Author Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13819 times)

Desmond · « **Reply #105 on:** January 20, 2016, 09:17:07 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Are you saying he might be related to "Gerard FE"? Haha. That guy would argue with a wall.

In the case of Pax, I'm unsure if he's just too limited like Nadir, or is actually feigning like Stubborn.

Could be both.

Stubborn · « **Reply #106 on:** January 20, 2016, 09:40:33 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: Stubborn
I am of the opinion that among sedevacantists, there is some mental block which prohibits them from accepting fact, much like sedevacantist McCork's promoting of some faith in these forums which is not Catholic, regardless that he insists otherwise, even after being corrected numerous times.

Because OCAC is proven to be true using only elementary and fundamental Catholic teaching, the sedes cannot claim the pope, being ipso facto excommunicated due to his heresies, is no longer Catholic therefore no longer pope. This is not acceptable to them to the point of saying Trent was wrong.

We see here demonstrated by Desmond yet again where one cannot use Church teaching to vindicate sedevacantism. There is no Church teaching that teaches, or in any way supports sedevacantism, it is in fact just the opposite, as this thread testifies.

I'm sorry but seeing how you directly contradict infallible points of doctrine, while hiding behind pious literal interpretation, I have to conclude you are malicious and dangerous.

Good luck.

You cannot get yourself to answer simple questions. These questions are fundamental Church teachings. Only Catholics are permitted to partake of the sacraments of penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction, Trent teaches it has *always* been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be *no reservation* at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins *and censures whatever*
Catholics understand and accept this teaching, since you cannot, then, well, I personally attribute that to your sedevacantism - which most often times cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching.

But avoid rebuking Trent's own teaching as if they don't know what they are talking about.

Desmond · « **Reply #107 on:** January 20, 2016, 09:52:20 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Catholics understand and accept this teaching, since you cannot, then, well, I personally attribute that to your sedevacantism - which most often times cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching.

But avoid rebuking Trent's own teaching as if they don't know what they are talking about.

Really? Do all Catholics embrace OCAC then Stubborn?

Or maybe it is you, oblivious Pax, and busybody Nadir, who arrive at the wrong conclusion in the face of Trent's teaching?

By means of which you completely abandon orthodoxy.
I even know why you feel compelled to do so... and surprise, it's mainly about EENS! Ironic isn't it.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #108 on:** January 20, 2016, 10:00:09 AM »

So, Desmond, please explain why believing OCAC is wrong (even though personally, I've qualified and explained my view that saying a heretic is a Catholic is just an informal way to distinguish they once had the Faith). What error does it lead to? How in the world does this lead to heresy?

Stubborn · « **Reply #109 on:** January 20, 2016, 10:03:42 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Stubborn
Trent teaches it has *always* been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be *no reservation* at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins *and censures whatever*

Stubborn,

Is the prot, baptist, lutheran, who was properly baptized but rejects the Catholic Faith, included as a penitent?

No.
That has already been asked and answered and has zero to do with this subject, all it does is make Desmond more confused.

This thread is primarily focused on the ipso facto excommunicant.