Author Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!  (Read 12175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PaxChristi2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Reputation: +46/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
« Reply #105 on: November 08, 2019, 10:45:33 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Haven't you said that all of the theologians have been unanimous in the view that a Pope cannot be a heretic? Obviously, John of St. Thomas isn't one of them.
    Meg,
     
    If "Don Paolo" has said or implied that, he is either lying or he's entirely ignorant about what the theologians teach.
     
    None deny the possibility that a Pope can fall into heresy.  What they disagree on is the likelihood of it actually happening. Some say the opinion that a Pope cannot fall into heresy is probably, or more probable, some say it is less probable.  None say it is certain.  Here's several quotes that show this:
     
    Bellarmine: “The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended (as we will show in its proper place), but it is not certain and the common opinion is to the contrary…” De Romano Pontifice, liv II, cap. xxx).
     
    Bellarmine: It is probable and may piously be believed that the Sovereign Pontiff not only cannot err ‘as Pope,’ but that he cannot even be a heretic as a particular person, by pertinaciously believing something false contrary to the faith.” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv, ch.vii).
     
    Fr. Paul Laymann, S.J. (1625): “It is more probable that the Supreme Pontiff, as concerns his own person, can fall into heresy, even a notorious one…” (Moral Theology, bk. 2, tract 1, ch. 7).
     
    Suarez (1622): Though many may hold, with verisimilitude (that the Pope can fall into heresy), to me however, in a few words, it appears more pious and more probable to affirm that the Pope, as a private person, can err by ignorance but not contumaciously.” (Suarez, De Fide, disp. X, sact. VI. n 11, p. 319).  
     
    M. Coronata (1950): “It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic — if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God.  Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible.”
     
    A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949): “At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici, Rome: Dessain, 1949, 340)
     
    Cardinal Camillo Mazzella (1905): “It is one thing that the Roman Pontiff cannot teach a heresy when speaking ex cathedra (what the council of the Vatican defined); and it is another thing that he cannot fall into heresy, that is become a heretic as a private person. On this last question the Council said nothing; and the theologians and canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.” (Card. C. Mazzella, De Religione et Ecclesia, 1905, n. 1045)
     
    Cardinal Stickler, 1974: “First of all it is necessary to say that the prerogative of infallibility of office does not prevent the pope as a person from sinning and therefore from becoming personally even a heretic. In fact, no theologian today, even if he accepts unconditionally the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, asserts thereby that the pope, speaking in the abstract, cannot personally become a heretic [.]” (The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3.)

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 458
    • Reputation: +88/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #106 on: November 08, 2019, 10:56:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Don Paolo is neither lying nor ignorant -- he simply never said that; and PaxChristi2 is a fool for believing someone so ignorant as Meg.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18881
    • Reputation: +10390/-4916
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #107 on: November 08, 2019, 11:18:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that the confusion is this ...

    MAJOR:  Legitimate Pope cannot become a heretic.
    MINOR:  Bergoglio is a heretic.
    CONCLUSION:  Therefore, Bergoglio was never a legitimate pope.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3219
    • Reputation: +1743/-990
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #108 on: November 08, 2019, 11:29:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Don Paolo first wrote: Croixalist is a bold-faced liar. … I am not his spiritual director.

    Then Don Paolo later wrote : -- some five years ago I was briefly his spiritual director.
    Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM Cap, R.I.P, used to say to us that “You cannot lie, even to save the world”. If people would follow that teaching, no matter the repercussion, they would not get into messes like the above.

    Don Paulo,
    Some advise from an older man:  Speak truth only, and never lose your composure by resorting personal insults. If one is truly superior, an authority on a subject, they will regard all derogatory remarks as they regard the remarks of little children.

    I thought this thread was about B16 Being the True Pope?.


    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3238
    • Reputation: +784/-164
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #109 on: November 08, 2019, 11:48:09 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    A. Don Paolo first wrote: … I am not his spiritual director.

    B. Then Don Paolo later wrote : -- some five years ago I was briefly his spiritual director.

    Quote
    Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM Cap, R.I.P, used to say to us that “You cannot lie, even to save the world”. If people would follow that teaching, no matter the repercussion, they would not get into messes like the above.

    Don Paulo,
    Some advise from an older man:  Speak truth only, and never lose your composure by resorting personal insults. If one is truly superior, an authority on a subject, they will regard all derogatory remarks as they regard the remarks of little children.

    I thought this thread was about B16 Being the True Pope?

    Basic English

     A. "I am not his spiritual director." is written in the present tense.


    B. "Some five years ago, I was briefly his spiritual director." is written in  the past tense.

    Thus, Father Paul is being truthful.


    There are many members of the laity who do not have a spiritual director. Instead they go to the priest who is in the confessional, and this could be a different priest especially if they happen to be visiting relatives or are on a business trip.

    Could we please return to the topic of this thread?

    Is Benedict XVI a valid and true pope?
    Lord have mercy.


    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 458
    • Reputation: +88/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #110 on: November 08, 2019, 12:15:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • "Last Tradhican" is a consummate hypocrite who resorts to the mendacity of deceptive innuendos which suggest the falsehood that I am lying, while ostensibly exhorting me to be truthful.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9718
    • Reputation: +3861/-892
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #111 on: November 08, 2019, 12:25:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think that the confusion is this ...

    MAJOR:  Legitimate Pope cannot become a heretic.
    MINOR:  Bergoglio is a heretic.
    CONCLUSION:  Therefore, Bergoglio was never a legitimate pope.
    Yes, you are correct, that is the confusion.

    OTOH, reality washes away all confusion:

    MAJOR:  Legitimate Pope can be a heretic.
    MINOR:  Bergoglio and all the conciliar popes have been heretics.
    CONCLUSION:  Therefore, pope Francis is a heretic.

    This is simple reality, no need for theological opinion based syllogisms - unless one wishes to remain trapped in their confusion that is. 
    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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9718
    • Reputation: +3861/-892
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #112 on: November 08, 2019, 12:28:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM Cap, R.I.P, used to say to us that “You cannot lie, even to save the world”. If people would follow that teaching, no matter the repercussion, they would not get into messes like the above.

    Don Paulo,
    Some advise from an older man:  Speak truth only, and never lose your composure by resorting personal insults. If one is truly superior, an authority on a subject, they will regard all derogatory remarks as they regard the remarks of little children.

    I thought this thread was about B16 Being the True Pope?.
    It's not about BXVI, he has never told anyone to do anything, so whether he's the pope or not makes no difference. Come to think of it, the same goes for all the conciliar popes.
    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 PaxChristi2

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 58
    • Reputation: +46/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #113 on: November 08, 2019, 12:57:20 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • In "De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis” Disputatio III, Articulus II, XVII De Depositione Papae & Seq. (translated by Fr. François Chazal), John of St. Thomas admits that his opinion is problematic on the point of jurisdiction: “Concerning the second point, namely by whose authority the declaration and deposition is to be made, there is dissent among theologians, and it does not appear by whom such a deposition is to be made, because it is an act of judgment, and jurisdiction, which can be exercised by no one over the pope.” Since the solemn definition of the universal primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, it is heresy for anyone to say that anyone or any synod, council, or body can ever pronounce a judgment on a reigning pontiff, who is the supreme judge of all questions of doctrine; and, upon assuming office acquires directly from God the absolute power of jurisdiction over the whole world - ("plenam absolutamque iurisdictionem supra totum orbem acquirit" - Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis)

    Not surprisingly, Don Paolo entirely misrepresented this quotation from John of St. Thomas as well.  JST is not "admit[ting] that his own opinion is problematic."  All he's saying is theologians disagree amongst themselves about how a Pope can be declared a heretic and deposed, since the Church cannot exercise any juridical authority over the Pope.  He is pointing to the difficulty that the theologians have attempted to resolve, and which has resulted in the various theological opinions concerning how an heretical Pope can be "deposed".  He then goes on to list the four theological opinions that Cajetan commented on - two extreme opinions and two middle opinions - as well as the opinion held by Bellarmine and Saurez, which, in reality, Cajetan himself only briefly mentioned in a sentence or two in his entire book (the ipso facto loss of office theory that Cajetan refuted was what Bellarmine lists as the 2nd Opinion, not the 5th Opinion). 
     
    Here is the sentence that Don Paolo took entirely out of context, followed by the next two paragraphs:
     

    Quote
    John of St. Thomas: "However, concerning the second point—namely, by whose authority the declaration and deposition are to be accomplished—there is disagreement among theologians, for it is not apparent who should effect the deposition, since it is an act of judgment and jurisdiction, and no one can exercise these in relation to the Pope.  Cajetan (in opusculo de potestate papae, capite 20) relates two explanations that are extreme opposites, and two others that are in the middle.  One of the extremes is that the Pope, by the very fact that he is a heretic [i.e. has lost the virtue of faith], is deposed without any human judgment [this is what Bellarmine lists as the 2nd Opinion].  The other extreme is that there is a power that is superior to the Pope without any qualification, and this power is able to judge him [i.e., Conciliarism].  Of the two intermediate opinions, the one holds that the pope does not recognize anyone as superior absolutely, but only in the case of heresy [Semi-Conciliarism].  The other holds that there is no power on earth that is superior to the Pope, whether absolutely or in the case of heresy; but there is a ministerial power [i.e., the opinion of Cajetan].
     
    "Even as the Church has a ministerial power in the election of a Pope—not as to the conferring of power, since this is done immediately by Christ, as we have said in the first article; but in the designation of the person—so, too, in the deposition (which is the destruction of the bond by which the papacy is joined to this particular person) the Church has a ministerial power and deposes the Pope ministerially, while it is Christ who deprives him of the papacy authoritatively.
     

    "Of these two [intermediate] explanations, Azorius (2, tom. 2, cap. 7) adopts the first, which holds that the Church is superior to the Pope in the case of heresy; while Cajetan adopts the latter and treats of it at length.  Bellarmine, however, reports his opinion and attacks it in his work De Romano Pontifice, bk. 2, ch. 30, objecting especially to these two points: namely, that Cajetan says that the Pope who is a manifest heretic is not ipso facto deposed; and also that the Church deposes the Pope in a real and authoritative manner.  Suarez also, in the disputation that we have frequently cited, sect. 6, num. 7, attacks Cajetan for saying that, in the case of heresy, the Church is superior to the Pope, not insofar as he is Pope, but insofar as he is a private individual.  Cajetan, however, did not say this; he only said that, even in the case of heresy, the Church is not absolutely superior to the Pope, but instead is superior to the bond between the papacy and the person, dissolving it in the same way that she forged it at his election; and this power of the Church is ministerial, for only Christ our Lord is superior to the Pope without qualification.  Hence, Bellarmine and Suarez are of the opinion that, by the very fact that the Pope is a manifest heretic and declared to be incorrigible, he is deposed [ipso facto] by Christ our Lord without any intermediary, and not by any authority of the Church."
     

    Comment:  In context, it is quite obvious that JST is not saying that his own opinion is problematic, as Fr. Kramer claimed.

    What else is noteworthy is that JST correctly points out that both Bellarmine and Suarez objected to Cajetan's opinion.  Suarez attempted to refute it in De Fide, disp x, and mentions Cajetan by name when doing so. What this obviously proves is that Suarez did not hold the opinion of Cajetan (which Bellarmine lists as the 4th Opinion), as many people today mistakenly believe.  They reason they believe he did is because they lack a clear understanding of the difference between the 2nd and 5th Opinions (both of which involve an ipso facto loss of office), and between the 5th and 4th Opinions (which both require human judgment before the loss of office occurs).  As a result, they conclude that Bellarmine believes an heretical Pope is ipso facto deposed without antecedent human judgment (2nd Opinion), if he manifest his heresy by external acts (i.e., if his heresy is externally occult), and then conclude that Suarez held the 4th Opinion, since he explicitly says human judgment and a declaration is required before the ipso facto loss of office takes place.  


    Offline PaxChristi2

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 58
    • Reputation: +46/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #114 on: November 08, 2019, 01:26:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Meg: Haven't you said that all of the theologians have been unanimous in the view that a Pope cannot be a heretic? Obviously, John of St. Thomas isn't one of them.


    Quote
    Pax Christi: Meg, If "Don Paolo" has said or implied that, he is either lying or he's entirely ignorant about what the theologians teach.

    Quote
    Don Paolo  Don Paolo is neither lying nor ignorant -- he simply never said that; and PaxChristi2 is a fool for believing someone so ignorant as Meg.


    Quote
    Don Paolo: The constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church, (as I demonstrate in volume one), presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic...

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 458
    • Reputation: +88/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #115 on: November 08, 2019, 03:16:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • The utterly dishonest "PaxChristi2" juxtaposes quotations which assert different things in such a manner as to make them appear contradictory. In the first I asserted that I have not stated that all  theologians have been unanimous in the view that a pope cannot be a heretic. This proposition refers to opinions of theologians. In the second I asserted that the constant doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Church presupposes that a pope cannot be a heretic. This proposition refers not to opinions, but to canon law and magisterium. While theologians have speculated on the possibility of a pope being a heretic, and whether or not such a one can be deposed; the papal magisterium has constantly taught that the pope can never be judged by anyone. From this premise it follows strictly and absolutely that no power on earth may ever depose a validly reigning pope. Thus, the doctrinal and canonical tradition of the Roman Church presupposes that the pope cannot be a heretic.
         Since the opinion of John of St. Thomas on the deposition of a heretic pope calls for a JUDGMENT OF HERESY to be made by a COUNCIL on the POPE, there exists the problem of JURISDICTION, not only for other theologians' opinions, but for his own as well. No council can ever declare a reigning pontiff to be a heretic, because that judgment pertains absolutely to the pope's own jurisdiction. No council can ever bind the whole Church with a vitandus order against the pope, because the pope possesses the full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church, and over the council. In order to exercise power over the conjunction between the papacy and the pope, a council would first have to exercise the necessary jurisdiction to judge the pope guilty of heresy, and to exercise a jurisdiction over the whole Church. Such jurisdiction belongs to the pope alone in virtue of his universal primacy of jurisdiction, which is his to freely exercise fully and absolutely; and therefore cannot be suspended by any council, which cannot validly exist without his consent. Since it is of divine law that heretics are to be shunned and cast out; and no provision exists in divine or canonical law to cast out a heretic pope; it is evident that the doctrine and discipline of the Church presupposes that a true pope cannot be a heretic, because in virtue of Christ's prayer that Peter's faith not fail, the pope's faith cannot fail.


    Offline Croixalist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1246
    • Reputation: +842/-215
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #116 on: November 08, 2019, 04:37:55 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Basic English

     A. "I am not his spiritual director." is written in the present tense.


    B. "Some five years ago, I was briefly his spiritual director." is written in  the past tense.

    Thus, Father Paul is being truthful.

    There are many members of the laity who do not have a spiritual director. Instead they go to the priest who is in the confessional, and this could be a different priest especially if they happen to be visiting relatives or are on a business trip.

    Could we please return to the topic of this thread?


    No, no, let's go back. It matters whether you're talking to a charlatan or not.

    He does in fact have the dubious honor of being called Eric's spiritual director every time someone hears hear him say it on youtube, or see it posted. Apparently he now introduces Father as his former spiritual director, but nothing has changed in how Fr. Kramer relates to Eric and vice versa since Eric started acting like a failed cult leader. That's the real point. It is a matter of pride for Eric to keep referring to Don Paolo as his spiritual director past or present. But Fr. Kramer would rather lie and say Eric never said it on his show (he most certainly did) and when he couldn't deny that he has actually been called that on various posts from Eric, he started trying to make a big deal about it being 5 years ago. It's a distinction without a difference. Fr Kramer never challenged Eric on any of the major incidents that have sprung up over the years and keeps actively associating with him and actively defending him from just criticism. He then proceeds to act almost as obnoxiously as Gajewski the minute anyone has a problem with his ideas... or Eric as it turns out. Pretty slimey moves, Father.


    Again, Meg, you manifest your total incompetence in theological matters.

    Like an idiot, you uncritically believe every fake quotation you hear, "Maria Regina". I never said any such thimg, you fool.

    The utterly dishonest "PaxChristi2" 

    You don't get a free pass as a priest to behave like this. You come in here and fly off the handle at the slightest perceived critique. You called Regina an idiot when she was trying to support your argument, Meg asks you a question and you call her ignorant. You tell me I'm obsessed with the Eagle, yet you come in here to defend him from big bad Matthew when your devoted associate has threatened to beat a man in front of his children and you said nothing. You call me a liar, then immediately get it stuffed back in your face.

    You are truly a rogue priest, and you need to be identified and avoided as such. A considerable part of this crisis was generated by laity falling over themselves to protect bad priests while they're behaving badly, and helping them get away with it. I'm not going to be one of those people.
    Fortuna finem habet.

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 458
    • Reputation: +88/-103
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #117 on: November 08, 2019, 05:04:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Croixalist is incorrigible in his sacrilege; this time falsely accusing me of lying. He is clearly pathologically obsessive about Eric Gajewski and myself. How boring his own life must be to be constantly driven by his sick obsession about Fr. Kramer and Eric Gajewski.

    Offline Croixalist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1246
    • Reputation: +842/-215
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #118 on: November 08, 2019, 05:19:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Croixalist is incorrigible in his sacrilege; this time falsely accusing me of lying. He is clearly pathologically obsessive about Eric Gajewski and myself. How boring his own life must be to be constantly driven by his sick obsession about Fr. Kramer and Eric Gajewski.
     
    You definitely lied about Eric not calling you his spiritual director on his show, and you called me a liar because I said you are called his spiritual director, which you are in those links I provided to you (it still counts if it's written.) Nice try with your crack psychological profile, but maybe one day you'll find something you're good at besides projection.
    Fortuna finem habet.

    Offline Kelley

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +653/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope!
    « Reply #119 on: November 08, 2019, 06:13:49 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • [...]for the desperate and cowardly purpose of defaming a Catholic priest.[...]

    Hello Father,

    It's common knowledge that you attended Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Could you please enlighten us as to your ordination details?

    Were you ordained in the new or traditional rite? If traditional, was your ordaining bishop consecrated in the new or traditional rite? And finally, if your ordination was in the new rite and/or the ordaining bishop was consecrated in the new rite, did you receive or are you considering ordination sub conditione by a traditional bishop in the traditional rite? 

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16