Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 3871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline An even Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1894
  • Reputation: +795/-557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #240 on: December 08, 2017, 08:12:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Then Bellator Dei asks what's wrong with saying the pope is God?
    Moving on to his second blatant lie. If any one will just look a few replies up one will see that Bellator Dei said the following in Reply 234:

    Quote
    Bellator Dei said: The man never said that the pope was God.  You twisted and distorted the man's words...own it. 
     Stubborn lies and said that Bellator Dei asked what's wrong with saying the Pope is God but actually was defending AES and truthfully stating that AES did not say the Pope is God. Stubborn is becoming more and more convicted in his lies and heresies and really doesn't care who sees it. He is unraveling, it's very sad. Please pray that his eyes may be opened.

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1894
    • Reputation: +795/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #241 on: December 08, 2017, 08:22:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • meanwhile Lastdays ... incessantly harps on about dissecting a simple task he (and all sedes) should have already undertaken well before they ever even considered, let alone decided to risk their salvation determining the status of the pope - but I'm the one distorting the man's words.
    A third lie in the same post by Stubborn claims that it's Lastdays that can't dissect a simple task. The truth is that Lastdays has asked Stubborn to prove that he knows what Dogmas are and where they come from many, many times in this thread. Stubborn has not proven that he even knows these basic issues which are essential to these arguments. Stubborn lies and projects his own shortcomings and lack of knowledge onto Lastdays in the face of multiple posts which show it's actually Stubborn who has no idea what he's talking about.
    It's just more lies and unraveling from another person subject to heretics and in communion with the accursed.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8278
    • Reputation: +2988/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #242 on: December 08, 2017, 10:45:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It all boils down to dogmatic sedes having no faith whatsoever in any teachings, infallible or not, of "true" popes unless they can twist the teaching into sedesim. Since that is the only thing they can do to vindicate their sedeism, I ask them to never attempt to use authentic Catholic teachings to vindicate their sedeism -I do this with full knowledge and understanding that this request of them makes zero sense to them, but hopefully one of them will see it often enough that they will realize the truth of the matter.

    Until then, continue on with your lies there AES - have a field day! 
    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: 1894
    • Reputation: +795/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #243 on: December 08, 2017, 10:57:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It all boils down to dogmatic sedes having no faith whatsoever in any teachings, infallible or not, of "true" popes unless they can twist the teaching into sedesim.
    Why put true popes in quotes? This is easy to say without any proof. How do you even know since you admit you don't read any of the Teachings we present.

    Quote
    Since that is the only thing they can do to vindicate their sedeism, I ask them to never attempt to use authentic Catholic teachings to vindicate their sedeism -I do this with full knowledge and understanding that this request of them makes zero sense to them, but hopefully one of them will see it often enough that they will realize the truth of the matter.
    You do this because you know that if you actually read the Catholic Teachings you would be forced into a moment of honesty. We all know this would be pure torture for you because you live by a personal rule of lies.

    Quote
    Until then, continue on with your lies there AES - have a field day!
    This is particularly interesting since I just pointed out three bold lies mentioned by you in your one reply and you didn't deny it or even try to apologize for it. This is another example how you have no interest in honest discussions, only lies. Hopefully, one day, you will abjure your communion with the accursed and convert.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8278
    • Reputation: +2988/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #244 on: December 08, 2017, 11:18:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You'll be fine - as long as you avoid trying to use the teachings of the Catholic Church and her saints and popes etc. to vindicate sedeism. Always stick strictly with sede popes and saints teachings - that is the only thing that will win over the hold outs like me.
    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 Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2005
    • Reputation: +839/-991
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #245 on: December 08, 2017, 11:25:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You'll be fine - as long as you avoid trying to use the teachings of the Catholic Church and her saints and popes etc. to vindicate sedeism. Always stick strictly with sede popes and saints teachings - that is the only thing that will win over the hold outs like me.

    Well said. To date, I don't recall that the sedes have quoted any sedevacantist popes or saints. Surely, for sedevacantism to be true, there must have been Catholic popes and saints who held the sedevacantist position, which is, that there is no pope.

    How about the eastern orthodox? They don't believe that pope is the pope. They believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the Pope's jurisdiction is limited. I would think that the sedes could at least quote the patriarchs of the east to prove their position.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8278
    • Reputation: +2988/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #246 on: December 08, 2017, 11:41:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well said. To date, I don't recall that the sedes have quoted any sedevacantist popes or saints. Surely, for sedevacantism to be true, there must have been Catholic popes and saints who held the sedevacantist position, which is, that there is no pope.
    Exactly, what with all us heretics overriding the earth, the only ones the dogmatic sedes should quote is the sede popes and saints since they must believe only dogmatic sedes are saved.
    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 Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2005
    • Reputation: +839/-991
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #247 on: December 08, 2017, 11:52:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Exactly, what with all us heretics overriding the earth, the only ones the dogmatic sedes should quote is the sede popes and saints since they must believe only dogmatic sedes are saved.

    Right. And what about the non-dogmatic sedevacantist popes and saints of the past - what is their eternal reward? Are they in Hell because they did not preach dogmatic sedevacantism?

    Surely the dogmatic sedes must believe that those popes and saints who did not teach or hold the dogmatic sedevacantism are in Hell, for they believe anyone who does not hold their view is a schismatic, or heretic, or a liar.


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1894
    • Reputation: +795/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #248 on: December 08, 2017, 12:03:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Awwww...look at the two non-Catholics above, in a race to see who can sound more confusing and non-Catholic.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2005
    • Reputation: +839/-991
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #249 on: December 08, 2017, 12:06:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Awwww...look at the two non-Catholics above, in a race to see who can sound more confusing and non-Catholic.

    I am hoping that you will quote sedevacantist popes and saints to prove your position. Surely there must have been quite a few of them, for you to hold to your dogmatic sedevacantist position.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8278
    • Reputation: +2988/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #250 on: December 08, 2017, 12:07:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right. And what about the non-dogmatic sedevacantist popes and saints of the past - what is their eternal reward? Are they in Hell because they did not preach dogmatic sedevacantism?

    Surely the dogmatic sedes must believe that those popes and saints who did not teach or hold the dogmatic sedevacantism are in Hell, for they believe anyone who does not hold their view is a schismatic, or heretic, or a liar.
    True!

    Maybe one day they'll figure out how to dethrone and elect one of their own, that'll make them happy. Oops, one sede branch I am aware of already did that - wonder why they don't go along with "pope Michael" or elect their own?
    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: 1894
    • Reputation: +795/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #251 on: December 08, 2017, 12:14:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am hoping that you will quote sedevacantist popes and saints to prove your position. Surely there must have been quite a few of them, for you to hold to your dogmatic sedevacantist position.
    This is illogical. Can you quote any R&R saints or popes to prove your heresy? This has got to be the poorest form of argumentation. Are you both 12. The Sede position is Catholic and is proven from Catholic Teaching. Your position is heresy. You are in communion with the accursed and are subject to heretics. The Church and Scripture has consistently taught for 2000+ years that a Catholic is to have no communion at all with heretics. You thumb your nose at Tradition and continue in your false Traditional part of the Novus Ordo proudly adhering to false doctrine and its teachers.

    Offline MiserereMeiDeus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 464
    • Reputation: +420/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #252 on: December 08, 2017, 12:23:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hey guys, "Stubborn" is a troll and you're just giving him everything he wants. 
    Quotes from sedevcantist popes in the past? When there was no interregnum? 
    Give me a break! He's laughing up his sleeve as he concocts ever more absurd 
    arguments to fling like monkey poo.
    "Jesus was the fruit of Mary, as Elizabeth expressed it: 'Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.' Whoever wishes for the fruit, must go to the tree; whoever wishes for Jesus must go to Mary; and he who finds Mary, also certain

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8278
    • Reputation: +2988/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #253 on: December 08, 2017, 12:58:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hey guys, "Stubborn" is a troll and you're just giving him everything he wants.
    Quotes from sedevcantist popes in the past? When there was no interregnum?
    Give me a break! He's laughing up his sleeve as he concocts ever more absurd
    arguments to fling like monkey poo.
    I would be laughing at the stupidity of the lying dogmatic sedes if they weren't so tragically lost. Maybe they should elect MiserereMeiDeus as the new pope! Maybe they should do something other than call Catholics heretics and trolls.
    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/-116
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #254 on: December 08, 2017, 12:59:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No one can possibly post all the different wording used to define dogma without posting all the defined dogmas. 

    You still haven't answered my question. Of course I know how much you would like to move on from this question (and so would I), but your above answer is a non-answer. For in order to "post all the defined dogmas" you have to first know how to identify a dogma (not the other way around). Therefore it is a must to know the "specific words" that identify dogmas. So I am assuming you have lost your debate with me, unless you can answer my question.


    Quote
    Defined dogmas can only come from popes - period. Whether in a council or outside of a council, the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when he defines a dogma per the criteria defined at V1. And the pope alone is the only one who defines dogma - that is the dogma the pope himself, pope Pius IX, defined in the First Vatican Council.

    Councils do not define dogmas nor are councils "always automatically infallible" - only the pope is infallible and not always - only when he meets the criteria defined at V1.

    I will take this as a partial answer for the sources (since it is ambiguous). Are you saying that a council that comes to a conclusion on a teaching in faith and morals is not infallible even if a Pope approves it? This is important. It seems as if you are saying that a council teaching must emanate directly from a Pope (even from within a General Council), and a mere approval would not suffice. Please clear this up.

    You still aren't close to answering my question on specific wording. Without this, you have no basis for your arguments. Your dogmas are merely what you claim to be dogmas. You could also deny dogmas based on your own personal and fallible opinion as well.


    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