I have, from reliable teachers who teach what the Church teaches.

So who exactly has the pope, or who has the V2 leaders bound to receiving the Eucharist while in an adulterous relationship?

You're the one making the blatantly false accusation that the pope or V2 leaders bound something sacrilegious on "the Church" - so out with it already, who did they bind?

Yes, why yes I do.

YOU are the one who made the false claim that the pope or V2 leaders bound the Church, not me. To remind you of your error, I quoted you below.
Remember now?

But he did allow it. He (the valid pope) instigated the whole blasphemous idea. But, contrary to your version, he did not bind it on anyone, nor have the V2 leaders bound anyone to it.

Why did you say the V2 leaders did such a thing when they didn't? Why did you say a pope cannot allow such a thing when he initiated it?

You have taken the insanity to a whole different level.  I thought Francis had reached the pinnacle.  You now claim a valid pope can allow anything under the sun in an official docuмent and it is okay so long as he doesn't bind it on anyone.  This is pure genius.  Absolutely incredible.  So Francis has to insist that we receive the Eucharist while in an adulterous situation in order for him to be invalid.  This is where we have come.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Who knows maybe Francis will insist on this and then those not in an adulterous situation will no longer be able to receive the Eucharist.  I don't put anything past him.  Even if he did, people would still insist he is pope.  

Now if anyone wanted a demonstration of a papal decree not only rejected but made a laugh of, here it is above. 'Will I be damned for not knowing which thing spins around which?' If you think that is what the 1616 decree was about then your idea of Catholic history is pretty lacking.

To support his Catholic reasoning 'Lover of truth' offers an opinion of the sedevacantist Daly, because sedevacantism DEPENDS on them 'demoting' the decree enough to allow the popes from 1741 to believe in heliocentrism and to IGNORE the papal decree of 1616. Well Daly was not aware that the records of the 1820 Holy Office stated very clearly the 1616 was an irreversible papal decree. Now you can quote as many opinions as you like, but for me there is only one that set the law, Pope Paul V's followed by Pope Urban VIII's clarification of its infallibility. The day I let Einstein decide the authority of a papal decree like yourself, pigs will fly.

As for the wise cracks, well they are also an insult to the theological wisdom of St Robert Bellarmine, the Cardinal who presided over the dogma that instructs us what the Scriptures say is true and of faith:

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’

Today however, thanks to millions of 'lovers of truth' Cardinal Bellarmine is now labeled as a fundamentalist troublemaker. And if you do not believe me read Gaudium et Spes No. 36.

 

LIAR. Prove that the Dimond Brothers take quotes out of context.


LIAR. This is the exact opposite of the problem. Many people who believe the obvious understanding of EENS see it distorted by sedevacantists such as yourself, and are "put off" of SV because of it. They see that the Dogma is so clear but then see you destroying the Dogma. They think, well if they can't get this simple Dogma correct, they must not have the issue of SV correct. Your problem lies in the fact that you attribute infallibility to more than it concerns. Theologians, Saints, Catechisms etc... are not infallible and when they contradict Dogma, Dogma wins.


LIAR. This is a perfect example. How can those who believe in EENS take you seriously when they see you state the Dogma "outside of which there is no salvation" and know that you don't really believe in it? You constantly deny it under the guise of phrases such as "as the Church understands it" which implies that you have a deeper understanding than which is clearly stated.

Another envious dust mite trying to get the Dimond's attention.

Nobody reads the never ending spam that you post here, meanwhile the Dimond's website has more viewers than all the other trad sights put together.

Oh sorry, I meant to address this to OP, not you...

I may read this post entirely some day but just to state my perceptions: It seems you have no faith in a human being being able to discern what is really true. With the Church in the world, even despite all its problems, people will find the truth. You come across (or the author of this comes across) as if someone is going to go to Hell if he doesn't get absolutely every teaching of the Church "right," and so his soul is in grave jeopardy if he, say, listens to the wrong (heretical) person!

what an insult to the notion that we are created in God's image!
what an insult to the notion that it is not ignorance that leads to Hell but willful ignorance, choosing to be ignorant of Christ b/c you.. um.. "have better things to do" or whatever