Catholics, help me

they allow divorce for things other than sexual immorality
saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce

stnicholaswallsend.org.au/specialservices.html

this is what level they are on OP you will not get any arguments that prove the current claims of papal supremacy. Don't let the divorce throw you. Catholics do the same thing but just pretend the marriage never happened and try to jew God, this has to do with our different veiw of what a sacrament is.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.html

Of course. Some were more humble some less but all of them held this as doctrine as proven as early as Quartodecimanism controversies with popes Anicetus and Victor.
It was unbroken in the time of Irenaeus and so in the times of Augustine and since then it was not broken ethier
unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html
matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html
Considering that "Against Heresies", which practically killed of Gnosticism, used it as main argument and that the first catechism of the church, Didache, depends on it then yes.
Not at all
Epistle 54 par 14 [200-270 AD]
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source"
Filioque is an addition just as Constantinople is addition i.e. truthful. For Council of Rome proclaimed it just years after Second Ecumenical Council.

← watch
(youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE)

read:

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/refuting-eastern-orthodox/

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/bible-papacy-st-peter/

...

Got a problem with MHFM?

Attached: gibson gun.jpg (720x1028, 71.46K)

By thier own logic they are heretics for they go to Catholic Church in communion with Rome. 1917 code of canon law disprooves thier claims. And JP II was not the Beast.

What are you talking about?

Which code disproves which claims, specifically?

If you can't present a coherent argument, I don't think your opinion will matter much.

They claim that those who participate in TLM but are in communion in Rome are de facto "Novus Ordo hereticus". Yet they themselves go to Byzantine Catholic Church in communion with Rome.
Canon 2314.2 disprove the claim that private individuals can proclaim Pope a heretic, moreover this canon says that heretical pope needs to be warned by the Church (and not members of the Church) of thier heresy and he needs to not repent publicly to losse his office.
For more read christkinglaw.com/uploads/9/5/6/8/9568822/cfn_-_sedevacantism_and_the_sin_of_presumption.pdf
It is constant belief of the Church that antichrist will be a Jew and exalts himself in Jewish temple as Messiah and then as God. JPII was not Jew, neither did anything of the following. But those heretics claim that he did by, I kid you not, visting a synagogue. Not to mention that he is dead for past 13 years with no signs of comming back (and being wounded by gunshoot and then not full recover does not mean that he fakked his death by dark arts as Antichrist will), that by his intecesion miracles were done and that there was total abbsence of Enoch and Elijah and fallowing conversion of Israel.

That's not true, it's a matter of whether or not a valid priest is imposing heresy or not, when it comes to confession. You're misrepresenting their position. The validity of sacraments from a priest is a different matter than heresy and communion with heretics.

read more here: mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/sacraments-from-undeclared-heretics/

That's not true:

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”, 15th February 1559, (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

read more here: mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf

"Constant belief of the Church"? Are you saying that interpretation of Revelations is a matter of dogma, or doctrine, or official teaching of the Church? Source, please.

It's ancillary, and I don't want to further derail the thread, but have you ever actually looked into whether or not JPII was jewish or not?

The Pope’s [sic] mother was Emily Katz, whose Polish name is "Emilia Kaczorowska," which is usually Anglicized by American immigrants to the familiar sounding, "Emily Katz."

"The Pope’s [sic] father, Karol Wojtyla, Sr.. was a retired army officer and tailor in the town of Wadowice, a town which was the home for 8,000 Catholics and 2,000 Jews 35 miles southwest of Krakow, Poland. When Mr. Wojtyla, Sr., married Emilia Kaczorowska, he was immediately ostracized from his family. Karol and Emilia lived in an apartment which they rented from their Jewish landlord."

jewwatch.com/jew-religions-christianity-penetration-pope-john-paul-2-jewish-news-release.html

By the way, was there something wrong in the video or links in that you wanted to point out, or did you just feel it necessary to try and discredit them in entirety with your apparently erroneous views?

Attached: marvinheirandJP2.jpg (250x345 17.25 KB, 25.14K)

Found a bug I think. My first attempt at posting with 3 pics stalled out with the "Posting…" percentage complete status having more than 15 digits where it normally only goes up to 100%. When I tried again, I only put one picture in (marvinheirandJP2.jpg) and it posted the first two from the first failed attempt, and replaced this one I attached here.

Attached: karol-wojtyla-con-un-pagano.png (1040x730, 1.06M)

does this apply to any of the oriental orthodox patriarchs?

''While Peter Dimond accuses the pope of formal heresy without proof of moral imputability or a declaratory sentence, he fails to live by his own standards. I have revealed that he and his brother attend Mass at a non-sedevacantist parish run by a Byzantine Catholic priest who has never been declared a heretic by the Church. Dimond says the reason he can do this is because the Church hasn’t formally declared this priests’ excommunication. But when I argue that we cannot withdraw from the post-conciliar popes based on the same canon law, Dimond says that my position is erroneous and condemns me!
Hence, even though Peter Dimond rebuts my position by arguing that a Catholic must withdraw from a heretic even if the Church hasn’t declared the heresy, Dimond does just the opposite in his spiritual life. He remains in communion with this Catholic priest and even receives the sacraments from him. Here is Dimond’s problem: If Pope Benedict XVI is a public heretic, then Dimond’s parish priest must also be a public heretic, since his parish priest professes communion with Pope Benedict XVI (just like I do, and Dimond accuses me of being a heretic for the same reason). The theological axiom “the greater includes the lesser” applies. ''
''Next, and not surprisingly, Dimond turns to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which I also addressed at length in my article. As my article pointed out, Pope Paul IV in Cum Ex declared that a heretic loses his office without the need for ecclesiastical censure. I granted this principle up front, and even argued that the principle is part of the divine law (although this principle has never been dogmatized by the Church). As I have repeatedly stated, the formal heresy causes the selfexpulsion (affirmed by Cum Ex, Dimond and Salza), and thus a declaration of the self-expulsion is not required (affirmed by Cum Ex, Dimond and Salza), unless notoriety/pertinacity is not definitively proven (affirmed by canons 2197.3 and 1325.2; Salza; harmonized with Cum Ex; denied by Dimond); in which case a declaratory sentence is required if the “common good requires it so” (affirmed by canon 2223.4, Salza, Cajetan, Suarez; harmonized with Cum Ex; denied by Dimond).
There is no definitive evidence, for example, that Cardinal Roncalli’s “heresies” were commonly known as evidenced in part by the fact that Pope Pius XII never rendered any negative judgments against Roncalli. Dimond recharacterized my position to mean that the conciliar popes’ “heresies” are not public, but I was addressing only the putative heresies of Cardinal Roncalli, not the “heresies” of the conciliar popes (Cum Ex applies to Cardinals being elevated to the papacy, and not to reigning popes). I agree that the words and actions of the conciliar popes would be considered “public” in accordance with canon 2197.

But even if Roncalli’s “heresies” were public (and this goes for the conciliar popes as well), they would still have to be notorious or pertinacious, as I state in my article. Like most sedevacantists, Dimond does not address the “notorious” prong of canon law, and that is because he cannot prove notorious heresy exists (which means he cannot prove formal heresy at all). For a heresy to be notorious, it would not only have to be widely known, but the moral imputability (in other words, the criminal liability) would also have to be widely known. The pope’s words and actions could not be excused by any self-defense, such as the pope’s desire (as is the case with liberals) to please the world, or the pope’s weakness, or old age, or imprudence. To put it simply, there is no proof that the conciliar popes have acted with criminal intent or malice, much less is such “proof” widely known by the Church. In fact, most people believe that Pope John Paul II was deeply convinced that he was serving the Church – albeit, at times, in a very damaging way. ''
Are you saying that Constant belief of the Church necessary means that it's matter of dogma, or doctrine, or official teaching of the Church? Source, please.
But concerning Antichrist it is doctrine of Fathers, as prooved by St. Robert Bellarmine.
Yes I did, for I am Pole myself and some half-assed criminal from America, like Dimonds. Here, translate thyself a real documents via Google or whatever lipnik-janm.strefa.pl/3.html And this lingustical claim is even more absurd. Kaczor mean male duck, and -ski is the most polish ending of surnames.
As for father lipnik-janm.strefa.pl/2.html
I do not keep company with heretics. They could be right in particular matter as for example Dawkins have sound memeology but that does not mean that they should be ever promoted, like Anderson or other Nestorian Baptist.
And if you want to see real errors (of crimnal brotherhood), my presuming friend, read this cklc.weebly.com/uploads/9/5/6/8/9568822/feature_-_salzas_rebuttal_of_dimond_on_sedevacantism_2.pdf

>without need for any further declaration

What happened to your claim?

A heretic isn't Catholic, isn't a member of the Church, and cannot be pope. True Catholics are members of the Church and are the Church. Maybe you meant the hierarchy, but that's still covered in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which trumps canon law in any event, which you should already know.

You're conflating the validity of sacraments with a heretical pope losing office, or never having had it in the first place if he were a heretic before election.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature [suapte natura] to sever a man from the Body of the Church [ab Ecclesiae Corpore], as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: "The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “For this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold…”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Heresy," 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: "The pope himself, if notoriuously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publically fallen away from the faith."

"Salza spends quite a bit of time talking about our position on receiving sacraments. He lies about our position in various ways, he misrepresents canon law (as usual), and he falsely frames the issue. Our position on where one may receive traditional sacraments (in this unique crisis and apostasy) is explained and defended in much detail on our website, in our “Where to go to Mass” section. I also engaged in a debate on this issue recently: “Sacraments from Undeclared Heretics” – Debate. Any fair-minded person who listens to it will see that our position was not only vindicated in the debate, but the position of those who oppose us on that matter was soundly refuted.

The question is, why does Salza fixate on the separate matter of where one may receive sacraments? He does so not because he’s concerned that our position is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Rather, he does so because he thinks that in misrepresenting our position on that separate matter, he can win impression points. Since his arguments were refuted in my article, he must engage in such a tactic: i.e., he must shift the focus from whether Benedict XVI is the pope to the separate issue of whether it’s permissible to receive sacraments from certain undeclared heretics who accept Benedict XVI (these two issues involve different principles).

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/john-salza-refuted/

Have they been formally declared heretics, you hypocrite? You don't know what a heretic is. Also, you call them "criminals" which is false witness, because they won their lawsuit, which was a civil suit, btw.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30.)

Nothing. What happened to yours?
christkinglaw.com/uploads/9/5/6/8/9568822/feature_-_the_errors_of_sedevacantism.pdf
And he have to be declared heretic do do so for Canon Law is binding

Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV,
“Cum ex Apostolatus Officio”
15th February 1559
(Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)

…even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
…
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

No one is exempt from divine law.

No, I'm not.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici, Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] '''And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be
considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican.''' [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

No, that is what you are doing.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone should say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account should distort those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], into some metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Hoyle lost, MHFM won. Interesting info on Hoyle: mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/eric-hoyle/

You sound like a man worshiping pagan. I quote primary sources from the magisterium and you call me a devil and think I'm persuading you to do evil? It's also odd that you use a quote from St. Benedict, considering MHFM is a Benedictine monastery. I suggest you listen to and follow the magisterium instead of 8ch mods:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Chapter 4, On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff, #9:

Therefore,

faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Pick up Ludwig Ott's "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma." It's absolutely conclusive. I also have heard "Upon this Rock" by Stephen Ray is a good read.

"These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered."

""So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel–let the reader understand–then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

The "new rite of ordination" is invalid, since they removed a word (ut) from the original rite, and previous Popes said that all the exact original words are necessary for it to be valid.

Welcome to the internet…where we profess how much we are following Christ by deriding and insulting others.

Oh the irony of this post. The only thing you missed is to accuse the Orthos for pedo scandals.

The limited writings and historical evidence we have from the early Church is probably not enough to conclusively demonstrate to everyone beyond any doubt Catholic papal doctrine. It's like the Resurrection of Christ. You have to look at the historical evidence and any other arguments, and make a prudential judgment.

archive.org/details/a590867000linduoft
The Evidence For The Papacy: As Derived From The Holy Scriptures And From Primitive Antiquity, With An Introductory Epistle (1870) - Colin Lindsay

Jesus, Peter and Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy - Scott Butler
scribd.com/doc/189648964/Jesus-Peter-and-Keys-A-Scriptural-Handbook-on-the-Papacy-Scott-Butler

The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971;q1=adrian fortescue the early papacy

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878) - Blessed John Henry Newman
newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

The Truth Of Papal Claims - Cardinal Merry del Val
archive.org/details/a592718200merruoft

Russia and the Universal Church - Vladimir Solovyev
strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev--Russia_Universal_Church.pdf

The Primitive Church and the See of Peter - Luke Rivington
archive.org/details/a606586300riviuoft

The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ludwig Ott
archive.org/details/OttFundamentalsOfCatholicDogma