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?

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 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.

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.

Gerry Matatics and Patrick Pollock

Stop there. You already discredited whatever you have to say.

 


Free Advice: Look at the credentials and reputation of your sources. People won't laugh at you as much.

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.  

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.

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.