Author Topic: Quote from old Catholic book supports sedevacantists (Read 13449 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #30 on:** February 07, 2017, 11:32:07 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Recusant Sede

If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.

If you say so.

In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.

Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.

At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!

Guess what Stubborn if we don't have the above, neither do you and your ilk.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #31 on:** February 07, 2017, 11:52:05 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Recusant Sede

If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.

If you say so.

In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.

Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.

At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!

And where is the hierarchy that you submit to? Most Protestants acknowledge Bergoglio as pope, but they don't submit to him, now do they? What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** February 07, 2017, 12:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Recusant Sede

If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.

If you say so.

In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.

Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.

At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!

And where is the hierarchy that you submit to? Most Protestants acknowledge Bergoglio as pope, but they don't submit to him, now do they? What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?

I submit blindly, only to God, as should everyone.

No one is bound to submit to anyone, not even the pope if he wants us to do something displeasing to God.

Remember, the dogma decrees "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" - the dogma most certainly does not decree that "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature to submit to the Roman Pontiff."

The sedevacantists do not make this distinction, in fact I know of one who insists that the two different words mean exactly the same thing and other sedevacantists who agree with him. I don't know for sure but it sounds as if you agree with him too.

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** February 07, 2017, 12:32:49 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Recusant Sede

If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.

If you say so.

In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.

Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.

At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!

Guess what Stubborn if we don't have the above, neither do you and your ilk.

Sorry Myrna, but though we agree that the hierarchy is overall comprised of modernist heretics, to those of us who remain non-anarchists, they all still hold their offices legitimately - therefore, me and my ilk have the above, you on the other hand, do not.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 07, 2017, 12:53:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Well lets see, sedevacantists conclude that all those V2 cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, sedevacantists insist the elections of all the conciliar popes by the V2 and post V2 cardinals were invalid. Since the two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected.

Further still, all the conciliar bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since all the conciliar popes' elections were invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the conciliar bishops, hold their offices legitimately, as such it only stands to reason that neither are there any more priests. The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries and all the NO priests are only heretical laymen.

Is that about right?

That's the anarchy of which I speak.

Stubborn,

It's not sedevacantists who conclude certain clergy have lost their offices due to heresy, it is the CHURCH who has concluded this for the faithful by creating a LAW that says so. Sedevacantists simply follow that law. For example, this one as told by St. Robert Bellarmine - many others can be given that say the same:

"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff

You'll notice that St. Robert also mentions the early fathers taught the same. It is YOU who are the one creating anarchy by not following the law.

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #35 on:** February 07, 2017, 01:46:00 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Recusant Sede
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Recusant Sede

If Mr. Bergoglio were to have a complete conversion and by this I mean 100%. He would have to explicitly reject all of the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, religious liberty, the NO mass, etc. He would then have to be conditionally ordained and consecrated and also demand that the clergy that are deemed to profess the true faith be conditionally ordained and consecrated. All of the modernist clergy would have to be physically removed from the Church's buildings and be denounced if they do not profess the true faith.

If you say so.

In the mean time, you have no pope and no hierarchy or clergy and no means of electing a pope, hence restoring the hierarchy and Church - yet presumably have been able to keep the Catholic faith for the last 58 years without them. Makes one wonder, after 58 years without one, why sedevacantists even need a pope at all.

Which takes us back to why I said "sedevacantists argue themselves into a mentality of total lawlessness, the *only* consequence of which is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism.

At least you did not deny it. Good on you for that!

And where is the hierarchy that you submit to? Most Protestants acknowledge Bergoglio as pope, but they don't submit to him, now do they? What all Catholics must do is submit to the reignng Roman Pontiff, do you submit to Bergoglio or do you just acknowledge him as pope?

I submit blindly, only to God, as should everyone.

No one is bound to submit to anyone, not even the pope if he wants us to do something displeasing to God.

Remember, the dogma decrees "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" - the dogma most certainly does not decree that "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature to submit to the Roman Pontiff."

The sedevacantists do not make this distinction, in fact I know of one who insists that the two different words mean exactly the same thing and other sedevacantists who agree with him. I don't know for sure but it sounds as if you agree with him too.

Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** February 07, 2017, 02:51:25 PM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?

Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.

From another post to An Even Seven.......

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51

Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?

I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #37 on:** February 07, 2017, 03:22:45 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?

Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.

From another post to An Even Seven.......

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51

Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?

I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

I see how St. Thomas was subject to his temporal king as long as it did not cause him to deny an article of faith. I see how the Christ Child obeyed his parents. I see how inferiors are to be subject to their superiors in all things but sin.

Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #38 on:** February 07, 2017, 03:42:53 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?

Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.

From another post to An Even Seven.......

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51

Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?

I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Is Bergoglio subject to the Papacy?

TKGS · « **Reply #39 on:** February 07, 2017, 04:14:39 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Whatever you have "come to believe" about what sedevacantists do or do not understand, it is absolutely clear that you certainly do not understand what the word means.

Every time I read your posts, I am reminded of Inigo Montoya telling Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 07, 2017, 06:30:15 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?

Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.

From another post to An Even Seven.......

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51

Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?

I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

I'm continually amazed at how Stubborn openly admits to being a schismatic on this website, yet for some reason he is not booted out the door. All we need to do is look in any Catholic book before Vatican II to see that it has NEVER been a teaching of the Church to obey the Pope in all circuмstances "except where sin is involved", as if popes can teach the faithful to sin. What an anti-Catholic bunch of garbage.

Looking up the definition of Schism in "A Catholic Dictionary", it states: "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope..." (it doesn't provide any exceptions) and further down it continues, "Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated". Enough said on that.

I've learned a long time ago that you shouldn't bother spinning your wheels with Stubborn....his posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2017, 07:23:33 PM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

I see how St. Thomas was subject to his temporal king as long as it did not cause him to deny an article of faith. I see how the Christ Child obeyed his parents. I see how inferiors are to be subject to their superiors in all things but sin.

Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?

Absolutely! I'm glad that we agree on something of importance!

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** February 07, 2017, 07:25:48 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Stubborn
I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Whatever you have "come to believe" about what sedevacantists do or do not understand, it is absolutely clear that you certainly do not understand what the word means.

Every time I read your posts, I am reminded of Inigo Montoya telling Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I never saw The Princess Bride.

As I said, this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning. Is it your understanding that both have the same meaning as well?

Stubborn · « **Reply #43 on:** February 07, 2017, 07:27:47 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Recusant Sede

Can you please explain to my how you are subject to Bergoglio?

Paraphrasing st. Thomas More's last words: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first". I think explains it absolutely perfectly.

From another post to An Even Seven.......

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51

Are not all subordinates subject to their superiors? Are not all children subject to their parents - in all things except sin?

I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning.

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

I'm continually amazed at how Stubborn openly admits to being a schismatic on this website, yet for some reason he is not booted out the door. All we need to do is look in any Catholic book before Vatican II to see that it has NEVER been a teaching of the Church to obey the Pope in all circuмstances "except where sin is involved", as if popes can teach the faithful to sin. What an anti-Catholic bunch of garbage.

Looking up the definition of Schism in "A Catholic Dictionary", it states: "The refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope..." (it doesn't provide any exceptions) and further down it continues, "Anyone guilty of an external act of schism is ipso facto excommunicated". Enough said on that.

I've learned a long time ago that you shouldn't bother spinning your wheels with Stubborn....his posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's sad that you demonstrate a clear understanding of schism - no pleading ignorance for you.

Stubborn · « **Reply #44 on:** February 07, 2017, 08:57:44 PM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Recusant Sede

I see how St. Thomas was subject to his temporal king as long as it did not cause him to deny an article of faith. I see how the Christ Child obeyed his parents. I see how inferiors are to be subject to their superiors in all things but sin.

Now, can we agree that being subject to someone is to submit to their authority or to obey that person as long as that person does not command us to sin?

Absolutely! I'm glad that we agree on something of importance!

So you admit that being subject to someone is submitting to their authority!

You agree to this and then in the post below you say this:

"As I said, this suspicion was proven true on another forum where another sedevacantist informed me that both "must be subject to" and "must submit to" have the exact meaning. Is it your understanding that both have the same meaning as well?"

Do you even read what you write?

Good heavens man! Being subject to the pope is *not* the same as submitting to the pope in all things even when he wants us to do something displeasing to God.

The sedevacantists' problem is that they wrongly believe that the pope is incapable of wanting such a thing.