Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: I am considering sedevacantism  (Read 23677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13825
  • Reputation: +5568/-865
  • Gender: Male
Re: I am considering sedevacantism
« Reply #270 on: November 07, 2017, 11:28:31 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your response is irrelevant. Bellator has changed the subject to your opinion alone. Men's opinions and beliefs are the basis for heresies right?
    When their opinions and beliefs are contrary to the Church's teachings, as are the sedevacantists, when they elevate their opinions and beliefs above Church teachings and  defined dogma, when they deny defined dogma and Church teachings for the sake of promoting the scandal of their own opinions and beliefs, then yes, men's opinions are the basis for dogmatic sedevacantism, which is heresy.  


    Quote
    You in fact believe that your "pope" is the head of the True Church and a false Church. Your opinion is that he is a heretic and that a heretic is the principle and unity of the Catholic Church and also that you are subject to a heretic. Truly, as you said, these are your opinions, and as it happens these opinions are heresies. This is inexcusable for a Catholic and in fact makes one a non-Catholic.

    You in fact reject Divine Law for the sake of your opinion, the pope is the pope - whatever else he may or may not be, the man is the pope by Divine Law. Whatever my opinion in the matter is regarding his heresies is wholly irrelevant and cannot, does not, will never determine the status of the pope. Only the sedes have that authority, the rest of us don't even want it.

    There, I said it again for the millionth time. Do you understand now? How about now? Now? Not yet?

    Well, keep thinking about it, at some point and with the grace of God you should come to understand.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #271 on: November 07, 2017, 11:45:31 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • None of this matters because we are talking about your opinions and yours alone. You believe those things right?
    Well, we've diagnosed one of your problems - you don't read what I write, if you read what I just wrote, you wouldn't ask such a  question, I just wrote: "...my opinion, like your opinion, like everyone's opinion does not mean a thing as regards the popes' status."

    Then you say we are talking about my opinion and mine alone. :facepalm:
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #272 on: November 07, 2017, 12:16:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hmm. So you are admitting that these heretical opinions are your opinions? That you hold to heresy?
    No, I am not the one who holds to heresy, by definition, the dogmatic sedevacantists hold to heresy. How often do you need to have the same thing repeated anyway?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #273 on: November 07, 2017, 12:18:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • He won't admit it, mate...but it's clear as day that his opinions are heretical, or near to heresy at a minimum.  Any person of good will can look over his (Stubborn's) comments in this thread, and see that my summary of his opinions/beliefs is spot on.
    You who bask in heresy believe truth to be heresy, same o same o.

    How long were you in the NO?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Nooseph Polten

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 154
    • Reputation: +68/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #274 on: November 07, 2017, 12:26:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • #NotMyPope
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #275 on: November 07, 2017, 12:47:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Sedevacantists believe they can hold a Church Council on an Internet forum.
    .
    Democracy in action!  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!  (Where have I heard that before?)
    .
    They say Vatican II was the French Revolution in the Church, but sedes would displace it with the sedevacantist revolution.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #276 on: November 07, 2017, 12:48:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn, you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic.  You believe that a heretic can be the principle and center of the unity of the Catholic Faith!  That is blatant heresy, man!

    I believed in the false religion of Vatican II for the first 20 years of my life...  For the last 22 years, and by the grace of God, my 11 (soon to be 12) children have all been raised in the True Catholic Faith and have never stepped foot in any of the anti-Christ, false churches of the Vatican II religion.  Blessed be God!  
    Well you have yet to purge yourself of the 20 years of NO thinking and indoctrination if you believe that your opinion determines the validity of the pope. I guarantee there is no teaching of the Church that teaches such error.

    Now AES like other dogmatic sedes, repeatedly misquotes papal and other teachings that say heretics are out of the Church, he then makes the leap that since the pope is a heretic, he is out of the Church and is therefore not the pope. Mind you, there is no teaching of the Church which teaches this, certainly no pope would be so stupid as to teach such stupidity lest he find himself opined right out of the Church by his subjects - because that is exactly what would happen.

    There is not a single sin the pope is incapable of committing, including the sin of heresy. If he is out of the Church, then a future pope is the only one qualified to make that determination and if that ever happens, he will let the rest of us know - until then, the man elected is the pope, by Divine Law, successor or St. Peter no matter how terribly bad that fact irks the dogmatic sedes.

    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #277 on: November 07, 2017, 12:49:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your formula. The pope is a heretic + you should submit to a heretic + you should condemn those who do not submit to a heretic = heresy.

    Which part do you disagree with and why?
    Like I said, you do not read what I write.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #278 on: November 07, 2017, 01:05:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn, you believe that Bergoglio is a heretic.  You believe that a heretic can be the principle and center of the unity of the Catholic Faith!  That is blatant heresy, man!

    I believed in the false religion of Vatican II for the first 20 years of my life...  For the last 22 years, and by the grace of God, my 11 (soon to be 12) children have all been raised in the True Catholic Faith and have never stepped foot in any of the anti-Christ, false churches of the Vatican II religion.  Blessed be God!  
    .
    FYI -- it's a mistake which exposes you as being either a foreigner or uneducated when you use "stepped foot in" as above.
    .
    Quote
    https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/step-foot/
    .
    step foot

    When you want to say that you refuse to enter some location, the traditional expression is not “step foot,” but “set foot”: “I refuse to set foot in my brother-in-law’s house while he lets his vicious pit bull run around inside.”

    Categorized Common Error
    .
    Quote
    http://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/missed_step.php
    .
    Missed Step  Using “set foot in” is a step in the right direction
    .
    Everyone has language pet peeves: those little things people say that aren’t quite right, and that we can’t help but correct. For reader Mark Freeman, it’s the phrase “step foot in,” as in “I wouldn’t step foot in (or into) his messy apartment.” He says: “This is a misuse for ‘set foot in.’ ‘Set’ is transitive, ‘step’ not, which is why we don’t say, ‘I stepped my foot onto his scrawny neck.’”

    The “proper” use of the phrase is indeed “set foot in.” “Set” in this case is a transitive verb, meaning it needs an object to act upon—the foot. (While Mr. Freeman is right that “step” is not transitive here, it can be. But that would be another step.) You’re not just “stepping in”; you are deliberately contemplating the consequences of going into your friend’s messy apartment.

    Here’s another way to look at it: When you walk, you step. Each time you step, you set your foot down. When you walk into a place, you step into it; you set foot into it. “Step” is pure action; “set” implies deliberation. Makes perfect logical sense.

    Logic, however, means nothing to English speakers. We like nothing more than to mangle, er, modify, time-honored phrases. Thus “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” gets shortened to “the proof is in the pudding,” which makes no sense unless it’s a brandy pudding, and it’s eighty proof.


    .


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #279 on: November 07, 2017, 01:48:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can't refute his points so this is what you resort to. This only shows you have nothing left. Glad you nipped this in the butt before it went to far. I could care less about his proper us of "sayings". Irregardless, for all intensive purposes we get what he's trying to convey. Thanks Neil, you are a suppository of information.

    I'm hoping to get this post in before someone else posts, so my statue of limitations doesn't come up.
    .
    You're missing the point, as usual.
    .
    When you say "step foot in" something, you are exposing your ignorance and you are disqualifying yourself as a simpleton or worse, unqualified for any serious discussion. Perhaps you're under the delusion that we would like to converse with a scarecrow. I am not attacking anything, I'm just pointing out that the speaker who misuses the language does harm to himself and to his position. But as usual, you're not reading what I write, are you? No, you're just going on with the same-old, same-old.
    .
    Are you dense?
    .
    Oh, right, you're not reading this. Instead, you dish out contempt for the courtesy of constructive criticism. You don't want to learn, but that's at least consistent with your contempt for Catholic truth because you prefer your heretical sedevacantism instead.
    .
    BTW you've made several more gaffes, above, only further damaging your own credibility -- nipped this in the butt -- could care less -- irregardless -- for all intensive purposes -- suppository of information -- statue of limitations -- why should anyone believe anything you have to say when you can't even use English properly? Your contempt for proper English goes hand-in-hand with your contempt for Catholic Tradition.
    .
    You do yourself damage and I guess you like it that way so you are your own worst enemy.  Congratulations.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #280 on: November 07, 2017, 01:58:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    proper us of "sayings"
    .
    Maybe you'd have as much fun using ebonics.
    .
    Go for it!
    .
    Quote
    I could care less about his proper us of "sayings". 
    .
    Really?  How much less could you care?  A little less or a whole lot less?  Maybe you could care an enormous amount less. In other words, you care quite a bit already, so your care could be greatly reduced. It's nice to know that you care so much about "sayings" but you have a very odd way of demonstrating your care. Like you take pleasure in contradicting yourself or something.
    .
    Congratulations for your achievement in being your own worst enemy.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #281 on: November 07, 2017, 02:10:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only thing he's exposing himself to by misusing a saying, is pretentious snobs like yourself who have no argument and are only concerned with nitpicking the inconsequential.
    .LOL. I'm Dense? Do you find it strange that I made so many malapropisms in the same paragraph on accident? This only proves my point that you have no argument and concentrate on trivial matters.
    .
    Speaking of nitpicking the inconsequential.  How many times in this thread has Stubborn given you the principles upon which the whole discussion is centered and you blatantly have refused to recognize it as such. You ignore what he writes and go back to the same erroneous foundation of SAND. Then the winds come and blow you away, and you return to build up the same hopeless nonsense again.
    .
    Yes, you are dense. In every sense of the word. Perhaps if you would stick to malapropisms in words the way you stick to them in thought you'd be more consistent. Try typing backwards for starters, you'd be making as much sense.
    .
    Let's see -- pretentious snobs -- what an appropriate characterization for sedevacantism!  Thank you!!
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #282 on: November 07, 2017, 02:15:41 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is not a single sin the pope is incapable of committing, including the sin of heresy. If he is out of the Church, then a future pope is the only one qualified to make that determination and if that ever happens, he will let the rest of us know - until then, the man elected is the pope, by Divine Law, successor or St. Peter no matter how terribly bad that fact irks the dogmatic sedes.

    Well said. The sedevacantists seem to believe that a true Pope is somehow prevented from committing sin. But I don't recall an official Church teaching which says that a Pope cannot sin. 

    Indeed, a future Pope is the only one who is qualified to make an official determination of the validity of any Pope. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #283 on: November 07, 2017, 02:31:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right...  Folks like Neil and Stubborn would have us believe that we must be subject to a heretic (Stubborn's opinion, and probably Neil's as well).  

    I refuse to be the good subject of a heretic, and I refuse to believe that a heretic is the principle and center of the unity of the Catholic Faith.  

    Is there anyone, priest or bishop, to whom you are subject to?
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: I am considering sedevacantism
    « Reply #284 on: November 07, 2017, 02:44:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am subject to Almighty God, and the teachings of His Catholic Church.  

    Father Walthen (though I don't agree with everything he said) once said that sedevacantism is really a form of anarchism. The root meaning of the term "anarchy" is that a person does not believe in having any authority over them. That pretty sums up sedevacantists.

    I doubt that even a devout traditional Pope, if elected, would be enough to convince them (or you) to subject themselves to the authority of said Pope. Sedevacantists would find some reason not to follow even a good Pope.  
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29