TradRevivalOperator 🇻🇦🌲

I propose a new Texas flag:

I have: DH #2: "This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits." It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states have a right, and a duty, to prevent false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common good - the good of souls, which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the state; and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other. Pope Pius XI's Syllabus of Errors condemns your notion and the notions of DH.

@Isaiahfloz DH preserves tradition, read the fourth paragraph. Religious liberty is civil immunity from coercion, not offering the moral right to err. We’re now conflating civil law with moral duty.

I am begging. Pleading with the pope respecter and pope defenders who are good intentioned and well meaning. The newest thing is not the most authoritative. The 3 pillars of Roman Catholicism are Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. Newest thing is not best thing guys. Really need to hammer this home for a lot of you.

@barikofthetiers These are just a few I have saved, there is centuries of Church teaching on religious liberty that are at odds with what DH says.

I don't know how that pertains to our discussion thus far. The Church has condemned religious liberty historically. Here we see that prior Magisterial teaching and direct papal encyclicals, have condemned religious liberty, not just because other religious are false, but because it is not in accord with the natural good and end that man is called to. You do not have a "right" to sin, only the right to know, love and serve God.

It doesn't have to be declared ex cathedra to be a perennial teaching of the Church. There have been less than 5 genuine Ex Cathedra statements in the span of the Church and that number is debated among Theologians. An example I'd cite would be the idea of religious liberty. The Church in her doctrine and multiple papal statements of the past has condemned that as a heresy and antithetical to the Light and fullness of Truth the Church offers.

@Isaiahfloz Sure, so what specific teaching declared via ex cathedra has been deemed null and void by post-Vatican II Popes? No one seems to be able to answer this question. Doctrine is subject to change, not dogma.

A very easy analogy proving my premise is if an older teaching declared via council or ex cathedra, was weighed against a more modern teaching seemingly at odds with the earlier one, but made via an interview or informal setting. You as a Catholic, are not bound by the newer teaching. You would be bound by the perennial teaching of the Church, as it's doctrines are unchanging.

@Isaiahfloz It requires a level of arrogance to believe that you, as a laymen, are in a better position to assess the matter than the Holy Father. What decides what is “more authoritative” in your view? I’m unaware of any significant changes in dogma that bring about these questions.

@barikofthetiers Why do you assume it lies with me. I appeal to the Traditions and immutable teachings of the Church and Magisterium. Weightier and more authoritative proclamations and teachings have more force than newer less authoritative ones. Simple as.

@Isaiahfloz I’m curious what makes you think the authority lies with you.

@Tom_McGovern_72 There are differing theological opinions on that topic, but there is no binding, defined dogma on that issue that the Church holds the faithful to. Life begins at conception. When ensoulment occurs is open to debate and interpretation.

@Isaiahfloz So you still believe in the delayed ensoulment of the fetus?

@Tom_McGovern_72 The teachings of the Church are immutable and unchanging. This way of thinking is modernism.

@Isaiahfloz Just because it was taught in the past, doesn't make it right. I'm sure Pope respecters understand this and defer to the reigning Pope.

@darkgroyp @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW "If you make an argument proving my stance and statements are wrong, I won't care that much." Okay bro. I'll just leave then. Have a nice life.

@Isaiahfloz @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW And I don't tend to take the faith of people defending material schism seriously if you want to make the argument that this is not formally schismatic because there is no intent to break unity with Rome you can do that but at that point I don't care that much

When trads complain about the conciliar Church and the modernist influence infecting it, this is what we mean. This harlot should have never been allowed on the grounds, let alone to offer her "blessings."

@darkgroyp The newest thing is not the most authoritative, lil bro.

@Isaiahfloz you guys don't care about the magisterium lmao

@darkgroyp @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW The SSPX is not doing that.

@Isaiahfloz @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW creating parallel governing structure/apostolic lines is qualitatively different than refusing an order from the pope to go to Africa for example

@darkgroyp @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW Never given a canonical sentence of schism.

@Isaiahfloz @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW pope Benedict and JP2 both said you acted schismatically

My first time going to a TLM mass, I dressed how I did for NO. Jeans, sneakers, polo basic stuff. I walked in and immediately knew I was out of place. Everyone was dressed better than I was, and I felt it. Nobody bothered me, but an usher came up after to greet me, and he asked where I was from. After a few minutes of chatting, he gently let me know of the proper attire for mass and I wasn't the least bit bothered by it, because I could tell that beyond the looks, the parishoners were on fire for their faith and the sacrifice of the Mass. I've worn a suit to mass every time, for the past 15 years now.

The most angry I’ve gotten in a long time was hearing about my friend’s first experience trying to go to Mass and a random layman harassing him for not being dressed in a 3 piece suit. Keep in mind he comes from a protestant background, and while jeans and a flannel wasn’t ideal, the kid didn’t know the dresscode. If it wasn’t for the kindness of the FSSP priest inviting my friend to attend that Mass, that could’ve been the first and last experience of Catholicism he would’ve ever had. I’m tired of the bullshit of some of these tweedfags who would rather cast a non-Catholic into the outer darkness for not immediately knowing everything than inviting him into Mass to have him experience the life Christ wants to give him. My friend is now becoming Catholic and wears a suit to every Mass, but it was because of the kindness of that Fraternity priest and the love Christ showed Him when He venerated a piece of the True Cross on Good Friday. Be the reason why someone comes back to Mass.

@ChristopherHale Which mass has more formed more saints, blesseds, and venerables?

The Mass of Paul VI is more faithful to tradition than the Tridentine Mass.

@darkgroyp @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW The SSPX have never been declared schimatic by any Pope. The worst you can say is they are irregular.

@Sirgoseric @Isaiahfloz @GenMarkRW do you understand the difference between a schismatic act and formal schism and disobedience

@darkgroyp @Sirgoseric @GenMarkRW Bro you clearly don't. We're trying to educate you.

@Sirgoseric @Isaiahfloz @GenMarkRW no it's not just disobedience but undoubtedly a schismatic act because you're questioning his authority you try to be clever yet do not understand the difference between a schismatic act and disobedience

@Sirgoseric @darkgroyp @GenMarkRW These people, man. It's like they are so proud of their lack of understanding.

@darkgroyp @Isaiahfloz @GenMarkRW You can be so dense to keep ignoring the ontological distinction between confeering the sacrament of the order withour assigning a see (inalienable faculty of any bishop), therefore, NO JURISDICTION, with the act of schism which is defined as the usurpation of a bishops see.

In fact, Canon 1387 can not be applied mechanically. Canons 1323–1324 explicitly exempt acts done under necessity, and the Church’s own treatment of the SSPX—lifting excommunications, granting jurisdiction, and refusing to declare schism—proves Rome itself does not apply that canon absolutely. Those who cite Canon 1387 without citing Canons 1323–1324 are using it polemically, not Catholicly.

You realize that excommunication and schism are two different things, right? Canon 1387 does not apply mechanically when necessity is present. Automatic penalties are not self-executing. Even latae sententiae penalties require: 1. Full knowledge 2. Full consent 3. Grave imputability 4. No excusing circumstances