Posted on 07/28/2019 6:02:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
So; maybe some of us started earlier than others...
...or later.
LOL. Actually, my son was born after I had already retired from the USAF. 😁🤣😂🙃
...I hadn't said you just looked up the book. My impression was that you relied upon it, as it tended to come from a source confirming your already-existing biases.
Your first paragraph, in the post to which this one responds, sufficiently addresses those issues. Thank you.
His credentials and achievements need no defense from someone like yourself. It does not seem likely that you are in any position to impeach Latourettes career or writings. I chose to give your claims re Anabaptists a fair shake by comparing them with a solid detailed reference account. And I selected excerpts to fairly report what history says about them.
As far as "achievements needing no defense from someone like myself" you've got it all backwards. I wasn't trying to impeach *his* writings: I was pointing out that I didn't have a background in formal theological writing, so I didn't have the background to take a glance at his name and go, "Yup. Solid guy" *or "God, what a freaking hack-job." (You know, like autofellatory atheist Bart Ehrman or whatever his name is at North Carolina. Who also went to an Ivy League grad school.)
On balance, your tone of dealing with this still does not fairly recognize what history reports, and that is that those leaders that engaged in the aberrance of polygamy were a minor segment both in number and in time that simply does not represent the overall practice of this holiness movement, whose generic name only refers to their insistence on scripturally rebaptizing professing disciples, whose infant baptisms without their accountability for it was simply unbiblical.
But on the other hand, since, as you pointed out, theology over the centuries has led to various fractions being slaughtered, cherry picking on the part of an author is trivial by comparison.
Sizing things up, I can't credit you with much of a mature outlook, despite your username. Going forward, I'll not be wasting much time with you. I've already given you your fair share, and it hasn't been very profitable so far.
I don't care whether you credit me with anything or not. I'm not here to play the one-upmanship game, as I consider said practice itself unbiblical. St. Paul inveighs against it, you might recall.
What he DOES recommend, is not to get in endless arguments with those one considers weak in the faith: but to pray for them.
You may have noticed I tend to recommend such in these threads.
Sorry, the joke went over my head. I’ve never heard of “Mackeral Snappers” ...?
Why does he use a female name?
“But No Where in The Word of God are the Body of Christ told to pray to dead folks regardless of where they are. “
According to my Bible (RSV-CE) In Hebrews 12:22-24 St. Paul encourages us to approach, not only Christ, but the angels and saints. In Revelation 5:8 we see those saints offering up those prayers before God’s throne.
Man, you go to work for a week, and the whole thread blows up. Ah well.
Let’s address the question of how I can claim with confidence that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, or by what authority I can confidently state that Francis is no true Pope.
To wit: if you witness someone lying, can you not call them a liar? If you witness someone stealing something, do you not call them a thief?
The same principle applies to someone who publicly departs from the One True Faith of Christ and His Apostles.
Now, an objection commonly lobbed at sedevacantists is - much like your question - that we lack any authority to actually say ‘this man is a heretic’. As though it required an act of authority to discern whether a man is a Catholic or a heretic, or as though Catholic teaching were only to be held in theory but never allowed to be applied in practice to a concrete situation.
I bring to your attention a book by the name of “Liberalism is a Sin”, authored by the great anti-Modernist Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886. It received immense approbation from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Pope Leo XIII, and its refutations of Modernists (called Liberals in the 19th century) and their tactics also undermine many of the fundamental ideas of the Second Vatican Council and the new religion it promulgated.
The following excerpt specifically addresses the objection that a layman cannot discover heresy on his own, and/or cannot accuse another of being a heretic. Nothing could be further from the truth: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/chapter32.htm
xxxx
LIBERALISM AND AUTHORITY IN PARTICULAR CASES
How is one to tell on his own authority who or what is Liberal, without having recourse to a definitive decision of the teaching Church? When a good Catholic accuses anyone of Liberalism or attacks and unmasks Liberal sophisms, the accused (164) immediately seeks refuge in a challenge of the accuser’s authority: “And pray who are you, to charge me and my journal with Liberalism? Who made you a Master in Israel to declare who is or who is not a good Catholic? And is it from you that I must take out a patent of Catholicity?” Such is the last resort of the tainted Catholic on finding himself pushed to the wall. How then are we to answer this opposition? Is the theology of Liberal Catholics sound upon this point? That we may accuse any person or writing of Liberalism, is it necessary to have recourse to a special judgement of the church upon this particular person or this particular writing? By no means. If this Liberal paradox were true, it would furnish Liberals with a very efficacious weapon with which to practically annul all the Church’s condemnations of Liberalism. The Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right, juris et facti; her sovereign authority is personified in the Pope. To him alone belongs the right of pronouncing the final, decisive and solemn sentence. But this does not exclude other judgments, less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience. Of this kind are: (165)
1. Judgments of the Bishops in their respective dioceses.
2. Judgments of pastors in their parishes.
3. Judgments of directors of consciences.
4. Judgments of theologians consulted by the lay faithful.
These judgments are of course not infallible, but they are entitled to great consideration and ought to be binding in proportion to the authority of those who give them, in the gradation we have mentioned. But it is not against judgments of this character that Liberals hurl the peremptory challenge we wish particularly to consider. There is another factor in this matter entitled to respect and that is:
5. The judgment of simple human reason duly enlightened.
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illuminated by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all, because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes the faithful are permitted and even (166) commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Oportet allatrare canes. “It behooves watchdogs to bark” very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.
Is not perchance the part played by human reason so understood by those zealous prelates, who on a thousand occasions exhort the faithful to refrain from the reading of bad journals and works without specially pointing them out? Thus do they (167) show their conviction that this natural criterion, illuminated by faith, is sufficient to enable the faithful to apply well known doctrines to such matters.
Does the Index itself give the title of every forbidden book? Do we not find under the rubric of General Rules of the Index certain principles according to which good Catholics should guide themselves in forming their judgement upon books not mentioned in the Index, but which each reader is expected to apply at his own discretion? Of what use would be the rule of faith and morals, if in every particular case the faithful cannot of themselves make the immediate application; if they were constantly obliged to consult the Pope or the diocesan pastor? Just as the general rule of morality is the law, in accordance with which each one squares his own conscience, dictamen practicum, in making particular applications of this general rule, subject to correction if erroneous; so the general rule of faith, which is the infallible authority of the Church, is and ought to be in consonance with every particular judgment formed in making concrete applications, subject of course to correction and retraction in the event of mistake in so applying it. It would be rendering the superior rule of faith useless, absurd and impossible to require (168) the supreme authority of the Church to make its special and immediate application in every case upon every occasion, which calls it forth. This would be a species of brutal and satanic Jansenism like that of the followers of the unhappy Bishop of Ypres, when they exacted, for the reception of the sacraments, such dispositions as would make it impossible for men to profit by that which was plainly intended and instituted for them by Jesus Christ Himself.
The legal rigorism invoked by the Liberalists, in matters pertaining to faith, is as absurd as the ascetic rigorism once preached at Port Royal; it would result even more disastrously. If you doubt this look around you. The greatest rigorists on this point are the most hardened sectaries of the Liberal school. But how explain this apparent contradiction? It is easily explained, if we only reflect that nothing could be more convenient for Liberalism than to put this legal muzzle upon the lips and the pens of their most determined adversaries. It would be in truth a great triumph for them, under the pretext that no one except the Pope and the Bishops could speak with the least authority, to this impose silence upon the lay champions of the faith, such as were DeMaistre, (169) Cortes, Veuillot, Ward, Lucas, McMaster, who once bore, and others, who now bear, the banner of the faith so boldly and unflinchingly against its most insidious foes. Liberalism would like to see such crusaders disarmed, and would prefer, above all, if they could succeed in getting the Church herself to do the disarming.
xxxx
This is the principle that sedevacantists apply to the Vatican II sect.
For it was at Vatican II where propositions on ecumenism, religious liberty, and religious freedom were promulgated that contradicted the prior teaching of the Church. For example, from Unitatis Redintegratio - the council’s decree on ecumenism - they profess that non-Catholic denominations can be means of salvation, a direct contradiction of ‘Outside the Church, there is no salvation’.
There are far more that can be listed, but it will suffice to summarize that I - and many others - can make the plain observation that the Vatican II religion professes doctrines that contradict that of the Catholic religion. Indeed, although certain accidents may remain, Vatican II represented a substantial change from the Catholic Church of the ages.
At Vatican II, man was made the centerpiece at the expense of God; we see its natural evolution today in the false pontificate of Francis, who espouses a humanist and naturalist ethos on seemingly a daily basis, and has so demonstrably shown himself to be a non-Catholic that to say he can be a Pope is an absurdity, for one must first be a Catholic before you can be a Pope (as the old joke goes).
I am operating on the order of fact, as it were: Francis is not a Catholic (and likewise Benedict XVI going back to John XXIII) – not because of some canonical trial declaring him not to be one, but because he publicly manifests by his words and his actions that, against better knowledge, he does not adhere to all the dogmatic teachings of the Church’s magisterium until the death of Pope Pius XII.
Similarly, Martin Luther was a heretic in the order of fact long before the Church’s law recognized him to be guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of heresy; in fact, the Church’s judgment, in a way, is based on and presupposes the order of fact, because the law can only be applied to cases that have actually occurred. What made Luther a heretic wasn’t a decree of excommunication or any other Church law declaring him to be one; what made him a heretic was his pertinacious doubt or denial of dogma.
Just like Martin Luther ceased being a Catholic the moment he publicly manifested his pertinacious denial of Church dogma, and not the moment when Pope Leo X’s bull of excommunication took effect, so any Vatican II cleric – whether it be Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, or any cleric of lesser rank – ceased being a Catholic likewise at the moment of the public denial, regardless of any possible ecclesiastical trial. Sedevacantists are concerned with detecting who is and isn’t professing the Catholic Faith, not with legally judging individuals before the Church or imposing canonical sanctions in ecclesiastical trials.
A very important point to note here is that the order of fact is sufficient for **anyone** to take action. Just like you know your neighbor is a murderer if you have witnessed him commit the act of murder and therefore avoid him like the plague, so you can act on the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is not the Pope because you are privy to his public acts of heresy or apostasy.
So, to answer a prior post of Elsie’s: you need not fear that I will become a Protestant, for I do not reject proper and legitimate ecclesial authority.
What I do reject is that Francis and his Vatican II ilk actually **possess** legitimate authority. That is a key distinction to make: if I professed Francis to be a true Pope, yet resisted him regardless (as many self-professed traditional Catholics do), **then** I would indeed have condemned myself as a schismatic.
In an strange sort of way, prior to becoming a sedevacantist, I was a Catholic outwardly, but a Protestant in spirit. Funny how that works. :)
if you reject the current system why do you support it with your presence in the pew and you offerings? Actions speak louder than words and you are helping perpetuate a system you reject
Hebrews 12:18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
When you read the passage in the context the writerdesigned, you will see your error, hopefully.
Show me where these bowls of the prayers become petitions, as in praying to these holding the bowls.
That’s where you’re incorrect. Upon becoming a sedevacantist, I ceased attending the parishes in union with the Vatican II sect and began attending a congregation administrated by a sedevacantist apostolate called CMRI.
There are quite a few sedevacantist organizations throughout the world who still possess Apostolic succession.
Perhaps we are in the time of the Great Apostasy before the end of all things, or maybe the crisis in Rome will be corrected by the merciful hand of God in some way, as Arianism and countless other heretical movements throughout the ages were ultimately defeated.
But we will keep the Faith regardless.
So complicated! Just apply The Word of God to the talking mules own proclamations. You will see (by spiritual insight) that Francis is a heretic to The Word of God.
well at least you put your money where your mouth is. now about the heresies and errors in the catholic church pre Vatican 2
Actually I sympathize with your contention that V2 is least partly as odds with past RC teaching, though of course you have such counter arguments as ther FR thread, A SIMPLE, COMMON SENSE REBUTTAL to SSPX, SSPV and CMRI , but basically our only "dog" in this fight is to substantiate what you just have. That Catholicism it not unified, but consists of an amalgam of various RC types, from proabortion, prohomosexual public figures whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death, to ultratraditionlists who are driven by cultic devotion to defend a church with no reigning pope.
And who usually will not tell us who the last valid pope was. Thus on one hand we have RCs contending for a church which makes liberals their brethren, and on the other a church that has no reigning pope. Yet both of which contend for a church whose distinctive teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
In an strange sort of way, prior to becoming a sedevacantist, I was a Catholic outwardly, but a Protestant in spirit. Funny how that works. :)
I dare say that you still are a (evangelical) Protestant, in the sense that you do not simply assent to all that your leadership states is church teaching, but make the veracity of it subject to your judgment of whether is conflates with historical church. The fundamental difference is that for us the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed is Scripture, mainly Acts thru Revelation since that shows how the NT church understood the gospels. But for TradCaths, then it tends to be the uninspired words of men.
Because nicknames can do that.
Hebrews 12 says no such thing and Revelation 5 does not indicate those prayers are prayers of others offered to them to offer to God.
Imagine that........
Congratulations, however, for being the FIRST Catholic I have seen on this board to make such an admission. Because plenty of Catholics are protesting the current situation in Rome but will not admit that they are doing the same thing Luther did in his day.
He did not set out to start a new church or religion. He wanted to correct the immorality and corruption in Catholicism and get it back to its Biblical roots.
Those in Rome did not like that, any more than those today in Rome like it, and so they ex-communicated him.
FWIW, just an observation......
Seems like every 500 years, there's some great upheaval and split in Catholicism. In 1054 it was The Great Schism in which the Orthodox and Rome split.
In 1500's it was the Protestant Reformation.
Now, 500 years later, Rome is going off the rails again and there's another split looming where faithful to pre-V2 Catholics are going to have to make some decision. Since the power brokers in Rome are not in a frame of mind to listen, they will go their way and those Catholics such as yourself are going to have to decide what to do.
This thread contains an abundance of vivid reminders why I left Catholicism behind fifty years ago and why my spirit rejoiced so excitedly when finally I heard the true Gospel ten years later.
You may want to take a look at mine at #140.
Google is your friend
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.