CathInfo.com

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..."