Lover of Truth
Reputation: 147
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,512
|
| Caminus said: | There are many Catholics who think the entire hierarchy has fallen into heresy. They infer this from the fact that they all accept Vatican II and its 'heresies.' Thus, the title of the thread directed towards those universalist sedevacantists. I appreciate your nuanced approach, but the strongest argument rests upon subjective opinions regarding what is allegedly impossible for a Pope to do or say. Given such a weak foundation, why posit a judgment at all? Why venture into a territory that you can have no certainty, that is entirely outside of the scope of your duties?
One could with more reason assert that justice and charity demand we accept a legal claim at face value. You have never spoken to these men. You have only analyzed pieces of their writings and even supposing you do detect strict heresy, it still doesn't follow that we could infer obstinancy. And even if they were obstinate, one could still consider them a member of the Church because they are included in the external criteria of the Church itself.
As John Daly pointed out in another article, many men have been considered still members of the Church who have made statements far more explicit than anyone you're dealing with today. I suspect it was because of their sound ecclesiological doctrine which understood the external bond to be just as important, if not moreso, as the internal bond in making the determination of Church membership.
I think you would be quite shocked who the Fathers allowed to be theoretical members of the Church. The modern SV today sounds more like a Donatist than a Catholic. |
No previous era can be compared with the v2 era as, supposing it is still the Catholic Church and headed by a Catholic bishop (the Pope) they have changed every single aspect of the Church, they changed the Catholic Church into something else but still call it Catholic. The time of the Arians and the GWS does not compore, nor do any of the week or even doubtful Popes compare to the conciliar leaders, they are in different stratospheres.
|
.........................
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church
|
| Posted Jul 25, 2012, 3:26 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Lover of Truth
Reputation: 147
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,512
|
| Ambrose said: | | Quote: | | All of this comes to naught since according to the SV logic, all of these bishops have abdicated their office through the acceptance of the 'heresies' of Vatican II. Isn't that your fundamental premise? As soon as a bishop assents to these 'heresies' they lose their office. Just because they're "old" doesn't mean anything, in fact, it only would increase their guilt. |
It is not as simple as that. This may be the logic of some who hold SV, but I have not met any of them. The position is far more complex than that. Charity and Justice demand that one sees the best in their neighbor until forced to hold the other view, and this would especially include heresy.
For many of us, we have seen the evidence against Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, and we have reacted to that evidence and made conclusions about their status as Catholics. Our judgments are private and non-binding on other Catholics, as only the magisterium can make binding and official judgments about Catholics.
So, can one infer that if these papal claimants were heretics, then by that fact are those that follow them guilty of heresy? The answer is no. Each Catholic cannot cease being a Catholic unless he is guilty of heresy, schism, or apostasy, and that includes these bishops.
How can this be, you may ask? The answer is that in the case of the papal claimants, the stronger argument rather than determining if they are heretics, (which is a very high standard), is the argument that they have done things that Pope's cannot do, (evil teaching and law).
Is it possible to judge heresy prior to the judgment of the Church? Yes, but it is very difficult. John Daly has written an excellent tract on this, which explains the nuances. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html
In the case of these older bishops, I have not read any of their writings, and I have not spoken with them, so I do not have any reason at this time to believe that they are heretics. Their (apparent) submission to the post Vatican II claimants does not prove heresy.
|
According to Catholic teaching if one who claims to hold ecclesiastical office teaches and or engages in heretical acts, especially repeatedly, and does not heed the warnings, we judge him as a heretic plain and simple. A Pope is assumed to be a Catholic and hold the faith. In fact a Pope MUST be Catholic. Do when a "Pope" teaches heresy is is judged to be a heretic plain and simple. I do not think John Daly would disagree with that. All we can do is judge the exterior. Judging the subjective culpability is impossible and the Church would not bind such a thing on us before allowing us to withdraw the submission that is necessary for salvation in the case of all valid Popes.
| Quote: | | they have done things that Pope's cannot do, (evil teaching and law). |
This is even a better standard than the public heretic standard. Well put. When you see a Pope approve a heretical council, canon law, invalid sacraments, invalid Mass, heretical Catechism, highly dubious Saints, worship in false religions you have seen someone doing something that no Pope can do.
No Pope can change the Catholic Church into a mishmash of Anglicanism and portestantism that these guys have. Regarding the liturgy and sacraments they just kind of copied the Church of England and Calvin. Hey it worked for them, why won't it work now? And it did work. It has fooled "even the elect" if this is possible.
|
.........................
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church
|
| Posted Jul 25, 2012, 3:38 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
