Author Topic: Stubborn denies a solemn dogma (Read 26081 times)

McCork · « **on:** December 27, 2015, 04:10:50 PM »

The Dogma:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Quote from "Stubborn":
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2015, 04:19:05 PM »

Wow, your desperation to avoid answering the clear question: "Why do YOU, a sedevacantist, even need a pope at all?" is pathetic.

FWIW, I do not deny the solemn dogma, I fully embrace it, you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning but, I believe......

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

.....If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

McCork · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2015, 04:21:13 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Wow, your desperation to avoid answering the clear question: "Why do YOU, a sedevacantist, even need a pope at all?[" is amazing LOL

FWIW, I do not deny the solemn dogma, I fully embrace it, you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning but, I believe......
Quote from: Fr. Wathen
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

This is a new topic Stubborn, I will answer (as I already said) in the other thread.

Then you quote a Fr. Wathen (a dead Feeneyite priest of post-Vatican II) to support your denial of that solemn dogma??!!

Typical heretic.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** December 27, 2015, 04:41:03 PM »

See how well I know you, I told you that "you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning".

And it truly is amazing to see the lengths you will go to to avoid answering a simple question, but you're not alone, none of the other sedevacantists can answer it either so at least you have plenty of company.

McCork · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2015, 07:13:28 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

See how well I know you, I told you that "you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning".

And it truly is amazing to see the lengths you will go to to avoid answering a simple question, but you're not alone, none of the other sedevacantists can answer it either so at least you have plenty of company.

The "lengths" you say? It is one millimeter from the solemn dogma quote to your admission of denial of that dogma.

roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2015, 07:42:00 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Wow, your desperation to avoid answering the clear question: "Why do YOU, a sedevacantist, even need a pope at all?[" is amazing LOL

FWIW, I do not deny the solemn dogma, I fully embrace it, you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning but, I believe......
Quote from: Fr. Wathen
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

This is a new topic Stubborn, I will answer (as I already said) in the other thread.

Then you quote a Fr. Wathen (a dead Feeneyite priest of post-Vatican II) to support your denial of that solemn dogma??!!

Typical heretic.

There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'... :cheers:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2015, 10:43:01 PM »

Quote from: McCork

The Dogma:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Quote from "Stubborn":
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.

There are many reasons why we need a Pope and why Stubborn should not deny this fact, one from the Bible is recorded in the Book of Matthew. Douay-Rheims "Then Jesus said to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed."

I do not understand how Stubborn can deny this teaching.

It is true we can save our souls without a reigning pope during periods of crisis, the Office is always there and Jesus the Head is with us if we keep to the teachings and encyclicals written by past popes, and hold to their interpretations of the teachings in the Deposit of Faith NOT changing their meaning or thinking them outdated.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2015, 01:51:38 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Wow, your desperation to avoid answering the clear question: "Why do YOU, a sedevacantist, even need a pope at all?[" is amazing LOL

FWIW, I do not deny the solemn dogma, I fully embrace it, you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning but, I believe......
Quote from: Fr. Wathen
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.

This is a new topic Stubborn, I will answer (as I already said) in the other thread.

Then you quote a Fr. Wathen (a dead Feeneyite priest of post-Vatican II) to support your denial of that solemn dogma??!!

Typical heretic.

There is no such thing as a 'Feeneyite'... :cheers:

Mary Jane told you right?

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2015, 04:28:27 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
See how well I know you, I told you that "you cannot understand because of your sedevacantist reasoning".

And it truly is amazing to see the lengths you will go to to avoid answering a simple question, but you're not alone, none of the other sedevacantists can answer it either so at least you have plenty of company.

The "lengths" you say? It is one millimeter from the solemn dogma quote to your admission of denial of that dogma.

Yes, I say "the lengths" because all I am doing is seeking an honest answer to a simple question, but rather than admit that you, a sedevacantist, have no idea why YOU even need a pope, instead you come up with the hair brained accusation that I deny dogma. The dogma of the absolute necessity to have personal submission to the pope no less. And this, coming from a sedevacantist who rejects that dogma every moment they remain a sedevacantist, I say is going to amazing lengths, in an effort to side track and avoid answering a simple question.

And no, I am not one millimeter from denying the solemn dogma, but you have gotten yourself so infected with ECS that you deny the very existence of the difference between personal submission and personal submission unless he should command something which is sinful. This is because ECS makes you and most (all?) sedevacantists believe that the pope is impeccable, and far as I can tell, there is no amount of reasoning with you that will ever change that.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2015, 04:49:29 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: McCork
The Dogma:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Quote from "Stubborn":
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.

There are many reasons why we need a Pope and why Stubborn should not deny this fact, one from the Bible is recorded in the Book of Matthew. Douay-Rheims "Then Jesus said to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed."

I do not understand how Stubborn can deny this teaching.

I do not deny this teaching and you will never in a million years show where I ever denied it. You're just grasping at straws, making more false accusations and dancing around the subject which is typically the method used so as to avoid answering the question.

Quote from: MyrnaM

It is true we can save our souls without a reigning pope during periods of crisis, the Office is always there and Jesus the Head is with us if we keep to the teachings and encyclicals written by past popes, and hold to their ~~interpretations of the~~ teachings in the Deposit of Faith NOT changing their meaning or thinking them outdated.

This is correct and I mostly agree with what you posted here (I crossed out the cause of much error) but this still does not answer the question - why do YOU need a pope?

If anything, what you just posted above admits that YOU do *not* need a pope at all to save your soul, which means you being a sedevacantist and criticizing the non-sedevacantists for so many years is what, a diversion? a past time? a hobby?

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2015, 06:47:30 AM »

Quote from: McCork

This is a new topic Stubborn, I will answer (as I already said) in the other thread.

And I believe you, no honest, really.

Quote from: McCork

Then you quote a Fr. Wathen (a dead Feeneyite priest of post-Vatican II) to support your denial of that solemn dogma??!!

Typical heretic.

This is simply pathetic and further demonstrates your desperation to the lengths you will go to in your feeble attempt to side track answering a simple question.

Your blatant disrespect for a Roman Catholic priest who was also one of the most outspoken and courageous Catholic heroes of our day bespeaks, not only of your hatred of truth, but also of your determined love of error.

If you have ever read The Great Sacrilege yet still refer to Fr. Wathen with such slander, then that only serves to prove you are all the more deplorable.

From a sede site:

Quote

Source

May 27, 2004

Continuing with the clergy honors, today we present, in alphabetical order, the Tower of Trent Trophy to Father James F. Wathen, the relentless and mighty missionary of Truth and Tradition who has logged millions of miles over the last thirty years bringing the Sacraments to Traditional Catholics throughout the United States. For Father James, have the True Mass, will travel. While even to this day he remains a simple Traditional priest of the Order of St. John and not to be associated in any way with the SSJ, he has never been one to withhold his opinions and facts and it is his two books which will be his legacy for future Catholic generations who will see the wisdom of his words written shortly after Paul VI issued the synthetic rite of the New Order which basically was a fulfillment of Matthew 24: 15 - the "abomination of desolation." Father Wathen would never have any part of the Novus Ordo which he not only called a sacrilege, but has proven it with his incomparable sensus Catholicus book The Great Sacrilege, which in 2001 Father graciously gave us permission to publish on The Daily Catholic. Though the Novus Ordinarians will bad-mouth the book, the fact is that in over thirty years NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE his words for they hold up and are in harmony with the perennial, infallible Magisterium of the Church. It is a book we strongly recommend every Catholic read. In addition Father wrote a magnus opus called Who Shall Ascend, thus it is fitting that on this Octave of the Ascension we honor this noble Sacerdos in aeternum who continues the good fight while facing possibly his most daunting battle yet - fighting cancer of the body.

McCork · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2015, 06:48:35 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: McCork
The Dogma:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Quote from "Stubborn":
No, no, "we" do not need a pope. I do not need a pope therefore "we" do not need one. I already know what I must do to make it to heaven and an evil pope will not make me evil any more than a saintly pope will make me a saint.

There are many reasons why we need a Pope and why Stubborn should not deny this fact, one from the Bible is recorded in the Book of Matthew. Douay-Rheims "Then Jesus said to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed."

I do not understand how Stubborn can deny this teaching.

I do not deny this teaching and you will never in a million years show where I ever denied it. You're just grasping at straws, making more false accusations and dancing around the subject which is typically the method used so as to avoid answering the question.

Quote from: MyrnaM

It is true we can save our souls without a reigning pope during periods of crisis, the Office is always there and Jesus the Head is with us if we keep to the teachings and encyclicals written by past popes, and hold to their ~~interpretations of the~~ teachings in the Deposit of Faith NOT changing their meaning or thinking them outdated.

This is correct and I mostly agree with what you posted here (I crossed out the cause of much error) but this still does not answer the question - why do YOU need a pope?

If anything, what you just posted above admits that YOU do *not* need a pope at all to save your soul, which means you being a sedevacantist and criticizing the non-sedevacantists for so many years is what, a diversion? a past time? a hobby?

Your question to Myrna belongs in the other thread. You know very well what THIS thread is about. It shows your verbatim quote in the OP that you deny this solemn dogma. You claim the Church does not need a pope, while you, like a modernist also say you doubt Francis is the pope, and still argue tooth-and-nail that there is no sedevacante. I cannot decide whether you are a mental case or on the Vatican-communist payroll. But, as I said before, you could be 8 years old and your mommy is transcribing your contradictory and heretical thoughts here.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2015, 08:26:33 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Your question to Myrna belongs in the other thread. You know very well what THIS thread is about. It shows your verbatim quote in the OP that you deny this solemn dogma. You claim the Church does not need a pope, while you, like a modernist also say you doubt Francis is the pope, and still argue tooth-and-nail that there is no sedevacante. I cannot decide whether you are a mental case or on the Vatican-communist payroll. But, as I said before, you could be 8 years old and your mommy is transcribing your contradictory and heretical thoughts here.

I do not believe you are so stupid to say that I "claim the Church does not need a pope" - are you actually that stupid?

More proof that the faith you practice is not Catholic.........From the sede web site: "Father Wathen would never have any part of the Novus Ordo which he not only called a sacrilege, but has proven it with his incomparable sensus Catholicus book The Great Sacrilege...."

Whatever your sensus is, you keep proving it is not Catholicus.

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2015, 08:44:45 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM

It is true we can save our souls without a reigning pope during periods of crisis, the Office is always there and Jesus the Head is with us if we keep to the teachings and encyclicals written by past popes, and hold to their ~~interpretations of the~~ teachings in the Deposit of Faith NOT changing their meaning or thinking them outdated.

This is correct and I mostly agree with what you posted here (I crossed out the cause of much error) but this still does not answer the question - why do YOU need a pope?

If anything, what you just posted above admits that YOU do *not* need a pope at all to save your soul, which means you being a sedevacantist and criticizing the non-sedevacantists for so many years is what, a diversion? a past time? a hobby?

Your question to Myrna belongs in the other thread. You know very well what THIS thread is about.

Yes, this thread was created in your attempt to sidetrack and weasel out of answering the question, so as you can see, I do know very well what THIS thread is all about.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2015, 08:45:53 AM »

Stubborn =

Quote

This is correct and I mostly agree with what you posted here (I crossed out the cause of much error) but this still does not answer the question - why do YOU need a pope?

If anything, what you just posted above admits that YOU do *not* need a pope at all to save your soul, which means you being a sedevacantist and criticizing the non-sedevacantists for so many years is what, a diversion? a past time? a hobby?

The above quote from you to my post here: "It is true we can save our souls without a reigning pope during periods of crisis, the Office is always there and Jesus the Head is with us if we keep to the teachings and encyclicals written by past popes, and hold to their interpretations of the teachings in the Deposit of Faith NOT changing their meaning or thinking them outdated."

You might want to clarify what you mean when your understanding from my words is obviously and deliberately twisted, isn't it true that some people save their soul during an interregnum of the Church or during periods of crisis when no one knew who the pope was. The Church teaches that even in those times we always have a HEAD, even though His Vicar is missing. God does not leave us without a HEAD. (Jesus Christ is always the Head, along with His Vicar). Someday Stubborn you will have to answer to God for deliberately twisting the words of another person to benefit yourself.

I gave you a reason on that other thread why I personally need a pope, you refuse to recognize it, even though it is Biblical and proven. Here on this thread I have given you a second reason which is also Biblical and you insist that what I wrote proves your bolded above. Instead, you must admit that you are the one who claimed by your own words in the OP on this thread that YOU don't need a pope.

What kind of a Catholic are you anyway?