The Bishop of my Diocese is Catholic and believes in the four marks.

"Your Bishop" that you "read about on the diamond brothers websites" cast a "schismatic light" on the "Catholic Church."

Quote from: LittleFlowerGirl29

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: MyrnaM

MMagdala

Quote

Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.

In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.

No.  The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary.  It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years.  N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church.   Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.

This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.

My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.

It is neither cliche nor calumny.  It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe."  "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.  

The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."

Quote from: LittleFlowerGirl29

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: LittleFlowerGirl29

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: MyrnaM

MMagdala

Quote

Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.

In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.

No.  The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary.  It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years.  N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church.   Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.

This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.

My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.

It is neither cliche nor calumny.  It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe."  "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.  

The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."

'

If one Priest makes a mistake and says something heretical, it's reverberated around the internet in calumny.  I'm sorry, but you'l just have to examine personally more Priests and speak with them.  They may not all be trained on St. Thomas thoroughly, but they believe the Catholic Faith.  

They can say all the Creeds in perfectly good conscience, adhere to all the Councils, and even can say that they are in union with a Pope which is one more dogma than a sedevacantist can say they adhere to faithfully.

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: LittleFlowerGirl29

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: MyrnaM

MMagdala

Quote

Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.

In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.

No.  The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary.  It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years.  N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church.   Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.

This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.

My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.

It is neither cliche nor calumny.  It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe."  "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.  

The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."

You have trouble following a line of thought.  I never said the entirety of the modern Church is on the Internet, nor did anyone else on this thread.  I said, and will repeat, that the entirety of the modern Church is not represented by "your" bishop.  (Nor mine.)

Quote from: LittleFlowerGirl29

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: LittleFlowerGirl29

Quote from: MMagdala

Quote from: MyrnaM

MMagdala

Quote

Because a portion of the Church, a [Conciliar] Sect of the Church (who thinks the Church began in about 1963, not in the ancient Mediterranean) is misguided, has gone astray, does not mean that the core of the Church is no longer holy.

In other words, the mark known as Unity is also missing.

No.  The mark known as Unity is incorrectly perceived by the Conciliar Sect as missing and unnecessary.  It's part of the modernistic and heterodox concept of "diversity," as promulgated by Cardinals, bishops, and priests (especially) in the last about 25 years.  N.O.'ers and most of their actively practice disunity from the deposit of faith and disunity within the Church. Trads who are not sedes are still very much in line with One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Neither sedes nor N.O.'ers are in line with One (explained above). Sedes think it's both acceptable and necessary to start a parallel church.   Sedes also seem to have a problem with some of the other marks.

This isn't true, it's just trad cliche.

My Bishop and most of his priests believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Said and done, this is just plain false calumny.

It is neither cliche nor calumny.  It is a contradiction that so many bishops and priests ignore, in practice and in teaching, the Four Marks, regardless of what they say with their lips they "believe."  "Your" bishop is not the entirety of the modern Church.  

The "entirely of the modern Church" is "not on the internet."

You have trouble following a line of thought.  I never said the entirety of the modern Church is on the Internet, nor did anyone else on this trehad.  I said, and will repeat, that the entirety of the modern Church is not represented by "your" bishop.  (Nor mine.)

 :boxer:

Neither is your internet news purview.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Ugggh.  Why did I re-enter this thread.  It's Christmas and nothing changes.

Well...nobody is forcing you to post. Need a little attention, maybe?

I was actually looking to myself here recognizing I had made a mistake.  Are you sure you're not just trying to pick another fight with me..which I won't be picking up?

Quote

but there is no Church teaching giving anyone the right to declare the pope is not the pope.

Does there need to be? Does having a certitude that a so-called pope could NOT be pope on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture... etc...be considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions.

Richard Ibranyi has the certitude of faith that the so-called popes could NOT be popes on the basis of Papal Magisterial tradition, right reasoning, Scripture and by his considered judging an ecclesiastical situation and making sound deductions declares that there have been no popes or cardinals since 1130.

What makes you think he is wrong and you're not?

The Church has spoke very CLEARLY, heretics are not Catholics. Is it lawful for anyone to reject any of those Truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy....?

You confuse statements made by the Church with explicit papal instructions given us to follow.

The argument that the ability to depose a pope would allow for the laymen to start deposing popes all the way back to St Peter is absurd.

You think it absurd, yet you do not even consider that there is nothing to stop the Richard Ibranyi's or other crooks from doing exactly what you say is absurd.

Do you suppose everyone is a saint, that there are no Judas'? If you are so naive to think that it couldn't happen except to actual heretics, then you've got some pretty potent booze in the koolaid you're drinking.  

How many popes/anti-popes dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II? None, obviously.

Sedevacantist Richard Ibranyi has docuмented that all the popes since 1130 dissented. Google it to see the docuмentation for yourself.

How many clergy dissented from the Catholic faith prior to Vatican II. Many, obviously.

Since the Church teaches we can declare the pope is not the pope - what does it matter? Let's just declare the pope is not the pope and....and.....Hmmmm, then what? We cannot elect another one so.......seems a bit odd that we can kick one out of office but there's no way to put a new one in. Now I don't know what to do.......I guess we just condemn the bastard and live without one till the end of time.