Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: MarylandTrad on January 05, 2015, 11:27:18 PM
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/drE93Gj0qAA[/youtube]
-
Part 2
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/srqYd8bQNn8[/youtube]
-
Part 3
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/3Mahh0zK0PI[/youtube]
-
Excellent, thank you!
-
Yes, excellent - thank you for posting!
-
This was a Priest who spoke with the authority of the uncompromised Divine Truth.
His loss impoverishes us today, yet, it is for God's glory that he came among us, and returned to his Master through a road of suffering to glorify Him still.
-
Though this talk has some very nice thoughts inline with Catholic teaching, it is impossible for me to not hear the Church speaking through Pope Leo XIII,
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition"
This man clearly stated and believed that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church. He taught that heretics still remain Catholic which is false teaching.
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. Satis cognitum #9
That's right, once a Catholic always a Catholic is false.
He knows now.
-
This man clearly stated and believed that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church. He taught that heretics still remain Catholic which is false teaching.
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. Satis cognitum #9
That's right, once a Catholic always a Catholic is false.
He knows now.
I'm confused. Who are you referring to?
-
This man clearly stated and believed that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church. He taught that heretics still remain Catholic which is false teaching.
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. Satis cognitum #9
That's right, once a Catholic always a Catholic is false.
He knows now.
I'm confused. Who are you referring to?
He is referring to Fr. Wathen. He is saying that now that Fr. is dead, he sees that he was wrong.
However, Fr. never stated nor believed what obertray imondday is claiming or he surely would have posted a reference or a quote from Fr. instead of making unfounded accusations for which we are to simply take his word that he knows what Fr. believed.
While true Fr. explained in detail that "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity - the explanation for which I will not post, which Fr. bases on solid Church teaching and canon law, he never said or believed that heretics and atheists are united to the Catholic Church.
All robert dimond is doing is telling a half truth, which is always worse than an outright lie. Hopefully it is by mistake.
-
However, Fr. never stated nor believed what obertray imondday is claiming or he surely would have posted a reference or a quote from Fr. instead of making unfounded accusations for which we are to simply take his word that he knows what Fr. believed.
While true Fr. explained in detail that "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity - the explanation for which I will not post, which Fr. bases on solid Church teaching and canon law, he never said or believed that heretics and atheists are united to the Catholic Church.
Any house divided against itself will fall. So when someone belongs to a house such as the SSPX, which is clearly divided against itself, this is the kind of contradiction of Catholic Dogma that we hear:
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 641: “… the Pope is not ashamed of his being a non-believer; he tours the world propagating his heresies. It is the duty of every priest and layperson to warn his fellow Catholics that the Pope is not reliable…”
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 593: “We must be content to make a few observations, judging that this must be done, because, beyond all doubt, the presently reigning Pontiff is a great heretic and an enemy of the True Church.”
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 593: “An easy case can be made to show that Pope John Paul II is a Marxist, a Modernist, a Universalist [believes in Universal Salvation], a Utopian, and a Revolutionary, but, as we have said elsewhere, there is not a man on earth who can prove that the Bishop of Rome believes anything of the Catholic Faith at all.”
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 599: “Throughout the whole Church of several hundred million people, only a tiny handful are aware that the Pope is a committed heretic, a Modernist of the first water.”
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 626: “The Pope must be exposed for the destroyer that he is, the atheist that he is, the anti-Catholic persecutor that he is… He cares nothing for the Church, nor the people who are his charges. Like a politician, he mingles among them, but only for his ego’s sake, and the cause of his own Modernism and the divinization of man.”
So, then, you may ask: why does he still believe that John Paul II is the Pope? The answer is that Fr. Wathen holds that once a Catholic, always a Catholic, even if one has been excommunicated for heresy.
-
It is as I said, Fr. Wathen never said "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church.
Read the Chapter (Ch 17) on Popolatry, seems you missed that entire chapter except for your first quote which you selectively had to take out of context to fit your false accusation.
The sad thing is, now we know you are selling half lies on purpose - not by mistake.
-
When one receives the indelible mark of Baptism upon his soul, it can never be erased This mark designates one as a Christian, (a Catholic).
One can lose the Grace of Holy Baptism, but never the mark.
How evil is it to maintain that it can indeed be lost? How very simple is it to understand this?
-
So, then, you may ask: why does he still believe that John Paul II is the Pope? The answer is that Fr. Wathen holds that once a Catholic, always a Catholic, even if one has been excommunicated for heresy.
......Or he was not a sedevacantist. What nonsense!
-
When one receives the indelible mark of Baptism upon his soul, it can never be erased This mark designates one as a Christian, (a Catholic).
One can lose the Grace of Holy Baptism, but never the mark.
How evil is it to maintain that it can indeed be lost? How very simple is it to understand this?
It is apparent that your ignorance in this area is superior. Who is saying the baptismal character is lost? It is hard to find this comment worthy of rebuttal, but let me coach you up.
The baptismal character for all intent and purposes represents the mercy show by God to those whom He has unchained from the power of the devil and death (see Trent). In infants they become subject to the Roman Pontiff and have the habit of grace (state of grace) now in those raised in Catholic families they move on to confirmation and first communion as they age. Those raised in Protestant families have the habit of grace suspended when they reach the age of reason and must elicit the true faith for salvation and enter the church. If death occurs prior to the age of reason the infant goes straight away to heaven.
Your confusion, which is a result of following men like James Wathen etc... is uniting light with darkness, justice with injustice, Christ with Belial. According to you the Protestant who just got "saved" the other day is a Catholic even though he/she refuses to assent to the infallible definitions of the Church.
Simply put your main error is equating the baptismal character with being Catholic.
Heretics are not Catholics- Schismatics are not Catholics- Apostates are not Catholics this is why they have there specific branding. Though the character remains being a Catholic ceases. Those found at the judgment seat of Christ with the baptismal character and not wearing their robe will suffer the most severe torments for eternity.
And for God sake quit calling Protestants Christians (if you do this) they are Protestants not Catholics.
-
It is as I said, Fr. Wathen never said "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church.
Read the Chapter (Ch 17) on Popolatry, seems you missed that entire chapter except for your first quote which you selectively had to take out of context to fit your false accusation.
The sad thing is, now we know you are selling half lies on purpose - not by mistake.
False, he clearly stated that the Conciliar Church (Vatican II) was wicked, not Catholic, and if you belong to it you could not be saved. However, at the same time he stated that this false Church was inside the Catholic Church, like a fifth column.
Again, light with darkness, justice with injustice, Christ with Belial.
Since the judgments of God are unsearchable, it is inconceivable how God allows some to fall away(as this man talks about in part 1).
-
It is as I said, Fr. Wathen never said "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church.
Read the Chapter (Ch 17) on Popolatry, seems you missed that entire chapter except for your first quote which you selectively had to take out of context to fit your false accusation.
The sad thing is, now we know you are selling half lies on purpose - not by mistake.
False, he clearly stated that the Conciliar Church (Vatican II) was wicked, not Catholic, and if you belong to it you could not be saved. However, at the same time he stated that this false Church was inside the Catholic Church, like a fifth column.
Again, light with darkness, justice with injustice, Christ with Belial.
Since the judgments of God are unsearchable, it is inconceivable how God allows some to fall away(as this man talks about in part 1).
Again, you take what he wrote completely out of context, I believe the reason you do this is because your religion revolves around a vacant Chair. Everything about your lex credendi diametrically points too and is dependent upon a Chair, in these days that Chair for you, is vacant.
Since Nado started flooding the forums, VCS ("Vacant Chair Syndrome") has become more and more obvious every day. It is painfully obvious that the faith as taught by the Catholic Church is not the same faith that the VCSers on this site profess.
The fact is that your first paragraph in your quote above is verifiable fact, not opinion, not an illusion and not a lie, it is fact. You cannot accept this fact because if you did, your VCS would ultimately disintegrate into thin air and you know it, and you don't like this because it would mean you've been wrong all this time and your pride won't allow that.
You make your VCS more evident when you even deny Fr. the respect due to him by addressing him as "James Wathen" - do you think he is not a true priest or is that the way you refer to all priests?
-
OI,
And for God sake quit calling Protestants Christians (if you do this) they are Protestants not Catholics.
Can you please point out where I said that a Protestant is a Christian?
You position must be weak when you have to resort to creative fantasy and fabrication to argue it. I believe that Stubborn has you pegged correctly.
A Dead member of the Church, that is to say, a lapsed or fallen away Catholic is still a member, to whom, reconciliation is possible until death.
-
OI,
And for God sake quit calling Protestants Christians (if you do this) they are Protestants not Catholics.
Can you please point out where I said that a Protestant is a Christian?
You position must be weak when you have to resort to creative fantasy and fabrication to argue it. I believe that Stubborn has you pegged correctly.
A Dead member of the Church, that is to say, a lapsed or fallen away Catholic is still a member, to whom, reconciliation is possible until death.
Re-read the comment, "if you do this". Did not say you call Protestants Christian, but since you believe that everyone that is baptized is Catholic, it would not surprise me if you did not call a Protestant a Christian.
It is true that a moral sin such as drunkenness, fornication, theft, etc.... does not separate a Catholic from the Church. However heresy, schism, and apostasy does. (see Pius XII)
Martin Luther was not a Catholic, he was a heretic. He is not recognized by the Catholic Church as Fr. Luther and does not deserve the title even though he was validly ordained, and is no different then the heretics spreading poison today. It is "itching ears" (see 2 Tim.) that is the cause of your confusion.
-
Again, you take what he wrote completely out of context
Would you mind explaining so I may understand you better?
-
Again, you take what he wrote completely out of context
Would you mind explaining so I may understand you better?
You said: False, he clearly stated that the Conciliar Church (Vatican II) was wicked, not Catholic, and if you belong to it you could not be saved. However, at the same time he stated that this false Church was inside the Catholic Church, like a fifth column.
Everything you accuse Fr. Wathen of saying in your above quote, is true. He did say these things and what he said is true, yet you seem to be saying he is somehow wrong or lying because you falsely accuse Fr. Wathen of saying "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church".
He never said heretics are united to anything.
He refuted examples of other writers who said the Church taught that heretics having some desire to do God's will, is equivalent to being united to the Church implicitly, but he never said they were united to the Church for heaven's sake. The thing he refutes, you accuse him of teaching.
Of heretics he said many things, one thing he has to say is:
"Other offenders are judged and cast out of the church by the sentence of the pastors of the same church; but heretics more unhappy than they, run out of the church of their own accord, and, by so doing, give judgement and sentence against their own souls." And he doesn't flip flop on that anywhere.
-
Again, you take what he wrote completely out of context
Would you mind explaining so I may understand you better?
You said: False, he clearly stated that the Conciliar Church (Vatican II) was wicked, not Catholic, and if you belong to it you could not be saved. However, at the same time he stated that this false Church was inside the Catholic Church, like a fifth column.
Everything you accuse Fr. Wathen of saying in your above quote, is true. He did say these things and what he said is true, yet you seem to be saying he is somehow wrong or lying because you falsely accuse Fr. Wathen of saying "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church".
He never said heretics are united to anything.
He refuted examples of other writers who said the Church taught that heretics having some desire to do God's will, is equivalent to being united to the Church implicitly, but he never said they were united to the Church for heaven's sake. The thing he refutes, you accuse him of teaching.
Of heretics he said many things, one thing he has to say is:
"Other offenders are judged and cast out of the church by the sentence of the pastors of the same church; but heretics more unhappy than they, run out of the church of their own accord, and, by so doing, give judgement and sentence against their own souls." And he doesn't flip flop on that anywhere.
That is exactly what he did, and did not, teach.
-
Everything you accuse Fr. Wathen of saying in your above quote, is true. He did say these things and what he said is true, yet you seem to be saying he is somehow wrong or lying because you falsely accuse Fr. Wathen of saying "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church".
He never said heretics are united to anything.
Lying or falsely accusing??
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 414: “The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, namely, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”
Now it is clear that, according to this man, Wojtyla was a great heretic and enemy of the True Church, destroyer, atheist, and leader of a church that is not Catholic, but at the same time is in union (inside) the True Church.
This is a tricky way of asserting salvation outside of the Catholic Church as the leader of the SSPX taught. If baptized heretics, atheists, etc.... could be inside the Catholic Church, but not in the way of salvation because they belong to the Conciliar Church which is not Catholic, guess what happens?
There is salvation for the ignorant, which is exactly what the SSPX leaders promote starting from the top Marcel Lefebvre.
-
Everything you accuse Fr. Wathen of saying in your above quote, is true. He did say these things and what he said is true, yet you seem to be saying he is somehow wrong or lying because you falsely accuse Fr. Wathen of saying "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church".
He never said heretics are united to anything.
Lying or falsely accusing??
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 414: “The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, namely, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”
Now it is clear that, according to this man, Wojtyla was a great heretic and enemy of the True Church, destroyer, atheist, and leader of a church that is not Catholic, but at the same time is in union (inside) the True Church.
This is a tricky way of asserting salvation outside of the Catholic Church as the leader of the SSPX taught. If baptized heretics, atheists, etc.... could be inside the Catholic Church, but not in the way of salvation because they belong to the Conciliar Church which is not Catholic, guess what happens?
There is salvation for the ignorant, which is exactly what the SSPX leaders promote starting from the top Marcel Lefebvre.
All I can tell you is that if you insist on making such an assertion based on that snip from a +600 page book which thoroughly and exhaustively explains the whole situation, to say nothing of the videos posted in this thread, then there is no amount of explaining that anyone can offer you that will get you to actually comprehend what Fr. actually wrote.
-
Everything you accuse Fr. Wathen of saying in your above quote, is true. He did say these things and what he said is true, yet you seem to be saying he is somehow wrong or lying because you falsely accuse Fr. Wathen of saying "that heretics, atheist... are united to the Catholic Church".
He never said heretics are united to anything.
Lying or falsely accusing??
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 414: “The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, namely, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it can be saved.”
Now it is clear that, according to this man, Wojtyla was a great heretic and enemy of the True Church, destroyer, atheist, and leader of a church that is not Catholic, but at the same time is in union (inside) the True Church.
This is a tricky way of asserting salvation outside of the Catholic Church as the leader of the SSPX taught. If baptized heretics, atheists, etc.... could be inside the Catholic Church, but not in the way of salvation because they belong to the Conciliar Church which is not Catholic, guess what happens?
There is salvation for the ignorant, which is exactly what the SSPX leaders promote starting from the top Marcel Lefebvre.
All I can tell you is that if you insist on making such an assertion based on that snip from a +600 page book which thoroughly and exhaustively explains the whole situation, to say nothing of the videos posted in this thread, then there is no amount of explaining that anyone can offer you that will get you to actually comprehend what Fr. actually wrote.
That is a two way street. You seems like a pretty smart "layologian" what you don't seem to comprehend is this man is promoting the subsistit ecclesiology of the Vatican II.
What do you not understand here? "the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column.
Now he does say that anyone who maintains membership within it cannot be saved, but does he really mean that? I would say no, simply because the SSPX believes in salvation outside of the Catholic Church (invincible ignorance) and this man instead of denouncing the leader of the SSPX for preaching salvation in false religions actually praised him.
If this man would not have said that darkness and error are within the Catholic Church as he clearly stated, and denounced the ignorance heresy the SSPX promotes I would have no problem calling him Fr. Wathen.
FYI, I did watch the videos and thought wow those are some nice things he is saying. In part two however, he does contradict himself by saying that God does not save men individually and that He saves the Church as a whole, but turns right around and claims God saves men individually if He foresees that they would co-operate with grace provided. This confusion probably stems from the Pelagian/Molinist point of view he holds on Predestination which ultimately makes God an Avenger of uncommitted sins.
-
You know, you are having to do a great deal of basket weaving to come up with such conclusions and assumptions about Father Wathen's intent and meanings.
You are continually building your case around your pre-conceived notions of him, and wedging the facts this way and that, to arrive where you want to be.
-
You know, you are having to do a great deal of basket weaving to come up with such conclusions and assumptions about Father Wathen's intent and meanings.
You are continually building your case around your pre-conceived notions of him, and wedging the facts this way and that, to arrive where you want to be.
Yes, this is what he is doing.
Who Shall Ascend? is probably the best book I ever read about the doctrine of Exclusive Salvation and imo, it is impossible to misunderstand what he wrote unless you do it on purpose.
What do you not understand here? "the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column.
Do you know what he means by a fifth column?
What he is saying is that the Catholic Church has been all but completely taken over from within, which, if you know anything about the crisis, then you know that this is fact. Because the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, conciliar Catholics are outside the Church. How else would you like him to say it?
Now he does say that anyone who maintains membership within it cannot be saved, but does he really mean that? I would say no, simply because the SSPX believes in salvation outside of the Catholic Church (invincible ignorance) and this man instead of denouncing the leader of the SSPX for preaching salvation in false religions actually praised him.
If this man would not have said that darkness and error are within the Catholic Church as he clearly stated, and denounced the ignorance heresy the SSPX promotes I would have no problem calling him Fr. Wathen.
First off, he was an ordained priest, that alone warrants the respect of his office to address him as Father Wathen. Whether you agree or disagree with him does not matter in this respect.
He praised +ABL for what he did and criticized him for they way he did it, and devotes about 20 pages of criticizing SSPX specifically for their liberal theology on the doctrine, starting at page 81. In there he states: "One is compelled to wonder why the Society of St. Pius X exists, if all its priests hold this theology, and why they are expending so much energy for Traditionalists, who toil under the notion that they must be Traditionalist Catholics in order to save their souls."
-
What do you not understand here? "the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column.
Do you know what he means by a fifth column?
What he is saying is that the Catholic Church has been all but completely taken over from within, which, if you know anything about the crisis, then you know that this is fact. Because the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, conciliar Catholics are outside the Church. How else would you like him to say it?
How about, The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and though it acts and looks like Her, it is nothing other than a withered branch cut off from the unity of the Catholic Church.
Are you kidding me? The Catholic Church has been all but completely taken over from within?
The Catholic Church has never been or never will be taken over! THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NEVER PREVAIL! What is the matter with you? You are teetering on pure insanity making that kind of comment and that is a shame because you are parroting what this man teaches.
This priest clearly says that this fifth column (support post by definition) exists in the Catholic Church.
Wake up already, there is no such thing as a Catholic outside of the Catholic Church. If the Catholic's soul is dead due to mortal sin other than heresy, schism,or apostasy they remain in the Catholic Church and are called Catholic.
You are completely disregarding the voice of the Church:
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. Satis cognitum #9
Do you see now? The Conciliar church (Vatician II) is not Catholic, it is no different than a Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє, it is of the devil. So one gives assent to it by belonging to it, and sins more grievously that recognizes that there is something wrong(as most Novus Ordoites) , but do nothing about it. Those who see no problems are most certainly the blindest, and are in need of the most earnest prayers.
The Catholic Church has spoke, anyone who assents to any heresy is cut of from the Catholic Church and is disregarded as Catholic and should not be called one, regardless of the baptismal character, that has nothing to do with it.
-
How about, The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, and though it acts and looks like Her, it is nothing other than a withered branch cut off from the unity of the Catholic Church.
Are you kidding me? The Catholic Church has been all but completely taken over from within?
Yes. That is exactly what has happened.
If you cannot accept that because you cannot understand that, then that's your own problem. I suggest you read Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis where he himself states that the danger is not from outside the Church, the real danger comes from within: For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her...
The Catholic Church has never been or never will be taken over! THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NEVER PREVAIL! What is the matter with you? You are teetering on pure insanity making that kind of comment and that is a shame because you are parroting what this man teaches.
This priest clearly says that this fifth column (support post by definition) exists in the Catholic Church.
Ok, so you prove that you do not know what he meant by a fifth column, I suggest you google it.
You also demonstrate that you have no faith in the words of Our Lord, that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Again, that is your own problem.
-
"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is a false premise.
The Church has taught that heresy, schism, and apostasy sever a man from the Church. There is no sense in arguing back and forth about it. The Eastern Orthodox are schismatics, therefore they are not Catholic. Martin Luther is a heretic, therefore he is not Catholic. One who worships false idols is an apostate, therefore he is not Catholic.
Father Wathen did a lot of good things, but he was simply wrong about this assertion.
No, you are completely wrong. Your reasoning is the reasoning sedevacantists wrongfully embrace.
Fr. Wathen does not simply blurt it out in the unthinking manner you do, he explains it: "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity. The mark of the Sacrament of Baptism is just as ineradicable as that of Holy Orders. One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments. The excommunicated Catholic can receive the Sacrament of Penance, whereby the censure can be removed, and the sin be forgiven.
The Church first removes the censure, then forgives the sin. The excommunicated Catholic is in a more serious moral depression than the Catholic who is in the state of sin only. But neither is in the woeful condition of those who are outside the Church. Again, this is one of the reasons why the Catholic should "rejoice always," (Phil. 4:4)., for no matter how terrible his sins, by the "power of the keys," he can be freed of them."
This means that Martin Luther died, was judged and entered his eternity as a Catholic priest, his punishments, as well as the punishments of all schismatics, heretics and condemned Catholics will be worse than the punishments of non-Catholics. Meditate on this truth, if you still cannot understand this, let us know and I or someone better able to explain it will attempt to explain it to you.
I once heard in a sermon that the consecrated fingers of priests burn white hot for all eternity in hell. If the priest were not Catholic, he could not be a priest - and whether in hell for schism or heresy, apostacy or whatever sin he died with, hell is hell and he will suffer the punishments of "a priest forever according the order of Melchizedek".
If your reasoning were the correct reasoning, then the best way to lessen eternal sufferings in hell would be to apostatize now, become a person outside the Church before you die - but that is not the way it works.
-
"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is a false premise.
The Church has taught that heresy, schism, and apostasy sever a man from the Church. There is no sense in arguing back and forth about it.
No, you are completely wrong. Your reasoning is the reasoning sedevacantists wrongfully embrace.
Tell that to the Popes...
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…” (Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino)
OUTSIDE the Church means NOT Catholic. It's not hard to see that Pope Eugene IV lumps together pagans, Jews, heretics AND schismatics; that's because they are all the same - they aren't Catholic.
He also makes it perfectly clear that they are no longer Catholics by stating that they must JOIN the Church in order to work out their salvation. What is it that you don't understand? Why does a heretic, schismatic, or apostate need to JOIN the Church if he is ALWAYS Catholic?
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)
Sever = put an end to, cut off.
How is it possible for a heretic to be considered Catholic?? A Catholic heretic? Catholic Schismatic? Catholic Apostate? This is absolutely absurd.
Pope Leo XIII quoting Saint Augustine:
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
Saint Augustine - A heretic IS NOT A CATHOLIC
Is Saint Augustine wrong?
No, *you* are wrong.
When an infidel wishes to enter the Church, that person must first be sacramentally baptized - if you do not agree then I understand why you are wrong.
When a heretical, apostate and schismatic wish to return to the Church, they do not get re-baptized now do they? Why not? It is the indelible character of baptism that makes them Catholic forever same as it is the indelible character of Orders that makes them priests forever.
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and the bones of priests.” - St. Athanasius was one among other saints and Doctors who taught this.
“Augustine says in his Rule: ‘Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger.’ But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.” Summa II, II, q. 33, a. 4
-
Pope Leo XIII quoting Saint Augustine:
"...if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
He is not a Catholic
What is it that you don't understand? Is Saint Augustine wrong?
Father Wathen - A heretic is a Catholic
Saint Augustine - He (heretic) is not a Catholic
This is not MY opinion. This is the opinion of SAINT Augustine and Pope Leo XIII.
Once a person is baptized, that indelible character imprinted on their soul marks that person as a Catholic forever. That person can lose the faith, leave the Church and join the local ѕуηαgσgυє and from that point on live his life as a devout Jew, but when that person is judged, that indelible character will identify him as a Catholic, as more evidence against him as one who ran away from his faith, but never the less, there is no getting away from it, that person faces Our Lord as a Catholic, not a Jew and certainly not an infidel.
The same goes for priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Their indelible mark identifies them as Ordained Catholics regardless that they're public heretics and apostatized while they were alive - that is what the indelible mark does and no power on earth, even the priest's own power can do anything about that.
Trent infallibly decrees:
CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.
Please, explain how a priest remains a priest forever, and not be Catholic? This is why the saints say the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops - not ex-bishops or schismatic bishops or etc..
This is why Fr. Wathen says: "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity."
In the 23rd Session, Ch IV, Trent actually condemns the possibility of the ordination being only a temporary arraignment and being dependent upon whether the priest apostatizes or is a holy priest or not. . . . . .
But, forasmuch as in the sacrament of Order, as also in Baptism and Confirmation, a character is imprinted, which can neither be effaced nor taken away; the holy Synod with reason condemns the opinion of those, who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power; and that those who have once been rightly ordained, can again become laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the word of God. ..........
This is infallible and I fail to see how it can possibly be honestly disputed.
-
You fail to distinguish "heretic".
What kind of heretic?
Material Heretics are indeed Catholics.
Material vs. Formal
Occult vs. Manifest
Different considerations apply in terms of whether or not someone is Catholic.
1) Occult Material Heretic = Catholic
2) Manifest Material Heretic = Catholic
3) Occult Formal Heretic = Catholic in the External Forum, non-Catholic in the Internal, retains jurisdiction and membership in the Church
4) Manifest Formal Heretic = non Catholic in the External and Internal fora, loses jurisdiction
I don't have exact quotes from Father Wathen on this subject. 3 of the 4 permutations on types of heretics remain Catholic in the External Forum and would retain jurisdiction and membership in the Church.
-
Father Wathen is wrong about the Baptismal character causing a person to remain Catholic no matter what. Protestants are NOT Catholics and cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church. If I were to chop my finger off, it cease to be part of my body, even though my DNA is still there in the severed body part. That's the analogy with the Baptismal character. Father Wathen is probably trying to say that those with the Baptismal Character remain Catholics in potency vs. Catholics in actu. But potential Catholics cannot be bishops or popes or priests or receive the Sacraments. I think that he's also trying to say that the Baptismal Character alone suffices for the exercise of jurisdiction in the Church. But what might help resolve the difficulty is if Father Wathen would use the material/formal distinction vis-a-vis jurisdiction.
-
Father Wathen is wrong about the Baptismal character causing a person to remain Catholic no matter what. Protestants are NOT Catholics and cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church. If I were to chop my finger off, it cease to be part of my body, even though my DNA is still there in the severed body part. That's the analogy with the Baptismal character. Father Wathen is probably trying to say that those with the Baptismal Character remain Catholics in potency vs. Catholics in actu. But potential Catholics cannot be bishops or popes or priests or receive the Sacraments. I think that he's also trying to say that the Baptismal Character alone suffices for the exercise of jurisdiction in the Church. But what might help resolve the difficulty is if Father Wathen would use the material/formal distinction vis-a-vis jurisdiction.
I think I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure we're talking about the same subject.
I understand it like this:
The baptismal character or mark is forever imprinted on our souls. I picture it like a type of permanent mark on our forehead, forever distinguishing us as members (after Baptism) or soldiers (after Confirmation) or priests (after Holy Orders) of the Catholic Church. This mark is our permanent badge or uniform which can never be removed which forever identifies us as Catholics.
If we apostatize or become heretics, prots, hindu, jew or whatever, we still always wear that uniform, we still always bear the mark identifying us as Catholics on our forehead which is that sacramental character on our soul which we received at baptism which, because it is forever indelible, we cannot get away from no matter what we do to try to rid ourselves of it either on purpose by becoming heretical schismatics or apostate, or by mistake.
Whether or not the Catholic can put himself outside of the Church through heresy or apostasy etc. is not what I thought this discussion was about but if I am wrong with my understanding as stated above, I look forward to correction.
The quote of Fr. Wathen was taken from CH. 17, The Papacy and Catholic Morality, where he explains ecclesiastical censures, excommunications and sedevacantism.
-
Father Wathen is wrong about the Baptismal character causing a person to remain Catholic no matter what. Protestants are NOT Catholics and cannot hold jurisdiction in the Church. If I were to chop my finger off, it cease to be part of my body, even though my DNA is still there in the severed body part. That's the analogy with the Baptismal character. Father Wathen is probably trying to say that those with the Baptismal Character remain Catholics in potency vs. Catholics in actu. But potential Catholics cannot be bishops or popes or priests or receive the Sacraments. I think that he's also trying to say that the Baptismal Character alone suffices for the exercise of jurisdiction in the Church. But what might help resolve the difficulty is if Father Wathen would use the material/formal distinction vis-a-vis jurisdiction.
I think I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure we're talking about the same subject.
I understand it like this:
The baptismal character or mark is forever imprinted on our souls. I picture it like a type of permanent mark on our forehead, forever distinguishing us as members (after Baptism) or soldiers (after Confirmation) or priests (after Holy Orders) of the Catholic Church. This mark is our permanent badge or uniform which can never be removed which forever identifies us as Catholics.
If we apostatize or become heretics, prots, hindu, jew or whatever, we still always wear that uniform, we still always bear the mark identifying us as Catholics on our forehead which is that sacramental character on our soul which we received at baptism which, because it is forever indelible, we cannot get away from no matter what we do to try to rid ourselves of it either on purpose by becoming heretical schismatics or apostate, or by mistake.
Whether or not the Catholic can put himself outside of the Church through heresy or apostasy etc. is not what I thought this discussion was about but if I am wrong with my understanding as stated above, I look forward to correction.
The quote of Fr. Wathen was taken from CH. 17, The Papacy and Catholic Morality, where he explains ecclesiastical censures, excommunications and sedevacantism.
I agree with you, Stubborn. If it was not so, then the significance of the Sacrament of Baptism would be undermined. We are made children of God only through Baptism. The graces received in Baptism can be lost by mortal sin but the Baptismal seal-mark remains for ever. "This indelible mark can neither be blotted out nor taken away", as defined in Trent.
That is why Baptism cannot be ever repeated, even if one apostasied and has converted back by repentance.
This immortal mark cannot be erased from the soul, even if one commits the mortal sin of apostasy and loses all sanctifying grace.
Among the sacraments there are three: Baptism which imprint and indelible sing on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated in the same person.
If anyone says that in Baptism there is not imprinted on the soul a sign, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, on account of which it cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.
-
It seems there are two issues at hand in this thread, though.
-
Yes, the SV EENS-haters twisted this into a personal attack on Father Wathen on the SV issue.
-
Father Wathen got this one wrong. Heretics (manifest formal ones that is) have never been considered by the Magisterium or by any Catholic theologian to remain Catholic and to remain capable of holding jurisdiction. What's at issue is the degree of judgment required to determine heresy and loss of office; but Father Wathen misfired on the Baptismal character thing. Baptismal character has precious little to do with it except that the person remains a Catholic in potentia. Remaining a Catholic in potentia does not suffice for retaining membership in the Church and therefore for holding jurisdiction, not formal jurisdiction anyway. According to the sedeprivationists, though, and their position makes sense, such people can materially hold jurisdiction. That's what I think Father Wathen was GRASPING at, but he missed the mark.
-
Father Wathen was a proto-sedeprivationist but didn't quite nail the distinction. That's how a heretic can remain Pope (materialiter).
-
Yes, the SV EENS-haters twisted this into a personal attack on Father Wathen on the SV issue.
Sir, it is a two way street. The so called "resistance" are as big of proponents of Suprema Haec Sacra as independent SV.
They (SSPX) hate EENS just as much, the only difference is one group, while believing they are resisting remain in communion with a heretic. The other group while believing they are denouncing a heretic, actually embrace the same heresy they (V2) promote.
There is no attack on anyone, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is false, and it is important that people understand that.
-
Yes, the SV EENS-haters twisted this into a personal attack on Father Wathen on the SV issue.
Sir, it is a two way street. The so called "resistance" are as big of proponents of Suprema Haec Sacra as independent SV.
They (SSPX) hate EENS just as much, the only difference is one group, while believing they are resisting remain in communion with a heretic. The other group while believing they are denouncing a heretic, actually embrace the same heresy they (V2) promote.
I do not disagree with this entirely. I was referring to this forum in particular however. It's invariably the SVs that are attacking EENS. SSPXers for the most part don't care. SSPX priests generally do not refuse communion to "Feeneyites" whereas several SV groups do.
There is no attack on anyone, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is false, and it is important that people understand that.
I agreed with this. My point is that it's completely off-topic from EENS and is being used by the SVs to ad hominem attack Father Wathen in general and his position on EENS.
-
There is no attack on anyone, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is false, and it is important that people understand that.
I do not see how it can possibly be false. I can see how Catholics find themselves outside the Church yet in virtue of the sacramental seal remain Catholics, but I have not seen anyone explain how a Catholic priest or layman can ever be anything but Catholic after having the indelible character imprinted on their soul- even if the person was raised outside the Church.
I suppose that the Catholic who puts themselves outside the Church could be said to be Catholic by baptism only, but once a Catholic, always a Catholic as surly as once a priest always a priest.
How can this be disputed?
If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination,..... that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.
-
I suppose that the Catholic who puts themselves outside the Church could be said to be Catholic by baptism only, but once a Catholic, always a Catholic as surly as once a priest always a priest.
But the issue is in the application of this to the question of Sedevacantism. Yes, you can say that the Baptismal Character renders one capable of being in the Church, a Catholic in potentia, but a Catholic in character only CANNOT exercise jurisdiction in the Church and is NOT formally a member of the Church. That is unanimously taught by theologians everywhere. No Church Father, no Catholic theologian, no Pope has ever believed or taught that heretics remain within the Church, despite their Baptismal Character.
-
But the issue is in the application of this to the question of Sedevacantism. Yes, you can say that the Baptismal Character renders one capable of being in the Church, a Catholic in potentia, but a Catholic in character only CANNOT exercise jurisdiction in the Church and is NOT formally a member of the Church. That is unanimously taught by theologians everywhere. No Church Father, no Catholic theologian, no Pope has ever believed or taught that heretics remain within the Church, despite their Baptismal Character.
Ok, I agree with what you say, and I think that most of what you say agrees with what Fr. Wathen says, as he explains basically what you are, but he states that according to canon law, unless or until the legitimate authority removes the heretic from office, he will continue to hold his office.
It must be understood that when the censure falls upon an individual "automatically," this is only in the "internal forum." An ipso facto excommunication has no effect upon the status of its recipient vis-a-vis the external forum, until the legitimate authorities of the Church establish and certify the incurrence of the censure.
Without quoting the entire book, I think I quoted the necessary parts of the premise that Fr. Wathen is explaining, which is the basis for the SV line of thinking that generally says; "One who is no longer a Catholic," "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority."
It must be understood that when the censure falls upon an individual "automatically," this is only in the "internal forum." An ipso facto excommunication has no effect upon the status of its recipient vis-a-vis the external forum, until the legitimate authorities of the Church establish and certify the incurrence of the censure. Thus, should a bishop preach heresy, he incurs this censure; but he is not thereby expelled from his bishopric, so that his diocese is without a head. That effect of the law occurs only after the juridical requirements of the Code are fulfilled, and the proper authority ratifies the determinations of the proper ecclesiastical tribunal.
Due to a want of understanding of these principles, there are those who have declared that, since the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council incurred the censures imposed by Pope Pius II's Bull, Execra bilis, or those which the Code of Canon Law attaches to public heresy, all those cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, they insist, the elections of Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II by these cardinals were invalid. Since these two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected. Further still, all the Conciliar Bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since Pope John Paul II's election was invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the Conciliar Bishops, hold their offices legitimately.
The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries. In a layperson, such reasoning would be puerile, but somewhat understandable. Unfortunately, it is promoted by priests. Moreover, acting on such conclusions, certain priests have justified their being consecrated bishops, in order that the Apostolic succession of Orders and jurisdiction not be lost in the Church.
Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately.
Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices. "One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority." No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate authorities of the Church. And since they do hold these offices, others who seek to interpose themselves into authority over the Catholic faithful, commit schismatical acts in doing so, and themselves incur the penalties of the Code.
-
But the issue is in the application of this to the question of Sedevacantism. Yes, you can say that the Baptismal Character renders one capable of being in the Church, a Catholic in potentia, but a Catholic in character only CANNOT exercise jurisdiction in the Church and is NOT formally a member of the Church. That is unanimously taught by theologians everywhere. No Church Father, no Catholic theologian, no Pope has ever believed or taught that heretics remain within the Church, despite their Baptismal Character.
Ok, I agree with what you say, and I think that most of what you say agrees with what Fr. Wathen says, as he explains basically what you are, but he states that according to canon law, unless or until the legitimate authority removes the heretic from office, he will continue to hold his office.
That I can agree with and have so argued many times here on CI.
-
It must be understood that when the censure falls upon an individual "automatically," this is only in the "internal forum." An ipso facto excommunication has no effect upon the status of its recipient vis-a-vis the external forum, until the legitimate authorities of the Church establish and certify the incurrence of the censure. Thus, should a bishop preach heresy, he incurs this censure; but he is not thereby expelled from his bishopric, so that his diocese is without a head. That effect of the law occurs only after the juridical requirements of the Code are fulfilled, and the proper authority ratifies the determinations of the proper ecclesiastical tribunal.
Due to a want of understanding of these principles, there are those who have declared that, since the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council incurred the censures imposed by Pope Pius II's Bull, Execra bilis, or those which the Code of Canon Law attaches to public heresy, all those cardinals and bishops lost their offices. Therefore, they insist, the elections of Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II by these cardinals were invalid. Since these two Popes were also active at the Council, having been expelled from the Church, they could not have been validly elected. Further still, all the Conciliar Bishops, having been excommunicated for their part in the Council, were automatically deprived of their dioceses. And since Pope John Paul II's election was invalid, not only is the throne of St. Peter vacant, but all his appointments have been invalid also. Therefore, neither the Pope, nor any of the Conciliar Bishops, hold their offices legitimately.
The universal Church is without a head, and all the dioceses throughout the world are without ordinaries. In a layperson, such reasoning would be puerile, but somewhat understandable. Unfortunately, it is promoted by priests. Moreover, acting on such conclusions, certain priests have justified their being consecrated bishops, in order that the Apostolic succession of Orders and jurisdiction not be lost in the Church.
Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately.
Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices. "One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority." No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate authorities of the Church. And since they do hold these offices, others who seek to interpose themselves into authority over the Catholic faithful, commit schismatical acts in doing so, and themselves incur the penalties of the Code.
This passage is key; it backs up what I was saying that Father Wathen was grasping at the distinctions made by sedeprivationism but just failed to explicitly articulate it.
If he would have said, "Once [materially] a Catholic, always [materially] a Catholic." then we're good to go.
Yet "Once [formally] a Catholic, always [formally] a Catholic." then that is false.
So the question becomes, can a purely material Catholic formally exercise jurisdiction in the Church? That's a very difficult question ... something that's very much oversimplified by the vast majority of SVs.
Let's take a look at this example.
Cardinal Cushing is known to have stated publicly, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
So Cardinal Cushing was a manifest heretic.
Did he therefore at that very moment cease to be the Bishop of Boston?
-
Cardinal Cushing is known to have stated publicly, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
So Cardinal Cushing was a manifest heretic.
Did he therefore at that very moment cease to be the Bishop of Boston?
You should start a new thread.
Just an example (whether you agree with the premise or not that Cushing was a heretic) to flesh out what's involved. Let's say you accused a bishop prior to Vatican II of heresy. Would that mean you could suddenly stop obeying him, or would Rome say otherwise until it examined the situation directly?
-
Once a Catholic, always a Catholic is false, period - as proven by Pope Leo XIII and Saint Augustine. The matter has been settled.
I disagree. It's not "false, period" but with distinctions ... as I made in my previous post.
If he would have said, "Once [materially] a Catholic, always [materially] a Catholic." then we're good to go.
Yet "Once [formally] a Catholic, always [formally] a Catholic." then that is false.
With this distinction understood, THEN we get to the question of whether one can hold jurisdiction in the Church if one is merely a Catholic materially. Sedeprivationists extend the distinction and say that one who is materially Catholic can materially (but not formally) hold jurisdiction and office.
THAT is what Father Wathen was attempting to articulate, that someone who's materially Catholic can formally exercise jurisdiction until materially declared to be without jurisdiction by the Church's judgment. This is not all that far from the John of St. Thomas position.
-
This passage is key; it backs up what I was saying that Father Wathen was grasping at the distinctions made by sedeprivationism but just failed to explicitly articulate it.
If he would have said, "Once [materially] a Catholic, always [materially] a Catholic." then we're good to go.
Yet "Once [formally] a Catholic, always [formally] a Catholic." then that is false.
I guess I just took for granted that he was talking about material Catholics. I know of no specific ruling to this effect but regardless of the sacramental character, Catholics, including clergy, hierarchy etc. can and do put themselves outside the Church, so it is common for there to be Catholics outside the Church.
So the question becomes, can a purely material Catholic formally exercise jurisdiction in the Church? That's a very difficult question ... something that's very much oversimplified by the vast majority of SVs.
Let's take a look at this example.
Cardinal Cushing is known to have stated publicly, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group."
So Cardinal Cushing was a manifest heretic.
Did he therefore at that very moment cease to be the Bishop of Boston?
According to Fr. Wathen - and Fr. Feeney for that matter, no.
Fr. Feeney petitioned the pope in Rome to do something about it and still ended up being the victim. Had Rome censured +Cushing as should have been done, we perhaps would not be having this discussion, perhaps there would be no Novus Ordo either for that matter.
I know that through all the injustices Fr. Feeney endured at the hands of his superiors, he never once questioned the legitimacy of the offices of +Cushing or the pope. Seem if anyone in a spot light ever had reason, it would have been him way back then.
-
I disagree. It's not "false, period" but with distinctions ... as I made in my previous post.
Father Wathen did a lot of great things. However, I will take the words of Saint Augustine, as quoted by a Pope, over Father Wathen.
Saint Augustine clearly states that a heretic is not a Catholic, period. He even says that a heretic cannot even call himself Catholic. He does not make any distinctions. Pope Leo XIII was in a perfect position to make distinctions yet he makes no exceptions or distinctions either.
Are material heretics Catholic?
-
According to Fr. Wathen - and Fr. Feeney for that matter, no.
And I suggest that Rome would have backed this position as well. What would normally happen is that a priest could accuse Cushing of heresy to Rome. If Rome dismissed the claim, then Cushing would remain Bishop of Boston. If Rome agreed, then it would call upon Cushing to recant (after having given him the opportunity to defend himself against the charge). Then, if Cushing recanted or successfully defended himself, he would remain Bishop; if Cushing refused to recant and failed to successfully defend himself, then Rome would declare him deposed or just depose him. There's a question of authority in discerning the crime that is completely missed by SVs.
-
Are material heretics Catholic?
A Catholic who errs in good faith and would certainly recant their heresy when presented with the truth.
Correct. But you didn't answer my question.
Are material heretics Catholics?
You had said that heretics are not Catholics "without distinction". Consequently, then, according to you, material heretics are not Catholics.
-
On a separate note, the term material heretic has become deeply abused and distorted in the past couple hundred years due to the same trend towards subjectivism that undermined everything else. It does NOT mean someone who's "sincere" or "good-willed". So, for instance, Protestants CANNOT BE MATERIAL HERETICS. That's one of my pet peeves.
-
Saint Augustine CLEARLY states "he (heretic) is not a Catholic." (period) He does not make any distinctions.
Well, actually he doesn't. He actually writes about inculpable error (due to ignorance) where one would not be considered a heretic. While he doesn't use the scholastic terms for the distinction, it does exist in his writings.
Nevertheless, you're missing the point.
Are material heretics Catholics?
You said yes. So here's a case of where you can apply a distinction and then state that heretics are Catholics. But you refuse to admit a similar distinction:
materially Catholic vs. formally Catholic
-
Correct. But you didn't answer my question.
Are material heretics Catholics?
I did answer your question. I stated that a material heretic is a CATHOLIC erring in good faith.
Not directly. You didn't say in your previous post, "a material heretic is a Catholic"; one had to infer that as being your definition of material heretic.
-
So Father Wathen, based on Stubborn's additional citation, was trying to say that someone who's only materially a Catholic can continue to formally exercise jurisdiction. Whereas the sedeprivationists say that someone who's only materially Catholic can continue to only materially exercise jurisdiction.
I think that some additional distinctions are appropriate as well.
#1) If Cushing (to pick on him) were going around saying, "I have embraced Islam and don't believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church." (apostasy)
is different from
#2) Cushing going around saying, "I know that the Church teaches EENS, but I don't believe it anyway. I think that the Church got this dogma wrong." (heresy)
is different from
#3) Cushing going around saying, "I believe that my opinion, due to the following reasons and distinctions, is compatible with Catholic teaching." (???????)
In the case of the V2 Popes we have #3 going on. That becomes MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than #1 and #2 and requires the intervention of Church authority.
-
According to Fr. Wathen - and Fr. Feeney for that matter, no.
And I suggest that Rome would have backed this position as well. What would normally happen is that a priest could accuse Cushing of heresy to Rome. If Rome dismissed the claim, then Cushing would remain Bishop of Boston. If Rome agreed, then it would call upon Cushing to recant (after having given him the opportunity to defend himself against the charge). Then, if Cushing recanted or successfully defended himself, he would remain Bishop; if Cushing refused to recant and failed to successfully defend himself, then Rome would declare him deposed or just depose him. There's a question of authority in discerning the crime that is completely missed by SVs.
100% agree.
-
Nevertheless, you're missing the point.
Are material heretics Catholics?
You said yes. So here's a case of where you can apply a distinction and then state that heretics are Catholics.
No. Material heretics are not considered heretics, as they do not cease to be a member of the Church. A "material heretic" is a theological term used to describe a Catholic that is confused about a particular dogma of the faith and that they are not denying deliberately.
But you refuse to admit a similar distinction: materially Catholic vs. formally Catholic
This should be interesting.... What is the distinction between a material Catholic and a Formal Catholic?
But I've already explained this. People remain materially Catholics based on their Baptismal Character even if the formally cease to be Catholic due to heresy, schism, apostasy, etc.
-
Nevertheless, you're missing the point.
Are material heretics Catholics?
You said yes. So here's a case of where you can apply a distinction and then state that heretics are Catholics.
No. Material heretics are not considered formal heretics,
Fixed it for you. Many sedevacantists struggle with necessary distinctions. They make everything binary and do not allow for "in some ways yes, in some ways no".
-
Many sedevacantists struggle with necessary distinctions. They make everything binary and do not allow for "in some ways yes, in some ways no".
"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." (Matthew 5:37)
So you're denouncing the "distinction" now, a tool which formed the backbone of scholastic theology? This attitude right epitomizes precisely what's wrong with the sedevacantists.
-
Many sedevacantists struggle with necessary distinctions. They make everything binary and do not allow for "in some ways yes, in some ways no".
"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." (Matthew 5:37)
So you're denouncing the "distinction" now, a tool which formed the backbone of scholastic theology? This attitude right epitomizes precisely what's wrong with the sedevacantists.
My friend, the backbone of scholastic theology is faith and reason; fides quaerens intelligentiam - faith seeking understanding.
But their core tool in the quest for truth was nothing other than the distinction.
If you reject the very notion of distinctions, then there's no further point of discussing anything with you. You are deeply misguided.
-
No. Material heretics are not considered formal heretics,
Fixed it for you. Many sedevacantists struggle with necessary distinctions. They make everything binary and do not allow for "in some ways yes, in some ways no".
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.” (Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio)
In the quote above, is Pope Gregory speaking of "material heretics" or formal heretics?
It must be formal heresy, given that only formal heresy in the external forum actually separates a person from the body of the Church. Formal heresy in the external forum is a declared heresy by competent authority or it also happens when the person himself willingly and pertinaciously publicly departs from the Faith. Material heretics can be ignorant of the fact that they have become heretics and more importantly, material heretics are not separated from the Church, the Body of Christ.
-
It must be formal heresy... it also happens when the person himself willingly and pertinaciously publicly departs from the Faith.
Yes, and this is often overlooked by many...
By way of profession, BD. I already expressed this above. See my previous post ... where I listed #1, #2, and #3.
With the V2 Popes we are clearly in situation #3.
-
If you reject the very notion of distinctions, then there's no further point of discussing anything with you. You are deeply misguided.
Ladislaus, please define for us the distinction between a "material Catholic" and a "formal Catholic." Please back it up with references and Church teaching in regards to the character imprinted on the soul after Baptism.
I will illustrate this point once you admit that your categorical statement that heretics cannot be Catholics is not correct and that what you mean is "Manifest formal heretics cannot be Catholics."
-
You give a 25-sentence disjointed rambling non-answer to avoid admitting that you are wrong, and you have the audacity to accuse me for being too proud to admit that I am wrong.
I am not wrong; you are wrong. Yes, the Church in its definitions assumes formal heresy (not necessarily manifest).
I am still waiting for you to amend your statement to say that "Manifest formal heretics are not Catholic."
St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, teaches that occult heretics are NOT outside the Church. No theologian teaches that material heretics are outside the Church. If you want to say that when you say "Heretics are not Catholic" then you mean it to be understood "Manifest formal heretics", then do so, but stop this stupid rambling.
-
I will illustrate the point this way.
Are formal heretics Catholic?
-
Are material heretics Catholic?
Absolutely not!
Let Fr. Michael Muller help you out. Excerpt taken from Part II, Chapter 6, The Catholic Dogma
“Being unfortunately brought up a Protestant," continues the Rev. A. Young, "I was like an ignorant Catholic in good faith who failed to learn all that the Catholic Church, the visible, authorized teacher of all divine truth, does teach."
Now it is wholly untrue that the Rev. A. Young as a Protestant, “was like an ignorant Catholic who failed to learn all that the Catholic Church, the visible authorized teacher of all divine truth, does teach."
An ignorant Catholic is not a material heretic; he is a member of the Body of Christ; if he is a dead member of it, being in the state of mortal sin, he as such is able still to make acts of divine faith, though not meritorious, because he believes all that God teaches him through his infallible teacher--the Catholic Church; if he is in the state of sanctifying grace, his acts of faith will be meritorious to eternal life. Nothing of the kind is true of a material heretic, because he is out of the Church and therefore no member of Christ's body.
“As only those members," says St. Augustine, "are vivified by the soul which are united with the body, so, in like manner, only those are vivified by the Spirit of Christ, who remain members of his Body--the Church.. He who is separated from Christ's Body is not a member of Christ; and if he is not a member of Christ, he cannot be vivified by Christ's Spirit. But any one who has not Christ's Spirit does not belong to Christ. Hence a Christian must fear nothing so much as separation from Christ's Body, which is the Church." (Tract. 27, in Joan.)
“So long,” continues the Rev. A. Young, as one’s faith is a willing oblation, or spiritual sacrifice of self authority, by referring his reason for believing to what he thinks (according to his lights and opportunities) to be a divinely authorized source of instruction by which he is directly taught, or through which he honestly believes God wills him to learn divine truth, that man is a Catholic in the sight of God, and he is a Catholic in the sight of the Church, no matter what he calls himself, and though such a one dies piously as an Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or what not, St. Peter will let him into heaven as a Catholic. And many a one rejoices to find himself so recognized after death, in spite of his earthly name and ignorance. That such a baptized Protestant is a Catholic in the sight of the Church is proved by the fact that he is treated as one when he becomes a convert and applies to be received into the Church, for he is absolved as one who has been, or, as the ritual wisely adds, ‘if perchance he has been' an excommunicated Catholic, on account of professed heresy."
Was the Rev. A. Young quite honest in believing what he has just said? How then could he write: “They (material heretics) openly refuse to hear the divine authority of the Church, and so they are heretics “in foro externo” (of the Church).
As the Rev. A. Young was unfortunate in explaining the doctrine of St. Thomas on faith, so, in like manner, he is again unfortunate in the explanation of the formula of absolution from heresy, which the Church has prescribed for the priest to use in absolving heretics from heresy when they are about to be received into the Church.
Before giving the true, genuine explanation of that formula of absolution, we must remark that this formula of absolution is never used by the Church when an excommunicated Catholic is to be absolved from the censure of excommunication, nor does the Church look upon an excommunicated heretic as an excommunicated Catholic. By what right, therefore, does the Rev. A. Young call an excommunicated heretic an excommunicated Catholic?
The more you talk, the more you sound like Rev. Alfred Young. It is a shame, the same things they were promoting in circa 1880, are being parroted on this web site today.
Remember, Bergoglio (and he predecessors)completely deny EENS PERIOD, and you know it. He is an excommunicated heretic plain and simple and not a Catholic.
No declaration has to be made, as the misguided believe, if a declaration were needed then it could be possible that the flock could be lead by a hireling (antichrist), this is why Pope Paul IV issued the Bull. WAKE UP!!!
-
Father Mueller, like most theologians of the past 200 years or so, misuses the term material heretic as synonymous with "sincerely mistaken" heretic.
That is incorrect. Protestants are FORMAL heretics because they do not have the formal motive of faith.
That thinking is one fruit of the growing subjectivism since the Renaissance.
-
I will illustrate this point.
Please do so, and please provide references to back up your statement.
Waiting....
1) I am still waiting for you to admit your error.
and
2) Answer my question: Are formal heretics Catholics?
-
Look Mate, YOU introduced the terms "materially" and "formally" Catholic... Back it up with references and Church teaching!
It should not be this difficult....back it up.
I am going to back it up. It should not be difficult for you to answer a simple question.
Are formal heretics Catholics?
Yes, you refuse to answer, because you're going to get cornered. I'm doing it this way to force you to follow the logic. If I spell it all out, you'll just blow it off as you always do, because you are of bad will.
-
Back it up Ladislaus......
No, you are of bad will. You will find the answer in St. Robert Bellarmine and the Council of Trent.
-
Obvioulsy you cannot.
I most certainly can. I just won't, not to the likes of someone like you who are of bad will. I called you out right out of the gate. You refused to answer my questions, so as a consequence, I am not going to explain to you how this works.
-
You have an obligation to back up your statements...
I have no obligation to do anything other than my duties of state. I will not cast the pearls of truth before swine.
-
Occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union”.
If the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other.
-
Only formal heresy separates a soul from the Church.
Heresy defined as:
“After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
Now, it gets even more complex: there are 4 degrees of Heresy, each one with a distinct censure:
1. Heresy (defined in the canon above: persistent denial of an infallible dogma)
2. Approaching heresy: Opinion opposed to a doctrine that is not expressly de fide or clearly proposed as an article of Faith.
3. Erroneous in theology: A proposition that does not directly contradict a received dogma, but may logically lead to such a contradiction.
4. Suspected of heresy: An opinion whose contradiction of an article of faith is not able to be definitively proven, but can be reached with a certain degree of probability.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm
Again, only the Formal Heretic (#1 above) ceases to be inside the Church.
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
The guiding principles in the Church's treatment of heretics are the following: Distinguishing between formal and material heretics, she applies to the former the canon, "Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every heretic or schismatic is to have part with the Devil and his angels in the flames of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be incorporated with, and restored to the Catholic Church." No one is forced to enter the Church, but having once entered it through baptism, he is bound to keep the promises he freely made. To restrain and bring back her rebellious sons the Church uses both her own spiritual power and the secular power at her command.
Towards material heretics her conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: "Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected" (P.L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160).
-
The more you talk, the more you sound like Rev. Alfred Young. It is a shame, the same things they were promoting in circa 1880, are being parroted on this web site today.
Remember, Bergoglio (and he predecessors)completely deny EENS PERIOD, and you know it. He is an excommunicated heretic plain and simple and not a Catholic.
No declaration has to be made, as the misguided believe, if a declaration were needed then it could be possible that the flock could be lead by a hireling (antichrist), this is why Pope Paul IV issued the Bull. WAKE UP!!!
What exactly is it about the quote below from Fr. Wathen that makes SVs think he is wrong? Please pick it apart if need be to demonstrate where or why he is wrong. Or better yet, just state the reasons why you disagree.
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since
there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment
against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be
under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as
the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do
anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid
of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the
faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure
is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies
them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been
elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all
those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority,
UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.
-
Occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia. …the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union”.
If the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other.
Correct, Cantarella. Unlike BD, you know your stuff.
St. Robert and most other theologians hold that occult formal heretics, despite the fact that they are not formally members of the Church, remain materially members of the Church, and based on this material membership alone are able to hold jurisdiction and office in the Church. Now, unlike Father Wathen, St. Robert does not base this on the Baptismal Character but, rather, on that alone with the outward profession of faith.
As I pointed out, there's a difference between open admitted apostasy, open admitted heresy, and the case where someone claims that whatever suspect teaching he holds can be reconciled with Tradition when making the appropriate decision. And the V2 Popes fall in this LAST category, so a judgment by a competent doctrinal authority is required before the person transitions into a state of formal heresy.
-
I don't know how this thread has turned into the heretical pope thread. I would suggest that if anyone would like to debate this to start a new thread.
The issue being discussed was Father Wathen's "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" statement.
The statement below needs to be addressed by Ladislaus as he is introducing some new kind of Catholic - Catholics with distinction, per se.
What is materially Catholic, and what is formally Catholic - and what does that have to do the the character imprinted on the soul after Baptism??
If he would have said, "Once [materially] a Catholic, always [materially] a Catholic." then we're good to go.
Yet "Once [formally] a Catholic, always [formally] a Catholic." then that is false.
See the post from Cantarella. I pointed you towards St. Robert Bellarmine. I also mentioned the Council of Trent. By virtue of Baptism, according to Trent, people become subjects of the Roman Pontiff, and that subjection continues even if the person leaves the Church or fails to grow up in the Church. So, for instance, the Church invalidates marriages of those who were baptized as Catholics even if they never became practicing Catholics. Let's say they were baptized Catholic, their parents die, and then their adoptive parents raise them as Protestants. Yet the Church considers all such people, by virtue of their baptismal character alone, to be her subjects. So they are material subjects of the Church but not formal ones. There are many other such situations. If one becomes a formal heretic, one still can return to the Church through Confession (and also abjuration if the heresy be public). So the person can still avail himself of the Sacraments. There are many such indicators in Church law and Church practice. But the key consideration comes from St. Robert Bellarmine's distinctions.
-
If the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other.
This notion of authority is constantly and deliberately ignored by the Sedevacantists. Most theologians AFTER St. Robert Bellarmine (and some contemporaries) concluded that there must be SOME sentence or judgment passed on the issue by the Church and that this cannot be left up to private judgment (for the reasons I have articulated dozens of times here on CI). Just as the Church alone can accept a Pontiff, so the Church alone can reject a Pontiff. This is the question of a dogmatic fact that must be established with the certainty of ecclesiastical faith and so cannot be determined by private judgment. That is the foundation for my "sede-doubtist" position.
I believe the St. Robert Bellarmine position can be reconciled with the others when one applies distinctions that I have made above.
1) Pope decides that he's become a professed Muslim or Jew or Buddhist and that he's no longer Catholic. By profession of apostasy, that person would manifestly have left the Church.
2) Pope goes around saying, "I know that the Church teaches transubstantiation. But I reject this and don't believe it." Again, an open profession of formal heresy.
3) Pope goes around saying, "I believe in Religious Liberty and I think it's perfectly compatible with Church teaching."
In the cases of #1 and #2 I can see how no real judgment of the Church really needs to kick in; or, rather, that the judgment of the Church would be obvious and automatic.
But #3 IS THE PROBLEM, and it's #3 that we're dealing with here. This requires the competent doctrinal authority of the Church to discern.
Normally in someone less than the pope, if I were a theologian going around spouting a heretical opinion, and someone accused me, then I would be tried by the Church authorities. If, after having found me guilty of heresy, I recanted, then there was never formal heresy. If I persisted, after the intervention of authority, then I would be guilty of heresy due to having rejected the Church's Magisterium (which is what constitutes formal heresy). So the Church's judgment is absolutely essential to establishing formal heresy. Other than that, if Joe Sixpack Layman accuses me of heresy, and I blow it off because, after all, who is this Joe Sixpack, then that's NOT formal heresy. Formal heresy by its very definition involves the implicit rejection of the Church's teaching authority, so without the intervention of that authority (short of the outward professions in #1 and #2 above), there really can't be formal heresy. But how does this work for the Pope? By way of Imperfect Council, that's how, as most theologians hold.
-
If he would have said, "Once [materially] a Catholic, always [materially] a Catholic." then we're good to go.
Yet "Once [formally] a Catholic, always [formally] a Catholic." then that is false
You fail again to back up your "distinction" between your two types of Catholics - material and formal.
Both Cantarella and I put it out there. You just refuse to accept it due to your bad will. Both you and Nado and many of the SVs have the same modus operandi. You have a cognitive dissonance whereby you tune out anything that conflicts with your paradigm and theological worldview. You simply claim that it doesn't exist after it's laid out right in front of you.
What on earth is material subjection and formal subjection?
"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)
Where are the distinctions in this statement?
Unam Sanctam refers to both formal subjection, just as the definitions about heretics refer to both formal heresy. Without formal subjection one cannot be saved. But one remains in material subjection even after withdrawing formal subjection. See again my Baptism-Marriage example. It's quite clear that you do not even remotely understand the distinction between formal and material. Material subjection does not suffice for salvation, but it can suffice for holding office and jurisdiction.
-
Ladislaus, why do you continue to ramble on about the pope?
The subject at hand is not about jurisdiction or anything else you have been ranting about.
You need to defend your statement about material and formal Catholics - not popes or material and formal heretics.
It's been defended and proven. You're simply too obtuse or bad-willed to see it.
You have the same infuriating dishonest SV style as most of your cohorts.
This issue came up due to your attack on Father Wathen. YOU made it about popes. Father Wathen was simply arguing that those who are materially still members of the Church can retain office and jurisdiction in the Church. That's backed up by the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, and many other theologians. Sedeprivationists (following Bishop des Lauriers) say that such can materially hold office but not formally. Father Wathen's position that they continue even formally to hold office is backed up by John of St. Thomas and many others (Cantarella cited Suarez).
So what are you babbling about that we haven't demonstrated this? It's been abundantly demonstrated. It's not my problem that you're too obtuse, uneducated, and/or bad-willed to see it right in front of your eyes.
I was criticized when I pointed out early on that you are not of good will. I was clearly right.
-
If he would have said, "Once [materially] a Catholic, always [materially] a Catholic." then we're good to go.
Yet "Once [formally] a Catholic, always [formally] a Catholic." then that is false
You fail again to back up your "distinction" between your two types of Catholics - material and formal.
By virtue of Baptism, according to Trent, people become subjects of the Roman Pontiff... Yet the Church considers all such people, by virtue of their baptismal character alone, to be her subjects. So they are material subjects of the Church but not formal ones.
What on earth is material subjection and formal subjection?
"We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)
Where are the distinctions in this statement?
Honestly, I don't understand how you cannot understand Ladislaus' explanation.
-
Honestly, I don't understand how you cannot understand Ladislaus' explanation.
Cognitive dissonance, Stubborn. Anything that doesn't fit their theological worldview doesn't register in their brains. Also, lack of any training in philosophy and theology ... combined with bombastic assertions of knowing all truth despite the obvious ignorance. SVs ALWAYS ignore distinctions because it makes things uncomfortably unclear for them.
-
Cognitive dissonance, Stubborn.
You're very predictable my friend, and easily rattled in a debate. This happens when one does not understand how to defend their position.
Or better yet when one "DOUBTS" there position.
-
Honestly, I don't understand how you cannot understand Ladislaus' explanation.
Since you understand it so well, please define the following:
Material Catholic = Baptized but has no faith or has left the faith.
Formal Catholic = Baptized and strives to persevere in the faith.
Material Subjection to the Roman Pontiff = Baptized.
Formal Subjection to the Roman Pontiff = Baptized, strives to persevere in the faith and is subject to the Roma Pontiff.
Mind you, the material/formal Catholic argument was about the character imprinted on the soul after Baptism.
See my reply in bold in your quote above.
I notice you keep neglecting to cite the entire sentence, perhaps you would better understand if you thought on this as Fr. wrote it instead of only the first part; "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity.
-
Your reply in bold, my reply next to yours.
Material Catholic = Baptized but has no faith or has left the faith. = Apostate, schismatic, or heretic - all of which are NOT Catholic. There is no such thing as a "material Catholic.
Formal Catholic = Baptized and strives to persevere in the faith. = This one we just call Catholic.
Material Subjection to the Roman Pontiff = Baptized. = Subject to the Roman Pontiff, period. There is no such thing as "material" subjection. After Baptism, those who reject submission to the Roman Pontiff become schismatic. (not to mention the heretics and apostates)
Formal Subjection to the Roman Pontiff = Baptized, strives to persevere in the faith and is subject to the Roma Pontiff. = We just call this Catholic.
Stubborn, the thing to remember here is this - Heretics, schismatics, and apostates are NOT Catholic - this is the teaching of the Church. Father Wathen is simply wrong, and that's okay - he was simply mistaken.
Your above comments are wrong.
Catholics who've become schismatics are Catholic because of the character - reference the case of a schismatic priest. How could it be possible that his sacraments be valid if he were not Catholic? Or do you believe schismatic priests do not have valid sacraments? Is that what it is?
-
MANIFEST FORMAL HERETICS ARE NOT CATHOLICS.
Those dogmatic definitions you have cited assumed "manifest formal".
You wouldn't answer the question before about formal heretics being Catholics.
Formal heretics are NOT Catholics (formally). But let's say I really am a Jew who infiltrated the Church and kept my cover the entire time, never manifesting my lack of faith. I am not formally a Catholic. But I am MATERIALLY a Catholic, since my non-Catholicity has remained occult, and am a member of the Church (materially but not formally). But most theologians (I have not read any to the contrary) hold that occult non-Catholics (despite being not formally Catholic) remain MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH and RETAIN JURISDICTION and RETAIN OFFICE. Until such a time as their non-Catholicity should become manifest.
So here's a situation where people who are materially but not formally Catholic remain formally in office and retain jurisdiction.
I don't think, however, that Father Wathen's Baptismal Character argument alone suffices. In addition to the Baptismal Character, there's the need to publicly profess the faith (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine's definition of membership in the Church).
So, for instance, if Cardinal Cushing were to have come out in public and said, "I have converted to Judaism", he would ipso facto have lost jurisdiction due to ceasing to be a member of the Church due to failing to profess Catholicism.
-
The notion of "material heretics" is found in the Code of Canon Law, for example, which says, 731 §1, 2 "It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church." The older Doctors put it more simply, for example St. Augustine says, "But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. "
Strictly speaking, a heretic refers to a person who lacks supernatural faith. Error against faith in the intellect is the matter of heresy, while pertinacity in the will is the form. Unless both are present, there is no true heresy. St. Thomas says, "If he is not pertinacious, he is not in heresy, but only in error." Now, it is impossible by an absolute impossibility, as all theologians teach, for a Pope who is universally accepted by the Church, especially the hierarchy, to have lost his office for heresy. To take one example out of several, we have Cardinal Billot, "Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic ..."
Only after this acceptance ceases, is it even possible for a Pope to become a heretic, his public pertinacity becoming manifest and notorious is what causes the loss of the pontificate. Thus we have Fr. Ballerini who explains what should be done in this instance, and how the Pope first begins to lose his office.
St. Alphonsus says, "If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope"
“For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church ... Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul ...Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”.
In other words, it is only after the Pope has ceased to be recognized by the Cardinals and Bishops, openly questioned by them for teaching error, and then continuing obstinate, that the manifestation of the Pope's public pertinacity causes the loss of the Papacy. If instead of being obstinate in the face of such an admonition from the Cardinals, like John XXII, he recants and says he misspoke, he will continue to be Pope, a Catholic erring in good faith.
-
Catholics who've become schismatics are Catholic because of the character...
You are wrong about the character imprinted on the soul through the Sacrament of Baptism.
...the character of Baptism gives a man the power to receive the other sacraments (Summa Suppl. IIIae, 35, iii, co.)
Heretics, schismatics, and apostates are NOT Catholic, they are forbidden to receive the sacraments. This is fairly basic and not hard to understand.
True, depending upon the sentence given by the legitimate Church authority, they can be forbidden to receive the sacraments - all except for the sacrament of penance that is, which they can *and are encouraged* receive without first being baptized.
Please explain how can they go to confession if they are not already Catholic?
...- reference the case of a schismatic priest. How could it be possible that his sacraments be valid if he were not Catholic?
Or do you believe schismatic priests do not have valid sacraments? Is that what it is?
The Church has always recognized these sacraments as valid, but unlawful. Schismatics and heretics are forbidden to confer the sacraments except in the case of Baptism.
That is almost entirely correct, to be entirely correct, the Church has always taught that in case of emergency, schismatic priests can also administer Last Rites, which may or may not include the sacraments of Confession and Communion - now all you have to do is agree that while still schismatic, unless the priest is still Catholic, that it would be impossible to confer valid sacraments - also consider that the Church would condemn and could never permit any non-Catholic to administer the Last Sacraments.
-
That is almost entirely correct, to be entirely correct, the Church has always taught that in case of emergency, schismatic priests can also administer Last Rites, which may or may not include the sacraments of Confession and Communion - now all you have to do is agree that while still schismatic, unless the priest is still Catholic, that it would be impossible to confer valid sacraments - also consider that the Church would condemn and could never permit any non-Catholic to administer the Last Sacraments.
This is a run-on sentence, so I may be mistaken as to what you mean. But it seems to me you are implying that schismatics are not non-Catholic. Perhaps you are not implying that, but I still must say that schismatics are not Catholic, and yet in an emergency (to provide the forgiveness of sins) we can receive those sacraments that ensure and provide that.
Schismatics priests / bishops etc., who are excommunicated from the Church, remain a priest and retain their priestly powers even though they are excommunicated schismatics - nothing can ever take their priestly powers away. What BD is saying is that excommunication = non-Catholic, which is wrong, if not always wrong, at least part of the time wrong. I ask how can a non-Catholic priest confer valid sacraments?
They can still validly tho sinfully consecrate the bread and wine, hear confessions, perform marriages etc. but they commit a grave sin in doing so because they do so outside of the Church.
If a priest can administer sacraments even though excommunicated because of schism, I ask for an explanation on how is it possible that a non-Catholic priest can confer valid sacraments.
-
Formal heretics are NOT Catholics (PERIOD).
I fixed it for you.
You mean you fixed it for St. Robert Bellarmine?
Take it up with him.
-
The only way to become a member of the Church is through the Sacrament of Baptism.
A Jew who infiltrates the Church is still a Jew, period.
Uhm, I was obviously referring to one who had received the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
But most theologians hold that occult non-Catholics remain MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
This is absurd. A non-Catholic is NOT a member of the Church. As cited above, the only way to become a member of the Church is through the Sacrament of Baptism.
Again, I was CLEARLY referring to an occult non-Catholic who HAD in fact received the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
True, depending upon the sentence given by the legitimate Church authority, they can be forbidden to receive the sacraments - all except for the sacrament of penance that is, which they can *and are encouraged* receive without first being baptized.
Please explain how can they go to confession if they are not already Catholic
I don't understand the entire statement above, but I will try and answer your question.
Non-Catholics cannot receive the SACRAMENT of Penance until they have received the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no need for a confession once a non-Catholic has been baptized, as the Sacrament of Baptism washes away ALL sin and ALL the temporal punishment due.
How can a non-Catholic receive the Sacrament of Penance if they aren't even members of the Church?
Now, on the other hand, a baptized Catholic who separates himself from the Church by either schism, heresy, or apostasy ceases to be Catholic (according to Augustine and Leo XIII). This person, by having the character of Baptism imprinted on his soul can come back into the fold by FIRST making an abjuration of his errors. If he does not recant his heresy, or errors, he will not receive absolution and remains severed from the Church - rendering him NOT Catholic, as Augustine says.
No, you are mixing it all up, possibly because I didn't communicate it clearly.
A) The Catholic separates himself from the Church and is an excommunicated schismatic.
B) The Church teaches that the schismatic excommunicant cannot lawfully receive any sacrament.
C) That schismatic person decides to repent.
D) He can (and the Church encourages him) go to confession and receive absolution, something the Church teaches that a non-Catholic is forbidden to do.
E) Should the schismatic be on his deathbed and desire to repent, he can also receive the Last Rites, which is also a sacrament the Church forbids to non-Catholics.
F) The (public) abjuration before a priest or bishop or pope, (depending on the censure) is only necessary for adult catechumens who've never been baptized, or for cases where public abjuration is required to avoid scandal, or if the censure is reserved to the Holy See.
G) You must conclude that because the schismatic can go to confession without first needing to be baptized, the repentant schismatic was always Catholic by virtue of the sacramental character. Were this not the case, according to the teaching of the Church, the person would necessarily need to be sacramentally baptized before he could go to confession or receive any other sacrament.
That is almost entirely correct, to be entirely correct, the Church has always taught that in case of emergency, schismatic priests can also administer Last Rites, which may or may not include the sacraments of Confession and Communion - now all you have to do is agree that while still schismatic, unless the priest is still Catholic, that it would be impossible to confer valid sacraments - also consider that the Church would condemn and could never permit any non-Catholic to administer the Last Sacraments.
I am having difficulty understanding this statement, but I will attempt to answer.
Saint Thomas says:
Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments. (Summa III, 82, vii, ad. 2)
If you know of something different than above, please share. However, it is true that "necessity knows no law", so I will give you the benefit of the doubt about Last Rites.
You still don't understand the character imprinted on the soul by Baptism, Orders, and Confirmation. I suggest you read over Saint Thomas to truly understand this point.
According to St. Thomas, and Trent for that matter, the sacrament of baptism can be administered by literally anyone, even avowed satanists. The rest of the sacraments require a validly ordained priest or bishop.
A schismatic bishop can validly ordain priests and validly consecrate communion at Mass, can administer Last Rights, Confirmations etc. but he commits a grave sin by doing so. You do not seem to accept this, but they can.
I think this is what your problem is, you seem to think a schismatic priest loses his priestly powers to confer the sacraments, but he does not.
So for me to ask you to explain how it is possible for a schismatic priest (or bishop for that matter) to be able confer the sacraments if he is not Catholic should make no sense to you.
-
This is absurd. A non-Catholic is NOT a member of the Church. As cited above, the only way to become a member of the Church is through the Sacrament of Baptism.
Again, I was CLEARLY referring to an occult non-Catholic who HAD in fact received the Sacrament of Baptism.
So, you are a Jew, seeking membership in the Church with the intent of infiltrating and causing harm from the inside, and don't really believe in the Faith. Outwardly, you profess to be Catholic, but inside you hold to your jewry.
Do I have this correct?
Close. I'm a Jew who has already obtained membership in the Church ... but the rest is what I meant.
I'm a Jew. I pretend to convert. I receive Baptism, maybe even become a priest and then a bishop. I outwardly profess the Catholic faith and never has my secret Jewry become manifest. Am I a Catholic?
-
Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy sever a man from the Church. There are varying degrees of excommunication, and I will not pretend to know all about them - as I do not. However, I believe that there are "tolerated" excommunicates that are not entirely severed from the Church.
Yes, I too believe there are varying degrees of excommunication and these degrees are only dictated upon the excommunicant by legitimate authority.
Regardless, I have already proven that heresy, schism, and apostasy means NOT Catholic. Why do you continue to argue this point? How many times do I need to point this out?
...now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others...” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)
They are correct, you have it wrong. St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others are teaching that one who is not baptized is not a Christian, is not a member of the Church. You and the CMRI seem to be missing that point.
I ask how can a non-Catholic priest confer valid sacraments
You need to understand this indelible mark, this character imprinted on the soul the way in which the Church teaches. You have taken it upon yourself to believe only ONE source, Father Wathen, who is clearly wrong.
Fr. Wathen agrees with St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine etc. which is what the Church teaches.
I don't think your real problem is the indelible mark, I think that if you accept that once a priest always a priest, you will have to accept once a Catholic always a Catholic even when the Catholic leaves the Church.
The basis of SV theory is that only a Catholic can be pope and since the supposed pope is not Catholic that he cannot possibly be pope - so if you have to admit to once a Catholic always a Catholic, the whole "pope can't be pope because he's not Catholic", fails.
-
I'm a Jew. I pretend to convert. I receive Baptism, maybe even become a priest and then a bishop. I outwardly profess the Catholic faith and never has my secret Jewry become manifest. Am I a Catholic?
According to Saint Thomas, one must have the right faith in order to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
If your intention was to destroy the Church from within or to infiltrate it for diabolical reasons, then I would say that you would not have the right faith or the proper intention to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, you would not be a member of the Church, you would not be a Catholic.
That is simply not correct. Without the "right faith", one would receive the Sacrament vis-a-vis the Character but would not receive the Sacramental Graces (justification). One would receive the Sacrament validly but not the graces of the Sacrament.
-
However, I think that he, like most people that question the sedevacantist position, goes to deep and too far in trying to understand things.
Actually, my "sede-doubtist" stance is quite the opposite. I am content with NOT understanding things (vis-a-vis the specific details of what has happened) and leaving it up to God. While I deeply consider the Catholic principles involved, their application is not clear.
-
Ladislaus has expressed that an occult heretic pope (as distinct from a manifest heretic) remains pope, and is protected by the promise of infallibility. I have asked him twice recently to explain how that divine promise doesn't prevent him from becoming a manifest heretic. He cannot explain that.
It's quite simple; I have outlined it.
1) Occult Heretics remain members of the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine).
2) Pope who might have become an occult heretic remains Pope, by virtue of being still a member of the Church (again St. Robert Bellarmine).
3) Popes are protected by infallibility.
There's no mystery here, Nado. How God would handle this situation is to protect the Church by preventing such a Pope from teaching error to the Church in situations which meet the notes of infallibility. God could enforce this simply by causing the evildoer to drop dead. All we have is the promise that God will not allow a Pope under certain conditions to teach any error. We have no guidance in terms of HOW God would keep that promise. Again, it could just be by causing the perpetrator to drop dead.
I think that, at the end of the day, the key will be found in illegitimate elections, but that's just a guess.
-
That's where all this talk is going, BD- their trying to undermine the possibility of a pope becoming a heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope.
Of course it is Nado. Which is why they keep skirting around the issue with all of their occult, inner forum, external forum, material, formal, within but outside, indelible marks, et al.
Their blind hatred for the most logical position in the current times is very evident.
However, I am happy to continue the debate.....
The problem is that sedes just don't have an irrefutable proof for their assertions and it is not worthy falling into schism over something that is not certain. The only "proof" for sedevacantists is that if they hear the Pope saying something "heretical" to their ears, they assume that he is a formal heretic, automatically self-excommunicated and put outside the Church, and therefore, hast lost pontificate. That is a whole lot of dangerous assumptions over a shaky ground.
Fact is that judging the interior forum of souls is not permitted to Catholics. This entire notion that the subject judges the superior is actually an egalitarian, liberal, democratic, and ultimately Protestant, idea. Not Catholic. Sad but true, most traditionalists fall into the same trap than the liberals they condemn. I will explain this later on.
-
Their blind hatred for the most logical position in the current times is very evident.
However, I am happy to continue the debate.....
There's no "blind hatred" here on my end. I used to be a sedevacantist. I STILL think that the MOST LIKELY explanation for what has happened involves an infiltration of the papacy. I find the Siri Thesis to be rather persuasive. Where I stop short of the SV position is that what's missing from the picture is the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the determination of a dogmatic fact cannot be made by an individual. Such facts must be known with the certainty of ecclesiastical faith, and only the Church's authority can do that. All we can do is to arrive at a position of grave positive doubt regarding their legitimacy, which is what I have. More than that only the Church can do. It seems like a very subtle point, but it's ABSOLUTELY HUGE. Without this, BD, the Church's Magisterium is undermined and turned upside down no less than it is with the "Magisterium-Sifting" of R&R. At that point the Magisterium becomes subject to a continuous convalidation feedback loop. If we cannot accept its teaching (based upon our own private judgment), then we must reject the authorities behind it. That makes our private judgment our proximate rule of faith rather than the Magisterium. It's no different than the Protestants who hold Scripture as the rule of faith, but their proximate rules of faith is their own interpretation of Scripture. Same things happens in the case of SVism. I cannot concede straight private-judgment SVism. It's not Catholic. At the same time, I have pointed out that R&R, with Magisterium-sifting is not Catholic either.
To me it's either subjection to the Novus Ordo hierarchy or else refusal of subjection based upon grave positive doubt regarding their legitimacy.
-
That's where all this talk is going, BD- their trying to undermine the possibility of a pope becoming a heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope.
Of course it is Nado. Which is why they keep skirting around the issue with all of their occult, inner forum, external forum, material, formal, within but outside, indelible marks, et al.
Their blind hatred for the most logical position in the current times is very evident.
However, I am happy to continue the debate.....
The problem is that sedes just don't have an irrefutable proof for their assertions and it is not worthy falling into schism over something that is not certain. The only "proof" for sedevacantists is that if they hear the Pope saying something "heretical" to their ears, they assume that he is a formal heretic, automatically self-excommunicated and put outside the Church, and therefore, hast lost pontificate. That is a whole lot of dangerous assumptions over a shaky ground.
We're all on shaky ground, Cantarella. Nobody, not the R&R, not the Novus Ordo, and not SVs have any "irrefutable proof for their assertions".
Fact is that judging the interior forum of souls is not permitted to Catholics. This entire notion that the subject judges the superior is actually an egalitarian, liberal, democratic, and ultimately Protestant, idea. Not Catholic. Sad but true, most traditionalists fall into the same trap than the liberals they condemn. I will explain this later on.
No, this isn't about personal heresy. What's motivating SVism has nothing to do with the personal heresy of any papal claimant. Had Vatican II never happened, the personal orthodoxy of Paul VI would be nothing but an academic question that most Catholics would hardly care less about and would just say, "That's above my pay grade and I don't care."
You don't seem to want to face the problem regarding the defection of the Magisterium that R&R promotes. If I believed that the V2 Popes were legitimate, I could not justify an R&R position and would consider it schismatic. Plain and simple. And THAT is what the SVs are dealing with, not some kind of need to judge internal forum.
In fact, Cantarella, the bigger risk of FORMAL schism is with R&R. Those in the Great Western schism who picked the wrong pope (such as St. Vincent Ferrer) were materially in schism, yes. But they were not formally in schism ... because they adhered to the man they considered to be pope. Thus they were only materially in error. So the question of SVism isn't one of schism. R&R however promotes refusal of subjection to those whom they consider legitimate popes. That, on the contrary, DOES set one up for a formally-schismatic mentality. Honestly, the safest position in that regard is the FSSP type of position. So the problem of SVism isn't one of "schism" but, rather, one of underlying principles that undermine the Magisterium ... as I explained above.
-
However, I think that he, like most people that question the sedevacantist position, goes to deep and too far in trying to understand things.
Actually, my "sede-doubtist" stance is quite the opposite. I am content with NOT understanding things (vis-a-vis the specific details of what has happened) and leaving it up to God. While I deeply consider the Catholic principles involved, their application is not clear.
Some people work hard to stay in the grey. Which explains why you aborted your syllogism thread when the reasoning began to seriously erode the doubt.
Just drop the rhetoric, Nado. It's not helpful, and it's this kind of stuff that has caused me to be deeply frustrated with you. This isn't about a desire to stay in the gray. It's about an admission that we cannot emerge completely from the gray without the intervention of Church authority. Again, the reason I dropped the syllogism thread vis-a-vis the New Mass was due to lack of interest from anyone (besides yourself).
-
There's no "blind hatred" here on my end. I used to be a sedevacantist. I STILL think that the MOST LIKELY explanation for what has happened involves an infiltration of the papacy. I find the Siri Thesis to be rather persuasive.
Start a new Thread... There is much to discuss on this subject.
Do you mean the Siri thesis? There have been many threads devoted to that subject.
-
This is how Catholicism normally works.
1) Pope is accepted peacefully and without question by the Universal Church.
2) Pope teaches something to the Universal Church.
3) If this teaching goes against my own personal opinion, I discard my own personal opinion in favor of and in deference to the Magisterium.
Both R&R and SVism clearly violate this pattern.
-
That's where all this talk is going, BD- their trying to undermine the possibility of a pope becoming a heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope.
Of course it is Nado. Which is why they keep skirting around the issue with all of their occult, inner forum, external forum, material, formal, within but outside, indelible marks, et al.
Their blind hatred for the most logical position in the current times is very evident.
However, I am happy to continue the debate.....
The problem is that sedes just don't have an irrefutable proof for their assertions and it is not worthy falling into schism over something that is not certain. The only "proof" for sedevacantists is that if they hear the Pope saying something "heretical" to their ears, they assume that he is a formal heretic, automatically self-excommunicated and put outside the Church, and therefore, hast lost pontificate. That is a whole lot of dangerous assumptions over a shaky ground.
We're all on shaky ground, Cantarella. Nobody, not the R&R, not the Novus Ordo, and not SVs have any "irrefutable proof for their assertions".
Fact is that judging the interior forum of souls is not permitted to Catholics. This entire notion that the subject judges the superior is actually an egalitarian, liberal, democratic, and ultimately Protestant, idea. Not Catholic. Sad but true, most traditionalists fall into the same trap than the liberals they condemn. I will explain this later on.
No, this isn't about personal heresy. What's motivating SVism has nothing to do with the personal heresy of any papal claimant. Had Vatican II never happened, the personal orthodoxy of Paul VI would be nothing but an academic question that most Catholics would hardly care less about and would just say, "That's above my pay grade and I don't care."
You don't seem to want to face the problem regarding the defection of the Magisterium that R&R promotes. If I believed that the V2 Popes were legitimate, I could not justify an R&R position and would consider it schismatic. Plain and simple. And THAT is what the SVs are dealing with, not some kind of need to judge internal forum.
In fact, Cantarella, the bigger risk of FORMAL schism is with R&R. Those in the Great Western schism who picked the wrong pope (such as St. Vincent Ferrer) were materially in schism, yes. But they were not formally in schism ... because they adhered to the man they considered to be pope. Thus they were only materially in error. So the question of SVism isn't one of schism. R&R however promotes refusal of subjection to those whom they consider legitimate popes. That, on the contrary, DOES set one up for a formally-schismatic mentality. Honestly, the safest position in that regard is the FSSP type of position. So the problem of SVism isn't one of "schism" but, rather, one of underlying principles that undermine the Magisterium ... as I explained above.
Dear Ladislaus,
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II. FSSP and Eastern Rites are all viable options, too. I am consistent. There is only one issue we are "resisting" here and is that of the denial of EENS, which has been happening long before Vatican II Council. This is our real problem (engulfed in the monstrosity of Modernism and all its children) and NOT Vatican II. We do believe that the Magisterium can make a mistake in what is not protected by divine infallibility. Therefore, the errors of the Protocol 1949, for example. This combined with a massive global political - economic triumph of Jewry and Masonry and their diabolical Liberalism.
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II. FSSP and Eastern Rites are all viable options, too. I am consistent. There is only one issue we are "resisting" here and is that of the denial of EENS, which has been happening long before Vatican II Council. This is our real problem (engulfed in the monstrosity of Modernism and all its children) and NOT Vatican II. We do believe that the Magisterium can make a mistake in what is not protected by divine infallibility. Therefore, the errors of the Protocol 1949, for example. This combined with a massive global political - economic triumph of Jewry and Masonry and their diabolical Liberalism.
In that case, you're not inconsistent. Only problem that remains is that Vatican II is a veritable manifesto of EENS-denial; that's at its very core. And your definition of what's protected by infallibility is way too narrow. No, the Magisterium cannot radically mislead the entire Church on an issue so grave as EENS; that is not possible. You are positing a defection of the Magisterium.
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II.
So what are your thoughts on the "recognize and resist" camp?
Well, my main issue with the "R&R camp" is that of Jurisdiction but that is a topic for another thread. Having said that, I tend to agree with their position for the most part which it seems to be summarized in these statements from Bellarmine and Suarez:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.
“If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed. If he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it would be licit to resist him. If he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
Sometimes, everyone seems to be missing the forest for the trees though, in that we forget who is the enemy we are really fighting against: Modernism. The devil is delighted with so many divisions.
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II.
I guess I didn't realize that you were in communion with the new church. It makes perfect sense to me now....
You accept Vatican II in it's entirety?
The official position at Saint Benedict Center is that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not dogmatic. It did not attach any doctrine formulations and the novel teachings are not infallible. For example, the specific teaching on Ecuмenism is considered of the third Magisterial category, which can be subject to error. Catholics are free to criticize these teachings, resist, and eventually (with the help of God and the aid of competent authority) reverse and change them. It really all comes down to a proper understanding of the different levels of Magisterial teachings and the assent required for each.
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II.
I guess I didn't realize that you were in communion with the new church. It makes perfect sense to me now....
You accept Vatican II in it's entirety?
The official position at Saint Benedict Center is that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not dogmatic. It did not attach any doctrine formulations and the novel teachings are not infallible. For example, the specific teaching on Ecuмenism is considered of the third Magisterial category, which can be subject to error. Catholics are free to criticize these teachings, resist, and eventually (with the help of God and the aid of competent authority) reverse and change them. It really all comes down to a proper understanding of the different levels of Magisterial teachings.
That's too narrow a definition of infallibility. We're not talking about an isolated statement here or there, Cantarella; we're talking about an Ecuмenical Council that would have promoted EENS-denial to the entire Church. That's tantamount to saying that an Ecuмenical Council could teach to the Church that Our Lord did not physically rise from the dead, saying that this was just pastoral, and that God would allows this under that pretext. You're missing the forest of infallibility for the trees. That's why I call the problem not one of infallibility but rather of indefectibility. You're positing a grand-scale defection of the Magisterium that's not compatible with the Church's indefectibility.
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II.
I guess I didn't realize that you were in communion with the new church. It makes perfect sense to me now....
You accept Vatican II in it's entirety?
The official position at Saint Benedict Center is that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not dogmatic. It did not attach any doctrine formulations and the novel teachings are not infallible. For example, the specific teaching on Ecuмenism is considered of the third Magisterial category, which can be subject to error. Catholics are free to criticize these teachings, resist, and eventually (with the help of God and the aid of competent authority) reverse and change them. It really all comes down to a proper understanding of the different levels of Magisterial teachings.
That's too narrow a definition of infallibility. We're not talking about an isolated statement here or there, Cantarella; we're talking about an Ecuмenical Council that would have promoted EENS-denial to the entire Church. That's tantamount to saying that an Ecuмenical Council could teach to the Church that Our Lord did not physically rise from the dead, saying that this was just pastoral, and that God would allows this under that pretext. You're missing the forest of infallibility for the trees. That's why I call the problem not one of infallibility but rather of indefectibility. You're positing a grand-scale defection of the Magisterium that's not compatible with the Church's indefectibility.
Where? You mean in the text itself or the liberal implementation of it? If it is in the text itself, in what docuмent? Vatican II Ad Gentes 7 ACTUALLY states that ALL need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This is true for the evangelical, as well as the Jew.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
In this passage above Vatican II is saying all need to enter the Church for salvation. No exceptions.
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II.
I guess I didn't realize that you were in communion with the new church. It makes perfect sense to me now....
You accept Vatican II in it's entirety?
The official position at Saint Benedict Center is that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not dogmatic. It did not attach any doctrine formulations and the novel teachings are not infallible. For example, the specific teaching on Ecuмenism is considered of the third Magisterial category, which can be subject to error. Catholics are free to criticize these teachings, resist, and eventually (with the help of God and the aid of competent authority) reverse and change them. It really all comes down to a proper understanding of the different levels of Magisterial teachings.
That's too narrow a definition of infallibility. We're not talking about an isolated statement here or there, Cantarella; we're talking about an Ecuмenical Council that would have promoted EENS-denial to the entire Church. That's tantamount to saying that an Ecuмenical Council could teach to the Church that Our Lord did not physically rise from the dead, saying that this was just pastoral, and that God would allows this under that pretext. You're missing the forest of infallibility for the trees. That's why I call the problem not one of infallibility but rather of indefectibility. You're positing a grand-scale defection of the Magisterium that's not compatible with the Church's indefectibility.
Where? You mean in the text itself or the liberal implementation of it? If it is in the text itself, in what docuмent? Vatican II Ad Gentes 7 ACTUALLY states that ALL need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This is true for the evangelical, as well as the Jew.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
In this passage above Vatican II is saying all need to enter the Church for salvation. No exceptions.
By necessity of precept as everything, including SH, characterizes it. Do I really need to dig up all the stuff from Lumen Gentium that talks about how the Holy Spirit uses false religions for a means of salvation and how non-Catholics are part of the Church?
-
Why are you under the impression that I am "R&R"?, I am not SSPX. My affiliation is with the SBC which is in full communion with Rome and accept the conciliar Popes and Vatican II.
I guess I didn't realize that you were in communion with the new church. It makes perfect sense to me now....
You accept Vatican II in it's entirety?
The official position at Saint Benedict Center is that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not dogmatic. It did not attach any doctrine formulations and the novel teachings are not infallible. For example, the specific teaching on Ecuмenism is considered of the third Magisterial category, which can be subject to error. Catholics are free to criticize these teachings, resist, and eventually (with the help of God and the aid of competent authority) reverse and change them. It really all comes down to a proper understanding of the different levels of Magisterial teachings.
That's too narrow a definition of infallibility. We're not talking about an isolated statement here or there, Cantarella; we're talking about an Ecuмenical Council that would have promoted EENS-denial to the entire Church. That's tantamount to saying that an Ecuмenical Council could teach to the Church that Our Lord did not physically rise from the dead, saying that this was just pastoral, and that God would allows this under that pretext. You're missing the forest of infallibility for the trees. That's why I call the problem not one of infallibility but rather of indefectibility. You're positing a grand-scale defection of the Magisterium that's not compatible with the Church's indefectibility.
Where? You mean in the text itself or the liberal implementation of it? If it is in the text itself, in what docuмent? Vatican II Ad Gentes 7 ACTUALLY states that ALL need explicit faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This is true for the evangelical, as well as the Jew.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.
In this passage above Vatican II is saying all need to enter the Church for salvation. No exceptions.
By necessity of precept as everything, including SH, characterizes it. Do I really need to dig up all the stuff from Lumen Gentium that talks about how the Holy Spirit uses false religions for a means of salvation and how non-Catholics are part of the Church?
Yes, you need to do so, if you are going to claim that the entire Magisterium has defected because of Vatican II Council. You need to prove it.
Lumen Gentium is only one docuмent out of 16 and you are probably referring to a single isolated statement which runs contrary to your initial assertion that the entire Ecuмenical Council taught infallibly Salvation Outside the Church. Ad Gentes 7 clearly teaches the necessity of Faith and Baptism for salvation.
There are three or so more ambiguous (granted, borderline heretical statements in Vatican II text, depending on the "interpretation" of it). It is undeniable that the Church has been long time infiltrated by Jews, liberals and masons and that there is a purposeful "ambiguity" and double talk characteristic of all docuмents since then. This is done to not hurt any Jєωιѕн or Mason sensibility. However, as said before, there is room for error because these were not protected by divine infallibility. The Holy Ghost was there. The Holy Ghost prevented the Modernists from definining any dogmas or attaching any anathemas in Vatican II Council.
The real problem with Vatican II is the Cushinguite interpretationof it, promoted by the leftist, liberal, Jєωιѕн, masonic media that gave the impression to the world that the Catholic Church had changed the dogma of exclusive salvation, which is impossible.
-
16.Since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation (19).
Notice here the same error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. However, the Cushing error is to read the above as salvific Invincible Ignorance. The true Catholic manner to read this is that yes, they may achieve eternal salvation but by following the necessary conditions, namely Baptism of Water and Faith, before they die. In Heaven there are only validly baptized Catholics in the state of Grace.
Now notice in the paragraph below, how Lumen Gentium teaches that non-Catholics need to convert into the Church.
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.
-
An example of how the liberals enemies of the Church have taken advantage of the ambiguity and general weak tone of Vatican II; but that does not mean that the Magisterium has defected.
Look what happened with one of the most ambiguous statements in Lumen Gentium . . .
16.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.
Now here below is the scandalous interpretation of Karl Rahner to this paragraph, spread to the world by Modernist propaganda and even believed by many traditionalists:
It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation. The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual’s own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council.
-
And here is the irony of all ironies:
16.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.
Most traditionalists actually believe this as well, using the liberal premise of invincible ignorance from which all Ecuмenical / Religious Liberty speech derives from :facepalm:. They have absolutely no business rejecting Vatican II, or even worse, the conciliar Popes! as they themselves are under the false impression that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance is a de fide teaching, an explicit exception to the EENS dogma, but this is not so. It is a complete joke.
If you want to point out an error in the Magisterium, then what you definitely need to refer to is Suprema Haec, and the whole unfortunate Boston case of Fr. Feeney, where EENS was viciously attacked and the liberals clearly triumphed. The novel and heretical error has been, since the Letter of 49, carried over into Vatican Council II (Luntem Gentium, 16) by Cardinal Cushing and the American Jesuits, placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner, supported by the pro-Mason Catholics, and sadly misinterpreted and spread across the whole globe, as part of the modernist liberal agenda.
-
Yes, I too believe there are varying degrees of excommunication and these degrees are only dictated upon the excommunicant by legitimate authority.
This is where the R&R camp loses it's credibility. It doesn't matter what you (per se) believe - the Church teaches that there are degrees of excommunication so it requires our consent.
Yes, you're right, it doesn't matter what I believe per se, and no, this is not where R&R loses anything, this is where SVs fail because they believe themselves to be the legitimate authority and it seems that there is no power on earth can change their mind.
...now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others...” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)
They are correct, you have it wrong. St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others are teaching that one who is not baptized is not a Christian, is not a member of the Church. You and the CMRI seem to be missing that point.
What on earth are you talking about? Bellarmine clearly states:
A manifest heretic is not a Christian
They are teaching LOGIC. He who is not a Christian is not a member of the church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, THEREFORE a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church. What are you failing to see here? You are clearly blinded by your hate of the vacant chair position.
I agree they are not a member of the Church because that is what the Church teaches, but the Church also teaches that by virtue of the sacramental character, mark or seal they remain a Catholic. It is the character that distinguishes the baptized from the un-baptized, the Catholic from the non-Catholic.
We do not lose that seal when we fall from grace, lose the faith or leave the Church, that seal marks us as Catholics till we die and most probably for all eternity. We remain adopted children of God, that is what Catholics are, we can never become un-adopted even when we entirely defect from the faith. If we could become un-baptized, then you might have a leg to stand on via "the pope is not a pope because he is not Catholic", but either way, it would still take legitimate authority to make that determination, SVs are not the legitimate authority.
The CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03586a.htm) puts it like this: The sacramental character, as we have said, is ineffaceable from the soul. This means, not that the effacement of this spiritual mark is an absolute metaphysical impossibility, but that in the established order of Divine Providence there is no cause which can destroy it in this life--neither sin, nor degradation from the ecclesiastical state, nor apostasy.
What is it that you do not accept about this?
-
Lumen Gentium is only one docuмent out of 16 and you are probably referring to a single isolated statement which runs contrary to your initial assertion that the entire Ecuмenical Council taught infallibly Salvation Outside the Church. Ad Gentes 7 clearly teaches the necessity of Faith and Baptism for salvation.
No, Cantarella, it's an ENTIRE SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY founded upon and rooted in that one notion of EENS as promoted by Suprema Haec. That's my problem. I would not have an issue were it just "one isolated statement". In point of fact, there's nothing isolated about it.
There's an entire ecclesiology built around this, the subsistence ecclesiology, which has various non-Catholics belonging to the Church to varying degrees, which in turn is the foundation for Ecuмenism, religious indifferentism, and Religious Liberty ... all of which have been strongly condemned by previous Magisterium. And then there's the whole notion of Protestantizing the Mass and tampering with all the Sacramental Rites. And there are the scandalous practices of the Vatican II popes that promote religious indifferentism. And then there are the horrific fruits of the entire Conciliar establishment. So to look at there being one or two ambiguous isolated statements in V2 that do not strictly meet the notes of infallibility is sheer folly; it's just not true, Cantarella. On the manifest heresy front, there's very strong evidence and strong indicators that none of the V2 Popes believe anything that resembles EENS but are Cushingites.
Do I have undeniable proof? Absolutely not. And I am not a sedevacantist. But there's absolutely sufficient positive doubt about these guys to warrant rejecting everything they stand for, their Magisterium that's thoroughly polluted with modernism (as I said, not even close to just being an isolated statement or two). Then there are the external data points, the background of Roncalli, the background of Montini, Wojtyla, Bergoglio, Fatima, LaSalette, the obvious efforts of Masons to infiltrate the Church, etc. I could go on for HOURS regarding the external indicators that something has gone awry. But you posit that it's the Magisterium itself that has gone off the tracks. You posit a grand defection of the Magisterium (not just V2 but all the subsequent Encyclicals) ... so you're fooling yourself by pretending that the problem is just with one or two isolated statements in Vatican II.
SBC claim that the problem in the Church is EENS-denial and then you deny that there's EENS-denial in the Church. Huh?
-
And here is the irony of all ironies:
16.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.
Most traditionalists actually believe this as well, using the liberal premise of invincible ignorance from which all Ecuмenical / Religious Liberty speech derives from :facepalm:. They have absolutely no business rejecting Vatican II, or even worse, the conciliar Popes! as they themselves are under the false impression that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance is a de fide teaching, an explicit exception to the EENS dogma, but this is not so. It is a complete joke.
I agree that most Traditionalists actually believe what's taught by Vatican II. But just one or two posts ago you denied that there's anything in V2 other than one isolated statement. What's this about the Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty?
-
Well, my main issue with the "R&R camp" is that of Jurisdiction but that is a topic for another thread. Having said that, I tend to agree with their position for the most part which it seems to be summarized in these statements from Bellarmine and Suarez:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.
“If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed. If he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it would be licit to resist him. If he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.”
Sometimes, everyone seems to be missing the forest for the trees though, in that we forget who is the enemy we are really fighting against: Modernism. The devil is delighted with so many divisions.
Really? So you believe that aggresses is synonymous with heresy, schism, apostasy?
Do you really equate blatant denial of EENS, to orders contrary to good customs?
This is why the "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is false. With all of the logical refinements, subtle explanations and qualifications in this thread is it a wonder why there are so many divisions?
As far as judging, deposing, or punishing the Pope look under the TRIAL section of Pope Paul IV's bull. The Pope does not have any superiors so he could never be judged in a TRIAL.
Heretics judge themselves, Schismatics judge themselves, Apostates judge themselves by their actions, words and deeds. This is why the St. instructs the faithful to point out the heretics (in charity) and condemn them as heretics.
Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic, atheist, non- believer, and not a Catholic, therefore outside of the Church of HIS OWN judgment, of his own free will.
Read St Paul, "what have I to do with those who are without, don't we judge those who are within?
St Paul is clearly teaching the faithful to not JUDGE why God leaves those spiritually dead. These hidden judgments of God are past finding out. It is not our place to judge why God has left Bergoglio and his predecessors to fall away. Remember, what comes out of the mouth reveals what is on the heart, as the Lord says.
-
This is why the "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" is false. With all of the logical refinements, subtle explanations and qualifications in this thread is it a wonder why there are so many divisions?
As far as judging, deposing, or punishing the Pope look under the TRIAL section of Pope Paul IV's bull. The Pope does not have any superiors so he could never be judged in a TRIAL.
Heretics judge themselves, Schismatics judge themselves, Apostates judge themselves by their actions, words and deeds. This is why the St. instructs the faithful to point out the heretics (in charity) and condemn them as heretics.
Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic, atheist, non- believer, and not a Catholic, therefore outside of the Church of HIS OWN judgment, of his own free will.
Read St Paul, "what have I to do with those who are without, don't we judge those who are within?
St Paul is clearly teaching the faithful to not JUDGE why God leaves those spiritually dead. These hidden judgments of God are past finding out. It is not our place to judge why God has left Bergoglio and his predecessors to fall away. Remember, what comes out of the mouth reveals what is on the heart, as the Lord says.
I dunno, you seem to have no problem at all judging him. In fact, "Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately.
Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices." - Fr. Wathen
Nor will you ever be able to prove it, all you will ever be able to do is base your belief on your own opinion - to me, that is a very scary proposition, why is it not scary to SVs?
-
Heretics judge themselves, Schismatics judge themselves, Apostates judge themselves by their actions, words and deeds. This is why the St. instructs the faithful to point out the heretics (in charity) and condemn them as heretics.
Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic, atheist, non- believer, and not a Catholic, therefore outside of the Church of HIS OWN judgment, of his own free will.
When you call him an atheist, you instantly discredit anything else you have to say. This proves that you are not rendering an honest judgment.
In terms of heretics judging themselves, you are just plain wrong. I have made this distinction before, but you ignore it.
1) Francis says that he has converted to Judaism and is no longer a Catholic. Apostate -- judges himself.
2) Francis says that he knows the Church teaches transubstantiation but that he doesn't believe in it. Heretic -- judges himself.
3) Francis believes that his theology is compatible with Catholic tradition. -- DOES NOT JUDGE HIMSELF
In the case of #3, someone who has competent authority to judge whether or not Francis' opinions are heretical and then, upon judging in the affirmative, would have the authority to demand that Francis recant, and when Francis didn't recant had the authority to declare him a heretic ... someone (aka the Church) must intervene to pass judgment.
Robertay Dimonday does not have the competence nor the authority to assert self-judgment based on his private opinion. Get it?
-
I dunno, you seem to have no problem at all judging him. In fact, "Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately.
This opinion is not at all unlike Sedeprivationism, except that where the SPs assert that those materially holding office cannot formally exercise it, Father Wathen holds that those materially holding the office thereby formally exercise it (except in the case where they command something contrary to faith or Catholic principles). It's almost as if, in the Father Wathen perspective, they conditionally or partially exercise the office.
-
but the Church also teaches that by virtue of the sacramental character, mark or seal they remain a Catholic.
The Church does not teach that they remain a Catholic as I have already proven.
Father Wathen mistakenly teaches this, and he is not the Church.
No, it's not by the Sacramental Character ALONE, but rather by Membership in the Church ... which involves the outward profession of the faith IN ADDITION to the Sacramental Character. Thus, those who are not formally Catholic (e.g. occult heretics) can continue to exercise jurisdiction and office in the Church by way of the material membership in the Church.
So, for instance, if Jorge Bergoglio were to say, "I have now become a Buddhist and no longer believe in Catholicism." he would right then and there cease to be a member of the Church. In this case, he would lose jurisdiction ... DESPITE his Baptismal character. Same thing if Jorge Bergoglio were to state, "I know that the Church teaches transubstantiation, but I don't believe it anyway." But NOT in the case of, "I believe that my teachings are compatible with Church Tradition."
So Father Wathen did miss the mark slightly on this, but his main point was the need for authority to discern before deposition occurred, and he has a strong case there. He was trying to articulate something but feel a tad short of explaining it correctly.
-
No it doesn't, as I have already proven. That "seal", the character, opens the door for us to receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) the other sacraments. It is imprinted on our soul forever, BECAUSE the stain of original sin IS WASHED AWAY FOREVER. This why the Sacrament of Baptism is never be repeated.
That's a very muddled explanation. Non-repeatability is not because the grace of the Sacrament (wiping away Original and Actual sin) but because of the character of the Sacrament. This character is permanent and can never be re-imprinted on the soul. This character is what constitutes someone and marks that person as a Member of the Church and part of the Body of Christ.
-
that seal marks us as Catholic
No it doesn't, as I have already proven. That "seal", the character, opens the door for us to receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) the other sacraments. It is imprinted on our soul forever, BECAUSE the stain of original sin IS WASHED AWAY FOREVER. This why the Sacrament of Baptism is never be repeated.
Well after receiving baptism, who on earth can receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) any of the other sacraments except Catholics?
-
3) Francis believes that his theology is compatible with Catholic tradition. -- DOES NOT JUDGE HIMSELF
Are you insinuating that he is only a material heretic?
I'm saying that there's no PROOF that he's anything other than a material heretic until the Church calls him out as being otherwise. Once the Church calls him out and, if he were to recant, that would demonstrate that his heresy had only been material. But short of the Church calling him out on it, if he insists that he's Catholic, we can't prove otherwise.
-
So Father Wathen did miss the mark slightly on this, but his main point was the need for authority to discern before deposition occurred, and he has a strong case there. He was trying to articulate something but fell a tad short of explaining it correctly.
I don't think he missed the mark by much, because I think he would've been among the first to proclaim the Chair Vacant if there was any way to prove it without contradicting the pertinent canon laws and teachings.
He has a very strong case based on the fact that "those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices." The reason they have not proved it is because it is impossible to prove, so they just go with their opinion and claim they have all the proof they need, which is scary.
-
that seal marks us as Catholic
Well after receiving baptism, who on earth can receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) any of the other sacraments except Catholics?
Look, there is no teaching of the Church that says "once a Catholic, always a Catholic".
You have to prove your statement by backing it up with the teachings of the Church, not by a mistaken priest.
There is, however, a teaching by Saint Augustine, reinforced by Pope Leo XIII that clearly states that a heretic is not a Catholic. (a formal or manifest heretic)
Just answer the question then discover and accept the answer for yourself.
-
Lumen Gentium is only one docuмent out of 16 and you are probably referring to a single isolated statement which runs contrary to your initial assertion that the entire Ecuмenical Council taught infallibly Salvation Outside the Church. Ad Gentes 7 clearly teaches the necessity of Faith and Baptism for salvation.
No, Cantarella, it's an ENTIRE SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY founded upon and rooted in that one notion of EENS as promoted by Suprema Haec. That's my problem. I would not have an issue were it just "one isolated statement". In point of fact, there's nothing isolated about it.
There's an entire ecclesiology built around this, the subsistence ecclesiology, which has various non-Catholics belonging to the Church to varying degrees, which in turn is the foundation for Ecuмenism, religious indifferentism, and Religious Liberty ... all of which have been strongly condemned by previous Magisterium. And then there's the whole notion of Protestantizing the Mass and tampering with all the Sacramental Rites. And there are the scandalous practices of the Vatican II popes that promote religious indifferentism. And then there are the horrific fruits of the entire Conciliar establishment. So to look at there being one or two ambiguous isolated statements in V2 that do not strictly meet the notes of infallibility is sheer folly; it's just not true, Cantarella. On the manifest heresy front, there's very strong evidence and strong indicators that none of the V2 Popes believe anything that resembles EENS but are Cushingites.
Do I have undeniable proof? Absolutely not. And I am not a sedevacantist. But there's absolutely sufficient positive doubt about these guys to warrant rejecting everything they stand for, their Magisterium that's thoroughly polluted with modernism (as I said, not even close to just being an isolated statement or two). Then there are the external data points, the background of Roncalli, the background of Montini, Wojtyla, Bergoglio, Fatima, LaSalette, the obvious efforts of Masons to infiltrate the Church, etc. I could go on for HOURS regarding the external indicators that something has gone awry. But you posit that it's the Magisterium itself that has gone off the tracks. You posit a grand defection of the Magisterium (not just V2 but all the subsequent Encyclicals) ... so you're fooling yourself by pretending that the problem is just with one or two isolated statements in Vatican II.
SBC claim that the problem in the Church is EENS-denial and then you deny that there's EENS-denial in the Church. Huh?
I agree with all you wrote above, Ladislaus, except for the last highlighted part. This is because for us the issue is NOT Vatican II, but the denial of EENS, which has happened many years (even centuries!) ago. It is not a new heresy. It is new-Pelagianism. Old heresies never die. As a matter of fact, heresies must always exists, as st. Paul warns, so the Elect can merit by combating them. Once you understand that then, you can be at peace with the Church and her current fight against Modernism, from where she will come victorious, as ever.
I think I was not very clear as for the isolated statement part. I am not claiming there is nothing wrong with Vatican II BUT only a few statements. It is, as you say, an entire new system of theology with roots in denial of EENS. But in what we disagree is that I don't think that the Council per se is a defection of the infallible Magisterium. I cannot. Otherwise, I will have to accept that the Church has defected, and the Magisterium ceased to exist, contrary to the promises of Our Lord.
As explained before, not everything coming from a Council is infallible, and Vatican II Council in particular was a pastoral council, not dogmatic. The narrative is subject to error.
-
First you really need to answer the clear question with a clear answer.
-
First you really need to answer the clear question with a clear answer.
I have provided you with ample evidence that refutes your erroneous position. I even provided you with references so you could look for yourself.
You have provided nothing, except the words of a mistaken priest to back you up.
The burden of proof is on you.
Lets get this straight, you said: That "seal", the character, opens the door for us to receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) the other sacraments.
I ask:
Well after receiving baptism, who on earth can receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) any of the other sacraments except Catholics?
Your answer to the question is..............
-
Well after receiving baptism, who on earth can receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) any of the other sacraments except Catholics?
Your answer to the question is..............
Heretics, schismatics, and apostates.
I already answered your question a couple of posts ago.
Which sacrament may baptized heretics, schismatics, and apostates receive first?
-
Which sacrament may baptized heretics, schismatics, and apostates receive first?
I don't understand your question.
And ALL heretics, schismatics, and apostates were once baptized.
Well, there are 6 other sacraments, which one may they receive first?
-
Well, there are 6 other sacraments, which one may they receive first?
Penance
It should be noted that when they are received back into the Church, it is called a conversion.
Yes, of course this is correct.
The reason they can receive the sacrament of penance is because they were already baptized, they were already Catholic. Only Catholics are permitted, as you said, "to receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) the other sacraments."
If they were not Catholic as you keep trying to say, they would first need to be baptized before they could receive any other sacrament.
-
The reason they can receive the sacrament of penance is because they were already baptized, they were already Catholic. Only Catholics are permitted, as you said, "to receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) the other sacraments."
If they were not Catholic as you keep trying to say, they would first need to be baptized before they could receive any other sacrament.
A heretic is not a Catholic.
To disprove this, you will need to prove that Saint Augustine and Pope Leo XIII are wrong. Otherwise, you have no argument, case closed.
Ok, a heretic is not a Catholic.
But how do you prove that 'Pope Francis' is a heretic ? Where is his clear and direct denial of a truth which must be believed ? How do we prove he is not just trying to play on words and using ambiguous, political language to please non Catholics ? Where did he say "I do not believe this or that, even though I know the Church teaches I should believe it" ?
Consider this :
Heresy in History[/url]) : ]On the subject of Erasmus of Rotterdam, St Alphonsus Liguori tells us that he called the invocation of Our Lady and of the saints idolatry; he condemned monasteries and religious vows and rules, opposed the celibacy of the clergy, jeered at indulgences, relics, feasts, fasts and even auricular confession. He went so far as to claim that man is justified by faith alone and to call into doubt the authority of the Scriptures and of the Councils. St Alphonsus adds that Erasmus accused of audacity the granting of the name of "God" to the Holy Ghost ! So it is not surprising to see St Alphonsus quote the proverb according to which Luther hatched out the egg that Erasmus had laid. Nor is it surprising to learn from him that "several writers openly accuse Erasmus of heresy".
But was Erasmus for all that a heretic? He was esteemed by several popes, one of whom asked him to refute Luther. He remained a close friend of St Thomas More. St Alphonsus concludes in his own name, with Bernini, that Erasmus died with the character of an unsound Catholic, but not of a heretic, as he submitted all his writings to the judgement of the Church. (History of Heresies and their Refutation)
-
I have always professed I am Catholic. Yet, Ladislaus declared I am not a Catholic!
I agree that it's quite convenient that if Francis insists he's Catholic, we must not question him.
But of course, sedevacantists are not Catholic.
Be careful in calling others "not Catholic", "for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:2)
-
Ok, a heretic is not a Catholic.
But how do you prove that 'Pope Francis' is a heretic ?
They cannot prove it except following their private judgment over something they read or see from the Jєωιѕн controlled media.
I think all of us are somehow guilty of this:
Traditionalism is the 'right wing' of AmChurch
The "American Catholic Church" (or "AmChurch" as some call it) refers to the Catholic experience in America of practicing the Faith with a "don't tell me what to believe" type attitude that is characteristic of Protestantism. The term is typically used by Traditionalists when speaking of “Liberal Catholics” in America, but the problem is much more serious because the Tradosphere is actually founded upon essentially the same erroneous (Liberal) principles as the AmChurch’s 'left wing'.
Long ago Rome saw these dangers creeping in, and so Pope Leo XIII issued an Encyclical against "Americanism" in which he singled out three big dangers we face:
These dangers are: (1) the confounding of license with liberty; (2) the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject; (3) the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases and to set them forth in print to the world. (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae)
The first error is the chief characteristic of Liberalism, which states that man is not bound to any law beyond himself, including not bound to Natural Law. The result is that "Liberty" becomes defined as “the right to do or say whatever you want” - which is not true Liberty at all, since it lacks restraints.
Building on the first error, the second and third AmChurch errors listed above immediately find their justification. They now think they have the right to discuss, criticize, pour out contempt upon, and especially publish anything he pleases. This "assumed right" states that one can even smear the reputation of another, protected under the guise of "free speech" (another Liberal error).
It isn't hard to see how the Tradosphere has embraced these latter two errors, particularly when it comes to their relentless criticism and contempt of the Pope. It is without restraint, relentless criticism of everything wrong in the Church. They mistakenly think they have a 'right' to go off pouring out their contempt, even daily (!), in blog posts, Facebook, and YouTube videos. They don't realize this is, technically, heresy and a badly formed Christian attitude. They don't realize that this even crosses into sins against the Eighth Commandment (lying), which the Catechism summarizes as follows:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons. He becomes guilty of (1) rash judgment who assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; (2) of detraction who discloses another's faults to persons who did not know them; (3) of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others.
So the next time you see a headline in the format of "Guess what the Pope said this time?" consider that often times this is (1) rushing to judgment, not knowing the facts, context, or even validity of a statement, and (2) even if something wrong was said or done, this is not automatic justification to broadcast it!
Now, surely, many would jump at the opportunity to justify themselves: But the Pope made these comments publicly! But we have a duty to stand up for the faith!
Ah, but how much of this 'spirit to criticize' stems from AmChurch and how much of it stems from a devout soul who spends more time in prayer than on Facebook each day? Moreover, who made you Sheriff of the Church? Or are you acting like a big shot Cowboy in the wild west of America? This "Cowboy Catholicism" has no place in the legitimate tradition of the Church.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2015/01/traditionalism-is-right-wing-of-amchurch.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NicksCatholicBlog+%28NICK%27S+CATHOLIC+BLOG%29
-
Traditionalism is the 'right wing' of AmChurch
Long ago Rome saw these dangers creeping in, and so Pope Leo XIII issued an Encyclical against "Americanism" in which he singled out three big dangers we face:
These dangers are: (1) the confounding of license with liberty; (2) the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject; (3) the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases and to set them forth in print to the world. (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae)
While these dangers were certainly pointed out in Leo's Encyclical to Cardinal Gibbons, let's look at the real reason that the Encyclical written...
We, therefore, on account of our apostolic office, having to guard the integrity of the faith and the security of the faithful, are desirous of writing to you more at length concerning this whole matter.
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions.... They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae)
Is this not the EXACT same thing that the new church professes today? Did Vatican II not OPEN the Church's doors to the world? Is this not the "pastoral reasons" we read about every day? Are these not the things we hear from the man that calls himself the pope?
Truly, we were warned about all of this long ago....
This encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae was dated in 1899, which brings me back to what I was discussing with good Ladislaus, in that it was not Vatican II which suddenly opened the door for Modernism and the global of denial of EENS, as many traditionalists believe. On the contrary, it can be said that the Council was actually the end-result, or better yet, the symptom, of the rampant and vicious Liberalism and progressivism infiltrated in the Church hierarchy at the time.
The infallible Magisterium did not defect as EENS is really indestructible because it is protected by God. It is the perception of things that have changed. But the heresy is way old and it must always exist as st Pauls says, so the Elect can merit by combating it.
There are many other examples to prove this. First that comes to mind is the encyclcycal called Mirari Vos against Liberalism by the great monk- Pope Gregory XVI:
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
The above was written in 1832.
-
The reason they can receive the sacrament of penance is because they were already baptized, they were already Catholic. Only Catholics are permitted, as you said, "to receive (or in the case of Orders, to bestow) the other sacraments."
If they were not Catholic as you keep trying to say, they would first need to be baptized before they could receive any other sacrament.
A heretic is not a Catholic.
If that were true then the Church would not permit a heretic to go to confession without first receiving baptism. But it is not true, which is why a heretic or apostate Catholics can go to confession for absolution.
This is what Fr. Wathen meant by saying; ""Once a Catholic, always a Catholic," is just as surely true as "once a priest, always a priest," even for all eternity..... One who is not a Catholic cannot receive the Sacraments." This is something no Catholic can honestly deny.
To disprove this, you will need to prove that Saint Augustine and Pope Leo XIII are wrong. Otherwise, you have no argument, case closed.
Case is not closed because you present an argument from the SV position, but again, even if the pope is not Catholic, there is nothing anyone can do about it because Our Lord did not set up His Church that way. We are the pope's subjects, not his judges. This is the conundrum we are in with this crisis.
This is why he said:
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since
there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment
against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be
under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as
the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do
anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid
of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the
faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure
is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies
them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been
elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all
those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority,
UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.
There is much written in Satis Cognitum. For example:
But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.
I could go on quoting snips from Satis Cognitum, but to what end? SVs always are stuck on zeroing in on parts that support their opinion while completely ignoring everything else taught in the same encyclicals which ultimately condemns it.
-
To disprove this, you will need to prove that Saint Augustine and Pope Leo XIII are wrong. Otherwise, you have no argument, case closed.
Case is not closed because you present an argument from the SV position
Again, you prove nothing but the mistaken position of a priest.
I put forth the teaching of the Church, not MY teaching, not an argument from the sedevacantist position, the teaching of the Church.
Because your mistaken belief is at odds with the teaching of the Church, you resort to poor arguments, such as the one in your statement above.
Case closed.
Yes, it's been closed because SVs blind themselves, seeing only that which they choose to see. Best if you try to always remember the wise words of Fr. Wathen I posted:
If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since
there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment
against him, he cannot be removed from his office, even though he be
under censure, and, according to the law, have no right to function as
the head of the Church. We, his subjects, are not permitted to do
anything about this. It is not within our right to declare his acts devoid
of validity, due to his having been expelled from his office. Yes, the
faithful may know well that he has committed a sin to which a censure
is affixed by the Church, but this knowledge in no way qualifies
them to declare him deprived of his office, or never to have been
elected. We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all
those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority,
UNLESS he should command something which is sinful.
-
Bellator Dei, many traditional theologians hold that in the rare case when a Pope does actually become a notorious and contumacious heretic, there is only one competent authority to pass the juridical declaration - namely, an imperfect general Council of the world's Ordinaries - before the Cardinals and Roman clergy elect a new Pope. Why don't you make some efforts to convene such a Council, if you really want to help the Church?
The problem will immediately become obvious, if Pope Pius XII was the last Pope, there are no more Ordinaries in the world, because all the bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII have either died or left office. 57 year sedevacantism will be seen to be impossible and heterodox, because it leads to an impossibility precluded by the promise of Christ, and the dogma of the First Vatican Council that St. Peter will have perpetual successors. There would be no one who can make the declaration, and so no way to have a Pope again. The divine promise and the teaching of the Church means that it is impossible that there is no Pope and no way to elect one, yet that is exactly what has happened if no one can pass the juridical declaration necessary before a new Pope can be elected.
All theologians also teach that it can never happen that there are no more Ordinaries left in the Church, yet 57 year sedevacantism leads to that heretical conclusion. It cannot happen that there are no more bishops who have been sent or appointed to episcopal office by a Pope. Since it is an infallible certainty that that cannot happen, sedevacantism is false, and this is a proof from faith that your judgment of reason is mistaken and must be revised, these Popes are not public and formal heretics but Catholics erring in good faith. No other conclusion is possible. Ironically, I can consistently hold that Pope Francis can still be condemned by such an imperfect General Council, because I am not bound to the idea of a 57 year vacant see, and recognize his predecessors, and therefore the Cardinals and Bishops they appointed. But according to you, there is no one alive and in office with the authority to pass the judgment.
-
Yes, you are correct Nishant, but to SVs the case is closed.
-
Best if you try to always remember the wise words of Fr. Wathen I posted:
I respect Father Wathen for embracing the militant role of a Catholic Priest.
However, I take the wise words of Saint Augustine and Pope Leo XIII over Father Wathen every time.
If that were actually true, you could not be sedevacantist.
I recommend posting quotes from sedevacantist saints - or better yet sedevacantist popes.
Once you do that, THEN I would agree that the case is closed.
-
I recommend posting quotes from sedevacantist saints - or better yet sedevacantist popes.
Once you do that, THEN I would agree that the case is closed.
Why do you continue to make this about the sedevacantist position?
Because that is what it is about, that is where it appears in his book, when he is starting to discuss sedevacantism.
-
Why do you continue to make this about the sedevacantist position?
Because that is what it is about, that is where it appears in his book, when he is starting to discuss sedevacantism.
Now I understand your weak argument - you are using it to try and prove that sedevacantists are wrong.
The false premise (once Catholic...), as far as sedevacantism is concerned, is of no interest to me. It is too weak of an argument as it's easily proven false by Augustine and Pope Leo XIII.
Because you don't believe the sedevacantist position (which I'm not saying you HAVE to believe), you are willing to embrace an erroneous theory simply because you think that it proves the sedevacantists wrong.
It's easy to say anything is a false premise when you do what you did - namely, selectively take a quote out of context and apply it so something which, according to the very same encyclical, no Catholic is permitted to do. And if you don't think that is what you did, then you should read the encyclical as your own devil's advocate to see that in fact, that is exactly what you did.
Ladislaus explained it quite well, but the case was closed even before he said anything far as that goes.
-
It's easy to say anything is a false premise when you do what you did - namely, selectively take a quote out of context
That's absurd and a false accusation.
The burden is on you to prove your slanderous accusation against me. I did no such thing, Stubborn.
I already did. Didn't you read the one quote I added from the encyclical? Maybe you'll read it this time, I'll even bold the pertinent parts:
But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.
That right there is only one of many possible quotes from the same encyclical you quoted from, and it is telling you that you cannot do what you did.
There are many other quotes we could exchange which completely obliterate SVism, but to what end? You are convinced that by virtue of your knowledge of the popes sins that that authorizes to make the determination that the Chair is vacant. All I can do is keep disagreeing with you using what the Church actually teaches without taking her teachings out of context.
-
That right there is only one of many possible quotes from the same encyclical you quoted from, and it is telling you that you cannot do what you did.
What does this prove?
You accused me of taking a quote out of context. Please provide us with the correct context of the quote.
No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
The quote above clearly states that a heretic is not a Catholic. It also clearly states that a heretic cannot regard himself as Catholic or even call himself one.
Please demonstrate, logically, exactly what I've taken out of context, and place it in the proper context for us.
You cannot see the forest because all those darn trees are in the way.
Whether one is Catholic or not is not up to you to decide, say, promote or promulgate.
Read the quote I gave you from Pope Leo XII, then actually apply it.
-
You cannot see the forest because all those darn trees are in the way.
Whether one is Catholic or not is not up to you to decide, say, promote or promulgate.
Read the quote I gave you from Pope Leo XII, then actually apply it.
I can see the forest just fine...
I haven't decided, promoted, or promulgated anything - Saint Augustine and Pope Leo XIII have done that.
In no way have I tried to interpret this passage using my own private judgment - anyone that can read can see this to be the case.
You're right, I am wrong. I admit I made a mistake. I went on the offensive for no reason, thank you for correcting me and all I can ask is to please accept my apology.
Now, back to the matter at hand.
If you cannot demonstrate how I've taken the quote out of context, you will have to recant your accusation.
Please provide us with the correct context of the following quote.
No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
Saint Augustine, reinforced by Pope Leo XIII, (NOT ME) clearly states that a heretic is not a Catholic. He also clearly states that a heretic cannot regard himself as Catholic or even call himself one.
Please demonstrate, logically, exactly what I've taken out of context, and place it in the proper context for us.
Again, I admit I made a mistake. I am wrong, you are right, you took nothing out of context, you merely stated what was already written and I once again went on the offensive for no reason. Again, thank you for correcting me and all I can ask is to please accept my apology.
If you want to debate the "once a Catholic...." please start a new thread.
-
Whether one is Catholic or not is not up to you to decide, say, promote or promulgate.
Nobody else but you, right?
Two weeks ago, you said:
"....non-Catholic religion, one which Nado constantly professes - and fraudulently claims to be Catholic. "
Yes, I said that because I believe it - it is not dogma nor am I trying to bind anyone's conscience, I said it after 100s of your posts proving it and for the hopes for your correction.
Some of the things you post that you try to pass off as a teaching of the Church comes right out of a comic book.
-
I admit I made a mistake.
If you are truly being honest, I am completely overwhelmed... Your humility and honesty is a shining example, especially for me. I am truly humbled by your remarks, thank you.
You're welcome. I'm being honest.
It is a bit humbling for me but the truth is the only real thing that matters - whether I am right or wrong is really irrelevant.
-
Heretics judge themselves, Schismatics judge themselves, Apostates judge themselves by their actions, words and deeds. This is why the St. instructs the faithful to point out the heretics (in charity) and condemn them as heretics.
Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic, atheist, non- believer, and not a Catholic, therefore outside of the Church of HIS OWN judgment, of his own free will.
When you call him an atheist, you instantly discredit anything else you have to say. This proves that you are not rendering an honest judgment.
In terms of heretics judging themselves, you are just plain wrong. I have made this distinction before, but you ignore it.
1) Francis says that he has converted to Judaism and is no longer a Catholic. Apostate -- judges himself.
2) Francis says that he knows the Church teaches transubstantiation but that he doesn't believe in it. Heretic -- judges himself.
3) Francis believes that his theology is compatible with Catholic tradition. -- DOES NOT JUDGE HIMSELF
In the case of #3, someone who has competent authority to judge whether or not Francis' opinions are heretical and then, upon judging in the affirmative, would have the authority to demand that Francis recant, and when Francis didn't recant had the authority to declare him a heretic ... someone (aka the Church) must intervene to pass judgment.
Robertay Dimonday does not have the competence nor the authority to assert self-judgment based on his private opinion. Get it?
Discredit everything? I was just echoing these words which I agree with.
Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 626: “The Pope must be exposed for the destroyer that he is, the atheist that he is, the anti-Catholic persecutor that he is… He cares nothing for the Church, nor the people who are his charges. Like a politician, he mingles among them, but only for his ego’s sake, and the cause of his own Modernism and the divinization of man.”
Now I understand he was talking about JP2, but it does not matter they (V2 antipopes) are all the same, agents of the devil. The only difference is that I do not call an atheist Catholic. This is the reason I made a comment in this thread in the first place. If a person believes the false teaching, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" they end up believing that there is fellowship between light and darkness, justice and injustice, Christ with Belial.
3) Francis believes that his theology is compatible with Catholic tradition. -- DOES NOT JUDGE HIMSELF
Wow, did you sign the Vatican II papers too?
Are you Karl Rahner Jr?
Why do you believe the "subsistit in" doctrine, but act like you don't? Is that a Jesuit thing?
Sededoubtist? You win the liberal of the year award for 2014!
-
Bellator Dei, you seem a good and sincere soul. I wish more sedevacantists were like you. Now, as to the questions, you criticized Fr. Wathen for saying there is no tribunal in the Church with the authority to pass judgment, so I ask you again, if you disagree with him, then
1. First of all, what precisely is that tribunal? Do you agree with the many theologians who hold that it is a general Council of the world's Ordinaries?
2. Do you recognize that there are no Ordinaries left in office appointed by Pope Pius XII, whom most sedevacantists consider the last Pope? This would show that there is no way such a Council can be convened
3. Lastly, do you recognize that it is heretical to say or imply there are no more Ordinaries in the Church? This shows that the Papal or Petrine succession and the Apostolic or episcopal succession are interlinked. If you do, then you have to revise the premises that lead to that conclusion.
As for you, Obertray Immonday, since you have no conception of erring in good faith, by your own standard, I accuse you of being a manifest heretic, and consequently not a Catholic. It is a dogma taught in the First Vatican Council that there will always be bishops sent or appointed to episcopal office by the Pope, this is demanded by the Church's Apostolicity. It is likewise demanded by the dogma of the Church's visibility that the hierarchy having formal Apostolic succession, which requires both orders and ordinary jurisdiction, must have continued in a visible line of succession from the Apostolic age to the present, for e.g. in the Papal See, or in a diocese erected by the Pope. You need to provide such visible bishops appointed to a diocese by a Pope, or your theory is false.
Since you and the Dimonds deny this, you are a manifest heretic. No warning, no questioning, no possibility of good faith, nothing. Your own standard.
Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman pontiffs, from the earliest ages ... Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ...if they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, they have not been sent, they are not pastors. thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this ... He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted.
So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father , in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. 4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.
That which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time ... For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
-
Bellator Dei, you seem a good and sincere soul. I wish more sedevacantists were like you.
I notice this too. It would be a shame if he throws himself into the sedevacantist abyss, but surely, Our Lady won't let him, if he is of good will and truly seeks.
Bellator Dei, if you have not done it, a Monfortian Total Consecration to Our Lady is the remedy for all ills, so instead of being just a servant, you become a true slave of Our Lady. There is hope in you. God bless you!
-
Bellator Dei, you seem a good and sincere soul. I wish more sedevacantists were like you.
Very typical bunk from a heretical Feeneyite, constantly delving uncharitably into judging people's wills as insincere. Not a Christian way to treat others publicly, nor even in your own mind. And, you make this statement as if you judged a lot of sedevacantists as being insincere! So unlike Christ or His Saints.
Now, as to the questions, you criticized Fr. Wathen for saying there is no tribunal in the Church with the authority to pass judgment, so I ask you again, if you disagree with him, then
1. First of all, what precisely is that tribunal? Do you agree with the many theologians who hold that it is a general Council of the world's Ordinaries?
2. Do you recognize that there are no Ordinaries left in office appointed by Pope Pius XII, whom most sedevacantists consider the last Pope? This would show that there is no way such a Council can be convened
I have explained all this before to you. Why are you acting as if you never saw it?
Those responsible for the election of a pope are the ones responsible for declaring that a former claimant ceased to be pope. The Catholic books say it is the clergy-citizens who have that divine right. Getting the bishops of dioceses involved in a declaration is in proportion to the seriousness and difficulty of the situation, but if those bishops are also heretics, they would not be bothered with. And, they really have nothing to do with electing a pope apart from the will of the clergy-citizens of Rome.
3. Lastly, do you recognize that it is heretical to say or imply there are no more Ordinaries in the Church? This shows that the Papal or Petrine succession and the Apostolic or episcopal succession are interlinked. If you do, then you have to revise the premises that lead to that conclusion.
No there is not doctrine involved in saying there must be ordinaries in the dioceses. In fact, when the Church first started there were none. All there needs to be is the possibility of electing a pope, and all is well.
1. Nishant is not a Feeneyite.
2. The questions were clearly addressed to Bellator Dei. Was not you precisely who not long ago pointed out the impoliteness of responding for someone else?
You have already been given the chance to defend the sedevacantist position multiple times but you failed miserably in doing so, on the contrary, you made them look even more foolish, as if this was possible. Everyone realized this so nobody pays attention to your sede claims anymore...well except for clueless Vermont, of course she still has hope in you and is your only fan. That says a lot. hahaha.
-
1. Nishant is not a Feeneyite.
Yes, he is.
Nishant is really not a feeneyite, unless he has changed his position. He believes in BOB and BOD for those who believe in the trinity and incarnation.
-
1. Nishant is not a Feeneyite.
Yes, he is.
Nishant is really not a feeneyite, unless he has changed his position. He believes in BOB and BOD for those who believe in the trinity and incarnation.
He is better off than some others, but not out of the woods yet.
Pay no attention to this wicked, wicked man/boy Nado. We should all as a group stop responding to him. Stop feeding the troll.
Nado believes that St. Thomas Aquinas is a Feeneyite; Nishant's position is no different than that of St. Thomas. Nado despises the dogma EENS; he's made it quite clear. He refuses to tolerate the opinion that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation (the grounds on which he accuses Nishant of "Feeneyism"), despite the fact that even right before Vatican II Monsignor Fenton declared that this was the MAJORITY theological opinion, despite the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, ALL the Church Fathers, and pretty much everyone before the year 1600 or so ALL taught and believed this. It's shocking that the majority of theologians even right before Vatican II were in fact Feeneyites. Nado's father is the devil; ignore him. I have PERSONALLY explained to Nado going on a dozen times now that Nishant is no Feeneyite, and yet he persists in this calumny.
-
1. Nishant is not a Feeneyite.
Yes, he is.
Nishant is really not a feeneyite, unless he has changed his position. He believes in BOB and BOD for those who believe in the trinity and incarnation.
He is better off than some others, but not out of the woods yet.
How about an "I apologize, Nishant; I was wrong" or do you persist in maintaining that anyone who believes that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation are in fact "Feeneyites"?
-
No, I don't think St. Thomas is a Feeneyite. No, Nishant's position is not the same.
Liar.
No, I don't despise EENS,
Liar.
Nobody is in heaven without dying with the three divine virtues.
Once you turn these into merely infused virtues. Liar.
I also said before, that the talk about necessity of explicit belief was talked about for the utility of priests who needed to know what, at a minimum, they should get professed by someone on their death bed who is not yet baptized.
No, not necessity of precept. Liar. Necessity of means.
I would be happy to have a lengthy discussion with Nishant, but he always quits a discussion.
No you refused to engage him on other threads because you claimed that it was off-topic. If otherwise Nishant drops off, it's because he realizes your malice and does not wish to waste his time casting pearls before a swine.
-
Nado, you are a baldfaced liar. I explained to you the theological Tradition in detail, and much more patiently than I should have. I am a Thomist. I believe exactly what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus believed - you never responded on this thread because you couldn't. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=34975&min=0&num=5
This is what I believe.
“Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.
Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.” .
Fr. Micheal Mueller, CSSR, a true redemptorist, cites St. Alphonsus in Theologia Moralis Tome 2, Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2, pp. 104-106
Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved
You deliberately and repeatedly lie about this even after it has been explained to you because you find this truth so unpalatable. I am a Thomist and will be until my dying breath.
And yes, by your own standard, you are a manifest heretic for saying it is possible that all Ordinaries can cease to exist. You contradict the defined dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. Apostolicity requires bishops with both orders and jurisdiction. If you don't know this, you have no business teaching anyone anything. Even sedevacantists like John Lane know that that is heretical. It is heretical also for a second reason - only the Ordinaries, according to traditional theologians, can pass the necessary juridical declaration that the Pope has become a heretic before the Roman clergy elect a new Pope. That means there is no way to have a Pope again, if there are no Ordinaries to do so. You are a manifest heretic for denying the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity.
It is de fide, or matter of faith, that the head of the Church, as such, can never be separated, either from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecclesia discens; that is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful ... Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed.
You are a manifest heretic because you say the Ecclesia Docens can cease to exist. What you believe could more appropriately be called ecclesia-vacantism.
For someone to be made a successor of the Apostles and pastor of the Church, the power of order — which is always validly conferred by virtue of ordination — is not enough; the power of jurisdiction is also required, and this is conferred not by virtue of ordination but by virtue of a mission received from him to whom Christ has entrusted the supreme power over the universal Church.
Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession. This Apostolic succession must be both material and formal; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of power ... An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from then to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world.
You are a manifest heretic because you say the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic.
-
Honestly Nado it's embarrassing reading your responses; you're just making things up as you go along. At least Lad and Nishant base their arguments on Catholic authority. Needless to say making a thread whining to the moderator about being called out for your doctrinal perversions doesn't help your case, either.
-
As for you, Obertray Immonday, since you have no conception of erring in good faith, by your own standard, I accuse you of being a manifest heretic, and consequently not a Catholic. [/u]It is a dogma taught in the First Vatican Council that there will always be bishops sent or appointed to episcopal office by the Pope, this is demanded by the Church's Apostolicity. It is likewise demanded by the dogma of the Church's visibility that the hierarchy having formal Apostolic succession, which requires both orders and ordinary jurisdiction, must have continued in a visible line of succession from the Apostolic age to the present, for e.g. in the Papal See, or in a diocese erected by the Pope. You need to provide such visible bishops appointed to a diocese by a Pope, or your theory is false.
Since you and the Dimonds deny this, you are a manifest heretic. No warning, no questioning, no possibility of good faith, nothing. Your own standard.
Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman pontiffs, from the earliest ages ... Rome was, more evidently than ever, the sole source of pastoral power. We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? ...if they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, they have not been sent, they are not pastors. thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her. But He was not satisfied with this ... He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted.
So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father , in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. 4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.
That which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time ... For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
It is a very small thing to be judged by you.
St Athanasius refutes not the teachings of the Church, but YOUR understanding of what you copy and paste. I can just see it now, if you were alive during the Arian crisis you would have sided with the heretics, condemned the few, and based your argument on the fact that these heretical Arian bishops were material heretics or were in good faith (occult saying for following ones conscience).
In order to be of good faith one must possess it. Heretics do not! Culpable or inculpable has nothing to do with it. If it be inculpable it is true that this is not punished, but it is the sins committed that causes damnation due to a lack of faith.
It is clear that you are captivated by cassocks, robes, buildings.... and believe the Church is measured by size. The Catholic Church has never taught that there must be a certain number of faithful or clergy for the church to exist. If even the true Catholic faithful who profess the Catholic faith are reduced to handful they would be the visible Church of Christ. Just because you could not see them does not me the Church does not exist. Wake up!
The V2 is like any other false church. It is schismatic, refuses unity with Catholics, denies Church teaching (Vatican I, EENS....). Even if a good conscience could save a person, which it doesn't, the Catholic faith is what saves, I can not see how anyone who remains in communion with V2 could have even a good conscience let alone Catholic faith in light of all the evidence.
Now those who belong to it (V2) who are unaware must as any Protestant who reaches the age of reason, elicit the true faith for salvation, since the habit of grace is thus suspended upon the age of reason.
-
No, Obertray Imondday, the thesis that you are defending is manifestly heretical, it is a direct denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. While I want to make allowance for good faith on your part, you not only seem not to recognize such a possibility yourself, but moreover set up ecclesia-vacantism as a dogma. Tell me, what does Apostolic succession mean, if not the succession of bishops to episcopal sees, what does it mean that the Catholic Church can never cease to be Apostolic, if not that every episcopal see throughout the universal Church cannot be vacant? Your assertion is condemned by the Church.
Since you believe in sola dogma, we will start with that. The Oath against Modernism solemnly swears, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles." Do you deny this? You have modernized the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. In fact, your ecclesiology is worse than Protestant.
The First Vatican Council dogmatically says "just as he sent Apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided." This statement means that shepherds and teachers [pastores et doctores], bishops who have been appointed to an episcopal office or see, will exist until the end of time in the Church. Dimondism denies precisely this, just like you did above. The Council also speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles ... " which makes it clear that to succeed the Apostles, one must be a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. One succeeds to the place of the Apostles, when one is a bishop who governs an episcopal see.
The same doctrine is taught by all theologians, including those present at the Council and specifically praised by Pope Pius IX, like +Gueranger and +Manning cited earlier. They explain it is heretical to say the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. Cardinal Manning wrote, "The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed ... Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away ... How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain."
Citing the Code, Woywod explains in Successors to the Apostles, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the author ity of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope." Since Catholics are bound to swear with the Oath against modernism that there "always ... will be the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles" in the Church, no informed Catholic can accept your novel view to the contrary, and you must repent of defending it.
How do you explain your denial of this dogma of Apostolicity, in the sense in which it was defined and traditionally understood, as the Oath, the Code, the Council, and the theologians cited above demonstrate? Do you plead ignorance and good faith for yourself, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge it in principle as a possibility for others? By all the principles you use, anyone is justified in saying you "judge yourself as a heretic". Whatever be your subjective culpability, your opinion is a profane novelty and objectively heretical, contrary to defined and traditionally settled dogmas.
-
No, Obertray Imondday, the thesis that you are defending is manifestly heretical, it is a direct denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. While I want to make allowance for good faith on your part, you not only seem not to recognize such a possibility yourself, but moreover set up ecclesia-vacantism as a dogma. Tell me, what does Apostolic succession mean, if not the succession of bishops to episcopal sees, what does it mean that the Catholic Church can never cease to be Apostolic, if not that every episcopal see throughout the universal Church cannot be vacant? Your assertion is condemned by the Church.
Since you believe in sola dogma, we will start with that. The Oath against Modernism solemnly swears, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles." Do you deny this? You have modernized the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. In fact, your ecclesiology is worse than Protestant.
The First Vatican Council dogmatically says "just as he sent Apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided." This statement means that shepherds and teachers [pastores et doctores], bishops who have been appointed to an episcopal office or see, will exist until the end of time in the Church. Dimondism denies precisely this, just like you did above. The Council also speaks of "that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the Apostles ... " which makes it clear that to succeed the Apostles, one must be a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction. One succeeds to the place of the Apostles, when one is a bishop who governs an episcopal see.
The same doctrine is taught by all theologians, including those present at the Council and specifically praised by Pope Pius IX, like +Gueranger and +Manning cited earlier. They explain it is heretical to say the ecclesia docens can cease to exist. Cardinal Manning wrote, "The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed ... Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away ... How many soever, as individuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the Episcopate would remain."
Citing the Code, Woywod explains in Successors to the Apostles, "The bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by Divine law over the individual churches, which they govern with ordinary authority under the author ity of the Roman Pontiff. They are freely appointed by the Pope." Since Catholics are bound to swear with the Oath against modernism that there "always ... will be the succession of the episcopacy from the Apostles" in the Church, no informed Catholic can accept your novel view to the contrary, and you must repent of defending it.
How do you explain your denial of this dogma of Apostolicity, in the sense in which it was defined and traditionally understood, as the Oath, the Code, the Council, and the theologians cited above demonstrate? Do you plead ignorance and good faith for yourself, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge it in principle as a possibility for others? By all the principles you use, anyone is justified in saying you "judge yourself as a heretic". Whatever be your subjective culpability, your opinion is a profane novelty and objectively heretical, contrary to defined and traditionally settled dogmas.
I will respond to this post in more detail when I have a little more time.
First, the Vatican I infallibly teaches:
4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.
5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation
The OFFICE of Peter was established by Christ and exists whether there is a Pope or not.
However, the hierarchy that you defend denies this infallible statement.
#15 Lumen Gentium: 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter
You attempt to dissolve Christ by destroying the unity of FAITH, and do not understand +Manning. I will address that later.
-
However, the hierarchy that you defend denies this infallible statement.
#15 Lumen Gentium: 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter
Actually, most of LG isn't overtly erroneous and can be understood in a Traditional way. Take this statement above. What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"? It doesn't say these people are WITHIN the Church, that they are Catholics, that they can be saved. It just says that there's a nebulous "link" by virtue of Baptism with these people. MOST of the bad stuff occurs in Unitatis Redintegratio.
I am going to start a thread here today to analyze the error in Vatican II. It's very important that we understand what are and what aren't problematic statements in Vatican II. I bet that 80% of all Traditional Catholics have never read Vatican II. There are actually some very well-written and nice parts in LG. But there are seeds of ambiguity there, and the ambiguity gets resolved in Unitatis Redintegratio into the novel subjectivist ecclesiology and soteriology.
-
Well, Bellator Dei, if you read what Fr. Wathen wrote, he explains there is no tribunal to pass judgment on the Pope. "If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office." So he is talking about a special case. He does not deny that a layman can incur excommunication,known by all to be a public and formal heretic, and removed from office.
The case of a Pope is slightly more tricky, there are varying opinions among theologians with differing grades of probability. Suarez for example said, “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church ... of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them.” I just post this to show there are different opinions regarding the special case of a Pope.
Obertray Immonday, all right, in fact, we can discuss it in a new thread.
-
However, the hierarchy that you defend denies this infallible statement.
#15 Lumen Gentium: 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter
It doesn't say these people are WITHIN the Church, that they are Catholics, that they can be saved. It just says that there's a nebulous "link" by virtue of Baptism with these people.
Baptized persons that do not profess the faith in its entirety = Heretics
Baptized persons that do not preserve unity of communion the the successor of Peter = Schismatics
There is NO link (nebulous or not) with heretics or schismatics - as they are severed from the Church by their own admonition and are no longer Catholic; this goes back to the whole "once Catholic, always Catholic" premise. Obviously, these people are not honored with the name of Christian any longer, as you rightly point out.
That being said, by virtue of their Baptism (if valid), these non-Catholics DO have a opportunity to recant their errors and return to the Church to work out their salvation.
The statement above cannot be understood or reconciled with the teachings of the Church.
No, the term "link" (Latin conjunctam) does NOT by itself mean that they are Catholic or within the Church or anything along those lines. While I agreed with your earlier point that the Baptismal character does NOT mean that people are members of the Church, it is NOT true that the Baptismal character MEANS NOTHING. You are quite wrong.
Notice also this subtle aspect; it does not say that the baptized non-Catholics are linked with the Church, but rather that the Church is linked with them.
You also take this quote out of context and cannot analyze it that way. That phrase "in many ways" is explained by the sentences that follow. It's just a phrases that say, "we have the following things in common with them".
-
The case of a Pope is slightly more tricky, there are varying opinions among theologians with differing grades of probability. Suarez for example said, “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church ... of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them.” I just post this to show there are different opinions regarding the special case of a Pope.
It would seem that Vatican 1 corrected Suarez........
"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that..... they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."
-
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?
How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?
-
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?
How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?
I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".
-
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?
How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?
I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".
I agree. In all fairness though, all Feeneyite's (for lack of better word) who deny the V2 ecclesiology follow a teacher who holds the subsistence error.
-
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?
How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?
I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".
I agree. In all fairness though, all Feeneyite's (for lack of better word) who deny the V2 ecclesiology follow a teacher who holds the subsistence error.
No, you fail to make the pertinent distinction that we are subject to him in what we can be without offending God, but we do not follow the conciliar popes in their heresies and errors.
The SV sects who hold to the ecclesiology of the conciliar popes while condemning the same popes for teaching it, is the real mind boggler.
-
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?
How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?
I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".
I agree. In all fairness though, all Feeneyite's (for lack of better word) who deny the V2 ecclesiology follow a teacher who holds the subsistence error.
No, you fail to make the pertinent distinction that we are subject to him in what we can be without offending God, but we do not follow the conciliar popes in their heresies and errors.
The SV sects who hold to the ecclesiology of the conciliar popes while condemning the same popes for teaching it, is the real mind boggler.
Sorry, I was meaning teachers (forgot the 's'). Do you know a Bishop or priest that does not defend salvation in false religion through ignorance? The non-Feeneyite traditional Catholic teachers are not the only ones manifesting this.