Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 44

Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!  (Read 44034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Don Paolo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 481
  • Reputation: +90/-108
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
« Reply #510 on: November 16, 2019, 05:38:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Stubborn has drawn a grotesque caricature of my position, which I have expressed with sufficient clarity for any honest person to understand.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14890
    • Reputation: +6175/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #511 on: November 16, 2019, 05:39:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 15, 2019, 06:56:21 PM
    Stubborn,

    Based on this article, I must retract my earlier statement (now shown to be mistaken) that no theologian ever held that the Baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church.  Evidently Cajetan held that opinion.  It was not held by many and has long been abandoned ... but it is not true that no theologian ever held this.  Now, he did nevertheless believe that a Pope could fall into heresy and thereby lose his office ... but, then, presumably, he would still be a member of the Church even though deposed from office.

    Father Wathen evidently tried to revive this theory, which to my knowledge no other Traditional Catholic priest has held.
    It's not a theory, Trent's catechism teaches it. They belong to Her only as a deserter, but they do belong to Her.

    Trent's catechism says "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted".

    The fact that  the deserter wants nothing to do with the army any more has nothing to do with it because the army still claims jurisdiction over them, and will rightfully pass judgement upon them as one of their own, if they ever get caught.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14890
    • Reputation: +6175/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #512 on: November 16, 2019, 05:46:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Don Paolo on November 16, 2019, 05:38:57 AM
    Stubborn has drawn a grotesque caricature of my position, which I have expressed with sufficient clarity for any honest person to understand.
    I am honest Father, but I quoted you on your position, I didn't say it, you're the one who called it a grotesque caricature.

    Nothing new here I suppose. As I said in my post above: I am still awaiting an understandable answer from Fr. Kramer but expect to be verbally pummeled, without an answer, if he ever does reply.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #513 on: November 16, 2019, 05:59:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The account of Liberius' "fall" is based on the flimsiest of evidence -- mostly on docuмents that appear to have been forged; and hearsay based on those forgeries. The preponderance of evidence is clearly against any such fall. The account has no reliable basis, and cannot be taken seriously.             What is absolutely certain is that Antipope Felix II was never a pope, never a martyr, and never a saint. His identity was later confused with St. Felix the martyr, who was never a pope. The 1962 edition of the Roman Missal corrected this error.
         There was never a judgment against Liberius, he was never deposed, and Felix never succeeded him as pope. The entire story is as apocryphal as the story of the "fall" of St. Marcellinus, which was based entirely on a forgery (as I have explained in my book).
    Logged

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #514 on: November 16, 2019, 06:06:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If you want a more precise answer, you need to formulate a more precise question, Stubborn. "Which Church", do I refer to? What kind of a question is that? There is only ONE Church. ALL the others are SECTS.
    Logged

    Offline Croixalist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1549
    • Reputation: +1157/-363
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #515 on: November 16, 2019, 06:53:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yes the Church, the Catholic Church. Specifically, what member or members of said Church are supposed to make this an official declaration? Surely Fr. Kramer must believe that such pronouncements regarding figures no less than the Pope himself must have a specific authority behind them. Unless of course when he says the "Church" he means every single Catholic, laity included. 
    Logged
    Fortuna finem habet.

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #516 on: November 16, 2019, 07:24:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Q. Stubborn asks: "Specifically, what member or members of said Church are supposed to make this an official declaration?"

    A. How many times do you expect me to repeat myself? Go back and read my earlier comments. I have already answered this question.
    Logged

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #517 on: November 16, 2019, 07:26:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Sorry, Stubborn, I meant Croixalist.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6477/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #518 on: November 16, 2019, 07:41:42 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 14, 2019, 09:34:12 PM
    So we are now at page 33 in a thread in which, for some reason, nobody is willing (or able?) to provide the Latin and English text (and citations) of Bellarmine's actual words, demonstrating him to have taught that the Church must issue at least one declaration (i.e., that of the fact of the pope's heresy), before said pope would fall from the chair ipso facto, or not.

    Would not a reasonable person become skeptical by now that such words really exist, when the mere copy/paste of them here would end the sedevacantist reliance of Bellarmine forever?

    I begin to wonder.
    I have tried to find the Latin text online, but have come up empty.  Even if I did, I doubt any of us would be qualified to translate it accurately. 

       
    However, it does seem strange that [based on what we know from the English translations out there], if St. Bellarmine agreed with Cajetan that warnings were necessary, he would never include the need for warnings (and expound on exactly what that would look like) when he takes up his own (and, as he says, the true) fifth opinion.  Instead, he is silent on that point and repeats the idea that a manifest heretic is "ipso facto" out of the Church.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47161
    • Reputation: +27949/-5209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #519 on: November 16, 2019, 07:46:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on November 16, 2019, 05:39:05 AM
    It's not a theory, Trent's catechism teaches it. They belong to Her only as a deserter, but they do belong to Her.

    This only means that the Church still has authority over them.  This does not mean that they continue on as members of the Church.

    You should read the article.  There is an extreme minority opinion, no longer held, except by Father Wathen, apparently, and those who follow him, that the Baptismal character alone suffices for membership in the Church.  This was held by Cajetan and one or two of his followers, but that was it.  Despite this, however, Cajetan did have a theory about how a Pope could lose office ... evidently without losing membership in the Church.
    Logged

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2332
    • Reputation: +880/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #520 on: November 16, 2019, 07:54:37 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PaxChristi2 on November 15, 2019, 01:35:38 PM
    As a matter of charity, I would not attribute the theory the way Bishop Sanborn explains it to des Lauriers, without first what des Lauriers wrote myself:  The way Bishop Sanborn explains it is utterly absurd.



    Bishop Sanborn says a person is presumed to have a guilty intention when he commits an act, “whatever it should be.”  He doesn’t say a guilty intention is to be presumed if someone commits an evil act (e.g. robbing a bank), but any act; and the act he is referring to is not an objectively evil act, but the legitimate act of a Pope calling a council.  If Bishops Sanborn were correct, every Pope who ever called a council should be presumed to have had a bad intention in doing so.

    Then, he jumps to the conclusion that if a Pope has an evil intention of calling a council, it will prevent him from receiving papal authority.  When has the Church or any theologian ever taught such a thing, and how would the fact of the bad intention ever be judged?   Bishop Sanborn makes up his own law (i.e., the intention to undermine the faith prevents a Pope from receiving authority), and then makes himself the judge of the fact (i.e., that the Pope had such an intention), and then publicly renders his verdict that John XXIII and every Pope after him (and all 5000+ bishos alive today) all had the evil intention to undermine the faith when they were elected/appointed, and hence none of the possess the authority of the offices they legally hold.

    The entire theory is utterly absurd, and if you believe you are a complete buffoon.  
    .  
    Wow. Father Kramer has talked about you taking things out of context, and now you demonstrate the deplorable state of your reading comprehension.

    Bishop Sanborn is not saying that a bad intention is presumed for every action, such as giving a man dying of thirst a glass of water. Do you believe that? I can't help but question your good will with such a reading.

    What the bishop is saying is that bad intent is presumed in play by the commission of something that is wrong in se, such as taking someone else's property. That, the action itself without explanation, is presumed to be theft.

    Your reading of the bishop here is pathetic.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2332
    • Reputation: +880/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #521 on: November 16, 2019, 08:01:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 15, 2019, 06:49:22 PM

    This is a terrific article.  Thank you for linking to this.  So, despite all the argument about inner/occult vs. external/visible bonds in the Church, the matter is highly disputed among theologians.

    Some hold that occult heretics are in fact not members of the Church.

    I lean towards the opinion of Sylvius that occult heretics are members only secundum quid.

    And the Theologian Lawlor made the case from Mystici Corporis that occult heretics are not in fact members of the Church.

    So this is a highly controverted matter ...

    leaving the issue ... in doubt.

    Sede-doubtism anyone?

    We can not more settle the matter of sedevacantism amongst ourselves than all these theologians were able to come to a universal agreement.  If these great minds could not come to an agreement, we're probably wasting our time trying to settle the matter among us relative ignorami.

    As I have said so many times, what we really need to be arguing about are ecclesiological issues such as the Magisterium, the Universal Discipline of the Church, and the Church's indefectibility.

    Once we focus on that, we'll realized that there is absolutely ZERO theological support for the R&R position.

    Lad,

    Good post. I agree with your areas of focus/discussion.

    If you haven't read Fr. Lawlor's article referenced by Msgr. Fenton, I can post a link.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47161
    • Reputation: +27949/-5209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #522 on: November 16, 2019, 08:04:26 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here's the bottom line ... thanks to the article linked to by Decem.

    We can argue until the cows come home about what Bellarmine meant ... and it doesn't really matter, since this question has not been definitively settled by the Church.

    Even St. Robert's opinion regarding the requirements for membership in the Church have not been authoritatively settled.  There's another school of thought, which, although it has become less common these days, which holds, among other things, that occult heretics are not fully members of the Church.  I think that the position has a lot of merit.  And there are a tremendous number of permutations regarding these views.

    So, in other words, of someone wanted to hold even that occult heretics would lose the papal office, there's nothing to stop them.

    So we're wasting our time debating this issue.

    Any theory must abide by things that the Church HAS settled, such as that Councils cannot formally depose popes (Lateran V), and that the Holy See is judged by no one, and that the Pope has supreme absolute authority in the Church (Vatican I).  Any theory that does not contradict these principles can be held by a Catholic.  What we're arguing about is whether some distinction or another is legitimate so that some theory which APPEARS to contradict one of these principles really doesn't.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6477/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #523 on: November 16, 2019, 08:09:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on November 16, 2019, 08:01:06 AM
    Lad,

    Good post. I agree with your areas of focus/discussion.

    If you haven't read Fr. Lawlor's article referenced by Msgr. Fenton, I can post a link.
    Was Fr Lawlor even ordained in the Old Rite in 1969?  I prefer to refer to pre-Vatican II theologians in these matters.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47161
    • Reputation: +27949/-5209
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #524 on: November 16, 2019, 08:09:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on November 16, 2019, 08:01:06 AM
    Lad,

    Good post. I agree with your areas of focus/discussion.

    If you haven't read Fr. Lawlor's article referenced by Msgr. Fenton, I can post a link.

    Yes, thank you.  Msgr. Fenton rejects Father Lawlor's position, and I think rightly so, because Pius XII did carefully formulate his statement in listing NECESSARY conditions for membership in the Church rather than SUFFICIENT.  So, in other words, Pius XII stated, "no one can be a member of the Church without ...", but did not settle whether or not there were other requirements.

    In Msgr. Fenton's article, I found it interesting that St. Robert evidently held the opinion someone falsely CLAIMING to be a Catholic, pretending he was baptized when he wasn't, was a member of the Chuch, but that after Pius XII, this was now "unacceptable".  This opinion that a fake Catholic is a Catholic is taking the quoad nos mentality to the EXTREME.  In point of fact, however, that opinion does appear to be the logical conclusion to St. Robert's thinking ... which makes us wonder whether more of it should not be carefully "walked back", as it were.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 44
    « previous next »