyvl.wordpress.com

"Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."
--St. Thomas Aquinas

"Neither the true faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church."
--Pope Pius IX

“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive."
--Archbishop Lefebvre

Heliocentricism is idiocy.