Author Topic: Benedict XVI (Read 13781 times)

Caminus · « **on:** September 21, 2009, 01:45:58 AM »

For all you members of the Church of the SedeVacante I have a suggestion. If you think that Benedict XVI is a formal heretic, why don't you write him a letter, explain your position, show him the evidence and ask him what precisely he believes? Don't you think that's the fair thing to do or would giving him the benefit of justice be too much to bear?

Why not do that with your own bishop? Or any other priest you censure without even meeting? Or do you think you can figure all of this out in your make believe land behind a computer screen?

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** September 21, 2009, 01:54:45 AM »

I already contacted Mr. Ratzinger. Twice. No response.

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2009, 02:07:11 AM »

What was the content of your letter? If it's anything like you post here, I'm not surprised.

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2009, 02:09:13 AM »

I simply quoted the man, and asked him to respond.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2009, 10:25:35 AM »

Right. Maybe the bishop of your diocese would be more accessible. If you're going to cast all of the hierarchy out of the Church, the least you could do is personally ascertain such a sweeping generalization.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2009, 10:26:11 AM »

On second thought, nevermind, I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. Disregard the above.

Belloc · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2009, 10:45:13 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

I already contacted Mr. Ratzinger. Twice. No response.

Would it not be appropriate to at least address him as Fr.Ratzinger, as likely his bishop had authority,even though we are not-what-in the 100th yr or so of Vacant seat?

(there I go again, cannot seem to resist tackling with CM..should have brought that up Sunday in confessional, though said confessor was SSPX and hence to CM, a heretic liek the rest of us.....durn it, why cant I control my typing....)

Belloc · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2009, 10:45:44 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

On second thought, nevermind, I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. Disregard the above.

:applause:

me too......disregard, thanks caminus for bringing me back to sanity.... :scared2:

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2009, 10:48:26 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

For all you members of the Church of the SedeVacante I have a suggestion. If you think that Benedict XVI is a formal heretic, why don't you write him a letter, explain your position, show him the evidence and ask him what precisely he believes? Don't you think that's the fair thing to do or would giving him the benefit of justice be too much to bear?

Why not do that with your own bishop? Or any other priest you censure without even meeting? Or do you think you can figure all of this out in your make believe land behind a computer screen?

Well, help us out then! Here's one:

Condemned Proposition 33: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

"2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
(DIGNITATIS HUMANAE , 2)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Okay, we can play games with the "within due limits." Question for you, "Was the Church wrong to allow the burning of unrepentant heretics?"

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2009, 11:18:17 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Caminus
For all you members of the Church of the SedeVacante I have a suggestion. If you think that Benedict XVI is a formal heretic, why don't you write him a letter, explain your position, show him the evidence and ask him what precisely he believes? Don't you think that's the fair thing to do or would giving him the benefit of justice be too much to bear?

Why not do that with your own bishop? Or any other priest you censure without even meeting? Or do you think you can figure all of this out in your make believe land behind a computer screen?

Well, help us out then! Here's one:

Condemned Proposition 33: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

"2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
(DIGNITATIS HUMANAE , 2)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Okay, we can play games with the "within due limits." Question for you, "Was the Church wrong to allow the burning of unrepentant heretics?"

Let me ask you a question. If at certain times, heretics were not burned to death by the State for heresy, would this fact contradict the above proposition?

If one were to assert that no heretic should be subject to captial punishment today, that does not necessarily imply a rejection of the above principle. For particular kinds of punishments are derivations of the natural law that can be subject to change for various reasons, not the least of which being that no State today is catholic and that even if that were the case, given the evil that men have fallen into, greater evils would most assuredly result.

Finally, does an absolute rejection of the above proposition pass the test of heresy? No, for it in no way is a matter of divine revelation, but rather the prudential application of the natural law. Ergo, there is no heresy, only weak minded liberalism.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2009, 11:35:39 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Caminus
For all you members of the Church of the SedeVacante I have a suggestion. If you think that Benedict XVI is a formal heretic, why don't you write him a letter, explain your position, show him the evidence and ask him what precisely he believes? Don't you think that's the fair thing to do or would giving him the benefit of justice be too much to bear?

Why not do that with your own bishop? Or any other priest you censure without even meeting? Or do you think you can figure all of this out in your make believe land behind a computer screen?

Well, help us out then! Here's one:

Condemned Proposition 33: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

"2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."
(DIGNITATIS HUMANAE , 2)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Okay, we can play games with the "within due limits." Question for you, "Was the Church wrong to allow the burning of unrepentant heretics?"

Let me ask you a question. If at certain times, heretics were not burned to death by the State for heresy, would this fact contradict the above proposition?

If one were to assert that no heretic should be subject to captial punishment today, that does not necessarily imply a rejection of the above principle. For particular kinds of punishments are derivations of the natural law that can be subject to change for various reasons, not the least of which being that no State today is catholic and that even if that were the case, given the evil that men have fallen into, greater evils would most assuredly result.

Finally, does an absolute rejection of the above proposition pass the test of heresy? No, for it in no way is a matter of divine revelation, but rather the prudential application of the natural law. Ergo, there is no heresy, only weak minded liberalism.

Well, then it's not what you say but how you say it, eh?! "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" versus "The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church." Well, if you are talking about one subsistence, that isn't too bad, but that's not what Vatican II said, is it? So many words, so much ambiguity. Traditional Catholics have every right to object, as the Deposit of Faith is immutable and unchageable. See that other thread for the Martin Luther quote about how church councils contradict themselves.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** September 21, 2009, 01:30:31 PM »

A thousand errors, omissions, ambiguous, scandalous propositions that even smack of heresy do not amount to one heresy, just as a thousand venial sins do not amount to one mortal sin.

Vladimir · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2009, 03:01:29 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

A thousand errors, omissions, ambiguous, scandalous propositions that even smack of heresy do not amount to one heresy, just as a thousand venial sins do not amount to one mortal sin.

I agree.

Its interesting that a certain heretic (the name escaped my memory), who was a Protestant in Catholic clothing, when brought to trial by Pope Saint Pius V refused to submit to the Saint on the grounds that he claimed that Pius V could not be the true pope due to his alleged failings in matters of justice and belief.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 21, 2009, 03:25:45 PM »

I feel sorry for anyone reading this site who believes in what you write, Caminus.

Your bad faith shows itself time and time again. When you are confronted with a blanket heresy of Vatican II you just change the thread and act as if you never heard anyone mention it. And that is exactly what will happen if a concerned VII parishioner writes to his most likely invalidly consecrated fake-bishop. They will get stonewalled. It seems you approve of these terrorist tactics to the point you've adopted them yourself.

God will be your judge. Believe me, He is going to read you in the "light of tradition," His tradition and His unchanging truth. But those who really want to know about the numerous and consistent heresies of Vatican II can easily find them in any daily article at Christ or Chaos or various other websites. These "popes" have systematically flouted every single rule in Pope Pius X's "Oath Against Modernism."

Oh yeah -- and this.

TOGETHER WITH US MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE ONE TRUE GOD

Now, if Honorius was called a heretic by some for what he wrote in a private LETTER, what does that make the "Popes" who promote the above-mentioned blasphemy in a dogmatic encyclical? This one blasphemy is enough to prove all the charges against the VII Popes that anyone of common sense know to be true in their gut.

Caminus said:

Quote

A thousand errors, omissions, ambiguous, scandalous propositions that even smack of heresy do not amount to one heresy, just as a thousand venial sins do not amount to one mortal sin.

Sophistry. This is how people like you will try to convince the fearful that they must stay within an anti-Christ sect pretending to be the Church -- that the "Popes" have skirted the edge of the abyss of heresy, but not fallen in.

Even if this were true, which as I have shown it is not, do you think Christ spoke with "a thousand errors, omissions, ambiguous, scandalous propositions"? Then why should the Vicar of Christ do the same? Is Christ divided against Himself?

It is also a fallacy that a Pope can avoid teaching the faith entirely and avoid being charged.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Pope Honorius:

Quote

"It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing."

In other words, the sin of Pope Honorius was one sin of omission, so tiny in comparison to the daily acts of the VII "Popes," and this was in a LETTER. This was enough to bring him under the charge of heresy.

Honorius, who may not have been a heretic, is still reprimanded for not teaching the faith clearly, for neglecting at one crucial moment the duty of his Office which is to TEACH.

It is debatable whether a Pope can simply refuse to teach and still remain Pope. But the VII Popes went beyond just not teaching. They taught the opposite of Catholicism, a new theosophist gnostic quasi-Catholic muck. They are not only out-and-out heretics, they are not even Catholic.

Caminus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 21, 2009, 05:30:55 PM »

Quote

I feel sorry for anyone reading this site who believes in what you write

Feeling's mutual.