CathInfo.com

You referred to their position as "Ladism".  That would make them "Ladists", moron.

You seem to wholly agree that the R&R hold to a "principle heresy", namely: "that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church."  

You are confusing what the magisterium actually is, with what the confused sede / NO idea inspired by some post V1 theologians, of it is.

The reason that false claim and you are ridiculous, is because you are making the claim that the R&R actually believes that the magisterium, that is; "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world," has imposed evil practices on the universal Church. That whole idea is totally false and beyond utterly ridiculous.

You and the other sedes simply cannot be as confused as you seem to want the rest of us to think you are.

What have you got against Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is anyway? Do you doubt he was pope too?

You, on the other hand, are confusing heresy with actual Catholicism.

Really? Do I confuse Pope Pius IX's explanation of what the magisterium is too? Why don't you let us know what he really meant you NO theologian wannabe.

The condemned Errors of Heresiarch Martin Luther by Pope Leo X are not "dogmatic" enough for Mr. Drew. I guess we can all question them now even though this Papal Bull undoubtedly belongs to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church.

However, to Mr. Drew these errors are not really "DOGMA" and as such, they are fallible and I guess they may be doubted. Perhaps these errors were not that serious and Luther was not that bad, after all? On this, Mr. Drew would fit right in with Francis who is celebrating the Reformation, even though the Council of Trent condemned it with hundreds of anathemas.

I really hope those in the fence can see through this complete nonsense.

From Exsurge Domine:

What is next Mr. Drew, am I allowed to start questioning the veracity of Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam?

Cantarella,

The docuмent Exsurge Domine states within itself the authority of the condemnations.

“Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians. Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be.”
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine

It does not identify the authority of each individual article. You have referenced #29 which says:

“A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.”
Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, article 29

You have called this a “Dogma from the Council of Trent.”  When it was pointed out to you that it is not from the Council of Trent you have replied by insisting that it is still a “dogma”.  The fact of the matter is that you do not know if it is “heretical” (having already been dogmatized) or simply “offensive to pious ears.” Many of the articles are formal heresies and came from previous dogmatic condemnations.  They are specifically referred to as having been condemned at the Council of Constance against “the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians.”  Many of the articles were not heresies at the time but became so after they were dogmatically treated at the Council of Trent, such as the specific dogmas from Trent on the sacraments of Baptism and Penance. But understand this, there is no Catholic dogma placing every council at every level above criticism by any of the faithful for any reason.

When Pope Leo X is referring to an ecuмenical council in Exsurge Domine he uses the term, “general council,” or uses the specific name of the council, such as, the Council of Constance.  Number 29 is referring to all councils without any differentiation or qualifications.  This covers any local, regional, or national council or synod. But regional councils have in the past been modified or in some cases entirely rejected by the Magisterium.

What you have learned from Ladislaus is not to retract an error but rather to compound it.  This is not to minimize the importance of Exsurge Domine but to understand its authority.  Catholics “must regard them (the articles) as condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”  But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so. Luther denied the pope, the papal office, the Magisterium, the authority of all councils and dogmatic definitions.

But what have you done?  Don’t you see the irony of your position?  You and Ladislaus when a real Dogma is presented to you have accuse me of being a “Protestant” for engaging in “private interpretation” of dogmas, while you, offer your own definitive interpretation of an article of condemnation against Luther raising it to the level of a dogma when it is not.  You hold article #29 is a dogma and have concluded that it means that every Catholic who recognizes the conciliar popes as valid popes must uncritically accept a pastoral council’s teaching without any qualification even when it contradicts Catholic dogma.  

To address this you have “mused” that the pope must not be the pope and taken these musing to be facts.  Even when these “facts” directly contradict Catholic dogma.  It is a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the papal office will exist until the consummation of the world having perpetual successors.  

If you read the condemnations from Leo X in Exsurge Domine you will find that they do anticipate the formal condemnations from the Council of Trent. Luther denied the Magisterium and the papacy.  Like Luther, you are in a church that has neither a pope nor a Magisterium.  Like Luther, your church does not have the intention or the means to ever correct these problems.  Like Luther, you have no moral compass.  

That is why Dogma is the rule of faith.  Those that keep Dogma are of the faithful, those who do not are heretics. You are accusing R&R of “heresy” without any dogma to support your
allegations.  You have to make one up.

This is where you are right now, outside the Catholic Church.  

Drew