Quote from: Ladislaus

This thread is not about the existence of BoD per se. It's about the question of whether there can be such a thing as justification without the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.

Why does this concern you? Are you a theologian?

Sure, and you're competent to judge Popes deposed based on your theological reasoning.

You are defending and supporting heretics.

Nonsense.  I am simply acknowledging that I do not have any authority to make a decision regarding the legitimacy of the Pope.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks

You are defending and supporting heretics.

Nonsense.  I am simply acknowledging that I do not have any authority to make a decision regarding the legitimacy of the Pope.

But you do have authority to pick and choose what you will believe of their Magisterium and declare their Sacraments heretical and their teachings as well?

You're confusing me with an R&Rer.  I do not submit to any of the V2 "Magisterium" due to doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.

Based on my private judgment, I have come to the conclusion that there's positive doubt about some/many of the NO Sacramental rites and have, using the same private judgment, concluded that they have taught error to the Church.

When and how long where you a SV?

I've come up with the tongue-in-cheek term to describe this position ... "sede-doubtism" (a strange mix of Latin and English).  Father Jenkins articulated a very similar position.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Sneakyticks

And eens-denier why? Because I believe in baptism of desire and blood? You accuse the Church and all the Saints and Doctors who taught it of denying eens. How bout that?

Do you think sedevacantists are arrogant because they have found that the explanation for the current situation lies in the loss of office and authority (in some cases not even lost but never had to begin with) of the novus ordo charlatans, while you non-sedevacantists are the "humble" ones for LYING about the truth and saying NO ONE can dare proclaim the obvious and patent truth? You think it humble to dig your head in the sand and say "this situation is too mysterious for anybody to figure out"? You think it humility to say that just because YOU "can't figure it out", no one can?

Just another dishonest hypocrite who thinks there is a way into heaven without the sacraments and who also thinks his knowledge of the popes' sins qualify him to proclaim there is no pope, while one sits right in the Chair.

You're no different then every other NSAAer - for you, it's an absolute impossibility to do the strictly Catholic thing by starting a thread championing defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.

You cannot outwardly hope to ever defend that which you deeply despise.

FYI, I have had the same open invitation to all NSAAers for over 7 months now, to prove to themselves how terribly wrong and dishonest they are I offered them the same challenge that I offered you above.

The fact that you cannot do what the Church has done always and everywhere, namely, defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, is your clue to yourself that you are a lying hypocrite.

---False, rash, pernicious, erroneous, offensive to pious ears, favorable to the charges and calumnies of heretics, seductive of simple minds, and in opposition to Catholic truth, heretical.

I didn't challenge you to see if you knew crude words - any idiot, as you continually demonstrate, can do that.

I specifically challenged you to do something strictly Catholic and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, your reply demonstrates how repulsive even thinking about doing such a thing is to you.

That is your clue *to yourself* that you are a lying hypocrite.

I recommend repeating the teaching of Trent: "The sacraments are necessary unto salvation" to yourself 5,000 times a day until you believe it.

Once you believe it, come back and start a thread championing defending the absolute  necessity of the sacraments for every human being unto salvation.

Until then, the reason you cannot do the strictly Catholic thing of defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation is because you do not believe they are necessary at all.

We can be grateful that Our Lord did not leave it up to you and the other NSAAers to preserve the sacraments till the end of time.

For now, I'm off to Mass - I'm one of those who, Deo Gratias, is fortunate to have access to it and unlike you and your preaching, I actually need the sacraments.

Quote from: Sneakyticks

---False, rash, pernicious, erroneous, offensive to pious ears, favorable to the charges and calumnies of heretics, seductive of simple minds, and in opposition to Catholic truth, heretical.

I didn't challenge you to see if you knew crude words - any idiot, as you continually demonstrate, can do that.

That is what what you say IS according to the teaching of the Church, and the "crude words" are from a Papal Bull.

I specifically challenged you to do something strictly Catholic and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, your reply demonstrates how repulsive even thinking about doing such a thing is to you.

That is your clue *to yourself* that you are a lying hypocrite.

I recommend repeating the teaching of Trent: "The sacraments are necessary unto salvation" to yourself 5,000 times a day until you believe it.

Once you believe it, come back and start a thread championing defending the absolute  necessity of the sacraments for every human being unto salvation.

Until then, the reason you cannot do the strictly Catholic thing of defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation is because you do not believe they are necessary at all.

We can be grateful that Our Lord did not leave it up to you and the other NSAAers to preserve the sacraments till the end of time.

You are beyond human help and delusional.

Answer what i said in the mysterium fidei thread.

For now, I'm off to Mass - I'm one of those who, Deo Gratias, is fortunate to have access to it and unlike you and your preaching, I actually need the sacraments.

You're one of those who receives the Sacraments to his own damnation and they will avail you nothing, only to add to your punishments, for all your parading about defending them.

Yeah, right off to Mass after bashing the teaching of the Church.

I wonder if you ever try to actually convert anyone in the real world, or if all you do is waste your time here ranting about your ravings.

You seem to be here a lot, since the morning, so i think it's safe to say all you do is waste your time here while not doing anything in the real world.

Some "defender of the Sacraments" you are.

FYI, no one will ever get to heaven if they do not first receive the sacrament of baptism before they die.

Wrong.

This is true regardless of whatever bazaar and ridiculous "impossible"  circuмstances you want to invent to make exceptions to that truth.

False.

Far as you are concerned, the mysterium fidei thread is a mockery started by another despiser of the sacraments like you, since neither of you even believe the sacraments are necessary at all, please do not further demonstrate your hypocrisy by seeming concerned about validity of the Holy Eucharist while you preach salvation is rewarded via No Sacrament At All anyway.

Where do you get the idea that bod/bob supplying for water baptism in extreme cases means that the Sacraments are not necessary at all???????

Are you one of those blockheads who believes an exception does away with the norm?

So if somebody is exempt from taking a math test, do you throw up your arms and declare that now everybody needs to be exempt from the test?

FYI, to you and yours, NSAA rewards salvation,

What is NSAA?

so according to your own preaching, it makes no difference whatsoever if transubstantiation takes place or not. Just implicitly desire for validity, you hypocrite.

You're out of your mind and pretty desperate, that is clear.

Inventing nonsense like that.

You said in the other thread:

Gee wiz, suddenly he thinks he understand magisterial docuмents without an interpreter. Go figure.

And my answer to that was:

Oh so in THIS case, as opposed to Trent, you WOULD say that you would only follow what an authority would say about it, and not "believe it as it is written"?

Ye hypocrite.