Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27574 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #95 on:** May 05, 2021, 08:07:44 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:02:11 AM

You don’t want to get into the universal consent argument, because it highlights just how crazy your homemade theory is:

No, I am presciding from it here in order to keep the considerations distinct; otherwise the two issues can get conflated. That is important when logically analyzing issues. You start be determining the principles in isolation and only LATER apply them to various scenarios.

Your constant puerile outburst are not helpful to the conversation.

So the question is, ASSUMING for now "uncertainty" regarding the identity of the Pope such as what transpired during the Great Western Schism (whether you believe that to be the case or not), WOULD IT BE sinful for someone who adhered to one pope to assist at a Mass "una cuм" one of the other guys. That helps illustrate the moral principles involved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #96 on:** May 05, 2021, 08:09:01 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:02:11 AM

You should be banned from this forum for deceiving simpler minds.

You should be banned from this forum for BEING a "simpler mind"

Ladislaus · « **Reply #97 on:** May 05, 2021, 08:10:50 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:02:11 AM

Therefore, there is no pretext for doubting the legitimacy of the pope (we have universal consent), and consequently, there is no pretext for omitting Francis from the una cuм.

Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #98 on:** May 05, 2021, 08:14:04 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on May 05, 2021, 08:10:50 AM

Well, tell that to Archbishop Lefebvre, who most certainly doubted their legitimacy (except for during the 1980-1984 timeframe).

Total sede lie.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #99 on:** May 05, 2021, 08:21:03 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2021, 08:14:04 AM

Total sede lie.

“While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

“To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of ɛƖɛctıon are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

“If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 27574 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

SeanJohnson

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?

Ladislaus

Re: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo?