Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose

My hope for you is that ignorance will excuse you.  

When a Pope comes again and corrects this error of yours , will you admit you were wrong, and accept Baptism of Desire?

And if a Pope came along and condemned Baptism of Desire, Ambrose would just declare the Holy See vacant again on the grounds of heresy.

What your saying is impossible.  

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose

My hope for you is that ignorance will excuse you.  

When a Pope comes again and corrects this error of yours , will you admit you were wrong, and accept Baptism of Desire?

Honest translation of what Ambrose really means, if Ambrose were a sincere person instead of a con-man weasel:



"When a Pope comes again and corrects this teaching of yours that people can't be saved unless they explicitly believe in Christ and explicitly desire to be Catholics,  will you admit you were wrong, and embrace my loving teaching of salvation without water baptism, without explicit desire to be a Catholic and without belief in Christ, and the Trinity?"

If you want to quote me, then by all means do so, but don't give a fake quote that I did not write.

No fake quote, you are the fake, for what I wrote IS EXACTLY what you believe and THE ONLY reason all these BOD threads from you exist on CI.

I have over 3,000 posts on this forum.  It's strange that you can't use my words, for my own quote, but you have to make up my words for me.  

Bizarre.  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose

My hope for you is that ignorance will excuse you.  

When a Pope comes again and corrects this error of yours , will you admit you were wrong, and accept Baptism of Desire?

And if a Pope came along and condemned Baptism of Desire, Ambrose would just declare the Holy See vacant again on the grounds of heresy.

What your saying is impossible.  

Why?  John XXIII, Paul VI, JP2, B16, and F1 all teach heresy, no?  And you reject them for heresy, no?  Why wasn't it impossible that these Vatican II Papal Claimants were Antipopes and yet no future Pope could be a heretic Antipope.  You're a walking sack of contradiction.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose

My hope for you is that ignorance will excuse you.  

When a Pope comes again and corrects this error of yours , will you admit you were wrong, and accept Baptism of Desire?

And if a Pope came along and condemned Baptism of Desire, Ambrose would just declare the Holy See vacant again on the grounds of heresy.

What your saying is impossible.  

Why?  John XXIII, Paul VI, JP2, B16, and F1 all teach heresy, no?  And you reject them for heresy, no?  Why wasn't it impossible that these Vatican II Papal Claimants were Antipopes and yet no future Pope could be a heretic Antipope.  You're a walking sack of contradiction.

I am with Bellarmine's pious opinion that a Pope would never authoritatively teach heresy, so I believe this to be impossible.  

If you believe otherwise, that is not a forbidden position, but I won't be joining you in it.  

By the way, I have never said that John XXIII taught heresy.  His case is much more complex than the others.  

I'm highlighting the problems with your Pope-Sifting Sedevacantism.  If you think a Pope is a heretic, you just declare the See vacant.  Problem solved.  You therefore undermine the entire Magisterium.  If a Pope were to come along who condemned BoD, would you accept it?  Most likely no.  You would declare the See vacant.  Consequently, there is no Magisterium anymore other than the private judgment of Ambrose.  For as much as you sanctimoniously aver your loyalty to (your interpretation of) the Magisterium, YOU ARE IN FACT YOUR OWN MAGISTERIUM.

There is no sifting, there is the realization of a public crime, namely heresy.  

If you saw a man enter a bank with a black mask, gun drawn, who demands money, and then runs away, can you judge this man to be a bank robber, or must you wait for a judge to declare this fact?

If you witness a man claiming to be Pope teaching in an authoritative capacity, heresy and grave doctrinal errors, and promulgating laws contrary to the Catholic Faith, can you recognize this fact or must you wait for a future ruling before you can be aware of a plain obvious fact?

If you say the latter, then you are completely defenseless against this heretic, if you truly regard him as Pope.

Quote from: Ambrose

I am with Bellarmine's pious opinion that a Pope would never authoritatively teach heresy, so I believe this to be impossible.

How did Paul VI pull it off then?

My opinion is that he was never a Pope to begin with.  

I do realize that some hold that he fell in Dec. 7, 1965, and that is an area that we will need to wait for the future Church to settle.  

My opinion is ....  

If you were not hiding behind a screen, if you were face to face with any intelligent educated person, they would not even direct a word in your direction. This is the problem with the internet. Keep writing, you'll take down CI just like all the others like you took down Angelqueen. When I left there I told them just that would happen and it did. You are a just punishment upon fools. CI is dying the same slow death from proliferations of fools postings.