Author Topic: Living Popes (Read 36633 times)

Adolphus · « **Reply #240 on:** December 16, 2014, 09:10:10 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

A pertinacious heretic is someone who obstinately and with full knowledge holds an opinion that is contrary to a truth of the Faith.

:geezer:

Exactly!

Adolphus · « **Reply #241 on:** December 16, 2014, 09:11:22 PM »

Quote from: Charlotte NC Bill

Why do you people waste so much time and energy " debunking" people ( sedes ) who aren't even reading your answers? A better question would be: why do you care so much if they are sedes?

When you say "sedes", do you mean sedeplenists or sedevacantists?

Cantarella · « **Reply #242 on:** December 16, 2014, 10:32:19 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"

I will answer that. Someone suspect of heresy is someone to morally be cautious of...such as when a mother warns her son about the neighborhood boy who tells dirty jokes...she says, "Don't play with him!"

This is incorrect. According to 1917 Code of Canon Law, Suspicion of Heresy falls on (see VI.):

Nobody · « **Reply #243 on:** December 16, 2014, 11:56:13 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"

I will answer that. Someone suspect of heresy is someone to morally be cautious of...such as when a mother warns her son about the neighborhood boy who tells dirty jokes...she says, "Don't play with him!"

And, a pertinacious heretic is a person that is excluding from communion in the Church officially, because of the danger of association.

Sorry Nado, but for someone who prides himself on having no problem understanding Church teaching and arguing in public with others about it, you certainly came up with a poor and confusing answer.

You have given some vague idea of the practical consequences of 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy', but certainly not a hint of the definition or criteria to be used in determining in which category a person falls in.

Nobody · « **Reply #244 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:10:19 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

A pertinacious heretic is someone who obstinately and with full knowledge holds an opinion that is contrary to a truth of the Faith.

:geezer:

I think that's a fair answer.

Now the tricky part is : "According to Church teaching, how can we know that someone falls into that category ? What are the required symptoms, procedures, criteria, warnings, trials, witnesses, timeframes and/or authorities ?"

In other words, how does it work in real life ?

Please be assured that I am not trying to shoot anyone down or trip them up. I have serious questions and am looking for serious answers, and if the answers are convincing enough, I will adjust my opinion accordingly.

Nobody · « **Reply #245 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:21:27 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Nobody
Anyway, since you already learned what pertinacious means, you should be able to finally answer my question : "Is there in the Church's opinion a difference between someone who is suspect of heresy and someone who is a pertinacious heretic ? And if yes, what are the criteria to be used to make this distinction ?"

I will answer that. Someone suspect of heresy is someone to morally be cautious of...such as when a mother warns her son about the neighborhood boy who tells dirty jokes...she says, "Don't play with him!"

This is incorrect. According to 1917 Code of Canon Law, Suspicion of Heresy falls on (see VI.):

Thanks Cantarella. I was surprised to see the following clearly spelled out as a reason for being 'suspect of heresy' : "..or who take active part in the Divine worship of non-Catholics, as forbidden by Canon 1258 (Canon 2316)."

I wonder whether Assisi I, II and II fall in this category. I would think it does. That certainly would be taking the wind out of the sede sails, since they often use this as an argument to convince anyone that JPII and B16 are heretics.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #246 on:** December 17, 2014, 05:37:52 AM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Stubborn · « **Reply #247 on:** December 17, 2014, 05:47:23 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #248 on:** December 17, 2014, 05:58:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."

She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.

Stubborn · « **Reply #249 on:** December 17, 2014, 07:20:16 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."

She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.

She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Make sense to you now?

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #250 on:** December 17, 2014, 09:14:09 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."

She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.

She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Make sense to you now?

What makes sense to me is Cantarella's clear-cut statement coupled with my own experience of engaging with her in debate. If you will look at the rest of my post, you will remember that I also said this -

Quote

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

This is drawn from my experience of engaging in debate with Cantarella. You might have noticed that Nado makes a similar point -

Quote

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

In my own experience, Cantarella is always ready to thump the table with her own points. But when a counter-argument is given that she cannot answer she runs, or she sweeps the argument aside, or she side-steps it. And now she has admitted that she doesn't ever get involved in discussions that she is not totally certain she will win.

It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything with Cantarella. She will simply dismiss, ignore, pour scorn on any counter-argument that she cannot win against.

Now where's the HIDE button.

Cantarella · « **Reply #251 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:11:57 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."

She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.

She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Make sense to you now?

What makes sense to me is Cantarella's clear-cut statement coupled with my own experience of engaging with her in debate. If you will look at the rest of my post, you will remember that I also said this -

Quote

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

This is drawn from my experience of engaging in debate with Cantarella. You might have noticed that Nado makes a similar point -

Quote

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

In my own experience, Cantarella is always ready to thump the table with her own points. But when a counter-argument is given that she cannot answer she runs, or she sweeps the argument aside, or she side-steps it. And now she has admitted that she doesn't ever get involved in discussions that she is not totally certain she will win.

It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything with Cantarella. She will simply dismiss, ignore, pour scorn on any counter-argument that she cannot win against.

Now where's the HIDE button.

For lack of a better argument about the topic in hand, Nado and AkwardCustomer in their rush to counter-attack an already won discussion focus stubbornly on my post and actually miss the very important second part of it. What I said was "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win... because I have the truth of the Holy Catholic Church on my side, which does not err. Everything fits perfectly like a mathematical puzzle.

Why did you cut my statement off, Nado?

I do not ever "run" from the discussions. If you feel like I ignore you, then it is because of the following reasons:

1) You express yourself as an illiterate barbarian and start your posts addressing me with impolite insults for which I have zero tolerance. (here right there is the reason I ignore 95% of sedevacantists, by the way).

2) You are no longer making any sense, start speaking lunacy, or ask the same question twice or thrice.

3) Time is limited. There is a chance that I just genuinely did not read your posts.

Nobody · « **Reply #252 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:17:11 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
Quote from: Nado
Quote from: Cantarella
No. I am patiently waiting for more sedevacantists to provide the definition which I will debunk; but valiant Nado with child-like confidence is the only one that has dared. Nice try! I assure you, I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win.

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

The pinnacle of my "sedevacantist" presentation is in the thread with your name on it. If you don't want to get involved....yes, I do understand you feel you cannot win there.

Dear me, Cantarella. You've given yourself away. You don't get involved in any discussion that you are not totally certain you will win.

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

Nado, congratulations for spotting this. You have patiently and persistently kept up your side of the debate, often in the face of quite appalling, personal counter attacks. And now Cantarella has revealed her true motives - to win arguments at all costs.

Cantarella is saying she will not argue if she is wrong. If nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Cantarella said - "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win."

She did not say that she will not argue if she is wrong. She said nothing about being wrong, or right. According to her own words, her criteria for getting involved in a discussion is whether or not she will win.

She said "I don't ever get involved into any discussion that I am not totally certain I will win." - if nada practiced the same thing, she would never post at all.

Make sense to you now?

What makes sense to me is Cantarella's clear-cut statement coupled with my own experience of engaging with her in debate. If you will look at the rest of my post, you will remember that I also said this -

Quote

Cantarella, this explains why you back away from any point made against your position. It explains why you ride roughshod over every argument that does not suit you. It explains why you ignore, deflect and slide over each and every question that you cannot properly answer. And it explains why you are so ready to hurl insults at people in such an aggressive manner.

This is drawn from my experience of engaging in debate with Cantarella. You might have noticed that Nado makes a similar point -

Quote

Thanks for admitting it. I know that you drop the ball when you have no rebuttal!

In my own experience, Cantarella is always ready to thump the table with her own points. But when a counter-argument is given that she cannot answer she runs, or she sweeps the argument aside, or she side-steps it. And now she has admitted that she doesn't ever get involved in discussions that she is not totally certain she will win.

It is clearly pointless trying to discuss anything with Cantarella. She will simply dismiss, ignore, pour scorn on any counter-argument that she cannot win against.

Now where's the HIDE button.

I have seen no evidence that Cantarella ignores serious arguments.

I think it makes sense not to argue if you are not certain about your own position. That does not mean you can't discuss (or raise counter arguments) though, which is quite different from arguing.

Even if your accusations were true, the same could be said of most sedes. I have still two genuine questions in this thread that so far remain unanswered and ignored, after many diversion tactics and reminders.

It would serve your cause more if you were to refrain from personal attacks and stick to the arguments.

Cantarella · « **Reply #253 on:** December 18, 2014, 10:37:57 PM »

Quote from: Lepanto Again

During the Great Western Schism (1378-1418) the Pope was not visible to the faithful for 40 years. Three men claimed to be Pope. During that state of uncertainty and material schism, the Pope is not visible to the Church, nor is he able to exercise his divine power over it. The clouds which kept the true Pope from the eyes of the true Church, having dissipated, revealed the true Pope to the Church. History repeats itself. When the clouds again dissipate, God will reveal to us the true Pope.

Yes, but then just as in any legitimate interregnum, the bishops hold the keys. These bishops must be visible. If all the valid bishops are dead (which inevitable happens with a prolonged sede-vacante), then the keys are lost and there is no longer a visible magisterium. To say these bishops can be invisible is heresy, so where are they?

roscoe · « **Reply #254 on:** December 18, 2014, 11:06:42 PM »

It is not true that the true Pope wasn't visible during GWS. Acc to van Pastor, a compromise was reached at the Council and as a result Catholics are free( since GWS was only political) to acknowledge either the Fr or It Pope of the time. So everybody was right. The unelected v2 anti- popes are not GWS

This is supported by the Catholic Dictionary which says that the Fr popes are not anti-popes( Sorry fr Radecki).

And the 3 men claiming to be Pope were only at the end. There are about 8 others as well. :reporter: