Posted on 10/13/2016 3:20:45 PM PDT by ebb tide
Looks like there is a love affair of disobedience brewing between Frankie and ebb tide. Who knew?
I see you're still making up crap out of thin air. I'm not surprised.
I also guess this must mean that Fellay and the schizzies, all worked up over their offended tastes almighty, don't have anywhere near such a problem with communion for the divorced and illicitly remarried, for those whose, umm, tastes in lovers preclude ever being married in the Church, for the coming wave of Islamicization of Europe, for the half vast Marxism of Frankie, etc.
I get a kick out of your love and regard for Frankie the Apostate compared with how you and the LeFebvrite schizzies have always despised Pope St. John Paul II. Truly instructive. Remember how worked up y'all got over a photo purporting to be JP II "kissing" the Koran? Your boy Frankie is demanding that they be allowed to overrun Europe in spite of their little habit of crucifying children and blowing up schools and shopping centers. Show me your friends, etc.
As to your two cents, no one has to pay me to be Catholic. No worry that I might be elected pope since I am married and not clergy and my election would be highly unlikely particularly in the age of your pal Frankie.
No just observing as to the necessary implications of your newfound passion for Frankie. They had a big meal at the last conclave and by the next day, Frankie resulted.
So I see you have become a sedevacanist. As you should well know, neither an apostate, nor a heretic, can be a valid pope.
Tell us please if you consider, Cardinal Müller and Archbishop Ladaria Ferrer to also be apostate "catholics".
Or do you consider yourself to be the last remaining Catholic on earth? If not give your "Pope" Michael his due worship.
When you posted that ONLY CATHOLIC priests can consecrate the Holy Eucharist, you essentially denied the validity of Orthodox orders and that the Eastern Orthodox have Apostolic Succession. Tragically so do the SSPX schizzies or we would not have to pay them any attention at all until they are again excommunicated. Good to see that you have corrected yourself
I didn’t deny squat. I’m tired of your false witness. Even Rome and the Orthodox consider themselves to be in the catholic church. I hope you know what “catholic” means; but I’m beginning to doubt it.
See post #78.
Cardinal Muller has no known track record as an apostate. Archbishop Ladaria Ferrer: Who?
Don't knock "Pope" Michael of North Dakota. First ,he is no more of a comic opera figure than LeFebvre. Of course he lacks credentials as a validly consecrated bishop but that never bothers your schizzie pals. They will just ordain him a priest, consecrate him a bishop, and coronate him pope without so much as a by your leave to the Vatcan which is the schizzie "tradition."
Secondly, WHEN the schizzies are again excommunicated, they will need a "pope." Why not Michael of North Dakota. He is about as much a pope as the late excommunicated Marcel. That won't bother the schizzies either as we well know.
Third, when you add Pope Michael and his immediate relatives to the schism it may double their membership when they are willing to admit HAVING membership which they have generally resisted admitting so as to have the hapless followers be a moving target.
Finally, I am one of the last 1.25 billion Catholics on earth and I won't be lonely any time soon. When you attend FSSP Mass this Sunday, be sure to ask the priest why he does not join or re-join SSPX.
And John Hinckley thought is was "necessary" to assassinate Ronald Reagan in order to gain Jodie Foster's attention.
And John Wayne Gacey thought it was "necessary" to rape, murder and bury 26 young men in his basement.
Just observing.
Then you are a sedevacantist.
For your further edification:
Apostasy
The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate. Most authors, however, distinguish with Benedict XIV (De Synodo di£cesanâ, XIII, xi, 9), between three kinds of apostasy: apostasy a Fide or perfidi£, when a Christian gives up his faith; apostasy ab ordine, when a cleric abandons the ecclesiastical state; apostasy a religione, or monachatus, when a religious leaves the religious life. The Gloss on title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX mentions two other kinds of apostasy: apostasy inobedientiæ, disobedience to a command given by lawful authority, and iteratio baptismatis, the repetition of baptism, “quoniam reiterantes baptismum videntur apostatare dum recedunt a priori baptismate”. As all sin involves disobedience, the apostasy inobedientiæ does not constitute a specific offense. In the case of iteratio baptismatis, the offence falls rather under the head of heresy and irregularity than of apostasy; if the latter name has sometimes been given to it, it is due to the fact that the Decretals of Gregory IX combine into one title, under the rubric “De apostatis et reiterantibus baptisma” (V, title 9) the two distinct titles of the Justinian Code: “Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur” and “De apostatis” (I, titles 6, 7), in Corpus juris civilis ed. Krueger, (Berlin, 1888); II 60-61. See München “Das kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht” (Cologne, 1874), II, 362, 363. Apostasy, in its strictest sense, means apostasy a Fide (St. Thomas, Summa theologica, II-II, Q. xii a. 1).
Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ
Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm
I don't believe you are a Catholic.
When you attend FSSP Mass this Sunday, be sure to ask the priest why he does not join or re-join SSPX.
Why should I? There's a reason both my FSSP priest and I are at his Mass and not an SSPX mass.
Why don't you ask your ICK priest why he does not join or re-join the SSPX?
Article 1. Whether apostasy pertains to unbelief?
Question 12. Apostasy
Objection 1. It would seem that apostasy does not pertain to unbelief. For that which is the origin of all sins, does not, seemingly, pertain to unbelief, since many sins there are without unbelief. Now apostasy seems to be the origin of every sin, for it is written (Sirach 10:14): “The beginning of the pride of man is apostasy [Douay: ‘to fall off’] from God,” and further on, (Sirach 10:15): “Pride is the beginning of all sin.” Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.
Objection 2. Further, unbelief is an act of the understanding: whereas apostasy seems rather to consist in some outward deed or utterance, or even in some inward act of the will, for it is written (Proverbs 6:12-14): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man walketh with a perverse mouth. He winketh with the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh with the finger. With a wicked heart he deviseth evil, and at all times he soweth discord.” Moreover if anyone were to have himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate. Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.
Objection 3. Further, heresy, since it pertains to unbelief, is a determinate species of unbelief. If then, apostasy pertained to unbelief, it would follow that it is a determinate species of unbelief, which does not seem to agree with what has been said (II-II:10:5. Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.
On the contrary, It is written (John 6:67): “Many of his disciples went back,” i.e. apostatized, of whom Our Lord had said previously (John 6:65): “There are some of you that believe not.” Therefore apostasy pertains to unbelief.
I answer that, Apostasy denotes a backsliding from God. This may happen in various ways according to the different kinds of union between man and God. For, in the first place, man is united to God by faith; secondly, by having his will duly submissive in obeying His commandments; thirdly, by certain special things pertaining to supererogation such as the religious life, the clerical state, or Holy Orders. Now if that which follows be removed, that which precedes, remains, but the converse does not hold. Accordingly a man may apostatize from God, by withdrawing from the religious life to which he was bound by profession, or from the Holy Order which he had received: and this is called “apostasy from religious life” or “Orders.” A man may also apostatize from God, by rebelling in his mind against the Divine commandments: and though man may apostatize in both the above ways, he may still remain united to God by faith.
But if he give up the faith, then he seems to turn away from God altogether: and consequently, apostasy simply and absolutely is that whereby a man withdraws from the faith, and is called “apostasy of perfidy.” On this way apostasy, simply so called, pertains to unbelief.
Reply to Objection 1. This objection refers to the second kind of apostasy, which denotes an act of the will in rebellion against God’s commandments, an act that is to be found in every mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 2. It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is “impossible to please God”; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Proverbs 6:12): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man”: because faith is the life of the soul, according to Romans 1:17: “The just man liveth by faith.” Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man’s every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that “he sows discord,” endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.
Reply to Objection 3. The species of a quality or form are not diversified by the fact of its being the term “wherefrom” or “whereto” of movement: on the contrary, it is the movement that takes its species from the terms. Now apostasy regards unbelief as the term “whereto” of the movement of withdrawal from the faith; wherefore apostasy does not imply a special kind of unbelief, but an aggravating circumstance thereof, according to 2 Peter 2:21: “It had been better for them not to know the truth [Vulgate: ‘the way of justice’], than after they had known it, to turn back.”
Article 2. Whether a prince forfeits his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, so that they no longer owe him allegiance?
Objection 1. It would seem that a prince does not so forfeit his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, that they no longer owe him allegiance. For Ambrose [St. Augustine, Super Psalm 124:3 says that the Emperor Julian, though an apostate, nevertheless had under him Christian soldiers, who when he said to them, “Fall into line for the defense of the republic,” were bound to obey. Therefore subjects are not absolved from their allegiance to their prince on account of his apostasy.
Objection 2. Further, an apostate from the faith is an unbeliever. Now we find that certain holy men served unbelieving masters; thus Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel served Nabuchodonosor, and Mardochai served Assuerus. Therefore apostasy from the faith does not release subjects from allegiance to their sovereign.
Objection 3. Further, just as by apostasy from the faith, a man turns away from God, so does every sin. Consequently if, on account of apostasy from the faith, princes were to lose their right to command those of their subjects who are believers, they would equally lose it on account of other sins: which is evidently not the case. Therefore we ought not to refuse allegiance to a sovereign on account of his apostatizing from the faith.
On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Council, Roman V): “Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who through loyalty or through the sacred bond of an oath owe allegiance to excommunicated persons: and we absolutely forbid them to continue their allegiance to such persons, until these shall have made amends.” Now apostates from the faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the Decretal [Extra, De Haereticis, cap. Ad abolendam]. Therefore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized from the faith.
I answer that, As stated above (II-II:10:10), unbelief, in itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since dominion is a device of the law of nations which is a human law: whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers is of Divine right, which does not annul human right. Nevertheless a man who sins by unbelief may be sentenced to the loss of his right of dominion, as also, sometimes, on account of other sins.
Now it is not within the competency of the Church to punish unbelief in those who have never received the faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 5:12): “What have I to do to judge them that are without?” She can, however, pass sentence of punishment on the unbelief of those who have received the faith: and it is fitting that they should be punished by being deprived of the allegiance of their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce to great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above (Article 1, Objection 2), “a man that is an apostate . . . with a wicked heart deviseth evil, and . . . soweth discord,” in order to sever others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence of excommunication is passed on a man on account of apostasy from the faith, his subjects are “ipso facto” absolved from his authority and from the oath of allegiance whereby they were bound to him.
Reply to Objection 1. At that time the Church was but recently instituted, and had not, as yet, the power of curbing earthly princes; and so she allowed the faithful to obey Julian the Apostate, in matters that were not contrary to the faith, in order to avoid incurring a yet greater danger.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated in the article, it is not a question of those unbelievers who have never received the faith.
Reply to Objection 3. Apostasy from the faith severs man from God altogether, as stated above (Article 1), which is not the case in any other sin.
St. Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologiae; Second Part of the Second Part; Question 12.
Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.
Yes. Christ, His Word, Truth is what defines clearly the division, separates wheat from chaff, good fruit from bad, heaven from hell.
This Pope blurs division, creates false division, and hides division with slight of hand -all this, for a false peace that ignorance labels love.
Regardless, the Magisterium, the Deposit of Faith remain inviolate and will always be so. False prophets and bad Popes come and go. Those who muddy truth are only middlemen to the ignorant within and without the Church. May God have mercy upon their souls....
You may not.
Yup. Those that are Catholic and recognize that we must be living in an interregnum are called sedevacantists. That is the most basic definition of sedevacantism.
What IS the reason why, snuggling up to SSPX as you do, you wisely do not attend their near occasion of sin where you could be further propagandized as to how "necessary" Marcel's rebellion against legitimate authority was?
So you believe that the only Catholics are the ones who bash Pope Saint John Paul II for upholding papal authority and celebrate Frankie for smooching the schizzies (after all, who is HE to judge mere schism)?
Well, I do until the evidence proves otherwise.
How would you know? I know you NEVER answer questions (how could you?) BUT is it because you think that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of Guissepe Cardinal Siri, claimed by many sedevacantists to have been elected not once but twice (1958 and 1963) as “Pope” Gregory XVII?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.