Cantarella, your quote here ---> "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Only applies if we have a Roman Pontiff.  

To thinks as you do, denies the perpetuity of the Church.  God's promise, you believed He failed.

That's another point you have wrong Myrna, as do all sedevacantists, in the words of +Williamson: "How could the Catholic Church, designed by Our Lord to be a visible structure, long survive without a visible head? For instance, if the Popes since 1958 or 1963 have been invalid Popes, how can they have appointed valid Cardinals? And if there are few [or no] valid Cardinals, how can another valid Pope ever be elected? Apparently inextricable difficulties for the survival of the structure and so of the very Church."

The road taken by Sedevacantism is the road that denies God's promise as regards the perpetuity of the Church.

Simply put, the Pope must be Catholic, like St. Peter.  

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

The problem is that you cannot comprehend another truth - that the Church says a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope, and that we can recognize when that has already occurred.

The problem is that you say popes can be deposed. What's worse is that you accuse past popes of saying that popes can be deposed, and a new pope can then be elected.

Now above you say once a pope becomes a heretic that he automatically ceases to be pope. Well, whose going to judge him and tell him he is no longer pope - you? the Cardinals? the Bishops? Obama? - and once he's been judged and told, then what happens? What is his sentence? Do you have him apprehended and held by the Cardinals? the Bishops? the Nuns?

Yet, the entire obsessive opinion is an exercise in futility because according to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic?

Every time I attempt to prove something to you, you become uncooperative in answering my questions. If you were truly confident that you had the truth, you wouldn't play games like that.

I have never said a pope can be deposed, nor have I every said that other popes have said that. This is just more indication that you don't understand the truth of what I am saying.

Quote from: [i

A Catholic Dictionary[/i] (1954)]"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."

You said that you say the same thing as popes, but you lie because what you quoted is not from popes, rather, it is from some phantom source, IOW, it's a farce because it is non-existent - even if you could produce the actual dictionary from 1954, it would not have that definition in it - but if it did, why do you promote the words from a dictionary as a source of teaching over the infallible teaching of a genuine pope, Paul IV? What kind of SV takes the word of some dictionary over the explicit teaching of a pope?

To show you how you adhere to lies, hopefully accidentally, the above A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. "Deposition" dictionary farce you quoted contradicts The Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Dictionary as well as popes, because a "Deposition" is an ecclesiastical censure which doesn't "just happen" by an act of heresy, rather, this is a censure which cannot occur unless it be imposed on a subject by a superior, this is because of the gravity of the censure. Read the above links.

Do you understand that much at least?

If you understand nothing else, you should AT LEAST understand that your definition contradicts Pope Paul IV - yet you necessarily must completely ignore what the pope said in favor of what some lying "dictionary" quote, prevalent on all the sede web sites, says.

Again, what kind of sede rejects the explicit decree of a genuine pope in favor of every possible contrary teaching from other sources?

 

I have the book in my hands. In it's fourth printing. It was copyrighted from 1931, and I heard it was still published as late as the early 60's. It has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The quote I gave you is verbatim the same. As well the editor says in the preface, "It has been the editor's aim to avoid so far as possible direct affirmation or a tone of certainty about matters which are not certain."

When I say someone else says the "same", I am not talking word-for-word sentences. I am talking the same idea and concept.

No, you do not have the same idea and concept. The pope said what the pope said, you change what he said when you add your own idea and concept to what he said, then you say that you are saying the same thing - that is absurd.

Okay, so it is clear that no matter what imprimatured Catholic source I give you that is less than solemn papal teaching, you will reject it as being against the solemn infallible teaching of Paul IV. Is that right, you only accept solemn teachings of the Church?

I accept all teaching that agree with what the pope taught. When the impimatured Catholic source disagrees or contradicts with solemn papal teachings, then the impimatured Catholic source is wrong. One would think that as a sede yourself, no one would need to remind you of this.

"The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world" needs no further elaborations, interpretations or definitions *on purpose* and *by design*.

As an aside, your definition below makes zero sense. Read it, particularly the part I crossed out. There is your imprimatur at work.
Aside from it's purpose of  promoting the SV agenda with the first and last sentence,  the rest is pure nonsensical jibberish, hardly something one would find in a Catholic dictionary.

"An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope."

According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?

   

Quote from: Nado

This is in the Catholic dictionary exactly as I have printed it. There were no sedevacantists then. As well, Pius IX approved of the concept in 1877, and the Holy Office under Leo XIII in 1887 scrutinized and approved the same concept in a canon law book for the general clergy of the U.S. The Catholic dictionary being a natural result of what the Holy Office previously approved.

So it follows that a "true Pope" can in fact fall into heresy, after all?

Another sede argument debunked.

Sounds like you really do admit he is a heretic, after all!

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

This is in the Catholic dictionary exactly as I have printed it. There were no sedevacantists then. As well, Pius IX approved of the concept in 1877, and the Holy Office under Leo XIII in 1887 scrutinized and approved the same concept in a canon law book for the general clergy of the U.S. The Catholic dictionary being a natural result of what the Holy Office previously approved.

So it follows that a "true Pope" can in fact fall into heresy, after all?

Another sede argument debunked.

Sounds like you really do admit he is a heretic, after all!

No, Myrna. You misunderstood. We are not talking about Pope Francis in particular (wow, you do have an unhealthy obsession with the Pope that blurs your reasoning, don't you?)

The reference was about a citation that Nado brings in the case of a heretical Pope which in itself refutes the common sedevacantist belief that the Pope cannot in fact become a heretic. If it is impossible for the Pope to fall into heresy, then why bringing this citation that clearly re affirms that possibility?

You talk about blurred reasoning? What are you talking about? After all this time, and all the Church quotes presented to you, it appears you haven't the faintest concept about this subject.

Infallibility protects a pope from entering mistakes against faith or morals into official acts of the Church.

Infallibility doesn't prevent a pope from deliberately choosing to believe heresy and then attempting to enter the error into the official acts of the Church, because the attempt will have been performed by a man who already ceased to be pope.

What is difficult about understanding this?

Perhaps it's a "theological complexity".

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

I have the book in my hands. In it's fourth printing. It was copyrighted from 1931, and I heard it was still published as late as the early 60's. It has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The quote I gave you is verbatim the same. As well the editor says in the preface, "It has been the editor's aim to avoid so far as possible direct affirmation or a tone of certainty about matters which are not certain."

When I say someone else says the "same", I am not talking word-for-word sentences. I am talking the same idea and concept.

No, you do not have the same idea and concept. The pope said what the pope said, you change what he said when you add your own idea and concept to what he said, then you say that you are saying the same thing - that is absurd.

You are speaking of Paul IV. I am speaking of Pius IX, for example. Pius IX has said what I am saying; nothing absurd about that. You reject what Pius IX said because you wrongly perceive it to be contrary to Paul IV.

No, Pope Pius IX never said what you are saying and it is absurd to accuse him of that.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nado

Okay, so it is clear that no matter what imprimatured Catholic source I give you that is less than solemn papal teaching, you will reject it as being against the solemn infallible teaching of Paul IV. Is that right, you only accept solemn teachings of the Church?

I accept all teaching that agree [I perceive does not disagree] with what the pope taught. When the impimatured Catholic source disagrees or contradicts with solemn papal teachings, then the impimatured Catholic source is wrong. One would think that as a sede yourself, no one would need to remind you of this.

"The Roman Pontiff.....who may judge all and be judged by none in this world" needs no further elaborations, interpretations or definitions *on purpose* and *by design*.

I have corrected what you really are saying.

No, you are simply doing with what I meant to say that you do with what the Church teaches - you cross out what the Church teaches and replace it with your own teaching. Unlike you, I understand the pope meant exactly what he said, I have no need to change his words in any way in order to justify completely twisting his words to fit my opinion.

You accuse Pope Paul IV and the perennial teachings of speaking like V2 and Paul VI - ambiguous and purposely unclear, but the fact is they meant exactly what they taught.

You and all NOers and SVs do this out of habit because of your years within the NO where everything the conciliar church taught was purposely ambiguous and requires interpretation and is still not understandable, however, before V2, when popes and councils taught, they always meant exactly what they said.

If you and all SVs and NOers can ever break this obsession of adding your own exceptions to everything the pre-V2 popes and councils have taught, you will have taken a step in the right direction - until then, you'd be better off praying and reading nothing rather than adulterating every pre-V2 papal teaching to suit your own opinion.  

Quote from: Stubborn

According to SV logic, a true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, since a true pope cannot err, how pray tell does a true pope become a heretic? How is it that you are able to embrace and promote such a conundrum as this?

It makes zero sense to you, because you don't personally understand it. It's all about you and your misunderstandings. A pope cannot "err", meaning he cannot make a MISTAKE when officially representing the Church. It does not mean that it prevents a pope from DELIBERATELY choosing heresy by his own free-will. The doctrine of free-will is thus preserved because God does not force the free-will of anyone.

Again, you adulterate your own misconception in order to justify your own error.

"A true pope cannot err" - - that's written in every SV handbook (if there were such a thing) in the world. It is the SV Lex Orandi which feeds the SV Lex Credendi. Again, what kind of SV are you that doesn't believe this most fundamental of all SV doctrine?

"It does not mean that it prevents a pope from DELIBERATELY choosing heresy by his own free-will. The doctrine of free-will is thus preserved because God does not force the free-will of anyone."

Contrary to another one of your circular bewildered replies, yes, that is EXACTLY what it means. Infallibility means that the Holy Ghost prevents a pope from the possibility of error - from DELIBERATELY teaching heresy by his own free-will. No matter how strong the free will of the pope is, the Holy Ghost will not permit even the possibility of error - THAT is papal infallibility fyi.

What kind of sede are you anyway that you don't accept this most fundamental of all SV doctrines? (did I ask that already? - perhaps this time you'll answer)

The entire SV opinion is based on their obsession that A true pope cannot become a heretic because a true pope cannot err, because the Holy Ghost prevents a true pope from DELIBERATELY teaching error. A false pope can err because the Holy Ghost does not protect a false pope from error. This is the whole doctrine of SVsm in a nutshell.

Go back and look in your SV handbook and you'll see I am right and you are wrong.

Now, in your circular bewildered state,  your story has changed yet again because according to you, a true pope can choose to err against the dictates of God the Holy Ghost from whom we received the promise that the pope would be safeguarded from the possibility of error.

Not sure how many more circles you can make in your attempts to justify the rejection of papal teachings before your head spins right off.