Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bergolio says that there are many American Catholics who won’t accept Vatican II  (Read 45448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
That is from the Code of Canon Law! Canon 2314: § 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic: Incur by that fact excommunication.

This is completely in line with the traditional teaching and practice of the Church, not to mention what was explicitly taught in Satis Cognitum.

Quoting canon law? By this definition, you are excommunicated.

From Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.

A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;

If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;

If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)

Quoting canon law? By this definition, you are excommunicated.

From Commentary of the New [1917] Canon Law .....

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor.

A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be
believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic;

If he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate;

If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon 1325.)
How exactly does that Canon have any force of law if the hierarchy has defected and the See is Vacant? Who is there to enforce it? I also don't see how augustineeens is a heretic here, he hasn't denied any dogmas, unlike you (unity of the Church, that heretics are outside of the Church)


Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter

The Point - May 1953


"..

Monsignor Fenton likes to make it appear that he is terribly strong and intransigent on the matter of dogma, and that he is persecuted on account of this by those with more liberal ideas. However, as is plainly evident to any long-term reader of Fenton’s Ecclesiastical Review, there is no lasting difference between him and the liberals; he merely says what they say two years later.



BY FATHER FEENEY"

That's very good, certainly worth remembering. Nice line. 

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Hey, Lad, while I see +Fenton's point (to a degree) he has as much authority as Fr Wathen or Fr Hesse (a canon lawyer), whom you brush aside as not part of the magisterium.  If you're going to be consistent, then don't hold up +Fenton as some inerrant authority.  His opinion is not gospel.

Nobody's holding him up as "gospel".  On the other hand, you're dismissing him with an ad hominen.  He was cited to dispel the straw man created earlier that the Church being guided by the Holy Spirit means there can be no errors or mistakes in the Magisterium.

Where the line is crossed is by claiming that the papal Magisterium can become so corrupt as to be conducive to the ruination of souls.  That is the line that is drawn and that you guys cross into heresy-land.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
If, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

:facepalm: nobody's refusing subjections to the Supreme Pontiff, only to an Antipope.  Of course, formally, you are the one in schism for claiming that it's permitted to refuse subjection to the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with members of the Church (i.e. by refusing to attend the NOM).  So once again you condemn yourself from your own mouth.

Besides that, the SVs have quoted myriad times from Canonist who state that one is not a schismatic if one refuses subjection based on well-founded doubts regarding their legitimacy.