Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
The topic of this thread is "Did the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Inevitably Bring About Sedevacantism?"

Now that administrative action has been taken to bring the thread back on track, let's keep it on track.

12
Arts and Culture / Re: Classical Music Thread
« Last post by tmw89 on February 14, 2018, 06:26:50 PM »
13
What a ridiculous over reaction. Banned for being mistaken at worse...misunderstood for sure. My2cents.
14
Speaking of having a blessed Lent and Easter, I've banned Vinny Zee, given the heretical content of his posts.
15
You don't have a term for their leaving other than they just left.
Schism?  Bifurcation?  Parallel (and new) society?  The departure was communal, in that many persons left, not individually but as a group of many who left in order to enter a particular sect (the Novus Ordo).  The indefectibility of the Church was evidenced in those of us who did not so leave but remained faithful.

I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you. Have a blessed Lent and Easter.
16
Oh stop with the predictable role of victim.  You have clearly stated on more than one occasion that THE CHURCH defected.    You have been told repeatedly that no one here is saying that.  ANYONE who pushes heresy on this site should be banned unless they recant.  You do not recant.

No friend, I am not the victim, you are. You are not my victim. You are a victim of the Vatican II apparatus and its magisterium that did what it always did. It called a council, it decreed documents, it ratified those documents and decreed them to the church. They make you their victim by reviling you and pushing you aside and belittling you for even calling them into question (kind of similar to what you do to me) but only worse, because to them you are a heretic. To me you are not. I actually sympathize with your traditionalist position and can put aside my own biases to hear what your side presents. I didn't say Vatican II was a defection. I came to this conclusion by listening to more than one sedevacantist point it out. Therefore, it was a conclusion I was forced to come to.  However, I am not the victim (well maybe inadvertently). Tragically it is you too. However, you will say Vatican II is heresy called by heretical popes.

So when I try to ask an honest question of where we would be given heretical popes (and all the other issues I raised here, especially regarding indefeasibility and immutabililty) the only reply I get is what I always get; i.e. I am the heretic or the schismatic. What a shame we have come to this in the face of what is happening today.
17
Well, I am taking a Lenten break.  But it appears that the reason you're hanging around is to assert that the CATHOLIC CHURCH has defected. This is heresy.  You should be banned if you don't recant.  I still wonder whether you aren't really Eastern Orthodox after all.

Ahh, it only took #118 posts to finally be called a schismatic. All without ever having leveled one attack against the Sedevacantists or Traditionalists or anyone else.

I need to recant for saying the Pope can't defect or be a heretic? I should be banned for saying there was a defection at Vatican II?

Also there goes you and I having a few amicable posts together. I knew it was too good to be true.

May God love you and bless you this lenten and Easter season.

No.  You were not called a schismatic, she only wonders if you are schismatic.  She called you a heretic, since you have been spouting heresy on this topic and trying to get the Catholics on this forum to agree with your heresy.

Heresy? You stated you were in full agreement with St. Bellarmine in regards to the fourth opinion, in that you accepted the opinion that the pope could be a heretic (at least, occultly).  When pressed for proof where Bellarmine said he would become one, you provided none and dodged the question. In fact, you completely misstated Bellarmine.  So what is left on the table is you saying the Pope would become an occult heretic. I made no such statement, but I promote heresy?

Yes, I am the reason you do not know what an anti-pope is or how to correctly apply the term and you are one of the apprentices on this website.

You dodge every question put to you, yet you accuse me of heresy. This entire website should be shutdown, particularly if one who is an apprentice can't deal with a simple quote from a pre-Vatican II Cardinal or know the basic definition of what an anti-pope is and yet purports to accurately represent the correct way of dealing with the Vatican II situation. You are a danger to yourself. It is not worth getting into the danger you pose to others.   
18
You don't have a term for their leaving other than they just left.
Schism?  Bifurcation?  Parallel (and new) society?  The departure was communal, in that many persons left, not individually but as a group of many who left in order to enter a particular sect (the Novus Ordo).  The indefectibility of the Church was evidenced in those of us who did not so leave but remained faithful.
19
Announcements / Re: Lenten Break
« Last post by Nctradcath on February 13, 2018, 07:27:37 PM »
Me too.
20
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Prevalence of Catholicism in the Arian Crisis
« Last post by ubipetrus on February 13, 2018, 07:27:24 PM »
Interestingly, Emperor Constantius used the phrase while confronting Pope Liberius, saying to Liberius, "Who are you to stand up for Athanasius against the world?"  (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm).  I doubt Constantius was intending to make a precise assessment of the state of the Church, rather than simply trying to intimidate Liberius into renouncing Athanasius.  Was this the origin of the phrase?  Did Catholics hear of Constantius' words, then turned that phrase around as a battle-cry against him and the Arians?
Interesting thought.  I had wondered whether the phrase was even known back in that time or conjured up centuries later, and here this could be the very original source for it.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10