I have come to a conclusion
#51
amisimp what part of
"he is the pope hes election is valid."

do you not understand in my above statement?
thank you
Reply
#52
(04-29-2010, 12:04 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: amisimp what part of
"he is the pope hes election is valid."

do you not understand in my above statement?
thank you

I'm tired of arguing with you.  I see an apparent contradiction in your statements regarding the validity of BXVI's papacy and your belief that the NO is protestant.  Apparently you do not. 

I do not think we are going to get anywhere further in this discussion.
Reply
#53
the contradiction is not that of the sspx nor me it is that of the new church. it is indeed a contradiction. the No doesn't place the priest who offer it outside the church anymore then when a priest sins he is no longer  a priest. that's not how it works. if you want to discuss why an dhow the NO is not catholic then lets start a thread on it. but we agree the contradiction is the church offers a non catholic mass yet claims to be catholic? it claims to be the exact same church as it was before vpoo. yet it offers a non catholic mass. so then the question is what gives? if the new church is catholic and the church before vpoo is catholic yet they contradict each other in almost everything that is a logical contradiction. im not the one talkin backwards and forwards at the same time. the church has been doin that for over 40 years now.
amisimp why would the church offer  a bastard mass? can you at least answer one of my questions lol
cough
Reply
#54
(04-29-2010, 12:11 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: the contradiction is not that of the sspx nor me it is that of the new church. it is indeed a contradiction. the No doesn't place the priest who offer it outside the church anymore then when a priest sins he is no longer  a priest. that's not how it works. if you want to discuss why an dhow the NO is not catholic then lets start a thread on it. but we agree the contradiction is the church offers a non catholic mass yet claims to be catholic? it claims to be the exact same church as it was before vpoo. yet it offers a non catholic mass. so then the question is what gives? if the new church is catholic and the church before vpoo is catholic yet they contradict each other in almost everything that is a logical contradiction. im not the one talkin backwards and forwards at the same time. the church has been doin that for over 40 years now.
amisimp why would the church offer  a bastard mass? can you at least answer one of my questions lol
cough

Agreed...a new thread needs to be started.
Reply
#55
(04-29-2010, 11:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: he was ordained pre vpoo. he is the pope hes election is valid. . but he offers a non catholic mass the NO. but he also sees the NO as an on the spot banal fabrication in other words a bastard. i don't see what your plm is in this. so will you now answer my question?

Yeah, what DK said. JP the small prayed with heretics and kissed the Koran. Even though he was guilty of these heresies he was still the pope.

Popes can and do err, just not when they speak ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Something that I don't believe any Pope has done since Pope Pius XII.

Reply
#56
amisimp go for it
look forward to it
Reply
#57
(04-29-2010, 11:29 AM)amasimp Wrote:
(04-29-2010, 11:19 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: no are you?

No, but that is the logical conclusion to your previous statement.  If you believe that Benedict XVI is the pope only because he was ordained prior to VII, then what happens when the next pope elected was ordained post VII? 

Also, I'm quite familiar with the quote that Ratzinger believes the NO to be a "banal, on the spot fabrication", however he still celebrates it both publicly and privately, so it can't be too bad in his view.  So clearly he is Novus Ordo, but you say the NO is not Catholic while at the same time say he is the pope.  Do you see the contradiction?

Actually, there are reports that BXVI says a private TLM.

Reply
#58
(04-29-2010, 12:16 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: amisimp go for it
look forward to it

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...532.0.html
Reply
#59
sip sip
Reply
#60
(04-29-2010, 01:28 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(04-28-2010, 07:11 PM)Credo Wrote:
Baskerville Wrote:part of the one world religion started by JPII the Apostate clown Pope.

Please source such statements.

No statements, ACTIONS. I am currently praying a novena for our Holy Father that asks in one part " O Lord may he lead us by his words and actions."
JPII his actions were Assisi I,II, Kissing the satanic koran, and asking St John the Baptist to bless Islam. Now If you can name another Pope before him that would have dared to do such unchristian things I would love to hear it.

The actions should not be considered in isolation from the statements.  From them, we know what he was trying to convey with his actions and it was not anything contrary to Catholicism.  He was trying to show respect to other religions in order to evangelize them.  He never suggested that other religions were as good Catholicism or that people could be saved through them.  It is reasonable if you want to criticize him for poor judgment is using gestures that were open to misinterpretation.  It is not reasonable to misinterpret them in the face of the meanings that he has stated.  His statements make it clear that he was not guilty of heresy or apostacy. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)