Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 4128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8435
  • Reputation: +3121/-622
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2017, 03:29:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unfortunately Stubborn, it is you who are privately interpreting dogma and twisting it to your own liking. The Church has always understood that when the Pope teaches a doctrine concerning faith and morals to the whole Church in a decisive manner, he is infallible. He need not say explicitly that he is using his Apostolic authority or that he is speaking from the chair. There are quite a few historical examples of this as well. You are currently suffering from pride blindness and the blind will unfortunately follow you into the pit.
    Unfortunately LD, it is not I who is interpreting dogma, I'm the one reading what is written as it is written - as even the cardinal himself agrees -

    "The definition [as decreed at V1] limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra.....BUT extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority"

    Now you, YOU, go right ahead and extend his infallibility to include all his authoritative acts, which per cardinal manning, is exactly what you [say you] believe.

    Do that, and there is no crisis, because by virtue of the popes' exercising his supreme authority, the whole of V2 and the whole Novus Ordo enjoys and has enjoyed protection from the possibility of error by the Holy Ghost. Period. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS - AND YOU SAY THAT YOU DO INDEED BELIEVE THIS - then you sir are personally bound to accept the Novus Ordo and practice it's religion. Period.

    You see, even YOU do not believe this because if you did, you would not only *not* be a trad, you would *not* be a sede. You would be a flaming NOer bound to the NO by the popes' authoritative acts - that is IF you believed as you say you believe and IF you believed cardinal Manning and the other theologians who teach the same error. But you demonstrate that even you do not believe it, so why do you preach it?

    You fall into the same self inflicted problem that all the other confused people fall into, and it is even this same problem Ladislaus has, where he has basically said (paraphrasing) that if he believed with certainty that the conciliar popes have been popes, then he would have to accept V2.

    Well, according to cardinal Manning's ideas, what reason is there to have any doubt about the validity of the popes when every authoritative act is infallible? 

    The answer is - cardinal Manning and you and all the 19th/20th century well respected theologians who teach the same idea are obviously wrong, infallibility does not extend beyond the limits set in V1's definition of ex cathedra.

    But trying to convince you that he is wrong and show you that you know it is wrong, since obviously you do not even believe it yourself, is a lesson in patience I am practicing for the good of fence sitters and others of good will who are as confused as you are.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8435
    • Reputation: +3121/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #16 on: December 01, 2017, 03:33:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please forgive me for using teachings of the Church. I was not aware that Church teaching was opposed to your false interpretations. :facepalm:
    No, I will not forgive you for attempting to use teachings of the Church in your futile attempts to vindicate sedevacantism, any more than I forgive prots for using a bible in their attempts to vindicate their anti-Catholic beliefs. Use your own sedevacantist teachings from your own sedevacantist popes, saints and councils.

    If you really want to make a case in favor of sedeism, that is the only way to do it.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #17 on: December 01, 2017, 08:35:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    Unfortunately LD, it is not I who is interpreting dogma, I'm the one reading what is written as it is written

    The problem Stubborn is that you don't actually read what is written. I will clearly point out that you do not read what is written. Let's start with the first dogma that you frequently use from the First Vatican Council...


    Therefore,
    • if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
      • the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
      let him be anathema.

    Here you like to substitute the word "should" with "will". Nice slight of hand (but it doesn't work with me). Also, I believe that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in the primacy, I just don't believe the conciliar clowns are/were Roman Pontiffs. So it is evident here that you are the one misreading and misusing the dogma. Now lets move on to another dogma that you frequently misread and misuse...

    Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VII - Unam Sanctam)

    This is another dogma that you misread and misuse. Sedevacantists agree that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Conciliar "clownpope" heretics are not Roman Pontiffs, however. Therefore you misuse this dogma. Secondly you misread it. For when confronted with the reality that YOU DO NOT SUBJECT YOURSELF to the clown that you believe is a true Pope, you say "I submit in true obedience, not false obedience". It obvious then Stubborn you are a hypocrite for accusing Cardinal Manning and others for adding to the dogma and extending it. For the above dogma says NOTHING about true or false obedience. It says plainly that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Period.

    Now we will see that Cardinal Manning and others do not misread the dogma from the First Vatican Council regarding the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Let's take a look at the dogma, shall we...

    we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

      • that is, when,

        • (1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        • (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        • (3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,
    • he possesses,

      • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
    • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

    The dogma in defining when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex Cathedra, plainly states that he must be exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians. It does not give any specific wording that must precede the exercise. In other words, he must be addressing the whole Church officially. Number 2 just states that it is "in virtue of" his apostolic authority. This does not mean the Roman Pontiff must explicitly say in the teaching that he is using his apostolic authority (although sometimes the Roman Pontiff does this). "In virtue of", just means by the apostolic authority that is inherent in the office he resides in. Number 3 just says that he must be defining doctrine concerning faith and morals. Again, it doesn't say that the Roman Pontiff must explicitly say he is defining a doctrine to be held by the whole Church (although again - sometimes he does this). It is enough that he teaches definitively concerning faith and morals. He cannot merely give his opinion, and his teaching must address the whole Church (not just a part of the Church).

    So it is quite evident that it is you who is not reading the dogmas as they are written.  


    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #18 on: December 01, 2017, 08:41:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • There have been over 40 Anti Popes in Church history.

    What we have presently is a succession of anti Popes, intent on destroying Western Civilization now that our Faith have been dismantled & destroyed for the most part.

    Arius Heresy comes to mind, though today might be even worse.   The entire Church is embracing apostasy, led by Judeo Masonic false teachers, who advocate Open borders, and defy any orthodoxy.
    Below story outlines that it is coming to a head.




    Scholars, clergy sign letter accusing Pope Francis of “upholding heretical positions”
    SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay is among the letter’s signatories, who call it a “filial correction.”


    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/09/24/scholars-clergy-sign-letter-accusing-pope-francis-of-upholding-heretical-positions/

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #19 on: December 01, 2017, 09:52:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Now you, YOU, go right ahead and extend his infallibility to include all his authoritative acts, which per cardinal manning, is exactly what you [say you] believe.

    Do that, and there is no crisis, because by virtue of the popes' exercising his supreme authority, the whole of V2 and the whole Novus Ordo enjoys and has enjoyed protection from the possibility of error by the Holy Ghost. Period. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS - AND YOU SAY THAT YOU DO INDEED BELIEVE THIS - then you sir are personally bound to accept the Novus Ordo and practice it's religion. Period.

    No, "do that" and you realize that a heretic is residing in Rome claiming to be a true Pope and doing things a true Pope could never do.

    Quote
    You see, even YOU do not believe this because if you did, you would not only *not* be a trad, you would *not* be a sede. You would be a flaming NOer bound to the NO by the popes' authoritative acts - that is IF you believed as you say you believe and IF you believed cardinal Manning and the other theologians who teach the same error. But you demonstrate that even you do not believe it, so why do you preach it?

    See the above comment. You are obviously out of arguments at this point. It's sad that you can't just admit your wrong. As I said my contention is that the "conciliar clowns" are not true Popes because they attempt to bind Catholics to the heresies in Vatican II. The correct reading of the definition of Papal infallibility (as Cardinal Manning taught) and as I demonstrated in my previous post to you only adds to that fact. If I believed the conciliarclowns were true Popes THEN I would have to be a "flaming NOer" as you put it.


    Quote
    You fall into the same self inflicted problem that all the other confused people fall into, and it is even this same problem Ladislaus has, where he has basically said (paraphrasing) that if he believed with certainty that the conciliar popes have been popes, then he would have to accept V2.

    Exactly. So do you (have to accept Vatican II and all its heresies), since you claim the conciliarclowns are true Popes.


    Quote
    Well, according to cardinal Manning's ideas, what reason is there to have any doubt about the validity of the popes when every authoritative act is infallible?  

    The reason is, since authoritative teachings of a TRUE POPE concerning faith and morals to the whole Church ARE infallible, we can know for certain that the conciliarclowns are not true Popes (since they authoritatively teach ERROR to the whole Church concerning faith and morals).


    Quote
    The answer is - cardinal Manning and you and all the 19th/20th century well respected theologians who teach the same idea are obviously wrong, infallibility does not extend beyond the limits set in V1's definition of ex cathedra.

    Unfortunately you are misreading and twisting the definition (as I pointed out in my last post to you). You did this with the other two dogmas I mentioned as well. 


    Quote
    But trying to convince you that he is wrong and show you that you know it is wrong, since obviously you do not even believe it yourself, is a lesson in patience I am practicing for the good of fence sitters and others of good will who are as confused as you are.

    The main lesson you need to learn is humility. You are accusing Cardinal Manning and others of misreading and adding to dogmas, when YOU are the one doing the misreading, adding and twisting as I clearly pointed out in my last post to you. For your own sake and the sake of others I suggest you take a step back, collect yourself read my posts a little more closely. Read how you are "adding to" and "twisting" dogmas to suit your own opinion and come to the conclusion that you are holding a false position.

    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.


    Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #20 on: December 01, 2017, 09:59:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Are we at that time?  That really is the question.

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-120
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #21 on: December 01, 2017, 10:00:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Are we at that time?  That really is the question.

    Yes indeed.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8435
    • Reputation: +3121/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #22 on: December 01, 2017, 10:13:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The problem Stubborn is that you don't actually read what is written. I will clearly point out that you do not read what is written. Let's start with the first dogma that you frequently use from the First Vatican Council...
    I am the one reading it as it is written, you otoh, like the rabid BODer who zooms into the word "desire" and entirely ignore the rest of the Council, you zoom into the word "should" and ignore the rest of the teaching, presumably you do this because otherwise the thin ice you're already on turns to water and you fall right in.  "if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) - you need to stop right there, because if you don't, it is apparent that you will remain in the water.

    It is by Divine Law that the pope is the pope. Period.

    Look, we have already established that you do not even believe your own preaching - I say "we", because you provide the idea and I point out the obvious fact that you do not even believe your own idea. So why do you keep preaching it?

    Thanks for providing your present error, as such, I will further point out that in your desperation to use Church teaching to vindicate sedevacantism - which I asked you to stop doing - you claim it is by Divine Law that blessed Peter *might not* have perpetual successors.

    WTH kind of divine law is that?

    Only out of necessity to cling to their error do the sede's misinterpret the clear and infallible words from the mouth of the "true" pope (Pius IX) and the infallible Council - lest they sink in the water - and drown.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +859/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #23 on: December 01, 2017, 10:25:14 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

    This thread and in particular, Stubborn's responses, got way off track. Even though there is sufficient proof from Catholic Teaching, the Saints and Divine Law itself, that a heretic cannot be a Pope, whether it’s before his election or not, this is not the point of the quote. One should read what the Saint is saying, not what one thinks I’m implying by citing this. He is addressing the people who follow the accursed. Everyone knows what happens to the accursed, what’s being taught is what happens to those in communion with them.

    These are some of the things that St. Ignatius says.

    1. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    2. but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them

    3. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God

    4. and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell

    5 but that you should regard them as your enemies, and separate yourselves from them

     

    Stubborn and those like him follow the man who makes schism and separates from truth, they embrace communion with the accursed. Stubborn and those like him regard these accursed as their Pope, they are not separate and aloof of them. One is guilty of the same offenses by merely proclaiming unity and fellowship with these wolves. Saying that a heretic is your pope and that you are in communion with him is a damnable offense. Number five above is the remedy for the situation. One is to separate oneself from the accursed (i.e. heretical claimants) and regard them as enemies. One should not be doing as the Stubborns do and proclaim, from the rooftops, their unbreakable unity with these heretics.

    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8435
    • Reputation: +3121/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #24 on: December 01, 2017, 10:36:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, "do that" and you realize that a heretic is residing in Rome claiming to be a true Pope and doing things a true Pope could never do.
    You really are confused. What is it about cardinal Mannnig's idea that the pope's infallibility extends "to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority" that you disagree with?

    All I have to do is to keep pointing out your own beliefs taken from your own posts. I mean, do you believe what you yourself post or don't you?

    Quote
    As I said my contention is that the "conciliar clowns" are not true Popes because they attempt to bind Catholics to the heresies in Vatican II. The correct reading of the definition of Papal infallibility (as Cardinal Manning taught) and as I demonstrated in my previous post to you only adds to that fact. If I believed the conciliarclowns were true Popes THEN I would have to be a "flaming NOer" as you put it.

    If you believe cardinal Manning, then you have no grounds whatsoever for claiming the popes are not true popes. If you believe cardinal Manning, then the teachings you call heresies are not heresies, they are infallible teachings of the Church. It is that simple - if you believe cardinal Manning's teachings is what the Church actually teaches that is.


    Quote
    Exactly. So do you (have to accept Vatican II and all its heresies), since you claim the conciliarclowns are true Popes.

    No, all I, along with every other human creature are bound to do, is to be the popes' subjects. To you, that is defined as blind submission to whatever the popes wish, to Catholics, it means exactly what it says.



    Quote
    The reason is, since authoritative teachings of a TRUE POPE concerning faith and morals to the whole Church ARE infallible, we can know for certain that the conciliarclowns are not true Popes (since they authoritatively teach ERROR to the whole Church concerning faith and morals).

    I will repeat: If you believe cardinal Manning, then you have no grounds whatsoever for claiming the popes are not true popes. If you believe cardinal Manning, then the teachings you call heresies are not heresies at all, they are infallible teachings of the Church. It is that simple - if you believe cardinal Manning's teachings is what the Church actually teaches that is.

    Quote
    The main lesson you need to learn is humility. You are accusing Cardinal Manning and others of misreading and adding to dogmas, when YOU are the one doing the misreading, adding and twisting as I clearly pointed out in my last post to you. For your own sake and the sake of others I suggest you take a step back, collect yourself read my posts a little more closely. Read how you are "adding to" and "twisting" dogmas to suit your own opinion and come to the conclusion that you are holding a false position.

    You are the one who has thoroughly confused himself, not me. If you truly believe cardinal Manning's teachings is what the Church actually teaches, then you are an apostate.

    Far as I can see, the best course for you to take to un-confuse yourself, is to quote teachings only from sedevacantist popes and saints - otherwise your cause is completely futile because it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to vindicate sedevacantism using Catholic Church teachings.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8435
    • Reputation: +3121/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #25 on: December 01, 2017, 10:38:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn and those like him follow the man who makes schism and separates from truth, they embrace communion with the accursed. Stubborn and those like him regard these accursed as their Pope, they are not separate and aloof of them. One is guilty of the same offenses by merely proclaiming unity and fellowship with these wolves. Saying that a heretic is your pope and that you are in communion with him is a damnable offense. Number five above is the remedy for the situation. One is to separate oneself from the accursed (i.e. heretical claimants) and regard them as enemies. One should not be doing as the Stubborns do and proclaim, from the rooftops, their unbreakable unity with these heretics.
    Why lie? I guess that's all you can resort to.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #26 on: December 01, 2017, 10:48:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #27 on: December 01, 2017, 10:59:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • If he hasnt made a mockery of our Faith, The Catholic Faith, and deposed himself, Im not sure that such action even exists..


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8435
    • Reputation: +3121/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #28 on: December 01, 2017, 11:35:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • These threads always remind me of something we were taught as children. We were taught that no matter what, we are to never talk against the pope. One of the reasons for this, we were reminded, is on account of a once well-known French Proverb: "Qui mange le Pape, meurt!" (He who eats the pope dies!)

    It was well known that in his day, Luther despised popes with a much worse ferocity, albeit similar to that of the sedes.

    Reading the little book, "The facts about Luther" written in 1915, it says of Luther: "This is the fourth Pope I have buried: I shall bury many more of them." He that dwelleth in heaven, however, laughed at the prediction. Luther was taken suddenly ill and in spite of all the attention of his assembled guests in a few hours he was called to the judgment seat of God to render an account of his long and bitter opposition to the Church and its legitimate representative. "He ate Pope and died of it.''

    Sede's, no matter what your opinion, please don't die of it.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #29 on: December 01, 2017, 11:44:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • These threads always remind me of something we were taught as children. We were taught that no matter what, we are to never talk against the pope. One of the reasons for this, we were reminded, is on account of a once well-known French Proverb: "Qui mange le Pape, meurt!" (He who eats the pope dies!)

    It was well known that in his day, Luther despised popes with a much worse ferocity, albeit similar to that of the sedes.

    Reading the little book, "The facts about Luther" written in 1915, it says of Luther: "This is the fourth Pope I have buried: I shall bury many more of them." He that dwelleth in heaven, however, laughed at the prediction. Luther was taken suddenly ill and in spite of all the attention of his assembled guests in a few hours he was called to the judgment seat of God to render an account of his long and bitter opposition to the Church and its legitimate representative. "He ate Pope and died of it.''

    Sede's, no matter what your opinion, please don't die of it.


    Luther hated the Popes because they were in bed with Jewish Banksters and sanctioned Usury.  
    That was the heart of the Reformation. Im not excusing Luthers misdeeds, as it resulted in EUrope torn apart, but Anti Christian Usury was the heart of the/his issue.




    You have no point to make and why Luther was thrown out as a Red Herring.
    If you want to start another topic on Luther and Usury, please do so, id be happy to indulge you.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16