Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 3879 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8282
  • Reputation: +2989/-554
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #255 on: December 08, 2017, 01:46:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    You have the only answer there is, the one I gave you. If you cannot tell if a defined dogma is indeed a defined dogma by it wording then I cannot teach that to you in this format.


    Quote
    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.
    No, that is not what I'm saying. Unless it's an irregular Council, a Council includes the pope, the pope is it's head. One of the reasons for a council is to do due diligence on a doctrine or doctrines, the pope declaring it ex cathedra give us the assurance that doctrine is free from the possibility of error. The pope does not need a council to speak ex cathedra, he can speak ex cathedra outside of a council, V1 was very specific on the criteria for his infallibility and made no mention of his infallibility being dependent upon speaking ex cathedra only within a council, rather it said when he speaks according to the criteria, not where.   


    Quote
    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 All well.

    Again, when he "defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church" - this is the direct quote from V1. Whatever words he uses will always be specific to the doctrine and those specific words are entirely up to the pope and the Holy Ghost.
    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 #256 on: December 08, 2017, 02:04:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You have the only answer there is, the one I gave you. If you cannot tell if a defined dogma is indeed a defined dogma by it wording then I cannot teach that to you in this format.
    You have officially lost the debate then. You are telling me that I should be able to tell a defined dogma by its wording. Seems like you can tell a defined dogma by its wording then, right Stubborn. Therefore, if you can tell a defined dogma by its wording, then you can tell me how to identify dogma by its wording. As of right now you have lost the debate, since you have proven that you really do not know how to identify dogma (since you cannot explain it). If have the ability to identify dogma, then you have the ability to explain how you identify dogma. It's not hard to understand. You have proven that what you accept and reject as dogmas are merely your own fallible opinion. You decide as you go along.
    Quote
    Again, when he "defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church" - this is the direct quote from V1. Whatever words he uses will always be specific to the doctrine and those specific words are entirely up to the pope and the Holy Ghost.

     
    This doesn't answer my question Stubborn. For one, this would limit infallibility to only the Pope. Is this what you are saying? Also, how do identify a doctrine which has been defined? What words signify this, and how can one identify a defined doctrine? Saying it's up to the Pope and the Holy Ghost doesn't answer my questions.
    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #257 on: December 08, 2017, 03:05:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This doesn't answer my question Stubborn. For one, this would limit infallibility to only the Pope. Is this what you are saying? Also, how do identify a doctrine which has been defined? What words signify this, and how can one identify a defined doctrine? Saying it's up to the Pope and the Holy Ghost doesn't answer my questions.
    That's right! You got it, V1 limits speaking ex cathedra, i.e. infallibly defining doctrines to the pope and the pope alone. Not a council, not bishops in union with the pope and/or dispersed throughout the world - only the pope - and on top of that, only "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 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."

    This is the dogma, defined by the pope, Pius IX at V1.

    Do you see how "most rigidly and specifically circumscribed" his criteria is?

    Where do you see mention of any extension to all of his authoritative acts?
    Where do you see the bishops are infallible at all or needed for the pope's infallibility?
    Where do you see the bishops are infallible when in union with the pope / dispersed throughout the world?




    Quote
    You have officially lost the debate then. You are telling me that I should be able to tell a defined dogma by its wording. Seems like you can tell a defined dogma by its wording then, right Stubborn. Therefore, if you can tell a defined dogma by its wording, then you can tell me how to identify dogma by its wording. As of right now you have lost the debate, since you have proven that you really do not know how to identify dogma (since you cannot explain it). If have the ability to identify dogma, then you have the ability to explain how you identify dogma. It's not hard to understand. You have proven that what you accept and reject as dogmas are merely your own fallible opinion. You decide as you go along.

    The wording changes since the words contained in the definitions pertaining to different things are different. The words need to specifically apply to the subject being defined. You want me to provide actual words, but that is impossible.  
    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 #258 on: December 08, 2017, 10:08:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's right! You got it, V1 limits speaking ex cathedra, i.e. infallibly defining doctrines to the pope and the pope alone. Not a council, not bishops in union with the pope and/or dispersed throughout the world - only the pope -

    So Bishops in union with the Pope in a General Council and/or Bishops approved by a Pope in a General Council would not be infallible in any circumstance, correct?

    Quote
    The wording changes since the words contained in the definitions pertaining to different things are different. The words need to specifically apply to the subject being defined. You want me to provide actual words, but that is impossible.  

    You asked for the "specific wording of the dogmas", not me. Now you are saying its impossible. If it's impossible, "you lose" for you have no way to prove that what you are providing is a dogma. Right now you only have an opinion (which is fallible). To "define" means a lot of things. I interpret "define" as shown below. This is the true meaning of "define". I don't limit it. You do. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a Papal teaching to the whole Church falls into the boundaries of what it means to "define" (as shown below), and it concerns faith and morals then I have identified an infallible dogma.


    define

    [dih-fahyn]  

    • Examples
    • Word Origin
    See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
    verb (used with object), defined, defining.
    1.
    to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)
    2.
    to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe

    3.
    to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly:
    to define one's responsibilities.
    Synonyms: state, name, describe, detail, enumerate.
    4.
    to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:

    5.
    to make clear the outline or form of:
    The roof was boldly defined against the sky.
    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #259 on: December 09, 2017, 05:43:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So Bishops in union with the Pope in a General Council and/or Bishops approved by a Pope in a General Council would not be infallible in any circumstance, correct?
    That's right, bishops cannot speak ex cathedra, only the pope can speak ex cathedra. The bishops can petition the pope to define a dogma, but per V1, even dispersed throughout the world or all together since the the time of the Apostles, the bishops do not have the power to define any dogma, none whatsoever, not ever, never have and never will. All they can do is the same as the rest of us can do - ask the pope to do it.

    Pope Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus: "Accordingly, from ancient times the bishops of the Church, ecclesiastics, religious orders, and even emperors and kings, have earnestly petitioned this Apostolic See to define a dogma of the Catholic Faith the Immaculate Conception of the most holy Mother of God." 

    The bishops petitioned the pope to "define a dogma" because they cannot do it, note they asked him to define a dogma, not "speak authoritatively to the whole world" as you alluded to in past posts and continue doing.

    Here is the wording for the actual defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception from the same link:

    The Definition

    Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

    “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

    Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
    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 #260 on: December 09, 2017, 08:14:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's right, bishops cannot speak ex cathedra, only the pope can speak ex cathedra. The bishops can petition the pope to define a dogma, but per V1, even dispersed throughout the world or all together since the the time of the Apostles, the bishops do not have the power to define any dogma, none whatsoever, not ever, never have and never will. All they can do is the same as the rest of us can do - ask the pope to do it.

    I didn't mention ex Cathedra, for I know Bishops can't speak from the chair. You are not reading my questions closely. I said "from within a General Council" can the Bishops and Pope define a doctrine together and/or can the bishops present a doctrine to the Pope for his specific formal approval which would be considered infallible? For in both these cases the doctrine in question does not proceed directly from the Pope "alone". Once again, this is from "within a General Council of the Catholic Church."
    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #261 on: December 09, 2017, 09:58:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I said "from within a General Council" can the Bishops and Pope define a doctrine together and/or can the bishops present a doctrine to the Pope for his specific formal approval which would be considered infallible? For in both these cases the doctrine in question does not proceed directly from the Pope "alone". Once again, this is from "within a General Council of the Catholic Church."
    Of course. The bishops can be in an Ecumenical Council or meet on their own to discuss and debate a certain doctrine or doctrines, this they can do even dispersed throughout the world, they also can and do consult or call in theologians, certain historians or other scholars - and whatever / whoever they need to to help them decide their case.

    This process can go on for centuries before all the arguments are finally exhausted and all are in agreement or some final stage of it, then they may then present it to the pope with the petition to define it as dogma. Then it is up to the pope to decide if he wants to "rule" on it or not. He may decide that there are insufficient reasons to define it infallibly, or maybe there are still reasons to let it lie, or reasons to condemn it, or perhaps that the arguments have not been sufficiently exhausted, whatever the case may be, that's entirely up to him - if he decides not to do anything, then he may do absolutely nothing, or introduce another argument, or he may let some future pope worry about it.

    But neither bishops, theologians and/or popes, can invent doctrines. They cannot make a new doctrine de fide or infallible by merely all agreeing or approving the same thing, not even in a Council.  

    Whatever is decreed infallible is a doctrine already contained in the Deposit of Faith and has already been universally taught by the Church (Universal or Constant = always, since the time of the Apostles and everywhere). All an ex cathedra decree is doing, is clarifying an existing doctrine that already  enjoys the "common and constant consent" (has always been taught and believed by all as de fide since the time of the Apostles) via an ex cathedra definition. This is why submitting only to dogmas while rejecting or ignoring non-infallible teachings is a condemned proposition and a recipe for ending up in hell. We must submit to both, both will never disagree with each other, if it seems there is a disagreement, then we are to refer to dogma as the final word.

    If you still believe it, can you find out for me where the Church has ever taught that infallibility is promised to the bishops in union with the pope even when dispersed throughout the world? I would like to see that teaching and where it originated. My guess is that teaching is a teaching of some 19th or 20th century well respected theologians.  

    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 #262 on: December 09, 2017, 02:44:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course. The bishops can be in an Ecumenical Council or meet on their own to discuss and debate a certain doctrine or doctrines, this they can do even dispersed throughout the world, they also can and do consult or call in theologians, certain historians or other scholars - and whatever / whoever they need to to help them decide their case.

    This process can go on for centuries before all the arguments are finally exhausted and all are in agreement or some final stage of it, then they may then present it to the pope with the petition to define it as dogma. Then it is up to the pope to decide if he wants to "rule" on it or not. He may decide that there are insufficient reasons to define it infallibly, or maybe there are still reasons to let it lie, or reasons to condemn it, or perhaps that the arguments have not been sufficiently exhausted, whatever the case may be, that's entirely up to him - if he decides not to do anything, then he may do absolutely nothing, or introduce another argument, or he may let some future pope worry about it.

    But neither bishops, theologians and/or popes, can invent doctrines. They cannot make a new doctrine de fide or infallible by merely all agreeing or approving the same thing, not even in a Council.  

    Whatever is decreed infallible is a doctrine already contained in the Deposit of Faith and has already been universally taught by the Church (Universal or Constant = always, since the time of the Apostles and everywhere). All an ex cathedra decree is doing, is clarifying an existing doctrine that already  enjoys the "common and constant consent" (has always been taught and believed by all as de fide since the time of the Apostles) via an ex cathedra definition. This is why submitting only to dogmas while rejecting or ignoring non-infallible teachings is a condemned proposition and a recipe for ending up in hell. We must submit to both, both will never disagree with each other, if it seems there is a disagreement, then we are to refer to dogma as the final word.

    If you still believe it, can you find out for me where the Church has ever taught that infallibility is promised to the bishops in union with the pope even when dispersed throughout the world? I would like to see that teaching and where it originated. My guess is that teaching is a teaching of some 19th or 20th century well respected theologians.  

    Great, so according to you, in my quest to find out what you mean by an infallible teaching with the "wording of the dogmas", I must be looking for a teaching emanating directly from a Pope (either as an individual or from within a council), and in no way can teachings be considered infallible in a General Council if the the Bishops and Pope together define a teaching. Alright, I will store that information.


    Now, there are still many many teachings emanating from Popes throughout Church history from within or without a council, and unfortunately I can not find for you a teaching with the "specific wording of the dogmas" unless I know the specific words that signify that what I am reading is in fact a dogma. Therefore, in order to find this teaching, I need to know what specific words signify that I am reading a dogma. Unfortunately, without this information, there is no way to know for sure if anyone is reading a dogma (or not). Your previous answer that "wording changes based on the subject" is not sufficient. For although the subject matter changes, the method of delivery must be specific. For you say the teaching must be "defined." Like I said earlier, if you can't provide me specific words within a teaching that signify that I am reading a dogma, then all I have is someones personal opinion on the matter (which is fallible). Now I assume that the word "define" within the context of a teaching (regardless of subject) signifies the specific method of delivery required. But, what if the word define is not present? Are there any other words that signify dogmas.

    As I said earlier, if you can't provide me with this information, you have no basis for any of your arguments. If you fail to reply this time with exact words, then you will have lost the argument. Being that I have already asked you about 10 times and you have failed to reply with the "specific wording" necessary, I have to draw a line somewhere. You also prove yourself to be a hypocrite, since you demand this wording from those who disagree with you, yet you say you can't identify the "specific wording" yourself. In reply #171 you said...

    "Now, if you want to reply with something useful, what you need to do is provide an authoritative teaching of the Church, teaching just as specifically worded as the dogmas, that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null."

    Basically, without this information you admit to being a "cherry picker" of teachings. You are just picking and choosing which teachings are dogmas, based on personal and fallible preference.
    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #263 on: December 09, 2017, 05:11:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great, so according to you, in my quest to find out what you mean by an infallible teaching with the "wording of the dogmas", I must be looking for a teaching emanating directly from a Pope (either as an individual or from within a council), and in no way can teachings be considered infallible in a General Council if the the Bishops and Pope together define a teaching. Alright, I will store that information.
    Please post any dogma from any council where "the Bishops and Pope together defined a teaching". Even V2 didn't go that far.

    Quote

    "Now, if you want to reply with something useful, what you need to do is provide an authoritative teaching of the Church, teaching just as specifically worded as the dogmas, that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null."

    Basically, without this information you admit to being a "cherry picker" of teachings. You are just picking and choosing which teachings are dogmas, based on personal and fallible preference.
    Specifically worded as dogmas = defining a dogma that agrees with all the other Church teachings - abrogating all previous Church teachings and defined dogmas regarding the pope.

    Sorry if you still don't get it, I've clarified it multiple times for you - suffice to say you need to find teachings completely unlike those from V2. The teachings you are looking for will necessarily be dated after V1 and would very clearly teach that it is the official teaching of the Church all pst dogmas and teachings are abrogated because a heretical pope loses his office and his election is null.

     
    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 #264 on: December 09, 2017, 10:54:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry if you still don't get it, I've clarified it multiple times for you - suffice to say you need to find teachings completely unlike those from V2.

    You've clarified nothing except for the fact that you are a coward, a hypocrite, and most definitely a heretic. You have proven without a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea why you believe a certain teachings are dogmas. You demand that others " produce specific wording of the dogmas" yet you shrink like a coward, when asked what exactly that wording is. Therefore for the benefit of those reading I will now list some of your numerous heresies for the protection of those who may happen to read your nonsense...


    You are a heretic for believing that infallible teachings are reserved only to the Pope "ex Cathedra", when in fact V1 states dogmatically that the UOM is also infallible.

    Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
    • which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
    • and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
    • whether by her solemn judgment
    • or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. (First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 3)



    You are also a heretic for believing major Catholic Creeds such as the Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian and Tridentine Creed could possibly contain error.



    You are a heretic for believing in the possibility that a more recent dogma can annul a past dogma as shown in these dogmas of VI...

    "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."(First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4)

    If anyone says that
    • it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
    let him be anathema. (First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4)

    For you said the following...

    Reply #180: Now you go ahead and post some dogmas condemning the above dogmas as heresy.

    Current reply #263:The teachings you are looking for will necessarily be dated after V1 and would very clearly teach that it is the official teaching of the Church all pst dogmas and teachings are abrogated because a heretical pope loses his office and his election is null.



    You are a heretic for believing that a public heretic can be considered a member of the Church when the Church has never made any exceptions to this and thus reject the following dogmas ...

    It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino)

    “6.  In addition, [by this Our  Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and  define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his  promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic  Faith or fallen into some heresy... (ii)  it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity  (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the  office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of  administration, nor through the putative  enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or  Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period  of time in the foregoing situation;...” (Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio , Feb. 15, 1559)



    You are a heretic for rejecting the dogma that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors, by interpreting it to mean that he will have perpetual successors...


    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. (First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 2)



    You are a heretic for rejecting the dogma that no one should say that "the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the primacy" when you say that no one should say "the Pope is not the Pope".

    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. (First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chap. 2)

    In the process of this heresy you actually say St. Vincent Ferrer is accursed. These are just your heresies off the top of my head. More could be on the way.








    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #265 on: December 10, 2017, 09:29:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here I go, take you under my wing, try to show you a few things and all you do is pay me back with more calumnies. Tsk, Tsk :fryingpan:

    Let's forget the fact that Cum ex has been officially abrogated by Pope St. Pius X (a "true" pope), so forgetting that it has been abrogated for at least 100 years, and since you're a virtual expert on Cum ex, please post from Cum ex what "true" pope Paul IV tells us we are do actually do about an heretical pope. He uses very specific wording so you cannot miss his instruction - except on purpose.






    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 #266 on: December 10, 2017, 10:26:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here I go, take you under my wing, try to show you a few things and all you do is pay me back with more calumnies.

    I have no desire to be under your smelly armpit. You showed me more decisively before that you are a coward, hypocrite, liar and heretic. Those are the few things you showed me.


    Quote
    Let's forget the fact that Cum ex has been officially abrogated by Pope St. Pius X (a "true" pope), so forgetting that it has been abrogated for at least 100 years, and since you're a virtual expert on Cum ex, please post from Cum ex what "true" pope Paul IV tells us we are do actually do about an heretical pope. He uses very specific wording so you cannot miss his instruction - except on purpose.

    As I said, you are a heretic for believing a heretic can be a member of the Catholic Church when the Catholic Church has never made any exceptions to this.

    You are also a heretic for believing dogmas concerning faith and morals can be abrogated by a future Pope as you are again showing by your above post. Dogmas concerning faith and morals are not able to be reformed under any circumstance.
    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #267 on: December 10, 2017, 01:47:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So we need to know - are you purposely ignoring or do you simply refuse to submit to "true" pope Paul IV's direction to us on what we are to actually do about a heretic pope, on account of his Bull being officially abrogated about 100 years ago?  Be honest now.
    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 #268 on: December 10, 2017, 02:51:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So we need to know - are you purposely ignoring or do you simply refuse to submit to "true" pope Paul IV's direction to us on what we are to actually do about a heretic pope, on account of his Bull being officially abrogated about 100 years ago?  Be honest now.

    As I said, you are a heretic for saying that dogmas concerning faith and morals can be abrogated. I guess you like being a heretic.
    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: 8282
    • Reputation: +2989/-554
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #269 on: December 10, 2017, 03:29:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As I said, you are a heretic for saying that dogmas concerning faith and morals can be abrogated. I guess you like being a heretic.
    No, no, you are still not comprehending what is written. I asked for you to find the teaching necessary to vindicate sedeism - which would mean abrogating defined dogmas and all other teachings of the Church regarding the pope. As you know this is not possible, you know there are no teachings of the Church that vindicate sedeism - only teachings that condemn it, yet you reject those teachings that condemn sedeism whether explicitly or implicitly. Either way, you're condemned by your own rule, i.e. you are out of the Church for not submitting to the "true" pope Paul IV in his abrogated Bull.

    As another aside, did you know that you and the other dogmatic sedes share an "essential to their faith" trait with NOers? Both NOers and dogmatic sedes falsely accuse Catholics of heresy, schism and being heretics, this is essential to their faith because this is their dogma. The only difference is that the NOers have been doing that since the late 60s whereas the dogmatic sedes have only been doing that since the mid/late 80s. Just fyi. 
    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

     

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