Once again, my charitable nature forces me to correct an idiot in the only language they seem to respond to. In order to save time and boredom, I have not bothered to copy my responses after each of the idiot’s replies, because in essence, they were a variation of this:
What part of “you are too ignorant to speak on these matters” did you not understand?Do you even know what canon 188.4 says?!?Read it!And you are again completely wrong it is the DUTY of every and ANY Catholic to point out heresy. Even a child can do it.And STOP repeating the same idiotic nonsense about “if a Pope does a heresy then he’s not a Pope”. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
UPDATE: As a result of this post he apparently went on a wall of text screaming fit, accusing me of lying and selective editing, which is absurd since I literally just copied and pasted his own words as they were, editing none of them out at all and in the same order. He was mocked by others for this as well as his lies and further stupidity and as a result he then deleted his own thread. Truly these monkeys invariably always behave as expected.
I have, however, added, between his idiot comments, my corrections. As you will see many would require repetition, in which case I have tried to keep the corrections at least entertaining for the reader. This cretin goes under the name of @MBibliophile on SG. But in his defence, as you will see from my final comments at the end, I believe his main issue is stupidity and arrogance, rather than intentional deception. Am I not kind in making this assessment, I ask you? Yes, yes I am.
His pathetic words in thin normal, mine in bold truth.
This frustrates me. Mutiny is a last step, and it’s only happened a handful of times in the Church e.g. Boniface VIII.
Mutiny would imply a valid Captain at the helm. There is no such thing. And recognising a Satanist as a Pope is not only retarded, it is schismatic and heretical to do so. Obviously and dogmatically of course. So no, there is no mutiny. YOU are in fact a schismatic moron following a servant of Satan as though he were even Catholic, never mind Pope.
As Catholics, we’re supposed to understand that authority, even when mishandled, still matters.
So why don’t you understand it at all? Why are you ignoring the infallible magisterium Of the Church which commands you to ignore false clerics and call out heresy wherever it is obvious to see?
We each have a part to play, and the hierarchy has its own roles. I have no problem stating that a pope ceases to act with Christ’s authority (i.e. be His vicar) when his actions run contra to Christ’s revealed and explicit instructions, but at the same time I don’t have the authority to remove him from his seat.
You are too stupid to converse with on such matters.
A Pope does NOT cease to be Pope because he does some heretical thing. This has never been the case. There have been Popes who had illegitimate children, gay orgies etc etc and it did not make them invalid Popes. Just bad ones. The issue is not the personal character flaws of a Pope. It is the official and expressly stated point that ANYONE who publicly and pertinaciously defects from the Faith is and become an instant heretic requiring no further pronouncement from anyone. The law itself convicts him. And the law can and does do this because it is and was created by the valid magisterium of the Church and has all the divine authority to do so.
Obviously you have no authority. No mere layman does. But in your case you don’t even have basic reading comprehension, so you’d be best served by shutting up and learning instead of blathering on like the headless chicken you are.
NCO’s don’t oust officers except as a last resort, but good ones know how to ignore illegal orders while working to get other officers to police their own.
Your analogy is not just completely inappropriate and irrelevant to the case at hand concerning the Papacy.It is also factually wrong anyway.
I trust that God will hear the prayers of His faithful without open rebellion and schism.
He does. Which is why your kind is becoming increasingly stupid and obviously so to anyone even marginally logical and of normal intelligence that cares to look at you. And why the fake Popes and their minions also continue to fall in eternal disrepute as Sedevacantism continues to grow.And the schism happened long ago at Vatican 2. You are part of it.
I’ll take St Athanasius as my model and trust in the Almighty; I don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by choosing an empty seat as an anti-pope. You are not a Saint. You have no understanding of what any of them did or did not do. And your last sentence does not make sense in any permutation of the English language, since chairs are not Popes, empty or otherwise. Literally, you are too stupid to write basic English. Confine yourself to being like the illiterate peasant of old and do as you are told by valid priests. Yours is not to think, but to obey. You can’t do what you have not the faculties for after all.
This causes me to believe that what we are doing is quibbling over vocabulary, which is understandable.
No. You literally cannot read (or write) basic English. There is no quibble. You don’t even grasp the concepts being discussed.
Second, canon law is all well and good, but it’s a legal code not a doctrinal document, which means that it is not considered infallible.
You are retarded and ignorant, so let me explain this slowly.Canon law comprises both doctrinal and non-doctrinal points. Anyone even remotely catechised has no problem knowing which parts are which. Those not catechised but able to read can figure it out by following the references for each canon. Since in this case canon 188.4 refers directly to Cum Ex Apostolato Officio, it is absolutely eternal and infallible as are ALL and ANY of the Papal encyclicals issued in the two millennia of the Church. Stop blathering in abysmal ignorance.
Regardless, it should not be changed to meet the fickle times so the legal argument has some merit, though how much is still open to debate.
No. You utter moron.
It is NOT a legal argument. It is a dogmatic, obvious, doctrinal FACT that has always been part of the Church doctrine and was immortalised by Pope Paul the IV in Cum Ex Apostolato Officio precisely so morons like you who wanted to question the obvious fact that heretics are not Catholics would be seen as obvious morons even by other morons.
There IS no debate here. You are not “debating” anything and certainly not me. All that is happening here is that your intellectual superior is proving you are wrong and you are being intellectually spanked for your stupidity. This is educational for you and the observers, it’s not a debate.
This is more a pedantic quibble on my part, and not particularly material as I agree in spirit.
No one cares about your personal opinion and it is absolutely irrelevant. You are only being made an example of as a teaching aid.And there is no “quibble”. You are ignorant, stupid and wrong.
Finally, a question: do you consider the Chair of St Peter to be effectively empty any time a pope commits material heresy?
No. Because that is NOT how it works. And only an ahistorical cretin ignorant of practically all of Church history would think this.
If so, we agree.
Did I mention you’re stupid, ignorant and wrong?You do not possess the IQ to even understand the position in general, much less whether you are in “agreement” with me. Especially on concepts you don’t even grasp. There is no possible agreement because yours is a category error, you don’t even grasp the concept you think you “agree” with me on.
Where I get hung up is on who has the authority to determine such and at what convenience. It’s basic Catechism and known to anyone who has ever bothered to read or understand the Catholic Church at all. The infallible magisterium of the Church is the only one that has such authority. This is not some secret hidden mystery. It’s literally pre-school level Catholicism.
God alone sees a man’s heart, everyone else has to work through our treacherous senses, and it is no small matter to arrogate God’s authority to oneself.
You are the only one stupid enough to assume anyone here is doing that. Projecting much?
If the conclave of ‘58 was rigged, it was hardly the only one.
Name a single one that resulted in the acceptance of an antipope as a Pope.
For the nth time, none of this is new. The Church has been here before, sadly many times.
No. Analogous situations are not identical. And only one other time has there been something analogous to the current situation and it’s clear you don’t know what it is.
That Kurgan admits to multiple antipopes previous to 1958 is my clue that we don’t really disagree except on details (that and I always understood antipope to be a very specific term rather than a general one, but I digress).
You are in fact clueless. And we agree on precisely NOTHING.
You are not anywhere close to my intellectual equal. You approach the level of a monkey to me and I am not in the habit of agreeing much with them either. I don’t even like peanuts so you’re really out of luck here.
You are an ignorant schismatic who idiotically thinks he is Catholic while following literal Satanists.
I am a Catholic who understands the rather simple and obvious catechisms of the Church.
You literally do not even grasp the overall concepts so it is materially impossible that you know or understand ANY of the details at all, much less have ability to agree or otherwise with me on them.
In short, as I said, there is NOTHING you even CAN agree with me on here. You are the antithesis to my position. Antithesis. Look it up.
My concern is with the question of authority, not that popes who commit material heresy retain the vicarage of Christ. That question goes back at least to the Great Schism and has never been adequately answered.
It has always been answered. Factually, obviously and eternally.The fact you don’t even understand the CONCEPT of authority is beside the point.As is your abysmal laziness and ignorance.Although to be fair you may not be lazy, just too stupid to understand the concepts in question. Hence return to the field to plow the land and do as you’re told.
Yes, I agree.
No. You not only do not; you CANNOT. Because you don’t even grasp the concepts you THINK you’re “arguing” about.
But who bells the cat? Setting aside that canon law is not magisterium,
It is in the doctrinal parts. Which is why it was created you utter imbecille. It was the ENTIRE reason Pope Pius X started it.
but rather a legal code governing the hierarchy,
It is far more than that. Truly, why do you speak of things you have not bothered to grasp even the basics of?
who brings formal accusations of material heresy against a sitting pope?
The law itself. It’s literally stated in canon 188.4. Why are you even asking? Are you too stupid to understand basic English? It’s clearly stated. How do you even tie your shoelaces in the morning? Ah… wait… slip-ons forever eh?
How is he tried?
No trial is required. Again. It’s clearly spelt out. You really need to learn to read.
As for how do we get rid of him materially, it’s simple. It’s done by anyone willing and able to do so.He is not Catholic. He is not a Pope. If it weren’t for the vast millions of idiots like yourself, what would happen is what has always happened: the laity would turf out the impostor on his ass and he’d be lucky to not get killed in the process. No Catholic owes him anything but contempt and scorn. In short, your abysmal idiocy and that of your co-morons (always a majority at any given time) is all that stands between people like me and Bergoglio. But the tide is changing, as people like me continue to educate and bitchslap cretins like you and out ranks continue to grow, eventually the numbers will be with us too.
We actually do have the answers to those questions, but with regard to the current pope the most important one that isn’t answered is that if he is guilty of committing material heresy, why has no bishop made the formal accusation?
Every valid Bishop has in fact made this accusation and have done so since Vatican 2. But you being an idiot assume other non-Catholic Freemasonic Satanists are actual Bishops. And would police themselves. I did say you’re profoundly stupid didn’t I?
Are we truly arguing that the whole Order of Bishops is corrupt?
No. I told you, you are NOT arguing. You’re an imbecille making word noises. And it’s not an argument anyway, it’s an obvious and logical fact supported by the infallible magisterium of the Church in the form of Canon 188.4 as already explained. Ad nauseam.
The harshest I’ve seen is a Dubia over some of his statements, but not one formal accusation of heresy that I know of.
Satanists do not bring other satanists to account for Satanism. What a shock! Did I explain your stupidity is deeper than the Mariana Trench?
@Kurgan If I’m wrong on the issue of canon law, I am open to correction.
Consider yourself corrected.
I am speaking of my own understanding and as I have not exhaustively researched it, I am more than willing to discover that I have been mistaken.
Why are you talking on matters you have not bothered to even understand, much less research then? Why?
Answer the question.
Paul IV is a good starting point.
No. It’s an end point. And eternal. And always was. Paul IV just realised people like you exist and he made sure even them had no way to avoid the obvious.
My concern is not with the authority of the magisterium, which comes from Christ Himself, but with its exercise. As I said above, it’s all well and good to say someone is a heretic, but what of practicalities? The laity cannot formally accuse.
Did I mention your stupidity?But did I mention it enough?The accusation, judgement and sentence has ALREADY been done. By the magisterium of the Church as is CLEARLY spelt out in Canon 188.4 in plain, simple, obvious language.
You moron.
Read.
The.
Words.
Do we even have the mechanism for calling a council for a trial?
There is NO NEED FOR ONE. You absolute retard. How many times?!? He is already convicted and judged and no further pronouncement by ANYONE is required. PRECISELY AS IT SAYS IN CANIN 188.4.
If all it takes to be a sedeprivationist is to say that I believe the pope to have committed material heresy based on X, Y, and Z, thus forfeiting the vicarage of Christ, then many of us are already there without knowing it.
It’s not difficult to be Catholic. Illiterate peasants have done it throughout the centuries and done it well.Know your place. You are the modern equivalent of an illiterate peasant. You have the APPEARANCE of being lettered but in truth you are closer to a monkey hammering away mindlessly at a typewriter. Stick to eating peanuts and digging holes in the ground.
I don’t like Pope Francis.
Your tastes are utterly and completely irrelevant. It is not a matter of taste or fashion, you buffoon.
I have said so several times.
And it’s still and eternally irrelevant even if you do it a million tines. Just like the barks of a baboon into the void.
However, I do not have the authority to interpret his actions according to the magisterium and formally call him a heretic, whatever my beliefs.
No one ever even imagined ever, in the entire history of humanity, that you did. No one but you has ever been so stupid as to even mention the words.
Okay, we’re officially talking past each other @Kurgan. I know that’s not how Papal Infallibility works, I’ve made several arguments in favor of it by how it really functions.
You could not define Papal infallibility without cutting and pasting it from somewhere if your life depended on it. And even if you memorised it verbatim you would not understand what it means. All of which is beside the point.
Also, I understood that if a pope was a committed material heretic he lost the vicarage of Christ. If that is not the case, then I was mistaken. Finally, I’m not a Protestant, so please don’t mislabel me as such.
You are an EX-Protestant by your own definition. But in fact you still ARE one, since you cling to the Protestant Vatican 2 heresies. I’m not the one mislabelling you. You are. You’re no Catholic.
I’m arguing at a disadvantage here because A) I don’t disagree with you all that much
No, you don’t even understand the situation at all. Again; this is NOT an argument. This is a spanking. Go put some cream on your butthurt.
and B) I don’t think I understand exactly what your stance is.
That’s because “my” stance is simply the one that all Catholics have always had, and you NOT being a Catholic, and ignorant to a profound degree of what it means to be one, have NO IDEA what’s going on. Yet you feel entitled to blab. Stop. Take your beating and learn.
I might have to pick up your book so that I can get a better window on your mind than this format affords me.
My mind is irrelevant. None of this is about anyone’s “mind” or opinion. It’s about objective facts in evidence, logic, reason, the infallible Church and ultimately God and His will for us and how we comport ourselves here on Earth. My “mind” (opinion) and much more so yours, are utterly irrelevant.
@TVCL that is an informal accusation, not a formal one. Big difference. No. Not a difference AT ALL, IF you understood how canon law actually works. Canon 188.4 is indeed INFORMAL, but it is also absolute and requires NO further formality, pronouncement, court, judgement or anything else. It is FINAL. It is quite unique in Canon Law and it is so for a simple principle of obvious logic. A self-confessed heretic needs no further official pronouncement to be treated as such by everyone. As an aside @TVCL was in any case wrong and not commenting on this point but since we are here to educate…
You spent too much time yelling at me about things we don’t disagree on or words you’ve put into my mouth.
Nope. Every one of your galactic sized imbecilic statements is your own and I have not invented a single one of them. Also, do not dare to compare yourself with me. I am a Catholic, you are not. There IS nor can there be ANY agreement. You are wrong in toto and I am right. End of.
This is why I don’t like arguing with you: you treat anyone who doesn’t full throatedly agree as your enemy and blow up at them.
I treat arrogant idiots like you as they deserve to be treated: like arrogant idiots.It is salutary for other arrogant idiots, as they see the fate that awaits them if they dare act the same as you and teaches the relaxed Normies that beating idiots like you with sticks until you repent or leave our vicinity forever is fun and good and beautiful and true.
If I am wrong, I will reexamine my assumptions in light of your corrections and proceed from there, specifically the primacy of canon law, which is our major fundamental disagreement, if it is even that.
I will not hold my breath as I await your imminent apology and humble acceptance of your gross errors. But… should such a miracle occur, I will accept it graciously as is my charitable nature to do so.
When you’re done burning my straw image, we can talk again. It’s not your “straw image” I have metaphorically burnt at the stake here, you utterly arrogant, ignorant moron. It is you. You and your stupid arrogance that makes you speak as if you understood, knew or had any knowledge sufficient to even enter the discourse.You do not.You are ignorant. You have no right to your ignorant opinion.You are stupid. You continue to repeat the same idiotic points pretending we are “in agreement” on some things when we are absolutely not.You are stupid. Even when the reason why there is no agreement is pointed out you STILL don’t get it (you don’t even understand the CONCEPT, so it’s a category error to even say you are wrong about a detail. You have no right to even talk about the subject, because you literally don’t understand the basica of it).You are stupid. You don’t bother to check, verify, read or understand the points before continuing to blather on in the same state of stupid ignorance.Finally, and this is the root of your flaw, you are arrogant. You think yourself sufficiently knowledgeable, intelligent, smart to continue to state blatantly wrong things as if they were right. That is pride. The typical pride of the ignorant, stupid, know-it-all.While I may APPEAR arrogant, especially to stupid ignorants like yourself, the factual reality is simply that I am almost invariably:
Correct, and
Not falsely humble about it.
The reason for that is because ARROGANT cretins like yourself never learn other than from a public beating in the town square, and I am uniquely qualified to deliver such beatings. So you shall receive them, and when the burning of the ass-paddling eventually subsides a few years from now, you MAY have learnt something. And even if that something is only to never argue with your intellectual betters or at least with ME, then something of worth will jave been achieved. Think of it as a divinely provided talent I have, if you like. Also, and finally, you are welcome.I point this out because you are (as amply demonstrated) too stupid to understand that this blog post is a work of utter charity, spending my very precious time in educating you in the only way that MIGHT lead you to correct your stupidity, ignorance, and above all ARROGANCE, and thus, possibly, save your miserable and unworthy soul.And if not, it may at least be instructive to others who might be flirting with the same afflictions of ignorance, stupidity and arrogance that have clearly persecuted you since early childhood.
One More Idiot’s Head for the Kurgan’s Blade
Once again, my charitable nature forces me to correct an idiot in the only language they seem to respond to.
In order to save time and boredom, I have not bothered to copy my responses after each of the idiot’s replies, because in essence, they were a variation of this:
UPDATE: As a result of this post he apparently went on a wall of text screaming fit, accusing me of lying and selective editing, which is absurd since I literally just copied and pasted his own words as they were, editing none of them out at all and in the same order. He was mocked by others for this as well as his lies and further stupidity and as a result he then deleted his own thread. Truly these monkeys invariably always behave as expected.
I have, however, added, between his idiot comments, my corrections. As you will see many would require repetition, in which case I have tried to keep the corrections at least entertaining for the reader. This cretin goes under the name of @MBibliophile on SG. But in his defence, as you will see from my final comments at the end, I believe his main issue is stupidity and arrogance, rather than intentional deception. Am I not kind in making this assessment, I ask you? Yes, yes I am.
His pathetic words in thin normal, mine in bold truth.
This frustrates me. Mutiny is a last step, and it’s only happened a handful of times in the Church e.g. Boniface VIII.
Mutiny would imply a valid Captain at the helm. There is no such thing. And recognising a Satanist as a Pope is not only retarded, it is schismatic and heretical to do so. Obviously and dogmatically of course. So no, there is no mutiny. YOU are in fact a schismatic moron following a servant of Satan as though he were even Catholic, never mind Pope.
As Catholics, we’re supposed to understand that authority, even when mishandled, still matters.
So why don’t you understand it at all? Why are you ignoring the infallible magisterium Of the Church which commands you to ignore false clerics and call out heresy wherever it is obvious to see?
We each have a part to play, and the hierarchy has its own roles. I have no problem stating that a pope ceases to act with Christ’s authority (i.e. be His vicar) when his actions run contra to Christ’s revealed and explicit instructions, but at the same time I don’t have the authority to remove him from his seat.
You are too stupid to converse with on such matters.
NCO’s don’t oust officers except as a last resort, but good ones know how to ignore illegal orders while working to get other officers to police their own.
Your analogy is not just completely inappropriate and irrelevant to the case at hand concerning the Papacy.It is also factually wrong anyway.
I trust that God will hear the prayers of His faithful without open rebellion and schism.
He does. Which is why your kind is becoming increasingly stupid and obviously so to anyone even marginally logical and of normal intelligence that cares to look at you. And why the fake Popes and their minions also continue to fall in eternal disrepute as Sedevacantism continues to grow.And the schism happened long ago at Vatican 2. You are part of it.
I’ll take St Athanasius as my model and trust in the Almighty; I don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by choosing an empty seat as an anti-pope.
You are not a Saint. You have no understanding of what any of them did or did not do. And your last sentence does not make sense in any permutation of the English language, since chairs are not Popes, empty or otherwise. Literally, you are too stupid to write basic English. Confine yourself to being like the illiterate peasant of old and do as you are told by valid priests. Yours is not to think, but to obey. You can’t do what you have not the faculties for after all.
This causes me to believe that what we are doing is quibbling over vocabulary, which is understandable.
No. You literally cannot read (or write) basic English. There is no quibble. You don’t even grasp the concepts being discussed.
Second, canon law is all well and good, but it’s a legal code not a doctrinal document, which means that it is not considered infallible.
You are retarded and ignorant, so let me explain this slowly.Canon law comprises both doctrinal and non-doctrinal points. Anyone even remotely catechised has no problem knowing which parts are which. Those not catechised but able to read can figure it out by following the references for each canon. Since in this case canon 188.4 refers directly to Cum Ex Apostolato Officio, it is absolutely eternal and infallible as are ALL and ANY of the Papal encyclicals issued in the two millennia of the Church.
Stop blathering in abysmal ignorance.
Regardless, it should not be changed to meet the fickle times so the legal argument has some merit, though how much is still open to debate.
No. You utter moron.
This is more a pedantic quibble on my part, and not particularly material as I agree in spirit.
No one cares about your personal opinion and it is absolutely irrelevant. You are only being made an example of as a teaching aid.And there is no “quibble”. You are ignorant, stupid and wrong.
Finally, a question: do you consider the Chair of St Peter to be effectively empty any time a pope commits material heresy?
No. Because that is NOT how it works. And only an ahistorical cretin ignorant of practically all of Church history would think this.
If so, we agree.
Did I mention you’re stupid, ignorant and wrong?You do not possess the IQ to even understand the position in general, much less whether you are in “agreement” with me. Especially on concepts you don’t even grasp. There is no possible agreement because yours is a category error, you don’t even grasp the concept you think you “agree” with me on.
Where I get hung up is on who has the authority to determine such and at what convenience.
It’s basic Catechism and known to anyone who has ever bothered to read or understand the Catholic Church at all. The infallible magisterium of the Church is the only one that has such authority. This is not some secret hidden mystery. It’s literally pre-school level Catholicism.
God alone sees a man’s heart, everyone else has to work through our treacherous senses, and it is no small matter to arrogate God’s authority to oneself.
You are the only one stupid enough to assume anyone here is doing that. Projecting much?
If the conclave of ‘58 was rigged, it was hardly the only one.
Name a single one that resulted in the acceptance of an antipope as a Pope.
For the nth time, none of this is new. The Church has been here before, sadly many times.
No. Analogous situations are not identical. And only one other time has there been something analogous to the current situation and it’s clear you don’t know what it is.
That Kurgan admits to multiple antipopes previous to 1958 is my clue that we don’t really disagree except on details (that and I always understood antipope to be a very specific term rather than a general one, but I digress).
You are in fact clueless. And we agree on precisely NOTHING.
In short, as I said, there is NOTHING you even CAN agree with me on here. You are the antithesis to my position. Antithesis. Look it up.
My concern is with the question of authority, not that popes who commit material heresy retain the vicarage of Christ. That question goes back at least to the Great Schism and has never been adequately answered.
It has always been answered. Factually, obviously and eternally.The fact you don’t even understand the CONCEPT of authority is beside the point.As is your abysmal laziness and ignorance.Although to be fair you may not be lazy, just too stupid to understand the concepts in question. Hence return to the field to plow the land and do as you’re told.
Yes, I agree.
No. You not only do not; you CANNOT. Because you don’t even grasp the concepts you THINK you’re “arguing” about.
But who bells the cat? Setting aside that canon law is not magisterium,
It is in the doctrinal parts. Which is why it was created you utter imbecille. It was the ENTIRE reason Pope Pius X started it.
but rather a legal code governing the hierarchy,
It is far more than that. Truly, why do you speak of things you have not bothered to grasp even the basics of?
who brings formal accusations of material heresy against a sitting pope?
The law itself. It’s literally stated in canon 188.4. Why are you even asking? Are you too stupid to understand basic English? It’s clearly stated. How do you even tie your shoelaces in the morning? Ah… wait… slip-ons forever eh?
How is he tried?
No trial is required. Again. It’s clearly spelt out. You really need to learn to read.
As for how do we get rid of him materially, it’s simple.
It’s done by anyone willing and able to do so.He is not Catholic. He is not a Pope. If it weren’t for the vast millions of idiots like yourself, what would happen is what has always happened: the laity would turf out the impostor on his ass and he’d be lucky to not get killed in the process. No Catholic owes him anything but contempt and scorn.
In short, your abysmal idiocy and that of your co-morons (always a majority at any given time) is all that stands between people like me and Bergoglio. But the tide is changing, as people like me continue to educate and bitchslap cretins like you and out ranks continue to grow, eventually the numbers will be with us too.
We actually do have the answers to those questions, but with regard to the current pope the most important one that isn’t answered is that if he is guilty of committing material heresy, why has no bishop made the formal accusation?
Every valid Bishop has in fact made this accusation and have done so since Vatican 2. But you being an idiot assume other non-Catholic Freemasonic Satanists are actual Bishops. And would police themselves. I did say you’re profoundly stupid didn’t I?
Are we truly arguing that the whole Order of Bishops is corrupt?
No. I told you, you are NOT arguing. You’re an imbecille making word noises. And it’s not an argument anyway, it’s an obvious and logical fact supported by the infallible magisterium of the Church in the form of Canon 188.4 as already explained. Ad nauseam.
The harshest I’ve seen is a Dubia over some of his statements, but not one formal accusation of heresy that I know of.
Satanists do not bring other satanists to account for Satanism. What a shock! Did I explain your stupidity is deeper than the Mariana Trench?
@Kurgan If I’m wrong on the issue of canon law, I am open to correction.
Consider yourself corrected.
I am speaking of my own understanding and as I have not exhaustively researched it, I am more than willing to discover that I have been mistaken.
Why are you talking on matters you have not bothered to even understand, much less research then? Why?
Answer the question.
Paul IV is a good starting point.
No. It’s an end point. And eternal. And always was. Paul IV just realised people like you exist and he made sure even them had no way to avoid the obvious.
My concern is not with the authority of the magisterium, which comes from Christ Himself, but with its exercise. As I said above, it’s all well and good to say someone is a heretic, but what of practicalities? The laity cannot formally accuse.
Did I mention your stupidity?But did I mention it enough?The accusation, judgement and sentence has ALREADY been done. By the magisterium of the Church as is CLEARLY spelt out in Canon 188.4 in plain, simple, obvious language.
You moron.
Read.
The.
Words.
Do we even have the mechanism for calling a council for a trial?
There is NO NEED FOR ONE. You absolute retard. How many times?!? He is already convicted and judged and no further pronouncement by ANYONE is required. PRECISELY AS IT SAYS IN CANIN 188.4.
If all it takes to be a sedeprivationist is to say that I believe the pope to have committed material heresy based on X, Y, and Z, thus forfeiting the vicarage of Christ, then many of us are already there without knowing it.
It’s not difficult to be Catholic. Illiterate peasants have done it throughout the centuries and done it well.Know your place. You are the modern equivalent of an illiterate peasant. You have the APPEARANCE of being lettered but in truth you are closer to a monkey hammering away mindlessly at a typewriter. Stick to eating peanuts and digging holes in the ground.
I don’t like Pope Francis.
Your tastes are utterly and completely irrelevant. It is not a matter of taste or fashion, you buffoon.
I have said so several times.
And it’s still and eternally irrelevant even if you do it a million tines. Just like the barks of a baboon into the void.
However, I do not have the authority to interpret his actions according to the magisterium and formally call him a heretic, whatever my beliefs.
No one ever even imagined ever, in the entire history of humanity, that you did. No one but you has ever been so stupid as to even mention the words.
Okay, we’re officially talking past each other @Kurgan. I know that’s not how Papal Infallibility works, I’ve made several arguments in favor of it by how it really functions.
You could not define Papal infallibility without cutting and pasting it from somewhere if your life depended on it. And even if you memorised it verbatim you would not understand what it means. All of which is beside the point.
Also, I understood that if a pope was a committed material heretic he lost the vicarage of Christ. If that is not the case, then I was mistaken. Finally, I’m not a Protestant, so please don’t mislabel me as such.
You are an EX-Protestant by your own definition. But in fact you still ARE one, since you cling to the Protestant Vatican 2 heresies. I’m not the one mislabelling you. You are. You’re no Catholic.
I’m arguing at a disadvantage here because A) I don’t disagree with you all that much
No, you don’t even understand the situation at all. Again; this is NOT an argument. This is a spanking. Go put some cream on your butthurt.
and B) I don’t think I understand exactly what your stance is.
That’s because “my” stance is simply the one that all Catholics have always had, and you NOT being a Catholic, and ignorant to a profound degree of what it means to be one, have NO IDEA what’s going on. Yet you feel entitled to blab. Stop. Take your beating and learn.
I might have to pick up your book so that I can get a better window on your mind than this format affords me.
My mind is irrelevant. None of this is about anyone’s “mind” or opinion. It’s about objective facts in evidence, logic, reason, the infallible Church and ultimately God and His will for us and how we comport ourselves here on Earth. My “mind” (opinion) and much more so yours, are utterly irrelevant.
@TVCL that is an informal accusation, not a formal one. Big difference.
No. Not a difference AT ALL, IF you understood how canon law actually works. Canon 188.4 is indeed INFORMAL, but it is also absolute and requires NO further formality, pronouncement, court, judgement or anything else. It is FINAL. It is quite unique in Canon Law and it is so for a simple principle of obvious logic. A self-confessed heretic needs no further official pronouncement to be treated as such by everyone.
As an aside @TVCL was in any case wrong and not commenting on this point but since we are here to educate…
You spent too much time yelling at me about things we don’t disagree on or words you’ve put into my mouth.
Nope. Every one of your galactic sized imbecilic statements is your own and I have not invented a single one of them. Also, do not dare to compare yourself with me. I am a Catholic, you are not. There IS nor can there be ANY agreement. You are wrong in toto and I am right. End of.
This is why I don’t like arguing with you: you treat anyone who doesn’t full throatedly agree as your enemy and blow up at them.
I treat arrogant idiots like you as they deserve to be treated: like arrogant idiots.It is salutary for other arrogant idiots, as they see the fate that awaits them if they dare act the same as you and teaches the relaxed Normies that beating idiots like you with sticks until you repent or leave our vicinity forever is fun and good and beautiful and true.
If I am wrong, I will reexamine my assumptions in light of your corrections and proceed from there, specifically the primacy of canon law, which is our major fundamental disagreement, if it is even that.
I will not hold my breath as I await your imminent apology and humble acceptance of your gross errors. But… should such a miracle occur, I will accept it graciously as is my charitable nature to do so.
When you’re done burning my straw image, we can talk again.
It’s not your “straw image” I have metaphorically burnt at the stake here, you utterly arrogant, ignorant moron. It is you. You and your stupid arrogance that makes you speak as if you understood, knew or had any knowledge sufficient to even enter the discourse.You do not.You are ignorant. You have no right to your ignorant opinion.You are stupid. You continue to repeat the same idiotic points pretending we are “in agreement” on some things when we are absolutely not.You are stupid. Even when the reason why there is no agreement is pointed out you STILL don’t get it (you don’t even understand the CONCEPT, so it’s a category error to even say you are wrong about a detail. You have no right to even talk about the subject, because you literally don’t understand the basica of it).You are stupid. You don’t bother to check, verify, read or understand the points before continuing to blather on in the same state of stupid ignorance.Finally, and this is the root of your flaw, you are arrogant. You think yourself sufficiently knowledgeable, intelligent, smart to continue to state blatantly wrong things as if they were right. That is pride. The typical pride of the ignorant, stupid, know-it-all.While I may APPEAR arrogant, especially to stupid ignorants like yourself, the factual reality is simply that I am almost invariably:
The reason for that is because ARROGANT cretins like yourself never learn other than from a public beating in the town square, and I am uniquely qualified to deliver such beatings. So you shall receive them, and when the burning of the ass-paddling eventually subsides a few years from now, you MAY have learnt something. And even if that something is only to never argue with your intellectual betters or at least with ME, then something of worth will jave been achieved. Think of it as a divinely provided talent I have, if you like. Also, and finally, you are welcome.I point this out because you are (as amply demonstrated) too stupid to understand that this blog post is a work of utter charity, spending my very precious time in educating you in the only way that MIGHT lead you to correct your stupidity, ignorance, and above all ARROGANCE, and thus, possibly, save your miserable and unworthy soul.And if not, it may at least be instructive to others who might be flirting with the same afflictions of ignorance, stupidity and arrogance that have clearly persecuted you since early childhood.
No related posts.
Tags: catholicism, humour, sedeprivationism
This entry was posted in Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.