Author Topic: Can the Pope be the head of a counterfeit Church??? (Read 4110 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #60 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:39:27 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

If this type of sentimental reasoning is not seriously accompanied by a sincere zeal for souls, is quite pointless, and actually leads to the heresy of universal salvation and the "feel good" and "all get to go to heaven" mentality so predominant in the Protestant sects. Even modern Catholics fall into this heresy. If left unchecked, these emotions irremediably lead to tolerance of error and constitute an attack to the purity of Faith.

True charity is working towards the conversion of those outside the Church since it is a truth fallen from Heaven that only Catholics are saved. There is no glory in it, just acceptance of divinely revealed dogma that is not tainted or distorted by modern sentimentality.

What exactly do you think it means when we pray for heretics, non-catholics et al?

Of course we are praying for their conversion. What else!!!

You see this is the problem with YOU and those like you. You are so eager to find anything that you can to say negative about us and how we believe in Universal Salvation or deny EENS. YET YOU DON'T CARE THAT THIS IS WHAT YOUR POPE SAYS. How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E!
You dig, dig and dig, anything, little word that is not spelled out exactly, and you glory in the fact that, you can twist our words.

You are so wrong on your point of view and in fact maladjusted.

Tell me Cantarella, do you pray for Francis, his conversion, or are you just okay with his Modernism?

Let me just say and be CLEAR. I and all the CMRI community that I have encountered believe in NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, which is why we pray for others to convert.

Don't try again to say, we deny EENS, because for you to do so, you will answer to Almighty God for your lies. Not judging just stating the Bible. Your eagerness to send people to Hell is getting on my nerves.

Cantarella · « **Reply #61 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:43:27 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Cantarella.

You neither grant or deny the point. You assert that SVs don't pray for the Pope. I maintain that if there was a Pope we would pray for him. You meant to day that we don't pray for Francis. I maintain we believe all people alive can and should be prayed for.

Do you stick with your assertion or do you grant the point?

Further you claim the proper understand of the Church's for necessity leads to universal salvation. But you do not back this up with any proof.

Incorrect understanding of the Church's necessity for salvation can lead to one of two ways.

1. Universal salvation

2. Feeneyism.

This can be and been backed with an onslaught of authorized, authoritative and infallible teaching.

Typical modernist double talk, concluded by the following errors:

It is Catholic dogma that all souls must be subject to the Roman Pontiff - (Since to himself, there is not "Roman Pontiff" this dogma is discarded in the sedevacantist's mind).

It is Catholic dogma that all souls must formally enter the Church for salvation via Baptism - (To the sedevacantist, as well as the liberal, non - Catholics can be saved through the Church, not necessary in the Church)

Not baptized people are not inside the Church and are naturally not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This false assertion undermines the whole Catholic doctrine of salvation in which there is absolute need of:

1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #62 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:52:28 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Cantarella.

You neither grant or deny the point. You assert that SVs don't pray for the Pope. I maintain that if there was a Pope we would pray for him. You meant to day that we don't pray for Francis. I maintain we believe all people alive can and should be prayed for.

Do you stick with your assertion or do you grant the point?

Further you claim the proper understand of the Church's for necessity leads to universal salvation. But you do not back this up with any proof.

Incorrect understanding of the Church's necessity for salvation can lead to one of two ways.

1. Universal salvation

2. Feeneyism.

This can be and been backed with an onslaught of authorized, authoritative and infallible teaching.

Typical modernist double talk, concluded by the following errors:

It is Catholic dogma that all souls must be subject to the Roman Pontiff - (Since to himself, there is not "Roman Pontiff" this dogma is discarded in the sedevacantist's mind).

It is Catholic dogma that all souls must formally enter the Church for salvation via Baptism - (To the sedevacantist, as well as the liberal, non - Catholics can be saved through the Church, not necessary in the Church)

Not baptized people are not inside the Church and are naturally not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This false assertion undermines the whole Catholic doctrine of salvation in which there is absolute need of:

1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)

I'm not going to let you get away with calling truth double talk and avoid the question by raising another objection.

Prove whether you are intellectually honest or not by answering the question.

Do you understand and admit that the the meaning of the word "manifest" is different than the meaning of the word "formal"?

Cantarella · « **Reply #63 on:** July 24, 2014, 11:54:17 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Let me just say and be CLEAR. I and all the CMRI community that I have encountered believe in NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, which is why we pray for others to convert.

Don't try again to say, we deny EENS, because for you to do so, you will answer to Almighty God for your lies. Not judging just stating the Bible. Your eagerness to send people to Hell is getting on my nerves.

Yet, following the Cushing error, they believe that a Jєω can be saved as a Jєω, a Moslem as a Moslem, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Buddhist as a Buddhist, etc, etc, without needing to explicitly and visibly convert to Catholicism before death. This runs opposite to the EENS dogma.

Cantarella · « **Reply #64 on:** July 24, 2014, 12:01:31 PM »

Dear Lover of Error,

Outside the Church there can be no salvation for anyone. Who exactly is a member of the Church and who is not?

This paragraph of St. Bellarmine (which the sedevacantists are so very fond of) perfectly illustrates it:

Quote from: Bellarmine

From this definition it can be easily gathered what men belong to the Church and what men do not. For there are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true Faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and the subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.

By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jєωs, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.

By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.

By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.

Are you acquainted at all with this Bellarmine's teaching, Lover of Error, or you only copy and paste the ones that may fit the sedevacantist's agenda?

2Vermont · « **Reply #65 on:** July 24, 2014, 12:57:11 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella

If this type of sentimental reasoning is not seriously accompanied by a sincere zeal for souls, is quite pointless, and actually leads to the heresy of universal salvation and the "feel good" and "all get to go to heaven" mentality so predominant in the Protestant sects. Even modern Catholics fall into this heresy. If left unchecked, these emotions irremediably lead to tolerance of error and constitute an attack to the purity of Faith.

True charity is working towards the conversion of those outside the Church since it is a truth fallen from Heaven that only Catholics are saved. There is no glory in it, just acceptance of divinely revealed dogma that is not tainted or distorted by modern sentimentality.

What exactly do you think it means when we pray for heretics, non-catholics et al?

Of course we are praying for their conversion. What else!!!

You see this is the problem with YOU and those like you. You are so eager to find anything that you can to say negative about us and how we believe in Universal Salvation or deny EENS. YET YOU DON'T CARE THAT THIS IS WHAT YOUR POPE SAYS. How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E!
You dig, dig and dig, anything, little word that is not spelled out exactly, and you glory in the fact that, you can twist our words.

You are so wrong on your point of view and in fact maladjusted.

Tell me Cantarella, do you pray for Francis, his conversion, or are you just okay with his Modernism?

Let me just say and be CLEAR. I and all the CMRI community that I have encountered believe in NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, which is why we pray for others to convert.

Don't try again to say, we deny EENS, because for you to do so, you will answer to Almighty God for your lies. Not judging just stating the Bible. Your eagerness to send people to Hell is getting on my nerves.

Now, now Myrna. You don't want to come off sounding uncharitable and bitter. :wink:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #66 on:** July 24, 2014, 01:25:00 PM »

I'm not going to let you get away with calling truth double talk and avoid the question by raising another objection.

Prove whether you are intellectually honest or not by answering the question.

Do you understand and admit that the the meaning of the word "manifest" is different than the meaning of the word "formal"?

Cantarella has read the above question and not responded. Is this because she prefers her own opinion over truth?

Can anyone help cantarella out with the answer? The question again is as follows:

Do you understand and admit that the the meaning of the word "manifest" is different than the meaning of the word "formal"?

She erred in her reasoning and does not own up to the error but instead engages in personal attacks and brings something else up. It is best to pray for these types of people rather than trying to rationalize with them.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #67 on:** July 24, 2014, 01:30:45 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Cantarella

If this type of sentimental reasoning is not seriously accompanied by a sincere zeal for souls, is quite pointless, and actually leads to the heresy of universal salvation and the "feel good" and "all get to go to heaven" mentality so predominant in the Protestant sects. Even modern Catholics fall into this heresy. If left unchecked, these emotions irremediably lead to tolerance of error and constitute an attack to the purity of Faith.

True charity is working towards the conversion of those outside the Church since it is a truth fallen from Heaven that only Catholics are saved. There is no glory in it, just acceptance of divinely revealed dogma that is not tainted or distorted by modern sentimentality.

What exactly do you think it means when we pray for heretics, non-catholics et al?

Of course we are praying for their conversion. What else!!!

You see this is the problem with YOU and those like you. You are so eager to find anything that you can to say negative about us and how we believe in Universal Salvation or deny EENS. YET YOU DON'T CARE THAT THIS IS WHAT YOUR POPE SAYS. How do you spell H Y P O C R I T E!
You dig, dig and dig, anything, little word that is not spelled out exactly, and you glory in the fact that, you can twist our words.

You are so wrong on your point of view and in fact maladjusted.

Tell me Cantarella, do you pray for Francis, his conversion, or are you just okay with his Modernism?

Let me just say and be CLEAR. I and all the CMRI community that I have encountered believe in NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, which is why we pray for others to convert.

Don't try again to say, we deny EENS, because for you to do so, you will answer to Almighty God for your lies. Not judging just stating the Bible. Your eagerness to send people to Hell is getting on my nerves.

There position is indefensible so they have to resort to personal attacks and false accusations. These are the weapons of the intellectually dishonest. And they do indeed get those who are intellectually honest and slaves to Truth perturbed if they are paid attention to or when trying to engage in a rational conversation with them.

It might help to understand that these types are irrevocably convinced that their error is truth and for them all facts, logic, authoritative and infallible teaching to the contrary be damned. They are right and everyone else is wrong. They cannot be rationalized with in regards to their errors. They are irrational in regards to their error and you cannot rationalize with the irrational.

This has been proved time and time again on this site and it will be continually proved as long as the Feeneyites are allowed to post here.

Cantarella · « **Reply #68 on:** July 24, 2014, 02:08:48 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Error

Do you understand and admit that the the meaning of the word "manifest" is different than the meaning of the word "formal"?

Yes, but it is quite irrelevant to the argument:

Quote from: Cantarella

In real life, this argument fails due to the following reasons:

First, according to St. Bellarmine, a heretic pope formally becomes manifest and lose the pontificate. For this to apply to the conciliar Popes, would require it to be ~~formal~~ heresy, and this ~~formal~~ heresy to be public. Even if there is evidence of heretical statements pronounced by the conciliar Popes, it is very difficult to prove that they are in fact aware of rejecting a dogma of the Church, which constitutes formal heresy. Most likely, they are material heretics.

Second, even if the ~~formal~~ heresy was proved, it is simply not up to the layman to judge or depose the Roman Pontiff (even according to Bellarmine himself) but the Church.

Third, there is no theological consensus about the case of a heretical Pope. According to most, even a heretical pope may continue to exercise the papacy. It would be necessary, so that it loses its jurisdiction, a statement of Catholic Bishops stating heresy of Pope. Again, this is based upon merely theological speculation.

The heresy being formal (or material), is not what matters, the fact that is manifest, is what matters, according to St. Bellarmine's opinion and what is determinant in the sedevacantist's thesis about the conciliar popes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 on:** July 24, 2014, 02:15:46 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Error
Do you understand and admit that the the meaning of the word "manifest" is different than the meaning of the word "formal"?

Yes, but it is quite irrelevant to the argument:

LoT will keep bringing this up on every thread from here to eternity as an ad hominem every time he can't muster an actual response to something (which is most of the time).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #70 on:** July 24, 2014, 02:22:40 PM »

a) Against Fr. Boulet’s first point, in which he cites the divine law, The First See can be judged by no one , we may consider the Decretal Si papa, and the commentary upon it of Innocent III, who famously taught as follows.

He [the Roman Pontiff] can be judged by men, or rather can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4); see Decreta Gratiani , III, d. 40, c.6. [Quoted by Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology , Vol. II, "Christ's Church" - Mercier Press, 1958, . 310.]

And the Decretal itself reads,

“Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith.” [Ia, dist. XL, c. 6, Si papa; ex Gestis Bonifacii martyris.]

The Abbé de Nantes provides a parallel text from the same Roman Pontiff, as follows.

“The great Innocent III comments on this, applying it humbly to himself: ‘For me the faith is so necessary that, whereas for other sins my only judge is God, for the slightest sin committed in the matter of the faith I could be judged by the Church.’ (Serm. Consecrat. Pontif. Rom., P. L. CCXVII, col. 656).

Nothing turns on the point, but it appears to be inaccurate to say that no act of Paul VI’s, John Paul II’s, or Benedict XVI’s could be notorious with a notoriety of law, on the grounds that nobody may judge “the Pope.” For if any of the three were guilty of public heresy he would lose his papal status by the very fact, and could therefore be declared a heretic by an imperfect general council. This would render his heresy notorious with a notoriety of law.

b) Fr. Boulet’s failure accurately to define the terms “notorious” and “pertinacious” now really causes some mischief. He avers that for heresy to be notorious “it would have to be widely recognised as both heretical and morally imputable,” which is simply wrong, as I hope has been demonstrated. There is no such requirement for “wide recognition” – although if it were widely recognised it would certainly be notorious. Likewise, Fr. Boulet informs us that, “guilt could be Notorious only by being widely publicly known.” Whence this novel term, widely publicly known?

c) Pertinacity also seems to cause some difficulties. Fr. Boulet tells us it means, “persistent and determined to the point of stubbornness.” But perhaps he has been deceived by an English dictionary, for that is the kind of definition he has given. Da Silveira himself has quoted several canonists on this point in his Essay on Heresy.

Moreover, it must be noted that the word "pertinacity" has, in the definition of heresy a different sense from that which it has in everyday usage. In the usual dictionary meaning, "pertinacious" means very tenacious, obstinate, secretive, persistent, continuing for a long time, perseverant. This is also the meaning of the Latin word.

If pertinacity, so understood, were essential to the sin of heresy, this would only exist in the cases of intrinsic malice which may be frequent, but is difficult to prove; it could only be determined after a long period of observation; it would never be committed in a moment of weakness, for example of anger.

Now the moralists and canonists are unanimous in affirming that the Code of Canon Law (can. 1325,D.2) does not use the term in this sense. As Tanquerey teaches, "pertinacity refers to denying or doubting a truth of the faith", "Scienter et volente", that is to say, with full knowledge that this truth is a dogma, and with full adhesion of will. "For there to be pertinacity", he adds, "it is not necessary that the person should be admonished several times and persevere for a long time in his obstinacy, but it is sufficient that consciously and willingly (sciens et volens) he refused a truth proposed in a sufficient manner, be it through pride or delight in contradiction or for any other reason." (Tanquerey, "Syn. Th. Mor. et Past.", pg.473.) Even if he denies it "brevi mora", ie. for a moment, a very brief space of time (Tanquerey, "Brevior Syn. Th. Mor.", pg.95) because pertinacity in this context "does not indicate duration of time, but perversity of reason" (Zalba, pg.28). There can be pertinacity in a sin of heresy committed by simple weakness (cf. Caietano in II; II, II.2.).

Concerning the canonical meaning of "pertinacity" in the definition of heresy, see also: St. Thomas "Summa Theol." II; II, II. 2,3; "Super Ep. ad Titum Lect.", n.l02; Wernz - Vidal, pgs. 449 - 450 Merkelbach, pg. 569; Prummer, pg. 364; Noldin. vol. II, pg.25; Avis, pg. 292; Peinador, pg.99; Regatillo, pg. 142; Journet pg.709. [Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, Essay on Heresy , translated by John S. Daly.]

MyrnaM · « **Reply #71 on:** July 24, 2014, 04:15:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Lover of Error
Do you understand and admit that the the meaning of the word "manifest" is different than the meaning of the word "formal"?

Yes, but it is quite irrelevant to the argument:

LoT will keep bringing this up on every thread from here to eternity as an ad hominem every time he can't muster an actual response to something (which is most of the time).

As you and your friends keep bringing up your erroneous beliefs on every topic on this forum, dare I even mention the subject, or this thread will go another 100 pages.