Flashback: Dogmatic Scholar: "Bellarmine: a Doubtful Pope is no Pope... 'if a Papal Election is really Doubtful for any Reason'" (with comments from Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque [Formerly Amateur Brain Surgeon who some suspect to be Steve Skojec])
"The present volume, being the outgrowth of lectures delivered in the classroom, was originally written in Latin with the intention of supplying a textbook suited to the needs of those beginning the study of theology in our seminaries. . . . It is hoped that the detailed explanations and the simplicity of language will render the work intelligible and useful to a large portion of the laity. "With the exception of the Sacraments, there is, perhaps, no subject of more practical interest to clergy and laity alike than that of the Church, yet there are few works in English treating the subject in full. The author trusts that he has made some contribution in this matter by giving a connected and rather detailed account of the origin, constitution, and powers of the Church from the dogmatic as well as from the apologetic point of view." -From the Introduction
Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954) was professor at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Maryland.
Dogmatic theology scholar Fr. Berry in his apologetic and dogmatic treatise which according to his introduction "was originally written in Latin" stated that according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine: "a doubtful pope is no pope... 'if a papal election is doubtful for any reason'":
"Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. 'Therefore,' continues the Cardinal, 'if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.'" 8
(The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, By Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, Page 229, Note 8: Bellarmine, "De Concilio, ii, 19)
Excellent find....
10:12 AM 
BRAVO !!!
Bishop Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Rene Henry Gracida
If a dozen catholics (Does a dozen suffice or ought the number be 1001, like the Dalmatians?) doubt the pope is pope then he ain't Pope.
Yep, no doubt about it :)
Of course this putative "solution" to the problem of Our Pope and Our Cross is infinitely worse than the current situation. Just imagine the future if a handful of doubters (there is no number cited) claim they doubt that what's-his-face isn't Pope but the man who resigned - and repeatedly says he resigned and says that claims he hasn't are absurd - is really the Pope.
ABS has the book...
Here is the quote: When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position....
Prudent is not defined but it sure as hell aint prudent if a dozen or so Americans, following the rash claims of a lay woman with no study, training, or experience in Canon Law, claim there is doubt.
O, and it ain't doubt when it comes to Bullets Barnhardt who has led her passionate posse into a box canyon where they ride around in circles firing substantial error blanks this and canonical blanks defect that with outrageous claims that Benedict is Pope and Francis ain't.
Any curious man can find real Canon Layers who mock Bullets and her band pf breathless brethren but there is, in America at least, a few dozen laymen who think they alone know what the truth is.
Benedict XVI legally abdicated/resigned and he has publicly repeatedly said he resigned completely and of his own free will but those who do not want Francis as their Cross insist they know better what Benedict XVI intended to do and did do.
Well, such claims are not part of Catholic Tradition, or Canon Law. It is not even christian to make such absurd claims.
One can not read the hearts, souls, and minds of another or they open their own selves for others to claim they know what those people are really trying to do. Shall ABS begin to do that? Shall ABS draw up a list of what really motivates the members of The Bullets Barnhardt Bund?
Those who claim that Pope Benedict XVI intended to do an did do something other than what he has publicly said he intended to do and did do should ar least produce some evidence of their putative afflatic ability.
This entire episode is silly and while one can be reasonably sure those involved in this occult cult will, one day, be embarrassed they were involved in it, for now, it is game on..
Where in Canon Law is provision for these nutter claims? Where in Canon Law is there provision for these occult claims?
Go on, y'all cite Canon Law that provides for such UnChristian action.
Cite Jesus, The Apostles, Ecumenical Councils, Doctors of the Church, Great Saints, The Early Church Fathers encouraging us Catholics, teaching us Catholics,to judge the interior motives of others ESPECIALLY after the other has repeatedly said what his motivations and intent were which are the opposite of what his occult opponents claim.
Y'all should be embarrassed
Yep, no doubt about it :)
Of course this putative "solution" to the problem of Our Pope and Our Cross is infinitely worse than the current situation. Just imagine the future if a handful of doubters (there is no number cited) claim they doubt that what's-his-face isn't Pope but the man who resigned - and repeatedly says he resigned and says that claims he hasn't are absurd - is really the Pope.
ABS has the book...
Here is the quote: When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position....
Prudent is not defined but it sure as hell aint prudent if a dozen or so Americans, following the rash claims of a lay woman with no study, training, or experience in Canon Law, claim there is doubt.
O, and it ain't doubt when it comes to Bullets Barnhardt who has led her passionate posse into a box canyon where they ride around in circles firing substantial error blanks this and canonical blanks defect that with outrageous claims that Benedict is Pope and Francis ain't.
Any curious man can find real Canon Layers who mock Bullets and her band pf breathless brethren but there is, in America at least, a few dozen laymen who think they alone know what the truth is.
Benedict XVI legally abdicated/resigned and he has publicly repeatedly said he resigned completely and of his own free will but those who do not want Francis as their Cross insist they know better what Benedict XVI intended to do and did do.
Well, such claims are not part of Catholic Tradition, or Canon Law. It is not even christian to make such absurd claims.
One can not read the hearts, souls, and minds of another or they open their own selves for others to claim they know what those people are really trying to do. Shall ABS begin to do that? Shall ABS draw up a list of what really motivates the members of The Bullets Barnhardt Bund?
Those who claim that Pope Benedict XVI intended to do an did do something other than what he has publicly said he intended to do and did do should ar least produce some evidence of their putative afflatic ability.
This entire episode is silly and while one can be reasonably sure those involved in this occult cult will, one day, be embarrassed they were involved in it, for now, it is game on..
Where in Canon Law is provision for these nutter claims? Where in Canon Law is there provision for these occult claims?
Go on, y'all cite Canon Law that provides for such UnChristian action.
Cite Jesus, The Apostles, Ecumenical Councils, Doctors of the Church, Great Saints, The Early Church Fathers encouraging us Catholics, teaching us Catholics,to judge the interior motives of others ESPECIALLY after the other has repeatedly said what his motivations and intent were which are the opposite of what his occult opponents claim.
Y'all should be embarrassed
I read ABS, and I see lots of name-calling. I see gratuitous assertions, but no citations from any text. And I see a great, big Straw Man. Namely, the Barnhardtists DO NOT claim to read anybody's mind. They quote the WORDS of the instrument of resignation. Again, something ABS never quotes or analyzes.
Dear Father VF. ABS notes you cited no Canon having to do with the legitimacy of occult claims.
Bullets Barnhardt is not an expert in Canon Lawyer. She has no education in Canon Law. She has no degree in Canon Law. She has no experience in Canon Law.
You believe her claims about Canon Law.
Bullets claims she does know the intent of the former Pope and has an absurd post (Thermonuclear something or other) claiming that what Ratzinger wrote about the beliefs of others is what he personally held as his own beliefs even though what she quoted was the word of Ratzinger about the ideas and beliefs of others.
How can one know Ratzinger was writing about the ideas and beliefs of others and not his own ideas and beliefs ?
Well, because he quoted the words of them and named them and then he footnoted them by name but Bullets claims their ideas and beliefs are his ideas and beliefs.
That is not the way to grow The Occult Cult.
Here is the assessment of the resignation by one who has a Doctorate in Canon Law.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded/
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/lighter-fare-can-bad-latin-save-a-papacy/
Bullets Barnhardt is not an expert in Canon Lawyer. She has no education in Canon Law. She has no degree in Canon Law. She has no experience in Canon Law.
You believe her claims about Canon Law.
Bullets claims she does know the intent of the former Pope and has an absurd post (Thermonuclear something or other) claiming that what Ratzinger wrote about the beliefs of others is what he personally held as his own beliefs even though what she quoted was the word of Ratzinger about the ideas and beliefs of others.
How can one know Ratzinger was writing about the ideas and beliefs of others and not his own ideas and beliefs ?
Well, because he quoted the words of them and named them and then he footnoted them by name but Bullets claims their ideas and beliefs are his ideas and beliefs.
That is not the way to grow The Occult Cult.
Here is the assessment of the resignation by one who has a Doctorate in Canon Law.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded/
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/lighter-fare-can-bad-latin-save-a-papacy/
@ABS: Br. Bugnolo does not speculate on intent in his presentation of the evidence. Miss Barnhardt has been advised that to speculate on Pope Benedict's intent is not only not necessary butdoing so distracts from the black-and-white evidence that she has presented.
As a point of departure for all here, who do you personally consider to have been the last duly elected pope?
As a point of departure for all here, who do you personally consider to have been the last duly elected pope?
ABS,
Please cite what Edward Peters on that post and any other text actually says. Since you know Peters so well cite what he says about Canon 17 which is the part of the thesis canon law expert Br Alexis Bugnolo uses citing canon law from the Latin text showing in overwhelming detail why ministerium and munus are not to be used interchangeably. I would love for you, Peters, LifeSiteNews, Skojec, Ferrara or anyone to actually argue citing canon law instead of name-calling or throwing out strawmen agruments.
You are apparently are using what LifeSiteNews' anonymous theologian is saying on intent which as Br. Bugnolo shows if one follows what even Peters says about Canon 17 means ministerium and munus must be used according to how canon law objectively defines them as and not by supposed intentions.
If you know Peters, please get him to debate Br. Bugnolo. But, I won't hold my breath. It appears Peters and LifeSiteNews are afraid of real debate.
Please cite what Edward Peters on that post and any other text actually says. Since you know Peters so well cite what he says about Canon 17 which is the part of the thesis canon law expert Br Alexis Bugnolo uses citing canon law from the Latin text showing in overwhelming detail why ministerium and munus are not to be used interchangeably. I would love for you, Peters, LifeSiteNews, Skojec, Ferrara or anyone to actually argue citing canon law instead of name-calling or throwing out strawmen agruments.
You are apparently are using what LifeSiteNews' anonymous theologian is saying on intent which as Br. Bugnolo shows if one follows what even Peters says about Canon 17 means ministerium and munus must be used according to how canon law objectively defines them as and not by supposed intentions.
If you know Peters, please get him to debate Br. Bugnolo. But, I won't hold my breath. It appears Peters and LifeSiteNews are afraid of real debate.
Dear Mr. Martinez. Dr Peters has written why the putative bad latin is inconsequential but y'all will ignore that.
Now, it is well known that the Occult Cult does not take as factual or true what the former Pope says were his intentions and acts. The plain and simple truth is the Occult Cult thinks it knows the intent of the former Pope better than the former Pope knows his intentions even though the former Pope publicly calls those claims absurd, and has done so repeatedly.
So, with that as your starting point, y'all are on and endless journey to nowhere, bellowing in a Box Canyon, circling the extremes endlessly, and doing little, other than stirring up the dust.
Bullets Barnhardt not only does speculate on the former Pope's intent she claims that what he says he intended he did not intend.
The arrogance is startling, not to say patently UnChristian, evil, and insane.
But y'all expect a sane man to engage in a "debate" about such occult claims when such insane and evil claims are not even worthy of a response.
Now, there is free will and it is being evinced in here by the posse of passionate partisans of a woman who has never studied Canon Law, taken a degree in Canyon Law or practiced Canon Law.
It is mark of the Diabolical Delusion rampant in this Occult Cult that members of it expect a Canon Lawyer to debate such Occult claims rather than to completely reject them out of hand.
One can't use reason to correct a delusion and one can't use reason to correct members of an Occult Cult.
Rather than seek a debate, seek psychotropic medication.
Of course, such advice will be deemed churlish but ABS would like to point out that insanity will render y'all less culpable for your fear-mongering and reality-denying delusions
Now, it is well known that the Occult Cult does not take as factual or true what the former Pope says were his intentions and acts. The plain and simple truth is the Occult Cult thinks it knows the intent of the former Pope better than the former Pope knows his intentions even though the former Pope publicly calls those claims absurd, and has done so repeatedly.
So, with that as your starting point, y'all are on and endless journey to nowhere, bellowing in a Box Canyon, circling the extremes endlessly, and doing little, other than stirring up the dust.
Bullets Barnhardt not only does speculate on the former Pope's intent she claims that what he says he intended he did not intend.
The arrogance is startling, not to say patently UnChristian, evil, and insane.
But y'all expect a sane man to engage in a "debate" about such occult claims when such insane and evil claims are not even worthy of a response.
Now, there is free will and it is being evinced in here by the posse of passionate partisans of a woman who has never studied Canon Law, taken a degree in Canyon Law or practiced Canon Law.
It is mark of the Diabolical Delusion rampant in this Occult Cult that members of it expect a Canon Lawyer to debate such Occult claims rather than to completely reject them out of hand.
One can't use reason to correct a delusion and one can't use reason to correct members of an Occult Cult.
Rather than seek a debate, seek psychotropic medication.
Of course, such advice will be deemed churlish but ABS would like to point out that insanity will render y'all less culpable for your fear-mongering and reality-denying delusions
Dear Amateur,
It is noted you ignored Islam is Islam's response: Br. Bugnolo does not speculate on Pope Benedict's intent in his presentation of evidence. How about you evict Miss Barnhardt from your obsessed mind and deal with the evidence provided by Br. Bugnolo?
I'm starting to suspect ABS may be Steve Skojec incognito...
It is noted you ignored Islam is Islam's response: Br. Bugnolo does not speculate on Pope Benedict's intent in his presentation of evidence. How about you evict Miss Barnhardt from your obsessed mind and deal with the evidence provided by Br. Bugnolo?
I'm starting to suspect ABS may be Steve Skojec incognito...
ABS,
Thanks. That was hilarious. I needed a good laugh.
Thanks. That was hilarious. I needed a good laugh.
Dear Mr. Martinez. As the Good Book teaches, a kind word turns away anger.
Now, the boys of The Bullets Bund can not reasonably be described as doubters. They are convinced that the former Pope is really still Pope - for a number of putative reasons. They are on no way the doubters referenced by Saint Bellarmine.
So, why the pretense?
Mr. Martinez. What is it you are tying to accomplish by pursuing this matter?
Do you really think this will be adjudicated in a Canon Law Court? Nobody is even wiling to debate you on these captious claims held by a remarkably teeny tiny number of putative Catholics and so you can not seriously think this will ever be addressed in Court.
Do you hope to grow The Occult Cult? If so, to what end?
Far more numerous are the sedevacantists and they know they will not have their claims taken seriously or adjudicated in a Canon Law Court.
There are, roughly, one billion nominal Catholics alive. Of that number not anywhere remotely close to one percent agree with the claims of the Occult Cult but y'all are absolutely convinced that it is nearly the entire Catholic population that is out of step rather than the Occult Cult that is out off step and out of touch with reality.
Of course, that is the sort of classic detach from reality of those possessed by a delusion.
Dear Debbie. O, the answer is Francis is our Pope and our Cross. That was made clear in an earlier response....
Dr Peters, among others, has made public his assessment, based on Canon Law, that the claims made by The Occult Cult are absurd.
Y'all know that but y'all still think he would be willing to debate a claim he has already described as absurd.
Such a response denotes the diabolical delusion that attaches itself to the Occult Cult.
ABS is not anybody else. He is not Mr. Skojec or Kojak for that matter.
He has, however, been long aware of Bullets and her radical claims back from when ABS first looked at her claims and videos at Free Republic. He hasn't changed his opinion of her. She is not worthy of trust - whether it was her criticising as UnChristian those who would not stop paying their taxes or her describing as anti semitic those who opposed usury.
She's quite the leader of a certain kind of man.
Now, the boys of The Bullets Bund can not reasonably be described as doubters. They are convinced that the former Pope is really still Pope - for a number of putative reasons. They are on no way the doubters referenced by Saint Bellarmine.
So, why the pretense?
Mr. Martinez. What is it you are tying to accomplish by pursuing this matter?
Do you really think this will be adjudicated in a Canon Law Court? Nobody is even wiling to debate you on these captious claims held by a remarkably teeny tiny number of putative Catholics and so you can not seriously think this will ever be addressed in Court.
Do you hope to grow The Occult Cult? If so, to what end?
Far more numerous are the sedevacantists and they know they will not have their claims taken seriously or adjudicated in a Canon Law Court.
There are, roughly, one billion nominal Catholics alive. Of that number not anywhere remotely close to one percent agree with the claims of the Occult Cult but y'all are absolutely convinced that it is nearly the entire Catholic population that is out of step rather than the Occult Cult that is out off step and out of touch with reality.
Of course, that is the sort of classic detach from reality of those possessed by a delusion.
Dear Debbie. O, the answer is Francis is our Pope and our Cross. That was made clear in an earlier response....
Dr Peters, among others, has made public his assessment, based on Canon Law, that the claims made by The Occult Cult are absurd.
Y'all know that but y'all still think he would be willing to debate a claim he has already described as absurd.
Such a response denotes the diabolical delusion that attaches itself to the Occult Cult.
ABS is not anybody else. He is not Mr. Skojec or Kojak for that matter.
He has, however, been long aware of Bullets and her radical claims back from when ABS first looked at her claims and videos at Free Republic. He hasn't changed his opinion of her. She is not worthy of trust - whether it was her criticising as UnChristian those who would not stop paying their taxes or her describing as anti semitic those who opposed usury.
She's quite the leader of a certain kind of man.
Dear Mr. Martinez. There are roughly 11,000 Canon Lawyers worldwide and about 1500 in The United States.
What percentage of the population of Canon Lawyers agrees with the Occult Cult?
Can you identify one member of The Roman Rota who agrees with the captious claims of the Occult Cult?
You are waging an unwindable war on behalf of the man who repeatedly, in voice and in print, says he willing retired the entire Papacy, that he did not retain any part of the papacy, and that there is now only one Pope.
Why, why, why, Mr. Martinez ?
What percentage of the population of Canon Lawyers agrees with the Occult Cult?
Can you identify one member of The Roman Rota who agrees with the captious claims of the Occult Cult?
You are waging an unwindable war on behalf of the man who repeatedly, in voice and in print, says he willing retired the entire Papacy, that he did not retain any part of the papacy, and that there is now only one Pope.
Why, why, why, Mr. Martinez ?
@ABS: Your appeal to the majority reminds me of my mother asking me, "And if they all wanted to run off a cliff, would you follow them?" Numbers and percent population do not the Truth make. Truth is Truth even should none believe it or profess it.
You know that It is what and Who it is.
I cannot answer for Mr. Martinez, but here is my answer to your question, "Why?" Because words matter and ministerium is not munus even if (and that's a big IF) the man, Ratzinger, by declaring his intent to renounce Petrine ministerium meant Petrine Munus. That is not what he said and the Cardinals neglected to perform due diligence regarding what he said before calling an unnecessary conclave.
You know that It is what and Who it is.
I cannot answer for Mr. Martinez, but here is my answer to your question, "Why?" Because words matter and ministerium is not munus even if (and that's a big IF) the man, Ratzinger, by declaring his intent to renounce Petrine ministerium meant Petrine Munus. That is not what he said and the Cardinals neglected to perform due diligence regarding what he said before calling an unnecessary conclave.
Dear Islam. Dr. Peter's post about how bad Latin does not save a papacy is worth your read.
Good grief...The Cardinals did not do their due diligence?
Who has authority in the Church that you expect to declare that BIP owing to the allegedly bad latin in his resignation letter?
As to running oft a cliff..Do you think those who accept Francis is Pope have somehow metaphorically jumped off a cliff - virtually all 1,285,000,000 of them and as they are falling they are looking up at the 374 men who refused to jump to the ineluctable conclusion that Francis is Pope?
It is the men who are adepts of Bullets who have first jumped the shark before jumping oft the safe solid ground of reality, oft of The Occult Cult Cliff who will, ineluctably, crash on the ground of reality.
Good grief...The Cardinals did not do their due diligence?
Who has authority in the Church that you expect to declare that BIP owing to the allegedly bad latin in his resignation letter?
As to running oft a cliff..Do you think those who accept Francis is Pope have somehow metaphorically jumped off a cliff - virtually all 1,285,000,000 of them and as they are falling they are looking up at the 374 men who refused to jump to the ineluctable conclusion that Francis is Pope?
It is the men who are adepts of Bullets who have first jumped the shark before jumping oft the safe solid ground of reality, oft of The Occult Cult Cliff who will, ineluctably, crash on the ground of reality.
The Occult Cult is a group of people joined together by a shared delusion that BIP and it is lead by Bullets Barnhardt a charismatic leader who teaches them she is possessed of a Canon Law gnosis they can liberate them from the factual truth that Francis is Pope.
The members of The Occult Cult believe they alone have the truth and others do not have the truth but are, rather, victims of a diabolical delusion and when it is pointed out that Bullets has no Canon Law training, degree, or practice in the field, they respond by declaring she is a saint.
Well, that should work out swimmingly..
The members of The Occult Cult believe they alone have the truth and others do not have the truth but are, rather, victims of a diabolical delusion and when it is pointed out that Bullets has no Canon Law training, degree, or practice in the field, they respond by declaring she is a saint.
Well, that should work out swimmingly..
Dear Mr. Martinez. You cited the excellent book by Father E. Sylvester Berry, "The Church of Christ, An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise.
Sadly, you did not cite the following from the same book which could (prolly unlikely though) provide the intellectual implements for men to escape the clutches of The Occult Cult.
"The extent of infallibility refers to the truths that may be defined by the Church with infallible authority. Some truths are directly subject to the infallible authority of the Church by their very nature [i.e truths contained in Scripture and Tradition]; others only indirectly because of their connection with the former. The one set of truths constitutes the primary, the other secondary extent of infallibility. p. 288
"This secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes especially (a) theological conclusions, (b) truths of the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts p. 289
"DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
+++++++++++++++++==
Well, there are Dogmatic Facts that are infallible, such as the acceptance (practically unanimous) of The bishops and the faithful that Francis was legitimately elected.
Infallible.
What will the men in The Occult Cult do now? Will they apologise and repent of their errors (who hasn't made errors in their lives) or will them wait for Bullets to tell them what to do next?
Sadly, you did not cite the following from the same book which could (prolly unlikely though) provide the intellectual implements for men to escape the clutches of The Occult Cult.
"The extent of infallibility refers to the truths that may be defined by the Church with infallible authority. Some truths are directly subject to the infallible authority of the Church by their very nature [i.e truths contained in Scripture and Tradition]; others only indirectly because of their connection with the former. The one set of truths constitutes the primary, the other secondary extent of infallibility. p. 288
"This secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes especially (a) theological conclusions, (b) truths of the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts p. 289
"DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
+++++++++++++++++==
Well, there are Dogmatic Facts that are infallible, such as the acceptance (practically unanimous) of The bishops and the faithful that Francis was legitimately elected.
Infallible.
What will the men in The Occult Cult do now? Will they apologise and repent of their errors (who hasn't made errors in their lives) or will them wait for Bullets to tell them what to do next?
@ABS: We both know from Scripture and Tradition that with the Deluge only eight people were saved. I don't know the population of the world at the time, but it was probably a great number compared to the eight who remained faithful to truth. The same truth that is true whatever number believes or professes it.
How precisely did the Cardinals fulfill their offices in regard to Canon 40? Men make mistakes. Who will rectify the situation once the requested examination takes place? Precedent gives us the example from St. Vincent Ferrer and St. Bernard. It took someone from outside the ranks of the Cardinals to bring the evidence and then persist until resolution was determined by those in authority.
You are silly in your insistent insinuations regarding manliness or rather lack thereof. Truth is Truth. You will readily admit that the Truth was carried into the world by the Woman. What men make of truth after receiving it has naught to do with the messenger. You are silly to deny the facts of the Incarnation by your self-determination that the carrier of truth can only be male.
As for all your new-speak about Occult and Cult, the thing about BiP is that those who request an examination of the evidence are in no way trying to keep anything secret, far from it. Rather it would seem that you and others whether FiP or sede or whatever are the ones who are Occult-like, trying to shut up and shut down the BiP-proponents and requesters of an examination.
How precisely did the Cardinals fulfill their offices in regard to Canon 40? Men make mistakes. Who will rectify the situation once the requested examination takes place? Precedent gives us the example from St. Vincent Ferrer and St. Bernard. It took someone from outside the ranks of the Cardinals to bring the evidence and then persist until resolution was determined by those in authority.
You are silly in your insistent insinuations regarding manliness or rather lack thereof. Truth is Truth. You will readily admit that the Truth was carried into the world by the Woman. What men make of truth after receiving it has naught to do with the messenger. You are silly to deny the facts of the Incarnation by your self-determination that the carrier of truth can only be male.
As for all your new-speak about Occult and Cult, the thing about BiP is that those who request an examination of the evidence are in no way trying to keep anything secret, far from it. Rather it would seem that you and others whether FiP or sede or whatever are the ones who are Occult-like, trying to shut up and shut down the BiP-proponents and requesters of an examination.
Debbie,
Could you be right? Could ABS be a sock puppet of Skojec?
Could you be right? Could ABS be a sock puppet of Skojec?
ISI,
ABS who I and Debbie suspect could be a sock puppet of Skojec has posted comments in the Catholic Monitor in the past that implied he might be a secret Sedevantist. Do you have evidence from posts in other blogs that he may be a Sede? In fact, Sedevantists love the Francis Trad narrative that Francis is definitely the pope narrative because it supports their narrative.
ABS who I and Debbie suspect could be a sock puppet of Skojec has posted comments in the Catholic Monitor in the past that implied he might be a secret Sedevantist. Do you have evidence from posts in other blogs that he may be a Sede? In fact, Sedevantists love the Francis Trad narrative that Francis is definitely the pope narrative because it supports their narrative.
Skojec's nonsense has the same effect on me. I consider his ridiculous Tweets hilarious.
Sounds like something Skojec would say on "universal acceptance." But, the practically unanimous bishops' consent of bishops and Councils are only infallible when accepted by a valid pope, but never when affirmed by a antipope if you read Catholic history.
@Fred Martinez and Debbie: I've seen an 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' with a similar writing style comment at akaCatholic. Here is a link to an example of that ABS at akaCatholic:
https://akacatholic.com/consecration-outside-of-mass/#comments
https://akacatholic.com/consecration-outside-of-mass/#comments
@Fred Martinez and Debbie: In reading that comment thread, it seems to me that the ABS at akaCatholic just really and truly dislikes Miss Barnhardt's life-choices, tone, and style as well as the fact that people would even consider the points that she makes about almost anything but especially about BiP.
Personally I find a lack of integrity in his approach when he targets and insults Miss Barnhardt and her talking points and does not rebut either Br. Bugnolo's own evidence and discussions or his charitable rebuttals to Dr. Peters or other FiP-pers' arguments.
Personally I find a lack of integrity in his approach when he targets and insults Miss Barnhardt and her talking points and does not rebut either Br. Bugnolo's own evidence and discussions or his charitable rebuttals to Dr. Peters or other FiP-pers' arguments.
IisI,
Thanks. If ABS and Skojec are the same and if they or he are or is Sede that would make sense. Sometimes as they say "He protests too much." Sometimes those who don't want to be found out yell the loudest accusing others of what they are. As I have shown to previous posts both Skojec and Sedes apparently reject or at least question Vatican I.
Thanks. If ABS and Skojec are the same and if they or he are or is Sede that would make sense. Sometimes as they say "He protests too much." Sometimes those who don't want to be found out yell the loudest accusing others of what they are. As I have shown to previous posts both Skojec and Sedes apparently reject or at least question Vatican I.