Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius

If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro  Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?

 

To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.  

I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.

When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.

You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)

If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives.  They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions.  They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.

And your response is not antagonistic?  My ability to cut and paste?  This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own.  I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.  

People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.

I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.

Why?

Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.  

Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side.  It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.

If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.  If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it.  Judge me as you like.  But I stand by my point.  I judge your words.  You judge my inner motives.  If your strongest  argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.  

Happy culpable ignorance.   :cheers:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius

If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro  Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?

 

To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.  

I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.

When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.

You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)

If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives.  They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions.  They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.

And your response is not antagonistic?  My ability to cut and paste?  This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own.  I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.  

People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.

I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.

Why?

Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.  

Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side.  It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.

If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.  If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it.  Judge me as you like.  But I stand by my point.  I judge your words.  You judge my inner motives.  If your strongest  argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.  

Happy culpable ignorance.   :cheers:

Quote

This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own.  I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.

Thank you for your honesty... you are presenting more evidence to support my suspicions of your ignorance/arrogance.

1. I'm supposed to accept that whatever argument you may present as true because they are from someone who knows how to pull things out of a hat.

2. I'm supposed to believe anything you parrot, even though you can't think for yourself, that you can discern for me who's right and who's not.

3. And with your admitted ingnorance, you can with absolute certainty tell me the Pope is not the Pope.

Quote

People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.

So if you are not familiar/comfortable with a statement that is not agreeable , it must not be.

Quote

Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side

You poor victim!

Quote

If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.

You are so "Wet behind the ears," I'm not going to waste my time on you (this I say because of experience/wisdom from dealing with people like you for years). I think I'll try out this "Ignore" function and see how it works.  Maybe when I come home from a long tiring day of work, I don't have to read your nonsense.

Quote

You judge my inner motives. 

Just judging by what and how things seem to come out your mouth.  

Thank you for your keen insights. I hope eventually we can get back on topic after we have finished our pre-school antics.  If you have any more baby stuff to post I give you the opportunity to have the last word.  I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.  

Quote from: St Ignatius

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: St Ignatius

If he was so "open to the idea," why did the Archbishop convince Bishop Castro  Mayor not to succuмb to the ideology of sedevacantism?

 

To avoid another foolish post like your post above, read the article I posted on this thread, then try to post in an informed and intelligent manner.  

I'm not going to take heed to your suggestion. Let me tell you why.

When I first began reading about the subject of sedevacantism, this was before the internet, I found that most people who argued the case at least showed common decency and showed a capacity of independent thought. You, on the other hand, show a certain level of arrogance. I have observed a certain pattern with the contemporary sedevacantist, but not all of them, that they tend to be a "cut and paste" crowd.

You have not acknowledged certain previous posters who had important perspectives and questions. It seems to me, by reading your countless posts on the subject, you have no interest in what others have to say. You definitely give the impression that you're right and anyone who may disagree with you in any way, is not worthy of your time. (Although, I do see you argue for the sake of argument to demonstrate your perceived intelligence.)

If you truly had a love of what you present, I'd think you'd try to reach out in a more charitable manner. But, by reading your posts I can't help but to question your motives.  They seem to be of pride and not of one's own studious convictions.  They have the hallmark of a master of "cut and paste" which you have definitely demonstrated in the manner which you post.

And your response is not antagonistic?  My ability to cut and paste?  This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own.  I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.  

People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.

I post a very informative article very relevant to the topic and people do not want to read it.

Why?

Because in their extreme shallowness they have concluded they do not want to come to any conclusions that go against what is more convenient for them to believe.  

Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side.  It is like Mike Tyson biting an ear off because he does not want to lose fair and square.

If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.  If my wanting to see a post from an R & R that argues to the point rather than ad hominem seems "arrogant" to you so be it.  Judge me as you like.  But I stand by my point.  I judge your words.  You judge my inner motives.  If your strongest  argument against SV is that I'm arrogant that shows the foundation you are standing upon.  

Happy culpable ignorance.   :cheers:

Quote

This is because I present the teachings of others and not my own.  I don't trust myself enough to pull things out of a hat.

Thank you for your honesty... you are presenting more evidence to support my suspicions of your ignorance/arrogance.

1. I'm supposed to accept that whatever argument you may present as true because they are from someone who knows how to pull things out of a hat.

2. I'm supposed to believe anything you parrot, even though you can't think for yourself, that you can discern for me who's right and who's not.

3. And with your admitted ingnorance, you can with absolute certainty tell me the Pope is not the Pope.

Quote

People who do not want the truth will come up with all sorts of lame excuses like the one above.

So if you are not familiar/comfortable with a statement that is not agreeable , it must not be.

Quote

Character assassination is the tactic of one who cannot win the debate because he does not have truth on his side

You poor victim!

Quote

If you have something that is not childish to discuss on the topic feel free to post something informed and intelligent sounding as I said before.

You are so "Wet behind the ears," I'm not going to waste my time on you (this I say because of experience/wisdom from dealing with people like you for years). I think I'll try out this "Ignore" function and see how it works.  Maybe when I come home from a long tiring day of work, I don't have to read your nonsense.

Quote

You judge my inner motives. 

Just judging by what and how things seem to come out your mouth.  

Thank you for your keen insights. I hope eventually we can get back on topic after we have finished our pre-school antics.  If you have any more baby stuff to post I give you the opportunity to have the last word.  I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.  

My feelings are if someone asks a question they should be honest enough to read the answer no matter if it is a copy and paste or not.   Everyone here, I believe has copied and pasted even Matthew does it.  

The Bible says seek and you will find, how will one find the truth if they don't bother to  even read the answer.  We are talking about our immortal souls here, and God knows if we are sincerely seeking or just desperately trying to save face.  

I have always thought it wrong to judge the message just because one does not like the messenger, and doubly wrong to ridicule the messenger just because a few people don't like that person bringing the message.  The messenger is a person that just makes them feel uncomfortable so in that case just  skip over that persons notes if you are so uncomfortable about the words printed.  

Again, they say women are the emotional ones!   What a joke!

I post the truth for the sincere who actually care about it.  

See....here's big part of the problem. You continually accuse everyone here who doesn't agree with your interpretations to be insincere and not caring about truth. As if you alone are the carrier and interpreter of all truth. Do you believe yourself to be a prophet?

ABL:

2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Quote from: Lover of Truth

ABL:

Quote

2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Don't be antagonistic.

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth

ABL:

Quote

2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Don't be antagonistic.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

How old are you?