(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
15. A sedevacantist's confusion about the New Mass, Vatican II and Church authority
Jim: Hello Mr. Salza, I listened to you on Relevant Radio last night talking about SSPX--you seem knowledgeable in the area. I was wondering if you can help me out? A friend gave this to me--and I have not been able to refute their position. If you can please give examples of teaching use prior to Vatican II that refute the claims or actually support the new teaching as it is clearing stated in the article cannot be done but actually condemned the new---please provide. Then if this is possible why doesn.t the old teaching claimed in article really refute the new as is being made line by line by Bp Sanborn--what is the teaching saying it not clearly comdemning the new? Attachment (The New Ecclesiology, by Donald Sandborn) Note: this is a very good summary of the evidence that the post-conciliar ecclesiology differs from the Tradition of the Church.
J.Salza: Jim, only the teachings of VII which reiterated previous infallible teaching are infallible. The rest are not; they are reformable. This shouldn't surprise you. The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When VI was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years. The gift of infallibility is limited to either ex cathedra statements or the exercise of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, when a teaching was taught "by all, always and everywhere." The pastoral teachings of VII, especially regarding ecumenism, dialogue, religious liberty, and even the “subsist” ecclesiology are not infallible because they are undefined concepts and were not taught by the Church "by all, always and everywhere." That is why the Holy Ghost prevented the Church from binding Catholics to them. They are subject to reform. And in the future, they will be reformed. So don't let it worry you too much. God is still in charge. I believe He is using VII to sift out the heretics and to purify the Church.
Jim: So if they are not being taught by the Church but yet endorsed and promoted by The Universal Magisterium can we still say they are not part of the Church? The Universal Magisterium promulgated the N.O. Mass in 1969 universal to the world. The Church cannot teach or promote on a universal level a form of worship that would endanger the faithful soul this is part of Her infallibility. She is infallible when She giving things like liturgical practices such as a new Mass to the universal Church for all to practice and worship with.I am not talking about a bishop in his own diocese but a universal teaching from the Church to all to use for mean of salvation meaning that She could never give a Mass that would lead the faithful into error, heresy or change their belief with what it means to be Catholic or make a Mass that would give risk for the faithful to loose their soul. But yet it is being done constantly and still today---even with the hierarchy.
How do you explain the N.O. Mass or Mess---It does all that and more. Look at the fruit of today---it was not result of some random acts of some radical liberals that ran a muck or they did not follow the true teaching of V2.but a organize design that was done universally on the Church, an attack that been in the plans for over 300 years that all the popes up to V2 warned us about and then none of them say any about it anymore after V2.
So the Church could not lead Her sheep to slaughter as the N.O. Mass has (the devil must love the N.O. Mess).this is the safe guard of the Church---this how the sheep know their Sheppard. I seen more good faithful polluted by the N.O. Mess and they follow it to the letter of the law too.the whole style and form is the worship style of Protestantism.
J.Salza: Jim, your understanding of the situation is not entirely correct. First, Pope Paul VI did NOT impose the NO on the universal Church. He offered it as an alternative in the Latin Rite of the Church. Second, because the pope didn't bind the universal Church to use the NO, his act does not invoke the charism of infallibility. Third, you are simply wrong to say that a pope cannot impose a harmful rite upon the Church. The Council of Trent disagrees with you. Trent anathematized anyone who would create a new rite, so it obviously contemplated that such could occur. Nicea II also anathematized anyone who would set aside the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church. The pope was never excepted from these possibilities, because he too can do such a thing. The fact that Paul VI did not invoke his authority to bind the universal Church (he couldn't for the Holy Ghost wouldn't allow it) should put you at ease, at least somewhat.
Jim: But the effects are the same because the bottom lines is the N.O. Mass was enforced as if it was to be infallible and and one had to say the new mess or one had to get dispensation to do otherwise and only for a very short period of time for old priest. How else would it be in so ingrained as it is today who did this, but what the world calls the visible Church. If the faithful look to their hierarchy to supply to direction and they universal fail to do what the Church wants and what the Holy Ghost wanted---does this mean they are not longer part of the Catholic Church.? Are you saying someone need to be a theologian just to have the Catholic Faith---for all these well intended Catholic that were obedient to there superior got sucker punch after V2 and the rotten fruit that was fostered and promoted and still to this day blessed by Rome, one should look the other way the faithful should of done different than to obey?. So since the N.O. Mess was not made a Dogma in your mind there is not accountability to those who are in charge of these changes and that the faithful should of repelled them on their own and in the future repelled what is not dogma or what they think is not Catholic --because very few teachings are dogmas or made infallible. I do not think this how Christ wanted His Church to run or for the hierarchy to behave that somehow the heirarchy is able to do every evil in the book as long as it not defined infallible. The Church protect Her faithful from error. So can we conclude that the Holy Ghost did not have anything to do with the N.O. Mass and that He was not in the hierarchy that did promote it and still does promote and support the N.O. and many other errors??---in the old days they would call them heretics for if they were not for the Church but did things against the Churches teaching they were never given a clean title and position of authority to scandalize the masses with, as is now. In the past they were always pointed out and force to come in line with Church teachings or else be excommunicated---but who is there to do the calling out today---for all that are in Power are in agreement with each other and they are the source of the problem.is this the Great Apostasy, for very, very, very few faithful even notice this problem or bring question to it, all are thinking we are living in the New Springtime. But for the record Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised rite of Mass with his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, setting the first Sunday of Advent at the end of that year as the date on which it would enter into force. An apostolic constitution (Latin constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
J.Salza: Jim, first, you should review the evidence which supports the conclusion that Pope Paul VI did not legally promulgate the Novus Ordo Mass. Second, even if he did, the fact is that the promulgation of the NO did not invoke the pope's charism of infallibility. Even though it de facto spread throughout the Church, the Church didn't mandate such a thing. It was a phenomenon for sure, but not infallibly ordained by the Church. The fact that bishops suppressed the Tridentine Mass after the NO was promulgated also doesn't infringe on the Church's indefectibility. Yes, these things happened, but Christ never said they couldn't happen. You know that almost the whole Church fell into heresy during the Arian crisis. If that didn't negate the Church's indefectibility, then neither does the current crisis, however bad it may be (and I believe it is worse, because the devil has fooled people into disobeying the Tradition of the Church under the pretext of obedience). Also, I never said there was no accountability. The prelates who abandoned the Tradition will be accountable before God, including the pope himself. I am simply defending the infallibility of the Church, which was not invoked to promulgate the NO. That is all I am saying. And that is why you and I remain Catholic. That Trent and Nicea contemplate pastors who are able to deride ecclesiastical traditions and impose new rites is proof of my position. The anathemas don't say that if these things happen, the Church is finished. No. They simply condemn those who do such things. So you are either falling into sedevacantism, or you recognize that the pope can err gravely on matters of faith and liturgy, but the Church is still infallible, because the Holy Ghost has prevented him from dogmatizing his errors. Why God has allowed these things to happen is for God to know, not us. You are also wrong about baptism of desire. The council of Trent teaches baptism of desire in her teachings on Justification, right before the dogmatic canons.
Jim: Catholic theologians, indeed, teach that the Churchs universal disciplinary laws, including laws governing the sacred liturgy, are infallible. Here is a typical explanation from the theologian Herrmann: The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible. So the only conclusion is that New Mass is not from the Church---for it teaches error and can only be from unholy men and enemies of the Church occupying their building and offices. The enemy is with the Church, but the enemy is not the Church. Otherwise we are big trouble with Church be infallible for if they are illegimate in their office it would make the Holy Ghost guilty of these crimes. For in article above in theology book I seen the same thing, that general discipline that are infallible.
J.Salza: Jim, you are not addressing the biggest issue. Nicea and Trent said the Church could err on deriding ecclesiastical traditions and imposing new rites. What you fail to see is that liturgy does not invoke the ordinary and universal Magisterium in regard to faith and morals, unlike the other issues you mention below (unless, of course, the pope makes it clear that his liturgical directives are not reformable, which is arguably the case with Quo Primum of St. Pius V insofar as the integrity of the Roman rite is concerned). Also, the Church has never defined the extent to which "general discipline" is error-free, so this is pure speculation. In fact, given what Trend and Nicea said, we must conclude that an alternative rite given to the Latin Church as an option does not invoke infallibility. Neither the Church nor any reputable theologian has said otherwise. So you either are a sedevacantist, or you recognize that the novelties of the post-conciliar Church don't bind. Certainly, if the teachings of VII are pastoral and thus non-binding, then certainly the liturgy which came from commissions (and which violates many directives of the council) cannot be binding either. It is common sense.
Jim: I am not debating if the Church indefectibility and if it has infallible teaching, I know this it the Bride of Christ. But St. Bellarmire (sp?) said the Pope could be excommunicated ipso facto.if he taught heresy.in order to protect the Church---and a man has to be Catholic to be the pope-if he excommunicated himself as laity, priest or bishop or cardinal 40 or 60 years prior he still excommunicated maybe not formally for no one alive has the Faith to accuse him.but the crime still is there and facts are still true one has right to protect themselves from evil. You have to be a members of the body of which you are the head of. Sure the Church will protect herself for She will claim that person lost their authority or membership before they could do such evils. But then you have accountability problem for today and billions of sheep being lead into error ---how is the Holy Ghost protecting them who put their trust in their erroneous leaders and following the teachings into Catholic Protestantism. Will the Church in fifty years say---all the V2 popes where heretics and all those that followed these errors knowingly are also. So one has to be held accountable for all this today.not fifty year from now.it just cannot be left to a mystery clause and watch Satan heard the sheep by the millions down his path and every on hail these men as super and great popes and saints---for those that know this is a lie---will be greatly punished on Judgment Day if they do not scream it for the house tops like John the Baptist did. I will fine the article I read that say Church is infallible in her discipline and forms of worship that She present to the faithfuluniversally.that she could never lead people to error for fully participating in the New Mass (but it is happening. I saw many good priest and laity loose their faith as result of the New Mass.She does have to declare it infallible to be so)-----point being these people were not member of the Church when promulgating these errors in the Church so not question of Church infallibility ---but if these people are even members of the Church. Please send me a direct English quote of were you think words of infallibility were used for Baptism of
J.Salza: Trent - Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4): "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema." Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4): "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom.8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation." - From the Catechism of St. Pius X.
Jim: I guess I am confused from the source is it from the Catechism of St. Pius X ---taking a direct quote of Trent and these are the words of Trent or the Catechism in 1900's?? The new Catechism does not deny baptism of desire so its position is irrelevant to the issue--but does teach error with regard who the Church of Christ is---Means of Salvation---scarmentst given to heretic and schimatic, etc--so how is it a document of the Church--the Church does never spoke this way on the topics. And I maintain that the Church cannot teach error and so these novel doctrines and the NO does not come from the Church. Also, these heretics Br. Dimonds (forget the messenger look at the message)---put a great argument up against your saying that V2 was not a infallible council.but only retaught the infallible teaching of the past. They show proof that V2 had the same seal of infallibility as other Councils like Trent. Thus endorsing the false teaching of V2---this makes proof that it was not a council of the Church for it endorse error. What do you say to it?
J.Salza: James, you can either listen to the Dimond Brothers, or you can listen to the popes who opened and closed the council who both said the Council did not teach "with a note of infalliblity" (that is a quote from Paul VI). Also, Baptism of desire is not a sacrament (I never said it was). However, it produces the fruit of the sacrament. You are also adopting the same position as the Novus Ordo apologists: That everything the Church does is infallible. That is absolutely wrong. The Church can teach error and can impose harmful rites on the faithful. It is as simple as that. Nicea and Trent told us so. That means some things come from the human side of the Church, not the divine side. The Church found over 40 errors in PRE CONCILIAR papal teaching on faith and morals when she was defining papal infallibility at Vatican I. So what do you do with that Jim? Say the Church was in heresy before VII? No. You acknowledge that the Church teaches infallibly only when she communicates the Tradition that has been believed "by all, always and everywhere." Jim, you need to use your God-given intellect when you analyze these issues. Not everything is going to be spelled out for you with divine-like clarity. Again, I reiterate:
1. If Nicea says that pastors can deride the ecclesiastical traditions (it did), and if Trent says that pastors can inact new rites that do not conform to tradition (it did), then that answers your question. If it doesn't conform to tradition, then it is harmful.
2. It is common knowledge that popes have erred. Read about the Church's investigations when formulating the papal infallibility dogma at the First Vatican Council. There is no distinction between the Church and the pastors of it, because the pastors make up the members of the body, and they don't always teach correctly. Big deal. Big surprise. Your real issue is whether we swallow it or resist it. Obviously, we resist it! We hold only to the Tradition. And we need people like you to educate people about resisting the novelties.
3. Read the opening and closing address of the council as well as Pope Paul VI's speeches concerning the council. Do the research. It is common knowledge that Pope Paul VI says the council "did not teach with a note of infallibility." If you have any of Michael Davies' books, you will find the quote.
4. Yes, the Church has taught infallibly since 1958. VII's teachings on the divinity of Christ, the sinlessness of Mary, the sacrifice of the Mass - all teachings that are part of the Apostolic Tradition - are infallible. Pope John Paul II's ban on women priests in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible. Again, any teaching that has been taught "by all, always and everywhere" is infallible. Remember that formula. It comes from St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium.
Jim,: Hi John, I have searched for where it says in Trent and Nicea that Church can teaching error...but cannot find it----do you have those quotes handy?
J.Salza: Jim, yes, here they are: Nicea II condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of the heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church." Trent says: "If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema" (Session 7, Canon 13, On the Sacraments). Pope Innocent III also said in his bull De Consuetudine that "it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go againstthe universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed." These, and other authorities, demonstrate that the pope can impose new rites and deride the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church, and yet the Church remains the Church; Catholics simply must resist them.
Jim: I still do not see where, it say the Church can teach error. I see that people can. They support my position and actually condemned the New Mass and the New Religion of the Modernist with B16 being the head of this group, with these quotes---saying it not Catholic and does not support the idea that they part of the body of the Church in any way.in fact it say one should do with it all together universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed." This supports the Sede claim. For the Sede do not oppose the position of the pope but only a heretic that claims to be pope, which is supported with your quote---for it says He need not be followed---not only that particular teaching that is in question but in all things---AS LONG AS HE violate one or many of those universal Customs which V2 popes clearly have.
J.Salza: Jim, these warnings never say what you are trying to force them to say: that error doesn't come from the Church (at least in her human side). The condemnations say if "pastors" impose new rites or deride ecclesiastical traditions. Obviously, "pastors" are part of the Church. They are assumed to be in the Church and thus their teachings come from the Church. There is no guarantee of infallibility unless the requirements of VI are met. This is precisely why VI specified the parameters! So that we wouldn't be scandalized by error coming from the Church! Nothing supports the sedevacantist position. Yes, a pope can become a heretic, but he would have to be deposed by the Church and formally declared one. It is not up to you or me to make such a declaration, otherwise you have anarchy (actually, you have Protestantism). Moreover, the sedes argue that the post-conciliar popes were heretics prior to being elected and so they are not true popes. Again, they cannot prove this, nor do they have the authority to make such a declaration. True popes can teach lies, and still be popes. This is fundamental. Nicea II and Trent say precisely that.
Jim: A Pope that goes against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed." That is pretty clear.they are not talking v2 popes personal lies or personal weakness here that many pope have said or done before but universal customs that they pronounce that are erroneous many of them after V2. For these universal customs of the Church---that leaders of V2 movement all violate, even B16 does so, so it pretty clear there---do not follow HIM.B16 for this is the instruction of the Church.
J.Salza: Jim, you have already made up your mind on the matter that the post-conciliar popes are heretics. You fail to see that the Church clearly teaches that popes can mislead the Church, and still retain their office. You don't understand the levels of Church authority, and you don't understand when the Church exercises her ordinary and universal Magisterium. And that is not your biggest problem. Your biggest problem is that you espouse sedevacantism, which denies the First Vatican Council's dogmatic teaching that the papacy will have perpetual successors, and makes Jesus a liar. If sedevacantism were true, the gates of hell have prevailed. There is no way to elect a new pope without a specific revelation from God. That is why the sedes cannot even agree on who is pope. They are a splintered and fractured group of dissidents who have named at least 20 different popes since Pius XII. Jim, I urge you to reconsider your position, which comes under the anathema of Almighty God Himself. I am now finished with this dialogue. God bless.
Jim: John, Did Christ say it better to go after the one lost sheep than the 99 that are saved---you only want to have conversation with those agree or praise your opinion?? you are not fulfilling your duty as a Catholic. I am asking for you out of charity to prove the position is wrong. So far you have not support any of your conclusion only your personal words of Catholic documents. The document you provide yesterday actually said you do not need to follow HIM. pope or bishop that taught again universal custom of the Church---very clear there--you have not refute this--so that only mean you agree. So far you have not proven anything close to saying that Trent or Nicea say that the Church can teach error. You made a quote from the two council.and give no support to your personal opinion of what is being said.
J.Salza: Jim, I have fulfilled my duties to you in Christian charity. I have shown you from Trent, Nicea, Pope Innocent, Bellarmine, etc. that the pope can teach error (imposing new rites or deriding ecclesiastical traditions) without losing his office. The burden is now on you to show me where the Church, in papal or conciliar decrees, says that when a pope teaches error he loses his office. Did you hear me? Show me where the Church teaches that when a pope teaches error he loses his office. If you cannot sustain this burden, it is game over. Jim, it already is.
Jim: John, Below are few examples from the ordinary teaching (infallible ordinary Magisterium) of the Church, covering a span of 5 centuries which teach a Pope can lose his authority through heresy. The examples from St. Francis de Sales, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus Ligouri alone, openly teach this and their writings have been propagated through the hands of 40 or so Popes since their time, never with a single condemnation from a single Pope. Rather, these 3 Saints' writings were so incredibly scrutinized as part of being declared Doctors of the Church, and not a single Pope condemned their open teaching of a Pope losing his authority due to heresy. By these Popes silence and allowance of this teaching being propagated among the Church for 5 centuries, this teaching becomes part of the infallible ordinary Magisterium of the Church, a Vatican I clearly states.
*"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." *St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy" (16th century)
*"...a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact ceases to be pope and head, just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian and a member of thebody of the Church; wherefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the judgement of all the early fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." - *St. Robert Bellarmine, "On the Roman Pontiff" (16th century)
*"If God permitted a pope to be notoriously heretical and contumacious, he would then cease to be pope, and the Apostolic Chair would be vacant." - *St. Alphonsus de Liguori, "The Truths of the Faith"(18th century)
*A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church... *A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Pope, Deposition of a *No canonical provisions exist regulating the authority of the College of Cardinals /sede Romana impedita/, i.e., in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right reason and the teachings of history. - *Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. III. p.339]
Cardinal *The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) /ob fidem/ (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. - *Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
*An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope. - *A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition 466.
Q*. Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso facto, of the Pontificate? *A.* - 1. There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine appointment, divested, /ipso facto/, of the Pontificate; the other, thathe is, /jure divino/, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an oecumenical council of the College of Cardinals. - *Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, 1887
*"A simoniacal election of this kind is never at any time to be made valid by a subsequent enthronement or the passage of time, or even by the act of adoration or obedience of all the cardinals. It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals,...as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people,... to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch." *- Pope Julius II, Council of Lateran V. 1513
*"Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation..."* - Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398
*"Nor is there any schism if......one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." *- Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2
"Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ['probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao]." * - de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8 Pretty clear to me.
J.Salza: Jim, I am very aware of all of these quotations (and I should have made my challenge to you more clear, which is my fault, so I apologize for that). What you really must prove is that a pope can lose is office for heresy without a canonical trial held by the Church (typically, this would be held by the Cardinals, which is precisely what the authorities you cite say). Everything you are saying about a pope's ability to lose his office for heresy is true, but you are missing the final and most crucial step: HOW DO YOU DETERMINE HERESY? Not one single Father or Doctor of the Church says that it can be determined other than by a formal trial. It certainly cannot be established by a group of lay people or religious dissidents like the Dimond Brothers. There is NOTHING in Church teaching that gives you or me the authority to render a formal judgment of heresy. Until the Church renders such a judgment, you must simply hold fast to the Tradition and cannot presume that the pope is no longer the pope.
Jim: Before I answer this---let’s go back to stage one---prove they are valid bishop in the first place as discussed in the other email. Otherwise it a moot point to waste my time on.
J.Salza: Jim, it is no surprise why you punted on this key question. The burden is on you to show where the Church teaches that one is declared a formal heretic without a canonical trial. Since you are bringing the charge of heresy, you have to prove it. Otherwise, as a lawyer, I move to dismiss the case, and my motion is granted.
Jim: John you are drinking their poisoned water of the truth, trying to filter it against pass teachings, but while you spend your life in their room you are inhaling the smoke of illusion from the N.O. opium den that you are bathing in and one cannot separate oneself from it and avoid breathing even with a mask of Tradition for you surround yourself around them and eating at the same table with them and seeing them books of praise for you are one in body, mind and spirit with those for you profess this unity publicly in the Mass and in your actions and in your talks on the radio or EWTN and your books. You do not sound ALARM---you raise no alarm for the average Joe to be concern about these hierarchy but only smear good Catholic doctrines on top of people that are heretics give in since approval of their wrong by putting good solid Traditional Catholic teachings in connect with their names.
For most will come away with thinking everything that comes from their Bishop or B16 is God’s pure truth and must be obeyed for John Salza talks about the benefits of V2 and wonderful quotes of the V2 .popes.. Maybe what they say about attorneys is true.
J.Salza: Jim, we are at an impasse because you don't understand ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Only a canonical trial or an enclave of the college of cardinals can declare that the pope was never a pope because he was a heretic at the time of his election. This is what your own authorities have said. So if Jim wants to say the pope was never the pope, then Jim is violating all of the ecclesiastical and juridical requirements that the Church imposes upon him (unless, of course, Jim is going to get a canon lawyer and some theologians and file a claim in canonical court).
So, Jim, YES the pope can fall into heresy or even be a heretic when elected, but the Church has established the apparatus for such an adjudication to take place. And I assure you, it is not in the mind of Jim YXXXX.
You can speculate all you want, but unless the Church declares the pope a heretic, then he is presumed not to be one. Don't you understand the burden of proof issues? Your position violates basic laws of justice and equity, no matter how grave you think the pope's errors are. Just because you accuse Obama of not being president doesn't mean he has to prove he is president. You have to prove he is not. And you can't do it through an internet dialogue. You have to take your case to court.
So my heartfelt fraternal advice for you is to keep your mouth shut about declaring the pope a formal heretic (an office and a competency that you don't hold), and rather hold on to the Tradition of the Church, no matter how bad things seem. Otherwise, you have put your private judgment ahead of the judgment of the Church.
|Posted Jun 16, 2012, 1:47 am
Ignored by: 0