Author Topic: Question For Caminus RE: Anti-popes (Read 707 times)

roscoe · « **on:** February 13, 2010, 07:22:38 PM »

Caminus-- Is there such a thing as an anti-pope? and if so could you give us an example of one. Ciao

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:45:49 PM »

It's very simple C-- there are 3 poss answers. Yes, no or I don't know.

roscoe · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:53:18 PM »

Don't try and hijack the point either by bringing up alleged 'sedes'.

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2010, 03:25:00 PM »

Would SJT like to take a shot at this? How about GV or Belloc?

You guys are no fun at all. Ciao

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2010, 04:37:39 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Caminus-- Is there such a thing as an anti-pope? and if so could you give us an example of one. Ciao

You speak of 'anti-pope' as if it has it's own ontological existence. There have been anti-popes in the past, many in fact. I could find you a list if you so desire.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2010, 04:52:37 PM »

Would you agree with Matthew when he says the current crisis in the Church is Without Precedent?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2010, 07:43:58 PM »

Caminus said:

Quote

You speak of 'anti-pope' as if it has it's own ontological existence.

"Ontological existence"? "Ontological" MEANS "pertaining to existence." Wikipedia: Ontology "is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general."

I don't usually pick on people for mistakes like this. The problem is that you often try to sound like an expert theologian, bully people with use of impressive-sounding words, and so on. Those already predisposed to the SSPX position would simply read through your verbal pottage and nod, thinking "Yep, he's got it down all right" without being able to understand what you're talking about, but assuming you are an expert due to your tone of confidence, which as you and I both know is a bluff.

A certain non-Pope currently pretending to reign in Rome uses a similar technique. He simply exhausts people with double-minded speech so that they don't bother to read what he's saying, which often is heretical. They just think "'Hermeneutic of continuity', huh? Sounds like a Pope!"

roscoe · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2010, 07:52:57 PM »

He used soteriological the other day and I had to look it up.

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2010, 08:10:52 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus said:
Quote
You speak of 'anti-pope' as if it has it's own ontological existence.

"Ontological existence"? "Ontological" MEANS "pertaining to existence." Wikipedia: Ontology "is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general."

I don't usually pick on people for mistakes like this. The problem is that you often try to sound like an expert theologian, bully people with use of impressive-sounding words, and so on. Those already predisposed to the SSPX position would simply read through your verbal pottage and nod, thinking "Yep, he's got it down all right" without being able to understand what you're talking about, but assuming you are an expert due to your tone of confidence, which as you and I both know is a bluff.

A certain non-Pope currently pretending to reign in Rome uses a similar technique. He simply exhausts people with double-minded speech so that they don't bother to read what he's saying, which often is heretical. They just think "'Hermeneutic of continuity', huh? Sounds like a Pope!"

Right, what I should have said is platonic form subsisting in itself.