>rare moral stature
>says there is something in God that is not of God

Palamas’ satanic doctrine of God has been refuted by so many Thomist and Reformed theologians it’s unbelievable.

Y’know, contrary to popular opinion, Palamas was actually condemned by the Council of Nicea when it said that God is wholly immutable and non-composite.

Marriage is a religious vocation too, brother. Courting a girl should be treated the exact same way as entering into the seminary.

https://t.me/nationalist_homestead/816

I soon saw that James was fighting a caricature of the Catholic Church: his arguments attacked an ascribed to the Catholic Church, but his anti-Catholic rhetoric left the real teachings of the Church unscathed. His characterization of the Eucharist as a repeated sacrifice of Christ demonstrated his ignorance of Catholic doctrine and an earthbound view of heavenly reality. You cannot repeat a sacrifice that exists perpetually in the eternal present of heaven! [Endnote 3]
He called the sacrifice of the Mass a denigration of the finished work of Christ on the cross, showing his failure to see that the sacrifice of the Mass is Christ’s once for all work applied to our lives within the earthbound limits of time. Although examples of temporal punishment for sin fill Scripture, he denied the existence of Purgatory. His arguments against the Communion of Saints and devotion to Mary demonstrated a superficial understanding of the biblical evidence as well as of the Catholic teaching that in the mystical body of Christ, each of us is called to intercede on behalf of each other.
It was clear that he had never looked at scripture or history from a Catholic perspective. Neither had I until recently. And while that change of perspective made all of scripture and history make perfect sense for me, he continued to wield his pen in defense of his truncated, innovative
protestant perspective. Having grasped the Catholic perspective, his ranting seems senseless and vicious to me. Rather than turn me away from the Catholicism, my brother’s books only confirmed and deepened my interest in it.

https://www.catholicconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Story%20Patty%20Bonds.pdf

Some of you may not know, but James White’s Sister converted sometime ago to The Catholic Faith. Patty’s story is quite a good read.

Again, you’re failing to make the distinction between moral/supernatural bodies and physical bodies.The head can be seperate from the moral body in any physical body. In order to understand Bellarmine, this distinction must be made. And where did you get the idea that a council is above the Pope?

We’re talking about the deposition of the Pope from the physical body of the church here. Which requires, like St. Bellarmine said, for the Pope to be formally judged and deposed by a council. How does this imply that a council is above the Pope both supernaturally and physically in the bodily sense? It doesn’t. Bellarmine speaks about this. Maybe you should actually read him instead of cherry-picking quotes.

https://t.me/Catholicismus/1228

The head can be seperate from the moral body in any physical body. A Pope cannot be disregarded without church judgment, a council being called, and a sentence issued if he has professed heresy in the formal sense.

If a Pope becomes a heretic, he is then, as you know, placed outside of the moral body of the Church. However, this doesn’t change the fact that he does not lose jurisdiction until a council issues a sentence.

I have already dealt with this issue on twitter and I shall now transcribe it here to, YET AGAIN, prove that not only is sedevacantism incorrect, it is found NOWHERE in the old theologians, who all prescribe a far different course of action regarding a heretical Pope than the rash, prideful and many times heretical notion of sedevacantism.

CATHOLIC POSITIONS REGARDING A HERETICAL POPE - THREAD

(Refuting Sedevacantism)

Here I will list which positions have been defended within the Church and are licit for a Catholic to hold.

Notice how none of the positions correspond to the sedevacantist view, which is based upon a completely new thesis that was never defended in the history of the Church. Here, too, I will omit positions that are too minoritarian - such as that of John of Torquemada.

1 - THE POSITION OF ALBERT PIGHIUS

Pighius believed (Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, lib. 4, ch. 8) that no pope, even as a private doctor, would ever fall into heresy. Thus, defection of the faith would never serve as an impediment to receiving jurisdiction.

2 - THE THOMIST POSITION

The Thomist position has its basis in the teaching of Saint Thomas, but enunciated and properly defended for the first time by Cardinal Cajetan. The adherents of this thesis believe that there is no incompatibility between heresy and jurisdiction that there may be a heretical pope and in such a case, he needs to be deposed in a ministerial manner by a council.

This is the most common thesis in the Church and is so popular that it received not only the adherence of all Thomists (including St. Alphonsus), but even from many non-Thomists, such as the scotist Francisco Velasco O.F.M, and dissident Thomists, such as Francisco Suárez S.J.

"while the natural head must receive a vital influx of the soul before it can influence other members of the body, the moral head can ... exercise its jurisdiction over the Church, even if it does not receive an influx of inner faith ..." (Garrigou-Lagrange, De Christo Salvatore)

"The most common sentence is that Christ, by a special dispensation, for the common good and tranquillity of the Church, allows the heretical pontiff to maintain jurisdiction until deposed by the Church." (Billuart, Summa sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum accommodata, De Fide)

“The pope who becomes a heretic is not deposed ipso facto neither by human law nor by divine law; the pope has no superior on earth; and if he deviates from the faith, he must be deposed.” (Cardinal Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritate Papae et Concilii)

“the Church can depose a Pontiff, as proven by Cajetan and Melchor Cano. But dispositive power is not in vain in the Church, nor can it be reduced to an act unless the Pontiff errs in faith.” (College of Salmanticenses, Cursus theologicus, De Fide, Disp. IV, Dub. 1, 7)

“If the Supreme Pontiff falls into heresy, he does not immediately fall from his pontifical dignity, but must be deposed by the Church ... This sentence is affirmed by Cajetan in the booklet by Auct. Pap. et Conc., 18.” (Domingo Báñez, Sch. Comm.)

"... the pope [who has fallen into heresy] needs to be suspended by men." (Domingo de Soto, In quart. Sent. Comm., Distinct. 22, q. 2, a.2)

"With the first heretical word he utters, he incurs a canonical excommunication. However, he is not ipso facto suspended by the heresy uttered ... a sentence is required instead." (Domingo de Soto, In Quart. Sent. Comm., Distinct. 22, q. 2, a.2)

"Therefore, only with this authority [Ecumenical Councils] can the Pontiff who has fallen into heresy be deposed." (Melchor Cano, De Locis Theo.)

"If he has not yet been declared deposed from his Chair, the faithful must listen to him and obey him because he still retains the power and jurisdiction." (John of St. Thomas, In II-IIae)

“Against this sentence, I affirm in the second place: in no case is the Pontiff also deprived of his dignity and power by God Himself without the prior judgment of men and sentence. To this day, this is the most common opinion, [defended by] Cajetan, Soto, Cano, Cordub.”
(Francisco Suarez, Opus de Triplice Virtute Theologica)

“I say in the third place: if the pope were heretical and incorrigible, ... by the declaratory sentence of the legitimate Church's jurisdiction over the crime he professed, he would cease to be pope. It is common among doctors.” (Francisco Suárez, Opus de Triplice Virtute Theol.)

"But nonetheless, the opposite sentence (to that of Belarmino [i.e., as we will see later, that if a pope becomes a heretic he automatically loses the jurisdiction]) is the most common among theologians." (F. Velasco, Subtilissimi Scoti Doctorum super tertium sententiarum)

"The authors [Gonet includes himself] who teach that the heretical pope is not deposed ipso facto from the pontifical dignity not only speak of occult heresy, but also of public heresy." (J. B. Gonet, Clypeus, Tract. XI, Disp. XIV, Art. II)

This is the Thomistic thesis, held by every Dominican of note (and therefore a thomist) and the majority of non-Dominican thomists and dissident thomists, as we have proven. It is the majority opinion of the theologians, and being that which is based upon Saint Thomas Aquinas, by far the one most worthy of belief for any Catholic.

However, I shall further prove that the sedevacantes have lied and usurped Saint Robert Bellarmine, who in no way ever supported their ridiculous, heretical nonsense.

3 - THE VIEW OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE

"The fourth [reason for calling a council] is suspected of heresy in the Roman Pontiff ... The council must be called to depose the pope if he is a heretic." (De Conc. I, 9)

"others [in which he is included] consider that such a person [heretical pope] would fall ipso facto of the pontificate, such that there would be no deposition on the part of the Church, but a declaratory sentence on the vacancy of the see." (Card. Billot, Tractus de Ecclesia)

“(...)Conclusion:
The pope who is a manifest heretic, for this very reason, falls from his dignity, so the Church does not need to testify for this, but to declare him deposed.” (Theologia Scoti a prolixitate, vol. 4 Tract. II, Disp. II, q. I, art. 9)

No one in Church history has ever said that private theologians (priests, laymen, etc) have the jurisdiction or power to disobey the Pope’s jurisdiction and deny him due to heresy, but only after a visible deposition by the Church.

What is the difference, speaking simply and plainly, between the two more common thesis - Cajetan’s and Bellarmine’s?
It is quite simple: Cajetan admits no opposition between heresy and jurisdiction; therefore, a Pope may remain a heretic and yet remain a Pope to the end of his days. He must, if the Church so decides, be deposed by a Council. There, at the moment of the Council declaring the sentence, by the power of Christ alone and not of the council which merely declares, the Pope would immediately cease to have his dignity.
And Bellarmine? He believes the deposition by Christ happens at once, at the moment of heresy manifest. However, as he shows plainly in his many treatises on civil and ecclesiastical power, this cannot be proven by individuals - it would be chaos in the Church, and schism. Therefore, although he admits that the Head parts with the Body by the power of Christ at the moment of heresy, he only admits true disobedience - that is to not recognise him as Pope - after the Church has declared it so through a Council, this for the sake and health of the Church and Her faithful.

So here we have plainly and concisely explained all there is to the matter at hand regarding solely the case of a heretical Pope - those who usurp Saint Bellarmine and seek to cherry pick one of his quotes without fully understanding his entire theological treatise (often without having even read him at all!) must immediately cease their usurpation, for theirs is a half truth more detrimental and sinful than a lie plainly told, and give great scandal who use such a Saint for their unsaintly and uncatholic behaviour as is with the sedevacantes.

Go sub to @KnightAtlantic or you’re a faggot