Author Topic: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.  (Read 3287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1257
  • Reputation: +1125/-122
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
« Reply #90 on: September 18, 2019, 10:59:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You still have not answered why you argue against the law, so it can only be because you have no idea why, which explains your last few posts.
    Do not lie.

    I am arguing against your inconsistency.

    You claim Wojtyla was Pope, hence you are bound to his law.

    Though bound to Wojtyla's changes in the law, you claim the law was "the same."

    You acknowledge Wojtyla's age restriction that was not part of St. Pius X's conclave law. In fact, Wojtyla's law turned "all cardinals" into "not all Cardinals," a diametric inversion of St. Pius X's law.

    A diametric inversion is not "the same."

    It is you who "argue against the law," Wojtyla's law.

    Please explain how "all" and "not all" are "the same."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #91 on: September 18, 2019, 11:54:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do not lie.

    I am arguing against your inconsistency.

    You claim Wojtyla was Pope, hence you are bound to his law.
    Which law are you talking about that binds me but not you?



    Quote
    Though bound to Wojtyla's changes in the law, you claim the law was "the same."

    You acknowledge Wojtyla's age restriction that was not part of St. Pius X's conclave law. In fact, Wojtyla's law turned "all cardinals" into "not all Cardinals," a diametric inversion of St. Pius X's law.

    A diametric inversion is not "the same."

    It is you who "argue against the law," Wojtyla's law.

    Please explain how "all" and "not all" are "the same."
    From my previous post:

    "That the law since PPVI denied cardinals over 80 years old voting privileges does nothing to the validity of the voting or election, so you're grasping at straws with that one."

    If anything, the only thing the age restriction could have possibly done, is affect who got elected because there were a whole 10 cardinals over the age limit that did not vote at all in that conclave. It's not that their vote was not counted or didn't count - they did not vote at all. Why you cannot grasp this simple truth I don't know.


    Beyond the age restriction, per the law, any and all other impediments are suspended for the election. Your doctor and yourself should have read the law before he and you based his allegation on what he and you thought might possibly maybe be an apparent violation maybe.
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #92 on: September 18, 2019, 01:19:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please explain how "all" and "not all" are "the same."

    In view of Cardinal Danneels published confession of pre-conclave lobbying, do you retract your "one un-named doctor" claim?


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #93 on: September 18, 2019, 01:29:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I said: "That the law since PPVI denied cardinals over 80 years old voting privileges does nothing to the validity of the voting or election, so you're grasping at straws with that one."

    All and not all are not the same. Some cardinals are not in the conclave and do not vote at all. All of the cardinals who are in the conclave vote. All of those cardinals' votes are valid. All of the cardinals that are in the conclave go by the same law of all the popes from Pope St. Pius X till now. This means the election is valid.
     
    If you still don't get this, and it is quite obvious that you don't, then I can only suggest that you think about this before you post about it again.

    How does arguing against the law benefit you?
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #94 on: September 18, 2019, 01:41:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not arguing against JP2's law because he is using, as I posted, the same law as Pope St. Pius X.

    You said that Wojtyla's law and St. Pius X's law are "the same law."

    How are "all cardinals" and "not all cardinals" "the same"?


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #95 on: September 18, 2019, 02:11:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • You said that Wojtyla's law and St. Pius X's law are "the same law."

    How are "all cardinals" and "not all cardinals" "the same"?
    They are the same law. This law applies to all cardinals IN THE CONCLAVE, only all *those* cardinals are bound to abide by the same law of all popes since Pope St. Pius X. The voting cardinals are the only ones who are "all cardinals" IN THE CONCLAVE.

    All cardinals over 80 years old that are not in the conclave and do not vote - this law does not apply to them, does not bind them anymore than it binds you - because like you, they are not in the conclave at all and do not vote at all.

    Got it yet?

    Now, which law is it that applies to me, but not to you?
    What do you hope to gain by arguing against the law?

    Do I need to make the questions in big bold letters like you do to get you to answer?
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #96 on: September 18, 2019, 02:41:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You: 

    Quote
    I am not arguing against JP2's law because he is using, as I posted, the same law as Pope St. Pius X.


    I quoted you verbatim. You said they are "the same law."

    A law that says "all cardinals vote" is NOT "the same law" as the law that says "cardinals over 80 may not vote."

    You might as well argue that "black" and "not black" are the same color.



    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #97 on: September 19, 2019, 05:51:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You:


    I quoted you verbatim. You said they are "the same law."

    A law that says "all cardinals vote" is NOT "the same law" as the law that says "cardinals over 80 may not vote."

    You might as well argue that "black" and "not black" are the same color.
    Your problem is that you are not differentiating. The law for voting *is* the same law and applies only to those within the conclave. This is indisputable so please, no sense arguing this point any further.

    The law of who can and cannot vote in the conclave is not the same. PPVI changed the requirement to only those under 80 years old can vote.

    I agree that this new law is stupid and wholly disagree with it, although any more I don't think it matters much, and having achieved it's purpose, in a few more years I don't think it will matter at all, but that those over 80 cannot vote does not effect the validity of those voting, or the election in any way. All it does is slightly reduce the number of voters, which, although it's possible that this law might possibly affect the outcome of the elction, it does not affect the validity of the election. I don't know why this bit of reality eludes you.    

    As an aside, the conclave had to cast their ballots 5 different times before they finally elected Francis as pope, so much for the allegation of lobbying.

    Now, which law is it that applies to me, but not to you?
    What do you hope to gain by arguing against the law?
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #98 on: September 19, 2019, 11:03:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have frequently opined that one of the marks of modernism is the schizo-illogic that finds men holding mutually exclusive propositions as true.

    How can rational discussion ensue with a man who insists "the same law" while also referring to "new law" and "different" laws?

    Bottom line:

    • Wojtyla changed the conclave laws.
    • Anyone who believes Wojtyla was Pope, is bound to those changed conclave laws.
    • Hence, Team Bergoglio in its entirely was automatically excommunicated for the pre-conclave lobbying to which Danneels confessed.
    • Further, excommunicated cardinals are not valid electors and an excommunicated cardinal cannot become Pope of . a Church to which he does not belong.
    • So, Señor "Jesus made Himself the devil" Bergoglio may "subsist in" the Chair of Peter, but he surely is not a valid Pope.

    What kind of dishonesty motivates a man to say "allegation" when one of the perpetrators has already confessed?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18393
    • Reputation: +10198/-4834
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #99 on: September 19, 2019, 11:05:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have frequently opined that one of the marks of modernism is the schizo-illogic that finds men holding mutually exclusive propositions as true.

    How can rational discussion ensue with a man who insists "the same law" while also referring to "new law" and "different" laws?

    Bottom line:

    • Wojtyla changed the conclave laws.
    • Anyone who believes Wojtyla was Pope, is bound to those changed conclave laws.
    • Hence, Team Bergoglio in its entirely was automatically excommunicated for the pre-conclave lobbying to which Danneels confessed.
    • Further, excommunicated cardinals are not valid electors and an excommunicated cardinal cannot become Pope of . a Church to which he does not belong.

    So you're saying that the R&R folks, since they hold Wojtyla was legitimate pope, must as a result hold that Bergoglio is not.  Rather ironic that their R&Rism actually should compel them to be sedevacantist now.

    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #100 on: September 19, 2019, 11:07:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you're saying that the R&R folks, since they hold Wojtyla was legitimate pope, must as a result hold that Bergoglio is not.  Rather ironic that their R&Rism actually should compel them to be sedevacantist now.
    Indeed, the irony and schizo-illogic of the R&R position is stunning.

    Same law, new law, different law—allegation, confession—truly nuts.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #101 on: September 19, 2019, 11:38:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have frequently opined that one of the marks of modernism is the schizo-illogic that finds men holding mutually exclusive propositions as true. - This is exactly what you are doing by holding that a law which does not effect the voting, effects the voting.

    How can rational discussion ensue with a man who insists "the same law" while also referring to "new law" and "different" laws? - You have proven that it can't

    Bottom line:

    • Wojtyla changed the conclave laws. - Which law(s) did he change?
    • Anyone who believes Wojtyla was Pope, is bound to those changed conclave laws. - Explain how believing a pope is a pope, binds us to laws that pertain only to cardinals in a conclave?
    • Hence, Team Bergoglio in its entirely was automatically excommunicated for the pre-conclave lobbying to which Danneels confessed. - +Daneels retired 3 years before the conclave and as NO is unreliable at best
    • .Further, excommunicated cardinals are not valid electors and an excommunicated cardinal cannot become Pope of . a Church to which he does not belong. - Exactly false, the law says: "No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort."
    • So, Señor "Jesus made Himself the devil" Bergoglio may "subsist in" the Chair of Peter, but he surely is not a valid Pope. - This is your opinion, you have no proof of this allegation. Having no proof, he is pope until proven otherwise.

    What kind of dishonesty motivates a man to say "allegation" when one of the perpetrators has already confessed? - +Daneels retired 3 years before the conclave and +Daneels retired 3 years before the conclave and as NO is unreliable at best. And even if he is reliable it does not matter because the law states that all censures are suspended for all those in the conclave.
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #102 on: September 19, 2019, 01:32:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are looping.

    All your questions and objections have been answered.

    If/when you come to realize that (1) "all cardinals" and "no cardinals over 80" are not "the same," (2) an action is no longer an "allegation" the moment a perpetrator confesses the action, (3) automatically excommunicated "cardinals" cannot be valid electors, and (4) an automatically excommunicated "cardinal" cannot be a true Pope, we can resume the discussion.

    Until that time, perhaps we can agree that Señor "Jesus made Himself the devil" Bergoglio "subsists in" the Chair of Peter (laughing).

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #103 on: September 19, 2019, 02:07:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are looping.

    All your questions and objections have been answered.
    Right, that's why I asked them. You not answering questions only means you have no idea what you're talking about. Same o same o.



    Quote
    If/when you come to realize that (1) "all cardinals" and "no cardinals over 80" are not "the same," (2) an action is no longer an "allegation" the moment a perpetrator confesses the action, (3) automatically excommunicated "cardinals" cannot be valid electors, and (4) an automatically excommunicated "cardinal" cannot be a true Pope, we can resume the discussion.

    Until that time, perhaps we can agree that Señor "Jesus made Himself the devil" Bergoglio "subsists in" the Chair of Peter (laughing).

    I cannot realize any of those things because they are obviously all made up lies. OTOH, the facts I have given you, are directly from the law itself and also common sense, in both instances reading comprehension is essential.  


    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1125/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Restoring the Third True Traditionalist position beside SV&R&R: RPWR.
    « Reply #104 on: September 19, 2019, 02:31:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  •  

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16