Difference between trad., SSPX etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter fin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Triumpha said:
St Robert Bellarmine said:

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

Triumpha.
Click to expand...
A saint, no matter how holy, does not speak infallibly.
 
Triumpha said:
St Catherine of Siena said to Pope Gregory IX

Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.

Triumpha.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t she the saint who said that the Virgin appeared to her and declared the concept of the Immaculate Conception to be false?

Again, a saint’s statements are not free from error.
 
Lisa_Lavadores said:
A saint, no matter how holy, does not speak infallibly.
Click to expand...
True.

But I’m not aware that St Robert Bellarmine has beem condemned for his statement. Or that he was accused of Protestantism for saying it.

Meanwhile, we who quote him, a saint, and an uncondemned statement from him, are accused of being Protestants!

😛

He may not have been infallible. but he was Catholic!

Triumpha.
 
fin said:
this forum is confusing.
what is exactly Tradtiional Catholicism?
what is exactly SSPX?
what is Sedevacantism?

Are all these: the same, similar , or different?:confused:
Click to expand...
They are three different things that get confused by common terminology.

Everyone in this thread seems to be in agreement that sedevacantism is a belief (that the Chair of Peter is vacant) that is outside the Church, so I won’t put my :twocents: there.

As mentioned in a post above, two different groups refer to themselves as Traditional Catholics – first, those who prefer the Latin Mass but would never disobey the pope; second, those who prefer the Latin Mass to such an extent that they align themselves with groups (such as the SSPX) that the pope has declared schismatic. Often, those who fall into the latter group do not believe that the pope had the authority to declare the SSPX to be in schism. The former believe the schism exists.
 
Triumpha said:
True.

But I’m not aware that St Robert Bellarmine has beem condemned for his statement. Or that he was accused of Protestantism for saying it.

Meanwhile, we who quote him, a saint, and an uncondemned statement from him, are accused of being Protestants!

😛

He may not have been infallible. but he was Catholic!

Triumpha.
Click to expand...
Surely, you’re not saying that unless a statement is formally condemned, it must be correct!

And although members of the SSPX are often accused of having a Protestant attitude toward personal interpretation of Tradition, I have never heard that accusation come from the Holy See, so this is a comparision of apples and oranges.
 
40.png
Triumpha:
But I’m not aware that St Robert Bellarmine has beem condemned for his statement. Or that he was accused of Protestantism for saying it.
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s because you are reading from Sedavacantist websites such as this one which printed his words totally out of context. It is used by them to justify their belief system. You need to be a little more discerning, Triumpha, as the opening paragraph of this link states:
Like all pseudo movements, false “traditionalism” attacks either (i) the divinely vested magisterial authority itself or (ii) those to whom the authority invests with authority by proxy.
Click to expand...
This is the refutation and correct context of his words:
As far the quote from Cardinal Bellarmine goes, the claim that His Eminence “taught” it is not just a little disingenuous.

Traditional Catholics who reject the New Mass and the post-Vatican II changes but still maintain that the post-Conciliar popes legitimately hold office -a group which includes the Society, Michael Davies, and many others- also see in this passage some sort of justification for recognizing someone as pope but rejecting his commands. The quote has been cited over and over to support these positions, in complete good faith, no doubt. Alas, it has been taken out of context and completely misapplied. In its original context, Bellarmine’s statement neither condemns the principle behind the sedevacantist position, nor justifies resisting laws promulgated by a validly-elected pope…
Click to expand...
The passage cited is from a lengthy chapter Bellarmine devotes to refuting nine arguments advocating the position that the pope is subject to secular power (emperor, king, etc.) and an ecumenical council (the heresy of conciliarism). The general context, therefore, is a discussion of the power of the state vis-à-vis the pope…In its particular context, the oft-cited quote is part of Bellarmine’s refutation of the following argument:
Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.
Bellarmine answers:
I respond by denying the second part of the argument. For to resist an attacker and defend one’s self, no authority is needed, nor is it necessary that he who is attacked be the judge and superior of him who attacks. Authority is required, however, to judge and punish.
Click to expand...
It is only then that Bellarmine states:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)
Bellarmine…is discussing the course of action which may legitimately be taken against a pope who upsets the political order or “kills souls by his bad example.” A king or a council may not depose such a pope, Bellarmine argues, because they are not his superior-but they may resist him.
Click to expand...
 
And, Triumpha, as for the “supposed” quote from St. Catherine, I believe it was stated on another dangerous website which was reviewed as:
Site Review for
Daily Catholic
DailyCatholic.org
RATINGS
Fidelity: DANGER! || Resources: Fair || Useability: Difficult
First Evaluated: 10/04/01 Last Updated: 12/07/06

DESCRIPTION
The Daily Catholic is a free on-line newspaper/magazine. The self-described mission of the magazine is “to provide content in all phases of Catholic living so readers can know the Faith in order to keep the Faith.” It vehemently claims that it is in full accordance with Magisterium of the Church and obedient to the Primacy of Peter, and that all the information on the site is solid, trustworthy, and in full accord with Church teaching. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. In fact, the site focuses primarily on material that consistently undermines both Church teaching and Her authority with regards to the Mass.
Click to expand...
WEAKNESSES
· The underlying premise of the site seems to be the rejection the Novus Ordo and the “Post-Conciliar” Church. (Fidelity)
Example(s)
· Promotion of unapproved apparitions (Fidelity)
· A number of links to questionable sites (Fidelity)
Click to expand...
Can you supply a reputable Catholic source? The official Treatise on Obedience in her writings discloses nothing of this wording attributed to her. Again, believe not everything you see on these websites, especially when repeating them. 😉
 
Lisa_Lavadores said:
Surely, you’re not saying that unless a statement is formally condemned, it must be correct!
Click to expand...
No, I’m not.
And although members of the SSPX are often accused of having a Protestant attitude toward personal interpretation of Tradition, I have never heard that accusation come from the Holy See, so this is a comparision of apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you haven’t heard that accusation from the Holy See.

But it has been implied here on this forum!

I’ve said things which can be backed up with something a saint has said, but I’m told “that’s a very Protestant thing to say!” or “Luther would have said that!”

Because posters on forums are quicker to condemn trads as “Protestants” than the Holy See is!

Triumpha.
 
Joysong said:
Maybe that’s because you are reading from Sedavacantist websites such as this one which printed his words totally out of context. It is used by them to justify their belief system.
Click to expand...
I didn’t get that quote from a sede site at all.

That quote is on umpteen sites! And I first read it probably in The Remnant. Or somewhere like that.

I rarely look at sede sites. They don’t interest me.

Triumpha.
 
I didn’t get that quote from a sede site at all.
Click to expand...
That quote is on umpteen sites! And I first read it probably in The Remnant. Or somewhere like that.
Click to expand...
Yes, the link in Joysong’s post said it has been printed in many Traditionist and Sede websites, and I noted that the Saint’s words were taken completely out of context to justify the position of the traditionist. That is a practice I have seen in many of these websites. Yet it seems unforunate that you believed it, for you repeated it without checking the source, St. Robert himself.

Are you still of the same opinion? Or did the link convince you.

Regarding the quote attributed to St. Catherine, she is a very holy Doctor of the Church. The websites that posted the quote you shared here should be able to give the source reference, wouldn’t you agree? That they did NOT, tells me this quote, too, was stated out of context.
 
Joysong said:
And, Triumpha, as for the “supposed” quote from St. Catherine, I believe it was stated on another dangerous website …

Can you supply a reputable Catholic source? The official Treatise on Obedience in her writings discloses nothing of this wording attributed to her. Again, believe not everything you see on these websites, especially when repeating them. 😉
Click to expand...
Not reputable in your eyes, I’m sure!

I may well have copied it off a dodgy site, but I read it originally in, I think, Catholic Family News (which I daresay is also “disreputable”!) some years ago.

Traditio (which site I very rarely look at, I don’t like it) says she wrote it in a letter to Pope Gregory IX.

If it’s made up, I stand corrected.

Triumpha.
 
Thanks for confirming the site, Triumpha. I looked up three sites that refer to this quote as coming from her, yet not a single one of them gives the source. Can you see why they would withhold it? I would bet my assets that this was not her meaning whatsoever. Yet they managed to dupe you completely, and it really angers me that anyone would deliberately use a holy saint who is as renoun as St. Catherine to further their agenda.

geocities.com/pharsea/limits.html

traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Apr/apr1ed.htm

Maybe a more pertinent question would be, why did you repeat the quotes from her and St. Robert Bellarmine? Could it be that you agree with the logic in these articles that it is perfectly ok to disobey in certain circumstances? [That was the premise of the websites] St. Catherine wrote an entire treatise that the Lord gave her to write, defending obedience to authority. Now why on earth would she make a statment like that?
 
Thursday1 said:
Are you aware that the SSPX can not validly confect the sacrament of marriage because they do not have jurisdiction from the local Ordinary?
Click to expand...
Jurisdiction does not come solely from the local Ordinary. There are other sources as well. Like it or not, there are times when it is true to say, “They have the buildings, but we have the faith”. It is excruciatingly painful to be in the Novus Ordo. People there, clergy and lay, are constantly insinuating heresy and error, frequently saying things that are offensive to pious ears. Being near them can easily be an occasion of sin.
 
Joysong said:
Maybe a more pertinent question would be, why did you repeat the quotes from her and St. Robert Bellarmine? Could it be that you agree with the logic in these articles that it is perfectly ok to disobey in certain circumstances?
Click to expand...
Well, of course it’s ok to disobey in certain circumstances!

The St Robert Bellarmine quote I have come across many times.

The St Catherine quote, as I said, I had come across some years ago in Catholic Family News. I just copied and pasted it for ease from one of the three sites you mentioned!

I think the Remnant and CFN are fairly trustworthy. Though, I can appreciate that you may not agree!
St. Catherine wrote an entire treatise that the Lord gave her to write, defending obedience to authority. Now why on earth would she make a statment like that?
Click to expand...
St Catherine was rather outspoken towards the Pope, as I understand!

Triumpha.
 
Joysong said:
defending obedience to authority.
Click to expand...
Obedience is not the highest virtue by any means.

When we speak of obedience, the question naturally arises: to what? To laws. The issue here is that laws were changed radically and some people have not given their assent. Is this unthinkable? Not at all: a law should not be changed unless the common good be compensated for the harm caused. St. Thomas. Changes must be for the common good. Yet obviously, the changes in the Church were not for the common good at all. They were rushed through, and have been the source of a huge amount of anxiety and injury. The Modernist agenda found it very easy to piggy-back on top of so many changes. To be in that environment is a very painful thing, and therefore not good for souls. Some souls have fled. Obedience is not the highest virtue. The Church is primarily concerned with the good of souls, the salvation of souls. That is the highest law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top