Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2013, 05:26 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Is it me or do all of our recent visitors tend to be religiously crazy as opposed to crazy religious?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ridethespiral's post
01-11-2013, 05:40 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 08:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 04:27 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  No, nobody is excommunicated for rejecting a council that is approved by a false pope, because a council cannot become approved unless a true pope approves of it.

The Scriptures say at some time towards the end of the world there will be an Antichrist. Included is the prediction that the Church will hide from his face for years, and that at the end of the world there will hardly be found faith on earth. This is prime Catholicism you are unaware of. St. Bernard believed the Antichrist would be a false pope deceiving the majority of Catholic of the world. This is on record with full acceptance of possibility. (See Catholic Encyclopedia article on ANTICHRIST). Let me give a few quotes to support this:

"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
- St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"

An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

BTW, you are totally correct about the "willfully rejecting faith" grammar. It was an error on my part. Stop being pedantic just because you need to make some cheap points. Grammatical and spelling errors are liberally overlooked in this media of communication.

Now all ya gotta do, since YOU expect ME to accept the authority of the Catholic Encyclopedia, is to provide us ONE place where it says any pope in the 20th Century, or 21st Century was "heretical", or where it says ONE Catholic theologian says that. Take your time. You are such a pathetic sedevacantist, you can't even say exactly why, or when the errors began. It's not up to uneducated individuals to decide who they think who is, or is not a "false pope", especially someone who has no degree in Theology. There is no such rank as "prime Catholicism". Bernard of Clairvaux was no recognized church authority, with authority over anyone, and you have failed to demonstrate that what he said, applies to the situation you claim. What he believed is irrelevant, and there is no evidence it is the "end of the world". There is a lot of evidence, apparently, you have lost your marbles. you have STILL FAILED to state EVEN ONE point, (as you have proven all the way through this pathetic thread), that you are totally incompetent as a debater. You can't even say when and where the pope, you claim was in error, was in error, (or even get the decade right, in which he fell into error), or how you came to that conclusion. One does not have to resort to cheap points with you. You make our points for us, as you demonstrate a total ignorance of your subject matter. I repeat. Where did you get your degree ? You're WAY over your head here. Tongue
Maybe some holy water from Lourdes could help you, (but I doubt it). By all means, continue to make a fool of yourself. You think you can play with the big kids, but don't even belong on the playground, from what we've seen. BTW, waiting ...... for the answers about faith and your "proofs".
So the ex-communicant is preaching about "falling away". Heh heh.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-11-2013, 06:40 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 05:26 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Is it me or do all of our recent visitors tend to be religiously crazy as opposed to crazy religious?

Well you can't be almost 100% sure of something.
Its either 100% or some thing less than absolute.

Theists will lose 100% of their absolute belief if they have to question things,
so they don't, won't, can't. (lets ride the gap-ism train of denial)

The fundies think because we (unbelievers) are not 100% sure god is bullshit, then they have already won the argument. fucked up logic, but I can sort of understand it.

So even a pacifist church going agnostic will end up crazily opposed to a Theist dug into their trench, refusing to even mentally process arguments.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 03:45 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Apparently you are a fallen-away Catholic yourself.

(01-11-2013 04:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm not a "fallen away". I never was one.

(01-11-2013 04:21 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  You are fallen-away, aren't you?

Huh.

That's one way to be. Insistently delusional.

Well, whatever works for you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
02-11-2013, 02:14 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 05:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 04:27 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  No, nobody is excommunicated for rejecting a council that is approved by a false pope, because a council cannot become approved unless a true pope approves of it.

The Scriptures say at some time towards the end of the world there will be an Antichrist. Included is the prediction that the Church will hide from his face for years, and that at the end of the world there will hardly be found faith on earth. This is prime Catholicism you are unaware of. St. Bernard believed the Antichrist would be a false pope deceiving the majority of Catholic of the world. This is on record with full acceptance of possibility. (See Catholic Encyclopedia article on ANTICHRIST). Let me give a few quotes to support this:

"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
- St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"

An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

BTW, you are totally correct about the "willfully rejecting faith" grammar. It was an error on my part. Stop being pedantic just because you need to make some cheap points. Grammatical and spelling errors are liberally overlooked in this media of communication.

Now all ya gotta do, since YOU expect ME to accept the authority of the Catholic Encyclopedia, is to provide us ONE place where it says any pope in the 20th Century, or 21st Century was "heretical", or where it says ONE Catholic theologian says that. Take your time. You are such a pathetic sedevacantist, you can't even say exactly why, or when the errors began. It's not up to uneducated individuals to decide who they think who is, or is not a "false pope", especially someone who has no degree in Theology. There is no such rank as "prime Catholicism". Bernard of Clairvaux was no recognized church authority, with authority over anyone, and you have failed to demonstrate that what he said, applies to the situation you claim. What he believed is irrelevant, and there is no evidence it is the "end of the world". There is a lot of evidence, apparently, you have lost your marbles. you have STILL FAILED to state EVEN ONE point, (as you have proven all the way through this pathetic thread), that you are totally incompetent as a debater. You can't even say when and where the pope, you claim was in error, was in error, (or even get the decade right, in which he fell into error), or how you came to that conclusion. One does not have to resort to cheap points with you. You make our points for us, as you demonstrate a total ignorance of your subject matter. I repeat. Where did you get your degree ? You're WAY over your head here. Tongue
Maybe some holy water from Lourdes could help you, (but I doubt it). By all means, continue to make a fool of yourself. You think you can play with the big kids, but don't even belong on the playground, from what we've seen. BTW, waiting ...... for the answers about faith and your "proofs".
So the ex-communicant is preaching about "falling away". Heh heh.

No, Bucky, I don't expect you to accept the authority of the CE yourself. I expect you to recognize it as an authority for Catholics.

It is clearly recognized in Catholicism that it is possible for a pope to become a heretic and automatically cease being pope. I gave the quotes that plainly say so. St. Bernard is a Doctor of the Church, a recognized authority. The point about him was that his belief merely means it is likely the Antichrist will be a false pope fooling the majority of Catholics around the world.

I find it strange that you, as a so-called atheist, have all the Catholic lingo, and even have an interest to fight against that possibility as if it personally bothers you.

You say, "It's not up to uneducated individuals to decide who they think who is, or is not a "false pope", especially someone who has no degree in Theology."

Good, so you recognize the worth of a theologian! You asked for ONE theologian. Here he is: Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. (b.1898 – d.1988). He was the one who drew up the dogmatic encyclical for Pius XII in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus). He said all the Vatican II popes were false popes.

Now that I gave you one you asked for, are you going to ask for two? And when I give two, will you then ask for three, etc?

Ecumenism was previously condemned by the Church (see Mortalium Animos), and became all the rage with Vatican II. I don't have to know the exact minute a pope ceased to be pope. I just have to know PRESENTLY that a man continually promoting heresy via the magisterium is not a true pope. As an analogy: If I witness a man murder, he is a murderer, and I don't have to know when he first killed someone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Like so many others you have fallen away from your church, but you couch it in terms of the church falling away from its true doctrines. You come to atheists to reaffirm your faith and to feel that you can express your heretical beliefs without censure, or at least censure that counts.

Stepping away from the church is a first step to letting go of baseless beliefs. May you take many more.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
02-11-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(02-11-2013 06:29 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  you couch it in terms of the church falling away from its true doctrines.

I said no such thing. Hallucinating now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2013, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2013 11:05 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(02-11-2013 02:14 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 05:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Now all ya gotta do, since YOU expect ME to accept the authority of the Catholic Encyclopedia, is to provide us ONE place where it says any pope in the 20th Century, or 21st Century was "heretical", or where it says ONE Catholic theologian says that. Take your time. You are such a pathetic sedevacantist, you can't even say exactly why, or when the errors began. It's not up to uneducated individuals to decide who they think who is, or is not a "false pope", especially someone who has no degree in Theology. There is no such rank as "prime Catholicism". Bernard of Clairvaux was no recognized church authority, with authority over anyone, and you have failed to demonstrate that what he said, applies to the situation you claim. What he believed is irrelevant, and there is no evidence it is the "end of the world". There is a lot of evidence, apparently, you have lost your marbles. you have STILL FAILED to state EVEN ONE point, (as you have proven all the way through this pathetic thread), that you are totally incompetent as a debater. You can't even say when and where the pope, you claim was in error, was in error, (or even get the decade right, in which he fell into error), or how you came to that conclusion. One does not have to resort to cheap points with you. You make our points for us, as you demonstrate a total ignorance of your subject matter. I repeat. Where did you get your degree ? You're WAY over your head here. Tongue
Maybe some holy water from Lourdes could help you, (but I doubt it). By all means, continue to make a fool of yourself. You think you can play with the big kids, but don't even belong on the playground, from what we've seen. BTW, waiting ...... for the answers about faith and your "proofs".
So the ex-communicant is preaching about "falling away". Heh heh.

No, Bucky, I don't expect you to accept the authority of the CE yourself. I expect you to recognize it as an authority for Catholics.

It is clearly recognized in Catholicism that it is possible for a pope to become a heretic and automatically cease being pope. I gave the quotes that plainly say so. St. Bernard is a Doctor of the Church, a recognized authority. The point about him was that his belief merely means it is likely the Antichrist will be a false pope fooling the majority of Catholics around the world.

I find it strange that you, as a so-called atheist, have all the Catholic lingo, and even have an interest to fight against that possibility as if it personally bothers you.

You say, "It's not up to uneducated individuals to decide who they think who is, or is not a "false pope", especially someone who has no degree in Theology."

Good, so you recognize the worth of a theologian! You asked for ONE theologian. Here he is: Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. (b.1898 – d.1988). He was the one who drew up the dogmatic encyclical for Pius XII in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus). He said all the Vatican II popes were false popes.

Now that I gave you one you asked for, are you going to ask for two? And when I give two, will you then ask for three, etc?

Ecumenism was previously condemned by the Church (see Mortalium Animos), and became all the rage with Vatican II. I don't have to know the exact minute a pope ceased to be pope. I just have to know PRESENTLY that a man continually promoting heresy via the magisterium is not a true pope. As an analogy: If I witness a man murder, he is a murderer, and I don't have to know when he first killed someone.


The subject matter of "Munificentissimus Deus" was the Assumption, NOT Ecumenism. What the non-infallible opinion of des Lauriers is about anything is irrelevant. So, you remain at "0", (zero). Name TWO. The one you gave is irrelevant.
None of it "personally bothers me". It's fun to play with you idiots, as you yourselves don't know how to play your own stupid little games. You say you buy into sedevacantism, yet you cannot state ONE specific reason or ONE specific point why, or state when, or where, exactly they went off base. You have no clue what you are even talking about. You do relaize that 75 theologians, cardinals, and bishops also said birth control was acceptable in the 1960's. Yet you dismiss that, (the Pontifical Commission). You are so inconsistent, you are hilarious. So any stray theologian is to be listened to ? So Hans Kung is also your idol ? Hahahahaha. YOUR reference says encyclicals are NOT "ex cathedra". http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm Try harder, you heathen. Tongue Mortalium Animos was not "ex cathedra", and did not claim to be. You really need an education in your cult's pronouncements.

ARE you REALLY THAT stupid and dense ? YOU demand I accept it (the Catholic Encyclopedia), as an authority, yet YOU YOURSELF do not. Show me ONE place YOUR "accepted authority" tells you, (or any Catholic), that Vatican II was inauthentic, or that any recognized pope in the 20th or 21st Century was not authentic. You can't. Fail. Name ONE present cardinal or bishop that buys into your garbage. Almost all the bishops and cardinals at Vatican II were named by PRE-John XXIII popes, and you're trying to tell us they ALL went wrong at the same time ? LOL.

Maybe you better go back to school and actually pay attention this time, and learn a bit about your pathetic cult, (from which you excommunicated YOURSELF).

LMFAO

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(02-11-2013 10:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-11-2013 02:14 AM)Dearthair Wrote:  No, Bucky, I don't expect you to accept the authority of the CE yourself. I expect you to recognize it as an authority for Catholics.

It is clearly recognized in Catholicism that it is possible for a pope to become a heretic and automatically cease being pope. I gave the quotes that plainly say so. St. Bernard is a Doctor of the Church, a recognized authority. The point about him was that his belief merely means it is likely the Antichrist will be a false pope fooling the majority of Catholics around the world.

I find it strange that you, as a so-called atheist, have all the Catholic lingo, and even have an interest to fight against that possibility as if it personally bothers you.

You say, "It's not up to uneducated individuals to decide who they think who is, or is not a "false pope", especially someone who has no degree in Theology."

Good, so you recognize the worth of a theologian! You asked for ONE theologian. Here he is: Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. (b.1898 – d.1988). He was the one who drew up the dogmatic encyclical for Pius XII in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus). He said all the Vatican II popes were false popes.

Now that I gave you one you asked for, are you going to ask for two? And when I give two, will you then ask for three, etc?

Ecumenism was previously condemned by the Church (see Mortalium Animos), and became all the rage with Vatican II. I don't have to know the exact minute a pope ceased to be pope. I just have to know PRESENTLY that a man continually promoting heresy via the magisterium is not a true pope. As an analogy: If I witness a man murder, he is a murderer, and I don't have to know when he first killed someone.


The subject matter of "Munificentissimus Deus" was the Assumption, NOT Ecumenism. What the non-infallible opinion of des Lauriers is about anything is irrelevant. So, you remain at "0", (zero). Name TWO. The one you gave is irrelevant.
None of it "personally bothers me". It's fun to play with you idiots, as you yourselves don't know how to play your own stupid little games. You say you buy into sedevacantism, yet you cannot state ONE specific reason or ONE specific point why, or state when, or where, exactly they went off base. You have no clue what you are even talking about. You do relaize that 75 theologians, cardinals, and bishops also said birth control was acceptable in the 1960's. Yet you dismiss that, (the Pontifical Commission). You are so inconsistent, you are hilarious. So any stray theologian is to be listened to ? So Hans Kung is also your idol ? Hahahahaha. YOUR reference says encyclicals are NOT "ex cathedra". http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm Try harder, you heathen. Tongue Mortalium Animos was not "ex cathedra", and did not claim to be. You really need an education in your cult's pronouncements.

ARE you REALLY THAT stupid and dense ? YOU demand I accept it (the Catholic Encyclopedia), as an authority, yet YOU YOURSELF do not. Show me ONE place YOUR "accepted authority" tells you, (or any Catholic), that Vatican II was inauthentic, or that any recognized pope in the 20th or 21st Century was not authentic. You can't. Fail. Name ONE present cardinal or bishop that buys into your garbage. Almost all the bishops and cardinals at Vatican II were named by PRE-John XXIII popes, and you're trying to tell us they ALL went wrong at the same time ? LOL.

Maybe you better go back to school and actually pay attention this time, and learn a bit about your pathetic cult, (from which you excommunicated YOURSELF).

LMFAO

You asked for ONE theologian, and I gave you precisely that. Now you dismiss him because he is not infallible? All theologians are not infallible, so why did you ask for one?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(02-11-2013 12:48 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(02-11-2013 10:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
The subject matter of "Munificentissimus Deus" was the Assumption, NOT Ecumenism. What the non-infallible opinion of des Lauriers is about anything is irrelevant. So, you remain at "0", (zero). Name TWO. The one you gave is irrelevant.
None of it "personally bothers me". It's fun to play with you idiots, as you yourselves don't know how to play your own stupid little games. You say you buy into sedevacantism, yet you cannot state ONE specific reason or ONE specific point why, or state when, or where, exactly they went off base. You have no clue what you are even talking about. You do relaize that 75 theologians, cardinals, and bishops also said birth control was acceptable in the 1960's. Yet you dismiss that, (the Pontifical Commission). You are so inconsistent, you are hilarious. So any stray theologian is to be listened to ? So Hans Kung is also your idol ? Hahahahaha. YOUR reference says encyclicals are NOT "ex cathedra". http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm Try harder, you heathen. Tongue Mortalium Animos was not "ex cathedra", and did not claim to be. You really need an education in your cult's pronouncements.

ARE you REALLY THAT stupid and dense ? YOU demand I accept it (the Catholic Encyclopedia), as an authority, yet YOU YOURSELF do not. Show me ONE place YOUR "accepted authority" tells you, (or any Catholic), that Vatican II was inauthentic, or that any recognized pope in the 20th or 21st Century was not authentic. You can't. Fail. Name ONE present cardinal or bishop that buys into your garbage. Almost all the bishops and cardinals at Vatican II were named by PRE-John XXIII popes, and you're trying to tell us they ALL went wrong at the same time ? LOL.

Maybe you better go back to school and actually pay attention this time, and learn a bit about your pathetic cult, (from which you excommunicated YOURSELF).

LMFAO

You asked for ONE theologian, and I gave you precisely that. Now you dismiss him because he is not infallible? All theologians are not infallible, so why did you ask for one?

To demonstrate your inconsistency. Thumbsup

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: