Author Topic:  (Read 4482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caminus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3013
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
(No subject)
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2009, 08:49:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see you still haven't quite grasped the distinction between an abstract truth and a practical, concrete application of it.  To act as if contingencies are somehow equal to speculative truth is to destroy the distinction between the practical and speculative intellect.  It is to suppress what is objective and confound it with what is subjective.  The irony is that JPII and Ratzinger did the same thing.  

    Offline Caraffa

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 890
    • Reputation: +510/-16
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #16 on: October 01, 2009, 08:56:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    Quote from: Caraffa
    I agree with Fr. Harrison, 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. Harrison asserts that the heretical 'pope' would be VALID, yet the very document you quote indicates that such a 'Pontiff' is no Pontiff at all.

    Quote from: Cum 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.


    Except that CEAO is divine law, not canon law as of 1917.
    Pray for me, always.


    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #17 on: October 01, 2009, 09:32:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So called '1917 Code of Canon Law' was promulgated by an antipope.

    Besides that, if you agree that a heretic is not able to be pope on account of Divine Law (which is correct), but IS able by ecclesiastical law, then you have contradicted Fr. Harrison, with whom you claim to agree.

    He states that such a heretical 'pope' has VALIDITY (which is a result of Divine Law, not ecclesiastical), but is not licit.

    If ecclesiastical law does not prohibit him from holding office, then HE IS NOT ILLICIT.  However because Divine Law prohibits it, he is invalid, and since '1917 Code' is not binding on anybody, he is illicit also.

    Furthermore, if we examine your argument that CEAO had been somehow abrogated by '1917 Code' and pretend that it is a valid Code of Canon Law, we see still that you and Caminus both are distorting the facts.

    The following canons (if they reflect the mind of the Church, as I believe they do) prove that anybody who is publicly and manifestly heretical, and has not proven their innocence, is to be regarded as guilty, and has lost office.

    Quote from: The canons
    The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2:Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven.

    The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1325: After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.

    The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314:All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: 1) Incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication ...


    For folks such as myself and my friends, who believe it is not a binding Code of Canon Law still believe that there is much in it that reflects the true position of the Church.

    But you folks who believe this is binding must obey it and recognize that AN OBJECTIVE PUBLIC VIOLATION of the law DEMANDS that we consider such a person guilty until they PROVE THEIR OWN INNOCENCE, otherwise you are being hypocritical.

    So manifest heretics such as the heretical antipopes must be considered as guilty of being heretics, having done nothing to exonerate themselves, and only making it worse and worse.

    As a result, we are to regard them as having lost office.  This all has to do with the EXTERNAL FORUM.  We do not have to prove pertinacity in these cases, we have to presume it, until the contrary is proven.

    Case closed.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-5
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #18 on: October 01, 2009, 11:14:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    "It should go without saying that divine providence would never permit him to define his heresy ex cathedra. The dogma of papal infallibility assures us this can never happen."


    It did happen, "Father" Harrison.  Repeatedly.  

    I know, I know.  VII was "pastoral," just ideas thrown out into the ether, suggestions we are free to take or to leave... Right?  Then I have to ask -- trying to play by the rules of this totally un-Catholic logic where suddenly Popes suggest instead of teach -- why were these so-called pastoral "suggestions" given to the laity to use at their own discretion and based on their own interpretation enforced with an iron rod?  And secondly, how can a Pope teach and not teach at the same time?  These fake Popes spouted heresy and then had the audacity to turn around and say "It's only pastoral, you don't have to listen, they're just suggestions" -- contradicting their own documents such as the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH Lumen Gentium.  

    Can you imagine even an elementary school teacher trying to pull this?  Let's pretend there's a schoolteacher who spends all day every day telling stories about goblins, reading from storybooks and German and Irish fairy tales.  Every day the class ends the same way:  "Babies are all born of goblins and you have goblins for mothers.  JUST KIDDING.  You don't have to believe what I say.  See you tomorrow!"  

    After yet another day of this, one kid goes home, confused, feeling like something is wrong.  He asks his mom if she's a goblin.  

    "Mrs. Kringle said you were a goblin.  But I think she was kidding."  

    The mom is surprised and says,  "I'm a goblin, huh?  What else do they teach you at that school?"  

    "That's it -- that you are a goblin."  

    "Do you believe it?"  

    "Sorta."  

    Catholics who stay with Vatican II believe that this perverse and psychologically abusive teacher is what the great, all-merciful God has given us for a series of Popes.  They believe the Vicar of Christ can teach heresy, then turn around and say it's non-binding, even though heresy is all they ever hear.  So they end up as sorta-Catholics, sorta-heretics, but mostly confused.

    Another example -- take a prosecuting lawyer who is trying to tarnish the reputation of the defendant.  He says, "Is it not true that you were once a stripper?"  The defense attorney says "Objection!  Irrelevant."  Then the other lawyer says, "Sorry, your honor.  Strike that from the record."  BUT IT STILL REMAINS IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY THAT SHE WAS A STRIPPER.  Just as heresy remains in the minds of most VII Catholics even though they ignore the "pastoral councils" and pretty much everything the "Pope" says.  

    So what are you not understanding here, stevusmagnus, Elizabeth, Caminus?  I know you don't agree with these Popes.  You think that obedience is to call someone Pope and then just ignore him?  That is not Catholic obedience but proves you are more Gallican than the sedevacantists who you accuse of Gallicanism.  WE would obey the Pope IF we thought we had one.  We do NOT obey a Pope who CANNOT BE a Pope, nor even a Catholic, because he is a manifest and pertinacious heretic.  It is our very love of obedience that makes it impossible for us to say these men are Popes.

    It is so sad that as many people have gone along with this childish farce for as long as they have, but remember that in Leo XIII's vision, the devil was given 100 years to destroy the Church -- this has been going on since before 1958.  The rules that were always so firm began to erode; people began to make up their own and they were given lots of wiggle room to do so.  Eventually they ended up just believing pretty much whatever they wanted to believe and no authority ever stops them or teaches them any differently.  

    Pius X warned about this when in Pascendi Dominici Gregis he talks about  the flood of questionable books and that you can't even trust them if they have an Imprimatur!  That shows he knew what was about to happen.

    Quote
    Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the  Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.


    I have become a home-aloner sedevacantist like CM.  To the right of the sedevacantist clergy -- at least the American sedevacantist clergy -- but to the left of the Feeneyites.  I feel all of a sudden that I am a true Catholic, at the magical age of 33, the age at which many saints and Jesus Christ Himself died, but also the age at which myself and St. Augustine were born.  The best thing I have ever done was to walk away from the CMRI, and to stop accepting compromise IN ANY WAY -- God seems to be pleased with my decision, because over the last week I have been flooded with revelation and truth.  It is like yet another rebirth.

    My view of what has happened in the Church has recently become sharper and clearer.  I now believe the devil had a two-pronged entry point into the Church:  ( a ) False interpretations of "invincible ignorance" leading to the theory of universal salvation and ( b ) The rhythm method and NFP, imparting a grotesquely sexual tone to the holy sacrament of marriage and leading to marriages based on lust instead of the qualities necessary for parenthood.  I have seen examples of this in my own brief experience with Catholicism, a man of that generation who has told me he married for the wrong reasons, of nuns happily chirping about "rhythm," etc.  

    The sedevacantists will be riddled with errors for as long as they keep pretending that the 40's and 50's were a Golden Age.  They were a worldly, comfortable, fleshly and delusional age and those who pick up where these errors left off are doomed to repeat them.  Until they wake up, the Church is dead.  

    I should also say that Pius XII will ALMOST SURELY go down as an anti-Pope.  Read a little speech called the "Allocution to Midwives."  Elizabeth, I know you don't often agree with what I say, but you are against NFP, as I am now -- put your money where your mouth is.  Don't just knock Father Cekada without seeing the source from which he got his error, who was Pius XII himself.  If you are going to refuse to listen to Father Cekada, then REFUSE TO LISTEN TO PACELLI AND HIS SUCCESSORS.

    I may have more to say about this in the coming weeks but I want to do more research.  I have become as obsessed with NFP as Catholic Martyr is with BoD.  Still believe in BoD though!
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #19 on: October 01, 2009, 11:19:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see that Satan has been illuminating you with his marvelous light as of late.


    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #20 on: October 02, 2009, 12:05:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That was a pretty good post Raoul76.  You're getting close.

    Quote from: Caminus
    I see that Satan has been illuminating you with his marvelous light as of late.


    No, you've been here defending heresy.

    Quote from: Raoul76
    I may have more to say about this in the coming weeks but I want to do more research.  I have become as obsessed with NFP as Catholic Martyr is with BoD.  Still believe in BoD though!


    God is not pleased with you yet, then.  But you are on your way.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #21 on: October 02, 2009, 12:48:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    God is not pleased with you yet, then.


    You literally make me ill.

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #22 on: October 02, 2009, 01:12:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's a heresy Caminus.  I am not presuming to speak for God, but I know He is not pleased with someone who knowingly holds to a heresy that is in contradiction to formal dogmas.


    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #23 on: October 02, 2009, 01:15:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And neither did I say I believe He is pleased with me.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #24 on: October 02, 2009, 01:21:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    It's a heresy Caminus.  I am not presuming to speak for God, but I know He is not pleased with someone who knowingly holds to a heresy that is in contradiction to formal dogmas.


    No it's not, CM.  Was God pleased with the Saints who also held this doctrine?  Before or after Trent it matters not since the the necessity of baptism was very well known at all times.  How could they be Saints when they objectively sinned against the Faith and as such objectively had no Faith at all?  Are not the canonizations of the Church infallible?  Or are they simply useless since She canonizes people that objectively lead others to hell?  Or at very least aren't all that holy and thus are really just bad or mediocre examples.  Same goes for the Doctors of the Church.

    Think man, THINK.

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #25 on: October 02, 2009, 01:49:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Quote from: Catholic Martyr
    It's a heresy Caminus.  I am not presuming to speak for God, but I know He is not pleased with someone who knowingly holds to a heresy that is in contradiction to formal dogmas.


    No it's not, CM.  Was God pleased with the Saints who also held this doctrine?  Before or after Trent it matters not since the the necessity of baptism was very well known at all times.  How could they be Saints when they objectively sinned against the Faith and as such objectively had no Faith at all?  Are not the canonizations of the Church infallible?


    No they are not.

    Quote from: Caminus
    Or are they simply useless since She canonizes people that objectively lead others to hell?


    They are not useless either.  The Church marks out lifestyles for imitation, however anybody who takes a saints doctrine over the decrees of Holy Mother Church, if these decrees do not admit it, is perverting the rule of faith.

    Quote from: Caminus
    Or at very least aren't all that holy and thus are really just bad or mediocre examples.  Same goes for the Doctors of the Church.


    Non sequitur.  They may have had subjective excuses for their objective offense (those who taught it after Vienne, Florence or Trent).  And they have been exonerated in the external forum by their canonization.

    Quote from: Caminus
    Think man, THINK.


    I have Caminus, I have.


    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #26 on: October 02, 2009, 02:21:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • LOL.  Why do you keep referring to yourself as if you are some kind of authority?

    Quote
    Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.



    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    (No subject)
    « Reply #27 on: October 02, 2009, 02:41:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Caminus, simply quote yourself as authority as well. ;)

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    (No subject)
    « Reply #28 on: October 02, 2009, 02:45:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah, I could do that.  I love how he just quotes himself as a matter of fact.  What a strange little man.

    Offline CM

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2726
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    (No subject)
    « Reply #29 on: October 02, 2009, 03:09:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    LOL.  Why do you keep referring to yourself as if you are some kind of authority?


    I'm not doing anything of the sort.  I am placing a link to the information I have already gathered on the matter.  The information is Magisterial Catholic teaching, and your quotes from theologians do not carry the same weight.


     

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