Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 04:10:23 PM
Because I say and you say they are heretics, anti-Catholic conspirators and etc., means exactly that - what it does not mean is that they are not popes no matter how strongly you feel about it. Your opinion in the matter of the popes' status is absolutely, completely and totally worthless.
Wrong again. What matters is the external forum. If there is heresy in the external forum, a Catholic always presumes dolus (malice) until the contrary is PROVEN. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It can also be found in the 1917 code of canon law. Innocent until proven guilty may apply in American courts, but it's the opposite in the Catholic Church.
As I have said repeatedly, we can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That’s just a matter of observing what has been said - and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy.
What sedes reject is the fact that while we may say he is a heretic, we cannot say on that account that he his not the pope because 1) none of us possess that authority and 2) the dogmas and teachings of the Church forbids it.
Saying a non-Catholic is not a Pope is not forbidden anymore than saying woman or a 2 year old is not a Pope. All three are forbidden by Divine Law. I believe the conciliar popes are imposters because they attempt to bind the whole Church to error and heresy. This is something a true Pope can never do. This is just basic knowledge of the Catholic faith. You don't need to read hearts and minds.
You do not know what Divine Law even is grasshopper. Please look it up before you claim something is Divine Law that isn't, your claim is really quite silly to everyone who actually knows what Divine Law is so please look it up. You need to know what you are talking about whenever you reference Divine Law lest you be guilty of invoking the Divine Law in behalf of your errors.
You will find that Divine Law are all laws decreed by God Himself, that is why the Laws are "Divine". The 10 Commandments are Divine Law and it is Divine Law that St. Peter and his successors are the pope - this is just basic knowledge for Catholics, see the decrees of the First Vatican Council I already posted for you to read - and understand:
"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." Quite frankly, with some of the things said and believed on this forum, anything is possible. Your reference to that dogma is irrelevant to Catholics however, since the Catholic position in this stage of the apostasy is to hold that we have no pope.
There is no dogma saying that any man standing in St. Peter's with a white robe and a beanie must be considered the Pope! That is essentially what you are saying. cuм Ex says even if all the Cardinals, nay even nearly the whole Church accepts a heretic as Pope, his election would nevertheless be NULL and VOID. Pope Paul IV doesn't say that the faithful can't judge!
It is by Divine Law that the man elected and accepted is the successor of St. Peter, Roman Pontiff. That is the teaching of the Church. Whatever other opinions you hold in reference to cuм ex, are entirely erroneous in this matter of the popes' status. Accept the fact that whatever else the pope may be, he most certainly is the pope.
With faith, we can be certain that whatever else he is, he is the pope - because have the words of Our Lord, the teachings of the Church and defined dogma telling us so. Without faith, we have no ears to hear these things and go about decrying that the pope is not the pope, anathematizing our self in the process.
Dogma is always relevant because it is eternal. It's purpose is as an immovable foundation for our faith and our refuge - we are no longer permitted to doubt or have any other opinion in the matter. To say dogma is irrelevant in this matter is to wholly reject it - which is anathema. To say the dogma is irrelevant as regards Christ's calming of the sea is fine, but to say it is irrelevant as regards to the pope is to wholly reject it for the sake of your own opinion, your own convenience. That's the way dogmas work, on purpose.
Topic: I am considering sedevacantism (Read 23455 times)