Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
You're a LYING, LIAR, who lies....

The archbishop had a sedevacantist teaching in Econe. So long as they don't cause trouble, they are tolerated.

Probably because that is the best way to win them over.

You're insansity helps no one. Are you wondering why your forum flopped?


Anyway, I think Sean needs you in the batmobile.....




These Irishmen are such emotional chaps:

1) The sede who was teaching in Econe was teaching in the 1970s, at a time when the world had not yet seen their true colors...and was later expelled for "causing trouble;"

2) But he, like all sedes, was so sure of himself (and full of himself) that he went and got himself consecrated a bishop...if it was valid;

3) BTW, way to have twice as many down-thumbs as thumbs-up: It means most people think you are a total jackass.
22
Think about it: anyone with simplistic thinking or strong emotion (emotion stronger than reasoning ability) is already sedevacantist. Almost all of those who are more prudent, educated, circumspect, practical minded, etc. went with the SSPX (a thin sliver of these educated, prudent, non-hothead types became sedevacantist -- these are the sedevacantists you find on CathInfo, for the most part).

Matthew, although I appreciate that you feel this way about those of us who post here, how do you know that most sedevacantists aren't just like those of us who post here?  I.e. Educated, prudent, not-hothead types, etc?  Every Catholic I know took the sedevacantist position after much research, thought and prayer.

I've met many over the years. 

Let's set all the sedevacantists you and I know aside for the moment. Let's take a group of people who ARE emotional (emotion can be anger, frustration, disgust, etc.), and/or who like a clear-cut, cut-and-dried, simple solution. I assure you such people exist, and many of them are Catholic, and some are even Trad. Now which position are they likely to gravitate towards? I'd say Sedevacantism.

Perhaps sedevacantists are just another example of the 90% rule -- 90% of everything is crap. 90% of music, 90% of movies, 90% of books, 90% of Catholics are Catholic in name only, 90% of Trads are worldly and ignorant, 90% of websites are completely worthless, etc...

Even if CathInfo had 200 good sedevacantists (I doubt it's that many), that would still be 0 to 5% of the total.
23
For the 3rd time, you are missing the point.  "If the pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such..."  WHO DECIDES IF HE IS A HERETIC AND INCORRIGIBLE?  

Answer:  THE CHURCH!

This decision on his heresy has to happen BEFORE Christ deposes him, or the Church deposes him.
The Church has declared infallibly what the Faith is and consequential anathemas. It is legalistic and redundant to expect the Church to repeat itself in saying, for example, "If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema." 

Clear and defined Dogma being denied separates one from the Church. It is not Christ that is subject to the Church but the Church that is subject to Christ. Much less would Christ be subject to a bunch of impostor modernists in Rome in order to depose of a heretic.

Formal heresy is formal heresy and does not require the judgement of a bunch of heretics or liberals to declare it as such.
24

Quote
I say thirdly: if the Pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such, because of the declarative sentence of his crime, through the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church, he ceases to be Pope
For the 3rd time, you are missing the point.  "If the pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such..."  WHO DECIDES IF HE IS A HERETIC AND INCORRIGIBLE?  

Answer:  THE CHURCH!

This decision on his heresy has to happen BEFORE Christ deposes him, or the Church deposes him. 
25
The fact of his manifest heresy has not been established yet, by the Church.  So, he has not yet been immediately deposed by Christ.

Evidently John of St. Thomas was referring to the "deposition by Our Lord Jesus Christ" as the common element between Suarez and Bellarmine.

This is Suarez:
Quote
I say thirdly: if the Pope is a heretic and incorrigibly such, because of the declarative sentence of his crime, through the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church, he ceases to be Pope. This is the common opinion of the Doctors of the Church” “This [judgement] is itself that of all the Bishops of the Church, and thus of a General Council”

Basically, what is crucial here is that the Church will not be deposing the "Pope" per say; but a mere man. He has already ceased to be Pope on account of heresy and is deposed by Christ.
The CE under the entry General Councils, teaches that heresy is the only legitimate ground for a "Pope" to be deposed by an imperfect Council. For a heretical Pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.

Keep in mind that Bellarmine, as well as Suarez, hold as most probable that the Pope cannot ever become a heretic, to begin with, and that such situation is almost impossible.
26
Let me start with a simple point exposing S&S's buffoonery.

S&S:
Quote
If you notice, the above explanation of Bellarmine is very similar to what Suarez said above, namely, just as God does not make a man Pope without the judgment of men (who elect him), neither will Christ depose a Pope “unless it is through men” (who judge him), which is obviously referring to the proper authorities, just as Christ does not make a man Pope unless he is elected by the proper authorities.

S&S make this assumption, that this "judgment" from Bellarmine refers "obviously" (in their opinion, to suit their narrative) to a judgment by proper authorities.

But, sorry, S&S, there is NO PROPER AUTHORITY of an inferior over his superior.  Period.  So this is NOT "obviously" the case.

Then more bumbling and stumbling over this point:
Quote
And also notice that in such a case it is inferiors judging a superior, which shows that the Pope did not already lose his office (which is how the Sedes “interpret” Bellarmine's teaching).

bzzzt.  In no way and at no point is an inferior capable of judging a superior in any juridical fashion.  So, if anything it's the OTHER WAY AROUND, that the Church can judge him precisely because he is no longer their superior, i.e. has already been deposed.

In point of fact, Bellarmine is not even likely speaking of a juridical sentence or judgment, but simply a judgment in the sense of recognizing the truth of a  proposition, e.g. "Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic."  Bellarmine in fact speaks of this judgment as a distinct from the case where heresy in merely internal, whereas it is not capable of being "judged by men".  In other words, men can not know of its existence if it's merely internal and cannot make a conclusion about something in the internal forum.  So S&S's entire premise is based on the false supposition that this judgment "obviously refer(s) to proper authorities".

27
SSPX Resistance News / Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Last post by Ladislaus on Yesterday at 07:54:23 PM »
Yep, I know, and Ladislaus disagrees with you, while still saying your arguments are good.  Nonsensical of him.

I do not disagree with her in the least.
28

Quote
This why Bellarmine and Suarez consider that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and is declared to be incorrigible [by the Church], is immediately deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by means of some authority in the Church.
The fact of his manifest heresy has not been established yet, by the Church.  So, he has not yet been immediately deposed by Christ.
29
Correction:
"And, a belief in Heliocentrism does not make one a good Catholic."

should have said:
"And, a belief in Geocentrism does not make one a good Catholic."

Two facts disprove Geocentrism:
1. The universal gravity (between objects in the universe, bigger = more gravity).
2. Retrograde motion of the planets (as viewed from earth).
30
This is John of Saint-Thomas understanding of Bellarmine's opinion:

Quote
This why Bellarmine and Suarez consider that the pope, by the very fact that he is a manifest heretic and is declared to be incorrigible [by the Church], is immediately deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not by means of some authority in the Church.

I don't think any serious sedevacantist would deny the need of an intervention of the Church at some point; but if the heretic is deposed by Our Lord Jesus Christ on account of his heresy...well then only God knows it first, before any ecclesiastical declaration. He needs to cease to be Pope first, before any legal deposition.

This also makes sense, because no Catholic can deny the dogmatic principle that the POPE can be judged by no one on earth. Even Cajetan was very careful at this point. The power of the imperfect Council in his view, is not superior to that of the Pope, but it is superior to the union of the Pontificate with a heretical individual.

Quote
With this power which we recognize in him, it is clear that the Church has absolutely no power over the Pope, and even in the situation where he is a heretic, it does not, properly speaking, have power over the Pope, but on the conjunction of the Papacy with Peter which it dissolves. And thus it clearly appears that the power of the Church is on the conjunction of the papacy and Peter, both in his becoming such and in the destruction of such, the subject being disposed to the accession as such by means of the faith and the will, and the destruction of such by heresy or the will; and as this power is inferior to that of the papacy, it cannot in any way limit the power of the papacy. And so one sees that the Pope has no power above him, even in the case where he is a heretic/


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10