Author Topic: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R? (Read 330189 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #135 on:** **Today** at 08:27:19 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 05:44:35 AM

NO, I did not miss anything, I know what ipso facto means.

I also know that I do not have the right, responsibility, authority, or any reason whatsoever to decide, insist or declare that the pope is not the pope, no reason whatsoever. I am content to wait for after the heretical pope is dead that the Church, Who alone has the right, responsibility and authority, to officially decide the matter and to make the declaration if She so chooses to do so.

What should be.......

"...However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath. Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment.

Moreover, where the bishops default in their solemn duty to protect the Church and God's Little Sheep, the priests and the laypeople have not the right, but the duty, to raise their voices against an heretical pontiff. They not only raise their voices to God in prayer for the misguided man, but they also speak out to the bishops and the priests, and among themselves so as to warn their brothers and sisters in Christ that the plague of heresy has infected even their Holy Father, and has rendered him dangerous and unclean." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?

What you continue to misunderstand is that the "decision" was made ipso facto by the law applied to the facts themselves. The Church already made the "decision" and that "decision/judgment" and the criterion of the decision was written in to Canon Law itself.

The criterion is "defection from the faith" (apostasy, heresy, schism). The law states than when any person holding ecclesiastical office manifestly defects from the faith, that person automatically loses his office. There is no ADDITIONAL judgment/decision required by any human authority on that "decision." The Law has spoken.

The second part of the St. Francis quote does not use the verb "decision," but instead uses the verbs "deprive" and "declare/announce."

No one is asking Stubborn to drive up the Vatican and "deprive" Prevost of his access to the buildings in the Vatican. No one said that is Stubborn's job. That is what the verb "deprive" means. But just because the cowards in the Vatican have so far refused to do this does not mean that Prevost has not automatically "lost his office." It means he continues to usurp the office and no on at the Vatican is doing anything about it.

No one is asking Stubborn to pretend that he is a Cardinal and officially "declare/announce" that Prevost "lost" or has been "deprived" of his office. The Vatican has other people to do that. But they are not doing it.

Stubborn's job is to always speak the truth and to uphold the faith, even with other people don't do that. Your job is not to enforce the law as a vigilante. But it is your job to recognize the law and support it in your mind and on your lips.

Example, if you had seen with your own eyes that a person had murdered someone. He would be a manifest murderer, right? Do think it is appropriate for you to walk around telling everyone, "Yes, I saw him murder someone, but until the police declare him a murderer, he is not one. I mean who am I to judge? I wasn't elected to the office of judge."

Do you see how stupid that is? That is exactly what you are doing.

And, although it is not clear from his quote, if Fr. Wathen thought that a person could be both a heretic and a Pope at the same time, then he is wrong on that. Why do you make Fr. Wathen your rule of Faith? You have the Canon Law that tells you exactly how to handle the situation. Fr. Wathen is not above Canon Law. He is subject to it.

Freind · « **Reply #136 on:** **Today** at 08:57:20 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 05:25:32 AM

It doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. What should be concerning to you is that you wholly believe that your opinion is a de fide teaching of the Church, making it a dogmatic fact.

I already showed in the OP that the men who make the moral judgment do so merely has people, like lying in their beds wearing pajamas and thinking it over. The conclusion is human. Reason enlightened by faith. For some reason you cannot do it yourself, but that is your problem. The quote says what it says and means what it means despite you incapability to understand.

Stubborn · « **Reply #137 on:** **Today** at 09:47:55 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 08:27:19 AM

What you continue to misunderstand is that the "decision" was made ipso facto by the law applied to the facts themselves. The Church already made the "decision" and that "decision/judgment" and the criterion of the decision was written in to Canon Law itself.

As far as you are concerned, Canon law has spoken, made the decision and that's all there is to it. I do not agree. The Church does not work that way. It's one thing for the pope to be a heretic, it's another thing altogether to have a few hundred or thousand sedes take Canon Law into their own hands and insist popes are not popes.

Quote

Stubborn's job is to always speak the truth and to uphold the faith, even with other people don't do that. Your job is not to enforce the law as a vigilante. But it is your job to recognize the law and support it in your mind and on your lips.

I do speak the truth and abide by the law, I've said many times that the pope is a heretic. It is not my job to decide his status, anymore than it is my job to arrest, try, convict and sentence the murderer.

Quote

And, although it is not clear from his quote, if Fr. Wathen thought that a person could be both a heretic and a Pope at the same time, then he is wrong on that. Why do you make Fr. Wathen your rule of Faith? You have the Canon Law that tells you exactly how to handle the situation. Fr. Wathen is not above Canon Law. He is subject to it.

As he said, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this.

Now if you think that you can do something about this, then go ahead and do it already. Your insisting that popes are not popes is not doing anybody any good. I hope that your opinion is right, but you need to realize that's all it is, your opinion.

Incidentally, Fr. Wathen was quite versed in Canon Law, enough to know that "we his subjects are not permitted to do anything about this."

Angelus · « **Reply #138 on:** **Today** at 11:01:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 09:47:55 AM

As far as you are concerned, Canon law has spoken, made the decision and that's all there is to it. I do not agree. The Church does not work that way. It's one thing for the pope to be a heretic, it's another thing altogether to have a few hundred or thousand sedes take Canon Law into their own hands and insist popes are not popes.
I do speak the truth and abide by the law, I've said many times that the pope is a heretic. It is not my job to decide his status, anymore than it is my job to arrest, try, convict and sentence the murderer.
As he said, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this.

Now if you think that you can do something about this, then go ahead and do it already. Your insisting that popes are not popes is not doing anybody any good. I hope that your opinion is right, but you need to realize that's all it is, your opinion.

Incidentally, Fr. Wathen was quite versed in Canon Law, enough to know that "we his subjects are not permitted to do anything about this."

You are a walking contradiction. You say you cannot judge the Pope. But you have absolutely judged him to be a "heretic." You don't say, "I think he might be a heretic but I will never say that because I have no right to pass judgement on him." No, you judge him to be a heretic plain and simple.

But then after definitively judging him to be a heretic, you say, "but I cannot judge that he is not the Pope just because he is a heretic." This is beyond stupid. You have already judged him to be a heretic. If you have already made that judgement, the sentence for that crime is automatic in Canon Law.

You will happily use the Canon Law criterion of judgment (that when a person manifestly denies articles of the faith, he becomes a heretic), but you will not then recognize and accept the necessary, AUTOMATIC (ipso facto) sentence required for that same crime. You do not understand how Canon Law works at all, but you act as if you are educated in these matters.

Here is the definition of heresy in the 1917 Code:

Quote

Can. 1325 §2. Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquid de fide divina et catholica credendum neget aut in dubium vocet, hæreticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedat, apostata; si denique subiectionem S. Pontifici renuat vel cuм membris Ecclesiæ eidem subiectis communionem recuset, schismaticus est.

In plain English, this canon stipulates:

Heresy: If anyone, after the reception of baptism and while retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed of the divine and Catholic faith, such a person is a heretic.
Apostasy: If he totally recedes from the Christian faith, such a person is an apostate.
Schism: If, finally, he refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff (the Pope) or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, such a person is a schismatic.

Key Elements of Heresy
The definition of heresy in this canon is highly precise and requires three essential conditions to be met for the canonical crime to be committed:

Post-Baptismal: The person must have been validly baptized. This distinguishes a heretic from a non-Christian.
Dogmatic Object: The denial or doubt must concern a truth of the divine and Catholic faith (i.e., a dogma proposed by the Church's Magisterium as divinely revealed).
Obstinacy (Pertinaciter): The denial or doubt must be pertinacious (obstinate). This means the person knows the Church officially teaches the doctrine but deliberately and willfully refuses assent. This is what separates formal heresy (the canonical crime) from material heresy (an unwitting error).

This canon, along with the penalty stipulated in Canon 2314, § 1 (automatic excommunication), formed the cornerstone of the penal law against offenses against the faith in the 1917 Code.

------------------------------

Here is the 1917 Canon 2314 on automatic excommunication of heretics:

Quote

Can. 2314 §1. Omnes a fide apostatæ, et omnes et singuli hæretici aut schismatici:
1. Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem;3
2. Amittunt ipso facto quælibet officia, beneficia, dignitates, pensiones, munera a Sede Apostolica, sive immediate sive mediate, vel ab alio quovis collata;
3. Si vero sunt clerici, post admonitionem, a qua tamen in casu pertinacis ab hæresi non est appellandum, deponantur; in integrum autem restitui nequeunt sine Sedis Apostolicæ dispensatione;
4. Si contrahant matrimonium, illud est nullum ipso iure.

Key Takeaways from Canon 2314, §1

Automatic Excommunication (Latae Sententiae): The phrase "Incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem" (They incur ipso facto excommunication) means the penalty is incurred automatically by the very fact of committing the offense, without the need for a formal trial or sentence (ferendæ sententiæ).
Crimes Covered: The canon applied this automatic excommunication to:
- Apostates from the faith (those who totally renounce the Christian faith).
- Heretics (those who obstinately deny or doubt a truth that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after receiving baptism).
- Schismatics (those who refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him).
Other Penalties: The canon also included other penalties, such as the automatic loss of any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities.

The concept of automatic excommunication for heresy continues in the current 1983 Code of Canon Law, but is located in Canon 1364

-------------------------

Here is canon 188 which discusses the automatic loss of office by the heretical office holder. Notice that it is considered a "tacit resignation." You don't need to judge him to have lost his office. Your prior judgment that he is a heretic immediately causes the heretic's "tacit resignation":

Quote

Can. 188. Quælibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione per tacitam resignationem ab ipso iure admissam, si clericus:

4. A fide catholica publice defecerit;

Meaning and Effect

Vacant ipso facto (Vacant by the fact itself): The office is automatically lost the moment the prohibited action occurs. No judgment, decision, or declaration from a superior is legally necessary for the vacancy to take effect.
Sine ulla declaratione (Without any declaration): This emphasizes the automatic nature of the loss.
Tacitam resignationem (Tacit resignation): The law interprets the cleric's action as an implicit act of resignation from their office, as the prohibited act is fundamentally incompatible with holding an ecclesiastical office.
Publice defecerit a fide catholica (Publicly defected from the Catholic faith): This is the specific offense mentioned in number 4. While heresy (defined in Canon 1325 § 2 of the same Code) is a specific form of defection from the faith, Canon 188 n. 4 covers the broader public act of defection, which would certainly include the public espousal of heresy or apostasy.

Relationship to Heresy
This canon, when combined with Canon 2314, § 1, n. 2 (which stated that heretics automatically lose any ecclesiastical office), was a powerful and explicit legal mechanism in the 1917 Code to ensure that those who publicly abandoned the faith could not retain their positions of authority within the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #139 on:** **Today** at 11:22:26 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 11:01:48 AM

You are a walking contradiction. You say you cannot judge the Pope. But you have absolutely judged him to be a "heretic." You don't say, "I think he might be a heretic but I will never say that because I have no right to pass judgement on him." No, you judge him to be a heretic plain and simple.

But then after definitively judging him to be a heretic, you say, "but I cannot judge that he is not the Pope just because he is a heretic." This is beyond stupid. You have already judged him to be a heretic. If you have already made that judgement, the sentence for that crime is automatic in Canon Law.

You cannot be serious. You're saying that you see no difference between calling someone a heretic, and taking Canon law into your own hands taking it upon yourself to distribute justice as you see fit? Not sure why you feel the need to do that, but that's not the way the Church works.

Quote

You will happily use the Canon Law criterion of judgment (that when a person manifestly denies articles of the faith, he becomes a heretic), but you will not then recognize and accept the necessary, AUTOMATIC (ipso facto) sentence required for that same crime. You do not understand how Canon Law works at all, but you act as if you are educated in these matters.

Again, it doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. Is that in Canon Law? If it is, I did not even know that, I thought it was just basic Catholicism. Personally, I have no need of Canon Law to call heresy a heresy - no matter who says it. In this case it's the pope who says it. To me, that means the pope is a heretic. To you, that means he is out of office, outside of the Church, not the pope, and so on - and you feel the need to promote all of that. For me just saying that the pope is a heretic is all that is necessary. I hope folks who didn't know that he is a heretic do not listen to his teachings anymore. You feel they are not to listen because he is not a pope, and I hope you are right. The main thing is, that they do not listen to his teachings. All the rest is just a waste imo.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #140 on:** **Today** at 11:40:20 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 11:01:48 AM

You are a walking contradiction. You say you cannot judge the Pope. But you have absolutely judged him to be a "heretic." You don't say, "I think he might be a heretic but I will never say that because I have no right to pass judgement on him." No, you judge him to be a heretic plain and simple.

But then after definitively judging him to be a heretic, you say, "but I cannot judge that he is not the Pope just because he is a heretic." This is beyond stupid. You have already judged him to be a heretic. If you have already made that judgement, the sentence for that crime is automatic in Canon Law.

I have already went over this in a whole thread with him.

He either;

A) lacks the moral certainty to consider Leo a manifest, public heretic and then think/act accordingly - according to the teaching (which you have superbly laid out).

Or,

B) He is an old Catholic heretic who thinks the Popes are heretics and "submission" to them is nothing other than simply saying, "yes of course the Pope is a heretic."

For his sake, I will just assume A) is what he holds.

When he says, "the Pope is a heretic." He doesn't mean it in the legal sense - he is just shooting off his mouth against them as it is probably just a force of habit for him at this point.

He seems to think that a morally certain private judgement of public facts does not necessitate a change in how one views or acts in regards to the heretic. Or, if such a change in stance towards them is warranted, he simply bypasses the law and chooses to make up his own way of dealing with the problem.

It is actually sad, because it was the moral certainty that +Lefebvre had that necessitated the consecrations of 88. It is the defense he used to blow off the charge of schism.

The SVs use same principle. the SVs use it to conclude that the post-concilar claimants are actually NOT Popes. A morally certain judgment must be followed, it cannot be ignored. But if you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant (as far as we can tell).

He did what he did to preserve the priesthood. SVs are acting in a similar manner to avoid the inevitable conclusion of defection that necessarily follows if one holds, "the Pope can be a manifest, public heretic and foist his heresy upon the Universal Church, but he is still legally Pope."

Same motivation - defend the faith, defend the Church.

Stubborn doesn't see it. Stubborn doesn't want to see. Stubborn is...stubborn.

If you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, and you have spent years and years writing the same arguments ad nauseum against it, then there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant.

His arguments are bad, his theology is worse, and his intransigence is the worst of all.

He has already stated many times that he repudiates SVism because, "it is not safe." and he "hopes Sedes are right for their sake, he doesn't think they are but really hopes they don't get cast into hell because of their "opinions". But simple point, he should really just be saying all this about +Lefevbre as well.

Stubborn · « **Reply #141 on:** **Today** at 12:29:06 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Today at 11:40:20 AM

I have already went over this in a whole thread with him.

He either;

A) lacks the moral certainty to consider Leo a manifest, public heretic and then think/act accordingly - according to the teaching (which you have superbly laid out).

Or,

B) He is an old Catholic heretic who thinks the Popes are heretics and "submission" to them is nothing other than simply saying, "yes of course the Pope is a heretic."

You just place too high a value on your opinion. You had just better hope that you're right. I hope you're right. I really do, but calling me a heretic for disagreeing with your opinion is not going to change anything with me. I lived through the "advent of sedeism" and I've seen first hand what the idea has done to those who got sucked into it. While it is not as drastic as TDS is, there are similarities.

BTW, the dogma is not "submission" to the pope," it's "be subject to the pope." For that, all that you need to be the pope's good subject, is to be God's first.
No doubt this makes no sense to you at all, and is likely even heretical, but that's the way it works.

Angelus · « **Reply #142 on:** **Today** at 12:58:26 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 11:22:26 AM

You cannot be serious. You're saying that you see no difference between calling someone a heretic, and taking Canon law into your own hands taking it upon yourself to distribute justice as you see fit? Not sure why you feel the need to do that, but that's not the way the Church works.

Again, it doesn't matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, it's heresy. Is that in Canon Law? If it is, I did not even know that, I thought it was just basic Catholicism. Personally, I have no need of Canon Law to call heresy a heresy - no matter who says it. In this case it's the pope who says it. To me, that means the pope is a heretic. To you, that means he is out of office, outside of the Church, not the pope, and so on - and you feel the need to promote all of that. For me just saying that the pope is a heretic is all that is necessary. I hope folks who didn't know that he is a heretic do not listen to his teachings anymore. You feel they are not to listen because he is not a pope, and I hope you are right. The main thing is, that they do not listen to his teachings. All the rest is just a waste imo.

Stubborn, you are ignorant of so many things. You say you didn't know Canon Law defines exactly what a "heretic" is. I provided the exact Canon 1325. Again it says,

"If anyone, after the reception of baptism and while retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed of the divine and Catholic faith, such a person is a heretic."

Your first error is that you use the word "heresy." You think it is just "basic Catholicism." No, Stubborn. Heresy is a special theological term defined in Canon 1235. It includes ONLY the core body of truths that the Catholic Church holds as having been divinely revealed by God and are definitively proposed by the Church's Magisterium to be believed. A Pope who changes feast days and fasting schedules is not a "heretic" simply for making those kind of changes.

Your second error is that you think you are not judging when you say that the Pope is a heretic. But you clearly are judging, as anyone with a brain knows.

Your third error is that you think some tribunal of the Church is required to enact the sentence to excommunicate or remove an ecclesiastical officeholder from his office when he has been judged to be a heretic. As I have shown, this is not true. Canon Law says that the sentence occurs automatically after the judgment is made. Since you have made the judgment (that the Pope is a heretic), the sentence (that loses his office) is automatic.

I am trying to help you understand that you are the one who is promoting heresy. Your heresy is the same as the Old Catholics, whether you accept that or not. By calling a true Roman Catholic Pontiff a heretic, you do exactly what the Old Catholics were condemned for. Here is how Pius IX explains it:

"They love to deceive the unwary and the innocent and to draw them into error by deception and hypocrisy. They repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine declaring that they are the heirs of the ancient faith and the only true Catholics. But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme magisterium." [Pius IX, Graves ac Diuturnae]

That sounds exactly like you. You are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine, but claim that a man you call "the vicar of Christ" is also heretic and you "refuse to submit to His supreme magisterium."

We are all trying to tell you that there is an easy way out of your heresy. You simply need to say that you don't understand the Crisis, but the Magisterium teaches that a true Pope cannot be a heretic at the same time. Therefore, if in your estimation, the guy claiming to be "the Pope" is a "heretic," then you must say that cannot possibly be the Pope, the Holy Father. He cannot be both at the same time.

Angelus · « **Reply #143 on:** **Today** at 01:13:22 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Today at 11:40:20 AM

I have already went over this in a whole thread with him.

He either;

A) lacks the moral certainty to consider Leo a manifest, public heretic and then think/act accordingly - according to the teaching (which you have superbly laid out).

Or,

B) He is an old Catholic heretic who thinks the Popes are heretics and "submission" to them is nothing other than simply saying, "yes of course the Pope is a heretic."

For his sake, I will just assume A) is what he holds.

When he says, "the Pope is a heretic." He doesn't mean it in the legal sense - he is just shooting off his mouth against them as it is probably just a force of habit for him at this point.

He seems to think that a morally certain private judgement of public facts does not necessitate a change in how one views or acts in regards to the heretic. Or, if such a change in stance towards them is warranted, he simply bypasses the law and chooses to make up his own way of dealing with the problem.

It is actually sad, because it was the moral certainty that +Lefebvre had that necessitated the consecrations of 88. It is the defense he used to blow off the charge of schism.

The SVs use same principle. the SVs use it to conclude that the post-concilar claimants are actually NOT Popes. A morally certain judgment must be followed, it cannot be ignored. But if you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant (as far as we can tell).

He did what he did to preserve the priesthood. SVs are acting in a similar manner to avoid the inevitable conclusion of defection that necessarily follows if one holds, "the Pope can be a manifest, public heretic and foist his heresy upon the Universal Church, but he is still legally Pope."

Same motivation - defend the faith, defend the Church.

Stubborn doesn't see it. Stubborn doesn't want to see. Stubborn is...stubborn.

If you have been conditioned for decades to think Sedevacantism is heresy or error and you have spent decades sitting the pews and reading all the SSPX antisede tracts, and you have spent years and years writing the same arguments ad nauseum against it, then there is little to no hope that you will change your mind about the See currently being vacant.

His arguments are bad, his theology is worse, and his intransigence is the worst of all.

He has already stated many times that he repudiates SVism because, "it is not safe." and he "hopes Sedes are right for their sake, he doesn't think they are but really hopes they don't get cast into hell because of their "opinions". But simple point, he should really just be saying all this about +Lefevbre as well.

Sedevacantism is not the only doctrinally-sound conclusion. I am not a 1958 Sedevacantist. But I understand their convictions, and their conclusions follow logically from their convictions. I simply think their convictions (about the historical facts) are mistaken.

Stubborn could say, for example, that he doesn't think the errors of the post-VII Popes were actual "heresies." Or he could say that the errors were actual heresies, but the Popes were not to blame because the Cardinals were manipulating the situation and tying the hands of the Popes. Or he could say that the heresies were real and the papal claimants were heretics, but those papal claimants were not legitimate Popes because of some defect in their elections. There are other options that people have come up with in good faith. Our understanding of the facts is guesswork to some degree. But Stubborn's claim that a true Pope is at the same time a "heretic" is definitely a heretical statement.

And the reason I continue to discuss it is not only for Stubborn's benefit, but for all of the dogmatic R&R crowd on this forum who parrot the nonsense taught by the SSPX. Stubborn gets support for his ideas from the SSPX.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #144 on:** **Today** at 01:23:37 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 01:13:22 PM

Sedevacantism is not the only doctrinally-sound conclusion. I am not a 1958 Sedevacantist. But I understand their convictions, and their conclusions follow logically from their convictions.

Agreed. The facts are unclear and those particulars of how, who, & when can vary to some degree.

The idea is, "One should follow their convictions based on the formation of their conscience according to Catholic teaching."
To ignore a well-formed conscience that is alerting one to these contradictions in the teachings is perilous for one's soul.
The chance that Stubborn already had his time to consider these things is probably well past.
His intransigence is the natural outcome of his pertinacity.
No human arguments can shake him from his stupor.

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 01:13:22 PM

Or he could say that the errors were actual heresies, but the Popes were not to blame because the Cardinals were manipulating the situation and tying the hands of the Popes.

Maybe this could apply in some situations, but I do not think it theologically sound for what we are living through. It seems to cut against the freedom of Church.

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 01:13:22 PM

And the reason I continue to discuss it is not only for Stubborn's benefit, but for all of the dogmatic R&R crowd on this forum who parrot the nonsense taught by the SSPX.

Sure, but at a certain point it is just endless "circle flying with no end in sight".
It doesn't take but one word to reignite the debate with someone else and Ol' Stubborn will be at it yet again.
This time it was you doing most of the arguing, last time it was me, the time before that it was Pax, next time it will be Lad, etc.
Come at it from the POV of membership, heresy, moral certainty, Old Catholic mentality, whatever - it is all quite pointless with him.
The day Stubborn accepts the teaching, that day - CathInfo will change it's name to SedeInfo

But, for the benefit of others, you are right - it must be gone over again, and again and...

Stubborn · « **Reply #145 on:** **Today** at 01:38:49 PM »

Well far as you're concerned, I am just full of errors. But as far as the status of popes go, I've repeated plenty of times where I stand and why.

It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, up to us to decide the status of popes. I am fine with that. You are not.

For me, I am happy that I do not carry that extra burden, I don't have to make that decision. In all of tradition, all those who took it upon themselves to decide he status of popes were declared to be in schism by the Church, which btw most often leads to heresy - why would I want to bother with making such a decision as that? There s zero reason to even think about it for more than a minute or two - and I did all the thinking about it that I'm going to do a long time ago. My opinion does not mean that much to me.

SkidRowCatholic · « **Reply #146 on:** **Today** at 01:47:18 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 01:38:49 PM

It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, up to us to decide the status of popes. I am fine with that.

You long ago "decided their status" when you judged them to be heretics.

You just tell yourself you have not because in your own mind you cling to a paper Pope who isn't real and possesses no power from God at all.

That is why their teaching is crap. That is why they cannot produce good teaching, disciplines, ceremonies, laws, etc. nor uphold Tradition.

They do not have the assistance of the Holy Ghost and are alien to the Body of Christ.

This it is a discernible fact in the external forum and you have already made that judgement.

The burden has been thrust on you, even if you don't see it, even if you never see it.

You already made "the decision", you have just have failed to make the necessary logical connections out of an ill-founded fear - that while historically Sedevacantism has surface similarities with the heretical movements of the past - is SUBSTANTIALLY different then those actual heretical movements.

Plus, the dogmatic R&R's such as yourself have the same look, smell, and feel of SVs when it comes to impugning Vatican II, the post-concilar claimants, the changes to the sacraments, etc.

WE ALL LOOK LIKE PROTESTANTS in our PROTEST against false Rome. But that doesn't make any of us actually Protestant.
Hell, the Novus Ordos look Protestant for all the RIGHT reasons, while SVs and R&R can only be compared to them in this one way - dissenting from Rome.
But if Rome is truly false now, then there is nothing heretical about either group in that sense.

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 01:38:49 PM

My opinion does not mean that much to me.

I vote this to be the most laughable of all comments ever made on CathInfo

Stubborn · « **Reply #147 on:** **Today** at 01:52:25 PM »

Quote from: SkidRowCatholic on Today at 01:47:18 PM

You long ago "decided their status" when you judged them to be heretics.

Angelus · « **Reply #148 on:** **Today** at 02:36:46 PM »

Quote

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 01:13:22 PM
Quote
Or he could say that the errors were actual heresies, but the Popes were not to blame because the Cardinals were manipulating the situation and tying the hands of the Popes.

Maybe this could apply in some situations, but I do not think it theologically sound for what we are living through. It seems to cut against the freedom of Church.

I absolutely agree that what we are living through since Bergoglio took over cannot possibly fit the simple Cardinal manipulation scenario, as if Bergoglio had been manipulated by his Cardinals. No, Bergoglio was nothing but the Antichrist Cardinal who usurped the Papacy. And Prevost is his False Prophet mini-me.

Esdras 4 describes this period as that of the Fourth Beast, "unlike all the others" (Daniel 7:7). The Fourth Beast is described as an Eagle with three heads and twelve wings.

The Eagle is a symbol of "Rome." The Eagle is the image on the original Roman standard, created during the days of the Republic. SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), which translates as "the Senate and the People of Rome," on the standard explains the situation. What is missing? The Absolute Monarchy of the Emperor (Pope). The aristocratic senate (the Cardinals) rule the Republic (the NuChurch) along with the people (Synodality). It symbolizes a democratic undermining of monarchical Papal authority.

Anyway, the Cardinals took over the Church when BXVI "resigned." The 2013 Conclave was a farce. Bergoglio had a deal with his fellow Cardinals that they would rule the Church together. Then a few years later, he got rid of three of the ones on his Council of Cardinals.

Bergoglio is the Little Horn of Daniel. He is the large head in the middle of the Eagle that reigned before the other two heads (4 Esdras 11-12]. They are false heads, antipopes, of a false Church of Synodality, which is the post-Vatican II heresies taken to their logical conclusion.

https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_ot/2esdr.htm

Freind · « **Reply #149 on:** **Today** at 03:25:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 01:38:49 PM

Well far as you're concerned, I am just full of errors. But as far as the status of popes go, I've repeated plenty of times where I stand and why.

It is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, up to us to decide the status of popes. I am fine with that. You are not.

For me, I am happy that I do not carry that extra burden, I don't have to make that decision. In all of tradition, all those who took it upon themselves to decide he status of popes were declared to be in schism by the Church, which btw most often leads to heresy - why would I want to bother with making such a decision as that? There s zero reason to even think about it for more than a minute or two - and I did all the thinking about it that I'm going to do a long time ago. My opinion does not mean that much to me.

You can't even make the decision that "the Church" even does a particular thing! What a mess.

Author Topic: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R? (Read 330189 times)

Angelus

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Freind

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Stubborn

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Angelus

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Stubborn

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Stubborn

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Angelus

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Angelus

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Stubborn

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

SkidRowCatholic

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Stubborn

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Angelus

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?

Freind

Re: Is a quote by St. Francis de Sale too much for R&R?