Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Stubborn on November 29, 2017, 02:58:05 PM

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.