New Sungenis vs Dimond debate
#23
Unam, and ggreg, I posted this on Cathinfo.com forums:

"If you want evidence from the Bible, just look at the kingdom of David.

God promised David that he would have perpetual successors on the throne. He made a covenant with him. Yet, only a couple hundred years later, and Northern Israel (The house of Israel) was Invaded by Assyria and the kingdom there was abolished. The Assyrians and their slave races intermingled with the Israelites, hence the Samaritans. There was no kingly successor of the line of David.

Take into consideration also the Babylonian Captivity. In Judah, the Israelites were taken into Babylon, and the king died. There was no successor.

It would be centuries before the Jews, even after their release from exile would ever have a King. Then, it would be due to the Maccabean revolt, led by Judas Maccabeus. This would establish the Hasmonean dynasty, from whence would arise the Herods.

Now I ask you:

In this case of Royal Sede Vacante: Did God fail to keep his promise? NO! He preserved Davidic lines, from which both the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph are descended. At the Appropriate time, Christ was born who would "Sit on the throne of his father David." Which throne he still sits on to this day: We are part of a Davidic Kingdom.

So God DID keep his promise; but it was not in a way that man expected.

Now, the Church is the New Israel. And it follows that some events in her own time will mirror some of the events of ancient Israel.

The attack of Modernism and other heresies in the present day was like the siege of Jerusalem. Then, Babylonian Captivity is similar to the hostage situation most Catholics find the sacraments in today:

And only a remnant will rebuild.

THe influx into the Church of heresies and freemasonry that Prelates have decided to fornicate with is the Assyrians deflowering the virginal purity of the Catholic Faith:

And Vatican II is the monstrous offspring. Newchurch is the New Samaria. The Catholic Church is Judah: Small, weak and nearly defenseless, wondering if the promises of Christ have failed. BUT IN ALL THIS, we must remember that God preserved a WAY to bring about an heir for David. He will no less preserve a way to bring about for us a true and Holy Pope who will restore all things in Christ.

Do NOT think that you can comprehend the way in which God keeps his promises. Even when they appear to fail, he has not failed.

Judah was without a Davidic King for centuries.

We have been without a Pope for 53 years.

Give it time. "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promises, as some understand slowness."

If you don't like the term Sede Vacantist, Fine.

We are in a prolonged Interregnum. It has been prolonged because of manifest heresy of the so-called Popes, and their tacit apostasy from the Faith. It has been this way for 53 years. Therefore, we suffer through this interregnum, waiting for a true and holy Pope to be granted to the church to put an end to this sad apostasy of the earth. For no heretic can be a Pope. "

A prolonged interregnum is not evidence that God failed. It is evidence that he keeps his promises in ways we do not understand.

Plus, the common consensus of theologians is that no schism can be incurred by rejceting allegiance to the POpe because you believe he is not validly elected:

"F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)"
Reply


Messages In This Thread
New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by faith3faith - 08-11-2011, 07:54 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Joshua - 08-12-2011, 05:01 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Sigfrid - 08-14-2011, 05:44 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Sigfrid - 08-14-2011, 05:57 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:14 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-14-2011, 06:37 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-18-2011, 01:47 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by timoose - 08-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-19-2011, 10:36 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-19-2011, 02:51 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-19-2011, 08:11 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Windmill - 08-20-2011, 03:23 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-20-2011, 05:48 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by nmoerbeek - 08-22-2011, 12:18 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-22-2011, 01:23 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by nmoerbeek - 08-22-2011, 10:37 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-22-2011, 08:03 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-25-2011, 08:09 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 08-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-25-2011, 08:31 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 08-29-2011, 01:13 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-01-2011, 07:11 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-04-2011, 02:59 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-04-2011, 03:13 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 03:40 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 04:04 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-05-2011, 05:21 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-06-2011, 12:46 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-06-2011, 01:11 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-06-2011, 04:19 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-07-2011, 04:27 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-07-2011, 06:24 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by thomas7 - 09-07-2011, 02:44 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by Gregory I - 09-07-2011, 08:42 PM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by ggreg - 09-08-2011, 08:25 AM
Re: New Sungenis vs Dimond debate - by INPEFESS - 09-08-2011, 08:33 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)