Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 33

Author Topic: Poche is banned  (Read 16090 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matto

Re: Poche is banned
« Reply #140 on: October 16, 2020, 12:10:33 PM »
"The see of Rome is formally vacant!"

LOL
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Poche is banned
« Reply #141 on: October 16, 2020, 12:28:18 PM »
Quote from: Matto on October 16, 2020, 11:55:28 AM
Sedeprivationists are outside the Church. If R&R or Novusordoism is true they are obviously outside the Church, but if sedevacantism is true they are also outside the Church of sedevacantism. Don't risk your salvation to a crackpot position of one theologian and then adopted by a small minority of Thuc Bishops. And don't try to fall back on tradcuмenism. Your soul depends upon it. Abandon your Sanbornian buffoonerey and choose the Church of sedevacantism or the Church of Francis.

Matto, this doesn't make any sense.  There is no "Church of sedevacantism."  The key difference between sedevacantism and sedeprivationism is what happens to the designation of office, whether it goes away by itself or whether the Church has to remove it  ... with various practical consequences about how a restoration of the Church may or may not happen.  Both positions agree, and so does Father Chazal by the way, that the V2 papal claimants lack authority in the Church.

Also, you do realize, don't you?, that one can be formally united to the Church while being materially separated, just as those Catholics were who happened to side with the wrong pope during the so-called Western Schism.

With this post, it is you who are coming across as a buffoon.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Poche is banned
« Reply #142 on: October 16, 2020, 12:30:29 PM »
Quote from: Matto on October 16, 2020, 12:10:33 PM
"The see of Rome is formally vacant!"

LOL

You need to stop while you're behind.  Simply because you don't understand the formal-material disctinction, that does not render it invalid.  It's one of the chief distinctions employed by scholastics.

You're making a fool of yourself.  Bishop Sanborn is a highly-educated and well-trained priest with many years of theology under his belt.  If you have a rational argument whereby you believe he's wrong, then go ahead.  But for you to denounce him as a "buffoon" from the standpoint of your untrained armchair theology demonstrates a great hubris on your part.

Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, who developed sedeprivationism, was no mere Thuc bishop.  He was one of the most highly respected Thomistic theologians in the Church before Vatican II, helped Pope Pius XII write the decree on the Dogma of the Assumption, co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention, and was personal confessor to Pope Pius XII for a number of years.  Disagree with him all you want, but to deride him as a buffon, you're making a first-class ass of yourself.  You yourself probably haven't had a single course in scholastic theology.
Logged

Offline Matto

Re: Poche is banned
« Reply #143 on: October 16, 2020, 12:37:22 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 16, 2020, 12:28:18 PM
With this post, it is you who are coming across as a buffoon.
No, Lad, you are the buffoon. I was obviously joking, digging at Meg, which is why I quoted "What's most unpleasant about your posts is that you never actually make a rational argument, but simply dismiss the position and make derogatory comments.  " but you took me seriously. You can not tell an honest opinion from an obvious joke. Now I don't think you are really a buffoon . . . but you should have saw my joke as a joke instead of taking offense. But I do like Meg also and am glad she posts here.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Poche is banned
« Reply #144 on: October 16, 2020, 12:41:42 PM »
Quote from: Matto on October 16, 2020, 12:37:22 PM
No, Lad, you are the buffoon. I was obviously joking, digging at Meg, which is why I quoted "What's most unpleasant about your posts is that you never actually make a rational argument, but simply dismiss the position and make derogatory comments.  " but you took me seriously. You can not tell an honest opinion from an obvious joke. Now I don't think you are really a buffoon . . . but you should have saw my joke as a joke instead of taking offense.

In that case, accept my apologies, and take the criticism in the previous posts as that of the satirical position you posted rather than of yourself personally.  I did not recognize the satire or the joke there.

See, your post was not actually representative of anything Meg would write, because it contains an implicit syllogistic argument ... and she never gets that far ... usually just making some snide comment about sede-whateverism.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 33
« previous next »