David Berger Accuses Pope of Being Homosexual
#31
(04-14-2011, 01:11 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:08 PM)Vincentius Wrote: This pope is a validly elected pope, so he is off limits (nobody judges the pope, either in the internal or external forum) to such criticisms such as his immoral character. 

Behold papolatry at its best.

St. Paul was "hating the Church" too when he publicly reprimanded St. Peter for his dissimulation and judged him guilty of not walking uprightly unto the truth of the gospel.

You deliberately omitted the full quote. Read again and don't beg the questionand go circular on your reasoning.  Papolarty?  If you are a sede, which I presume you to be, then we have nothing to discuss.  You go your own way, and answer to Christ your chosen opinion (it's just an opinion or do you forget), and I will answer to Christ as well for my belief. 

It is amazing how easily one accepts what one's conscience dictates ("fully formed Catholic conscience," be quite certain because it delineates between salvation and perdition) and then dispels and discredits Catholic truths which don't agree with their beliefs.  That's portestantism, pure and clear.  This is the kind of mentality that appears essentially skeptical and fragmentary.

You miss about St. Paul's reprimand, which had nothing to do with St. Peter defecting his office as pope.  And be dure to read what was the issue about the reprimand, it had nothing to do with doctrine.  And St. Paul never said Peter was not pope.  Further, Christ Himself, despite Peter's denial, brought him back, kept His promise and told him to feed My Sheep and My lambs (you?).  You are negating that. by a swift sweeping of the hand and crying out "papolatry."  Haven't you got a better argument?
Reply
#32
(04-14-2011, 01:38 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:11 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:08 PM)Vincentius Wrote: This pope is a validly elected pope, so he is off limits (nobody judges the pope, either in the internal or external forum) to such criticisms such as his immoral character. 

Behold papolatry at its best.

St. Paul was "hating the Church" too when he publicly reprimanded St. Peter for his dissimulation and judged him guilty of not walking uprightly unto the truth of the gospel.

You deliberately omitted the full quote. Read again and don't beg the questionand go circular on your reasoning.  Papolarty?   If you are a sede, which I presume you to be, then we have nothing to discuss.  You go your own way, and answer to Christ your chosen opinion (it's just an opinion or do you forget), and I will answer to Christ as well for my belief. 

It is amazing how easily one accepts what one's conscience dictates ("fully formed Catholic conscience," be quite certain because it delineates between salvation and perdition) and then dispels and discredits Catholic truths which don't agree with their beliefs.  That's portestantism, pure and clear.  This is the kind of mentality that appears essentially skeptical and fragmentary.

You miss about St. Paul's reprimand, which had nothing to do with St. Peter defecting his office as pope.  And be dure to read what was the issue about the reprimand, it had nothing to do with doctrine.  And St. Paul never said Peter was not pope.   Further, Christ Himself, despite Peter's denial, brought him back, kept His promise and told him to feed My Sheep and My lambs (you?).  You are negating that. by a swift sweeping of the hand and crying out "papolatry."  Haven't you got a better argument?

Being accused of papolatria doesn't give you the right to accuse them of being sedevacantist. 
Reply
#33
Quote:Accusing someone of papolatria doesn't give you the right to accuse them of being sedevacantist.

There is no accusation:  I said, "If you are a sede, which I presume you to be,"  is a conditional statement.  If the statement is acknowledge, then it is the truth but there is no implied accusation.  Both these terms are contraditory, but stating something about the pope that is a complete falsehood has nothing to do with "popolatry."  Look up the term and see if you are contraditicng yourself.  Papolatry is the excessive veneration of the pope, which none is implied in the post.  So that is a wrong accusation.

Quote:Vince, go back to sleep.

And then what -- end of argument?
Reply
#34
(04-14-2011, 01:55 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
Quote:Accusing someone of papolatria doesn't give you the right to accuse them of being sedevacantist.

There is no accusation:  I said, "If you are a sede, which I presume you to be,"  is a conditional statement.  If the statement is acknowledge, then it is the truth but there is no implied accusation.  Both these terms are contraditory, but stating something about the pope that is a complete falsehood has nothing to do with "popolatry."  Look up the term and see if you are contraditicng yourself.  Papolatry is the excessive veneration of the pope, which none is implied in the post.  So that is a wrong accusation.

Quote:Vince, go back to sleep.

And then what -- end of argument?

Saying that you presume someone to be X, is tantamount to an accusation.

What if I said, "Assuming Vicentius is a sanctimonious puffer fish, which I presume him to be, I'm simply going to have no more discussions with him"?
Reply
#35
(04-14-2011, 01:38 PM)Vincentius Wrote: Papolarty?   If you are a sede, which I presume you to be, then we have nothing to discuss.

You wrongly presume that I'm a sedevacantist. I am not.

You are the one who put forward the idea that to criticise a pope is "off limits" which is manifestly untrue and "papolatrous" in every sense of the word. If nothing else, scripture proves it by the example of St. Paul.

Quote:You miss about St. Paul's reprimand, which had nothing to do with St. Peter defecting his office as pope.

Of course not and no-one is arguing that. St. Paul's harsh reprimand and public judgement of St. Peter, enshrined to all eternity in the books of sacred scripture, proves that a pope can and ought to be criticised and judged when his actions put the faith is in peril. The legal axiom prima sedes a nemine judicatur has nothing to do with the argument, as you were implying.

That is all.
Reply
#36
Anyway, I was expecting this to get a LOT more media coverage over here than it's gotten.  So much for David Berger's attempt to smear his employers.  To day, he's still employed by his homo-enabling bishop, Cardinal Meisner.

++Meisner needs to go into retirement right now.
Reply
#37
How do you pronounce "sede"? Is it "seed" or "seddy"?
Reply
#38
(04-15-2011, 12:47 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: How do you pronounce "sede"? Is it "seed" or "seddy"?

In portuguese it would be Sedg-ee.  But I just say, 'say-day'
Reply
#39
(04-15-2011, 12:53 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(04-15-2011, 12:47 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: How do you pronounce "sede"? Is it "seed" or "seddy"?

In portuguese it would be Sedg-ee.  But I just say, 'say-day'

OK thanks. The only time I speak Portuguese is when reading board books to my buddy's one year old and I doubt I'll find the word there!
Reply
#40
(04-15-2011, 12:53 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(04-15-2011, 12:47 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: How do you pronounce "sede"? Is it "seed" or "seddy"?

In portuguese it would be Sedg-ee.  But I just say, 'say-day'

In brazilian portuguese, it would be "sedg-ee" indeed.

In proper european portuguese, though, it's "seh-d."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)