Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 80864 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #290 on:** December 02, 2015, 11:40:22 AM »

Quote from: ubipetrus

Not only had they no reply to that; that shut them both up completely!

I think they got caught in their own web.

McCork · « **Reply #291 on:** December 02, 2015, 11:45:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: ubipetrus
Quote from: McCork
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.

Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
Quote from: Catholictrue
By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment?

Oh come on man lol

Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.

Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?

Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.

Stubborn · « **Reply #292 on:** December 02, 2015, 11:55:24 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: ubipetrus
Quote from: McCork
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.

Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
Quote from: Catholictrue
By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment?

Oh come on man lol

Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.

Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?

Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.

It's the principle of the thing.

McCork · « **Reply #293 on:** December 02, 2015, 12:01:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: ubipetrus
Quote from: McCork
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.

Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
Quote from: Catholictrue
By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment?

Oh come on man lol

Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.

Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?

Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.

It's the principle of the thing.

Seriously, you should find some aquaintance of yours who is indifferent to Catholicism and ask him to take a look at your postings. Maybe you will listen to an aquaintance that you need help even reasoning properly.

Stubborn · « **Reply #294 on:** December 02, 2015, 12:06:49 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: ubipetrus
Quote from: McCork
The end of discussion occurred when both Siscoe and Salza quit this thread several days ago.

Did anyone but me notice WHEN they quit? It was when Catholictrue asked him/them:
Quote from: Catholictrue
By the way, does your book have the approval of your local 'ordinary', from whom you claim one may not separate without a Church judgment?

Oh come on man lol

Have you seen PaulFC's website all about a BOD? He has no approval at all either. Strange that, because it's certain he could get all the permissions, approvals and imprimaturs from every NO bishop there is for that site.

Seriously, it's like you are losing the rudiments of reasoning. Why would a sedevacantist go get permission from heretics he doesn't recognize as having authority?

Salza & Siscoe profess to be under their bishop's authority so it is just and right to show they are being inconsistent in principle.

It's the principle of the thing.

Seriously, you should find some aquaintance of yours who is indifferent to Catholicism and ask him to take a look at your postings. Maybe you will listen to an aquaintance that you need help even reasoning properly.

FYI, the principle of the thing is; PaulFC would not get permission from them because he believes them to be heretics, hence he doesn't recognize them as having authority, yet he believes the exact same thing they do.