Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
That was not a rhetorical question. Here is a quote from St. Francis de Sales:

"when [a Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See"

Firstly, do you accept this as true?

Yes.  But I accept everything else St. Francis de Sales said also.

If (and only if) you say "yes", please describe, in a nutshell, a realistic hypothetical scenario that fits this truth.

The Pope says, well I know the Catholic Magisterium in the Council of Trent solemnly defined the dogma of Transubstantiation, but clearly they were bound to the prevalent philosophy of the time, which we know now to be superseded, and thus I and many others outright reject this definition, and we think a new doctrinal formulation is needed geared to the specific needs of our time, etc....

But note well.  He can only do this as a private person.  If this appears first, not as the Pope speaking as a private person, but in an official Magisterial act, the Church has defected.  This what the Doctors (including St. Francis de Sales) say.

The Natural Sciences / Re: Thomistic Evolution
« Last post by Quaremerepulisti on Today at 03:39:26 AM »
What difference does it make if the entire physical universe was already one of chaos, death and destruction, as it has to be for the evolutionary story to be true?

It simply has to be true because it simply has to be true, evolution or no, and obviously is.  Do you imagine God working a continuous set of miracles pre-Fall?  That would be contrary to the nature of God.  The physical universe, and animals, are, by nature, defectible creatures.

And what about stellar evolution, for instance? The Sun has a limited lifetime, and by the evolutionary model it has always been so. That would mean the destruction of Earth was pre-progammed into nature.

And what about it?  What was the sun supposed to be like pre-Fall?  Was God going to miraculously supply an infinite supply of hydrogen?  Or did the sun not actually give light and heat via nuclear fusion, but was simply miraculously kept alight?  You have no answer to this question; and worse yet, you don't think you actually need one.

How coudl Adam even have been blessed with bodily immortality if the world before the Fall was ANYTHING like the one we have now?

Because it was a preternatural gift, and Adam would have been taken into heaven before the end of the world.

How in nine hells can one square this with Christianity?

Quite easily.

What happened knowing them by their fruits? What fruit has the idea of evolution borne? Evolution has unequivocally been the biggest disaster in the history of ideas for Christendom. It has transformed the way in which man sees the world to the point that it has become almost impossible for hundreds of millions of human beigns to accept the Catholic Faith. It's been the primary intellectual driving force behind the abandonment of Christianity in the West. Can you not see this? Do you deny it? How can this idea, which is so foundational to the very meaning of our existence yet is found nowhere in history the Judeo-Christian beliefs, be anything other than Satanically inspired?

We don't.  We just disagree that the answer to the fairy tale of "goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" materialistic evolution is to create one of our own, making it even more impossible for them to accept the Catholic Faith.

Historical "science" is nothing but sophistry and arrogance positing untestable hypotheses form non-existent observations. There is no way, for example, to KNOW by any measurement, test, or observation, whether the geological formations we find on Earht today formed gradually over billions of years or suddenly in a titanic cataclysm.

This is obviously wrong, and shows that you are either woefully ignorant or else quite intellectually dishonest way, and either way are unqualified to have an opinion on the subject.  Like most ignorant people, you are the most confident in your conclusions.

Opinions ot the contrary are all built upon the flimisiest epistemology....

Ever heard of Bayes' Theorem?
The Natural Sciences / Re: Thomistic Evolution
« Last post by Quaremerepulisti on Today at 03:18:04 AM »
Old earth directed evolution (with special creation of life in general, plants, animals, and humans) seems to best fit the bill.

25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So God called "good" all the pain and violence and suffering which is implicit in any account of origins that rejects that death entered the world and the creation was cursed through Adam? Such a God would be a monster.

What's gotten into you?  You're more than capable of rational dialog and argument; you just choose not to exercise that capability here in favor of long-on-rhetoric-and-emotional-appeal but short-on-rational-argument soundbites.  I mean, this argument is a REAAAAALLLY stupid straw man, and you have the necessary intelligence to know it.  And you are only giving ammunition to atheists, who will agree with you that such a God would be a monster and therefore does not exist, since clearly animal pain and violence and suffering did exist before man.  (And, if this makes God a monster, then likewise allowing the sin of Adam and all this suffering as a result also makes God a monster, punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty, atheists will argue.  And the argument is valid.)

But of course, your premise is wrong from the get-go.  Evil is not just a privation of good, but a privation of a due good, a privation of a good which ought to be there.  Immortality for animals is not a good which ought to be there.  Freedom from all suffering is not a good which ought to be there.  They are animals, and not humans.  Your feeling that this is the case does not make it so.

There is every bit as much an irrational belly-feeling ungood opposition to the very idea of any sort of evolution in any form (no distinctions needed) as there is an irrational support of materialistic "random" "goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" evolution by Darwinists.
The Natural Sciences / Re: Thomistic Evolution
« Last post by Quaremerepulisti on Today at 02:48:24 AM »
Therefore, since the goal of creation of the physical universe is a fitting place for human habitation, it is not surprising at all if such a place should come about via natural processes as opposed to by way of miracle

Except Genesis states explciitly that God CREATED and ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS, not that God set the world into motion and it created everything out of its own power.

C'mon.  You're a better thinker than to resort to a straw man argument like that.
Depends if the traditions are actually part of the old covenant religion, or the talmud and after Christ.
Anything but Sedevacantism!
Analysis of a curious Phenomenon

 in the world of the semi-traditionalists, the blind are leading the blind. This is not just rhetoric, it simply describes reality. Whether it be people arguing that there is no point to having the correct diagnosis of a problem if one does not have the cure — as though a correct diagnosis were not at least the indispensable starting point for any remedial action; whether it be Christopher Ferrara promoting the idea of an “Anti-Catholic Pope”; whether it be one blogger’s argument that the Pope need not be submitted to “if he’s an idiot”; or whether it be “Bp.” Athanasius Schneider’s bizarre thesis that while being in union with the Pope one could nevertheless be in schism with Christ: No thesis is too absurd or anti-Catholic for adherents of the recognize-and-resist position not to entertain it as a possible explanation for the current state of the Church, as long as that thesis does not require them to hold the position that the Vatican II Church is not the true Catholic Church and its head is not a valid Catholic Pope (commonly known as “Sedevacantism”).

On July 10, 2016, we published a post entitled, “The Trouble with Jorge: Semi-Trads at the Breaking Point”. Since then, things have only gotten worse — lots worse — for people who try to be good and faithful Catholics but nevertheless accept the world’s worst apostate as the Vicar of Christ and remain inside an ostensibly Catholic establishment which, however, opposes Catholic Faith, morals, and piety at every turn.

Why is it that so many people are bending over backwards to avoid the sedevacantist position?

In early 2015, Fr. Anthony Cekada spoke of an unreasonable fear of Sedevacantism in the semi-traditionalist camp, which was, of course, immediately denied by people of that persuasion. But this veritable phobia of Sedevacantism — we may want to term it “sedevacantophobia” — is anything but illusory. Even if we do not want to term it a phobia, it is nevertheless, quite objectively, an unreasonable systematic and compulsive refusal to consider Sedevacantism as even so much as a possibility to explain the situation in the Catholic Church today. Anything but that! appears to be the battle cry of the semi-traditionalists in this respect.

It is tragic to see so many good-willed people eschew Sedevacantism for no sufficient reason. They have been deceived into rejecting it even as a possibility. Decades of SSPX/resistance propaganda has taught them to put greater importance on having someone to fill the papal office than even the very meaning of the papal office itself.

Thus we now have hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of “traditional Catholics” who would rather reduce the Papacy to utter meaninglessness and have its divinely-guaranteed purpose of ensuring the orthodoxy of the entire Church overturned, rather than maintain that the Papacy is indeed the bulwark “which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion” but currently unoccupied! Such people have sacrificed the Papacy for the sake of having a “Pope”. Oh, the irony!

But it does not stop there. Semi-Traditionalists have no problem speaking of a fake Church, a fake Mass, fake sacraments, fake theology, fake saints, even an altogether fake religion — but it never occurs to them that perhaps all of this is possible only because there’s a fake Pope. No, this could not be! And so they are forced to attribute to a true Church with a true Vicar of Christ a false religion, false theology, false sacraments, and so forth, all as part of a forlorn attempt to make sense of a situation whose true nature they have excluded a priori as being even a possibility.

We have seen that the Papacy has consequences. So does a denial of the Papacy.

The cognitive dissonance of a “practical sedevacantism” will be coming home to roost.

Complete article:
Maybe Kayla can ask if he would ask to be unbanned?

And he can focus more on posting threads like the Church of Cannabis, Pants, Hooka, and the appropriateness of pizza at weddings than are the mods here raging modernists?

Kayla can do as she wants, I guess.  I think she can.  I guess you'd have to ask her.  :lol:

That being said, there is very little on my end that prevents a Mith ban lifting. 
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Process of Convert Entering Seminary
« Last post by Greg on April 25, 2017, 11:52:42 PM »
you're Wellcome.
The Coffee Pot / Re: It's 4:00 AM And All Is Well
« Last post by dymphna17 on April 25, 2017, 11:40:19 PM »
Don't want to see that you posted in here during the night! Will pray you can sleep.Don't want you bumping into things or tripping. You hear me Dymph? I care. Yes, I do.

I am truly blessed.  Thank you Miss Carleen.   :grouphug:
im rubber ur glue.  what bounces off me sticks to you.   :D
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10