Stubborn twists Pius XII around to be saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he actually meant and then has the audacity to accuse the sedes of distorting it.

What Pius XII is saying is precisely that Heresy and Schism are NOT LIKE other mortal sin.  Stubborn falsely alleges that "all mortal sin severs from the Church".  That's a blatant lie and the opposite of what Pius XII was teaching.  "Ordinary" (aka non-heresy/schism) mortal sin deprives the soul of life and makes the sinner a DEAD member of the Church, but he remains a member just the same.  With Heresy and Schism, these sins, unlike the other mortal sins, DO sever from the BODY of the Church.

Dead members of the Church continue to be part of the body of the Church and therefore can exercise authority and jurisdiction.  Non-members, such as those severed by heresy and schism, CANNOT exercise authority in the Church.

This is absolutely astonishing that Stubborn twists Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he was actually teaching.

Will his fellow R&R have the honesty to correct his malicious stupidity?

You're just desperate to maintain a vacant chair. Same o same o.

You are making PPXII to say what he does not say - you have him saying: "For no other sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

But that is not what he said. He said "For not every sin, however grave it may be..." Now, you, the great wind bag, purport to be a knowledgeable brainiac, so the question (you will never answer) is - in context, what does "For not every sin" mean?

This is absolutely astonishing that Lad twists Pius XII into saying the exact opposite of what he was actually teaching.

If sedes ever make it past that sentence, in the next sentence the pope goes on to say:
 "Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins."

Which is to say that although all sinners lose charity and grace, it is possible for them to be moved to payer and penance for their sins. Even though it is apparent that heretics do not "hold fast to faith and Christian hope", Pope Pius XII does not exclude heretics from being moved to prayer and penance - it is you who exclude heretics from any possibility of repentance.

Manifest Heretics in the external forum are required to make an abjuration of heresy before they can be admitted back to the Sacraments.  Those who commit heresy in the internal forum (e.g. occult heretics) can simply go to Confession.  In terms of membership in the Church, there's a huge difference  between a manifest heretic and an occult heretic.  Occult heresy, as per St. Robert Bellarmine, does not sever from the Church, whereas manifest heresy does.

Another Ladism used in desperation to maintain a vacant chair.

The Abjuration of Heresy is used primarily for adult converts seeking to enter the Church prior to their baptism or conditional baptism. Otherwise, it is not a requirement - unless specifically required by the official censure itself, or the pope or bishop or confessor requires it. Look it up.

A public abjuration may (or may not) be the prudent thing to do, but it is not the law, nor is a public abjuration found anywhere in the sacrament of penance's formula for absolution.   

So knowing that only Catholics can use the sacrament of confession, can Catholics guilty of the mortal sin of heresy and want to repent go to confession or not?

This is not a trick question, it is actually a VERY basic question that any 8 year old Catholic could answer in the blink of an eye. But because you know that the answer is completely against the whole idea of sedeism, you will find it all but impossible to give the true and simple answer. And also, I would love to be proven wrong on this.

In case of replies, I'll be back in the morning.

Heretics are outside of the Church until they repent (i.e. repudiate their errors and convert). I don't see how I ever said that wasn't the case. You're trying to twist my position into a contradiction where one doesn't exist.

You know you're wrong, that's why you're resorting to insulting my intelligence. Go right ahead. I'm not the one holding to a contradictory position here like the heretical and schismatic R&R position you hold.

Catholics who are bad willed heretics

When will you get it through your thick head that there is no such thing as a "Catholic heretic"? If a Catholic commits the sin of heresy, he ceases to be a Catholic and loses his membership in the Church!

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

You don't confess the one Church, not of heretics, therefore the logical conclusion is that you yourself are a heretic!

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”

You hold that a manifest heretic can be a member of the Church!

If someone repents of their heresy, and accepts the Catholic Faith again, then they are once again a Catholic and can be absolved with the sacrament of Penance. They may even be justified before receiving the sacrament, through perfect contrition. That is not to say a heretic can receive the sacraments. If he renounces his heresy, then he is no longer a heretic. This is so basic that a five year old could grasp it. It shows how bad-will and obstinacy in error can completely blind someone's intellect.

Heretics are outside of the Church until they repent (i.e. repudiate their errors and convert). I don't see how I ever said that wasn't the case. You're trying to twist my position into a contradiction where one doesn't exist.

You know you're wrong, that's why you're resorting to insulting my intelligence. Go right ahead. I'm not the one holding to a contradictory position here like the heretical and schismatic R&R position you hold.

I really was hoping that you would simply answer the question, instead, look ^^ what you reply with.

 

So Decem had adopted the same insane heretical stupidity as Stubborn ... where the Magisterium isn’t known a priori based on the authority of the teacher and his intent to teach, but rather discerned a posterior by people like Stubborn and Decem ... once they’ve determined that a particular teaching is in conformity with Tradition, effectively making themselves into the Magisterium.  This is rich.

When will you get it through your thick head that there is no such thing as a "Catholic heretic"? If a Catholic commits the sin of heresy, he ceases to be a Catholic and loses his membership in the Church!

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

You don't confess the one Church, not of heretics, therefore the logical conclusion is that you yourself are a heretic!

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”

You hold that a manifest heretic can be a member of the Church!

If someone repents of their heresy, and accepts the Catholic Faith again, then they are once again a Catholic and can be absolved with the sacrament of Penance. They may even be justified before receiving the sacrament, through perfect contrition. That is not to say a heretic can receive the sacraments. If he renounces his heresy, then he is no longer a heretic. This is so basic that a five year old could grasp it. It shows how bad-will and obstinacy in error can completely blind someone's intellect.

I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin is exactly that, a Catholic who has fallen into mortal sin. 

I hold as a teaching of the Church that heresy, schism and apostacy are mortal sins. You adulterate this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.

I hold as a teaching of the Church that a Catholic who has fallen into the mortal sin of adultery, or murder, or heresy and any/every other mortal sin is a Catholic in mortal sin. You deny this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.

I hold as a teaching of the Church that no matter which mortal sin a Catholic is guilty of, there is only one way to be certainly absolved from that mortal sin, namely, the sacrament of penance. You adulterate this teaching in order to maintain the sede narrative.

I hold as a teaching of the Church that one who is not a Catholic cannot receive the sacraments. You are afraid to agree with this teaching because doing so obliterates the sede narrative.

You attempt to circuмvent these last two by installing your own rules, that of first making an act of perfect contrition, as if perfect contrition is a given - when even the penitent does not know if he achieved perfect contrition.

This rule of yours is NO in that it denies the teaching of the Church that even should one make a perfect act of contrition and the sin is forgiven, that person must still confess their sin in their next Confession - precisely because the penitent does not know if he achieved perfect contrition. One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the sacrament of penance - even if they were able to achieve an act of perfect contrition before hand.

Note: I realize that this is an exercise in futility.

This is so richly ironic, Lad.

Look, with a simple change from "Magisterium" to "Church/Magisterium" (but you could also leave it as Magisterium), and "inerrant" and "Traditional teaching" to "indefectible":


Of course, unlike Stubborn, who places the Magisterium in the Revelation of God to the Church through Scripture and Tradition, which the pope is to teach and defend, you place the Magisterium in the pope and the bishops in union with him - for you they are the Church/Magisterium. So when they teach error to the world in their ordinary Magisterium, the Magisterium teaches error.

Let's paraphrase that a bit: you hold that John XXXIII (perhaps not him), Paul VI, JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis - all elected by the cardinals of the Church according to the laid down procedures of the Church -do not teach as the Magisterium despite their lawful elections because the Magisterium can't teach error its official, Magisterial capacity, and they do.

So, whenever a pope comes along who teaches error he can't be pope because, well, he teaches error, and popes can't teach error.

Did you say something about tautology, Lad?

I suggest investing in a big mirror and saying your morning prayers in front of it.

Meh, let them keep running in circles within their conundrum. After all, if we looked at all theology through the lens of a vacant chair, we would think just like they do. 

I think these words of Fr. Wathen as regards sedeism are accurate:
"...Its adherents are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits. The disorder which the Conciliar Revolution has brought on the Church is too tragic a thing for them to bear psychologically, so that they have had to develop this subterfuge. Were it possible to communicate with them, we would say to these benighted souls: If you truly believe that the Church and the pope are infallible, why must you always be proving it? If the Church is indefectible, it will be so without any dialectic of yours. If these are the doctrines of the Church, the only One Who will prove them true is Christ the Lord..."