|
Post by michaelwilson on Jul 31, 2016 11:35:50 GMT -5
Re. On the number of saved; I tend towards a "middle position" from the opinions expressed: 1. Only a few even of Catholics 2. Majority of men. I believe that the totality of practicing Catholics are saved; by definition ei. receiving the sacraments leading an upright life. I don't believe that the majority of men are saved; apart from Christ's own words: [Mathew Ch.7.]" [13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! Its pretty clear: "the many" go to destruction; "the few" find life. The vision of the Children of Fatima which took place in an era in which the Catholic faith was vigorous and growing is also pretty definite: People falling into Hell like snowflakes in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 1, 2016 3:22:25 GMT -5
It is de fide that a heretic cannot be pope (Pp. Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio), so claiming Francis is a heretic and a pope is itself a heretical claim. And yet to claim Francis is not a heretic implies acceptance of his heresies and rejection of the Catholic doctrines they contradict. The only possibility is ignorance of the heresy, which puts the Francis-follower in the same class as protestants who might be saved if they are not culpable for their material adherence to heresy.
Note the same conflict with the Faith does not arise if someone believes Michael of Kansas to be pope (since he is not a heretic, AFAIK), nor between "sede vacante" and "sede privation". (In the case someone believes Michael to be a pope, however, it would likely be wrong for them to go to non-Michael-followers for Sacraments outside danger of death, since in that view these clergy would be considered schismatics.)
|
|
|
Post by carloscamejo on Aug 1, 2016 23:55:31 GMT -5
This is dogmatic sedevacantism, especially "This is no mere opinion, he states, but objective truth.". This means that virtually all the non-American traditionalists are screwed. It reminds me of those prot/JW rapture theories with numbers and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 2, 2016 1:06:25 GMT -5
"This means XYZ are screwed." is no excuse for denying Catholic doctrine. Nor does it justify an invalid comparison to heretics.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 2, 2016 4:54:54 GMT -5
"This means XYZ are screwed." is no excuse for denying Catholic doctrine. Nor does it justify an invalid comparison to heretics. To which Catholic doctrine do you refer?
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Aug 2, 2016 6:21:53 GMT -5
I believe this problem among many people found in our day can be shown to be rooted in a lack of understanding of what constitutes a Catholic. The confusion on this term leads to many errors in many waus.
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Aug 2, 2016 6:45:34 GMT -5
I think part of the difficulty as well arises from the overall disdain of proper authority. While the whole "una cum" philosophy is erroneos, the fact that many "una cum" Catholics like the SSPX likewise display at best a complete disregard for authority gives credence and causes confusion in regards to whether they are actually schismatics. Does one look at the reality or their intentions? On one hand they are not disobedient to a lawful authority. On the other, they intend to be. Bit of a sticky wicket I dare say and another reason there is such confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 2, 2016 8:23:35 GMT -5
I believe this problem among many people found in our day can be shown to be rooted in a lack of understanding of what constitutes a Catholic. The confusion on this term leads to many errors in many waus. Yes. Exactly. Many are too loose with the term "heretic" and too stingy with the term "Catholic." Many aren't being careful enough.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 2, 2016 8:25:47 GMT -5
Stingy was the perfect word...well stated.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 2, 2016 14:36:40 GMT -5
"This means XYZ are screwed." is no excuse for denying Catholic doctrine. Nor does it justify an invalid comparison to heretics. To which Catholic doctrine do you refer? "We enact, determine, decree and define: ... that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, ... even the Roman Pontiff, ... has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; ... (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; ... (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power." -Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 2, 2016 16:44:30 GMT -5
This is dogmatic sedevacantism, especially "This is no mere opinion, he states, but objective truth.". This means that virtually all the non-American traditionalists are screwed. It reminds me of those prot/JW rapture theories with numbers and stuff. The problem here that some do not grasp is that this debate among sedevacantists, the status of Francis and those before him, is not about the truth, it is about the status of that truth. We all agree that Francis is not Pope, so any arguments to that effect are non-sequiturs. Where we differ is that some of us know our place, or rather our non-authority to form binding judgments, while others usurp the power only given by God to his commissioned hierarchy and attempt to bind Catholics on a matter not yet authoritatively settled. No sedevacantist I know has ever said, "it's just my opinion about ..." We all who are sedevacantists have a moral certainty about this matter, but we also know that it is our individual moral certainty that has led us to believe these men are not the popes, it has never been the authority of the Church. There is a world of difference between the two, and the so-called "anti-opinionists" disregard the distinction at their own peril.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 2, 2016 17:08:35 GMT -5
To which Catholic doctrine do you refer? "We enact, determine, decree and define: ... that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, ... even the Roman Pontiff, ... has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; ... (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; ... (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power." -Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officiook...so who here denys the above?
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 2, 2016 17:35:27 GMT -5
"We enact, determine, decree and define: ... that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, ... even the Roman Pontiff, ... has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; ... (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; ... (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power." -Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officiook...so who here denys the above? Lefevbrists do. And when people say "Francis is pope" is a valid opinion, they are at least indirectly saying it is okay for others to reject this doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 2, 2016 18:29:29 GMT -5
ok...so who here denies the above? Lefevbrists do. And when people say "Francis is pope" is a valid opinion, they are at least indirectly saying it is okay for others to reject this doctrine. I think Pacelli above has answered your objection...but let me be clear...who the hell am I to look down my nose at the person who through no willful intent consider Francis a valid Pope? Is it not all over the Papers...the media...does he not dress the part...did he apparently not go through the proper procedure? You see we here cannot judge less informed Catholics...not everyone has the time or the intellectual curiosity to ferret the truth out...or maybe even the ability. (I speak of the laity of course) But they still may be outstanding beloved Catholics...even more likely, better than myself! I get sickened by elitism in Traditional Catholics...the blind need our help not condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by lukedashjr on Aug 4, 2016 16:10:52 GMT -5
Lefevbrists do. And when people say "Francis is pope" is a valid opinion, they are at least indirectly saying it is okay for others to reject this doctrine. I think Pacelli above has answered your objection...but let me be clear...who the hell am I to look down my nose at the person who through no willful intent consider Francis a valid Pope? Is it not all over the Papers...the media...does he not dress the part...did he apparently not go through the proper procedure? You see we here cannot judge less informed Catholics...not everyone has the time or the intellectual curiosity to ferret the truth out...or maybe even the ability. (I speak of the laity of course) But they still may be outstanding beloved Catholics...even more likely, better than myself! I get sickened by elitism in Traditional Catholics...the blind need our help not condemnation. Pacelli is referring to an inapplicable distinction. It's not that we are binding people to our opinion, but that they are already bound by the Church's teachings to come to that conclusion. Perhaps someone is not culpable of mortal sin for thinking Francis is a pope due to their ignorance of Catholic doctrine, but the same is true for protestants ignorant of the Catholic Faith.
|
|