Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: An even Seven on November 29, 2017, 12:33:50 PM

Title: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on November 29, 2017, 12:33:50 PM

Quote
St. Ignatius of Antioch,Ch.3 Avoid schismatics: "Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange  i.e., heretical. opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].   
Keep yourselves, then, from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand, as the children of God. For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you. I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the Church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover   (2 Tim. ii. 26). themselves out of the snare of the devil, and becoming worthy of Jesus Christ, may obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of Christ. Brethren, be not deceived. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell. For it is obligatory neither to separate from the godly, nor to associate with the ungodly. If any one walks according to a strange  i.e., heretical. opinion, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion; but is a fox, Comp. ( Cant. ii. 15). a destroyer of the vineyard of Christ. Have no fellowship Comp. (1 Cor. v. 11). with such a man, lest ye perish along with him, even should he be thy father, thy son, thy brother, or a member of thy family. For says [the Scripture], “Thine eye shall not spare him.” (Deut. xiii. 6, 18.) You ought therefore to “hate those that hate God, and to waste away [with grief] on account of His enemies.” (Ps. cxix. 21). I do not mean that you should beat them or persecute them, as do the Gentiles “that know not the Lord and God;”    (1 Thess. iv. 5). but that you should regard them as your enemies, and separate yourselves from them, while yet you admonish them, and exhort them to repentance, if it may be they will hear, if it may be they will submit themselves. For our God is a lover of mankind, and “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”    (1 Tim. ii. 4). Wherefore “He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;”    (Matt. v. 45). of whose kindness the Lord, wishing us also to be imitators, says, “Be ye perfect, even as also your Father that is in heaven is perfect.”

This should make those who maintain Francis as the Pope, yet claim he is a heretic or causing division, think about what they are doing by remaining in communion with him. St. Ignatius is very explicit about men like Francis. If those "embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them" because they are not Catholic.
This one makes no distinction between whether the individual actually believes like the false teacher or not: "if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell". Just by maintaining any sort of unity with the false teacher is enough for condemnation. There will be no excuse for considering a heretic or schismatic false teacher your pope and remaining in communion with him.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on November 29, 2017, 02:15:19 PM
I should have provided which letter this was in the citation. This is his letter to the Philadelphians.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on November 29, 2017, 02:58:05 PM
This should make those who maintain Francis as the Pope, yet claim he is a heretic or causing division, think about what they are doing by remaining in communion with him. St. Ignatius is very explicit about men like Francis. If those "embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them" because they are not Catholic.
This one makes no distinction between whether the individual actually believes like the false teacher or not: "if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell". Just by maintaining any sort of unity with the false teacher is enough for condemnation. There will be no excuse for considering a heretic or schismatic false teacher your pope and remaining in communion with him.
The thing is, and "this one [dogma] makes no distinction" either, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  

Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned (Council of Constance)
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 29, 2017, 05:29:25 PM
The thing is, and "this one [dogma] makes no distinction" either, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  

Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned (Council of Constance)
A true Pope could never attempt to bind the whole Church to error in faith and morals. Conciliar "clowns/popes" are no more Pope than if a woman or a one year old were elected Pope. You are under the impression that just because someone is elected and resides in Rome he is automatically a true Pope. The dogma regarding subjection to the Roman Pontiff doesn't apply during the interregnum which we are currently in. Also, your quote doesn't apply to heresy. One can be wicked without being a heretic. The perpetual successors" dogma also does not apply, because it states that the Roman Pontiff "SHOULD" have perpetual successors, not "WILL" have perpetual successors. Just figured I would anticipate your usual response.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on November 30, 2017, 04:38:41 AM
1) A true Pope could never attempt to bind the whole Church to error in faith and morals. 2) Conciliar "clowns/popes" are no more Pope than if a woman or a one year old were elected Pope. 3) You are under the impression that just because someone is elected and resides in Rome he is automatically a true Pope. 4) The dogma regarding subjection to the Roman Pontiff doesn't apply during the interregnum which we are currently in. 5) Also, your quote doesn't apply to heresy. One can be wicked without being a heretic. 6) The perpetual successors" dogma also does not apply, because it states that the Roman Pontiff "SHOULD" have perpetual successors, not "WILL" have perpetual successors. 7) Just figured I would anticipate your usual response.
Allow me address each of your points in order:

1) The Church has never taught that a "true" pope cannot attempt to bind the whole Church to error. He most certainly can, has and still does make that attempt. The teaching of the Church is that he cannot bind the whole Church to error when he speaks ex cathedra, not, as the sedes preach, that he cannot make the attempt on his own.


2) We have no way of proving that the "Conciliar clowns/popes" are not popes, anymore than we can prove that all NO transubstantiation's are certainly invalid. It is simply impossible to do in this world no matter how strong our opinion of the matter is. As such, the dogma most certainly applies. "It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney

3) Yes, I am under that impression because that is what "true" popes have taught - "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope St. Pius X Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Those who are not under the same impression reject what "true" popes have taught, which perfectly demonstrates the futility of the whole sede syndrome.

4) There is, per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above, a pope. Therefore there is no interregnum, therefore the dogma applies and has applied these last 60 or so years.

5) The Council's condemnation applies to heresy, any contrary argument is futile.

6) It does apply per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above.

7) I respond for those on the fence about sedevacantism who may happen across this thread. Sedeism is a doctrine of man, it is a false doctrine, one that most assuredly has never been taught by the Church and whenever it reared it's ugly head has always been condemned by the Church as schismatic. It is inherently anti-dogmatic, it is therefore anti-Catholic.  
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: MiserereMeiDeus on November 30, 2017, 11:19:16 AM
Can a nonCatholic be pope? Is "Francis" Catholic?

Therefore: [self-evident]
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 30, 2017, 12:51:25 PM
The Church has never taught that a "true" pope cannot attempt to bind the whole Church to error. He most certainly can, has and still does make that attempt. The teaching of the Church is that he cannot bind the whole Church to error when he speaks ex cathedra, not, as the sedes preach, that he cannot make the attempt on his own.
Your first error consists in what you believe to be ex Cathedra, and what the Church believes to be ex Cathedra.

Here is what Cardinal Manning believes about the definition at Vatican I (who would know much more in regards to the definition the Fr. Feeney or yourself)....

The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . The definition limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as  sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals. (Cardinal Manning - The Vatican Council and its definitions - Pg. 64)


Notice that it is only when the Pope acts in a private or local capacity that he is fallible. Whenever teaches the whole Church concerning faith in morals he is infallible (provided he teaches definitively). If he is merely giving his personal opinion to the Church, he would be fallible. This only makes sense. The way you interpret the definition and "true obedience" the Church becomes protestant. Unless a definition such as the Immaculate Conception or Assumption were given, anyone would be free to resist the Pope. There would be chaos in the Church.

Your second error is that you believe that Vatican I taught that Catholics are bound ONLY to things taught by the Pope ex Cathedra. That was not at all the case. Vatican I was merely defining the conditions on which a Pope is infallible AS AN INDIVIDUAL. This does not mean we are not also bound to Major Creeds, doctrines delivered, decreed and defined at Catholic General Councils, and of course the UOM (Tradition). My specific point is in regards to Vatican II. Let's see what the Tridentine Creed (a major Catholic Creed) says about what Catholics "must undoubtedly receive and profess" in regards to Catholic General Councils...

1. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions,
 and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.
 2. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our
 holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of
 the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and
 interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
 3. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the
 New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation
 of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation,
 Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; and that they
 confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be
 reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved
 ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the
 aforesaid Sacraments.
 4. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been
 defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning Original Sin
 and justification.
 5. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper,
 and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most
 holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially,
 the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord
 Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of
 the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the
  wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls
 Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is
 received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament.
 6. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein
 detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
 7. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored
 and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics
 are to be respected.
 8. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever
 Virgin, and also of the Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due
 honor and veneration is to be given them.
 9. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church,
 and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
 10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother
 and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
 successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
 11. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined,
 and declared
by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly
 by the holy Council of Trent.

 12. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto,
 and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by
 the Church. This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved,
 I. N.N. do at this present freely confess and sincerely hold; and I promise most
 constantly to retain, and confess the same entire and unviolated, with God's
 assistance, to the end of my life.


As Catholics we must receive all things delivered, defined AND declared at a General Council. Resistance does not apply in this case. Do you accept the heretical declaration on religious liberty Stubborn? How about some of the other heresies delivered and declared. There doesn't have to be an "anathema" attached to a declaration in order to bind Catholics. If you accept the Conciliar Popes you are BOUND to the heresies in Vatican II, since THEY REQUIRE YOU TO ACCEPT A HERETICAL COUNCIL AS VALID AND CATHOLIC FOR COMMUNION WITH THEIR SECT. This is IMPOSSIBLE as per Christ's promise to Peter and his successors when He said, "and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt 16:19)

Peter and his successors could never bind a person to the heresies such as are in Vatican II. If you believe that the conciliar clowns are true Popes then you are either bound to those heresies for the reasons stated above, or you claim you are not bound to those heresies and reject the declarations of what you believe to be a Catholic General Council (as well as the Council itself) and a major Catholic Creed. Either way you are not Catholic.

Quote
We have no way of proving that the "Conciliar clowns/popes" are not popes, anymore than we can prove that all NO transubstantiation's are certainly invalid.
You fall into multiple errors here. First of all it is much easier to prove manifest heresy in many cases. You mean to tell me that if a declaration in a so called Catholic General Council denies the divinity of Christ and a "popeclown" says that it is a valid Catholic Council and that all Catholics must accept it as valid and Catholic, that this man is not clearly a heretic who hold no keys and no office in the Catholic Church? I guess (sadly) that your answer would be yes. It is actually what your are now saying regarding the multiple heresies delivered and declared at Vatican II. Your next error would be that Catholics need an official declaration or some other proof to consider one a "non office holder". Once heresy is manifest that is all that is necessary. Catholics are not obliged to read hearts and must presume DOLUS IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED. You have it backwards (as you are searching for proof first).

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has  been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.

Quote
It is simply impossible to do in this world no matter how strong our opinion of the matter is. As such, the dogma most certainly applies. "It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney
I agree with that dogma. As I said, however, it does not apply during the interregnum we are in.


Quote
Yes, I am under that impression because that is what "true" popes have taught - "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope St. Pius X Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Those who are not under the same impression reject what "true" popes have taught, which perfectly demonstrates the futility of the whole sede syndrome.

The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical impediment and not a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."  

Quote
Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.


Quote
There is, per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above, a pope. Therefore there is no interregnum, therefore the dogma applies and has applied these last 60 or so years.
The universal teaching of the Church is that a woman, one below the age of reason (or lacking reason), as well as heretics and schismatics cannot be in possession of a valid election by divine law. That is the universal teaching of the Church also expressed in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Pope Paul IV). Therefore the interregnum applies.

Quote
I respond for those on the fence about sedevacantism who may happen across this thread. Sedeism is a doctrine of man, it is a false doctrine, one that most assuredly has never been taught by the Church and whenever it reared it's ugly head has always been condemned by the Church as schismatic. It is inherently anti-dogmatic, it is therefore anti-Catholic.  
You are in a fog Stubborn. I will also respond for those who are on the fence as well as for those who are of good will regardless of whether or not they are on the fence. The Church has always taught that heretics are aliens to the Church. They sever themselves without declaration. Heretics cannot be Pope since they are not members of the Church. This what taught by Popes as well as all the Church Fathers unanimously, not to mention the doctors who taught it. Unfortunately because you misapply Church dogma (or just don't read it closely enough) you fail to see the truth in this matter. You then have the audacity to say that the Catholic teaching that heretics sever themselves automatically without declaration and are not members of the Church and hence cannot hold offices is "a doctrine of man". Please read the following carefully as it will thoroughly refute your many errors and hopefully lead you out of the Novus Ordo sect (of which you are currently a member).

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).

Someone must have forgot to tell the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia that the idea of Sedevacantism has been condemned and is antidogmatic etc. Not saying that everything is infallible in the CE, but it certainly carries more weight than Stubborn and Fr. Feeney. Now let's look at some Scripture quotes, shall we...

Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. (1 Cor. 4:1-2)

Here we see that it is required that a man "be found faithful" to be a dispenser of the mysteries of God". Those who are not faithful (such as conciliar clownpopes) can not "dispense mysteries of God" since they hold no office.

A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:" (Titus 3:10)

Notice that St. Paul refers to the man as a HERETIC without a formal declaration from St. Peter. He also acknowledges that Titus can recognize this heretic without a declaration.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8-9)

Notice how St. Paul tells the clergy and faithful of Galatia not to wait for a declaration of heresy or "proof", but rather upon hearing a false gospel to consider the preacher "anathema" straightaway.

Now how did the ancient Church Fathers interpret these passages and does it matter? We will soon see that ALL the Church Fathers unanimously interpreted the above as being that a heretic loses their office "ipso facto" without a declaration...


St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: " A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ( per se ) ceases to be pope and head , just as he ceases automatically to be a  Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by  the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction

Pope Leo XIII,  Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:  “The practice of the Church has always b een the same, as is shown by the unanimous  teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND  ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE  MAGISTERIUM.”  

Now what does Vatican I say to do when we see a situation like this (when all the Church Fathers interpret the Scriptures to mean a certain thing)? Vatican I will now tell us...

First Vatican Council, Session 2: Profession of Faith

3. Likewise I accept sacred scripture
What have Doctors of the Church said?...

St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church,  The Catholic Controversy , pp.  305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."  

St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 :  “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and  condemn him as a heretic.


St. Robert Bellarmine,  De Romano Pontifice , II, 30:  “For, in the first place,  it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed . The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate –  which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence . And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of  Christ.”  


What have the Popes said?...

Pope Pius VI,  Auctorem fidei , Aug. 28, 1794:  “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal  examination should precede , and that, therefore , sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” –  false, rash,  pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.  

Pope Pius XII,  Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):  “As therefore  in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one  Lord, and one Baptism, so  there can be only one faith . And therefore if a man refuse to  hear the Church let him be considered –  so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a  publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body , nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit  


Pope Innocent III,  Eius exemplo , Dec. 18, 1208:  “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess  the one Church, not of heretics ,  but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no  one is saved.”  

Pope Eugene IV,  Council of Florence , “Cantate Domino,” 1441:  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that  all those who are  outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans  but also Jews or heretics  and  schismatics...  

Pope Leo XIII,  Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896:  “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach  that the faith of Rome is to be held.


Pope Innocent IV,  First Council of Lyons , 1245:  “The civil law declares that  those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject  to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have  strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.    

Pope St. Celestine:  “ The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple  Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers,  after  the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered  deposed or excommunicated .  For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever .  

Pope Pius IX,  Quartus Supra (# 12), Jan. 6, 1873:  “Since the faction of Armenia is like this,  they are schismatics even if they had not yet  been condemned as such by Apostolic authority.”  


Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio , Feb. 15, 1559: “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;...”  


What does Canon Law say and how is it interpreted? We shall now see...

Canon 188 No. 4:
“All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has  been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.

A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...  Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and  the burden of proof is on the person  whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”




















Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on November 30, 2017, 03:36:04 PM
Your first error consists in what you believe to be ex Cathedra, and what the Church believes to be ex Cathedra.

Here is what Cardinal Manning believes about the definition at Vatican I (who would know much more in regards to the definition the Fr. Feeney or yourself)....


The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . The definition limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as  sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals.
There's always gotta be a "but". Any time you see that word explaining dogma, beware, because someone is wrongfully adding their own idea into the formula.


It is apparent that Cardinal Manning himself is guilty of abandoning that meaning of sacred dogma "once declared" since with that first error I struck a line through, he is redefining the dogma and does so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, because the dogma does not say what he says.

The dogma does not extend anything and there is no way anyone can make it so. Most assuredly the dogma states nowhere, nor does it imply the pope's infallibility is extended. The dogma means exactly what it says.

The second sentence I struck a line through is a half lie because per V1, that sentence is incomplete, and on account of it being incomplete, it leads unknowing folks such as yourself to believe the Church teaches the pope is infallible even during those times when he isn't. But if the second strike was in fact true, then not only would the rest of his quote be true, there would be no crisis in the Church at all, and on top of that, you have even less reason to adhere to sedevacantism.

If it were as you and he say, then either you are bound to the NO, or you have absolutely zero faith in your own (and his) idea of infallibility.

"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."-  
Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council

It's been a long day and your post is so full of errors, I will correct you later or tomorrow in separate posts. First thing to always remember is that there are no teachings of Holy Mother the Church that can vindicate, support, reinforce or in anyway agree with sedevacantism. As such, I will appeal to you to cease using teachings of the Church, and teachings/speculations of the popes, councils, Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism.

Since the fact that there are no Church teachings vindicating sedevacantism is indisputably the truth, I ask that you only use teachings/speculations from sedevacantist popes, councils, Fathers etc. to vindicate sedevacantism.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 30, 2017, 05:00:44 PM
There's always gotta be a "but". Any time you see that word explaining dogma, beware, because someone is wrongfully adding their own idea into the formula.


It is apparent that Cardinal Manning himself is guilty of abandoning that meaning of sacred dogma "once declared" since with that first error I struck a line through, he is redefining the dogma and does so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, because the dogma does not say what he says.

The dogma does not extend anything and there is no way anyone can make it so. Most assuredly the dogma states nowhere, nor does it imply the pope's infallibility is extended. The dogma means exactly what it says.

The second sentence I struck a line through is a half lie because per V1, that sentence is incomplete, and on account of it being incomplete, it leads unknowing folks such as yourself to believe the Church teaches the pope is infallible even during those times when he isn't. But if the second strike was in fact true, then not only would the rest of his quote be true, there would be no crisis in the Church at all, and on top of that, you have even less reason to adhere to sedevacantism.

If it were as you and he say, then either you are bound to the NO, or you have absolutely zero faith in your own (and his) idea of infallibility.

"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."-  
Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council
Unfortunately Stubborn, it is you who are privately interpreting dogma and twisting it to your own liking. The Church has always understood that when the Pope teaches a doctrine concerning faith and morals to the whole Church in a decisive manner, he is infallible. He need not say explicitly that he is using his Apostolic authority or that he is speaking from the chair. There are quite a few historical examples of this as well. You are currently suffering from pride blindness and the blind will unfortunately follow you into the pit.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on November 30, 2017, 05:38:02 PM
I thought Cardinal Manning was pretty clear...


"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church."
-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert,
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on November 30, 2017, 05:44:10 PM
Is this clear enough?



Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles:
"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a Synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and Excommunicated."


(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/Francis_at_Rome_synagogue_CNA.jpg?w=640)

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/pope-benedict-xvi-speaks-during-a-visit-to-the-park-east-synagogue-picture-id80768722)

(https://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/rabbi-marvin-hier_pope-john-paul-ii_2003.jpg)
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 30, 2017, 09:13:49 PM
Can a nonCatholic be pope? Is "Francis" Catholic?

Therefore: [self-evident]
Correctamundo.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 30, 2017, 09:24:14 PM
I thought Cardinal Manning was pretty clear...

Likewise.


Quote
"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church."
-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert,

Good post. When the early Fathers are in universal agreement that is a sign of infallibility according to the Church. Unfortunately Stubborn and certain others would rather believe in their private interpretation of dogma at this point.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 30, 2017, 09:34:01 PM
It's been a long day and your post is so full of errors, I will correct you later or tomorrow in separate posts. First thing to always remember is that there are no teachings of Holy Mother the Church that can vindicate, support, reinforce or in anyway agree with sedevacantism. As such, I will appeal to you to cease using teachings of the Church, and teachings/speculations of the popes, councils, Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism.

Please forgive me for using teachings of the Church. I was not aware that Church teaching was opposed to your false interpretations. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on November 30, 2017, 09:41:25 PM

Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.


 :confused: :fryingpan:

"Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 03:29:09 AM
Unfortunately Stubborn, it is you who are privately interpreting dogma and twisting it to your own liking. The Church has always understood that when the Pope teaches a doctrine concerning faith and morals to the whole Church in a decisive manner, he is infallible. He need not say explicitly that he is using his Apostolic authority or that he is speaking from the chair. There are quite a few historical examples of this as well. You are currently suffering from pride blindness and the blind will unfortunately follow you into the pit.
Unfortunately LD, it is not I who is interpreting dogma, I'm the one reading what is written as it is written - as even the cardinal himself agrees -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But trying to convince you that he is wrong and show you that you know it is wrong, since obviously you do not even believe it yourself, is a lesson in patience I am practicing for the good of fence sitters and others of good will who are as confused as you are.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 03:33:42 AM
Please forgive me for using teachings of the Church. I was not aware that Church teaching was opposed to your false interpretations. :facepalm:
No, I will not forgive you for attempting to use teachings of the Church in your futile attempts to vindicate sedevacantism, any more than I forgive prots for using a bible in their attempts to vindicate their anti-Catholic beliefs. Use your own sedevacantist teachings from your own sedevacantist popes, saints and councils.

If you really want to make a case in favor of sedeism, that is the only way to do it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 08:35:38 AM
Quote
Unfortunately LD, it is not I who is interpreting dogma, I'm the one reading what is written as it is written

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


Therefore,

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

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

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

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

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

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

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


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 08:41:32 AM
There have been over 40 Anti Popes in Church history.

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

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




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


http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/09/24/scholars-clergy-sign-letter-accusing-pope-francis-of-upholding-heretical-positions/
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 09:52:02 AM

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 09:59:01 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4283/35258455982_cd389d9fd5.jpg)

Are we at that time?  That really is the question.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 10:00:27 AM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4283/35258455982_cd389d9fd5.jpg)

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

Yes indeed.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 10:13:32 AM
The problem Stubborn is that you don't actually read what is written. I will clearly point out that you do not read what is written. Let's start with the first dogma that you frequently use from the First Vatican Council...
I am the one reading it as it is written, you otoh, like the rabid BODer who zooms into the word "desire" and entirely ignore the rest of the Council, you zoom into the word "should" and ignore the rest of the teaching, presumably you do this because otherwise the thin ice you're already on turns to water and you fall right in.  "if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) - you need to stop right there, because if you don't, it is apparent that you will remain in the water.

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

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

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

WTH kind of divine law is that?

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

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 01, 2017, 10:25:14 AM
Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 10:36:22 AM
No, "do that" and you realize that a heretic is residing in Rome claiming to be a true Pope and doing things a true Pope could never do.
You really are confused. What is it about cardinal Mannnig's idea that the pope's infallibility extends "to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority" that you disagree with?

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

Far as I can see, the best course for you to take to un-confuse yourself, is to quote teachings only from sedevacantist popes and saints - otherwise your cause is completely futile because it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to vindicate sedevacantism using Catholic Church teachings.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 10:38:24 AM
Stubborn and those like him follow the man who makes schism and separates from truth, they embrace communion with the accursed. Stubborn and those like him regard these accursed as their Pope, they are not separate and aloof of them. One is guilty of the same offenses by merely proclaiming unity and fellowship with these wolves. Saying that a heretic is your pope and that you are in communion with him is a damnable offense. Number five above is the remedy for the situation. One is to separate oneself from the accursed (i.e. heretical claimants) and regard them as enemies. One should not be doing as the Stubborns do and proclaim, from the rooftops, their unbreakable unity with these heretics.
Why lie? I guess that's all you can resort to.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 10:48:51 AM
(http://www.hippoquotes.com/img/pope-francis-quotes-on-atheism/pope_francis_5.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/25/78/c9257884003fbec7ba8cb575e75a00eb--pope-quotes-pope-francis-quotes.jpg)
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 10:59:26 AM

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

(http://www.therandomvibez.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/pope-francis-homosexuality-quote-300x250.jpg)
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 11:35:29 AM
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.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 11:44:57 AM
These threads always remind me of something we were taught as children. We were taught that no matter what, we are to never talk against the pope. One of the reasons for this, we were reminded, is on account of a once well-known French Proverb: "Qui mange le Pape, meurt!" (He who eats the pope dies!)

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

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

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


Luther hated the Popes because they were in bed with Jewish Banksters and sanctioned Usury.  
That was the heart of the Reformation. Im not excusing Luthers misdeeds, as it resulted in EUrope torn apart, but Anti Christian Usury was the heart of the/his issue.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nlSSOyXy6vU/UZPQSnHHTjI/AAAAAAAABRY/pgIDLj1vmVc/s1600/Banned+by+AmericanConservative.jpg)

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gvFzK0kl9VQ/VvAYDkMdexI/AAAAAAAAChg/SZ9AbHUVBWgZ1vunC5kQgImEjF6qvEilQ/s1600/Luther%2BZinskauf.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 01, 2017, 12:04:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 12:06:51 PM
There have been over 40+ Anti Popes In Church History.
Even a Jew Pope.   Pope Leo The Khazar.
None of this is new.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 12:10:51 PM
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".
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 12:19:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 12:24:22 PM
(https://dismgmt.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cropped-quote-it-s-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-that-they-have-been-fooled-mark-twain-48-62-03.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 12:25:29 PM
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.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 12:28:57 PM
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
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 12:29:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 12:30:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 01, 2017, 12:55:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 01, 2017, 01:05:27 PM
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.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 01:30:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 01:35:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 01:43:46 PM
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. 


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 01:47:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:02:38 PM
No, all I, along with every other human creature are bound to do, is to be the popes' subjects. To you, that is defined as blind submission to whatever the popes wish, to Catholics, it means exactly what it says.

To be a subject of a Pope, one of the age of reason must submit to the authoritative teachings of the Pope concerning faith and morals when he teaches definitively to the whole Church. If not (and the person is in full knowledge of what the Pope taught) that person becomes a HERETIC and SEVERS himself from the Church "ipso facto" without declaration. Hence he is alien to the Church, until (if and when) he abjures his heresy and re-enters the Catholic Church. Hence, if you are of the age of reason (which I seriously have to ask you), then you must obey a true Pope in his authoritative teachings concerning faith and morals to the whole Church.

Also, blind submission is unconditional submission Stubborn. Cardinal Manning explained the conditions (according to Vatican I) in which a Pope is not infallible and which resistance may apply. I agreed with these conditions. Therefore (if you are aware of what I said in my post to you), you are now (not only a hypocrite), but also a liar as well. Are these qualities that you value Stubborn? I suggest you repent and stop what you are doing immediately.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:06:36 PM
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.

All good points here, GJC.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 01, 2017, 02:06:54 PM

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?

I don't think that perpetuality is fractured by a line of false popes.

I remember my expression when I first heard Wojtyla was a heretic (which I agreed with), and my Holy Father at the same time:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/glmRyiSI3v5E4/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 02:11:50 PM
(http://www.hippoquotes.com/img/pope-francis-quotes-on-atheism/pope_francis_5.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/25/78/c9257884003fbec7ba8cb575e75a00eb--pope-quotes-pope-francis-quotes.jpg)
If Mr Stubborn only attacked the so called Head Shepherds teachings, actions and statements as much as he did, those that are critical of his heresy and apostasy.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:14:47 PM
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.

Exactly. Stubborn was hoping to influence "fence sitters". I think he achieved his goal to their benefit. Provided the "fence sitters" are of good will and are following the thread, they certainly should have abandoned Stubborn's false position by now.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:27:54 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVz8KzDZiiFkI2uqF5Wr0qrCwKNh7P9xC2WJRaWNXiWiNO-WVTeQ)


Do you believe that Stubborn guy actually thinks you're a true Pope?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:34:13 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeTZmuzMRAP-XDWkfBmMa0GXgL6TylUeDd0SnIemt_Wm7T_R6k)

Hey Bergie, do you realize that millions of people believe you are a true Catholic Pope?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:36:44 PM

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjMc1wEPaRO3vjzMp9CY7ql59H8X03A5kl58RnduqfjMqurGcGEw)

Jorge when confronted with a question in regards to traditional Catholicism.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:40:38 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQO5uSlbFc0x72k8rHbTg5ohBIWwAMZGKnZjm1jI0fumAUUxELdBw)


Bergie confronted with the heresies of Vatican II, and called an imposter.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:42:52 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQc7nzfXvkNqii_P4kHr8GVDLdTAQgPuObpaGwGW9X1UZns7xgC)

Bergoglio after some "hoops" at the park.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:44:15 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCe6C5yjvsDMnAzkFbspcv7qQjAQdjvqrBpQIs76W2fji2n_rB)

Jorge sees a sedevacantist in the distance.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:46:35 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDmonlTLFL3f4jlkxj1s36wzRwu_fFe3NSoJ-wqixsfwZzv6a-)

Bergoglio finds out about Stubborn's posts on cathinfo. Realizes his "cover" is being blown.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 01, 2017, 02:53:48 PM
(http://)
(http://)(http://)
(http://)

Stubborn's "pope" ready to lead the novus ordo service.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: 2Vermont on December 01, 2017, 03:06:41 PM
Those captions and pics are awesome.  :laugh1:
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 04:27:30 PM
To be a subject of a Pope, one of the age of reason must submit to the authoritative teachings of the Pope concerning faith and morals when he teaches definitively to the whole Church.
When he teaches ex cathedra - and all other times when he uses his papal authority, unless he wants us to do something that offends God. An example of this is everything to do with  the NO. We cannot submit to his directives because in so doing, we would offend God.    


Quote
Hence he is alien to the Church, until (if and when) he abjures his heresy and re-enters the Catholic Church. Hence, if you are of the age of reason (which I seriously have to ask you), then you must obey a true Pope in his authoritative teachings concerning faith and morals to the whole Church.
When did you make your abjuration of heresy from your NO days?


Quote
Also, blind submission is unconditional submission Stubborn. Cardinal Manning explained the conditions (according to Vatican I) in which a Pope is not infallible and which resistance may apply. I agreed with these conditions. Therefore (if you are aware of what I said in my post to you), you are now (not only a hypocrite), but also a liar as well. Are these qualities that you value Stubborn? I suggest you repent and stop what you are doing immediately.
You agreed with what conditions? You claim that it is a teaching of the Church that the pope's infallibility extends to all his authoritative acts - does it not?

Too bad for you that Vatican 1 never taught of conditions when the pope is not infallible - V1 decreed only the doctrine of papal infallibility, not some odd ball sede doctrine of non-infallibility. That would take a million pages to just begin to scratch the surface of when he is not-infallible.

As is typical of the teaching of the Church, by V1 decreeing only in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives, the pope is completely fallible. That's the way that works in the Catholic Church.

If you believe it is a teaching of the Church as you say, that the pope's infallibility extends "to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority", then there is no crisis except in your head and in the heads of all trads. Or are you saying you reject the teaching of the Church? Which is it? There are no other choices here.



To summarize, you believe the Church teaches that the pope's infallibility extends "to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority". On that account, you are bound to submit to all the authoritative acts of the pope - because for you, that is the teaching of the Church.

You can try to squiggle out of it all you want, but contrary to what you say, you either do not believe his authority extends to all his authoritative acts, in which case you reject what you say is a teaching of the Church, or you do believe it. If you really do believe it, then you are sinning by not submitting to his NO, which is the result of an authoritative act of the pope.


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 04:32:37 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeTZmuzMRAP-XDWkfBmMa0GXgL6TylUeDd0SnIemt_Wm7T_R6k)

Hey Bergie, do you realize that millions of people believe you are a true Catholic Pope?
With all your mocking of the pope, do you really think your end will be different than Luther's? Try to remember that like you, Luther "ate the pope". As Msgr, O'Hare said, "He ate the pope and died of it."
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 05:24:17 PM
With all your mocking of the pope, do you really think your end will be different than Luther's? Try to remember that like you, Luther "ate the pope". As Msgr, O'Hare said, "He ate the pope and died of it."
Luther was not a sedevacantist.
His primary object was Usury and Jews in the Church.  And he was right about them.
But he got lost, and changed tenants of orthodoxy and the Faith itself. 
Sedes rightly proclaim that this is not a valid pope, but an Anti Pope, just like the other 40 the Church has had throughout time.
He could literally stand up and shout that he is a Freemason or Atheist and You would still defend him.  That is what makes you and your argument so sad.  All but the blind can see.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 01, 2017, 05:47:13 PM
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.

I think it is possible to figure this out. What it boils down to is this: who are perpetual successors?

I guess the incentive to define this canon was to clear the air about the Primacy of Peter, for the correction of Protestants, Old Catholics...etc. We both would agree that the Bishops, priests, doctors... that were at the Council were well aware of liberalism and the infant stages of modernism. So what could be the concept of defining a law that would enable a heretic to advance to the chair? If it were for the correction of those who were in error, then in reality it would be error that it defined? Even the Protestant knows that one must be Catholic to be Pope, right?

So the question you ask: How's this for God's law - "St. Peter might not have perpetual successors".

It is not out of the question, if we define perpetual successors as ONLY Catholics.

Let us say for argument sake I asked you the same question you asked me:
How is this for God's law - "St Peter will always have perpetual successors".

Then that would mean that the Vatican I infallibly defined that heretics can not only be in the Church, but rule in the Church.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: budDude on December 01, 2017, 06:28:16 PM
I think it is possible to figure this out. What it boils down to is this: who are perpetual successors?

I guess the incentive to define this canon was to clear the air about the Primacy of Peter, for the correction of Protestants, Old Catholics...etc. We both would agree that the Bishops, priests, doctors... that were at the Council were well aware of liberalism and the infant stages of modernism. So what could be the concept of defining a law that would enable a heretic to advance to the chair? If it were for the correction of those who were in error, then in reality it would be error that it defined? Even the Protestant knows that one must be Catholic to be Pope, right?

So the question you ask: How's this for God's law - "St. Peter might not have perpetual successors".

It is not out of the question, if we define perpetual successors as ONLY Catholics.

Let us say for argument sake I asked you the same question you asked me:
How is this for God's law - "St Peter will always have perpetual successors".

Then that would mean that the Vatican I infallibly defined that heretics can not only be in the Church, but rule in the Church.
In Church history, St Peter has NOT had perpetual Successors.  We have had over 40+ Anti Popes
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 01, 2017, 08:11:05 PM
Let us say for argument sake I asked you the same question you asked me:
How is this for God's law - "St Peter will always have perpetual successors".

Then that would mean that the Vatican I infallibly defined that heretics can not only be in the Church, but rule in the Church.
Not so, it would not mean that it is a dogma of faith that heretics can rule the Church, neither does that dogma exclude the possibility, it actually says or means nothing in regard to the sanctity, the complete lack of it, or the luke warm in St. Peter's successors - only that by divine law, they are his successors. That's what it is saying. The reason it says that, is so that we know the popes are St. Peter's successors, not so we can turn the whole dogma into a meaningless formula to suit our own sedesim.

It means exactly what it says, that whoever says what these sedes say, i.e. that it is not by divine law that St. Peter should have perpetual successors, is anathema. But being this is dogma, and since sedeism is inherently anti-dogmatic, they have gotten themselves in such a sorry state that they cannot even see they are anathematizing themselves.

As Catholics, we are bound to accept as dogma, what the dogma says - period. With a play on words (actually one word), the sede's here mangle the whole dogma into a meaningless work of absolute ambiguity. 

This is why I repeatedly request that the sedes cease using Catholic teachings in their attempts to reconcile sedeism with Catholicism. It is precisely because the same exact thing happens each and every time they attempt to use any Church teaching - especially dogma - to vindicate sedeism. All they are actually doing, is invoking the Church in behalf of their errors.

It is dogma that by Divine Law, the popes are St. Peter's successors. This means that whatever else they may be, they are popes - period. Because it is dogma, we have no choice, we must accept this. It is also dogma that we must be subject to the pope because if we aren't, we have no hope at all of ever getting to heaven. This is dogma.

But because sedevacantism is inherently anti-dogmatic, to the sede's these dogmas are heresies - proof of this is that I've been  repeatedly accused of heresy for quoting these same dogmas.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Croix de Fer on December 01, 2017, 08:13:40 PM


If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned (Council of Constance)

This describes an antipope who has hijacked the Seat of Peter, and who might only retain a materially valid bishopric. True Catholics are under no obligation to be obedient to this devil.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 02, 2017, 07:43:34 AM
Let me just post this again.


Quote
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, Ch.3 Avoid schismatics: "Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange  i.e., heretical. opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].   
Keep yourselves, then, from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand, as the children of God. For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you. I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the Church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover   (2 Tim. ii. 26). themselves out of the snare of the devil, and becoming worthy of Jesus Christ, may obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of Christ. Brethren, be not deceived. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell. For it is obligatory neither to separate from the godly, nor to associate with the ungodly. If any one walks according to a strange  i.e., heretical. opinion, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion; but is a fox, Comp. ( Cant. ii. 15). a destroyer of the vineyard of Christ. Have no fellowship Comp. (1 Cor. v. 11). with such a man, lest ye perish along with him, even should he be thy father, thy son, thy brother, or a member of thy family. For says [the Scripture], “Thine eye shall not spare him.” (Deut. xiii. 6, 18.) You ought therefore to “hate those that hate God, and to waste away [with grief] on account of His enemies.” (Ps. cxix. 21). I do not mean that you should beat them or persecute them, as do the Gentiles “that know not the Lord and God;”    (1 Thess. iv. 5). but that you should regard them as your enemies, and separate yourselves from them, while yet you admonish them, and exhort them to repentance, if it may be they will hear, if it may be they will submit themselves. For our God is a lover of mankind, and “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”    (1 Tim. ii. 4). Wherefore “He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;”    (Matt. v. 45). of whose kindness the Lord, wishing us also to be imitators, says, “Be ye perfect, even as also your Father that is in heaven is perfect.”

Those who claim that they belong to the same Church that Francis does, are condemned by association, according to St. Ignatius.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 02, 2017, 09:00:18 AM
When did you make your abjuration of heresy from your NO days?

I abjured my heresy of the schismatic position that you currently hold (plus any other heresies I may have held of which I was unaware) in confession. I suggest you do the same. As it stands, you are a member of the Novus Ordo Church.

Quote
You agreed with what conditions? You claim that it is a teaching of the Church that the pope's infallibility extends to all his authoritative acts - does it not?

When the Pope teaches the whole Church concerning faith and morals. You have a selective memory Stubborn. In other words, you like to twist things and lie a lot.


Quote
Too bad for you that Vatican 1 never taught of conditions when the pope is not infallible- V1 decreed only the doctrine of papal infallibility, not some odd ball sede doctrine of non-infallibility. That would take a million pages to just begin to scratch the surface of when he is not-infallible. As is typical of the teaching of the Church, by V1 decreeing only in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives, the pope is completely fallible. That's the way that works in the Catholic Church.

Gee Stubborn, thanks a lot for this important information. Did you have to graduate second grade to learn this? The problem is that you don't apply it.

Quote
To summarize, you believe the Church teaches that the pope's infallibility extends "to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority". On that account, you are bound to submit to all the authoritative acts of the pope - because for you, that is the teaching of the Church.

To summarize, you are a hypocrite and a liar with a selective memory. Let me highlight the part you conveniently left out (of what I posted in reply #6 of this thread)...

The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . The definition limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as  sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals.

Do you see it now Stubborn, or do you need a larger font size?



Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 11:24:57 AM
I abjured my heresy of the schismatic position that you currently hold (plus any other heresies I may have held of which I was unaware) in confession. I suggest you do the same. As it stands, you are a member of the Novus Ordo Church.
I have always only ever been a trad born and raised and having gone to great lengths to avoid the entire evil NO my whole life, I have never been tainted with the NO. I am not the one who needs to abjure anything. Having been raised in the faith and by the grace of God having remained in it, I know my faith - which since you consider my faith to be heresy, means obviously, you're the one who do not know yours. That's what that means.



Quote
Stubborn: You agreed with what conditions? You claim that it is a teaching of the Church that the pope's infallibility extends to all his authoritative acts - does it not?

LD: When the Pope teaches the whole Church concerning faith and morals. You have a selective memory Stubborn. In other words, you like to twist things and lie a lot.
I understood you the first time and you are still completely screwed up. You are trying to say "the Church teaches that the pope's infallibility extends to all his authoritative acts - when he teaches the whole world concerning faith and morals." :facepalm: Do I actually need to explain to you all the reasons why this "teaching" of yours makes absolutely no sense?


Quote
Stubborn: To summarize, you believe the Church teaches that the pope's infallibility extends "to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority". On that account, you are bound to submit to all the authoritative acts of the pope - because for you, that is the teaching of the Church.

LD: To summarize, you are a hypocrite and a liar with a selective memory. Let me highlight the part you conveniently left out (of what I posted in reply #6 of this thread)...
Let's be straight here, you are the one confusedly claiming the pope's infallibility extends to all [some of?] his authoritative acts - not me. You do however exclude his acts that are not from the Chair i.e. not ex cathedra, which is of course entirely correct. You got that part correct even though you demonstrate that do not believe it yourself.

Do you realize that you are now *CORRECTLY* saying that V2 and the whole NO, involved an act of the pope's non-infallible authority? Do you realize that?

Which is to say that his infallibility most certainly does not actually "extend to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority? Do you get that now that you've made it so clear - or are you simply still sede-confused? This is why I keep saying to use only sede popes and saints teachings, stay away from using Catholic saints and teachings in your attempts to vindicate sedeism.


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 11:28:40 AM
Let me just post this again.


Those who claim that they belong to the same Church that Francis does, are condemned by association, according to St. Ignatius.
Use your own sedevacantist saints' teachings, leave Catholic saints out of it. Stop using Catholic saints and teachings in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism.  All you are doing here is invoking a Catholic saint in order to include him in as a partaker of your errors.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 02, 2017, 11:50:38 AM
Use your own sedevacantist saints' teachings, leave Catholic saints out of it. Stop using Catholic saints and teachings in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism.  All you are doing here is invoking a Catholic saint in order to include him in as a partaker of your errors.
Why don't you use any Catholic Saint or Pope whatsoever to vindicate your position? Wait, that's right, there are no Saints or any Catholics in history who have deprived the Pope of all authority and power whatever, except in matters of ex Cathedra pronouncements. That's because it's a heretical position and you are a heretic.
Your only response to St. Ignatius is to pretend his quote doesn't exist. This is exactly how heretics act. You are in communion with the accursed Francis and part of the Novus Ordo and you will be condemned with him unless you separate yourself. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 11:58:36 AM
Why don't you use any Catholic Saint or Pope whatsoever to vindicate your position? Wait, that's right, there are no Saints or any Catholics in history who have deprived the Pope of all authority and power whatever, except in matters of ex Cathedra pronouncements. That's because it's a heretical position and you are a heretic.
Your only response to St. Ignatius is to pretend his quote doesn't exist. This is exactly how heretics act. You are in communion with the accursed Francis and part of the Novus Ordo and you will be condemned with him unless you separate yourself.
And this ^^^^ is why I say to stop using my Catholic saints' teachings and for you to use your own sede saints' teachings.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 02, 2017, 12:09:14 PM
Why don't you use any Catholic Saint or Pope whatsoever to vindicate your position? Wait, that's right, there are no Saints or any Catholics in history who have deprived the Pope of all authority and power whatever, except in matters of ex Cathedra pronouncements. That's because it's a heretical position and you are a heretic.
Your only response to St. Ignatius is to pretend his quote doesn't exist. This is exactly how heretics act. You are in communion with the accursed Francis and part of the Novus Ordo and you will be condemned with him unless you separate yourself.

Good post and topic AES. Unfortunately Catholic truth and elementary logic have no effect on Stubborn. In recognizing Bergoglio as Pope and claiming he is a subject of Bergoglio, he is certainly not only associated with the NO, but an actual member of NO. Nay, a very valuable member of their "controlled opposition". Even more valuable than their infiltrators, due to his "genuineness".
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 02, 2017, 12:27:41 PM
And this ^^^^ is why I say to stop using my Catholic saints' teachings and for you to use your own sede saints' teachings.
Again, no response for the St. Ignatius quote. In fact it's a tacit admission that this quote specifically applies to him and others like him. He is in the Novus Ordo and in communion with the men he calls heretics.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 02, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
And this ^^^^ is why I say to stop using my Catholic saints' teachings and for you to use your own sede saints' teachings.

Stubborn, your "saints" are Mother Teresa, John XIII and John Paul II. The Catholic Saints and Doctors who addressed the issue of sedevacantism believed and taught that a heretic cannot be Pope. You're still in your dream world Stubborn. I suggest you snap out of it soon.i
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 12:41:05 PM
Again, no response for the St. Ignatius quote. In fact it's a tacit admission that this quote specifically applies to him and others like him. He is in the Novus Ordo and in communion with the men he calls heretics.
I already told you that you need to stop attempting to reconcile the Catholic Church's teachings with your church - the church of no pope, which is the church of no hope. Your church practices the belief that Christ would govern his Church better by his true disciples scattered throughout the world, without these monstrous heads (popes).
Start using your own sede popes and saints quotes, leave mine out of it - at least then I might have something to respond to.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 12:50:47 PM
Stubborn, your "saints" are Mother Teresa, John XIII and John Paul II. The Catholic Saints and Doctors who addressed the issue of sedevacantism believed and taught that a heretic cannot be Pope. You're still in your dream world Stubborn. I suggest you snap out of it soon.i
As I already told you, I have only ever been a trad Catholic. You and your fellows are the ones who keep their NO indoctrination on display here, not I.

This whole sede argument is obviously, absolutely inconceivable to one such as yourself. Here, I will let you prove it to yourself that your faith is not the Catholic faith.

Pope John XXIII received the traditional last sacraments on his death bed and as such, is counted among the faithful departed - this means that in all likely hood, he made it or will make it to heaven.

Doth this scandalize you?

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 02, 2017, 12:56:39 PM
I already told you that you need to stop attempting to reconcile the Catholic Church's teachings with your church- just quoting the saints, sorry that you have no response for their words 

- the church of no pope, which is the church of no hope.-  another of your sayings that's ridiculous and make no sense. Blasphemous and heretical too, to say one has no hope in the Catholic Church.


 Your church practices the belief that Christ would govern his Church better by his true disciples scattered throughout the world, without these monstrous heads (popes).- here we have the heretic admitting that his "church" has a monster for a head and that he would rather be united to the monster, than keep the faith and be governed by Christ.

Start using your own sede popes and saints quotes, leave mine out of it - at least then I might have something to respond to.- I only use Catholic Saints to prove my points. I understand you would like me to use "mother" Theresa, JPII , JXXIII, etc... because they are "saints" of your "church" but I don't believe like you and them. This is why you are not understanding anything, we are different religions; you are part of the Vatican II sect and I am Catholic. That's why you don't like the quotes we provide from Popes and Saints because you don't believe they are the same religion as you, and you are right.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 02, 2017, 01:47:40 PM
You're still in your dream world Stubborn. I suggest you snap out of it soon.

Keep in mind that Stubborn has been debating against sedevacantism for quite a few years here. He will not give up. I find that admirable. It is more likely that you will give up the debate before he does. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 02, 2017, 02:27:39 PM
Keep in mind that Stubborn has been debating against sedevacantism for quite a few years here. He will not give up. I find that admirable. It is more likely that you will give up the debate before he does.

In a way it's a good thing that he keeps "debating". He should bring quite a few good willed people over to the true Catholic position of sedevacantism with his so called "arguments". He's not going to be drawing many people to his side of the fence with arguments such as "the Pope is the Pope by divine law" and gems like "As such, I will appeal to you to cease using teachings of the Church" and classics such as "Stop using Catholic saints and teachings in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism" and of course, this masterpiece, "Just keep eating the pope, see if your end is any different from Luther's". I will now spare the readers from anymore of Stubborn's nonsense for the time being.


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 02:40:23 PM
I already told you that you need to stop attempting to reconcile the Catholic Church's teachings with your church- just quoting the saints, sorry that you have no response for their words
You have my response but must be too blind to read it; I said stop using Catholic Church and Her saints' teachings in your attempts to reconcile Catholicism with sedeism - the Church has always condemned as schismatic your church. Your church is the church of no pope which is the church of no hope.


Quote
- the church of no pope, which is the church of no hope.-  another of your sayings that's ridiculous and make no sense. Blasphemous and heretical too, to say one has no hope in the Catholic Church.
But that is not what I'm saying, I am saying you are not in the Catholic Church. I say that because it is the truth, which is why you consider dogma to be heresy and consistently argue against it - because you are not a Catholic.

Did you ever see Fr. Jenkins' youtube I posted where he says you are not Catholic? - it is as if he is speaking specifically about you and LD, but he is actually speaking of all dogmatic sedes, not just you. If you haven't watched it, spend 25 seconds and watch him from 24:20 till 24:45.

To quote Fr. Jenkins; "...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all". 
https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459 (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)



Quote
 Your church practices the belief that Christ would govern his Church better by his true disciples scattered throughout the world, without these monstrous heads (popes).- here we have the heretic admitting that his "church" has a monster for a head and that he would rather be united to the monster, than keep the faith and be governed by Christ.
No, I did not say that. Try reading what I said sede. You are so accustomed to twisting words that in your confused state, it is a matter of habit for you.


Quote
Start using your own sede popes and saints quotes, leave mine out of it - at least then I might have something to respond to.- I only use Catholic Saints to prove my points. I understand you would like me to use "mother" Theresa, JPII , JXXIII, etc... because they are "saints" of your "church" but I don't believe like you and them. This is why you are not understanding anything, we are different religions; you are part of the Vatican II sect and I am Catholic. That's why you don't like the quotes we provide from Popes and Saints because you don't believe they are the same religion as you, and you are right.
The only points you keep proving is that you have no sede saints and no sede popes - and no sede church. Your church has no pope nor any chance of ever having a pope. Believe me, a Catholic, when I say - that is not Catholic, it certainly is not the Catholic Church you are a member of.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 02:45:35 PM
In a way it's a good thing that he keeps "debating". He should bring quite a few good willed people over to the true Catholic position of sedevacantism with his so called "arguments". He's not going to be drawing many people to his side of the fence with arguments such as "the Pope is the Pope by divine law" and gems like "As such, I will appeal to you to cease using teachings of the Church" and classics such as "Stop using Catholic saints and teachings in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism" and of course, this masterpiece, "Just keep eating the pope, see if your end is any different from Luther's". I will now spare the readers from anymore of Stubborn's nonsense for the time being.
You who preach all the authoritative acts of the popes are infallible, then denounce his acts you claim to be infallible as heretical. And AES who preaches being subject to the pope is being subject to God, at the same time rejects being subject to the pope. This is what your church teaches, this is not Catholic - fyi.

But I'm the one preaching nonsense. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 02:48:52 PM
Keep in mind that Stubborn has been debating against sedevacantism for quite a few years here. He will not give up. I find that admirable. It is more likely that you will give up the debate before he does.
I just keep trying to point out the obvious. It's like the best place to hide stuff don'tcha know - in this case, it's the Catholic faith that I just keep handing them, but they can't refuse to see it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 02, 2017, 02:56:32 PM
I said stop using Catholic Church and Her saints' teachings in your attempts to reconcile Catholicism with sedeism - I know you don't want to be proven wrong through the Teachings of Popes and Saints of the Catholic Church, that's why I use their quotes. I know you don't like Catholic Teaching, that's the whole point.

 Your church is the church of no pope which is the church of no hope.- Again, saying that there is no hope in the Catholic Church because there is no Pope right now is blasphemous and heretical. That doesn't seem to phase you though.

The only points you keep proving is that you have no sede saints and no sede popes - and no sede church.- There is no such thing. We only have the Catholic Saints and Popes, which we refer to for their teachings. You have the Novus Ordo "saints" which you are in communion with. You are only allowed to refer to those for your arguments as they are in your "church". You embrace the teachings and all that goes with the accursed new "popes" and their "church". 

 Your church has no pope nor any chance of ever having a pope. Believe me, a Catholic, when I say - that is not Catholic, it certainly is not the Catholic Church you are a member of.- We all understand it's a favorite tactic of novus ordites, in their defense of falsehood, to refer to themselves as Catholic. We know that's not true since you are in communion with heretics and are willingly subject to them. You are in the V2 sect and are proud of it. You think very little of the intelligence of those reading your posts because although you claim full allegiance to the false "church", you call yourself Catholic. Truly diabolical.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 02, 2017, 04:09:16 PM
I just keep trying to point out the obvious. It's like the best place to hide stuff don'tcha know - in this case, it's the Catholic faith that I just keep handing them, but they can't refuse to see it.

Makes sense. Sometimes people can't see the obvious: that it's the Catholic faith you're giving them, rather than the sedevacantist faith (which isn't the Catholic faith). 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 02, 2017, 04:42:07 PM
I said stop using Catholic Church and Her saints' teachings in your attempts to reconcile Catholicism with sedeism - I know you don't want to be proven wrong through the Teachings of Popes and Saints of the Catholic Church, that's why I use their quotes. I know you don't like Catholic Teaching, that's the whole point.

You can twist yourself into oblivion all you like, but you will never make it to heaven unless you are subject to the pope. That's not heresy, that is dogma that non-Catholics such as yourself reject as heresy.


Your church is the church of no pope which is the church of no hope.- Again, saying that there is no hope in the Catholic Church because there is no Pope right now is blasphemous and heretical. That doesn't seem to phase you though.

As anyone can see, I am not saying there is no hope in the Catholic Church - keep on a twisting though, that really is all you have.


The only points you keep proving is that you have no sede saints and no sede popes - and no sede church.- There is no such thing. We only have the Catholic Saints and Popes, which we refer to for their teachings. You have the Novus Ordo "saints" which you are in communion with. You are only allowed to refer to those for your arguments as they are in your "church". You embrace the teachings and all that goes with the accursed new "popes" and their "church".

You reject Catholic saints and popes so just stop using their teachings, nothing complicated here - simply use ONLY sede saints and popes.

I understand that for fear of discrediting your religion that you never answer questions, but........Who was the last sede saint that believed being subject to the pope is being subject to God - yet refused to be subject to the pope? Or is that your own sede original?



Your church has no pope nor any chance of ever having a pope. Believe me, a Catholic, when I say - that is not Catholic, it certainly is not the Catholic Church you are a member of.- We all understand it's a favorite tactic of novus ordites, in their defense of falsehood, to refer to themselves as Catholic. We know that's not true since you are in communion with heretics and are willingly subject to them. You are in the V2 sect and are proud of it. You think very little of the intelligence of those reading your posts because although you claim full allegiance to the false "church", you call yourself Catholic. Truly diabolical.

Well your having been completely indoctrinated with NO mentality and having the same faith, you certainly demonstrate that you  understand NOers very well - heck, you're one of them. The NOers also believe being subject to the pope is being subject to God - except unlike you, they stand on their belief, they don't blow hot and cold out of both sides of their mouth the way you do. Can we at least agree on that much?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 03, 2017, 08:53:15 AM

Quote
You can twist yourself into oblivion all you like, but you will never make it to heaven unless you are subject to the pope. That's not heresy, that is dogma that non-Catholics such as yourself reject as heresy.

AES:The only one twisting is you because I am subject to every valid Pope ever and you are subject to a Heretic. This condemns you.


As anyone can see, I am not saying there is no hope in the Catholic Church - keep on a twisting though, that really is all you have.

AES:You are, in fact, saying that because the Catholic Church has no Pope right now so you are saying there is no hope in the Catholic Church. It's really simple, you hate the Catholic Church.


You reject Catholic saints and popes so just stop using their teachings, nothing complicated here - simply use ONLY sede saints and popes.

AES:Sede Popes is an oxymoron because SV means the seat is vacant, so there wouldn't be a Pope at that time. This lack of common sense is typical with you. You have none. You have no Catholic reason for holding the position you do. You have no Saints or Popes to appeal to for your non-Catholic positions. You are subject to a heretic, you are in communion with the accursed and are a flaming Novus Ordite. It's too bad and you will be condemned unless you convert from your so-called "traditional Catholicism" that is just the Vatican II sect in different form.


I understand that for fear of discrediting your religion that you never answer questions, but........Who was the last sede saint that believed being subject to the pope is being subject to God - yet refused to be subject to the pope? Or is that your own sede original?

AES:There are none because being subject to the Pope means being subject to the Office and all valid Popes who held that office in history. We are never to be subject to a heretic and the accursed which is what you are. I answered your question, now answer what saint or pope believed that we must be subject to a heretic and in communion with the accursed? Which Saint said we must recognize that our "pope" is a heretic but is a "pope" and we must resist his God-given Authority? It makes no sense and is anti-Catholic.


Well your having been completely indoctrinated with NO mentality and having the same faith, you certainly demonstrate that you  understand NOers very well - heck, you're one of them. The NOers also believe being subject to the pope is being subject to God - except unlike you, they stand on their belief, they don't blow hot and cold out of both sides of their mouth the way you do. Can we at least agree on that much?

AES:We should be able to agree that I left the NO when I realized they were the accursed and you have stayed your entire life in it. You love it and love heresy and are in communion with heretics. What's worse is that you loudly and explicitly proclaim your subjection to heretics. Your foul lies are easy for any to see because I do not recognize the NO as the Catholic Church, nor do I recognize any of their hierarchy to be Catholic. You on the other hand fully proclaim your subjection to them. You follow those who have separated from the Truth, you stand in unity with the preachers of falsehood. For this you will not inherit the Kingdom as St. Ignatius says.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 03, 2017, 11:17:01 AM
You who preach all the authoritative acts of the popes are infallible,

I've never preached the ALL the authoritative acts of a Pope are infallible. I SAID (NUMEROUS TIMES) THAT THE POPE MUST BE TEACHING THE WHOLE CHURCH CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS (DEFINITIVELY). OTHER AUTHORITATIVE ACTS WOULD NOT BE INFALLIBLE. DO YOU GET IT YET OR DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT ONE LETTER AT A TIME?

Quote
then denounce his acts you claim to be infallible as heretical.

I've never denounced any true Catholic Pope's authoritative teachings concerning faith and morals to the whole Church as heretical. Rather, I've said that IF A MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE THE POPE TEACHES ERROR or HERESY TO THE WHOLE CHURCH CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS THEN HE IS NOT A TRUE CATHOLIC POPE. A difference that a mere second grader could discern, but apparently not Stubborn.


STUBBORN, YOU ARE A BLATANT LYING, HYPOCRITICAL CALUMNIATOR WITH NO SHAME WHATSOEVER. IT SEEMS TO BE A GAME TO YOU, BUT I ASSURE YOU IT'S NOT. IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR YOU TO CEASE POSTING THAN TO FALL INTO MORTAL SIN AS YOU ARE DOING. EVEN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH SEDEVACANTISM HAVE A DUTY TO ADMONISH YOUR BEHAVIOR AT THIS POINT.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 03, 2017, 11:18:20 AM
Quote
As anyone can see, I am not saying there is no hope in the Catholic Church - keep on a twisting though, that really is all you have.

AES:You are, in fact, saying that because the Catholic Church has no Pope right now so you are saying there is no hope in the Catholic Church. It's really simple, you hate the Catholic Church.

You just keep discrediting your own confused dogmatic sede faith:

It's impossible to not agree with Fr. Jenkins - as he says, you are not Catholic. To quote Fr. Jenkins; "...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all". 
https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459 (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 03, 2017, 11:39:29 AM
You just keep discrediting your own confused dogmatic sede faith:
Your diversion says all that needs to be said. You are subject to Heretics and in the Novus Ordo. You will be condemned barring a conversion as per St. Ignatius.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 03, 2017, 11:42:15 AM
I've never preached the ALL the authoritative acts of a Pope are infallible. I SAID (NUMEROUS TIMES) THAT THE POPE MUST BE TEACHING THE WHOLE CHURCH CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS (DEFINITIVELY). OTHER AUTHORITATIVE ACTS WOULD NOT BE INFALLIBLE. DO YOU GET IT YET OR DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT ONE LETTER AT A TIME?
You have to spell it out a lot better than you are, I can tell you that much.

You speak with forked tongue. You quoted the error of cardinal Manning as though it is a teaching of the Church:
Quote
"The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority."


If the pope's infallibility is limited to his ex cathedra acts in faith and morals, but is extended to all his authoritative acts, then this means his infallibility is not limited to his ex cathedra acts in faith and morals! Based on your teaching, this fact is self evident.

It means all his authoritative acts are infallible, it means that his infallibility is not actually limited at all. Yet first you say not so, then you say you agree with me when you said above, OTHER AUTHORITATIVE ACTS WOULD NOT BE INFALLIBLE. So what is it that you believe - is his infallibility extended to all his authoritative acts or isn't it?

OTOH, if it is as you say, that his other authoritative acts which do not concern faith and morals are not infallible, then you are correctly saying that the promulgation of the NO was done on his own, not ex cathedra nor intended to be ex cathedra, , not infallible nor intended to be infallible - hence the people only accepted it and went along with it because they only thought it's promulgation was infallible because of the screwed up teachings from theologians like Cardinal Manning.  

 

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 03, 2017, 11:56:40 AM
I've never denounced any true Catholic Pope's authoritative teachings concerning faith and morals to the whole Church as heretical. Rather, I've said that IF A MAN WHO CLAIMS TO BE THE POPE TEACHES ERROR or HERESY TO THE WHOLE CHURCH CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS THEN HE IS NOT A TRUE CATHOLIC POPE. A difference that a mere second grader could discern, but apparently not Stubborn.
All you are doing is proving that either you completely reject, or you have ZERO faith the doctrine of papal infallibility. That is all you are doing.
Let us first post the dogma you are completely confused about:
Quote
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, 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.

Please cite a doctrine that you say [any of] the conciliar popes infallibly defined (ex cathedra), which is to be held by the whole Church concerning faith or morals.




Quote
STUBBORN, YOU ARE A BLATANT LYING, HYPOCRITICAL CALUMNIATOR WITH NO SHAME WHATSOEVER. IT SEEMS TO BE A GAME TO YOU, BUT I ASSURE YOU IT'S NOT. IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR YOU TO CEASE POSTING THAN TO FALL INTO MORTAL SIN AS YOU ARE DOING. EVEN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH SEDEVACANTISM HAVE A DUTY TO ADMONISH YOUR BEHAVIOR AT THIS POINT.


Sorry you feel that way chap, all I have been doing is quoting defined dogma, referencing defined dogma, attempting to make you see that you are very confused - but you just keep repeating your same tired old errors.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 03, 2017, 11:57:36 AM
Your diversion says all that needs to be said. You are subject to Heretics and in the Novus Ordo. You will be condemned barring a conversion as per St. Ignatius.
Tell that to Fr. Jenkins: "...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all". 
https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459 (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 03, 2017, 12:36:34 PM
Tell that to Fr. Jenkins: "...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all".  
https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459 (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)

Tell that to your "church", the Novus Ordo. Tell that to your "pope", a heretic and accursed. Tell that to Our Lord when He asks if you willingly were subject to false preachers and were in communion with the accursed.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 03, 2017, 01:12:02 PM
You have to spell it out a lot better than you are, I can tell you that much. You speak with forked tongue.
STOP EVADING YOUR LIE. YOU SAID I PREACHED THAT ALL THE POPES AUTHORITATIVE ACTS ARE INFALLIBLE. I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING, AND IN FACT, I WENT OUT OF MY WAY TO TELL YOU OTHERWISE. SO THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU LIE.

Quote
You quoted the error of cardinal Manning as though it is a teaching of the Church:

You keep calumniating Cardinal Manning and putting words in his mouth. Neither did Cardinal Manning say that ALL of the Popes authoritative acts are infallible. You can play dumb with certain gullible individuals, but your antics aren't getting by me. Cardinal Manning said...

"but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority"

Now liar Stubborn, who preys on the gullibility of certain people (to win their praise) would have people to believe that the (above) statement by Cardinal Manning implies that all the Pope's acts that are authoritative EQUAL all the acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority" THIS IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS READ IT! VERY SIMPLY, NOT ALL AUTHORITATIVE ACTS ARE OF THEIR FULLEST EXERCISE. THEN TO DISPEL ANY DOUBT AS TO WHAT HE MEANS (AS IF THEIR COULD BE ANY DOUBT) CARDINAL MANNING SUMMARIZES HIS STATEMENT BY SAYING,

"In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals."

CAN EVERYONE SEE THAT. CARDINAL MANNING IS SAYING THAT IN ONE AND ONLY ONE CAPACITY IS A POPE EXEMPT FROM ERROR. WHEN THE POPE TEACHES THE WHOLE CHURCH CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS. THAT MEANS IN ALL OTHER CAPACITIES (AUTHORITATIVE OR NOT) THE POPE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM ERROR.

STUBBORN LIES.


Quote
If the pope's infallibility is limited to his ex cathedra acts in faith and morals, but is extended to all his authoritative acts, then this means his infallibility is not limited to his ex cathedra acts in faith and morals! Based on your teaching, this fact is self evident. It means all his authoritative acts are infallible, it means that his infallibility is not actually limited at all. Yet first you say not so, then you say you agree with me when you said above, OTHER AUTHORITATIVE ACTS WOULD NOT BE INFALLIBLE. So what is it that you believe - is his infallibility extended to all his authoritative acts or isn't it?

YOU CONTINUE TO LIE. UNBELIEVABLE! YOU KEEP SAYING THAT I SAID SOMETHING I DIDN'T. I NEVER SAID THAT ALL THE AUTHORITATIVE ACTS OF A POPE ARE INFALLIBLE. I'VE SAID JUST THE OPPOSITE MULTIPLE TIMES. 
DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER TO LIE AND CALUMNIATE?


OK LIAR, POINT OUT THE REPLY # ON THIS THREAD AND MY EXACT WORDS, IN WHICH I SAID ALL THE AUTHORITATIVE ACTS OF A POPE ARE INFALLIBLE. WE ARE ALL WAITING. I WANT EVERYONE TO SEE BY YOUR RESPONSE (OR LACK OF RESPONSE) YOUR TRUE COLORS.



Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 03, 2017, 01:35:01 PM
All you are doing is proving that either you completely reject, or you have ZERO faith the doctrine of papal infallibility. That is all you are doing.

ALL YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN IS THAT YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE WHO TWISTS CATHOLIC TEACHING, LIES AND CALUMNIATES.

Quote
Let us first post the dogma you are completely confused about:
Please cite a doctrine that you say [any of] the conciliar popes infallibly defined (ex cathedra), which is to be held by the whole Church concerning faith or morals.

As I have said multiple times. Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible (if it comes from a true Catholic Pope). No special wording is required. Neither does the definition of Vatican I require any special wording. That is a distinction imported by you, just as you also twist the word "should" to mean "will" in another dogma. Also, as I said earlier, by attempting to bind the Church to a heretical, non-Catholic Council the concilar clowns have proven that they cannot have St. Peter's keys of binding and loosing, hence they cannot be holding St. Peter's office.


Quote
Sorry you feel that way chap, all I have been doing is quoting defined dogma, referencing defined dogma, attempting to make you see that you are very confused - but you just keep repeating your same tired old errors.

Yes chap, you quote and reference dogma quite a bit. Then you add and subtract from it as you please to suit your own doctrines. It ends up being Stubborn's dogma instead of Catholic dogma.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 03, 2017, 01:42:51 PM
Tell that to your "church", the Novus Ordo. Tell that to your "pope", a heretic and accursed. Tell that to Our Lord when He asks if you willingly were subject to false preachers and were in communion with the accursed.
In your confusion, you keep wrongfully saying the NO is my church. Try to remember that is not so. I am a Catholic, unlike yourself, I am not and never have been a NOer. I certainly agree with Fr. Jenkins though, dogmatic sedes such as yourself are not Catholic. Can you at least agree with that?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 03, 2017, 01:56:36 PM
STOP EVADING YOUR LIE. YOU SAID I PREACHED THAT ALL THE POPES AUTHORITATIVE ACTS ARE INFALLIBLE. I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING, AND IN FACT, I WENT OUT OF MY WAY TO TELL YOU OTHERWISE. SO THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU LIE.

You keep calumniating Cardinal Manning and putting words in hi......
Try to avoid formatting with so much bold and large text, all it does is make trying to read your foolish posts all but incomprehensible.

Funny how you keep avoiding the actual issue, you are doing a great job of making apparent the contradiction between the teaching of V1 and the teaching of cardinal Manning. Certainly after this you will see they teach two different things.

I specifically asked a very clear question, I asked: "Please cite a doctrine that you say [any of] the conciliar popes infallibly defined (ex cathedra), which is to be held by the whole Church concerning faith or morals."

You replied: "As I have said multiple times. Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible...."  That does not compute because your answer is erroneous because the dogma specifically states the pope only speaks ex cathedra when he DEFINES A DOCTRINE concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" - *not* "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals".

Do you see your error yet? You think the pope's infallibility is extended to "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals", Which is the error cardinal Manning teaches, but as you can hopefully see now that I pointed it out to you again - that is not the teaching of V1.

Again, I am telling you the Catholic version, you are rejecting that in favor of the sede version, which is error.

So once again, I am being purposely specific here after the teaching of V1; Please cite a doctrine that you say [any of] the conciliar popes infallibly defined (ex cathedra) which is to be held by the whole Church concerning faith or morals.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 03, 2017, 02:15:26 PM
In your confusion, you keep wrongfully saying the NO is my church. Try to remember that is not so. I am a Catholic, unlike yourself, I am not and never have been a NOer. I certainly agree with Fr. Jenkins though, dogmatic sedes such as yourself are not Catholic. Can you at least agree with that?
Stubborn listen, you refuse to listen to sound Catholic Teaching, so I've decided to resort to this level of argument. The whole "You believe this" "no you do", "I know you are but what am I" type of "Stubborn"ly argumentation is what it's come down to. I can accuse just as well as you can and in fact, my accusations are more effectual because they are truthful and you have no comebacks for them. I know for a fact that you are in the Novus Ordo. You claim to be subject to it's "pope", you are in communion with its head heretic. You are part of the very same "church", or are you going to deny this now? I left the Novus Ordo as soon as I learned what the Church Teaches. You, on the other hand, once you learned the truth, proclaimed even louder that you wish to maintain that unity of faith with the Novus Ordo under the headship of the chief heretic Francis. You will be condemned for this unless you convert.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 03, 2017, 02:24:13 PM
Try to avoid formatting with so much bold and large text, all it does is make trying to read your foolish posts all but incomprehensible.

Ok, you stop lying and calumniating and I'll stop using bold and large text. deal?

Quote
Funny how you keep avoiding the actual issue, you make apparent the contradiction between the teaching of V1 and the teaching of cardinal Manning. Certainly after this you will see they teach two different things.

The actual issue as that you lie. I've addressed it multiple times. I've also address the issue of your twisting the dogmas of Vatican I. Can you read? here let me repeat what I just posted...

As I have said multiple times. Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible (if it comes from a true Catholic Pope). No special wording is required. Neither does the definition of Vatican I require any special wording. That is a distinction imported by you, just as you also twist the word "should" to mean "will" in another dogma.


Quote
I specifically asked a very clear question, I asked: "Please cite a doctrine that you say [any of] the conciliar popes infallibly defined (ex cathedra), which is to be held by the whole Church concerning faith or morals."You replied: "As I have said multiple times. Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible...."  That does not compute because your answer is erroneous because the dogma specifically states the pope only speaks ex cathedra when he DEFINES A DOCTRINE concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" - *not* "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals".

What does define mean Stubborn? It means all of these things. Not just what Stubborn wants it to mean.

define

[dih-fahyn]  


verb (used with object), defined, defining.

to state or set forth the meaning of

to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of

to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly

to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of

to make clear the outline or form of



Quote
Do you see your error yet?

No, but I certainly see yours.



Quote
You think the pope's infallibility is extended to "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals", Which is the error cardinal Manning teaches, but as you can hopefully see now that I pointed it out to you again - that is not the teaching of V1.

I hope you are seeing that another one of your arguments has either failed or has been proven to be a fabrication.


Quote
Again, I am telling you the Catholic version, you are rejecting that in favor of the sede version, which is error.

You have told me Stubborn's version once again. It is quite obvious.


Quote
So once again, I am being purposely specific here after the teaching of V1; Please cite a doctrine that you say [any of] the conciliar popes infallibly defined (ex cathedra) which is to be held by the whole Church concerning faith or morals.

When you address my main argument (that the conciliar clowns have attempted to bind Catholics to hold as "valid and Catholic" a Council containing heretical declarations) then I will address your argument. Until then, stop trying to evade your lying and my main argument.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 03, 2017, 03:23:11 PM
You, on the other hand, once you learned the truth, proclaimed even louder that you wish to maintain that unity of faith with the Novus Ordo under the headship of the chief heretic Francis. You will be condemned for this unless you convert.

Whoever fails to join the church of sedevacantism is going to Hell, according to AeS. Got it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: 2Vermont on December 03, 2017, 05:05:04 PM
Whoever fails to join the church of sedevacantism is going to Hell, according to AeS. Got it.
And where do you think those who follow the "sedevacantist faith" go Meg?  Remember, you stated up-thread that it isn't "the Catholic Faith".
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 03, 2017, 05:48:42 PM
And where do you think those who follow the "sedevacantist faith" go Meg?  Remember, you stated up-thread that it isn't "the Catholic Faith".

Very good point 2Vermont. I guess they will be twisting or rejecting the Athanasian Creed next.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 02:51:57 AM
Stubborn listen, you refuse to listen to sound Catholic Teaching, so I've decided to resort to this level of argument. The whole "You believe this" "no you do", "I know you are but what am I" type of "Stubborn"ly argumentation is what it's come down to. I can accuse just as well as you can and in fact, my accusations are more effectual because they are truthful and you have no comebacks for them. I know for a fact that you are in the Novus Ordo. You claim to be subject to it's "pope", you are in communion with its head heretic. You are part of the very same "church", or are you going to deny this now? I left the Novus Ordo as soon as I learned what the Church Teaches. You, on the other hand, once you learned the truth, proclaimed even louder that you wish to maintain that unity of faith with the Novus Ordo under the headship of the chief heretic Francis. You will be condemned for this unless you convert.
I find it somewhat fascinating the state of error that people, like yourself, put themselves in.

You refuse to belong to the Catholic Church, yet like conciliarists, you falsely claim that you are Catholic and Catholics are heretics. Make no mistake about it Mr. dogmatic sede, Fr. Jenkins was entirely correct, you are not a traditional Catholic.

You are likened to a NOer in that you choose to be a member of the Catholic Church's Ape, by that I mean your church has many of the "bells and whistles", but your Church, by design, has no pope and no hierarchy, heck, no one even knows where to find it.

It is by design that your church has no hope of ever having a pope, because that's the way it's member really want it. 

Matthew 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 04:54:41 AM
When you address my main argument (that the conciliar clowns have attempted to bind Catholics to hold as "valid and Catholic" a Council containing heretical declarations) then I will address your argument. Until then, stop trying to evade your lying and my main argument.
Your main argument is erroneous because the pope or council did not bind Catholics to anything.

The people who believed the error, (I am quoting your words here in italics); "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals", were deceived by virtue of that error, into believing they were bound to abandon the true faith and accept the new faith.

Obvious as this is, I cannot imagine you ever accepting this. 

You said in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg582227/#msg582227) that; "As I have said multiple times. Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible (if it comes from a true Catholic Pope)...

I crossed out your exception because it is erroneous *if* you actually believe what you said (in italics) is dogma, to actually be dogma. If you believe it to be dogma, then you are left with only 3 possible choices, you are either:

1) Bound under pain of mortal sin to accept the NO or
2) Admit that you have zero faith in, do not accept, do not believe and wholly reject the dogma of papal infallibility or
3) Admit your idea of papal infallibility (in italics above) is error.


Keeping in mind that your proviso, which I crossed out, is entirely erroneous IF you believe that "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible." 

IF you believe your own words (in italics), then you could never add your own proviso: "(if it comes from a true pope)", because that is not a part of the teaching of the Church. What that is, is your own criteria, a criteria you added to the error, which turns the whole wrong teaching into a completely meaningless formula.



From the same post (and quote) as linked above, you said: "...No special wording is required. Neither does the definition of Vatican I require any special wording. That is a distinction imported by you, just as you also twist the word "should" to mean "will" in another dogma."

Here I will again post the dogma, which cardinal Manning refers to as "The Definition", *as defined* at V1:

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, 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.

First, note the special wording you say is not required. "We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma". This distinction is a required distinction so that we know it is infallible, so we know that we are bound to believe this teaching as infallible. It is not a distinction I "imported", it is a specific distinction (is there such a thing?) specifically worded and a most narrowly-defined distinction.

We can see that it is infallibly taught that "the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, ... he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church". This is very precise wording is it not?

In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg581658/?topicseen#msg581658), you quoted cardinal Manning as if his teaching is a teaching of the Church:

The [above] Definition...extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . 

Where, in V1's dogma as quoted above, is this extension of his infallibility cardinal Manning speaks of?

Please, point out exactly where any extension is even mentioned, spoken of, or taught using V1's definition above.






   

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 07:59:19 AM
I find it somewhat fascinating the state of error that people, like yourself, put themselves in.
AES: There is no error. I refuse communion with a heretic. I have separated myself from the false teachers. Your bond becomes stronger with heretics everyday. You refuse to leave the Novus Ordo.

You refuse to belong to the Catholic Church, yet like conciliarists, you falsely claim that you are Catholic and Catholics are heretics.
AES: The Catholic Church lives in those who are faithful to its Dogmas and subject to every valid Pope in its history. You are the conciliarist and love the Novus Ordo. You are part of the accursed 'church', you must leave it if you are to be saved.

 Make no mistake about it Mr. dogmatic sede, Fr. Jenkins was entirely correct, you are not a traditional Catholic.
AES: I am not part of your false "traditional church". I am a Catholic, faithful to its Dogmas and subject to its Pope. You are subject to the Novus Ordo's heretical monster heads and will be condemned for it, unless you convert.

You are likened to a NOer in that you choose to be a member of the Catholic Church's Ape, by that I mean your church has many of the "bells and whistles", but your Church, by design, has no pope and no hierarchy, heck, no one even knows where to find it.
AES: You are part of the Novus Ordo. Subject to its hierarchy and in full communion.

It is by design that your church has no hope of ever having a pope, because that's the way it's member really want it.  
AES: To a faithless heretic who believes that God has no powers, I could see how you would think that. I reject heresies and communion with anyone who is a false teacher, unlike yourself. I leave the rest to the Lord.

Matthew 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
AES: Stubborn worships God in vain. He is outside the Church and part of the Novus Ordo. God cannot be truly worshipped except within the Catholic Church, which Stubborn is not part of.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 08:10:31 AM
No, it's error alright. Even Fr. Jenkins agrees - you are not a traditional Catholic.

You are not faithful to it's dogmas. You have repeatedly called me a heretic whenever I quote the dogma about being subject to the pope. So please, stop saying you are faithful to the dogmas, you aren't. Try a little honesty for once.

No, you are not Catholic - ask Fr. Jenkins.

No, unlike yourself, I have never been NO.

That doesn't change the fact that your church will never have a pope - by design, agreed?

As Matthew 15:9 testifies, sedevacantism is, as I have repeatedly told you and you have repeatedly ignored - a doctrine of man. Your religion cannot be Catholic on that account alone.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 08:43:17 AM
No, it's error alright. Even Fr. Jenkins agrees - you are not a traditional Catholic.
AES: It is an error to say the Pope of the Catholic Church is a manifest heretic, which is what you do. It is an error to be subject to a heretic, which is what you are. A heretic is not Catholic and thus, cannot be Pope. This doesn't affect you though, you proudly proclaim your unity with heretics.

You are not faithful to it's dogmas. You have repeatedly called me a heretic whenever I quote the dogma about being subject to the pope. So please, stop saying you are faithful to the dogmas, you aren't. Try a little honesty for once.
AES: I am the one faithful to Dogmas. You repeatedly bring up being subject to the Roman Pontiff but everyone who is Baptized and professes the true faith is subject to the Pope. You do not profess the true faith because you are in communion with false teaching heretics. You are not subject to the Pope, but a heretic.

No, you are not Catholic - ask Fr. Jenkins.
AES: Who's Fr. Jenkins? All we need is Catholic Teaching here. You are a Novus Ordite, you love error and are in communion with the accursed.

No, unlike yourself, I have never been NO.
AES: You are Novus Ordo right now. You are subject to it's leader, a heretic and by extension accursed yourself.

That doesn't change the fact that your church will never have a pope - by design, agreed?
AES: Who knows? The Catholic Church may yet have a Pope again, one must only Trust Divine Providence, which you are incapable of. What's for certain is that your Novus Ordo fake traditional sect does not have a true pope but only a deceiver and heretic which you willingly are in communion with.

As Matthew 15:9 testifies, sedevacantism is, as I have repeatedly told you and you have repeatedly ignored - a doctrine of man. Your religion cannot be Catholic on that account alone.
AES: Weird, I didn't see the word sedevacantism in the Scriptural Quote. What I did see is the condemnation of people, such as yourself, who follow the doctrines of man; i.e. that one should be subject to a heretic, that the Pope can simultaneously be the head of the True Church and a false one. Matthew 15 is specifically condemning you and those like you. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 09:09:56 AM
Your main argument is erroneous because the pope or council did not bind Catholics to anything.

First of all, a Catholic is bound automatically to the declarations of a Catholic General Council...

1. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions,
 and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.
 2. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our
 holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of
 the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and
 interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
 3. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the
 New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation
 of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation,
 Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; and that they
 confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be
 reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved
 ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the
 aforesaid Sacraments.
 4. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been
 defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning Original Sin
 and justification.
 5. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper,
 and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most
 holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially,
 the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord
 Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of
 the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the
  wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls
 Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is
 received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament.
 6. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein
 detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
 7. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored
 and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics
 are to be respected.
 8. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever
 Virgin, and also of the Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due
 honor and veneration is to be given them.
 9. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church,
 and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
 10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother
 and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
 successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
 11. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined,
 and declared
by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly
 by the holy Council of Trent.

 12. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto,
 and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by
 the Church. This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved,
 I. N.N. do at this present freely confess and sincerely hold; and I promise most
 constantly to retain, and confess the same entire and unviolated, with God's
 assistance, to the end of my life.


I see you are still a heretic, and still rejecting the major Catholic Creed (above), since you don't believe a Catholic must undoubtedly receive and profess all things delivered and declared at a General Council. Of course, that is just one of your heresies.

Also, the conciliar clowns also make it a condition for communion with their sect, that one must accept the heretical Second Vatican Council as valid and Catholic. Think not? Just ask the FSSP and SSPX about the agreement. They will tell you.  


Quote
The people who believed the error, (I am quoting your words here in italics); "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals", were deceived by virtue of that error, into believing they were bound to abandon the true faith and accept the new faith.

Notice how Stubborn subtly avoids my previous reply to his error, and just re-states his nonsense once again. Stubborn would like us to believe that to define and to speak definitively are different operations. Yet he never (himself) gives the definition, because he knows he would be limiting the meaning of the word "define" to his own imagining. To "define", however, is not limited in the sense Stubborn would like you to believe. I will now also give the meanings of the word "definitive". Meanwhile Stubborn will just give you his erroneous opinion with no evidence as usual...  

define

[dih-fahyn]  


verb (used with object), defined, defining.

to state or set forth the meaning of

to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of

to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly

to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of

to make clear the outline or form of


definitive


[dih-fin-i-tiv]



adjective

most reliable or complete, as of a text, author, criticism, study, or the like:

serving to define (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/define), fix, or specify definitely (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/definitely)

to clarify with a definitive statement.

having its fixed and final form; providing a solution or final answer; satisfying all criteria:

Biology. fully developed or formed; complete.

a defining (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/define) or limiting word, as an article, a demonstrative, or the like.


and some more definitions of "definitive" that I found...


definitive


[dih-fin-i-tiv]



Adjective
definitive (comparative (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable) more (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/more#English) definitive, superlative (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable) most (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/most#English) definitive)




Sorry Stubborn, but your opinion means little. Evidence counts (of which you have none).


Quote
You said in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg582227/#msg582227) that; "As I have said multiple times. Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible (if it comes from a true Catholic Pope)...

I crossed out your exception because it is erroneous *if* you actually believe what you said (in italics) is dogma, to actually be dogma. If you believe it to be dogma, then you are left with only 3 possible choices, you are either:

1) Bound under pain of mortal sin to accept the NO or
2) Admit that you have zero faith in, do not accept, do not believe and wholly reject the dogma of papal infallibility or
3) Admit your idea of papal infallibility (in italics above) is error.

So Stubborn believes that some individual besides a true Catholic Pope can teach infallibly to the whole Church in faith and morals! :laugh2:  Ok Stubborn, who else besides a true Catholic Pope can teach infallibly to the whole Church in faith and morals? I crossed out the rest of your reply since it is based on a faulty presumption.


Quote
Keeping in mind that your proviso, which I crossed out, is entirely erroneous IF you believe that "Whatever is taught to the whole Church definitively concerning faith and morals is infallible."  

Unfortunately Stubborn, I had to cross this out, since it is not what I actually said. Crossing out part of what I said, and then re-posting it as if I said it without the part you crossed out is pretty diabolical. You like to cross out what makes you uncomfortable.

You do the same with dogmas as well as shown clearly in reply #22 of this thread, when you said...

Reply #22: 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.

No we don't need to stop anywhere Stubborn. You need to learn to read dogmas and other statements for what they say (without twisting, adding and subtracting.

Quote
IF you believe your own words (in italics), then you could never add your own proviso: "(if it comes from a true pope)", because that is not a part of the teaching of the Church. What that is, is your own criteria, a criteria you added to the error, which turns the whole wrong teaching into a completely meaningless formula.

So, please enlighten us, Stubborn. Who does the definition of Vatican I apply to, if not a true Pope? You are like a continuous spam machine.


Quote
Here I will again post the dogma, which cardinal Manning refers to as "The Definition", *as defined* at V1:

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, 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.

First, note the special wording you say is not required. "We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma". This distinction is a required distinction so that we know it is infallible, so we know that we are bound to believe this teaching as infallible. It is not a distinction I "imported", it is a specific distinction (is there such a thing?) specifically worded and a most narrowly-defined distinction. We can see that it is infallibly taught that "the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, ... he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church". This is very precise wording is it not?

Am I actually reading this correctly? I believe you are saying that unless a Papal teaching is preceded by, "We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma", it can be fallible.

Can anyone one out there actually believe this?

Quote
In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg581658/?topicseen#msg581658), you quoted cardinal Manning as if his teaching is a teaching of the Church:

The [above] Definition...extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . .

Where, in V1's dogma as quoted above, is this extension of his infallibility cardinal Manning speaks of?

Please, point out exactly where any extension is even mentioned, spoken of, or taught using V1's definition above.

I've addressed this multiple times. How many times are you going to continue to ask the same question? Go back and read my many posts on this matter. Where does the Church say partial dogmas are valid? Do dogmas say,  "stop right there" before they are completed? Yet YOU said this. Where does the word "should" mean "will"? Yet YOU claim this.  As I said earlier, you are a hypocrite and you are also avoiding my main argument (since you have no answer for it). You want to continually bring up new questions. Heretics are famous for this. As I said earlier, answer my main argument with Catholic teaching or admit you are a heretic.






 

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 09:24:49 AM
You two sedes are ridiculous already. I'd be laughing my head right the heck off if your situation weren't eternally tragic.

"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 [or should not - The Sedes] 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."

Hard to believe you cannot see the stupidity in such a bold farce of an interpretation. Your misinterpretation is even worse than "or the desire thereof".

Does it really mean, "should or won't"? Or "should or might not"?  
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 09:50:59 AM
You two sedes are ridiculous already. I'd be laughing my head right the heck off if your situation weren't eternally tragic.

"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 [or should not - The Sedes] 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."

Hard to believe you cannot see the stupidity in such a bold farce of an interpretation. Your misinterpretation is even worse than "or the desire thereof".

Does it really mean, "should or won't"? Or "should or might not"?  
Stubborn denies that he must be subject to the Pope by his willing subjection to a heretic.
Stubborn denies that the Pope is the unity of faith in the Church by his belief that the Pope can be the head of a false Church simultaneously.
Stubborn denies "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" by his belief that heretics are also in the Church.
Stubborn denies that heretics are not part of the Church by his subjection to a heretic he calls Pope.
Stubborn denies that the election of a heretic is null and void by his belief that a heretic can be elected Pope.
Stubborn denies Holy Scripture that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church by his belief that the Gates of Hell rule the Church.
Stubborn denies the authority of ipso facto excommunications by claiming that a declaratory sentence is needed for a heretic to be removed.
Stubborn denies all the Dogmas that the Vatican II 'council' denied by his communion with the Novus Ordo.

Stubborn is a wolf in sheep's clothing by his adherence to a false traditionalism within the Novus Ordo. On one side of his mouth he declares that Vatican II and its "popes" are in error but out the other side he declares that we must be subject to these false teachers and remain within the communion of the false "church". He is a deceiver.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 10:00:16 AM



#1 - Clearly states: that it is by Divine Law whoever succeeds to the Chair of Peter is the pope. The reason they give for this is because "the truth" (God Himself) ordained it. Sorry sede's.

#2 - If you say that the pope is not the pope, you are anathema.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 10:10:40 AM
And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council


Just pay attention to the bolded, this is the infallible teaching of the Church that you wholly, vehemently and unmistakably reject.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 10:21:08 AM
If you say that the pope is not the pope, you are anathema.
Here we have the heretic making up his own religion with his own rules. This is never once uttered by the Cahtolic Church. Taking this at face value would mean that St. Vincent Ferrer was anathema because he followed a non-heretical Antipope. St. Vincent followed antipope Clement and thus said that Pope Urban was not the Pope. This is all ridiculous of course due to the heretics lack of knowledge of which he is arguing. If a heretic claims to be Catholic then the laity have the obligation to refuse communion with them.  The heretic (Stubborn) has no idea what he is saying. All he knows is that he must remain in communion with the accursed and has made it his goal on this forum to bring people into the false traditional part of the Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 10:28:03 AM
No, it's error alright. Even Fr. Jenkins agrees - you are not a traditional Catholic.

Fr. Jenkins also teaches Baptism of Desire. Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins also says that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is infallible (10:25-11:05). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins says that baptism of desire was defined by the Catechism of Trent (13:40-13:50). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins says Father Feeney taught heresy (26:35-27:00). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins says that the 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches baptism of desire and that the Church considers those who die without water baptism to be Catholic (36:15-37:35). Do you agree with Father Jenkins?

Fr. Jekins teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that baptism of desire avails one to God's grace and justification (49:55-50:25). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7782gqp8yw
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 10:32:55 AM
Here we have the heretic making up his own religion with his own rules. This is never once uttered by the Cahtolic Church.
Vatican 1 is my own religion with my own rules now - right. While I agree those infallible teachings were never uttered by the Cahtolic church, but they are the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

Sorry that it eats at you so bad, but the Catholic Church has always been antagonistic against heresies such as yours.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 10:35:01 AM
And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council


Just pay attention to the bolded, this is the infallible teaching of the Church that you wholly, vehemently and unmistakably reject.

Sedes believe that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter.

We just don't believe that public heretics can be Roman Pontiffs. In believing such you become a heretic yourself.

Please pay attention to the bolded (for you conveniently ignore it), this is the infallible teaching of the Church that you wholly, vehemently and unmistakably reject.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 10:35:26 AM
Fr. Jenkins also teaches Baptism of Desire. Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins also says that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is infallible (10:25-11:05). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins says that baptism of desire was defined by the Catechism of Trent (13:40-13:50). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins says Father Feeney taught heresy (26:35-27:00). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?

Fr. Jenkins says that the 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches baptism of desire and that the Church considers those who die without water baptism to be Catholic (36:15-37:35). Do you agree with Father Jenkins?

Fr. Jekins teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that baptism of desire avails one to God's grace and justification (49:55-50:25). Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7782gqp8yw
He has repeatedly shown that he's not Catholic, just look at those he is in communion with- John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, Lefebvre, Wathen, Jenkins etc... 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 10:36:10 AM
Fr. Jenkins also teaches Baptism of Desire. Do you agree with Fr. Jenkins?
Of course I don't agree with him about a BOD - in all likely hood, he was indoctrinated with that error in SSPX seminary. But the truth is the truth wherever you find it, and he speaks the truth when he says dogmatic sedes, such as yourself, are not traditional Catholic.

Seems that should be obvious to all non-dogmatic sedes by now.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 10:39:29 AM
We just don't believe that heretics can be Roman Pontiffs. In believing such you become a heretic yourself.
Of course - and because you "just" don't believe it - you figure that clears you. How very convenient for you. I gotta hand it to you, you guys sure have your bases covered all right. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 10:40:22 AM
Vatican 1 is my own religion with my own rules now - right. While I agree those infallible teachings were never uttered by the Cahtolic church, but they are the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

Sorry that it eats at you so bad, but the Catholic Church has always been antagonistic against heresies such as yours.
Here the heretic changes the subject to distract from the fact that he made up his own rules and was embarrassingly refuted by what I said in the other post. The heretic Stubborn said that to say the Pope is not the Pope is anathematized but St. Vincent Ferrer did just that. Stubborn has no idea what he's talking about. Then he laughably says that his juvenile comebacks and substance lacking responses eat at me. This is what happens when one has spent their entire life in a false sect meant to deceive and drag souls to hell. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 10:41:41 AM
Here the heretic changes the subject to distract from the fact that he made up his own rules and was embarrassingly refuted by what I said in the other post. The heretic Stubborn said that to say the Pope is not the Pope is anathematized but St. Vincent Ferrer did just that. Stubborn has no idea what he's talking about. Then he laughably says that his juvenile comebacks and substance lacking responses eat at me. This is what happens when one has spent their entire life in a false sect meant to deceive and drag souls to hell.
Not sure which rules you're inventing for me, all I did was quote Vatican 1's infallible teachings, which, of course, condemns your man made doctrine.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 10:48:00 AM
Of course - and because you "just" don't believe it - you figure that clears you. How very convenient for you. I gotta hand it to you, you guys sure have your bases covered all right. :facepalm:
We just don't believe it because the Catholic Church teaches that heretics cannot be Catholic or Pope. You on the other hand choose to believe the doctrine of Wathen and continue to subject yourself to heretics in full opposition to Catholic Teaching.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 10:52:27 AM
Not sure which rules you're inventing for me, all I did was quote Vatican 1's infallible teachings, which, of course, condemns your man made doctrine.
Well because you are a liar and too prideful to admit you are wrong the rule is from your response in Reply 111 on this thread which I have been quoting and you pretend to not know about. Here, again what you said in REPLY #111:"#2 - If you say that the pope is not the pope, you are anathema."
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 04, 2017, 11:01:11 AM
Not sure which rules you're inventing for me, all I did was quote Vatican 1's infallible teachings, which, of course, condemns your man made doctrine.

It is indeed a man made doctrine; a doctrine of the sedevacantist church. It's interesting how the dogmatic sedes become more and more extreme in their accusations and condemnations when you stand firm and stay with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and you refuse to accept what they say. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 11:05:26 AM
Well because you are a liar and too prideful to admit you are wrong the rule is from your response in Reply 111 on this thread which I have been quoting and you pretend to not know about. Here, again what you said in REPLY #111:"#2 - If you say that the pope is not the pope, you are anathema."

Stubborn is shameless in his hypocrisy and he loves to invent his own dogmas and call them Catholic. He is a liar and fraud extraordinaire. Simon the magician has nothing on him.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 11:07:09 AM
It is indeed a man made doctrine; a doctrine of the sedevacantist church. It's interesting how the dogmatic sedes become more and more extreme in their accusations and condemnations when you stand firm and stay with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and you refuse to accept what they say.

The blind following the blind. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 11:09:03 AM
It is indeed a man made doctrine; a doctrine of the sedevacantist church. It's interesting how the dogmatic sedes become more and more extreme in their accusations and condemnations when you stand firm and stay with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and you refuse to accept what they say.
Yes, all I keep doing is quoting the dogmas of the Catholic Church and for that, they keep calling me the heretic.
That's the way it works with heretics, heresy is truth and truth is heresy.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 11:10:26 AM
Well because you are a liar and too prideful to admit you are wrong the rule is from your response in Reply 111 on this thread which I have been quoting and you pretend to not know about. Here, again what you said in REPLY #111:"#2 - If you say that the pope is not the pope, you are anathema."
FYI, that is a dogma of the Catholic Church. Look it up.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 11:11:14 AM
Stubborn is shameless in his hypocrisy and he loves to invent his own dogmas and call them Catholic. He is a liar and fraud extraordinaire. Simon the magician has nothing on him.
Amazing.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 11:21:03 AM
Yes, all I keep doing is quoting the dogmas of the Catholic Church and for that, they keep calling me the heretic.
That's the way it works with heretics, heresy is truth and truth is heresy.

And if you believe that, you deserve to be deceived. All anyone of good will has to do is follow the thread to see that Stubborn is a liar, a deceiver and a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 11:28:59 AM
FYI, that is a dogma of the Catholic Church. Look it up.

No, YOU supply the Council declaration or definitive Papal teaching that says this. That way I can show everyone (once again) your hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 12:07:34 PM
No, YOU supply the Council declaration or definitive Papal teaching that says this. That way I can show everyone (once again) your hypocrisy.
What, again?

I already posted it in this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg582342/#msg582342) post, which is a direct quote from The First Vatican Council as I denoted at the end of the quote - here, I will repost below - read it this time. If you do, you will find it says all faithful [Catholics] Christians must believe that the Roman Pontiff is the [pope] successor of St. Peter. You do not believe it - you are not a faithful Catholic.

And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council



The  previous post to the one above is also a direct quote from the First Vatican Council, and I also denoted that at the end of the quote - reposted below:

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.........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. - The First Vatican Council

Don't concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 12:11:33 PM
FYI, that is a dogma of the Catholic Church. Look it up.
I would be interested in seeing this man-made doctrine of Stubborn being proclaimed by the Catholic Church. Where, Stubborn, does the Church teach that to say the Pope is not the Pope is anathema? Then provide where the Church condemned St. Vincent Ferrer for saying the Pope is not the Pope. Again, a Catholic does not say the Pope is not the Pope but that a heretic is not the Pope. Stubborn does not let little things like facts get in the way of his infantile responses. He rolls on like Church Teaching doesn't exist. This is what liars within the Novus Ordo do though.
No Stubborn, I will not join the Novus Ordo like you want me to. I know you want me right there with you, proclaiming my subjection to the accursed heretics of your false schismatic sect, but I will not.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 12:14:49 PM
I would be interested in seeing this man-made doctrine of Stubborn being proclaimed by the Catholic Church. Where, Stubborn, does the Church teach that to say the Pope is not the Pope is anathema?
Read the prior post sede.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 12:29:16 PM
Read the prior post sede.
I did Novus Ordite. You are falsely accusing Catholics of not believeing the teaching of Vatican I. Your lack of understanding prevents you comprehending the clear words of the Dogma. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of St. Peter. To say that a Pope is not the successor of St. Peter would be anathema. Catholics say that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter and that heretics are not the successor to St. Peter. Novus Ordites like yourself say that a heretic is the successor to St. Peter and that everyone must be subject to a heretic. You hate Catholic Dogma, it's really simple. You deny Vatican I, it's not that hard. You will go to hell unless you become Catholic, not much to it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 01:05:15 PM
I did Novus Ordite. You are falsely accusing Catholics of not believeing the teaching of Vatican I. Your lack of understanding prevents you comprehending the clear words of the Dogma. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of St. Peter. To say that a Pope is not the successor of St. Peter would be anathema.
You are preaching, promoting, confessing and doing all you can to promulgate the pope is not the successor of St. Peter. You are anathema.

So this doesn't concern you, do not concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.

I should add that since you believe and can prove he is a heretic, it's official, for you, he is not the pope you are good to go.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 01:15:43 PM
You are preaching, promoting, confessing and doing all you can to promulgate the pope is not the successor of St. Peter. You are anathema.
AES: I am saying that a heretic is not Pope. You are saying that there is no unity of faith and that the Church has been destroyed because the faith of Peter has failed and the "gates of Hell" have prevailed against the Church.

So this doesn't concern you, do not concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.
AES: Here you admit that not only can a heretic be Catholic, but a Pope. You have no business telling other people what they should believe. You have no faith at all in the Catholic Church or the Promises made to her by her Founder. You are in communion with the accursed and as St. Ignatius says you will not enter into the Kingdom.

I should add that since you believe and can prove he is a heretic, it's official, for you, he is not the pope you are good to go.
AES: You claim he is a heretic too. Therefore you are, by your own admission, subject to a heretic.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 04, 2017, 01:19:10 PM
What, again?

I already posted it in this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg582342/#msg582342) post, which is a direct quote from The First Vatican Council as I denoted at the end of the quote - here, I will repost below - read it this time. If you do, you will find it says all faithful [Catholics] Christians must believe that the Roman Pontiff is the [pope] successor of St. Peter. You do not believe it - you are not a faithful Catholic.

And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council



The  previous post to the one above is also a direct quote from the First Vatican Council, and I also denoted that at the end of the quote - reposted below:

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.........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. - The First Vatican Council

Don't concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.

Nothing you posted above says, "If you say that the pope is not the pope, you are anathema." You have determined that from what is written. Yet you accuse others from deviating from the exact wording of dogmas. As I said you are a hypocrite.

You also misuse the dogma. Sedes do not say the Pope is not the Pope. We say a public heretic is not a Pope. Therefore you lie.  

You say a public heretic is a Pope. Therefore you are a heretic.

You are also the subject of a pubic heretic. Hence you are anathema.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 02:27:22 PM
Not to worry! You guys are the smart ones, you guys have it all figured out. You are immune from dogma because you just don't believe the dogma applies here, I got that. It applies to no one, not even the rest of the world, because you just don't believe it applies to heretics because heretics are not popes. The dogma only applies when you decide popes are not heretics. Ok? Did I say that correctly?  

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. Those who do such unCatholic things are the ones who are actually heretics and who are NOers because you demand that they follow the heretic pope in his errors because that's what being subject to the heretic pope means. I get all of that.

For me, I MUST be subject to the pope because THAT is "MY" dogma. I also cannot say the pope is not the pope because THAT is also "MY" dogma. It most assuredly is not your dogma, can't mistake that for your dogma, that's for sure. Fact is, you have no dogma, no pope and no hope. Sad, but like "MY" dogma says, since that's how you really want it, may as well just let you be anathema.






Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 04, 2017, 02:44:42 PM
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.

 Those who do such unCatholic things are the ones who are actually heretics and who are NOers because you demand that they follow the heretic pope in his errors because that's what being subject to the heretic pope means. I get all of that.
AES: Do YOU even understand this? It makes no sense.

For me, I MUST be subject to the pope because THAT is "MY" dogma.
AES: By your own admission you are subject to a heretic. You are accursed and proud of it. Sad.

 I also cannot say the pope is not the pope because THAT is also "MY" dogma.
AES: Not sure I understand this but yes, that is "your" "dogma". The Catholic Dogma says that we are not allowed to say a Pope is not the successor to St. Peter. You have changed the words and effectively condemned St. Vincent Ferrer for following an antipope.

Fact is, you have no dogma, no pope and no hope.
AES: I have faith that the Will of God is done. You do not since you think there is no hope in the Catholic Church. You will remain in the false traditional version of the Novus Ordo as long as you continue to have no faith and are subject to heretics.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 03:24:22 PM
Quote
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.

You call me a heretic because I have faith in and bind myself to the dogma. This is typically incoherent to all non-Catholics.



 Those who do such unCatholic things are the ones who are actually heretics and who are NOers because you demand that they follow the heretic pope in his errors because that's what being subject to the heretic pope means. I get all of that.
AES: Do YOU even understand this? It makes no sense.

Do you?


For me, I MUST be subject to the pope because THAT is "MY" dogma.
AES: By your own admission you are subject to a heretic. You are accursed and proud of it. Sad.

See your own first reply above. The my reply to your second reply above.



 I also cannot say the pope is not the pope because THAT is also "MY" dogma.
AES: Not sure I understand this but yes, that is "your" "dogma". The Catholic Dogma says that we are not allowed to say a Pope is not the successor to St. Peter. You have changed the words and effectively condemned St. Vincent Ferrer for following an antipope.

I have changed nothing, here is the quote from MY dogma - as decreed at V1:
"Therefore, if anyone says .... the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - The First Vatican Council



Fact is, you have no dogma, no pope and no hope.
AES: I have faith that the Will of God is done. You do not since you think there is no hope in the Catholic Church. You will remain in the false traditional version of the Novus Ordo as long as you continue to have no faith and are subject to heretics.

The fact is, you just don't have any faith whatsoever in the dogma. Sedeism is, after all, anti-dogmatic. I will (with the grace of God) remain a true Catholic, which this day is called Traditional Catholic. I have never been to a NO - and you?  
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 04, 2017, 03:48:15 PM
Why are the men that have been elected as pope since 1958 exempt from the punishment of heresy, schism or apostasy?  

The Catholic Church has clearly defined the fate of such, i.e. "alien to the Church", "likened to a withered branch", "severed - cut off from", etc...

I cannot except that every human being falls under this law except the man elected as pope. Is this some type of Diplomatic immunity?

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 04, 2017, 04:20:22 PM
Why are the men that have been elected as pope since 1958 exempt from the punishment of heresy, schism or apostasy?  

The Catholic Church has clearly defined the fate of such, i.e. "alien to the Church", "likened to a withered branch", "severed - cut off from", etc...

I cannot except that every human being falls under this law except the man elected as pope. Is this some type of Diplomatic immunity?
Being supreme, he only gives punishments, he does not receive punishments from anyone. The pope is supreme, per V1, his authority is above even ecumenical councils.  "And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."

Yes, quite clearly the Church has defined the fate of heretics, and you are correct that, like all of us, even the pope is susceptible to heresy, because though he is pope, he is only a man, but this man has no one above him with the authority to even judge him, let alone pronounce him guilty - except God and of course the sedes, but along with the rest of us, the pope will have to wait for God to judge him. 

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 05, 2017, 08:53:02 AM
Being supreme, he only gives punishments, he does not receive punishments from anyone. The pope is supreme, per V1, his authority is above even ecumenical councils.  "And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."

Yes, quite clearly the Church has defined the fate of heretics, and you are correct that, like all of us, even the pope is susceptible to heresy, because though he is pope, he is only a man, but this man has no one above him with the authority to even judge him, let alone pronounce him guilty - except God and of course the sedes, but along with the rest of us, the pope will have to wait for God to judge him.
I hear you. Do you see the issue though? This means that God would permit a non-Catholic to lead His Church. There is no shortage of clergy that have judged the V2 claimants as heretics, by their actions, words and deeds.. Where Peter is, there is the Church (Pope Leo) that would make the Conciliar church the Catholic Church if Francis is legit...

Now, if I could believe Francis is not a heretic then I could buy into your post and get down to the local diocese right away.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 05, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
I hear you. Do you see the issue though? This means that God would permit a non-Catholic to lead His Church. There is no shortage of clergy that have judged the V2 claimants as heretics, by their actions, words and deeds.. Where Peter is, there is the Church (Pope Leo) that would make the Conciliar church the Catholic Church if Francis is legit...

Now, if I could believe Francis is not a heretic then I could buy into your post and get down to the local diocese right away.

Stubborn knows nothing. He has his own protestant religion based only on Papal teachings that explicitly say they are defining something. Of course he gets to twist them, add to them and decide when we should stop reading them. This way they are no longer Catholic dogmas, but Stubborn's dogmas. Of course, he does not recognize anything else as infallible. This includes teachings concerning faith and morals declared and delivered in General Councils, Major Creeds, The UOM, and any Papal teaching to the whole Church that clearly sets forth doctrine concerning faith and morals which do not begin with the words "we define" (as as I said, he gets to "twist" those).

He also lies quite a bit and deliberately misrepresents Catholic arguments. He likes to claim that public heretics can hold offices in the Catholic Church. Protestants also believe the same. A heretic can no more hold an office than a woman. It is based on divine law. Therefore Stubborn deliberately conflates two issues and attempts to fuse them into one in order to deceive. Catholics also believe the Pope is judged by no one on earth. Unfortunately the man Stubborn refers to as Pope is not a Pope (but a heretic). It is no different than if a woman was claiming to be Pope. A woman cannot be Pope by divine law, hence she is not a Pope and can be judged as a heretic and an imposter. So Stubborn teaches no differently than a protestant (who claims that a woman can be Pope) but worse, since at least a protestant would say that this woman can potentially be judged and removed by their sect. So when Stubborn says that a heretic (claiming to Pope) cannot even be judged and removed by Catholics, he becomes even more wicked and heretical than a protestant!

Here is a dogmatic decree stating that heretics are not part of the Catholic Church in any way...


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)


Pope Eugene IV dogmatically proclaims that heretics ARE NOT part of the flock. They have severed themselves from the Church by their heresy and are alien to the Church as Pope Leo XIII  and Pope Pius XII proclaim...


Pope Leo XIII,  Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:  “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous  teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND  ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE  MAGISTERIUM.”  


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#23), June 29, 1943: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.                                                


   
Notice that the man severs himself by his own sin. No outside human punishment is necessary. No declaration is necessary. So as you can see, Stubborn is full of nonsense as usual.








Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 05, 2017, 10:34:31 AM
Quote
Allow me address each of your points in order:
I have no interest in arguing over Sedevacantism but rather only in showing what a hypocrite you are.
Quote
1) The Church has never taught that a "true" pope cannot attempt to bind the whole Church to error. He most certainly can, has and still does make that attempt. The teaching of the Church is that he cannot bind the whole Church to error when he speaks ex cathedra, not, as the sedes preach, that he cannot make the attempt on his own.
Regardless, if that is possible then you are bound to assent to these "errors" if they constitute an exercise of authentic magisterium:
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Incidentally, Bergolio's latest stunt with Buenos Aires is an exercise of authentic magisterium if he is Pope.
Where have I heard this before?

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.” - Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
Submit yourself to your pope and bishop, whose non-infallible magisterium is protected not by the charism of infallibility but by the indefectbility of the Church. But since you pick and choose what is doctrine and what is error, I can't see you having any compunctions over picking and choosing canon law too.

Quote
2) We have no way of proving that the "Conciliar clowns/popes" are not popes, anymore than we can prove that all NO transubstantiation's are certainly invalid. It is simply impossible to do in this world no matter how strong our opinion of the matter is. As such, the dogma most certainly applies.

You continually judge the assumed pope and set yourself up as a magisterial authority above him every time you judge his words and refuse to accept his teaching - and his teaching in union with the bishops in Vatican II.

Quote
"It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney
Ironically this applies to you most of all. Whichever way you look at it, you're a formal schismatic, as you "recognise" the alleged pope de jure but refuse to submit yourself to him de facto.

Quote
3) Yes, I am under that impression because that is what "true" popes have taught - "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope St. Pius X Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Those who are not under the same impression reject what "true" popes have taught, which perfectly demonstrates the futility of the whole sede syndrome.

But right back at you: your quoting the teaching of any pope which is not ex cathedra is purposeless, by your own preuppositions: it doesn't prove anything, since this is not ex cathedra and can be erroneous or materially - and apparently even formally - heretical. 

Sedevacantists don't reject the papal claimants because they teach things that are untrue but because they teach heresies. Learn the difference.


Quote
4) There is, per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above, a pope. Therefore there is no interregnum, therefore the dogma applies and has applied these last 60 or so years.
Then submit yourself to his authority.

Quote
5) The Council's condemnation applies to heresy, any contrary argument is futile.

It doesn't mention heresy anywhere. It speaks of wickedness and foreknowledge of eternal reprobation, none of which separate a man from the Church and deprive a bishop of his jurisdicition like heresy, schism and apostasy do. The context is the Western schisms, which as far as I know never concerned accusations of heresy as to judging who was the true pope, and the gist of the condemnation seems to be against an argument analagous to that of the Donatists.

1. The condemnation explicitly assumes that the subject of the accusation is a pope and is therefore only appplicable to actual popes.
2. Even assuming Bergolio is Pope, you're passing from a general to a particular in a negated statement in a manner that is not logically justified. This is the logical structure of your inference:

It is not the case that if an animal is a vetrebrate, it is a mammal.
If an animal nurses its young, it is a vertebrate.
Therefore it is not the case that if an animal nurses its young, it is a mammal.

Where I come from that kind of a thing is a sign of mental retardation.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 05, 2017, 10:49:01 AM
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#23), June 29, 1943: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.  
Anyone else notice the inconsistency of the usual suspects here?
Apparently it is enough for a man to have a hidden and implicit internal faith to be joined to the Church (pro BOD), but only a manifest and explicit external loss of faith can sever a man from the Church (anti Sede).
How does that work?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 11:37:10 AM
I hear you. Do you see the issue though? This means that God would permit a non-Catholic to lead His Church. There is no shortage of clergy that have judged the V2 claimants as heretics, by their actions, words and deeds.. Where Peter is, there is the Church (Pope Leo) that would make the Conciliar church the Catholic Church if Francis is legit...

Now, if I could believe Francis is not a heretic then I could buy into your post and get down to the local diocese right away.
I am going by defined dogma so for me, there is no issue. I simply do the sede-unthinkable - I wholly accept that God permitted what He permitted, namely, that we have a heretic on the Seat of St. Peter. No, that is not official, it is only me stating my opinion.

Basically, I cannot be wrong putting my faith in the dogmas, it's impossible. I do have total faith not just in the dogmas, but also complete faith that they say exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they. The anti-dogmatists (sede's) do not have this faith, which explains why they need to attach their own qualifications, additions and rules directly to the dogmas, lest they reject them.

So I would need to see the impossible - I would need to see a dogma or an official, authoritative teaching of the Church (not speculative teachings of saints, theologians or doctors etc.) wherein it clearly states that the official teaching or position of the Church is that the pope is not the pope, or the pope loses his office for heresy, apostasy or even for any grave sin. That is the only hope they have - or as they perceive it, that I have.  


You say you would go to the local diocese if he was the pope, I would like to hear an explanation of the thinking behind this.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 11:41:35 AM
I have no interest in arguing over Sedevacantism but rather only in showing what a hypocrite you are. Regardless, if that is possible then you are bound to assent to these "errors" if they constitute an exercise of authentic magisterium:
That is all I need to read. They're coming out of the woodwork again.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 12:03:59 PM
I would need to see a dogma or an official, authoritative teaching of the Church (not speculative teachings of saints, theologians or doctors etc.) wherein it clearly states that the official teaching or position of the Church is that the pope is not the pope, or the pope loses his office for heresy, apostasy or even for any grave sin.
I would also like to know, in light of what the dogmas say, (to say nothing of all the other teachings of the Church), why the sede's and their sympathizers do not make this ^^^ an absolute requirement BEFORE they turn sede.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 05, 2017, 12:49:24 PM
we have a heretic on the Seat of St. Peter.

Once again, Stubborn shows his true colors.  

Stubborn = "we have a heretic on the Seat of St. Peter"

Stubborn = "The pope is a heretic"

Stubborn = "I am the heretics' good subject"



Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 01:02:34 PM
Once again, Stubborn shows his true colors.  

Stubborn = "we have a heretic on the Seat of St. Peter"

Stubborn = "The pope is a heretic"

Stubborn = "I am the heretics' good subject"
Just another example of a complete lack of Catholic understanding as a direct result of the lex orandi of sedevacantism.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 05, 2017, 01:04:03 PM
I am going by defined dogma so for me, there is no issue. I simply do the sede-unthinkable - I wholly accept that God permitted what He permitted, namely, that we have a heretic on the Seat of St. Peter. No, that is not official, it is only me stating my opinion.

Basically, I cannot be wrong putting my faith in the dogmas, it's impossible. I do have total faith not just in the dogmas, but also complete faith that they say exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they. The anti-dogmatists (sede's) do not have this faith, which explains why they need to attach their own qualifications, additions and rules directly to the dogmas, lest they reject them.

So I would need to see the impossible - I would need to see a dogma or an official, authoritative teaching of the Church (not speculative teachings of saints, theologians or doctors etc.) wherein it clearly states that the official teaching or position of the Church is that the pope is not the pope, or the pope loses his office for heresy, apostasy or even for any grave sin. That is the only hope they have - or as they perceive it, that I have.  


You say you would go to the local diocese if he was the pope, I would like to hear an explanation of the thinking behind this.
I think it is fair to say that the dogma of subjection to the Roman pontiff is redundant to discuss. There is no argument about this.

So it boils to the question I asked yesterday: I cannot except that every human being falls under this law except the man elected as pope. Is this some type of Diplomatic immunity?

As you point out," I would need some dogma, official authoritative teaching that the pope loses his office for heresy/apostasy...  

Do we though? We both agree the Church has spoken in regards to the punishment for heresy and apostasy, so would it be an error to assume that this blanket statement by the Church does not include the pope because it doesn't read that way? It is right to assume he is exempt?

Francis is judged everyday in some way no matter the position a person holds, and yes he has no judge in a trial, so that makes a trial redundant...No declaration is the rule for heretics/apostates.

If I believed that Francis is the head of the Catholic Church then yes, I would have to find a FSSP or at a minimum indult mass (or is that insult) at the local diocese to attend. I could not sleep at night knowing that the man I considered the head of the Church condemns my actions.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 05, 2017, 01:20:40 PM
I would also like to know, in light of what the dogmas say, (to say nothing of all the other teachings of the Church), why the sede's and their sympathizers do not make this ^^^ an absolute requirement BEFORE they turn sede.

Stubborn, you will always be stuck where you are unless you realize that there is more to infallible Church teaching than Papal decrees which explicitly use the words "we define" or have an "anathema" attached to those who reject it. This is one of the core roots of your issue right now. If the Catholic Church used your method of determining infallibility they would have been powerless against the heretics that assailed the early Church. These heretics were condemned using the UOM, major Catholic Creeds, declarations from Popes and General Councils (even if the specific words "we define" or "anathema" were not used). Christ gave His Church a full arsenal to use against heretics and did not limit His Church as you are currently doing. Notice, that I am not taking into consideration any teachings from Saints, Doctors, or Popes (in their fallible capacity). I don't need to. I also don't need to see a declaration from the Church or a Pope with the words "we define" or "anathema" attached, saying precisely what I would like it to say. As I said this limits the Church in her defense, and is quite frankly unrealistic. Just look at early Church history.

Heretics are dogmatically not members of the Church. One must profess the true faith to be a member of the Catholic Church, and by divine law one must be a member of the Catholic Church to hold an office in the Catholic Church...

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM), n. 22)


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)


The other place you are stuck right now is that you are in need of an official pronouncement of heresy BEFORE you can recognize someone claiming to be the Pope as a heretic. The Church does not teach this, however. The Church teaches that one must presume dolus (malice) when one is a heretic in the external forum. Even in cases which are much more difficult to discern than Bergoglio. The heretic must prove his innocence (not the other way around). Once again, you limit the Church in her arsenal when you do this.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has  been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.

A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...  Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and  the burden of proof is on the person  whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”



Canon 188 No. 4:
“All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 01:38:28 PM
I think it is fair to say that the dogma of subjection to the Roman pontiff is redundant to discuss. There is no argument about this.
Well by gum if the dogma is redundant to discuss, then rather than me thinking that dogmas are foundational to our faith, I can go sede and say dogmas (at least ones pertaining to the pope being the pope) are redundant and glory be for that! I'm completely on board with the dogmatic sedes! The pope is not a member of the Church, we have no head, the rest of the hierarchy, priests, and NOers get a free pass - that way we still have a Church - just a headless one. No problem, I am down with all that! Yahoo! Score one for fellowship!



Quote
As you point out," I would need some dogma, official authoritative teaching that the pope loses his office for heresy/apostasy...  

Do we though? We both agree the Church has spoken in regards to the punishment for heresy and apostasy, so would it be an error to assume that this blanket statement by the Church does not include the pope because it doesn't read that way? It is right to assume he is exempt?
As long as dogmas are redundant, heck no we don't need them or any Church teaching to confirm what we already know by speculative conclusion! With such a sure thing, wth was I thinking?



Quote
If I believed that Francis is the head of the Catholic Church then yes, I would have to find a FSSP or at a minimum indult mass (or is that insult) at the local diocese to attend. I could not sleep at night knowing that the man I considered the head of the Church condemns my actions.
What actions of yours does he condemn?

Why an FSSP or insult mass? Why not just go to the neighborhood NO? After all, if you believe he's the pope now, surely you know he hates the TLM no matter the venue no?  You would really be submitting to him and really be a wonderful subject of his if you go to the local NO sacrilege. The TLM displeases him greatly - I would think you would never go to the TLM if he was the pope lest you be guilty of causing him displeasure and perhaps even annoyance.


Hopefully it is obvious that this reply of mine is completely sarcastic in an attempt to amplify the situation, not to insult you in any way so please do not take it that way.

Lastdays, I am not suffering through your impossible to tolerate formatting.





Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 05, 2017, 01:41:28 PM
Just another example of a complete lack of Catholic understanding as a direct result of the lex orandi of sedevacantism.

Why do you continue to side step this?    

1.) You believe the pope is a heretic
2.) You are the popes' good subject
3.) You are the good subject of a heretic

Own it, man...
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 01:42:44 PM
Why do you continue to side step this?    

1.) You believe the pope is a heretic
2.) You are the popes' good subject
3.) You are the good subject of a heretic

Own it, man...
Just keep repeating it another million times - don't change a word.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 05, 2017, 01:46:59 PM
Just keep repeating it another million times - don't change a word.

The lurkers need to see the absurdity of your beliefs...  I'll keep reminding you (and any lurkers) that you are the "good subject" of a man you believe to be a heretic.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 05, 2017, 01:51:18 PM

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM), n. 22)


Actually, an even closer look at this declaration by Pope Pius XII states precisely the teaching that ALL CATHOLICS are to recognize any one professing a faith that is not Catholic as a non-member WITHOUT having been excluded by an OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT by legitimate authority for it says "or" been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed...


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#23), June 29, 1943: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.



Stop waiting for your "official" proof Stubborn
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 02:54:56 PM
The lurkers need to see the absurdity of your beliefs...  I'll keep reminding you (and any lurkers) that you are the "good subject" of a man you believe to be a heretic.
I am the pope's good subject, but God's first, always God's first - try to always remember that. I've said it often enough so you have no excuse to keep acting like you forget it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 02:58:24 PM
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM), n. 22)


Actually, an even closer look at this declaration by Pope Pius XII states precisely the teaching that ALL CATHOLICS are to recognize any one professing a faith that is not Catholic as a non-member WITHOUT having been excluded by an OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT by legitimate authority for it says "or" been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed...


Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#23), June 29, 1943: For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.



Stop waiting for your "official" proof Stubborn
This doesn't concern you, do not concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 05, 2017, 03:48:41 PM
This doesn't concern you, do not concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.
Stubborn, you have no answer as usual for any of my arguments and you show those of good will your true colors, by your immature posting. You reject the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church and the teaching of the Church that a person should be recognized as such WITHOUT an official declaration. You then accuse ME of rejecting dogma for my own belief. Yet you reject the above dogma since your own belief tells you that it doesn't apply to someone claiming to be Roman Pontiff (when the Church makes no such exceptions). Neither can it, since it is of divine law. Sorry Stubborn, but bad willed heretics need to be refuted and admonished for the sake of those people of good will who are reading and sincerely want to know EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches and not just the parts you want them to hear.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 05, 2017, 03:51:27 PM
Don't concern yourself further - you have done the only thing a dogmatic sede can do, i.e. make the dogma inapplicable in the present crisis  due to you do not believe he is the pope. I got that.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 05, 2017, 04:14:33 PM
Don't concern yourself further - you have done the only thing a dogmatic sede can do, i.e. make the dogma inapplicable in the present crisis  due to you do not believe he is the pope. I got that.
I accept all the dogmas.  Not just the ones that suit my beliefs. No Catholic ("sede") argues that the Roman Pontiff is the Pope and the successor of St. Peter. We just correctly believe that a heretic cannot be a Roman Pontiff. We also accept the dogma that St. Peter SHOULD have perpetual successors. However, you twist that dogma to mean "will have perpetual successors". Therefore you reject the true meaning of that dogma. Catholics also accept the dogma that heretics cannot even be members of the Catholic Church (no less a Roman Pontiff). You flat out reject that dogma. Catholics also accept the Catholic teaching that public heretics are GUILTY until proven innocent. You reject that teaching. Therefore Catholics (whom you call "sedes") actually hold all the dogmas above, whilst you only hold one. You pick and choose your dogmas and teachings, hence you are a heretic.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 04:17:44 AM
I accept all the dogmas.  Not just the ones that suit my beliefs. No Catholic ("sede") argues that the Roman Pontiff is the Pope and the successor of St. Peter. We just correctly believe that a heretic cannot be a Roman Pontiff. We also accept the dogma that St. Peter SHOULD have perpetual successors. However, you twist that dogma to mean "will have perpetual successors". Therefore you reject the true meaning of that dogma. Catholics also accept the dogma that heretics cannot even be members of the Catholic Church (no less a Roman Pontiff). You flat out reject that dogma. Catholics also accept the Catholic teaching that public heretics are GUILTY until proven innocent. You reject that teaching. Therefore Catholics (whom you call "sedes") actually hold all the dogmas above, whilst you only hold one. You pick and choose your dogmas and teachings, hence you are a heretic.
To be true, you cannot say that you "correctly" believe that a heretic cannot be the Roman Pontiff - that's *if* you want to speak correctly.

In order to be true, what you *can* say is that you conclude, opine, believe, judge, decide, surmise, extrapolate, figure, reckon or deduce etc., that a heretic cannot be the Roman Pontiff - that's *if* you want to speak correctly.  

The Church teaches that heretics, having severed themselves from the Church, are not members of the Church. I get that, I most certainly get that. Heretics are most assuredly outside the of the Church, they have severed themselves from it and are likened to a dead branch that falls from the tree, lands on the ground and is no longer a member of that tree, a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. I agree, I get that, that is the teaching of the Church and I wholly accept and believe it because that is the teaching of the Church.  

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.

This is an absolute must. We have got to see how the Church authoritatively explains how Her Body lives with it's head severed off. Without this, we remain bound to the dogmas.

I obviously do not expect you to produce such a teaching, because there is no such teaching, yet in order for us to say we accept all dogmas, on account of the dogmas and their preciseness, we must have the above requested teaching with that exact same preciseness if we are going to go around saying, as if it actually is a teaching of the Church, that the dogma does not apply to us in this crisis.

So basically, what we actually must have, is an official teaching of the Church authoritatively stating that the dogmas previously defined do not apply to anyone during the reign of heretical popes. Until then, we have no other choice, we are bound to the dogma infallibly decreeing that being subject to the pope remains a requirement for heaven, and the condemnation for saying the pope is not the pope remains the infallible teaching of the Church.









Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 06, 2017, 06:07:07 AM
To be true, you cannot say that you "correctly" believe that a heretic cannot be the Roman Pontiff - that's *if* you want to speak correctly.

In order to be true, what you *can* say is that you conclude, opine, believe, judge, decide, surmise, extrapolate, figure, reckon or deduce etc., that a heretic cannot be the Roman Pontiff - that's *if* you want to speak correctly.  

The Church teaches that heretics, having severed themselves from the Church, are not members of the Church. I get that, I most certainly get that. Heretics are most assuredly outside the of the Church, they have severed themselves from it and are likened to a dead branch that falls from the tree, lands on the ground and is no longer a member of that tree, a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. I agree, I get that, that is the teaching of the Church and I wholly accept and believe it because that is the teaching of the Church.  

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.

This is an absolute must. We have got to see how the Church authoritatively explains how Her Body lives with it's head severed off. Without this, we remain bound to the dogmas.


I obviously do not expect you to produce such a teaching, because there is no such teaching, yet in order for us to say we accept all dogmas, on account of the dogmas and their preciseness, we must have the above requested teaching with that exact same preciseness if we are going to go around saying, as if it actually is a teaching of the Church, that the dogma does not apply to us in this crisis.

So basically, what we actually must have, is an official teaching of the Church authoritatively stating that the dogmas previously defined do not apply to anyone during the reign of heretical popes. Until then, we have no other choice, we are bound to the dogma infallibly decreeing that being subject to the pope remains a requirement for heaven, and the condemnation for saying the pope is not the pope remains the infallible teaching of the Church.
You see, I believe this teaching does exist.... All of us that are debating here agree that heretics/apostates sever themselves from the Church.

Now, the Church teaches ALL heretics and ALL apostates, etc.. So, it leads me ask this question, doesn't this teaching already exist?
I answer yes.

Wouldn't the Church need to have professed, "All heretics, schismatics, apostates.. EXCEPT the claimant to the chair of Peter are severed from the Church", or something similar. Again, to assume ALL means anything other then everybody, all people, each person. etc. would mean that I have different opinion then what the Church teaches.

The body of Christ always lives during an interregnum.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 07:40:27 AM
You see, I believe this teaching does exist.... All of us that are debating here agree that heretics/apostates sever themselves from the Church.

Now, the Church teaches ALL heretics and ALL apostates, etc.. So, it leads me ask this question, doesn't this teaching already exist?
I answer yes.

Wouldn't the Church need to have professed, "All heretics, schismatics, apostates.. EXCEPT the claimant to the chair of Peter are severed from the Church", or something similar. Again, to assume ALL means anything other then everybody, all people, each person. etc. would mean that I have different opinion then what the Church teaches.

The body of Christ always lives during an interregnum.
But it does not exist, that is why I asked for it as precisely as I did.

 The Church does teach "all", yet because She *also* clearly, definitively, authoritatively and infallibly teaches that we are anathema to say the pope is not the pope along with the other decrees, without a clear teaching exempting us from that anathema, or just as explicitly teaching that the pope loses his office/election for heresy, we remain still bound by the dogma. That is the very purpose of dogma - to settle the issue *for all time*. 

It is the dogma itself which dictates that; "All heretics, schismatics, apostates.. EXCEPT the claimant to the chair of Peter are severed from the Church", precisely because the Church made it a dogma that the successors of St. Peter *without exception* are indeed the pope. 

After the promulgation of the dogmas, there is no other way to make the exception you're talking about other than for the Church to directly address the dogmas and add that exception into them. We are not permitted to add, subtract or change anything to any dogma because to do so renders the dogma completely meaningless, as is the case we are debating.

Yes, by the Body lives during an interregnum, no one disputes this as long as the interregnum is due to the Natural Law, i.e. the pope dies. The interregnum ends at the election of the next pope and yes, far as I'm concerned, that might be decades or centuries for that matter. 

But that is not at issue, what is at issue is *the cause* of the interregnum, i.e. not the death of a pope, rather, the killing of the Church via the severing off of the head from the body. Heretics sever themselves from the Body, the body still lives - but sever off the head and the body dies - and this dead body is exactly the body that the dogmatic sedevacantists say is the Catholic Church. No pope, no hierarchy, no people - no Church.  
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 06, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
The Church teaches that heretics, having severed themselves from the Church, are not members of the Church. I get that, I most certainly get that. Heretics are most assuredly outside the of the Church, they have severed themselves from it and are likened to a dead branch that falls from the tree, lands on the ground and is no longer a member of that tree, a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. I agree, I get that, that is the teaching of the Church and I wholly accept and believe it because that is the teaching of the Church.  

Very good Stubborn. You also admitted that the Pope is a heretic in a previous post. Now it is not hard to put the two together. It's kind of like adding 2+2.

Quote
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.

If you would read my posts you would see that I both anticipated and answered your weak argument. I know you like a book Stubborn. In reply #154, I stated...

Stubborn, you will always be stuck where you are unless you realize that there is more to infallible Church teaching than Papal decrees which explicitly use the words "we define" or have an "anathema" attached to those who reject it. This is one of the core roots of your issue right now. If the Catholic Church used your method of determining infallibility they would have been powerless against the heretics that assailed the early Church. These heretics were condemned using the UOM, major Catholic Creeds, declarations from Popes and General Councils (even if the specific words "we define" or "anathema" were not used). Christ gave His Church a full arsenal to use against heretics and did not limit His Church as you are currently doing. Notice, that I am not taking into consideration any teachings from Saints, Doctors, or Popes (in their fallible capacity). I don't need to. I also don't need to see a declaration from the Church or a Pope with the words "we define" or "anathema" attached, saying precisely what I would like it to say. As I said this limits the Church in her defense, and is quite frankly unrealistic. Just look at early Church history.


IN OTHER WORDS YOUR METHOD OF DETERMINING INFALLIBILITY IS HERETICAL.


Quote
This is an absolute must. We have got to see how the Church authoritatively explains how Her Body lives with it's head severed off. Without this, we remain bound to the dogmas.

As I pointed out in my last reply to you, you don't keep all the dogmas. You add to, subtract from and twist them to your own liking. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA THAT HERETICS ARE OUTSIDE AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH. They are not members in any way. I will now even more clearly expose what you do to Catholic dogma.

Catholic Dogma: 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.

Stubborn's Twisted Dogma: 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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Pope is not the Pope: let him be anathema.

Now I think its rather dishonest and hypocritical of you to imply that sedes aren't bound to the dogmas, when by your twisting (as highlighted above) it clearly shows you reject Catholic dogma. Of course its clear that "should" does not mean "will". When the Church says "should" she is just refuting the protestant heresy that St. Peter's authority did not continue after he died. You twist it to say, that he "will" always have a perpetual successor. This dogma says nothing to the effect in regarding interregnums at all and if interpreted literally cannot be true, since perpetual means "unceasing". There have always been interregnums throughout the history of the Church.

The second part of this dogma is also a rejection of the truth. As AES pointed out to you before, if taken literally St. Vincent Ferrer would be anathema instead of a great Saint. For he certainly said that "the Pope was not the Pope". He was following an anti-pope and rejecting the true Pope. The Church is just pointing out that a true Roman Pontiff is considered the successor of St. Peter and has jurisdiction over the Church (as St. Peter had).  

Therefore you reject both parts of that Catholic dogma and you are hypocrite for saying we are bound to dogmas.
Now another dogma you reject is that heretics are not part of the Catholic Church, because you believe that a heretic Pope IS a part of the Catholic Church. Let's move on to the next dogma, shall we....

Catholic Dogma: 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)


Stubborn's Twisted Dogma: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics (except for the Roman Pontiff) and schismatics (except for the Roman Pontiff) 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)

Here you reject the true Catholic dogma by stating that Roman Pontiffs are an exception and that even though they are heretics or schismatics that they are part of the Catholic flock. So you import an exception and add to what is not there. And why do you do this? Because you claim that the Pope must be the Pope no matter what. As shown above, however, that dogma you created is heretical (see St. Vincent Ferrer) and just means (in opposition to certain protestants like yourself) that a true Roman Pontiff is considered the successor of St. Peter and has jurisdiction over the Church (as St. Peter had).

Also. every time there is an interregnum the Church survives without a visible head. Silly argument.

Therefore you again reject Catholic dogma, by importing your own exception, and this so it will correspond to another dogma that you twisted. Then (if this weren't enough) YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO STATE THAT WE MUST BE BOUND TO DOGMAS!



Quote
I obviously do not expect you to produce such a teaching, because there is no such teaching, yet in order for us to say we accept all dogmas, on account of the dogmas and their preciseness, we must have the above requested teaching with that exact same preciseness if we are going to go around saying, as if it actually is a teaching of the Church, that the dogma does not apply to us in this crisis.

YOUR PERSONAL DOGMAS (shown above) DO NOT APPLY TO CATHOLICS. THEY ARE HERETICAL AND YOU ARE A HERETIC. CATHOLIC (sedes) HOLD CATHOLIC DOGMAS WITHOUT ANY ADDITION, SUBTRACTION OR TWISTING.


Quote
So basically, what we actually must have, is an official teaching of the Church authoritatively stating that the dogmas previously defined do not apply to anyone during the reign of heretical popes. Until then, we have no other choice, we are bound to the dogma infallibly decreeing that being subject to the pope remains a requirement for heaven, and the condemnation for saying the pope is not the pope remains the infallible teaching of the Church.

YOUR PERSONAL DOGMAS (shown above) DO NOT APPLY TO CATHOLICS. THEY ARE HERETICAL AND YOU ARE A HERETIC. CATHOLIC (sedes) HOLD CATHOLIC DOGMAS WITHOUT ANY ADDITION, SUBTRACTION OR TWISTING.

GET IT HYPOCRITE?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 10:15:25 AM
Yes, yes, we all already know you have divorced yourself from any adherence whatsoever to the dogma. It is a matter of fact that you do not believe he is the pope - thanks goodness for that - otherwise you too would be bound to the dogmas.

ps. I will not read such repetitive and ridiculously formatted posts as that of yours.

Why not make a recording and post that already?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 06, 2017, 10:40:20 AM
Yes, yes, we all already know you have divorced yourself from any adherence whatsoever to the dogma. It is a matter of fact that you do not believe he is the pope - thanks goodness for that - otherwise you too would be bound to the dogmas.

ps. I will not read such formatted posts of yours.

Why not make a recording and post that already?

You don't reply to any arguments that you cannot refute. Your excuse in regards to formatting is just another proof of this. The option for formatting is available on this forum for a good reason. It is meant to highlight and emphasize certain points as you yourself did in reply #80:

To quote Fr. Jenkins; "...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all".  

(https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)
also, reply #88: (https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)
(https://youtu.be/H633jb0YX2c?t=1459)
It's impossible to not agree with Fr. Jenkins - as he says, you are not Catholic. To quote Fr. Jenkins; "...there are some sedevacantists who are dogmatic sedevacantists, I don't even consider them to be traditional Catholics. I mean there are some who will say; 'John Paul II was no pope, I can prove it, it's a matter of faith and if you believe he is the pope you're not a Catholic!' I don't even consider those people to be traditional Catholics at all".  


also reply #111:

Therefore whoever [here the sede's need this to say: "whoever the sede's decide is not a heretic"] succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.


also reply #112 in which you not only format, but make state explicitly that the readers should pay attention to your formatting :

And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council

Just pay attention to the bolded, this is the infallible teaching of the Church that you wholly, vehemently and unmistakably reject.


also reply #132:

What, again?

I already posted it in this (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/communion-with-the-accursed/msg582342/#msg582342) post, which is a direct quote from The First Vatican Council as I denoted at the end of the quote - here, I will repost below - read it this time. If you do, you will find it says all faithful [Catholics] Christians must believe that the Roman Pontiff is the [pope] successor of St. Peter. You do not believe it - you are not a faithful Catholic.

And so, supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council

The  previous post to the one above is also a direct quote from the First Vatican Council, and I also denoted that at the end of the quote - reposted below:

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.........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. - The First Vatican Council

Don't concern yourself any further, I realize none of this applies to you because you just don't believe that a heretic can be pope. You're covered, dogmas do not apply to you because of your belief, no worries, I got that - check.




I think everyone reading gets the point by now.

And by the way...

YOUR PERSONAL DOGMAS DO NOT APPLY TO CATHOLICS. THEY ARE HERETICAL AND YOU ARE A HERETIC. CATHOLIC (sedes) HOLD CATHOLIC DOGMAS WITHOUT ANY ADDITION, SUBTRACTION OR TWISTING.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 11:11:35 AM
You don't reply to any arguments that you cannot refute. Your excuse in regards to formatting is just another proof of this. The option for formatting is available on this forum for a good reason. It is meant to highlight and emphasize certain points as you yourself did in reply #80:
I already acknowledged the only argument you've got - you do not believe he is the pope thereby relieving you of any and all responsibility to even be remotely concerned about the dogmas.

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.

This is an absolute must. We have got to see how the Church authoritatively explains how Her Body lives with it's head severed off. Without this, we remain bound to the dogmas, which means, simply, you lose.

Please note that when you highlight +90% of the post, the only thing that does it make it too difficult to read - life's too short, I don't read it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 06, 2017, 01:12:11 PM
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. This is an absolute must. We have got to see how the Church authoritatively explains how Her Body lives with it's head severed off. Without this, we remain bound to the dogmas, which means, simply, you lose.

In order for me to process your request, you will have to provide me with some information. You say that you need a teaching of the Church "specifically worded as the dogmas" for you to believe that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical Pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null. Ok. Then I will need two pieces of information from you.

First I need to know exactly what you mean by "specifically worded as dogmas". What exact wording must a teaching of the Church include. It would not be fair for you to demand something "as a must" without explaining to me exactly what I must be looking for.  

When you give me this piece of valuable information, I will need one more piece of information from you.




Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2017, 03:23:37 PM
In order for me to process your request, you will have to provide me with some information. You say that you need a teaching of the Church "specifically worded as the dogmas" for you to believe that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical Pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null. Ok. Then I will need two pieces of information from you.

First I need to know exactly what you mean by "specifically worded as dogmas". What exact wording must a teaching of the Church include. It would not be fair for you to demand something "as a must" without explaining to me exactly what I must be looking for.  

When you give me this piece of valuable information, I will need one more piece of information from you.
Yes, the teaching or decree must be just as authoritative and just as specifically worded as the dogmas.

The dogmas states that we must be subject to the pope, that we cannot say the pope is not the pope, that it is by divine law that those who are elected are indeed the pope.

Whatever teaching you come up with, will acknowledge and address these teachings directly and either authoritatively abrogate them altogether, or add the exception that the dogmas only apply to popes who holy, virtuous, or at least aren't heretics.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 06, 2017, 04:02:13 PM
Yes, the teaching or decree must be just as authoritative and just as specifically worded as the dogmas.

The dogmas states that we must be subject to the pope, that we cannot say the pope is not the pope, that it is by divine law that those who are elected are indeed the pope.

Whatever teaching you come up with, will acknowledge and address these teachings directly and either authoritatively abrogate them altogether, or add the exception that the dogmas only apply to popes who holy, virtuous, or at least aren't heretics.
You didn't answer my question as I expected. I said that I need to know the exact "specific words" that must be present for a teaching to be considered a Catholic dogma.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 04:27:35 AM
You didn't answer my question as I expected. I said that I need to know the exact "specific words" that must be present for a teaching to be considered a Catholic dogma.
It's not my teaching, I do not have exact wording, but for a start -  it first off needs to be dated after the First Vatican Council, specifically must name the pope as losing his office for heresy, it's wording must abrogate all the dogmas and abrogate all the other Church teachings since the time of the Apostles that teach rejecting the pope as pope is schism.

It would then necessarily need new teachings that say something like:

"Because, regardless of his status, there is no tribunal within the Church able to pass judgement on the successor of St. Peter, the pope, we hereby declare that it is the duty of all the people to decide the status of the claimant to the Chair of St. Peter. When his subjects opine the pope is a heretic, we declare that the people are correct, that's exactly what he is, there is no pope when you believe the pope is a heretic and whoever shall dare to say otherwise is himself a heretic and anathema."

It's literally, the a dogmatic sede's dream decree.
     
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 07:51:46 AM
It's not my teaching, I do not have exact wording...

That's what I thought. You see, you have to first know what a dogma is, before you set further conditions. If you don't know exactly how to identify a dogma, then your argument is baseless. You seem to be referring to a certain dogma in the First Vatican Council. I said that I need to know the specific words present in that teaching that led you to that conclusion. You said that dogmas were "specifically worded". Now please identify this dogma of the First Vatican Council. Please tell me what session and paragraph are you referring to, and then please tell me the specific words that were required that enabled you to come to the conclusion that this particular teaching was a dogma.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 08:18:22 AM
That is all I need to read. They're coming out of the woodwork again.
You're just a coward with no argument.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 08:29:52 AM
Quote
Stubs: 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.

Stubs: You call me a heretic because I have faith in and bind myself to the dogma. This is typically incoherent to all non-Catholics.
AES: You bind yourself to heretical teaching by being in communion with them. Because of that, anytime you say you believe in, follow, adhere to, bind yourself  etc..., to dogma, we know that you are lying. The Church teaches that if you accept one heresy or reject one teaching, you reject the whole faith. So when you believe that the Church is of heretics, you reject the whole faith.


Quote
Stubs: I also cannot say the pope is not the pope because THAT is also "MY" dogma.
AES: Not sure I understand this but yes, that is "your" "dogma". The Catholic Dogma says that we are not allowed to say a Pope is not the successor to St. Peter. You have changed the words and effectively condemned St. Vincent Ferrer for following an antipope.

Stubs:I have changed nothing, here is the quote from MY dogma - as decreed at V1:
"Therefore, if anyone says .... the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - The First Vatican Council
AES: You say the above is exactly the same as "the pope is not the pope". You are wrong. Denying the above means one says the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Peter. You really have a hard time reading and comprehending don't you? I readily say that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter. What I refuse to say and what you are proud of is, a heretic is the successor of St. Peter. You hate the Catholic Church and therefore argue daily against her. You maintain that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. You cannot be Catholic and hold to this heresy. Convert!


Quote
Stubs:The fact is, you just don't have any faith whatsoever in the dogma. Sedeism is, after all, anti-dogmatic. I will (with the grace of God) remain a true Catholic, which this day is called Traditional Catholic. I have never been to a NO - and you?  
AES: First you call me a dogmatic Sedevacantist and then you call me anti-dogmatic. Which is it? This proves that you have no idea what you are saying and that you will say anything just to talk. Your responses have no substance other than hypocrisies and lies, just as long as the reader does not hear the truth and become Catholic, you feel you have done your job.
You have never been Catholic if you have remained within the false traditional wing of the Novus Ordo, meant to appeal to those who are attached to buildings and externals. There is no substance and no adherence to the actual Faith. I left the Novus Ordo as soon as I found out what the Catholic Church actually taught. You on the other hand, remained and still vehemently proclaim your unity with heretics and communion with the accursed.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 08:48:29 AM
You're just a coward with no argument.

Seems like Stubborn can't even explain how to identify a dogma. I find that kind of hilarious. He even commands that we find something "specifically worded as the dogmas" in order to refute him, yet he doesn't know the "specific words" himself! Let see of Mr. Dogma (Stubborn) can tell us in his own words the dogma he seems to have found in the First Vatican Council (session, chapter and paragraph) and "the specific words necessary" for a teaching to qualify as a dogma.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 08:57:46 AM
That's what I thought. You see, you have to first know what a dogma is, before you set further conditions. If you don't know exactly how to identify a dogma, then your argument is baseless. You seem to be referring to a certain dogma in the First Vatican Council. I said that I need to know the specific words present in that teaching that led you to that conclusion. You said that dogmas were "specifically worded".
Right, I don't know what a dogma is.

What is this - a suggestion?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". - Unam Sanctam (True Pope Boniface VIII.) Did you get that, this is from a "true" pope.

Now you may go ahead and revise this teaching to suit your belief - I want to see this.


Quote
Now please identify this dogma of the First Vatican Council. Please tell me what session and paragraph are you referring to, and then please tell me the specific words that were required that enabled you to come to the conclusion that this particular teaching was a dogma.
How many times do you want me to post the same dogmas condemning dogmatic sedevacantism?

We promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council (True Pope Pius IX)

"Therefore, if anyone says .... the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - The First Vatican Council (True Pope Pius IX)

Now you go ahead and post some dogmas condemning the above dogmas as heresy.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:01:45 AM
You're just a coward with no argument.
That is all you have. Nothing.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:04:59 AM
That is all you have. Nothing.
Hilarious. I presented my arguments and your sole resposne was "that's all I need to read" - and now you're accusing ME of having nothing?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 09:05:25 AM


Quote
Stubs: 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.

Stubborn keeps finding new ways to avoid our arguments. If he doesn't use some excuse like "not responding if you use too much formatting", he will comeback with nonsense or jibberish (as you said). He also likes to change the subject, so as to avoid directly answering your argument (hoping you will eventually forget). Don't let him off the hook.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
Quote
Blah blah

Submit yourself to your pope, schismatic. It is not enough to merely "recognise" the true claimant to the Papacy in order to be in union with him, if that nominal recognition is not upheld in act. You don't get to call Francis a true pope while behaving as though he were a goofy old heretic whose jurisdiction can just be ignored in practice.

Quote
It is the dogma itself which dictates that; "All heretics, schismatics, apostates.. EXCEPT the claimant to the chair of Peter are severed from the Church",
Now you're like Martin Luther with the Bible, except you're "interpreting" dogmatic teaching by inserting words at a whim.

Faith is absolutely necessary to be joined to the Church through baptism (Trent). Heresy, schism and apostasy, whose essence is the loss of faith, are the sins (and if I'm not mistaken, the only sins) which sever one completely from that Church. The Pope can't be "excepted"; it's not metaphysically possible to be united to Christ in his mystical body without faith. How does this even work in your bizarre world view? We are united through one baptism, by one faith, in  one Christ. How does that work for a "pope" who has abjured the Faith?

Quote
precisely because the Church made it a dogma that the successors of St. Peter *without exception* are indeed the pope.
Actually the dogma is that every pope is the successor of St. Peter: it's motivation appears to be the heretical counter-claim that popes are not, in a real sense, St. Peter's successors and inheritors of his authority and the charisms that come with the office. But that's irrelevant anyway, since you're just begging the question: the Pope is the Pope ... indeed and thanks for telling us absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:07:47 AM
Hilarious. I presented my arguments and your sole resposne was "that's all I need to read" - and now you're accusing ME of having nothing?
You presented nothing Catholic. It gets old reading the same old sede lies, so I stopped at the first bit of non-Catholic rhetoric in your post. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:09:03 AM

Stubborn keeps finding new ways to avoid our arguments. If he doesn't use some excuse like "not responding if you use too much formatting", he will comeback with nonsense or jibberish (as you said). He also likes to change the subject, so as to avoid directly answering your argument (hoping you will eventually forget). Don't let him off the hook.
AES now resorts to blatant lies - but in his defense, what else can he do?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:09:47 AM
Submit yourself to your pope, schismatic. It is not enough to merely "recognise" the true claimant to the Papacy in order to be in union with him, if that nominal recognition is not upheld in act. You don't get to call Francis a true pope while behaving as though he were a goofy old heretic whose jurisdiction can just be ignored in practice.
Now you're like Martin Luther with the Bible, except you're "interpreting" dogmatic teaching by inserting words at a whim.

Faith is absolutely necessary to be joined to the Church through baptism (Trent). Heresy, schism and apostasy, whose essence is the loss of faith, are the sins (and if I'm not mistaken, the only sins) which sever one completely from that Church. The Pope can't be "excepted"; it's not metaphysically possible to be united to Christ in his mystical body without faith. How does this even work in your bizarre world view? We are united through one baptism, by one faith, in  one Christ. How does that work for a "pope" who has abjured the Faith?
Actually the dogma is that every pope is the successor of St. Peter: it's motivation appears to be the heretical counter-claim that popes are not, in a real sense, St. Peter's successors and inheritors of his authority and the charisms that come with the office. But that's irrelevant anyway, since you're just begging the question: the Pope is the Pope ... indeed and thanks for telling us absolutely nothing.
Spoken like a true dogmatic sede, not Catholic at all.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 09:12:02 AM
Right, I don't know what a dogma is.

What is this - a suggestion?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". - Unam Sanctam (True Pope Boniface VIII.) Did you get that, this is from a "true" pope.

Now you may go ahead and revise this teaching to suit your belief - I want to see this.

How many times do you want me to post the same dogmas condemning dogmatic sedevacantism?

We promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. - The First Vatican Council (True Pope Pius IX)

"Therefore, if anyone says .... the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." - The First Vatican Council (True Pope Pius IX)

Now you go ahead and post some dogmas condemning the above dogmas as heresy.

Great, you have identified what you believe to be dogmas. You still haven't answered the main part of my question, however. My question is "what specific words" led you to believe that these were dogmas and are there any other "specific words" that may be required to identify dogma in general. You have asked me to find a teaching with the "specific wording of the dogmas". Now, please give me the "specific words required".
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:12:26 AM
You presented nothing Catholic. It gets old reading the same old sede lies, so I stopped at the first bit of non-Catholic rhetoric in your post.
Now canon law and the teaching of Pope Leo XIII are "not Catholic".
One more time:
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.


But these are "not Catholic".

And this is "not Catholic" either:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.” - Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:15:13 AM
Spoken like a true dogmatic sede, not Catholic at all.
Where have I even stated that I am a "Sede"? More ad hominems.
Submit your intellect and will to the authentic magisterium of the Pope and legitimate bishops in union with him, you obstinate schismatic, as your Church demands of you.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:17:39 AM
Great, you have identified what you believe to be dogmas. You still haven't answered the main part of my question, however. My question is "what specific words" led you to believe that these were dogmas and are there any other "specific words" that may be required to identify dogma in general. You have asked me to find a teaching with the "specific wording of the dogmas". Now, please give me the "specific words required".
I think the art and intentions of the Socratic dialectic are lost on Stubborn.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 09:19:52 AM
I think the art and intentions of the Socratic dialectic are lost on Stubborn.
No doubt.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:20:24 AM
Let me guess: Stubborn is not subject to canon law either, since canon law is not "dogma".
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:20:31 AM
Where have I even stated that I am a "Sede"? More ad hominems.
Submit your intellect and will to the authentic magisterium of the Pope and legitimate bishops in union with him, you obstinate schismatic, as your Church demands of you.
If you aren't a sede, you're demonstrating that you are just as lost as they are. The first thing you must never do is attempt to use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedeism. Always remember that. The main thing to do is to use only teachings from sede popes and saints to vindicate sedeism.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:22:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Kreuzritter on December 07, 2017, 09:26:59 AM
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?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 09:42:39 AM
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.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 09:43:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:47:41 AM
"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?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 09:48:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:54:31 AM
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.


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 09:58:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 10:00:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 10:04:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 10:16:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 10:18:09 AM
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.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 10:31:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 11:17:37 AM
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.
I already gave it to you so stop with the side tracking ignorance and just do as I asked.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 11:20:14 AM
I did not lie. What you said made no sense and IS gibberish, especially since I never said that Catholics are heretics.
I am a Catholic and you say I am a heretic all the time, so what you just said is an outright lie - but what else can you do at this point *except* lie?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 11:30:13 AM
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".
The problem is, you sedes have no faith whatsoever, certainly not the Catholic faith. That's the actual problem in a nutshell.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 11:37:26 AM
I am a Catholic and you say I am a heretic all the time, so what you just said is an outright lie - but what else can you do at this point *except* lie?
Let's see if you're Catholic.
Vatican I: "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

You do not submit to this power of the man you call pope, by refusing his teachings on faith and morals and also rejecting how they govern the "church". You are not a Catholic.

Vatican I: "In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd."

You deny that the Church of Christ is one flock by saying that there is another "church" within the Catholic Church. You deny the unity of faith by saying the Catholic Church can have more than one faith by having a heretic as its head. In effect, since this teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible, and since even you admit that its head is a heretic and you are subject to him, you are saying that you profess the same faith as the heretic.

So let's review, you say you are not a heretic but the above is PROOF that you are.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 07, 2017, 11:44:51 AM
You deny that the Church of Christ is one flock by saying that there is another "church" within the Catholic Church. You deny the unity of faith by saying the Catholic Church can have more than one faith by having a heretic as its head. In effect, since this teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible, and since even you admit that its head is a heretic and you are subject to him, you are saying that you profess the same faith as the heretic.

An excellent summary, Seven.

Stubborn KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY subjects himself to a man that he considers a heretic...absurd...complete insanity.      
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 11:48:29 AM
An excellent summary, Seven.

Stubborn KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY subjects himself to a man that he considers a heretic...absurd...complete insanity.      
You have no understanding of the Catholic faith.
You dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so you believe God is a heretic.
The question is - since the pope is a heretic therefore not pope - does that mean you believe God is not God?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 11:55:20 AM
Let's see if you're Catholic.
Vatican I: "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."

You do not submit to this power of the man you call pope, by refusing his teachings on faith and morals and also rejecting how they govern the "church". You are not a Catholic.

Vatican I: "In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd."

You deny that the Church of Christ is one flock by saying that there is another "church" within the Catholic Church. You deny the unity of faith by saying the Catholic Church can have more than one faith by having a heretic as its head. In effect, since this teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible, and since even you admit that its head is a heretic and you are subject to him, you are saying that you profess the same faith as the heretic.

So let's review, you say you are not a heretic but the above is PROOF that you are.
Sedes are really extremely ignorant, all but completely devoid of the Catholic faith. Unam Sanctam teaches we must be subject to the pope - not blindly submit to him. If that means we must disobey popes till the end of the world in order to not offend God, then that's what it means, what it does not mean is that he is not the pope.

That is about as basic of Catholicity as it gets. The rest you can never hope to understand as a dogmatic sede.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: GJC on December 07, 2017, 11:59:17 AM
You have no understanding of the Catholic faith.
You dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so you believe God is a heretic.
The question is - since the pope is a heretic therefore not pope - does that mean you believe God is not God?
Sorry chief, but could rephrase that for me....?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/H315tBsDtcGCk/200.gif)

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 07, 2017, 12:06:37 PM
The question is - since the pope is a heretic therefore not pope - does that mean you believe God is not God?

No. 

The question is - Why would you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY be the "good subject" of a heretic?    
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 12:15:36 PM
You have no understanding of the Catholic faith.
So next we can expect him to teach us the Catholic Faith right?
Quote
Stub: You dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so you believe God is a heretic.
Nope, instead he pompously rips off another of his one-liners which make no sense and was uttered by no Sede ever and attributes incredible blasphemy to Catholics.
Quote
Stub: The question is - since the pope is a heretic therefore not pope - does that mean you believe God is not God?
Here he makes an assumption based on his one-liner which he attributes to Sedes in order to make it seem like a good argument. Since his first point is not claimed by Sedes, his second makes no sense and he appears to blaspheme God himself. All because of this fake debate he's having in his own head. The Catholics present all this Catholic information to him and his response is "I won't accept Catholic teaching to vindicate Catholic belief and instead I will make up my own ideas of what it is I think I'm arguing about and proceed to straw man everyone to death".



Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 12:19:49 PM
I already gave it to you so stop with the side tracking ignorance and just do as I asked.

You gave me what you believed to be Catholic dogmas. I asked...

"What specific wording is required in order to identify Catholic dogma?" I also asked, "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.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 12:27:54 PM
Sorry chief, but could rephrase that for me....?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/H315tBsDtcGCk/200.gif)
In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134), AES says: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God."

Being as not even one sede ever corrected him, it is fair to say that all dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so if the pope is a heretic, they must believe God is a heretic.
This is how screwed up they have allowed themselves to get. A lot of that comes from trying to vindicate sedeism using Catholic teachings.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 12:28:53 PM
Sedes are really extremely ignorant, all but completely devoid of the Catholic faith.
Next we can expect that he will teach us the Catholic Faith and remove our ignorance right?
Quote
Stub: Unam Sanctam teaches we must be subject to the pope - not blindly submit to him.
Wrong. Instead he adds words to the Dogma. The Dogma never mentions how or in what circumstances we are to submit to the Pope. His additions are from his lack of understanding of what it means to be subject to a Pope.

Quote
Stub: If that means we must disobey popes till the end of the world in order to not offend God, then that's what it means, what it does not mean is that he is not the pope.
More straw man arguments. No Sede ever said the Pope is not the Pope, but when you know you lost the argument with a true opponent, you must argue with yourself in order to beat yourself. Anybody can say that another person or group believes anything and then proceed to destroy that argument as if it was actually made. The problem comes from whether or not that other person or group actually made it. No one says that the Pope is not the Pope but if Stubs keeps saying they do, he can win the argument by battling with himself and ignoring Catholic Teaching.


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 12:31:53 PM
Nope, instead he pompously rips off another of his one-liners which make no sense and was uttered by no Sede ever and attributes incredible blasphemy to Catholics. aes
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134)
In your defense, I don't blame you for such outright lies, that's all you have. Here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134) are your own words: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God".
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 12:39:39 PM
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134)
In your defense, I don't blame you for such outright lies, that's all you have. Here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134) are your own words: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God".

Stubborn, you gave me what you believed to be Catholic dogmas. I asked...

"What specific wording is required in order to identify Catholic dogma?" I also asked, "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. I'm still waiting. I'm not using any formatting. The least you can do is answer my questions.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 12:41:08 PM
In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134), AES says: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God."

Being as not even one sede ever corrected him, it is fair to say that all dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so if the pope is a heretic, they must believe God is a heretic.
This is how screwed up they have allowed themselves to get. A lot of that comes from trying to vindicate sedeism using Catholic teachings.
Ohhh, I see where your problem is, you don't understand the meaning of words. The power given to the Pope is given from God. The Pope is not God but is His Vicar. Therefore, to be subject to the Pope is the same as being subject to God. St. Jerome, Pope Leo XIII, and St. Francis de Sales at least, agree with me. What's screwed up is this argument you are having with yourself. It is making you contrive all these blasphemous conclusions which are drawn from nothing but your own thoughts.

Pope Leo XIII :"Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus: “I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth.”

St. Francis de Sales: "We call him His Holiness, and we find that S. Jerome already called him by the same name: § " I beseech thy Blessedness, by the cross, &c. . . . I following Christ alone am joined in communion with thy Blessedness, that is, the chair of Peter."
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 07, 2017, 12:56:59 PM

Here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/that-the-novus-ordo-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/msg563134/#msg563134) are your own words: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God".

What's wrong with what Seven is saying here?  

In Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII says - "Therefore of this one and only Church there is one body and one head—not two heads as if it were a monster: Christ, namely, and the vicar of Christ, Saint Peter..."

He also goes on to say - "This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and his successors through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God..."


This is from the same Bull that says this:  "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 12:59:28 PM
What's wrong with what Seven is saying here?
For a dogmatic sede, nothing at all.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 07, 2017, 01:02:02 PM
For a dogmatic sede, nothing at all.

What's wrong with it from your point of view, mate?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 01:05:03 PM
Stubborn, you gave me what you believed to be Catholic dogmas. I asked...

"What specific wording is required in order to identify Catholic dogma?" I also asked, "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. I'm still waiting. I'm not using any formatting. The least you can do is answer my questions.
I'll make it easy for you, it simply cannot be any clearer than this - to start, go ahead and post the Church teachings that abrogate Unam Sanctam's and the First Vatican Council's teachings.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 01:05:34 PM
What's wrong with it from your point of view, mate?
The pope is not God. Other than that, I have no problem with it.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 01:10:05 PM
Ohhh, I see where your problem is, you don't understand the meaning of words......
I understand that first, you are quoted saying:
"being subject to the pope is being subject to God."

Then you say it was of my own invention and that you  never said that:
"Nope, instead he pompously rips off another of his one-liners which make no sense and was uttered by no Sede ever..."

Now you say I do not understand the meaning of words. I understand them rather well if I do say so myself, I also understand why you must lie habitually as you do - because that's all you have left.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 01:32:16 PM
I'll make it easy for you, it simply cannot be any clearer than this - to start, go ahead and post the Church teachings that abrogate Unam Sanctam's and the First Vatican Council's teachings.

I would love to post some teachings for you Stubborn. The problem is, that you asked for teachings "specifically worded as the dogmas". Now in order for me to do this, you have to answer my questions. Again I ask (for about the 7th time)...

What specific wording is required and in which sources must this specific wording be present?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 07, 2017, 01:35:51 PM
I understand that first, you are quoted saying:
"being subject to the pope is being subject to God."
Sure I did and I never denied that. I did not say that the Pope is God however, so what's your problem?
Quote
Then you say it was of my own invention and that you  never said that:
"Nope, instead he pompously rips off another of his one-liners which make no sense and was uttered by no Sede ever..."
Would you like to try that one again sport? The part you quote is in reference to your lie that sedes believe the Pope is God. This again, is how you argue. You attribute a false belief to the person you are arguing with, which they never said to begin with, and then you proceed to tear that argument apart, which originated in your own head.

Quote
Catholic: A heretic cannot be Pope.
Stubborn: You can't say the Pope is not the Pope.
Catholic: Oh, but I didn't. I said a heretic can't be Pope
Stubborn: I win.

Quote
Catholic: Being subject to the Pope is being subject to God.
Stubborn: The pope is not God.
Catholic: I didn't say that he is.
Stubborn: You believe God is a heretic.
You should write a book. "How to win arguments with yourself" by Stubborn Lee Obstinate
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Bellator Dei on December 07, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
The pope is not God. Other than that, I have no problem with it.

The man never said that the pope was God.  You twisted and distorted the man's words...own it.  
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 03:12:22 PM

Stubborn, it must be troubling to you that you know so well how to identify a dogma, yet you cannot convey to others how exactly they themselves can identify a dogma. Now Stubborn, I am afraid to say that if you can't explain the "specific wording of a dogma" and the sources this "specific wording" can be found in, then you have no right to say that you submit to dogma. Nor do any of the teachings you present as dogmas have any more weight than your own fallible opinion (and the fallible opinion of those who agree with you). Nor do you have any right to ask others to present to you teachings with the "specific wording of the dogmas".

So please Stubborn, what are the specific words I should be looking for and in what sources are they to be found in?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 07, 2017, 04:32:10 PM
The man never said that the pope was God.  You twisted and distorted the man's words...own it.  
Well let's see. AES said being subject to the pope is being subject to God.

Then he not only denies saying it, he accuses me of lying about his saying that and actually accuses me of being the one to have said it. This shows that he knows being subject the pope is not being subject to God.

Then Bellator Dei asks what's wrong with saying the pope is God?, demonstrating he agrees with AES' error, meanwhile Lastdays ignores the whole thing, presumably because he sees nothing wrong with it either, meanwhile he 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.

This is the typical merry-go-round that goes on and on in the dogmatic sedes' minds.  

Never mind that the dogmas we are bound to under pain of mortal sin come to us infallibly declared from "true" popes and "true" Councils - and never mind that a "true" pope, Pius IX, taught that "perfect adhesion" to dogma is absolutely necessary for the refutation of error. Never mind any of that. I keep using dogma to refute the dogmatic sede's errors and they keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about while I'm using dogma to refute their errors as "true" pope Pius IX taught.

None of that matters, why? Well, according to the dogmatic sedes, because the fact is that those teachings do not apply because the people have spoken - "the pope is a heretic, therefore not a member of the Church, therefore not a pope, therefore the dogmas which are absolutely necessary for the refutation of error, do not apply when the pope is a heretic" - and by gum, whosoever thinks they are bound to the dogmas are themselves a rotten heretic, so say the dogmatic sedes repeatedly. "So let it be written, so let it be done!"

And on it goes. round and round.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 07, 2017, 04:41:27 PM
Never mind that the dogmas we are bound to under pain of mortal sin come to us infallibly declared from "true" popes and "true" Councils - and never mind that a "true" pope, Pius IX, taught that "perfect adhesion" to dogma is absolutely necessary for the refutation of error. Never mind any of that. I keep using dogma to refute the dogmatic sede's errors and they keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about while I'm using dogma to refute their errors as "true" pope Pius IX taught.
Stubborn, you say you use dogma. How do you know your using dogma? What are the specific words that must be present in a dogma? Can dogmas only come from true Popes and Councils? Please give me the specific words and sources.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 05:37:11 AM
Stubborn, you say you use dogma. How do you know your using dogma? What are the specific words that must be present in a dogma? Can dogmas only come from true Popes and Councils? Please give me the specific words and sources.
The words and wording of teachings change, the meanings of the various infallibly defined doctrines do not. No one can possibly post all the different wording used to define dogma without posting all the defined dogmas.  

For the purpose of this thread, let's take the doctrine of papal infallibility. Whoever wants to know when the pope teaches infallibly, that is, when he speaks ex cathedra, then they need read V1.

It literally starts off saying they are about to define a dogma; "...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma...",  it then goes on to do exactly what it says - defines the dogma of papal infallibility - which both the Universal and the Ordinary teachings, ie the Universal Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium, have as their foundation. IOW, dogma is the foundation, dogma is foundational to the universal and to the ordinary teachings of the Church, they can never disagree, if it seems they disagree, then dogma not only settles the matter, it settles the matter for all time - that is what dogmas do.

They trump everything for all time - but, it is a teaching of the Church that we cannot and must not rely strictly on dogma and ignore other teachings. To do that reduces the meaning of dogmas to a meaningless formula. It is as Pope Pius IX teaches, it is absolutely necessary to refer the matter to dogma when conflict occurs. The buck always stops at the dogma.

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.

Nor is the doctrine of papal infallibility promised to bishops or anyone else - only to the pope and only when he defines dogma and only under the "most rigidly and specifically circumscribed" criteria defined at V1. Outside of that specific, defined criteria, he has no infallibility whatsoever and can preach all the error his heart's desires - as the last +50 years testifies.

There is no extension of his infallibility, read: additional infallibility, attached to this dogma as cardinal Manning teaches, that idea is error - and to prove it, all anyone has to do is to read the dogma for themselves. It's not only not in there, any extension of his infallibility isn't even remotely implied. The fact is, the doctrine of "papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circumscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty." - The Great Sacrilege


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 08, 2017, 07:58:22 AM
Well let's see. AES said being subject to the pope is being subject to God.

Then he not only denies saying it, he accuses me of lying about his saying that and actually accuses me of being the one to have said it. This shows that he knows being subject the pope is not being subject to God.
Here we see the liar betting all he has on the hope that no one is reading this. Surely if anyone is reading and following along, they can see a few posts ago that this statement of the Liar is a LIE. A pretty bold one at that. Let' look at what AES (ME)said.
Stubborn said:
Quote
I understand that first, you are quoted saying:
"being subject to the pope is being subject to God."


Quote
An Even Seven Said: "Sure I did and I never denied that. I did not say that the Pope is God however..."


Above, in the first quote you will notice stubborn says "then he not only denies saying it, he accuses me of lying about it". If there were anything more clear in the history of sentences, it would be the lie that stubborn just told.

In reply 215 he said "You dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so you believe God is a heretic. The question is - since the pope is a heretic therefore not pope - does that mean you believe God is not God?"

In this reply he lied again and gave false witness because no one ever said that God is a heretic. Since this comes from his own mind, he is actually blaspheming God in this reply.

The same can be said for his reply in 221, he says: " it is fair to say that all dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so if the pope is a heretic, they must believe God is a heretic." BLASPHEMY! 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 08, 2017, 08:12:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 08, 2017, 08:22:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 10:45:47 AM
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! 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 08, 2017, 10:57:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 11:18:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 08, 2017, 11:25:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 11:41:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 08, 2017, 11:52:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 08, 2017, 12:03:26 PM
Awwww...look at the two non-Catholics above, in a race to see who can sound more confusing and non-Catholic.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Meg on December 08, 2017, 12:06:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 12:07:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: An even Seven on December 08, 2017, 12:14:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: MiserereMeiDeus on December 08, 2017, 12:23:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 12:58:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 08, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
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.


Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 01:46:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 08, 2017, 02:04:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 08, 2017, 03:05:05 PM
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.  
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 08, 2017, 10:08:59 PM
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]  

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/define)
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 (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/state), name (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/name), describe (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/describe), detail (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/detail), enumerate (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 09, 2017, 05:43:11 AM
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 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9ineff.htm): "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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 09, 2017, 08:14:58 AM
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."
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 09, 2017, 09:58:01 AM
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.  

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 09, 2017, 02:44:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 09, 2017, 05:11:49 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 09, 2017, 10:54:24 PM
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



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
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,



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,

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.








Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 09:29:16 AM
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.






Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 10, 2017, 10:26:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 01:47:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 10, 2017, 02:51:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 03:29:27 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 10, 2017, 03:42:07 PM
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 I said, you are a heretic for rejecting the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church and hence cannot possess offices in the Church. Nothing can abrogate this since it certainly concerns faith and morals. Cantate Domino and Cum Ex just reaffirm a dogmatic truth which all Catholics should know. It's not up to me to provide anything.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 03:44:26 PM
No, no, you are still not comprehending what is written. I guess it's fair to say, that will never change.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 10, 2017, 04:25:19 PM
No, no, you are still not comprehending what is written. I guess it's fair to say, that will never change.

I comprehend perfectly that you believe dogma concerning faith and morals can be abrogated. There is really nothing more to comprehend. Either accept the doctrine concerning faith and morals in Cantate Domino and Cum Ex or continue to be a heretic.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 10, 2017, 04:51:59 PM
I comprehend perfectly that you believe dogma concerning faith and morals can be abrogated. There is really nothing more to comprehend. Either accept the doctrine concerning faith and morals in Cantate Domino and Cum Ex or continue to be a heretic.
No, you do not comprehend what is written, if you did, you would understand that Cum ex was not "defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church", if you can understand that fact and accept that fact, you might then understand and accept that not only is it not a dogma, but that "true" pope Pius X could and did abrogate it - and then replaced it with his own dogma law. If you understand all of that, you will be glad that it is abrogated because if it wasn't abrogated, you would then be guilty of non-submission to the explicit instructions of a "true" pope, Paul IV.

Do you now see that you do not comprehend what is clearly written and some of the serious implications of no comprende?
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 10, 2017, 05:33:36 PM
No, you do not comprehend what is written, if you did, you would understand that Cum ex was not "defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church", if you can understand that fact and accept that fact, you might then understand and accept that not only is it not a dogma, but that "true" pope Pius X could and did abrogate it - and then replaced it with his own dogma law. If you understand all of that, you will be glad that it is abrogated because if it wasn't abrogated, you would then be guilty of non-submission to the explicit instructions of a "true" pope, Paul IV.

Do you now see that you do not comprehend what is clearly written and some of the serious implications of no comprende?

As I said, you are a heretic for believing what you have been repeating. Heretics are not members of the Church. This is dogma. No membership...no office. Comprende? Cum Ex reaffirmed this matter of the faith. It cannot be abrogated by any future Pope. Pius X and Pius XII referred to ecclesiastical impediments not divine ones. They could not abrogate divine law. I responded to this already. Try reading it this time. I said...

The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical impediment and not a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."  

Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)



And the following was written during the Pontificate of Pope Pius X to dispel any doubts (as if there should be any in the first place!)...

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 04:55:23 AM
As I said, you are a heretic for believing what you have been repeating. Heretics are not members of the Church. This is dogma. No membership...no office. Comprende? Cum Ex reaffirmed this matter of the faith. It cannot be abrogated by any future Pope. Pius X and Pius XII referred to ecclesiastical impediments not divine ones. They could not abrogate divine law. I responded to this already. Try reading it this time. I said...You and NOers both say Catholics are heretics, always have.

The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical impediment and not a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...You do not know what Divine Law is, look it up.

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."  ecclesiastical impediment =  to be decreed by judicial sentence. I thought we went over this already.

Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)
 
- Authored by 19th/20th century theologian, this disagrees with V1.


“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)
 
- Authored by 19th/20th century theologian, this disagrees with V1.

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
- Authored by 19th/20th century theologian, this disagrees with V1.



And the following snip taken out of context but now corrected in red text was written during the Pontificate of Pope Pius X to dispel any doubts (as if there should be any in the first place!)...

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences:...The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 08:35:39 AM
Quote
You and NOers both say Catholics are heretics, always have.

I could care less what NOers think. Your a heretic.

Quote
You do not know what Divine Law is, look it up.

As I said, your a heretic. Look it up if you don't know what it means.


Quote
ecclesiastical impediment =  to be decreed by judicial sentence. I thought we went over this already.

Not all ecclesiastical impediments are the same. What matters is that they are not a divine impediments such as heresy or schism. Idiotic comment.



Quote
Authored by 19th/20th century theologian, this disagrees with V1.

Another idotic comment. He agrees perfectly with the dogma that heretics and schismatics cannot be members of the Catholic Church and hence cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church against your heresy that V1 abrogated previous dogma concerning faith and morals.



Quote
Authored by 19th/20th century theologian, this disagrees with V1.

Another idiotic comment. He agrees perfectly with the dogma that heretics and schismatics cannot be members of the Catholic Church and hence cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church against your heresy that V1 abrogated previous dogma concerning faith and morals.


Quote
- Authored by 19th/20th century theologian, this disagrees with V1.

Another idiotic comment. He agrees perfectly with the dogma that heretics and schismatics cannot be members of the Catholic Church and hence cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church against your heresy that V1 abrogated previous dogma concerning faith and morals.


Quote
And the following snip taken out of context but now corrected in red text was written during the Pontificate of Pope Pius X to dispel any doubts (as if there should be any in the first place!)...

Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 - The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae. The former are incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required; the latter are inflicted after trial by an ecclesiastical court (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04447a.htm), or by a bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) acting ex informata conscientia, that is, on his own certain knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm), and dispensing with the usual procedure.

The mere fact of heresy severs one from the Church without a judicial sentence. You don't read very well, do you.



Quote
Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences:...The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).

Now let's try reading the whole thing...

Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 - Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences: Apostates and heretics are irregular, that is, debarred from receiving clerical orders (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm) or exercising lawfully the duties (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05215a.htm) and rights (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) annexed to them; they are infamous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08001a.htm), that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured. This note of infamy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08001a.htm) clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics. Heretical clerics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm) and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02473c.htm), offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm). The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself, if notoriously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11126b.htm) guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) because he would cease to be a member of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 10:49:04 AM
This dogma is the only thing (in bold text) that you need to repeat to yourself until you believe it. You should plan on repeating this dogma at least 9500 times a day for few weeks, maybe a few months - or however long it takes till you believe it. You desperately need to fix your schismatic lex orandi asap. 

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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 11:03:12 AM
This dogma is the only thing (in bold text) that you need to repeat to yourself until you believe it. You should plan on repeating this dogma at least 9500 times a day for few weeks, maybe a few months - or however long it takes till you believe it. You desperately need to fix your schismatic lex orandi asap.  

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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

Repeat the dogma that heretics can't be members of the Church and thus cannot hold offices in the Church. Then repeat the dogma that future dogmas cannot abrogate previous dogmas concerning faith and morals. Then repeat the above dogma that you posted as it is written without changing the word "should" to "will" and without twisting it to say "if anyone says the Pope is not the Pope let him be anathema" thus implying that St. Vincent Ferrer is anathema. Do this for as many times a day and as many days as possible until you truly understand these dogmas and abjure your heresies.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 11:25:46 AM
Repeat the dogma that heretics can't be members of the Church and thus cannot hold offices in the Church. Then repeat the dogma that future dogmas cannot abrogate previous dogmas concerning faith and morals. Then repeat the above dogma that you posted as it is written without changing the word "should" to "will" and without twisting it to say "if anyone says the Pope is not the Pope let him be anathema" thus implying that St. Vincent Ferrer is anathema. Do this for as many times a day and as many days as possible until you truly understand these dogmas and abjure your heresies.
There is no dogma that heretics can't be pope, but there is that dogma that says we cannot say popes are not popes - that's the one you need to repeat - looks like you'll need to repeat that one about 25,000 times a day for a whole year - you better get to it. Your current lex orandi is entirely schismatic and we need to fix that as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 11:26:50 AM
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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

Stubborn's heretical interpretation of the above dogma:

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that a notorious heretic is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 11:32:57 AM
Do you see what I mean now that you've anathematized yourself again? You really need to reform your schismatic lex orandi. If you will repeat that beautiful dogma - and do it sincerely, as I asked you, it won't be too long and you will come to love it as all Catholic do!

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 11:36:19 AM
There is no dogma that heretics can't be pope,

Sure there is. Just read Cantate Domino and Cum Ex until they sink in.

Quote
but there is that dogma that says we cannot say popes are not popes -

In your heretical mind there is such a dogma. There is no such Catholic dogma, however.

Quote
that's the one you need to repeat - looks like you'll need to repeat that one about 25,000 times a day for a whole year - you better get to it. Your current lex orandi is entirely schismatic and we need to fix that as soon as possible.

This is one you should repeat as often as possible...

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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

Not this (which is one you like to use)...

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that a notorious heretic is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


Not this one either (which you have also been repeating)...

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that the Pope is not the Pope, let him be anathema.


Learn to be a Catholic before it's too late Stubborn.



Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 11:39:35 AM
Do you see what I mean now that you've anathematized yourself again? You really need to reform your schismatic lex orandi. If you will repeat that beautiful dogma - and do it sincerely, as I asked you, it won't be too long and you will come to love it as all Catholic do!

This beautiful dogma is one you should repeat as often as possible...

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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

Not this (which is one you like to use in its place)...

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that a notorious heretic is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


Not this one either (which you have also been repeating to replace the true and beautiful Catholic dogma)...

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that the Pope is not the Pope, let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: MyrnaM on December 11, 2017, 11:46:47 AM
This dogma is the only thing (in bold text) that you need to repeat to yourself until you believe it. You should plan on repeating this dogma at least 9500 times a day for few weeks, maybe a few months - or however long it takes till you believe it. You desperately need to fix your schismatic lex orandi asap.  

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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.
Just to be clear; who do you say is the Roman Pontiff Today!  If you say ... Francis ... many disagree with you, does that make them schismatics in your eyes Stubborn?  Of course, we all believe a True Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter; would Blessed Saint Peter even recognize Francis as his successor?  Does that make me a schismatic in God's eyes? The problem is your definition of a Roman Pontiff is below the standard of a Vicar of Christ. Possession does not mean ownership!
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 11:58:56 AM
The dogma is very clear Myrna, all I am telling Lastdays to do is to repeat a defined dogma - but he considers it heresy and me a heretic for asking him to repeat a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. I am not asking him to repeat a satanic spell or lyrics from a rock song - we are talking about a defined dogma!

The man is in terrible need of prayers.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 12:10:16 PM
Do you see what I mean now that you've anathematized yourself again?

What?!? And no judicial sentence? How quickly the ipso facto penalties fall upon those who oppose your heresies!
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 12:15:33 PM
Not surprising that you still don't see anything.

Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 12:15:49 PM
The dogma is very clear Myrna, all I am telling Lastdays to do is to repeat a defined dogma - but he considers it heresy and me a heretic for asking him to repeat a defined dogma of the Catholic Church.

Sorry Stubborn, but your dogmas are not Catholic dogmas. Nice try though. Here, I guess I will have to show you the difference between Catholic dogma and your dogmas once again...

This is Catholic dogma. Repeat it as often as possible...

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* [if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

This is one of your replacements for (the above) Catholic dogma...

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that a notorious heretic is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


This is your other replacement...

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 will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; *or* [if anyone says] that the Pope is not the Pope, let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 12:19:12 PM
No, no, no - I only wanted you to repeat a very short but pertinent part of the dogma, the part I bolded:

[if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 12:23:02 PM
No, no, no - I only wanted you to repeat a very short but pertinent part of the dogma, the part I bolded:

[if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


This is the pertinent part of the previous Catholic dogma I showed you. Repeat it as often as possible...

[if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


This is one of your replacements for (the above) pertinent part of Catholic dogma...

[if anyone says] that a notorious heretic is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


This is your other replacement...

[if anyone says] that the Pope is not the Pope, let him be anathema
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 12:28:45 PM
Just do yourself an eternal favor by doing as I asked - repeat over and over again, all day, non-stop until you believe it:
[if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

You need to do this, you really do.
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Lastdays on December 11, 2017, 01:06:22 PM
Just do yourself an eternal favor by doing as I asked - repeat over and over again, all day, non-stop until you believe it:
[if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.

You need to do this, you really do.
This is the pertinent part of the previous Catholic dogma I showed you. Repeat it as often as possible...

[if anyone says] that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


This is one of your replacements for (the above) pertinent part of Catholic dogma...

[if anyone says] that a notorious heretic is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy [over the whole Church]: let him be anathema.


This is your other replacement...

[if anyone says] that the Pope is not the Pope, let him be anathema
Title: Re: Communion with the accursed
Post by: Stubborn on December 11, 2017, 02:22:48 PM
Surly you do not see that your lex orandi is completely corrupt - which is why you have no church, no pope and no hope of ever having a pope.