**Faith Without Submission Is Dead: A Catholic Wake-Up Call to the “Traditionalists” Who Resist the …
@brhenry. 'Private interpretation' again? Seriously? Last time you condemned simple observations of contradiction as 'private interpretation'. Now simply quoting a bible verse is 'private interpretation'. Please do tell: What exactly in my post above was a 'private interpretation' of the biblical text contrary to the meaning understood by the Church?
**Faith Without Submission Is Dead: A Catholic Wake-Up Call to the “Traditionalists” Who Resist the …
Is this wake up call for St Paul as well??? He tells us "But when Cephas (St Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal 2:11). He also says: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8). Maybe St Paul didn't realize that the Roman Pontiff has primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church? or maybe he didn't realize that faith without works is dead? ... or maybe he knew that one can acknowledge someone's authority, and yet refuse to obey their illegitimate commands!
Cardinal Sarah Critiques FSSPX
??? That's random. The principle of private judgment/sola scriptura refers to the private interpretation of Scripture contrary to the meaning accepted and defended by the Church. It is not private judgment to say that two statements are contradictory. That would be like saying it's heresy for a Catholic to think. Here are two statements: Pius IX condemns: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (Syllabus Error #15). Vatican II teaches "The human person has a right to religious freedom." (Dignitatis Humanae.)
Cardinal Sarah Critiques FSSPX
You're right. It's dependent on truth. That's why obeying a superior in evil is not 'righteous', it's 'servile'.
Cardinal Sarah Critiques FSSPX
Two extraordinary statements from Cardinal Sarah: 1) "It is not about obeying the Pope when he expresses his own ideas or personal opinions. It is about obeying the Pope when he says, like Jesus: “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (Jn 7:16). "
2) It is a supernatural view of canonical obedience, which guarantees our bond with Christ Himself.
So Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and Collegiality, (not to mention Pachamama, Amoris Laetitia, etc) are not 'personal opinions' but teachings of Christ!?!?!?!?!
And it's not the Faith, but CANONICAL obedience which guarantees our bond with Christ!?!?!?! In other words, the law is not at the service of the Faith, but Faith is at the service of the law.
No wonder there is so little confidence in 'conservative' Novus Ordo bishops!
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
@brhenry So the pope can be wrong (and I think you would assert that he IS wrong in the Abu Dhabi declaration). Vatican II can be wrong. But is it truly honest to say that no one is being 'forced' to accept Vatican II? To say: "Vatican II did not infallibly define anything" is true; but that only makes more odious the fact that its teachings have been imposed upon the Church as some kind of Super-Council. Not enforced? Did you not read the letter of Card Muller (at the time prefect of the CDF) to the SSPX. Vatican II IS being forced upon the SSPX. Card. Muller EXPLICITLY stated that Vatican II AND the post-Conciliar magisterium (which would now include Amoris Laetitia) MUST be accepted. The whole contention between the SSPX and Rome is over Vatican II. I really don't understand how you can say it is 'not being enforced'.
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
The question regards not the pope, but what he teaches or commands. Pope Francis asserted in the Abu Dhabi declaration that the plurality of religions as such is willed by God. Am I "definitively heretical" if I say that is wrong?
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
@brhenry: the quotations above do not address the point at hand. The question is the following: can a subordinate ever disobey an illegitimate/immoral command of a legitimate superior? The SSPX does not deny that the pope has received authority from Christ, nor does it deny his jurisdiction. Again, the same question rephrased: can someone with true jurisdiction ever abuse that jurisdiction such that it would be immoral for his subordinates to follow him?
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
“It is written (Acts 5:29): ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things” (Summa, II-II, q. 104, art. 5).
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
@brhenry: Actually, it means that by Traditional Catholic principles - the SSPX should not be condemned; and by Modernist Rome's principles the SSPX should not be condemned. Therefore, the SSPX should not be condemned. By the way: 'Ecclesial communion' is through union in the Faith, it is not broken by refusing innovations that have nothing to do with the Faith, or worse, that are opposed to the Faith.
Islam is poison
Did this guy give a whole talk without realizing the 4th horse is 'pale', not 'green'?!?
No Human is Illegal
You have two arguments, and they seem to be based on contradictory principles.
First, the US gov't promotes 'illegal' immigration, therefore it is actually legal. This implies that if the gov't did not promote it, it would be illegal. Therefore there COULD BE such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
Second, an immigrant is a human, and 'no human is illegal', therefore there could NOT be such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
I don't know what promotion of illegal immigration you are speaking, so I won't try to address that. My original point was that the statement, 'No human is illegal,' is weird. This is because it obfuscates what is actually being said. When I asked if 'human' refers to man's 'essence', you said yes. That means we have the statement. 'No human nature/essence is illegal.' That would mean the opposite is true as well. 'Every human nature/essence is legal.' What do those statements even mean? How can you take an abstract thing and predicate a particular relation to it? You might as well say 'No human nature is small.' If in the statement, 'no human is illegal', the word 'human' refers to a concrete human being, then to say 'no human being is illegal, i.e., has the status of being in contravention with the law', then it is clearly false. The criminal is a human being, and he has a status which is in contravention with the law. One doesn't say the 'criminal is illegal', because the very word criminal implies this status. The word immigrant does not imply illegality, that is why one distinguishes between the two, the legal or illegal immigrant.
Whether deliberately or not, you further blur the question by saying 'it is not a crime for an alien to remain in the country'. The question is not the 'remaining' but the 'coming into' the country illegally. The first point on the link you posted is that coming into the country illegally IS a crime. To say 'remaining' is not a crime, is like saying for a murderer to go shopping is not a crime, so why is he being arrested? He's not being arrested for shopping, he's being arrested for the murder. That is the act which put him in contravention of the law. To close, I will say that I agree that we are moving towards a police-state. But I don't think that comes from the current work of ICE or Trump. I think it is rather the agenda of the radicals on the Left.
No Human is Illegal
??? wierd. 'Illegal' means contrary to the law. Are you suggesting that MAGA is claiming that a 'human is illegal' according to their very essence??? very wierd post. It is not a crime in the sense of being a felony, but in the sense of being at contradiction with the law of the land, it certainly is. That's why it allows for deporation. You're position is simply that a gov't is not allowed to enforce immigration law; which necessarily presupposes that it is immoral for a gov't to have immigration law. Most people would disagree. Btw, careful about locking your own home or car... that might be considered domestic immigration law. :-)
Unthinkable Before Amoris Laetitia – Leo XIV Received Divorced Remarried British Royals
"According to Catholic teaching, a marriage is only legal and binding from The Sacrament of Marriage by a Catholic Priest." This is false. Old Code c.1099; New Code 1117. The Church's positive law is not binding on non-Catholics.
ICE Does it Again
So a few bad apples among ICE... what's the conclusion? Destroy immigration enforcement? and promote the woke agenda? Are you reproaching one ICE officer, or do you think the enforcement of immigration laws is evil?
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF 1. I agree with the example: avoid him, but this is not a denial of his jurisdiction 2. To say that the pope denies a Catholic doctrine can be a statement of fact; to say that it is formal heresy requires knowledge of the state of his soul or authority over him to demand an account of his actions (neither of which you have). 3. 'Jump' to sedevacantism? It's the logical consequence of your principles (and embracing irony, you then immediately say/imply Bergoglio is not the pope). 4. There is no straw man argument. I simply applied your principles (from #2) that each person can decide for himself who is pope. There is no way back to a 'Catholic Church' under such a Protestant principle. 5. I'm not defending his heresies; I'm defending the primacy of the papacy because it is one of Our Lord's teachings. I didn't speak on the Eucharist because I was replying to your comments on a different topic. However, I think it unlikely that we will change one another's minds, so I close here and wish you God's grace and blessing.
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF So your response is to restate your personal interpretation without answering the objection? And if the an automatically excommunicated bishop were exercising his authority from some other location than the episcopal palace (where his office premises are), then we could assume there would be no formal declaration?!?! (because he's already off the physical premises?). Absurd! As for St Robert Bellarmine, I do agree with his opinion, but he would never have taught that manifest heresy is to be decided by the opinion of any and every Catholic in the world. Let's face it, sedevacantism may be referred to as a whole, but in fact it is a multiplicity of singulars. If a conservative pope were to be elected, what must happen? - every single sedevacantist would need to judge for himself whether he thought he was conservative enough, Catholic enough, etc. Every single sedevacantist is a Law unto himself. Sedevacantism is very close to Protestantism. It's one thing to say "I won't obey my boss's evil commands"; it's quite another to say "My boss is no longer in charge; and no one will be in charge again unless I say it's ok."
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF I am afraid that you have simply imposed your own interpretation on the text. I don't think you'll find any classic commentary on Canon Law that supports such an understanding. A person can be obliged (or forbidden) in conscience to act, and yet not obliged in conscience to denounce himself. A thief is morally bound to return stolen goods; he is not bound to put himself in prison. However, once a judge declares the sentence; then he is bound to go to prison. This is not exaclty the same, but has a similarity. One under latae sententiae excommunication is morally bound in conscience not to exercise his office, however, if by so doing he would incriminate himself, this obligation is suspended until it is 'imposed' by formal declaration. Otherwise, the delay allowed by certain canons in such matters is simply a canonical statement: "Allow him to stay on the premises for a while, even though there is no obligation to follow his orders.", which is absurd. (cf 1347 and 1352). @Mária D Angelos. I'm not a canonist, but curious why it should just be my qualifications in question, and not those of the one with whom you agree...