Pope's don't "resign". There is no "resignation".

Started by TerrorDæmonum, February 15, 2013, 02:27:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

tmw89

Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: trentcath on February 19, 2013, 07:12:19 PM
By the way:

Quote
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
Bl. Pius IX, syllabus of errors

LOL, is that recognized as an infallible statement?

It's of course not an error, though, to believe the Popes have contributed to the division of the Church into traditional Catholic and Protestant.  Latin triumphalism = having one's cake and eating it too!  Know any good diet plans where you don't have to give up anything bad for you?

Actually, the Syllabus is covered by the Church's Magisterium as infallible.

I think you've been around Trad Catholic fora long enough to have found out about that.

Which means I really do not think you are posting in good faith.

Once again, your condescending tone aside... fresh out of a ban, you went and broke these rules again:

Quote from: Kaesekopf's Forum Rules on December 26, 2012, 10:50:46 PM
1) Error has no rights.  As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here. 

11) As a follow-up to 10), trad-bashing is not permitted. Couch your language appropriately.

12) Sincere debate is permitted. Do not troll our forum.
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!

jovan66102

Melkite, with all due respect, above and beyond any personal problems you might have with the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, regarding Her teaching on sexual morality, don't you think that your obdurate adherence to the anti-Papal heresies of the East should at least discourage you from posting on Catholic fora, other than those which endorse the 'every body saved, no one is going to hell' heresy?
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
"Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)" St Bernard of Clairvaux
https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Melkite

Quote from: jovan66102 on February 19, 2013, 09:44:32 PM
Melkite, with all due respect, above and beyond any personal problems you might have with the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, regarding Her teaching on sexual morality, don't you think that your obdurate adherence to the anti-Papal heresies of the East should at least discourage you from posting on Catholic fora, other than those which endorse the 'every body saved, no one is going to hell' heresy?

You lost me.  I've never advocated universal salvation.  Also not sure what this has to do with sexual morality.

jovan66102

Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: jovan66102 on February 19, 2013, 09:44:32 PM
Melkite, with all due respect, above and beyond any personal problems you might have with the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith, regarding Her teaching on sexual morality, don't you think that your obdurate adherence to the anti-Papal heresies of the East should at least discourage you from posting on Catholic fora, other than those which endorse the 'every body saved, no one is going to hell' heresy?

You lost me.  I've never advocated universal salvation.  Also not sure what this has to do with sexual morality.

I was not implying that you were an universalist. I was just stating that given your adherence to the schismatic, Eastern heresy you might be more comfortable on a forum which accepted universal salvation. And we've had long discussions on another forum about your absolute refusal to accept the moral teachings of the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church dealing with sexual morality.
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
"Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)" St Bernard of Clairvaux
https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Melkite

Quote from: jovan66102 on February 19, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
I was not implying that you were an universalist. I was just stating that given your adherence to the schismatic, Eastern heresy you might be more comfortable on a forum which accepted universal salvation. And we've had long discussions on another forum about your absolute refusal to accept the moral teachings of the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church dealing with sexual morality.

But I do accept the Church's teaching on sexuality.  But either way, what would that have to do with the content of this thread?

jovan66102

#50
Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 11:03:10 PM
Quote from: jovan66102 on February 19, 2013, 10:59:47 PM
I was not implying that you were an universalist. I was just stating that given your adherence to the schismatic, Eastern heresy you might be more comfortable on a forum which accepted universal salvation. And we've had long discussions on another forum about your absolute refusal to accept the moral teachings of the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church dealing with sexual morality.

But I do accept the Church's teaching on sexuality.  But either way, what would that have to do with the content of this thread?

So you've given up your boyfriend and now accept the Church's teaching on the near occasion of sin regarding sexual morality?
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
"Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)" St Bernard of Clairvaux
https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Melkite

Quote from: jovan66102 on February 19, 2013, 11:33:30 PM
So you've given up your boyfriend and now accept the Church's teaching on the near occasion of sin regarding sexual morality?

This is way off topic, but I've never believed that sexual activity outside of marriage is not sinful.  The Church has never taught that certain non-sexual forms of physical affection are inherently sinful, and I reject some Catholic fundamentalists' erroneous conflation of non-sexual affection with immoral sexual behavior.

jovan66102

Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 11:47:19 PM
Quote from: jovan66102 on February 19, 2013, 11:33:30 PM
So you've given up your boyfriend and now accept the Church's teaching on the near occasion of sin regarding sexual morality?

This is way off topic, but I've never believed that sexual activity outside of marriage is not sinful.  The Church has never taught that certain non-sexual forms of physical affection are inherently sinful, and I reject some Catholic fundamentalists' erroneous conflation of non-sexual affection with immoral sexual behavior.

Thanks. You've answered my question.
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
"Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)" St Bernard of Clairvaux
https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

trentcath

Quote from: Melkite on February 19, 2013, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: trentcath on February 19, 2013, 07:12:19 PM
By the way:

Quote
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
Bl. Pius IX, syllabus of errors

LOL, is that recognized as an infallible statement?

It's of course not an error, though, to believe the Popes have contributed to the division of the Church into traditional Catholic and Protestant.  Latin triumphalism = having one's cake and eating it too!  Know any good diet plans where you don't have to give up anything bad for you?

:shrug: :doh:

Why do you bother being eastern catholic I'm sure the orthodox church down the street would have you....

Fake eastern catholicism, where you can hate the pope, the west and ignore everything it teaches and yet claim to be Catholic   :rolleyes:

Melkite

Quote from: trentcath on February 20, 2013, 07:35:42 AM
:shrug: :doh:

Why do you bother being eastern catholic I'm sure the orthodox church down the street would have you....

Fake eastern catholicism, where you can hate the pope, the west and ignore everything it teaches and yet claim to be Catholic   :rolleyes:

I think you're just being smarmy with that question, but here's an honest answer in case any bone of sincerity in you wants to understand.

You're right that i should consider eastern orthodoxy and I have.  I became Catholic for the wrong reasons.  I rushed into it as a teenager because I liked what I saw from hollywood in the portrayal of traditional sacraments and traditional liturgy.  I didn't bother to look to deeply into the doctrine (I was only 17 when I converted).  So, now that I think about it more, there are doctrinal issues that I disagree with Rome about, and there are doctrinal issues I prefer the eastern explanation to.  But I promised myself the first time Orthodoxy became appealing to me that I wouldn't make another uneducated conversion.  If I ever do convert to Orthodoxy, it will be because I've taken the time to fully investigate it to the best of my ability.  But on top of my question on certain doctrinal issues of whether they differ enough to warrant describing them incompatible or another faith altogether, I still believe being in communion with Rome is important, if not mandatory, and I haven't figured out yet if the doctinal issues warrant breaking communion with Rome (I know in some ways I've already broken communion with Rome by the positions I hold, so I recognize that in some sense my communion with Rome right now is only on paper, but go with the line of thought for a minute).  I'm also trying to figure out what makes one truly Catholic, holding the true faith, or being in communion with the pope, when it is not possible to do both, and when both are absolute requirements for membership in the Church.

I don't hate the pope, just as you, a sedevacantist, don't hate the pope just because you disagree with him.  I don't hate the west.  I know the way things are done in the west 'just work' for some people, so I don't want that taken away from them, any more than i'd want to be taken away from the east, when that's the only thing that 'just works' for me.  Yeah, i'd love to see western Christianity disappear and everyone become eastern Christians, but that's not reality.  Just as you'd love to see everyone convert to the tlm (come on, admit it.  You may sincerely respect eastern traditions and liturgy, but subjectively, don't you love the tlm so much that you see it as the best form of spirituality and wish everyone saw it the same way as you?).  I do have the same questions, though, of how sedevacantists can hate the last few popes, hate the 'conciliar' church, and ignore all the teachings (which go back prior to v2) on schismatic tendencies, and yet likewise they still consider themselves to be Catholics.

Melkite

#55
Quote from: tmw89 on February 19, 2013, 08:25:12 PM
Actually, the Syllabus is covered by the Church's Magisterium as infallible.

Well, then I'm reinforced in my belief that both papal and ecclesial infallibility are a sham.

Quote from: tmw89 on February 19, 2013, 08:25:12 PM
Once again, your condescending tone aside... fresh out of a ban, you went and broke these rules again:

Quote from: Kaesekopf's Forum Rules on December 26, 2012, 10:50:46 PM
1) Error has no rights.  As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here. 

11) As a follow-up to 10), trad-bashing is not permitted. Couch your language appropriately.

12) Sincere debate is permitted. Do not troll our forum.

Well, you may want to consider revising your rules.  Rule 1 and rule 12 (the first part, anyway) are contradictory.  Or, at least, it's ambiguous enough to appear contradictory.  If in fact you mean that sincere debate is permitted only insofar as the Church has not defined a matter and allows it to remain open to debate, then that should be clarified in the rules.  Though I believe with that clarification, most of this website would have to be erased and most members banned.

Kaesekopf

Papal infallibility is dogmatic....  I'm not sure how one can deny it/call it a sham and still claim to be Catholic.  O.o
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.

Kaesekopf

Quote from: Melkite on February 20, 2013, 08:08:32 AM
I'm also trying to figure out what makes one truly Catholic, holding the true faith, or being in communion with the pope, when it is not possible to do both, and when both are absolute requirements for membership in the Church.


This would be a fun topic to explore in a different thread.  I had a thread that touched upon it, but I didn't push it. 

Because part of me thinks trads sometimes face the same question (if not in actuality, then in accusation).
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.

trentcath

Quote from: Melkite on February 20, 2013, 08:08:32 AM
Quote from: trentcath on February 20, 2013, 07:35:42 AM
:shrug: :doh:

Why do you bother being eastern catholic I'm sure the orthodox church down the street would have you....

Fake eastern catholicism, where you can hate the pope, the west and ignore everything it teaches and yet claim to be Catholic   :rolleyes:

I think you're just being smarmy with that question, but here's an honest answer in case any bone of sincerity in you wants to understand.

You're right that i should consider eastern orthodoxy and I have.  I became Catholic for the wrong reasons.  I rushed into it as a teenager because I liked what I saw from hollywood in the portrayal of traditional sacraments and traditional liturgy.  I didn't bother to look to deeply into the doctrine (I was only 17 when I converted).  So, now that I think about it more, there are doctrinal issues that I disagree with Rome about, and there are doctrinal issues I prefer the eastern explanation to.  But I promised myself the first time Orthodoxy became appealing to me that I wouldn't make another uneducated conversion.  If I ever do convert to Orthodoxy, it will be because I've taken the time to fully investigate it to the best of my ability.  But on top of my question on certain doctrinal issues of whether they differ enough to warrant describing them incompatible or another faith altogether, I still believe being in communion with Rome is important, if not mandatory, and I haven't figured out yet if the doctinal issues warrant breaking communion with Rome (I know in some ways I've already broken communion with Rome by the positions I hold, so I recognize that in some sense my communion with Rome right now is only on paper, but go with the line of thought for a minute).  I'm also trying to figure out what makes one truly Catholic, holding the true faith, or being in communion with the pope, when it is not possible to do both, and when both are absolute requirements for membership in the Church.

I don't hate the pope, just as you, a sedevacantist, don't hate the pope just because you disagree with him.  I don't hate the west.  I know the way things are done in the west 'just work' for some people, so I don't want that taken away from them, any more than i'd want to be taken away from the east, when that's the only thing that 'just works' for me.  Yeah, i'd love to see western Christianity disappear and everyone become eastern Christians, but that's not reality.  Just as you'd love to see everyone convert to the tlm (come on, admit it.  You may sincerely respect eastern traditions and liturgy, but subjectively, don't you love the tlm so much that you see it as the best form of spirituality and wish everyone saw it the same way as you?).  I do have the same questions, though, of how sedevacantists can hate the last few popes, hate the 'conciliar' church, and ignore all the teachings (which go back prior to v2) on schismatic tendencies, and yet likewise they still consider themselves to be Catholics.

a)I am not a sedevecantist

b) I dont care what liturgy people use so long as its not the NO and its orthodox, I've attended a ukranian DL and very much enjoyed it and someday I want to attend the mozarabic rite

c) thanks for the admission that you are unorthodox

Melkite

Quote from: trentcath on February 20, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
a)I am not a sedevecantist

b) I dont care what liturgy people use so long as its not the NO and its orthodox, I've attended a ukranian DL and very much enjoyed it and someday I want to attend the mozarabic rite

c) thanks for the admission that you are unorthodox

A. My mistake, I apologize.

B.  I would like to attend a mozarabic rite also, although, the actual mozarabic rite, not the tridentinized one.

C.  Well, unorthodox to you.  The Eastern Orthodox would probably consider me well on my way to being truly orthodox.  It's a matter of perspective.