Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 64289 times)

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #90 on:** November 26, 2014, 01:01:09 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

I will pray for all of you!

I think Catholics praying for their fellow Catholics is a good thing and we should all do more of it!

The bouncing around of the word "schismatic" is going to cause that word to lose all sting and even all meaning. What does it mean today to be opposed to a Pope who says there is no Catholic God and does what the novus ordo popes do?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #91 on:** November 26, 2014, 01:15:51 PM »

Nado said:

ignorance of the true Church is merely a prerequisite for non-Catholics to obtain the baptism of desire.

Cantrella said:

This is a mistake. If hypothetical Baptism of Desire could ever apply (although is never visible to us) would be for catechumens ONLY who already have the Catholic Faith and die before receiving the water Baptism. Not any non-Catholic. This is because the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification.

Here is your quote Cantrella!

Cantarella · « **Reply #92 on:** November 26, 2014, 05:21:37 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Nado said:

ignorance of the true Church is merely a prerequisite for non-Catholics to obtain the baptism of desire.

Cantrella said:

This is a mistake. If hypothetical Baptism of Desire could ever apply (although is never visible to us) would be for catechumens ONLY who already have the Catholic Faith and die before receiving the water Baptism. Not any non-Catholic. This is because the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification.

Here is your quote Cantrella!

:confused1:

Off topic!

Stubborn · « **Reply #93 on:** November 26, 2014, 09:24:07 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Stubborn
Haydock commentary; Gen 4:17 His wife. She was a daughter of Adam, and Cain's own sister; God dispensing with such marriages in the beginning of the world, as mankind could not otherwise be propagated.

Then in Leviticus chapter 18, God put an end to that dispensation when he made the new laws which He gave to Moses, so from that time on, God said of incest: Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people.

From that moment till the end of the world, incest will never be anything but an abomination. Your post is referencing abomination as justification for schism. What's worse is someone actually upthumbed it.

Looks like you might be a fan of Andy Sloan!

I just gave you two quotes from approved Catholics authors before Vatican II, and you counter those with a quote from the Old Testament, with your own interpretation!

Okay, let's take note of the New Testament as the word of God also. Do you see the New Testament approves of slavery? Does that mean slavery is okay forever after that?

Sorry to disappoint you by using the Haydock commentary, which is Catholic teaching, unlike your private re-interpretation from "approved authors" you use so you could release souls from hell to make that which is certainly wrong, good and lawful.

Either way, why don't you try hard as you can to actually answer the original post from what, 6 or 7 pages ago with some type of facts, rather than cobbling together abomination references to support your opinions that schism can be good and lawful?

Stubborn · « **Reply #94 on:** November 27, 2014, 03:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Stubborn Feeneyite, as usual. The Haydock commentary you gave doesn't exclude dispensation for a changing circuмstance. As well as you violating approved Catholics works. Notice that you cannot even answer about slavery, which proves my point.

The incest mention was an analogy, it wasn't a premise. That can disappear and my argument about epikeia still stands, which you clearly won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Ignorant Cushingite suffering from the syndrome of sedevacantism.

How many years did you spend in the NO? My guess is you spent your whole life minus about the last few months in there.

You have not offered a single solitary bit of proof to defend whatever it is that you are supporting - do you even know what it is that you are supporting or what it is that you are defending?

The only thing you've demonstrated to this point is that you are of the opinion that schism can be good and lawful under certain circuмstances - which is not something Catholics believe, but it certainly agrees with what schismatics believe.