Author Topic: Sinagoglio hard to be proven a heretic? (Read 8490 times)

obertray imondday · « **Reply #75 on:** July 12, 2014, 08:02:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: obertray imondday
Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

Are you one of the Dimonds?

I never heard of a Robert Dimond, but perhaps that was your name before becoming a Benedictine.

Noway! But you would be right Robert = Peter and Fredrick = Michael.

I heard one them on a radio show a while back talking about a UFO landing and being Catholic. So I checked into it further and realized these guys just use the Catholic Church to roll in cash. I know they check out these forums so I picked the name to let them know they don't fool everyone.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #76 on:** July 12, 2014, 08:21:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: obertray imondday
Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

In a manner of speaking, since the Catholic Church is His Body.

Right, Jesus Christ who is God and the very first Catholic to come into this world as a man. So to say, " I don't believe in a Catholic God" is to deny Jesus Christ who is the Catholic God.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #77 on:** July 12, 2014, 08:25:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Because you despise the man.

If the Blessed Trinity despise him (Bergoglio), so do I.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #78 on:** July 12, 2014, 08:28:56 PM »

Quote from: obertray imondday

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: obertray imondday
Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

Are you one of the Dimonds?

I never heard of a Robert Dimond, but perhaps that was your name before becoming a Benedictine.

Noway! But you would be right Robert = Peter and Fredrick = Michael.

Well, your screen name is Robert Dimond in pig latin.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** July 12, 2014, 08:31:39 PM »

Quote from: obertray imondday

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: obertray imondday
Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

In a manner of speaking, since the Catholic Church is His Body.

Right, Jesus Christ who is God and the very first Catholic to come into this world as a man. So to say, " I don't believe in a Catholic God" is to deny Jesus Christ who is the Catholic God.

I said "in a manner of speaking". If a Catholic is a member of Christ's Body, then it's a little odd to say that Christ is a Catholic, since He is not a member / part of His own Body.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #80 on:** July 12, 2014, 09:37:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
So you believe Lefebvre was a heretic.

I believe that his understanding / interpretation of EENS was heretical. Obviously Archbishop Lefebvre was no formal heretic. He was simply misled into thinking erroneously about EENS (no doubt by some seminary professor of his). You see, the litmus test for formal heresy is rejecting what you know to be Church teaching. If you hold to an opinion, even if heretical, thinking that it's what the Church taught about some matter, you wouldn't be a formal heretic.

Ahhhh but how do you KNOW he was simply "mislead"? What do YOU know if he thought to himself: "I know this is Church teaching, but it seems too harsh for me, so I won't believe in it."

I thought you just "can't know" Bergoglio's intentions, even when what he says is blatantly heretical, but when it comes to Lefebvre, oh, THEN you sure DO KNOW he had the best of intentions and was somehow "mislead", smart man that he was and all eh?

Your logic and position has more holes than swiss cheese and is littered with contradictions.

Cantarella · « **Reply #81 on:** July 12, 2014, 10:03:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
So you believe Lefebvre was a heretic.

I believe that his understanding / interpretation of EENS was heretical. Obviously Archbishop Lefebvre was no formal heretic. He was simply misled into thinking erroneously about EENS (no doubt by some seminary professor of his). You see, the litmus test for formal heresy is rejecting what you know to be Church teaching. If you hold to an opinion, even if heretical, thinking that it's what the Church taught about some matter, you wouldn't be a formal heretic.

Holding an erroneous opinion does not constitute heresy, especially in modern times where liberalism is rampant. Pertinacity and will against the Faith must also be proven in order to judge someone as a heretic.

"Heretic" is a most serious accusation which is severely abused by the low minded and the ignorant.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** July 12, 2014, 10:32:09 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

I thought you just "can't know" Bergoglio's intentions, even when what he says is blatantly heretical, but when it comes to Lefebvre, oh, THEN you sure DO KNOW he had the best of intentions and was somehow "mislead", smart man that he was and all eh?

Because Archbishop Lefebvre showed himself in every way loyal and docile to Traditional Catholic doctrine. There's no reason to suspect that he would ever knowingly embrace heresy. Besides, you're off topic from your own thread.

I'm still waiting for proof of Bergoglio's heresy.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #83 on:** July 12, 2014, 10:43:04 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
So you believe Lefebvre was a heretic.

I believe that his understanding / interpretation of EENS was heretical. Obviously Archbishop Lefebvre was no formal heretic. He was simply misled into thinking erroneously about EENS (no doubt by some seminary professor of his). You see, the litmus test for formal heresy is rejecting what you know to be Church teaching. If you hold to an opinion, even if heretical, thinking that it's what the Church taught about some matter, you wouldn't be a formal heretic.

Holding an erroneous opinion does not constitute heresy,

Oh so NOW you say that denying EENS, the only thing you believe is a heresy, is a mere "erroneous opinion" because it's Lefebvre we're talking about???

Which one is it? Is it a heresy or not?

I already showed you that someone doesn't become a heretic ONLY by directly denying an ex cathedra defined dogma, but that "to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church’s magisterium."

You fit in this description with your denial of BoD/BoB, because they are a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, so I guess you just put on the blinders and ignore this because you would condemn yourself if you were to actually support what you say with a theological manual as opposed to shooting from the hip with your armchair theology definitions for once.

Quote from: Cantarella

especially in modern times where liberalism is rampant.

Oh yes, more "mitigating excuses" for the people you don't find convenient to denounce as heretics so you're able to speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote from: Cantarella

Pertinacity and will against the Faith must also be proven in order to judge someone as a heretic.

NO.

READ this and take off the blinders:

“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… [E]xcusing circuмstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, 35.)

Quote from: Cantarella

"Heretic" is a most serious accusation which is severely abused by the low minded and the ignorant.

Oh yes, "most serious" and "impossible to ever prove" for the people who YOU CHOOSE and WOULDN'T BENEFIT YOU to be heretics right?

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #84 on:** July 12, 2014, 10:47:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm still waiting for proof of Bergoglio's heresy.

I thought you believed that he already is a heretic with his "sole" rejection of EENS, so why are you asking?

You need more than one heresy to be a heretic? One is not enough?

Tell us Pope Ladislaus: how many examples of heresy will Your Holiness decree to be the minimum for someone to be a heretic?

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #85 on:** July 12, 2014, 11:16:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Ladislaus is only doing the work of the Devil defending antichrists like Synagoglio.

No,

YES, you are. The only thing your defending of these people accomplishes is to keep people in the Novus Ordo and to think the blasphemies and heresies they utter are nothing to worry about.

Which is sickening.

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm just trying to keep you honest.

I am all for precision and honesty when it comes to these things, that's why I rely on what Popes, Saints, Doctors and theologians teach, not on myself.

You on the other hand, ignore and go directly against what they all teach and only follow your own judgment on things.

I see the Popes, Saints, Doctors and theologians teaching one thing, and you going directly against what they all say with nothing but your own opinion and spin.

All you do is find minority and abandoned opinions and things which the majority rejected (like what John of St. Thomas says) and put them on a pedestal, as if that proves anything, to defend antichrists and defend heresy and heretics.

Quote from: Ladislaus

I told you that I believe that he most likely IS a heretic, in his denial of EENS.

Oh so now it's "most likely is". A few posts ago in page 13 you said:

Quote

I actually do think that he's a heretic ... for denying EENS.

Which one is it? Does he, or does he not reject EENS? Is he, or is he not a heretic? What are you feeling like saying right now?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Jorge Bergoglio can't so much as break wind without you immediately accusing him of heresy for doing so. Because you despise the man.

Any real Catholic burning with the fire of truth in his heart would be outraged and incensed by all the things this man says and does against the Catholic Faith, which just so happens to be 99% of what he does.

But you're a soft indifferentist who instead of showing some righteous anger and indignation, run around trying to find excuses for such a despicable apostate as he is.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #86 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:15:59 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm still waiting for proof of Bergoglio's heresy.

And I'm still waiting for you to address this post:

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
This is some real desperate defending of the indefensible.

I am considering whether I should even waste my time with this.

As I've pointed out before, when making the grave charge of heresy, the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove it beyond doubt.

“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… [E]xcusing circuмstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, 35.)

Quote from: Ladislaus
So far we have vague accusations of heresy based on the charge of holding to "Ecuмenism" (whatever that means, doctrinally speaking), with not a single word cited from Jorge Bergoglio.

He IS an ecuмenist, as was JP2.

He lives and breathes ecuмenism.

This is really reasoning backwards because the real problem is not Bergoglio himself but Modernism and Vatican 2. Sanborn is right in that it all begins there.

Bergoglio is simply Vatican 2 in practice and "fully explained".

Quote from: Ladislaus
Taking part in Jewis ceremonies, again, according to Canon Law, merely makes one SUSPECT of heresy.

He regards the тαℓмυdic sect VALID and that they still have a "covenant" with God.

Anyways, after 6 months your "time" is up and then you become a full-blown heretic.

We have had 50+ years with warnings right from the start, so stop mindlessly repeating they are merely "suspect" of heresy already.

Quote from: Ladislaus
Jorge Bergoglio's motives could have been many and various ... short of heresy.

No need to play fortune-teller and guess what his "reasons" were.

Church teaching doesn't work that way.

Canon 2200.1: “When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice (dolus) is presumed until the contrary is proved.”

“...in the external forum one acts based on the way things ordinarily happen and externally appear. And indeed ordinarily, each person of sound mind customarily acts reasonably and freely, fully knowing and deliberately willing whatever he really does.” (De Delictis, 1:134)

Quote from: Ladislaus
I'm still waiting for a substantial allegation of heresy.

You were given examples of apostasy.

But you believe ecuмenism "only" LEADS to apostasy.

Well, acc. to you, when exactly can you say it "led" to apostasy and the person can be said to be a veritable apostate?

Quote from: Ladislaus
Given that you cannot readily produce such allegations, I hold that you are sinfully rash in denying his legitimacy.

This conversation has to be taken back to its origins because the REASON Bergoglio does this and that is because he is a MODERNIST and because of Vatican 2.

Pope St. Pius X decreed that those who hold on to the condemned Modernists principles are excommunicated ipso facto without any declaration.

All these antipopes from Roncalli up to Bergoglio did (do) held (hold) on to the condemned Modernists principles so they were (are) Modernists and all were (are) excommunicated ipso facto.

Or will you now argue that perhaps they are NOT Modernists???

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #87 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:47:47 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: obertray imondday
Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

In a manner of speaking, since the Catholic Church is His Body.

The Catholic Church is the immaculate bride of Christ.

Saying the Church is "the body of Christ" smacks of NovusOrdoism. That's what they say when they distribute Communion: "The body of Christ." But that's not a sentence. And the recipient replies, "Amen," so two lips are flapping up and down making communion on the tongue a risky business, by design.

St. Paul used terminology like this, which goes way back obviously, but St. Paul said a lot of things that can be misunderstood, as St. Peter pointed out.

.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #88 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:16:19 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Oh so NOW you say that denying EENS, the only thing you believe is a heresy, is a mere "erroneous opinion" because it's Lefebvre we're talking about???

Which one is it? Is it a heresy or not?

Like many SVs you do not comprehend the difference between formal and material heresy. Formal heresy involves the denial of something you know to be taught as dogma by the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:19:18 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: obertray imondday
Is Jesus Christ a Catholic?

In a manner of speaking, since the Catholic Church is His Body.

The Catholic Church is the immaculate bride of Christ.

Saying the Church is "the body of Christ" smacks of NovusOrdoism.

Uhm, no, that derives from the teachings of St. Paul (aka the Holy Spirit through St. Paul). Pius XII wrote an Encyclical entitled "Mystici Corporis" ("Mystical Body"). Sometimes I think that the people on this forum live in a parallel universe. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Novus Ordo practice of receiving Communion.