Author Topic: Communion with the accursed  (Read 4107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline An even Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1993
  • Reputation: +858/-590
  • Gender: Male
Re: Communion with the accursed
« Reply #225 on: December 07, 2017, 12:41:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • In this post, AES says: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God."

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

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

    St. Francis de Sales: "We call him His Holiness, and we find that S. Jerome already called him by the same name: § " I beseech thy Blessedness, by the cross, &c. . . . I following Christ alone am joined in communion with thy Blessedness, that is, the chair of Peter."
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Bellator Dei

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 976
    • Reputation: +382/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #226 on: December 07, 2017, 12:56:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • Here
    are your own words: "Being subject to the Pope IS being subject to God".

    What's wrong with what Seven is saying here?  

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

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


    This is from the same Bull that says this:  "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
    Please pray for all of the holy souls in purgatory.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8423
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #227 on: December 07, 2017, 12:59:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • What's wrong with what Seven is saying here?
    For a dogmatic sede, nothing at all.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Bellator Dei

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 976
    • Reputation: +382/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #228 on: December 07, 2017, 01:02:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • For a dogmatic sede, nothing at all.

    What's wrong with it from your point of view, mate?
    Please pray for all of the holy souls in purgatory.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8423
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #229 on: December 07, 2017, 01:05:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8423
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #230 on: December 07, 2017, 01:05:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8423
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #231 on: December 07, 2017, 01:10:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #232 on: December 07, 2017, 01:32:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I'll make it easy for you, it simply cannot be any clearer than this - to start, go ahead and post the Church teachings that abrogate Unam Sanctam's and the First Vatican Council's teachings.

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

    What specific wording is required and in which sources must this specific wording be present?
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #233 on: December 07, 2017, 01:35:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I understand that first, you are quoted saying:
    "being subject to the pope is being subject to God."
    Sure I did and I never denied that. I did not say that the Pope is God however, so what's your problem?
    Quote
    Then you say it was of my own invention and that you  never said that:
    "Nope, instead he pompously rips off another of his one-liners which make no sense and was uttered by no Sede ever..."
    Would you like to try that one again sport? The part you quote is in reference to your lie that sedes believe the Pope is God. This again, is how you argue. You attribute a false belief to the person you are arguing with, which they never said to begin with, and then you proceed to tear that argument apart, which originated in your own head.

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

    Quote
    Catholic: Being subject to the Pope is being subject to God.
    Stubborn: The pope is not God.
    Catholic: I didn't say that he is.
    Stubborn: You believe God is a heretic.
    You should write a book. "How to win arguments with yourself" by Stubborn Lee Obstinate
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Bellator Dei

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 976
    • Reputation: +382/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #234 on: December 07, 2017, 02:21:38 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The pope is not God. Other than that, I have no problem with it.

    The man never said that the pope was God.  You twisted and distorted the man's words...own it.  
    Please pray for all of the holy souls in purgatory.

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #235 on: December 07, 2017, 03:12:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

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

    So please Stubborn, what are the specific words I should be looking for and in what sources are they to be found in?
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8423
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #236 on: December 07, 2017, 04:32:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Lastdays

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +68/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #237 on: December 07, 2017, 04:41:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Never mind that the dogmas we are bound to under pain of mortal sin come to us infallibly declared from "true" popes and "true" Councils - and never mind that a "true" pope, Pius IX, taught that "perfect adhesion" to dogma is absolutely necessary for the refutation of error. Never mind any of that. I keep using dogma to refute the dogmatic sede's errors and they keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about while I'm using dogma to refute their errors as "true" pope Pius IX taught.
    Stubborn, you say you use dogma. How do you know your using dogma? What are the specific words that must be present in a dogma? Can dogmas only come from true Popes and Councils? Please give me the specific words and sources.
    Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8423
    • Reputation: +3111/-621
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #238 on: December 08, 2017, 05:37:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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


    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +858/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Communion with the accursed
    « Reply #239 on: December 08, 2017, 07:58:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well let's see. AES said being subject to the pope is being subject to God.

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


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


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

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

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

    The same can be said for his reply in 221, he says: " it is fair to say that all dogmatic sedes believe the pope is God - so if the pope is a heretic, they must believe God is a heretic." BLASPHEMY! 
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

     

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