Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 4137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GJC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 570
  • Reputation: +160/-64
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2017, 12:04:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • 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.
    As discussed, my issues have always been with a heretic/apostate ruling anything in the Catholic Church. I do distinguish between "wicked" vs. "heretic" on the grounds that Pius XII clearly teaches that no sin is as grave as heresy/apostasy that severs a man from the Church. Wicked, in regards to fornicator, liar, thief, railer, etc... does not sever.
    In addition, the Vatican I does define: 5. 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.

    Why is this word used? Why not "will have"? Is the Holy Ghost letting us know (prior to the apostasy foretold) that we could have an extended interregnum?

    "Should" is a clear indication of the likelihood or probability. There is no doubt that perpetuity stays intact... this would be when a Catholic were to take on the responsibility.

    Excepting Francis right now as a valid Pontiff would inadvertently have me denying that the chair of Peter has the perpetual successors that She defines. The line would have been broken in 1958. Issues with past anti-popes were election related not faith.



    Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #31 on: December 01, 2017, 12:06:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • There have been over 40+ Anti Popes In Church History.
    Even a Jew Pope.   Pope Leo The Khazar.
    None of this is new.



    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #32 on: December 01, 2017, 12:10:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    The point was not about Luther - the point was what happens to those who "eat the pope".
    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 #33 on: December 01, 2017, 12:19:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The point was not about Luther - the point was what happens to those who "eat the pope".
    You focus on that eating the pope much, rather than the Pope or wolf, that eats his flock and delivers them to fellow wolves- or parasites.

    Offline budDude

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +14/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #34 on: December 01, 2017, 12:24:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1


  • God Bless the Popes defenders and apologists, heaven knows its not easy for them, but they remain loyal....
    Centuries ago, they wouldve stormed the Vatican Walls and put an end to his misery and ours with him in charge.


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #35 on: December 01, 2017, 12:25:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • As discussed, my issues have always been with a heretic/apostate ruling anything in the Catholic Church. I do distinguish between "wicked" vs. "heretic" on the grounds that Pius XII clearly teaches that no sin is as grave as heresy/apostasy that severs a man from the Church. Wicked, in regards to fornicator, liar, thief, railer, etc... does not sever.
    In addition, the Vatican I does define: 5. 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.

    Why is this word used? Why not "will have"? Is the Holy Ghost letting us know (prior to the apostasy foretold) that we could have an extended interregnum?

    "Should" is a clear indication of the likelihood or probability. There is no doubt that perpetuity stays intact... this would be when a Catholic were to take on the responsibility.

    Excepting Francis right now as a valid Pontiff would inadvertently have me denying that the chair of Peter has the perpetual successors that She defines. The line would have been broken in 1958. Issues with past anti-popes were election related not faith.
    You must read it as it was written, in the spirit it was written in.

    If you say that it is not by Divine Law that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors..... you are anathema, which is exactly what the sedes are claiming it says.

    The sedes twisting has got many people confused. The sedes anathematize themselves by saying it is not or may not be by divine law that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors. Contrary to the dogma and Divine Law, they claim that blessed Peter might not have successors - even though it is Divine Law that his successors are those elected to the office. St. Peter's successors were all elected, accepted their election and are living, even walking, talking and breathing.

    Also, you and I and everyone else's knowledge of the popes' sins of heresy do not grant us the authority to declare he is not the pope, only a future pope has that authority.

    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 #36 on: December 01, 2017, 12:28:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • You must read it as it was written, in the spirit it was written in.

    If you say that it is not by Divine Law that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors..... you are anathema, which is exactly what the sedes are claiming it says.

    The sedes twisting has got many people confused. The sedes anathematize themselves by saying it is not or may not be by divine law that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors. Contrary to the dogma and Divine Law, they claim that blessed Peter might not have successors - even though it is Divine Law that his successors are those elected to the office. St. Peter's successors were all elected, accepted their election and are living, even walking, talking and breathing.

    Also, you and I and everyone else's knowledge of the popes' sins of heresy do not grant us the authority to declare he is not the pope, only a future pope has that authority.
    The consummate idealist and herd animal.  You follow orders so well. Good slave you are, with nary a critical thinking bone in his body
    Go back to grazing

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #37 on: December 01, 2017, 12:29:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You focus on that eating the pope much, rather than the Pope or wolf, that eats his flock and delivers them to fellow wolves- or parasites.
    Wrong.

    According to Cardinal Manning and lots of other 19th and 20th century, "well respected" theologians, as well as pretty much every sede out there, whatever authoritative acts the pope makes are infallible. Sede's are so screwed up.
    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


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #38 on: December 01, 2017, 12:30:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The consummate idealist and herd animal.  You follow orders so well. Good slave you are, with nary a critical thinking bone in his body
    Go back to grazing
    Just keep eating the pope, see if your end is any different from Luther's.
    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 #39 on: December 01, 2017, 12:55:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • 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!)
    Here we see the hypocrite in his natural habitat. That is, in his contradictory nature, he can't help but call the kettle black. He admonishes those who call Francis a heretic and rightfully reject his claims as Pope because of the impossibility of such a notion; all the while he routinely calls the man he considers Pope, a heretic, clown etc... effectively "eating the Pope". Surely anyone of good will can see the hypocrisy.
    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 GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 570
    • Reputation: +160/-64
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #40 on: December 01, 2017, 01:05:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You must read it as it was written, in the spirit it was written in.

    If you say that it is not by Divine Law that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors..... you are anathema, which is exactly what the sedes are claiming it says.

    The sedes twisting has got many people confused. The sedes anathematize themselves by saying it is not or may not be by divine law that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors. Contrary to the dogma and Divine Law, they claim that blessed Peter might not have successors - even though it is Divine Law that his successors are those elected to the office. St. Peter's successors were all elected, accepted their election and are living, even walking, talking and breathing.

    Understood. I do not believe the objection is about the denial of perpetual successors...so the question is: can a perpetual successor be a public and manifest heretic? I would say no, a successor MUST be Catholic and therefore the use of "should" vs. "will".

    It appears as though the Council is saying: by Divine Law there should (probably) always be a successor, but don't be shocked if there is a heretic claiming the role as pontiff.

    If the Council used the language: " If you say that it is not by Divine Law that blessed Peter should WILL have perpetual successors, that eliminates the crisis we are currently in, but I believe that the Council recognized that a heretic or heretics would try to assume command.





    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #41 on: December 01, 2017, 01:30:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Here we see the hypocrite in his natural habitat. That is, in his contradictory nature, he can't help but call the kettle black. He admonishes those who call Francis a heretic and rightfully reject his claims as Pope because of the impossibility of such a notion; all the while he routinely calls the man he considers Pope, a heretic, clown etc... effectively "eating the Pope". Surely anyone of good will can see the hypocrisy.
    Speaking of hypocrites, who is it that says being subject to the pope is being subject to God, yet rejects being subject to the pope?
    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 #42 on: December 01, 2017, 01:35:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    You are just a hypocrite (and not a smart one at that). No I don't need to stop right there. You need to learn to read dogmas carefully (without adding or subtracting anything from them). You are only proving my point to well Stubborn. You accused Cardinal Manning and myself of adding and extending dogma. Yet (as I showed), we were merely reading the dogma for what it says. YOU are the one adding conditions to that dogma that are not there. Now you wish to subtract from a different dogma because the word "should" makes you uncomfortable. Well isn't that too bad? The one who says correctly, "we should trust the dogma for what it says" doesn't follow his own advice.

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

    Is there anyone out there reading this and not shaking his head in disbelief right now?


    Quote
    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?

    Here Stubborn - again - twists the dogma and makes it say something it does not. The dogma doesn't say "might not" Stubborn, it says "should". Looks like the accuser has condemned himself again. The dogma says "should", because there were certain heretics that claimed the St. Peter does not have successors (ever). Certain protestants like yourself. Also, I find it hilarious that you are begging me to stop using Church teaching. This is what protestants hate as well, Stubborn. It forces them to either twist the Catholic teaching or use their own false opinions (with no evidence). You have done both of these things quite well (up to now) Stubborn. You are making protestants very proud.


    Quote
    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.

    You have proven yourself to be the king of misinterpretation Stubborn (adding and subtracting from dogmas left and right). You like to accuse others, but cannot see that you are doing the very thing you accuse them of.
    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 Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #43 on: December 01, 2017, 01:43:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Understood. I do not believe the objection is about the denial of perpetual successors...so the question is: can a perpetual successor be a public and manifest heretic? I would say no, a successor MUST be Catholic and therefore the use of "should" vs. "will".

    It appears as though the Council is saying: by Divine Law there should (probably) always be a successor, but don't be shocked if there is a heretic claiming the role as pontiff.

    If the Council used the language: " If you say that it is not by Divine Law that blessed Peter should WILL have perpetual successors, that eliminates the crisis we are currently in, but I believe that the Council recognized that a heretic or heretics would try to assume command.
    The council infallibly decrees that at the institution of St. Peter as the first pope, the promise that will have perpetual successors is be Divine Law. That is the Divine law. Period. The Law is Divine because it is given directly from God Himself; "Thou are Peter and upon..."

    To make the claim that "should" means "probably", which the sedes say means "might not", is saying that God purposely instituted an ambiguous law. To say it means "probably" is to reduce the dogma to a meaningless formula. I mean, what use is there for the dogma AT ALL if it does not mean exactly what it says?

    How's this for God's law - "St. Peter might not have perpetual successors". Again, wth kind of law is that?

    The sedes are at a loss every single, solitary time they attempt to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism. And because sedeism is inherently, inherently mind you, anti-dogmatic, the only thing they can do to attempt to reconcile sedeism is to twist into oblivion what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

    The whole idea is in the same vein as Fr. Cekada who put out a sedevideo with the title of: "Marcel Lefebvre: Sedevacantist". Insane. 


    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

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8438
    • Reputation: +3127/-622
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #44 on: December 01, 2017, 01:47:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are just a hypocrite (and not a smart one at that). No I don't need to stop right there. You need to learn to read dogmas carefully (without adding or subtracting anything from them). You are only proving my point to well Stubborn. You accused Cardinal Manning and myself of adding and extending dogma. Yet (as I showed), we were merely reading the dogma for what it says. YOU are the one adding conditions to that dogma that are not there. Now you wish to subtract from a different dogma because the word "should" makes you uncomfortable. Well isn't that too bad? The one who says correctly, "we should trust the dogma for what it says" doesn't follow his own advice.
    You need to stop using Catholic teachings in your attempts to reconcile sedevacantism with Catholicism - that dog won't hunt. Use your own sede popes and saints already and leave the Catholic popes and saints to Catholics.

    Stick with Cardinal Manning and embrace the NO already.
    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