He has answered you, and has provided many sources to back up his claim. I have not seen you post a legitimate source backing your claim, only conjecture. I’m going to go with that’s because you are wrong and that they’re aren’t any legitimate sources that agree with you, otherwise you’d post them.
Why do you or I need a source. I think for myself. If I am wrong, then point out why. What is this source thing? Haven’t you the proper education, the right credentials for this job?
I chose to protect my faith, that pearl of great price, in very special ways. One who preaches ~~~ empty chair~~~, others who declare Popes of living memory to be ~~~ public sinners ~~~ … I’m reminded of this standard: good tree, good fruit or … .? So simple.
I apologize. Sarcasm seems to be a staple in this country, however, I always regret when I sink to using sarcasm, again my apology. I believe the discussion is about the natural law which most agree is in essence the 10 commandments. I believe you are making this issue far more complicated than need be. The natural laws consist of the 7 moral commandments, and it also includes that man has the ability to know God, that God rewards and punishes, and the ability to detect and reject false god’s and false religions. The scriptures attest to this when we read about Abraham, once Abram. Abram was raised in a family who worshipped false gods, idols. He did not know of the true God, but he rejected the false gods of his family. He rejected the false gods of his family before he knew of the true God, and because he strove to keep the natural law written upon his heart, God enlightened him and revealed Himself to Abram. His conversion is proof of the law written upon all the hearts of men. Here is what the Haydock commentary states: Romans 2: “Ver. 14-15. When the Gentiles…do by nature, or naturally, that is, without having received any written law, these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honouring their parents, &c, not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve supernatural reward in the kingdom of heaven; but God, out of his infinite mercy will give them some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says, S. Chrys. were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion.
Measure of sympathy? I disagree with them. But unlike you I want to hear what they have to say.
Because you are not the Church. Obviously if the Church agreed with your opinion (which I think even you would agree is important), then there would obviously be some official document stating that the Decalogue is not in fact written in its entirety on the hearts of man.
That means nothing to me. In fact, its the exact reason why you have been proven wrong countless times.
This has already been done. I don’t even have to do anything. Try reading post # 977.
It’s called being academic. Clearly you’ve never heard of such a thing.
Ah, insults from someone who I highly doubt actually has a theology degree. Why don’t you just man up and admit you’re wrong?
I showed him up totally on his SV presentations. All of them, everyone of them! He has been wrong. It is about time that he makes himself right with God and his Church.
So you refuse to agree with everything SFD has posted? If we’re going to go with this kind of logic, then the only way to be consistent is to disagree with everything SFD has posted. This would make you a heretic, which I highly doubt you are. Why don’t you just agree with the Baltimore Catechism, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Catechism Explained by Spirago and Clarke? If you agree with them, then you agree with SFD on this topic. It’s that simple. I’m not saying you should hold to sedevacantism, in fact I don’t think you should, but SFD is still right on this.
What’s your point? SFD has still showed you up 99% of the time. The fact that he’s wrong on sedevacantism doesn’t mean he’s not right on this, and the fact that you’re right on sedevacantism doesn’t make you right on other things.
Maybe it’s time you do the same, by agreeing with all the Church teaches, including the teachings regarding the Decalogue and the Natural Law.
dramaquesens are so boring. i needn’t pay ANY attention to anything SFD says. I’m free to do that. So are you. You have a personal need to salute SFD re anything? Suit yourself.
Short memory, maria? Both you and I know that you called Pope John Paul II a public sinner until I backed you into a wall and pushed you through it. Remember now? It was shortly after I joined the site, during one of your Assisi rants.
That’s called “throwing the baby out with the bath water”…
That’s your dangerous and horribly naive opinion.
I dare say, if poor maria called JPII a public sinner she was being mild in the fact that he was a notorious heretic! He more than pandered to false religions, he instigated, promoted, and prayed with 200 false religions at Assisi, which was an abomination. He is an apostate by his own words and actions. You can bury your head in the sand Catharina, and refuse to see the truth, however it does not change the truth.
Agree with him on resurrecting Robert Bellarmine, and twisting his opinion about heresy of pope; quoting from a Code of CL which has been abrogated, not understanding anything about the Law that the Pope is the Lawgiver, and answers to no man on earth, no Council, no Bishop, no Cardinal - noone. That the pope is infallible and cannot be heretical; that the pope cannot be excommunicated; that the pope has supreme and absolute power as Christ’s vicar on earth.
How so, has SFD not been right on many things?
