-
Please tell me he did not mean this, please....
1993 Consecration by Bishop Pivarunas (http://gloria.tv/?media=208698)
-
And your problem is...........?
-
Well if Pope Francis who is doing crazy things is in communion with the SSPX, then how is the CMRI and SSPX one and the same church? After all is not in our SSPX chapels the name of Francis mentioned in the canon? Hello?
-
Well if Pope Francis who is doing crazy things is in communion with the SSPX, then how is the CMRI and SSPX one and the same church? After all is not in our SSPX chapels the name of Francis mentioned in the canon? Hello?
So you think CMRI should deny communion to any Catholic who attends an SSPX mass or one where Francis is named in the canon?
-
Well if Pope Francis who is doing crazy things is in communion with the SSPX, then how is the CMRI and SSPX one and the same church? After all is not in our SSPX chapels the name of Francis mentioned in the canon? Hello?
The naming of the antipope in the canon does not mean that the priest or those who participate in the mass are not Catholic.
The antipope is an undeclared heretic.
-
Catholicism is one. There may be different approaches to Heresy and there may be Heretics who are not yet condemned as formal Heretics , but wherever the Body and Blood of Our Lord is - we are one.
Lift up from the tangible to the spiritual for a moment and understand.
-
This sounds like the old Brand Theory raising its ugly head again...I thought Anglicanism was a dead dog....
-
I guess all is well? :cool:
-
mobius and those of like mind fit the following description:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Enemysowedcockle_zpsa2db14b8.jpg)
-
The SSPX are in communion with Francis.
The CMRI are in communion with the SSPX.
Ergo, the CMRI are in communion with Francis!
The syllogism fails, as all Catholics are bound to remain in communion with each other. The CMRI have severed themselves from communion with Francis, but remain in communion with Catholics who still believe in his claim to the papacy.
During the Western schism, Catholics adhered to various antipopes, but remained Catholic as they did so believing they were following the true pope. Catholics never severed themselves from other Catholics during this time.
If Francis were a declared heretic, all would be bound to cut off communion with him.
-
So your saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person that is guilty of mortal sin that it is a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
-
So your saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person guilty of mortal sin when they commit a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
I never said it was "ok" to go to the Novus Ordo. There is no sin, however, if the Catholic remains unaware or unconvinced of its true status.
Catholics have the right to partake of the sacraments and may approach clergy to receive them, even vagus clergy. Catholics are not bound to receive sacraments from clergy that have not received approved training and approval for ordination, and a mission to be their priest from the lawful authority of the Church.
Only the pope can declare Francis a heretic. Until then, we as individuals may see this fact, but no one is bound to this fact, unless he is morally certain of it.
All Catholics remain in communion with each other. To withdraw communion from other Catholics is schism.
Mortal sin does not effect your membership in the Church, heresy does.
-
I thought Heresy was a Mortal Sin?
All of these groups cannot be right, correct, and valid. Only one or actually, none.
You do not need someone to declare your a Heretic if you fit the category.
So I guess if you can go to people you think are "not" heretics (e.g. Francis, CMRI, SSPX, etc.), then you might as well stay home or go to a Greek Schismatic rite and participate...what's the difference? Heresy is Heresy. No matter where it comes from.
All groups "cannot" be Catholics and in the "same" Church. Is Christ divided Mark 3:25 ?
-
So you're saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person guilty of mortal sin when they commit a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
I never said it was "ok" to go to the Novus Ordo. There is no sin, however, if the Catholic remains unaware or unconvinced of its true status.
Catholics have the right to partake of the sacraments and may approach clergy to receive them, even vagus clergy. Catholics are not bound to receive sacraments from clergy that have not received approved training and approval for ordination, and a mission to be their priest from the lawful authority of the Church.
Only the pope can declare Francis a heretic. Until then, we as individuals may see this fact, but no one is bound to this fact, unless he is morally certain of it.
All Catholics remain in communion with each other. To withdraw communion from other Catholics is schism.
Mortal sin does not effect your membership in the Church, heresy does.
I find it rather queer that someone who alludes to principles such
as this can suddenly collapse into apoplexy over one imaginative
theological speculation because he insists on it's 'doctrinal' content.
If you were consistent, you'd admit that sedevacantism is a 'dogma
of the faith'. But then you'd be inconsistent because that would
not be the same thing as saying that no one but a true pope can
judge the pope, as you've said right here, above. Maybe what
you need is a good dose of the hermeneutic of continuity, then
it would all work out for you just as it is! Sound pretty good yet?
-
So your saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person that is guilty of mortal sin that it is a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
No one is saying that, or even inferring a suggestion towards the direction your implying. Quit putting words into other people's mouth.
Neither you or anyone can "declare him" as a heretic, he is already been judged by God. To imply that you would juridically declare him to be a heretic, it would imply that you are the superior of a Pope as only superiors are capable of making a legal declaration on matter's such as this. Which is why St. Bellarmine went over this matter pretty well, since he already stands condemned by his own deeds/words. The only difference is that the SSPX and other people who are currently erring in that matter will have to see, what we see by the eyes of faith (spiritual reality). Any other way of looking at this problem like how you are suggesting is condemned anathematized heresy of Conciliarism (the evil you were trying to avoid in the first place, the irony huh!?).
You don't know the state of someone else's soul, unless you are able to read heart's. Now if someone has publicly committed a crime that in the external forum is mortally sinful, sure you can be able to rebuke them about that.
Going to the New mass is false worship, it is simply a no no with the SSPX. They never recommend that, attending mass with the SSPX is doable if they are the only one in the area. CMRI would be fine to attend also, and staying at home would depend on the situation. Once again this is something that you need to discern within your particular circuмstances. Suppose that you are attending a mass with a SSPX that holds positions that are Novus Ordo, i.e. does not hold the SSPX positions. Then it would be licit to not attend where they might be more FSSP then SSPX. Just use your common sense, that's all. Just take every particular case on an individual level, don't assume anything. Simply talk to your local priest, and discern. Wish you the best, God Bless.
-
I thought Heresy was a Mortal Sin?
All of these groups cannot be right, correct, and valid. Only one or actually, none.
You do not need someone to declare your a Heretic if you fit the category.
So I guess if you can go to people you think are "not" heretics (e.g. Francis, CMRI, SSPX, etc.), then you might as well stay home or go to a Greek Schismatic rite and participate...what's the difference? Heresy is Heresy. No matter where it comes from.
All groups "cannot" be Catholics and in the "same" Church. Is Christ divided Mark 3:25 ?
Mobius you seem to have little understanding of theological matters, so I would suggest to LISTEN to other's where you are clearly showing stupidity. No offense, but don't expect to throw punches and not receive any. As I have amply proved, anyone who deals on this matter's is FREE to criticism.
Yes there is a world of a difference between heretics that have already been ferende sententiae excommunicated and those who have been ipso facto laetae sententiae excommunicated. Those who follow any of the idea's of those in the former have to be avoided at ALL cost. Those in the latter if any Catholic mistakenly shares communion with them in good faith, he does not sin. See the difference?
Look at the case of St. John Fisher who did not break communion with Catholics who had even taken the oath of Supremacy to Henry VIII! Even until the very end he still shared the Eucharist with all of the clergy/faithful. You will surely not respond by saying he was a liberal/modernist will you? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You will either declare St. John Fisher an anathematized heretic for sharing communion with fellow heretics who apostatized from the faith out of weakness or come up with a new theological system. I will await for your judgement. Its pretty simply the fact that this topic has been posted ad nauseam, shows that either you do not read the forum's that much or you are just bad willed. I hope its not the latter.
-
Please show me docuмented proof that St. John Fisher shared the Eucharist [Christ, blessed be His Holy Name] with Heretics?
If that is the case, then, why not receive Holy Communion [Christ] in a Greek Schismatic rite, what's the difference?
-
Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock of 101 Heresies of Antipope John Paul II both stated their belief in the St. Hermenegild as a Catholic Saint that refused Communion from Heretics. Gee that is odd, did he not protest against receiving Christ in Holy Communion from a Valid Bishop as related by Pope St. Gregory the Great?
-
Please show me docuмented proof that St. John Fisher shared the Eucharist [Christ, blessed be His Holy Name] with Heretics?
If that is the case, then, why not receive Holy Communion [Christ] in a Greek Schismatic rite, what's the difference?
Just read the history of his life, and then come back to me. I am telling you that this is a fact, not some rumour.
So lets suppose you wish to deny that what I am saying is true. Fine, only time will prove that after you start doing some reading.
Gerry Matatics is a very interesting figure, he is a home-aloner with an agenda and the legalism of a Pharisee. Although I would love to listen to this talks only to refute his positions, which for the most part is not much different then other home-aloners.
Hypothetically, if what I was saying is true. Then would you still anathematize St. John Fisher, and by the way my example is from more recent times which means we have the benefit of a whole lot more explicit teaching from the Church.
St. Hermenegild as a Catholic Saint that refused Communion from Heretics.
Amen to that, we are talking about condemned heretics here. Once again you just COMPLETELY ignore the previous post that I made. That shows bad will and dishonest from your part. Since all you do is respond without even attempting to see that I have already answered your refutations.
The reason why St. John Fisher was able to be to keep communion because those who we still shared communion were FULLY Catholic. They just out of weakness ceded in to the King so that their land would not be taken away, family killed, etc... This goes back to the whole issue of Donatism/Novatianism/Jansenism. It seems you are infected with their errors, and this is what prevents many Catholics from attending mass when they should be attending mass. Please read more deeply on this topics, or attend mass and continue studying until you are convinced that you cannot morally attend x or y mass. Communicatio in sacris with undeclared heretics is a whole different issue, then with condemned anathematized heretics, some SV'ist are way too rigorist on this issue, thinking that it is some air born virus. Yes if someone you know has liberal tendencies, or just simply stupid on some matters does not mean you can't pray with him if you are fully certain he has the Catholic faith. If you study the lives of the Saints you would be surprised that it was them who waited until the very end to break communion.
A good article (http://sedevacantist.com/heresyhistory.html) going over the topic:
In other words, one incurs excommunication as a result of all religious communication with a heretic on the following conditions:
(a) The heretic must have been excommunicated by name by the Holy See.
(b) The culprit must communicate in religious services with him knowingly and willingly.
(c) The culprit must be a cleric.
(d) Even then, the excommunication incurred by the communicator is a minor excommunication, such that he is not himself regarded as a heretic or as vitandus.
Is there not a slight difference between that and the idea that one becomes an excommunicated schismatic or heretic by the simple fact of communicatio in sacris with a heretic even when he has not been excommunicated by anyone and when one is not aware that he is a heretic at all, and that this applies not only to the clergy but also to the laity?
And in any event, the excommunication in question was softened yet further by Pope Benedict XV when he promulgated our present Code of Canon Law...
From the same article (I will later cite for you some more sources):
Now according to the doctrine of those who think that they alone today are Catholics, More and Fisher, ready to die rather than sign, ought surely to have considered that those who had signed had abandoned the Church by schism and were no longer Catholics. If they were dying rather than commit a schismatic act, they must surely not have wished to die in communion with those who had already committed the very act they were giving their lives for refusing.
But that was not their attitude at all.
On 13th April 1534 we see More fortify himself for his initial refusal of the oath, planned for later that day, by receiving the sacraments at the hands of a priest who had already sworn the oath! Later, during the trial which preceded his martyrdom, he directly states that he attaches no blame to those who have sworn the oath he is refusing. Repeatedly while he was in prison we encounter in his words and acts the same attitude and there is no mistaking it. He simply encourages all to respect their conscience and expresses solid hope that they will all meet again merrily in heaven - an expression which has become almost proverbial. At the moment when he first refused the oath he (a husband and father) stated that he had never discouraged anyone else from taking the oath, and he continued thereafter to behave in the same way.
Fisher's attitude and behaviour were identical and we know that he also made his confession immediately before his martyrdom to a priest who had sworn the oath - the same is assumed to be the case with More, but not confirmed by contemporary witnesses.
Both are canonised saints of the Church and their behaviour in this regard did not even arouse any objections from the devil's advocate.
How is this situation to be explained? Could one not ask More: why die for this cause if it was not a matter of faith? And if it was a matter of faith, how could you remain in communion with those who chose the opposing side?
And how would More have replied to such questions? I suggest that only one possible reply makes the slightest sense. He would have said that, while the facts were clear enough for him that he would sin against faith or the unity of the Church by acting otherwise, they were not necessarily equally clear for others.
-
Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock of 101 Heresies of Antipope John Paul II both stated their belief in the St. Hermenegild as a Catholic Saint that refused Communion from Heretics. Gee that is odd, did he not protest against receiving Christ in Holy Communion from a Valid Bishop as related by Pope St. Gregory the Great?
Since you've been peddling these home-aloners' trash (since you clearly are either one of their disciples if not you yourself are not one of these two Church-Population-Me neo-Protestant "preachers"), maybe you can answer the following:
What Canonical training, mission, office, jurisdiction do Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock have to teach other Catholics with the magisterial authority they seem to think they have, and to pronounce their anathemas against all traditional Catholics and to judge them as if they were Arians?
If a Canonical mission cannot be established, then they must have some sort of missio extraordinaria atque immediata of direct celestial origin, which they must prove by divine miracles and heroic sanctity in order for them to be consistent. If so, what miracles have they wrought?
Or are they as the Protestant heretics who profess extraordinary and immediate mission to the detriment of the nature of the Christian faith and the one true Church Our Lord established?
If neither a Canonical mission nor an extraordinary and immediate mission of divine origin cannot be established, then who sent Gerry and Patty?
Maybe their missio can be explained in the following way:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d89/platonic123/Enemysowedcockle_zpsa2db14b8.jpg)
-
So your saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person that is guilty of mortal sin that it is a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
Your reasoning is logical enough, in the absence of statutes, but in point of fact there are Church rules regarding the papacy. They are well summarized in a small volume called The Papacy put out by Angeles Press which was used at the 2012 Kansas City conference. I have the volume on the desk beside me, but I won't take it all apart here for you, I must hope you will take the trouble to examine the arguments on your own. My summary is this: the authority of the papacy does not rest on his teaching, or his morality, but on his election. Just like the authority of a sheriff or a president rests on his election and not on his actions. But popes can teach heresy (the book discusses those instances). In that case, in order for him to be deposed, the Cardinals must declare him to be a Manifest Heretic, an official term. They must unelect him.
Now, following is my own thinking, not the book. That analysis opens a narrow way for us to procede. We do not challenge the authority of the pope, that road leads to protestant chaos, to the kind of position held by some on this forum. We still pray for him in the canon, we still put his picture in our chapels (if our walls will hold the nail!) , we still speak of him respecfully, because we are loyal to our Church and to its procedures, not to him. But we begin to make the case against his teaching, if heretical it is. In words, using the traditional teachings of the Church. We are speaking to the ears of the Cardinals. Maybe few are listening. But those who are holding their hands over their ears are much closer to their judgment than some others. The situation is fluid, and we have the power, through our use of argument, to effect a good thing, without throwing out the baby with the bath, throwing out the Church's structure with the modernists. That is the way open to us. Other ways, each man personally deciding to hell with this one or that one, that's protestant, that's chaotic. And by the way, it's the same with mortal sin. That definition isn't up to individual interpretation, either. I urge you to pick up a copy of The Papacy (don't buy Amazon). I think you will see the point.
-
During the Western schism, Catholics adhered to various antipopes and Saints came out of each different group.
Also consider Bishop P said that before Francis was in the picture, these days the different groups are starting to realize we have no pope, and are beginning to come together in their thinking more and more each day with Francis bold remarks. Who knows what he will say today.
This is why people come here with their holier than thou usernames and try to turn the weak against sedevacantism, because they are seeing the beginnings of unity.
You stay at home believes will soon be left in the dust.
-
Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock
Stop there. You already discredited whatever you have to say.
:facepalm:
Free Advice: Look at the credentials and reputation of your sources. People won't laugh at you as much.
-
.
I have some questions, Janet:
Maybe few are listening. But those who are holding their hands over their ears are much closer to their judgment than some others.
How does an unwillingness to listen cause someone to have
fewer days left to live? I've known very cranky elderly who
wanted nothing to do with paying attention to Scripture or
the words of a good sermon by a priest.
(don't buy Amazon).
Why not buy Amazon? If you log on to Amazon using the CI
link at the top of every page your purchase during that log-in
session will be credited to this excellent forum. And you
would recommend against that?
You're not making any sense.
-
Please tell me he did not mean this, please....
1993 Consecration by Bishop Pivarunas
Speaking of "consecration," Bishop Pivarunas told me that he
doesn't think that there will be any consecration of Russia by
the current "pope Francis," because he's not the Pope. I asked
him what if there is a conversion of Russia and a period of
peace as Our Lady promised at Fatima, how would that affect
the CMRI, and he told me "That's not going to happen." his
reason is that God will never accept any so-called consecration
of Russia by an imposter who people erroneously think is Pope,
any more than He will honor the assistance of men who claim
to be "bishops" because that would contradict His truth in valid
consecrations. Has anyone else heard answers to this kind of
question from him? Has he ever preached a sermon on it? I
tend to doubt that he would, because I had to ask him the
same question three times, using different words, before he
finally answered me, because he kept changing the topic. I
wanted to give him an honest chance, and he finally showed
me that he was willing to listen and give a reasonable
answer to my question, which I do appreciate.
This also seems to set the CMRI on a different way than the
SSPX, because the latter has been openly in favor of the
Faithful praying for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary, conducted by the pope and
united with all the bishops of the world. This is a "unity" that
the CMRI does not share with the SSPX.
-
We do not challenge the authority of the pope, that road leads to protestant chaos, to the kind of position held by some on this forum. We still pray for him in the canon, we still put his picture in our chapels (if our walls will hold the nail!) , we still speak of him respecfully, because we are loyal to our Church and to its procedures, not to him.
We already have chaos; it's called Vatican II. Challenging the pope on Vatican II didn't cause the chaos, Vatican II caused the chaos.
I understand you say you're respecting and loyal to the office and not the man, but it's not possible to separate the man from the office in areas of faith and morals.
-
But popes can teach heresy (the book discusses those instances). In that case, in order for him to be deposed, the Cardinals must declare him to be a Manifest Heretic, an official term. They must unelect him.
Now, following is my own thinking, not the book. That analysis opens a narrow way for us to procede. We do not challenge the authority of the pope, that road leads to protestant chaos, to the kind of position held by some on this forum. We still pray for him in the canon, we still put his picture in our chapels (if our walls will hold the nail!) , we still speak of him respecfully, because we are loyal to our Church and to its procedures, not to him. But we begin to make the case against his teaching, if heretical it is. In words, using the traditional teachings of the Church. We are speaking to the ears of the Cardinals. Maybe few are listening. But those who are holding their hands over their ears are much closer to their judgment than some others. The situation is fluid, and we have the power, through our use of argument, to effect a good thing, without throwing out the baby with the bath, throwing out the Church's structure with the modernists. That is the way open to us. Other ways, each man personally deciding to hell with this one or that one, that's protestant, that's chaotic. And by the way, it's the same with mortal sin. That definition isn't up to individual interpretation, either.
Its interesting how clever some people can be, they trust their own looking of history much better then those who have been canonized Saints, had great learning and judged completely differently. This is the sort of lying garbage that has been coming up with the SSPX recently, misquoting St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic historical events. These holy men, had access many times to primary sources and lived much closer to the time that they were writing about. Clever people trust in their own judgement 100 times more then what the Church has written about herself on these matters.
Show me even once a Catholic theologian saying that Pope's can teach heresy in their official capacity to the Universal Church. A few speculated the possibility that it could happen in his non official capacity, but none of them ever said it happened or could happen in their official capacity. Now we have self-appointed theologians that say it has "happened" in the history of the Church. If such a thing ever did happen in history, it would simply mean that the man sitting on the throne was an anti-Pope, no biggie. The next pope would have ratified all his jurisdictional act's by implicitly accepting his appointments, no problem... This would be true for example in the case of Honorius which is the strongest case in History that many have speculated COULD have been an anti-Pope. However, the evidence was a simple private letter... Ohh boy what do we have now! Just on that alone they anathematized him three times in ecuмenical Council's, and post-humously also. What a world of difference in the Catholic world.
What gives you the authority or canonical mission to declare his teaching Catholic or Uncatholic, the only reason why you are able to do such a thing is because the men you are talking about are already condemned. The difference between SV'ist and R&R is zilch, because both quote against heretics (who have been judged by God already) the previous magisterial teaching of the Church in her Solemn or ordinary teaching. This is the only reason why it is possible to anathematize them, because they stand self condemned against their own baptismal vows, of which recites the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church and the communion saints..."
Please define for me what you would define the Church's structure? If you mean the buildings then I grant you the argument, I agree. If you mean that the True Church and that of the Conciliar sect is the same structure, then please explain and quote theology manuals/Council's/Papal teaching that backs up your claim. Please explain how it is possible for their to be two "Churches", one Catholic and another a New Religion. The New religion has already anathematized all true Catholics that are currently within her claws still, this solves the whole Conciliar Church/Catholic Church distinction. The schismatics have already kicked out of the "official structures" all Catholics who belong to the true religion. She declares that all who think like +Lefebvre have a schismatic mindset/mentality, and therefore if you do not accept Vatican II or resist the lawful authorities by not being ecuмenical or going to the New mass that you are not a Conciliarist etc... You have separated yourself from them, even if you attend their local "indult" mass. There are not two Popes, but one. He can't be a Modernist and a Catholic Pope at the same time. He is either declared insane because he has lost all sense of reality through modern philosophies, therefore he has abdicated his authority (as canonist argue) OR he is a heretic that knows what he is doing (the more likely opinion). Modernism is the only heresy which by R&R'stors happens to be the only self-exculpating heresy. Simply incredible.
-
Neil Obstat wrote:
This also seems to set the CMRI on a different way than the
SSPX, because the latter has been openly in favor of the
Faithful praying for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary, conducted by the pope and
united with all the bishops of the world.
I don't see the difference. So long as the name of the antipope is omitted, all agree on this point. I pray for the consecration of Russia by the Pope and the bishops, I just know that Francis will have nothing to do with it.
-
This also seems to set the CMRI on a different way than the
SSPX, because the latter has been openly in favor of the
Faithful praying for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to
the Immaculate Heart of Mary, conducted by the pope and
united with all the bishops of the world. This is a "unity" that
the CMRI does not share with the SSPX.
CMRI also desires the consecration of Russia, they just don't believe it will happen the same way SSPX does apparently, if what you post is true. In fact when Bishop Pivarunas Consecrated that priest from Russia, (spoken about) they felt it was the beginning of the conversion of Russia.
Time will tell who, if anyone, was correct.
Do you Neil really believe that this Francis is going to take any steps in the Consecration of Russia? It seems that each conciliar "pope" is more bold with their Modernism.
-
Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock of 101 Heresies of Antipope John Paul II both stated their belief in the St. Hermenegild as a Catholic Saint that refused Communion from Heretics. Gee that is odd, did he not protest against receiving Christ in Holy Communion from a Valid Bishop as related by Pope St. Gregory the Great?
Are you accusing the priests of the SSPX of heresy? Is so, name the heresy.
-
Mobius wrote:
I thought Heresy was a Mortal Sin?
Hersey is a mortal sin, but mortal sin is not heresy.
All of these groups cannot be right, correct, and valid. Only one or actually, none.
True, there is only one truth. But, when it comes to sedevacantism, it is not just about the truth, it is also about the status of the truth.
You do not need someone to declare your a Heretic if you fit the category.
True, a declaration is not necessary to determine if someone is a heretic. The heresy met be clearly provable and you must have moral certainty that the person is guilty.
Without a declaration, however, no one is bound to agree with your conclusions. Like it or not, you, I, and every other lay Catholic or even priest has absolutely no authority to bind the conscience of Catholics. (I am not here talking about the sacrament of Penance)
So I guess if you can go to people you think are "not" heretics (e.g. Francis, CMRI, SSPX, etc.), then you might as well stay home or go to a Greek Schismatic rite and participate...what's the difference? Heresy is Heresy. No matter where it comes from.
No, you have not understood what I said. You are strictly forbidden to remain in communion with heretics. The Greek schismatics are both heretics and schismatics. It would be a mortal sin to participate in their liturgy.
What heresy do you believe the SSPX clergy are guilty of?
All groups "cannot" be Catholics and in the "same" Church. Is Christ divided Mark 3:25 ?
There really is no true canonical groups, but for the sake of argument, yes, there can be different groups that are united in the essentials but divided in the non essentials.
-
So you're saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person guilty of mortal sin when they commit a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
I never said it was "ok" to go to the Novus Ordo. There is no sin, however, if the Catholic remains unaware or unconvinced of its true status.
Catholics have the right to partake of the sacraments and may approach clergy to receive them, even vagus clergy. Catholics are not bound to receive sacraments from clergy that have not received approved training and approval for ordination, and a mission to be their priest from the lawful authority of the Church.
Only the pope can declare Francis a heretic. Until then, we as individuals may see this fact, but no one is bound to this fact, unless he is morally certain of it.
All Catholics remain in communion with each other. To withdraw communion from other Catholics is schism.
Mortal sin does not effect your membership in the Church, heresy does.
I find it rather queer that someone who alludes to principles such
as this can suddenly collapse into apoplexy over one imaginative
theological speculation because he insists on it's 'doctrinal' content.
If you were consistent, you'd admit that sedevacantism is a 'dogma
of the faith'. But then you'd be inconsistent because that would
not be the same thing as saying that no one but a true pope can
judge the pope, as you've said right here, above. Maybe what
you need is a good dose of the hermeneutic of continuity, then
it would all work out for you just as it is! Sound pretty good yet?
No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.
Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner. I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly. I have no authority, and I am well aware of that. If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.
Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude, prior to the judgment of the Church that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes. This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.
-
No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.
Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner. I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly. I have no authority, and I am well aware of that. If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.
Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude, prior to the judgment of the Church that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes. This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.
Very well and clearly stated!
-
I wonder what Raoul76 would think of this statement.
-
Gerry Matatics....
...that's all I need to know :sad:
-
No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.
Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner. I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly. I have no authority, and I am well aware of that. If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.
Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude, prior to the judgment of the Church that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes. This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.
So you could be wrong then?
No.
-
So you're saying that to go to the New Mass is 1.) ok ; 2.) SSPX, ok ; 3.) CMRI, ok ; 4.) Stay Home, ok ; why? Because "no one" can declare Pope Francis a "heretic"? And we are all in communion with each other as Bishop Pivarunas says?
Does some have to declare to a person guilty of mortal sin when they commit a mortal sin, for it to be a mortal sin?
I never said it was "ok" to go to the Novus Ordo. There is no sin, however, if the Catholic remains unaware or unconvinced of its true status.
Catholics have the right to partake of the sacraments and may approach clergy to receive them, even vagus clergy. Catholics are not bound to receive sacraments from clergy that have not received approved training and approval for ordination, and a mission to be their priest from the lawful authority of the Church.
Only the pope can declare Francis a heretic. Until then, we as individuals may see this fact, but no one is bound to this fact, unless he is morally certain of it.
All Catholics remain in communion with each other. To withdraw communion from other Catholics is schism.
Mortal sin does not effect your membership in the Church, heresy does.
I find it rather queer that someone who alludes to principles such
as this can suddenly collapse into apoplexy over one imaginative
theological speculation because he insists on it's 'doctrinal' content.
If you were consistent, you'd admit that sedevacantism is a 'dogma
of the faith'. But then you'd be inconsistent because that would
not be the same thing as saying that no one but a true pope can
judge the pope, as you've said right here, above. Maybe what
you need is a good dose of the hermeneutic of continuity, then
it would all work out for you just as it is! Sound pretty good yet?
No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.
Rather, it seems you mean to say that if you were to have said
that sedevacantism is a dogma, then you would have been guilty
of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.
Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner. I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly. I have no authority, and I am well aware of that.
I appreciate this clarification. Thank you. You might consider
adding these words in the future, for more specificity: Only a
true pope can declare these men to have been heretics, in a
binding manner.
If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.
Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude prior to the judgment of the Church, that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes. This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well-informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.
If only you, and others like you, could be more consistent in
your principles. You're fond of making sweeping statements
like this and then suddenly, on another topic, you jump out of
your principle and revert to its contradiction. Very curious.
But in regards to the Church speaking, have you considered
under what conditions you might accept the authenticity of
the Church speaking? What will it take for you to give full
assent of mind and will to the Church speaking?
Take for example, the Orthodox in the east. They were broken
away in A.D. 1054, and they've been broken away ever since.
Under what conditions would they return? It would seem there
are no conditions under which they would return, outside of
the Western Church admitting it has been wrong all this time,
for almost a thousand years now, and essentially therefore
'converting' and becoming Orthodox!!
But to you and me (as impossible as that sounds, yet a lot of
erstwhile impossible things are happening lately) if somehow
Pope Francis were to do that, you and I would not say that
this is a valid act of the Church. For it would be saying that
all the ex cathedra definitions of the past millennium would be
null and void. And we know that cannot happen.
So, what would it take for you to believe that the Church is
speaking today?
I have some examples but this post is already long enough for
certain members to cry in their coffee over its excessive length.
-
So you could be wrong then?
No.
That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because of the inaccuracies in the grammar.
You think Ambrose was saying something and he was actualy trying
to say something else but unfortunately had left out a few verb
conjugation modifiers that would have made all the difference.
(E.g. examples in italics. See my post, above.)
-
No, if I said sedevacantism is a dogma I would be guilty of misrepresenting and corrupting the doctrine of the Church.
Only a pope can declare these men heretics in a binding manner. I can plainly see that they are heretics, but I have no authority to bind you to what I see very clearly. I have no authority, and I am well aware of that. If I told you that you must believe Francis is a pope on my authority, then I would be a usurper.
Sedevacstism is a judgment of the public evidence which leads Catholics to conclude, prior to the judgment of the Church that the antipopes are heretics and therefore not popes. This judgment remains non-authoritative and binds only those who have formed it in their own well informed conscience, as the Church has not yet spoken.
So you could be wrong then?
No.
That doesn't make sense.
You are saying - I have no authority but I can't be wrong. :confused1:
Hermenegild,
I do have no authority, but that does not mean that I am wrong. Let me give you an analogy to demonstrate my point to bring further clarity to this:
One day at mass, Fr. Smith, pastor of my church clearly and explicitly states from the pulpit during his sermon that there is no original sin, that all men are righteous already, and do not need Baptism.
I sit in my pew, and cannot believe my ears, and begin looking around to see if there is any reaction, but there is none.
I then accuse Fr. Smith of heresy, saying, "I heard you, you were clear, you denied original sin." Fr. Smith did not deny my charge, he refused to address it. Fr. Smith then tells me that I need to learn the new way, that my thinking is outdated. He offers to give me a class in the new theology which explains his sermon. Most of the parish then said to me and about me, "You are judgmental, what right do you have to accuse our beloved pastor!"
I then report the matter to the bishop with a detailed explanation of what occurred and what I heard. We are living in a town far from the chancery and it will take months for the bishop to receive my letter, let alone investigate the matter.
In the meantime, prior to the bishop's judgment on the matter, do you agree that I may have moral certitude based on the public evidence that I have, (his own words), that I have not only a right, but a duty to cut off communion with this public heretic. I have moral certitude, as I understood his words, and he made no effort to clarify the matter in favor of his orthodoxy, but rather further confirmed his guilt that he is a public heretic and has defected from the Faith.
As there will be a long interval before the bishop will hear my complaint, I am sure you agree that in charity to my fellow Catholics, I must warn them that their pastor is a heretic before he infects them, even prior to the judgment of the bishop.
I must also acknowledge that I have no authority, the most I can do is state the case. Other Catholics of good Faith may tell me, "I did not hear him say it, I am not convicted," or "I was at mass that day and I don't think you understood him right," or "I am not convinced, let me hear what the bishop says on the matter." All of these reactions are lawful, as the authority, the bishop, has not yet made a judgment.
These Catholics do not have to take my word for it, I have no authority to bind them, and they have no obligation to believe me.
But, I heard what I heard and I cannot deny that, and I have moral certitude that the man is a heretic. Just because others do not agree, does not remove my moral certitude of this man's status as a public heretic.
About a year later, after a thorough investigation of the matter by the bishop, the pastor is excommunicated as a heretic. From that point forward, the authority has spoken and all Catholics must accept the judgment of the Church. It is no longer my judgment, as the Church, through a successor of the Apostles, has spoken and publicly judged the heretic.
-
.
And everyone lived happily ever after. Except the heretic, that is!
Now go to sleep. :baby:
-
Hermenegild wrote:
Thanks for that Ambrose.
But you could be wrong - there's nothing telling you that you are but there may be something that you have missed.
All it comes down to is - that's the way I see it.
You seem to be arguing that we cannot have certainty outside of things we learn from authority.
Let me ask you, if you returned home and noticed a broken window and suddenly you see a man dressed in black climbing out with a crowbar in one hand and a bag full of your money and other possessions in the other, who then tries to flee, would you have certainty that he was a burglar? Do you need the Church to tell you he is a thief or a judgment from a court, or is the evidence strong enough from what you saw with your own eyes to know what this man is guilty of?
Some cases of forming certainty are more complex than this, I will agree, but it remains possible to form judgments about others when there is a necessity for doing so. Catholic parents know this first hand as they must make judgments about who they will allow their children to spend time with to protect their morals.
We develop certainty based on evidence, and carefully form a thought out conclusion based on that evidence. I would urge you to read this excellent explanation of how to form certainty from Msgr. Glenn: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/certainty.html
Whenever we are in the unfortunate situation that requires us by necessity to form a judgment against another man, we must always attempt to excuse him of what he appears to be doing as far as is reasonably possible. We are strictly forbidden from making rash judgments. In order to accuse another man of something so horrible as heresy, we must have certainty that the person is indeed guilty, and secondly that the point he is denying through words or actions or both is actually a heresy. On this point, I would urge you to read this excellent explanation from John Daly: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html
The next point to consider in addition to forming a judgment against these men for heresy, is that there is also a judgment that we can make on whether the official teaching and laws of these papal claimants could have come from a pope. It is impossible for the Church to give evil laws or sacramental rites that are incentives to impiety. Yet, these men claiming to be popes have done such things.
Secondly, the pope, even in his non-infallible universal teachings on Faith and morals cannot teach heresy or grave error to the Church. The Popes teaching in this area is always safe, so much so, that Catholics are bound under pain or mortal sin to believe him.
When you put both categories together, a judgment of the evidence of words and acts from their persons, along with a judgment made about the impossibility of a "pope" being able to do things which are impossible for a true pope to do, then you have grounds to form a certain view that these men were and are most certainly not popes.
If these men were popes, then the Church is no longer what it once was for its entire history. The Church would be a giver of evil and a promoter of impiety, In short, it would have failed. Such a thought is heretical, which only further gives us certainty, prior to the judgment of the Church, that these men were most certainly not popes.
Once moral certainty is reached, Catholics are safe to form the judgment that these men were not popes. Despite reaching this high level of certainty, we still lack the authority to impose this judgment on other Catholics. We must use the weapons that God has given us to prove our case, evidence applied to Catholic principles.