Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 3663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8244
  • Reputation: +2969/-551
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #195 on: December 07, 2017, 09:22:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let me guess: Stubborn is not subject to canon law either, since canon law is not "dogma".
    Still more demonstating you are lost.
    Best advice for you is to stay completely away from Catholic teachings - there are no Catholic teachings that can vindicate sedeism.
    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 Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #196 on: December 07, 2017, 09:26:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Still more demonstating you are lost.
    Best advice for you is to stay completely away from Catholic teachings - there are no Catholic teachings that can vindicate sedeism.
    "Catholic teachings": teachings de fide et definita (identified, modified and interpreted as Stubborn sees fit). Everything else is "not Catholic". General teachings de fide? Not Catholic. Unanymous consensus of the Fathers? Not Catholic. Constant teaching of the theologians? Not Catholic. Authentic magisterium of the popes? Humbug. Doctors of he Church? Private opinions. Canon law? Hell no. Sententia certa? Are you kidding me?


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #197 on: December 07, 2017, 09:42:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladies and gentleman it seems that Stubborn, who has asked me to present to him a teaching with "the exact wording of the dogmas" (in reply #171) does not even know himself "what exact words" are required in order for a Catholic teaching to qualify as "dogmatic". Therefore, he has no basis for any of his arguments. What qualifies as dogma for Stubborn, is merely what he says is dogma. Therefore he proves (by not answering my question), that he has created his own religion, in which a dogma (is only such) when Stubborn (or other fallible humans who agree with him) say it is.

    Stubborn, if you are reading this, I will ask you for the 5th time (for I've already asked you in replies #172, #174, #176 and #188 )...

    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.

    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.

    Online An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1726
    • Reputation: +723/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #198 on: December 07, 2017, 09:43:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • AES now resorts to blatant lies - but in his defense, what else can he do?
    If that were true, and we both know it's not, you would have provided specifically where I lied. 
    You constantly accuse the Sedes of not believing the Dogma of subjection to the Pope yet you constantly judge and call the man you say is pope, a heretic, and refuse obedience to him. This is projecting your own faults onto others. You always bring up the fact that most sedes were once in the Novus Ordo and that somehow discredits them. You always ignore the fact that you are currently and proudly in the Novus Ordo. The fact that the section of the Novus Ordo that you are in has the appearance of tradition has no relevance. It is only concerned with appearances and is in full communion with the Novus Ordo head, Francis. This makes you fully Novus Ordo. This hypocrisy is astounding. Hopefully any lurkers can see through your lies, because if not, you will be partly responsible for their damnation as well.
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8244
    • Reputation: +2969/-551
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #199 on: December 07, 2017, 09:47:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Catholic teachings": teachings de fide et definita (identified, modified and interpreted as Stubborn sees fit). Everything else is "not Catholic". General teachings de fide? Not Catholic. Unanymous consensus of the Fathers? Not Catholic. Constant teaching of the theologians? Not Catholic. Authentic magisterium of the popes? Humbug. Doctors of he Church? Private opinions. Canon law? Hell no. Sententia certa? Are you kidding me?
    Wow, I see by this post that you have even less understanding than I gave you credit for.

    Just use sede saints and popes teachings from here on our. Since the rest of us are heretics, certainly there must be a plethora of sede saints and popes you can quote from, so why try to use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedesim?
    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: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #200 on: December 07, 2017, 09:48:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • AES now resorts to blatant lies - but in his defense, what else can he do?

    Stubborn, coming from a proven liar (such as yourself), you have paid AES a very high compliment. For this is just another one of your lies. You still haven't answered my question.
    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 Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #201 on: December 07, 2017, 09:53:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow, I see by this post that you have even less understanding than I gave you credit for.

    Just use sede saints and popes teachings from here on our. Since the rest of us are heretics, certainly there must be a plethora of sede saints and popes you can quote from, so why try to use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedesim?

    Ladies and gentleman it seems that Stubborn, who has asked me to present to him a teaching with "the exact wording of the dogmas" (in reply #171) does not even know himself "what exact words" are required in order for a Catholic teaching to qualify as "dogmatic". Therefore, he has no basis for any of his arguments. What qualifies as dogma for Stubborn, is merely what he says is dogma. Therefore he proves (by not answering my question), that he has created his own religion, in which a dogma (is only such) when Stubborn (or other fallible humans who agree with him) say it is.

    Stubborn, if you are reading this, I will ask you for the 5th time (for I've already asked you in replies #172, #174, #176 and #188 )...

    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.
    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: 8244
    • Reputation: +2969/-551
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #202 on: December 07, 2017, 09:54:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If that were true, and we both know it's not, you would have provided specifically where I lied.


    Stubs: I also completely and totally understand that to you sedes, Catholics are heretics by virtue of having faith in and bind themselves to the dogma.
    AES: This makes no sense as usual. Catholic believe in Dogma. You are all out of coherent comebacks, you have resorted to nonsense and gibberish.
    I can't quote you properly because of the way you make the whole post a quote. Suffice to say that you have called me a heretic who knows how many times for binding myself to dogmas. But you chose to cut off my post, take my words completely out of context and that allows you to say "this makes no sense as usual". Then, while you blatantly reject dogma as part of your religion, you have the audacity (which Modernists are known for) to say "Catholics believe in dogma" as if you're a Catholic. HA!

    But again, in your defense, that's the only thing you can do because, again, I completely and totally understand that to you sedes, Catholics are heretics by virtue of having faith in and bind themselves to the dogma.


    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: 8244
    • Reputation: +2969/-551
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #203 on: December 07, 2017, 09:58:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn, coming from a proven liar (such as yourself), you have paid AES a very high compliment. For this is just another one of your lies. You still haven't answered my question.
    If you are so ignorant as to not know the meaning of what I asked - then go back to 3rd grade. Until then, you can just keep making excuses to avoid the truth of the matter, namely, that there are absolutely no Catholic teachings that can possibly vindicate sedesim.
    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: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #204 on: December 07, 2017, 10:00:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you are so ignorant as to not know the meaning of what I asked - then go back to 3rd grade. Until then, you can just keep making excuses to avoid the truth of the matter, namely, that there are absolutely no Catholic teachings that can possibly vindicate sedesim.

    Ladies and gentleman it seems that Stubborn, who has asked me to present to him a teaching with "the exact wording of the dogmas" (in reply #171) does not even know himself "what exact words" are required in order for a Catholic teaching to qualify as "dogmatic". Therefore, he has no basis for any of his arguments. What qualifies as dogma for Stubborn, is merely what he says is dogma. Therefore he proves (by not answering my question), that he has created his own religion, in which a dogma (is only such) when Stubborn (or other fallible humans who agree with him) say it is.

    Stubborn, I will ask you for the 6th time (for I've already asked you in replies #172, #174, #176, #188 and #201 )...

    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.
    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 Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #205 on: December 07, 2017, 10:04:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladies and gentleman it seems that Stubborn, who has asked me to present to him a teaching with "the exact wording of the dogmas" (in reply #171) does not even know himself "what exact words" are required in order for a Catholic teaching to qualify as "dogmatic". Therefore, he has no basis for any of his arguments. What qualifies as dogma for Stubborn, is merely what he says is dogma. Therefore he proves (by not answering my question), that he has created his own religion, in which a dogma (is only such) when Stubborn (or other fallible humans who agree with him) say it is.

    Stubborn, I will ask you for the 6th time (for I've already asked you in replies #172, #174, #176, #188 and #201 )...

    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.

    Sorry Stubborn, I didn't realize that I formatted. It's a tough habit to break. I know you may not answer my arguments if they are formatted. I will now ask you again without formatting...

    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.
    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 Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #206 on: December 07, 2017, 10:07:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you are so ignorant as to not know the meaning of what I asked - then go back to 3rd grade. Until then, you can just keep making excuses to avoid the truth of the matter, namely, that there are absolutely no Catholic teachings that can possibly vindicate sedesim.

    Still waiting for that answer, Stubborn.

    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.
    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 Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #207 on: December 07, 2017, 10:16:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Stubborn, where are you? You wouldn't happen to be a coward, would you? You come across as so knowledgeable and confident when you post. Even Meg thought so. Please, don't let all your fans down. Just answer my questions so I can provide you with the teaching you desire.


    What "specific wording is required" in order to identify Catholic dogma? I might also ask, in which sources must this specific wording be present? Please, you have asked me to find a teaching that meets your specifications. You must now provide me with the specific information that I need.
    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.

    Online An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1726
    • Reputation: +723/-490
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #208 on: December 07, 2017, 10:18:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Stubs: I also completely and totally understand that to you sedes, Catholics are heretics by virtue of having faith in and bind themselves to the dogma.
    AES: This makes no sense as usual. Catholic believe in Dogma. You are all out of coherent comebacks, you have resorted to nonsense and gibberish.

    I can't quote you properly because of the way you make the whole post a quote. Suffice to say that you have called me a heretic who knows how many times for binding myself to dogmas. But you chose to cut off my post, take my words completely out of context and that allows you to say "this makes no sense as usual". Then, while you blatantly reject dogma as part of your religion, you have the audacity (which Modernists are known for) to say "Catholics believe in dogma" as if you're a Catholic. HA!

    But again, in your defense, that's the only thing you can do because, again, I completely and totally understand that to you sedes, Catholics are heretics by virtue of having faith in and bind themselves to the dogma.
    I did not lie. What you said made no sense and IS gibberish, especially since I never said that Catholics are heretics. In fact, now that you've brought it up again this exposes you of being a liar...again. You don't even know what Dogma means and you claim to bind yourself to it. You still refuse to show me how it's heresy to say the "pope is not the pope". St Vincent claimed that the Pope was not the Pope. The Dogma of Vatican I is not saying that at all, it can't be saying that, and the context from the surrounding passages show it's not saying what you're saying, read it. To deny that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter is not the same thing as saying the pope is not the Pope. You have to understand this as it's been explained many times, so it leads me to believe that you are intentionally lying to deceive the undecided.

    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 488
    • Reputation: +67/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #209 on: December 07, 2017, 10:31:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I did not lie. What you said made no sense and IS gibberish, especially since I never said that Catholics are heretics. In fact, now that you've brought it up again this exposes you of being a liar...again.

    All in a day's work for Stubborn.

    Quote
    You don't even know what Dogma means and you claim to bind yourself to it.

    Exactly. All of his arguments are built on sand. He binds himself and others to dogma, but he has no idea (himself) the exact wording and sources that constitute a dogma (not to mention he can interpret teaching that he decides is dogma anyway he wants). Not a bad gig he's got there. In a nutshell "Stubborn has created his own religion in which HE is the Magisterium".


    Quote
    You still refuse to show me how it's heresy to say the "pope is not the pope". St Vincent claimed that the Pope was not the Pope. The Dogma of Vatican I is not saying that at all, it can't be saying that, and the context from the surrounding passages show it's not saying what you're saying, read it.

    Don't expect a direct answer from him anytime soon.

    Quote
    To deny that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter is not the same thing as saying the pope is not the Pope. You have to understand this as it's been explained many times, so it leads me to believe that you are intentionally lying to deceive the undecided.


    I'm led to believe you are correct in this assessment.
    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.

     

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