Author Topic: On SV (Read 13997 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #30 on:** July 05, 2014, 12:34:26 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

I caught you red-handed as the hypocrite that you are, using theologians when you reject what they unanimously/commonly teach, exposed you, and now you cry out foul.

I have to admit that I think you made an excellent point regarding using theologians. From what i have read, theologians are not good enough to the anti-BOD crowd.

Cantarella · « **Reply #31 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:05:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

Discernment of the Spirits by St. Ignatius

Quote

The fourth: Of Spiritual Desolation. I call desolation all the contrary of the third rule (Consolation), such as darkness of soul, disturbance in it, movement to things low and earthly, the unquiet of different agitations and temptations, moving to want of confidence, without hope, without love, when one finds oneself all lazy, tepid, sad, and as if separated from his Creator and Lord. Because, as consolation is contrary to desolation, in the same way the thoughts which come from consolation are contrary to the thoughts which come from desolation.

http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/making-good-decisions/discernment-of-spirits/rules-for-discernment/

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #32 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:07:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.

I have always noticed this, people who reject sedevacantism due to PERSONAL things or because they had some problem with somebody or because they deem sedevacantists "bitter and angry" and whatnot.

NOT, if you pay attention, because it is FALSE or untrue, but because of PERSONAL problems.

What happened to your quest for the truth?

All sedevacantists could be immoral, scandalous, "bad people" etc, but that wouldn't mean sedevacantism itself is false, because as you should know, the truth is the truth no matter what.

On the contrary, you could have people who appear to be "happy" all the time and never fight nor argue with anyone, but they could all be dead wrong.

This is ridiculous. Since when has truth been measured by such things?

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #33 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:09:53 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

Discernment of the Spirits by St. Ignatius

Quote

The fourth: Of Spiritual Desolation. I call desolation all the contrary of the third rule (Consolation), such as darkness of soul, disturbance in it, movement to things low and earthly, the unquiet of different agitations and temptations, moving to want of confidence, without hope, without love, when one finds oneself all lazy, tepid, sad, and as if separated from his Creator and Lord. Because, as consolation is contrary to desolation, in the same way the thoughts which come from consolation are contrary to the thoughts which come from desolation.

Rejecting bod/bob is a mortal sin.

You are in mortal sin.

You should be the last one speaking about discerning spirits since you presently belong to the Devil.

Cantarella · « **Reply #34 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:16:29 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Rejecting bod/bob is a mortal sin.

You are in mortal sin.

You should be the last one speaking about discerning spirits since you presently belong to the Devil.

Here Sneakyticks:

This is my ultimate response to every single one of your "not worth a second read" posts, so please do not waste your time:

:read-paper:

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #35 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:30:05 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Rejecting bod/bob is a mortal sin.

You are in mortal sin.

You should be the last one speaking about discerning spirits since you presently belong to the Devil.

Here Sneakyticks:

This is my ultimate response to every single one of your "not worth a second read" posts, so please do not waste your time:

:read-paper:

You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?

You people are faithless is what you are.

This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.

Cantarella · « **Reply #36 on:** July 05, 2014, 01:37:35 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?

You people are faithless is what you are.

This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.

:read-paper:

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #37 on:** July 05, 2014, 04:19:11 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Sneakyticks

You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?

You people are faithless is what you are.

This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.

:read-paper:

You ended up reading it anyways. If you really intended not to read any of my posts you would have put me on ignore.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #38 on:** July 05, 2014, 05:14:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Where did you go Ladislaus?

I've been away all day visiting relatives.

Quote
Why dont you explain what you mean here:

Quote
the legitimacy of the Pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Consequently, it can never be a matter for private judgment, regardless of how strong the arguments may appear to be.

I've explained this many times. Theologians classify papal legitimacy as a dogmatic fact. It must be known with the certainty of faith that a pope is legitimate because otherwise no dogmas defined by said pope could ever be known with the certainty of faith.

This example here sums up the problem with straight sedevacantism. Let's say I felt at the time of Vatican I that papal infallibility was heretical. All I'd have to do is to say that Pius IX was a heretic and a non-pope in order to reject the dogma. Consequently we must have a priori knowledge of papal legitimacy to preserve the entire Magisterium.

But what if the person elected was never a Catholic in the first place, but a Communist or Freemason or even an apostate. AND the persons elected this said person were of the same ilk.

At the time of Vatican I, we had Catholics that were elected therefore if anyone said Pius IX was a heretic it would be at their possible damnation. They could find no evidence against him, however today the evidence against the conciLIAR leaders is so obvious to everyone, even the laity are scratching their heads.
:scratchchin:

Why do you suppose Our Lady said in one of her approved visions,"the Church should be more careful before allowing just anyone into the seminaries." (paraphrasing)

Also the Siri thesis falls under the teaching..."A doubtful pope is no pope"

Sedevacantism is the only logical point of view, not saying others are condemned who will not embrace it. Only God knows, and He will judge them.

2Vermont · « **Reply #39 on:** July 05, 2014, 06:04:21 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Sneakyticks

You think this is a joke? You think you can reject official Church teaching just like that and get away with it?

You people are faithless is what you are.

This is where rejecting sedevacantism takes you, to sheer Protestantism, since you all have different opinions on a number of things.

:read-paper:

You ended up reading it anyways. If you really intended not to read any of my posts you would have put me on ignore.

Soon she'll have all of us sedevacantists on ignore (ie. the proverbial fingers in one's ears).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** July 05, 2014, 06:31:43 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.

Not with A sedevacantist, but with sedevacantists in general. There's very bad spiritual fruit there, pretty much everywhere I looked, and it's an application of Our Lord's "by their fruits you shall know them". You prove this yet again.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** July 05, 2014, 06:35:38 PM »

I find it quite telling that the most wickedly bitter and arrogant sedevacantists are all the most vocal proponents of BoD. That tells me a lot.

2Vermont · « **Reply #42 on:** July 05, 2014, 06:46:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I find it quite telling that the most wickedly bitter and arrogant sedevacantists are all the most vocal proponents of BoD. That tells me a lot.

And some of the most vocal anti-BOD'ers are not bitter and arrogant?

mmmkay.

Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.

And move on.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** July 05, 2014, 07:12:46 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Why don't we all admit that every group has got its own special bitterness and arrogance.

No, there's a unique, dark, and distinct bitterness present among nearly all sedevacantists. I know it well. Sneakyticks is basically foaming at the mouth to an extent that's borderline diabolical.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #44 on:** July 05, 2014, 09:46:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
With every post you merely increase my repugnance for sedevacantism due to your bitterness and spite.

It seems you stopped being a sedevacantist due to some gripe or problem with some sedevacantist, since this is your #1 excuse against it.

Not with A sedevacantist, but with sedevacantists in general. There's very bad spiritual fruit there, pretty much everywhere I looked, and it's an application of Our Lord's "by their fruits you shall know them". You prove this yet again.

You mean they defend without end, what they know to be the teaching of the Church?

Just like any politician if you agree, they are of good will, no matter how rude, if you disagree they are just of bad will, plain and simple. :sad: