Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Philothea3 on March 08, 2022, 06:41:16 PM
-
:confused:
-
Bishop Williamson says they are Catholic- so I would be careful on things like the "illuminati" mysteries and the Divine mercy, but I would think praying with them, as in the Rosary, would be ok.
I don't think we have the right to call them heretics, just lost.
-
I don't think we have the right to call them heretics, just lost.
On an individual basis, there are a good number within the Novus Ordo who, by their very words and actions, are heretics. Some would argue the same regarding certain members within "Trad" circles.
However, as a blanket statement covering every Catholic attending the Novus Ordo, I agree with the above statement. Unless, of course, someone here has the gift of being able to read everyone's soul.
If someone is clearly, and proudly, living as a heretic, then don't pray with them.
-
They have not been formally condemned as a group to be heretics, so no. The people making up the NO are at worst material heretics.
Now, if you know individuals who are formal heretics, by all means avoid praying with them.
-
Bishop Williamson says they are Catholic- so I would be careful on things like the "illuminati" mysteries and the Divine mercy, but I would think praying with them, as in the Rosary, would be ok.
I don't think we have the right to call them heretics, just lost.
I agree. They aren't always aware that they are going against true Church teachings - after all, it's not like they hear true Church teaching from the pulpit. But then again, some of them would be angry if they heard true Church teaching from the pulpit. They are lost, but don't really know it.
-
On an individual basis, there are a good number within the Novus Ordo who, by their very words and actions, are heretics. Some would argue the same regarding certain members within "Trad" circles.
However, as a blanket statement covering every Catholic attending the Novus Ordo, I agree with the above statement. Unless, of course, someone here has the gift of being able to read everyone's soul.
If someone is clearly, and proudly, living as a heretic, then don't pray with them.
Wait, how do one act as a heretic?
-
Dogmatic sedevacantists that claims Catholics cannot attend "una cuм" Masses says yes.
-
Wait, how do one act as a heretic?
Like attending Protestant “masses,” praying together with the heretics and schismatics, celebrating Hanukkah or kissing the Koran?
-
Wait, how do one act as a heretic?
God granted you an intellect; use it.
If someone tells you, or publicly states, something that is clearly antithetical to Church teaching (e.g., "My wife is on the pill because we already have three kids and we don't believe the Church can tell us what to do,"), then it shouldn't be too difficult to ascertain that they're a heretic and it would be best to avoid them, let alone pray with them. (OR.... gasp.... inform them of their error.)
-
They have not been formally condemned as a group to be heretics, so no. The people making up the NO are at worst material heretics.
Now, if you know individuals who are formal heretics, by all means avoid praying with them.
This.
This is the logical conclusion, though, from Sedevacantists. They have deposed the pope, the hierarchy, and the whole Church. It's a fine line perhaps, but a line one must not cross nonetheless.
If you are saying the Pope is a formal heretic, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church "full stop", they are all heretics "full stop", then you wonder about stuff like this -- should I associate with them? Can I pray with them? etc.
If you ask me, it's another argument against Sedevacantism. A reductio ad absurdam if you will.
And I should point out: most Sedevacantists are also Hierarchy-vacantist and Ecclesiavacantist. It is NEVER just the Pope they condemn and completely reject as 100% heretical.
-
Like attending Protestant “masses,” praying together with the heretics and schismatics, celebrating Hanukkah or kissing the Koran?
Well then obviously the people mentioned in the question will do some of those if not all of those
-
Bishop Williamson says they are Catholic- so I would be careful on things like the "illuminati" mysteries and the Divine mercy, but I would think praying with them, as in the Rosary, would be ok.
I don't think we have the right to call them heretics, just lost.
Yet it's ok to say Pope Francis is a heretic? Hmm...
-
…They have deposed the pope, the hierarchy, and the whole Church.…
The anti-Popes depose themselves "automatically."
The hierarchy is deposed only insofar as invalid acts/consecrations of an anti-Pope and any invalid "sacraments" promulgated by an anti-Pope.
The whole Church is indefectible. It may be small and hard to find (Luke 18:8), but it cannot defect or be deposed.
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/101/075/882/small/05052e8f95cbc746.png)
-
In Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus says his Church would be like "[a] city seated on a mountain..." that cannot be hid, and thus, not hard to find.
-
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. [14] You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Matthew 5:13-14
Difficult to reconcile with the situation at His Second Coming:
And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night: and will he have patience in their regard? [8] I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Luke 18:7-8
Since both must be true, I see only one way to reconcile the two: that for a time the Church "cannot be hid," but by the time of the "cries of the elect" and His Second Coming the Faith will be hard to find, no longer that city on a mountain.
Do you see another way of reconciling the two?
-
The Church's nature makes her easy to find, but extrinsic factors can make her difficult to find. Plainly put, the ease with which one finds the Church has lots to do with WHERE the Church is physically/geographically. Tell the millions of American Indians at any time prior to the sixteenth century the Church is 'easy to find.' Sure, for Europeans. There are times/places in history where at least for some people, the Church is difficult to find.
-
If God ponders aloud rhetorically whether or not He will find Faith, I'm thinking he Faith will be REALLY hard to find.
-
Difficult to reconcile with the situation at His Second Coming:[...]
Since both must be true, I see only one way to reconcile the two: that for a time the Church "cannot be hid," but by the time of the "cries of the elect" and His Second Coming the Faith will be hard to find, no longer that city on a mountain.
Do you see another way of reconciling the two?
If God ponders aloud rhetorically whether or not He will find Faith, I'm thinking he Faith will be REALLY hard to find.
All I can say is that no one knows when the Second Coming will take place. IIRC, even St. Paul thought it may be during his lifetime? Nor am I competent to subjectively hold an opinion as to whether we are at, or even near, the Second Coming. Yeah, things are bad now, but they can--and most likely will--be much, much worse. So, as I see it, that city seated on the mountain is still there, unhidden.
-
I have no idea if the recent replies have anything to do with my question :sleep:
-
I have no idea if the recent replies have anything to do with my question :sleep:
Your question was answered on the first page. What else do you need to know?
-
All I can say is that no one knows when the Second Coming will take place. IIRC, even St. Paul thought it may be during his lifetime? Nor am I competent to subjectively hold an opinion as to whether we are at, or even near, the Second Coming. Yeah, things are bad now, but they can--and most likely will--be much, much worse. So, as I see it, that city seated on the mountain is still there, unhidden.
I too cannot offer a dispositive opinion, but I'd buy "currently unhidden, but shriveling and perhaps in extremīs."
-
Your question was answered on the first page. What else do you need to know?
Not really. Are V2 docuмents considered a heretical docuмents? Doesn't it make people who believe it heretics? (religious freedom etc.) Someone brought up judge by behaviours, well the N.O. people clearly go to N.O. with no problem too or even "communion service" and believe it's the congregation that makes the consecration happens...
Maybe let me ask this way, do you think it's fine to pray Rosary with, say, a protestant?
-
I have no idea if the recent replies have anything to do with my question :sleep:
Your question, Does praying with N.O./V2 caths count as praying with heretics??, demands a Yes/No answer. My answer is NO. Many NO/Vat2 Catholics have no heretical thoughts or intentions or ill will. They simply don't know the truth of what has happened in the Church.
In most threads, unless they gave a very short life span, will lead, through an association of ideas, to other fruitful but related discussion. If you are interested in other fruitful discussion, hang around this thread, otherwise push on to something that won't put you to sleep.
:popcorn:
-
Not really. Are V2 considered a heretical docuмent? Then doesn't it make people who believe it heretics? Someone brought up judge by behaviours, well the N.O. people clearly go to N.O. with no problem too or even "communion service" and believe it's the congregation that makes the consecration happens...
The problem here is between formal heresy and material heresy. A formal heretic would be a Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox who explicitly denies one or more dogmas of the Church. By extension, many of our recent "Popes" have done this. Whereas the majority of Novus Ordo attendees would only be material heretics because they are ignorant of the dogmas that they may implicitly deny; in the case of Vatican II, the teachings on religious liberty.
So, again, to answer your question, NO, those who attend Novus Ordo are not (formal) heretics and you CAN pray with them.
-
Your question, Does praying with N.O./V2 caths count as praying with heretics??, demands a Yes/No answer. My answer is NO. Many NO/Vat2 Catholics have no heretical thoughts or intentions or ill will. They simply don't know the truth of what has happened in the Church.
In most threads, unless they gave a very short life span, will lead, through an association of ideas, to other fruitful but related discussion. If you are interested in other fruitful discussion, hang around this thread, otherwise push on to something that won't put you to sleep.
:popcorn:
Looks like it makes sense at the first look, but you can basically use the same logic for literally any heretics, or at least the followers of a heresy if not the inventors? Most likely they probably don't know the truth instead of knowing but denying.
-
Not really. Are V2 docuмents considered a heretical docuмents?
Considered by whom? It is not laymen who make such condemnations. We can have opinions but not rights to make declarations.
Doesn't it make people who believe it heretics? (religious freedom etc.)
Someone brought up judge by behaviours, well the N.O. people clearly go to N.O. with no problem too or even "communion service" and believe it's the congregation that makes the consecration happens...
You assume that all NO Mass attenders believe what you write? You are making assumptions about what they believe.
Besides because people have been poorly instructed in the Faith does not mean they are heretics.
Maybe let me ask this way, do you think it's fine to pray Rosary with, say, a protestant?
There is no reason not to say the Rosary with a protestant. In fact it is commendable, provided you do not introduce, or tolerate, novelties like the Luminous Mysteries.
-
Protestants and other heretics are well aware they are NOT Catholic and don't want to be.
Most Novus Ordo Catholics believe they are Catholics in good standing and have not rejected the Church as they understand it. In fact many cling to the NO because they believe they will spiritually perish outside what they think is the "barque of Peter" and that leaving it in its "passion" would be a detriment to their souls. The ambiguity and error of what is placed on them to try and absorb can't completely be their fault.
Yes, they have bought the lie hook line and sinker, but who can question their intentions?
Anyone who really understands what Vll and the Consilliar church is fully about yet still remains in it functionally, may be guilty of a form of heresy. Not sure
-
Not really. Are V2 docuмents considered a heretical docuмents? Doesn't it make people who believe it heretics? (religious freedom etc.) Someone brought up judge by behaviours, well the N.O. people clearly go to N.O. with no problem too or even "communion service" and believe it's the congregation that makes the consecration happens...
Maybe let me ask this way, do you think it's fine to pray Rosary with, say, a protestant?
In reply #3, DL brought up the distinction (material vs. formal heresy) that is necessary to answer your question.
Giving some examples may help: praying with your N.O. Aunt, who doesn't even know what N.O. means but is trying to be Catholic,
vs.
joining in a public Rosary procession with (Frs?) James Martin and Michael Pfleger.
-
In reply #3, DL brought up the distinction (material vs. formal heresy) that is necessary to answer your question.
Giving some examples may help: praying with your N.O. Aunt, who doesn't even know what N.O. means but is trying to be Catholic,
vs.
joining in a public Rosary procession with (Frs?) James Martin and Michael Pfleger.
Rosary procession with (Frs?) James Martin can be a bit too much, but is it bad because he's a public scandal, vs. you just know by yourself that he's a heretic? I mean usually in a N.O./diocesan Rosary group you don't know what those people are believing. And the whole material vs. formal heresy thing brings up a whole thing with sedevacantism which is so much more complicated.
Also someone mentioned it's even good to pray Rosary with a prot, then I guess it's actually also good to pray with (Frs?) James Martini or whoever.
-
They have not been formally condemned as a group to be heretics, so no. The people making up the NO are at worst material heretics.
Now, if you know individuals who are formal heretics, by all means avoid praying with them.
THIS^^^^ (with one exception). Generally speaking, those in the NO believe that they are Catholics and have not therefore professed separation from the Catholic Church. That is what makes the NO heresy even more insidious. It's not like, "I'm going to become Greek Orthodox." People still profess adherence to the Catholic Church.
No, "at worst" there are many formal heretics in the Novus Ordo. I would venture to say that 95% of them are. By their own polls, the vast majority of them reject one or another Catholic dogma, that they know to be dogma, because the mentality of the NO is their feeling entitled to be "cafeteria" Catholics, which basically is formal heresy, since they do not accept the teaching of the Church as their formal rule of faith (THAT is what "formal heresy" means ... and has nothing to do with "sincerity").
-
There can be no presumption of heresy due to mere belonging to the Conciliar Church precisely because the Conciliar Church masquerades as the Catholic Church. Every Catholic on any side of the Great Western Schism intended to adhere to the Catholic Church and professed adherence and submission to the Catholic Church. There are many in the NO who profess that it is required to submit to the Magisterium as their rule of faith, and that's the essence of having the formal rule of faith, even if they happen to be materially incorrect on what that Magisterium teaches. So there can be no presumption or assumption that someone who belongs to the Conciliar Church is a non-Catholic or a heretic. In fact, unless one has contrary information about any given individual, charity requires that we give them the benefit of the doubt. If someone's an NO Catholic, there's an extremely high degree of "suspicion" that they're heretics, since the vast majority of them are, but that suspicion alone doesn't suffice to exclude them from the Church.
-
This.
This is the logical conclusion, though, from Sedevacantists. They have deposed the pope, the hierarchy, and the whole Church. It's a fine line perhaps, but a line one must not cross nonetheless.
If you are saying the Pope is a formal heretic, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church "full stop", they are all heretics "full stop", then you wonder about stuff like this -- should I associate with them? Can I pray with them? etc.
If you ask me, it's another argument against Sedevacantism. A reductio ad absurdam if you will.
And I should point out: most Sedevacantists are also Hierarchy-vacantist and Ecclesiavacantist. It is NEVER just the Pope they condemn and completely reject as 100% heretical.
Well, many of the dogmatic sedevacantists think this way, but, generally speaking, the moderate ones do not. Sedevacantism is driven not by the question of Jorge Berogliogo's personal orthodoxy. Question is whether the Magisterium could teach this degree of error and whether the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls. Whether that means full sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, or even Father Chazal's position that their heresy strips them of teaching authority, that's debatable.
I disagree that most SVs are ecclesiavacantists. You can count the dogmatic ones (the anti-"una cuм" folks on a couple of hands). By far the vast majority hold to something akin to sedeprivationism.
-
Would I pray with Jorge Bergoglio? No, absolutely not. But I'd have no issue, say, praying a Rosary in common with a group of Conciliar Catholics, with the Rosary being almost a shibboleth indicating that they still have the faith.
Some of that depends on the context as well. I would pray with them privately, but I would never go into their church and join some kind of NO prayer service, because, as a group, and as an institution, it's true that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
-
Would I pray with Jorge Bergoglio? No, absolutely not. But I'd have no issue, say, praying a Rosary in common with a group of Conciliar Catholics, with the Rosary being almost a shibboleth indicating that they still have the faith.
Some of that depends on the context as well. I would pray with them privately, but I would never go into their church and join some kind of NO prayer service, because, as a group, and as an institution, it's true that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.
So what you're saying is: you'll pray with the followers of the conciliar church but not the leaders?
-
So what you're saying is: you'll pray with the followers of the conciliar church but not the leaders?
I argue that Jorge is NOT in the Church. How could he be the earthly leader of the Church to which he does not belong?
https://judaism.is/jorge.html
He is just "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter. :laugh2:
-
He is just "subsisting in" the Chair of Peter. :laugh2:
"Subsisting in" :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
-
Looks like it makes sense at the first look, but you can basically use the same logic for literally any heretics, or at least the followers of a heresy if not the inventors? Most likely they probably don't know the truth instead of knowing but denying.
You asked if praying with NO/Vat2 Catholics amounted to heresy. I gave you my answer, which is NO. Other people have said so in various charitable ways.
So what is the heresy that you speak of? It is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church which decides. In the meantime we do our best with what we have and what we haven't. It is not a simple laywoman, no matter how zealous she may be, who defines heresy. As much as you feel, as a neophyte, that you know best, you should learn to eat humble pie and learn from mature Catholics.
-
:confused:
No, it is not the same.
If they are baptized and practicing the faith as best as they know it, then you are safe. Just don't get sucked in to the divine mercy chaplet or other condemned prayers.
-
They have not been formally condemned as a group to be heretics, so no. The people making up the NO are at worst material heretics.
Now, if you know individuals who are formal heretics, by all means avoid praying with them.
That goes for ALL people, trads included, family included.
-
Yet it's ok to say Pope Francis is a heretic? Hmm...
Tradition is VERY confusing sometimes.
-
Yet it's ok to say Pope Francis is a heretic? Hmm...
You wrote this in response to Josefa who said nothing about Pope Francis. I don't recall anyone else saying that either, at least on this thread. Be careful of putting words in another's mouth.
-
Tradition is VERY confusing sometimes.
Indeed it's confusing. If people can use the terms like "post-conciliar church" as if it's another church or say it's a new religion, meanwhile I'm getting scolded for making sure if I can pray with them. Also how is it they're not formal heretics, so praying with them in private - OK, but you can say a Pope or some clergyman is a heretic, yet not formal heretic, but praying with them - not OK. :confused:
-
Indeed it's confusing. If people can use the terms like "post-conciliar church" as if it's another church or say it's a new religion, meanwhile I'm getting scolded for making sure if I can pray with them. Also how is it they're not formal heretics, so praying with them in private - OK, but you can say a Pope or some clergyman is a heretic, yet not formal heretic, but praying with them - not OK. :confused:
I'll say it again, this time s l o w l y and LARGER.
A – h e r e t i c – c a n n o t – b e – a – P o p e.
Get the memo.
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/101/075/882/small/05052e8f95cbc746.png)
-
"Subsisting in" :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Thank you. I've been using that since Wojtyla the Second Worst and you are the first person (besides myself) to think its funny.
(http://judaism.is/images/subsists%20in%20chair2.jpg?crc=494795765)
-
Indeed it's confusing. If people can use the terms like "post-conciliar church" as if it's another church or say it's a new religion, meanwhile I'm getting scolded for making sure if I can pray with them. Also how is it they're not formal heretics, so praying with them in private - OK, but you can say a Pope or some clergyman is a heretic, yet not formal heretic, but praying with them - not OK. :confused:
Pope question aside, you really need to read Abp. Lefebvre's "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics", "I Accuse the Council!" and "Against the Heretics" to understand WHY we refer to it as a "post-conciliar church"
As for heretical clergy vs laity, the clergy are public figures and speak publicly on matters of the Faith. When they are out there saying things like "all men can be saved" or promoting sodomy (https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/german-bishop-georg-batzing-wants-catechism-changed/) or that divorced and remarried couples can receive Communion., then you have a serious problem with formal heresy.
Which is an entirely different problem than the poorly-catechised Novus Ordo friends you pray the rosary with who may or may not know that Extra Ecclesia non Salus is a Dogma of the Church and that their "nice" Evangelical, Muslim or Jєωιѕн friends will go to Hell if they do not convert.
-
I'll say it again, this time s l o w l y and LARGER.
A – h e r e t i c – c a n n o t – b e – a – P o p e.
Get the memo.
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/101/075/882/small/05052e8f95cbc746.png)
But he can fill the chair.
-
Indeed it's confusing. If people can use the terms like "post-conciliar church" as if it's another church or say it's a new religion, meanwhile I'm getting scolded for making sure if I can pray with them. Also how is it they're not formal heretics, so praying with them in private - OK, but you can say a Pope or some clergyman is a heretic, yet not formal heretic, but praying with them - not OK. :confused:
Well, i think of the NO church as a parallel church within catholicism.
Questions are never to be scolded and people are wrong to do so.
I find it confusing sometimes, too. I just do the best I can and ask God to know my heart.
-
Thank you. I've been using that since Wojtyla the Second Worst and you are the first person (besides myself) to think its funny.
(http://judaism.is/images/subsists%20in%20chair2.jpg?crc=494795765)
Yeah I got the connection to JPII's statements about the Church.
It's fun to use their own words against them. :)
-
Well, i think of the NO church as a parallel church within catholicism.
I think of it as a body eclipsing the true Church. As a counterfeit church could never actually be PART of the one, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Some can see the true Church in the corona surrounding this body, but many mistake it for the Church out of ignorance.
-
I think of it as a body eclipsing the true Church. As a counterfeit church could never actually be PART of the one, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Some can see the true Church in the corona surrounding this body, but many mistake it for the Church out of ignorance.
It must be parallel.
Otherwose we would not get laicizations, annulments, etc? They must come from Rome and there are no trads in Rome.
-
Well, many of the dogmatic sedevacantists think this way, but, generally speaking, the moderate ones do not. Sedevacantism is driven not by the question of Jorge Berogliogo's personal orthodoxy. Question is whether the Magisterium could teach this degree of error and whether the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls. Whether that means full sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, or even Father Chazal's position that their heresy strips them of teaching authority, that's debatable.
I disagree that most SVs are ecclesiavacantists. You can count the dogmatic ones (the anti-"una cuм" folks on a couple of hands). By far the vast majority hold to something akin to sedeprivationism.
I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.
-
I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.
What's una cuм?
-
I think of it as a body eclipsing the true Church. As a counterfeit church could never actually be PART of the one, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Some can see the true Church in the corona surrounding this body, but many mistake it for the Church out of ignorance.
The term "Conciliar Church" was actually coined by the Cardinal Benelli. And the response of Archbishop Lefebvre? "To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." To me it is like a cancer affecting the members and even the visible Head.
-
What's una cuм?
Traditional masses that commemorate Francis as the pope and the local ordinary as the bishop in the Canon of the Mass are commonly called by sedevacantists as "una cuм" Masses. The "una cuм" refers to the Latin phrase meaning "in union with".
-
I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.
Indeed he does. Yet he also adheres to dogmatic non una cuм, which honestly isn't out of line with his position since both came from Bp. Des Lauriers.
-
The term "Conciliar Church" was actually coined by the Cardinal Benelli. And the response of Archbishop Lefebvre? "To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." To me it is like a cancer affecting the members and even the visible Head.
I assumed members on this forum are mostly Lefebvrists if not sedes, and with this quote here I don't understand why some replies keep emphasizing the members of the conciliar church are catholics too.
-
What's una cuм?
"...which we offer Thee firstly for Thy holy Catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with Thy servant our Pope N. and N. our Bishop, and all those who..."
The sedes remove the part of the canon of the mass that I struck a line through, when the name of the pope is removed, they refer to this Mass as a non-una cuм Mass.
-
I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.
Bishop Sanborn's spin on sedeprivationism makes it largely indistinguishable from dogmatic sedevacantism. But with straight sedeprivationism, I could see someone entering the name of the Pope in the Canon, since the man would in fact be materially the pope.
-
I assumed members on this forum are mostly Lefebvrists if not sedes, and with this quote here I don't understand why some replies keep emphasizing the members of the conciliar church are catholics too.
Members of the Conciliar Church CAN be Catholics. It's only a minority of Traditional Catholics who deny that.
-
Members of the Conciliar Church CAN be Catholics. It's only a minority of Traditional Catholics who deny that.
Then what's with that quote "To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."
-
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf (http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf)
-
If the chair is being occupied, it is a "bump on a log".
-
Who broke from the Church, that Christ founded, Rome did. I see it like china dishes on the tablecloth on the table. And by magic (demon) the tablecloth is whipped away and the China dishes stay unmoved. We are the dishes. Rome broke away.
-
Then what's with that quote "To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."
I do hope you understand the meaning of "to whatever extent". They need to be judged by competent authority whether they are formal or material heretics. Let me give you an example, Bishop Dolan used the H-word to describe adherents of the Thesis (held by Bishop Sanborn). Do you believe Bishop Dolan is a competent authority to judge Bishop Sanborn to be formally such or Sanborn only materially such from the point of Dolan? It's a crazy mess, I know, so I'd stay out of such things not within my domain and leave it to God for the final judgement.