|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 21:19:17 GMT -5
Michael...can you produce for me the official SPECIFIC condemnation of bergoglio and the Vat2 sect? Im laity and my condemnations hold zero authority. Pope Pius IX "The Sylabus of Condemned Errors" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) Pope Saint Pius X "Pascendi" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm) Pope Pius XI "Mortallium Animus" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM) Linked above. Pax Tecum
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 2, 2017 23:28:43 GMT -5
No demanding everyone is culpable if they do go to an una cum. I dont think it is wrong for a person to eschew una cum masses...I dont think it prudent...nor necessary to avoid them however if it means going without the Body and Blood of Our Lord. BUT I think it shows a low opinion of God to jettison something He paid such a price to give us simply because vagabons have inserted themselves. There was a time when emperors and kings were also named in the Mass...some were not very Christian people. I've already addressed this somewhere, but for the sake of being thorough... "una cum"... this is only a side point. The guilt by association argument is my crux. To recognize a heretical apostate as your pope is to be a part of his heretical organization. To pray in "union" with said heretic is just another manifestation of the clergyman's subjection to a heretical organization. I argue that we must anathema all heretics and all who are any part of an heretical organization, ESPECIALLY the clergy. "going without sacraments" The English Catholics had to go without sacraments during the terrible persecutions by schismatics and Protestants. The French Catholics had to go without sacraments during the horrible schism and state persecution in France. Were they allowed to receive sacraments from the state schismatics or anglican clergy? No way. The Japanese (as stated somewhere else) went without sacraments for roughly 250 years. "low opinion of God" I disagree. I think it shows a low opinion of God to set demands on what He can and can not expect from us as His lowly subjects. Pax Christi, M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2017 4:09:42 GMT -5
Working Backwards... You dont speak for God and your comment is begging the question...... The main crux of your argument is that by attending an una cum...that person is ipso facto communing with and recognising bergoglio as a Pope. You cant even recognise the core of your own argument. Listen...I dont judge you in error or a bad Catholic for avoiding the modernists to the level you are...but the level you are avoiding them by is not necessary for everyone...you try to dogmatically assert that it is...but IT IS NOT.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2017 4:11:50 GMT -5
Michael...can you produce for me the official SPECIFIC condemnation of bergoglio and the Vat2 sect? Im laity and my condemnations hold zero authority. Pope Pius IX "The Sylabus of Condemned Errors" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) Pope Saint Pius X "Pascendi" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm) Pope Pius XI "Mortallium Animus" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM) Linked above. Pax Tecum And bergoglio...and the bishops names? Are you still looking for THAT document...because that is the one I asked you to produce.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 19:20:48 GMT -5
Working Backwards... You dont speak for God and your comment is begging the question...... The main crux of your argument is that by attending an una cum...that person is ipso facto communing with and recognising bergoglio as a Pope. You cant even recognise the core of your own argument. Listen...I dont judge you in error or a bad Catholic for avoiding the modernists to the level you are...but the level you are avoiding them by is not necessary for everyone...you try to dogmatically assert that it is...but IT IS NOT. That is not my argument. I restate again... the priest who holds his mass "una cum" recognizes the heretic apostate Bergoglio as "pope", but this I restate again is merely a side effect of his infrastructural union with said heretic. Bergoglio is a disgusting symptom of a much larger root problem which is modernism and Vatican II. The argument does NOT revolve around "una cum", as this is also merely a symptom of the root issue which it the apostasy of Vatican II. Vatican II created a new heretical sect. Membership in heretical sects is forbidden to Catholics. I've addressed this elsewhere. All those who hold Bergoglio as "pope" or any of his apostate pre-cursors are part of this new sect and must be anathematized. Strangely I am accused of thinking I "speak for God" when I state my case. A case upheld by Church practice and history, which you have strangely ignored. If I think I'm speaking for God, then what do you think you are doing? "And bergoglio...and the bishops names? Are you still looking for THAT document...because that is the one I asked you to produce." Wait... your position is that a person that is a heretic must be denounced by the magisterium "by name" before they must be avoided? I think you have confused multiple issues. This has NEVER been true. Most heresies are condemned, such as the condemnation of Luther so as to include his personal name (the originator of said heresy), yes, but the condemnation ALWAYS includes any and all who profess even one of the heresies that the originator holds to. To expect the Church to list the name of every heretic to be avoided by name would be endless and impossible task for the Church to keep current. Why do you think this is so? This idea is preposterous. M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2017 21:58:02 GMT -5
Again you've lost the crux of your own argument. It is about attending the mass una cum...NOT for example attending assi 2 ecumaniacs meetings or theology of the body seminars. THE MASS is not defected by a Priest who erroneously names the wrong name as POPE. I think your inability to keep a clear track of your argument is due to the fact you haven't been receiving the Eucharist IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 23:45:31 GMT -5
Again you've lost the crux of your own argument. It is about attending the mass una cum...NOT for example attending assi 2 ecumaniacs meetings or theology of the body seminars. THE MASS is not defected by a Priest who erroneously names the wrong name as POPE. I think your inability to keep a clear track of your argument is due to the fact you haven't been receiving the Eucharist IMO. I don't know how I missed this one! I do receive the Blessed Sacrament. What are you talking about? I have not lost the crux of my own argument you keep REINVENTING it for me. The mass IS NOT DEFECTED... I never said that it was... I say that the Priest that is in union with the heretical organization that holds heretical public events such as "assi 2 ecumaniacs meetings or theology of the body seminars" is guilty of being in union with a heretical sect, and therefore is un-approachable for the sacraments and that it is a SIN called "communication in sacris" that makes an individual "suspected of heresy" per canon law, via worship in common with heretics or schismatics. What part of this has anything to do with "una cum"? Why do you keep re-inventing my argument for me? Its NOT MY ARGUMENT.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 4, 2017 0:04:15 GMT -5
BTW thanks for joining...you are most welcome. Thanks for the invite. Few boards allow sede's to exist. Block and ban. Appreciate the welcome. M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 4, 2017 7:58:54 GMT -5
I keep reiterating what your argument implys. It implys...that all priests who say the name of francis in the mass as pope prove themselves heretics and outside the Church...non Catholics. It implys that laity...informed or not...are also "suspect of heresy"?(whatever that means) It Implys the Mass unecessary ( as you keep gratuitously mentioning the Japanese Church...as if the exception proves the rule) It implys that the Latin Mass and the Divine Liturgy are to be lumped together in this issue... and since you know apparently little to nothing about the DL (which has NEVER in my experience called the "Divine Office")...you really should withdraw your comments till you educate yourself It implys that you can bind censure on other Catholics. So please synthesise your arguments into a paragraph easily broke down. Right now your spread accross several threads...making several different points...and Pacelli and I aren't morons...its obvious to everyone but you your argument is at best "disjointed". So do a reset. Preferrably in the una cum thread.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 4, 2017 11:00:23 GMT -5
Again you've lost the crux of your own argument. It is about attending the mass una cum...NOT for example attending assi 2 ecumaniacs meetings or theology of the body seminars. THE MASS is not defected by a Priest who erroneously names the wrong name as POPE. I think your inability to keep a clear track of your argument is due to the fact you haven't been receiving the Eucharist IMO. I don't know how I missed this one! I do receive the Blessed Sacrament. What are you talking about? I have not lost the crux of my own argument you keep REINVENTING it for me. The mass IS NOT DEFECTED... I never said that it was... I say that the Priest that is in union with the heretical organization that holds heretical public events such as "assi 2 ecumaniacs meetings or theology of the body seminars" is guilty of being in union with a heretical sect, and therefore is un-approachable for the sacraments and that it is a SIN called "communication in sacris" that makes an individual "suspected of heresy" per canon law, via worship in common with heretics or schismatics. What part of this has anything to do with "una cum"? Why do you keep re-inventing my argument for me? Its NOT MY ARGUMENT. Well isnt that convienient for you...does your Priest have orders from the Church? Where do you recieve communion...I suppose youll be offering bus tickets to your Parish for the millions of other Trads who are suspect of heresy and unworthilly recieving from a heretic who names a heretic Pope. Home aloners seem to have a better case.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 4, 2017 11:30:13 GMT -5
Pope Pius IX "The Sylabus of Condemned Errors" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) Pope Saint Pius X "Pascendi" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm) Pope Pius XI "Mortallium Animus" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM) Linked above. Pax Tecum And bergoglio...and the bishops names? Are you still looking for THAT document...because that is the one I asked you to produce. He cannot provide it, and if he is as well read as he is portraying himself, he knows the implications of not being excommunicated by name.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 4, 2017 11:32:03 GMT -5
Michael...can you produce for me the official SPECIFIC condemnation of bergoglio and the Vat2 sect? Im laity and my condemnations hold zero authority. Pope Pius IX "The Sylabus of Condemned Errors" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) Pope Saint Pius X "Pascendi" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm) Pope Pius XI "Mortallium Animus" (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM) Linked above. Pax Tecum And you don't dodge questions? Why don't you just admit that Bergoglio has not been excommunicated by name, so we can then have a serious discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 4, 2017 20:14:30 GMT -5
He cannot provide it, and if he is as well read as he is portraying himself, he knows the implications of not being excommunicated by name. And you don't dodge questions? Why don't you just admit that Bergoglio has not been excommunicated by name, so we can then have a serious discussion. Well isnt that convienient for you...does your Priest have orders from the Church? Where do you recieve communion...I suppose youll be offering bus tickets to your Parish for the millions of other Trads who are suspect of heresy and unworthilly recieving from a heretic who names a heretic Pope. Home aloners seem to have a better case. So do a reset. Preferrably in the una cum thread. Good day to you gentlemen! All smug/snide comments aside... we move on to the facts... also... for clarity sake... VOX, please stop re-invinting my argument to the "una cum" issue... it is not my argument. Your rehashes above are inaccurate. ITS TIME FOR SOURCES!!! Get excited! I have more sources, but these should be a great start.
NOTE: [all bracketed words are mine, not from the source] All bold is by me as well. SOURCE 1: THE NEW CANON LAW (A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law) by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M [Imprimatur 1918 John Cardinal Farley Archbishop of NY] VI. Suspicion of Heresy Falls on:1616. 1. persons who knowingly and of their own accord help to propagate heresy in any manner, OR who take an active part in the Divine worship of non-Catholics, as forbidden by Canon 1258 [So "what that even means" is pretty straight forward](Suspicion of Heresy Falls on:) (Canon 2316) 5. persons who continue obstinately in the censure of excommunication for one year (Canon 2340) [this shows a direct distinction between heresy & excommunication](Canon 2315) provides that persons suspected of heresy are to be admonished to remove the cause of the suspicion and if they fail to do so they are, if laymen, to be deprived of the right to legal actions; while a cleric, after a second admonition, is to be suspended a divinis. All who, by law, are suspected of heresy are, after having been admonished and punished in the aforesaid manner, considered heretics, and become liable to the penalties for heresy if they do not amend within 6 months after the first punishment. [pretty straight forward, suspect of heresy becomes heresy if uncorrected for 6 months]1167. It is not sufficient to avoid heretical error, but also all those errors which more or less approach heresy. Wherefore all constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has condemned and prohibited such false opinions must be observed. (Canon 1324) [Further insight into the mind of canon law]1168. … A baptized Christian... yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate; if, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic. [It's interesting to note that nowhere does this mention joining a sect, because joining a sect is another thing all together. You can be a schismatic without being part of a sect.]
1598. Canons 2314-2414 deal with the penalties inflicted by the Code on various, specified crimes. Some of these penalties are incurred by the very fact of committing the crime (ipso facto, or latae sententiae), others are to be imposed by the competent authority (ferendae sententiae) in case the offense is brought to the notice of the ecclesiastical superior. Penalties ferendae sententiae are of the nature of a precept to the ecclesiastical judge to impose the specified penalty if the party is proved guilty in court. [A quick look over reasons for IPSO FACTO excommunication that do NOT involve heresy... There are at least (34). ways to be excommunicated that have nothing to do with heresy.][EXAMPLE OF EXCOMMUNICATION THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE PERSONAL NAMES:]SOURCE 2: “Etsi Multa” Pope Pius IXExcommunication “26. We have been undeservingly placed on this supreme seat of Peter to preserve the Catholic faith and the unity of the universal Church. Therefore following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his consecration sacrilegious. Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Hubert himself and all those who attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare, proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church. They are to be considered among those with whom all faithful Christians are forbidden by the Apostle to associate and have social exchange to such an extent that, as he plainly states, they may not even be greeted.[15] “ [Clearly "all those who... adhered to them and belonging to their party, has furnished help, favor, aid..." etc is not a list of names now is it?] QED.
[So there we have it... names are not required for excommunication, even for vitandus which the above obviously is "they may not even be greeted."]
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 4, 2017 22:28:51 GMT -5
SOURCE 3: Decet Romanum Pontificem (Papal Bull on the Condemnation and Excommunication of Martin Luther, the Heretic, and his Followers, January 3, 1521.) linked: www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm
"Our decrees which follow are passed against Martin and others who follow him in the obstinacy of his depraved and damnable purpose, as also against those who defend and protect him with a military bodyguard, and do not fear to support him with their own resources or in any other way, and have and do presume to offer and afford help, counsel and favour toward him. All their names, surnames and rank—however lofty and dazzling their dignity may be—we wish to be taken as included in these decrees with the same effect as if they were individually listed and could be so listed in their publication, which must be furthered with an energy to match their contents. [Again we have "and others who follow him" not named by name. Bergoglio, aka Francis celebrates Martin Luther as a "witness to the gospel" by the way. Adding fuel to the fire of his heresies and making him directly condemned by this very document! See below.] On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema, of our perpetual condemnation and interdict; of privation of dignities, honours and property on them and their descendants, and of declared unfitness for such possessions; of the confiscation of their goods and of the crime of treason; and these and the other sentences, censures and punishments which are inflicted by canon law on heretics and are set out in our aforesaid missive, we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation. [This condemnation extends even to "their descendants".]IV We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians. ["Strictly shunned by ALL FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS"]
V We would make known to all the small store that Martin, his followers and the other rebels have set on God and his Church by their obstinate and shameless temerity. We would protect the herd from one infectious animal, lest its infection spread to the healthy ones. Hence we lay the following injunction on each and every patriarch, archbishop, bishop, on the prelates of patriarchal, metropolitan, cathedral and collegiate churches, and on the religious of every Order—even the mendicants—privileged or unprivileged, wherever they may be stationed: that in the strength of their vow of obedience and on pain of the sentence of excommunication, they shall, if so required in the execution of these presents, publicly announce and cause to be announced by others in their churches, that this same Martin and the rest are excommunicate, accursed, condemned, heretics, [Excommunication is even commanded against those who don't publicly denounce these heretics!] hardened, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them, and so listed in the enforcement of these presents. Three days will be given: we pronounce canonical warning and allow one day's notice on the first, another on the second, but on the third peremptory and final execution of our order. This shall take place on a Sunday or some other festival, when a large congregation assembles for worship. The banner of the cross shall be raised, the bells rung, the candles lit and after a time extinguished, cast on the ground and trampled under foot, and the stones shall be cast forth three times, and the other ceremonies observed which are usual in such cases. The faithful Christians, one and all, shall be enjoined strictly to shun these men.We would occasion still greater confounding on the said Martin and the other heretics we have mentioned, and on their adherents, followers and partisans: hence, on the strength of their vow of obedience we enjoin each and every patriarch, archbishop and all other prelates, that even as they were appointed on the authority of Jerome to allay schisms, so now in the present crisis, as their office obliges them, they shall make themselves a wall of defence for their Christian people. They shall not keep silence like dumb dogs that cannot bark, but incessantly cry and lift up their voice, preaching and causing to be preached the word of God and the truth of the Catholic faith against the damnable articles and heretics aforesaid." Hence further proof that excommunication for heresy does NOT require a name of any individual. There are more examples, but this should suffice. QED. on this point. Can we agree on this bit for now?
Peace in Christ, M.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 5, 2017 4:50:38 GMT -5
Thanks michael...but in the future dont use over size texts for highlighters.
|
|