Author Topic: Quote from old Catholic book supports sedevacantists (Read 13443 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #60 on:** February 08, 2017, 01:24:57 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Stubborn,

If we look on the home page of Francisquotes.com, we can find a list of quotes with direct links to the Vatican websites showing Francis doing the following:

Promoting Atheism
Doubting the Blessed Trinity
Condemning capital punishment when the Church has approved of it
Approving of cohabitation/concubinage
Speaking positively of communism
Approving of contraception
Condemning conversion/proselytizing
Approving of ecuмenism
Approving of pagans worshiping their false gods
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
Questioning the omnipotence of God
Approving of prayer in common when the Church has repeatedly condemned it
Commemorating the Protestant Reformation
Denying that sins are forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession
Saying that the majority of sacramental marriages are null
Approving of same-sex marriage
Approving of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Approving of sex education
Approving of ѕυιcιdє

Even an uneducated child before the age of reason could tell you some of these are wrong because they are contrary to even the Natural Law. You are defending SIN - Don't even bother saying that defending sin is "fulfilling a requirement for your salvation".

Keep in mind that the Church teaches there are 9 ways in partaking in another's sin:

By Counsel
By Command
By Consent
By Provocation
By Flattery
By Concealment
By Silence
By Participation
By Justification

By giving us your heroic statement that you will be subject to Francis, your partaking in his sins by several of these ways; by consent, by silence, and by justification at a minimum. That's not putting God first, that's putting YOU first. You're not fooling anybody, and just giving us all the more reason to tune you out in these forums.

What this whole post insinuates is really quite ridiculous.

Arvinger · « **Reply #61 on:** February 08, 2017, 01:41:39 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.

That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #62 on:** February 08, 2017, 01:56:27 PM »

The big difference is that Francis believes that all religions are saved by that fact alone. The Church believe that all men will have a chance for grace, might it be at their last second of life, I do not know, which is why the Church forbids us to judge their soul.
If the Jew or Muslim desire the One Baptism I feel that would have to come from their conversion, don't you? Why else would they desire Baptism?

Francis on the other hand, does not believe a conversion is necessary, and you know that from his many words.

Please do no misrepresent the meaning of sedevacantism, it is not a schismatic sect because we defend the Papacy we do not reject it, there is the difference compared to other schismatic who reject the Papacy.

If you believe we have a True Pope, so be it, I only wish you would tell me who it is?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #63 on:** February 08, 2017, 02:20:02 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM

You don't know everything Stubborn and you don't know anything about the position of sedevacantism. Just because we don't sit and bite our fingernails about the pope issue, you think we gave up on the idea of ever having a True pope.

Very true that I don't know everything, I do know quite a bit about the sedevacantist position though - for example, I know you submit to the papacy - whatever that means - I know this because you've posted as much at least a few times. The dogma decrees it is altogether necessary to be subject to the pope though, not the papacy.

Quote from: MyrnaM

You claim you are the pope's good subject but I ask you what pope are you subject to, the past True popes or Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes.

You say you are subject to God first, then submit to God and stop resisting Him, trust that He, God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time.

Currently I am subject to Francis who is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes - but I am subject to God first. God is the One, after all, who revealed the dogma that it is altogether necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope.

I mean no insult to you Myrna, but saying "God will give us a True Pope in HIS TIME, not your time" makes no sense for a few reasons; 1) I'm not even the one waiting for a pope, you are. As it is, God saw fit to give us pope Francis, who, as you rightly say, is opposite in his teachings and contradicts past popes, and 2) your saying that I am waiting for a pope reminds me a remark Fr. Feeney made about Jews......“The poor Jews are like expectant travelers waiting in a railroad station for a train which went by 2,000 years ago”, the sedevacantists are waiting for a pope, while a pope has been in office all along, or like the man who looks high and low and cannot find his eye glasses anywhere, as they sit on top of his head.

No, I am not waiting for a pope, I am taking the easiest and surest path possible to guarantee for me that I meet the requirement for salvation of being subject to the pope by always being subject to God first. All things considered, it's really pretty easy.

Nice to know you are happy with things the way they are, sort of put some creditability on the note above to whoever thinks you might be a paid shill or whatever they call them.
The Modernist calling the shots are not waiting for any change either.

Arvinger · « **Reply #64 on:** February 08, 2017, 03:08:13 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

The big difference is that Francis believes that all religions are saved by that fact alone. The Church believe that all men will have a chance for grace, might it be at their last second of life, I do not know, which is why the Church forbids us to judge their soul.

Myrna, I've been pointing it out to you several times (not just me, other users as well) - you completely confuse two distinct categories here. Yes, we cannot judge fate of individual souls, but we most certainly can know what are the objective conditions for salvation without which nobody can be saved - namely, the sacrament of baptism and explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Nobody can be saved without those - the fact that we cannot judge individual souls does not mean that those who die without baptism and without faith in Christ and Trinity can be saved.

Quote from: MyrnaM

If the Jew or Muslim desire the One Baptism I feel that would have to come from their conversion, don't you? Why else would they desire Baptism?

If they receive the sacrament of Baptism through BoD and believe in Christ and the Trinity they are no longer Jews and Muslims, but Catholics. However, vast majority of sedevacantist priests believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved in their false religions if they are "invincibly ignorant".

Quote from: MyrnaM

Francis on the other hand, does not believe a conversion is necessary, and you know that from his many words.

Sedevacantist priests also believe in salvation of infidels without conversion. Just one example out of many:

"The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error." (Bishop Donald Sanborn)

Quote from: MyrnaM

If you believe we have a True Pope, so be it, I only wish you would tell me who it is?

I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #65 on:** February 08, 2017, 03:29:39 PM »

Quote

I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.

Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #66 on:** February 08, 2017, 03:41:40 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Quote
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.

Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.

The only time I bring it up is when someone here mocks sedevacantism.

Also I don't believe all are saved as Francis pretends, I think it strange that it is MISTAKENLY brought up that to be sede is similar to what Francis believes by his denial of EENS, and at the same time those who attest that Francis is a Pope with certainty ignore their popes denial of EENS as trifle.

My belief is this: Matthew 7:14
How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
Yet, no one can say that a particular soul is in hell with certainty, no matter, only God can judge who died in the state of Sanctifying grace.

Arvinger · « **Reply #67 on:** February 08, 2017, 03:59:48 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Also I don't believe all are saved as Francis pretends, I think it strange that it is MISTAKENLY brought up that to be sede is similar to what Francis believes by his denial of EENS, and at the same time those who attest that Francis is a Pope with certainty ignore their popes denial of EENS as trifle.

The theological positions of sedevacantist priests on EENS (namely, that all kinds of infidels can be saved without conversion if they are invincibly ignorant) taken to their logical conclusion mean that there is no substantial error in V2's and Bergoglio's soteriology - even if sede priests don't realize it.

Dimonds, many faults they have, nailed it perfectly:

"This heretical teaching that non-Catholics can be united to the Church and be saved without the Catholic Faith was actually the key to the Great Apostasy. Once this heresy was imbibed, Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Church could then justify almost anything because “we cannot say that all of them are lost.” All of Vatican II’s heresies on ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc. are directly connected to what Sanborn and priests like him believe. In fact, if you were to ask a Novus Ordo priest about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of the Catholic Faith, you would receive an answer very similar to Donald Sanborn’s answer above [this is reference to +Sanborn's quote which I cited in my previous post]. The Novus Ordo priest would tell you about invincible ignorance, the soul of the Church, etc."

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #68 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:00:01 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Matto
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.

That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.

It's really not going to make any difference to start challenging individual things in the previously posted summary of what Francis has been saying. Go back and look at the summary again. If even ONE thing in the list is heresy (which everyone reading this knows is the case), then the result is SEDEVACANTISM according to the ordinary magisterium. End of story.

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:02:35 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: saintbosco13

Stubborn,

If we look on the home page of Francisquotes.com, we can find a list of quotes with direct links to the Vatican websites showing Francis doing the following:

Promoting Atheism
Doubting the Blessed Trinity
Condemning capital punishment when the Church has approved of it
Approving of cohabitation/concubinage
Speaking positively of communism
Approving of contraception
Condemning conversion/proselytizing
Approving of ecuмenism
Approving of pagans worshiping their false gods
Saying that those in the Islam false religion will be saved
Saying that those in the Jєωιѕн religion will be saved
Questioning the omnipotence of God
Approving of prayer in common when the Church has repeatedly condemned it
Commemorating the Protestant Reformation
Denying that sins are forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession
Saying that the majority of sacramental marriages are null
Approving of same-sex marriage
Approving of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity
Approving of sex education
Approving of ѕυιcιdє

Even an uneducated child before the age of reason could tell you some of these are wrong because they are contrary to even the Natural Law. You are defending SIN - Don't even bother saying that defending sin is "fulfilling a requirement for your salvation".

Keep in mind that the Church teaches there are 9 ways in partaking in another's sin:

By Counsel
By Command
By Consent
By Provocation
By Flattery
By Concealment
By Silence
By Participation
By Justification

By giving us your heroic statement that you will be subject to Francis, your partaking in his sins by several of these ways; by consent, by silence, and by justification at a minimum. That's not putting God first, that's putting YOU first. You're not fooling anybody, and just giving us all the more reason to tune you out in these forums.

What this whole post insinuates is really quite ridiculous.

You are like a deer in the headlights on this point. I rest my case.

Arvinger · « **Reply #70 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:08:02 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Matto
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.

That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.

It's really not going to make any difference to start challenging individual things in the previously posted summary of what Francis has been saying. Go back and look at the summary again. If even ONE thing in the list is heresy (which everyone reading this knows is the case), then the result is SEDEVACANTISM according to the ordinary magisterium. End of story.

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.

I'm not sure why you quote me on this, I did not say anything about sedevacantism per se in that post. Rather, I pointed out inconsistency in the beliefs of majority of sedevacantist priests regarding EENS and V2.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #71 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:18:26 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Quote
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.

Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.

Theological theory???? You are missing the boat. This topic was raised at the First Vatican Council and here is what they had to say:

"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy."
Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago

By the way you can find this book by searching for any of the text above in Google books. This is not theological theory, this is Church teaching.

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #72 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:26:33 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: saintbosco13
Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Matto
I read what you posted. My point when I made my initial post was not to start an argument about Baptism of Desire, which I do believe in by the way, but only to say that if you believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved by Baptism of Desire, you should not condemn Pope Francis for believing that Jews and Muslims can be saved because you also believe that Jews and Muslims can be saved.

That is the biggest contradiction in the positions of most of the sedevacantists. They condemn V2 and V2 claimants to the papacy mainly for heresies regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, yet they believe essentially the same thing (that Jews and Muslims can be saved through BoD or that belief in one God who rewards good and punishes evil might be sufficient for salvation). And by the way, no Magisterial docuмent ever taught that BoD applies to unconverted Jews or Muslims or that they can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. But that discussion should go to BoD/Feeneyism subforum.

It's really not going to make any difference to start challenging individual things in the previously posted summary of what Francis has been saying. Go back and look at the summary again. If even ONE thing in the list is heresy (which everyone reading this knows is the case), then the result is SEDEVACANTISM according to the ordinary magisterium. End of story.

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.

I'm not sure why you quote me on this, I did not say anything about sedevacantism per se in that post. Rather, I pointed out inconsistency in the beliefs of majority of sedevacantist priests regarding EENS and V2.

EENS is completely off-topic for this discussion. It seems like people on this site cannot resist bringing it up for some reason. About 20 examples of outrageous quotes from Pope Francis were summarized earlier in this discussion. The question is, are any of them heresy, or are they all Orthodox Catholic teaching?

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #73 on:** February 08, 2017, 10:31:01 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Pax Vobis
Quote
I believe that the Chair of Peter is probably vacant, but I can't prove it with certainty.

Can't we all agree with this statement and move on? The emphasis put on sedevacantism is overblown to the nth degree. When history books look back on this period, many will surely be surprised at the confusion on this topic because, at the end of the day, who is or isn't pope changes NOTHING about what I (or you, or anyone else) has to do to save our soul. The whole controversy is over a theological theory! Oh, how the devil must be laughing.

Theological theory???? You are missing the boat. This topic was raised at the First Vatican Council and here is what they had to say:

"The question was also raised (at the First Vatican Council) by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy."
Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago

By the way you can find this book by searching for any of the text above in Google books. This is not theological theory, this is Church teaching.

By the way, all of the anti-sedevacantists who read the above quote from the Vatican I Church Fathers, and the Francis quotes summary above, and couldn't think of anything to say, you are now sedevacantists. Seriously.

Stubborn · « **Reply #74 on:** February 09, 2017, 06:50:00 AM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

You are like a deer in the headlights on this point. I rest my case.

Ridiculous. Really, quite ridiculous.