Author Topic: Sinagoglio hard to be proven a heretic? (Read 8480 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #90 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:25:59 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
I'm still waiting for proof of Bergoglio's heresy.

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

I've already addressed various parts of this long rant. Still no proven charge of heresy.

We have had

1) Ecuмenism

2) "no Catholic God"

3) "special regard" for Jews since due to fact Old Covenant has not been revoked

4) interreligious prayer

There's no concrete proof of heresy. Sin, scandal, certainly. Heresy? No proof yet. I've addressed all four of these in this thread.

Again, I think that he is most likely a heretic for denying EENS, but the nature of his heresy differs little from the EENS-theology of most Traditional Catholics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #91 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:29:49 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

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?

As I said, I think that he rejects EENS, but I'm asking YOU what the charge of heresy is, since you clearly don't see his Suprema Haec soteriology to be problematic. I'm demanding that YOU prove heresy based on your OWN criteria, not mine.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #92 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:32:13 AM »

I've made my last post on this thread. I've said that before, but then you try to keep roping me back in with an "I apologize, now please answer this." I will never convince you of my position regardless, so this is a waste of my time.

I was simply making the point that you can't just fling the accusation of heresy around every time that Jorge Bergoglio breaks wind. It's a SERIOUS charge and demands serious undeniable proof.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #93 on:** July 13, 2014, 10:14:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Perhaps you should read today's Gospel about appearance and the way things appear. A person judges them-self by their fruits. Now Lefebvre had every chance to rebuke Rahner's Anonymous Christian notion, but he did not.

FYI, Rahner was under Roman pre-censorship. When Vatican II rolled around Roncalli called Rahner right away and appointed him expert advisor and this bogus Anonymous Christian idea was the most influential theology at the council.

The point is this, Ottoviani or Lefebvre did not do anything to stop that nonsense because they are modernists. They complained about religious liberty, ecuмenism, liturgical changes and disciplines..... Do you remember the Sanborn vs Fastiggi debate?? Oh yeah thats right Sanborn was tutored by Lefebvre and both are schismatics as Dr. Fastiggi correctly pointed out.

The same complaints that Lefebvre and Ottaviani had at the Vatican II council are same arguments Sanborn was making to Dr. Fasiggi. It is because they have NO FAITH is why they believe the ecclesiology of the Vatican II. Lefebvre's visceral reaction to the new mass moved him and his followers to schism.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #94 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:02:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Of course I know the difference , the ones who don't seem to know it are you, Cantarella and any other anti-SV, because you are such imbeciles that you actually go ahead and claim "material heresy" on EENS with LEFEBVRE, who was a BISHOP, SEMINARY PROFESSOR etc. and EENS being a "most well-known dogma" as it is.

This is why the likes of you make the imbecilic claim of "ignorance" for the antipopes.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #95 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:13:51 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
I'm still waiting for proof of Bergoglio's heresy.

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

I've already addressed various parts of this long rant.

No you didn't.

You didn't answer this:

1-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.

2-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?

3-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???

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #96 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
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?

As I said, I think that he rejects EENS, but I'm asking YOU what the charge of heresy is, since you clearly don't see his Suprema Haec soteriology to be problematic. I'm demanding that YOU prove heresy based on your OWN criteria, not mine.

Well first of all he is a Modernist, but you treat this as nothing, and aside from that he is also a heretic and an apostate.

Of course he completely denies EENS, is a religious indifferentist, denies Original Sin, is an evolutionist, treats the Bible as fairy tales and all metaphoric, believes "Allah" is the real God etc. It really is tiring to be making a list because there's so much.

And what Suprema Haec Sacra says has NOTHING to do with what Vatican 2 or these antipopes say.

The "questionable" parts of SHS deal with those in invincible ignorance, but V2 and this sect has gone right ahead and said that the actual sects themselves are means of salvation and that not even those who KNOW and are NOT in invincible ignorance need to convert.

SHS says none of that nor implies it. It plainly says those who know need to convert or be damned.

songbird · « **Reply #97 on:** July 13, 2014, 06:26:41 PM »

The whole point is the Saving "Precious Blood"! Without it, then Christ came in Vain as St. Paul would say. The Precious Blood is in ALL the sacraments.

When the Mass that Christ Instituted is changed by man, and we have it, then there is NO PRECIOUS BLOOD! New Order is the Worst and most Abominable hatred against God. For any man who claims to be a priest and says this in Public, it is Apostate! They show to the world they are NOT for Christ, but against Him.

By Laws of Church, nomination is not allowed to take on any man to Pope, if he is Not CAtholic. Just that simple. You will know them by their Fruits, Christ Said!

Therefore, any New Order and that includes the first changes made my Man are not accepting of what Christ Instituted, that man would say, oh, let's make some changes, no, they are against God and Christ.

That is outward manifest heresy at it's finest. What more proof do you need?!

Graham · « **Reply #98 on:** July 13, 2014, 08:36:41 PM »

@Ladislaus

"Revoke" [Sp. revocar]does not mean 'to take back.' It means to make invalid, void, to abolish. In being fulfilled, the Old Covenant was invalidated, voided, abolished, revoked. To say that God has not revoked the Old Covenant means that it's still in effect -- a wholesale denial of the Catholic Faith.

roscoe · « **Reply #99 on:** July 13, 2014, 08:52:41 PM »

Ladislaus thinks Pius XII ex--communicated Fr Feeney

:roll-laugh1:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #100 on:** July 14, 2014, 09:19:39 AM »

Quote from: Graham

@Ladislaus

"Revoke" [Sp. revocar]does not mean 'to take back.'

But that's exactly what it means, from the Latin revocare, which literally means "to call back".

Quote

It means to make invalid, void, to abolish. In being fulfilled, the Old Covenant was invalidated, voided, abolished, revoked. To say that God has not revoked the Old Covenant means that it's still in effect -- a wholesale denial of the Catholic Faith.

Nonsense, the Old Covenant was not revoked, but rather fulfilled in the New.

Quote from: Genesis 17:7

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations, by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Quote from: Matthew 5:17-18

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #101 on:** July 14, 2014, 11:45:58 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Graham
@Ladislaus

"Revoke" [Sp. revocar]does not mean 'to take back.'

But that's exactly what it means, from the Latin revocare, which literally means "to call back".

Quote
It means to make invalid, void, to abolish. In being fulfilled, the Old Covenant was invalidated, voided, abolished, revoked. To say that God has not revoked the Old Covenant means that it's still in effect -- a wholesale denial of the Catholic Faith.

Nonsense, the Old Covenant was not revoked, but rather fulfilled in the New.

Quote from: Genesis 17:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations, by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Quote from: Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circuмcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

To go around saying "the old covenant was never revoked" to these тαℓмυdic bastards who are not even REAL Jews is to validate their religion and confirm them in their rejection of the true faith.

The new Good Friday prayer does this as well, asking that тαℓмυdic Zionists CONTINUE to be "faithful" to God's covenant with them.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #102 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:55:42 PM »

Cantate Domino is speaking about the Mosaic law, not about the Old Covenant itself.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #103 on:** July 14, 2014, 12:58:07 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

The new Good Friday prayer does this as well, asking that тαℓмυdic Zionists CONTINUE to be "faithful" to God's covenant with them.

Well, if that's what it says, this would be undeniably heretical, since in no way, shape, or form are they faithful to the Covenant.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #104 on:** July 14, 2014, 02:26:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
The new Good Friday prayer does this as well, asking that тαℓмυdic Zionists CONTINUE to be "faithful" to God's covenant with them.

Well, if that's what it says, this would be undeniably heretical, since in no way, shape, or form are they faithful to the Covenant.

It IS what it says, here's the 2011 version, which is the same as the 1970 one:

Let us pray also for the Jєωιѕн people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that he may grant them to ADVANCE in love of his name AND IN FAITHFULNESS TO HIS COVENANT. (Prayer in silence. Then the Priest says:) Almighty ever-living God, who bestowed your promises on Abraham and his descendants, hear graciously the prayers of your Church, that the people you first made your own may attain the fullness of redemption. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.