Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 36807 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2017, 06:02:15 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

Fine. Tell me the difference between the penalties for committing a mortal sin, and the penalties for Heresy.

The difference is that the Church, because the sin is public, has attached the censure of excommunication to the sin of heresy. This means the heretic, while still having the obligations of practicing the Catholic faith i.e. still has to go to Mass on Sundays for example, but has lost the benefits of a Catholic i.e. cannot receive communion, cannot be Godparent, etc. - in short, the excommunicant is banned from participating in the community of the faithful due to his public sin.

Wrong. You didn't answer the question. The penalty for mortal sin is the loss of sanctifying grace while still remaining Catholic. The penalty for Heresy, along with the loss of sanctifying grace, is the immediate and without further declaration, excommunication and removal from the Church in which the Catholic ceases to be Catholic.

Then why do you keep declaring it when the penalty happens without it?

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You cannot impose this censure upon anyone, nor can I - in the case of the pope, no one can impose this censure upon him.

You are right but neither you nor I need too. ANY person that no longer professes the true faith has ceased to be a member of the Church and cannot be Pope.

As long as you believe that, it must be true. All you need to do is prove he no longer occupies the chair and everyone will believe it.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven
I didn't say you created the crisis.
Please cite a teaching that says that a Pope can retain his Office if he has become a public heretic. Please cite a teaching that says a public heretic can attain the Office of the Papacy (what has happened since JXXIII). Remember to cite a teaching that has those words, because I can cite teachings to the opposite that have those words.

Far as I know, there are no teachings worded like that
.
Exactly. Yet there are teachings by Popes saying that any man who is a heretic, who is elevated to the Office of the Papacy, would not be the Pope.
Many saints explicitly teach that a Pope who becomes a heretic ceases to be Pope.

All you need to do is get one of the pope's superiors to make the pronunciation and impose the censure and everyone will believe it.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
The dogma teaches that we must be subject to the pope for our hope of salvation - sedevacantists add the exception; "unless you don't believe he is the pope" - they then make their exception to the dogma, dogma itself while insisting they're doing no such thing. How is it possible to argue the sedevacantist opinion at all when the sedevacantists hold such a position as that?

Please explain how you are entirely subject to the Pope.

Paraphrasing St. Thomas More's last words - I am the pope's good subject, but God's first.

Nothing complicated at all.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
We cannot be subject to him if we opine he is not the pope - but per the dogma, we must be subject to him if we want to get to heaven. This is my main reason to believe he is the pope - I cannot get to heaven unless I am his subject. You and the sedevacantists are wholly content to have figured out how to get to heaven without being subject to him, the rest of us haven't figured out how you're able to do that, when it's something we know we cannot do.

How would you get to heaven if you had died between the death of PPiusXI and the election of PPiusXII? There was no Pope living for you to be subject to. As soon as you figure out how to be subject to the Pope during that interregnum then you can answer your own question.

Ah, but that is not asking an honest question. The question is - how would you get to heaven when you are not the pope's subject?

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You just don't get it.
There is nothing to stop a pope from setting up an evil mass and etc.

What is the definition of the gates of hell? How is the Church indefectible?
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

A couple of questions.
1. Is Francis a member of the Catholic Church?
2. Does he profess the true Faith?

No and no. That is my opinion and I'm sure that is also your opinion and likely is the opinion of everyone here at CI and likely 99.9% of the trad population on earth.

We can all together or individually jump up and down about it, stomp our feet, docuмent in triplicate each of his errors to serve as indisputable proof, have video evidence, take it to the Vatican, show it to the entire hierarchy, post it all on youtube, facebook, twitter and broadcast it on every TV, internet and radio channel on earth 24 hours a day for 10 years - and he would still be the pope. All everyone would have accomplished is a colossal waste of time while risking losing their soul in the process - for no reason at all.

So your belief in a nutshell is, a person who is neither a member of the Church nor professes the true faith is the Pope. I truly hope that one day you will open your eyes and see how demonic this opinion is. How deceived you are. If you truly believe he is Pope then you have most definitely judged the Pope. SV's merely say that Francis can't be Pope while fully believing in Catholic Dogma that when there is a Pope, we are subject to him. You claim that a non-Catholic is the Pope and that you are subject to him, A NON-CATHOLIC.

Well then, please go ahead and answer what all the above human efforts could accomplish. And please, do not use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedevacantism, I will not acknowledge them. Always remember, sedevacantism is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of the Church - the Church has never taught sedevacantism.

If you will please use only teachings from sedevacantist popes and saints, I will not miss a word.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** January 10, 2017, 09:38:56 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn

Well then, please go ahead and answer what all the above human efforts could accomplish. And please, do not use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedevacantism, I will not acknowledge them. Always remember, sedevacantism is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of the Church - the Church has never taught sedevacantism.

If you will please use only teachings from sedevacantist popes and saints, I will not miss a word.

My previous post is filled with enough facts that you cannot refute. Too many unanswered questions. You are so hypocritical to say that SV's cannot use Catholic Teachings to vindicate SVism (i.e. that a heretic can't be Catholic) when you constantly use Catholic teachings to try to prove EENS. They are on par with each other. Can you name any other person who taught that a person cannot cease to be Catholic once he is one, besides Wathen?
BTW, when you said that you will not accept Catholic Teaching to prove a point, this is very obvious and diabolical. Meditate on that one for a while.

Ha!
Why not just completely obliterate what I said to suit what you have to say?

You certainly must know that you can no more use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism than Protestants can use the bible to vindicate Protestantism, but that's exactly what sedevacantists keep trying to do. Debating the understanding of the dogma EENS is not debating the understanding of the dogma of sedevacantism.

Again, the Catholic Church has never taught sedevacantism because it is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of Christ. As such, you are attempting to use Catholic teaching to justify a doctrine of man.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #12 on:** January 10, 2017, 10:56:39 AM »

Quote

PV said:
Does current church law FORCE anyone to attend the novus ordo? No.
Does church law FORCE anyone to accept V2? No.
FORCE anyone to receive communion in the hand? No.
FORCE anyone to eat meat on fridays? No.
Use planned parenthood? Go to mass on Sat night? Get an annulment?
No, no and no.

And even seven said:
The Catholic Church would never and has never done, promulgate, teach or allow these things. They are harmful whether forced or not. That's one of the reasons why we know it's not the real Church.

During the time of Arianism, was the Church not the real Church? It is said that almost the entire world was infected with Arianism (except St Athanasius). The Cardinals, Bishops, priests, etc believed in error, promoted it, condoned it, etc. Even the Pope was not as direct as he could be. The true heretics would say one thing and do another. Preach the truth and then turn around and undermine it. This is why arianism was formally condemned multiple times in a short span of 60 years - because the error kept evolving.

This time period is VERY consistent with ours. It was a doctrinal nightmare, filled with error, half-truths and heretics. Yet, the Church has never declared that the arian time period was sedevecant, or that the Church wasn't the Church, or that there were mass vacancies in the cardinal, bishop or priestly offices.

How do you explain this?

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2017, 04:14:40 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Sedevacantism is not a Dogma. Catholics who become heretics do not stay Catholic is of divine law.
"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is a doctrine of man; that man's name was Fr. Wathen.

You confuse the prot heresy; "once saved always saved", which is a doctrine of man, with the Catholic truth; "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

At some point, you must be honest with yourself and admit that sedevacantism is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, that it really and actually is the teaching of a man.

Do not keep fooling yourself, your salvation is *not* dependent upon the status of the pope. Your salvation is wholly dependent upon you persevering in the Catholic faith and dying in sanctifying grace, without mortal sin on your soul. You can do this, we can and are all expected to persevere, regardless of the status of the pope, regardless of whether he be a fraud or a living saint.

You can be subject to the pope and you must be subject to him regardless of your opinion of his status - no one gave you the right to declare yourself not subject to him no matter what your opinion of his status is.

The dogma states quite completely; Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Madmen changed that dogma into a dangerous doctrine, a doctrine of man, by adding the proviso at the end; ".....be subject to the Roman Pontiff, unless you don't believe he is the pope".

This addition is what the sedevacantists add, while they insist they are doing no such thing. Their reasoning is that the pope is not the pope - as if they actually know this, as if their opinion has been dogmatically defined or a divinely revealed truth - instead of their opinion. Sedevacantists have the highest regard for their own opinion that I know of.

I understand that as a rule, sedevacantists do not differentiate between, "being subject to the pope" and "blindly submitting to the pope", but if you strive to understand the difference, you will discover that as usual, it was with exacting reason that the Holy Ghost used the word "subject" instead of "submit". To use "submit" would not even be Catholic. Hopefully you'll at least think about it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2017, 06:43:15 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You confuse the prot heresy; "once saved always saved", which is a doctrine of man, with the Catholic truth; "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

Please cite the source of this elusive "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" "doctrine".

I thought the prot heresy comparison should suffice, since this "truth" is not at all elusive to Catholics, it is by virtue of their baptism which marks their souls with an indelible character, identifying them as a Catholic forever. Or are you claiming there are no Catholics in hell now? Where is that "doctrine"?

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You can be subject to the pope and you must be subject to him regardless of your opinion of his status

Please tell me what it means to be subject to the Pope and where you get your opinion from.

It means that for our hope of salvation, we must be the pope's subject, but always God's first. Most (all?) sedevacantists leave the part out about being subject to God first, doing this serves only one purpose - as fuel for their "must blindly submit" ideas, but those ideas only work - and work well, only so long as they leave God out of the formula entirely.