ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics

[Phillipus Iacobus]

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?

Because it is necessary for one's salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[Resurrexi]

Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

According to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox, Copts and Protestants have their own reasoning on the matter.

As do the Arians concerning the divinity of Christ.

[Parmandur]

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?

Because it is necessary for one's salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

But why?  You are assuming what is to be proven.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

According to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox, Copts and Protestants have their own reasoning on the matter.

Heresies, not reasoning. Alas, it appears that some even dare to consider calling in to question the divine authority of the Church due to current times.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?

Because it is necessary for one's salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

But why?  You are assuming what is to be proven.

Unam Sanctam.

[Parmandur]

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?

Because it is necessary for one's salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

But why?  You are assuming what is to be proven.

Unam Sanctam.

Okay, that still doesn't explain why.  You are fighting reasonable positions with slogans.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I would also like to say that any kind of attacks against Catholic doctrine, even if very implicit via criticism of the concilliar popes and teachings, should not be allowed on this forum, for it is a Roman Catholic forum.

Then you have to shut down most SSPX discussion as they have a lot of criticism for conciliar popes and teachings.

Like I said, they are wrong for the right reasons, you're right for the wrong reasons. I co wider the SSPX position to be illogical, but at they err in good faith trying to be faithful to true Roman Catholicism. You are criticizing SSPXers and those who criticize post concilliar novelties, scandals, and heresies not because of concern for Roman Catholic truth, but to ultimately serve your Eastern schismatic agenda.

P.S. please take none of this personally, Silouan. I sincerely hope you abandon schism and heresy and enter into the Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. I only tell you this in fraternal charity and concern.

I'm sorry, it is not clear to me what makes a Western schismatic agenda preferable to an Eastern schismatic agenda?  ???

Because one is objectively schismatic and heretical. The SSPX position is erroneous, but it is a legal folly. As you should know, I consider it the same as one who "steals" his own umbrella unknowingly.

I know you are raising good points, but my oh my the neo-con assault against the SSPX has reached a peak on fisheaters.

I would also like to point out that whilst the SSPX position is erroneous, it is not schismatic. No way that it's schismatic.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?

Because it is necessary for one's salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

But why?  You are assuming what is to be proven.

Unam Sanctam.

Okay, that still doesn't explain why.  You are fighting reasonable positions with slogans.

That's not a slogan. That's ex cathedra dogma.

[Vetus Ordo]

Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

According to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox, Copts and Protestants have their own reasoning on the matter.

As do the Arians concerning the divinity of Christ.

Are there any Arians around? Arianism flatly contradicts Scripture and the most basic and fundamental Christian belief.

The non-Catholic Christians still exist in very significant numbers and interpret those scriptural passages used in support of the Petrine primacy differently than Roman Catholicism does. Some Fathers also did so, there's certainly precedence in scriptural exegesis. It's not a clear and cut thing that non-Catholics don't accept out of mere pride or obstinacy. It's a bit disingenuous to constantly portray them as dishonest or stupid. Even an honest Catholic apologist has to admit that Petrine primacy, not to mention supremacy, was not very conspicious during the first millennia of Christendom. It's one of those dogmas that became "explicit" and "defined" more than one thousand years after the fact.

[Parmandur]

They say they accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the one true Church of Christ.  Why are they wrong?

Because it is necessary for one's salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

But why?  You are assuming what is to be proven.

Unam Sanctam.

Okay, that still doesn't explain why.  You are fighting reasonable positions with slogans.

That's not a slogan. That's ex cathedra dogma.

But can you explain it?

When it comes to your attitude towards the Orthodox, the old proverb "treat others as you would be treated" comes to mind.  They are not irrational beasts, they are Christian men,  Treat them accordingly.