Author Topic: Can the Pope be the head of a counterfeit Church??? (Read 4109 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** July 22, 2014, 08:18:08 PM »

This is the kind of outright blasphemy and insanity rejecting SV leads you to.

Here we have "Ad Jesum per Mariam" saying the following:

Question:

Are you aware that rejecting a canonization, even if one were to say for the sake of argument they are not infallible, is a mortal sin anyways?

Ad Jesum per Mariam Answer:

Rejecting a canonization coming from a counterfeit Church is not a mortal sin. If you believe so, please cite your authority.

Question:

Is this "Novus Ordo Church of the New Advent" the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Answer:

It is a counterfeit Church within Christ's Church that has eclipsed Christ's Church.

How can anyone believe in this blasphemy from the pits of Hell over SV, which principle is taught by the Church?

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2014, 09:30:02 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

This is the kind of outright blasphemy and insanity rejecting SV leads you to.

Here we have "Ad Jesum per Mariam" saying the following:

Question:

Are you aware that rejecting a canonization, even if one were to say for the sake of argument they are not infallible, is a mortal sin anyways?

Ad Jesum per Mariam Answer:

Rejecting a canonization coming from a counterfeit Church is not a mortal sin. If you believe so, please cite your authority.

Question:

Is this "Novus Ordo Church of the New Advent" the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Answer:

It is a counterfeit Church within Christ's Church that has eclipsed Christ's Church.

How can anyone believe in this blasphemy from the pits of Hell over SV, which principle is taught by the Church?

So it's blasphemy to reject the novelty of SV, but using language as you did, regarding Father Hewko below is perfectly O.K., right?

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Spare me your Protestant private interpretation of the Bible, Hewko.

And NO, that's NOT when Our Lord made Saint Peter Pope, you gigantic buffoon.

And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. -Vatican I.

To think an actual priest is capable of such atrocities.

FAIL.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2014, 09:32:47 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

So it's blasphemy to reject the novelty of SV, but using language as you did regarding Father Hewko below is perfectly O.K., right?

l didn't say rejecting SV per se is blasphemy, but your idea of a counter Church coexisting inside the Church of Christ is.

Nice try with the strawman and running away from the issue.

He deserves a worse blasting.

You think he's doing the Lord's work, spewing heresy and error about the Church as he's doing?

You're all in for a rude awakening.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2014, 09:53:37 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
So it's blasphemy to reject the novelty of SV, but using language as you did regarding Father Hewko below is perfectly O.K., right?

l didn't say rejecting SV per se is blasphemy, but your idea of a counter Church coexisting inside the Church of Christ is.

Nice try with the strawman and running away from the issue.

He deserves a worse blasting.

You think he's doing the Lord's work, spewing heresy and error about the Church as he's doing?

You're all in for a rude awakening.

Unfortunately material heretics (even public ones) exist inside the Church of Christ. There are both weeds and wheat in the Church. Because you falsely believe otherwise, truth seems like error to you. I have not run away from your errors before, so why should I start now? As far as your other comments they are truly disgusting. You should repent of the manner in which you spoke about Father Hewko, and it shouldn't be allowed on this forum.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2014, 07:44:45 AM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Unfortunately material heretics (even public ones) exist inside the Church of Christ.

Wrong. Per Van Noort,

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2014, 08:28:00 AM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Unfortunately material heretics (even public ones) exist inside the Church of Christ.

I think this attitude is grounded in the Americanist heresy first condemned by, I think, Pope Leo XIII. It's essentially an extension of the idea of "religious liberty".

The concept of religious liberty is more than simply the idea that everyone may accept or reject any particular religion. This is not really a doctrine but is simply a fact. All men may indeed reject the Truth; this is a fact that is due to Original Sin. But the idea of religious liberty is much more than that.

According to the heretical understanding of religious liberty which is, I think, the chief heresy of the Conciliar sect, all men have a fundamental right (which, by definition, is accorded by God Himself) to worship or not to worship Him according to any personally understood concept of God and of religion. The root of this heretical belief is in, what Pope St. Pius X called, vital immanence, in which the very understanding of God is derived, not from Divine Revelation, but from the interior sense of God which God Himself manifested in many ways through many cultures and societies.

Thus, the Church is not viewed as a Divinely instituted and perfect organization united by one Faith but is a mere human institution united simply by a president, i.e., the pope. It is in this heretical understanding of the Church that even manifest and pertinacious heretics can be members of the Church in good standing as long as they, individually, claim to be members of the Church.

What's even more disconcerting is the fact that the Conciliarists expand this to allow that even people who, individually, specifically deny membership in the Catholic Church or even who specifically deny any Christian faith, may still be members in some way of the Catholic Church and therefore be saved. I don't think they even claim that they have an "imperfect union" with the Church anymore.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2014, 10:13:08 AM »

Van Noort is wrong. All this is based on a misunderstanding of the term "material" heretic. With the growing subjectivism (the same forces that led to BoD and the undermining of EENS), material heresy wrongly became defined as "sincerity" ... which it is NOT. Van Noort is talking about sincere non-Catholics, and that is NOT what material heresy means. Merely material heretics still believe based on the formal motive of faith; they are for all intents and purposes Catholics and are visibly part of the Church. Van Noort seems to have stuck in his head the idea of a "sincere Protestant". Protestants, regardless of how SINCERE they might be, DO NOT HAVE THE FORMAL MOTIVE OF FAITH AND CANNOT BE MERELY MATERIAL HERETICS. This is the same ecclesiology that brought us Vatican II.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
Unfortunately material heretics (even public ones) exist inside the Church of Christ.

Wrong. Per Van Noort,

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2014, 10:17:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Van Noort is wrong. All this is based on a misunderstanding of the term "material" heretic. With the growing subjectivism (the same forces that led to BoD and the undermining of EENS), material heresy wrongly became defined as "sincerity" ... which it is NOT. Van Noort is talking about sincere non-Catholics, and that is NOT what material heresy means. Merely material heretics still believe based on the formal motive of faith; they are for all intents and purposes Catholics and are visibly part of the Church. Van Noort seems to have stuck in his head the idea of a "sincere Protestant". Protestants, regardless of how SINCERE they might be, DO NOT HAVE THE FORMAL MOTIVE OF FAITH AND CANNOT BE MERELY MATERIAL HERETICS. This is the same ecclesiology that brought us Vatican II.

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
Unfortunately material heretics (even public ones) exist inside the Church of Christ.

Wrong. Per Van Noort,

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

Yes, of course Van Noort is wrong. I'll need more than your opinion on this.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2014, 10:24:35 AM »

Van Noort is talking about people outside the visible Church being material heretics. Consequently, he's talking about scenarios like Protestants or Greek Orthodox as being material heretics, so long as they're sincere.

So, again, he's positing an ecclesiology whereby Protestants or schismatics or others outside the visible Church still are formal Catholics based on their "sincerity". And that, in a nutshell, is subsistence ecclesiology and leads to all the Vatican II errors. You may notice, 2Vermont, that I am not the only one who thinks Van Noort is wrong. He states that it is the "more common opinion", meaning that there are theologians who disagree with this. I count myself among those who disagree. I have articulated my reasons. It's due to a redefinition of the term material heresy along the lines of subjectivism, and the growing tide of subjectivism led directly to Vatican II (as per even Bishop Williamson). So if you want to defend Van Noort please do so.

So, IF ONE WERE TO ACCEPT Van Noort's definition of the term "material heretic", then in a sense he's not wrong because obviously those who are not in visible unity with the Church cannot hold office in the Church, even if they are "sincere". But the problem is with Van Noort's redefinition of the term material heretic. Clearly a Protestant or Greek Orthodox can never be a pope, even if he were "sincere" in his error. My problem is that Van Noort hijacked the term "material heretic" to refer to these people. No, these people are FORMAL heretics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2014, 10:28:05 AM »

Van Noort is CLEARLY not talking about professed Catholics who just happen, out of ignorance or muddled thinking, to hold one or another heretical opinion. He's talking about people who are visibly outside the Church. So, 2Vermont, you completely misapply this quotation to the subject matter at hand.

Cantarella · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2014, 11:34:51 AM »

Quote

Unfortunately material heretics (even public ones) exist inside the Church of Christ.

This is perhaps the case of the conciliar Popes. They may be considered material heretics in that they deny the EENS dogma because they profess and preach universal salvation in any religion and among "men of good will". Also there is a general acceptance of the heresy of Modernism, combined with the specific approval of Judaism and the attempt to adapt Catholic doctrine in order to please the Jєωιѕн Left.

Even if the Popes were proven in fact to be material heretics, this would not mean their pontificate is invalid, though. The Church generally takes a long time to declare invalidity. Take for example, Luther’s heresy which was declared in 1521 and until today, the Catholic Church has not declared invalid the sacraments administered by most of the Protestant bishops. Also, it took 300 years to declare the Anglican sects invalid and null.

If ever, it would probably take a long time to condemn the heresies of the conciliar Popes and declare their pontificates invalid. More importantly, it would have to be done by another Pope.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2014, 11:44:50 AM »

That does not mean your issues stated were not invalid. Truth does not change.

If they were invalid 300 years later, they were invalid on day one.

No Roman Catholic denies EENS either, what the Church says is YOU can not judge the soul of anyone. Vatican II with their false authority skips around EENS, but then this false authority are who you are defending constantly.

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2014, 11:58:07 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Van Noort is talking about people outside the visible Church being material heretics. Consequently, he's talking about scenarios like Protestants or Greek Orthodox as being material heretics, so long as they're sincere.

So, again, he's positing an ecclesiology whereby Protestants or schismatics or others outside the visible Church still are formal Catholics based on their "sincerity". And that, in a nutshell, is subsistence ecclesiology and leads to all the Vatican II errors. You may notice, 2Vermont, that I am not the only one who thinks Van Noort is wrong. He states that it is the "more common opinion", meaning that there are theologians who disagree with this. I count myself among those who disagree. I have articulated my reasons. It's due to a redefinition of the term material heresy along the lines of subjectivism, and the growing tide of subjectivism led directly to Vatican II (as per even Bishop Williamson). So if you want to defend Van Noort please do so.

So, IF ONE WERE TO ACCEPT Van Noort's definition of the term "material heretic", then in a sense he's not wrong because obviously those who are not in visible unity with the Church cannot hold office in the Church, even if they are "sincere". But the problem is with Van Noort's redefinition of the term material heretic. Clearly a Protestant or Greek Orthodox can never be a pope, even if he were "sincere" in his error. My problem is that Van Noort hijacked the term "material heretic" to refer to these people. No, these people are FORMAL heretics.

I still see no evidence that he means what you say he means. Just that you're saying this is what he means.

And why would you first say he means something completely different to refute my post and then point out that there is a minority opinion and use that support your view?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2014, 12:06:58 PM »

Did you not read the text you posted?

Quote

If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity?

He's talking about those outside the visible unity of the Church, aka non-Catholics, not about material heretics in the Traditional sense, Catholics who held erroneous opinions.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2014, 12:09:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Did you not read the text you posted?

Quote
If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity?

He's talking about those outside the visible unity of the Church, aka non-Catholics, not about material heretics in the Traditional sense, Catholics who held erroneous opinions.

No, he is talking about what would happen if we considered public material heretics as still part of the Church (vs, not part of the Church, the most commonly held opinion). I see nowhere where this means he is talking about non-Catholics solely.