Author Topic: LoT And The Alleged Sodomite Pervert Pope. (Read 5513 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #30 on:** September 08, 2009, 12:56:41 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Quote from: roscoe
Boniface 7 was declared an anti-pope by Pius X because he committed murder. Was this a legitimate act by the Pope?

Who did he murder Roscoe? Anybody special? Maybe someone, whose person is protected by a Divine anathema?

Just curious.

As far as I understand it, you can't even slap the pope without incurring latae sententiae.

Acc to Prof Chadwick he strangeled the Emperor's Ambassador.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** September 08, 2009, 06:51:30 AM »

Just to clarify, my point is we do not know who has impure thoughts or the private sins of anyone. Not that Saint Peter masturbated. They claim that any Pope that commits a sɛҳuąƖ act cannot be Pope. They cannot even grasp the most basic theological concept. What is a sexaul act? I guess it depends on what is is.

roscoe · « **Reply #32 on:** September 08, 2009, 12:54:08 PM »

A thought is not an action. I believe there is a Biblical phrase.... by their fruits you shall know them.

roscoe · « **Reply #33 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:27:24 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Just to clarify, my point is we do not know who has impure thoughts or the private sins of anyone. Not that Saint Peter masturbated. They claim that any Pope that commits a sɛҳuąƖ act cannot be Pope. They cannot even grasp the most basic theological concept. What is a sexaul act? I guess it depends on what is is.

What is is? Where have we heard that sophistry b4?

roscoe · « **Reply #34 on:** September 08, 2009, 01:33:46 PM »

LoT's premise seems to be that it is just fine to be a hypocrite. Do as I say-- not as I do. OK I guess if ones phiosophy is that all religions are the same.

radtrad · « **Reply #35 on:** September 08, 2009, 03:57:36 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
Quote from: roscoe
Boniface 7 was declared an anti-pope by Pius X because he committed murder. Was this a legitimate act by the Pope?

Who did he murder Roscoe? Anybody special? Maybe someone, whose person is protected by a Divine anathema?

Just curious.

As far as I understand it, you can't even slap the pope without incurring latae sententiae.

Acc to Prof Chadwick he strangeled the Emperor's Ambassador.

Where can we read about this for ourselves?

Again, where do you get the idea that a behavior such as those you have mentioned causes one to lose his office? I don't think that important question has been answered. Those men are certainly "bad" men, immoral men, but that doesn't mean they lose their office. I could be wrong, but I would like to see where.

roscoe · « **Reply #36 on:** September 08, 2009, 04:19:22 PM »

The sources for the Boniface saga have been given repeatedly-- use the search function.

YES IT DOES MEAN THAT THEY LOSE THEIR OFFICE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS-- YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

Do you deny that there is such a thing as an anti-pope?

radtrad · « **Reply #37 on:** September 08, 2009, 04:40:37 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

The sources for the Boniface saga have been given repeatedly-- use the search function.

Roscoe, You can't assume that people are following every single thread you have posted on this subject. I did do as you said and "used the search function". But it wouldn't kill you to post the links again, as this is a new discussion. According to Chadwick, "Pius X had to get rid of four popes from the past" though he doesn't give much more on this than that.

Quote from: roscoe

YES IT DOES MEAN THAT THEY LOSE THEIR OFFICE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS-- YOU ARE WRONG!!!!

I get bored with this sort of "you are wrong" discussions. I am open to being corrected. Show me a Church docuмent, quote from a Father/Doctor, Catechism, theology manual etc. that backs up your position.

Quote from: roscoe

Do you deny that there is such a thing as an anti-pope?

No, I do not deny such a thing.

roscoe · « **Reply #38 on:** September 08, 2009, 04:59:17 PM »

I have not posted any links-- only a ref to Prof Chadwick's book. It is CM who posted the orig links collaborating the info in the book. He has now resorted to a bait and switch by posting other links that are not the same.

If you understand that there is such a thing as an anti-pope, then there must be some way to determine this outside of our own personal opinions. The way this is done is through the PRIMACY OF ST PETER.

The fact is that St Pius X declared Boniface 6 and 7( as well as 2 others) top be anti-popes. I do not question his authority to do so.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #39 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:28:02 PM »

"I guess it depends on what is is" was a joke. Should have put a smiley.

Is anyone at all out there aware that Popes who were supposed to be celebate had mistresses and children while validly and legally holding the thrown.

People get too scandalized when confronted with the facts. This is why some priests hold back on some truth so as not to bruise the wounded reed.

"A pope can sin?!?!" Never!!!!!

Okay bud, have you gotten a glimps of Santa yet.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:34:17 PM »

I have to add that a fruitful debate on SV cannot even begin unless all involved can hold to the basic premise that a Pope can and does sin.

These People don't think a Pope can break commandments 2 - 10 but if they repeatedly break the first and most important one there like, "Well, hmm, I wonder why he did that. Oh well, he's still Pope or the gates of hell have prevailed."

Anyone realize that Ratzinger allows ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to join the seminary if they have not been active in their tendency for 3 years before joining?

Sure, let them hang out with men all the time, and change and shower with them and teach little children and preach on morality from the pulpit. No big deal. We "love" = tolerate everybody and thier evil actions by covering them up and even promoting them from doing so.

Even the people that believe that no Pope can commit a sɛҳuąƖ act and still be Pope should at least be leary of that if they are not concerned that he teaches heresy and engages in heretical acts.

roscoe · « **Reply #41 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:44:59 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

"I guess it depends on what is is" was a joke. Should have put a smiley.

Is anyone at all out there aware that Popes who were supposed to be celebate had mistresses and children while validly and legally holding the thrown.

People get too scandalized when confronted with the facts. This is why some priests hold back on some truth so as not to bruise the wounded reed.

"A pope can sin?!?!" Never!!!!!

Okay bud, have you gotten a glimps of Santa yet.

2 or 3 Popes had children from b4 they were ordained-- I am not aware of any who sired offspring while they were Pope. I am even somewhat cautious about believeing the Alex VI mistress story. What other Pope has been accused of having a mistress?

roscoe · « **Reply #42 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:46:36 PM »

BTW LoT-- I am not a believer in the myth called 'sede vacantism'--- there is no such thing and therefore nothing to debate.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:55:33 PM »

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #44 on:** September 10, 2009, 02:02:18 PM »

We also have to remember that there is a difference between one who sins and realizes that what he is doing is wrong and one who sins and does not admit or even believe what he does is wrong. Also, the difference between one who sins and knows it is wrong but does not repent or seek forgiveness and try not to do it again from one who does.

If nothing else I hope people realize a valid pope can sin.