Could A Pope Become An Antichrist ?

[Guest]

I'll email you homeboy we got some things to talk about.


peace

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[goldenchild17]

sounds good

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840276' date='Apr 19 2009, 04:25 AM']all I know is I'm going to Clonmacnoise to meet St. Patrick, and from there we'll go to the fields of Armageddon for the final battle :
[url="http://thesixbells.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-patricks-day.html"]http://thesixbells.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-patricks-day.html[/url][/quote]

I remember going to Clonmacnoise when I went to Ireland. Beautiful ruins there.

[Aloysius]

Delivery Boy, please PM me after listening to his arguments if you are going to, so that I may attempt to refute them. It gets very very complicated, but you should not go down the road of sedevacantism or even down the dubious theology of the theory that a pope duly elected by the cardinals could be a heretic and lose his teaching authority because of that. It is just like the scripture passages I quoted said, even when a Pope privately says or does something by which he could be called "Satan" as Peter was by our Lord, he does not lose his position on the seat of Peter. The Pharisees were terribly at odds with God's will, but they did not lose their seat of Moses.

the purpose of the Papacy is that we have a visible and sure sign from God to keep us from erring. when the idea of who is legitimately pope can be obfuscated that much by the intellectual backflips done by the complicated arguments in favor of sedevacantism, the purpose of the papacy becomes null and void anyway. if one can just decide that the pope is a heretic by one's own private judgment at any time, then one has never really submitted to the unity which is brought by the papacy in the first place.

and I do apologize that golden is not able to argue against my charges here on the phorum, but sedevacantism is something to be combated diligently the same way heresies were combatted in the middle ages, because they have a tendency to appeal to certain parts of many peoples' intellects and thus subvert the truths of the Faith. so sedevacantism is one of the few things censored against here... as it also is on many traditionalist forums like fisheaters.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840290' date='Apr 19 2009, 03:46 AM']Delivery Boy, please PM me after listening to his arguments if you are going to, so that I may attempt to refute them. [b]It gets very very complicated[/b][/quote]

DB I second this, definitely keep discussing all this with him. It's a strange road and not one I'd wish upon anyone if I could see another way. He'll keep you straight for sure.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840290' date='Apr 19 2009, 03:46 AM']and I do apologize that golden is not able to argue against my charges here on the phorum[/quote]

There's nothing to apologize for. I understand why its done. I will always contend, whether its true for today's circumstances or not and whether I one day leave this philosophy or not, that sedevacantism is most certainly not a heresy of any kind, but I know my place on this phorum

[Guest]

For sure I respect Aloysius so much and I consider him a spirtual guide. I got love for you to Goldenchild. This stuff is so complex and beyond me but at the same time I feel im called and led by the Holy Spirit to keep asking questions, learning and keep marching on while also never forgetting that [font="Arial Black"]For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. (Mark 13:22) [/font]

Godbless you both.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Guest

[goldenchild17]

Aloy has always been my fave poster on here too so I do hope you make sure you hear him out. He knows a lot more than I probably ever will haha

[Guest]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840290' date='Apr 19 2009, 03:46 AM']and I do apologize that golden is not able to argue against my charges here on the phorum[/quote]


y cant he ?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1840295' date='Apr 19 2009, 05:53 AM']There's nothing to apologize for. I understand why its done. I will always contend, whether its true for today's circumstances or not and whether I one day leave this philosophy or not, that sedevacantism is most certainly not a heresy of any kind, but I know my place on this phorum

[/quote]
I did not say it was explicitly a heresy, only that it ought to be dealt with in the same way heresies have always been.

If one holds the sedevacantist position and is wrong, one is certainly a schismatic. he may not be culpable for the sin of schism, but it'd objectively be a schismatic act if the pope were truly legitimate.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1840298' date='Apr 19 2009, 05:57 AM']y cant he ?[/quote]
as do most Catholic forums (including traditionalist ones), we do not allow Catholics to publicly reject the legitimacy of the current pontiff. it is not their place to do so. and the arguments are alluring to the prideful aspects of the human mind which tend to desire to do what St. Catherine was arguing against, to privately judge the pope and in so doing lose all connection to Christ's Church... because Our Lord Jesus Christ said the Apostles "He who rejects you rejects me"... we do not allow Catholics to attempt to get other Catholics to deny the Pope on some supposedly Catholic basis any more than we would allow Catholics to attempt to get other Catholics to deny Jesus Christ on some supposedly Catholic basis.

you're allowed to argue from a non-Catholic perspective about the Pope or about Jesus, but you may not subvert the work of Christ's own Church to get people to do what amounts to rejecting Christ by rejecting him who Christ has sent for us.

[Guest]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840300' date='Apr 19 2009, 04:02 AM']as do most Catholic forums (including traditionalist ones), we do not allow Catholics to publicly reject the legitimacy of the current pontiff. it is not their place to do so. and the arguments are alluring to the prideful aspects of the human mind which tend to desire to do what St. Catherine was arguing against, to privately judge the pope and in so doing lose all connection to Christ's Church... because Our Lord Jesus Christ said the Apostles "He who rejects you rejects me"... we do not allow Catholics to attempt to get other Catholics to deny the Pope on some supposedly Catholic basis any more than we would allow Catholics to attempt to get other Catholics to deny Jesus Christ on some supposedly Catholic basis.

you're allowed to argue from a non-Catholic perspective about the Pope or about Jesus, but you may not subvert the work of Christ's own Church to get people to do what amounts to rejecting Christ by rejecting him who Christ has sent for us.[/quote]

gotcha.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1840299' date='Apr 19 2009, 03:59 AM']I did not say it was explicitly a heresy, only that it ought to be dealt with in the same way heresies have always been.[/quote]

I stand corrected. I read it a little too quickly.

[quote]If one holds the sedevacantist position and is wrong, one is certainly a schismatic. he may not be culpable for the sin of schism, but it'd objectively be a schismatic act if the pope were truly legitimate.[/quote]

I hear you and I have to respectfully disagree but won't go into it further here.

However, on that note (and I don't think this is against the rules as it pertains to a historical situation) what is your opinion on St. Vincent Ferrer vs. St. Catherine of Siena in regards to their positions during the Avignon papacy? If I remember correctly (and I need to check the details when I get up in the morning) they were on opposite sides and supported two different men as being the true pope. One of them had to have been wrong. Was one of them in schism for a time?

It doesn't affect my position as I think I have relevant documentation outside of this. Just wondering what you're opinion is on this.

peace

[goldenchild17]

nevermind sir. Don't feel obligated to respond to that. I'm sure I've already overstepped my boundaries

Edited April 19, 2009 by goldenchild17

[Aloysius]

one of them was certainly in schism, though probably not culpable for it... especially as they were not simply judging against one pope, but were fooled by the other pope... and thus they had a legitimate reason to believe they were being in communion with the pope; whereas those who merely pick at the only pope out there because they have personally judged him to be in error are the ones who are in a much graver state.

sometimes it all comes down to how much authority one has to judge the pope's authenticity. during that particular controversy, both sides were judging the other pope as an anti-pope by the authority of someone they considered to be the pope. in modern times, sedevacantists judge the pope as an anti-pope by their own authority or by some priest's authority or by some excommunicated (dubiously ordained) bishop's authority.