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

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope.  Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM).  So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.

Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.
Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:

Quote
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “Furthermore, we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church? If one were subject to Bergoglio as the Roman Pontiff, then they would have no reason to avoid the New Mass, in fact, given Traditionis Custodes, they would be defying his authority and are obligated to go to the New Mass.

If you truly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then act like it and subject yourself to his authority like a good "Catholic." The R&R position fundamentally denies the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:
Quote
Session 4, Chapter 3.9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:

let him be anathema.


Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
How exactly does that Canon have any force of law if the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant? Who is there to enforce it? I also don't see how augustineeens is a heretic here, he hasn't denied any dogmas, unlike you (unity of the Church, that heretics are outside of the Church)
Yes, that's the fabricated loophole, the mantra: "the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant."

It's all fine and good to quote authoritative sources until it goes against the narrative.


Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope.  Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM).  So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.

Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.
Oh brother :facepalm:


Online Stubborn

  • Supporter
Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:

How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church?

We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man. This, the highest principle in the Church is how, exactly.

In this mess, this is the principle that faithful Catholics have remained faithful to since at least 1966  - and will never stop using. If the pope ever imposes or commands anything that we can submit to *and* remain faithful to God, not only will we do it, we must do it.

It's not the least bit complicated.

Sedes take note:
See how easy it is to actually answer a question with a clear answer?

Now it's your turn:
"Excommunicated from the Church" - Where did you get this phrase?

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Ironic, given that Stubborn has been repeatedly quoting Pope Boniface VIII's dogmatic pronouncement on this point:

How exactly is one subjecting themselves to the Roman Pontiff if they deny every doctrine he teaches to the universal church? If one were subject to Bergoglio as the Roman Pontiff, then they would have no reason to avoid the New Mass, in fact, given Traditionis Custodes, they would be defying his authority and are obligated to go to the New Mass.

If you truly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Roman Pontiff, then act like it and subject yourself to his authority like a good "Catholic." The R&R position fundamentally denies the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I:

I wouldn't spent too much time arguing with Stubborn.  I've done it in the past but learned from my mistake.  He makes principles up out of thin air and dismisses all theological texts cited as the entirely unreliable theologians of the (at first just 20th -- and then later 19th and 20th) centuries.  He contradicts himself on a regular basis, redefines well-known theological terms to suit his needs, and has absolutely no comprehension of distinctions.  It's an exercise in futility.  I've stopped debating him.  It's pointless.  Stubborn (as is the logical consequence of R&R) has become his own rule of faith and has invented his own religion.