LordPhan
Reputation: 824
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,233
|
You can downthumb me all you like, but here are some facts, During the Arian Crisis the Bishops who went Arian never lost office, there was a condemnation of them earlier but they were allowed to STAY in their positions if they repented. They were never declared to have lost their offices.
Pope Liberius was declared to have always been the Pope and Felix II was declared an Anti-Pope. St. Athanasius disobeyed Liberius until Liberius repented for his succumbing to pressure from the arians and signing an arian document which condemned St. Athanasius.. according to your logic that would make him a protestant. I think you should apologize to the great Doctor of the Church.
When Pope John XXII preached heresy in his sermons, there was a great outcry and a near revolt. Finally he agree to send the question to a theological study commision after which he was told he was wrong. He repented on his deathbed, his error was condemned by his successor who also stated that he had witnessed the repentance of John XXII(It was not a public repentance)
Schism is when you deny communion with other Catholics(which many Sedes do) or you deny that the Pope is your superior.
It has nothing to do with lawful disobedience.
You are confused, but do not attack us.
I hold the same position as Bishop Williamson.
P.S. As a previous poster has pointed out, you do not know what constitutes Ex Cathedra. The last 4 Popes have never spoken anything Ex Cathedra, in fact it goes against everything they believe to say anything Ex Cathedra, thus the Holy Ghost is protecting us from such.
|
|
| Posted May 15, 2012, 3:06 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Telesphorus
Reputation: 8236
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 11,698
|
| LordPhan said: | | During the Arian Crisis the Bishops who went Arian never lost office, there was a condemnation of them earlier but they were allowed to STAY in their positions if they repented. They were never declared to have lost their offices. |
They weren't members of the Church when they were Arian heretics. Heretics are outside the Church. Public non-members of the Church can't hold office in the Church. That they were never declared to have lost their office is irrelevant. They certainly had no jurisdiction when they taught Arianism.
| Quote: | | Pope Liberius was declared to have always been the Pope and Felix II was declared an Anti-Pope. |
Pope Liberius never adopted the Arian heresy. He was presumed to have done so.
| Quote: | | St. Athanasius disobeyed Liberius until Liberius repented for his succumbing to pressure from the arians and signing an arian document which condemned St. Athanasius.. according to your logic that would make him a protestant. I think you should apologize to the great Doctor of the Church. |
No one here has stated that members of the SSPX are Protestants. Sede Catholic calling it "protestantism" refers to the idea that you may pick and choose how you wish to follow the Roman Pontiff. Nor does what you attribute falsely to us as "our logic" (which is really your illogic) relate to the invalid excommunication of St. Athanasius. Your tiresome straw men are really beyond the pale of absurdity. Comparing Pope Liberius and the Arians to the conciliarist hierarchy is an absurd stretch.
| Quote: | | When Pope John XXII preached heresy in his sermons, there was a great outcry and a near revolt. Finally he agree to send the question to a theological study commision after which he was told he was wrong. He repented on his deathbed, his error was condemned by his successor who also stated that he had witnessed the repentance of John XXII(It was not a public repentance) |
That is of course a totally different situation from what exists today.
| Quote: | Schism is when you deny communion with other Catholics(which many Sedes do) or you deny that the Pope is your superior.
It has nothing to do with lawful disobedience. |
That's an absurd statement. Resisting legitimate authority (authorities you consider legitimate) is closely connected to schism:
Formerly a man was rightly considered a schismatic when he disregarded the authority of his own bishop; hence the words of St. Jerome quoted above. Before him St. Cyprian had said: "It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: "Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrnæans 8.2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant rôle of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of the diocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to the Holy See.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
Now I haven't called the members of the SSPX schismatics. However, rejecting the legitimate authority of a pontiff to formulate Rites of the Church, to promulgate Ecumenical Councils, even refusing to admit changes in Canon Law on something like age of majority, while claiming to recognize him, and excusing it all on the grounds of "lawful disobedience" is certainly a schismatic mentality. (subjectively speaking, if one assumes that Benedict XVI is truly Pope)
| Quote: | | You are confused, but do not attack us. |
We're not confused at all. Thinking that you can compare Pope John II and Pope Liberius to Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc, in this situation is strong evidence that you are greatly confused.
| Quote: | | hold the same position as Bishop Williamson. |
You should demonstrate that with citations if you're going to claim it.
| Quote: | P.S. As a previous poster has pointed out, you do not know what constitutes Ex Cathedra. The last 4 Popes have never spoken anything Ex Cathedra, in fact it goes against everything they believe to say anything Ex Cathedra, thus the Holy Ghost is protecting us from such.
|
You don't understand infallibility nor the conditions by which a Pope loses his office. The personal ex cathedra infallibility of the Pope is not the issue here, it's a straw man for you to bring it up. There are more kinds of infallibility than that of the Pope ex cathedra, moreoever, Catholics are bound in conscience to assent to the teachings of the Pope. This limits the sort of errors that are possible in all magisterial teachings. It is not possible for the Pope to promulgate a heretical Ecumenical Council, it is not possible for the Pope to promulgate a sacrilegious Rite of the Mass.
|
.........................
"I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of seeing. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."
Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear."
-Archbishop Lefebvre
|
| Posted May 15, 2012, 4:53 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
SeanJohnson
formerly Seraphim
Reputation: 2353
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,805
|
| Sede Catholic said: | The alleged, and completely non existent, “doctrine” of necessity:
The Catholic Church has never said that there are any circumstances under which you can disobey the Pope because you think that he is wrong about the Faith.
Never.
The Church has never given us permission to disobey the Pope if we think he is wrong about the Faith.
Never.
The sspx article that has been quoted about "necessity", is filled with non sequiturs.
The quotes that they use only apply if you cannot ask the superior for permission.
They most certainly do not apply in a case of defiance of a lawful superior.
This is completely obvious.
The Catholic Church is a Monarchy.
Disobedience to your Pope is just that: disobedience to your Pope.
There is actually no such thing as the Doctrine of Necessity.
To use the word “Doctrine” is to elevate this idea to the status of an Article of Faith.
This idea of calling disobedience “necessity” is an unCatholic and erroneous principle suggested by certain trads
since A.D. 1965.
There is a principle that if one cannot consult one’s superior, then in certain but only very rare occasions, precepts do not oblige.
However, the sspx can consult with the charlatans in Rome.
The sspx look upon these men in Rome as their superiors.
Catholics understand the obvious fact: if there is a Pope, then he must be obeyed.
Any permission granted because of necessity, is not granted against the authority of the Pope.
Rather, such permission presupposes that it would be validated by lawful authority, if that authority could be
consulted.
Direct opposition to the decrees of the Pope has never been permitted.
But Luther would approve.
It is not accurate to call it “Necessity”.
It is simply disobedience.
Benedict XVI is a total heretic, who rejects Catholic teaching.
Therefore he is an Antipope.
Catholics should adhere to the Sede position.
The sspx article that was mentioned is a curious thing.
It is a batch of selective quotes taken out of context.
E.g. “St. Thomas Aquinas reinforces this principle:
Quote:
Universal laws...are established for the good of the whole. Therefore, in establishing them the legislator bears in mind that which happens ordinarily and in the greater number of the cases
(Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.147, A.4) [emphasis added].”
This does not permit willful disobedience to the Pope.
Also, this is a matter of canon law.
There is nothing in the Code of Canon Law to allow willful disobedience to the Pope.
There is no basis in the Code of Canon Law for disobedience to the Pope.
It is unCatholic and stems from pride and resistance to the truth.
Who gave us the power to start sifting the teachings of the Popes and only obeying the ones that we feel are
convincing to us?
This really is Protestantism.
There is no precedent for this in the history of the Church.
Benedict XVI has taught Heresy on many, many occasions.
Therefore he is not Pope.
Benedict XVI is what the Catholic Church calls an Antipope.
|
What a moron.
This "alleged and non-existant doctrine of necessity" is found in every pre-Vatican II treatice of moral theology and Canon Law.
I suggest you pull your head out and take a glimpse at a book before you say stupid things like this. 
|
.........................
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
|
| Posted May 15, 2012, 5:36 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
