Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Gray2023 on December 30, 2023, 01:24:40 PM
-
"§ 2. 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; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
I would like to see how Plenus and Stubborn, (maybe Meg would like to join the debate as well) debate this topic. Particularly the bolded portion. They don't seem to be in communion with Pope Francis or the members of the Church Subject to him.
What I am trying to get at is that there is enough information from before V2 to condemn us all if Pope Francis has full papal authority.
-
Galatians 1:8
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://biblehub.com/drbc/galatians/1.htm)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
-
The bolded: if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
I have never refused to be under the supreme pontiff or refuse communion with members of the Church subject to him. Heck, I do my Catholic duty and pray for the pope daily, and have done so my whole life.
After the example of St. Thomas More: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first."
It's not the least bit complicated.
And you Gray?
-
Galatians 1:8
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://biblehub.com/drbc/galatians/1.htm)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
God’s Word.
-
"§ 2. 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; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
I would like to see how Plenus and Stubborn, (maybe Meg would like to join the debate as well) debate this topic. Particularly the bolded portion. They don't seem to be in communion with Pope Francis or the members of the Church Subject to him.
What I am trying to get at is that there is enough information from before V2 to condemn us all if Pope Francis has full papal authority.
Gray, do you believe that Jorge Bergoglio has pertinaciously denied "something to be believed from the truth of the divine and Catholic faith?" If you answer yes to that question, then, Canon 1325.2 defines him as a "heretic." A heretic is automatically [ipso facto] excommunicated, according to Canon 2314.
So, if you refuse "to be under" a papal claimant who is in a state of excommunication, you would not be in schism. In fact, we are told in Canon 1324 that "it is not enough to avoid heretical depravity but also those errors should be diligently fled that more or less approach heresy." How can we be fleeing heresy if the authoritative leader of our Church, the guy we refer to as "the Holy Father," is himself a manifest heretic? That is the heart of the R&R contradiction.
Bergoglio is not the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He is the leader of a different Church, the Counterfeit Catholic Church, what St. John refers to as "Babylon the great" in Apocalypse 18:
1 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.
-
"§ 2. 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; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
It is an excellent question, Gray, I agree, but ultimately it changes nothing about the way we view the crisis or how we should behave vis-a-vis the Pope in the current crisis.
You want to use this canon, no doubt, to demonstrate to R&Rers that if we recognise this Pope, we must subscribe to all his dictates on worship, discipline, faith and morals. If we resist such novelties coming from the Pope, you would maintain that we are, according to this law, schismatics. Thus, you demonstrate that the only Catholic line of conduct, according to this canon, is to deny that he is Pope. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but that is surely what you are asking me to explain.
Is that what this law of the Church is all about? Is that its intended purpose? Is that the intention of the law-maker, the mind of the legislator, that we use this law to judge a Pope? Does the legislator have in mind here an extraordinary crisis in the Church, where the Pope wants to destroy the Church (to borrow an expression from St Robert Bellarmine - whether or not you want to believe that that would involve heresy)?
When put that way, I think the answer is pretty obvious. That is not the intended purpose of the law.
Let us start by considering a few basic questions. What is Law? What is Canon Law? What is its purpose?
St Thomas defines law as an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who has care of the community. He goes on to explain "since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently... wherefore, if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed". In English we might say that the exception proves the rule. St Thomas even says that in time of necessity there is no law! That pretty much answers your question right there.
Pope Pius XII gives us this explanation of Canon Law: "Canon Law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God" - Address to the clerical students of Rome, June 24, 1939
Continuing our consideration of what law is and how it ought to be applied, here is some wisdom from Fr Pivert (a Resistance priest in France who was a lawyer and also a member of the St Charles Borromeo Commission established by the SSPX to examine marriage cases):
"There are certain famous phrases that bear witness to the existence of important general dispensing law - such as: Lex positiva non obligat cuм gravi incommodo - no positive law obliges where there is grave inconvenience. Or again - Salus animarum suprema lex - the supreme law is the salvation of souls. These principles even allow the written laws to be abrogated by simple customs, which express reality in a concrete way (Canon 27)
"Furthermore, it can be seen that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has happily foreseen such necessary exceptions to the law and, by positive laws, has even legislated for such exceptions.
"Finally - but is there a need to state the obvious - it must be noted that the higher principles of the law allow fewer dispensations than the lesser principles - and in cases of conflict or incompatibility, they must give way to the superior principles of law. 'We ought to obey God rather than men' says St Peter (Acts 5:29).
"St Paul similarly asks us to follow the spirit more than the letter, because 'the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth' (II Cor 3:16). This ability to free oneself from enslavement to the letter, when it is necessary to follow the spirit of the legislator, is called the virtue of equity. The actual use of that virtue is called epikeia." - Fr Francois Pivert, Schism or Not?, 1989
"Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. It is evidently a very exceptional thing. It may be used with prudent discretion, and is justified, only in a particular case where: (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work a great hardship; and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not wish the law to be strictly applied." - Canon Law, A Text and Commentry, Bouscaren and Ellis, 1951
So Gray, that is one way of looking at the question - the purpose of the law, the mind of the legislator, exceptions to the law.
Another way to look at it is to ask what it means to be in communion with the Pope, and Stubborn has given you the answer to that in a nutshell.
I hope you can agree that this law is telling us neither to follow novelties of a bad Pope, nor to depose him.
-
Why bring up canon law when canon law has been rejected by Rome?
God’s 10 commandments has been rejected too.
-
Why bring up canon law when canon law has been rejected by Rome?
God’s 10 commandments has been rejected too.
Basically, yes!
That's why we call it a crisis...
Yet it is not that easy to solve. You declare him not Pope and then what??? Look to a defected Church to provide anther one for you? Or are you a conclavist?
We all pretty much agree that it's all a terrible mess and only God can fix it.
We all agree we have to hold on to Tradition and continue in the faith of our fathers and pray God to come to our aid.
Let's stick to what is certain and leave the rest in the hands of God.
-
Let's stick to what is certain and leave the rest in the hands of God.
Yet that's the quicksand. Too many insist that they individually know exactly what is certain, and that anyone else whose sincere certainty differs must be totally at fault. Too many laypersons as self-anointed keyboard warriors. Let them cluster in virtual reality and they become self-anointed keyboard factions each playing to some imagined cheering gallery of supporters, a small few even straining at cheers surely wafting down from the heavens. Battling toward what end, the good of souls? Not by way of the means they've utilized, except perhaps as cautionary deterrents by their example.
Every Sunday from Ridgefield/St. Mary's to the smallest independent chapel, there will be people whose private thoughts and beliefs do not align perfectly with the local mission statement. Some might have one or two well-reasoned disagreements (EENS, say) while others, unsophisticated good souls, might be unable to recite quickly and precisely enough whichever is the correct party line. If the self-anointed lay enforcers were to try a parking lot checkpoint and interrogate everyone, it'd get very ugly very quickly.
After so many years outside the Church, keeping my head down in self-preservation amid the worldlings playing these sorts of games, I arrive here and recognize the same-old same-old. Some days I'll pick through the morning-after mosh pit wreckage for a worthwhile link to a sermon or authoritative PDF. Other days it's better to avert my eyes.
And with all that, to any who are still calmly reading, here's to a prayerful and recollected last day of the year. May Our Lord keep you and yours safe and sound and on the narrow path in 2024. Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.
-
And with all that, to any who are still calmly reading, here's to a prayerful and recollected last day of the year. May Our Lord keep you and yours safe and sound and on the narrow path in 2024. Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.
I'll drink to that, Soubirous! Happy New Year!
-
The bolded: if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic."
I have never refused to be under the supreme pontiff or refuse communion with members of the Church subject to him. Heck, I do my Catholic duty and pray for the pope daily, and have done so my whole life.
After the example of St. Thomas More: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first."
It's not the least bit complicated.
And you Gray?
I try.
I did answer this, but it didn't post. So I will try again.
I think you are making it too simple and making the Papacy sound like it is a nice thing to have, but it doesn't really mean that much.
The Catholic Church is a hierarchical structure. Jesus established Peter as the Pope to be in charge. He protected that seat until V2. Then something strange happened. The Popes after V2 started teaching things and writing encyclicals that were in direct opposition to prior docuмents. We were taught that that couldn't happen.
The only explanation that is easy to teach a child is their is something wrong with the Pope, so he is not fulfilling is God-given duty correctly. We explain this by saying he has been elected to the position, but he does not have the protection of the Holy Ghost.
When they learn this in the Baltimore Catechism #2. Then they understand without too much confusion and they do not push back on the authority of their parents.
156. Why is the Catholic Church one?
The Catholic Church is one because all its members, according to the will of Christ, profess the same faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are united under one and the same visible head, the Pope.
Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread. (I Corinthians 10:17)
This is symbolized by the triple Tiara that the Pope wears. The three tiers are Prophet (Doctrine), Priest (Worship), and King (Law).
I have seen many families, who say he is the Pope we can ignore him though, break a part because children see this inconsistency.
Do you have children? Have you had to try to explain this to children who are learning the Baltimore Catechism?
This quote here that you stated above really is a problem
"I have never refused to be under the supreme pontiff or refuse communion with members of the Church subject to him. Heck, I do my Catholic duty and pray for the pope daily, and have done so my whole life."
If the Supreme Pontiff is Pope Francis, by not attending his churches, by not going to the Mass that he says is normative, and by not following the doctrines he puts forward, then you are not in communion with him.
I really don't care what positions you hold. I do care how you treat fellow Catholics.
I brought all this up because we are all in the same boat (The Crisis). We (on CI) are all outside Rome from Pope Francis's perspective. To him we are in schism, but we know this to not be true, because we have been given the Grace to see it and we should have compassion and charity to those who don't have our same positions. We can discuss matters with charity and when people say things that trigger us we can ignore them. OK, I guess I am done with my soapbox for the moment.
Prayers for all for a happy and holy New Year.
-
Gray, do you believe that Jorge Bergoglio has pertinaciously denied "something to be believed from the truth of the divine and Catholic faith?" If you answer yes to that question, then, Canon 1325.2 defines him as a "heretic." A heretic is automatically [ipso facto] excommunicated, according to Canon 2314.
So, if you refuse "to be under" a papal claimant who is in a state of excommunication, you would not be in schism. In fact, we are told in Canon 1324 that "it is not enough to avoid heretical depravity but also those errors should be diligently fled that more or less approach heresy." How can we be fleeing heresy if the authoritative leader of our Church, the guy we refer to as "the Holy Father," is himself a manifest heretic? That is the heart of the R&R contradiction.
Bergoglio is not the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He is the leader of a different Church, the Counterfeit Catholic Church, what St. John refers to as "Babylon the great" in Apocalypse 18:
1 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.
I believe he is elected to the position of Pope. I believe he is not protected by the Holy Ghost. I believe that we do not know how this will be fixed and I pray and wait for Pope Francis's conversion or a good and Holy Pope. I trust that in God's time all will become clear.
-
If the Supreme Pontiff is Pope Francis, by not attending his churches,
Canon law allows the Faithful to attend private masses said by Trad clergy.
by not going to the Mass that he says is normative,
The True Mass is also allowed. "Normative" does not mean obligatory.
and by not following the doctrines he puts forward,
V2 does not put forward any doctrines, but only pastoral guidance. In the last 60 years, there are no obligations that catholics accept any V2 novelties under pain of sin.
then you are not in communion with him.
Wrong conclusion, based on false assertions above.
-
It is an excellent question, Gray, I agree, but ultimately it changes nothing about the way we view the crisis or how we should behave vis-a-vis the Pope in the current crisis.
You want to use this canon, no doubt, to demonstrate to R&Rers that if we recognise this Pope, we must subscribe to all his dictates on worship, discipline, faith and morals. If we resist such novelties coming from the Pope, you would maintain that we are, according to this law, schismatics. Thus, you demonstrate that the only Catholic line of conduct, according to this canon, is to deny that he is Pope. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but that is surely what you are asking me to explain.
Is that what this law of the Church is all about? Is that its intended purpose? Is that the intention of the law-maker, the mind of the legislator, that we use this law to judge a Pope? Does the legislator have in mind here an extraordinary crisis in the Church, where the Pope wants to destroy the Church (to borrow an expression from St Robert Bellarmine - whether or not you want to believe that that would involve heresy)?
When put that way, I think the answer is pretty obvious. That is not the intended purpose of the law.
Let us start by considering a few basic questions. What is Law? What is Canon Law? What is its purpose?
St Thomas defines law as an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who has care of the community. He goes on to explain "since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently... wherefore, if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed". In English we might say that the exception proves the rule. St Thomas even says that in time of necessity there is no law! That pretty much answers your question right there.
Pope Pius XII gives us this explanation of Canon Law: "Canon Law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God" - Address to the clerical students of Rome, June 24, 1939
Continuing our consideration of what law is and how it ought to be applied, here is some wisdom from Fr Pivert (a Resistance priest in France who was a lawyer and also a member of the St Charles Borromeo Commission established by the SSPX to examine marriage cases):
"There are certain famous phrases that bear witness to the existence of important general dispensing law - such as: Lex positiva non obligat cuм gravi incommodo - no positive law obliges where there is grave inconvenience. Or again - Salus animarum suprema lex - the supreme law is the salvation of souls. These principles even allow the written laws to be abrogated by simple customs, which express reality in a concrete way (Canon 27)
"Furthermore, it can be seen that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has happily foreseen such necessary exceptions to the law and, by positive laws, has even legislated for such exceptions.
"Finally - but is there a need to state the obvious - it must be noted that the higher principles of the law allow fewer dispensations than the lesser principles - and in cases of conflict or incompatibility, they must give way to the superior principles of law. 'We ought to obey God rather than men' says St Peter (Acts 5:29).
"St Paul similarly asks us to follow the spirit more than the letter, because 'the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth' (II Cor 3:16). This ability to free oneself from enslavement to the letter, when it is necessary to follow the spirit of the legislator, is called the virtue of equity. The actual use of that virtue is called epikeia." - Fr Francois Pivert, Schism or Not?, 1989
"Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. It is evidently a very exceptional thing. It may be used with prudent discretion, and is justified, only in a particular case where: (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work a great hardship; and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not wish the law to be strictly applied." - Canon Law, A Text and Commentry, Bouscaren and Ellis, 1951
So Gray, that is one way of looking at the question - the purpose of the law, the mind of the legislator, exceptions to the law.
Another way to look at it is to ask what it means to be in communion with the Pope, and Stubborn has given you the answer to that in a nutshell.
I hope you can agree that this law is telling us neither to follow novelties of a bad Pope, nor to depose him.
I understand the laws in theory, but I as a mother have to teach new Catholics and myself how to behave as a proper Catholic in a time where I never had a Catholic role model.
Plenus are you a parent?
-
It is an excellent question, Gray, I agree, but ultimately it changes nothing about the way we view the crisis or how we should behave vis-a-vis the Pope in the current crisis.
You want to use this canon, no doubt, to demonstrate to R&Rers that if we recognise this Pope, we must subscribe to all his dictates on worship, discipline, faith and morals. If we resist such novelties coming from the Pope, you would maintain that we are, according to this law, schismatics. Thus, you demonstrate that the only Catholic line of conduct, according to this canon, is to deny that he is Pope. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, but that is surely what you are asking me to explain.
Is that what this law of the Church is all about? Is that its intended purpose? Is that the intention of the law-maker, the mind of the legislator, that we use this law to judge a Pope? Does the legislator have in mind here an extraordinary crisis in the Church, where the Pope wants to destroy the Church (to borrow an expression from St Robert Bellarmine - whether or not you want to believe that that would involve heresy)?
When put that way, I think the answer is pretty obvious. That is not the intended purpose of the law.
Let us start by considering a few basic questions. What is Law? What is Canon Law? What is its purpose?
St Thomas defines law as an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who has care of the community. He goes on to explain "since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently... wherefore, if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed". In English we might say that the exception proves the rule. St Thomas even says that in time of necessity there is no law! That pretty much answers your question right there.
Pope Pius XII gives us this explanation of Canon Law: "Canon Law likewise is directed to the salvation of souls; and the purpose of all its regulations and laws is that men may live and die in the holiness given them by the grace of God" - Address to the clerical students of Rome, June 24, 1939
Continuing our consideration of what law is and how it ought to be applied, here is some wisdom from Fr Pivert (a Resistance priest in France who was a lawyer and also a member of the St Charles Borromeo Commission established by the SSPX to examine marriage cases):
"There are certain famous phrases that bear witness to the existence of important general dispensing law - such as: Lex positiva non obligat cuм gravi incommodo - no positive law obliges where there is grave inconvenience. Or again - Salus animarum suprema lex - the supreme law is the salvation of souls. These principles even allow the written laws to be abrogated by simple customs, which express reality in a concrete way (Canon 27)
"Furthermore, it can be seen that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has happily foreseen such necessary exceptions to the law and, by positive laws, has even legislated for such exceptions.
"Finally - but is there a need to state the obvious - it must be noted that the higher principles of the law allow fewer dispensations than the lesser principles - and in cases of conflict or incompatibility, they must give way to the superior principles of law. 'We ought to obey God rather than men' says St Peter (Acts 5:29).
"St Paul similarly asks us to follow the spirit more than the letter, because 'the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth' (II Cor 3:16). This ability to free oneself from enslavement to the letter, when it is necessary to follow the spirit of the legislator, is called the virtue of equity. The actual use of that virtue is called epikeia." - Fr Francois Pivert, Schism or Not?, 1989
"Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. It is evidently a very exceptional thing. It may be used with prudent discretion, and is justified, only in a particular case where: (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work a great hardship; and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not wish the law to be strictly applied." - Canon Law, A Text and Commentry, Bouscaren and Ellis, 1951
So Gray, that is one way of looking at the question - the purpose of the law, the mind of the legislator, exceptions to the law.
Another way to look at it is to ask what it means to be in communion with the Pope, and Stubborn has given you the answer to that in a nutshell.
I hope you can agree that this law is telling us neither to follow novelties of a bad Pope, nor to depose him.
I am not avoiding your other questions. I think I answered them in another post. If I didn't, please let me know what I missed.
-
Basically, yes!
That's why we call it a crisis...
Yet it is not that easy to solve. You declare him not Pope and then what??? Look to a defected Church to provide anther one for you? Or are you a conclavist?
We all pretty much agree that it's all a terrible mess and only God can fix it.
We all agree we have to hold on to Tradition and continue in the faith of our fathers and pray God to come to our aid.
Let's stick to what is certain and leave the rest in the hands of God.
I agree.
-
Yet that's the quicksand. Too many insist that they individually know exactly what is certain, and that anyone else whose sincere certainty differs must be totally at fault. Too many laypersons as self-anointed keyboard warriors. Let them cluster in virtual reality and they become self-anointed keyboard factions each playing to some imagined cheering gallery of supporters, a small few even straining at cheers surely wafting down from the heavens. Battling toward what end, the good of souls? Not by way of the means they've utilized, except perhaps as cautionary deterrents by their example.
Every Sunday from Ridgefield/St. Mary's to the smallest independent chapel, there will be people whose private thoughts and beliefs do not align perfectly with the local mission statement. Some might have one or two well-reasoned disagreements (EENS, say) while others, unsophisticated good souls, might be unable to recite quickly and precisely enough whichever is the correct party line. If the self-anointed lay enforcers were to try a parking lot checkpoint and interrogate everyone, it'd get very ugly very quickly.
After so many years outside the Church, keeping my head down in self-preservation amid the worldlings playing these sorts of games, I arrive here and recognize the same-old same-old. Some days I'll pick through the morning-after mosh pit wreckage for a worthwhile link to a sermon or authoritative PDF. Other days it's better to avert my eyes.
And with all that, to any who are still calmly reading, here's to a prayerful and recollected last day of the year. May Our Lord keep you and yours safe and sound and on the narrow path in 2024. Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.
And that is why the Communion of the Faithful is hard right now. I try really hard to give a cheery welcome to anyone who shows up at our church because we don't know their story and all of our stories are very complicated. God bless you and I hope you have a happy and Holy New Year.
-
I try.
I did answer this, but it didn't post. So I will try again.
I think you are making it too simple and making the Papacy sound like it is a nice thing to have, but it doesn't really mean that much.
The Catholic Church is a hierarchical structure. Jesus established Peter as the Pope to be in charge. He protected that seat until V2. Then something strange happened. The Popes after V2 started teaching things and writing encyclicals that were in direct opposition to prior docuмents. We were taught that that couldn't happen.
The only explanation that is easy to teach a child is their is something wrong with the Pope, so he is not fulfilling is God-given duty correctly. We explain this by saying he has been elected to the position, but he does not have the protection of the Holy Ghost.
When they learn this in the Baltimore Catechism #2. Then they understand without too much confusion and they do not push back on the authority of their parents.
156. Why is the Catholic Church one?
The Catholic Church is one because all its members, according to the will of Christ, profess the same faith, have the same sacrifice and sacraments, and are united under one and the same visible head, the Pope.
This is symbolized by the triple Tiara that the Pope wears. The three tiers are Prophet (Doctrine), Priest (Worship), and King (Law).
I have seen many families, who say he is the Pope we can ignore him though, break a part because children see this inconsistency.
Do you have children? Have you had to try to explain this to children who are learning the Baltimore Catechism?
This quote here that you stated above really is a problem
"I have never refused to be under the supreme pontiff or refuse communion with members of the Church subject to him. Heck, I do my Catholic duty and pray for the pope daily, and have done so my whole life."
If the Supreme Pontiff is Pope Francis, by not attending his churches, by not going to the Mass that he says is normative, and by not following the doctrines he puts forward, then you are not in communion with him.
I really don't care what positions you hold. I do care how you treat fellow Catholics.
I brought all this up because we are all in the same boat (The Crisis). We (on CI) are all outside Rome from Pope Francis's perspective. To him we are in schism, but we know this to not be true, because we have been given the Grace to see it and we should have compassion and charity to those who don't have our same positions. We can discuss matters with charity and when people say things that trigger us we can ignore them. OK, I guess I am done with my soapbox for the moment.
Prayers for all for a happy and holy New Year.
Well, the dogma decrees that it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope - so, I am the popes' good subject, but God's first. This agrees with the highest principle in the Church - see my signature.....The first pope, St. Peter, in unison with all the bishops of the world proclaimed: "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." [Acts of Apostles 5:29]
The dogma, like the Scripture offers no exceptions and leaves no room for any out, we have to accept this 'as is' if we want to get to heaven. The pope is a man, too many make him into a man-God which only adds to the problem.
Yes, this crisis is straight from hell and the Satan really did a diabolical number on everything holy and everything within the Church, but he cannot change truth.
The quote in blue above is simply applying dogma and Scripture rather than blind obedience. I mean, you're subject to your parents, but if they told you to jump out of the 6th story window you would have to disobey your parents. The pope is a heretic and wants us to follow him in his heresies, we have to disobey the pope. Same difference.
It really is just that simple.
Catholics have always known and believed that there are two ways a pope vacates his office, 1) he resigns or 2) he dies. Does any sede here remember that belief? This is what has been believed by all Catholics in all places always and everywhere, that makes it Catholic. The idea that a pope could lose his office for heresy etc., is just that, an idea, an opinion, a theological speculation - that means it is not real. But best of luck trying to get that fact through to sedes - and God bless them.
-
Well, the dogma decrees that it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope - so, I am the popes' good subject, but God's first. This agrees with the highest principle in the Church - see my signature.....The first pope, St. Peter, in unison with all the bishops of the world proclaimed: "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." [Acts of Apostles 5:29]
The dogma, like the Scripture offers no exceptions and leaves no room for any out, we have to accept this 'as is' if we want to get to heaven. The pope is a man, too many make him into a man-God which only adds to the problem.
Yes, this crisis is straight from hell and the Satan really did a diabolical number on everything holy and everything within the Church, but he cannot change truth.
The quote in blue above is simply applying dogma and Scripture rather than blind obedience. I mean, you're subject to your parents, but if they told you to jump out of the 6th story window you would have to disobey your parents. The pope is a heretic and wants us to follow him in his heresies, we have to disobey the pope. Same difference.
It really is just that simple.
Catholics have always known and believed that there are two ways a pope vacates his office, 1) he resigns or 2) he dies. Does any sede here remember that belief? This is what has been believed by all Catholics in all places always and everywhere, that makes it Catholic. The idea that a pope could lose his office for heresy etc., is just that, an idea, an opinion, a theological speculation - that means it is not real. But best of luck trying to get that fact through to sedes - and God bless them.
Look I understand the perspective you are coming from. Please explain how you would explain this to children and people who decide they want to become Catholic. It is not practical to say you are joining a Papist religion, but please ignore the current Pope. To get to all this nitty gritty you would have to be well read on the topic and somewhat of a theologian. Most people would not take the time or effort.
-
Please explain how you would explain this to children and people who decide they want to become Catholic.
I'm not Stubborn, obviously, but I would cite our Lord's teaching:
27 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=2&l=27-#x)And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.28 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=2&l=28-#x)Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also. (Mark 2:27-28)
Similarly the Papacy was made for man, not man for the Papacy.
Just as sometimes our Lord sees fit to allow an emergency to arise on a Sunday which requires one to forego the normal abstaining from servile work (e.g. a blizzard which requires one to spend hours moving snow; obviously I'm not from Hawaii :cowboy: ) He has seen fit at this time to allow a situation which requires one to forego the normal practice as regards the Pope. He is Lord of the Papacy also.
-
Look I understand the perspective you are coming from. Please explain how you would explain this to children and people who decide they want to become Catholic. It is not practical to say you are joining a Papist religion, but please ignore the current Pope. To get to all this nitty gritty you would have to be well read on the topic and somewhat of a theologian. Most people would not take the time or effort.
I will tell you the jist of the way we were taught by our parents when I was a child from the time I was 2, or 3, or however far back I can remember, and later nuns - this was repeated as needed throughout childhood.
"No matter who tells you to do wrong, remember God sees it all, God see everything, He is always watching. Don't worry what your friends will say, you worry about what God will say and do to you." They would at times go into a bit more detail such as, "even if I (mom) or dad or (brother/friend/whomever) want you to do something you know is wrong, don't do it! Remember God sees it all and you will pay for it."
Anyway, this is the jist of how we were taught from far as I can tell, infancy. Very simple. It was all part of learning to pray, heaven and hell, Our Blessed Mother, guardian angels and etc - you know, was part of learning our holy religion from infancy.
As for converts, they're not from outer space ya know, they easily understand what corruption is and it is easy to explain that the recent popes are men who've corrupted themselves, that they need many prayers and that we cannot listen to them because they teach heresy. I find it somewhat amazing how easily they can initially grasp everything as regards the whole crisis situation.
I mean yes, this is a crisis, but remember, there are many, even in these days who are finding the true faith, regardless of heretical popes and regardless of heretical hierarchy for the last 60 years. Everyone on earth will indeed find the truth *if they seek it*, we have Our Lord's promise on that....then they need to keep seeking as we all must, and persevere in it no matter what. IMO, this last part is the real concern, not explaining heretical popes - I think you will find that's the easy part.
-
This thread was a bit more hidden, but still a fruitless argument about the Pope question.
Here's my response:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/
-
My point with this thread was not necessarily R&R vs Sedevacantism, but the fact that under normal circuмstances of the Church we would all be in Schism. Our only real choices are to go back to the burning city of Rome or wait, watch, and pray. I am waiting, watching, and praying as a Tradional Catholic. What are you doing?