Author Topic: Does Canon Law support sedevacantism? (Read 10373 times)

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #105 on:** October 20, 2013, 03:54:14 PM »

Quote from: John

I think the charge of narcissistic fit you really well!!!

And you and all sedevacantists are true cafeteria Catholics. Cafeteria Catholics of the other extreme.

John · « **Reply #106 on:** October 20, 2013, 04:30:06 PM »

...based on your obstinate and continuous rejection of definitions of True Catholic Popes and theologians repeatedly posted for you here?

I say you have just typed the definition of YOUR false faith!

And your blanket accusation of sedevacantists proves your dogmatic sedeplenist heresy!!

It is pretty egotistical of you to reject OUTRIGHT the definitions set forth by the Church concerning heresy and the loss of office!

You are a TRUE PROTESTANT and a DECEIVER of Catholics who come to this site seeking truth!!! May God forgive you for such scandal!!!

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #107 on:** October 20, 2013, 06:17:58 PM »

Quote from: John

You are a TRUE PROTESTANT and a DECEIVER of Catholics who come to this site seeking truth...

Says the man who doesn't respect the pope's authority.

John · « **Reply #108 on:** October 20, 2013, 06:52:26 PM »

Funny for you to say that because it is YOU who reject the popes!!

As long as you insist on carrying on this ABSURD rejection of Catholic Popes and theologians, I will expose you!

Why do you choose to assault the faith of our fathers as you do? :confused1:

You are like a stubborn donkey!

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #109 on:** October 20, 2013, 07:20:24 PM »

Quote from: John

Funny for you to say that because it is YOU who reject the popes!!

As long as you insist on carrying on this ABSURD rejection of Catholic Popes and theologians, I will expose you!

This is sort of fun. We are talking past each other completely. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.

I'm accusing you of not recognizing popes since Vatican II, because you are a sedevacantist. I also accuse you of failing to respect the apostolic authority of these popes, the cardinals, and most of the Church hierarchy.

You are accusing me of not recognizing errors in the Church, and that at some point something you would deem as heretical occurred which nullified the whole thing.

My trouble lately, here on Cathinfo, is that even when I try to sincerely tackle something specific, I get all sorts of thumbs down and all sorts of nasty little rebukes.

My last exchange with TP went unsuccessful, and in the end I had to recommend to him and everyone else for the second time of the existance of the HIDE button, in case people don't want to read anything i have to say.

So far this late summer/early fall, we've discussed the Catechism and the Lumen Gentium. They are not infallible. Other things were said of them, but moving on.

You state that I am rejecting Catholic Popes. Which pope am I rejecting? How am I rejecting that pope?

I just want to stay specific here. And although I don't have an enormous amount of time per session, I can pay attention to the issue in a long-term manner.

If you want to expose me, then lets pull out facts, discuss them, and see where things lie. It's the most honest way to do this.

-Laramie

* The bolded part of this thread post is the part I want you to respond to.

John · « **Reply #110 on:** October 20, 2013, 07:41:56 PM »

You are the one who is talking past everyone. This is not a cute game I am playing with you. You are full of deception.

Here are two popes for starters.

Leaving out the other theologians. for now.

Bull cuм Ex Apostolatus [16 Feb. 1559], Pope Paul IV — “Further, if ever it should appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election as Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy, We enact, decree, determine and define: — “Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, shall be null, legally invalid and void. — “It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accorded him by all. — “Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way.... — “Each and all of their words, acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed, whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever. — “Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power.”

Pope Innocent III — “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: 'If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” - See more at: http://www.cmri.org/02-answering-objections-sede.html#sthash.GRApehic.dpuf

John · « **Reply #111 on:** October 20, 2013, 07:50:13 PM »

Please refute Pope Paul IV first.

Thank you

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #112 on:** October 20, 2013, 08:23:11 PM »

Quote from: John

This is not a cute game I am playing with you.

You're right. It's an internet forum.

Look, please try to lay off snarky attacks.

Quote

You are full of deception.

I appreciate your giving us a starting point. Also, please don't look for any conclusions to be reached on my end tonight or tomorrow. Like I said, I don't have all the time in the world. I get on the internet and chat and blog because it's amusing for me. It is fun. It is extracurricular. It is not my life.

I will be back later. -LH

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #113 on:** October 21, 2013, 12:28:51 AM »

I'm carrying this conversation into a new thread, here:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27878

SJB · « **Reply #114 on:** October 21, 2013, 07:44:22 AM »

Quote from: Laramie

This is sort of fun. We are talking past each other completely. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.

You're not a serious person, as no serious person finds your style of arguing "fun."

Quote from: Laramie

So far this late summer/early fall, we've discussed the Catechism and the Lumen Gentium. They are not infallible. Other things were said of them, but moving on.

You state that I am rejecting Catholic Popes. Which pope am I rejecting? How am I rejecting that pope?

You reject the proximate rule of faith for a Catholic being the preaching of the Church. You dismiss the Council's teaching (even if you say it's only pastoral) and the catechism. Even if you admit to the crisis, your solution is totally Protestant.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #115 on:** October 21, 2013, 07:55:10 AM »

The ironic thing about all of LH's anti-sede BS posts is that, by definition, he's the schismatic. He recognizes the Conciliar Church popes yet refuses them the due authority that comes with the office. He also refuses communion with Catholics. He's here to stir the pot, plain and simple. No one should take him seriously.

2Vermont · « **Reply #116 on:** October 21, 2013, 08:04:21 AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

The ironic thing about all of LH's anti-sede BS posts is that, by definition, he's the schismatic. He recognizes the Conciliar Church popes yet refuses them the due authority that comes with the office. He also refuses communion with Catholics. He's here to stir the pot, plain and simple. No one should take him seriously.

If he is the Pope, then we are to submit to him 100%.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #117 on:** October 21, 2013, 08:11:12 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Charlemagne
The ironic thing about all of LH's anti-sede BS posts is that, by definition, he's the schismatic. He recognizes the Conciliar Church popes yet refuses them the due authority that comes with the office. He also refuses communion with Catholics. He's here to stir the pot, plain and simple. No one should take him seriously.

If he is the Pope, then we are to submit to him 100%.

Exactly my point. That includes liturgical rites, catechisms, canon law, etc. In LH's world, the only thing we recognize are infallible statements; everything else is up for grabs. How ridiculous is that? By that "logic," if Francis were to grant another of his endless interviews and explicitly state that Jesus Christ is not truly God, that would be just fine because the statement wasn't issued ex cathedra. How utterly ludicrous. If he walks like an apostate and talks like an apostate...