I am not interested in arguing ad nauseum with the same 2- 3 people here about these topics.
I am interested in the general consensus among the vocal members of this forum concerning their understanding - kind of a mini poll of the sensus fidelium on these topics. It is 1 factor among many to consider.
Polls speak for themselves. Each person speaks for themself when they vote/comment. You only speak for yourself, not the forum.
I will give you an answer, but 1st you have to answer my question.
Do you think Francis is a Catholic and your Holy Father, the Pope?
conjecture... :confused:
suspicion... :confused:
evasion...
I will give an answer to your 1st question, but you have to answer mine first;
Do you think Francis is a Catholic and your Holy Father, the Pope?
last chance...or I no more play with you.
still waiting...
Ok, you answered - thank you.
Ok, you answered - thank you.
Now I said I would give you an answer, right?
Here is AN answer....
ASK YOUR HOLY FATHER! :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester:
(https://i.imgur.com/a6aQ00O.jpeg)
I am not interested in arguing ad nauseum with the same 2- 3 people here about these topics.to
I am interested in the general consensus among the vocal members of this forum concerning their understanding - kind of a mini poll of the sensus fidelium on these topics. It is 1 factor among many to consider.
So you are trying to determine as to whether or not the forum members are actually Catholic? Is that why it is a poll of the sensus fidelium to your topics?
A question asked, and AN answer given. :fryingpan:
I am not interested in arguing ad nauseum with the same 2- 3 people here about these topics.So, is this purely out of curiosity as to where the CI membership stands on the various matters?
I am interested in the general consensus among the vocal members of this forum concerning their understanding - kind of a mini poll of the sensus fidelium on these topics. It is 1 factor among many to consider.
Wrong.
I never said I would "answer your "specific" question". Your question is stupid.
I said I would give you "an" answer to your question". you must work harder at reading comprehension. I gave you an answer, just not the one you wanted.
You may continue to falsely accuse and culminate me though - thank you & God bless you.
When asked in a recent interview, if he would meet with Francis, Bishop Williamson responded, "No." Then he followed with an old Confucian saying that I will leave you to listen for yourself. I respond to you with the same.
starts @1:32:46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWFLbgqXzg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWFLbgqXzg)
P.S.
(https://i.imgur.com/EtLmVgH.png)
"That beast of the apocalypse, to whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make war with the saints, is sitting on the throne of Peter, like a lion ready for his prey."
St. Bernard - ora pro nobis
(https://factcheck.afp.com/online-posts-falsely-portray-pope-francis-and-other-world-leaders-making-devil-horns-gesture)
You have also said very well that a characteristic of the priests of the Apostolic Union and their particular uniform must be, and is, in fact, love for the Pope, and this too will contribute admirably to your sanctification. To love him, it is enough to reflect on who the Pope is:The Pope is the guardian of dogma and morality; he is the depository of the principles that make the family honest, the nations great, the souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and peoples; it is the head under which no one feels tyrannized, because it represents God himself; He is the Father par excellence who brings together in himself everything that can be loving, tender, divine.It seems incredible, and it is painful to do, that there are priests to whom I have to make this recommendation, but unfortunately we are in our day in this hard, unhappy condition of having to say to priests: love the Pope!And how should we love the Pope? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. When you love a person, you try to conform to his thoughts in everything, to carry out his wishes, to interpret his desires. And if our Lord Jesus Christ said of himself: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, so to show our love for the Pope it is necessary to obey him.Therefore when one loves the Pope, there is no discussion about what He disposes or demands, or how far obedience should go, and in what things one should obey; when one loves the Pope, it is not said that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat in the ear of each one that will clearly expressed so many times, not only orally, but in letters and other public docuмents; his orders are not questioned, adducing the easy pretext of those who do not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands, but those around him; the field in which he can and should exercise his authority is not limited; the authority of the Pope is not put before that of other persons, however learned they may disagree with the Pope, who if they are learned are not saints, because he who is holy cannot disagree with the Pope.This is the outpouring of a sorrowful heart, which I make with deep bitterness not for you, beloved brethren, but with you to deplore the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to discuss and scrutinize the Pope's wishes, but are not ashamed to arrive at impudent and brazen disobedience with so much scandal of the good and with so much ruin of souls.This lament is not provoked (I repeat) by you, beloved confreres, who, observing the rules of the Union, solemnly profess your respect, your affection, your piety towards the Pope. - May God keep you in these holy purposes and comfort you with his blessing; that blessing that I invoke upon you, upon your confreres, upon your families, upon the people all dear to you and whom you have in mind, so that it may be for everyone. bringing every consolation.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/it/speeches/docuмents/hf_p-x_spe_19121118_unione-apostolica.html (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/it/speeches/docuмents/hf_p-x_spe_19121118_unione-apostolica.html)
No.OK. So did you have a position that you are arguing for? Did you say which position you hold? :confused:
"pure curiosity" is vain.
For me it is practical. It is practical to ask what other Catholics think about these things, it helps our understanding to grow when we ask questions, both of ourselves and others.
We can't guess your answer.More and more I think Johannes is just playing games here.
It feels like you are talking in riddles. Couldn't you just articulate where you stand?
I only "play games" with silly women :jester:. But my point to Grey above is no game.And I think time will prove you're playing here.;)
You don't have to guess, and it is not a riddle. Think of it more like questing for Truth.Well here is the thing. I don't understand your purpose. Is it to ensnare me in a trap? You ask the question which you yourself won't answer.
It is a historical fact that you are looking for (or the absence of one).
Read: #188-193 of Van Noort: https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n163/mode/2up
T (https://archive.org/details/vannoortvol2christschurch/page/n163/mode/2up)he question: Has any legitimate pope prior to John XXIII taught error(s) about faith or morals to the Universal Church in his official magisterium? -Is an important one.
I could simply tell you where I stand (which is irrelevant and means nothing), or I can point you to the historical proofs (or lack thereof) which speak for themselves.
More and more I think Johannes is just playing games here.Well I think he is trying to get people to understand the situation of the Church with these questions, but it is not really getting people to talk. They would rather talk about politics and jews. I don't know. I should go do something else for awhile. :cowboy:
5000 fleas off of a camel's back for me! I am deeply touched... I hope this is the beginning of something beautiful :cowboy:Those poor fleas........:'(
So, is this purely out of curiosity as to where the CI membership stands on the various matters?I think so.
I think he's attempting to build up his case to declare that everyone here is either wrong or a heretic, give it another week or so.It's the Socratic method. Rather than directly making an argument with statements, one asks questions that will lead people to figure things out for themselves.
It's the Socratic method. Rather than directly making an argument with statements, one asks questions that will lead people to figure things out for themselves.Some of the questions have already been answered, but those answers do not agree with his own ideas.
Some of the questions have already been answered, but those answers do not agree with his own ideas.Which ones?
And, just to note, the majority (as of right now) does NOT believe a pope can teach error(s) of any kind on faith and morals for the Universal Church. But if I had just listened to you - I would be led to believe that he can teach all manner of satanic heresy and general councils can promulgate apostasy every day of the week.
Note that out of all the changes, the only thing the devil did not obliterate was the legal hierarchical structure of the Church. They must have known they could leave that up to certain laypeople.
1) Do you believe that the College of Cardinals is de fide and necessary to make a pope?De Fide? WTH are you talking about? No it's not De Fide, it's the Church's law for the election of the Roman Pontiff that he be elected by the college of cardinals and nobody else, this law is very strict and is ratified by each pope successively. You do away with this law for no other reason than because it's necessary for you to alleviate your conundrum.
2) Do you believe that the concept of a legal structure can remain absent its continual use?What I believe ("my opinion") is irrelevant because the legal structure of the Church is not absent, it's right there, untouched by the Church's enemies until you came along and decided to insist it is absent in order to do away with your conundrum.
Some of the questions have already been answered, but those answers do not agree with his own ideas.
Agreed.There *are* no other possibilities while there are cardinals. None. Impossible.
I am not "doing away with anything", I am arguing that there are other possibilities:
Papal elections without the cardinals? – St Robert Bellarmine (https://www.wmreview.org/p/papal-elections-bellarmine)
The traditional structure remains in theory and can be reclaimed if God should so choose to make happen.God already made it happen because what He made happen still remains in reality, not in theory. It is only in (sede) theory that it does not remain.
Answers to the Crisis must coalesce with the entirety of the Church's teaching. Indefectibility is not intrinsically tied to the college of cardinals and/or having a pope every minute of the day. IMO twisting papal infallibility to support indefectibility is extremely problematic and perilous to faith. Though no single answer, or any human wisdom can solve the mystery of these times.It has to do directly with the law of papal elections, which is an act of the Church's Administration, not the Church's indefectibility or infallibility.
Do you believe that the Antichrist, when he comes, could be a valid pope?
You accept they are legitimate cardinals as a dogmatic fact, I do not. I dispute what you accept as an indisputable fact, in this regard, as ardently as I would deny that water is wet. Of course, the heretics themselves would insist that they are who they either;But you have no right, responsibility, obligation, or authority to deny or decide their legitimacy. IOW, it's none of your business and what you think doesn't matter one iota no matter how certain you think you are. The Church made it that way for a very good reason....so that nitwits like us don't go around destroying what the Church has, or more appropriately for these times, has left.
A) honestly think they are, but in fact are not - because no pope ever made them cardinals.If A and B are the facts, there is no possible way, in this world at least, to know unless the crooks themselves were to make a public confession, beyond that, it's only opinion and theory which really does not in any way concern us peons and can only make matters worse.
or
B) Are who they pretend to be, but are actually crypto-Jєωs (cabbalists), who have made it their business to pretend to be Catholic and infiltrate the Church and spread their poisons from the beginning.
Can the Vicar of Christ be a "beast of the apocalypse", or the Antichrist himself?
I have as much right to declare a fact as anyone. Not only do I have a right to proclaim the truth, but in certain cases, one has a duty to proclaim it, because the truth alone has rights - and this right/duty goes for everyone not just those who have office in the Church.But it's your opinion, not a truth. It's your opinion that you've elevated to dogmatic certainty.
I believe the evidence of these facts/opinions is pointing to a logical conclusion.The problem is that you base your belief, which leads to your "logical conclusion," on false premises.
These men you think are Cardinals are public heretics = observable fact by their adherence to VII false church.None of these are facts, they're only opinions and are based on the false premise that Catholics guilty of the sin of heresy are not members of the Church - yet these heretics should they want to repent can receive/administer what nobody who is not a member of the Church can receive/administer, the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. You call this "a mystery" and carry on as if it doesn't matter, as if that's all there is to it.
Heretics are not members of the Church = fact
No one can hold office in the Church if he is not a member (obviously, Van Noort) = theological opinion
You say the above are not facts because they will destroy the Church's hierarchy, that is simply not true.I said in order to arrive at your conclusion you have to destroy the only thing the enemies left untouched, the only thing they left standing - i.e the Church's hierarchical structure. You must go out of your way and destroy it for the enemy, for no other reason than to ultimately conclude it's your right to determine that popes are not popes.
On the other side - you for all practical purposes have to deny/twist aspects of papal infallibility to support the definition of indefectibility that suits your opinion. Indefectibility is less rigorously defined than papal infallibility.I'm not the one denying/twisting papal infallibility or the Church's indefectibility, you are. Your version involves 1) a blatantly obvious conundrum, 2) the rejection of the dogmatic papal definition from V1, and 3) destroying the legal structure of the Church - all so that 4) you can justify in your own mind that deciding the status of popes to not be popes is your right, and that it's up to you.
I did answer (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/doubtful-validity-of-sacraments-outside-tradition/120/)A lie against the truths of papal infallibility? In order to say that, you do not know what papal infallibility even is. It shows you have a false idea of what it is.
But I will add one more clarification; to call him the Jorge the pope is a lie. A lie against the truths of papal infallibility and the necessity of having the faith to be a member of the Church. A lie that one must tell themselves - the worst kind of lie as far as individual consequences are concerned. Though, one may be non-culpable for the lie because they were led to believe it innocently and it is devoid of malice, the effects can still linger.
Can the Vicar of Christ be a "beast of the apocalypse", or the Antichrist himself?
Irrelevant, you are doing the same thing with your "dogmatic certainty" when you state that an "uncatholic heretic" can be the pope!I would not say the conciliar popes have been uncatholic, I would say they've been anti-Catholic.
Only the Truth has rights, so either:
1) I am wrong, and you are right.
2) You are wrong, and I am right.
3) We are both wrong.
You are the one who is dissenting from what the ordinary and infallible magisterium of the Church has always taught about what makes one a member of the Church and what excludes one from membership. You seem to be hung up on how someone who was a Catholic can fall outside the Church due to "apostasy, heresy, or schism" (Pius XII), but then subsequently, due to true penance for their sin of heresy - that they confess - then can be brought back into the membership of the Church. Either you are extremely ignorant, or malicious on this point. I assume it is the first.No, in order to suit your opinion you have adulterated what the Church teaches here. They are not "brought back into membership of the Church" through confession because non-Catholics cannot go to confession at all, I'm sure you know this but I will remind you now that the sacrament of penance is only for members of the Church, hence, nobody who is outside of the Church can go to confession at all.
Trent Chapter VIII could go on and indisputably refute your misguided, misunderstanding of the catechisms and quotes you provided, but maybe if you concede the reason you're hell bent on your wrong idea is due to sedeism, and concentrate on what I said above, in time it will become clearer to you that one who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments.
On the Reservation of Cases
..."But it is consonant [in agreement] to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavor, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
I hope you have a Merry Christmas, and the Christ Child blesses you abundantly!Thank you! And I wish you and yours the same!
Fascinating...So, you do believe a legitimate pope can be antichrist! To say that someone is "anti-Catholic" is the equivalent of saying they are antichrist. You believe that the pope can be antichrist - perhaps not THE Antichrist, but AN antichrist. Christ and the pope make One Head of the Church not two and you say the Head can be both Christ and antichrist You are saying they can be Catholic & anticatholic at the same time 2+2=5/A=NOT A.Christ is the head of the Church, Christ and the Church are one. As Christ's vicar, the pope is only second in command, But Christ and the pope are not one. Christ and the Church are one, the pope is not the Church, hence Christ and the pope are two, not one. The two make one head only when the pope speaks ex cathedra.
So, what if the cardinals have elected popes for 1000 years? How were they elected for the first 1000 years before that? You already admitted that papal elections via the college of cardinals is not de fide. All that is necessary is the Church must have a way to elect a pope - even lay people could do this if that is what the situation required. The men you say are cardinals are all heretics and were incapable of assuming any office whatsoever. Antichrist cannot rule over Christ. Heretics cannot spiritually rule over the faithful. This was all clearly referenced above under the "Delict of Heresy", cuм Ex, etc. This makes me right and you wrong.Here what you are doing is destroying the established traditions and laws on papal elections of the past 1000 years which were established by successive popes. Do you believe these popes were popes? Do you believe these popes lacked the authority and that lay people and priests can just ignore them in a crisis?
I will ask some questions:1) Yes, of course.
1) Do you believe that being a member of the Church is the same thing as belonging to the Body of the Church?
2) Do you believe that someone being "severed from the Body of the Church" results in them being "outside the Church"?
Both extremes are in error, but the one where the Church's Magisterium can defect is not Catholic and is heretical. R&R hide behind +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre did not in fact hold this.
And yet Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX was never, ever any brand of sedevacantist, even when the Archbishop was alive. You have not been truthful about what +ABL believed, and I have shown this in the past. I respect your opinions on several subjects other than sedevacantism, but you are wrong about this issue.
There are many traditional Catholics who do not, and have not ever held to your opinions on the subject. It's the same with the opinion of Johannes.
Agreed the pope is not "impeccable". Do you imagine that I think the pope is literally Christ Incarnate in His divine & human natures? The pope is just a man and can suffer all the weaknesses of other men, only his "faith fails not".Well if he is not impeccable, then how do you explain the solemn teaching that Christ and the pope are one head? Consider as I just said above, "The two make one head only when the pope speaks ex cathedra." This is the only time for certain the solemn teaching is referring to, i.e. that "his faith fail not" and "Christ and the pope constitute one head."
If it did - God would allow the heretic to manifest to you publicly that he who you thought was pope was no longer pope (or never was to begin with).You have no other choice but to destroy the legal structure of the Church in order to claim papal elections are invalid. There is no other possible way to do it, regardless of how you do it, it must be done - even if that means it was done decades before you were born.
You keep stating that I am destroying something, the living college of cardinals was already destroyed back in the 1960s. The concept remains and no one can destroy that. God may choose to restore it - I don't have a read on His plans. What you are doing here is elevating an administrative process to the level of the Divine constitution of the Church, but Christ made no cardinals and for the first 1000 yrs neither did the Church. You must not conflate ecclesiastical laws with Divine laws some are some are not. The college of cardinals is not of Divine Law.
True popes never "lack authority" but rather have supreme authority over the whole Church - you are the one who is "ignoring" your "pope". It is truly unbelievable that you are audacious enough not to recognize your resistance to him! By you "ignoring" Francis and making the remote magisterium according to your own interpretation - your living rule of faith - instead obeying and following the man who you say is the pope your "Holy Father" (who you also believe is the "Vicar of Christ" while simultaneously being an antichrist)! Oh, what a tangled web we weave...Read my signature. It should clear up the false dilemma you've invented for me - again - in order for you to maintain your starting point.
There already is a "new church", and you belong to it by associating yourself with Francis as the head of the church that you profess to belong to. He cannot both be the head of a new church and the Catholic Church.
But this is here is why I stopped participating in debates/arguments on CathInfo, individuals like yourself who wouldn't understand a nuance or distinction if it hit them in the face and then pontificating heretical statements as if they were Catholic teaching.
We see in this debate a false dilemma or false dichotomy. Because (many) R&R cling to the position that the Magisterium can become thoroughly corrupt ... with the exception only of those once-or-twice-per-century dogmatic definitions, the SVs have overreacted by exaggerating the limits and scope of infallibility to the (absurd) opposite extreme where a pope is infallible every time he passes wind, to extents that no theologian between Vatican I and Vatican II ever held. As is nearly always true, the truth is in the middle. I recommend Msgr. Fenton's essay on the infallibility of papal encyclicals for the Catholic balance.Stay away from Fr. Fenton's essay, according to him we should all be following the conciliar popes because God gave popes "a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility" and that those who follow his directives "will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience."
This debate is at the wrong level, at the level of infallibility, whereas the issue here is indefectibility.The Church's indefectibiity is not at all the issue, if anything, it's the last thing we need to concern ourselves with. The Church will never defect, we know this because Christ and the Church are one. To worry about the Church defecting is to worry about Christ defecting - which is the absolute height of absurdity.
You must not confuse the responsibility and dignity of the office of the papacy with the individual soul of the person of the man who occupies the chair. Juridically, Christ and pope make up one Head. This means Christ cannot steer the ship into the rocks and crash it like you believe he can when you say the Vicar of Christ is "anti-Catholic" (antichrist). Christ will always prevent a true pope from doing that.I'm not the one confusing anything, when the cardinals elect a pope, upon the election by the cardinals the one elected is "instantly the true pope with full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - PPX
"At any rate" is an idiomatic expression that means "in any event" or "whatever the case may beYou're saying: Laws established and mandated by popes may be broken because they're not infallible. Although out of necessity to maintain your starting point you choose to ignore the law, we Catholics strive to be meticulous in favor of and toward the law, we cannot ignore the law or make it conform to our opinion, our opinion must conform with the law, that's why it's there.
(https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=77a1a3d522f9450f0a7f71eb38df419fad28445b304332335a6e4d2598634eb1JmltdHM9MTczNTI1NzYwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=2e274efc-c52c-6fe2-2d5c-5ba7c43e6e01&psq=at+any+rate&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9pZGlvbXMudGhlZnJlZWRpY3Rpb25hcnkuY29tL2F0K2FueStyYXRl&ntb=1)Therefore, nothing above merits any response you have conceded that you only hold an opinion, "whatever the case may be". I have already amply shown you that the office of Cardinal is NOT of the Divine Constitution of the Church as established by Christ but rather is a mechanism that was put into ecclesiastical law later (and you know this to be true anyway).
Perfecto! Bravo! You see it - they were always popes to begin with:
Christ and pope are One Head = true, when the pope speaks ex cathedra.
Conclusion = Church is fine, Christ is still at the helm.
1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
Laws change, based on the needs of the Church - the highest law is the salvation of souls. If the mechanism to perform some law no longer exists in actuality or has been replaced or superseded for some reason - the Church knows how to adjust her fire and still hit the target, because, ultimately, Christ is calling the shots, and He never misses.Of course, laws may change when they are actually changed by the proper authority, until then they are the law established for the purpose of serving the highest law, which indeed is the salvation of souls. But we do not have the authority and are not in any position to simply ignore the established laws if they disagree with our opinion, and the idea that popes are not popes is nothing more than your opinion.
1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
By "sedeism" I assume you mean the logical conclusion that one forms based on sound Catholic teaching that currently the Chair of Peter is vacant....Ok, well, you've chosen to make your conclusion your belief, based on what you opine is "the logical conclusion." What you are saying is you've made your opinion a de fide doctrine and you're not only fine with that, you live by it. At least you're not lukewarm.
So, no - I will not admit that the Chair of Peter being currently vacant is just "my opinion", rather it is my belief, otherwise, I would not have the conviction to act upon it if it were mere opinion.
A pope may make an ecclesiastical law on how to elect his successor, if that law cannot be observed because the mechanism to use for following it no longer exists, then the Church must still have a way to elect a successor to the Seat of Peter in keeping with the Divine Constitution of the Church laid down by Christ. She does and always will.Well, the popes have made laws mandating how to elect their successors, and to date, that law has only been abrogated by opinions of some priests and lay people. Beyond that, that law is still in effect for all Catholics apparently except for those few.
You keep conflating ecclesiastical laws with Divine laws. On the other hand, it is of Divine law (and ecclesiastical law, cuм Ex, Canon Law, etc.) that heretics do not belong to the Body of the Church.I'm not conflating anything, you misunderstand what is meant by "Christ and the pope are one head." If it means what you believe it means, then everything popes do, Christ does, ergo, everything Christ does, popes do. But out of necessity to maintain your starting point, you say this does not apply to ecclesiastical law, specifically, this does not apply to the laws on papal elections. Imagine believing this and at the same time, of all things, the papal laws established on the election of popes being mandated with only one head, i.e. without Christ. This is your conclusion on such an important event that will effect the whole Church and hundreds of millions of souls, possibly for many decades is done without Christ?
Yes, and they also made laws and pronouncements that heretics cannot hold any offices - which are based on Divine law and cannot be abrogated. Purely ecclesiastical laws can be abrogated or dispensed from if the means to follow them are not attainable.I agree, but there are some things priests and lay people cannot do, one of those things is we cannot abrogate the laws on papal elections. Although you need to disagree in order to maintain a vacant chair, the rest of the Church, thankfully, cannot do that because first, there is no reason to do that and second, because we are forbidden from doing that.
Weeeeeeeeeeeee round and round we go hurrrraayyyyyy!Well, we keep going around because you keep avoiding and redirecting into circular, absurd arguments the points I am making - the bolded is the latest example of this.
So, I was wondering how long it would take us to come here... You NEED "hundreds of millions of souls" to be saved. This is your underlying reason for what you are doing.
Quote It is not a redirection. Nor is it absurd, but rather it is the root reason you believe and act as you do by recognizing the apostasy and partially resisting it rather than outright rejecting it.I do outright reject it, I just do it without deciding the status of popes and attempting all the theological wizardry that goes along with doing that. But the rest of your post is still way off track, I mean it has nothing to do with the law of papal elections.
29. None of the Cardinals, on the pretext or cause of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or otherSo while you're depending on the idea that heretics cannot be popes, PPX and all popes after him condemn your opinion as noted in the above quote. While you're promoting the idea that heretic cardinals all defected and are outside of the Church, PPX mandated that even excommunicated heretic cardinals must vote in the conclave. He did this for good reason. That you're not understanding it therefore not accepting it, doesn't ipso facto abrogate it, it is still there and will be there until abrogated by (one of the) next popes.
ecclesiastical hindrance, can be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff in any
way; indeed, we suspend such censures and excommunications only for the effect of this election, to those
who will otherwise continue in their strength.
Just how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).
PPX mandated that even excommunicated heretic cardinals must vote in the conclave.I don't know if this makes any difference, I haven't read the whole thread, but is there a difference between
It really does not matter Meg, the point I attempted to make is that it is the pope making the law who is the one concerned (not me) with the procedure of electing a pope because it effects the whole future Church, this is why he made it a law.QuoteJust how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).I know that stubborn can address this question himself, but I just wanted point out that the laity aren't required to prove the number of the Church Militant on earth. Where in Church teaching does it say that we are supposed to ever know this number, even roughly speaking? Of course you will not reply to this post, and that's fine, but I wanted to put it out there anyway.
I don't know if this makes any difference, I haven't read the whole thread, but is there a difference betweenJust use basic Catholic theology, there is nothing complicated whatsoever in all of this.
none can be excluded
&
all must be included
To save myself the time I will just reproduce the rebuttal in full for you here:I've refuted all of this more than once in this thread, I see no point in us continuing it, thanks for the convo and God Bless you.
ANSWER: As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a pope is the head of the Church. It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.
What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis? First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things. Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor. Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins. Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length). Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life. Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office, falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister (c. 2342), etc. These are all ecclesiastical or Church penalties. Such actions, though gravely sinful, did not separate a person from the Church. And though the terms major and minor excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for heresy which would separate him from the Church.
Therefore, a cardinal who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a cardinal because heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV). But a cardinal who receives an excommunication for something else is still a cardinal, though in a state of grave sin. So when Pope Pius XII says that all cardinals, whatever ecclesiastical impediment they are under, can vote and be elected in a Papal conclave, this presupposes cardinals who have received an excommunication for something other than heresy, since a cardinal who has received an excommunication for heresy is not a cardinal at all. The key point to understand is that heresy is not merely an ecclesiastical impediment – thus it is not what Pius XII is talking about – but an impediment by divine law. Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, but impediments flowing from the divine law. Pius XII’s legislation doesn’t apply to heresy because he was speaking about ecclesiastical impediments: “…or any other ecclesiastical impediment…”. Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, which is why he didn’t mention heretics. Pope Pius XII was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication.
To further prove the point, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope. Notice what Pius XII says:Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor. This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office! Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.If a heretic (one who denies the faith) could be the head inside the Church, then the dogma that the Church is one in faith (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic) would be false.
Now, look here:
The Divine Will and Intelligence is not directing every single thing a pope does - absurd! The pope is not a human shell through whom Christ is reincarnate - I assume you know this. In ecclesiastical laws, Christ gave the papacy full autonomy "whatever you bind is bound...loose is loosed". But no one on earth has the power to go against Divine law - not even a pope. One can be excommunicated for many things other than heresy, that is why when basic catechisms speak of who DOES NOT belong to the Church it lists heretics and excommunicates separately. Heresy is the sin the "Severs from the Body" (you have no way of avoiding this). Even a child with 2nd grade reading skills can see and understand this. It is of Divine law that heretics do not belong to the Church and therefore cannot hold any offices. See how this basic Divine law shatters your whole argument? Christ gives a true pope supreme authority over the faithful and he has much leeway to do as he sees fit in the Church and he can even misjudge others, act imprudently, rashly, disrespectfully, and be an enormous personal sinner. What a pope cannot do is lose the faith and teach heresy in words/deeds. For so by doing, he would be manifesting public heresy - and proving he is not even a member of the Church and "obviously, anyone who is not a member of the Church cannot rule over Her." (Van Noort).
The bolded portion of your quote above translates to, " Your conclusion seems really bad for lots of people, so it must be false!!!" This is of course all stemming from a compassionate root, but it is a false compassion based not on the Divine law and truths of the faith, but based on a human understanding and placing limits on what God will allow and what He wills.
Just how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).
Why is infallibility attributed to +ABL? No one ever wants to admit he could have be wrong.I dunno, I've been watching the whole sede conundrum play out since the 70s, so I can say with certainty that most of the exact same arguments that are going on today have been around since at least then, the same arguments are repeated over and over and over again, it's the same old thing but with different players.
Let's face it, he was all over the place when it came to how JP2 could do what he was doing. +ABL went from JP2 being a public heretic and can't be the Pope to he's the Pope and we have to sift.
Let's use teachings of popes and councils as the litmus test...not +ABL.
Oh wait, the popes are wrong and +ABL isn't. /s
Why is infallibility attributed to +ABL? No one ever wants to admit he could have be wrong.
Let's face it, he was all over the place when it came to how JP2 could do what he was doing. +ABL went from JP2 being a public heretic and can't be the Pope to he's the Pope and we have to sift.
Let's use teachings of popes and councils as the litmus test...not +ABL.
Oh wait, the popes are wrong and +ABL isn't. /s
(https://i.imgur.com/sETufP1.jpeg)The audacity of you, Johannes, coming to this Resistance site and flooding it with your crooked opinions!
a) they are themselves heretics and heretics can hold no offices in the Church because they are not even members of the Church (from Divine Law) and,
You like to point out that the great guide that Providence sent us in this critical time in Church history in Archbishop Lefebvre is not infallible, but you evidently think that you are, in spite of the fact that so many theologians and saints teach the opposite of what you affirm.