Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 3372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Stubborn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Reputation: +2931/-498
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #165 on: December 06, 2017, 04:17:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.









    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline GJC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 531
    • Reputation: +148/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #166 on: December 06, 2017, 06:07:07 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • To be true, you cannot say that you "correctly" believe that a heretic cannot be the Roman Pontiff - that's *if* you want to speak correctly.

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

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

    What you need to do is provide an authoritative teaching of the Church, teaching just as specifically worded as the dogmas, that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null.

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


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

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

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

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

    The body of Christ always lives during an interregnum.




    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8075
    • Reputation: +2931/-498
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #167 on: December 06, 2017, 07:40:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.  
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +59/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #168 on: December 06, 2017, 09:09:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The Church teaches that heretics, having severed themselves from the Church, are not members of the Church. I get that, I most certainly get that. Heretics are most assuredly outside the of the Church, they have severed themselves from it and are likened to a dead branch that falls from the tree, lands on the ground and is no longer a member of that tree, a heretic is no longer a member of the Church. I agree, I get that, that is the teaching of the Church and I wholly accept and believe it because that is the teaching of the Church.  

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

    Quote
    What you need to do is provide an authoritative teaching of the Church, teaching just as specifically worded as the dogmas, that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null.

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

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


    IN OTHER WORDS YOUR METHOD OF DETERMINING INFALLIBILITY IS HERETICAL.


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

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

    Catholic Dogma: Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

    Stubborn's Twisted Dogma: Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Pope is not the Pope: let him be anathema.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

    GET IT HYPOCRITE?

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8075
    • Reputation: +2931/-498
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #169 on: December 06, 2017, 10:15:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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?
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +59/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #170 on: December 06, 2017, 10:40:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yes, yes, we all already know you have divorced yourself from any adherence whatsoever to the dogma. It is a matter of fact that you do not believe he is the pope - thanks goodness for that - otherwise you too would be bound to the dogmas.

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

    Why not make a recording and post that already?

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

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


    also, reply #88:

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


    also reply #111:

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


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

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

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


    also reply #132:

    What, again?

    I already posted it in this post, which is a direct quote from The First Vatican Council as I denoted at the end of the quote - here, I will repost below - read it this time. If you do, you will find it says all faithful [Catholics] Christians must believe that the Roman Pontiff is the [pope] successor of St. Peter. You do not believe it - you are not a faithful Catholic.

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

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

    Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.........Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. - The First Vatican Council

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




    I think everyone reading gets the point by now.

    And by the way...

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

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8075
    • Reputation: +2931/-498
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #171 on: December 06, 2017, 11:11:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +59/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #172 on: December 06, 2017, 01:12:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now, if you want to reply with something useful, what you need to do is provide an authoritative teaching of the Church, teaching just as specifically worded as the dogmas, that it is the official position of the Church that a heretical pope loses his office and/or whose election is/was null. This is an absolute must. We have got to see how the Church authoritatively explains how Her Body lives with it's head severed off. Without this, we remain bound to the dogmas, which means, simply, you lose.

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

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

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






    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8075
    • Reputation: +2931/-498
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #173 on: December 06, 2017, 03:23:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +59/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #174 on: December 06, 2017, 04:02:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the teaching or decree must be just as authoritative and just as specifically worded as the dogmas.

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

    Whatever teaching you come up with, will acknowledge and address these teachings directly and either authoritatively abrogate them altogether, or add the exception that the dogmas only apply to popes who holy, virtuous, or at least aren't heretics.
    You didn't answer my question as I expected. I said that I need to know the exact "specific words" that must be present for a teaching to be considered a Catholic dogma.

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8075
    • Reputation: +2931/-498
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #175 on: December 07, 2017, 04:27:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
         
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque


    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +59/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #176 on: December 07, 2017, 07:51:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not my teaching, I do not have exact wording...

    That's what I thought. You see, you have to first know what a dogma is, before you set further conditions. If you don't know exactly how to identify a dogma, then your argument is baseless. You seem to be referring to a certain dogma in the First Vatican Council. I said that I need to know the specific words present in that teaching that led you to that conclusion. You said that dogmas were "specifically worded". Now please identify this dogma of the First Vatican Council. Please tell me what session and paragraph are you referring to, and then please tell me the specific words that were required that enabled you to come to the conclusion that this particular teaching was a dogma.

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +65/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #177 on: December 07, 2017, 08:18:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is all I need to read. They're coming out of the woodwork again.
    You're just a coward with no argument.

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1471
    • Reputation: +519/-327
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #178 on: December 07, 2017, 08:29:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Stubs: Catholics are heretics by virtue of having faith in and bind themselves to the dogma.
    AES: This makes no sense as usual. Catholic believe in Dogma. You are all out of coherent comebacks, you have resorted to nonsense and gibberish.

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


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

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


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

    Matthew 15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +59/-83
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #179 on: December 07, 2017, 08:48:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're just a coward with no argument.

    Seems like Stubborn can't even explain how to identify a dogma. I find that kind of hilarious. He even commands that we find something "specifically worded as the dogmas" in order to refute him, yet he doesn't know the "specific words" himself! Let see of Mr. Dogma (Stubborn) can tell us in his own words the dogma he seems to have found in the First Vatican Council (session, chapter and paragraph) and "the specific words necessary" for a teaching to qualify as a dogma.

     

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