Author Topic: New book arguing against Sedevacantism (Read 78671 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #705 on:** December 26, 2015, 01:10:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?

By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!

And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.

Stubborn · « **Reply #706 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:10:34 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn

Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?

By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!

And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.

Again you demonstrate you cannot read what is written, in case you can re-read what I said, you will find the word "presumably" in capital letters. It is impossible for you to have kept the faith without a pope because the Church teaches this, so if you reject it, you reject the Church - that's just the way that works.

Now, if you sedes were honest sedes, you would already come out with the honest answer, like this:

Quote

QUESTION Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?

ANSWER I don't know why I need a pope at all. I must need one for some reason but for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea why I need a pope at all. I must really have ECS because far as I know, I really don't need a pope at all.

THAT would be a clear answer to the clear question, IF YOU WERE HONEST.

Because it is so obvious, can we at least agree on that?

Matto · « **Reply #707 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:17:37 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

]That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!

Of all the silly things we see on internet forums here we have an eighty year old grandma and widow with no degrees in theology or any training from the church above basic catechism deciding who has and who does not have the faith, similar to how she decides who is and is not the Pope. I just think that is silly.

Stubborn · « **Reply #708 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:26:27 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork

It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.

I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.

No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.

You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.

And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.

Quote from: McCork

As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.

No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.

The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.

Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.

I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.

Stubborn · « **Reply #709 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:31:59 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: MyrnaM
]That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!

Of all the silly things we see on internet forums here we have an eighty year old grandma and widow with no degrees in theology or any training from the church above basic catechism deciding who has and who does not have the faith, similar to how she decides who is and is not the Pope. I just think that is silly.

The truth is that her education is in sedevacantism, which SVism is in the way sedes worship, which is what determines what Myrna and sedes believe, which is why trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #710 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:45:06 PM »

Quote

...the sin of heresy alone does not sever one from the Church.

What a bald-faced LIE.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #711 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.

Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.

Go on. I'm all ears.

McCork · « **Reply #712 on:** December 26, 2015, 02:51:03 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork

It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.

I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.

No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.

You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.

And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.

Quote from: McCork

As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.

No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.

The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.

Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.

I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.

The longer I have patience with your false accusation, the sillier you are going to look when your accusation is proven false.

Stubborn · « **Reply #713 on:** December 26, 2015, 03:50:09 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork

It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.

I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.

No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.

You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.

And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.

Quote from: McCork

As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.

No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.

The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.

Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.

I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.

The longer I have patience with your false accusation, the sillier you are going to look when your accusation is proven false.

You having patience with your own dishonesty, although prevalent among the sedes here, is not something to be proud of and is certainly not something that makes you look good, at least not to Catholics.

Stubborn · « **Reply #714 on:** December 26, 2015, 03:59:09 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Stubborn
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.

Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.

Go on. I'm all ears.

You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church. Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.

McCork · « **Reply #715 on:** December 26, 2015, 04:39:14 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork

It is one thing to SAY someone is wrong, and another to SHOW he is wrong. You have NOT shown I am wrong. You just throw a lot of FYI's around, making claims without showing why something is wrong.

I quoted from a book approved and praised directly by Rome. Read more carefully.

No, epikeia is a virtue, that is what the Catholic books say.

You KNOW you are wrong - heck, the longest interregnum in the last 50 years has only been 20 days. Yet you go on about your days as if we are in a 58 year interregnum with no end in sight while expecting everyone to agree with you.

And St. Augustine saying epikeia is a vice not a virtue, kills your whole idea about it.

Quote from: McCork

As for whether "I" need a pope? You need more patience in waiting for an answer before patting yourself on your own back.

No, I ask a simple question - Myrna called it a silly question, but whatever. That was her answer, which is no answer, which is typical of how sedes ignore clear and direct questions.

The fact you and Myrna and 2Vermont and etc, who promotes sedevacantism in nearly every post, and even 2Vermont gets offended from people who disagree with sedevacantism, yet not one of you can answer the simple question, is a testament AGAINST sedevacantism, that it is at best, false.

Once again, claims, no show; no patience. Reason isn't big in your little world. Stop blowing, and start showing, otherwise you waste your time.

I'm purposely asking for an honest answer to a question any Catholic could answer, and you say to have patience. I say you do not know the Catholic faith because you cannot answer the question - and that you can have patience dealing with that accusation for as long as you cannot answer the question.

The longer I have patience with your false accusation, the sillier you are going to look when your accusation is proven false.

You having patience with your own dishonesty, although prevalent among the sedes here, is not something to be proud of and is certainly not something that makes you look good, at least not to Catholics.

"Patience with your own dishonesty"?? What kind of stupid modernist terminology is that?! :roll-laugh1:

Disputaciones · « **Reply #716 on:** December 26, 2015, 04:57:40 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Disputaciones
Quote from: Stubborn
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.

Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.

Go on. I'm all ears.

You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.

And what premise of infallibility are you talking about?

Quote from: Stubborn

Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.

Catholic teaching says that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself ipso facto, without the need for any declaration.

McCork · « **Reply #717 on:** December 26, 2015, 05:01:45 PM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Disputaciones
Quote from: Stubborn
...trying to speak Catholic truths to sedevacantists is like speaking to them in a foreign language, Catholic truths are the language which is mostly foreign to them so they simply will not understand.

Go ahead then, tell me what are these Catholic truths we don't understand.

Go on. I'm all ears.

You can feel free to go back and read the posts in this thread, but it all boils down to:
The conclusions of SVs are based off a premise of infallibility which is not a teaching of the Church. As such, basing conclusions off a premise which is not a teaching of the Church, leads to a conclusion which is not a teaching of the Church.

And what premise of infallibility are you talking about?

Quote from: Stubborn
Sedevacantism is the opinion deemed factual truth by those who hold the opinion, but it is certain that there is no Church teaching, no papal or magisterial docuмent ever in the history of the Church that teaches we are permitted to declare popes are not popes no matter how strong of an opinion we hold - SVism IS NOT a teaching of the Church.

Catholic teaching says that a manifestly heretical Pope deposes himself ipso facto, without the need for any declaration.

He will say that you took it "out of context", and then he will refuse to show you what he thinks the context really is. He persists with this dishonest course of discussion.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #718 on:** December 26, 2015, 06:01:59 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: Stubborn

Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?

By your own words the sedevacantist person holding that position has kept the Faith. We are Roman Catholics and as Roman Catholics we are united to the Will of God, it is His design we have a Catholic Pope. Yes, we have kept the faith as you say, because we are united to the Will of God. Unlike your version were the pope can be pope of truth and error and still be considered pope. That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!

And I said your questions are "silly" ...
Silly questions because they are immaterial, not pertinent, irrevelant, because they are designed to entrap and ensnare, grabbing at straws trying desparently to prove your erroneous position to have weight, but it doesn’t have any weight which is why you are searching the bottom of the barrel.

Again you demonstrate you cannot read what is written, in case you can re-read what I said, you will find the word "presumably" in capital letters. It is impossible for you to have kept the faith without a pope because the Church teaches this, so if you reject it, you reject the Church - that's just the way that works.

Now, if you sedes were honest sedes, you would already come out with the honest answer, like this:
Quote
QUESTION Besides, per your own stupid, circular reasoning, there have been no popes for the last +50 years - yet PRESUMABLY, you have kept the faith, ipso fact proves that YOU don't even need a pope to keep the faith - so why do you even need a pope at all? If it's not a syndrome, what is it?

ANSWER I don't know why I need a pope at all. I must need one for some reason but for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea why I need a pope at all. I must really have ECS because far as I know, I really don't need a pope at all.

THAT would be a clear answer to the clear question, IF YOU WERE HONEST.

Because it is so obvious, can we at least agree on that?

Stubborn: Look it up ... pre·sum·a·bly
prəˈz(y)o͞oməblē/
adverb
used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain.

synonyms: I presume, I expect, I assume, I take it, I suppose, I imagine, I dare say, I guess, in all probability, probably, in all likelihood, as likely as not, doubtless, undoubtedly, no doubt

You even dare to ask us a question and tell us now how we should answer LOL!

MyrnaM · « **Reply #719 on:** December 26, 2015, 06:12:16 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: MyrnaM
]That my friend is not Catholic but it is your belief. I wish I can say you kept the faith, but sorry!

Of all the silly things we see on internet forums here we have an eighty year old grandma and widow with no degrees in theology or any training from the church above basic catechism deciding who has and who does not have the faith, similar to how she decides who is and is not the Pope. I just think that is silly.

I am only 75 years young and remember the Catholic religion as was taught in my Catholic schools and churches prior to Vatican II. For your information Matto, I have always loved my religion in school that was my favorite subject and took the good nuns advice when I was instructed to say a little prayer each night, that I would not die disunited to the Roman Catholic church.

Matto thinks it is okay for his friends to tell us that we are not Catholic, but when the shoe is on the other foot, he cries like a liberal, and that is pretty silly. Ha ha!