Author Topic: New doctor of the Church? (Read 10735 times)

Matto · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:08:05 PM »

They are still letting her post there? Or is it he?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:15:29 PM »

Poor little kid here displays true sensus Catholicus in his reaction:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:16:43 PM »

Might even have a better claim to the papacy.

Cantarella · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:27:10 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

One longs for the days when the naming of a new Doctor of the Church was done for the good of the Church and the edification of Catholics, rather than as token gestures and diplomatic expediencies proferred to non-Catholics (first feminists and now schismatics).

You see? all the maneuvers they do in modern times are for advancing the political-economic interests of the day; namely the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry's. Back in the 70's what was happening in the world that Paul VI saw the need to proclaim the first female "Doctors" of the Church, something completely unheard until then? well, the Feminist agenda with all the sɛҳuąƖ revolution that it entailed across the globe.

Today, the agenda is to advance the Jєωιѕн nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr with one uniform nation and one world pantheistic "religion" that fits them all, for which Religious Indifferentism and Universal Salvation are key points. Sadly, the Vatican is playing such games at the expense of Holy Mother Church and her true, exclusive dogma of salvation EENS.

Quote

Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church, but since then four additions to the list have been women: Saints Teresa of Ávila (St. Teresa of Jesus) and Catherine of Siena by Pope Paul VI; Thérèse de Lisieux[2] (St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face), "the Little Flower" by Pope John Paul II; and Hildegard of Bingen by Benedict XVI. Saints Teresa and Therese were both Discalced Carmelites, while St. Catherine was a lay Dominican.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2015, 01:46:39 PM »

Quote

Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church, but since then four additions to the list have been women: Saints Teresa of Ávila (St. Teresa of Jesus) and Catherine of Siena by Pope Paul VI; Thérèse de Lisieux[2] (St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face), "the Little Flower" by Pope John Paul II; and Hildegard of Bingen by Benedict XVI. Saints Teresa and Therese were both Discalced Carmelites, while St. Catherine was a lay Dominican.

I *get* the feminist agenda part, but why were these particular holy women selected?

Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church

I do not question their holiness or sainted status, and I have spiritually benefited from the writings of 3 of these women, but this novelty is disturbing.
Yet, this admission brings castigation even from trads.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:08:29 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote
Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church, but since then four additions to the list have been women: Saints Teresa of Ávila (St. Teresa of Jesus) and Catherine of Siena by Pope Paul VI; Thérèse de Lisieux[2] (St. Therese of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face), "the Little Flower" by Pope John Paul II; and Hildegard of Bingen by Benedict XVI. Saints Teresa and Therese were both Discalced Carmelites, while St. Catherine was a lay Dominican.

I *get* the feminist agenda part, but why were these particular holy women selected?

Until 1970, no woman had been named a doctor in the church

I do not question their holiness or sainted status, and I have spiritually benefited from the writings of 3 of these women, but this novelty is disturbing.
Yet, this admission brings castigation even from trads.

Is like adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. You brake one Tradition and all hell breaks loose. Adding St. Joseph to the Canon seemed harmless (we all love him) same for the three female doctors.

Cantarella · « **Reply #21 on:** February 25, 2015, 02:42:45 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

I do not question their holiness or sainted status, and I have spiritually benefited from the writings of 3 of these women, but this novelty is disturbing.

Same here. The timing is what makes it even more disturbing. It is like the XX century Church is operating under the false premise of: As goes the world, so goes the Church. So every novelty is done in order to live in harmony with the world and whatever goes on with the current society (which is infernally revolting nowadays). A totally diabolical principle since the world is actually one of our enemies to fight against; and it is dogma that the Devil has dominion upon it. This runs totally opposite to the timeless Catholic strong stance against the world and its fashions.

The "graduality" of it all makes it even more terrifying since one small detail leads to another and another. It is like the broiling flog. To compromise in one moral or doctrinal point, is to fall into a hellish slippery slope.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #22 on:** February 25, 2015, 03:33:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:

Quote

Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.

As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.

So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?

Disputaciones · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2015, 06:45:49 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Disputaciones
So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?

Sooooooo... Do you really believe that a non-Catholic is a Doctor of the CATHOLIC Church?

Of course not. I'm a sedevacantist, so of course I don't think whatever this monkey Bergoglio does is valid in the least, and this making a "Doctor of the Church" of a non-Catholic is yet more evidence that he's a non-Catholic fraud.

But Ladislaus is not a sede, so my questions were simply to illustrate the silliness of what he said.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2015, 08:50:47 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Disputaciones
But Ladislaus is not a sede, so my questions were simply to illustrate the silliness of what he said.

Point taken and well illustrated.

However, I wouldn't count out Ladislaus just yet, he has some sede-tendencies.

Disputationes doesn't understand my position at all ... despite my having explained it, oh, about fifty times.

As a sede-doubtist, I hold that due to the widespread and well-founded doubt regarding their legitimacy, the Vatican II popes can no longer formally exercise authority but that they remain materially in possession of their office until the Church says otherwise. According to the principle Papa dubius papa nullus, they can safely be ignored until the doubt gets resolved one way or another by Church authority.

In addition, even if one WERE a sedeplenist, which I am not, no theologian has ever held the designation as "Doctor of the Church" to be infallible.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:21:58 AM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Cantarella
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:

Quote

Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.

As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.

So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?

7 down thumbs to a statement a normal catholic would have to make when dealing with a real Pope. Just shows you how far from catholic r&r is.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:28:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Disputaciones
But Ladislaus is not a sede, so my questions were simply to illustrate the silliness of what he said.

Point taken and well illustrated.

However, I wouldn't count out Ladislaus just yet, he has some sede-tendencies.

Disputationes doesn't understand my position at all ... despite my having explained it, oh, about fifty times.

As a sede-doubtist, I hold that due to the widespread and well-founded doubt regarding their legitimacy, the Vatican II popes can no longer formally exercise authority but that they remain materially in possession of their office until the Church says otherwise. According to the principle Papa dubius papa nullus, they can safely be ignored until the doubt gets resolved one way or another by Church authority.

In addition, even if one WERE a sedeplenist, which I am not, no theologian has ever held the designation as "Doctor of the Church" to be infallible.

You have yet to quote a single thing teaching that you can do what you do. You have never been able to quote anything saying that what is happening right now can happen without any detriment to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. You have never quoted anything that teaches that you can ignore/reject all of a Popes laws, teachings, encyclicals, liturgy, canonizations etc. indefinitely because they are heretical/erroneous.

Not once. Never.

All you do here is give your own unfounded interpretation of a certain maxim, without backing it up with anything.

BTNYC · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:41:28 AM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Disputaciones
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Cantarella
So Pope Francis declares a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church"? mmmm :scratchchin:

Quote

Yesterday, on February 23, it was reported that Pope Francis formally declared Gregory of Narek to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Gregory of Narek was an Armenian priest, monk, and poet who is greatly revered by Armenians but virtually unknown otherwise. So far as I can tell, he is the first and only non-Catholic among only 36 doctors of the church.

As per the bolded section of the quoted, "Uhm, no, he's not." Bergoglio can say whatever he wants, but there are no and never will be any non-Catholic doctors of the Church. Nor have there been nor will there ever be any female or lay Doctors of the Church either.

So you, a mere layman, has more authority than a Pope? What makes you think you are to boss around a man you regard Pope and decide what he can, cannot, will or will not do or be able to do?

7 down thumbs to a statement a normal catholic would have to make when dealing with a real Pope. Just shows you how far from catholic r&r is.

No, seven thumbs down because that kind of opportunist browbeating of the same tired dogmatic sedevacantist rhetoric got pretty stale after the first 900 times Myrna did it... and it hasn't regained any of its freshness now that you've picked up her slack.

BTNYC · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:25:19 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Maybe the statement was a little sarcastic, but browbeating?

Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?

Quote from: Bellator Dei

I think that the statement illustrates the absurdity of the R&R position.

Well, of course you think that. Look at your avatar. Preaching to the choir usually gets many a round of "hear, hear!"

Disputaciones · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:39:31 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Maybe the statement was a little sarcastic, but browbeating?

Well, how about his dogmatic SV followup where he accuses R&R-ers of not being Catholic?

Quote from: Bellator Dei

I think that the statement illustrates the absurdity of the R&R position.

Well, of course you think that. Look at your avatar. Preaching to the choir usually gets many a round of "hear, hear!"

I'm not a dogmatic SV. My posts were simply a heads up for Ladislaus to let him know anyone can come in at any time and challenge what he spouts as Catholic teaching.