anonymous drifter

@Burgess7281975 @msirilla1 Do you share their opinions on the so called "novus ordo" Mass being intrinsically harmful and dangerous? How are you sympathetic to these positions at all? Please clarify where you stand on these issues. Thanks.

@Burgess7281975 @msirilla1 If the SSPX is excommunicated here shortly, will you accept that as valid and treat them as schismatics? You don't think them denying the legitimacy of the canonization of John Paul 2 is a huge problem?

A common misunderstanding I see among Catholics regarding the SSPX involves a facile and erroneous likening of the Society to Martin Luther and/or Protestantism in general. The claim is made: the SSPX, like Luther, substitutes their private judgment for that of the Church’s Magisterium. So I’d like to bring a little clarity here: the principal issue with Martin Luther, as with all heretics, is the substitution of private judgment for the Magisterium on mysteries of faith. Luther denied the papacy, many of the sacraments, the need for good works, etc. All of these truths of faith are matters of infallible Magisterial teaching. The principal issue with the SSPX is fundamentally different. With the Society, the issue is obedience and the allegation of schism, not heresy. And this difference is significant. They do not deny any infallibly-defined truth of faith. They don’t, like Luther and other heretics, substitute their private judgment for Magisterial teaching. Regarding schism, it’s truly a difficult matter - one about which doctoral dissertations in Canon Law have been written (for example, Fr. Gerald Murray from EWTN wrote an important dissertation on the Society and schism). The Society does not intend to set up a hierarchical/juridical structure parallel to that of Christ’s Church. But their bishops do materially disobey the pope when consecrating new bishops (as in 1988 and, forthcoming in July). Whether that amounts to formal (and culpable) disobedience is a matter of genuine good-faith debate. So one of the essential questions to resolve, theologically and canonically, is whether or not that material disobedience is permissible (something all law - divine, natural, and human - has always recognized): for example, speeding in a 25 mph zone to get someone to the hospital before they bleed to death. Honest and good theologians and canonists on all sides of this issue recognize that this is not a simple matter. It really isn’t like Lutheranism or Protestantism at all. And unlike in matters of defined dogmas, the Church is not infallible in her juridical decisions (see, e.g., St. Joan of Arc).

@JanetET115 @hdpayens Your silence on St. Paul's words is deafening.

@drifter56184 @hdpayens Attack.? A bit harsh. Remember Eph 2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. I wish you well.

Aquinas spent 15 questions in the Summa proving angels and demons are real intellectual beings. Most Protestants who dismiss demons as metaphor have never engaged a single one of those arguments. Here is what those questions actually establish. Aquinas treats angelic and demonic nature as a matter of philosophical demonstration, not pious imagination. Angels are pure intellects, subsistent forms without matter. Each angel is its own species. Their knowledge is non-discursive, meaning they don't reason step by step the way humans do. They know by infused species, immediately and completely. This matters for demonology because it means demonic choices are irrevocable in a way human choices are not. A demon's rejection of God was total, instantaneous, and final. Not a bad day. Not a mistake. A complete act of a complete intellect. The Fourth Lateran Council affirmed that the devil and demons are real created beings who fell by their own free choice. This is dogma, not folklore. Scripture treats them the same way. Job 1-2, Luke 10:18, Ephesians 6:12, Revelation 12:7-9. Real agents. Real wills. Real names. The theological problem with demythologizing demons is not just that it contradicts Catholic teaching. It's that it makes Christ's exorcisms incoherent. Mark 1, Mark 5, Luke 11. Jesus addresses demons as personal agents with names and wills. If they're metaphors, the Gospel authors are either deceived or deceiving, which collapses any serious doctrine of Scripture. Fr. Ripperger's exorcism work applies Aquinas's framework practically. The categories aren't academic. They're pastoral. What argument for the metaphorical view do you find most common, and how would you answer it?

@JanetET115 @hdpayens 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens He says hold fast to tradition. Janet deflects from this obvious fact and attacks Catholics. Why?

@JanetET115 @hdpayens You again decline to deal with what St. Paul said and hyper-focus on Catholics. Why is this? Stay focused and answer the question please: How do you claim sola scriptura when St. Paul clearly says to do otherwise here?

@JanetET115 @hdpayens Your interpretation of what is very clear is not clear to the vast majority of Christians in history. You are in a tiny minority. Do you understand that Janet? Not only that, but you are at odds with the very earliest Church. How does this not cause you to pause for a moment?

@drifter56184 @hdpayens How do you interpret it? To me it’s very clear. Or this Matthew 24: 14For many are called, but few are chosen. I could cite others.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens This was a formal hierarchy with clear levels of authority. Baptists don't even have bishops, although they are right there in Scripture and have been visible all over the world for 2,000 years.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens The hierarchical church clearly visible in the New Testament was not a some sort of a guidance or recommendation.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens I agree, but 2 Tim 3:16 nowhere says Scripture alone. You also didn't address what St. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. You just ignored it and brought up another Bible verse that also doesn't teach sola scriptura. How do you explain what St. Paul said?

@drifter56184 @hdpayens Not follow the Bible? 2Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens So again, we are back to authority. Who gave John Calvin and Janet the authority to depart from 1,500 years of Christian orthodoxy and teach something nobody had ever heard before?

@JanetET115 @hdpayens Right, John Calvin looked at this verse and interpreted differently than anyone ever had in all of Christian history, including the earliest Church who learned from the apostles themselves.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens Baptists don't have a hierarchical church like the one we see in Scripture. Why is that?

@JanetET115 @hdpayens The apostles were the first Bishops of the Church for example. That office is mentioned in Scripture. They ordained presbyters (priests) and deacons in Scripture as well. All three of those offices appear in the Catholic Church today.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens Forget about Catholics and popes for a moment. Put that aside.... This is a clear refutatuon of sola scriptura, as St. Paul is telling his followers to follow something other than just the Bible here.

@drifter56184 @hdpayens I know your church uses this passage of the oral teachings of the apostles (necessary until the New Testament was written) to justify adding extra teachings given by Popes. I learned the renaissance popes in school. They didn’t even pretend to live Christian lives.

@JanetET115 @hdpayens This Calvinistic idea would have been completely foreign to the early Church, literally the generations that learned directly from the apostles and their desciples. Why do Baptists know better than the men who learned from the apostles?

@JanetET115 @hdpayens "Sovereign grace" is by definition a "tradition of men," as no Christian believed anything remotely like it for 1,500 years before John Calvin. It is a completely novel idea in Christian history.