Author Topic: (Read 21979 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:48:03 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

...No one here asserts this notion, therefore to put forth this as somehow material to the discussion is simply a straw man.

I guess it would be useless to add that the level of ignorance, presumption and carelessness among those who feel free to wade into the deep waters of theology and issue dogmatic decrees of condemnations of persons is shocking to say the least.

The first sentence quoted above seems to lack a certain consistency with the second, particularly the bold section.

Surely you can share the texts of these "dogmatic decrees of condemnations"? Straw man?

Caraffa · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:49:06 PM »

I agree with Fr. hαɾɾιson, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.

Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:

I. the clergy, secular and religious;
II. the laity;
III. the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
IV. Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

CM · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:54:48 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

I agree with Fr. hαɾɾιson, but I would add one point: One does not have to be obedient to a heretical pope or bishop.

What nonsense is this? This Fr. hαɾɾιson asserts that the heretical 'pope' would be VALID, yet the very docuмent you quote indicates that such a 'Pontiff' is no Pontiff at all.

Quote from: cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

Caraffa, snap out of it.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:01:16 PM »

Does anyone care to substantively dispute the article?

Where exactly does the author go wrong? Where is the crux of the disagreement?

Thanks.

CM · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:07:52 PM »

I read this article a long time ago when my dad sent it to me. Even then I had already seen how it was filled with fallacies.

Why don't you spare me the trouble of refuting it point by point, and rather present what you feel is the most compelling argument contained therein?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: (Read 21979 times)

gladius_veritatis

(No subject)

Caraffa

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)

stevusmagnus

(No subject)

CM

(No subject)